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