Time: Fri Nov 08 12:40:31 1996
To: Tom Clark <clarktj@valley-internet.net>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: FOR YOUR EYES ONLY
Cc:
Bcc:
Tom,
Got this. Thanks.
I am inundated with
inbound email; had
15MB waiting for me
when I returned from
Billings, so I probably
missed this the first
time. Thanks for
re-sending.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 10:13 AM 11/8/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Paul,
>
>Ok, I'll dig it up. I already sent it to you once though. Look at it from
>a procedural standpoint.
>
>~Tom Clark
>
>
>Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 20:03:41 -0400
>From: HPBIII@aol.com
>To: Eplurib@first.megalinx.net, Ohmegaman@aol.com
>Subject: Fwd: Macon, GA: Important Motion Filed
>
>
>---------------------
>Forwarded message:
>From: league@macon.mindspring.com (Citizens' Defense)
>To: butterb@connecti.com (Bill Utterback)
>Date: 96-08-12 18:17:05 EDT
>
>The folling motion requesting evidence from the U.S. Government, necessary
>for the legal defense
>of Robert Starr III, concerning information related to the Centennial Park
>bombing in Atlanta on
>July 27, 1996 was filed at the Federal Court Building (Clerk of Court's
>office) in Macon, Georgia at
>3:06 p.m. EST on Aug 12th 1996.
>
>As a matter of public record, this information is now made available for
>public review....
>
>IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
>FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
>MACON DIVISION
>
>
>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
> )
> Plaintiff )
> )
> vs. ) CASE NO. 5:96-CR-21-DF
> )
> Robert Starr, III )
> )
> Defendant )
>________________________ )
>
> MOTION FOR INFORMATION NEEDED
> FOR DEFENSE
>
> COMES NOW, the accused, Robert Starr, III, and respectfully requests
>that the Court order
>that the accused be provided a copy of materials concerning the
>investigation of the July 27, 1996
>bombing of Olympic Centennial Park, and for reasons the accused shows the
>Court the following:
> 10.
> On July 27, 1996, at approximately 1:40 a.m., a bomb exploded at
>Olympic Centennial Park.
>Later that morning, it was confirmed that it was a pipe bomb made of a
>galvanized steel pipe.
> 11.
> The accused and his co-accused were all incarcerated at the time.
> 12.
> The accused is aware of two individuals in the Georgia area who are
>known to enjoy talking
>about bombs (especially pipe bombs), making bombs, encouraging others to
>make bombs and
>plant bomb-making components onto other people's property. These
>individuals (Possible
>Suspects PS #62 and PS #63), unlike the accused and his co-accuseds who are
>incarcerated,
>were at large on July 27, 1996, and remain so today.
> 13.
> The affinity for bombs of one of the suspects is documented by
>government's exhibits recently
>provided to the accused, specifically Tape #7.
> 14.
> The suspects, PS #62 and PS #63 are not trained, badge wearing agents,
>but are free-lancers
>involved in a BATF "dirty tricks" campaign. They have yet to be named by
>the government as
>witnesses, and the government has refused to disclose their names. The
>defense is only aware of
>aliases used by these individuals in this investigation.
> 15.
> At the bond hearing of April 29, 1996, Special Agent Stephen Gillis
>testified that there was no
>connection between this case any "plot" associated with the Olympics.
> 16.
> The Affidavit for the telephone tap on Paul Sullivan, submitted under
>seal contains an alleged
>statement by PS # 62 and PS #63 (a/k/a CI-1 and CI-2) concerning a January
>6, 1996 meeting
>of the Georgia militia that attempts to associate them with such a "plot."
>(Affid. Walker, at 5)
> 17.
> The Affidavit for the telephone tap on Paul Sullivan, submitted under
>seal, contains numerous
>false statements by a jail house informant "CI-4". The accused never made
>these statements,
>and they could only have been elicited at the suggestions of the
>interviewer. (Affid. Walker, at 13)
> 18.
> Alleged statements by an individual named as "CI-5" further attempt to
>tie the accused to plans
>to be carried out at the time of the Olympics. (Affid. Walker, at 15)
> 19.
> These statements were made by these informants prior to June 12, 1996,
>which was clearly
>prior to July 27, 1996. In light of the totality of circumstances
>surrounding this case, this suggests
>the frightening possibility that a plan by PS #62 and PS #63 to link the
>accused to a terrorist act at
>the Olympics, which they themselves would perpetrate.
> 20.
> The accused has offered publicly to assist the F.B.I. in its
>investigation, along with members of
>his defense team, and these offers have not been accepted.
> 21.
> To date, no arrest has been made in the Olympic Park bombing in spite
>of the numerous
>cameras in the vicinity of the bomb.
> 22.
> To date, there has been no denial by the F.B.I. or any other government
>official, that PS #62
>and PS #63 were involved in the bombing.
> 23.
> Death threats have been recieved, through F.B.I. officials, by both the
>accused, just before his
>arrest, and J.J. Johnson, the later during the time Mr. Johnson was
>attempting to have PS #62 and
>PS #63 brought in for questioning. In light of the totality of the
>circumstances of this case, it
>appears that these individuals arrange, through their law enforcement
>contacts, to frighten those
>who might expose their illegal activities.
> 24.
> To defend himself against allegations that the accused was associated
>with the Olympic Park
>bombing, the accused must explore the possiblity that the bombing was
>perpetrated or connected
>by his accusers, Danny and Kevin Barker. To do so, he will require copies of
>the following:
> 1) The 911 tapes of the calls placed to the Atlanta police department
>at approximately 1:00 a.m.
>on July 27, 1996, which warned of a bomb to explode at Centennial Park;
>
> 2) All surveillance photos and videotape of individuals seen in that
>area;
>
> 3) All photos and videotapes submitted by tourists to assist in the
>investigation;
>
> 4) All composite sketches prepared in the course of the investigation.
>
> WHEREFORE, the accused, Robert Starr, III, respectfully requests that
>the materials listed
>herein be provided forthwith.
>
> MEMORANDUM OF LAW
> Beyond a reasonable doubt has been the standard for criminal trials
>since In re Winship, 397
>U.S. 358, 364 (1970):
>
> "Lest there remain any doubt about the constitutional stature of the
>reasonable-doubt standard,
>we explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against
>conviction
> except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to
>constitute the crime
>with which he is charged."
>
> The fundamental principle of fairness in a criminal trial is that the
>Defendant can be found guilty
>only upon evidence that leads the jury to find him guilty beyond a
>reasonable doubt.
> "[T]he reasonable-doubt standard is indispensable to command the
>respect and confidence of
>the community in applications of the criminal law. It is critical that the
>moral force of the criminal
>law not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt
>whether innocent men are
>being condemned."
>
>Because this is a federal standard, no state can drop below. No state can
>institute a standard of
>51% certainty, a scintilla of evidence, or clear and convincing evidence. A
>constitutionally
>deficient reasonable doubt instruction is reversible error because there is
>no jury verdict within the
>meaning of the Sixth Amendment without a proper reasonable doubt
>instruction. Sullivan v.
>Louisiana 113 S.Ct. 2078, 61 U.S.L.W. 4518, 4519.
>
> Reasonable doubt is determined by the evidence. It is not a vague or
>capricious notion, but a
>doubt based upon reason. It is a doubt that would cause you to hesitate in
>the most important
>affairs. Holland v. United States 348 U.S. 121, 126 (1954). If one is not
>morally certain and
>convinced of guilt of the accused, that person has a doubt based on reason.
>Such a doubt arises
>from the lack of evidence, unsatisfactory evidence, a conflict in the
>evidence, or a want of evidence.
> The Defense must be able to review the breath of the government
>investigation and all the
>information generated during its course. The possible suspects, PS #62 and
>PS #63, are the
>accused's primary accusers, and he has the right to their compulsory process
>under the Sixth
>Amendment. U.S.C.A. VI. The possibility that they were planning a much more
>serious "sting" and
>attempted on their own to carry that out in spite of the incarceration of
>their victims, goes to the
>heart of their credibility. This is the reason the full extent of any deals
>between an informant and
>the goverment must be produced under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150
>(1972). Brady v.
>Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) requires that exculpatory material be provided,
>and information that
>could link these accusers with a serious explosive incident is plainly
>exculpatory.
>
>Part of the theory of the defense of this accused will be that the
>informants were the true
>perpetrators of any unlawful acts. This would provide an alternative
>explanation for facts that might
>otherwise incriminate the accused. The possiblity of their involvement in
>the Centennial Park
>bombing would demonstrate a motive for such conduct which will be essential
>to his defense. It
>appears that the government has failed to explore that very real
>possiblity.
>
>The Defense has a right to know, and the government has an obligation to
>provide, what the
>government did not do or failed to do; what they did and obtained results
>that were inconclusive or
>indicated that the person was not culpable. On the totality of the evidence
>in the government's
>possession, that evidence which gives an inference of guilt must be compared
>to the evidence that
>they tried to obtain in the same area. The later infers innocence and
>must be revealed in discovery.
>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
>
> _________________________
> NANCY LORD
> Attorney for Defendant
>
>P.O.B. 7223
>Macon, Georgia 31209-7223
>912-788-6272
>
>
> CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (ommited for pubilc distribution)
>
>
>
>
>
>At 03:02 PM 11/7/96 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>
>>===========================================================
>>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