From: Nancy Lord, MD, JD
Subject: No More Indictments

INTRODUCTION

The freedom movement was dealt a harsh blow this year.
Since April, five indictments, all of three or more militia
members, all charged with what Justice Learned Hand once
called,  "Conspiracy, the darling of the prosecutor's
nursery."  There were convictions in Macon and more are
coming.  Every case was made by a government agent who
instigated conduct that supported federal conspiracy charges.

Since the Macon case, I have spoken with lawyers or accuseds
in all four other cases.  It is painfully clear that the militia
movement needs to understand federal conspiracy law.  This
post may not be well received.  What I say here does not
comport with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or even
published case law.  But it is what happens in a federal
courtroom, where it will defeat those who do not comprehend.

First, a group must agree never to condone or participate in
illegal activity and to exclude anyone who tries to instigate
it.  These guidelines should help decide what is legal,
illegal, or could be made to look illegal by an overzealous
prosecutor and his confidential informant.

CONSPIRACY

A conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act.  It is not
a signed contract, or even a handshake, but can be "tacit" -
- a wink and a nod, an unspoken understanding.  It can mean
nothing more than holding military training one day and
discussing the Russian tanks at an airbase the next.
Evidence can be direct or circumstantial, and a jury can
infer whatever the government wants them to believe.

One person can think about and plan any illegal act.  He can
have diagrams of buildings, maps to the prospective victims'
houses, but without a substantive step (attempt) or request
for help (solicitation), there is no crime.  (Though if
someone else does it, the diagrams and maps mean trouble.)

For two people together, a wishful dream is a conspiracy.
Two people in the library reading about explosives could be
charged with conspiracy to manufacture explosives.  This
violates the first amendment, but Hizzoner will not agree.

DEFENSE AGAINST FEDERAL OFFICIALS

It is illegal to defend yourself against a federal official
who is acting within the scope of his job.  He can violate
regulations and the constitution, but if he is on duty,  you
do not have the right to strike back.  Citizens are expected
to be arrested and fight it out later in court.

This is horrible, but it is the law.  That is not to say that
I would go quietly to the gas chambers.  There may come a
time to break this law, but it is still the law.  One can
only defend against a fed if he is acting outside the scope
of his job, "on a frolic", like attempting date rape.  A
frolicking fed is like anyone else and can be met with force
neccessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury.

CONSPIRACY TO DEFEND

The combination of these laws means that getting together to
prepare to defend against federal officials is as conspiracy,
particularly if there is any talk of explosives. If a group
of people vocally criticize the federal government and engage
in so-called para-military training, this conspiracy can be
"inferred."  An Assistant U.S. Attorney will not have to be
a rocket-scientist to make an inference that the government
is who they plan to fight.  The public is so poorly educated
that jurors are easily terrified.

It is legal to resist a fed only when he is not acting as a
fed, but as anyone else.  Studying self defense against any
and all attackers, not the feds or even the U.N., is legal
and was the purpose for the constitutional militias.

DO AND DON'T

Patriots who speak out about the unconstitutional expansion
of the federal government, U.N. control, illegal raids, etc.,
should not engage in training exercises.  Instead learn self
defense by joining the reserves or the Sheriff's auxiliary,
or taking a firearms, martial arts, or ROTC course.  Work on
physical fitness and practice roughing it by camping with
a nature appreciation club.  Nobody needs to put a bulls-eye
on his head to shoot straight, run fast, and build endurance.

If you feel that military style preparedness is tantamount,
then leave the first amendment activities to others.  I'm
trampling on the constitution, but it is, again, reality.
Col. Bo Gritz has not been indicted for S.P.I.K.E. training
because training alone is not illegal (in most states), as
long as the government is not the enemy.

Any group doing both public education and training with the
same people and the same leaders is asking for indictment.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Intent to start "a war with the federal government" can been
"proven" by the video tapes, books, speeches, radio shows,
that the movement produces.  The Vipers were indicted based
on a video that one of them produced.  The movement custom
of videotaping every speech should be curtailed, and nothing
taped with even a hint of impending violence.

If you have a tape like this around, you are not required to
keep it secure.  Once an investigation starts, or a
subpoena issues, it will be obstruction of justice to destroy
it.  A spy thriller taped over it will have more information
on the satellite tracking systems, electronic interception,
and other high-tech spy methods than a speech about targets,
and six guys with rifles will be picked off real quick if the
government ever makes all out war against its citizens.

They are not going to round up all dissidents at once but
are picking off one group at a time, by using informants.

CATCHING THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS

Think of the momentum for freedom if in 1997 five government
paid confidential informants (CI's) were publicly exposed
trying to provoke crimes before anyone else got in trouble.

Have a notary at your meeting, and ask all participants to
swear to and sign an affidavit that they are not affiliated
in any way with law enforcement or are in law enforcement
and there for personal interest; and that they will not
provoke illegal conduct.  If this is a lie, it will show in
court that this person committed perjury.

Assign a few responsible people as security, and identify
them with badges or hats.  Tell participants that anyone who
suggests illegal acts should be reported to security, who
will then investigate the troublemaker and decide how to
proceed.  Some troublemakers just needs attention and a
talking to, others will need to be excluded, and a call to
the Sheriff may be in order if you suspect a CI.

A group with resources can thoroughly investigate a
troublemaker -- criminal background (informants almost always
have records), whom he or she meets with, where his or her
money comes from, etc.  If you find unexplained cash and
meetings with a guy in a Taurus as soon as your meeting is
over, you've probably caught a CI.  DO NOT threaten or in
any way disclose what you know, but get as much good press
out of this as you can.  The CI might be taped trying to
provoke illegal conduct, but only a trained interviewer
should try this and the plan must be documented.  Do not 
incriminate yourself trying to catch the CI on tape.

Once you've got the evidence, send a letter to the Sheriff,
the local U.S. Attorney's office, B.A.T.F., and F.B.I.  This
will force them to disclose it to defense attorneys, under
Brady v. Maryland, if the CI ever tries to make a case
against your group.  Then, get it out on the radio.  Invite
the CI onto a local talk show, and confront him on the air.

Send a letter to the public defender's office, informing
them of this transaction, without details.  They will know
about Brady material on the CI, but the U.S. Attorney will
still have to disclose it.  Do not disclose it for him.

LOVE THY NEIGHBOR

A CI is a highly manipulative person who preys on the weak.
One CI working for minimum wage and driving 100 miles twice
a week for meetings, took an entire family out for dinners
to win them over.  It worked, and nobody even questioned
where the money came from.

If someone in your group is in trouble, a responsible and
caring person should help through the crisis, before a clever
CI can ingratiate himself and gain control of his psyche.

CONCLUSION

The public needs to know what happened during the past year.
The convictions in Macon prove that the average person does
not understand the lengths to which the government goes to
create a case against those who speak out against it.  The
only way they will understand is if future entrapments are
prevented and CI's are exposed attempting to manufacture
crime.  Only then will infiltrating law abiding groups become
an unacceptable risk for the government.

In Liberty,