Research on Criminal Government

Return to
The Evidence for

Two-page FBI letter to Newt Gingrich

Page 1 of 2
U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, DC 20535
April 21, 1994
Honorable Newt Gingrich
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Gingrich:
I am writing in further response to your March 3rd inquiry on behalf of Mr. George Zimmerlee. Mr. Zimmerlee posed a number of question about the actions of the federal government during the standoff at Waco, Texas.
During the law enforcement operation at Waco against the Branch Davidians, the FBI assumed responsibility for bringing this dangerous barricade situation to a resolution. This included setting in place a physical and electronic perimeter around the crisis site to prevent further escalation of the incident.
It is essential during an operation of this type to control communications into and out of the crisis site. The Branch Davidians had the means to send and receive communications, and the FBI took steps to deny those communications except to the on-scene FBI negotiators. I want to emphasize that such actions were taken in an attempt to avoid further loss of life and to try to bring the crisis to an early resolution.
All electronic operations were conducted in accordance with U.S. law and international agreements. The on-site electronic operations received close scrutiny and were approved by an Assistant United States Attorney at the Waco Command Post. All required statutory and administrative authorizations were received from competent authority, including the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which is the Executive Branch agency responsible for advising the President on telecommunications and information policies and carrying out related functions in accordance with Executive Order 12046. 

End of page 1 of 2 pages

Two-page FBI letter to Newt Gingrich

Page 2 of 2
Furthermore, article 133 of the International Telecommunications Convention states: "Members also reserve the right to cut off any other private telecommunications which may appear dangerous to the security of the state or contrary to its laws, to public order or to decency."
The Federal Communications Commission was also on the scene at the invitation of the FBI and acted in its capacity to ensure operations were in accordance with U.S. laws and regulations.
In summary, the electronic operations at Waco were conducted in accordance with all U.S. laws and international agreements.
We hope this will clarify the questions raised by Mr. Zimmerlee.
Sincerely yours,
John H. Kaul
Legislative Counsel
Office of Public and
Congressional Affairs

End of page 2 of 2 pages
This document has great value as a case study for medical students studying psychiatric disorders, and law students studying corruption in the Justice Department, to learn just how dangerous people in government really are. Government techniques of lies, distortion, misrepresentation, euphemism, and misapplication of statute are addressed by paragraph.
Para. 1. Mr. Kaul does not address the questions raised about jamming radio and television broadcasters in the Waco area, he does not even mention it, yet Congressman Gingrich does not care that Kaul answers no questions.
Para. 2. The euphemism used here is "electronic perimeter" in place of deliberate radio interference, which is a crime under 47 USC 305, and 47 USC 333.

Two-page FBI letter to Newt Gingrich
Para. 3. Controlling communications is essential only in a tactical military situation. Therefore, Kaul reveals tactical battlefield military operations, not law enforcement. Kaul refers to a means of sending and receiving communications and admits to jamming or "deny communications" to the amateur radio station at Mount Carmel Center. FBI's jamming kept its unwillingness to negotiate in good faith a secret. The finding and recommendation of the subcommittees in the 1995 House Waco Hearings is that FBI's absolute control over negotiations was wrong. There was, therefore, no need to control communications.
Para. 4. Euphemism "electronic operations" used in place of deliberate radio interference. Violations were rampant. FBI had no warrant to tap telephones, or to divert telephone lines, or to intercept cellular communications (a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act), or to violated the Communications Act by using deliberate jamming. Neither the U.S. Attorneys, nor the NTIA have given any support to FBI's claim of authorization from these agencies. Indeed all documents have been classified to avoid criminal prosecution.
Para. 5. Article 133 does not nullify other parts of the ITU rules (International Radio Law), especially Article 44 which outlaws jamming. The conditions of Article 133 were not met. The amateur radio station was no danger to security and the operators broke no law and complied with FCC rules. Radio jamming cannot be supported by law in peacetime, and violates the Constitution's protection of free speech. Only government stations violated ITU rules.


Return to
The Evidence for


Para. 6. This deception is easily exposed. When FCC supplied the jamming equipment (as reported in Dallas Morning News) it became a co-conspirator with other agencies to violate the very Act for which it was created to execute and enforce.
Para. 7. Euphemism, "electronic operations" used in place of deliberate radio interference. FBI-FCC operations violated 47 USC 305, 47 USC 326, 47 USC 333, Articles 44 of the ITU rules, and Article 19 of (United Nations) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Classification of documents to hide evidence and avoid criminal prosecution is a crime also.
Para. 8. Kaul hopes only to confuse and mislead. Clarification would require Kaul to answer the question on deliberate jamming of radio and television broadcasters.


George Zimmerlee  1998  Research on Criminal Government  Rev. 11/98
This material is not protected by copyright.