Time: Fri Nov 08 17:37:55 1996
To:
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: STUNG (fwd)
Cc:
Bcc: Nancy Lord
>From: pwatson@utdallas.edu
>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 13:30:18 -0600 (CST)
>To: restore our constitution <roc@xmission.com>
>Subject: STUNG (fwd)
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 96 07:50 EST
>From: Linda Thompson <lindat@iquest.net>
>To: aen-news@aen.org
>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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail