Former federal prosecutor Peter Robinson is defending alleged Freeman John Patrick McGuire, who is charged with threatening two Sonoma County, California judges and illegal possession of firearms by an ex-felon. The trial is scheduled to begin Sept. 9. Robinson was Court TV's guest Aug. 20, 1996, for a live event in America Online's Odeon Center Stage. The following is a transcript.

 

CourtTV9: Hello everybody. Welcome to Court TV's live 

chat, "Defending a Freeman." Our guest tonight is lawyer Peter 

Robinson, who is representing alleged Freeman John Patrick McGuire. 





Prosecutors say McGuire threatened two judges in Sonoma County, 

California. He is also charged with illegal possession of firearms by an 

ex-felon. Mr. Robinson, a former federal prosecutor, who helped put 

members of the Neo-Nazi group, "The Order," in jail, says he feels so 

strongly about this case that he is representing McGuire for free. He 

thinks McGuire is being persecuted for having unpopular beliefs.




Good evening, Mr. Robinson. What is the latest in the McGuire 

case?




Peter Robinson: Mr. McGuire is scheduled to be tried before a 

jury on Sept. 9th. He will first be tried on the threat case, And 

following that, he will be tried on the firearm charges.




CourtTV9: Was it hard to get the cases separated? 




Peter Robinson: Yes it was. Prosecutors had joined the cases 

together because it helps both cases, which they are not entitled to do in 

the threat case.




CourtTV9: We will now take questions from the audience.




Question:  Do you plan on defending other Freemen? What do 

you think of the case pending up in Billings, Montana? What was 

McGuire's alleged role in it? Are you defending him there?




Peter Robinson: I don't plan on defending any other freeman. 

It's usually considered t be a conflict of interest to represent more than 

one person in a case. Mr. McGuire is also charged in Billings with bank 

fraud, mail fraud, and the robbery of an ABC news crew. After the 

California charges are concluded he will be taken to Montana to face 

the federal charges.




Question:  Some people say McGuire is not a Freemen -- that 

he was only studying common law at the Freeman: compound. Why 

would anyone believe that?




Peter Robinson: That is actually true. He was not a member of 

the original group. He was one of some 800 people who studied at the 

Freemen compound in Montana. However he was there when the 

activities involving bank fraud, and robbery were alleged to have taken 

place.




CourtTV9: Why do people study at the compound? What 

resources draw people there?




Peter Robinson: It was know and publicized that the 

compound had a tremendous library of materials relating to the 

common law, and that there were people well versed in the common 

law teaching. That's what drew McGuire there.




Question:  First, how did you become involved. And second, 

where did you study law?




Peter Robinson: I became involved with McGuire when an 

attorney, who his sister had contacted, referred him to me. While I was 

a Federal prosecutor, I was aware of McGuire because he had 

uncovered some information about some fraud cases I was prosecuting. 

I went to school at Lewis and Clark Law school, in Portland, Oregon at 

night. And during the day, I worked as a law clerk in the US Attorney's 

office.




Question:  What sort of person is McGuire? Do you like him? 

Is he a productive member of the community?




Peter Robinson: Good question. McGuire is a wonderful 

person. He is considerate, smart, and generous. He lived a very 

productive life until 1980, when he was convicted of a crime he didn't 

commit. After that he spent thousands of hours trying to overturn his 

conviction. He only turned to the common law because he was totally 

frustrated by what the justice system had failed to do in his life. Well, I 

don't get very many innocent clients. I don't think that Pat McGuire is 

guilty of any of the charges against him.




Question:  Do you enjoy what you do? Has it always been 

pretty boring being an Attorney? Or has it been fun?




Peter Robinson: It's an opportunity for me to do some good. 

Criminal law is very exciting. There is tremendous varied. The cases 

are fast moving. And I still get goose bumps arguing a case to a jury. I 

love what I am doing.




Question:  Given all the publicity the Freemen are getting, 

(tonight included!) what will jury selection be like? Do you think it's 

possible for your client to get a fair trial?




Peter Robinson: Yes I do. I'm looking for people who are 

concerned about freedom. I think open minded people will see that Pat 

McGuire did not violate the law. The fact that his beliefs are unpopular, 

I think will be to my advantage, because it will show that he is not 

being persecuted for any other reason. 




Question:  I'm a law student at Georgetown, and wish to be a 

U.S. attorney. Now I'm doing defense work. I'm glad to see it's not 

uncommon to "switch hats".




Peter Robinson: It is not uncommon, only people who are 

ideologues have trouble doing it.




Question:  So how do you cover your expenses doing this 

major pro bono work?




Peter Robinson: Fortunately I have a successful practice and I 

am expensive. So I can afford to do this kind of work.




Question:  Do you believe in the present jury system?




Peter Robinson: Absolutely. In 18 years of prosecuting and 

defending over 100 jury trials, I have yet to see a jury reach a result 

that was totally wrong. If we ever give the decision about someone's 

freedom to anyone other than fellow citizens, we will forever regret 

it.




Question:  I was involved in the Oklahoma City Bombing 

recovery efforts. I am not convinced that Terry Nichols and Timothy 

McVeigh are guilty. What do you think their chances are of a fair 

trial?




Peter Robinson: I think they will be able to get a fair trial in 

Denver. It's astounding to me how many people show up for jury 

service who don't really know very much about what's going on in the 

world. And many people who do know, don't care. So I think they will 

find 12 people with no predisposition to one side or the other.




Question:  Tell us more about "The Order" -- is it still an 

active Nazi group?




Peter Robinson: I prosecuted 30 members of the Order in 

1985, for murder, robbery, and other crimes. I think we got them all. 

However, other copycat groups have sprung up. I don't think there is 

any other group involved in these crimes at this extent.




Question:  Are jurors who are ignorant of current events 

desirable?




Peter Robinson: I can't say one way or the other. Ignorant 

jurors come in all shapes and sizes. The most desirable juror may not 

necessarily be an ignorant juror. But an ignorant juror is preferable to 

one who has already formed an opinion about the case.




Question:  What do you think of the Freemen's common law 

court system




Peter Robinson: I think it is absurd. Taken to its extreme, you 

can commit a murder, and then hold your own court to find yourself 

not guilty. That simply can not work.




Question:  I hear your doing this case free of charge. Are there 

other cases you've done pro bono? Are you hoping to get rich from the 

publicity and become the next Johnny Cochran?




Peter Robinson: I have done other cases pro bono. Just before 

this one I successfully got a persons 45 year sentence vacated. That 

person is a free man today. I am no Johnny Cochran.




Question:  What are your feelings on the new Anti-terrorism 

legislation?




Peter Robinson: I think it is totally unnecessary. Law 

enforcement already has tremendous powers, and there is no evidence 

that further erosion of everyone's privacy will help in stopping 

terrorists.




CourtTV9: Do you think the election might have some 

influence on this trial?




Peter Robinson: No, not at all. I think people of all political 

persuasions can be counted on to do the right thing on a jury.




Question:  Do you believe that the standard of "beyond a 

reasonable doubt" has changed over the years? Does the same evidence 

that would have got you a conviction 10 years ago get you one 

today?




Peter Robinson: I think the standard has gotten easier for the 

prosecution. Judges use to tell juries, that if the evidence was 

susceptible to two interpretations, they must lean towards innocence. 

They no longer do this because the courts have become more 

conservative.




Question:  What's next for you? Public office.




Peter Robinson: No, I would never run for public office. 

What's next for me is the next client who needs my help.




Question:  What is your opinion of the media's coverage of the 

freemen as. racist white power groups?




Peter Robinson: I think the media has sensationalized the 

Freemen. They have portrayed them as violent, when they are not. I 

think the media's need for news on a daily basis created a frustration 

among people who egged on law enforcement to act. The Freemen are 

charged mostly with just writing bad checks.




Question:  Why should I think JP McGuire didn't harass those 

judges? Doesn't he have a history of violence? Didn't he beat a police 

officer? 




Peter Robinson: In 1980 he was convicted of assaulting a 

police officer. The officer claimed McGuire broke his ribs. The officer 

was later convicted of perjury. Evidence showed the officer's broken 

ribs were an old, healed injury. The threat that McGuire made to the 

judges was captured verbatim on voice mail. There were no threats to 

killing or harming anyone.




CourtTV9: What about the other alleged threats? One to a 

lawyer and a secretary?




Peter Robinson: There was one other threat that was called 

into the lawyers office by the secretary. Again there was no mention of 

death or bodily harm. Mr. McGuire threatened to get a 100 million 

dollar judgment against the attorney in a common law court.




Question:  Why is there a media blackout on the freeman since 

there arrest in regards to their legal arguments on liens / county 

recorders, etc. And where can we see the information that they thought 

so worthy of a cause ?




Peter Robinson: I don't know of any media blackout, but there 

does not seem to be a great deal of coverage to the pretrial proceedings 

in Montana. I am not sure what is the best source of information about 

the Freemen's beliefs.




Question:  What is your opinion of Janet Reno?




Peter Robinson: Janet Reno came into the office with a 

refreshing and direct approach. I think she is a well intentioned public 

official who has done basically nothing to improve the justice 

system.




Question:  What is the relationship(if there is one) between the 

freemen, and the militias around our country?




Peter Robinson: I think that any relationship is informal at 

best. Many people from around the country wanted to find out about 

the common law court, sought information from the Freemen. 

However, I know of no organization that links all of these people with 

the same interests.




Question:  Do you believe that the apparent zealous 

prosecution is politically motivated?




Peter Robinson: Yes I do. If Mr. McGuire had not been 

associated with the Freemen, he would never have been prosecuted. I 

have read all the reported cases on the threat laws, and not one that has 

been prosecuted is as innocuous as McGuire's.




CourtTV9: That's about all the questions we have time for. 

Any closing remarks?




Peter Robinson: Thank you very much for your interest in the 

case. I hope that Mr. McGuire's case will show that we are still free to 

follow our dreams and believe in what we want.




CourtTV9: Thanks Mr. Robinson. Glad you could join us. 

Good night, everybody. See you next time.