Time: Sat Nov 09 04:48:51 1996
To: Nancy Lord
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: STUNG OR SCREWED?
Cc:
Bcc:
>To: drydel@juno.com, BulWark7@aol.com, DotHB@aol.com, TSlape@msn.com,
> bigred@duracef.shout.net, dak_kol@juno.com, denro@netcom.com,
> jonyreb@aloha.net, ler@televar.com, libertytree@juno.com,
> 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>
>>
>>>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 96 07:50 EST
>>>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 ----------
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail