Time: Mon Oct 28 15:52:36 1996
To: Nancy Lord <defense@mindspring.com> (by way of Bill Utterback <butterb@connecti.com>)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: piml] Second Week
Cc:
Bcc:
ack
At 03:00 PM 10/28/96 -0600, you wrote:
>TO: MACON COURT LIST
>
>DATE: October 27, 1996
>
>SUBJECT: Second Week
>
>--------------------------------------------------
>
>The trial has now been going on for two weeks, and
>so far the evidence is exactly what we already knew.
>There have been no surprises, other than the utter
>clarity of the baseless nature of the charges.
>Both Ms. Buafo and I thought that they would
>at least present testimony, even if it was not
>believable, that the accuseds had contemplated even
>a little of what was charged. Quite the contrary,
>the materials that Ms. Buafo received at the
>beginning of the trial only helped the defense.
>
>For instance, Danny and Kevin Barker earned $50,000
>of tax dollars for their "work" in this case. That
>is just for them, and does not count all of the
>money spent on out-of-town Marshalls staying at a
>luxury hotel, "evidence" like ANFO, that nobody is
>even alleged to have had, countless interviews by
>a dozen or so BATF agents, and the salaries of
>Sharon Ratley and Sam Wilson for a case that has
>taken most of their time for the past six months.
>
>A congressional oversight hearing appears to be in
>order.
>
>Ms. Buafo's cross-examination of Danny Barker was
>spectacular, and should be used to teach law
>students in the future. She has done an heroic job
>of thoroughly learning a serious, complicated case
>in less than a month.
>
>Ms. Buafo began by going over Barker's BATF contract
>point by point. He was not to engage in or promote
>illegal activity, and this would include carrying
>a firearm by a convicted felon. Though apparently
>well-trained on direct and speaking to the jury, on
>cross examination he often stared befuddled at his
>questioner as he tried to get his story straight.
>
>Barker mixed up meeting dates and did not know who
>was at which. He could not corroborate Mr.
>Faglier's testimony about a January meeting because
>he did not remember meeting Mr. Faglier. Then he
>made the absurd statement that if "he was there and
>I was there I remember him." Jurors' eyes started
>roll. Barker had no explanation for why some
>meetings were taped and others were not. Government
>attorneys heads went into their hands as they
>watched their case crumble like the house of cards
>that it always was. Jurors looked bored, and were
>probably left wondering why they are being
>sequestered over this.
>
>Mr. Barker denied having any idea that Robert Starr
>was investigating him, and was surprised when asked
>if he knew that he could be charged for his own
>activities on this case.
>
>The Judge is considering a dismissal of the charge
>under the assault weapons ban. It involves a
>"conspicuous" pistol grip that protrudes less than
>it did at purchase, and a "flash suppressor" that
>is really only a recoil compensator, fully legal and
>available for purchase today.
>
>But the high point of the day was Ms. Buafo's
>closing line of questions of Danny Barker. She went
>through each count of the indictment, and asked him
>directly if Robert Starr had ever done or planned
>the act. In each count, he admitted, "No, Ma'am,"
>until he got to the possession of explosives, Count
>IV. Barker then stated, "only what was on his
>property."
>
>Ms. Buafo then asked "You mean the ones you planted
>there?"
>
>Barker responded, "Yes Ma'am."
>
>On Saturday, there were a series of technical
>experts on such crucial matters as Mr. Starr's
>handwriting, and fingerprints of "explosives" that
>did not contain any of Mr. Starr. Few questions
>were asked on cross.
>
>The government will probably wrap things up by mid-
>week next. Witnesses may include Kevin Barker, a
>wild-eyed nut case. Then the defense will be
>presented for counts that survive an motion for
>judgment of acquittal.
>
>Our only disappointment has been the low turnout of
>supporters. Of course, few people can be away from
>their jobs and families for a month. But now that
>it's almost over, please come and support those on
>trial. Their bravery in fighting this out will protect the
>1st and 2nd Amendment rights of us all. Appropriate
>dress, preferably suits and dresses, is requested.
>
>--------------------------------------------------
>This posting is written by Liberty Defense League
>in an effort to continue bringing news of the case
>to those who are interested. We do not speak on
>behalf of either Mr. Starr or Ms. Buafo.
>--------------------------------------------------
>
>In Liberty
>Nancy Lord
>Attorney at Law
>P.O. Box 7223
>Macon, Ga 31209-7223
>(912) 788-6272
>(912) 785-1809 Fax
>defense@mindspring.com
>
>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail