Time: Thu Nov 14 18:07:35 1996
To: Nancy Lord <defense@macon.mindspring.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: STUNG OR SCREWED?
Cc: 
Bcc: 

Nancy,

You are welcome, very.

/s/ Paul Mitchell



>Paul,
>        One again you have proved yourself to be
>a better friend than those I have known for years.
>        My response to LT is coming.  Just want to
>make sure I get all the re-posters in my 110 pieces
>of mail.
>        Thank you again.
>Nancy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>        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>
>>>>
>>>>>Return-Path: lindat@iquest.net
>>>>>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 96 07:50 EST
>>>>>X-Sender: lindat@iquest.net
>>>>>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 ---------- 
>>>
>>>
>>
>>===========================================================
>>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.:  pmitch@primenet.com                  
>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state
>>===========================================================
>>
>>
>
>
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail