SCOTT WILLIAM FAUL SURVEY REGARDING PAROLE COMMISSION BEHAVIOR

As a preliminary matter of clarification, every statement made in this survey has been presented to the UNITED STATES, not only once, but multiple times, either in documentation to the United States Parole Commission (Commission) or in litigation in their courts; and at no time did the UNITED STATES challenge the accuracy of any of the facts which are stated herein. That being established, the undeniable and irrefutable facts for this survey are as follows:

According to United States Deputy Marshal John Pascucci, during the time period covering 1981 through 1987, Attorneys General in the Reagan administration, William French Smith and Edwin Meese, sent out their "cowboys" (marshals) to cause confrontations in order to “legally” shoot the people they were claiming to be arresting. (The Manhunter, by John Pascucci). The 1983 Faul trial testimony showed that some unidentified "marshals" confrontationally attacked Scott William Faul with assault weapons on February 13, 1983, which coincided with the time period when the "cowboys" were unlawfully operating. At the time of their attack on Mr. Faul, there was no warrant for him which would have justified even a lawful arrest much less their criminal attack against him. The UNITED STATES subsequently claims to have charged, tried and convicted Mr. Faul with numerous crimes, stemming from their attack upon him, resulting in his imprisonment for over 35 years.

However, the government’s claim that he is guilty of aiding and abetting second degree murder is spurious because Mr. Faul was never found guilty of that charge. The jury was never even asked to find one of the required elements of aiding and abetting 2nd degree murder (that he would have to have had knowledge of someone's intent to kill another person). That fact makes Mr. Faul's imprisonment UNLAWFUL. Mr. Faul asked the Commission to simply call the United States Attorney's office at Fargo, North Dakota for their own proof that the transcript will verify that the jury was not even asked to find that element of the offense. Mr. Faul has been imprisoned since that date of their criminal attack against him on February 13, 1983. In Mr. Faul's 2002 parole hearing, the hearing examiner said Mr. Faul should do another five years, and then with a snide grin, in an obvious outward showing of bias, said, "So come back and see us in fifteen years." Now, more than fifteen years later, in 2018, the Commission tells Mr. Faul to "continue to expiration" because his release "would endanger the public safety, depreciate the seriousness of your offenses, and promote disrespect for the law." They also made an issue of the fact that Mr. Faul will not agree to accountability for the injuries and deaths. Mr. Faul, as he had previously submitted to the Commission in writing, reminded the examiner that he was never found guilty of the charge for which they claim to be imprisoning him, raising huge doubt that he should be accountable to any degree at all. The Commission ignores that uncomfortable fact and continues Mr. Faul's unlawful imprisonment, as if they are biased UNITED STATES agents of the same ilk as the "cowboys" who assaulted Mr. Faul in their 1983 planned confrontation. The Commission's own parole guidelines place Mr. Faul in the category and range which suggests that he should serve 100+ months before being released.

There are no aggravating factors against Mr. Faul. Rather, there are numerous pertinent mitigating factors favoring a decision to not go over the bottom of the 100+ months guideline range at all. These include Mr. Faul's attempt to retreat, which the marshalls prevented; their extreme provocation against him; and, the extraordinary restraint displayed by him while being attacked. The Commission totally ignores all of the mitigating factors.

Question Title

* 1. Mr. Faul has now been imprisoned for over thirty-five years (424 months), which is more than four times longer than their own guidelines indicate. That is 324 months over the bottom of the 100+ months guideline range. The Commission's own policy requires that reasons must be stated for it to exceed 48 months above the bottom of the 100+ month guideline range. The "reason" given was just a parroting of the charge, totally ignoring all of the numerous mitigating factors favoring a decision near the bottom of the 100+ month range.

Question Title

* 2. To be lawful, arrests require a warrant. No warrant existed for Mr. Faul, making it self-evident that the federal agents' actions against him amounted to a warrantless assault on him, yet the Commission says that his release at this time would promote disrespect for the law.

Question Title

* 3. What shows more disrespect for the law: the warrantless assault by the federal agents against Mr. Faul, or Mr. Faul's reaction of defending himself after being confrontationally assaulted?

Question Title

* 4. The Commission says that the release of Mr. Faul at this time, which is at least four times longer than indicated by their own guidelines, would depreciate the seriousness of his offense, an offense for which he was never found guilty of all the elements in the first place.

Question Title

* 5. What amounts to a greater offense, the federal agents' unwarranted, confrontational assault against Mr. Faul, or Mr. Faul's actions in self defense after being attacked?

Question Title

* 6. The Commission says that Mr. Faul’s release at this time would endanger the public safety. The fact that there are literally thousands of UNITED STATES agents loosed upon the public by the likes of William French Smith, Edwin Meese and the many A/Gs that have followed to cause purposeful confrontations makes the release of Mr. Faul entirely insignificant. So, what is more of a danger to the public safety, Mr. Faul with his endeavor of raising crops, or the UNITED STATES agents with their track record of murder and mayhem? Ruby Ridge, Arthur Kirk, Waco, Oklahoma City, World Trade Center, the murder of Lavoy Finicum [Add however many more you want to add, and on, and on, ad nauseam]. The evidence of this unlawful “cowboy” behavior has never been more obvious than the “legalized murder” of Gordon Kahl on June 3, 1983, when U.S. Marshal James Hall shot the unarmed Mr. Kahl in the back of his head, cut off his hands and feet and set the remains on fire in an attempt to avoid identification.

Question Title

* 7. The Commission pretended to be greatly concerned with "culpability" (blame) for the injuries and deaths occurring on that day, so who was more to blame? Were the federal agents who confrontationally assaulted Mr. Faul more to blame; or was Mr. Faul more to blame for defending himself after being criminally assaulted?

Question Title

* 8. Which more accurately describes the Commission's refusal to account for the federal agents' criminal confrontations, in the guise of arrests, against Mr. Faul and others?

Question Title

* 9. Releasing Mr. Faul at this time would properly show some atonement for the seriousness of the mean, purposeful, confrontational, criminal behavior that the federal agents perpetrated against Mr. Faul and others.

T