Time: Thu Nov 07 15:07:01 1996
To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Macon Atlanta news update
Cc: 
Bcc: 

... all the more reason to begin
attacking the jury selection and
service procedures, policies,
practices, and customs, and
(lest we forget) the Jury Selection
and Service Act itself.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

P.S.  Britain has abolished grand juries.




At 01:47 PM 11/7/96 -0800, you wrote:
>=======================================================================
>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>=======================================================================
>Greg, et al.,
>
>You wrote:
>
>>I don't know how many were following this trial. And I wonder who managed to
>>buy the jury.
>
><snip>
>
>I wonder how much the jury got to hear?  At any rate, I saw one piece of
>court paperwork (transcribed for the Internet) alleged to have been filed in
>behalf of the defendants.  I must say I was less than pleased with what I saw.
>
>The document in particular sought court ordered discovery outside the
>possession of the plaintiff and outside the scope of the complaint (in my
>opinion, at least).  To most folks I imagine that it seemed like a big
>cover-up, but to me I wondered what in the heck the defense was doing.  The
>defense should've known -- despite the "feelings" amongst the militia -- THE
>RULES AND PROPER BOUNDS REGARDING DISCOVERY.
>
>Was it counsel's tactic to write up paperwork knowing it would get denied
>with the intent of getting the militia riled over a percieved injustice?  I
>can't say, but whatever the reason, I knew that the Georgia Bombers were in
>trouble. 
>
>I am not saying that Starr and company were shafted by their defense team,
>nor I am saying the defense team was incompetent.  I am saying that I -- as
>someone who dearly wanted to see Starr and company acquitted -- observed
>paperwork that allegedly came from the defense team that I considered to be
>"frivolous".
> 
>I guess my point of bringing this up is that "patriots" (accused or not)
>really need to be careful of the possibility of being manipulated by
>"patriot attorneys".  In particular to this case, I will go so far as to say
>that I don't think the jury had to be bought off.
>
>
>~Tom Clark
>
>
      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail