Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 17:19:32 -0700 From: email@example.com (TL) Subject: STUNG - Beware of Infiltrators!
The posting that follows is vitally important to everyone involved in any freedom organization. Any organization that becomes successful in expanding freedom or liberty is likely to be seen as a threat by terrocrats (coercive government agents or terrorist bureaucrats). The terrocrats may attempt to utilize infiltrators to neutralize such organizations and their principals. The posting reveals important elements of the terrocrats' modus operandi.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 8 Nov 96 07:50 EST From: Linda Thompson <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: 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 informants 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.
Posts: 15962 | From: A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC | Registered: Oct 2001