Time: Thu Nov 14 18:07:35 1996
To: Nancy Lord <defense@macon.mindspring.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: STUNG OR SCREWED?
Cc:
Bcc:
Nancy,
You are welcome, very.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>Paul,
> One again you have proved yourself to be
>a better friend than those I have known for years.
> My response to LT is coming. Just want to
>make sure I get all the re-posters in my 110 pieces
>of mail.
> Thank you again.
>Nancy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>> 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>
>>>>
>>>>>Return-Path: lindat@iquest.net
>>>>>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 96 07:50 EST
>>>>>X-Sender: lindat@iquest.net
>>>>>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 ----------
>>>
>>>
>>
>>===========================================================
>>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