Time: Thu Nov 07 20:18:30 1996
To: Nancy Lord
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Macon Atlanta news update
Cc: 
Bcc: 

>Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 19:21:44 -0600 (CST)
>From: "G. Carroll" <gcarroll@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
>To: Tom Clark <clarktj@valley-internet.net>
>cc: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
>Subject: Re: LLAW: (Fwd) Macon Atlanta news update
>
>=======================================================================
>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>=======================================================================
>Tom and other folks: Keep in mind that the judge in this case removed 
>Nancy Lord, the lede defense attorney. That threw a wrench in the defense 
>case and led to the seeming incompetence described below.
>
>On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Tom Clark wrote:
>
>> =======================================================================
>> LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>> Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>> =======================================================================
>> 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".
>>  
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> ~Tom Clark
>> 
>
>
      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail