Time: Fri Nov 15 20:03:33 1996
To: Harvey Wysong
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: STUNG
Cc:
Bcc:
Harvey,
What do you make of this?
I need a personal reference
from you re: Nancy Lord.
Whom to believe here?
/s/ Paul Mitchell
>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 96 21:22 EST
>From: lindat@iquest.net (Linda Thompson)
>Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: STUNG>
>Re: Bob Starr case (Georgia militia members, convicted)
>
>The facts:
>
>(1) That some of the most damning evidence used against Starr could not be
>challenged because it was "gathered" in the middle of the night by his
>attorney, Nancy Lord, who also slept with a key character and fact witness
>for the Defense, thereby destroying that witnesses' usefulness, then failed
>to remove herself, as required by the Rules of Professional Conduct for
>attorneys, since these circumstances created matters that were detrimental
>to her client, and delayed the progress of the case and the ability of
>successor counsel to have adequate time to prepare, while Bob Starr sat in jail.
>
>(2) In the preceding case to which she refers, Lord was hired by the very
>person she now says was "supportive" of the defendant (true, if "supportive"
>means provided the money -- just like the government was "supportive" of
>Barker), but who "fired" me immediately before trial, after it became
>obvious that tapes would be played which would expose the operative's role,
>when I would not agree to plead the defendant guilty because he was being
>browbeaten into taking a plea by the operative, and I also refused to allow
>him to sit in jail 3-4 more months waiting for an "appeal" instead of going
>to jury trial and taking an appeal later, if needed, or to waste trial
>preparation time preparing a baseless appeal the defendant had declined.
>
>The operative insisted upon either the appeal being done or the man taking a
>plea -- anything to avoid a trial where the tapes would be played and the
>operative's role would be exposed. Lord sticks up for this operative, as
>she did during the case.
>
>Then, before that, Mike Hill's case. Then the collateral damage to
>witnesses and families of those who were compromised.
>
>How many patriots is that so far? Quite a coup, I'd say, and when you throw
>in the effect of this after-the-fact infighting, the handlers must be
>jumping with joy.
>
>And the fact that this is now being circulated to national newsgroups, says,
>yes, the purpose was accomplished, if not as resoundingly as hoped.
>
>Prediction: Nancy's reputation will have to be "rehabilitated" so the feds
>will let this be pulled out of the bag. Lucky for Starr she is so valuable,
>especially now that they got the mileage they needed out of the conviction.
>
>Well done, Nancy. How many gold coins?
>
>>---- Article -------
<snipped for space>
>>
>>--- Forwarded mail from Nancy Lord <defense@macon.mindspring.com>
>>
>>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:28:44 -0500
>>To: Lance R Crowe <psico1@bgn.mindspring.com>
>>From: Nancy Lord <defense@macon.mindspring.com>
>>Subject: Re: STUNG
>>Cc: pmitch@primenet.com, slinnab@freenet.columbus.oh.us,
>> jon.roland@the-spa.com (Jon Roland), USAFeature@gnn.com,
>> jeffrandall@juno.com (jeff s randall), hwysong@mindspring.com
>>
>>To all of those who have sent me this:
>>
>> Thank you for passing this along. My rebuttals are
>>for your eyes only, I have neither the time nor desire to
>>engage in an internet war on this matter. It's counter-
>>productive.
>
>
>Sure thing. That's why I'm not in the distribution list for this "private"
>little missive, but all of your comments are directed to me, by name, right?
>
>And why it appeared in a national newsgroup?
>
>>
>> Please respect my wishes. If you felt I needed to see it,
>>then you deserve to know the truth.
>
>Yes, indeed, you of all people are so concerned about "appearances" and
>about "propriety," you certainly wouldn't want a lot of exposure from this,
>would you?
>
>> For those of you who have already posted in my
>>defense, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
>
>I have not seen a single one, nor have I received a single, solitary
>negative response to my post.
>
>People do not take kindly to "defense" attorneys who undermine the defense.
>That's a fact.
>
>Phony and insincere "warmth," cooing, sex, and blather only go so far.
>
>>
>> I have snipped a few sections for clarity
>
>You have snipped the parts that reference the relevant conduct by you, you
>mean. See above.
>
>>In Liberty,
>
>Whose? Bob Starr's?
>
>
>>>>As an attorney, I believe the Defense attorneys, Nancy Lord, and Buafo
>>were
>>>>instrumental in the convictions
>>
>> Althea Buafo cleared her calendar for an entire month
>>and devoted full time efforts to this case.
>
>She had little choice, given that you did not remove yourself from the case
>promptly. She could either let her client sit in jail, waiting for trial,
>while she prepared or not.
>
>
>> Nearly everyone inside
>>the courtroom was thrilled with her performance.
>
>How many of those in the courtroom who were "thrilled" were attorneys, and
>of those, how many did NOT work for the government?
>
>>>>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?
>>
>> The jury, Linda, had ten out of 12 blacks. That's a
>>little over 50% isn't is?
>
>The "jury" is not the "jury pool," nor is this responsive to the issue of
>the lack of challenge to the jury pool.
>
>And since you claim, above, that this is a "private" letter, not addressed
>to me, nor is my name or address in the "cc" line, why is this comment in
>this "private" letter to just a "few friends" addressed to me?
>
>Whoops.
>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>> Actually, I filed a motion to have government workers
>>and their families excused for cause. I lost.
>
>Government workers cannot be challenged for cause solely on the basis they
>work for the government. Thus, if you did file a motion to challenge the
>government workers and their families for cause, it was doubtlessly denied.
>
>It is the composition of the jury pool itself and how it was selected,
>resulting in a disproportionate representation of government workers, if
>they are in fact disproportionately represented on the jury pool, that could
>be challenged.
>
>Likewise, it is affiliations that can be demonstrated which arise from
>government employment, not the government employment itself, that can be
>challenged, i.e., persons with memberships in various "law enforcement"
>groups, such as NATA, could be challenged for cause.
>
>>
>>>>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."
>>
>> We worked on these together. I was not there for the
>>selection, and can't comment.
>
>
>The voir dire questions have been publicly dissiminated and speak for
>themselves.
>
>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>> You're right there. Salamone. I am surprised
>>she did not fight this. But they probably would have come
>>up with another reason, like at a Batson hearing.
>
>The questions themselves were improper, when posed by the government,
>because they illicit
>a person's creed, which the government is not allowed to use as a basis for
>strike.
>
>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>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").
>>
>> Here's the truth, Linda, I did not put your name on
>>the briefs for 2 reasons, one of which I told you:
>> 1) It would leave you responsible for a case that you
>>were 500 miles from.
>> 2) It would leave me stuck with you as co-counsel, and
>>I truthfully was not happy with the way you handled the earlier case,
>>the one you mention below.
>
>Yes, of course, how silly of me not to realize how "unsatisfactory" my
>performance was in a case in which I was lead counsel, in which you wrote
>exactly two (including your notice of appearance) of the 74 motions filed in
>three separate indictments in two months' time, or that my work is so
>"unsatisfactory" that you would call me to do your work for you at the
>preliminary hearing in Starr's case and that you then put your name on it.
>Indeed.
>
>> I did acknowledge your help on short-wave,
>
>Only to invoke my name and associate yourself with me, again, so you could
>pretend to be a "patriot" attorney and only in "patriot" forums. How
>transparent.
>
>I had asked NOT to be mentioned and kept silent, because it would only
>further the "militia" feeding frenzy by the media to have done otherwise.
>The trial is over now, though, and the gloves are off.
>
>>and to anyone who
>>asked.
>
>No one would have asked, had you not publicly commented.
>
>> Nor did I "use your brief" without changes. A lot of the final
>>brief came, originally, from Larry Becraft, and part of it was stuff I had on
>>file.
>
>Yes, indeed, how "unsatisfactory" it was.
>
>I have the original that I prepared available for comparison purposes as
>well as your comments that BeCraft could not be reached to obtain his work
>prior to the preliminary hearing, as well as your itinerary while others
>were busting their butts on an actual defense.
>
>Next fabrication?
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Yes, he did, and he got a lot done.
>
>
>No doubt. Does it perhaps have anything to do with knowing the schedules,
>cell phone numbers, and other information about key players who you now
>claim were "set up" during the course of this case? Naw, couldn't be.
>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>> The truth is, Linda, you were fired from that case
>>for blowing a deadline. I had to pinch-hit it, and it was me
>>who got the 2 year plea agreement.
>
>You have taken advantage of my silence on these issues. If I had not been
>silent about that case, you would not have been in a position to harm all
>the people you took out, along with Starr.
>
>I will not be silent, and the hell with the whole lot of you lying dogs
>destroying this country.
>
>In the case you reference, I would *not* plead the man guilty because he was
>being browbeaten to take a plea -- a person who had demanded a jury trial.
>Nor would I allow him to sit in jail another 3-4 months waiting on a
>baseless "interlocutory appeal" insisted upon by the operative, when he
>could get a trial months sooner and STILL have an appeal later, if needed.
>
>Nobody BUT an operative who didn't want the tapes played would have been
>demanding that man sit in jail 3-4 more months or would try to lie about
>this plain fact, either. And nobody BUT an operative would have insisted
>that I work on a phony "appeal" instead of preparing for trial. And nobody
>BUT an operative would lie and portray these plain facts, as you have, as a
>"blown deadline."
>
>You claim otherwise? Demonstrate EXACTLY what "deadline" was "blown" and
>why you, as "co-counsel" didn't insure this "vitally important" so-called
>"deadline" was not met?
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>> BS, Linda. You had nothing to do with the
>>plea negotiations.
>
>You were out of state until the day the hearing was scheduled. The court
>record and the jail record, among other things, document this. There are
>several independent things I did to document these facts, because by that
>time, it was quite obvious what was going on. Next fabrication.
>
>> You were long gone by then.
>
>Two days is "long gone?" Yeah, right.
>
>>You did, I admit, fight like hell. The District Attorneys
>>office also reported death threats that they blamed
>>(rightly or wrongly) on you.
>
>Let's see. I was lead counsel and specifically directed that *no* publicity
>was to be dissiminated about the case whatsoever, and the next day, you
>release a news story about you as a "militia attorney" to the local media
>(which you blame on a "misunderstanding" by your "press secretary"),
>following on the heels of another "militia attorney" story, and then there
>were "death threats?" Since I had not told a single person about the case,
>I got the publicity shut off and filed for a court order to do it that is
>part of the court record, while you were pumping it up in the media, I'd say
>you're now trying to find a way to get some mileage out of it anyway.
>
>It was a failed attempt by you to become known as a "patriot attorney,"
>after you helped torpedo the marijuana "sting" case in Atlanta, no doubt.
>
>How many "movements" have you "helped"? Will we see you working on "porno
>on the internet" defenses next?
>
>> I think we got the good deal because they were
>>relieved not to have to deal with you anymore.
>
>Thank you. If the prosecution were sorry to see me go, that would be a sad
>commentary, indeed, not unlike your comments that the government attorneys
>were undoubtably among those in the courtroom who were "thrilled" at the
>Starr defense.
>
>However, I could not think less of the opinion of an attorney who has slept
>with defense witnesses and gathered evidence against her own client.
>
>>>>
>>>>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).
>>
>> What happened between me & JJ was personal.
>>Stop making a political issue of it, it's disgusting.
>
>When you tout yourself as a "patriot" attorney, then publicly and
>purposefully undermine a patriot's defense by sleeping with a character and
>fact witness, harming a whole family of innocent patriots in the process,
>then you "gather" (or was it plant?) evidence against your own client, I'd
>say it's pretty disgusting all right.
>
>When sleeping with a defense witness has occurred more than once, in less
>than six months, claiming it was "personal" would be laughable, if it were
>not for the calculated effect it had on so many people and the patriot
>movement generally.
>
>It was a political case from the beginning, which nobody with one eye or
>half a brain could deny. That you would not have the sense to keep the case
>low profile, defies ordinary common sense. That you would actively
>undermine the defense, however, and do so by making a public spectacle of
>sleeping with a "high profile" (your term) militia member, tells it all.
>Gathering evidence against your client, though, scrapes the bottom of the
>barrel.
>
>I also note your efforts to rope me into the case, then failing that, to use
>the assistance I provided to attack me, as well as my silence. Anything to
>get the targets originally intended, eh?
>
>Your track record speaks for itself.
>
>>>already established history at that point in the Michael Hill case,
>>other than it should have been obvious.
>>
>> Pardon me, but it was not me who screwed that case
>>up. There were things done in Ohio, such as a "common law
>>indictment" that made it difficult.
>
>The evidence presented to the grand jury had nothing whatsoever to do with
>the "common law indictment" nor with the preparation of witnesses.
>
>Likewise, if the people who put out the common-law indictment "screwed that
>case" as you claim, then why didn't you publicly put out their names and the
>facts?
>
>> I did not withdraw until Arlene told me she found local counsel,
>>which had been my recommendation from day 1.
>
>Until after the grand jury returned no indictment, anyway.
>
>>>>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.
>>
>> This is crazy. I know who you mean, and she was nothing but
>>supportive, both emotionally and financially. She fired you, that is
>>your problem.
>
>It's "crazy" that a very bright woman with a "computer business" out of her
>home (same m.o. as another half dozen operatives known to work for covert
>intelligence agencies), suddenly appears who gets a man to move in with her
>(who has already been targetted by the government). Immediately afterward,
>he's arrested, and the main thing she is worried about is whether or not
>tapes will be played at trial that will publicly expose her -- not what
>might happen to the defendant -- but you claim she's "supportive?" Oh, no
>doubt, in public she played that role quite well.
>
>Crazy was that this "supportive" person would rather see him sit in jail for
>3-4 months waiting on an "appeal" then go to trial immediately, when he
>might win the case and could always take an appeal later, if he didn't win
>the trial.
>
>That you defend her, after she actively undermined the case, even after it
>was over, to keep the tapes from being played, however, is very telling.
>
>
>>>>
>>>>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).
>>
>> Ditto. JJ was compromised as a witness when he testified
>>at the bond hearing and we heard a bit of the possible cross.
>>He was not going to testify anyway.
>> You realize of course that everything we say at meetings is
>>taped or noted by the government? You just can't use a high profile
>>witness.
>
>Particularly not after you, Defense counsel, have made him even more "high
>profile" by sleeping with him during a highly publicized case.
>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>> BS, Linda. I know what you are talking about here too.
>>When we first met, I had spent some time with a man I have
>>known for 15 years. He came to Indy from a nearby state
>>to meet me, and had absolutely nothing to do with the Hill case.
>
>
>
>That is not who I am talking about, but I wasn't counting everyone you slept
>with, just the ones that were witnesses in cases.
>
>I don't think the guy in California you were living with, the guy in Reno,
>the guy in Indiana, or the two guys down in Georgia, were "witnesses" in any
>cases (not counting JJ or the other witness in Georgia).
>
>
>
>>
>> In the other "case" you refer to, I had a few dinners with a
>>possible witness long AFTER the case was over.
>>
>> This is a bunch of crap.
>
>No, that particular witness is still smitten with you and will lie for you,
>I'm sure of that, but it occurred while the case was going on. Eventually,
>even the most dull-witted of your consorts will get the picture, though.
>
>>>
>>>>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!"
>>
>> There is an explanation for this. Unfortunately it cannot
>>be revealed.
>
>There is no hypothetical or other circumstances in which going out in the
>middle of the night to gather evidence could not be used by the government
>against the client when it is his attorney going out to "gather" the evidence.
>
>Even if the evidence were exculpatory, the circumstances damn the evidence.
>
>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>> NO. That is what McCranie's wife SAID that I said. What
>>I really said was, "Call your lawyer right away, this could help
>>the case."
>
>Then you should sue the paper. It was a comment attributed directly to you,
>publicly.
>
>Secondly, by your being at McCranie's property, obviously McCranie's wife
>was made, by your actions, into a witness in the case in which her own
>husband is on trial. She becomes a witness adverse to a co-defendant because
>she is a witness to what you did.
>
>She couldn't be made to testify against her husband, but she could be made
>to testify to what you did. This then translates to her being a witness
>against your client, Bob Starr, and indirectly, against her own husband, no
>matter how skillfully she testifies.
>
>You can't be called to testify, though. Boy, was that ever a great set up.
>
>The evidence adduced at the preliminary hearing, that the government planted
>in Starr's backyard, doomed the government's case -- until the government
>had the evidence that it was able to produce that was gathered by Starr's
>attorney, you, and the leverage it held by witnesses it *could* call who, no
>matter how innocent their testimony, would be damning by implication.
>
>>>>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.
>>
>> No. He was set up. It's be made public soon enough.
>
>Well, it would certainly be a welcome surprise to see facts finally coming
>out (after the trial). Not very useful, but refreshing. Maybe a year or
>two from now, Bob can get a real trial after all this is exposed on appeal.
>Of course, that will be after his job, family, and life have already been
>destroyed.
>
>>>>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.
>>
>> Case law against that. It's an appeal issue.
>
>
>That's nice. You can't be called to testify, but the evidence can come in,
>without challenge about whether THAT evidence was planted, about whether the
>chemical residue that was later "found" on it was planted, etc., etc., etc.
>and of course, that also ignores that McCranie's wife COULD be called to
>testify, if necessary.
>
>Bob Starr would have needed a magician, not a defense attorney, after that.
>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>> She wears exquisite designer suits.
>
>With the shaved head and pony-tail. I am sure the effect is quite LA-like
>and is just perfect in Macon, Georgia. Nonetheless, it hardly mattered, all
>things considered, by that point.
>
>>>
>>>>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).
>>
>> A clue here as to the earlier comment. It was not an
>>explosive.
>
>
>Note, above, my comment put the word "explosive" in quotes and specifically
>says "which is not explosive."
>
>Now, to the issue you did not address. The fact that the chemical was not
>explosive was not developed at trial. A simple, obvious, very telling fact,
>easily proven, a key element of the government's case destroyed, but "trial
>strategy" says don't use it?
>
>Yeah, I buy that. Sure thing.
>
>> Ms. Buafo's choice here was that she did not want to
>>get into this because it WAS NOT BOB's. It was planted.
>>I had this stuff all ready for her.
>
>
>Yes and the people here who gathered the material are familiar with how it
>was provided to you, and then not used.
>
>> But I must admit, she has
>>a point. It would seem like an admission that he had something
>>to do with it when he did not.
>
>When a co-defendant goes down, everyone goes down. Upon experience with how
>many federal criminal cases had this been based?
>
>Given that approach, why weren't the cases tried separately? If a motion to
>try separately was denied, then the necessity for a joint defense becomes an
>obvious reality.
>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>> Ms. Buafo chose to challenge the indictment, to base her
>>defense around the fact that the crimes charged had not been done.
>>It failed. That does not mean she is an agent.
>
>I have never said Buafo was an agent and I do not believe she is one.
>Again, you put forth a false statement because you cannot address the facts
>presented.
>
>She had inadequate time to prepare and made trial choices that are a matter
>of individual attorney strategy, some of which I disagree with and have
>stated why; however, many choices were made for her by the circumstances she
>was stuck with by the time she got the case.
>
>One of the reasons she had less time to prepare was the failure of former
>counsel (Nancy Lord) to remove herself from the case for conflict. One of
>the critical pieces of evidence could not be attacked because of its source
>(Nancy Lord). Time constraints would eliminate motions that could have been
>filed, in deference to motions that must be filed. Buafo had to make do
>under some serious constraints.
>
>As I said earlier, Starr needed a magician, not a defense attorney, by the
>time she got the case.
>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>[snip]
>
>I will not back off exposing what is being done and how it is being done.
>
>Let the chips fall where they may.
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail