OKC Bombing Trial Transcript - 06/10/1997 15:14 CDT/CST
06/10/1997
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Criminal Action No. 96-CR-68
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH,
Defendant.
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
(Trial to Jury - Volume 142)
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�
Proceedings before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. MATSCH,
Judge, United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, commencing at 9:00 a.m., on the 10th day of June,
1997, in Courtroom C-204, United States Courthouse, Denver,
Colorado.
Proceeding Recorded by Mechanical Stenography, Transcription
Produced via Computer by Paul Zuckerman, 1929 Stout Street,
P.O. Box 3563, Denver, Colorado, 80294, (303) 629-9285
APPEARANCES
PATRICK M. RYAN, United States Attorney for the
Western District of Oklahoma, 210 West Park Avenue, Suite 400,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73102, appearing for the plaintiff.
JOSEPH H. HARTZLER, SEAN CONNELLY, LARRY A. MACKEY,
BETH WILKINSON, SCOTT MENDELOFF, JAMIE ORENSTEIN, AITAN
GOELMAN, and VICKI BEHENNA, Special Attorneys to the U.S.
Attorney General, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 1200, Denver,
Colorado, 80294, appearing for the plaintiff.
STEPHEN JONES, ROBERT NIGH, JR., RICHARD BURR, RANDALL
COYNE, and AMBER McLAUGHLIN, Attorneys at Law, Jones, Wyatt &
Roberts, 999 18th Street, Suite 2460, Denver, Colorado, 80202;
JERALYN MERRITT, 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 400, Denver,
Colorado, 80203; MANDY WELCH, Attorney at Law, 412 Main, Suite
1150, Houston, Texas, 77002; CHERYL A. RAMSEY, Attorney at Law,
Szlichta and Ramsey, 8 Main Place, Post Office Box 1206,
Stillwater, Oklahoma, 74076; CHRISTOPHER L. TRITICO, Attorney
at Law, Essmyer, Tritico & Clary, 4300 Scotland, Houston,
Texas, 77007, and MAURIE A. LEVIN, P.O. Box 280, Austin, Texas,
78767-0280, appearing for Defendant McVeigh.
* * * * *
PROCEEDINGS
(In open court at 9:00 a.m.)
THE COURT: Be seated, please.
Good morning. We have a new affidavit?
MR. JONES: We do, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Is there any objection to this
affidavit?
MR. MACKEY: None, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. I note that this videotape, "Day
51," is included and the Government filed a motion with respect
to portions of that, but the motion's denied. I mean if this
was something that was seen by Mr. McVeigh, it can come in in
its entirety.
So, Mr. Jones, do you have a preliminary matter?
MR. JONES: Yes, sir. I just wanted to be sure the
affidavit we marked, the one we're introducing today, is AF2,
so the record reflects it.
THE COURT: Yes, AF2.
MR. JONES: Yes, sir, and I also believe that we have
stipulations concerning some other penalty phase exhibits which
have been agreed to; is that correct?
MR. MACKEY: Yes.
MR. JONES: And perhaps we should take care of those
now. Do you want me to mark them as an exhibit? The
stipulation agreement, that is.
THE COURT: Well, this is the one that begins,
paragraph 1, "Documents pertaining to military service --"
MR. JONES: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. That's agreed to?
MR. HARTZLER: Well, we were not expecting they would
go back to the jury, if that's why they're being marked as an
exhibit, but the stipulation is agreed to, yes.
MR. JONES: I didn't mean to mark the stipulation as a
jury exhibit.
THE COURT: I'll just read that as I have with others.
MR. HARTZLER: Right.
MR. JONES: Then I don't need to mark it as an
exhibit.
THE COURT: Correct, it will be in the record because
I'll read it.
MR. JONES: Does the Court have a copy of it?
THE COURT: The exhibit is A2?
MR. JONES: That's correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. JONES: And then do you have a marked exhibit copy
of the affidavit, or should I hand this to the clerk?
THE COURT: I have AF2.
MR. JONES: Then we're ready for the jury, if the
Court please.
THE COURT: There is also a previous stipulation
concerning the testimony of Patricia Matthews.
MR. BURR: Yes, your Honor. She was the person who
produced a short videotape that will be presented through Bill
McVeigh, Mr. McVeigh's father.
THE COURT: Oh, so we'll wait until that time.
MR. BURR: I think we could go ahead and take care of
it now. The stipulation was simply to avoid having to call her
as the producer as of the tape, and I think that we had entered
that stipulation about a week ago.
THE COURT: Well, really, this is just a foundation
stipulation, so it doesn't have to be read to the jury. And
simply filed. All right.
All right. Well, we don't need to read the
stipulation concerning these other exhibits until a later time
as we're going to be continuing with Mr. Pate now; right?
MR. JONES: That's correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: And how do you want to handle the
affidavit?
MR. JONES: Your Honor, you could read it when the
jury comes in before Mr. Pate calls (sic) or such time as
convenient with the Court but before we rest.
THE COURT: Yes. Well, I think for the continuity,
we'll just go on with his testimony and then we'll pick up this
affidavit at a later time and I'll use a limiting instruction
with it.
MR. JONES: All right, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. Bring in the jury.
(Jury in at 9:06 a.m.)
THE COURT: Members of the jury, good morning.
JURORS: Good morning.
THE COURT: Again, we apologize for the slight delay,
but there were several things that counsel and I discussed that
help us move along, so that's what we were doing in these five
minutes.
We're ready now to resume further testimony from
Mr. Pate.
So, Mr. Pate, if you'll resume the witness stand,
please, under the oath taken yesterday.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
(James Pate was recalled to the stand.)
THE COURT: Mr. Jones, you may continue.
CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED
BY MR. JONES:
Q. Mr. Pate, yesterday at the close of the recess, I was
asking you to identify a series of articles which you had
written for Soldier of Fortune magazine and which had been
published by that magazine in the years 1993 and 1994. Do you
recall that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I want to finish up. I have about four more or five
more that I simply want you to identify and briefly describe,
and then I want to ask you about some of the terms and some
writings of Mr. McVeigh and how those are understood.
A. Okay.
James Pate - Cross
Q. So if we could, let's go back to the first of the remaining
five, and this is WW29. And I'll simply ask you if this is an
article that you wrote and which Soldier of Fortune published
in July of 1994.
A. Yes, sir, it is.
MR. JONES: We move the admission of WW29.
MR. RYAN: No objection.
THE COURT: Received.
MR. JONES: And we move to publish.
THE COURT: Yes, you may.
MR. JONES: Publish this to the jury.
BY MR. JONES:
Q. Now, Mr. Pate, this article is entitled, "We Have the Truth
on Our Side," and you have that in quotation marks; is that
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the article says, "Jailhouse Interviews with Branch
Davidians"; correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And again, as I did yesterday and briefly, will you tell me
what the article is about and what was the point you were
making to someone who might read the article.
A. The article was about -- well, it opens and there is some
first-person narrative in here because after the acquittal of
Clive Doyle, one of the Branch Davidian defendants, I took
James Pate - Cross
Mr. Doyle in my car over to the jail to get his personal
belongings, and it was about his experience going back in the
jail. Even though he had been acquitted, he had to be
handcuffed again. And it was the first opportunity that I
really had to converse directly with the defendants in that
case, and it was telling the reader in the words of those
defendants their version of events at Mt. Carmel.
Q. All right. So the article was simply an interview with
these people in which they were describing for you their
version of the events?
A. Right. It was partially a press conference with other
reporters present of three -- I believe three of the defendants
who were -- who were still incarcerated, and then it was some
one-on-one between me and Mr. Doyle and one other defendant, I
believe.
Q. And this article appears to be about seven pages long; is
that correct?
A. Six.
Q. All right. Now, showing you, Mr. Pate, WW30; is this an
article which you wrote and which Soldier of Fortune published
in August of 1994?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. JONES: Move the admission of WW30.
MR. RYAN: No objection.
THE COURT: Received. May be published.
James Pate - Cross
BY MR. JONES:
Q. Now, this one is entitled, "BAT'F' --" which I assume is a
reference to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. "-- Troop Rides Again"; is that correct?
A. Right. It's a reference to it. It's also a reference to
an old TV show.
Q. Now, is this -- does this have anything to do with Waco?
A. No, sir, it does not.
Q. You're writing about another incident here?
A. This was a follow-up article on the Louis Katona case.
This is actually trial coverage where the ATF indicted
Mr. Katona, took him to court, and the judge, after hearing the
prosecution's case, dismissed all the charges 'cause he said
there was no evidence to support -- that a crime had been
committed.
Q. And that's what the theme of the article is, that judicial
occurrence?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Now, I'm going to show you WW31 and ask you,
Mr. Pate, if this is an article which you wrote and Soldier of
Fortune published in September of 1994?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. JONES: I move to admit.
MR. RYAN: No objection.
James Pate - Cross
THE COURT: Received. May be published.
BY MR. JONES:
Q. Now, this article is entitled, "Is America Becoming a
Police State?" And then there's a scroll that says, "Feds
seizing property without due process," by James L. Pate?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you briefly tell me what the theme of this article is
or you were trying to make the reader or that you wanted the
reader to see?
A. This is an article about property forfeitures under the
federal RICO statutes, Racketeering Influence Corrupt
Organizations, and how the intent of that law had been
subverted in many cases where law enforcement agencies were
seizing private property without anyone being charged with any
crime, any criminal wrongdoing.
Q. All right, sir. Now, I'm going to hand you and show you
WW33 and ask if this is an article you wrote and which Soldier
of Fortune published in October of 1994?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. JONES: Move to admit.
MR. RYAN: What's the exhibit number?
THE COURT: '33.
MR. JONES: '33.
THE COURT: WW33.
MR. RYAN: No objection, your Honor.
James Pate - Cross
THE COURT: Received; may be published.
BY MR. JONES:
Q. You have it there in front of you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. This is an article entitled, "Law Enforcement Above the
Law," by James L. Pate; correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the theme of this article and what is the point
that you want the reader to understand or see?
A. This is a collection of various incidents we had -- I was
getting a lot of mail from around the country about people who
have received what they thought unfair treatment by various law
enforcement agencies, mostly federal law enforcement agencies,
and we had actually solicited readers to send in any
experiences that they knew of that we could verify and we could
research. And this is a collection of some of the responses we
got to that solicitation. And it discusses some bad search
warrants, some raids on wrong addresses, people who were -- one
case, I think it mentions a couple cases -- people who were
killed because of either incorrectly served search warrants or
improperly executed search warrants.
Q. All right, sir. I hand you now or show you what has been
marked as WW37 and ask you if this is an article which you
wrote and published for Soldier of Fortune in May of 1995?
A. Yes, sir.
James Pate - Cross
MR. JONES: I move to admit WW37.
MR. RYAN: We'd object, your Honor.
THE COURT: What's the objection?
MR. RYAN: The date of the article is May of 1995.
THE COURT: Is that right?
MR. JONES: That's the date of the article. Maybe I
should clarify.
BY MR. JONES:
Q. An issue of Soldier of Fortune published with a date of May
of '95 would appear on the newsstands when?
A. The first week of April. For instance, right now, the 10th
of June, the July issue of Soldier of Fortune is on sale on the
newsstand right now.
MR. RYAN: I'll withdraw the objection.
THE COURT: Withdraw the objection?
MR. RYAN: I'll withdraw.
THE COURT: All right. It's received and may be
published.
BY MR. JONES:
Q. This article is titled, "No Peace Without Justice,
Documented Proof that ATF Commandos - Aided by U.S. Special
Forces - Planned Attack on Branch Davidians," by James L. Pate;
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the theme of this article, and what is it that you
James Pate - Cross
want the reader to understand?
A. This article is based on numerous military documents that I
obtained through confidential active-duty military sources that
detailed the military's planning and cooperation with the ATF
leading up to the raid at Waco on the 28th of February, 1993,
and specifically some of the memorandums for the record written
by military lawyers suggesting that -- certainly implying in
the language that they were planning an attack and that they
knew that women and children were there and military measures
drafted stating that they expected casualties.
Q. Now, Mr. Pate, during the period of time of 1993 and 1994,
you wrote many articles for Soldier of Fortune on the subjects
of criticism of the federal government and specifically the
BATF and FBI and to some extent the military and the incidents
at Mt. Carmel outside Waco; would that be a fair statement?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And from time to time you would write other articles
relating to specific cases where allegations had been made by
one or more people of abuse of them by the ATF?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then you also wrote some articles about the incident at
Ruby Ridge in northern Idaho, involving Mr. Weaver and his
family.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And would it be a fair statement to say that the editorial
James Pate - Cross
thrust of the articles that you wrote was critical of the
federal government, specifically the agencies I mentioned?
A. Very critical.
Q. Now, Mr. Pate, has your work ever received recognition for
journalistic excellence?
A. On occasion.
Q. And are you familiar with the Mencken Award?
A. Yes, sir. I wasn't -- to be honest, wasn't familiar -- I
received a citation of the Mencken Award for my Waco coverage
and really wasn't aware of it until I received it. The
magazine -- publications frequently nominate themselves or they
enter press contests for various categories.
Q. From the Pulitzer Prize on down.
A. I beg your pardon?
Q. From the Pulitzer Prize on down.
A. Yes, sir. State press associations: I've won a number of
state press awards in North Carolina and Virginia where I
worked for daily newspapers. The Mencken Award I was only
vaguely familiar with. And in fact, the magazine had been
notified that we had won two Mencken Awards, and they had not
told me; and they were published, I think, an editor and
publisher of one of the trade journals. And I was with a
journalistic colleague in Washington one day walking down the
street and he said, Congratulations.
And I said, For what?
James Pate - Cross
He said, You won a Mencken Award.
And I wasn't even aware of it, and that was really the
first I'd heard of the Mencken Award in any detail.
Q. Is this Mencken Award named after H. L. Mencken?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was H. L. Mencken?
A. He was the editor of the Baltimore -- one of the Baltimore
papers back in the 1920's, also a columnist and noted social
critic, you might say.
Q. Now, in addition to your writing -- and we talked about
this a little bit yesterday -- you have had somewhat extensive
contact with what might be called a patriot or
constitutionalist community, have you not, sir?
A. Yes, sir. I wrote my first article on the militia movement
or at least the current version, because it's a -- the militia
movement is a cycle in American history. If you read American
history, it's a recurring phenomena. I wrote my first article
on this, what we commonly understand as the militia movement or
the patriot movement, in 1986. I believe it was published in
early '87. It was the last article I'd written for Soldier of
Fortune before leaving to go to work in Norfolk, Virginia.
Q. Now, in writing about this movement and this philosophy and
the way they view the world, you've had contact with individual
members, have you not?
A. Yes, sir, frequently.
James Pate - Cross
Q. Have you attended gun shows?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the significance of a gun show in terms of meeting
people in this community of thinking?
A. A common thread in this movement is a -- an interest in and
a study of the U.S. Constitution, the debates between the
Federalists and the Antifederalists such as Alexander Hamilton,
James Madison, Thomas Jefferson; and the real focal point among
these disparate groups -- because there's militias, there's
common law organizations, there is different permutations of
this same movement -- the common thread is a article, I
believe, from the Second Amendment.
Q. Now, when we speak of the movement, we're using that as
though it were singular, but in fact this movement or
collection has many different portions, doesn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Not all members of the militia are necessarily
constitutionalists, and not all constitutionalists are
necessarily militia members; is that correct?
A. That's basically true, although most are probably more
conversant than the average person on the street about the U.S.
Constitution, at least as they understand it.
Q. Now, in addition to attending these gun shows where their
literature is distributed, do you also have speaking
engagements?
James Pate - Cross
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And --
A. I have spoken to -- for instance, I spoke to a state
meeting of the Gun Owners of New Hampshire about my Waco
coverage. I spoke in Oklahoma City on the 4th of July in 1994,
I believe. And I've certainly done a lot of -- a fair amount
of commentary on these issues on TV.
Q. Now, when you attend these speaking engagements and you
speak, do you also have conversation or interchange with the
members of these organizations that are there?
A. Oh, yes, sir, and people -- people come out of the --
people who are listening to you speak frequently approach you
and ask you do you know about this or do you know about that.
Often they're soliciting you to do a story, they're pitching a
story idea. That's very common.
Q. And in addition to that, do you attend conferences that the
Soldier of Fortune has and NRA, National Rifle Association, and
others?
A. I have, I have given seminars at the Soldier of Fortune
convention in Las Vegas they have every year in September,
October. I've done two seminars on Waco. I've done -- pardon
me -- seminars on other aspects of my writing. And frequently
people approach you there to ask you -- either ask you
questions in more detail about something you've written or to
offer you story ideas; and it has not been uncommon for
James Pate - Cross
people -- every year we'll meet one or two people who came to
the convention specifically to, you know, meet me or meet
another member of the staff to share an experience and try to
get us to write about it.
Q. And then in addition to that -- and I think you covered
this briefly yesterday, but just to put it in perspective, you
receive mail from members of these groups and people that read
Soldier of Fortune?
A. We get e-mail; we get mail, you know, through the U.S.
Postal Service, a fair amount. I'm a one-person office, and I
regret to confess that a lot of it, it gets read, I'm not able
to respond to all of it. We get a lot of mail.
Q. What's the range of subjects that people write you about?
A. I get a lot of mail from people who think that they have
been wrongly treated by law enforcement. I get mail from
people in the military who inform me about activities between
the military and civilian law enforcement that they believe or
they think are somehow improper. I got a couple of letters
like that last week. Sometimes I just get -- I'll get a letter
critical of something I've written or challenging a conclusion
I've made in an article, and then you get letters of support.
Q. Now, in addition to these matters that you've mentioned,
have you also read literature from academicians and other
journalists and political figures regarding the growth of the
constitutionalist or patriot or militia movement?
James Pate - Cross
A. Oh, yes, sir. I have readers send me -- I just got a
article a couple weeks ago from a law journal in Kentucky, I
believe, about Posse Comitatus and the militarization of
civilian law enforcement, which is a topic I cover quite a bit
about, and I read various military journals from time to time,
Parameters and some others.
Q. So you attend their meetings; correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You speak at their meetings.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You write articles about them.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You interview them.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you read what others have done.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that's pretty much your full-time professional career
for the last several years.
A. Last five or six years, yes, sir.
Q. Now, do you feel as a result -- or do you feel as a result
of all of this that you have some understanding of the people
and the ideas and the language associated with these movements?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you know from our conversations that there's been
exhibits and testimony introduced in this case, both in the
James Pate - Cross
first stage and in this stage, that concern Mr. McVeigh's
political writings, political philosophies, books that he read,
ideas that he expressed, letters that he wrote and so forth.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I want to ask you now, specifically into some of
Mr. McVeigh's writings and the language that he used and its
interpretation or understanding in the -- for lack of a better
term, we'll call it "movement."
I want to show you what I believe has already been
introduced into evidence as Government Exhibit 8. Would you
turn to that, please. It's not in your book, let me know and
I'll get you a copy.
A. Yes, sir, I have it right here.
Q. Oh, you do. Good.
MR. JONES: Now, this has already been introduced into
evidence, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MR. JONES:
Q. Now, Mr. Pate, you've read this, haven't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So you're generally familiar with it or perhaps very
familiar with it?
A. Yes, sir. I've become familiar with it.
Q. You know that this has been described as a essay, we'll
call it, written by Tim McVeigh?
James Pate - Cross
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I want to just ask you about it. First let's talk
about the whole content of it. Have you seen ideas and
historic references like this expressed by other people in the
movement?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And by whom and where?
A. Well, the John Locke quote is very popular in that
movement. I've heard it discussed by academics, I've heard it
discussed by quite a few attorneys who write about Second
Amendment, and I've certainly heard a lot of it discussed at
gun shows.
Q. This very quotation of John Locke, how frequently is that
used or referenced in the movement?
A. It's very common. I've seen it printed and framed and hung
on the wall in various places. I'm not -- there's a -- I know
there's a Locke quotation hanging on the wall at the editorial
offices of Soldier of Fortune. I can't remember if it's this
one or not. I know this is a very common John Locke quote.
Q. Maybe we ought to identify John Locke. Who is he?
A. John Locke is a social and political philosopher of the
enlightenment. He was a British citizen. He, along with
Cicero and Aristotle and Algernon Sidney, provided the
intellectual foundation for the thinking of James Madison and
Thomas Jefferson and the other Antifederalists who were
James Pate - Cross
responsible for writing the first ten amendments to the
Constitution.
Q. Now, in the very first sentence of Mr. McVeigh's essay,
there is a reference to "We members of the citizen militia." I
wanted to ask you about the term "citizen militia." Is there
shared understanding within the movement of what that means,
Mr. Pate?
A. Yes, sir, there's a lot of definitions out there. There's
a very loosely understood meaning that is shared in the
movement. I think there is -- I think I told you the other
day, I believe -- and I've told you this before -- I think
there's as much misunderstanding as there is understanding
about precisely what "militia" means. But it's commonly
understood to mean people who are activists in their beliefs
and particularly their beliefs regarding the Second Amendment.
Q. Does it necessarily mean that they're a member of the
National Guard or the state militia?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. And what do these people understand you have to do to be a
member of the militia? By "these people," I'm referring to
people in the movement.
A. That you have to own firearms; that you study the
Constitution; that you believe in the supremacy of the rights
of individuals over the collective rights of the state.
Q. Now, in this article and in some of the others that have
James Pate - Cross
been introduced -- and I think there's even references to The
Turner Diaries and some other material -- there's a kind of a
concept, and I'm going to paraphrase it, but it is the concept
of we are not trying to overthrow the government -- or the
Constitution, rather -- we're not trying to overthrow the
Constitution, but we're trying to overthrow those who are
overthrowing the Constitution?
A. Well, the commonly stated term is we're trying to preserve
and restore the Constitution. There's a common belief in the
movement that the -- number one, that the Constitution and
particularly the Bill of Rights or the first ten amendments
were written to -- as a limitation to the federal government --
not as a limitation to what citizens may do, but as a
limitation to what federal government may do, to protect
citizens.
Ask your question one more time.
Q. Sure. The question that I was asking was that there seems
to be a recurring theme which is expressed in Government
Exhibit 8 here that we're talking about, that members of the
movement see themselves as not overthrowing the Constitution,
but overthrowing those who would overthrow the Constitution.
A. Right, they see --
Q. And my question is am I correct, is that a --
A. Yes, sir, you're correct.
Q. All right. What do they mean by that?
James Pate - Cross
A. Well, they don't care -- they don't like being
characterized as they frequently are as antigovernment. They
think of themselves as pro government but, more precisely, pro
Constitution. And in their view, the federal government, due
in large part, they think, to congressional failure of
oversight, has gradually eroded many of the protections
guaranteed in the Constitution.
Q. So many of these people, then, are fundamentalists in their
belief about the Constitution and its interpretation?
A. I'd say very fundamentalist. Like I said, they frequently
read the constitutional debates. They read The Federalist
Papers. I am constantly impressed, given that many of these
people do not have advanced education, how well-read they are
in some of these areas. They go back to original writings to
form their opinions.
Q. Now, Mr. McVeigh also has here expressed in this exhibit
this phrase, and I'm quoting: "If and when they once again
draw first blood," parentheses, "(many believe the Waco
incident was first blood) --" close parentheses, and then it
goes on. What is meant -- what is your understanding within
the movement of what that type of language means?
A. First blood? Is that what you're asking about
specifically?
Q. Yes. And then first blood as related to the Waco incident.
A. There's a commonly held belief that the federal government
James Pate - Cross
is engaged in activities to -- to impose its -- its will where
gun control is concerned; for instance, that the protections of
the Constitution don't really mean anything anymore, that it's
less a meaningful document than it is a relic in a museum.
First blood is as a reference to the -- partially to
the Revolutionary War, to the Battle of Lexington, where first
blood was drawn. They see this as an evolution.
Q. So first blood is a concept or is a term that is used in
this group?
A. On occasion.
Q. Now, are you familiar with the term, particularly as it's
applied within the movement -- the term "rules of engagement"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what does that mean?
A. Rules of engagement commonly refer to, in the context of
Waco or Ruby Ridge, the ground rules that tactical teams
receive prior to deployment about what they may do, what they
may not do, what the specific procedures are going to be
regarding the use of deadly force, how they would respond to
various individuals who may be the subject of a siege or a
surveillance.
Q. And within the movement itself, this patriot,
constitutionalist movement that we've been talking about, the
people who share the kind of literature here that Mr. McVeigh
wrote about and others, how do they view the rules of
James Pate - Cross
engagement at Waco or Ruby Ridge?
A. Very critically. They see the rules of engagement as
unconstitutional.
Q. Why?
A. Well, in their viewpoint, the -- for instance, the
Davidians were attacked by the ATF. The common belief is that
the ATF went up on a raid to arrest one man on a -- on a
failure to pay a firearms transfer tax and recklessly
endangered the lives of women and children they knew were there
and went out spoiling for a fight and provoked a fight.
In the case of Randy Weaver, the commonly held belief
is that the rules of engagement that allowed a sniper to kill
Mrs. Weaver were unconstitutional. I mean, that particular
agent is seen in the movement as a murderer who has escaped
justice. And in fact, I believe the Office of Professional
Responsibility in the Department of Justice shared the
viewpoint that the rules of engagement in that particular case,
the Weaver case, were in fact unconstitutional.
Q. In this article that -- or essay that Mr. McVeigh is
writing about, you look down to the third paragraph, he
mentions some names, and he refers to such incidents -- do you
see it there -- as Randy Weaver?
A. Right.
Q. Gordon Kahl?
A. Right.
James Pate - Cross
Q. Waco, and Donald Scott?
A. Right.
Q. Now, when he references Waco, is there any other meaning
other than the Mt. Carmel incident?
A. None that I know of.
Q. Now, some of these other names, though, are widely used and
cited in the movement, are they not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Randy Weaver is the gentleman that you were just
testifying to up in --
A. Idaho.
Q. -- Idaho?
A. Boundary County, Idaho.
Q. And how does the movement see him? What is their
perception of him in that incident?
A. That he was a person targeted because of unpopular and
widely objectionable political and religious beliefs; that he
was targeted by law enforcement specifically because of those
beliefs, not because of any illegal actions he had taken; that
he was entrapped on a weapons charge solely for the purpose of
making him a federal informant; and that when he refused to
cooperate, that the federal law enforcement came down on him
like a ton of bricks and killed his son and killed his wife and
that no one's been punished for.
Q. Now, to be fair, there was also a deputy United States
James Pate - Cross
marshal killed in that incident?
A. William F. Degan, a very highly decorated U.S. marshal.
Q. Now, there's also reference to Gordon Kahl, K-A-H-L.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I don't think we've heard much about that. Who is Mr.
Kahl, and what is his significance in the movement?
A. Mr. Kahl was a person from South Dakota, a person who
considered himself a patriotic American, highly decorated -- I
think he received the Silver Star, four Bronze Stars in World
War II -- who, after he came home from World War II, became
very disillusioned with the federal income tax system, with the
Social Security system, and he began researching it and he --
as events evolved, he became a tax protester, and he -- it's
not like he tried to hide, but he contacted the federal tax --
I guess the IRS and told them that he was withdrawing, that he
was not going to -- withdrawing from the tax system, and
actually he did file a form to withdraw from the Social
Security system, told his employers, when he was working for
someone, that he no longer wanted Social Security taxes
withheld from his pay.
He was sent to prison for one year, I believe, on a
misdemeanor tax conviction, failure to file. And when he got
out, he told his parole officer that he would continue to not
file because he didn't believe it was right and that it -- he
said that it violated his religious beliefs, that he thought
James Pate - Cross
the -- the system was evil. And when he did fail to file, that
was a -- constituted a parole violation, and the marshal
service in South Dakota issued an arrest warrant, and he was
confronted while armed with his wife and his son and a couple
of other people at a roadblock in Medina, (phonetic) South
Dakota. And just as in the Weaver and the Waco cases, somebody
fired a shot, and it's still debated in all three who fired
first.
Q. Who does the movement believe fired first?
A. Well, the movement usually believes that the feds fire
first. Like I said, it's debatable. But anyway, Mr. Kahl was
involved in a shootout in which two federal marshals were
killed and I believe three others were wounded, his son was
wounded, very nearly died, and Mr. Kahl became a federal
fugitive and was -- subsequently died of -- I believe of a
gunshot wound and was also burned in a house fire in Arkansas.
Q. So wherever this confrontation took place on the highway,
he escaped from there and made it to somewhere in Arkansas?
A. Yes, sir. About three months later, I believe. I think
there was a three-month lapse there. But the Kahl case took on
greater significance in the movement as events evolved. It was
nationally reported when it happened, but it was seen at the
time as more of an aberration or an isolated event.
But when the Weaver case came along in 1992 and
particularly eight months after the Weaver case when the Waco
James Pate - Cross
tragedy happened, the movement began to see these as a series
of events indicating a trend on the part of federal law
enforcement.
Q. And then finally Donald Scott. Who is he and what, what is
the perception of the movement of him?
A. Donald Scott was a property owner, a very wealthy property
owner in California, who lived on the coast. He had been
approached on several occasions by the U.S. Park Service that
owned property surrounding him. They wanted to acquire his
property to expand the federal holdings there. And that
property had been in his family. He'd inherited it from his
parents. It was very nice ocean-front property, heavily
wooded; did not want to sell it.
And he was targeted, according to a prosecutor's
follow-up report -- was targeted by law enforcement because
they wanted to -- they wanted a forfeiture, property
forfeiture. And as events unfolded, they alleged that he was
growing marijuana on his property, which would allow them to
forfeit the property. That allegation was untrue. And in a
raid on his house, I think at 4:00 in the morning -- they never
tried to interview Mr. Scott or anything -- they just burst
into his house. He came out of his bedroom holding a firearm
and was shot dead in his living room.
Q. Now, you've written about some of these incidents, haven't
you?
James Pate - Cross
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In Soldier of Fortune?
A. And other places.
Q. Right. And I started to say "in other places."
Let me ask you here to look at WW53. This has been
admitted already, but this is an article you wrote in March of
'93 -- I'm sorry. It has not been admitted, I'm told.
Is WW53 an article you wrote in March of '93 for
Soldier of Fortune, which it published?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. JONES: I move the admission of WW53.
MR. RYAN: No objection.
THE COURT: Received, may be displayed.
BY MR. JONES:
Q. Now, in addition to the Randy Weaver article, you also
wrote about Donald Scott, did you not?
A. I wrote about Donald Scott -- not just about him, but in a
larger article that was -- we referenced a while ago that was a
collection of incidents of abuses of authority by federal law
enforcement.
Q. And that was admitted as WW31. And is the article, "Is
America Becoming a Police State?"
A. That's correct.
Q. Let me turn to that article for just a moment.
I want to turn to page 37 of your article, which is
James Pate - Cross
page 37 of WW31. Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, here in the first column, you are making reference to
the death of Donald Scott?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then you go on to talk about, in your opinion and in
your writing, the significance of Donald Scott in the
constitutional sense. Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What are you saying there?
A. Do you want me to read?
Q. Yeah, why don't you just read it. That would be quicker.
A. Let me put this in context, because it makes reference to
hundreds of thousands of such cases, and that's a reference to
hundreds of thousands of cases of property seizure and
forfeiture.
"The death of Donald Scott is only one of the most
outrageous among hundreds of thousands such cases. Property
forfeiture laws were ostensibly written to seize ill-gotten
gains from drug kingpins to take away the profits gained, but
most often the target are poor or middle-income people, casual
drug users and racial minorities and those who speak little
English. And like the crackdown on law-abiding federal farms
licensees to supposedly stem the flow of black-market guns,
there is little or no practical effect on the alleged problem
James Pate - Cross
by forfeiture laws. Indeed, major drug kingpins transfer their
millions to offshore bank accounts untouchable by forfeiture,
then hire the best lawyers to fend off the feds.
"More than 80 percent of the people whose property is
seized are never charged with any criminal offense according to
a ten-month investigation into civil property forfeiture by the
Pittsburgh press."
Do you want me to keep reading?
Q. No. That's fine.
Now, is that a view that you've expressed there -- is
that also a view held in the movement?
A. Oh, yes, sir.
Q. Now, let's go back to Mr. McVeigh's essay, which is
Government Exhibit 8. Now, there's a reference in here to
strong statement, and I believe it's in the 1, 2, 3, 4th
paragraph down, the paragraph that begins, "Citizen militias
will hopefully ensure . . ." Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, I want to zero in on the second line of that
paragraph.
Okay. Now, Mr. McVeigh writes: "Citizen militias
will hopefully ensure that violations of the Constitution by
these power-hungry storm troopers of the federal government
will not succeed again." Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
James Pate - Cross
Q. I want to concentrate on the term he used, "power-hungry
storm troopers." Is that an expression or phrase that you have
heard within the movement?
A. Oh, yes, sir.
Q. Is it one that's repeated?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what does it mean? Is it --
A. It refers to -- well, it refers to conduct and specific
incidents, where at least the perception is, in the movement,
that there has been excessive force, abuse of force, and that
there has been no accountability for either improper,
unethical, or illegal conduct by federal agents. They are
unaccountable.
Q. All right. Now, Mr. Pate, if you'll permit me, I want to
go right to the heart of this for a moment. You told us
earlier that the term "citizen militia" has an accepted meaning
within the movement.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And correct me now if I'm mistaken. And that the citizen
militia isn't an organized company, like a Company A of the
National Guard or the Ohio militia that we knew during the
Civil War. That's not its meaning today?
A. No.
Q. Its meaning today is any able-bodied man with a firearm?
A. Who want to, by process of free association, organize
James Pate - Cross
themselves for their mutual self-defense.
Q. All right.
A. I've told people in the militia movement -- and I might add
that not all of my writing has been popular with the militia
movement. I've written some things that they didn't like.
But --
Q. But you're also writing about what they think?
A. Right.
Q. And that's what I want to concentrate on, what they think,
not necessarily what Jim Pate thinks.
A. Okay.
Q. So when essays like this appear that talk about citizen
militias will hopefully -- get my reading glasses on here.
"Citizen militias will hopefully ensure that violations of the
Constitution by these power-hungry storm troopers of the
federal government will not succeed again," is another way to
read that is that a citizen patriot will hopefully ensure that
these type of actions will not occur again?
A. Yes, sir. I think the -- it's certainly arguable that the
rise of the militia movement, particularly since Waco, has
given pause to federal law enforcement when they do conduct
high-profile, large operations, such as the Freemen standoff in
Montana -- that was a very real consideration for the FBI
agents up there that I talked to, the fact there were
self-described members of the militia movement gathering in the
James Pate - Cross
area. I mean they --
Q. Coming up there, weren't they?
A. They had to take that into consideration, yes, sir.
Q. What do you mean "the rise in the militia movement since
Waco"?
A. Well, the militia movement was very low key and had really
not taken off prior to the Waco case. It was -- it was popping
up in a few places. The first place that I noted it was Texas;
and there was a split in 1986, between the officially state-
sanctioned Texas State Guard. And they decided they were no
longer going to provide firearms training to their members, and
some members split off and organized their own.
Q. Let me interrupt you just a second.
A. I'm sorry.
Q. I didn't mean to get off in a history of it; I just wanted
to -- were you saying that there had been an increase in the
militia movement since Waco?
A. Right.
Q. Did the tragedy at Oklahoma City abate it?
A. Temporarily. There were news reports of Mr. McVeigh's
attendance at a meeting of the Michigan Militia, I believe; and
it just so happened that month, or the month prior, we had a
cover story, Soldier of Fortune had a cover story on the
Michigan Militia. I didn't write it.
THE COURT: Are we here after the events in question?
James Pate - Cross
MR. JONES: I started to interrupt, your Honor.
BY MR. JONES:
Q. Let's go back to Mr. McVeigh's writing here. You see his
reference to that a citizen militia will hopefully ensure that
those violations of the Constitution by the power-hungry storm
troopers will not reoccur. That's his writing.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do others in the patriot movement share this view that
citizen militias can stop federal law enforcement abuses?
A. Yes, sir. They've seen events like Waco, and that's
prompted people to get interested in participating in militia
activities.
Q. Now, in the last paragraph -- or, sorry -- the same
paragraph, there is a reference to "the Army would not be used
to rescue innocent persons at Waco." Do you see that? And "to
restore democracy"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, is that a view shared by others in this movement?
A. Yes, sir. There's a growing concern that the military is
participating illegally to an increasing degree in civilian law
enforcement.
Q. From your understanding of this language here within the
patriot movement, what is meant?
A. That the -- that in this country, that the -- our military
has become -- they've become accomplices with federal law
James Pate - Cross
enforcement and abuses of power.
Q. Now, do you have WW51 in front of you?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. JONES: I believe this is a document referred to
in the affidavit we discussed, your Honor; and I move its
admission.
MR. RYAN: No objection.
THE COURT: All right. WW51 is received and may be
shown.
BY MR. JONES:
Q. Do you have it in front of you there, Mr. Pate?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Now, this is a document that's several pages
long and has some kind of small printing, so we'll try to
magnify it here so we can read it.
I want to turn specifically to the second page. And
then down -- do you see it? There's a series of headings in
the middle: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is this a passage or reference that others in the patriot
movement have also used?
A. You're talking about the quote from the Declaration of
Independence?
Q. Right.
James Pate - Cross
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you're saying "yes, sir," you mean others have used
it?
A. Yes, sir. And it's often quoted in -- although it predates
the Bill of Rights, it's often quoted in tandem with the Second
Amendment.
Q. All right. Do you -- have you seen this document before?
A. This exhibit?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q. And what is it?
A. I was told that it is a collection of thoughts and ideas
and quotes that were compiled by Mr. McVeigh and handed out at
gun shows and, I guess, other places.
Q. So it's a series of thoughts on political subjects used by
Mr. McVeigh, assembled by him, and handed out at gun shows. Is
that your understanding?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. And you have reviewed it and read it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are the views in here that are generally expressed, and in
some cases very specifically expressed, views held by others
within the movement?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And they draw their source, do they not, from some of these
James Pate - Cross
materials and incidents that you have testified to previously?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The so-called "Randy Weaver incident"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Gordon Kahl?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. John Locke?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The Second Amendment?
A. Right.
Q. The writings of the Federalists and Antifederalists?
A. Right.
Q. And your writings?
A. You know, if my writing is quoted in here, it missed me.
Q. All right. Well, let's turn to page 2 for just a moment
here, go back to the right of people to keep and bear arms; and
then you notice "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is capitalized?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, within the movement and its understanding, what is
Mr. McVeigh saying here?
A. The commonly held belief that the -- is that the Second
Amendment is sacrosanct and shall not be infringed. And the
thinking of people in the movement is that all -- any gun law
is unconstitutional. Any gun control law.
Q. This essay here also includes the quote from Thomas
James Pate - Cross
Jefferson which has been introduced in the first stage, does it
not: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time
with the blood of patriots and tyrants"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And attributed to Thomas Jefferson.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is this also a quotation widely understood and talked about
within the movement?
A. Yes, sir. The Second Amendment is understood in the
movement to -- well, it's frequently said that the
constitutional framers did not write the Second Amendment
because they wanted to guarantee their right to shoot a turkey
for Thanksgiving; they did so because they had just overthrown
a government by force of arms, and they wanted their right to
do that in the future guaranteed.
Q. Now, down in the next-to-last paragraph above, where it
says, "massacres of dissenters," there's a statement: "Don't
buy that line 'the people refers to the militia,' therefore an
individual does not have the right to keep and bear arms." Do
you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that not the argument, or at least the position that you
were saying earlier; that when you refer to citizen militia,
you're referring to individual people with guns who believe in
defending the Constitution?
James Pate - Cross
A. That's one of the focal points of the debate over the
Second Amendment, whether it's a collective right or an
individualist right; and that's what this is in reference to.
Q. Now, the next section, "massacre of dissenters": Do you
see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, here is there reference by Mr. McVeigh to Waco?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the events there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then at the top of the next page, there's a reference
to Gordon Kahl, isn't there? That would be page 3.
A. In the first paragraph?
Q. Of the third page, yes, sir.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then there's a reference to Randy Weaver, is there not?
There's Bates No. 57163 in the lower right-hand corner.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, before Randy Weaver's son was shot and killed and his
wife shot and killed, was Randy Weaver generally known in the
movement? Did anybody know who he was?
A. No, sir.
Q. Before Gordon Kahl was shot and killed, was he generally
known in the movement?
A. No, sir. Probably --
James Pate - Cross
MR. RYAN: Your Honor, I object to this. I think we
touched on this a little bit last night.
MR. JONES: This is a different line from last night,
your Honor.
THE COURT: Objection is overruled.
BY MR. JONES:
Q. Was Gordon Kahl known?
A. He was not widely known. At the time that Mr. Kahl's case
occurred, the movement wasn't as widespread as it is now. I
think he was known in the circles of organization he belonged
to called "Posse Comitatus."
Q. After his death, did he become more known?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And David Koresh or Vernon Howell -- whatever name we want
to use -- was he generally known before February of 1993?
A. No, sir.
Q. Donald Scott: Was he known before his problems with law
enforcement?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, the next section that Mr. McVeigh's essay talks about
is financial tyranny. Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there's some quotations there from Henry Ford and a
gentleman identified as Congressman Louis McFadden and others.
What is the gist of this political argument here?
James Pate - Cross
A. That the federal income tax system was never properly
ratified by the requisite number of states and that it is
subsequently illegal.
Q. Does that have a shared meaning within the patriot
community?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The concept to resist the income tax; that it's not validly
adopted: Is that something that's central to the tenets, or
not? Tell me if it's not.
A. It's not as widely discussed as, say, the Second Amendment.
It's certainly a primary topic in the tax resistance movement.
It was -- in the common law movement, it's very widely
discussed. It was certainly a fundamental belief of the
Freemen in Montana, for instance.
Q. Now, on the next page there is a topic called "Education
and the Constitution." Did you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what is the theme, the political theme of this essay
portion here?
A. That the intent of the framers has been subverted by the
federal government gradually over the years and that through
social programs and regulatory actions of the federal
government and that, as I said earlier -- that the Constitution
was designed as a limitation on government, not a limitation on
citizens, and that that has been flip-flopped.
James Pate - Cross
Q. And is that generally the position held in the patriot
movement?
A. Oh, yes, sir.
Q. Now, taking WW51 in its entirety, this political pamphlet,
if we can call it that, that Mr. McVeigh put together and
assembled, are these views consistent with the views as you
understand them in the movement?
A. Very much so. I believe it covers a very broad range of
areas that touch on every aspect I can think of in that
movement.
Q. All right. Now, I want to just touch on one other writing
and ask you if you would turn, please, to WW7.
Now, this is an article that appeared on the cover of
Soldier of Fortune for July 1993. Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then I want to turn to one other. And this is the
cover from The New American for WW38. It's Exhibit WW38; is
that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. JONES: I move the admission of WW38 and WW7.
MR. RYAN: No objection.
THE COURT: Did you say no objection, Mr. Ryan?
MR. RYAN: No objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes, all right. They're received and may
be published, if you wish.
James Pate - Cross
MR. JONES: Yes, sir.
BY MR. JONES:
Q. I want to lay them side by side. That's the purpose of my
putting them in here for you, Mr. Pate.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you describe for the jury what these are.
A. Well, the cover, the Soldier of Fortune cover, they're both
of the same individual who is a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms agent at Waco during the standoff. The Soldier of
Fortune cover is a composite and is identified as such on the
table of contents page of the magazine.
It is -- it is representative of the perception in the
movement of a couple of things. The mil -- certainly the
militarization of civilian law enforcement. This is a civilian
law enforcement agent, but he looks more like a military
commando.
Q. I want to particularly draw your attention to the badge.
Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where it says ATF?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which refers to Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is there something particular about the badge that is
significant in the patriot, constitutionalist movement?
James Pate - Cross
A. Yes, sir. And I think it's -- quite frankly, I think it's
a misunderstanding. The common belief -- and this does occur
on raids, I've seen it happen, where agents will cover up a
badge number. But in this case I happen to know this agent has
black tape on his badge because it's a common practice in law
enforcement when a colleague has been killed in the line of
duty to put black tape on their badge, and I am -- I've
inquired about this, and that is the case in this instance.
Q. And -- as a sign of mourning?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. But within the movement, it is seen as what?
A. It was believed -- widely believed in the movement that
this agent was trying to cover up a badge number so he could
conceal his identity. Could not be later identified.
Q. Now, Mr. Pate, where were you on the morning of April 19,
1995?
A. I was at -- I was in Waco, Texas. I had been invited with
a number of other people to speak at a memorial service on the
second anniversary of the fire.
Q. And were you there with any particular group of people?
A. Well, I spent the night --
MR. RYAN: Your Honor, I object.
THE COURT: If you're going to ask about the reaction
of those people, I'll sustain the objection.
MR. JONES: I wasn't going to ask about the reaction;
James Pate - Cross
I was going to ask about something that he was told, which is
not quite the reaction.
THE COURT: Well, what's the purpose of it?
MR. JONES: To establish a connection. I can make an
offer of proof, if the Court would prefer, at the bench.
THE COURT: All right.
(At the bench:)
(Bench Conference 142B1 is not herein transcribed by court
order. It is transcribed as a separate sealed transcript.)
James Pate - Cross
(In open court:)
THE COURT: Members of the jury, with this little side
bar, as we call it, it was explained what this testimony would
be, and I'm sustaining the objection to it. Sometimes I have
to know what the answer would be and the question and answer
before I can rule; and now having heard it, I'm sustaining the
objection.
MR. JONES: I don't believe I have anything else.
Thank you, Mr. Pate.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
MR. JONES: Just a moment.
I may have something else.
I am through, Mr. Pate. Thank you.
THE COURT: Are you going to have cross-examination?
MR. RYAN: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Will it be very long?
MR. RYAN: Excuse me?
THE COURT: Will it be very long?
MR. RYAN: Probably 20 or 30 minutes.
THE COURT: I think we'll take a break before the
cross. You may step down, Mr. Pate. We're going to take a
20-minute recess.
And, members of the jury, we will recess for the usual
20 minutes with the usual cautions, of course, continuing to
refrain from discussing anything about the case among
yourselves and with others, continuing to stay away from
anything that could influence you on the decisions to be made
outside of the evidence and information as we call it now being
presented to you.
You're excused now for 20 minutes.
(Jury out at 10:11 a.m.)
THE COURT: Before we do the cross-examination, I
think I'll read the affidavit and give further explanation and
also explain that you're not expected by the cross-examination
to test the accuracy of the information in the particular
articles that are being mentioned so that the jury will
understand.
MR. RYAN: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. JONES: Your Honor, may I just ask the Court, and
certainly Mr. Ryan is under no obligation to share with me his
thought on cross-examination, but the purpose of the witness'
testimony was to show what people in the patriot, the
constitutionalist movement believe, not necessarily whether it
was true or not as a matter of fact and in some cases --
THE COURT: That's why I'm going to explain that to
the jury.
MR. JONES: But if Mr. Ryan tries to assert that it's
not true, then our position will be that the door is open for
us to try to show that it is true.
THE COURT: Well, we'll wait to hear from Mr. Ryan in
what he asks. You will react to it if you think it's
inappropriate, and I will react to it as well. One way or the
other.
20 minutes.
(Recess at 10:12 a.m.)
(Reconvened at 10:30 a.m.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
(Jury in at 10:30 a.m.)
THE COURT: No, wait, please.
Members of the jury, before we have Mr. Pate back in,
have the cross-examination by Mr. Ryan, there is a couple of
things that I want to explain to you. You will recall that in
my earlier instructions to you at the close of the trial, I
explained that the law does not compel the defendant in a
criminal case to take the witness stand and testify; and I
cautioned you that you must not draw any inference from the
fact that Mr. McVeigh did not testify.
I also said the fact that he did not testify should
not even be discussed by you in any way or play any part in
your deliberations.
Now, that instruction is equally applicable here in
this penalty phase hearing. Indeed, there are some legal
reasons why a defendant found guilty of capital crimes may be
disadvantaged if he were to give up his constitutional right to
remain silent and take the witness stand at the sentencing
hearing.
Now, in this case, recognizing all of that, Timothy
McVeigh has submitted an affidavit, which I have received for
the limited purpose of providing a foundation for information
presented and to be presented through the testimony of other
witnesses and exhibits, the testimony of Mr. Pate included, and
the exhibits that we've been receiving during his testimony.
Now, you should consider it only for that purpose and
remember that the Government has not had any opportunity for
cross-examination of Mr. McVeigh with respect to his affidavit.
The affidavit is marked and comes into evidence as AF2. And
let me just review it with you.
It says, "Timothy James McVeigh, having been duly
sworn according to law, declares the following facts are true:
"(1) In learning about the events at Waco and other
incidents involving federal law enforcement agents, I viewed or
read the following materials which have been marked by my
attorney -- attorneys as exhibits in my trial." And then it
lists videos and it lists these by exhibit numbers: "'Waco,
The Big Lie'; 'The Waco Incident, Day 51'; 'Experiments From
the Big Lie and from the Waco Incident,' which I added to the
beginning and end of the video 'Day 51' and labeled 'Supplies'
and 'Day 51.'" And then written materials: "The New American;
April 4, 1994 cover, letter from the Editor; article by William
Norman Grigg, 'Redefining Law and Order'; God Rocks by Ron
Cole; seven-page compilation of political questions" (sic) "I
put together for distribution on July 4, 1994," which is WW51
that you've seen. And then it lists the Soldier of -- Soldier
of Fortune articles and gives them all by name.
I don't think it's necessary to read all of those into
the record --
MR. JONES: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: -- Mr. Jones.
MR. JONES: But I think your Honor did misspeak. On
WW51, it's a seven-page compilation of political quotations,
not political questions.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. Thank you. Yes, "seven-page
compilation of political quotations I put together for
distribution on July 4, 1994." And then a list of articles,
most of which you have seen the first page thereof and they've
been received in evidence.
And then also Mr. McVeigh's affidavit goes on to say,
"I think that I read other articles from Soldier of Fortune
during the period of time covered by these articles, but the
ones I have listed are the only ones I am certain that I read."
Now, let me explain a bit further that this
information in testimony and exhibits about views and opinions
that some people have expressed concerning federal law
enforcement activities, including perceptions of the events at
Waco and other incidents, like some of what you heard and saw
during the trial -- the material is admitted not for the truth
of the matters asserted but rather for the limited purpose of
explaining Timothy McVeigh's views, perceptions, and belief for
whatever consideration you may wish to give them with respect
to the circumstances of the offense and the character of the
defendant.
And you'll recall I also said this same thing to you
yesterday afternoon when we recessed.
Now, it is because these articles and this testimony
is not being received for the truth or accuracy as to what
actually has occurred in these events, Mr. Ryan's
cross-examination will not be dealing with the accuracy of it.
I'm sure that, you know, if we were to open this up for a full
trial as to what happened at Waco and what happened at Ruby
Ridge and so forth, of course, there would be a great deal of
controversy about what the actual facts were. But we're not
here to decide those facts. We're here to decide what -- or
you're here to decide what, if anything, this information has
to bear, what relevance it may have as mitigating factors in
considering the weighing process that you will be going through
in making your decisions.
So I want to make that clear before we start the
cross-examination. The fact that Mr. Ryan doesn't challenge
everything in each of these articles or any of the testimony
here with respect to its accuracy does not mean that the
Government is agreeing to its accuracy. It's just that we're
not trying that.
So we'll bring Mr. Pate back in and --
Mr. Pate, please resume the stand.
Mr. Ryan, you may inquire.
MR. RYAN: Thank you, your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. Mr. Pate, my name is Pat Ryan. I'm the United States
Attorney in Oklahoma.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. We've never met.
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, you have told us about this movement.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. For the past hour this morning.
Many would consider this movement quite extreme.
Would you agree with that?
A. That term has been used to describe it, yes, sir.
Q. You wouldn't argue with that, would you? You wouldn't
argue that people say that this movement that you've discussed
with us is extreme, would you?
A. No, I would not argue that.
Q. All right. You write to members of this movement, as I
understand it.
James Pate - Cross
A. They make up part of our -- the audience of Soldier of
Fortune certainly.
Q. You specifically -- Jim Pate, you -- write to this
movement, to people in this movement; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You talk to them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You lecture to them?
A. To -- when you say "lecture to them" --
Q. Did you tell us this morning that you make presentations to
people who are part of this movement?
A. I have spoken to audiences that -- members of this movement
in the audience, yes, sir. I've never been invited by a
militia group per se to speak. I've spoke to state gun
organizations, I think would be the closest. And I'm sure the
audiences contain members of that movement, yes.
Q. Well, you've spoken to militia people?
A. Yes.
Q. You've spoken to the Freemens in Montana?
A. Yes, sir. Interviewed them on a couple of occasions.
Q. Some would say you fuel this movement, wouldn't they?
A. No one has told me that, no, sir.
Q. Some would say you pander to this movement?
A. No one has told me that, no, sir.
Q. Do you consider yourself part of this movement?
James Pate - Cross
A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. You just make your living writing about this movement, as I
understand it; is that correct?
A. I share some -- I share some beliefs with some people in
the movement, particularly concerning the Second Amendment.
Q. Many would say that your articles contain information that
is factually incorrect, wouldn't they?
A. Yes, sir, that has certainly been said.
Q. When did you obtain your degree in journalism?
A. Well, I don't have a degree in journalism.
Q. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought yesterday you told us you
graduated or you went into --
A. I said I attended journalism school at the University of
North Carolina, went for four years and my advisor advised me
to get a job.
Q. The -- you've been a writer, spent most of your
professional life as a writer for Soldier of Fortune; is that
right?
A. The bulk of it, yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever been employed as a journalist for any major
newspaper in America?
A. Not a large circulation daily. I have written for some but
not been employed on the staff, no, sir.
Q. Have you ever been employed by any major magazine in the
United States?
James Pate - Cross
A. As a staff member?
Q. Yes. As an employee.
A. No, sir. I have written -- I have written for some.
Q. Have you ever been employed as a journalist for any major
television networks?
A. As a staff person, I have worked contracts for a couple of
major networks, yes, sir.
Q. Do you understand the word "employment"?
A. Yes, sir, I think I do.
Q. Have you ever been employed by a network?
A. Yes, sir. I'd say that I've been employed by a network.
Q. How long were you employed there?
A. I was employed for a project for "60 Minutes." I've been
employed --
Q. No, how long -- what was the employment for, how long was
it for?
A. That project we did in a couple of weeks. Actually, that
was right after the Oklahoma City bombing.
Q. What are the number of subscriptions to Soldier of Fortune
magazine?
A. Subscriptions?
Q. Subscriptions.
A. Approximately, I'd say, 20,000.
Q. 20,000 people in the United States, or is that worldwide?
A. I believe that's worldwide.
James Pate - Cross
Q. Now, for those of us who may not be as familiar with this
as you are, what is a soldier of fortune?
A. What is the magazine, or what --
Q. No, what is a soldier of fortune? What does that mean?
A. A soldier of fortune is commonly -- it's commonly
understood to be a soldier for hire.
Q. A mercenary.
A. A mercenary.
Q. Someone that would be hired to go fight a war for someone
else.
A. Yes, sir. Sometimes today they're called military
consultants. It depends on the politics of the contract, I
guess.
Q. Well, we can use your word, "military consultants." Does
Soldier of Fortune advertise for jobs for military consultants?
A. They have in the past. They don't anymore.
Q. And where all have they advertised for jobs for military
consultants?
A. I'm sorry.
Q. In what places have they advertised for jobs for military
consultants?
A. The only ones I'm familiar with are Africa. I know that
the publisher prior to starting the magazine placed some
advertisements in some other publications for the Sultan of
Brunei for some military consulting work in the Mid East.
James Pate - Cross
Q. Is one of the -- one of the attractions of Soldier of
Fortune is for people to fantasize about being warriors, isn't
it?
A. That is one element of the readership, yes, sir. I call
them Walter Mitties.
Q. Walter Mitty was a man who was henpecked by his wife and
dreamed about being a warrior?
A. That's correct, in a story, I believe, by James Thurber.
Q. And these -- this concept of fantasizing about being
warriors or ultimate warriors is sort of the underpinnings of
the movies such as "Rambo"?
A. You could say that.
Q. And in fact, you talked about that this morning in
reference to one of Mr. McVeigh's letters about drawing first
blood, or first blood.
A. Right. That is the -- I believe that is the title of the
novel that introduced the character Rambo by an author at the
University of Iowa, yes, sir.
Q. And your readership -- many of them fantasize about being
like John Rambo, a person who is an ultimate time warrior. Is
that true?
MR. JONES: If the Court please, I object to this. I
don't believe the witness has been qualified as a psychologist.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, sir. Repeat the question.
James Pate - Cross
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. Your readership -- many of your readership, when they read
your articles -- they're designed to help people or cause
people to fantasize about being warriors?
A. I would disagree with that.
Q. You've never read that, I suppose, that people think that
about your magazine?
A. That -- there is that element of the readership. There is
also a lot of people in -- who are in the community of
warriors, as you call them, military professionals, active-duty
military people.
Q. Did you read the book Dream Warriors?
A. No, sir. I'm familiar with the title. I have not read it.
Q. Are you familiar with the fact that there is an entire
chapter devoted to (sic) the book Dream Warriors related to
Soldier of Fortune magazine?
A. No, sir, I'm not aware of that.
Q. You have contributing editors in your magazine on such
subjects as unconventional operations; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Explosives and demolitions?
A. That's correct.
Q. Battle blades?
A. We have in the past. I'm not sure currently we still have
a battle blades contributing editor.
James Pate - Cross
Q. Well, magazine articles we've introduced in evidence this
morning tell us that you have a contributing editor in the area
of battle blades; is that right?
A. That's probably true, yeah.
Q. And I take it a battle blade would be a knife where a
warrior would have hand-to-hand combat with his enemy.
A. A specific type of knife, yes, sir.
Q. A killing knife?
A. In that context, it would be.
Q. Now, you also in this magazine Soldier of Fortune -- you
advertise for equipment that would be helpful for a real
warrior, a mercenary.
A. They advertise firearms. They advertise knives. They
advertise surveillance equipment.
Q. Assault weapons?
A. They have advertised what are commonly understood as
assault weapons.
Q. Body armor?
A. Body armor.
Q. Homemade C-4 books?
A. They've advertised a number of -- number of books.
Publishing houses advertise in the magazine.
Q. Including a book on how to make homemade C-4?
A. Probably. I don't recall that ad specifically. I know
Paladin Press in Boulder publishes some titles in that area,
James Pate - Cross
and they do advertise.
Q. And there is some affiliation with that Paladin Press and
your company, isn't there, or there has been in the past?
A. The publisher of Soldier of Fortune was at one point a
co-owner of Paladin Press, and he started the company under
another name called Panther Publications in the early 1960's.
He subsequently took on a friend of his from Vietnam, Peter
Lundh, as a partner; and then I believe Mr. Lundh made
Mr. Brown a buy-or-sell offer; and that was the seed money from
which Mr. Brown launched Soldier of Fortune in 1975.
Q. There was an affiliation between Paladin Press and Soldier
of Fortune?
A. There is no business affiliation between the two of them.
Q. There is an ownership affiliation. There was.
A. Well, Colonel Brown is the publisher and the owner of
Soldier of Fortune; and he in the past prior to establishing
Soldier of Fortune had a business interest in Paladin Press,
yes, sir.
Q. And so you advertise this book Homemade C-4; correct?
A. The magazine has advertised for Paladin Press. I don't
recall --
Q. Would you like to check WW29, or will you take my word for
it?
A. Yeah, I'll take your word for it.
Q. All right. And it has also advertised the Anarchist's
James Pate - Cross
Cookbook; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir, I'm certain they have advertised that title.
Q. Now, as we discussed a moment ago, the views expressed in
Soldier of Fortune are not accepted by the majority of the
population, are they?
A. I've never seen a demographic survey on that, sir.
Q. You wouldn't be surprised, for example, if the United
States Attorney or a law enforcement officer wouldn't agree
with some of the content of your articles, would you?
A. No, sir. What I am surprised at is, particularly where the
ATF is concerned, the amount of agreement I do hear on some of
the articles.
Q. And you've expressed that -- a lot of that through
undisclosed sources, haven't you?
A. Frequently.
Q. That's one of your common techniques, is it not, to have
someone who you don't reveal their identity who you tell the
readers work for the ATF. You won't tell us who they are, or
you won't tell your readers who it is?
A. Right.
Q. And, of course, this ATF person always says inflammatory
things against the ATF? That's one of your techniques?
A. Usually, if he is an anonymous source, that's one of the
reasons they request anonymity, because they're being critical
of their agency, yes, sir.
James Pate - Cross
Q. And you write a lot of articles critical of ATF?
A. Quite a bit.
Q. All one would need to do is go through the titles of the
articles you've introduced this morning and one could easily
determine that they were quite against the members and the
organization of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Isn't that
correct?
A. Yes, sir. They've been very critical of particularly ATF
management.
Q. Now, you advertise for a group known as the Cause
Foundation. Is that right?
A. They have advertised in the past.
Q. And its motto is to "Help fight Janet Reno and her
gun-grabbing goons"?
A. I believe that's correct.
Q. Now, despite the material that we talked about this
morning, Soldier of Fortune and your articles -- what do they
recommend people do if they have a problem with one of the law
enforcement agencies?
A. What have my articles recommended?
Q. Yes, or the magazine itself.
A. Well, recently, we had an article by an attorney, who is a
retired Justice Department prosecutor. As a matter of fact,
he's --
Q. Sir, my question is what do you recommend people do if they
James Pate - Cross
have a problem?
A. Well, I was going --
THE COURT: Well, let's make it clear -- excuse me --
make it clear as to whether you're asking what he says in his
articles.
MR. RYAN: Yes.
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. Have you in your articles recommended that if people are
concerned about some event that involves law enforcement that
they write their congressman or their senator?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Or that they ask for a grand jury investigation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You've never advocated violence, have you?
A. No, sir.
Q. In any article in Soldier of Fortune, has there ever been a
statement that your reader -- or recommendation to a reader
that they commit an act of violence?
A. None that I'm aware of, sir. I have not read -- I don't
read all of every issue, and I've certainly not read every
issue of the magazine that's ever been published.
Q. Now, apparently Mr. Jones showed you some of Mr. McVeigh's
correspondence, did he not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he show you the correspondence from Mr. McVeigh that
James Pate - Cross
had language to the effect regarding the BATF of "Die, you
spineless bastards"?
A. Wasn't it "Die you cowardice bastards"?
Q. I'll accept that.
A. I don't believe that Mr. Jones showed that to me. It rang
a bell when I read about it in a news account because I
recall --
Q. My question is did he show it to you. That's all my
question was.
A. No, he did not. No, he did not.
Q. Have you ever printed anything like that in any of your
articles?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, you report to a variety of law enforcement topics; is
that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And one of the topics that you've apparently written about
and you've talked about with us this morning is the case of
Donald Scott.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that correct?
And you were shown a letter earlier regarding
Mr. McVeigh that talked about his problems with the Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms?
A. Talked about Mr. Scott's problems.
James Pate - Cross
Q. Do you recall that paragraph that talked about problems
with the BATF and referred to Mr. Scott?
A. I recall a reference to Mr. Scott. I don't recall that it
made any reference to ATF.
Q. Do you have that handy?
A. Yes, sir. What page?
Q. Why don't you read the paragraph that that was in.
A. Which page is that?
Q. I don't have the exhibit.
THE COURT: Well, are you speaking of the collection
of materials that is in --
THE WITNESS: I've got --
THE COURT: Just a moment. I'm asking a question --
THE WITNESS: Pardon me.
THE COURT: -- of counsel.
I'm looking for the affidavit, the one from
Mr. McVeigh.
MR. RYAN: I think that Mr. Jones showed the witness a
statement that had been written by Mr. McVeigh that refers to
Mr. Scott.
THE COURT: Is that WW51; part of that, Mr. Jones?
MR. RYAN: If I could just borrow from Mr. Jones the
exhibit he was using.
MR. JONES: It's this one here.
MR. RYAN: Thank you.
James Pate - Cross
THE COURT: Is that WW51?
MR. RYAN: This is what I was looking for, your Honor.
Thank you. Government's Exhibit 8.
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. Now, you see the paragraph that is the third paragraph
down?
A. On which page, sir?
Q. I'm only looking at a one-page document.
A. I'm looking at the wrong exhibit. Excuse me.
THE COURT: Government 8, Mr. Ryan?
MR. RYAN: Yes, your Honor.
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. Mr. Pate, it's on your screen.
A. I've got the document in front of me. I can read it better
than I can read the screen.
Q. And the paragraph about Donald Scott begins with the BATF
as being one of the fascist federal groups. Correct?
A. I see that paragraph.
Q. Now, the Donald Scott case: You wrote about that?
A. Right.
Q. And you're familiar with it?
A. My recollection, that case did not involve the ATF. I'm
not sure if that's your point.
Q. That's exactly my point. You didn't say in your article
that the Donald Scott case was any kind of an abuse by --
James Pate - Cross
A. The ATF.
Q. -- BATF, did you?
A. No, sir. My recollection is that the Donald Scott case
involved the Drug Enforcement Administration and local law
enforcement.
Q. In fact, the case involved a deputy sheriff in California,
didn't it?
A. I believe that's correct.
Q. The deputy sheriff, gave --
THE COURT: Just a moment.
MR. JONES: I don't have objection to this, but he's
going into the truth of what was written.
MR. RYAN: No, I'm not; talking about his article,
Mr. Jones.
THE COURT: All right. We are talking over each
other, here.
MR. RYAN: I apologize.
THE COURT: Slow down a little and let him answer.
MR. RYAN: All right.
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. Did you write an article about the Donald Scott case?
A. I wrote an article that one -- one segment of that article
dealt with the Donald Scott case, yes, sir.
Q. And that is Defense Exhibit WW31.
A. Okay.
James Pate - Cross
Q. And the person --
THE COURT: Now, let's let him get it.
Do you have it?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. Now, the initial antagonist of that story is Deputy Sheriff
Gary Spencer, isn't it?
A. I believe, yes, sir. That involved a local law enforcement
agency.
Q. He's not a member of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms, is he?
A. No, sir.
Q. He's not even a federal law enforcement officer at all?
A. No, sir.
Q. Who is he?
A. He was with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, I
believe. Is that correct?
Q. I don't know. You wrote the article.
A. I'd have to reread it. I believe that's correct.
Q. In any event, he was a local official.
A. Right.
Q. And who was the person that shot and killed Mr. Scott?
A. I believe it was Deputy Spencer, but I'd have to reread the
whole thing to recall for sure. If you want to take a minute.
James Pate - Cross
Q. You don't recall that?
A. I don't recall specifically -- wait, just a minute.
Spencer shot him three times. Yes, sir.
Q. A member of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
didn't shoot Mr. Scott?
A. No, sir.
Q. Wasn't even present?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you talked about the fact that this was involving some
kind of forfeiture. Is that what you think?
A. Asset forfeiture, yes, sir.
Q. Was there any kind of a forfeiture document in any way in
the case of Mr. Scott, any court pleading, any court document
of any kind that related to an asset forfeiture?
MR. JONES: If the Court please, we're going to the
truth of --
MR. RYAN: I'm talking about in his article.
MR. JONES: I object. I don't think they can have it
both ways.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. In your article, do you mention anything about any kind of
a federal case, a federal pleading, in any way related to an
asset forfeiture?
A. -- I don't believe so. There was asset forfeiture
James Pate - Cross
discussed at the pre-raid briefing. There was some paperwork
handed out talking specifically about property values. I don't
believe it was a federal forfeiture. I think that was a state
jurisdiction issue.
Q. And in fact, that matter was investigated by a grand jury,
wasn't it?
A. It was investigated by a district attorney.
Q. According to your article?
A. Michael Bradbury issued a report on that.
Q. And this is all in your article, isn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that's a state grand jury, isn't it?
A. I believe that's correct.
Q. Now, you've also written an article about Randy Weaver
that's also mentioned in Exhibit No. 8 there, haven't you?
A. Yes, sir, I've written --
Q. And that's your Exhibit No. 53.
A. Yes, sir. I've written several articles about Mr. Weaver.
Q. This is the one that's in evidence.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you state in your article that Mr. Weaver was a -- had
attended meetings of the White Aryan Nation; isn't that right?
A. Yes, sir, I believe he attended two.
Q. And he was a self-proclaimed racist, according to your
article?
James Pate - Cross
A. Yes, sir, he was. I interviewed him specifically about
that in jail in Boise.
Q. And you indicated in your article that he violated firearms
laws; is that right?
A. That was what he was charged of (sic). He was subsequently
acquitted.
Q. My question was you say in your article -- I know you want
to testify about the facts. I want --
MR. JONES: If the Court please, I object to this.
THE COURT: Wait a minute. Slow down, Mr. Ryan, and
do not comment on the testimony.
Now, next question.
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. Did you state in your article that he had sold an illegal
sawed-off shotgun?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. To law enforcement?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he was charged federally?
A. Yes, sir, two shotguns, I believe.
Q. He was ordered to come to court, according to your article?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. According to your article, Mr. Weaver refused to come to
court?
A. Yes, sir.
James Pate - Cross
Q. According to your article, Mr. Weaver referred to his house
as a compound?
A. That he referred to his house as a compound?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't recall that I wrote that he referred to it. If you
want to reference the specific passage . . .
Q. Did you refer to the fact in your article that he
maintained a 300-yard kill zone in front of his house?
A. I think he -- I think there was some reference in some of
the historical research that Mr. Weaver, when he was still
living in Idaho -- that he discussed a kill zone around his
house.
THE COURT: No, what the question is what you said
about it.
THE WITNESS: I -- you'll have to excuse me. I'm
having a hard time remembering what I wrote and what I
researched.
THE COURT: Yes, I understand that; but the limit of
the questioning here is about the content of these articles,
not, as I said --
THE WITNESS: Sir, I will assume that if Mr. Ryan is
asking me --
THE COURT: Well, you weren't -- just a moment. You
weren't here when I explained to the jury the limited purpose
of your testimony and these articles --
James Pate - Cross
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: -- which is what information or what was
observed by Mr. McVeigh.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And also the context of that.
We are not here trying the truth of these matters.
THE WITNESS: I understand that, sir.
THE COURT: And the truth of your articles is not on
trial, either.
So the limit of this cross-examination has to be the
material that's been testified to on direct and these articles
and what they say. That's all.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: So that's why I'm asking you to be careful
in your responses to deal with what's in the articles; and you
know --
THE WITNESS: I'm having trouble recalling.
I do recall the reference that he's questioning me
about. I can't remember off the top of my head without sitting
down and looking at the article whether specifically that
information is in here.
THE COURT: I think he's pointing to something now.
MR. RYAN: May we use the ELMO, please. This is WW53.
THE WITNESS: I see the reference; and yes, sir, it is
in there.
James Pate - Cross
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. You state in your article --
A. -- about building a remote -- did use the word "compound"
with a defense plan that included a 300-yard kill zone, yes,
sir.
Q. All in anticipation of a raid by the federal government?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Because the federal government had a warrant for his
arrest?
A. Well, he started talking about Mr. -- Mr. Weaver started
talking about a raid by the federal government a number of
years prior to his actually being accused of any criminal
activity.
Q. Preceding the tragic events at Mr. Weaver's home, he had
referred to anticipating the federal government coming to his
house?
A. Yes, sir, I believe he had.
Q. And you in your article refer to one of your sources as
having referred to him as "one crazy SOB."
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Weaver --
A. That was one of his neighbors in Iowa, I believe.
Q. You state in your article that he was obsessed with having
a shoot-out with federal law enforcement?
A. Yes, sir.
James Pate - Cross
Q. And you talk about the fact that there are accounts of what
happened there at Mr. Weaver's home -- or not his home, but on
the mountainside there in front of his home?
A. I'm sorry. Could you repeat that part, please.
Q. You refer in your article to various accounts of what
occurred.
A. There were certainly two versions of what transpired in the
initial shooting.
Q. One of them was that Marshal Degan went out to make an
arrest. Is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you state in your article that he did not want a
confrontation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That he tried, in fact, even to run away?
A. That Marshal Degan tried to run away?
Q. Yes, sir. Yes.
A. Yes, sir. All three marshals were trying to leave the area
when the confrontation occurred, I believe.
Q. But there was a confrontation anyway, wasn't there?
A. Yes, sir, there was.
Q. Marshal Degan identified himself?
A. That is one version, yes, sir.
Q. Yes. And every version agrees that Marshal Degan was shot?
A. Yes, sir.
James Pate - Cross
Q. According to your article?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And killed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you've also reported a great deal on the events at
Waco. Is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You've written numerous, numerous articles about that.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And many of them were introduced in evidence in this case?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You've reported the fact that Mr. Koresh's real name was
Vernon Howell?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That he was an entertainer?
A. That he was a rock and roll musician, yes, sir.
Q. He was a guitarist?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he changed his name to David Koresh?
A. Yes.
Q. You've reported the fact that Mr. Koresh believed that he
was God, or at least the son of God?
A. Yes, sir. Or one of God's very close friends, I think I
said.
Q. You reported that he was the leader at Mt. Carmel?
James Pate - Cross
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That the ranch at Mt. Carmel property was known as
Apocalypse Ranch?
A. Ranch Apocalypse. That was one name it was referred to by,
yes, sir.
Q. How many people lived there in 1993 approximately?
A. The numbers ranged between 100 to 120 or 130.
Q. And you've reported that Mr. Koresh had claim on any woman
in the compound, didn't you?
A. I think I reported that he had claim on some of the women
in the compound, but -- that's probably correct, yes, sir.
Q. And that it didn't matter whether they were married or
unmarried?
A. I think in their beliefs, they were -- their marriages were
no longer recognized.
Q. And that the age was not a matter of concern to Mr. Koresh.
That's a matter you've reported in these Soldier of Fortune
articles.
A. I've reported that the women became eligible for relations
with Mr. Koresh after they reached adolescence.
Q. 12 years old.
A. I don't recall a specific age, but in that range, 12, 14
years old, yes, sir.
Q. And you reported the fact that he had many children from
many wives?
James Pate - Cross
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that you even -- did you talk to Mark Breaux yourself?
A. Mark Breaux?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. No, sir. We tried to reach Mr. Breaux in Australia. We
were unsuccessful.
Q. You reported on the fact that there were illegal weapons
claimed to exist there at Mt. Carmel?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Assault weapons?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You reported on the fact that there were --
A. Sir, may I clarify something? When you say "assault
weapon," in my terminology an assault weapon refers to a
machine gun, a full automatic weapon. I think it's commonly
understood by the public that an assault weapon is any
semiautomatic military-style weapon, and I don't use that
terminology, so . . .
Q. All right. You have reported the fact that there were
semiautomatic weapons at Mt. Carmel?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you reported on the fact that there were allegations
that those semiautomatic weapons were being converted to
machine guns?
A. Yes, sir.
James Pate - Cross
Q. You've reported on the Treasury report?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the Treasury report is a matter that is well known to
members of the movement. Is that right?
A. Yes, sir. I think it was -- I talked to people at the
Government Printing Office. It was in heavy demand when it was
published.
Q. It's a public document?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Available to anyone?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Certainly anyone who was on a quest for the truth of what
occurred at Waco?
A. And who has got $20.
Q. They could buy that Treasury report and obtain it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you reported the findings of that Treasury report
yourself, didn't you?
A. I reported some of those findings, yes, sir.
Q. It was established in the Treasury report that a year prior
to the raid that 136 assault weapons had been purchased, hadn't
it? Wasn't that a matter you reported?
A. I believe so.
Q. And that there were purchases of conversion kits to convert
those assault weapons to machine guns?
James Pate - Cross
A. There were some parts kits purchased that were referred to
in the affidavit as "easy kits," which I think actually were
called E2 kits.
Q. You reported on the fact that grenades in -- inert grenades
were purchased?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That -- with manuals on how to convert them to live
grenades?
A. I definitely reported that grenade holds were purchased,
and that was a focal point of initiating the ATF's
investigation. I don't recall -- and I may be wrong. I just
don't recall that I wrote about any manuals on converting these
grenades to --
Q. Those are matters in the Treasury report -- right -- the
manuals?
A. I don't recall that specifically, no, sir.
Q. Okay. All right. You reported on the criminal trial
involving the Davidians?
A. Yes, sir. I was there.
Q. And you reported the fact that the judge in the court found
that machine guns were, in fact, in existence after the
April 19 -- after the compound burned?
A. That would -- I reported that those were the findings of
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms or the FBI lab.
I've forgotten which crime lab examined those weapons.
James Pate - Cross
Q. Did the patriot community -- were they aware in the
movement -- were they aware of the fact that there was a
criminal trial at Waco?
A. Oh, very much so, yes.
Q. Was the movement aware of the court's findings?
A. I believe so, yes, sir.
Q. And the verdicts?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the sentences?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So the movement, then, was aware of the fact that the court
found the machine guns were found there at Mt. Carmel?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that live grenades were found?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Soldier of Fortune and you personally have -- perhaps not
you personally -- you can correct me -- have reported on the
issue of whether -- of who fired the first shots at Waco on
February 28, 1993?
A. Yes, sir. I have personally reported about that, yes, sir.
Q. And this was a matter that the patriot community, the
movement, was aware was a matter at issue at the criminal
trial.
A. Yes, sir. Still debated.
Q. And the movement is aware that the court, after listening
James Pate - Cross
to all the evidence, determined that the Davidians had fired
the first shots?
A. Is the movement aware of that?
Q. Yes. I mean, you told us they were aware of the court's
orders and findings. Were they aware of that one?
A. I'm not certain. I am certain that if they're aware of it,
many people in the movement dispute that conclusion by the
court.
Q. Well, you were at the trial. Did I correctly state what
the court found?
A. I can't recall a conclusive finding by the jury that the
Davidians fired first.
I could tell you what I did report.
Q. No, that's not my question. I want to talk about this
issue of the first shot.
A. I'm not disputing you. I don't recall that.
Q. Do you recall the court, when he announced at about 9 a.m.
on that --
THE COURT: Well, just a moment. You're getting into
findings that are not in this material?
MR. RYAN: Your Honor, I was getting into what he told
us the movement was aware of, the findings of the court.
THE COURT: Well, we're not going to introduce the
findings of the court.
MR. RYAN: All right.
James Pate - Cross
THE WITNESS: May I clarify something, your Honor?
THE COURT: No.
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. Yesterday, you told us about the fires at Waco and who
started those fires. Do you recall that?
A. Yes, sir. I recall some direct questioning on two specific
infrared photographic images in reference to the fire. Yes,
sir.
Q. And in fact, through Mr. Jones, you talked about pictures
of tanks and showed us pictures of tanks in one of your
articles --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- that you say were starting the fire in the compound?
A. I don't recall that we said that the tanks started the
fire.
Q. What was the point of your testimony, then, with respect to
the pictures of the tanks?
A. I think one of the photo captions raised a question about a
heat plume in one of the photographs that possibly indicated
that a point of ignition was in the gymnasium rubble behind the
building. I don't recall that it specifically referred to a
tank starting -- being a source of that ignition.
Q. Did you attempt to leave us with the impression yesterday
that the tank started the fire?
A. Did I intend to leave you with that impression?
James Pate - Cross
Q. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
A. I intended to leave you with the impression that that is
the contention of some people.
Q. Now, you've reported on that very issue, haven't you?
A. The fire?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And this original allegation has also been reported in
Soldier of Fortune as coming from Linda Thompson?
A. She produced a video that alleged that one of the tanks had
a flamethrower on the front of it that ignited the fire at
Waco.
Q. What's the name of her video?
A. I think it was "Waco, The Big Lie," if I recall correctly.
Q. And that's what it is, isn't it? And you've reported that
it's just a big lie, haven't you?
A. I reported that her video was a big lie, in fact. May I
explain my answer?
Q. Just a moment. We'll get to it.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you've also -- the very article that you talked about
yesterday concerning this question of who started the fire, you
wrote very extensively about that in this Soldier of Fortune
article, did you not?
A. About her video?
James Pate - Cross
Q. Yeah -- no, about this issue of who started the fire and
those photographs.
A. Yes, sir. That and -- that and who fired first on the 28th
of February are probably the two most hotly debated aspect of
that entire case.
Q. Here's what you said, and I want you to tell me if I'm
correct in reading your statements. And this is in WW22, if
you want to follow along with me.
A. Okay. And what page would that be?
Q. Page 59.
A. Okay.
Q. The end of the first column: "We have investigated
Mrs. Thompson's claims and find them baseless."
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you say that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. "CEV1, the vehicle seen in the Thompson video, was not in
that location when the fire started."
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. "The report details a split-screen video analysis of the
incident. One portion taken from the conventional footage
contained in a VHS cassette Thompson is selling, and another
shot from a circling FBI aircraft equipped with a forward-
James Pate - Cross
looking infrared radar video camera. That analysis concluded
that the infrared tape shows a heat source, the exhaust at the
rear of CEV1, but no heat source at the front where Thompson's
video shows what appears to be flames."
A. That's correct.
Q. "The SOF," Soldier of Fortune "analysis --" excuse me --
"Two analyses of the Thompson video, one by Soldier of Fortune
and another by the California Organization for Public Safety,
indicate that the Department of Justice conclusion about
Thompson's video is correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The tanks didn't start the fire. That's what you said in
the article.
A. Yes, sir. That was -- we obtained that video, and we were
under a great deal of pressure from readers who had seen it to
report about it; and we delayed reporting about it until we
could ascertain its validity. And part of that process, we
shared that video with some people in the Army at Fort Belvoir
who looked at it, who were experts in tanks and flamethrowers
and other pertinent areas. And we delayed reporting on it
until we could ascertain its validity. And we ultimately -- I
ultimately tracked down the source from which Ms. Thompson
obtained that video, who told her when she obtained it that it
was not what it appeared to be; that it was actually reflected
sunlight on some debris stuck on the gas tube. It was part of
James Pate - Cross
our process to ascertain the facts.
Q. It was a visual trick?
A. That was, yes, sir.
Q. Yes. Because people who create videos can do that sort of
thing, can't they?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. They can create visual tricks to make people think they're
seeing one thing, when reality tells us they're not.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that's what you reported in this magazine.
A. Right.
Q. And a critical reader who read this article would
understand that you and Soldier of Fortune were saying that the
tanks did not start the fire in the compound. Is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you also reported on the Department of Justice study
that was conducted. Is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In fact, that's contained in your article, WW22.
A. The same article? Yes, sir.
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you talk about the findings of the Justice Department.
Is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
James Pate - Cross
Q. And the movement was aware of the findings of the Justice
Department, were they not?
A. Yes, sir, to a large degree, I believe they were.
Q. And yesterday, you told us about the fact that the
Department of Justice brought in 10 independent, unpaid
consultants to review the Department of Justice study?
A. Right.
Q. Do you remember telling us about that?
A. Yes, sir. I don't recall the specific number, but it was a
panel of people, including Dr. Alan Stone. I remember we
discussed him specifically.
Q. And you wrote about that in your article, WW23.
A. The Stone report? Yes, sir.
Q. And you talked in the very first paragraph of that
article -- you tell us about the 10 unpaid consultants?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That were reviewing the findings of that Department of
Justice study?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that -- you report in there that Department of Justice
study showed that there is no misconduct by the FBI in
connection with the events at Waco. That's what you report?
A. That's what the Department of Justice stated, and that's
what I reported that they stated.
Q. And you further reported that nine of the ten people who
James Pate - Cross
reviewed that study stated that they agreed: There was no
fault by the FBI.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And -- but one person, Dr. Stone, you told us about
yesterday and in your article, said -- did find some fault. Is
that correct?
A. Yes, sir. I thought he was quite critical.
Q. But -- but even Dr. Stone, as reported in your article,
stated, "I am quite convinced by the evidence provided that
Branch Davidian leader David Koresh told some of his inner
circle to set the" fire -- "the place on fire," Stone told
Soldier of Fortune.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. "There is some quite convincing evidence of this, but I'm
not at liberty to discuss it."
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That's what your readers heard?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So your readers who read WW23, a critical reader, an
intelligent reader, would come away following the reading of
this article understanding that all 10 independent, unpaid
consultants agreed with the finding that the Davidians
themselves started the fires at Mt. Carmel on April 19?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you've also reported -- Soldier of Fortune has
James Pate - Cross
reported extensively on the trial itself?
A. On the Waco trial?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It reported on the fact that seven of the surviving
Davidians were found guilty of criminal charges?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you reported on the fact that there were 14 defense
lawyers during that trial involving Waco; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that 125 or so witnesses were called?
A. I believe that's correct.
Q. And you reported on the fact that seven or eight of the
defendants received sentences ranging in the neighborhood of 30
years apiece?
A. I believe that's correct, yes, sir.
Q. And has Soldier of Fortune, WW32, reported that the
Davidians engaged in a conspiracy to cause the death of federal
law enforcement agents according to the findings of the federal
district judge presiding over that trial?
A. That they engaged in a conspiracy?
Q. Yes. That the court found that the adult Davidians engaged
in a conspiracy to cause the death of federal agents?
A. Well, Exhibit WW32 is not an article I wrote.
Q. It's a Soldier of Fortune article?
James Pate - Cross
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And does that article from Soldier of Fortune tell that to
its readers?
A. It may. I've not had the opportunity to review this
article since it was published. My recollection from being at
the trial is that --
THE COURT: No, you're not asked about the trial.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Okay.
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. Would you agree with me that the movement has generally
discounted or ignored the findings of the federal district
judge presiding over the Waco trial?
A. Yes, sir, I would.
MR. RYAN: That's all I have, your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Jones, do you have some redirect?
MR. JONES: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. JONES:
Q. Mr. Pate, your magazine, Soldier of Fortune, that you have
contributed articles for -- is it carried through the United
States mails?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is it sold at PBXs (sic) and magazine stands and so
forth on armed forces bases of the United States?
James Pate - Redirect
A. I believe so. I'm not personally in touch with the
circulation aspect of it; but yes, sir, I've seen it on
magazine racks on military installations. Yes, sir.
Q. And I think you indicated that you had an audience of
readers that were in the armed forces?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. As well as other people that had an interest in the
articles?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. From your experience with the readership of Soldier of
Fortune, as you've come to know them, are they all neurotic
Walter Mitties?
A. No, sir.
Q. Clearly some people that read the magazine's views may be
eccentric. Would that not be the case?
A. I guess that would depend on your definition of
"eccentric"; but yes, sir, I think that's --
Q. And I suppose even Walter Mitties subscribe to the New York
Times, don't they?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But in any event, it is true that a substantial portion of
your readership finds itself in the young adult male category?
A. Yes, sir. The Walter Mitties are an element. I don't
think that they're a sizable percentage, no, sir.
Q. But I guess the Walter Mitties under the First Amendment
James Pate - Redirect
are entitled to read, too, aren't they?
A. Sure.
Q. Yeah. And members of the armed forces of the United States
are entitled to exercise their independent judgment on what
they can read, aren't they?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And your magazine isn't the only one and you're not the
only author to have criticized in print the actions of the ATF
or the FBI, is it?
A. No, sir.
Q. In fact, such magazines as the Village Voice has been
critical of the FBI and ATF, hasn't it?
A. Yes, sir. The New York Times.
Q. And on the political spectrum, would you say that the
Village Voice was at the opposite end from Soldier of Fortune?
A. Yeah -- well, I'd say that they're on the other side of the
middle, yes, sir.
Q. And you mentioned The New York Times; and they've written
about Waco and Ruby Ridge, haven't they?
A. I thought The New York Times did some very admirable
reporting on Waco, yes, sir.
Q. And there have been television magazine programs pro and
con about Waco, haven't there?
A. Yes, sir. I've --
Q. In fact, you've appeared on some of them?
James Pate - Redirect
A. I've appeared in some, and I was assisted in the production
of some other network segments on Waco, yes, sir.
Q. And other magazines, radio talk shows and a whole
collection of literature has appeared arguing the pros and cons
of Ruby Ridge, Waco, and some of these other incidents.
A. Yes, sir. It's still debated like the Kennedy
assassination.
Q. Exactly. And to use a term, there is almost a "cafeteria"
of opinion written and published and in the media, electronic
media, available, isn't there?
A. Yes, sir. It's continuing. I'm aware of a show in
production right now, an entertainment, not a news segment,
that's going to feature Waco this fall.
Q. Now, with respect to your magazine, as Mr. Ryan has pointed
out and as you have testified here, you do not subscribe to or
support all of the criticism that has been made of the FBI or
the ATF on this or anything else, do you?
A. No, sir. I try to take them issue by issue.
Q. All right. So if you were trying to fan the flames of
this, then presumably your articles would be less than
objective. Correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, with respect to the book -- it's not Dream Warriors;
it's Warriors' Dreams, isn't it?
A. I believe it's Dream Warriors. I've not read the book.
James Pate - Redirect
I'm familiar with the title.
Q. Do you know what the book is about?
A. No. I can't -- I have a vague recollection. Someone asked
me recently had I read that book, not in the context of this
trial, but someone recommended it to me.
Q. All right. Well, then you were asked about the
relationship between Soldier of Fortune and the Paladin Press.
Is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Soldier of Fortune is a publication licensed to do
business here in the state of Colorado?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the last you checked, it was still doing business?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Hasn't been raided or shut down for violating any
laws?
A. Well, I had dinner with the publisher last night. As of
last night, no, sir.
Q. And the Paladin Press, as far as you know, is still open
and doing business?
A. I believe so.
Q. And it's also in Colorado, is it not?
A. Yes, sir. It's also in Boulder, on North Broadway.
Q. Now, with respect to the Anarchist's Cookbook --
incidentally, who originally started the Anarchist's Cookbook?
James Pate - Redirect
A. I believe --
Q. What group of people?
A. I don't recall. I believe that the author's name -- and I
believe that name to be a pseudonym -- is Kurt Saxon, but I'm
not even sure about that. I have a copy of it in my office,
but -- I don't recall who -- maybe Kurt Saxon did Poor Man's
James Bond. It was not originated by Paladin Press, if that's
your question.
Q. It's a commercially available book, isn't it?
A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Q. You can buy it at any large bookstore?
A. Just about any gun show I've ever been to, book stores,
yes, sir. It's a popular title. It's been in print for many
years.
Q. Do you know whether you can buy it out at Tattered Cover?
A. No, sir, I don't know that personally. I do a lot of
business with Tattered Cover. I would guess that they could
obtain it, because they've never failed me in trying to get
titles.
Q. Now, with respect to some of your sources that you cite,
some of them are not named; is that correct?
A. Frequently.
Q. Is there anything unusual about that with Soldier of
Fortune, or is that a convention recognized throughout the
publishing area?
James Pate - Redirect
A. Well, it's a convention recognized throughout the
publishing industry. I know it's harder to -- it's a hard
thing to sell editors on. You like to name your sources.
Frequently, because we have people volunteer
information who are federal law enforcement agents or who are
members of the active-duty military, who are on occasion, for
instance, providing documents, it's -- their jobs and careers
would be in jeopardy if they were publicly identified. That's
one of the unfortunate aspects of covering the military, is
that frequently you have to use anonymous sources.
Q. Who is the most famous anonymous source in this country?
A. I would say Deep Throat.
Q. And who is Deep Throat?
A. Deep Throat was an anonymous source used by Bob Woodward
and Carl Bernstein in their coverage of the Watergate scandal
for The Washington Post.
Q. A best seller, wasn't it?
A. I believe so, yes, sir. All the President's Men.
Q. Made into a movie. In fact, Hal Holbrook plays Deep
Throat, doesn't he?
A. I don't recall that.
Q. Woodward and Bernstein worked for The Washington Post?
A. Mr. Woodward still works for The Washington Post.
Q. Now, with respect to anonymous sources, they are protected
even by law such as the Whistle Blower Act and the Shield Law,
James Pate - Redirect
are they not?
MR. RYAN: Your Honor, I'm going to object to the
leading questions.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. JONES:
Q. With respect to -- you were asked about Janet Reno and her
gun-grabbing goons --
A. I believe that was in reference to an advertisement, yes,
sir.
Q. Not something that you wrote?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. You were also asked about information in the
movement. And you indicated that you were familiar with
certain things that the movement was aware of?
A. Yes, sir. In general terms, yes, sir.
Q. And you indicated the movement was aware of some of the
incidents that had occurred at Ruby Ridge?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was the movement aware of what happened at the criminal
trial of Randy Weaver?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did happen at the criminal trial of Randy Weaver?
MR. RYAN: Your Honor, I object. This is what I was
prevented from doing. I object.
THE COURT: I think you have to put it in terms of
James Pate - Redirect
what was reported.
BY MR. JONES:
Q. What was reported that happened at the criminal trial of
Randy Weaver on the charge of murder? The verdict is what I'm
asking.
A. Yeah. Mr. Weaver and Mr. Harris were found not guilty by
reason of self-defense.
Q. Now, you have been specifically referred to in your direct
examination -- or cross-examination by Mr. Ryan to certain
articles that you wrote. And I want to ask you if you would
turn to the one at WW23.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do you have that one in front of you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you were asked to verify the accuracy of a quotation,
which I believe is the next-to-last paragraph on the front page
of the article, which would be page 62. Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir. That is the direct quote. I interviewed
Dr. Stone on the telephone.
Q. But the last paragraph there about Dr. Stone: What did you
write there?
A. Part of that paragraph in my copy is covered up by the
exhibit sticker here, so I can't read you the entire sentence.
MR. JONES: If I may hand this to the witness.
THE COURT: Yes.
James Pate - Redirect
THE WITNESS: You want me to read this, sir?
BY MR. JONES:
Q. Yes.
A. "His report," referring to Stone's report -- his report
concludes that "Koresh's suicide decision was prompted at least
in part by rash, flawed decisions of the FBI."
Q. Now, I don't want to have you read from an eight- or
nine-page article here.
A. Thank you.
Q. Just summarize for me: What did you say Dr. Stone said?
A. That he dissented generally with the findings of the
Justice Department report and that he was disturbed by the fact
that when he sat down with the FBI to talk to them that they
were not forthcoming with information and that they were -- had
a circle-the-wagons approach to his inquiry.
Q. This was where the Department of Justice was investigating
the Department of Justice?
A. Yes, sir. They were investigating themselves.
Q. Now, you were also asked about -- I'll get to the
exhibit -- WW27 and WW28.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, did you report that the Branch Davidians were found
not guilty of murder of the ATF agents and convicted only of
the lesser charge of manslaughter?
A. Yes, sir.
James Pate - Redirect
Q. All of them were acquitted of murder, were they not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And this comment that you wrote about and Mr. Ryan was
questioning you about some finding of Judge Smith: Go ahead
and tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you wrote
about that. What did happen there, as you wrote it.
A. About Judge Smith's --
Q. Yes, sir. And the sentences.
A. Are you asking about the predicate count, the conspiracy
count, and the judge's reversal of his decision?
Q. Yes, sir, which you wrote about in these -- well, actually
in the second article about the Waco trial.
A. Did you want me to read that --
Q. No, if you need to refresh your memory by looking at what
you wrote, that's fine; but it's not necessary to read it.
Just summarize it after you refresh your memory.
A. I reported that when Judge Smith initially imposed
sentence, there was a conspiracy count in which the jury found
all the defendants not guilty.
There was a subsequent related count of carrying
firearms in the commission of that alleged conspiracy, and
there was a misunderstanding by the jury that they were not to
find guilt on that subsequent count if the predicate count was
not guilty.
And the day the jury came back, as I reported, Judge
James Pate - Redirect
Walter Smith threw out the subsequent count, which I believe
was Count 3.
Q. What do you mean "threw out"?
A. He dismissed it. He said it wasn't logical that they could
be found guilty and carrying firearms in the commission of a
conspiracy that the jury ruled that they did not commit.
I believe that was on a Friday or a Saturday.
On Monday, when court already adjourned, the jury had
been released, the press for the most part had dispersed, Judge
Smith reversed himself and found guilt on the subsequent count
despite the not guilty finding on the predicate count and
imposed a more lengthy sentence, an enhancement, if you will,
because of the firearms aspect of that charge.
Q. And did you report what the jury foreman said?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. What did the jury foreman say after Judge Smith did this?
A. She said, as I reported, that she thought that they were
not clearly instructed on the subsequent count and had they
known -- had they understood that they would have -- they would
have reached a finding of not guilty on the subsequent count.
Q. All right. Now, in fairness to Judge Smith -- and he's not
on trial here --
A. No, sir, he's not.
Q. His view of the law was later upheld by the appellate
court, wasn't it?
James Pate - Redirect
A. I believe it was, yes, sir.
Q. But in talking about how this was perceived in the
movement, how were the actions of Judge Smith after the --
A. May I clarify that last answer, sir?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I believe that case was remanded to district court for
resentencing. If it was upheld, I misunderstood it, then.
Q. Well, in any event, Judge Smith is not on trial. What I
want to get to is what was the movement's reaction to the
information concerning what had happened after the Branch
Davidians were convicted -- were acquitted of murder and found
guilty of voluntary manslaughter?
A. They basically thought that it was a dirty deal; that it
was vengeance on the part of the judge after the jury and the
press had been dismissed.
Q. Now, in your -- you mentioned an article here; and let
me -- give me just a moment.
Got it. Turn to page -- Exhibit WW27.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, this is an article that you wrote. Is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I want to show you the second page of the article,
which has already been admitted into evidence, and ask you to
zoom in on the box.
A. Yes, sir.
James Pate - Redirect
MR. RYAN: Excuse me, your Honor. Could I ask for an
exhibit number?
MR. JONES: I'm sorry. It's '27. WW27.
MR. RYAN: Thank you.
BY MR. JONES:
Q. The box there, you wrote, "In a stunning defeat for the
Justice Department, jurors in the Waco case acquitted all 11
Branch Davidian defendants of murder and conspiracy charges,
which carry a mandatory life sent without parole. The charges
were the linchpin of the government's shaky case. Four
defendants -- Norman Allison, Ruth Riddle, Woodrow Kendrick and
Clive Doyle -- were acquitted of all charges. At press time,
prosecutors had filed a motion to reinstate charges against
Riddle, effectively blocking her return to Canada.
"Five Branch Davidians -- Livingston Fagan, Brad
Branch, Jaime Castillo, Kevin Whitecliff and Renos Avraam --
were found guilty of aiding and abetting voluntary
manslaughter. To reach that verdict, jurors had to find that
the five were provoked by federal agents and reacted in the
heat of passion. Paul Fatta was found guilty of two federal
firearms charges related to the illegal conversion of machine
guns. Finally, Graeme Craddock was found guilty of possessing
a hand grenade."
That is what you wrote?
A. Yes, sir. That box was inserted. We had to replate --
James Pate - Redirect
actually, this issue was at the printing plant when the verdict
came in, and they replated that page so we could insert a box
with the verdict.
Q. Now, a question was asked of you by Mr. Ryan as to whether
you identified Mr. Randy Weaver in one of your articles as a
racist. And you did, didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Or at least you reported that's what people reported about
him?
A. Yes, I had interviewed Mr. Weaver in jail because he had
been identified as a white supremacist and a racist --
THE COURT: Mr. Pate, you're being asked what you
wrote.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
BY MR. JONES:
Q. You reported that, didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you also reported the allegations that had been made
about David Koresh and what many people had called illegal and
immoral conduct, didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does that make them any less entitled to due process of
law?
A. No, sir.
MR. JONES: Nothing further.
THE COURT: Mr. Ryan, do you have anything additional?
MR. RYAN: One question, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may ask it from there.
MR. RYAN: Thank you.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. RYAN:
Q. Randy Weaver, the Branch Davidians, were all afforded due
process of law, were they not?
A. I believe they were, sir, yes, sir.
MR. RYAN: That's all, your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Yes.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. JONES:
Q. Were Sammy Weaver and Vicki Weaver afforded due process of
law?
A. No, sir. They were shot dead.
THE COURT: Is the witness excused?
MR. JONES: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Agreed?
MR. RYAN: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Pate, you may step down. You're now
excused.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: Next witness?
MR. NIGH: John Wordsman.
THE COURT: All right.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Would you raise your right
hand, please.
(John Wordsman affirmed.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Would you have a seat, please.
Would you state your full name for the record and
spell your last name.
THE WITNESS: John Daniel Wordsman, W-O-R-D-S-M-A-N.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Nigh.
MR. NIGH: Thank you, your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. NIGH:
Q. Good morning, Mr. Wordsman.
A. Good morning, sir.
Q. What city do you currently live in?
A. Twin Falls, Idaho.
Q. How long have you lived up there in Twin Falls?
A. Approximately three years.
Q. What is your current job there?
A. I run the maintenance department for Heritage and Woodstone
Assisted Living Centers.
Q. What does that involve? What kind of work is that?
A. It's a general maintenance position. I fix everything from
sinks to toilets to wiring, whatever may be broken. I'm
John Wordsman - Direct
responsible for approximately 6 acres of yard work, flowers,
grass.
Q. All right. I understand.
Before you moved to Idaho, did you live for a time in
Kingman, Arizona?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. And did you work for a company called State Security?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Before we get to your employment at State Security, where
did you grow up? What area of the country?
A. I grew up in Los Angeles, California.
Q. Went to high school there?
A. Yes, sir. I went to Los Angeles Lutheran High School in
Burbank, California.
Q. After you graduated from high school, did you go into the
Navy?
A. Yes, sir. I turned 18 shortly after I graduated, and a
month after my 18th birthday I was enlisted in the United
States Navy.
Q. How long were you in the Navy?
A. 4 years and 3 months and about 8 days.
Q. During your service with the Navy, were you ever stationed
on ship?
A. Yes, sir. I was stationed on board the U.S.S. Oldendorf,
home-ported out of Yokosuka, Japan.
John Wordsman - Direct
Q. During your service in the Navy, did you have any
experience with weapons systems?
A. Yes, sir. I was detailed as a fire control technician. My
specific job duties were for the NATO Sea Sparrow Surface
Missile System is, which is a defensive system for
anti-aircraft and anti-Cruise Missiles.
Q. Did you have any security functions in reference to weapons
systems?
A. Yes, sir. I was part of the PRP program, which is
Professional Reliability. I did special weapons security on
board the U.S.S. Oldendorf.
Q. Now, my understanding, Mr. Wordsman, is that you received
an injury and medical discharge from the Navy eventually. Is
that right?
A. That is correct.
Q. After your service in the Navy, you moved to Kingman,
Arizona, at some point?
A. Yes, sir. It took a little while, kind of finding myself,
as it were, after getting out of the service; but yes, I ended
up in Kingman.
Q. When did you start working for State Security?
A. That was about August of '90.
Q. August of 1990?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was your job with State Security?
John Wordsman - Direct
A. I was initially hired as a standing uniformed guard at
Union Carbide chemical gas plant outside of Kingman.
Q. Were you an armed guard or a --
A. It was an armed position.
Q. Did you eventually get a promotion in the company?
A. Yes, sir. Three months after my initial employment, I was
promoted to corporal; a year after that, I was promoted to
sergeant; nine months after that, I was promoted to lieutenant;
and a year after that, I was promoted to captain.
Q. Let me direct your attention, if I may, to 1993. Were you
still working at State Security then?
A. Yes, sir, I was.
Q. Were you in a supervisory capacity?
A. Yes, sir. I was a lieutenant at the time. My job title
was Kingman area representative.
Q. During that period of time, did you become familiar with
Tim McVeigh?
A. Yes, sir. He was one of the -- considered a part-time
employee, and I was a supervisor for the part-time employees
with the company at that time.
Q. He was hired by State Security when you were there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was he hired to do?
A. He was hired in a part-time fill-in-type job for various
jobs, whatever we needed him for. Sometimes armed positions,
John Wordsman - Direct
most of the time not. We had very few armed positions at that
time.
Q. What was his primary function or where did he usually get
assigned during that period of time?
A. He worked a lot at Prax Air, which is a subsidiary of Union
Carbide. They took over the operations of Union Carbide.
Q. Was that an armed position, or an unarmed position?
A. That was an unarmed position.
Q. Were there armed positions that he fulfilled as well?
A. Yes. He worked at the Iminex Trucking terminal after it
had shut down and they were selling the property, and that was
an armed post.
Q. When did Mr. McVeigh begin approximately for State Security
and when did he quit working that job?
A. I believe it was in April of '93, and he worked about three
or four months.
Q. During that three or four months, did you come to know
Mr. McVeigh?
A. A little bit.
Q. Did you have some conversations with him?
A. Most of my conversations with Mr. McVeigh were on the
phone, calling him to work, to see if he could work at a
specific function, fill in. There were several times he'd come
into the office, and we would talk at those times.
Q. Well, let's talk first about the phone conversations. On
John Wordsman - Direct
those occasions when you called him and asked him whether he
could fill in for a shift, I assume that was the nature of the
call. Is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How often or what percentage of the time would he be able
to fulfill the request?
A. Tim was very good about that. He would let us know ahead
of time when he was not going to be available to, due one of
his shows. 90 percent of the time -- 95 percent of the time
would probably be a better average -- if I called him, he was
there.
Q. All right. You said if he was going to be unavailable
because of a show. What kind of show are you talking about?
A. He sold surplus stuff and basically at shows, gun shows
around the area, in Vegas, in Kingman a few times, I'm sure.
Q. Was he living in Kingman at the time?
A. Yes, sir, he was.
Q. Now, at the conversations that you had with him in person:
Would that be occasions when he would come by the office and
visit with you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What kind of things did you talk with Mr. McVeigh about?
A. We talked common-bond-type things. He had been in the
Army, I had been in the Navy, common experiences with the way
the military works. He had done this in the Army, I had done
John Wordsman - Direct
that in the Navy. Places we had been.
Q. Did you talk about weapons systems?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you also have a conversation on one occasion concerning
explosives?
A. Yes, sir, we did.
Q. Was that something that he brought up, or something that
you brought up?
A. To be honest with you, I do not recall exactly how the
conversation started; but we were talking about how things can
be blown up and how sometimes how easy it is; and one of the
comments I made -- and I made that on that occasion and I have
made it several times since -- is household cleaners combined
in the proper proportions can level the house.
Q. Is that something you said or something that Mr. McVeigh
said?
A. It's something I said.
Q. Did you have any magazines or catalogues around State
Security office concerning guns or books about explosives?
A. Yes, sir. All the time. We got those mailings because we
were a security agency. I think some of these companies felt
that we needed to have that information.
Q. And it would lay around sometimes; is that right?
A. Yes. I had U.S. Calvary, Quarter Master, Security Stop,
Paladin Press magazine for ordering books all the time.
John Wordsman - Direct
Q. Do you know if Mr. McVeigh read any of those or borrowed
any of those from you?
A. It's entirely possible. People did all the time.
Q. Did you also talk to Mr. McVeigh about the Second
Amendment?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. What was the nature of those conversations?
A. I think Tim and I agreed very strongly about our Second
Amendment rights to own firearms of our choosing for any reason
that we so desired.
Q. Did you discuss the Constitution?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What about the Second Amendment to the Constitution did you
discuss with Mr. McVeigh?
A. Well, a lot of people tend to take one piece out of context
from another. It was originally written -- and I believe
this -- to protect the people from intrusions, foreign and
domestic, so that they could take care of their own selves.
Q. When you say "foreign and domestic," what did you mean by
that?
A. From other countries trying to invade, other people coming
into this country. Eventually if the government got out of
hand, if that's what needed to be done, and the people said
enough was enough, then that was what it was also for.
Q. Did you have anything that you would say about what gun
John Wordsman - Direct
control meant to you?
A. Yes, sir. It sounds a little bit smart-alecky, but I
firmly believe that gun control is the ability to hit your
target.
Q. Did you have any discussions about King James with
Mr. McVeigh?
A. Not that I really recall; but King James was at the time of
our wonderful revolution causing a lot of problems for our
country, and he didn't need to be around.
Q. Did you discuss that on occasion in reference to the Second
Amendment, or the right to keep and bear arms?
A. That could have come up. It has been a long time, but the
Second Amendment was basically everybody has a right to own a
gun for whatever reason they so desire.
Q. During the course of time that Mr. McVeigh worked there at
State Security, what kind of employee was he?
A. He was above average.
Q. Was he prompt?
A. He was prompt. He was dressed appropriately. He was
courteous, and he did his job well.
MR. NIGH: I think that's all I have, your Honor.
THE COURT: Cross-examination?
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. GOELMAN:
Q. Good morning.
John Wordsman - Cross
A. Good morning.
Q. You testified on direct examination that you and
Mr. McVeigh agreed strongly about some aspects of the Second
Amendment?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Some aspects of gun control?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You also had significant areas of disagreement with
Mr. McVeigh; isn't that right?
A. There were some areas that we disagreed, yes.
Q. For instance, you didn't have any objection to laws that
require a background check to be conducted before someone can
purchase a firearm; isn't that right?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And you're also in favor of legislation that requires a
waiting period in order to purchase firearms?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And you don't have any objection to registration of
firearms?
A. To some degree.
Q. You don't want the government to ban weapons. That's your
major concern?
THE COURT: You have to get to the conversations, not
to what he thinks today.
BY MR. GOELMAN:
John Wordsman - Cross
Q. Did you have conversations with Mr. McVeigh about the
government banning certain types of weapons?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you agree with him that the government should not
be in the business of banning weapons?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you and Mr. McVeigh worked at the same company for
about three or four months; is that right?
A. That is correct.
Q. And Mr. McVeigh was a part-time employee during that period
of time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever work at a site with Mr. McVeigh?
A. No.
Q. So you basically had contact with him when he would come
into the office?
A. That was the majority of the contact. There was a few
times during my job function as a site supervisor to go out and
check on sites that I would run into him while he was on post.
Q. And you never interacted with Mr. McVeigh socially after
work or anything like that?
A. No.
Q. Never talked to him on the phone for social reasons?
A. No.
Q. Never saw the defendant after he stopped working at State
John Wordsman - Cross
Security in 1993?
A. No.
Q. Never spoke to him again?
A. Uh-uh.
Q. You never even knew that he had moved back, lived in
Kingman for some parts of 1994 and 1995, did you?
A. No. I was not aware of that.
Q. So your entire testimony revolves around the very limited
contact that you had with the defendant over a three- to
four-month period four years ago?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. GOELMAN: Nothing further, your Honor.
THE COURT: Redirect?
MR. NIGH: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: The witness is excused, then, I assume.
MR. NIGH: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may step down, Mr. Wordsman. You're
excused.
We'll take the noon recess at this time, since it is
noon.
And, members of the jury, we'll recess, as usual, till
1:30. And again, of course, please follow the cautions always
given and remembering that more will be heard by you; and
accordingly, please keep open minds and avoid conversation
about it with -- about the case and the issues to be decided
with all other persons.
Avoid anything outside the evidence. You can tell
here in what happened here this morning and also in connection
with yesterday afternoon that the rules of evidence that I
explained to you and talked about when we were in trial --
there are different rules in this type of hearing. That's why
instead of strictly referring to evidence now, you hear us
refer to "information"; and I will be talking about that more
in the instructions. But I didn't want you to get confused
about thinking back to some of the rulings at trial, for
example, where things were excluded. Now you see that there
are somewhat different approaches being taken, different
criteria applied by me with respect to what you can hear and
consider in this phase.
So I just want to make that clear to you. I'm sure it
probably was already clear to you; but this type of hearing has
different standards for the admissibility of information; so
that's why you may be surprised sometimes with some of the
things that came in and some of the rulings that I made here,
as compared with what I did during the trial.
All right. You're excused now till 1:30.
(Jury out at 12:01 p.m.)
THE COURT: We'll recess till 1:30.
(Recess at 12:02 p.m.)
* * * * *
INDEX
Item Page
WITNESSES
James Pate
Cross-examination Continued by Mr. Jones 12787
Cross-examination by Mr. Ryan
Redirect Examination by Mr. Jones
Recross-examination by Mr. Ryan
Redirect Examination by Mr. Jones
John Wordsman
Direct Examination by Mr. Nigh
Cross-examination by Mr. Goelman
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit Offered Received Refused Reserved Withdrawn
WW29 12788 12788
WW30 12789 12789
WW31 12790 12791
WW33 12791 12792
WW37 12793 12793
WW38 12826 12826
WW51 12819 12819
WW53 12812 12812
WW7 12826 12826
* * * * *
REPORTERS' CERTIFICATE
We certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from
the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter. Dated
at Denver, Colorado, this 10th day of June, 1997.
_______________________________
Paul Zuckerman
_______________________________
Kara Spitler