Clinton/Reno's Final Mistake : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Clinton's/Reno's Final Mistake -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clinton/Reno's Final Mistake By Bill Utterback - edited for publication by

Clinton and Reno just made their final mistake. They think they have gotten away clean from the murders of men, women, and children at Waco with lethal CS gas, bullets from the back of the building, and fire. Clinton thinks he has gotten away clean from impeachment and from selling our military secrets to China. But what Clinton and Reno have done now is so blatant that it can not escape the notice of the American people and therefore can not escape the notice of our vote-hungry politicians.

Elian Gonzalez was abducted at gunpoint by a Border Patrol swat team and INS agent Mary A Rodriguez without a court order, arrest warrant, or any lawful authority for the abduction. Using Gestapo tactics, the feds blatantly and unlawfully took what they wanted.

On Saturday, April 22, Eric Holder, second in command under Reno, had the following to say:


Saturday April 22, 2000

Legal Analysts Comment on Raid

NEWSMAX.COM - Andrew Napolitano, legal analyst for Fox News and a constitutional scholar had this exchange today on Fox with Eric Holder, Reno's second in command at Justice:

Napolitano: Tell me, Mr. Holder, why did you not get a court order authorizing you to go in and get the boy?

Holder: Because we didn't need a court order. INS can do this on its own.

Napolitano: You know that a court order would have given you the cloak of respectability to have seized the boy.

Holder: We didn't need an order.

Napolitano: Then why did you ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for such an order if you didn't need one?

Holder: [Silence]

Napolitano: The fact is, for the first time in history you have taken a child from his residence at gunpoint to enforce your custody position, even though you did not have an order authorizing it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, as of the day of the abduction, the second in command under Reno publicly stated that they needed no court order because INS had the authority to make the abduction "on its own." Then somebody (Clinton? Reno?) realized that there was in fact no lawful authority for the abduction and quickly had Judge Robert L. Dube backdate a search warrant. The text of the warrant is copied below: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States District Court




In the Matter of the Search of


TO: S/A Mary A Rodriguez, U.S. Immig. & Natz. Service and any Authorized Officer of the United States

Affidavit(s) having been made before me by S/A Mary A. Rodriguez who has reason to believe that on the premises known as THE RESIDENCE OF LAZARO GONZALEZ, LOCATED AT 2319 N.W. 2ND STREET, MIAMI, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

in the SOUTHERN District of FLORIDA there is now concealed a certain person or property, namely THE PERSON OF ELIAN GONZALEZ, DATE OF BIRTH DECEMBER 6, 1993, A NATIVE AND CITIZEN OF CUBA.

I am satisfied that the affidavit(s) and any record testimony establish probable cause to believe that the person or property so described is now concealed on the person or premises above-described and establish grounds for the issuance of this warrant.

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to search on or before 5-1-0 (not to exceed 10 days) the person or place named above for the person or property specified, serving this warrant and making the search (at any time in the day or night as I find reasonable cause has been established) and if the person or property be found there to seize same, leaving a copy of this warrant and receipt for the person or property taken, and prepare a written inventory of the person or property seized and promptly return this warrant to U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE DUBE as required by law.


U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Robert L. Dube 21 Apr 00 7:20 P.M. at MIAMI, FLORIDA


Apparently a standard search warrant format was hastily altered to read "the person or property" where it had read simply "property" six times. The search warrant now reads "I am satisfied that the affidavit(s) and any record testimony establish probable cause to believe that the PERSON OR property so described is now concealed on the person or premises above-described . . ." (emphasis added)

This would seem to indicate that the person of Elian might be concealed on the person of some other person. Perhaps in a large pocket on the person of some other person?

Then in the height of stupidity, the search warrant says "if the PERSON OR property be found there to seize same, leaving a copy of this warrant and receipt for the PERSON OR property taken, and prepare a written inventory of the PERSON OR property seized . . ." (emphasis added) A federal judge should know that an arrest warrant is required to seize a person, not a search warrant. How does one prepare a written inventory of a person? Two each leg, two each arm, one each head, etc.?

The search warrant called for leaving a copy of the warrant at the scene and also leaving a receipt for the "PERSON OR property taken." (emphasis added) I doubt that a receipt is normally left when a person is arrested but maybe it is required when a person is unlawfully abducted. In any case there was no warrant or receipt shown or left at the scene because the search warrant did not exist at the time. It was later created and backdated by Judge Robert L. Dube at the direction of Clinton/Reno.

Just because some judge signs a search warrant reading "You are hereby commanded to search . . . the person or place named above for the PERSON OR property specified . . . and if the PERSON OR property be found there to seize same . . ." (emphasis added), does not mean that a person can be arrested (or abducted) without a court order or an arrest warrant.

The search warrant also read "in the Southern District of Florida there is now concealed a certain PERSON OR property, namely the person of Elian Gonzalez . . ." (emphasis added). Elian was "concealed" in his house to the same degree that Clinton is "concealed" in the White House. But since there was nothing illegal to search for and no lawful reason to arrest (or abduct) Elian, then something needed to be "concealed" to create some kind of warped excuse for a search. Maybe that constitutes a reason for abduction in the mind of someone who questions the meaning of the word "is," but it offers no acceptable excuse to the American people for the abduction of Elian.

Bill Utterback

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), April 27, 2000


GASP -- DOES THIS MEAN WHAT I THINK IT MEANS -- having made such a mistake, will Clinton not get re-elected in 2000?

Actually, as an attorney I think this article is pure BS. Considering that they didn't arrest Elian, they sure didn't need an arrest warrant. And since Elien's father is his legal custodian, the police don't need a warrant to return him to his father. Relatives (usually the estranged mother or father) snatch other people's kid all the time -- and the police don't need a warrent to return a kid to his parents.

And -- think about it. Would you want the law to be any different? If your ex-wife, mother-in-law, sister, etc., took YOUR child, what do you think the law should be: (1) police come and get your kid back; anyone who doesn't like it can file a custody petition and get the kid if they win, or (2) sorry, fella -- if you want your kid back, come to us in a year or so when the case has worked its way through the court system.

The Elian Gonzalez debate makes me wonder how so many people can be so deluded about the first principle of family law -- THE PARENTS GET TO KEEP THE KID UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHES EITHER AN EMERGENCY SITUATION OR CUSTODY IS CHANGED AFTER A FULL HEARING ON THE MERITS.

Are you sure you want to live in a world where the police can not get a parent's kid back for him or her without an Order from the Court of Appeals?

-- E.H. Porter (Just, April 27, 2000.

And, while I'm ranting, let me let you in on one of my pet peeves . . . people who boldly announce what the Constitution says, without ever having read it. If you actually read the document, you wouldn't be making inane comments like "Then in the height of stupidity, the search warrant says "if the PERSON OR property be found there to seize same . . ." as if the warrent requirement of the Fifth Amendment applied to property only.

The relevant provision IS the Fifth Amendment, which reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Now, I'm sorry, but I don't see why "a standard search warrant format . . . hastily altered to read 'the person or property'" is in any way improper, or why the Court of Appeals would need to issue an Order to authorize the police to enter someone's home to return a kid to his father.

-- E.H. Porter (Just, April 27, 2000.

Always glad to hear you Legal Eagles' take on these things. Thanks, EH! Now I wonder what HAWK thinks about it?

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), April 27, 2000.

Flash -- no doubt Hawk thinks the Reno has an embedded processor that failed because of delayed Y2K problems, thus causing the raid.

But, that aside, I still think that you ought to read the Constitution before you post this BS.

-- E.H. Porter (Just, April 27, 2000.

I think you're doing your research in the wrong place, Flash. The INS had ALL the documents they needed.

Warrants, Requests for Warrants, and Everything Else You Never Wanted to Know about

-- Anita (, April 27, 2000.

Great research, Anita!

-- E.H. Porter (Just, April 27, 2000.


My reason for posting something like this is that I'm genuinely interested in the opinions of people like Yourself, Anita, and other forum members. I don't claim that something I post is right or correct, or even that I agree with it unless I specifically say so. But things like this are making the rounds on the internet and are read by many. In the absence of clarifying commentary, they will just be taken at face value by the multitudes.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), April 27, 2000.

Good link Anita, thanks.

After reviewing the letters from INS, and the "Warrant for arrest of Alien" for Elian, it is clear to me the government had all their papers in order.

It is mind-boggling how much patience and consideration the goverment used in this case. I am certain if *I* had defied the law with such impunity as this family did, I would have been arrested without ceremony in a jiffy. No arguments for months.

I am upset at the unfairness of the preferencial treatment this immigrant family recieved from the government. This is blatant reverse-discrimination.

-- (y@x.x), April 27, 2000.

Flash did not write that commentary. He merely posted it for the sake of discussion. Lighten up on him, dag nabbit!

-- x (x@x.x), April 27, 2000.


The same sortof thing happened with Y2k. Folks with good intentions presented faulty information and folks all over the internet BELIEVED . I'd guess that's how the Debunkers were "born." World Net Daily and Newsmax were notorious for posting misinformation.

Unfortunately, folks tend to believe the FIRST thing they read. They can read 30 articles that dispute the first thing read, but that first one somehow gets etched deeper into memory than the rest.

-- Anita (, April 27, 2000.


Since you seem to have all the links, maybe you can help me. I seem to be having trouble locating a document. The search warrent stated that a copy of the search warrent and a receipt of persons/property taken was to be issued. I have found the search warrent, but I can't seem to locate the governments copy of the document showing the receipt that was issued. If you have the link to this, it would be appreciated. Thanks.

-- Lynn Sagendorf (, April 28, 2000.


I haven't come across it. If I do, I'll post a link.

-- Anita (, April 28, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