Time: Sat Nov 09 04:48:51 1996 To: Nancy Lord From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: STUNG OR SCREWED? Cc: Bcc: >To: drydel@juno.com, BulWark7@aol.com, DotHB@aol.com, TSlape@msn.com, > bigred@duracef.shout.net, dak_kol@juno.com, denro@netcom.com, > jonyreb@aloha.net, ler@televar.com, libertytree@juno.com, > minuteer@mistic.net, molso@sunny.mcmc.cc.ni.us, noclue@ix.netcom.com, > phwirth@mail.idt.net, pkeys@qn.net, postoffice@juno.com, > psico1@bgn.mindspring.com, ramann@hotmail.com, range.guides@juno.com, > ridethelightning1@juno.com, rowland60@juno.com, > rsout@sunny.ncmc.cc.mi.us, sagebrush@lvnexus.net, solomon@ai2a.net, > tdenmark@juno.com, tdreste@juno.com, abean@juno.com, ghenry@juno.com, > efigure@aol.com, keller@ix.netcom.com, drayner784@aol.com, > Mo10Cav@aol.com, PawlRevere@aol.com, Slayer@Orbiter.Com, > behold@teleport.com, bobhard@nidlink.com, cjs@sound.net, > ckalabus@juno.com, cyndee@ix.netcom.com, deckard@teak.holli.com, > drydel@concentric.net@concentric.net, fran@lkdllink.net, > hafreepr@telepath.com, henri@alaska.net, jim.bailey@rainet.com, > ladybug48@juno.com, leehunt@inetnow.net, liberty@mcn.net, > mark.s@juno.com, minutemn@pcl.net, mr.bill888@edm.net, > mystery@jetlink.net, nolso@sunny.ncmc.cc.mi.us, opf@azi.com, > patriot@midwest.net, plato@upx.net, pmitch@primenet.com, > ralph@teaminfinity.com, robertk@flash.net, rooster@apex.apex.net, > scott.bergeson@ucs.org, sport1@juno.com, toaster@flinet.com, > victory8@juno.com, butterb@connecti.com, bluepac@cnw.com, > thunderstrikes@juno.com, wzf68w@wae.gmpt.gmeds.com, mrjoehill@juno.com, > nkmolden@ldd.net >Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 02:15:33 PST >Subject: STUNG OR SCREWED? >References: <19961108.233945.9527.1.drydel@juno.com> >From: libertytree@juno.com (Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx) > >Dear Friends: > The little girl who cried "wolf" >howls again! > Who knows what to believe >coming from the source below? Another >newsworthy event mixed with a soap >opera saga of the girl who didn't stay to >save the day. > JJ screws defense attorney >Lord who is a government agent. Defense >attorney Thompson goes home so she >can tell us why the defendants were >convicted, and doesn't screw JJ. > The rest of the story is pretty >good, as it usually is, and the hero of >the story, Linda Thompson! > I really like this cute little >quote, " I had to FIGHT like a dog to get >this guy "only" 2 >years..." > Here's another great quote, >"Get enough people pointing fingers crying, >"WITCH!", at a somewhat nutty person who >may even like being called a witch, and >what's the defense?" > Is this a classic Freudian slip? > Now, this part is even better than >any of the others. JJ (Linda's friend), doesn't >screw Lord, Lord screws JJ! "In the previous case, >and in the Starr case, Lord screws a key defense >witness, JJ Johnson, compromising the witness, >and thereby compromising the defense >(and JJ Johnson's credibility)." > At last, we get down to the real meat >of the matter, "I get criticized (mostly by the >propagandists) for "outing" the fed trolls, claiming I >see boogey-men in the closets. Well, no, I don't. >I see less than 20 known operatives, doing their >damnedest to rope good people into criminal >convictions and it's the same ones, over and over." > BUT ONE OF THESE IS NOT LINDA >THOMPSON, OF COURSE. > How do you protect yourself from >infiltration? You use the three cell system. > How do you know who you can trust? >You can trust no one. The three cell system limits >the extent of infiltration and ancilliary damages. >Why would anyone be nutty enough to trust any >stranger who "talks the talk"? > Does not trusting people mean you >are doing something wrong? No, but it will prevent >someone from planting bomb materials on your >property! It will prevent someone from tape >recording you to use your voice out of context. > Most anyone can be converted into a >government witness with enough pressure >applied, and if we indeed live in an era of thought >crimes you may expect to be targeted for your >beliefs. > Then there are other issues at stake, >like a well-known Michigan militia leader who >tried to fabricate phony charges against another >well-known militia leader in order to minimize >competition for leadership in the state. Or the >Florida militiaman who fabricated false >suspects in relation to OKC to get on the front >page of the local paper. > Of course, all you need to do to be >one of LT's 20 is to disagree with her, and many >feel this is an attempt to monopolize information >credibility and distribution. > The real issue is how to avoid the >scenerio described below, and, when confronted >with false charges how to handle the situation. >It should be clear that a trial on the fact issue is >like playing against the house and a stacked >deck! > When the interests of the court and >the interests of the client are in conflict, the >bar attorney is obligated to the court! So >listen to your lawyer woman all you want, but >I warn you, when it comes down to a choice of >who's hide gets pealed, it will be yours! > I am aghast that anyone would >presume the patriot community is so gullible, >but that's the way it goes when you ignore >the discrepancies of patriots who's loyalties >are compromised. As you read this, your >own heart bears witness to the truth which >cannot be denied. Be true to yourself! > >>Subject: STUNG >>Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 14:25:03 -0400 >>Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19960709182503.22473712@pop.bgn.mindspring.com> >> >>>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 96 07:50 EST >>>To: aen-news@aen.org >>>From: lindat@iquest.net (Linda Thompson) >>>Subject: STUNG >>> >>>Re: So-called "Militia bombing" convictions >>> >>>Despite the propaganda about the jury and the trial that was coming >>out of >Macon throughout the trial of Bob Starr in Georgia, the source >>of most of >>>the "we'll win" and now the "it's a miscarriage of justice" posts was >>Nancy >>>Lord. > >>>It is significant to know the lengths that were gone to in this case >>to >>>secure the conviction, aside from the obvious that evidence was >>planted by >>>ATF and the informants and that the infomants were paid $50,000.00. >>> >As an attorney, I believe the Defense attorneys, Nancy Lord, and >>Buafo >>were >>>instrumental in the convictions >>> >For starters, any federal trial is "rigged" to an extent, because >>most >>>federal judges seem to be secondary prosecutors, rather than being >>>impartial. So the best one can hope for is a judge who at least >>attempts to >>>afford the defendant an adequate opportunity to present his case. To >>his >credit, the judge in this case appeared to be doing that. I knew >>the >>>prosecution had little to offer by way of actual evidence, so I >>focused my >>>examination of the trial upon other aspects, primarily, the defense. >>> >Any federal defense attorney knows that jury selection is of >>PRIMARY >>>importance. >>> >>>The jury pool (the mass of people who are called in, and from which >>jurors >>>are then selected) itself can be "rigged" so it is important to learn >>how >>>the juror pool was called in. The people in the juror pool are >>supposed >>to >be "representative" of the general population. >>> >I did not hear of any challenge to the juror pool (from which >>jurors >>were >chosen) in advance, which is something that should ordinarily be >>done, >>>particularly when the jury pool does not appear to be representative >>of the >>>population, i.e., Macon is about 50% black. The jury pool was not >>50% >>>black, not even 10% black. Why? > >>>Was the juror pool chosen from the "voter registration" lists? How >>many >>>people didn't show up? (The pool is no longer "representative" even >>if they >>>were chosen from the voter registration list if enough didn't show >>up). >>>There are various such challenges that can be made, depending on what >>was done. >>> >>>I once got a jury pool that was made up of 90% people who were >>EMPLOYED BY >THE GOVERNMENT (or their spouses were), I kid you not. >>How was this >>>possible? 70% of the "registered voters" were government employees >>in >>that >particular area, so the "voter registration list" was *not* >>"representative" >>>of the population as a whole. > >>>The juror pool is then asked questions by the judge as attorneys for >>both >sides listen and watch. The judge can ask whatever he wants to >>ask; >>>however, it is customary for him to ask questions submitted by the >>>attorneys, so again, the attorney's role in preparing these questions >>is >>>critical to determining which jurors should or should not be left to >>sit >>on >>>the trial. From the judge's questioning, the attorneys "strike" >>various >jurors, until there are 12 (plus 1-3 "extras") left. This is >>called >>"jury >>>selection." >>> >>>Lord was removed from the case before the jury selection began, but >>the >questions to be submitted to the judge to ask the jurors are >>prepared in >>>advance as the trial is developed, so she should have had these >>questions >prepared before she was removed; likewise, Buafo would have >>prepared >>such >>>questions and should have made challenges to any jurors that were >>struck >>off >>>the jury by the government. >>> >I did note that people who were "members of NRA" or various groups >>were >>>apparently excluded for cause or by peremptory strikes by the >>government's >>>attorneys. > >>>This sort of strike of a juror is subject to a challenge by the >>Defense >>that >>>it is wholly illegal for the government to eliminate jurors based on >>>"creed." That objection cannot be used against Defense strikes, but >>it can >>>be used against the government. No one made it and good jurors were >>likely >>>completely excluded without a whimper. > >>>If no objection is made, it is hard to raise the issue as a reason >>for a >>new >trial on appeal; however, "fundamental errors" (blatent errors or >>which >>>violate Constitutional rights) can sometimes be raised on appeal >>anyway. An >>>objection, however, preserves the error. If no objection is made, it >>is >>>difficult to appeal it as "error." This is why it is extremely >>important >for an attorney to know the various objections and make >>them. >>> >>>The Barker brothers were paid $50,000.00. That's not chump change >>for most >>>people. Testimony showed that ATF and the Barker brothers planted >>evidence >in Starr's backyard when he wasn't home and didn't know >>about it. >>> >>>Lord is hired as the attorney. She asks me to help. I wrote the >>initial >responses filed with the court and she signed them (from >>which she was >>>written up as a "patriot attorney"). I then heard from the >>propagandists >denouncing me for "not helping" (Jeff Randall being >>one, when he most >>>assuredly knew that I had, in fact, helped, so this was a most >>obvious >>>effort by Randall), while I could not say anything about it. >>> >When Jeff's "good friend" Mike Kemp was arrested for pot, it was >>Jeff >>who >>>publicly declared that Mike did what he was accused of. Mike was >>convicted >>>about the same time as Starr, too. It was also Jeff who tried to >>undermine >>>the Good Ol' Boys tapes by claiming they had been "altered," though >>he later >>>was the one to publicly take credit for causing the stink. (He did >>not, >>it >>>was Rich Hayward, Mike Kemp and Mike Seibert who did and it was Rich >>Hayward >>>who filmed the Good Ol' Boys information). When something can't be >>>undermined, it is Jeff's practice to take credit for it, instead. >>On >>the >Starr case, Jeff Randall also functioned as the "investigator." >>Another >>clue. > >>>I mention this because I worked with Lord on a previous case where >>the >defense was actively undermined (by an operative, not Lord) to a >>degree >>I >had never seen before, ever, but it appeared to me then that she >>was >>part of >>>the problem, too. In the previous case I worked on in which Lord >>assisted, >I was lead counsel and could exercise quite a bit of >>control over the >>way >>>the case progressed, but it took every bit of tenacity I had just to >>hold >>>onto the case. It was phenomenal what I was hit with in that case by >>the >primary operative. It was a successful defense in that the >>primary >>target >ended up with 2 years (will serve 8 mos), when he faced 10 >>years, and >>the >other intended targets of a "conspiracy" were never charged, but >>that is >>a >damning commentary, too. I had to FIGHT like a dog to get this guy >>"only" 2 >years and keep 8 other people out of the picture? And I >>*wasn't* fighting >>>with the prosecution, but with the operative (I did not at first >>realize the >>>operative was an operative), and to a degree, with Lord and some law >>clerk >>>she brought into the equation who was a pain in the butt. > >>>This was why I would not come on this case -- it appeared to be being >>>actively undermined from the beginning and to be used as a vehicle to >>take >down the credibility of as many patriots at once as possible >>(i.e., JJ >>>Johnson being but another example, and my being an intended target as >>well). >>> >I have no explanation for why Bob Starr chose to hire Lord, given >>her >>>already established history at that point in the Michael Hill case, >>other >than it should have been obvious. >>> >>>Sex as a Weapon: >>> >>>The operative in the previous case I worked on, who was supposedly a >>very >close friend of the defendant, had been brought in precisely to >>befriend >>the >>>defendant and set up everyone. In that case the operative >>represented she >>>was "common law married" to the defendant, which further complicated >>things. >>> >I note that using women to sleep with men to "befriend" them has >>become >>>something of a theme of the female operatives. (This is a tried and >>true >>>military intelligence operating tactic so I don't see why this should >>>surprise anybody). >>> >Are some men really this stupid that they fall for it? Yes. Even >>after >>>being totally screwed and then screwed over by these women who set >>them up >and did them in, I know three men who still think those woman >>wouldn't >>hurt >them, love them, etc. Two are in prison as a direct result, >>too, and they >>>still don't get it. > >>> >>>Setting up the Incompetent with the All Too Willing: >>> >In the previous case I worked on and another I did not work on but >>am >>>familiar with, I have determined the feds target people who are >>slightly >>>"off" and hope to rope in others into a "conspiracy" that is >>developed >>by >>>placing a key informant next to the nutty person. The key informant >>is >>>credible and recruits all the others into the "conspiracy." > >>>The others do not need to actually participate in any "conspiracy" >>for this >>>to occur and need do nothing more than appear at a meeting, for >>instance. >>> >>>The informant will have had lots of opportunities for "private" >>>conversations with the "nut," which are tape-recorded, and will be >>played >>>for the jury, as the "nut" confides his deepest secret desires to his >>"good >>>friend," the informant, or babbles idiot plans and nonsense in a fit >>of >>>pique, inspired, but not taped, by the informant, who tapes the >>target's >>>responses. Picture how these tapes will sound to a jury. Gads. > >>>The other "conspirators" will never know about these tapes until the >>trial. >>>The "informant" however, will be the key person who says, "He said >>this >>to >me" (play the tapes) and "all these other people went along with >>his >>plan." >(Tying in the "co-conspirators.") and the informant will say >>the others >>>"came to this meeting" to hear about the plans. Bingo, now, >>everyone's >>in a >>>big "conspiracy." > >>>It is a pretty standard formula being used by the feds. Remember, at >>trial, >>>the operative no longer appears to be the target's "friend." The >>informant >>>is the government's friend. The informant will be taught how to >>present >>>himself to the jury and appear even more credible, like he was trying >>to >>>"save" the public from some dire harm, just "doing his public duty." >>> >>>See how that looks? The most "credible" witness is on the >>government's >side, looking like a good samaritan. He will explain >>how it pains him >>to >tell all these terrible things about his FORMER "good friend," >>the target. >>> >>>At the defense table, the jury will see the "nut" or target and his >>>"co-conspirators" and the jury will hear the babbling and crazy >>>"confidential" tapes played, as they look at the "nut" and his >>"friends" >>>while the "good-guy informant" tells them how all these folks were >>planning >to do nasty terrible things. The "good-guy informant" of >>course will be >>>backed up by "good-guy law enforcement" who will parade a lot of >>evidence, >>>whether it is relevant or not, to support this public bastion of >>integrity, >>>their informant, emphasizing how good his work was. >>> >>>The Ray Lampley case is a good example of this that most are familiar >>with. >I'd say the Freemen case probably presents another such >>example. The >>"viper >militia" case may also be another case in point, but I do not >>have enough >>>details about that to be sure. The W. Virginia case is definitely >>another >>>example. The New Hampshire/Connecticutt case is the clearest example >>I've >>>seen anywhere. >>> >Under the best of circumstances, this is a tough kind of case to >>win, >>>because it is not much different than a witch trial. Get enough >>people >>>pointing fingers crying, "WITCH!", at a somewhat nutty person who may >>even >>>like being called a witch, and what's the defense? > >>> >>>Prepare to throw the fight: >>> >Back to how a case is undermined. >>> >In the previous case, and in the Starr case, Lord screws a key >>defense >>>witness, JJ Johnson, compromising the witness, and thereby >>compromising the >>>defense (and JJ Johnson's credibility). > >>>Starr's case was the third case and third witness in six months she >>did this >with of which I am aware, thus, I tend to believe the >>problem is Lord. >>She >>>also did not take herself off any of the cases after this occurred, >>either, >>>which means that, in the middle of trial, had any of these witnesses >>been >called, picture what the OTHER side could have done to those >>witnesses >>with >>>a few well-placed questions. >>> >>>Next, in Starr's case, Lord goes out and gathers two of the most >>damning >>>pieces of evidence introduced at the trial against these men (pipes >>and >>tape >>>with fingerprints). Whether these things were innocuous or not >>(McCranie is >>>a plumber, after all), doesn't matter. The government obviously will >>and >>>DID claim they were "PROOF!" >>> >>>Lord PUBLICLY comments "Starr said they would be found there." >>(Revealing a >>>client confidence and implicating Starr). These comments were >>reprinted in >>>newspapers, in case the jury pool missed them. > >>>By gathering evidence, which attorneys do *NOT* do, she made herself >>a >witness, which she knew. She should have removed herself from the >>case >>>immediately, but did not, resulting in a 2 month trial delay (while >>Starr >>>was in jail) and resulting in the defense having inadequate time to >>prepare. >>> >>>Her co-counsel had to be removed because of a cocaine habit. I do >>not know >who selected the cokehead as co-counsel. >>> >The evidence gathered by Lord was introduced at trial. The defense >>could >not very well OBJECT to its introduction because that would >>result in Lord >>>being called by the prosecution, to "authenticate" the evidence >>(prove >>where >>>it came from) so it could be introduced and it would have come in >>anyway, >>>and using Starr's own attorney to do it. > >>>Thus, the prosecution was able to introduce the evidence without the >>>ordinary objections that could have been used to get the evidence >>excluded >>>had it been found by law enforcement. More importantly, it might >>never >>have >BEEN found had she not gone out to get it. If found, it would >>have been >>>subject to a lot of different challenges, not the least of which >>would have >>>been the obvious, "WAS IT PLANTED?" (Other evidence was shown to have >>been >>>planted). >Who planted it? Since it was "found" by the Defense >>Attorney, that in >>>itself raises questions that should have been asked, but couldn't be, >>>without putting Starr's own attorney on the stand, i.e., "Nancy, did >>you >>>plant the evidence?" "No, Bob Starr said it was there." Starr would >>be >screwed either way. >>> >If the defense challenged the evidence, how does it look for >>Starr's >>>attorney to be going out to get this "innocuous" evidence? Was she >>maybe >>>planning to hide it? Starr can then be implicated by innuendo. It >>won't do >any good to point out that it's only plumbing pipe and >>McCranie's a >>plumber. >>>If it was so unimportant, what was she doing there getting it? >>That's >>what >>>the government would do with that scenario. Starr is screwed, either >>way. >>> >And the pipes had "chemical residue" on them when they were >>introduced >>at >>>trial. When did that get on the pipes? Was it planted? Could that >>be >challenged? Nope. See above. See how important this evidence >>became >>and >how easily it was done? >>> >>>Thus, no questions can be asked, and this damning evidence comes in >>that >>>cannot be shown to have been planted. >>>If it has "chemical residue" on it at trial, what challenge can be >>made >>to >>>how and when it got there? None. >>> >>>It then has the double-whammy of making the other, known planted >>evidence >>>look not-so-bad. The jury thinks, after all, they got this evidence >>that >wasn't planted, didn't they? The known "planted" evidence >>becomes >>>irrelevant. It isn't needed to "prove" anything and it doesn't hurt >>the >government because they got the other evidence -- from Nancy Lord >>-- in, >>>without the jury learning anything other than what the government >>said it >>meant. > >>> >Throw the fight: >>> >>>Last, but not least, I do not know how Starr got the attorney he >>ended up >>>with at trial, but she was black, in Macon, Georgia. I grew up in >>Georgia >>>and regardless of the progress affirmative action has made or how >>things >"ought" to be if all were right with the world, one can expect >>some >>racial >>>animus in Macon, when the jury is predominantly white. >>> >>>She had a shaved head and a pony-tail thing and wore star-wars >>clothes, >>>likewise probably not a wise move in Macon, Georgia. > >>>Comments I have received from a well-informed patriot attending the >>trial >>>were to the effect that Buafo was not interested in any of the >>technical >>>aspects of the so-called "bomb making" chemical (which is an >>innocuous >chemical, non-explosive, used in hand-held, homemade >>fireworks, like >>>fizzle-sticks) and did nothing to challenge ATF's claims that the >>chemical >>>was "explosive." (It's legal to own 10 pounds of this "explosive," >>which is >>>not "explosive," and is used in all sorts of harmless homemade >>fireworks). >>> >The initial pleadings I wrote were laid to develop the theme that >>speech >>is >>>not a crime, nor is possessing an accumulation of legal items, absent >>any >>>intent, a crime, and that the ATF has a history as lying scumbags >>with >>bad >>>information who cultivate criminal activity, with a secondary theme >>of lack >>>of jurisdiction. > >>>I did not hear that any effort was made to develop these themes, >>i.e., to >>>challenge jurisdiction, discredit ATF with voluminous information >>about >their long history of lying and setting up crimes, or to show >>that these >>>items were normal, legal household items and that their possession >>and >>>speech, without more, are not crimes. >>> >>>Jury instructions, given to jurors before they leave to deliberate >>guilt >>or >>>acquittal, are also of crucial importance. These, too, are prepared >>by the >>>attorney and provided to the judge and argued, if the judge refuses >>to give >>>them. >>> >>>=================== > >>>Now three guys who actually did nothing to harm anyone anywhere, are >>looking >>>at 20-30 years in federal slave labor camps, their families and lives >>destroyed. >>> >>>I get criticized (mostly by the propagandists) for "outing" the fed >>trolls, >>>claiming I see boogey-men in the closets. > >>>Well, no, I don't. I see less than 20 known operatives, doing their >>>damnedest to rope good people into criminal convictions and it's the >>same >>>ones, over and over. > >>>The federal government has an unlimited budget. ADL makes more than >>>$400,000 (that it publicly admits) QUARTERLY and SPLC has a 60 >>million >>>dollar trust fund. Just how hard do you think it is for them to fund >>>operatives with $50,000 in chump change? When they have spent, as >>you have >>>seen, millions upon millions of dollars in media propaganda and >>lobbying, to >>>get legislation passed, what is another $500,000 to pay for a couple >>dozen >>>operatives? >>> >Parsons at Tri-States was paid. The Barker brothers were paid. >>Now you >>>have this proof in court records that the Barker brothers were paid >>and even >>>put into a witness protection program. How hard is it to figure out? >> Clue >>>up, folks. >>> >>>ATF, ADL, and SPLC now have something to "write" about, an actual >>militia >>>"conviction," which they never had before. You saw the mileage in >>the >>>propaganda they wrote before, that was nothing but lies. Picture the >>>spinmeisters with this. >>> >>>Their money was well spent. >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>--------- End forwarded message ---------- > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail