Merritt; I feel that was just one of the motives; there was a
sort of confluence of motives from taht to doing someone a favor,
the local sheriff liked Koresh, but the deputy had his
own thing going and was in on this maybe he wanted a job with
the ATF , one of the early recordings has him sounding off like a
kid with a new toy right in the middle of all the shooting.
The cult awareness network, ( CAN ) had their fingers in it too,
and indications are they had people in Waco stirring the pot
before the raid went down.
In one letter to RENO I told her some family members may sue for
wrongful death, and suggested she impound all of CANs books
as any family member who had hired or donated money to this
organization had in their own way helped set the raid up.
( there were money motives involved other than just the
ATF budget) I'm convinced some of those inside had run away from overbearing family situations and found refuge inside the sect , and had taken a lot of money with them. I believe some of them found the hardships inside the sect easy to bear in comparing to what they had to endure from their own families.
After the fire many of them were interviewed and some of them
had a hard time faking even a little sadness at the loss of
their so called loved ones. It's was distressing for me to
notice the dollar signs in their body language and eyes.
---------------------------------
A report prepared by Ross & Green
1010 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 811
Washington, DC 20005
202-638-4858
Fax 202-638-4857
July 1993, Copyright 1993 by Ross & Green
DISCLAIMER: This text file is a partial reprint of an original copyrighted report by Ross &
Green. All of the text from pages 1 through 17 of the original report has been reproduced
exactly herein. The only information missing is pages 18 through 23, which contained the
report's bibliography and list of experts. This file has been uploaded to CompuServe with the
sole intent of disseminating important information to the World's public, and it was not the
uploader's intent to plagiarize the original work of Ross & Green in any way. If you distribute
copies of this text file, please leave this Disclaimer intact, so that Ross & Green receive full
credit for the contents of this document, and so interested parties may contact Ross & Green
for more information if they so desire.
INTRODUCTION
As a lobbying firm concerned with the preservation and expansion of democracy both at home and
abroad, we are writing to draw your attention to the activities of the Cult Awareness Network
(CAN). The Cult Awareness Network described itself as a "national non-profit organization
founded to educate the public about the harmful effects of mind control as used by destructive cults."
In fact, as the following evidence documents, CAN has played a major role in propagating an
atmosphere of intolerance and violence against new, smaller, non-mainstream religions (as well as
psychological movements and political groups); moreover, it has functioned as an indirect referral
agency, facilitating "concerned" families getting touch with individuals who can be hired to use
coercion (including forcible abductions) to remove individuals from groups of which CAN
disapproves.
The influence of the Cult Awareness Network was made clear by the role it played in influencing
media coverage of the siege and subsequent massacre of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas
earlier this year, and the role CAN-associated "deprogrammers" played as advisors to the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and the FBI during the siege.
"DEPROGRAMMERS"
CAN, originally called the Citizens Freedom Foundation (CFF), was founded in 1974 by Ted Patric,
who, according to Gerald Arenberg, writing in 'The Chief of Police' magazine, already had a "career
of kidnapping young adults from young and little understood churches in exchange for handsome fees
from distraught or overbearing parents" (Arenberg, 1993). Information from a number of sources
indicates that over the past 19 years, persons within the CAN network have been involved in
thousands of abductions or other coercive actions, which the perpetrators euphemistically call
"deprogrammings." "Deprogrammers" charge between $5,000 and $20,000 for a kidnapping. The
payment is usually made in cash, so there will be no record of the transaction (Blocksom, 1992, p.
2). According to the organization's own figures, reported at its national conference in Los Angeles
last year, CAN-connected "deprogrammers" were involved in more than 1,800 "deprogrammings"
in 1992 alone (Robertson, 1993, p. 3).
On the record, CAN condemns forcible kidnappings and maintains that it receives no financial
benefits from referring families to kidnappers. However, John Myles Sweeney, Jr., a former national
director of CAN's predecessor, the Citizens Freedom Foundation, in a declaration dated March 17,
1992 charged:
"Because of the large amount of money they make due to referrals received from CFF
members, deprogrammers usually kick back money to the CFF member who gave the
referral... The kickbacks would either be in cash or would be hidden in the form of a
tax-deductible "donation" to the CFF" (Sweeney, 1992, p. 1).
Former "deprogrammer" Johnathon Lee Nordquist has charged that in the mid-eighties CAN,
through Mary Krone, then CAN's director of information and referrals, paid for the living expenses
of Nordquist and his partner. "All that I had to do... was make infrequent speeches at Cult
Awareness Network affiliate meetings and receive phone call from people who wanted to hear
negative propaganda about the Hare Krishna religion" (Nordquist, 1991, p. 24).
In addition, expense reports seized by the FBI and entered as evidence in a court case reveal that at
least one "deprogrammer," convicted kidnapper Galen Kelly, was paid a regular retainer of $1,500 a
week in 1992 by the Cult Awareness Network (U.S. vs. Smith, Kelly, Point and Moore, 1992).
CAN operates its indirect referral system in a manner intended to avoid incurring criminal or civil
liability from the activities of the "deprogrammers" in its network. Mark Blocksom, who worked as a
"deprogrammer" from 1979 to 1989, reports:
"The standard method by which I received referrals for involuntary deprogrammings
was via phone call the "good ole boy" network (CFF, and later, CAN members or
affiliates), who would then refer the caller to a non-CFF/non-CAN person (usually a
family member of a prior successful case), who would then call me and arrange the
deprogramming. This "cut out" system was created to insulate CFF/CAN from legal
liabilities" (Blocksom, 1992, pp. 1-2).
----------------------
There is more but I didn't want to make the post to long,
but there was more than meets the eye when it came to
motives for setting up the Davidians.
Jim |
