14 November 2008

local attorney greg aymond in new email controversy

back in the winter of 2007 and spring of 2008 there was the nationalist movement vs. town of jena lawsuit. mr. richard barrett was the lead attorney but wasnt admitted to practice in louisiana's western district. so local attorney, greg aymond and he set up a pro hac vice situation and they were the nationalist movements attorneys.

mr. aymond says that he is a former member of the ku klux klan, but does anyone ever get out of the klan? for instance, mr. aymond told us how after the news media reported about his klan membership he was out grocery shopping one day and some guy approached him and attempted to do a secret klan handshake. so apparently that guy didnt think so.

for some unknown reason, mr. aymond began to bcc emails from him to mr. barrett and fwd emails from mr. barrett to him, to us. we never asked for any of the emails or expected to see them. we didnt know what they were for or why we were receiving them when they began appearing in our inbox. the sending of the emails to us was totally mr. aymond's doing. furthermore, we couldnt understand why he was attempting to get us involved in the case seeing that we are not lawyers and we wondered if mr. aymond was attempting to set us for something.

we always get a chuckle out of mr. aymond's self promotion about what a paragon of virtue he claims to be and how his only aims are to clean up government by reporting unethicalness -- because its simply untrue. so learn from our mistakes and stay far away from this guy.

anyway, we thought that we would share these emails.

this first set of emails involve jeremiah munsen the grant parish, louisiana kid who was charged and later convicted and sentenced to federal prison for displaying a noose in alexandria, la. the night of the jena 6 march.

according to mr. aymond, mr. munsen came to see him and another attorney, george higgins. mr. aymond said that they told mr. munsen that it would cost up to $30,00 for them to represent him in federal court.

mr. aymond told us that richard barrett of the nationalist movement wanted to represent mr. munsen but for some reason it didnt work out. mr. munsen was eventually represented by a court appointed attorney.

below is an email exchange mr. aymond sent to us in which he was apparently, at mr. barrett's request sizing mr. munsen up.

click here to download a twelve page .pdf of emails with headers

----- Original Message -----
From: "crosstar" nationalist@nationalist.org
To: "Greg Aymond" gr.aymond@suddenlink.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 8:40 PM
Subject: Size?


Hi, Greg:

Not getting into any attorney-client privilege,
but could you just give me a "size-up" of
Munsen?

I mean, is he a hard-nosed kid, who could really
take the heat? Does he understand the ramifications
of it all?

Or, is he kind of weak? Likely to cave in? Maybe
even a punk of some sort?

Is he physically strong? Mentally alert?

Could he speak and account well for himself? Is he any
kind of a leader? Or, maybe timid and shy?

This would help me to get a grip on whether I
would want to represent him (if asked).

Thanks.

R
====
this was mr. aymond's reply - it was within the body of the email exchange (see the .pdf):

At 08:42 AM 1/31/2008, you wrote:

He is a very intelligent, but not highly educated 18 year old hard working kid, who works on his family's bee keeping farm. He is very worried about the fed. charges, and wishes he didn't carry the nooses now, although he feels that he had a right to do so.I did discuss you with him at our initial meeting, but there was some concern voiced as to whether your association would negatively influence a jury/

Greg Aymond
====
----- Original Message -----
From: "crosstar" nationalist@nationalist.org
To: "Greg Aymond" gr.aymond@suddenlink.net
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: Size?


Thanks, Greg:

I appreciate this info.

I realize that Alexandria is a lot like Jackson, these days. A n----- town.

That means several things. A challenge to "Batson," the idea that you must have Negroes on the jury and, of course, an appeal to the Supreme Court over that, if need be.

Second, the appeal, at trial, to just one (or more) whites, to hang it up.

Finally, a no-holds barred political defense (or offense, might be the better term), to place the "government," prosecutors and "system" on trial. The aim being: "We're going to whip these charges and turn the whole country around." And, if we have to "go to the cross" to do it, so be it.

The notion, alas, that someone can "sneak in" and mount a tepid defense and hope not to "stir things up," in my opinion, just doesn't work in a highly charged political-case. I've seen that happen. You know, the "standard" criminal defense: he didn't do it, you got the wrong guy, it really wasn't a big deal, you didn't "prove" it, etc.

Don't get me wrong. It could work. I'd love to see it work. But, the chances are just about nill. The prosecutor (a n------, in this case) gets up and denounces "racism," "hate" and all the standard buzz words. And, the guy sits there sheepishly looking "guilty as sin."

A fellow came to me that had been picked up for shooting up a communist book store, here. I explained the "political" defense strategy, but he mocked it and wouldn't hear of it. So, he got the most-prominent criminal-defense lawyer in town and paid him a huge fee. $15,000.00 if I recall. He laughed at me. "Ha, ha. I got the best lawyer now! Who needs you!"

I attended the trial. "He wasn't even there," claimed the lawyer. The prosecutor asked him where he was. He said "watching TV at home" and "Cops" was on.
The prosecutor then asked him where he was on the 13th of the month. On the 12th of the previous month. On the 6th of the previous month. He didn't know.
"But you know so well on this night!" the prosecutor yelled. Then, the lawyer criticized the star-witness, who was a Negro-prostitute. "Unreliable!" he claimed. "How so?" He had no comeback.

Then, the prosecutor asked about the ring the kid was wearing. It had a klan insignia on it. "Irrelevant!" hollered the lawyer. "Keep it out! No consequence!" he shouted. The judge let it. "I want to ask about your political associations," the prosecutor said. "No, no, no," interjected the lawyer. But, the judge said it was fair-game. The kid was convicted. All the posturing had made him look guilty, like he had "something to hide." He never mounted a political defense and came across as just some common-criminal.

Several of the important similar cases in history have been the Peter Zenger case and the Captain Prescott case. Both were acquitted on the theory that I mentioned: that the King was responsible for the problem, not the printer or the soldier.

I represented Larry Walker and Ken Painter in the famous cross-burning case in Mississippi. They were charged with "arson" in protesting the takeover of WLBT TV by Negroes, here (yanked by the FCC because they
refused to hire n------). I called experts to testify about the meaning of the burning cross, the significance of fire in protest, the role of social-activism, etc.

What really helped was when I called the Negro who took over and he admitted on the stand that it was unjust and deserved to be protested against -- even burned down!

We even had a Negro judge! The motion for change of venue helped, in that the judge approved moving it to a white county. I called the fire-chief who admitted that you could burn pine-straw, brush, etc. in your yard or in somebody elses yard, even without their OK, but he'd "get you" if you burned a cross. I used the same thing in the Jena-ordinance case.

Anyhow, all charges were dismissed. The lads claimed that they were not "in the klan," but had simply wanted to protest. Oh, yeah, I didn't charge them a dime -- was just glad to see "justice done."

Well, enough of "ancient history." I turned down the Killen case, because the defendant was so old and a bit senile that he could not testify in his own defense. I figured that he had to state his case for history and, lacking that, there was no point in the lawyer attempting "putting on the show," all by himself.

In other words, the defendant has to come across as the champion, the "freedom-fighter" and, even, the martyr.

The play has to be to history and the country, as a whole, not just to the jury. And, the kid has to "lay it all on the line" and state that he is willing to rot in jail -- in the name of freedom, if need be.

Well, I can see, from what you have said, Greg, that the kid is worried and probably not a good one to "make his Alamo stand." If he has doubts or fears (of course, so would I or most others) that hold him back, I would be
reluctant to try to be his backbone, if his own backbone just can't stand up to it all.

I was going to suggest that you might suggest to him that he contact me, directly... but, I'll leave it up to you, if you think it would do any good. Painter and Walker, on the other hand, were prepared to testify. We did enormous media, at the time.

We were in the news, every day, challenging the prosecutors, proclaiming freedom of speech, condemning integration, blasting WLBT -- we even called a preacher who testified that the boys were "doing God's will."

Well, I just wanted to let off some steam on this, Greg. If is frustrating, of course.

Well, good luck.

R

PS One other thought. Remember the Amy Carter case? She was accused of "occupying" and tearing up a college building to protest some doofus cause. She got up and blamed the CIA, FBI, government and all of that. She claimed that she was proud to have broken the "law" and would do so again. She insisted that her cause was just and the prosecutors were unjust. Well, she was acquitted.
"Jury-nullification."

One of the jurors was asked, afterward, why she was acquitted. "We didn't agree with her," the juror said, "but we liked her spunk." That says it all!
====
during the time time in the below exchange between mr. aymond and mr. barrett, mr. aymond said that he was "shitting bricks" because he thought that mr. barrett was padding his bill. mr. aymond said that he came to the conclusion that this was how mr. barrett made his living - by lawsuits such as the nationalist movement vs town of jena and then collecting inflated legal fees. mr. aymond was also afraid because according to him, mr. barrett all through the case would forge his electronic signature to and then file court pleadings.

mr. aymond said that he was scared that the federal judge (dee drell) in the case was going to get wise to what was going on and have him disbarred. this made sense to us because anyone who knows anything about the so called gold firm (judge drell's old firm) knows that if any group of lawyers knows corruption its them!

mr. aymond said that he was trying to stall submitting his legal fees to mr. barrett for as long as he could, in hopes that he could figure out what to do.

----- Original Message -----
From: "crosstar" nationalist@nationalist.org
To: "Greg Aymond" gr.aymond@suddenlink.net
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 8:42 PM
Subject: No answer


Hi, Greg:

I just tried phoning you, but got no answer.

It just rang and rang.

What am I supposed to do now, please?

I had sent you the draft of your affidavit,
this morning, but, still, no response.

If I do not hear from you, I am going to file my stuff
without you and you can file your own, if you wish.

I cannot wait any longer.

R
====
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Aymond" gr.aymond@suddenlink.net
To: "crosstar" nationalist@nationalist.org
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: No answer


Richard: I just got home, and have been at the courthouse all day. It took longer than I expected.

I, unlike you, am engaged in a full time law practice. I perform my work according to their deadlines, but despite that I am getting you my portion of the fees weeks ahead of time, which I am sure that it will probably be tomorrow. I think it is somewhat unreasonable for you to expect me to be at your beck and call whenever you telephone me.

Additionally, I don't appreciate your holding me to artificial arbirary deadlines. You should realize that I don't sit at my computer all day long and wait for your e-mails.

I urge you to wait one more, on the outside 2, days longer.to receive my portion. You well know that I do not have electronic filing capabilities and that is now mandatory here. I certainly hope that what was a very good working relation does not come to an end.
====
----- Original Message -----
From: "crosstar" nationalist@nationalist.org
To: "Greg Aymond" gr.aymond@suddenlink.net
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: No answer


Hi, Greg:

OK, let's try this.

If you or I say we will do something by a certain time and
are unable to, how about tell the other person -- just as a matter
of common courtesy?

How would that be? That's not too much to ask, is it?

For example, when you said you would have the stuff here today,
I waited here all day for your stuff, despite having other things
I could do or places I could be.

Well, enough regurgitating.

I want to know this and I want to know it NOW. Are you
or are you not going to approve my fee affidavit. Yes or no?

I have asked you this repeatedly and I have had no response. You
either seem to shrug it off or just do not respond. I need to
know and insist on knowing NOW, please.

Thanks.

R
====
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Aymond" gr.aymond@suddenlink.net
To: "crosstar" nationalist@nationalist.org
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: No answer


Richard: The answer is NO. I cannot in good faith verify work you have alledgedly done on this case when I have no personal knowledge of it.

I suggest that we go at it as each man for himself on the respective attorny fees, and I expect you to electronically file a joint motion for me to withdraw as co-counsel tomorrow. You DO NOT have my permission to electronically use my signature on any filings, other than th joint motion to withdraw'
====
mr. aymond was also livid when piyush "bobby" jindal wrecked the state ethics laws. mr. aymond was even more upset when his friend local attorney, michael johnson left the ethics board. according to mr. aymond, mr. johnson had been a source of a wealth of insider information of the doings of the ethics board to him and mr. aymond would in turn pass the information on to us. again we never asked for any information, mr. aymond would just phone us up and volunteer it. for example, we knew a month, maybe two in advance, that piyush "bobby" jindal was going to have ethics charges filed against him. we knew so far in advance that we had forgotten about it when it finally hit the news.

thanks again to mr. aymond and his connection we also knew in well in advance that ethics charges were going to be filed against myron lawson and bridgett brown. we also knew in advance that ethics charges were going to be filed against mr. aymond's arch nemesis, rich dupree.

mr. aymond would phone us up at all hours of the day and night pretending to lament something some "anonymous" person would write about him on the cenla antics blog. we say pretending because if a couple of days would pass and he wasnt mentioned, he would call acting all disappointed that he was no longer the center of attention. eventually, mr. aymond revealed to us that during those down times he would anonymously make disparaging comments about himself to stir the pot again. this is when we began to wonder if mr. aymond has a mental problem.

in the very near future, we intend to write an extensive expose on our experience with mr. aymond.
====
note: anyone wishing to file an ethical conduct complaint to the louisiana attorney disciplinary board should follow the directions the ladb has made available from their website at filing a complaint. complaints can be filed by any person, not just a client.
====

Posted by wst... at 01:44

Labels:

Subscribe to: