Homestead mailing list

[bob ford <bobford79 AT yahoo.com>]

  You want to become even more p*ssed off, read this article (below); this 
kind of stuff happens all of the time; a small farm/ranch/homesteader had it 
to happen to him in Chandler back during the 90's.  The city wanted his 
property so they used a 'snitch' to 'say' he was selling pot.  They 
confiscated his multi-million dollar , multi-gerational piece of property, 
'didn't arrest him, found no drugs at all; just took his property under civil 
RICO laws.  The man in the article below was actually murdered by LEOs (Law 
Enforcement officers), just like the Weavers and the cultists at Waco
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, January 23, 2000 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMED AND DANGEROUS
Ranch-coveting officials
settle for killing owner
Five police agencies staged
bogus drug raid on rich eccentric
to acquire 200-acre spread

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

By Paul Ciotti
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

Recent revelations about rampant police perjury have made Los Angeles juries 
so mistrustful of law enforcement that attorneys for Los Angeles County are 
in some cases offering plaintiffs multi-million dollar settlements, rather 
than risking the possibility of far larger damage awards should the cases 
ever go to trial. 
In one of the more infamous instances of alleged law enforcement misconduct 
-- the killing of the reclusive Malibu millionaire and rugged anti-government 
individualist Donald Scott in his ranch house by Los Angeles sheriff's 
deputies in 1992 -- county and federal government officials tentatively 
agreed last week to pay Scott's heirs and estate a total of $5 million in 
return for their dropping a wrongful death lawsuit. 

Furthermore, they made the settlement despite the deep conviction, says 
deputy Los Angeles County Counsel Dennis Gonzales, that the deputy who shot 
Scott was fully justified and -- even though the sheriff was never able to 
prove it -- that the heavy-drinking Scott was growing thousands of marijuana 
plants on his remote $2.5 million Malibu ranch. 

Early on the morning of Oct. 2, 1992, 31 officers from the Los Angeles 
Sheriff's Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Border Patrol, 
National Guard and Park Service came roaring down the narrow dirt road to 
Scott's rustic 200-acre ranch. They planned to arrest Scott, the wealthy, 
eccentric, hard-drinking heir to a Europe-based chemicals fortune, for 
allegedly running a 4,000-plant marijuana plantation. When deputies broke 
down the door to Scott's house, Scott's wife would later tell reporters, she 
screamed, "Don't shoot me. Don't kill me." That brought Scott staggering out 
of the bedroom, hung-over and bleary-eyed -- he'd just had a cataract 
operation -- holding a .38 caliber Colt snub-nosed revolver over his head. 
When he pointed it in the direction of the deputies, they killed him. 

Later, the lead agent in the case, sheriff's deputy Gary Spencer and his 
partner John Cater posed for photographs arm-in-am outside Scott's cabin, 
smiling and triumphant, says Larry Longo, a former Los Angeles deputy 
district attorney who now represents Scott's daughter, Susan. 

"It was as if they were white hunters who had just shot the buffalo," he 
said. 

Despite a subsequent search of Scott's ranch using helicopters, dogs, 
searchers on foot, and a high-tech Jet Propulsion Laboratory device for 
detecting trace amounts of sinsemilla, no marijuana --or any other illegal 
drug -- was ever found. 

Scott's widow, the former Frances Plante, along with four of Scott's children 
from prior marriages, subsequently filed a $100 million wrongful death suit 
against the county and federal government. For eight years the case dragged 
on, requiring the services of 15 attorneys and some 30 volume binders to hold 
all the court documents. Last week, attorneys for Los Angeles County and the 
federal government agreed to settle with Scott's heirs and estate, even 
though the sheriff's department still maintained its deputies had done 
nothing wrong. 

"I do not believe it was an illegal raid in any way, shape or form," Captain 
Larry Waldie, head of the Sheriff's Department's narcotics bureau, told the 
Los Angeles Times after the shooting. When Scott came out of the bedroom, the 
deputies identified themselves and shouted at him to put the gun down. As 
Scott began to lower his arm, one deputy later said, he "kinda" pointed his 
gun -- which he initially was holding by the cylinder, not the handle grip -- 
at deputy Spencer who, in fear for his life, killed him. 

Although attorneys for Los Angeles County believed Scott's shooting was fully 
justified, they weren't eager to see the case go to trial. Recent widespread 
revelations of illegal shootings, planted evidence and perjured testimony at 
the Los Angeles Police Department's Rampart Division were making the public 
mistrust the police. 

"I've tried four cases (since the Rampart revelations)," said Dennis 
Gonzales, a deputy Los Angeles County counsel. And in each case, he said, 
jurors have told him that the possibility that police officers were lying was 
a factor in their vote. 

"You have to be realistic as to public perceptions," he said. 

Nick Gutsue, Scott's former attorney and currently special administrator for 
his estate, put it more bluntly: "(Gonzales) saw he had a loser and he took 
the easy way out." 

Ironically enough, the county might have had a better chance of winning a 
court battle if it had allowed the case to go to trial when Scott's widow and 
four children first filed their lawsuit back in 1993. The county blew it, 
says Gutsue. It adopted a "divide and conquer strategy." It prolonged the 
lawsuit's resolution with a successful motion to throw legendarily aggressive 
anti-police attorney Stephen Yagman off the case. Then it filed a 
time-consuming motion to dismiss the estate from the lawsuit. 

In the process, says Gutsue, new revelations of police misconduct began 
appearing so frequently that the public's attitude toward law enforcement 
began to change. "It was one scandal after another," says Gutsue. "(County 
attorneys) stalled so long that the (Rampart scandal) came along and their 
stalling tactics backfired." 

Although county officials still maintain that Scott was a major marijuana 
grower who was just clever enough not to get caught, his friends and widow 
maintain that his drug of choice was alcohol, not marijuana. As a young man, 
Scott lived a privileged life, growing up in Switzerland and attending prep 
schools in New York. Later he lived the life of a dashing international jet 
setter who was married three times, once to a French movie star, and who had 
gone through two bitter and messy divorces by the time he moved to his Malibu 
ranch, called Trail's End, in 1966. 

Although well-liked and generous to friends, Scott drank heavily, could be 
cantankerous and deeply mistrusted the government, which he suspected of 
having designs on this ranch, a remote and nearly inaccessible parcel with 
high rocky bluffs on three sides and a 75-foot spring-fed waterfall out back. 

"You know what he used to say," his third wife, Frances Plante, told writer 
Michael Fessier Jr. in a 1993 article for the Los Angeles Times magazine, 
"He'd say, 'Frances, every day they pass a new law and the day after that 
they pass 40 more.'" 

To Los Angeles County officials, the fact that Don Scott got killed in his 
own house during a futile raid to seize a non-existent 4,000-plant marijuana 
farm is just one of the unfortunate facts of life in the narcotics 
enforcement business. It doesn't mean that sheriff's deputies did anything 
wrong. 

"Sometimes people get warned and we don't find anything," Gary Spencer, the 
lead deputy on the raid and the one who shot Scott, told an L.A. Times 
reporter in 1997, "so I don't consider it botched. I wouldn't call it botched 
because that would say that it was a mistake to have gone there in the first 
place, and I don't believe that." 

Someone who did believe that was Ventura County District Attorney Michael 
Bradbury. Although Scott's ranch was in Ventura County, none of the 31 people 
participating in the massive early morning raid, which included officers from 
the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, the DEA, the National Park Service, the 
California National Guard and the Border Patrol bothered to invite any 
Ventura County officers to come along. Furthermore, once Scott was shot, Los 
Angeles County tried to claim jurisdiction over the investigation of Scott's 
death, even though the shooting occured in Ventura County. 

To Bradbury, it was easy to see why. L.A. County wanted jurisdiction. In a 
64-page report issued by Bradbury's office in March of 1993, Bradbury 
concluded that the search warrant contained numerous misstatements, evasions 
and omissions. The purpose of the raid, he wrote, was never to find some 
evanescent marijuana plantation. It was to seize Scott's ranch under asset 
forfeiture laws and then divide the proceeds with participating agencies, 
such as the National Park Service, which had put Scott's ranch on a list of 
property it would one day like to acquire, and the Los Angeles Sheriff's 
Department, which heavily relied on assets seized in drug raids to supplement 
its otherwise inadequate budget. 

For something written by a government agency, the Bradbury report was 
surprisingly blunt. It dismissed Spencer's supposed reasons for believing 
that the Scott ranch was a marijuana plantation and accused Spencer of having 
lost his "moral compass" in his eagerness to seize Scott's multi-million 
dollar ranch. As proof of its assertions, the report pointed to a parcel map 
in possession of the raiding party that contained the handwritten notation 
that an adjacent 80-acre property had recently sold for $800,000. In 
addition, the day of the raid, participants were told during the briefing 
that Scott's ranch could be seized if as few as 14 plants were found. 

In order to verify that the marijuana really existed, at first Spencer simply 
hiked to a site overlooking Scott's ranch. Discovering nothing, he 
subsequently sent an Air National Guard jet over the area to take photographs 
of the ranch. When this also failed to reveal anything, he dispatched a Drug 
Enforcement Administration agent in a light plane to make a low level flight. 

The DEA agent, whose name was Charles Stowell, said he saw flashes of green 
hidden in trees which he believed were 50 marijuana plants. At the same time, 
Stowell was uncertain enough about his observations -- which he had made with 
the naked eye from an altitude of 1,000 feet -- to warn Spencer not to use 
them as the basis for a search warrant without further corroboration. 

In an effort to confirm the marijuana sighting -- Spencer by this time had 
decided that Scott was growing marijuana in pots suspended under the trees -- 
Spencer asked members of the Border Patrol's "C-Rat" team to make a 
night-time foray into the ranch. Despite two separate incursions, they failed 
to find anything except barking dogs. The following day a Fish and Game 
warden and Coastal Commission worker went to the ranch to investigate alleged 
stream pollution and do a "trout survey" on the dry stream bed. They too 
failed to see any marijuana. Two days after that, a sheriff's deputy and 
National Park ranger visited the ranch again, this time ostensibly to buy a 
rottweiler puppy from Scott. The Scotts were friendly and gave them a tour of 
the ranch. Once again no one saw any marijuana. 

This lack of confirmation notwithstanding, four days later Spencer filed an 
affidavit for a search warrant saying that DEA Special Agent Charles Stowell, 
"while conducting cannabis eradication and suppression reconnaissance ... 
over the Santa Monica Mountains in a single engine fixed wing aircraft ... 
noticed that marijuana was being cultivated at the Trails End Ranch 35247 
Mulholland Highway in Malibu. Specifically Agent Stowell saw approximately 50 
plants that he recognized to be marijuana plants growing around some large 
trees that were in a grove near a house on the property." 

To attorneys with a lot of experience with warrants, Spencer's affidavit 
didn't look like much. "On a scale of one to ten," says former district 
attorney Longo, "I would give it a one." 

Despite the affidavit's deficiencies -- among other things, Spencer didn't 
mention that none of the people participating in any of the previous week's 
incursions had reported any marijuana -- Ventura Municipal Court Judge 
Herbert Curtis III issued a search warrant which, in the words of the 
Bradbury report, became Scott's "death warrant." After Scott's death, a 
helicopter hovered over the area in which the marijuana plants were believed 
to have been growing. There were no pots, no water supply, no marijuana. 
There was only ivy and even that wasn't in the location where the marijuana 
was supposed to be. 

Larry Longo, a friend of Scott whose children used to play with Scott's 
children, says it's absurd to think that Scott had marijuana plants hanging 
from the trees. 

