Time: Tue Nov 12 21:51:45 1996
To: roc@xmission.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: STUNG (fwd)
Cc:
Bcc: liberty lists, Electra Briggs
I once had a client whose dog was
part wolf. She was so smart,
she would routinely greet us by
running around us in circles
as we walked along a country path;
then, just for fun, when our legs
were spread during a pause, she
would run between our legs. Of course,
all of this was designed quite clearly
to engage us in "hot pursuit" which
is a game wolves play with humans,
just to see how fast the humans can
run; meanwhile, the wolf is always
just ahead of you, no matter how fast
you are running. When you run out of
gas, or air, or whatever, wolf always
comes back to console you, until
you are ready for another round.
Then, the game begins all over,
once again. If you stop for air,
and your legs are spread just enough,
wolf might come running straight at
your, in the hopes that you might try
to close the gap just at the right
moment. This, of course, causes wolf
to make sharp turns to one side or the
other, to see if you can catch wolf's
tail as it passes by at high speed.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 07:38 PM 11/12/96 PST, you wrote:
>roc@xmission.com wrote :
>
>>
>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 96 07:50 EST
>>From: Linda Thompson <lindat@iquest.net>
>>To: aen-news@aen.org
>>Subject: STUNG
>>
>>Re: So-called "Militia bombing" convictions
>>
>>
>>
>>Setting up the Incompetent with the All Too Willing:
>
>At the risk of irritating / amusing as many as possible in the least
>possible time I would like to suggest a very reliable and very low tech
>way of finding out whether potential acquaintances are pure of heart or
>totally dishonest and perhaps an informer or at least one that you
>probably want nothing to do with.
>
>Integrate as high a percentage wolf hybrid as possible into the operation.
>Now contrary to their press wolves are not agressive and spend at least
>99% of their time making sure that as little as possible will come to pass
>to cause them harm. I am quite convinced they are very skilled at reading
>aura's from a long distance. If given half a chance to examine something /
>someone for a sufficient period, THEY WILL. If they will not willingly
>come up and be friends with someone you should probably want nothing to do
>with them and before conspiring with someone about something with
>possible ramifications have them stare into the eyes of a wolf. That
>is the quickest / cheapest way to test for the pure of heart you can imagine
>
>Cheapest has to be understood that the amount and type of food wolves need
>/ want is not cheap......but far cheaper for the most part than gaining
>access to data bases or personal files and such
>
>Jack
>
>
>>
>>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?
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 |
> ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 |
> jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US |
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail