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