RE: I Got Mine

["Albert P. Franco, II" <apf2@apf2.com>]

At 09:22 PM 12/2/98 -0800, you wrote:
> From Greg Broiles:
>
>: Just as a reasonable person will likely listen cautiously to an accused
>: person proclaiming their innocence, a reasonable person should also listen
>: cautiously when the prosecution proclaims someone's guilt.
>..........................................
>
>
>Thanks for the advice, it hadn't occurred to me they might be spoofing. <g>
>
>(On a piece of paper they asked me to write down some of the statements I
made
>regarding my limited association with Toto (for the record, in lieu of a
court
>appearance), and asked that I also explain what I mean by "spoofing", as I
had
>thus described what Toto might have been up to with those incendiary
messages.)
>
>To their credit, I will say that they only told me more about Toto's
activities
>during the course of our discussions regarding the point in time when
someone is
>likely to be arrested based on their public expressions.   They related that
>Toto had sent numerous threatening messages to the Mounties, and that
although
>he had alarming info out on his website that was not a problem; that they
took
>action only after he actually planted a bomb in one of their buildings.  Then
>when I asked them as to why he was being tried in this area, rather than
Canada
>or Texas or Arizona, they brought up that Toto had threatened the judge
trying
>Jim's case (and also his other email regarding Billg).
>

You speak as if these are facts. When was the trial? When was it proven
that CJ=Toto (or at least a significant portion of Toto)? When was it
proven that CJ or Toto planted a bomb or threatened a judge? When is
something true just because some MIB says so?!?!?

You have jumped to so many conclusions that I'm astonished that you didn't
just jump in and offer to help string him up yourself! Maybe you did,
deliberately or unintentionally.

COPS LIE!!! FBI agents LIE!!! IRS agents LIE!!! That's why we have a
justice system that was intended to make them PROVE what they say. 

>At least they were not offensive, but polite and pleasant, but it's true one
>should keep one's mind on the facts - the pertinent facts, the pertinence
*of*
>the facts, and no other facts.   I myself, of course, would never lie.
Unless I
>had to. : )
>

"Here little girl, I have some candy for you..." But he was so NICE...

>"Well, it depends on what your definition of  'is'  is . . . "  What a great
>Leader, and a Lawyer, showing us how to deal with the Law.
>

Your BEST defense against them is always to make them demonstrate what they
believe to be true. DON'T tell them anything. If what they say was really
true (now this is important...) AND YOU are not a suspect then they don't
need to talk to you, they already have proof. I'll put that another way...
They talked to you because 1) they still don't have a case, and/or 2) YOU
are a suspect!

APF