Time: Thu Nov 07 15:01:44 1996
To: Tom Clark <clarktj@valley-internet.net>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: FOR YOUR EYES ONLY
Cc: 
Bcc: 


>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".

Tom,

Would you be so kind as to 
forward me this frivolous
paperwork?  I may be getting
involved in this case, and I
want an outside opinion first.

Many thanks.

/s/ Paul Mitchell


> 
>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.

Not if the government admitted, 
on the witness stand, that the
evidence was planted on the
defendant's private property!

I mean, REALLY!!


>
>
>~Tom Clark
      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail