Time: Thu Nov 07 20:18:30 1996 To: Nancy Lord From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Macon Atlanta news update Cc: Bcc: >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 19:21:44 -0600 (CST) >From: "G. Carroll" <gcarroll@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> >To: Tom Clark <clarktj@valley-internet.net> >cc: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org >Subject: Re: LLAW: (Fwd) Macon Atlanta news update > >======================================================================= >LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA >Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing >======================================================================= >Tom and other folks: Keep in mind that the judge in this case removed >Nancy Lord, the lede defense attorney. That threw a wrench in the defense >case and led to the seeming incompetence described below. > >On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Tom Clark 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