[Back]

[Index]

[Next]

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OF PETITIONER-DEFENDANT, TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT MARCH 25, 1997

I. INTRODUCTION.

The Government of the United States is hiding from the defense and the trial
court evidence and information that the government had a prior warning that
the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (and possibly federal
property in Tulsa) was very likely a target of a terrorist attack on or
about April 19, 1995. This information came to the government from a variety
of sources, including Carol Howe, a paid ATF informant for about 6 months,
who infiltrated Elohim City and the Christian Identity Movement and who
provided specific information prior to April 19, 1995, that an illegal
German national, the grandson of one of the founders of the German Nazi
Party, proposed to bomb federal buildings and installations and engage in
mass murder. Information also came to the government through foreign
intelligence services in the Middle East and from the government's own
assets that an attack was being planned on the "heartland" of America.

The government responded to part of these warnings by conducting a
superficial security examination of the federal building complex in Oklahoma
City on the early morning hours of April 19, 1995.[1] 

---------------------------------------

FOOTNOTES:
[1] Several witnesses interviewed by ABC News 20/20, including an attorney
and a private process server, among others, claim to have seen law
enforcement using sniffer dogs, as well as a "bomb disposal" or "bomb squad"
unit truck near the Murrah Building in the early morning hours of April 19,
1995, shortly before the bombing. See attached Exhibit "D" (transcript of
ABC News 20/20 broadcast, January 17, 1997). Oklahoma County Sheriff J.D.
Sharp denied the presence of the Oklahoma County bomb squad truck, telling
local media on the record that the county bomb truck was ten miles away from
downtown and nowhere near the country courthouse. See attached Exhibit "E."
However, the County Sheriff's office later stated that the bomb squad unit
was in fact in downtown Oklahoma City the morning of the bombing for a
routine training exercise. See attached Exhibit "H." This information was
confirmed to the defense through discovery. See exhibits "J" and "K" The
presence of the bomb squad truck was commented on by several other persons
and mentioned in a business newsletter of one downtown Oklahoma City
business. See attached Exhibit "F';; see also Exhibit "G" (news account of
witness in Oklahoma City who recalled that, "The day was fine, everything
was normal when I arrived at 7:45 to begin my day at 8:00 a.m., but as I
walked through my building's parking lot, I remember seeing a bomb squad.") 
---------------------------------------

But rather than admit that it acted, no matter how superficially or limited
on this information, the government has chosen to deny, and maybe even
withholding from the chief prosecutor, evidence of this prior warning from
an informant it deemed reliable because she regularly passed polygraph
tests. The defense has repeatedly sought by letter, motion, argument in
chambers and in open court, detailed information which it knows the
government has.

The district court has repeatedly advised the government, both in published
opinions and in judicial statements, of the government's duty. The
government has claimed it understood its duty. We submit the government has
affirmatively misled the district court repeatedly on this subject, through
prosecutors who may or may not know the truth. The government, in short, is
stonewalling. The Defendant has made a sufficient showing below for a
judicial order compelling the FBI, the Department of Justice, ATF,
Department of State, the National Security Agency, and the Central
Intelligence Agency to produce information to support the Defendant's claims
which are a material part of his defense.

Timothy McVeigh's defense is that (1) he did not rent the Ryder truck (2) he
did not assemble a bomb at Geary Lake State Park (3) he did not drive the
Ryder truck to Oklahoma City, and (4) he did not detonate the bomb. There is
a lack of credible government evidence to convince any fair-minded jury
beyond a reasonable doubt that he did in fact do these things, and there is
credible testimony and evidence known to the government and the defense
which impeaches each of the government's claims down to and including who
rented the truck the number of conspirators, where the bomb was assembled,
and who left the truck after parking it in front of the Murrah Building. The
information which will help to establish Mr. McVeigh's innocence in front of
the jury, particularly in light of the recent bizarre disclosures by two
thieves[2] masquerading as journalists, is uniquely in the hands of the
government. 

---------------------------------------

FOOTNOTES:
[2]  In late January, one stole computer information by personally
downloading from a defense lap top computer material he was not authorized
to receive. The other secured the information by personal, unethical and
immoral means plus theft, and then proceeded to embellish the stolen
document with language found no place in the document which he
mischaracterized (because it bore a computer generated logo "Attorney Work
Product, Privileged and Confidential, Attorney/Client Communication") as
coming from the Defendant. A Motion to Dismiss the Indictment and Abate the
Proceedings Through a Change of Venue or Continuance was denied by the
Respondent Trial Court on Monday, March 17, 1997. See D.E. 3429.
---------------------------------------

However, with the resources allowed it by the district court pursuant to the
Crimes and Offenses Act of 1790 as modified by the Criminal Justice Act of
1963, the Defendant has made a substantial investigation and has produced
volumes of evidence and specifications of materiality to the district court
ex parse, in camera and on some occasions in open court or in camera with
the prosecutors. The government's reaction has consistently been first to
deny, then to produce a scant amount of information as the Defendant files
formal motions, then to produce a little bit more just before the hearing,
then to deny the existence of anything else, then when the "anything else"
surfaces, grudgingly to admit that it has been found. See D.E. 1918 at 6-35.
There is no better example of this than the government's submission to the 
defense in January, 1996 of a two-page FBI Insert of a conversation with 
Carol Howe in which she is not identified by her last name and every proper 
noun, including Dennis Mahon, Andreas Strassmeir, Elohim City, and the 
Reverend Robert Millar, is grotesquely misspelled so that it could not 
reasonably be found. D.E. 3313, Exhibit "D." 

Then, when this information surfaced, the government informed the Court that
Ms. Howe had been an ATF informant until a date several weeks prior to April
19, 1995. See Transcript of Scheduling and Rule 17.1 Conference--Sealed,
January 29, 1997, at 67. Then, when the defense discovered that in fact she
had continued to be an informant after the bombing, the government
acknowledged to the Court that in fact she had been an ATF informant in late
April and early May 1995 and had been sent back to Elohim City.[3] 

---------------------------------------

FOOTNOTES:
[3] The government on background (see below) has confirmed details given to
the Court in camera to ABC and NBC News. Hence the discussion here.
---------------------------------------

See D.E. 3360 at 2-4. The same pattern of disingenuous,
economical-with-the-truth statements and representations by the government
to the district court permeates its claims concerning FBI Laboratory
material (now presumably largely furnished), prior warnings, possible
foreign involvement, and other material.

The Petitioner asks this Court to enter a Writ of Mandamus directing the
District Court to enter an order commanding the government to produce the
material requested in the manner outlined by the defense in sealed district
court documents D.E. 2768 and D.E. 3123. The District Court has declined to
do so. See D.E. 3016; D.E. 2840 (January 8, 1997 Pretrial Conference: Volume
m--Sealed); D.E. 2866 (January 9, 1997 Pretrial Conference: Volume
IV--Sealed); D.E. 3410 (March 10, 1997 Pretrial Hearing--Sealed--Not
Provided to Defendant Nichols). The defense has made a sufficient showing
under Brady and Rule 16 that the requested information is required in order
to defend properly against the allegations in the Indictment and for a
fundamentally fair trial in this capital case.

In order to file this Writ of Mandamus and make the appropriate allegations,
most of the material relied upon originates from the public record, what has
appeared in the press, and open judicial proceedings. In a few cases, names
have been redacted or otherwise modified in order to protect the rights of
other persons not on trial and to protect the security and secrecy of
information.[4] 

---------------------------------------

FOOTNOTES:
[4] Information given to the media by the government or others, even if the
substance of the same material was filed under seal, is included here
because it is already in the public record through interviews with the media.
---------------------------------------

All of the documents filed under seal, some of which are ex parte, in camera
pursuant to controlling caselaw, are identified by Docket Number ("D.E.")
and within that Docket Number the exhibit number or page number so that the
Court may quickly find the material. 

This issue arrives before the Court at this late date simply because the
defense has repeatedly gone to the government with information and requests,
had to then seek intervention from the district court, and the last district
court order has been issued within the last two weeks. D.E. 3410. The
district court has denied defense motions for either a continuance or, in
the alternative, a dismissal. Trial is now set to commence on March 31,
1997, with the selection of the jury. The defense moves that the Court,
while considering this matter, either stay the commencement of the trial, or
proceed with jury selection but stay the commencement of evidence being
received until this matter has been resolved in this Court.

One hundred and sixty-eight people died in the Oklahoma City bombing. The
devastation was total and complete. The public is entitled to accept the
jury's verdict, whatever it is, with safety and confidence, bizarre press
sensationalism and government stonewalling notwithstanding. The Petitioner
is entitled to the relief set forth herein in order that he may meet the
government's evidence. 

[Back]

[Index]

[Next]

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OF PETITIONER-DEFENDANT, TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT MARCH 25, 1997