"I went up there right after the shooting. The trees were 200- or 
300-year-old oak trees. The leaves under them hadn't been raked in a hundred 
years." If Scott had been growing marijuana under the trees, the leaves would 
have been disturbed and the tree bark broken. "There wasn't a single mark on 
the trees. There was no water supply." 

Besides, says Longo, "Donald might have been a lot of things, but he would 
never be so dumb as to cultivate marijuana on his property." If for no other 
reason, he didn't need the money. Any time he needed cash, all he had to do 
was call New York and they'd withdraw whatever was necessary out of his trust 
fund. At the time of Scott's death, there was $1.6 million in his primary 
trust account. 

The Bradbury report caused a huge ruckus in Los Angeles County. Sherman 
Block, the sheriff at the time, denounced it and issued a report of his own 
which completely cleared everyone, and California Attorney General Dan 
Lungren criticized Bradbury for "inappropriate and gratuitous comments." 

Cheered by his apparent exoneration by Sheriff Block and Attorney General 
Lungren, sheriff's deputy Spencer subsequently sued Bradbury for libel, 
slander and defamation. After a long and bitter fight, including allegations 
that Bradbury suppressed an earlier report which concluded that Spencer was 
innocent after all, a state appeals court declared that Bradbury was within 
his 1st Amendment rights of free speech when he criticized Spencer. The court 
also ordered Spencer to pay Bradbury's $50,000 legal fees, a development that 
caused Spencer to declare bankruptcy. According to press reports, the stress 
from all this caused Spencer to develop a "twitch." 

Spencer wasn't the only one affected by Scott's killing. Scott's wife, 
Frances, was so strapped for cash, she subsequently told a judge, she 
considering eating a dead coyote she found on the side of the road. According 
to her attorney, Johnnie Cochran, as quoted in the Los Angeles Times, she is 
currently living on the property while she holds off government claims to 
seize it for unpaid taxes. In 1996, the massive Malibu firestorm destroyed 
Scott's ranch house and the outlying buildings. As a result, Frances Scott 
currently lives in a teepee erected over the badminton court, albeit a teepee 
with expensive rugs and a color TV. 

Scott's old friend and attorney Nick Gutsue recently said he had mixed 
feelings about the settlement. While he was glad that Scott's widow and 
children didn't have to go through the horror of reliving Scott's death in a 
jury trial, at the same time was disappointed that he never got a chance to 
clear Scott's name. 

"I asked for an apology and exoneration of Scott," said Gutsue. "I never got 
one. I was told it was against their policy." That's one reason, said Gutsue, 
he always wanted a jury trial. In a settlement, no one has to admit any 
guilt. 

"Of course," said Gutsue, "$5 million is a pretty good sized admission."
 


--- On Sun, 12/7/08, Marie McHarry <mmcharry AT gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Marie McHarry <mmcharry AT gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Homestead] SWAT takes down OH farming family
> To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Date: Sunday, December 7, 2008, 9:57 AM
> We've accepted paramilitary tactics, confiscation of
> property, and
> other violations of civil liberties in the war against
> drugs for
> years. I don't think it's surprising that civil
> liberties violations
> are spreading to other parts of our lives that ought to be
> nobody's
> damn business but our own.
> 
> I'll say this for Illinois, homeschooling is well
> accepted and pretty normal.
> 
> Here's an interview with a retired chief of police on
> the war against drugs:
> http://reason.tv/video/show/514.html
> 
> Marie
> 
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Cathy
> <goosecreekfarm AT gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is so outrageous I don't even know what to
> say about it.  It's the kind
> > of thing that has led to my "under the
> radar" impulses.  When I was
> > homeschooling, I worried a bit about this happening to
> my family.
> _______________________________________________
> Homestead list and subscription:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
> Change your homestead list member options:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/bobford79%40yahoo.com
> View the archives at:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead