PERSONS OF INTEREST

Georgia State Governors: Nathan Deal, Sonny Perdue

Judges: Reuben Green, Philip Taylor, Donald Howe
Attorneys: Maddox Kilgore, Carlos Rodriguez, District Attorney Vic Reynolds,
Chief Assistant District Attorney Don Geary
Doctors: Julie Rand-Dorney, Kevin Richards
Officers: Inspector William Paul Carter, Deputy Jeffrey Potter, Detective Berry,
Investigator Marco Cabrera
Others: Heidi Green, Deborah Green

BOOK ONE OF:

WHO KIDNAPPED JAMES SATTERFIELD;

YOU DECIDE WHO IS GUILTY!

A Challenge of Wits with Educational Benefits

Abridged Edition by Dawn Garmon

This edition is placed in the public domain.

It may be copied and distributed freely.

Anyone may make a profit from the

contents.

2
 Introduction

The Devil's Dictionary:

Lawyer, n. A person skilled in the circumvention of the law.

In 2012, in a closed-door hearing, the mentally ill James Satterfield was convicted of 5 counts of
terroristic threats in a letter to protect Cobb County Georgia’s Superior Court Judge Reuben Green’s
political career— or was he?

Judge Green’s wife received an unsigned computer-generated letter, with no fingerprints on it or the
envelope or any other evidence of who wrote it, yet a warrant for Mr. Satterfield’s arrest was immediately
issued without probable cause.

At the time, of his conviction, Mr. Satterfield was found to be mentally ill and after his initial sentence
of 35 years was reduced due to Georgia’s law sent to prison for 8 years. The supposed proof of his innocence
is contained within these pages along with who and how certain persons made sure he was falsely convicted.

It is your challenge to decide first if Mr. Satterfield should have been found guilty by examining the
only evidence i.e., the 6-page letter which contained the supposed terroristic threats even if he had not
been illegally detained; then to decide who of the “Persons of Interested” contributed to having him falsely
arrested and imprisoned, if any.

You should begin by highlighting any terroristic threats made by the mentally ill Mr. Satterfield you
find in the letter he sent to Judge Green’s wife warning her of her husband’s intent to have her murdered.
If you find even one, congratulations you have no need to finish the book. However, remember when
examining the letter, the law is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” No “maybes.”

Afterwards, you are given a vetting of sections of the court transcripts to identify any “Persons of
Interest” who contributed to Mr. Satterfield’s kidnapping and imprisonment. Identify them at the end of the
book. Note that the words in italics are from the court transcripts, in capitals are the authors comments, “P”
stands for prosecutor, “D” for defense, “C” for court, and “A” is for answers from the witness.

Enjoy.

3
 SECTION 1 THE LETTER

55 Elizabeth Church Road Ext.

Marietta, GA 30060

Ms. Heidi Green

282 Whitlock Ave.
Marietta, GA 30064

Dear Ms. Green,

My name is James Satterfield and I am the person who in November was going to kill you and eat your children. I assume
the police have already spoken with you about me since they spoke with my mental health providers. And, I guess the
thought of your children being eaten is repugnant, but I assure you I planned on cooking the meat first, making it more
palpable.

Unfortunately for the people of the United States, one day before you were scheduled to be killed something happened
this was more important to me than killing you. After years, my mind cleared up a great deal and I could think better.

Some people don't believe in God, but I do and I think she wants me to do other things, such as warn you about the danger
you were and more likely are in.

Therefore, I have decided to let you know why you were to be sacrificed and let it be on your head if you do not make any
changes to protect yourself and your children.

First, I am mentally ill, as you may have surmised and as was shown in the divorce papers you(sic) husband reviewed so
he cannot act ignorant.

Second, years ago I lost custody of my three children because the attorneys kept playing games and refused to get the case
into court. Eventually I ran out of money and lost my children. My ex-wife disappeared and eventually ended up in New
York where a judge allowed her to change her and the children's name and SSN based on the fact that my ex-wife told him
that she was afraid of me and she did not know where I was for legal service. Of course I was still living in the same place
I always did and she lied. It took me over 15 years to find my children because of a dirty judge, like your husband, and
attorneys who padded their wallets instead of representing me.

And, when I did find my children it was too late. Without my guidance, they turned out to be as bad as their mother. So
basically, the court system and its members murdered my children.

Third, I later married Diane Satterfield who I loved dearly. After my mental breakdown, I knew I was a burden to her. I
will not bore you with all the facts but eventually I came to the understanding that she wanted a divorce. So, I applied for a
divorce and told all the facts so that a judge could make a decision on all facts. As a former officer of the courts I know
that "honest" judges need all the facts to make a good decision. And, I did not trust myself and wanted a judge to make a
fair decision. Unfortunately due to my mental illness I confused some of the things my first wife did with what Diane did.

4
Strangely, my wife thought I wanted a divorce and she also wanted a judge to make the decision. But never having been in
a divorce before she hired an attorney, David Hartin, to represent her.

At our first hearing, it was our unfortunate luck to get your husband as our judge. During the hearing, Mr. Hartin asked for
mediation. The judge supported the idea and asked me if I was agreeable to mediation. Knowing that mediation was
required by law, I agreed thinking that the mediator would let us know what the judge would usually decide and we could
get the matter settled quickly. During this hearing I asked the judge to make a ruling to let me see my dogs at what he
considered reasonable. Unfortunately, the judge, your husband, was lazy and did not want to make a decision and told us
that he would decide on that after mediation. Now, I assume you know that a mentally ill person needs his dogs for
companionship, or he can become violent. And, I(sic) my wife had no objections to me seeing the dogs we just needed
someone to make a decision about the arrangement.

The judge told David Hartin to set up the mediation within thirty days. Mr. Hartin did not do what the judge ordered him
to do, even though he was the one who requested it. I even had to take Hartin to court to make him comply because
according to the judge's staff the judge, YOUR HUSBAND, would not do anything to make Hartin obey the court order
and that YOUR HUSBAND would not hold Mr. Hartin in contempt of a court order. And, believe it or not, YOUR
HUSBAND even had my case against Mr. Hartin changed to another judge on the very day it was to be heard.

Just before the hearing, Mr. Hartin did set up mediation and on the day of the hearing introduced me to the mediator. I told
the mediator that I did not think anything good would come out of mediation because Mr. Hartin was stalling.

Immediately you(sic) husband got involved. Two days before mediation was to occur the judge, who would not get
involved in making Mr. Hartin obey a court order, cancelled the mediation and ordered a temporary hearing because
according to him, the case as taking TOO LONG and he did not think mediation would be helpful. It is quite possible
everything might have ended in just two days at mediation had your husband not interfered to help make his attorney
associates more money.

At the time, I assumed the judge was going to chew out Mr. Hartin schedule my seeing my dogs and set a final hearing
date. However, I found out that Mr. Hartin had told his client, my wife that the temporary hearing was going to be changed
to a final hearing. But, I did not believe it since if your husband spoken with Mr. Hartin, he would have included me.

When the temporary hearing was held, the judge did not chew out Mr. Hartin and he did try to change the hearing to a
final one which demonstrated to me that he and Mr. Hartin had planned it to take advantage of me. He even acted like it
was my fault that mediation did not occur and apologized to Mr. Hartin for not being able to have the final hearing. I
understand that my future ex-wife was even surprised by the bias the judge showed.

Then we had a “restraining order” hearing.

My wife wanted a restraining order against because I had changed the locks on our house and was afraid that I would take
something without her permission, since I was mentally ill. Before the hearing began the judge, your husband, made an ass
of himself telling me that since I was pro se he was not giving me any leeway during the hearing. Never have I seen a
judge do this and I have attended hundreds of hearings with different judges.

Your husband asked me if I wanted a copy or the hearing. I told him I had no cash on me and the court reporter stated that
she would only take cash. As an officer of the court I knew that I could always get a copy later, if needed. Your husband
then did one of the stupidest things a person could do. He went on and on about how important it was for me to have a

5
copy and asked if I was sure that I did not want a copy of it. I was amazed and I told that I "STILL" did not have any cash.
He realized how stupid he had proved himself to be in the court and in front of his peers. And, I am sure he was
embarrassed. But it was not my fault.

My wife did just as she was suppose to do according to her attorney. She said that she was afraid of me. But she left out
the fact the she was afraid of me taking something out of the house. She told the judge that I changed the lock on our
house, but she left out that I had changed the lock to make the house safer. I found out later that she left this out because
her attorney did not tell her that I had a key for her. She mentioned that I parked my vehicle at my house and that she
heard people at night. I think she even told the judge that she had had me arrested once when she was drunk and did not
know what she was doing and that she had dropped the charges.

When I got to question my wife I asked about an email that she had sent me stating that she was not afraid of me and that I
should not be afraid of her. When I asked my second question, Mr. Hartin objected. I waited for the judge to make Mr.
Hartin tell the bases of his objection. Since he had made an ass of himself about not giving me any leeway, I expected that
he would treat the attorney the same. However, the judge, your husband, thought a minute and then sustained the
objection. I was shocked. The judge was obviously bias. Not only did he conspire with Mr. Hartin to have a final hearing,
he was also showing favoritism.

I immediately discontinued my questions and of course the judge ruled for the restraining order. But also, to show that he
was the boss and to bully me for not having the final hearing and his making an ass of himself, the judge, your husband,
then ordered that I not see my dogs. Remember my wife did not object to me seeing the dogs. Furthermore, the judge
ordered me to submit a financial affidavit within a week and when I tried to get him to require Mr. Hartin to do the same;
he refused to let me speak. Mr. Hartin NEVER filed a financial affidavit, even at the final hearing.

The judge made it clear that he wanted me to spend money by hiring an attorney. I had already interviewed a couple of
attorneys and was disappointed. And, he rudely made a point that he was specifically setting the next hearing to be a final
hearing, so the matter would be ended.

I quickly hired Ted Herbert to represent me in the next court hearing which had been "specifically set" for a final hearing.
I told him that he was hired to review my financial affidavit to make sure that I had not made a mistake and to represent
me at the "specifically set" final hearing and nothing else to keep my costs down. Unfortunately, I did not know that Mr.
Herbert was having financial problems. He kept calling me and running up his bill. When it came time for the final hearing
he told me that Judge Reuben Green, your husband, had canceled it because I now had an attorney and Judge Reuben
Green wanted us to negotiate. The hearings kept getting canceled by Judge Reuben Green which was horrible for person
with a mental illness. I would scream at Mr. Herbert about how crooked your husband was and I need to get the case over
with because I could not take the mental pressure. At which time, he would remind me that he was legally required to
notify the authorities if I continued to threaten to hurt the judge. I told him to go to hell and that if the judge didn't get the
case over with there was a great chance that I would kill him and his family even if Mr. Herbert notified the Governor. Of
course, Mr. Herbert never said anything to anyone because he was making money off of me and my killing you and/or the
judge did not affect him. It was so hard on me not to kill you, but my wife wanted a divorce and I kept telling myself that I
would wipe out your whole family after the divorce. I finally fired Mr. Herbert after he told me that he was not going to
represent me in court and he was going to negotiate with Mr. Hartin no matter what I wanted. He charged me $6,000 for
basically nothing. He even claimed that he had spent around three hours going over my financial affidavit. One thing I
have to give credit to Mr. Herbert is that unlike you and the judge, he had made it very hard for someone to find out where
he lives and he does not have a regular office. I guess that's why he did not mind cheating a violent mentally person since
it was much easier to find the Judge and you.

6
From the beginning, Mr. Hartin, who was going through a divorce and needed money, was lying to my wife telling her
that I was stalling the hearings and mediation. She did not know that I had actually forced Mr. Hartin into court to force
him to obey a court order. Or as I said earlier that I had tried to give her a key to the new lock I put on our door. After the
divorce, I learned that he charged my ex-wife more than double what he originally told her it would cost. And, that is
entirely your husband's fault. Let's be honest here. Your husband has been an attorney and it would be impossible to
believe that he doesn't know that attorneys stretch out cases to make more money. So your husband is just as much a thief
as Mr. Hartin and Mr. Herbert. Heck, he might have gotten kick backs.

When I hired Mr. Whitworth to replace Mr. Herbert he assured me that he had no problem representing me in court and
could get the case in court quickly. He also told me, just as Ted Herbert, Justin Wyatt, Gil Howard and other attorneys,
that Judge Reuben Green, your husband, was a criminal attorney did not know what he was doing. And he disliked the
judge because the judge had embarrassed him before in court. He told me just as Mr. Herbert had, that Judge Reuben
Green was punishing me for not hiring an attorney in the first place. Actually Mr. Herbert had also told me that the judge,
your husband, did not like me. Which means that your husband and Mr. Herbert had contact with each other without my
knowledge. Can you spell CONSPIRACY?

Mr. Whitworth's assistant called the judges' office and found out that Mr. Herbert had lied to me and that the "specifically
set" hearings had been canceled because both attorneys had requested it. And, I was informed that that the other so called
hearings that Mr. Herbert had said were continually being canceled had never been scheduled. Yes, Mr. Herbert lied to me,
kept stalling with Mr. Hartin's help the two of them kept billing me and my ex-wife. But your husband after making an ass
of himself by "specifically setting" a final court date still is responsible because he canceled the hearing so that Mr.
Herbert, Mr. Whitworth, and Mr. Hartin could take advantage of me and my ex. That's right. The man who Would not
make someone obey a court order, canceled a legitimate mediation because the case was taking too long and bulled me in
court, extended the case. Your husband showed his bias for attorneys and help them take advantage of my wife and me.
Also, he, Mr. Herbert, and Mr. Whitworth put your and your lives in danger by putting continued pressure on me. Mr.
Whitworth assured me that the final hearing would be done within about a month. Then he called later and explained that
the judge's staff had "screwed up like they always do" and the hearing was again postponed. Again, your husband has to be
held responsible for his staff.

When we finally got to the final hearing instead of representing me in court as he was hired to do, Mr. Whitworth began
hassling me to settle. My caregiver and sister were both there and saw him continually press me to settle against my
wishes. He refused to give the judge a form I had created to showing what all the assets were worth and how I just wanted
half of everything. He threatened to tell the judge that I was mentally unfit to make a decision. He tried to intimidate me
by saying the judge could give everything to my wife and that your husband could not be trusted to be fair, as he had
demonstrated at my temporary hearing. He kept running his mouth and it became obvious that he was not even familiar
with the facts of the case. He had not gotten the appraised values for the house and land from Mr. Hartin as he was
supposed to have done and he had not gotten Mr. Hartin to file his client's financial affidavit as he was supposed to have
done. And, he lied to me when he said that my wife had not reported the appraised values. In addition, he came in after
negotiating with my wife and told me that she had proof that I had taken money out of our accounts, so there was no way
that I could hide it. He had not even looked at my financial affidavit where I reported that information. Finally, since I
knew that the judge was untrustworthy and Mr. Whitworth refused to represent me as I had hired him to do, I told Mr.
Whitworth to offer my wife $35,000 and if she did not take the offer I would accept her offer of $40,000.

He came back and said she refused my offer so he accepted her offer just as I had told him to do. Later, I found out that
she would have accepted the offer of $35,000, but it was never made to her. What a crooked attorney, and it's your
husband's fault that I had to deal with people like these.

7
Our divorce was granted. And, now I was free to slaughter you and your kids. You would go fast, but your kids would go
slow.

Now this is the interesting part. I am 58 years old. My estimated lifespan is around 66 years. Therefore, I have only about
8 years left, which is not very long. I am mentally ill. My head hurts all the time. I have no job or family. My dogs were
taken away from me by an arrogant judge. Jail is peaceful to me because of its structure and I do not have to worry about
anything.

Now, I wake up every day thinking how dirty judges, represented by your husband, and attorneys have screwed me and
my kids. There was absolutely no reason for me to live. And, as an ordained minister I have no fear of an afterlife. Matter-
of-fact, I look forward to it. A quick court assisted suicide looked real good to me. It beat the heck out of growing old and
rotting to death.

However, I wanted to do something to leave my mark and improve society. What better way to do that than to punish
those responsible for my unhappiness. So, I gave away all my money, my land, and my vehicles. No one could take
anything away from me that I wanted. If I was caught instead of being killed, the government would have to pay for my
room and board, my medicine, and my attorney. And, when I was finally executed then I would be relieved of the
headaches and I could know that I had done the right thing by having the courage to punish a corrupt judge.

But, for true justice, I would go OLD TESTIMENT and not kill the dirty judge. I would kill the dirty judge's wife and her
little children. After all, a sorry judge and attorneys took away my children and dogs. And, to make sure that the nation
took notice I would eat the judge's children. From then on, your husband would be known as the man whose children were
eaten. Plus, it is so easy to kill all of them, so easy. And, I could brag about what I had done as I had brought justice to an
unjust court. Also, how I had helped the legal system by making all the self-important "bully" judges realize that they
should not think that they can be tyrants and terrorist without suffering the consequences. They would think twice before
they helped attorneys cheat good people out of their money and abuse their mental health.

Yes, Ms. Green, you got within 24 hours of being killed by someone who had nothing to lose. And, I would have relished
it.

So, it is on you as to what you will do now that you know how your husband's and his attorney associates endangered you
and your children's life. You can bet that your husband and the attorneys will keep on acting the way they do and another
"James Satterfield" is out there. He may be sitting outside your home right now with a hammer or placing a bomb under
your house or in your driving path or he may wait to stab you while you shop. Who know how many different way he will
be able to get to you.

As a side point, I find it interesting that neither my ex-wife nor I wanted a divorce. That's right!!!! Just think you and your
children lives were almost taken over the misunderstanding of a mentally ill person. But be honest with yourself, it really
was because of the behavior of your husband, his staff, and crooked attorneys. Something we good people cannot control.

Had your husband done his job right, you would never have been in danger. In other words, he is the kingpin whose help
the others could have done without in driving me even more mad than I was.

And, since your husband is responsible for these attorneys taking advantage of my ex-wife and me. I think it would only
be just if your family pay us back for our costs. That's over $3,000 to my ex-wife for David Hartin's overbilling. $6,000 for
Ted Herbert's bill, $3,000 for Sean Whitworth's bill, and of course around $2,000 for the cost of trying to get your husband
replaced as a judge. I was trying to get him off the bench so I would not have to kill you. Unfortunately, I don't think that I

8
could ever be paid enough for the mental suffering I endured because of your husband and these men. But, you could try
by doing some voluntary work with the homeless and the mentally ill to make up for the conduct of your husband.

Now, if you are like most humans, you are only thinking about yourself. But really my ex-wife and I are the true victims in
this case, not you. You have not suffered anything, so far. And, it was not me but your husband and the three attorneys
who took advantage of us endangering you and your little children. Also, that I think it is very possible that it will happen
again and you will be killed. Note, by writing you, I am the only one concerned about you and your children's welfare.

I am getting help with coping with the hate I have for your husband and my anger. I came to court and trusted that the
judge would be impartial and make the decision that I did not feel I was capable of making. However, I got your husband
who hides behind guards and takes care of attorneys with no regard to honest citizens, you and his children. Every day I
think about what he and others did to me and my family. And so far, I have constrained myself. But, I assure you, I am
going to do everything I can to get your husband off the bench and expose him for the low-life he is. I spent ten years as an
officer of the court and saw judges do some things that were not quite proper, but never have I seen a more disgraceful
judge than Judge Reuben Green. If he wants everyone to negotiate a marital settlement and does not want to make a
decision, instead of acting ignorant and letting attorneys take advantage of people, he should have the decency to remove
himself and stay home. Also, as the son of a military family with members who fought in a real war, I am personally
ashamed that your husband actually dressed up in millitry gear and has no respect for decency. I will be making sure that
other good military people and the numerous families of mentally ill people know about him.
Had your husband done his job right, you would never have been in danger. In other words, he is the kingpin whose help
the others could not have done without in driving me even more mad than I was.

In closing, I hope you take steps to protect yourself and your children from other people who like me are taken advantage
of by your husband and his cohorts. The holidays would be a perfect time to do you harm. A(sic) executioner would know
that you and your family would be home and he could enter your house and wipe all of you out. And really, if you had a
chance to kill Hitler, wouldn’t you? Your husband is no better than Hitler. Also, the noise of firecrackers during the New
Year festival would help cover the noise of gunshots. Fortunately, I don't have to worry about that happening to me,
because I do not cheat people.

May you have a Happy New Year.

James Satterfield

PS: Please give a copy of this letter to the police so that when you are slaughtered, the public will know who were really
responsible. But just in case, I'll keep a copy for everyone.

9
 SECTION 2 THE HEARINGS

BOND HEARING

AFTER MR. SATTERFIELD’S ARREST, SEVERAL WEEKS PASSED BEFORE THE DAY CAME FOR A
SPECIALLY APPOINTED JUDGE TO DETERMINE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF THE BOND THAT WOULD
BE REQUIRED FOR HIM TO BE RELEASED FROM HIS CONFINEMENT UNTIL HIS TRIAL.

ALONG WITH PRESIDING JUDGE DONALD HOWE, MR. MADDOX KILGORE (THE APPOINTED
DEFENSE ATTORNEY), ASSISTANT CHIEF DISTRICT ATTORNEY DON GEARY (THE PROSECUTOR),
AND INVESTIGATOR WILLIAM PAUL CARTER WERE PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM.

AFTER MR. KILGORE ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY, HE WAIVED THE READING OF THE FORMAL
INDICTMENT FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON. INSTEAD, THE INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
CHALLENGED AT THAT TIME SINCE THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR AN ARREST WARRANT
TO BE ISSUED IN THE FIRST PLACE. AS SEEN THE LETTER HAD NOT BEEN SIGNED AND THERE WERE
NO FINGERPRINTS WERE FOUND ON THE ENVELOPE OR LETTER. ANYONE, INCLUDING JUDGE
GREEN HIMSELF, COULD HAVE WRITTEN IT.

THE BOND HEARING BEGAN WITH MR. GEARY QUESTIONING INVESTIGATOR CARTER. MR. GEARY
HAD A VERY HARD TIME AS INVESTIGATOR CARTER WAS EXUBERANT TO THE HIGHEST DEGREE.
HE WAS EAGER TO PROCLAIM HOW WELL HE AND HIS FELLOW OFFICERS HAD DONE THEIR JOB.
SEVERAL TIMES MR. GEARY HAD TO QUIET AND CONTAIN CARTER TO BE ABLE TO MOVE ON WITH
THE QUESTIONS.

OF NOTE ARE THE FOLLOWING POINTS AS RECORDED IN THE COURT'S TRANSCRIPT:

Page 5:20, 21

P. What brought that to your attention?

A. I received a phone call from the Health Department on approximately December 12th, that they had a person
stating that they wanted to kill Judge Green.

Page 6:8, 9

P. Specifically who or what person in the Health Department?

A. Off the top of my head, I can't remember her name. She was a counselor there that was talking to Mr. Satterfield.

MR. SATTERFIELD HAD MET WITH HIS COUNSELOR, RENE CHRISTIAN, ON NOVEMBER 30TH, AND
SHE WAS SO UNCONCERNED WITH MR. SATTERFIELD BEING A THREAT TO THE GREENS THAT MS.
CHRISTIAN WAITED TWO WEEKS BEFORE CONTACTING INVESTIGATOR CARTER.

Page 7:14-25

10
P. Tell the Court about the letter.
A. I went to his [Judge Green's] house to pick the letter up. It was a five-page letter. The letter started off stating
that I'm James Satterfield I am the person that is going to kill you and your family. It said, I was going to eat your
children. He said, don t worry it is not repugnant I would cook your children first. There were multiple, multiple
statements of wanting to kill Judge Green saying that his divorce was over. He goes: Now it is okay for me to come
and slaughter your family now.

INVESTIGATOR CARTER TESTIFIED UNDER OATH THAT MR. SATTERFIELD HAD WRITTEN A
LETTER CONTAINING "MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE STATEMENTS" THREATENING TO DO HORRIBLE
THINGS TO MS. GREEN AND HER FAMILY USING THE PRESENT TENSE, NOT PAST TENSE. HOW
MANY OF THOSE MULTIPLE STATEMENTS DID YOU FIND WHEN YOU READ THE LETTER?

Page 11:17-12:7

P. Did you find ammunition in the van or the house for that weapon?
A. Yes, sir. There was ammunition inside the house.
P. Where was the ammunition located?
A. It was in a box. It was there—-it was found in the living room in a box. We asked Mrs. Satterfield about it, and
she said that James was moving all of his, a lot of his stuff in there because he was getting rid of stuff.
P. He was getting rid of stuff?
A. Yes.
P. Okay. Was there anything in the letter concerning what he would do, i.e., getting rid of his property?
A. Yes. He said he was going to give everything away. He would not have anything. All of the personal items would
be given away.

INVESTIGATOR CARTER IMPLIES BUT DOESN'T ACTUALLY SAY THAT MS. SATTERFIELD TOLD
HIM THAT AMMUNITION, SUPPOSEDLY FOUND IN HER HOUSE, WHICH HAPPENS TO FIT THE GUN
FOUND IN MR. SATTERFIELD'S VAN, BELONGS TO MR. SATTERFIELD. MR. SATTERFIELD WAS NOT
GIVING AWAY ANY OF HIS PERSONAL STUFF. HE WAS GETTING BACK WITH HIS WIFE JUST AS HE
TOLD HIS LANDLADY AND WHO INVESTIGATOR CARTER SPOKE WITH. MS. SATTERFIELD WOULD
NOT HAVE TOLD THIS LIE. THE MENTALLY ILL, MR. SATTERFIELD’S DAUGHTER HAD COME
DOWN FROM MARYLAND AND HELPED HIM MOVE MANY OF HIS ITEMS A FEW DAYS EARILIER.

MR. SATTERFIELD DID WRITE IN THE LETTER THAT HE HAD ALREADY GIVEN AWAY CERTAIN
THINGS BACK IN NOVEMBER WHEN HE WAS DELIRIOUS AND BEFORE GETTING MEDICAL CARE
FOR THOSE HORRIBLE THOUGHTS. BUT NOT THAT HE WAS GOING TO GIVE AWAY EVERYTHING
WEEKS LATER. ALSO NOTE THAT THE SUPPOSED AMMUNITION WAS FOUND IN THE LIVING
ROOM IN A BOX ACCORDING TO OFFICER CARTER.

Page 15:4-16

P. How so?
A. I heard from a Marietta detective that he possibly would bring his wife and psychologist, an old landlord to come
up and let everybody know that he has a stable place to live and he was okay to, you know, his mental status was

11
okay to get out and be with the public. And there was statements taken that he might possibly cause harm to his ex-
wife or to the judge.
P. That is from a third party known to the Defendant?
A. Yes, sir.
P.. Subsequent to his arrest?
A. Yes, sir.
P. You got that through a Marietta detective?
A. Yes, sir.

SO, IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE SATTERFIELDS WERE BACK TOGETHER. HOWEVER, MRS.
SATTERFIELD, A PSYCHOLOGIST, NOR AN OLD LANDLORD WAS AT THE HEARING. THE "OLD"
LANDLORD MUST HAVE BEEN MS. NELSON SINCE MR. SATTERFIELD HAD NOT HAD A DIFFERENT
LANDLORD FOR WELL OVER TWENTY YEARS, AND THE ONLY PSYCHOLOGIST MR. SATTERFIELD
HAD EVER SPOKEN WITH WAS THE ONE FROM SOCIAL SECURITY YEARS EARLIER; SO THAT
MUST HAVE BEEN HER. CURIOUSLY, WHY WOULD THIS SUPPOSED MARIETTA DETECTIVE CLAIM
THAT MR. SATTERFIELD WOULD HAVE A STABLE PLACE TO LIVE. OF COURSE, HE HAD A STABLE
PLACE TO LIVE, WITH HIS WIFE. NICELY MADE-UP STORY.

ON CROSS EXAMINATION, MR. KILGORE ASKED A COUPLE OF SIMPLE QUESTIONS THAT

INVESTIGATOR CARTER CAUTIOUSLY ANSWERED. THE FIRST WAS THE NAME OF THE MARIETTA
DETECTIVE. HE WAS IDENTIFIED AS OFFICER BERRY, WHO MR. SATTERFIELD PREVEIOUSLY
REPORTED TO HIS SUPERIORS HAD, AMONG OTHER THINGS, INITIALLY TOLD A LADY THAT HE
AND HIS PARTNER WOULD TAKE HER HUSBAND TO A BEHAVIORAL HOSPITAL FOR A MENTAL
EVALUATION. WHEN THE LADY AND HER SISTER-IN-LAW, MATERASSI GARMON, OFFERED TO
UNLOCK THE DOOR TO THE LADY'S HOUSE OFFICER BERRY SAID HE WAS SCARED AND WAS
GOING TO HAVE COBB COUNTY DEPUTIES ARREST HER HUSBAND INSTEAD. THE COBB COUNTY
DEPUTIES WEREN'T COWARDS NOR DID THEY RUN AWAY AND DUMP THEIR OFFICIAL DUTY ON
OTHER OFFICERS.

WHEN MR. KILGORE ASKED INVESTIGATOR CARTER: "WHAT WAS IT THAT DETECTIVE BERRY
SUPPOSEDLY HEARD FROM SOME PERSON?" HE ANSWERED: "that during his bond hearing, he (Mr.
Satterfield) possibly would have his wife, his old landlord come in and try to strong arm what I will say was
possibly strong arm his ex-landlord, an elderly lady, to come in and say he has a stable place to live and that he was
able to stay in the public."

WHEN QUESTIONED, INVESTIGATOR CARTER HAD NO IDEA WHO THIS SUPPOSED SOME PERSON
WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SOME PERSON. UNTIL MR. SATTERFIELD VOLUNTARILY TOLD THE
AUTHORITIES FROM WHERE HE HAD MOVED, ONLY HE, THE MENTAL HEALTH CLINIC, HIS
DAUGHTER, THE LANDLORD (MS. NELSON), AND HER FAMILY KNEW HE WAS LIVING IN A
BASEMENT APARTMENT. INVESTIGATOR CARTER WAS HAVING TROUBLE WITH HIS STORY
BECAUSE BOTH HE AND A DETECTIVE BERRY MADE IT UP. LATER, BERRY DEPLICTS MR.
SATTERFIELD AS HOMELESS YET HERE HE INDICATED THAT THE TERRIFIED LANDLORD WOULD

12
HAVE HIM A STABLE PLACE TO LIVE. WHY? AS ALREADY ESTABLISHED MR. SATTERFIELD WAS
MOVING BACK IN WITH HIS WIFE.

THEN MR. KILGORE ASKED IF MR. SATTERFIELD'S STATEMENTS ABOUT KILLING PEOPLE WERE IN
THE PAST TENSE OR FUTURE TENSE. INVESTIGATOR CARTER ACTUALLY GAGGED AND SAT
STUNNED. FOR SOME REASON, IN ALL THOSE WEEKS PRIOR, HE HAD NOT PREPARED FOR THAT
ONE PARTICULAR QUESTION. EVERYTHING DEPENDED ON MR. SATTERFIELD MAKING THREATS
OF DOING SOMETHING, AND IF THE INVESTIGATOR ADMITTED HE KNEW THAT MR. SATTERFIELD
WAS TALKING ABOUT A PAST EVENT, NOT ONLY WOULD THE CASE BE SHOT, BUT ALSO SO
COULD HIS CAREER. FORTUNATELY FOR INVESTIGATOR CARTER, HE CAME UP WITH A LIE THAT
WAS TOTALLY PLAUSIBLE, AND, CONVENIENTLY, UTTERLY UNABLE TO BE PROVEN AT THAT
TIME.

Pages 18:25 and 19:1-10

D. So it is talking about something that is past tense?

A. That part, yes. But inside of the letter he does state that I was and will going to kill you

WHERE? CAUGHT IN HIS CRAFTINESS, INVESTIGATOR CARTER HESITANTLY STUCK IN THE TWO
WORDS "AND WILL" TO HIS RESPONSE. THE READER KNOWS THAT SUCH A STATEMENT IS NOT IN
THE LETTER. EVERYTHING INVESTIGATOR CARTER TESTIFIED TO HE PUT IN THE FUTURE OR
PRESENT TENSE, BUT HE KNEW, LIKE THE READER DOES, THAT NOWHERE IN THE LETTER DID
MR. SATTERFIELD SAY HE WAS GOING TO KILL ANYONE IN THE FUTURE.

Page 20:22-25

D. But you didn't bring your file, your notes, the letter, you didn't bring anything with you so we can look at it?
A. No sir.

NO OFFICER MR. SATTERFIELD HAS EVER KNOWN FORGOT TO BRING NOTES AND EVIDENCE
WHEN TESTIFYING IN COURT. IF OFFICER SATTERFIELD HAD SHOWN UP IN ATLANTA'S
MUNICIPAL COURT WITH NOTHING BUT HIS WORD, DIFFERENT JUDGES WOULD HAVE GIVEN HIM
AND THE SOLICITOR A PUBLIC TONGUE LASHING AND APOLOGIZED TO THE DEFENDANT WHILE
SIMULTANEOUSLY DISMISSING THE CASE.

IT IS PROBABLE THAT CARTER HAD EVERYTHING, INCLUDING THE LETTER, WITH HIM, BUT
AFTER GAGGING OVER THE PAST TENSE QUESTION DECIDED NOT TO LET THE LETTER BE
EXAMINED IN COURT.

Page 24:1-6

13
A. On the day he postmarked the letter [Thursday, December 20th], he moved out of his place he was staying
[Sunday, December 30th] and gave a lot of his food that he had to his wife to give to the Must Ministries, and…
D. Okay. Well you know I'm court-appointed, right?
A. I don't know, sir.

FIRST OF ALL, AND NOT MENTIONING THE LAPSED 10 DAYS PROBLEM AT THIS TIME, EVEN IF THE
STORY ABOUT MR. SATTERFIELD GIVING AWAY HIS FOOD WAS TRUE, HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN IT
TO MS. SATTERFIELD TO EAT SINCE SHE HAD NOT WORKED FOR OVER A YEAR.

SECOND, IF HE WAS GOING TO GIVE IT TO MUST MINISTRIES, HE WOULD HAVE DROPPED IT OFF
ON HIS WAY TO MS. SATTERFIELD'S HOME. MUST MINISTRIES WAS WITHIN ONE MILE OF WHERE
MR. SATTERFIELD WAS LIVING, AND HE WALKED THERE REGULARLY.

THIRD, WHAT ABOUT ALL HIS PERSONAL BELONGINGS THAT HAD BEEN MOVED INTO THE HOUSE?
WOULD THAT NOT HAVE APPEARED TO A NORMAL PERSON THAT MR. SATTERFIELD WAS MOVING
BACK INTO THE HOUSE WITH HIS WIFE?

FINALLY, WAS IT NECESSARY FOR MR. KILGORE TO THROW IN THE QUESTION ABOUT HIM BEING
COURT APPOINTED? IT WAS ALMOST LIKE HE WANTED JUDGE HOWE TO THINK THAT MR.
SATTERFIELD WAS A DRAIN ON SOCIETY, A HOMELESS BUM. THIS WAS NOT TRUE. MR.
SATTERFIELD WAS RECEIVING ALMOST $1,500 EACH MONTH FROM HIS SSDI BENEFITS. THE
FEDERAL GOVERMENT RECOGNIZED MR. SATTERFILED AS BEING SO MENTALLY ILL THAT HE
COULD NOT WORK. AS A SPECIAL NOTE, BEFORE MR. SATTERFIELD’S BREAKDOWN HE WAS
EARNING OVER $5,000 PER MONTH WITH GREAT BENEFITS FIVE YEARS EARLIER.

Page 24:7-10

D. You don't know of any financial resources that this man has, do you?
A. He has a parcel of land over in Acworth.

AT THAT TIME, EVERYONE KNEW THAT MR. SATTERFIELD HAD HIS VEHICLE, HIS LAND, AND
SOME MONEY IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THESE WERE THREE THINGS HE WROTE IN THE LETTER
THAT HE HAD ALREADY SUPPOSEDLY GIVEN AWAY BACK AROUND JUNE OF 2012, LONG BEFORE
SPEAKING WITH HIS COUNSELOR IN NOVEMBER OR WRITING THE LETTER IN DECEMBER.
INVESTIGATOR CARTER DEFINITELY HAD KNOWN THIS FOR A WHILE. MR. SATTERFIELD
BECAME TECHNICALLY HOMELESS ONLY BECAUSE HE WAS ARRESTED BEFORE HE COULD
FINISH MOVING.

Page 25:18-22

D. You indicated that you did or did not take a statement from Mr. Satterfield?

14
A. He didn't want to talk.
D. You read the Miranda, and he gave you a statement?
A. Yes, sir.

THE POINT OF THESE LAST FOUR SENTENCES IS TO SHOW THAT LYING IS A HABIT FOR THE
WITNESS. INVESTIGATOR CARTER NEVER READ THE MIRANDA TO MR. SATTERFIELD AS HE
DIDN'T HAVE TO SINCE MR. SATTERFIELD IMMEDIATELY INVOKED HIS RIGHT NOT TO “TALK” AS
THE DETECTIVE STATES. INVESTIGATOR CARTER INSTINCTIVELY SAID "YES" BECAUSE THAT'S
THE STANDARD ANSWER TO THAT STANDARD QUESTION FOR CROOKED OFFICERS.

Page 27:15-18

P: In the letter, which again is found on the Defendant's computer, he indicated a course of action. When the
officers arrested him, he was in the fulfillment of that course of action. He moved out.

THE PROSECUTOR DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE COMPUTER ON WHICH THE LETTER WAS FOUND
BELONGED TO MR. SATTERFIELD. HE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IF MR. SATTERFIELD HAD WRITTEN
THE LETTER. ACTUALLY, TO THIS DAY ONLY MR. SATTERFIELD KNOWS WHO OWNED THAT
COMPUTER, THE GUN THAT WAS FOUND, AND WHO WROTE THE LETTER. ADDITIONALLY, THE
ONLY “COURSE OF ACTION” INDICATED IN THE LETTER WAS THAT MR. SATTERFIELD WOULD
WORK ON GETTING THE DISHONEST JUDGE GREEN OFF THE BENCH.

Page 29:7-9

P: I believe that it is incumbent upon us to have a psychological evaluation before we can put this man back on the
street.

Page 29:20-24

C: I find this Defendant is, in fact, a danger to the community, and he is likely to reoffend. I agree with the State the
psychological evaluation is entirely appropriate, and I hereby order the same through normal channels…

JUDGE HOWE DENIED BOND BECAUSE HE THOUGHT MR. SATTERFIELD MIGHT MAKE A THREAT?
STRANGE!

THE JUDGE MADE HIS ORDER ON FEBRUARY 26TH, 2013. THE PROSECUTOR KEPT MR.
SATTERFIELD IN JAIL UNTIL JUNE BEFORE ALLOWING HIM TO BE EVALUATED WITH REGARD TO
HIS MENTAL CONDITION "AT THE TIME OF WRITING THE LETTER" ONLY, AND THOUGH THE
PROSECUTOR RECEIVED THE PSYCHOLOGISTS' REPORTS IN JULY, HE NEVER GAVE MR.
SATTERFIELD HIS HEARING TO GET OUT OF JAIL ON BOND. INSTEAD, HE OBTAINED A
PSYCHIATRIST TO GIVE HIM THE KIND OF REPORT HE WANTED.

15
IT LATER TURNED OUT THAT THE PROSECUTOR NEVER HAD AN EVALUATION AS ORDERED TO
SEE IF "WE CAN PUT THIS MAN BACK ON THE STREET." HE NEVER INTENDED TO HAVE ANOTHER
BOND HEARING, AND MR. KILGORE DIDN'T PRESS FOR ONE.

AFTER THE BOND HEARING, MR. SATTERFIELD WAS ESCORTED BACK TO HIS JAIL CELL WHERE
HE QUESTIONED THE REMOTE POSSIBILITY OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO WHAT SHOULD HAVE
HAPPENED AND REASONED THAT GOD WAS DIRECTING THINGS TO HIS OWN END.

THINGS DID BOTHER MR. SATTERFIELD, HOWEVER. "IF THE GUN AND AMMUNITION WERE SUCH
A BIG DEAL, WHY DIDN'T MR. KILGORE CHALLENGE THEM?" IT SEEMED THAT EVEN A NON-
EXPERT DEFENSE ATTORNEY WOULD HAVE ASKED QUESTIONS SUCH AS: "WHOSE GUN IS IT?"
AND "DO YOU KNOW IF MR. SATTERFIELD WAS TO RETURN THE GUN TO ITS OWNER AFTER
UNPACKING HIS BELONGINGS?" WHY DIDN'T MR. KILGORE ASK, "HOW DID YOU KNOW MR.
SATTERFIELD WROTE THE LETTER? WHO OWNS THE COMPUTER ON WHICH THE LETTER WAS
FOUND? HOW DO YOU KNOW?" THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT MR. SATTERFIELD HAD WRITTEN
THE LETTER THAT WAS ON THAT COMPUTER. IN ADDITION, WHY DID MR. KILGORE WAIT UNTIL
THE DAY BEFORE TO FILE A MOTION FOR DISCOVERY? HE HAD TAKEN THE TIME TO FILE A BOND
REDUCTION TWO WEEKS PREVIOUSLY AND HADN'T FILED FOR DISCOVERY?

AS A FORMER OFFICER WITH THE CITY OF ATLANTA, MR. SATTERFIELD KNEW FROM
EXPERIENCE THE VERY FIRST THING AN ATTORNEY DID WAS CHECK FOR FLAWS IN THE
CITATIONS HE ISSUED. SURELY MR. KILGORE IMMEDIATELY CHECKED THE WARRANT AND
DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR HIS ARREST. IN ADDITION, FROM THE
TESTIMONY IT APPEARED THAT MR. SATTERFIELD WAS ARRESTED BEFORE THE WARRANT WAS
ISSUED AND POSSIBLY EVEN BEFORE A REQUEST WAS MADE FOR A WARRANT.

TWO OTHER THINGS NEED TO BE MENTIONED.

FIRST, INVESTIGATOR CARTER SAYS, "WE PRESUME HE LIVED AT THE HOUSE.” YET DURING THE
TRIAL ALL OF THE PRESUMPTIONS WERE THAT MR. SATTERFIELD DIDN'T.

SECOND, THE STATEMENT "WE GOT A SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE HOUSE AND THE VAN OUT
FRONT" NEEDS EXPLANATION. WHY WOULD THEY GET A SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE VAN?
MR. SATTERFIELD HAD OPENED THE SIDE DOORS TO MOVE THE LAST OF HIS PROPERTY INTO
THE HOUSE, AND THE DEPUTY WHO SEARCHED HIM PLACED HIS BELONGINGS ON THE FLOOR OF
THE VAN. THE DOORS WERE WIDE OPEN, AS SEEN BY AT LEAST FOUR OFFICERS. THEREFORE, NO

16
WARRANT WAS NECESSARY. WAS A WARRANT ISSUED OR WAS THE DETECTIVE MAKING THIS UP
ALSO?

AROUND MAY, MR. KILGORE INFORMED MR. SATTERFIELD THAT HE WANTED HIM TO APPLY FOR
ENTRY INTO A NEW PROGRAM FOR THE MENTALLY ILL TO BE ABLE TO AVOID A TRIAL.
INDIVIDUALS ACCEPTED TO THE PROGRAM WHERE TO REPORT TO A JUDGE ONCE A WEEK, TAKE
THEIR MEDICATION, SEE THEIR DOCTORS, AND VARIOUS OTHER THINGS. MR. SATTERFIELD WAS
IN NO SHAPE TO TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF AND FOUGHT MR. KILGORE OVER THE SUGGESTION.

MR. SATTERFIELD WAS MASSIVELY DEPRESSED, BARELY ABLE TO MOVE OR THINK. MR.
SATTERFIELD KNEW HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO THE THINGS THAT WERE REQUIRED, BUT
DESPITE HIS ADAMANT REFUSAL, MR. KILGORE HAD HIM CALLED FOR AN INTERVIEW.

THE WOMAN WHO INTERVIEWED HIM IN THE HALLWAY ACTED ODD. SHE ASKED SIMPLE
QUESTIONS THAT BASICALLY VERIFIED THAT HE WAS SUFFERING MENTALLY, NOTHING
REALLY DEEP OR REVEALING. IT WAS AS IF SHE WAS TRYING TO FIND SOMETHING TO USE TO
EXCLUDE HIM BUT DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO GO ABOUT IT. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHE DIDN'T SEEM
TO KNOW WHAT SHE WAS DOING EITHER. SHE SHOULD HAVE ASKED HIM IF HE THOUGHT HE
COULD HANDLE THE PROGRAM.

FINALLY TWITCHING, IN OBVIOUS FRUSTRATION, THE WOMAN BLURTED OUT SOMETHING

ABOUT HIM EATING THE JUDGE'S CHILDREN. SHE WAS TRYING TO GET HIM TO CONFESS. SHE
TOTALLY LOST HER ATTEMPTED STOIC PROFESSIONALISM. MR. SATTERFIELD JUMPED TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT MR. KILGORE HAD SET HIM UP TO GET A FALSE CONFESSION.

EXHAUSTED AND EAGER TO END THE TORMENT, MR. SATTERFIELD TOLD HER THAT HE WAS
SPEAKING ABOUT THE PAST, WHICH THE READER KNOWS WAS TRUE. SHE GLARED AT HIM FOR A
MOMENT BECAUSE HE HAD NOT GIVEN HIM WHAT SHE WANTED, BUT HE HAD BEEN TRICKED
INTO ADMITTING THAT HE HAD WRITTEN THE LETTER.

NOW, IF HE WAS NOT A THREAT, HOW COULD SHE DENY HIM ENTRANCE INTO THE PROGRAM?
OF COURSE, SHE LATER DID, BUT COULD ONLY SAY SHE DID SO BECAUSE HE DID NOT MEET THE
“CRITERIA." SHE GAVE NOTHING SPECIFIC. MR. SATTERFIELD WAS NEVER TO BE ALLOWED THE
OPPORTUNITY OF BEING FREED PRIOR TO HIS TRIAL, OR AFTERWARDS AS WILL BE SHOWN
LATER.

17
 PROBLEMS JURORS HAVE

TEN MONTHS LATER AT MR. SATTERFIELD’S TRIAL, WHEN THE CHOSEN MEMBERS OF THE JURY
ENTERED THE COURTROOM, THE TYPE OF PEOPLE SELECTED COULD HARDLY HAVE BEEN
WORSE FOR MR. SATTERFIELD. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY MR. SATTERFIELD WAS
GOING TO GET A FAIR TRIAL. BUT THEN, NO AMERICAN REALLY DOES.

THE MEMBERS OF JURY WERE EXACTLY LIKE THOSE OF ALL JURIES IN THAT THEY HAD
ABSOLUTELY NO OR ONLY A SLIGHT UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WAS APPROPRIATE LEGAL
PROTOCOL. THEY HAD NO INKLING OF THE SUBTLE WAYS THEY COULD BE LED TO A FALSE
CONCLUSION BY A LINE OF QUESTIONING. JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS CAN TWIST WORDS
AROUND, TELL HALF-TRUTHS (AKA: LIES OF OMISSION), TELL OUTRIGHT LIES, FAKE EMOTIONS,
KNOWINGLY MISLEAD JURY MEMBERS INTO MAKING UNJUST DECISIONS. THEY DO THIS WHILE
USING PROFESSIONAL SELLING TECHNIQUES AND DEVIOUSLY SUCKER JURORS BY THE USE OF
PSYCHOLOGICAL FALLACIES.

LONG AGO, AMERICAN PROSECUTORS ABANDONED THE IDEA OF JUSTICE FOR BOTH THE
ACCUSER AND ACCUSED AND FOCUSED ON FIRST CREATING AND THEN WINNING WELL-
PUBLISHED, ENTERTAINING DEBATES AGAINST THE ACCUSED TO FURTHER THEIR CAREERS. IF
THEY LOST, THEY COULD BLAME THE SYSTEM, WITNESSES, JUDGES, JURORS, WRITE A BOOK, OR
GET A LUCRATIVE TELEVISION SHOW LIKE MARCIA CLARK, AND THE FORMER DISGRACED
GEORGIA PROSECUTOR AKA ANGRY WHITE WOMAN. A WIN-WIN GAME FOR THEM. IT'S
DOUBTFUL THAT ANY OF THE PRESENT JURORS WERE AWARE OF ANY OF THAT. THEY ALSO
WERE ENTIRELY IGNORANT OF THE USE OF MANY LOGICAL FALLACIES.

A LOGICAL FALLACY IS A METHOD OF MANIPULATING SOMEONE INTO FORMING A MISTAKEN

BELIEF. ONE METHOD (NOT USED IN THIS CASE BY THE DEFENSE OR PROSECUTION) TWICE
DEMONSTRATED BELOW IS OFTEN UTILIZED BY UNSCRUPULOUS SALESPERSONS WORKING AS
MECHANICS AND MEDICAL DOCTORS WHO ASK SOMEONE TO MAKE A DECISION.

AUTOMOBILE MECHANIC: Do you want me to replace the transmission with a new one or a rebuilt one?
ONCOLOGIST: Do you want me to schedule surgery or chemotherapy?

THESE TWO EXAMPLES SHOW HOW PEOPLE CAN MANIPULATE CLIENTS IN TO BELIEVING THAT
THEY HAVE ONLY CERTAIN CHOICES (USUALLY TWO) SO THAT OTHER POSSIBILITIES ARE NOT
CONSIDERED. THINK, WHAT OTHER POSSIBILITIES EXIST IN THESE TWO EXAMPLES? SEE HOW
THE SELLERS ARE THE BENEFICIARIES OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT OF THIS LOGICAL FALLACY
TECHNIQUE KNOWN BY THE TITLE "FALSE DILEMMA."

TELLING HALF-TRUTHS (A TACTIC USED REGULARLY BY THE DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION) IS

ALSO A FORM OF FALLACY USED TO TRICK SOMEONE INTO HAVING A SUPERFICIAL
UNDERSTANDING OF THE TRUTH. IT DEFINITELY IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING TRUTHFUL. HERE,
AS AN EXAMPLE OF A HALF-TRUTH FALLACY IN A REAL ADVERTISEMENT:

18
2001 FORD VAN WITH REBUILT ENGINE AND TRANSMISSION -- $1,999.“ MUST SALE THIS WEEK."

THE STATEMENT IN THE AD IS TRUE, BUT THE SELLER DID NOT MENTION THAT THE ENGINE AND
TRANSMISSION WERE REBUILT TEN YEARS AND 174,000 MILES EARLIER. WHEN A POTENTIAL
BUYER COMES FORWARD, SHE IS INUNDATED WITH SO MUCH SALES TALK THAT SHE DOESN'T
THINK OF ONLY HALF OF THE TRUTH AS HAVING BEEN TOLD IN THE AD. IT'S LEGAL. IT'S
BUSINESS IN A CAPITALIST COUNTRY BECAUSE THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF CAPITALISM IS SELF-
INTEREST.

NONETHELESS, WHILE BEING LEGAL (CAVEAT EMPTOR) IN BUSINESS AND FOR CERTAIN
EMPLOYEES IN AMERICAN COURTS, SUCH DECEPTIONS ARE NOT EXCUSABLE IN A JUSTICE-
SEEKING PROCESS FOR ANY REASON. THERE IS NO EXPLANATION FOR ANYTHING OR ANY
METHOD THAT CAN LEAD TO AN INNOCENT PERSON BEING FOUND GUILTY AS MR. SATTERFIELD
WAS. THE CONCEPT OF JUSTICE IS BASED ON THE MORALS OF A SOCIETY, AND MORALS CAN BE
DEFINED AS "ONE SHOULD BEHAVE IN WAYS THAT HAVE THE APPROVAL OF OTHERS." (FROM
THE DEVELOPING PERSON THROUGH THE LIFESPAN BY KATHLEEN BERGER).

FROM ITS CONCEPTION, THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT INTENDED TO
BE A GAME WITH CONTESTANT'S WINNING A PRIZE OR HOLDING A GOLDEN BELT. THE ONLY
WORLD'S CHAMPION WAS TO BE EACH AND EVERY PERSON BEING SERVED. THE FOUNDERS OF
THIS NATION WERE ADAMANT THAT IT WAS BETTER TO TAKE A CHANCE OF OTHERS SUFFERING
IF A GUILTY PERSON WERE SET FREE THAN FOR EVEN ONE INNOCENT PERSON TO BE FOUND
GUILTY. NOTHING, ESPECIALLY THE LAW, WAS TO BE ALLOWED TO CORRUPT THE JUDICIAL
SYSTEM AND PREVENT JUSTICE FROM BEING SERVED. YET, THIS CASE PROVES THAT BAD
PEOPLE MANIPULATE THE LEGAL SYSTEM FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT AND CHANGES NEED TO BE
MADE.

ANOTHER PROBLEM IS THAT JURY MEMBERS ARE NOT PROVIDED WITH TRAINING BEFORE
HAVING TO MAKE WHAT ARE SOMETIMES LIFE-AND-DEATH DECISIONS. THAT IS AN IMMENSE
FLAW IN THE DETERMINATION OF JUSTICE, AND ALSO A FLAW THE FOUNDERS DIDN'T FORESEE
AS THEY STRAINED TO ENSURE THAT NOT ONE OF THE THREE LEAST IMPORTANT BRANCHES OF
GOVERNMENT HAD EXCESSIVE POWER. THE PROPOSED ULTIMATE POWER WAS TO BE THE
PEOPLE, THE FOURTH AND MOST IMPORTANT BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT YET THE POWER OF
THE PEOPLE MAKING UP A JURY IS COMPROMISED THROUGH THEIR IGNORANCE OF: THE TRIAL
PROCESS, THEIR AUTHORITY, THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES, AND SO
ON.

NO ELECTED GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL OR POLITICIAN HAS STEPPED FORWARD IN OVER TWO

HUNDRED YEARS TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM. ADDED TO THE AFOREMENTIONED IS THE
PROBLEM THAT EVERY JUROR HAS SOME COGNITIVE BIAS. THAT IS A FACT BECAUSE
EVERYBODY HAS THEM.

19
FOR INSTANCE, IF MOST OF WHAT A PERSON HEARS ABOUT OR EXPERIENCES WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IS BAD, THEN THEY HAVE A TENDENCY TO THINK ALL OR MOST LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE BAD AND UNTRUSTWORTHY. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THESE
SAME PEOPLE HAVE GROWN UP LEARNING THAT THESE SAME OFFICERS ARE THE GOOD GUYS
WHO PROTECT THEM, THEY WILL HAVE A TENDENCY TO AUTOMATICALLY BELIEVE THAT
WHATEVER ONE OF THEM DOES AND SAYS IS RIGHT.

IN JOHNSON STATE PRISON THERE IS AN OLD POSTED SIGN STATING THAT HUNDREDS OF
OFFICERS HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED JUST TO TRY TO GET THOSE REMAINING NOT TO COMMIT
CRIMES. OFFICERS ARE JUST AS IMMORAL AS ANY OTHER AMERICAN IF NOT MORE SO BECAUSE
OF THEIR AUTHORITY, UNITY, EQUISM, AND POWER.

UNLESS A PERSON TAKES THE TIME TO FIRST LEARN WHAT A COGNITIVE BIAS IS AND THEN
EXAMINE THEMSELVES, THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT THEY HAVE ANY. SO EVEN THOUGH ONE
THINKS THEY ARE BEING IMPARTIAL, IT TAKES A CONSCIOUS EFFORT TO REMAIN NEUTRAL.
THAT’S NOT SOMETHING THAT COMES NATURALLY TO ANYONE. JURORS ARE NOT TOLD THIS.
THEY ARE NOT INSTRUCTED TO JUDGE THEMSELVES WHILE JUDGING OTHERS.

WHAT ELSE CONTRIBUTES TO EVERY JUROR NOT BEING ABLE TO MAKE THE CORRECT
DECISIONS?

WHEN MEMBERS OF A JURY WERE IN SCHOOL AND DID HOMEWORK, IT WAS RECOMMENDED
THAT THEY TAKE A BREAK EVERY TWENTY TO FORTY MINUTES; OTHERWISE, THEY GOT DATA
OVERLOAD AND WOULD HAVE TO SPEND EVEN MORE TIME LATER TRYING TO RELEARN THE
SAME MATERIAL. BACK THEN, AT THE VERY LEAST, THEY HAD TEXTBOOKS OR CLASS NOTES TO
REFER TO, AND NO ONE'S FREEDOM OR LIFE WAS ON THE LINE. NO TEXTBOOKS OR NOTEPADS
ARE PROVIDED TO JURORS.

OWING TO THIS LACK OF RESOURCES, WHEN THE PARTICIPANTS GO BACK TO MAKE A DECISION
THEY RELY ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ON THEIR MEMORIES AND THOSE OF THEIR FELLOW JURORS,
WHICH MAY BE FAULTY. THE REPRESENTING ATTORNEYS USE THAT WEAKNESS TO INFLUENCE
THE DECISION MAKERS. PROVIDING NOTEPADS AND WRITING UTENSILS WOULD HELP. BETTER
YET WOULD BE PROVIDING A TRANSCRIPT OF THE TRIAL BEFORE DELIBERATIONS BEGIN. AFTER
WAITING OVER A YEAR FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL, A COUPLE MORE WEEKS WAITING FOR THE
TRANSCRIPTS WOULDN'T MATTER. HAS NO ONE THOUGHT OF THIS OR HAS IT BEEN PURPOSELY
IGNORED FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS BY THOSE RUNNING THE COURTS?

GOING ONTO A SIDETRACK FOR A MOMENT, WHO FIRST CAME UP WITH THE IDEA OF SAVING
MONEY BY PLEA DEALS? FIRST THE GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHES VERY HIGH POTENTIAL
INCARCERATION TIMES THEN; PROSECUTORS OFFER INNOCENT PEOPLE A REDUCTION IF THEY
PLEAD GUILTY. ISN'T THAT THE SAME THING AS A PERSON HAVING THE BURDEN OF PROVING
THEIR INNOCENCE IF THEY DON'T TAKE THE PLEA DEAL? YES, IT IS.

20
HERE IS A REAL EXAMPLE OF HOW IT WORKS IN THE UNITED STATES. DURING THE TIME MR.
HERBERT WAS PRETENDING TO REPRESENT MR. SATTERFIELD IN HIS DIVORCE CASE, HE WAS
ALSO ABLE TO PROCURE A MUCH-NEEDED ASSIGNMENT FROM CHEROKEE COUNTY DEFENDING
A YOUNG MAN ACCUSED OF RAPE. THE PROSECUTOR OFFERED A PLEA DEAL OF
INCARCERATION FOR MANY YEARS IN LIEU OF A TRIAL WITH THE POTENTIAL OF LIFE IN PRISON
(MINIMUM OF 30 YEARS). NO MATTER HOW MUCH PRESSURE MR. HERBERT PUT ON THE YOUNG
MAN (IN HOPES OF GARNERING FURTHER WORK FROM THE COUNTY), THE ACCUSED REFUSED
TO PLEAD GUILTY TO A CRIME HE DID NOT DO. WITH HAT IN HAND, MR. HERBERT APOLOGIZED
TO THE PROSECUTOR FOR HIS FAILURE. UPON HEARING THE BAD NEWS, THE PROSECUTOR HAD
TO DROP THE CASE AND FINALLY RELEASE THE YOUNG MAN BECAUSE AS HE STATED TO MR.
HERBERT, HE NEVER HAD “A CASE AGAINST THE YOUNG MAN IN THE FIRST PLACE.”

HOW MANY THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE SIT IN PRISONS BECAUSE THEY WERE
THREATENED IN THIS MANNER? HOW MUCH TAXPAYER MONEY IS WASTED ON THEIR
INCARCERATION—-MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS? ISN’T THIS TYPE OF NEGOTIATIONS A
TERRORISTIC THREAT!

IT WOULD BE A PLEASURE TO HEAR FROM THIS YOUNG BLACK MAN OF INTEGRITY WHO LIVED
IN CANTON, GEORGIA.

GETTING BACK TO THE ISSUE AT HAND, WHAT IMBEDS A PERSON'S MEMORIES SECURELY INTO
THEIR BRAINS IS THE UNEXPECTED: THE LOUD ARGUMENTS, THE PHYSICAL ITEMS SHOWN, THE
CURIOUS SPECULATIONS, THE WILD GESTURES, THE THEATRICS, AND SO ON. THESE ARE THE
TOOLS COMMONLY USED BY BOTH THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE TO CONTROL WHAT
JURORS REMEMBER.

WHEN ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER DOESN'T HAVE REAL (VERSUS SUPPOSED) ARGUMENTS,
APPLICABLE EVIDENCE, OR UNRESTRAINED TESTIMONIES, THESE ARE SOME OF THE
TECHNIQUES USED TO SWAY PEOPLE IN TO AGREEING WITH WHAT THEY ARE CLAIMING. A
PERSON TRAINED TO RECOGNIZE THESE GIMMICKS IS NOT SO EASILY MISLED.

THE LAST THING EXPOSED HERE IS THAT DURING THE TRIAL JURORS DON'T GET TO ASK
QUESTIONS OF THE PROSECUTION OR THE DEFENSE. IF NEITHER ATTORNEY TELLS SOMETHING
ESSENTIAL TO UNDERSTANDING THE CASE, JURORS, NO MATTER HOW DEDICATED AND
UPRIGHT, CANNOT BASE THEIR VERDICTS ON "THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH."

WHILE A PROSECUTOR CAN JUST CHOOSE TO LET A PERSON WHO THEY KNOW AND CAN EASILY
PROVE IS GUILTY EITHER NOT BE TRIED AT ALL OR PLEA OUT TO A LESSER CHARGE (IT IS GOOD
TO BE FRIENDS WITH PROSECUTORS, GOVERNORS, AND THE U.S. PRESIDENT), THE DEFENSE CAN
GUARANTEE A GUILTY VERDICT BY APPEARING TO DO A GOOD JOB WHILE INTENTIONALLY
LEAVING OUT IMPORTANT FACTS.

TO BE FAIR, VITAL INFORMATION CAN SOMETIMES BE LEFT OUT UNINTENTIONALLY BY THE

DEFENSE, BUT SINCE A DISTRICT ATTORNEY (D.A.) IS AN AGENT FOR THE STATE, NOT THE

21
ACCUSER NOR THE ACCUSED, SHE SHOULD POINT OUT THE MISSING INFORMATION. MANY
PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THAT A DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S JOB IS TO PROMOTE JUSTICE FOR THE
ACCUSED AS WELL, AND THAT IS THE REASON A D.A. IS NOT TO PROSECUTE AN INNOCENT
PERSON. WELL, THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO, BUT THEY DO HAVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, DON'T
THEY?

22
 EVIDENCE

UNKNOWN TO MR. SATTERFIELD BEFORE HIS TRIAL, MR. GEARY, THE PROSECUTOR, HAD THE
FOLLOWING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE:

1. THE ACTUAL LETTER SUPPOSEDLY WRITTEN BY MR. SATTERFIELD.

2. MR. SATTERFIELD'S CHECKBOOK.

3. A BOOK OF POSTAGE STAMPS.

4. AN EMPTY GUN SUPPOSEDLY OWNED BY MR. SATTERFIELD.

5. A NOTEBOOK COMPUTER SUPPOSEDLY OWNED BY MR. SATTERFIELD.

6. AN EMPTY CARDBOARD BOX THE GUN WAS SUPPOSEDLY IN WHEN PURCHASED.

7. MR. SATTERFIELD'S BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT.

8. A SPREADSHEET OF FUN THINGS TO DO FOUND ON THE COMPUTER, SUPPOSEDLY WRITTEN

BY MR. SATTERFIELD.

9. A COPY OF A PHOTO OF JUDGE GREEN'S HOUSE AND ADDRESS FROM THE COMPUTER,
SUPPOSEDLY OWNED BY MR. SATTERFIELD.

10. A COPY OF THE LETTER SUPPOSEDLY WRITTEN BY MR. SATTERFIELD AND SAVED ON THE
COMPUTER.

11. A COPY OF THE SATTERFIELDS' FINAL DIVORCE DECREE DATED 7/16/12.

12. THE ENVELOPE ADDRESSED TO HEIDI GREEN IN WHICH THE LETTER WAS DELIVERED.

13. A CERTIFIED COPY OF A PETITION FOR DIVORCE.

THIRTEEN ITEMS TOTAL TO SHOW OFF. THE STAMPS, AN ENVELOPE, A CARDBOARD BOX, THE
DIVORCE PETITION, DIVORCE DECREE, NOTEBOOK COMPUTER, A COPY OF THE LETTER SAVED
ON THE COMPUTER, AND CHECKBOOK SEEMED TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. THE PROSECUTOR WAS
USING EVERYTHING HE COULD GET HOLD OF TO INSINUATE HE HAD LOTS OF TANGIBLE
EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT MR. SATTERFIELD HAD THREATENED JUDGE GREEN AND APPEARED
TO BE RELYING ON THE FALLACY OF "HASTY GENERALIZATION." THE "HASTY
GENERALIZATION" FALLACY IS USED TO CONVINCE A PERSON TO MAKE A DECISION ON LITTLE
REAL SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. IT'S ABOUT THE SAME AS LEADING SOMEONE TO JUMP TO A
CONCLUSION BASED ON HAPPENSTANCE.

Here is a ludicrous example that could be used:

Premise 1: People use stamps to mail letters.

23
 Premise 2: You own stamps.
Conclusion: You sent the letter.

CLEARLY ASININE! ALL THE PROSECUTOR REALLY HAD WAS THE QUESTIONABLE OPINION OF
HIS ONE MENTAL HEALTH EXPERT THAT WAS REFUTED BY THE DEFENSE'S EXPERT, WHICH WAS
COLLABORATED BY TWO OF THE COURT'S EXPERTS. THAT’S THREE EXPERT OPINIONS AGAINST
ONE. IN ADDITION, ALL MR. KILGORE HAD TO DO WAS READ THE FIRST PARAGRAPHS OF THE
LETTER WITH A COUPLE OF MORE TO THE JURORS TO SHOW MR. SATTERFIELD WAS UNDER THE
DELUSION THAT JUDGE GREEN WAS TRYING TO HAVE HIS FAMILY MURDERED. WHO WOULD
BET ON THE PROSECUTOR WITH THOSE ODDS?

24
 EXAMINING THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS

ON THE FIRST DAY OF HIS TRIAL JANUARY 27, 2014, MR. SATTERFIELD ENTERS THE COURTROOM
AND LOOKS AROUND. THE JUDGE IS NOT THERE. THE JURY IS NOT THERE. BUT, AS EXPECTED,
JUDGE AND MS. GREEN ARE THERE. IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT, IF POSSIBLE, THE
ALLEGED VICTIMS ARE PRACTICALLY ALWAYS SITTING SO THE JURY CAN SEE AND RELATE TO
THEM AND THUS BE EMOTIONALLY INFLUENCED. BUT THERE WAS SOMETHING
EXTRAORDINARILY WRONG. WHERE WERE THE GREENS’ CHILDREN HAILEY AND COLTON?

NEITHER WERE PRESENT. MR. SATTERFIELD HAD BEEN ACCUSED OF THREATENING THEM, SO AS
VICTIMS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEEN THERE TO TESTIFY. IT'S MANY TIMES MORE EFFECTIVE TO
MOVE JUROR'S HEARTS WHEN SEEING CHILDREN AS VICTIMS THAN ADULTS. IN MANY CASES,
HUMAN PROTECTIVE INSTINCTS AUTOMATICALLY BECOME ACTIVE AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T
COST THEM ANYTHING. IT IS ALSO COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT TRAUMATIZED CHILDREN
BENEFIT FROM WITNESSING THEIR TORMENTOR BEING PUNISHED FOR WHAT HE DID AND
SEEING THE PROTECTION THE LAW GIVES THEM, SO A DOCTOR, THERAPIST, AND A CARING
PARENT WOULD PRACTICALLY DEMAND THAT THEY BE THERE—-DRAGGING THEM IN IF
NECESSARY.

"SOMETHING CROOKED WAS GOING ON, BUT WHAT? IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING REALLY BIG," MR.
SATTERFIELD SPECULATED. "MYSTERIOUS, BUT SURELY THE CHILDREN WOULD SHOW UP
LATER."

MR. SATTERFIELD LEANED BACK IN HIS CHAIR AND RELAXED. THERE WAS NOTHING HE COULD
DO BUT WAIT FOR THE JURY TO MAKE A DECISION. HE WASN'T CONCERNED FOR HE KNEW HE
WAS INNOCENT OF THE CRIMES.

IN THE PAST YEAR, MR. SATTERFIELD HAD INTERVIEWED WITH FOUR MENTAL HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS AND THOUGH THE DEFENSE'S EXPERT SUPPORTED HIS LAWYER'S CLAIM WHILE
THE OTHER SIDE'S EXPERT WAS GOING TO TESTIFY AGAINST IT, CANCELLING OUT ONE
ANOTHER'S OPINION, THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE TWO EXPERTS FOR THE COURT WERE IN THE
DEFENSE'S FAVOR. SO, IN ADDITION TO BEING INNOCENT OF THE CRIMES, IT WAS ALSO CLEAR
THAT HE HAD SUBCUMMED TO AN IRRESTABLE COMPLUSION TO WRITE THE LETTER WARNING
MS. GREEN OF HER HUSBAND’S INTENT TO MURDER HER.

THE JURORS WOULD "COGNITIVELY" CONSIDER THEM COMPLETELY UNBIASED, AND THE TWO
PROFESSIONALS WERE GOING TO CONFIRM THAT HE WAS ACTING UNDER THIS
UNCONTROLLABLE COMPULSION WHEN HE WROTE HIS LETTER. AND THEN THERE WAS THE
ACTUAL LETTER, WHICH COMPLETELY PROVED HIS INNOCENCE OF THE CHARGES.

THE FIRST BLOW TO SHATTER MR. SATTERFIELD'S SERENITY WAS DELIVERED AFTER JUDGE
HOWE WAS SEATED. THE PROSECUTOR AND CHIEF ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MR. GEARY,
TOLD THE JUDGE THAT GEORGIA LAW REQUIRED A PERSON TO ADMIT GUILT TO THE ACCUSED
CRIME IF THEIR DEFENSE WAS THAT THEIR ACTION WAS DUE TO A DELUSIONAL COMPULSION

25
AND REQUESTED HIM TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DEFENSE DID NOT TRY TO SHOW THAT MR.
SATTERFIELD WAS NOT GUILTY OF THE CRIMES.

MR. SATTERFIELD HAD PLED GUILTY TO HEINOUS CRIMES AND DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT! MAYBE
HE HAD WRITTEN SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MISINTERPRETED BY MR. KILGORE AS
HE WAS NOT 100 PERCENT HIMSELF WHILE TYPING THE LETTER BUT PLEADING GUILTY TO
THREATENING MS. GREEN OR THE CHILDREN? NO WAY!

MR. KILGORE HAD NEVER MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT PLEADING GUILTY TO ANYTHING. MR.
SATTERFIELD THOUGHT MR. KILGORE WAS "CONSIDERING" PLEADING NOT GUILTY DUE TO A
MENTAL DISORDER FOR THE CHARGE OF SEEMING TO HAVE THREATENED THE JUDGE IN
ADDITION TO NOT BEING GUILTY OF THE CRIMES AT ALL.

AS MR. SATTERFIELD UNDERSTOOD IT, HE WAS NOT GUILTY BY BOTH REASONS. WASN'T IT UP
TO THE JURORS TO DECIDE THE CASE BASED ON ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AVAILABLE IN
AMERICA?

MR. SATTERFIELD'S IMMEDIATE REACTION WAS TO BE GREATLY INSULTED, BUT AS HE BEGAN

RISING FROM THE CHAIR TO VOICE HIS OWN OBJECTION, HE REMEMBERED MR. KILGORE'S
THREATENING HIM TO KEEP QUIET AND NOT TO DISTRACT HIM.

AFTER MR. GEARY'S COMMENTS MR. KILGORE STATED THAT THE PLEA OF GUILTY APPLIED
ONLY TO MAILING THE LETTER, NOT TO MAKING THREATS. WELL, THAT WAS TRUE. BUT, WHY
NOT JUST STICK TO NOT BEING GUILTY OF MAKING ANY TERRORISTIC THREATS.

SUCH A PLEA WAS STRANGE TO MR. SATTERFIELD, THE JUDGE, AND TO THE PROSECUTOR.
THERE WAS A LITTLE CONTROVERSY THAT WASN’T RESOLVED AND CLEAR, BUT THAT WAS THE
PLEA: GUILTY OF ONLY MAILING THE LETTER AND NOTHING ELSE. THIS WAS ACTUALLY TRUE
SINCE THE LETTER DID NOT INCLUDE ANY TERRORIST THREATS. AND MR. SATTERFIELD TRIED
TO RELAX AGAIN.

MORE DISTURBINGLY, MR. KILGORE WANTED IT CLEAR THAT THE EXPERT WITNESSES WERE TO
BE ORDERED NOT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT MR. SATTERFIELD BEING GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY
DUE TO INSANITY. "WHY WOULD MR. KILGORE WANT THAT WHEN HE HAD THREE EXPERTS ON
HIS SIDE?"

WITH THE UNBEARABLE HINDRANCE OF NOT BEING ABLE TO ARGUE THAT HE WAS INNOCENT
OF THE CRIME ("DOTH OUR LAW JUDGE ANY MAN, BEFORE IT HEAR HIM, AND KNOW WHAT HE
DOETH?" JOHN 7:5), TO MR. SATTERFIELD, THIS CASE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN LESS THAN ONE
HOUR TO PROVE THAT HE WAS OR WAS NOT WORKING UNDER AN UNCONTROLLABLE
COMPULSION WHEN HE WROTE THE LETTER AND THAT THE LETTER HAD NO TERRORSTIC
THREATS IN IT. THIS WERE THE ONLY QUESTIONS HE THOUGHT THE JURORS WERE NOW TO
DECIDE, SO ANY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT MR. GEARY WOULD SHOW THAT WAS UNRELATED

26
TO THAT ISSUE SEEMED MOOT. HOWEVER, MR. SATTERFIELD DID NOT KNOW THE ODD,
CONFUSING, AND SOMEWHAT CONFLICTING RULES.

THE ONE THING THAT WAS DEFINITE AT THAT POINT WAS THE PROSECUTOR NO LONGER HAD
TO PROVE MR. SATTERFIELD WROTE AND SENT THE LETTER AND COULD NOW WIN THE CASE
WHEREAS IF THE PLEA HAD NOT BEEN CHANGED, THE PROSECUTOR HAD NO CASE.

27
 REVIEW OF WITNESSES' TESTIMONIES

EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION

First witness called by the Prosecution,

Investigator William Carter.

Pages 205:23 & 206:6

P. Were there any identifiable prints found on the letter?

A. No, sir.
P. What did you do after that?
A. I applied for and received a warrant for James Satterfield.
P. For what?
A. For terrorist threats.
P. For his arrest?
A. Yes, sir.

WITHOUT FINGERPRINTS, AN ADMISSION OF GUILT, OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE, THE ARREST

WARRANT WASN'T LEGAL, NEITHER WOULD BE THE SEARCH WARRANTS.

A ROOKIE LAWYER KNOWS THAT, NEVERTHELESS, JUDGE PHILIP TAYLOR ISSUED AN ARREST
WARRANT ANYWAY.

Page 206:14-19

P. Okay, was the defendant living at that location?

A. No, sir.
P. Okay, were you able to determine where the defendant was living?
A. Actually, at that time he was living nowhere. He moved out of his apartment that morning.

MR. SATTERFIELD, LIKE OTHER DEFENDANTS, WAS WEARING A SUIT SUPPLIED BY THE COUNTY
SO THAT THE JURORS WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICE AGAINST HIM BASED ON HIS SOCIAL AND
FINANCIAL STATUS. YET RIGHT OFF THE BAT HE WAS DEPICTED AS A HOMELESS BUM BY THE
SLY TACTIC OF ASKING IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS.

REMEMBER INVESTIGATOR CARTER PRESUMED MR. SATTERFIELD LIVED WITH HIS WIFE WHEN
THAT PRESUMPTION WAS ADVANTAGEOUS FOR GETTING A SEARCH WARRANT.

Pages 206:24 & 207:2

P. What happened when you located the defendant?

A. We took him into custody. I applied for and received a search warrant for the house and the vehicle, and we
searched the vehicle and the house.

28
WHAT EXACTLY WAS GIVEN TO A JUDGE FOR A SEARCH WARRANT TO BE ISSUED FOR MS.
SATTERFIELD'S HOUSE? WAS IT AS TAINTED AS THE ARREST WARRANT REQUEST FOR MR.
SATTERFIELD? INVESTIGATOR CARTER SAID MR. SATTERFIELD DIDN'T LIVE AT THE HOUSE, SO IF
MR. SATTERFIELD HAD BEEN ARRESTED COMING OUT OF A SHOPPING MALL WOULD A
WARRANT HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR EVERY STORE IN THE WHOLE MALL? MR. SATTERFIELD WILL
BE CONTINUALLY PORTRAYED AS HOMELESS, BUT THE JURY DID NOT KNOW THAT WAS
BECAUSE HE WAS ARRESTED WHILE MOVING.

Page 207:6-10

P. What, if anything, was found during the search pursuance to the warrant?
A. We found a checkbook on James Satterfield. We found an empty gun box inside the house. We saw…we had
ammunition inside the house.

INVESTIGATOR CARTER IS STILL HAVING TROUBLE TESTIFYING ABOUT THE AMMUNITION AND
NOW HE "ERR" SAW THE AMMUNITION?

Page 209:19-21

P. What's significant about the stamps?

A. The stamps are the same type that were used to mail the…on the envelope that Judge Green received.

THE QUESTION THAT WAS NOT ASKED BY THE DEFENSE IS HOW RARE ARE THE STAMPS?
INVESTIGATOR CARTER'S ANSWER WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN SOMETHING SUCH AS I
DON'T KNOW EXACTLY. BILLIONS? THEY ARE ORDINARY STAMPS. REMEMBER THE EARLIER
EXPLANATION ABOUT USING THINGS TO FOOL THE JURORS INTO THINKING YOU HAVE MORE
EVIDENCE THAN YOU REALLY DO?

Page 210:2-7

P. What was the significance of that you saw that morning of that check?
A. In the letter, James Satterfield stated that he was going to get rid of his property prior to murdering Judge
Green's family, and it appeared that that is what he was doing, was getting rid of all his money that he had in the
bank.

THIS WAS COVERED IN THE EXAMINATION OF THE BOND HEARING AND NOTHING CHANGED.
INVESTIGATOR CARTER WAS STILL TESTIFYING IN A MANNER TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT
MR. SATTERFIELD WAS WRITING ABOUT FUTURE PLANS NOT A PAST EVENT.

Page 215:14-16

P. Okay, approximately how long were you in the defendant's presence on December 30th?
A. Approximately, 30 to 45 minutes.

29
INVESTIGATOR CARTER JOINED MR. SATTERFIELD IN THE INTERROGATION ROOM, WHERE MR.
SATTERFIELD ASKED ABOUT HIS MONEY. AFTER ANSWERING THE QUESTION, INVESTIGATOR
CARTER INFORMED MR. SATTERFIELD OF THE CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST HIM AND THAT HE
HAD TO HAVE MR. SATTERFIELD SIGN SOME FORMS BEFORE TALKING FURTHER. WHEREUPON,
MR. SATTERFIELD INVOKED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT NOT TO TALK, AND INVESTIGATOR
CARTER LEFT. THIRTY TO FORTY-FIVE MINUTES SOUNDS MUCH BETTER TO THE JURORS THAN A
MINUTE OR TWO, AND WHAT HAPPENED A LITTLE LATER EXPLAINS WHY MORE TIME WAS
CLAIMED TO HAVE PASSED.

Page 215:17

IN THIS PART OF QUESTIONING, THE PROSECUTOR HAS INVESTIGATOR CARTER SAY THAT MR.
SATTERFIELD APPEARED NORMAL. MR. GEARY USED A COMMON FALLACY FOR HIS DUPLICITIES,
AND ITS OFFICIAL TITLE IS FALSE AUTHORITY.

THE FALSE AUTHORITY TECHNIQUE IS USED TO CON PEOPLE INTO BELIEVING THAT BECAUSE A
PERSON IS AN EXPERT IN ONE FIELD SUCH AS AN INVESTIGATOR THEY ARE AN EXPERT IN
ANOTHER. CONSUMERS FALL FOR THIS ALL THE TIME, AND THAT'S WHY ADVERTISERS PAY
HUGE SUMS OF MONEY TO CELEBRITIES TO ENDORSE THEIR PRODUCTS.

INVESTIGATOR CARTER'S OPINIONS OF MR. SATTERFIELD’S MENTAL STATUS WERE WORTHLESS

BECAUSE HE IS NOT A PSYCHOLOGICAL AUTHORITY. ALSO, THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF DURING
WHICH TIME HE SPOKE TO MR. SATTERFIELD RENDERS ANY OPINION WORTHLESS. IMAGINE
BEING JUDGED ACCORDING TO SOMEONE'S OPINION WHO HAD LOOKED AT YOU ONLY FOR A
COUPLE OF MINUTES AND HAD BRIEFLY OR NEVER SPOKEN TO YOU? THIS WAS ALSO THE CASE
OF THE OTHER OFFICERS WHO GAVE SIMILAR OPINIONS OF MR. SATTERFIELD’S MENTAL
STATUS. THE BENEFIT TO MR. GEARY IS THAT THESE DUBIOUS EXPERTS BOOST THE TESTIMONY
OF THE ONLY REAL EXPERT FOR THE PROSECUTION DR. JULIE RAND-DORNEY.

IT'S EASY TO SEE THE NUMEROUS ACTS OF SUBTERFUGE THE PROSECUTOR COMMITTED NOW
THAT THEY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT, BUT THE JURORS SAW THEM AS CLEAN-CUT, LAWFUL
PROTECTORS OF SOCIETY WHO HAD NO REASON TO LIE. IT WAS THE PROSECUTOR WHO
PROMOTED THE ASSUMPTION THAT IN ADDITION TO HIS ONE REAL EXPERT HE NOW HAD TWO.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENSE

Investigator Carter

Page 226:12-16

D. Okay. What kind of stuff?

A. There was stuff we didn't take. There were clothes, food. I think there was a…I think there was a wash sink inside
the van. But just a lot of personal items. And there was food that was brought into the house from the van so—-
D. All right.

30
MR. KILGORE ABRUPTLY INTERRUPTS INVESTIGATOR CARTER AS HE WAS GIVING TESTIMONY
SHOWING THAT MR. SATTERFIELD WAS MOVING IN WITH MS. SATTERFIELD AND NOT
HOMELESS!

Page 227:3-7

D. Would it be similar to if someone was, say, living at Must Ministries, and they had all their stuff in the vehicle
out in the parking lot?
A. Well, it would be, but I knew where he moved out of and talked to the person that he moved out of the house.

WELL, IF INVESTIGATOR CARTER TALKED TO THE LANDLADY, MS. NELSON, HE KNEW THAT MR.
SATTERFIELD HAD GIVEN HER OVER A MONTH'S NOTICE THAT HE WAS MOVING OUT TO BE WITH
HIS WIFE. MR. SATTERFIELD HAD ONE LOAD REMAINING TO CARRY INTO HIS WIFE'S HOUSE, SO
WHO CAME UP WITH THE NOTION THAT HE WAS LIVING AT MUST MINISTRIES AND WHY? MR.
KILGORE DID!

Page 229

THIS PAGE SHOWS THAT INVESTIGATOR CARTER KNEW WHERE IN COBB COUNTY THE GUN HAD
BEEN PURCHASED (A COUPLE OF MILES SOUTH OF MS. SATTERFIELD'S HOME), YET HE FAILED TO
GO THERE AND FIND OUT WHEN IT WAS BOUGHT OR WHO BOUGHT IT.

THIS KNOWLEDGE WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE LENT
SUPPORT AGAINST OR FOR THE IDEA THE PROSECUTOR WAS TRYING TO PLANT IN THE JURORS’
MINDS THAT MR. SATTERFIELD HAD BOUGHT THE GUN TO COMMIT MURDER. NOT EXACTLY THE
BEST INVESTIGATOR ON THE FORCE. HOWEVER, ON RECONSIDERATION, INVESTIGATOR CARTER
MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN THE INFORMATION LIKE A REAL INVESTIGATOR AND WAS LYING AGAIN.
HUM? IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THE PROSECUTOR DIDN'T DEMAND THIS VITAL
INFORMATION EITHER—-OR THE DEFENSE FOR THAT MATTER.

Page 230:8-17

D. Okay. There were bullets somewhere. Where were they?

A. They were in the house.
D. Where?
A. I believe they were picked up in the dining room, in boxes of his personal items.
D. All right. By any chance, did you take any photographs of where the…where those bullets were located in his ex-
wife's dining room with his stuff piled up?
A. I did not.

IT'S DISAPPOINTING THAT THE PICTURES WEREN'T INCLUDED IN THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE
INVESTIGATOR CARTER STATED BEFORE THAT HE THOUGHT THEY WERE FOUND IN THE LIVING
ROOM AND SAW THEM THERE.

31
Page 23:15-21

D. Okay. So you don't know if he [Mr. Satterfield] had been there for two days or two hours?
A. No, sir. He pulled in…it was…I don't know the time limit that he was there, but they watched him pull into the
driveway.
D. Okay. Earlier that morning? Lunch time?
A. Earlier that day.

OKAY. LUNCH TIME IS CONSIDERED 12:00 NOON, SO THAT'S THE VERY LATEST ON DECEMBER
30TH THAT MR. SATTERFIELD WAS ARRESTED. EARLY MORNING BEGINS AROUND 8:00 AM FOR
MOST PEOPLE. BETWEEN THOSE TIMES, 10:00 AM IS REASONABLY ASSUMED HERE FOR MR.
SATTERFIELD HAVING ARRIVED AT HIS WIFE'S HOUSE. ACTUALLY, IT WAS EARLIER.

Page 235:19-23

D. Okay. So let me ask you again, When you previously testified [in the bond hearing], without the letter available
for us to look at, you told the court that the letter said: I [Mr. Satterfield] an (sic) the person that is going to kill you.
That wasn't accurate, was it?
A. If that's what’s…it’s not in the transcript, no, it wasn't.

THE JURORS NOW KNOW THAT INVESTIGATOR CARTER WAS A LIAR AND ALL THAT WAS
NECESSARY FOR MR. KILGORE TO TOTALLY SQUASH THE INVESTIGATOR'S CREDITABILITY WAS
HARPING ON THE DISCREPANCIES IN HIS TESTIMONY. SCREAM OUT THAT HIS POOR, ELDERLY,
MENTALLY ILL CLIENT, MR. SATTERFIELD HAS SUFFERED THE TORTUOUS AGONIES OF COBB
COUNTY'S JAIL FOR OVER A YEAR BECAUSE OF THE INVESTIGATOR'S LIE THAT COULD HAVE
BEEN CAUGHT IF INVESTIGATOR CARTER HAD ONLY BROUGHT HIS NOTES WITH HIM TO THE
BOND HEARING. THEN HE COULD HAVE APPROACHED CARTER, CLOSE TO HIS FACE, STARED AT
HIM IN THE EYE, AND CALMLY BUT ACCUSINGLY ASKED, "DID YOU BRING THEM THIS TIME?"
THAT DID NOT HAPPEN, AND CARTER WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH PERJURY FOR LYING UNDER
OATH. COPS NEVER ARE WHEN THE INTENT IS TO KEEP CERTAIN PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS.

Page 237:16-21

D. This miscommunication you are talking about, in fact you didn't discover there was a miscommunication until
Mr. Geary called you a few weeks ago, isn't that right?
A. It was more than a few weeks ago, I believe.
D. December the 13th, does that sound correct?
A. Approximately.

OOPS! WELL, IT WAS JUST A LITTLE MISTAKE THAT KEPT MR. SATTERFIELD LOCKED UP, BUT
NOBODY IMPORTANT WAS HURT, JUST A HOMELESS BUM.

GIVING MR. KILGORE THE ADVANTAGE OF ANY UNCERTAINTY, HE MIGHT NOT HAVE CHANGED
MR. SATTERFIELD'S PLEA FROM NOT GUILTY HAD HE KNOWN ABOUT THIS

32
"MISCOMMUNICATION" EARLIER. NO, MR. KILGORE HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO CHANGE IT BACK IF
HE HAD WANTED TO.

Pages 237:21 - 238:2

D. Okay. So you would agree, if he had not brought this miscommunication to your attention, it just would have
been part of the report?
A. It's still part of the report.
D. And you could have testified inaccurately to it.
A. No, because she [the fingerprint technician] would have testified to her report.

THAT WAS NOT NECESSARILY THE TRUTH ON INVESTIGATOR CARTER'S PART. SHE MAY NOT
HAVE TESTIFIED AT ALL. THE QUESTION LEFT IN LIMBO IS WHAT TOOK MR. GEARY AND MR.
KILGORE SO LONG TO DISCOVER THIS "MISCOMMUNICATION" AND HOW OFTEN DOES THIS
HAPPEN? FURTHERMORE, HOW LONG DID IT TAKE FOR INSPECTOR CARTER TO FIND A
FINGERPRINT TECHNICIAN THAT SUNDAY MORNING BEFORE HE MADE HIS DECISION TO WAKE
UP A JUDGE TO GET HIS WARRANT ISSUED? WAIT? FIRST, HOW LONG DID IT TAKE TO WAKE UP
THE TECHNICIAN, MEET WITH HER, AND FOR HER TO DO HER RUSH (THIS WAS FOR A JUDGE
AFTER ALL) JOB.

Page 240:17-21

D. Mm-hmm. And those parts that aren't specifically past tense, it's future tense involving someone other than
himself, isn't it?
A. Yeah, because it says: Such as warn you about the danger you were and more likely are in.

CREDIT MUST BE GIVEN TO THE ALMIGHTY FOR INVESTIGATOR CARTER NOT STOPPING AT
"YEAH" BUT GOING ON TO QUOTE WHAT MR. SATTERFIELD HAD WRITTEN WHEN WRITING THE
STATEMENTS INVESTIGATOR CARTER HAD USED FOR GETTING THE ARREST WARRANT.
THROUGH THIS QUOTE, INVESTIGATOR CARTER VERIFIES AGAIN THAT HE KNEW MR.
SATTERFIELD WAS SPEAKING IN THE PAST TENSE WITH THE WORDS HE USED TO OBTAIN THE
ARREST WARRANT.

WITH THE OFFICER'S TESTIMONY OVER, IT IS A SAFE ASSUMPTION THAT A FEW JURORS HAD
BEEN AFFECTED BY THE "GENETIC" FALLACY WHICH HAS TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF THE
CLAIM. SINCE JUDGES AND POLICE OFFICERS STARTED THIS VIEW OF A THREATENING LETTER
AND ARE GENERALLY CONSIDERED AS THE GOOD GUYS, THE LETTER MUST HAVE CONTAINED
TERRORISTIC THREATS.

Second witness called by the Prosecution,

Ms. Heffelfinger.

NOTHING MUCH IN HERE, BUT SHE IS ADDED TO THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES FOR THE
PROSECUTION. BASICALLY, HER TESTIMONY ESTABLISHES THE AMOUNT OF MONEY TAKEN OUT

33
OF MR. SATTERFIELD'S ACCOUNT, AND NO ONE POINTED OUT THAT MR. SATTERFIELD MAY
HAVE HAD OTHER ACCOUNTS IN OTHER PLACES. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THIS MONEY TRANSFER
COULD HAVE BEEN THE ONLY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE ALLEGATION THAT MR.
SATTERFIELD WAS "GETTING RID OF HIS STUFF" HAD IT OCCURRED WEEKS EARLIER, BUT IT DID
NOT.

Third witness called by the Prosecution,

Michael Sanderson.

FIRST, THE PROSECUTION ESTABLISHED THAT MR. SANDERSON DOES NOT REMEMBER EXACTLY
WHEN HE SPOKE WITH MR. SATTERFIELD, BUT IT WAS SOMETIME "TOWARDS THE END OF 2012."
THE EXACT DATE WAS NOVEMBER 30TH, 2012, WHEN IN HIS CAPACITY AS A NURSE, MR.
SANDERSON TOOK MR. SATTERFIELD'S BLOOD, RIGHT AFTER HIS COUNSELOR MS. CHRISTIAN
HAD CALMED HIM FROM THE TRAUMATIZING EVENT OF LEARNING HOW LITTLE CONTROL HE
HAD OVER HIS THOUGHTS.

ALSO, WHEN ASKED ABOUT WHO MR. SATTERFIELD WANTED TO HURT, MR. SANDERSON SAID,
"HE TOLD ME SPECIFICALLY IT WAS A JUDGE'S WIFE." AND, THAT STATEMENT WAS PRETTY
CLOSE. WHEN MR. SANDERSON ASKED MR. SATTERFIELD WHY HE HAD COME TO THE CENTER,
MR. SATTERFIELD REPLIED SOMETHING LIKE THAT. NOT WITH THOSE EXACT WORDS, BUT HE
WAS THERE TO GET HELP BECAUSE HE HAD THOUGHT ABOUT KILLING JUDGE GREEN'S WIFE.
AFTER WAITING OVER FOURTEEN MONTHS FOR A "SPEEDY TRIAL," PEOPLE LIKE MR.
SANDERSON DO FORGET SOME DETAILS OF CASUAL CONVERSATIONS.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENSE

Mr. Sanderson

Page 263:17

D. Okay, could it have been before Thanksgiving?

A. Could of been.

WHY DID MR. KILGORE ASK A QUESTION THAT WOULD MAKE IT APPEAR THAT MR. SATTERFIELD
HAD SPOKEN TO THE NURSE A FEW DAYS BEFORE HE DID?

Pages 264:18 - 265:18

D. Okay. Exactly what did he say?

A. Just that he was very unhappy with…it was apparently a divorce situation. He said something about harming
her. Never did get specific.
D. Okay. He never said anything about a—-
A. Quite honestly, I thought he was just blowing smoke at the time.
D. Okay.
A. I am just, you know, upset at this person and want to do something to them.

34
D. Mr. Sanderson, could it be that he told you that these are thoughts that he had been having?
A. What? That he had thought about it?
D. Yeah, that he had thought about it.
A. Yes, sir.
D. Okay. In fact, he never told you that he was actually going to do it right?
A. He told me he wanted to.
D. And I know that you are not a counselor there, but I don't think that it's an unfair question to ask you. I mean,
isn't part of what goes on at the mental health there that people come in and they unload and they share whatever is
on their mind with their counselor?
A. Sure. You would have to talk to his counselor about that, but yes, sir.

IF AMERICAN COURTS (FOR THE UNIMPORTANT) DID NOT DEMAND TO MOVE SO FAST, MR.
KILGORE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PAUSE AND ASK MR. SATTERFIELD WHAT HAD
HAPPENED TO CLARIFY THINGS, BUT THERE'S ALWAYS A RUSH IN A NON-TELEVISED AMERICAN
COURTROOM TO KEEP THINGS MOVING ALONG.

EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION

Fourth witness called by the Prosecution,
Rene Christian.

Pages 279:24 - 280:12

P. Please proceed.
A. And we were going to discuss his treatment plan and where he was in terms of managing the symptoms. And he
expressed to me that he fell into a deep depression three weeks prior. He continued to describe what that was like,
and he didn't feel like he would ever fall that deeply into a depression, but he was working his way through it at that
time. He began to express a lot of anger and animosity about his divorce and what surrounded that. He was angry
at the judge for dragging it out for so long. And I made sure that I informed him that, because he was expressing
how he was feeling, that I had to report it. I am a mandated reporter.

RENE IS A NICE PERSON AND WOULD NOT INTENTIONALLY DO ANYTHING WRONG, BUT SHE
SHOULD CHECK HER FILES AND SEE THAT NOVEMBER 30TH WAS NOT A SCHEDULED DATE TO
DISCUSS MR. SATTERFIELD'S TREATMENT PLAN, AND, WHETHER THE "DEEP DEPRESSION"
COMMENT WASN'T THREE WEEKS EARLIER, DURING THE TIME OF THE REGULAR SESSION AND
NOTHING SPECIAL HAPPENED DURING IT. THE "EVENT, DELUSION, OR EPISODE" (SURELY SHE
DIDN'T THINK THAT IT WAS ONLY DEEP DEPRESSION) THAT CAUSED MR. SATTERFIELD'S
RUSHING TO SEE HER DURING THE LATE EVENING OF THE 29TH.

FURTHER, THE ANGER (?) OVER HOW JUDGE GREEN ACTED WAS EXPRESSED MANY MONTHS
EARLIER DURING THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS. BUT SHE WAS RIGHT IN THAT MR. SATTERFIELD
HAD EXPRESSED THAT HE HAD NEVER EXPERIENCED ANYTHING LIKE THAT EVENT BEFORE.
WHO PLANTED THESE RECOLLECTIONS IN HER MIND? SHE SAID ON PAGE 284 THAT SHE DID NOT
REVIEW HER REPORTS, SO IT MAKES SENSE SHE WAS SUFFERING FROM A MAELSTROM OF
CONFABULATION AND WAS LED IN TO MIXED MEMORIES OF THE TIME PERIODS BY SOMEONE.

35
Page 282:2-12

P. Okay. Now, you indicated you were a mandatory reporter.

A. Yes.
P. Tell the jury what that means.
A. That means that if a client should come in and report any homicidal tendencies or ideations towards anyone, that
I am mandated to report not only to the client to let them know for safety purposes, but to the one who is making the
threat towards.
P. Okay. Did you do that in this case?
A. Yes.

A MANDATED REPORTER DOES NOT HAVE TO MAKE A REPORT "BECAUSE HE WAS EXPRESSING
HOW HE WAS FEELING." THE REST OF HER COMMENTS ARE A LITTLE HARD TO UNDERSTAND,
BUT THE JUROR'S INCLINATION WOULD BE TO THINK THAT SHE CONSIDERED MR.
SATTERFIELD'S WORDS TO MEAN THAT HE WAS GOING TO TAKE "FUTURE" ACTION AGAINST THE
GREENS AND THAT COULD NOT BE THE CASE FOR IF A CLIENT WERE TO INDICATE SOMETHING
LIKE THAT, A MANDATORY REPORTER "IS REQUIRED” TO TRY AND DETAIN THE CLIENT UNTIL
LAW ENFORCEMENT ARRIVES. ALSO, SHE MEANT TO SAY THAT A MANDATORY REPORTER HAS
TO INFORM THE PERSON WHO A THREAT IS MADE TOWARDS, NOT THE MAKER OF A THREAT.
ANYHOW, IT WAS RATIONAL FOR MR. SATTERFIELD TO ASSUME MS. GREEN KNEW ABOUT HIM
AND WHAT THOUGHTS HE HAD IN THE PAST.

Page 283:9-14

P. Okay. Did you see the defendant again?

A. Yes.
P. What happened on that event?
A. It was during the presence of anger management group. He was attentive in the group, was a bit reserved, but
became more engaged during the latter part of the sessions.

THE REASON MR. SATTERFIELD HAD SIGNED UP FOR THE ANGER MANAGEMENT GROUP DURING
HIS EMERGENCY MEETING WITH MS. CHRISTIAN WAS BECAUSE THERE WERE NO OTHER
OPTIONS, PERIOD. IN DESPERATION, HE TRIED THAT ONE CLASS ON DECEMBER 5TH TO SEE IF IT
WAS SOMETHING USEFUL, AND IT WASN'T, SO HE NEVER WENT BACK.

THE REST OF MS. CHRISTIAN’S TESTIMONY RELATES TO MR. SATTERFIELD ACTING NORMALLY,
WHICH HE DID AFTER GETTING OVER THE EPISODE. BUT THE PURPOSE WAS TO SHOW THAT MR.
SATTERFIELD WASN'T DELUSIONAL WHEN HE WROTE AND POSTED THE LETTER WEEKS LATER,
WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE DONE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENSE

Rene Christian

36
D. What is your understanding of that diagnosis? What does major depression recurrent mean? What does that
mean?
A. Major depression recurrent means that there has been a previous episode of depression and with some episodes
in between of recovery, but it has returned.

THIS MUST HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO SHOW THAT MR. SATTERFIELD'S MENTAL PROBLEMS
COME AND GO LIKE SOME SKIN DISEASES, WHICH IT DID. HOWEVER, WHAT HAPPENED TO MR.
SATTERFIELD WHEN HE WROTE THE LETTER WASN'T DEPRESSION. IT WAS INEFFABLE THOUGH
HE TRIED.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION

Rene Christian

Page 297:21-25
P. You indicated on November 5th that he talked about his struggles?
A. Yes. We talked about his experience with anger and how difficult for him to manage the anger while he was
depressed. It seems like it was just very intense for him.

MR. SATTERFIELD SAT IN THE GROUP LISTENING…QUESTIONING THE MEMBERS AFTER THE
SESSION ABOUT WHY THEY WERE SO EASILY ANGERED AND BRIEFLY SAID HE WAS FINE TO MS.
CHRISTIAN AS HE LEFT. THERE WAS NO "TALK" ABOUT HIS ANGER. MS. CHRISTIAN HAD CALMED
HIM FROM HIS FEAR AT THE CLINIC A FEW DAYS PRIOR. DEKALB COUNTY EMPLOYEES
"DISPLAYED" ANGER, AND SO DID A MAN WHO TURNED OVER THE TABLES OF SOME MONEY
CHANGERS IN A TEMPLE (MATTHEW 21:21), BUT MR. SATTERFIELD HAD NEVER BEEN HOT-
TEMPERED AND FEELING BOTHERED FOR TWO MINUTES WOULD BE INTENSE FOR HIM, .

Page 298:14-19

P. Did he address his ability to control that anger?

A. He did express, at times, he was okay in terms of managing it, but then he struggled when it became intense for
him.
P. Does that mean at times he couldn't control it?
A. At times, yes.

HOW DOES A PROFESSIONAL COUNSELOR DEFINE AN INABILITY TO CONTROL ANGER? DOES IT

MEAN AN INABILITY TO STOP HAVING ANGER ALTOGETHER? DOES IT MEAN AN INABILITY TO
RECOGNIZE AND DISSIPATE IT RAPIDLY? OR DOES IT MEAN GOING WILDLY BERSERK? THE
SECOND DEFINITION IS CORRECT, BUT THE IMPRESSION GIVEN TO THE JURORS (PROBABLY YOU,
TOO) IS THE LATT.ER MR. GEARY'S CHICANERY WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPRESSIVE IF IT WERE
APPLIED ELSEWHERE SUCH AS A STAGE PLAY, BUT IT IS AN ANATHEMA IN A COURT OF JUSTICE.

EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION

Fifth witness called by the Prosecution,

37
Judge Reuben Green.

Page 304:5-12 (In reference to the Satterfield's divorce.)

P. (By Mr. Geary) and without telling, was violence alleged?

A. Yes.
P. Was anger and those issues alleged?
A. Yes.
P. Okay. Was any delusional conduct alleged by any of the parties during this divorce?
A. No, sir.

SOME OF THE HATEFUL THINGS JUDGE GREEN DID DURING THE RESTRAINING ORDER HEARING
HAVE ALREADY BEEN REVEALED IN EXAMINING THE LETTER. IN MR. SATTERFIELD'S PETITION
FOR DIVORCE WAS INCLUDED A STATEMENT OF HOW HE HAD TOTALLY LOST HIS MIND, YET
JUDGE GREEN DID NOT CONSIDER MR. SATTERFIELD DELUSIONAL. FUTHERMORE, WHO
ALLEGED ANGER IN THE COURT?

AMERICANS SHOULD BE CONCERNED THAT GETTING ANGRY AFTER BEING CALLED CHINK,
NIGGER, CRACKER, WHORE, OR WETBACK AND THEN WALKING AWAY. HAVING SUCH AN
EMOTION CAN BE USED TO INSINUATE THAT THEY HAVE PROCLIVITIES TO BECOME VIOLENT. IN
AMERICA, YOU CAN BE INSULTED BUT NEVER ANGRY.

AFTER READING THIS COMMENT BY JUDGE GREEN IN THE COURT TRANSCRIPT, MR.
SATTERFIELD PAID A FELLOW INMATE, ELMON ELMORE JR., A FORMER LAWYER, TO GET A COPY
OF THE DIVORCE TRANSCRIPTS TO SEE IF HE HAD INDEED ALLEGED VIOLENCE FROM MS.
SATTERFIELD. SOMETIMES SHE WOULD STRIKE OUT AT HIM IN FRUSTRATION WITH HERSELF
WHEN SHE WAS DRUNK, BUT SHE WASN'T TRYING TO HURT HIM.

WHEN MR. ELMORE REPORTED BACK THE FIRST TIME, HE TOLD MR. SATTERFIELD HOW MUCH
THE COURT EMPLOYEES HATED HIM EVEN AFTER ALL THE YEARS. FOR OVER SEVEN MONTHS,
TRY AS HE MIGHT, MR. ELMORE WAS UNABLE TO GET A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS;
THEREFORE, THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED WITHIN. IT WAS SIMILAR TO TRYING TO GET COPIES OF
PRESIDENT NIXON TAPES FROM THE '70S.

Page 310:4-7

P. After that, did you receive any communication from the defendant?
A. I did when I received the letter in; I think it was December 30th of 2012.

Page 310:14-17

P. Now, I think you said…you received it, you believe when, again?
A. I think it was December 30th. It was within a day or so of that anyway.

38
A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE DOESN'T EXPECT AND PREPARE FOR THAT QUESTION? THE LETTER
SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELIVERED A WEEK EARLIER. HE'S AVOIDING DIRECTLY ANSWERING THE
QUESTION. WHY?

Page 311:16 – 21

P. What did you do when you read the letter?

A. I contacted…I can't remember whether I called Investigator Carter or Colonel Hunt on, but I contacted one of the
sheriff's investigators and informed them of the threat that had was mailed to the house. And then they came over to
the house, and I spoke with them.

CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE FRIEND HE CALLED? AND YET JUDGE GREEN SAYS HE
SPOKE WITH THEM WHEN THEY "CAME OVER TO THE HOUSE.” REALLY? ONE THING IS FOR SURE:
JUDGE GREEN DIDN'T CALL 911 AS EVERYONE ELSE WOULD HAVE TO HAD TO DO.

Page 312:6, 7

P. How so?
A. I think anyone who reads that letter will come to the conclusion that that was a threat.

NICE LEADING COMMENT. NOW, THE JURORS KNOW THEY WILL VIEW THE LETTER AS A THREAT
OR SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THEM.

Page 313:3-23

P. Okay. Was your wife present at any time during that period?
A. We had just gotten back from visiting family over the holidays. And when we got back, both the children were
tired after having ridden in the car for a ways, and so we took them up to bed. My wife was not feeling well, so she
laid down with my daughter to try to get her to go to sleep. Once my wife got up, of course, I informed her of what
the threat was. At the time, my little sister…I have got a much younger brother and sister, and my sister visiting
from college. We helped…my wife and I help raise her and my brother, and so she was back home, visiting from
college. Of course, as a 20-year-old, she was very excited about everything that was going on and wanted to be
involved and be down there and everything. And so she had said something to my daughter, and then, of course, we
had to address it with my daughter and my son as well.
P. So your wife was aware of the letter when it was received?
A. She was, yes, sir.

IT MUST HAVE BEEN A SPECIAL DAY GETTING BACK HOME. JUDGE GREEN REMEMBERS DETAILS
SO CLEARLY, YET HE DOES NOT KNOW WHEN HE RECEIVED THE LETTER OR WHO HE CALLED?
AND HOW LONG IS "A WAYS?" AN HOUR, TWO, OR MAYBE THREE?

MS. GREEN LAY DOWN WITH HER DAUGHTER TO TRY TO GET HER TO GO TO SLEEP BECAUSE
"MS. GREEN" (NOT HER DAUGHTER) WAS NOT FEELING WELL? A NICE HEART-WARMING PICTURE
PLANTED IN THE MINDS OF THE JURORS COMING QUICKLY AFTER THEY HEARD HOW JUDGE
GREEN AND HIS WIFE DID SO MUCH FOR HIS YOUNGER SIBLINGS. MR. SATTERFIELD WASN'T SO

39
EASILY BAMBOOZLED AS PEOPLE WHO ARE UNLEARNED AND INEXPERIENCED IN THE WAYS OF
GOD'S MOST DEPRAVED CREATURE. THE FOLLOWING IS WHAT MR. SATTERFIELD HEARD:

JUDGE GREEN, HIS WIFE, AND CHILDREN SPENT THE HOLIDAYS (DECEMBER 25TH) WITH FAMILY
MEMBERS AND THEN RETURNED HOME SUNDAY MORNING. WHILE MS. GREEN LAY DOWN TO
GET HER TIRED (NOT SLEEPY, SO IT WAS DEFINITELY IN THE MORNING) DAUGHTER TO GO TO
SLEEP, JUDGE GREEN READ MR. SATTERFIELD'S LETTER.

Page 316:1-8

P. (By Mr. Geary) Judge let me go back to the domestic case that you had with the defendant. Did that case take any
longer than a normal case might take in your courtroom?
A. Everyone is different. Some divorces are handled within 30 to 45 days. Others go for years and years. Just
depends on the parties.
P. Was this one out of the norm?
A. No.

REFER TO THE HISTORY OF THE DIVORCE FOR THE REAL AND COMPLETE TRUTH.

Pages: 318:20 - 319:5

P. Okay, in this particular case, Ms. Satterfield retained an attorney by the name of Gary Jones, who, after the
divorce was over, came back to you to try to set aside that protective order, isn't that right?
A. I don't know that. I don't have any recollection of that.
P. Okay. Well, would the case have been transferred to another judge?
A. It could have been. I don't know. Ultimately, I reclused (sic) myself on the case once the criminal case became
pending.

AFTER MR. SATTERFIELD'S ARREST, MS. SATTERFIELD HIRED, AND PAID UPFRONT, ATTORNEY
GARY JONES TO HAVE THE PROTECTION ORDERS SET ASIDE. NATURALLY, MR. SATTERFIELD
KNEW THAT JUDGE GREEN WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE INVOLVED BECAUSE OF THE CRIMINAL
CASE. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO MS. SATTERFIELD, MR. JONES TOLD HER THAT HE WOULD
HAVE THE ORDER SET ASIDE THROUGH A STATE AGENCY OTHER THAN THE SUPERIOR COURT.
MONTHS LATER, MR. JONES INFORMED MS. SATTERFIELD THAT HE HAD, INSTEAD, PRESENTED
THE MOTION BEFORE JUDGE GREEN WHO BECAME VERY "ANGRY" AND DECLARED THAT NOT
ONLY WAS HE NOT GOING TO GRANT THE MOTION, BUT HE WAS ALSO ORDERING THAT NO
JUDGE COULD HEAR THE CASE. JUDGE GREEN'S MEMORY IS NO DOUBT EXTREMELY SELECTIVE,
BUT THESE LINES IN THE COURT'S TRANSCRIPT SHOW THAT HE COULD NOT DECIDE WHETHER
TO CLAIM TO HAVE NO "RECOLLECTION" OR THAT HE, "RECUSED MYSELF AFTER THE CASE
BECAME PENDING."

CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENSE

Judge Reuben Green

40
Pages 321:13 - 322:3 concerning the divorce proceedings.

D. What about his pleadings?

A. He filed a pro se complaint. Usually, when individuals represent themselves…like pro se is just a legal term for
it…they sort of work through that process and put in there what they think should go in there.
He wrote all kinds of horrible things about his now ex-wife, at the time his wife, in that complaint. But again,
that’s…I don't believe that was in relation to competency. I think that's different.
D. Okay.
A. He was angry, clearly.

AS THE READER KNOWS, THE SATTERFIELDS WERE NOT ANGRY WITH EACH OTHER. JUDGE
GREEN READ THIS INTO THE COMPLAINT OR IS NOW MAKING IT UP. ALSO, IT HAS BEEN
PREVIOUSLY SHOWN THAT AS A FORMER OFFICER MR. SATTERFIELD WAS VERY METICULOUS
AND JUSTICE MINDED. HE IS SO CONCERNED THAT JUDGES HAVE ALL OF THE TRUTH TO MAKE
THE CORRECT DECISIONS, THAT ONCE, AFTER GETTING A GUILTY VERDICT FROM JUDGE HARRIS
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA AND THEN REALIZING HE HAD LEFT OUT A
SMALL ITEM THAT WAS IN THE DEFENDANT'S FAVOR, HE HURRIED BACK BEFORE THE JUDGE
AND CONFESSED HIS MISTAKE. JUDGE HARRIS LOOKED AT HIM STRANGELY FOR THE
INCONSEQUENTIAL DEFICIENCY HAD NO EFFECT ON HER RULING BUT THAT DIDN'T MATTER TO
MR. SATTERFIELD. WHAT MATTERED TO HIM WAS NOT TO EVEN APPEAR TO BE DOING WRONG
OR HIDING ANYTHING (1THESS. 5:22)

TED HERBERT, THE ATTORNEY WHO JUDGE GREEN DROVE MR. SATTERFIELD TO HIRE, HAD
LAUGHINGLY TOLD MR. SATTERFIELD THAT ALL THE COURT EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING JUDGE
GREEN, WERE ANGRY WITH HIM BECAUSE OF WHAT HE HAD WRITTEN ABOUT HIS WIFE, AND
THAT IT WAS IMPROPER TO TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH. AS WILL BE POINTED OUT DURING THE
CRIMINAL HEARING, MR. SATTERFIELD HAD INCLUDED LOTS OF BAD THINGS ABOUT HIMSELF.
JUDGE GREEN'S REMARK, "PUT IN THERE WHAT THEY THINK SHOULD GO IN THERE" MEANS TO
MR. SATTERFIELD THE COMPLETE TRUTH, INCLUDING ANY EMBARASSING OR DAMAGING
THINGS.

JUDGE GREEN'S PREJUDICE AGAINST AND HATRED TOWARDS MR. SATTERFIELD BEGAN
BECAUSE HE HAD NEVER BEEN IN CONTACT WITH SOMEONE OF MR. SATTERFIELD'S RECTITUDE
AND COULDN'T APPRECIATE IT OR WAS CHAGRINED BY IT AS EVINCED IN HIS COMMENTS.

Pages 323:25 - 324:10

D. Okay. Would it also be fair to characterize the pleading as bizarre and not exactly the usual kind of stuff in a
divorce situation?
A. The petition itself, which is the pleading, is a form that pro se litigants can get from the court. He completely
filled that out, filled it out, for the most part, correctly, and then he attached to that an attachment "A." And in that,
he listed 229 different…I don't know what you want to call them…what he describes as facts, or whatever, saying all
different kinds of horrible things about his wife and things about him and domestic violence and all kinds of other
stuff.

41
D. Do you recall if in that attachment he, in fact, made statements as I asked you about earlier about getting fecal
matter on him during contact with his wife?
A. I didn't get a chance to read the entire thing, but I do recall something to that effect.

THE FORMS WERE MUCH HARDER TO INTERPRET THAN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN (THE SIMPLE
INFORMATION REQUIRED BY GEORGIA LAW FOR A DIVORCE WOULD HAVE TAKEN UP A THIRD
OF A NOTEBOOK PAGE AND TEN MINUTES TO FILL OUT), SO MR. SATTERFIELD HAD ELICITED
THE HELP OF ONE OF HIS NEIGHBORS. THE FORMS TOOK PARTS OF TWO DAYS TO INTERPRET
AND COMPLETE, AND STILL JUDGE GREEN JUMPED ON MR. SATTERFIELD FOR NOT PROVIDING
ONE OF THEM. ALSO, AS MR. SATTERFIELD ASSUMED IN HIS WARNING LETTER, JUDGE GREEN
ADMITS THAT HE NEVER READ THE WHOLE PETITION, WHICH SUPPORTS MR. SATTERFIELD’S
OPINION THAT JUDGE GREEN IS INCOMPETENT AND WANTS EVERYONE TO HIRE ATTORNEYS TO
REACH A SETTLEMENT. (REFER BACK TO GEORGIA'S DIVORCE LAW TO SEE THE REQUIREMENTS).

Page 328:3-7 concerning Judge Green's sister who supposedly informed the children of the supposed threat.

D. Did she tell you that I tried to contact her about this case?
A. She said someone tried to contact her. I did not know who it was. She didn't say whether it was you or it was Mr.
Geary.

PLAINLY, JUDGE GREEN DIDN'T ENCOURAGE HIS SISTER DEBORAH TO RETURN THE CALL TO
ESTABLISH THE CREDIBILITY OF HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT HER BEING THE ONE WHO RELAYED
THE NONEXISTENT THREATS TO THE CHILDREN.

Page 328:11-18

A. So we come back from this family get together, and sister is there. She's 20 years old. Of course, when I get the
letter, I contact the sheriff. A bunch of sheriff deputies show up. When they come into the house, we're all standing in
the kitchen, down comes my sister. And she, of course, thinks this is very exciting. She's 20 years old, and so she
stands there and listens to the whole thing.

IS EXCITING, WHICH IS USED A COUPLE OF TIMES, THE RIGHT WORD TO USE FOR THE 20-YEAR-
OLD SISTER'S FEELINGS? THE WORD SEEMS RELATED TO HIGH JOY. IT IS SUPPOSEDLY THROUGH
HER THAT THE CHILDREN LEARN ABOUT THE "THREATS" AND BECOME PARTIES TO THE
ACCUSATIONS AGAINST MR. SATTERFIELD.

JUDGE GREEN'S SISTER, A COLLEGE STUDENT, CERTAINLY HAS MORBID, SADISTIC

INCLINATIONS TO TELL AN INNOCENT CHILD WHAT SHE SUPPOSEDLY DID. LATER, WITH THE
MEMBERS OF THE JURY ABSENT, MR. KILGORE TELLS JUDGE HOWE THAT 20-YEAR-OLD COLLEGE
STUDENTS DON'T DO THAT SORT OF THING—-AND THEY DON'T. HE, THE PROSECUTOR AND
JUDGE HOWE KNEW THAT JUDGE GREEN COMMITED PERJURY BUT DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.

Page 329:8-11

42
D. Did you ever show the document to your sister?
A. I think she would have seen the document sitting on the counter. She did not read the document. I did not let her
touch the document, no.

Page 329:12-17

D. Okay. So she wouldn't have had any basis to know the specific contents of it then?
A. She's standing right next to us as I am explaining to the investigator what the letter says. So, I mean, she would
have heard me say to the investigator what was contained, roughly, within the document.

JUDGE GREEN LET HER LISTEN WHILE HE READ OUT-LOUD THAT ONE PARAGRAPH? REALLY?
AFTER HELPING RAISE HER DIDN'T HE KNOW SHE HAD A MAJOR SOCIOLOGICAL PROBLEM?

SINCE INVESTIGATOR CARTER WAS BEING TOLD “ROUGHLY” WHAT WAS IN THE LETTER BY A
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE, MAYBE HE REALLY DIDN'T READ WHAT WAS WRITTEN BY MR.
SATTERFIELD (HE DIDN’T HAVE THE TIME TOO), BUT IT WAS HIS JOB TO "KNOW" BEFORE
RUSHING OFF TO ARREST SOMEONE WITHOUT CHECKING THE EVIDENCE. JUDGE GREEN COULD
HAVE WRITTEN THAT LETTER HIMSELF AS FAR AS INVESTIGATOR CARTER KNEW. HE HAD
ABSOLUTELY NO GROUNDS FOR REQUESTING AN ARREST WARRANT. CAN ONE IMAGINE HOW
TERRIFIED INVESTIGATOR CARTER WAS WHEN AFTER THE BOND HEARING HE FINALLY READ
THE LETTER HIMSELF AND FOUND NO THREATS!

Page 330:6-17

D. Okay. But is it fair to say that you certainly never—-you certainly never sat down with your children and told
them: Hey, there is this person named James Satterfield and we got this letter, and here's what it says? You never
disclosed that?
A. I did not disclose exactly what the letter said. I said a bad man wanted to hurt your family, and we need to be
extra careful. We need to stay together. We need to not go outside without mommy and or daddy. Those sorts of
things. Those sorts of things. I spoke as if I were talking to a three- and six-year-old and explained what was going
on because my 20-year-old little sister said what had happened.

IT IS QUEER HOW JUDGE GREEN HAS TO KEEP MENTIONING HIS SISTER'S AGE SOMETIMES WITH
THE WORD "LITTLE" IMPLYING THAT, BECAUSE OF HER AGE, SHE DIDN'T KNOW ANY BETTER.
THE JURORS MUST HAVE BOUGHT IT. AND MR. KILGORE ASKED NO QUESTIONS TO SHOW
OTHERWISE.

OKAY. AFTER JUDGE GREEN READ THE LETTER AND CALLED HIS ASSOCIATE, AND AFTER THE
AUTHORITIES ARRIVE, JUDGE GREEN'S SISTER COMES DOWN AND LISTENS TO THE
CONVERSATION BETWEEN JUDGE GREEN AND INVESTIGATOR CARTER. AFTERWARDS AND IN AN
EXCITED STATE, DEBORAH GREEN RUNS UPSTAIRS AND TELLS HER LITTLE THEN SIX-YEAR-OLD
NIECE (WHO WAS SUPPOSEDLY ASLEEP) THAT SOME MAN HAD THREATENED HER. THE NIECE
GETS UP AND GOES TO HER 3-YEAR-OLD BROTHER AND TELLS HIM ABOUT IT AND JUDGE
GREEN'S SISTER LETS HER DO SO, MAYBE ENCOURAGES HER?

43
UPON THE YOUNGEST GREEN'S LEARNING OF THE THREATS, THE TWO UPSET CHILDREN GO TO
THEIR PARENTS FOR COMFORT. INVESTIGATOR CARTER TAKES THE LETTER AND ENVELOPE TO
BE FINGERPRINTED. THE FINGERPRINT TECHNICIAN COMES TO WORK THAT SUNDAY MORNING,
DOES HER THING, AND FINDS NO PRINTS. IT'S ASSUMED (BECAUSE THIS IS THE WAY IT SHOULD
HAVE HAPPENED) INVESTIGATOR CARTER THEN TYPES UP HIS REQUEST FOR A WARRANT,
WAKES UP A MAGISTRATE AND MEETS HIM AT THE MAGISTRATE'S OFFICE THAT SUNDAY,
WHERE INVESTIGATOR CARTER, ALONG WITH OTHERS, GIVE THEIR SWORN TESTIMONIES.

AFTER REASONABLE CONSIDERATION, MAGISTRATE PHILIP TAYLOR ISSUES THE REQUESTED

WARRANT THAT IS TYPED UP AND INVESTIGATOR CARTER SENDS DEPUTIES TO MS.
SATTERFIELD'S HOME TO BEGIN SURVEILLANCE FOR MR. SATTERFIELD AROUND 8:00 AM. THEY
ARRESTED MR. SATTERFIELD AROUND 10:00 AM SUNDAY MORNING.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION

Judge Reuben Green

Page 332:14-19 speaking about the Satterfield's divorce.

P. And is that the correct time that the petition was filed in, to your memory?
A. I don't know about the time, but the date is correct. I remember the date being correct.
P. What's the date?
A. April 4th, 2011.

JUDGE GREEN COULDN'T REMEMBER THE DATE, NOT EVEN WITHIN A RANGE OF A FEW DAYS,
WHEN HE RETURNED FROM VISITING HIS FAMILY AND READ THE LETTER BUT HE CAN RECALL
WITHOUT HESITATION THE EXACT DATE OF THE FILING OF MR. SATTERFIELD'S PETITION FOR
DIVORCE FROM YEARS PAST?

JUDGE GREEN LIKE INVESTIGATOR CARTER MADE FATAL MISTAKES. IF HE HAD SAID YOUNGER
SISTER INSTEAD OF HER ACTUAL AGE, HE MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH HIS SCHEME.
JUDGE GREEN'S MALEVOLENT DESIRE TO BESMIRCH MR. SATTERFIELD AND TOTALLY
ELIMINATE HIM AS A "THREAT" TO HIS POLITICAL FUTURE MADE HIM SEEK AS MUCH
SENTENCING TIME FOR MR. SATTERFIELD AS POSSIBLE.

STILL, ONE HAS TO WONDER, WILL ALL OF THE ARCHITECTS OF THIS LIE BE ABLE TO
MANUFACTURE YET ANOTHER FAIRY TALE AND FORCE JUDGE GREEN'S CHILDREN AND SISTER
INTO IT? OKAY, SUPPOSING THEY DO AND JUDGE GREEN'S SISTER REALLY IS SOCIALLY
CHALLENGED. SHE COULD BE AUTISTIC AFTER ALL. THEN IT IS UNQUESTIONABLE THAT THE
CONFEDERATES PLANTED A NON-EXISTING THREAT IN HER MIND THROUGH THEIR CHOICE OF
WORDS AND STATEMENTS SUCH AS JUDGE GREEN LOUDLY SAYING TO INVESTIGATOR CARTER,
"LOOK HERE, THIS MAN IS THREATENING TO EAT MY CHILDREN!"

44
CLEARLY, NEITHER THE CHILDREN NOR THE SISTER WERE PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM TO
TESTIFY BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T INVOLVED AT ALL. BUT, HOW ABOUT THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, VIC REYNOLDS; THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, DON GEARY; THE PRESIDING
JUDGE, DONALD HOWE; THE DEFENSE, MR. MADDOX KILGORE; THE PROSECUTION'S EXPERT
PSYCHIATRIST, DR. JULIE DORNEY; AND EVEN MEMBERS OF THE GEORGIA APPEAL'S BOARD?

ALL THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE EXCEEDINGLY WELL EDUCATED SO HOW COULD SO MANY MAKE
THE EXACT SAME BASIC ENGLISH GRAMMAR MISTAKE INDEPENDENTLY OF EACH OTHER? HOW
MANY INDIVIDUALS WERE COMPLICIT WITH THE GREENS?

PERHAPS EVEN REPUBLICAN CONNECTED EX-GOVERNOR SONNY PERDUE? HE IS THE MAN WHO
HAD APPOINTED JUDGE GREEN TO HIS JUDGESHIP AND IS ONE OF THE TWO MOST DIRECT AND
POWERFUL CONNECTIONS FROM GREEN TO THE GOVERNOR'S ALL REPUBLICAN APPOINTED
APPEALS AND PAROLE BOARD MEMBERS. THESE INDIVIDUALS MUST BE SUSPECTS REGARDING
THIS INJUSTICE. WERE ALL OF THEM PURPOSELY PROTECTING THEIR POLITICAL COMRADE WITH
NO REGARD TO THE LAW AND FAIR TREATMENT FOR PROVINCIAL GEORGIANS?

45
 SUPPORT FROM THE DEFENSE

AS SHOWN, FOR HOURS THE PROSECUTOR HAD CONTROLLED THE PROCEEDING, BUT WHAT
ABOUT THE DEFENSE. WHAT HAD MR. KILGORE DONE TO MAYBE HELP THE PROSECUTION UP TO
THIS POINT?

IT BEGAN WITH THE SELECTION OF THE JURORS. WHEN QUESTIONING THE POTENTIAL JURORS
IN GROUPS, THE PROSECUTOR TOOK VERY LITTLE TIME, ASKED A FEW QUESTIONS, AND WAS
FINISHED. IN CONTRAST, THE DEFENSE ASKED SO MANY QUESTIONS AND TOOK SO MUCH TIME
THAT JUDGE HOWE BUTTED IN TO RUSH HIM ALONG. AFTER THE INTERVENTION OF THE JUDGE,
MR. KILGORE DROPPED MANY OF HIS QUESTIONS, DEMONSTRATING TO THE REMAINING
POTENTIAL JURORS THAT THEY WERE NOT NECESSARY. BORING PEOPLE DOES NOT GAIN THEIR
FAVOR.

NEXT, UNLIKE THE PROSECUTOR'S TABLE, WHICH ONLY HAD MR. GEARY BEHIND IT, THERE
WERE THREE PEOPLE BEHIND THE DEFENSE'S TABLE: MR. KILGORE, HIS ASSISTING ATTORNEY,
MR. RODRIGUEZ, AND MR. SATTERFIELD. AS SHOWN IN THE BOOK TITLED MISTRIAL, WRITTEN
BY TWO DISTINGUISHED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, PEOPLE INSTINCTIVELY DON'T LIKE THE
THOUGHT OF TWO AGAINST ONE AND HERE IT APPEARED THAT THERE WERE THREE AGAINST
ONE. THE JURORS WOULD VIEW THE DEFENSE AS HAVING AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE FROM THE
VERY START OF THE TRIAL.

WITH THE TRIAL UNDERWAY, MR. KILGORE HAD BEEN THE FIRST TO RAISE AN OBJECTION AND
HAVE THE JURORS ESCORTED OUT OF THE COURTROOM. THIS IS THOUGHT TO BE AN EFFECTIVE
MANEUVER (OR TRICK) TO GET THE JURORS WONDERING ABOUT WHAT THE OTHER SIDE HAD
DONE THAT WAS SO BAD THAT THEY WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT IT.
CONTRASTINGLY, IF USED TO EXCESS THIS TACTIC HAS THE OPPOSITE EFFECT AS THE JURORS
MAY BEGIN THINKING THAT IT IS THE DEFENSE WHO IS TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING
IMPORTANT. MR. KILGORE HAD THE JURORS TRAVEL IN AND OUT OF THE COURTROOM TIME
AFTER TIME UNTIL JUDGE HOWE FINALLY PUT A STOP TO IT.

FURTHERMORE, WHILE MR. KILGORE DID ASK SOME QUESTIONS OF MANY OF THE
PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES, HE DIDN'T ASK THE SIMPLE AND OBVIOUS QUESTION OF HOW THEIR
TESTIMONY RELATED TO THE REVEREND'S MENTAL CONDITION AT THE PARTICULAR TIME
THAT HE WROTE THE LETTER.

LASTLY, MR. KILGORE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT BOTH INVESTIGATOR CARTER AND MR.
GEARY BLATANTLY LIED ABOUT THE AMMUNITION FOR THE EMPTY GUN BEING FOUND IN MS.
SATTERFIELD'S HOME. CLAIMING THAT BULLETS FOR THE EMPTY GUN WERE THERE GAVE THE
IMPRESSION THAT MR. SATTERFIELD WAS COCKED AND READY TO ANNIHILATE THE GREENS.
WHY DIDN'T MR. KILGORE SAY SOMETHING? BECAUSE IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY AMMUNITION
(FITTING THE GUN FOUND IN MR. SATTERFIELD'S VAN) IN THAT HOUSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE INSTEAD OF AN OLD BOX THE GUN HAD BEEN STORED IN OR STAMPS?
UNLESS INVESTIGATOR CARTER, THE PROSECUTOR, OR WHOEVER TELLS WHY THEY DID NOT

46
JUST BUY SOME BULLETS AND PLACE THEM IN EVIDENCE, MR. SATTERFIELD MUST PRESUME
BECAUSE GOD DIDN'T ALLOW THEM TO.

EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION

Sixth witness called by the Prosecution, Heidi Green

Page 335:5,6
P. Did you read the contents of the letter?
A. I have read the letter, yes.

WHY WOULD JUDGE GREEN LET HER READ SOMETHING SO HORRIBLE AS WHAT MR. GEARY
LATER CLAIMS "WILL MAKE YOUR HEART SKIP A BEAT"?

Page 336:5-15

P. Okay.
A. And, unfortunately, they were upset many times after that, because what Mr. Satterfield wrote in the letter, his
purpose of talking about cooking my children and eating them, he wanted the nation to know. And so the news
media picked it up. And friends and people who care about us would come up to us and say: Oh, I'm so sorry, we're
praying for your family, and that's awful. And my children would be there, and they would know what was being told
to them.

THE GREENS HAVE RELIGIOUS FRIENDS WHO ARE SO PERVERTED AND CALLOUS THEY
WOULD DO THAT IN FRONT OF CHILDREN? ARE THEY SATANISTS? WELL AT LEAST THE
JURORS HAVE BEEN GIVEN ENOUGH TO BASE THEIR DECISION "ON THE FACTS (?)" AND
PROVE IN NORTH AMERICAN COURTS EMOTIONS ARE IGNORED (NOT!).

CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENSE

Heidi Green

Pages 336:19 - 337:23

D. (By Mr. Rodriguez) How did you meet your husband?
A. We met in college.
D. How are you employed?
A. I am a small business owner.
D. What business is that?

MR. GEARY: Your Honor, I'm going to object. That's really got nothing to do with this at all.
THE COURT: I am going to allow it because it's cross-examination, but try to get…have a point somewhere.
THE WITNESS: Well, I have multiple businesses.

D. And what is your educational background?

A. I have a master's in international business.
D. And you formerly worked for the governor correct?

47
A. Yes.
D. Is that Governor Perdue?
A. Yes.
D. Okay. What did you do for the Governor?
A. Well, I did multiple things. I was the Director of International Affairs for him during his administration, and then
I was the Deputy Commissioner of Global Commerce for the Georgia Department of Economic Development.
D. Would that require you to travel with the Governor?
A. Yes.
D. Out of the country?
A. Yes
D. Would you have been considered as a senior adviser to the Governor?
A. Yes.

GOVERNOR PERDUE WITH HIS VAST CONNECTIONS, INCLUDING PRESIDENT TRUMP? MUST BE
NICE TO HAVE SUCH A CLOSE FRIEND ALONG WITH THE PRESENT GEORGIA GOVERNOR.

SEAN WHITWORTH'S ALLUSION TO THE POLITICS OF JUDGE GREEN'S APPOINTMENT SEEMS

CERTAIN NOW AND AS A POWERFUL FAMILY FRIEND GOVERNOR PERDUE WOULD HAVE BEEN
IMMEDIATELY INFORMED ABOUT THE THREAT TO JUDGE GREEN'S POLITICAL FUTURE.

EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION

Seventh witness called by the Prosecution
Investigator Marco Cabrera

Page 343:7-9

P. All right. How long had you been sitting at that [Ms. Satterfield's] house?
A. Couple of hours.

MORE THAN REASONABLY, MR. SATTERFIELD WAS ARRESTED BEFORE 10:00 AM; THEREFORE,
INVESTIGATOR CABRERA ARRIVED AT MS. SATTERFIELD'S HOME ABOUT 8:00 AM. ON THAT DAY,
THE SUN ROSE AT 7:43 AM THAT MORNING. IT MUST HAVE BEEN VERY DARK WHEN THE GREEN’S
ARRIVED HOME, IF IN FACT THEY HAD BEEN VISITING RELATIVES AS THE JUDGE TESTIFIED.

Page 343:16-18

P. Look was he [Mr. Satterfield] in the house or was he not in the house.
A. When I made contact with him, he was next to his vehicle.

THE ABOVE SENTENCES ARE SEMINALLY SHOWN ONLY.

Page 340: 2- 14

P. What is that?

48
A. That's a gun box.
P. Have you seen that gun box before?
A. Yes.
P. Where did you see it?
A. In the house.
P. What house?
A. The subject's house.
P. The house you were searching?
A. Yes.
P. Okay. Where was the box located? Where did you find it at?
A. In the dining room.

THE DINING ROOM AREA WAS ABOUT 10' X 9' WITH SIX CHAIRS AND DINING TABLE IN THE
CENTER OF IT—-VERY CRAMPED. SO, THE GUN BOX HAD TO HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE DINING
ROOM TABLE. THE SUPPOSED AMMUNITION MUST HAVE BEEN WITH THE GUN BOX, BUT
INVESTIGATOR CABRERA DOES NOT MENTION FINDING IT.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENSE

Marco Cabrera

Page 342:1-7

D. Okay. And that was not Mr. Satterfield's residence, was it?
A. I believe it was his wife, but I am not sure about that?
D. Okay. You just know you just showed up and started searching.
A. Yes.

Page 344:14-21

D. All right. Did he have anything other than that box that was setting there?
A. No. Well, that's what I found, and that's what I gave to Investigator Carter.
D. All right. Do you have a picture of the area you searched so we could see what of his stuff was there? Do you
have any pictures?
A. No, I do not have pictures of it.

Page 345:7,8

D. It was on the dining room table?

A. Yes.
D. Okay. What else was on the dining room table?
A. That's all I could see. There were multiple items, like paperwork, dining room items. You know, a clock.

Page 345:20-23

49
D. And if we talked to whoever it was who took the photographs, we might be able to remember. Is that fair to say?
A. Yes, sir.
D. Okay. Have you seen the photographs?
A. I have never seen the photographs.

NOW WE KNOW THE BOX WAS ON THE TABLE AND NOT ON A CHAIR, WHICH MAKES SENSE. BUT
NO AMMUNITION WAS SEEN? THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE AMMUNITION WERE NEVER SHOWN
EITHER. HOW COULD THAT BE POSSIBLE?

Page 346:1-5 & 20-25

D. All right. So other than the box, what else did you take out of the house?
A. That was it.
D. That's the only thing you took?
A. Yes.
D. All right. But your responsibility was just the common area, the dining room area?
A. Yes.
D. Somebody else would have searched the kitchen or the upstairs or whatnot?
A. Yes, sir.

EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION

Eighth witness called by the Prosecution,
Deputy Jeffrey Potter

Page 351

DEPUTY POTTER DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT MR. SATTERFIELD
APPEARING NORMAL JUST AS OTHER OFFICERS HAD, BASED ON LESS THAN A COUPLE OF
MINUTES OF OBSERVATION AND NOT BEING ABLE TO HEAR HIM, BUT, AGAIN, THE JURORS DID
NOT KNOW THAT. ANOTHER PROFESSIONAL OPINION IT LOOKS LIKE.

Page 352

DEPUTY POTTER DESCRIBES HIS SEARCH AND DISCOVERY OF THE GUN IN MR. SATTERFIELD'S
VAN.

Page 353:15-20

D. Okay. Did you search…also search the house?

A. I assisted in the search of the house.
D. Did you find anything in the house that related to the weapon?
A. I found the shells, the .410 shells in the dining room.

50
THAT IS ODD. FIRST, MS. SATTERFIELD HAD THE EXACT KIND OF AMMUNITION THAT FIT THE
GUN FOUND IN MR. SATTERFIELD'S VAN IN HER DINING ROOM, AND SECOND, INVESTIGATOR
CABRERA MISSED IT. OR DID DEPUTY POTTER FIND THE AMMUNITION, BUT MISS THE GUN BOX?
INVESTIGATOR CARTER THOUGHT THE AMMUNITION WAS FOUND IN THE LIVING ROOM AND
SAW IT THERE. DIDN'T HE? HE INSINUATED THAT HE DID, BUT HE ALSO SAID IT WAS IN THE
DINING ROOM.

WITH ALL THESE PEOPLE IN THE TINY DINING ROOM HOW WERE THEY ABLE TO MOVE? DID
INVESTIGATOR CABRERA LIE WHEN HE SAID HE SEARCHED THE DINING ROOM WHILE THE
OTHERS SEARCHED ELSEWHERE? AS THE MOST EXPERIENCED OFFICER THERE, DEPUTY POTTER
WOULD BE THE EXPERT IN HOW THINGS ARE DONE IN COBB COUNTY, BOTH LEGAL AND
ILLEGAL. WHO IS LYING?

Page 355:10-19

D. Okay. We'll see what we can do here. All right. When you got there, you were part of, basically, an arrest team;
right?
A. That's correct.
D. Y'all already had a warrant?
A. Yes. I believe it was being taken at some point during that day.
D. Okay.
A. So I'm not sure if we had it—-
D. What's wrong with your wrist there?

"WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOUR WRIST THERE?" "WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOUR WRIST THERE?" WHY
DID MR. KILGORE INTERRUPT HIM AND CHANGE THE SUBJECT? MR. SATTERFIELD NEVER
RECEIVED OR LOOKED AT AN ARREST WARRANT. IF THE APPLICATION WAS BEING PROCESSED
OR HAD NOT BEEN APPROVED, THEN THE ARREST WAS ILLEGAL, AND EVERYTHING HAD TO BE
THROWN OUT EVEN IF THE APPLICATION WAS NOT ALREADY TAINTED.

AS SHOWN, IT COULD HAVE BEEN NO LATER THAN 10:00 AM ON SUNDAY MORNING, DECEMBER
30TH, WHEN MR. SATTERFIELD WAS ARRESTED. INVESTIGATOR CABRERA ARRIVED AT MS.
SATTERFIELD’S' HOME AROUND 8:00 AM (17 MINUTES BEFORE SUNRISE) AND IT WAS THAT SAME
MORNING THAT THE GREENS (AFTER RIDING "IN THE CAR FOR A WAYS") ARRIVED AT THEIR
HOME TO FIND THE LETTER.

THE READER IS ENCOURAGED TO SATISFY THEMSELVES AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS

SUFFICIENT TIME BETWEEN THE GREENS ARRIVING HOME AND MR. SATTERFIELD'S ARREST FOR
ALL OF THE EVENTS CLAIMED TO HAVE OCCURRED AND THE "LAW" TO HAVE BEEN COMPLIED
WITH BY THE COUNTY. MORE DAMAGING IS MAKING THE STARTING TIME BASED ON WAKING
THE TWO SMALL CHILDREN THAT SUNDAY MORNING. WAS THERE ANY REASON FOR THAT LONG
TRIP HOME TO BEGIN BEFORE SUNRISE (AT 7:43 AM) AND MAKING THE CHILDREN WAIT TO EAT
THEIR BREAKFAST?

51
NATURALLY, VIC REYNOLDS, THE NEWLY ELECTED DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO WAS THEN
COMPENSATED AT ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT ($200,000/YR) AS THE NEWLY APPOINTED JUDGE
REUBEN GREEN CHECKED THIS BEFORE PROSECUTING MR. SATTERFIELD, RIGHT?

THE FACT THAT THE WARRANT FOR MR. SATTERFIELD'S ARREST WAS ISSUED BASED ON FALSE
SWEARING AND DECEIT WAS BAD ENOUGH, BUT NOW THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE TIMING
OF THE ARREST. AND PARTICULARLY DISTURBING IS THAT WITH THE PROBABLE EXCEPTION OF
JUDGE GREEN NOT ONE LEGAL PUNDIT NOTICED (?) THAT THE WARRANT WAS DEFECTIVE DUE
TO BEING IN SUCH A SYCOPHANT FERVOR TO PLEASE A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE.

Page 357:8-11

D. All right. Did you take photographs of either the interior of the van, exterior of the van, or the area that was
searched?
A. I did not take any photographs.
D. Do you know who did?
A. I do not remember who did.
D. Okay. Which did you search first: The residence or the van?
A. The residence because I remember finding the car keys first.

WHY DID DEPUTY POTTER NEED THE "CAR" KEYS? MS. SATTERFIELD'S CAR WAS NOT SEARCHED,
SO HE MUST HAVE MEANT "VAN." SO, MR. SATTERFIELD ARRIVES AT MS. SATTERFIELD'S
RESIDENCE, GOES INTO THE HOME, LAYS DOWN HIS KEYS, GOES OUTSIDE WITH MS.
SATTERFIELD TO UNLOAD HIS STUFF FROM HIS VAN, OPENS THE SIDE DOORS, GETS PLACED
AGAINST THE VAN, AND SEARCHED BY INVESTIGATOR CABRERA. THE OFFICER LAYS MR.
SATTERFIELD'S BELONGINGS INSIDE THE VAN, PLACES HIM IN THE POLICE CAR, JOINS THE
OTHER OFFICERS, AND LATER SEARCHES THE HOUSE. DEPUTY POTTER GOES INTO THE "SMALL"
DINING ROOM, AND FINDS THE KEYS AND AMMUNITION, WHILE ONLY INVESTIGATOR CABRERA
SEARCHES THE DINING ROOM AND FINDS A GUN BOX, WHICH HE GIVES TO INVESTIGATOR
CARTER WHO SEES THE AMMO. THEN DEPUTY POTTER GOES OUTSIDE AND UNLOCKS THE OPEN
VAN DOORS, SEARCHES THE VAN AND FINDS A GUN THAT THE AMMUNITION FITS.

SOMETHING IS DEFINITIVELY WRONG WITH THAT DESCRIPTION/TIMELINE OF EVENTS.

Pages 358:23 - 359:5

D. Okay. Did you see a gun box on the dining room table?
A. I see it right there.
D. Did you see it on the dining room table?
A. I don't remember seeing it.
D. Okay.
A. I knew it was found, but I don't remember seeing it.

52
THE WITNESS FIRST AVOIDED THE QUESTION YET RECOGNIZED A BOX HE HAD NEVER SEEN
BEFORE. SMART MONEY IS ON DEPUTY POTTER AND INVESTIGATOR CARTER BEING THE LIARS,
NOT CABRERA.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION

Jeffrey Potter

Pages 365:13 - 366:4

P. When you saw him, was he acting what you would term as normal?
A. Yes, he was acting normal.
P. Were any of his conduct or speech that you heard unusual?
A. No.
P. Extreme?
A. No.
P. Did he fight?
A. No.
P. Was he saying things that were preposterous or not possible?
A. No.
P. Was it as if you would just talk to anyone on the street?
A. That is correct.
P. Thank you.

DEPUTY POTTER NEVER SPOKE WITH MR. SATTERFIELD.

HERE IS WHAT HAPPENED. MR. AND MS. SATTERFIELD WERE STANDING BY THE SIDE OF HIS VAN
ABOUT TO MOVE THE LAST OF HIS POSSESSIONS INTO HER HOUSE. AFTER MR. SATTERFIELD
OPENED THE VAN'S TWO SIDE DOORS, TWO DEPUTIES CAME UP UNNOTICED BEHIND THEM.

ONE (INVESTIGATOR CABRERA) CAREFULLY PUSHED MR. SATTERFIELD AGAINST THE OPEN
LEFT DOOR WHILE THE OTHER, INVESTIGATOR STIER, LED MS. SATTERFIELD TO THE RIGHT, OUT
OF THE WAY. NOTICING THE HORRIFIED AND CONFUSED LOOK ON MS. SATTERFIELD'S FACE, MR.
SATTERFIELD TOLD HER NOT TO WORRY AND THAT HE WAS HOPING THAT SOMETHING LIKE
THIS WOULD HAPPEN. WHILE HE WAS GIVING REASSURANCE TO MS. SATTERFIELD, MR.
SATTERFIELD'S HANDS WERE HANDCUFFED BEHIND HIS BACK AND THE OFFICER SEARCHED HIS
POCKETS.

INVESTIGATOR CABRERA WAS UNMISTAKABLY NERVOUS AND WAS RUSHING. WHEN HE

REACHED INTO MR. SATTERFIELD'S POCKETS, MR. SATTERFIELD TERSELY REPRIMANDED HIM
FOR NOT FIRST ASKING IF ANYTHING WAS IN THERE THAT COULD HURT HIM. AFTER
EVERYTHING WAS REMOVED FROM EVERY POCKET AND LAID IN THE VAN, INVESTIGATOR
CABRERA PLACED MR. SATTERFIELD IN THE BACKSEAT OF A CRUISER THAT WAS PARKED
PERPENDICULAR AT THE REAR OF HIS VAN.

53
THIS WAS ALL THE TIME DEPUTY POTTER HAD TO EVALUATE, FROM A DISTANCE, MR.
SATTERFIELD AS BEING NORMAL, BUT THAT IS NOT THE IMPRESSION GIVEN TO THE JURORS. MR.
SATTERFIELD SPOKE WITH NO ONE UNTIL HE WAS BEING DRIVEN TO THE JAIL AND THAT WAS
ONLY A COUPLE OF WORDS BECAUSE AS A PREVIOUS OFFICER, HE KNEW THE PLOY OF GETTING
PEOPLE TO OPENLY TALK BEFORE LAW ENFORCEMENT READS THEM THEIR RIGHTS.

EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION

Ninth witness called by the Prosecution,
Investigator Steve Davis

Page 367:19, 29

P. Okay. How did you come in contact with him?

A. We affected an arrest by serving an arrest warrant on the defendant.
P. And would that have been in Cobb County?
A. It was.
P. Okay. After the defendant—-let me back up. Did you have contact with the defendant during the arrest?
A. I saw the defendant.

OKAY. NOW IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ARREST WARRANT WAS APPROVED AND AFFECTED, SO THAT
SETTLES THAT ISSUE. NO IT DOESN'T! MR. SATTERFIELD KNOWS THIS GAME TOO. JUST LIKE
WHEN AN OFFICER IS ASKED IF HE READ THE DEFENDANT HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS, AND HE
AUTOMATICALLY ANSWERS YES. THE WITNESS MADE SURE THAT THE AFFECTING OF THE
ARREST WARRANT IS “PERCEIVED” AS BEING DONE LAWFULLY. NOTICE INVESTIGATOR DAVIS
DOESN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION BUT THROWS IN THIS EXTRA INFORMATION, PURPOSELY
USING THE WORD WE SO HE COULD CLAIM HE JUST MADE A MISTAKE IF HIS LIE IS CAUGHT.

Page 368:3-22

INVESTIGATOR DAVIS CONFIRMS MR. SATTERFIELD APPEARED NORMAL DURING THE ARREST.

NO CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENSE

Tenth witness called by the Prosecution,

Hubert Clay Love

EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION

Page 375:4-9

P. (By Mr. Geary) Okay. I am going to hand you what's been marked State's Exhibit Number 7. Can you identify that
item for me, please?
A. That was a spreadsheet that was found on the computer. It was titled: Fun things to do to together or separately.

54
CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENSE
Hubert Clay Love

Page 378:19-24

D. There were, obviously, several others documents that you located and pulled up that were not shown to you right
now in court, right?
A. I believe these were the only three documents that were retrieved from the hard drive that were within the scope
of the search warrant.

REDIRECTED EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION

Hubert Clay Love

Page 388:9-11

P. When was that document created?

A. It was created on November the 26th, 2012, at 9:54 a.m.

THREE DAYS BEFORE MR. SATTERFIELD EXPERIENCED THE EFFECTS OF CONTRAPSYCHOALISM

(A NEOLOGISM) AND FLED TO THE CLINIC FOR HELP, HE AND MS. SATTERFIELD HAD STARTED
PUTTING TOGETHER A LIST OF EITHER FREE OR INEXPENSIVE ACTIVITIES THAT THEY COULD DO
ON HIS LIMITED S.S.D.I. INCOME IN A TEXT DOCUMENT ENTITLED “FUN THINGS TO DO TOGETHER
OR SEPARATELY.” THE SHORT PHRASE "GET REVENGE" WAS FOUND ON THIS LIST, BECAUSE
WHILE COMPILING THE LIST THE SATTERFIELDS HAD JOKED ABOUT THE FUN OF GETTING
REVENGE ON ANOTHER COUPLE WHO HAD BEATEN THEM IN A CARD GAME AND INCLUDED THE
PHRASE AS A FUTURE GOAL. AS WILL BE SHOWN LATER, MR. GEARY, IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE "FALSE CAUSE" FALLACY CREATED AN EXCELLENT (MIS)USE FOR THE TWO WORDS.

Pages 391:20 - 392:11

MR. KILGORE ASKED MR. LOVE IF HE KNOWS WHERE THE PICTURE OF JUDGE GREEN'S HOUSE
THAT WAS FOUND ON MR. SATTERFIELD'S COMPUTER CAME FROM AND HE STATES THAT HE
DOESN'T. IF MR. KILGORE HAD ASKED MR. SATTERFIELD, HE WOULD HAVE LEARNED THAT MR.
SATTERFIELD HAD DOWNLOADED IT FROM THE COUNTY'S RECORDS, ALONG WITH THE
ADDRESS. THAT IS HOW MR. SATTERFIELD LEARNED WHERE TO MAIL THE LETTER.

WITNESSES DISMISSED AND JURY EXITS THE COURTROOM AND THE FOLLOWING HAPPENS:

1. Mr. Kilgore renews his motion for a mistrial based on Judge Green's testimony of still being frightened.
Denied.

2. Mr. Kilgore points out to the Judge that the letter was not a threat, and that he had asked one of the deputies
(Investigator Carter) to show him, "in here where there is a present threat. He wasn't really able to do so, and that's
because there's not one in that letter." So why didn't Mr. Kilgore argue that point as Mr. Satterfield told him to instead

55
of admitting guilt to sending the letter but not to making threats? Mr. Geary, at this late date, "guesses" that Mr.
Kilgore admits guilt for Mr. Satterfield but is not sure.

3. Mr. Kilgore argues that there was no direct testimony of any threats being transmitted to the children, and he was
right. Neither Judge Green's sister nor the children testified, but Judge Howe didn't care. One should read the transcript
themselves to find out why he didn't care.

4. Mr. Kilgore renews his motion for a mistrial based on the admittance of the firearm, but not the missing ammunition,
as shown next.

For the Defense, Mr. Kilgore argues:

Pages 395:12 - 396:4 and 396:22 - 397:6

"The indictment charges terroristic threats. That's it. Okay. To prove terroristic threats, the State has got to establish
only that the threat was made for an improper purpose, such as terrorizing another, okay, or in this case retaliation.
And according to the law in Georgia, Judge, the crime of making terroristic threats focuses solely on the conduct of
the accused and is completed when the threat is communicated to the victim with the intent to terrorize. In other words,
it just focused on what he has done in making the threat.

Mr. Satterfield is not charged with anything involving a firearm. He's not charged with aggravated assault. He's not
charged with conspiracy to commit murder. He's not charged with pointing a pistol. He's not charged with stalking
with a pistol. Nothing that makes that gun relevant.

The question that I have is this: Does it make it any more or any less likely that the elements of terroristic threats are
completed by virtue of that gun coming into evidence? And the elements being again, of course, that he made a threat,
in this case we know in writing, with the intent to terrorize or to retaliate.

That gun doesn’t; it doesn't make it any more likely. What it does is it prejudices Mr. Satterfield unfairly, very
unfairly."

For the Prosecution, Mr. Geary argues:

Page 396:6-21

"Your Honor, we're here on the concept that under an affirmative defense that the act of the letter and the threat is
pretty much admitted, I guess. The concept is what his intent was, what was his mental state? Well, he's got a loaded.
Well, I apologize. He's got a gun. Counsel is correct, it's not loaded. But, Your Honor, as to his intent, he has alleged,
arguably, that he's going to kill somebody. It's in his vehicle. The ammunition, although not in the same vehicle, is
there and is available.
Your Honor, I think this is very relevant, and I believe it's going to become more relevant as this case continues, but
as it stands right now, it is the res gestate of this case. They arrested him for alleging to kill a superior court judge,
and he's got a weapon in his van."

56
The Court rules:

Page 399:7-13

"I'm going to deny your motion. I think the State's analysis is correct. Intent is an element he has to prove even though
it's admitted by your plea. (WAS IT ADMITTED BY MR. SATTERFIELD?)
Also, you just get to show the scene as you found it. If he'd been wearing a green tutu, which would come into evidence,
too, so I'll overrule your motion. I think it is relevant.”

OKAY? SOMETHING DOES NOT SEEM RIGHT. THERE WERE SEVERAL KNIVES (ONE A RAZOR-
SHARP FISH FILLETING KNIFE SUITABLE FOR CUTTING THROATS), SCREWDRIVERS (SOME JUST
LIKE THE ONE ANOTHER INMATE USED TO STAB INTO THE HEART OF HIS WIFE), LOTS OF
HAMMERS AND CROWBARS (FOR CRUSHING SKULLS AND BREAKING BONES), ROPES, AND MANY
OTHER THINGS IN THE VAN THAT WOULD BE BETTER WEAPONS THAN AN EMPTY GUN. WHY
WERE THEY NOT USED AS EVIDENCE INSTEAD? WITH THAT QUESTION LEFT UNANSWERED, NOW
IT LOOKS LIKE THE PROSECUTOR HAS TO CONVINCE THE JURORS THAT MR. SATTERFIELD
WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO HIS WIFE'S BULLETS AND ENTER THEM INTO EVIDENCE BUT HE
DOESN'T HAVE THEM TO SHOW. PLUS, THE PROSECUTOR CAN READ AND KNEW MR.
SATTERFIELD DID NOT THREATEN TO KILL ANYONE, SO HE THREW IN THE WORD ARGUABLY.

IS THIS STATEMENT RIGHT: THE PROSECUTION HAS TO PROVE INTENT TO WHAT WAS
ADMITTED, WHICH WAS SENDING THE LETTER? AND THIS SCENE? DOES IT INCLUDE THE INSIDE
OF MS. SATTERFIELD'S HOME AND/OR THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE? THE NEIGHBORS MAY HAVE HAD
LEGAL GUN SILENCERS IN THEIR HOME.

THE PROSECUTION HAS PAUSED WITH TEN WITNESSES CALLED.

THE DEFENSE BEGINS.

EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENSE

First witness called by the Defense,
Dr. Linda Thomas

Page 410:18-23

D. Okay. In January 2009 [almost four years previous] did things change or take a turn in his treatment or his
wellbeing?
A. Yes. He reported that he had stopped the Lexapro and Seroquel several months ago before that session, and he
had suicidal thoughts and thoughts about shooting other people and had purchased guns.
D. Okay. And he told you about that?
A. Yes.

THAT IS NOT RIGHT. MR. SATTERFIELD DID NOT LIKE DR. THOMAS AND WAS SERIOUSLY
CONSIDERING CHANGING DOCTORS BECAUSE SHE ONLY TALKED TO HIM BRIEFLY ON HIS FIRST
VISIT AND NEVER AFTER THAT INITIAL VISIT. MR. SATTERFIELD FELT THAT HIS INSURANCE

57
COMPANY WAS GETTING RIPPED OFF SINCE THE DOCTOR WAS CHARGING HER FEE FOR THE
VISIT WHEN HE ONLY SPOKE WITH THE NURSE.

DURING HIS SCHEDULED APPOINTMENT, MR. SATTERFIELD FELT IRRITATED ABOUT NOT
GETTING TO SPEAK WITH DR. THOMAS AGAIN. HE WANTED HELP NOT JUST A REFILL OF DRUGS,
SO MR. SATTERFIELD TOLD THE ASSISTANT OR NURSE WHO WAS THE DOCTOR’S PROXY THAT
HE HAD BEEN WANTING TO KILL THE PEOPLE AT HIS LAST PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT FOR
CAUSING HIS TERRIBLE BREAKDOWN. THE WOMAN MADE NOTES WITHOUT LOOKING UP AND
WITHOUT ANY APPARENT INTEREST. SO, HE TOLD HER ABOUT THE GUN HE KEPT IN HIS TRUCK,
WHICH HE COULD USE FOR THAT PURPOSE. SHE KEPT WRITING AND DIDN’T COMMENT.

FINALLY, MR. SATTERFIELD BECAME SO FRUSTRATED AT NOT BEING HEARD THAT HE SAID
SOMETHING LIKE, "HEY, I'M GOING TO KILL THE PEOPLE AT MY LAST JOB!" AT WHICH POINT THE
WOMAN LOOKED UP AND UNEMOTIONALLY ASKED IF HE WERE SERIOUS. WITH EFFORT, MR.
SATTERFIELD FINALLY CONVINCED HER OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF HIS CONDITION, AND SHE
(ASSUMEDLY) CONTACTED DR. THOMAS TO GET HIM HOSPITALIZED.

SOME HUMANS ARE JUST PLAIN STUPID! NO, THEY JUST DON'T CARE. MR. SATTERFIELD NEEDED
HELP AND ALL THE NURSE/ASSISTANT WOULD DO WAS WRITE NOTES LIKE A CLERK.

ALTHOUGH MR. SATTERFIELD COULD HAVE LEFT THE HOSPITAL AFTER 48 HOURS, HE STAYED
LONGER BECAUSE THE ATTENDING PSYCHIATRIST RECOMMENDED IT. AND, NO, HE HAD NOT
STOPPED TAKING HIS MEDICINE; THE DOCTOR AT THE HOSPITAL IMMEDIATELY CHANGED IT
WHEN MR. SATTERFIELD TOLD HIM WHAT HE WAS TAKING. THE CONCLUSION WAS THAT SIDE
EFFECTS FROM THE MEDICATION HAD CAUSED MR. SATTERFIELD'S ALMOST UNCONTROLLABLE
DESIRE, AND THAT'S WHY HE STOPPED TAKING HIS MEDICINE YEARS LATER IN NOVEMBER OF
2012. DR. THOMAS WAS TRYING TO COVER HER POSTERIOR.

Page 411:20-24

D. Okay. Had his symptoms been consistent up until that point, up until January of 2009?
A. He reported improvement of depression, and he had never had any thoughts or plans that he told us prior to this
January 2009.

DR. THOMAS'S ANSWER WAS A DODGE. MR. SATTERFIELD’S MOODS DID VACILLATE, BUT FROM
THE TIME OF HIS BREAKDOWN UNTIL HIS RELEASE FROM THE HOSPITAL, MR. SATTERFIELD
CRAVED DEATH, RESEARCHED HOW TO DO IT, AND REPORTED HIS SUICIDAL THOUGHTS TO
MEDICAL STAFF.

NOTHING MORE OF INTEREST OTHER THAN THE PROSECUTOR TRYING TO PROMOTE THE
PERCEPTION THAT MR. SATTERFIELD MIGHT HAVE BEEN FAKING AND JUST ANGRY. OF COURSE,
DR. THOMAS REPEATS THE CLAIM THAT MR. SATTERFIELD HAD SAID HE HAD STOPPED TAKING
HIS MEDICINE.

58
CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION
Dr. Linda Thomas

NOTHING WORTH MENTIONING.

EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENSE

Second witness called by the Defense,
Dr. Greg Lunceford

Page 425:10-17

D. Okay. Do you know the circumstances of why he was admitted into the psychiatric unit?
A. Yes.
D. What was that, please?
A. He was admitted involuntarily from the office. He was evaluated by Dr. Linda Thomas that day and petitioned for
involuntary admission because he was making suicidal and homicidal statements.

WHILE THIS INFORMATION WAS GAINED FOR THE BENEFIT OF MR. SATTERFIELD'S DEFENSE, IT'S
NOT TRUE. DR. THOMAS DID NOT EVEN SEE HIM THAT DAY. SHE SPOKE WITH THE NURSE/CLERK
WHOM MR. SATTERFIELD HAD TO CATTLE PROD TO HELP HIM.

FURTHERMORE, THE ADMITTING CLERK AT THE HOSPITAL HAD MR. SATTERFIELD SIGN PAPERS
FOR VOLUNTARY ADMITTANCE (SUPPOSEDLY TO ALLOW THE HOSPITAL TO BE PAID BY HIM).
WAIT A MINUTE? DR. THOMAS'S ASSISTANT LEFT THE ROOM, AND THEN CAME BACK AND TOLD
MR. SATTERFIELD THAT SHE HAD ARRANGED FOR HIM TO BE TRANSPORTED TO THE HOSPITAL
TO GET THE HELP HE WANTED BECAUSE SHE WAS AFRAID OF HIM DRIVING IN HIS CONDITION.
THE POLICE SHOWED UP AND TRANSPORTED HIM TO THE HOSPITAL WHERE THE ADMITTING
CLERK HAD HIM SIGN SOME ADMITTING PAPERS, AND MR. SATTERFIELD JOKINGLY ASKED THE
CLERK IF A CRAZY PERSON SIGNED THE PAPERS WOULD THEY BE LEGAL. WHEREUPON THE
CLERK ANSWERED THAT HE HAD ALWAYS WONDERED THAT HIMSELF.

EVEN THE ADMINISTRATOR AT THE HOSPITAL TOLD MR. SATTERFIELD, WHEN ASKED, THAT HE
COULD CHECK OUT, BUT THE DOCTOR WANTED HIM TO STAY THE REST OF THE WEEK. STILL,
THERE IS A CHANCE DR. LUNCEFORD HIMSELF MIGHT HAVE BEEN MISINFORMED.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION

Dr. Lunceford

THE PROSECUTION TRIED TO SHOW THAT MR. SATTERFIELD MIGHT HAVE BEEN FAKING. THERE
WAS NEVER ANYTHING BROUGHT FORTH TO INDICATE WHY MR. SATTERFIELD WOULD HAVE
BEEN FAKING ALL THOSE YEARS. BUT THAT WAS ALL MR. GEARY HAD TO WORK WITH.

EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENSE

59
Third witness called by the Defense, Dr. Opeoluwa Akinnusi.

Page 449:3-6

D. Okay. Is there any significance, as his psychiatric provider at that time that he would have such a loss of control
where he is wailing and shaking and so forth in your office?

WHERE IN SATAN'S ABYSMAL HELL DID THAT QUESTION COME FROM? THAT NEVER HAPPENED.
NOBODY CLAIMED IT DID, NOT EVEN MR. GEARY (THOUGH HE MIGHT HAVE IF HE HAD THOUGHT
OF IT FIRST).

CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION

Dr. Opeoluwa Akinnusi

Page 472:7-10

P. So either that medication that you stopped wasn't helping him, or the one you replaced it with was doing better.
One of those two.
A. That's right.

NO. THERE COULD BE OTHER POSSIBILITIES. PSYCHIATRY IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE, AND SOME
MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS VIEW IT AS A SHAM TO MAKE MONEY JUST AS SOME MEDICAL
DOCTORS DO THE SAME ABOUT CHIROPRACTIC TREATMENTS. SOMETIMES, AS ENCOURAGED BY
S.S.D.I’S PHYSIOLOGISTS, TIME AND THE MIND ITSELF DOES THE HEALING.

Fourth witness called by the Defense,

Dr. Osama S. Hindash.

NOTHING WRONG OR EXTRAORDINARY HAPPENED. ANOTHER WITNESS TO SHOW FOR THE

DEFENSE, HOWEVER.

MR. SATTERFIELD HAD BEEN DEPICTED AS A REVENGEFUL OLD MAN WHO PLANNED TO
SLAUGHTER THE ENTIRE GREEN FAMILY AND WAS IN THE PROCESS OF DOING SO. TO DECLARE
VICTORY (AND GAIN THE GOLDEN BELT), MR. GEARY HAD TO DISCREDIT THREE NOTED
PROFESSIONALS. THAT WOULD BE HIGHLY IMPROBABLE SINCE THE COURT'S TWO EXPERTS
OBVIOUSLY HAD NO REASON TO FAVOR ONE SIDE OF THE CASE OVER THE OTHER.

FURTHERMORE, THEY HAD YEARS OF EXPERIENCE TESTIFYING BEFORE JURORS. THEY KNEW TO
FACE TOWARDS AND SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE JURORS. THEY KNEW WHAT TONE OF VOICE TO
USE, THE FACIAL EXPRESSIONS TO USE, THE BODY LANGUAGE TO DISPLAY, AND WERE
PREPARED TO ANSWER ANY CHALLENGE OF THEIR CONCLUSIONS. OVER THE YEARS, THEY HAD
EXPERIENCED EVERY CHALLENGE IMAGINABLE—-OR SO THEY THOUGHT. THEY HAD NEVER
BEEN BEFORE A PROSECUTOR WHO WAS WILLING TO DO ANYTHING TO WIN WITH THE FAUX
EXCUSE OF: "I'M JUST DOING MY JOB."

60
Fifth witness called by the Defense,
Dr. Kevin Richards, expert for the Defense

EXAMINATION BY THE COURT

Page 496:14-22

C. All right. Why don't we start, Dr. Richards, kind of tell us what…once you agree to get involved with a case, what
exactly are the steps you take to do what you do, to do a forensic evaluation?
A. Sure. I mean, it's slightly different because each case is a little bit different. Sometimes, you know, the facts of
cases are different, the types of charges are different, and the amount of other information that's available about the
person will be different.

EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENSE

Dr. Kevin Richards

IN STOIC FORM, DR. RICHARDS ANSWERED ALL THE QUESTIONS POSED BY MR. KILGORE. HE
TOLD THE RESULTS OF VARIOUS TESTS HE HAD ADMINISTERED TO THE GOOD REVEREND. HE
DETAILED HIS ANALYSIS OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY MR. SATTERFIELD, AVOIDING AS BEST AS
HE COULD SAYING THAT MR. SATTERFIELD WAS INNOCENT OF THE CRIMES HE WAS ACCUSED
OF. HE COMPARED THE WRITING STYLE OF THE LETTER WITH THAT IN MR. SATTERFIELD’S
DIVORCE PLEA. HE WAS VERY THROUGH, AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, HIS REPORT WAS
AVAILABLE FOR THE OTHER THREE EXPERT WITNESSES TO CHALLENGE BEFORE THEY MET
WITH AND EVALUATED MR. SATTERFIELD.

Pages 503:22 - 504:10

D. Okay what about…did you have this…what’s marked as State's Exhibit 7, this fun thing to do together or
separately, this list here?
A. I don't think I've seen that.
D. This list here.
A. I don't think I've seen that.
D. Well, to give everybody an idea, you would have received in excess of a thousand pages of documents right?
A. I'm sorry. I didn't hear.
D. You would have received in excess of a thousand pages of documents?
A. Yes. Yeah. It was a lot. So this one might be in there. I don't recall it. I remember hearing about it, but I don't
remember if I actually saw it.

Page 506:1-6 Dr. Richards speaking about Mr. Satterfield's attitude.

On that test, Mr. Satterfield’s…the only significant impairment as a moderate impairment in terms of his ability to
cooperate with counsel, and that was largely due to the fact that he seemed irritated with the idea that Mr. Kilgore
would not adopt his view of the incident and proceed accordingly.

61
OBVIOUSLY, MR. KILGORE DID ADOPT MR. SATTERFIELD'S VIEW OF THE INCIDENT; HOWEVER,
ON THE DATE OF THE TRIAL MR. KILGORE “DID NOT” PROCEED ACCORDINGLY BY CHANGING
THE PLEA.

Page 516:2-8

D. All right. So the next thing you have to do when you do one of these evaluations is to determine whether or not
someone is insane or meets the criteria for insanity under the law.
A. Right. To evaluate their mental state at the time of the alleged incident and then give an opinion as to whether or
not that comports with insanity correct.

Pages 521:8 - 522:2

D. Well, Dr. Richards, let me stop you there, because this seems like a good time for me to ask specifically, you're
using this word delusion or delusions.
A. Right.
D. Clinically, what does that mean?
A. I should have done that already. I'm sorry. A delusion is a fixed belief that does not change in response to
contradictory information. It's an idea, it's a belief. It's a thought that is not correct but cannot be changed by
confronting them with contradictory evidence. In that way, a delusion is not a mistake. It's not an error. It's not a
misunderstanding. It's the belief that the person—-it becomes the person's reality. It's so strongly held that the
person will alter their behavior based on the belief, the idea that they have. They will do things that are against the
law at times because of the belief. They will behave in bizarre behaviors, rituals, whatever, because of the belief. So
a delusion is a fixed, class belief that does not change. If you could talk the person out of it, it's not a delusion.

THE DELUSIONAL MR. SATTERFIELD WAS SO SURE THAT JUDGE GREEN WAS GOING TO MURDER
HIS WIFE THAT HE RISKED HIS FUTURE WITH HIS WIFE AND HIS CAREER IN FT. WORTH TEXAS
MAKING $105.000/YEAR TO PROTECT THE GREEN’S CHILDREN.

Pages 523-525

WITHIN THESE THREE PAGES, THE JURORS ARE TOLD THE DIFFERENCES ABOUT IDEAS,
PARANOIA, AND PARANOID DELUSIONS, AND DR. RICHARD'S (WHO DID THE MOST THROUGH
EXAM OF THE FOUR EXPERT WITNESSES) OPINION WAS THAT MR. SATTERFIELD WAS OPERATING
UNDER A DELUSION AT THE TIME HE WROTE THE LETTER. HOWEVER, MR. SATTERFIELD
RESPECTFULLY DISAGREED BASED ON THE DEFINITION GIVEN BY THE DOCTOR, WHICH WAS
THAT HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TALKED OUT OF THE DELUSION WITH FACTS.

ALSO, DR. RICHARDS DID AN OUTSTANDING PRESENTATION WITH ONE EXCEPTION. HE WAS
WRONG IN HIS CONCLUSION WHEN HE SPEAKS ABOUT ONE OF MR. SATTERFIELD'S REASONS FOR
SENDING THE LETTER (AT PAGE 534:22-24). BY STATING THAT ONE OF MR. SATTERFIELD'S
THOUGHTS WERE AS FOLLOWS: "I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT IT
WASN'T ME WHEN IT HAPPENS, AND THIS LETTER IS GOING TO SERVE AS EVIDENCE OF THE FACT
THAT IT WASN'T ME. IT WAS ONE OF THE OTHER PEOPLE."

62
IF THE GREENS HAD BEEN MURDERED, THE LETTER, SPECULATIVELY, COULD HAVE BEEN USED
AS EVIDENCE THAT MR. SATTERFIELD WAS NOT GUILTY OF THE MURDER, BUT IN THIS CASE, MR.
SATTERFIELD (VIA MR. KILGORE) WAS REQUIRED TO ADMIT SENDING THE LETTER AND
FORBIDDEN TO DO ANYTHING TO ARGUE THAT HE WAS NOT GUILTY. THE THOUGHT OF WRITING
THE LETTER TO PROTECT HIMSELF NEVER ENTERED MR. SATTERFIELD'S MIND.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION

Dr. Kevin Richards

Page 536:20-24

P. That's the date that he disclosed his homicidal thoughts at Cobb outpatient services.
A. Right. He told his counselor that he had these thoughts that he had had thoughts, that he no longer had them, and
that he wanted to get back on his meds, and back in treatment.

NO, NO, NO! MR. SATTERFIELD WANTED SOMETHING DONE SO THAT THAT KIND OF EVENT
NEVER HAPPENED AGAIN. HE HAD PLENTY OF MEDS ON HAND BUT STOPPED TAKING THEM
EARLIER BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THEY POSSIBLY WERE CAUSING FLEETING THOUGHTS OF
KILLING JUDGE GREEN. EVEN DR. RICHARDS HAS THE FACTS WRONG. ALL THE EXPERTS,
INCLUDING MR. KILGORE, COULD HAVE ASKED HIM ABOUT THIS STUFF MR. SATTERFIELD WAS
IN JAIL AND AVAILABLE.

Page 569:13-16

P. When he was thinking about…when he was stalking and thinking about killing coworkers.
A. Right. When he went in the hospital…

MR. SATTERFIELD NEVER STALKED ANYONE AND HAD NEVER BEEN ACCUSED OF DOING SO
UNTIL JUST THEN. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF LANGUAGE LEGERDEMAINS PROSECUTORS USE TO
MISLEAD THE JURORS INSTEAD OF SEEKING JUSTICE. HE HAD JUST ENTERED FALSE EVIDENCE
THAT MR. SATTERFIELD HAD PREVIOUSLY STALKED PEOPLE. WHILE THIS TECHNIQUE OF
ENTERING FALSE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND IMPROPER IN SOME FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS, IT
IS ALLOWED IN BACKWARDS GEORGIA. MR. GEARY USED MANY MORE DURING THE TRIAL THAT
ARE NOT PRESENTED HERE, BUT HE WASN'T STUPID "HE JUST DIDN'T CARE." HE THOUGHT HE
HAD IMMUNITY.

THE NEXT MORNING, BEFORE THE JURY WAS SEATED, ARGUMENTS WERE MADE BY THE
ATTORNEYS ABOUT MR. SATTERFIELD'S PLEA OF GUILTY ONLY OF SENDING THE LETTER AND
NOT OF MAKING ANY THREATS. IT WAS ASSERTED THAT DR. RICHARDS REVEALED THERE WAS
NO THREAT DURING HIS TESTIMONY THE DAY BEFORE.

Page 594:10-14

63
MR. GEARY: Judge, I have no problem with this argument. That's not the argument from yesterday.
The opening statement said…you will see that the letter was not a threat. That's an issue. What the expert said is an
issue.

MR. GEARY ALSO LIES ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE. DR. RICHARDS NEVER SAID WHAT THE
PROSECUTOR ACCUSES HIM OF SAYING. DR. RICHARDS DID MENTION CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
A FEW TIMES, BUT THAT WAS PERMITTED AS LONG AS HE DIDN'T GIVE HIS OPINION.

IT WAS DECIDED THAT MR. SATTERFIELD'S PLEA INCLUDED ADMITTING BEING GUILTY OF
MAKING FIVE TERRORISTIC THREATS, WHICH MR. KILGORE HAD EMPHASIZED EARLIER WASN'T
TRUE; HOWEVER, MR. KILGORE WHILE AGREEING THAT HE COULDN'T/WOULDN'T ARGUE THAT
HE COULD SAY TO THE JURORS, "IF YOU FIND IT IS NOT A THREAT, IT'S NOT A THREAT." NOBODY
TOLD MR. SATTERFIELD OF THIS DECISION OR GAVE HIM THE CHANCE TO CHANGE HIS PLEA. BY
ORIGINALLY PLEADING NOT GUILTY AND MR. KILGORE ARGUING SO, MR. SATTERFIELD COULD
NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND GUILTY. WHY DIDN'T MR. KILGORE NOW CHANGE THE PLEA TO ALIGN
WITH THE TRUTH? CLEARLY EVERYONE KNEW IT.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION RESTARTS

WHEN MR. GEARY BEGAN HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION, IT WAS FRUSTRATING FOR THE POSECUTOR
BECAUSE OF DR. RICHARDS’S REFUSAL TO MODIFY OR ADJUST HIS OPINION. THIS WAS POSSIBLY
BECAUSE HE RECOGNIZED WHAT MR. GEARY WAS PULLING. THEN CAME AN UNEXPECTED
PUNCH!

MR. GEARY SERENELY ASKED WHAT DR. RICHARD'S OPINION WOULD BE IF HE KNEW MR.
SATTERFIELD WAS OUT FOR REVENGE. WHAT KIND OF QUESTION WAS THAT? HOW WAS IT
RELEVANT TO MR. SATTERFIELD BEING UNDER A COMPULSION TO WRITE A WARNING LETTER
TO MS. GREEN? WHAT WOULD REVENGE HAVE TO DO WITH MR. SATTERFIELD'S ABILITY TO
CONTROL HIS ACTIONS UNLESS HE HAD DONE SOMETHING UNLAWFUL? HOW DID THE SUBJECT
OF REVENGE BECOME AN ISSUE? HAD MR. SATTERFIELD COMMITTED A CRIME OF REVENGE
THAT DR. RICHARD'S DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT?

LIKE LIGHTENING, MR. KILGORE LEAPED TO HIS FEET AND THUNDERED OUT AN OBJECTION. THE
VOICES OF THE TWO LEGAL COMBATANTS CLASHED IN VORACIOUS CONFLICT AS THE TWO
CAME WITHIN STRIKING RANGE OF EACH OTHER. LOUDLY TAKING CONTROL, JUDGE HOWE
DECLARED THAT THE PROSECUTION COULD ASK ANYTHING HE WANTED, AND SO MR. GEARY
ASKED THE SAME QUESTION AGAIN. DR. RICHARDS, SHAKING HIS HEAD AND BEWILDERED,
TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT WHAT THE PROSECUTION WANTED TO KNOW WOULD BE "A WHOLE
DIFFERENT CASE" AND SEVERAL DIFFERENT THINGS WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED. HE HAD
ALREADY STATED THAT HE HAD NOT REVIEWED THE LIST WITH THE WORDS "GET REVENGE"
DEMONSTRATING HOW IRRELEVANT THEY WERE TO HIS OPINION. DR. RICHARDS, NOT KNOWING
ANYTHING ABOUT ANY REVENGE ISSUES, MAY HAVE ASKED HIMSELF IF THERE WERE OTHER
THINGS HE WAS NOT PRIVY TO.

64
NO PROFESSIONAL, ESPECIALLY ONE UNDER OATH, WOULD GIVE AN OPINION TO SUCH A
QUESTION WITHOUT TAKING SOME TIME FOR THOUGHT AND/OR REVIEWING NOTES TO MAKE
SURE EVERYTHING WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, DR. RICHARDS WAS AGAIN
CUT SHORT WHEN MR. KILGORE, AS IF ON CUE, JUMPED OUT OF HIS SEAT AGAIN SCREAMING
FORTH HIS OBJECTION, WHICH RESULTED IN THE PROSECUTOR ASKING THE SAME IRRELEVANT
QUESTION FOR THE THIRD TIME. THEN A FOURTH!

EVERYONE IN THE COURTROOM SAW THAT THIS WITNESS HAD NO ANSWER.

OUT OF EVERYTHING THE JURORS HAD HEARD AND SEEN, THEY WOULD REMEMBER DR.
RICHARDS'S INABILITY TO ANSWER WHAT APPEARED TO A LAYMAN TO BE A SIMPLE QUESTION,
HIS PUZZLED FACE AND UNCERTAIN STAMMERED WORDS, AND, MOSTLY, THE THEATRICAL
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PROSECUTOR AND THE DEFENSE WITH JUDGE HOWE RULING IN FAVOR
OF THE PROSECUTION EACH TIME.

THE THREAT FROM ONE OF THE DEFENSE'S EXPERTS WAS NEGATED. BUT HOW DID THE
PROSECUTION ACCOMPLISH SUCH A FABULOUS FEAT? BY USING THE PROFESSIONALLY
DECEITFUL TECHNIQUE CALLED THE ABUSIVE AD HOMINEM FALLACY.

AD HOMINEM CAN BE TRANSLATED AS AGAINST THE MAN. WHEN SOMEONE EXPRESSES AN

OPINION THAT IS CONTRARY TO WHAT ANOTHER WANTS, INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING THE FACTS,
THE OPPRESSOR ATTACKS THE SPEAKER ON A PERSONAL LEVEL. AS A CLARIFYING EXAMPLE,
SUPPOSE TWO PEOPLE ARE HAVING A DEBATE OVER THE HIGHLY CHARGED ISSUE OF ABORTION
AND CONCERNING THE PURPOSED LEGALITY OF IT WITHIN THE LAST WEEK OF EXPECTED
DELIVERY.

ON THE CON SIDE, THE SPEAKER INSISTS THAT THE BABY IS A FULLY FORMED HUMAN
DEPENDENT ON THE MOTHER ONLY FOR NUTRITION, OXYGEN, AND REASONABLE PROTECTION.
HER ARGUMENT IS THAT IF ANY BABY SHOULD HAPPEN TO ARRIVE WITHIN A WEEK PRIOR TO
ITS EXPECTED DATE AND DUE TO THE WOMAN'S NEGLECT OF PROVIDING ANY OF THE BEFORE
MENTIONED THINGS DIED SOON AFTERWARDS, THE MOTHER WOULD BE FOUND GUILTY OF AT
LEAST MANSLAUGHTER. "JUST BECAUSE A BABY HAD YET TO TRAVEL DOWN THE BIRTH CANAL
DURING THIS NOTICEABLY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME SHOULD NOT PREVENT ITS LIFE FROM BEING
PROTECTED. IT IS A HUMAN BEING IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD AND AN AMERICAN, SO
ABORTION SHOULD BE ILLEGAL DURING THIS TIME PERIOD," SHE CONTENDS.

AFTERWARDS, TO PRESENT THE OTHER VIEW, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRO SIDE STANDS
UPS, ANGRILY STOMPS TO THE PODIUM, POINTS TO THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER, AND LOUDLY
EXCLAIMS THAT, "SHE HAS NO IDEA WHAT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT! LOOK AT HER!" SHE
COMMANDS, "SHE'S FAT, UGLY, AND FROM WHAT GOODWILL STORE DID SHE GET THAT RAG OF
A DRESS? HOW WOULD SHE KNOW THE ANXIETY A DECENT, GOD-FEARING WOMAN STRUGGLES
WITH OVER THIS DECISION? IS THIS THE KIND OF PERSON YOU WANT TO LISTEN TO?"

65
AS ILLUSTRATED THROUGH THIS EXTREME EXAMPLE, THE PURPOSE OF USING THE ABUSIVE AD
HOMINEM FALLACY, RATHER THAN FACTUALLY DISCUSSING THE ISSUE, IS TO ATTACK THE
OPPONENT’S CHARACTER AND ALIENATE THE OTHER SIDE. MR. GEARY DIDN'T DARE TO
CONTINUE TO QUESTION DR. RICHARDS’S FINDINGS BECAUSE HE WASN'T GOING TO WIN THERE.
INSTEAD, HE WENT AFTER THE DOCTOR HIMSELF BY ASKING AN OFF THE WALL QUESTION
ABOUT THE THING THE EXPERT HAD ALREADY SAID HE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT AND SEEING DR.
RICHARDS STUMBLE, MR. GEARY CONTINUED WITH THE SAME ASSAULT REPEATEDLY, MAKING
THE EXPERT LOOK FOOLISH.

MR. KILGORE'S VIOLENT OUTBURSTS ONLY ADDED THE SUSPICION THAT HE, TOO, THOUGHT DR.
RICHARDS WRONG AND WAS TRYING TO HIDE THE FACT. WAS THE PROSECUTOR SO GOOD, THAT
HE SET UP AN EXTREMELY EXPERIENCED, TALENTED LEGAL PROFESSIONAL LIKE MR. MADDOX
KILGORE TO EXPLODE ON CUE?

WITH ONE DANGER TO THE PROSECUTOR'S DESIRE DASHED TO THE SIDE, THERE REMAINED TWO
OTHERS, AND THE MEMBERS OF THE JURY KNEW THAT THESE TWO WEREN'T PAID ADVOCATES
FOR THE DEFENSE AS MR. GEARY WAS PROMOTING DR. RICHARDS. THIS "PROMOTION" IS THE
SPECIFIC FALLACY NAMED CIRCUMSTANTIAL AD HOMINEM.

THE DECEPTION IS TO HAVE THE LISTENER IGNORE ALL THE TRUE "FACTS" PRESENTED BY THE
SPEAKER AND VISCERALLY FOCUS ON THE POSSIBLE BENEFIT THE SPEAKER MAY GAIN FROM
HIS CONCLUSION. BEING CAUTIOUS IS ONE THING, BEING LED ASTRAY ANOTHER.

THE PROSECUTION BEGINS CALLING WITNESSES AGAIN.

Eleventh witness called by the prosecution,

Loyd Fasselt.

NOTHING MUCH HAPPENED…JUST ANOTHER WITNESS DISPLAYED FOR THE PROSECUTION AS

FAR AS THE CASE WAS CONCERNED, BUT IT WAS INTERESTING TO LEARN THAT MR. FASSELT
FELT MR. SATTERFIELD WAS AMBITIOUS, AND HE WAS MORE THAN LIKELY SCARED OF LOSING
HIS JOB FOR NOT ENFORCING THE CODE.

Page 611:15-19

[Mr. Fasselt speaking] He seemed to need things. He would want me to change policies, and do this, and we need to
do that. And when I wasn't ready to jump right in and do that, you know, that would this grate on him.

EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION

Twelfth witness called by the Prosecution,

Hari Karikaran

66
MR. KARIKARAN GAVE MR. SATTERFIELD A FABULOUS COMPLIMENT AS BEING A GREAT
EMPLOYEE AND THAT IS ABOUT ALL.

EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION

Thirteenth witness called by the Prosecution,

Dr. Julie Rand-Dorney

AN EXAMINATION OF DR. DORNEY'S CREDENTIALS, AS GIVEN BY HER, SHOWS THAT SHE DOES
NOT HAVE MUCH EXPERIENCE AS AN INDEPENDENT EXPERT WITNESS.

ACCORDING TO DR. DORNEY THERE ARE THREE THINGS REQUIRED BY GEORGIA LAW AS A TEST
FOR INSANITY TO EXIST AS A DEFENSE. BRIEFLY, THEY ARE: ONE, DEFENDANT IS SUFFERING
FROM A MENTAL ILLNESS THAT IS SPELLED OUT IN GEORGIA LAW. TWO, DEFENDANT MUST
KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME. AND THREE,
DEFENDANT HAS A DELUSION, WHICH IS A FIXED, FALSE BELIEF THAT SOMEONE MAINTAINS
THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD WHICH OVERMASTERED HIS WILL TO RESIST COMMITTING THE
OFFENSE THAT HE IS CHARGED WITH. NUMBER THREE HAS BEEN LEGALLY INTERPRETED TO
MEAN THAT IF THE PERSON IS SUFFERING FROM A FIXED, FALSE BELIEF THAT IF THOSE FACTS
WERE TRUE, IT WOULD JUSTIFY THE ACT, THEN HE WOULD MEET THAT TEST. HOWEVER, AN
IRRESISTIBLE "IMPULSE" IS A DESIRE TO DO SOMETHING IRRESISTIBLE. THE DIFFERENCE SEEMS
TO BE "FIXED." LATER, INTENT AND IMMINENT ARE ADDED.

Page 639:3-5

THE JURORS HAVE LEFT, AND MR. GEARY USES THE FOLLOWING TO CONVINCE JUDGE HOWE TO
ALLOW TESTIMONY ON THE LIST CONTAINING THE WORDS "GET REVENGE."

Mr. Geary: And again, per the expert, the document was generated the day before he went to the Cobb mental health
and said: I wanted to kill them.

ACTUALLY, "A FEW DAYS BEFORE," NOT "THE DAY BEFORE." AND ACCORDING TO HIS OWN
STATEMENT, MR. GEARY KNEW THAT MR. SATTERFIELD USED THE WORD WANTED NOT WANTS.

BACK IN SESSION

Page 641:10-12

P. When—-did you evaluate the defendant?

A. I did. I saw him on August 12th, 2013, and on August 22nd, 2013.

IT WAS JUST BEFORE THE TRIAL IN JANUARY 2014 THAT SHE LEARNED OF THE WORDS "GET
REVENGE" AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THEY WERE RELEVANT TO THE CASE.

67
Page 644:2-16

P. Now, as to the documents, anything peculiar in relation to your evaluation concerning the date that the list of fun
things to do was generated in relation to this case?
A. Well, it was generated at the end of November, like November 26th, and Mr. Satterfield actually had a mental
health appointment on November 30th.
At that appointment he reported that he had had previous thoughts three weeks before to harm Judge Green and his
family, and this document…he was actually having those thoughts sooner than he actually reported.
P. And that's the revenge thought?
A. Correct.

IT TOOK MANY READINGS TO PRESUME THAT DR. DORNEY WAS SAYING: MR. SATTERFIELD, ON
NOVEMBER 30TH HAD SAID, DURING A REGULAR APPOINTMENT (WHICH IT WASN'T), THAT
PREVIOUSLY HE HAD THOUGHTS TO HARM JUDGE GREEN (WHICH IS TRUE AND THE REASON HE
STOPPED TAKING HIS MEDICINE) AND HIS FAMILY (WHICH IS NOT TRUE AS THAT PARTICULAR
EVENT OCCURRED ON NOVEMBER 29TH) AND SINCE THE DOCUMENT WAS CREATED ON
NOVEMBER 26TH, MR. SATTERFIELD WAS THINKING ABOUT HARMING JUDGE GREEN AND HIS
FAMILY ON THAT DAY (NOVEMBER 26TH).

EVEN THOUGH THAT LOGIC IS ASININE, THAT IS WHAT SHE SAID. IT LOOKS LIKE SHE BELIEVES,
AND IS WILLING TO BET MR. SATTERFIELD'S FREEDOM ON, THOSE TWO WORDS BEING RELATED
TO JUDGE GREEN AND HIS FAMILY FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVENGE BECAUSE . . .? NO ONE EVER
SAID WHAT JUDGE GREEN HAD DONE TO CAUSE MR. SATTERFIELD TO WANT REVENGE. BE THAT
AS IT MAY, DR. DORNEY'S TESTIMONY SUPPORTED A MOTIVE OF REVENGE FOR SOME UNKNOWN
REASON.

ADDITIONALLY, THE JURORS WERE LED TO ASSUME THAT THE TWO WORDS GET AND REVENGE
WERE INSERTED INTO THE DOCUMENT BY MR. SATTERFIELD. THIS ASSUMPTION WAS TRUE, BUT
WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATING EVIDENCE SHOULDN'T THE DEFENSE HAVE CHALLENGED IT?

Pages 646:24 - Page 647:6

P. Did Dr. Richards' report contain any indications that he found delusions or "psychosis?"
A. No. He actually did objective testing. He did a Minnesota Multiphase Personally disorder, and my understanding
by his report is that it showed a possibility of "psychosis."
P. Did his report say that?
A. Yes.

DR. DORNEY JUST CONTRADICTED HERSELF. READ THE ABOVE AGAIN.

Pages 647 – 649

68
DR. DORNEY TESTIFIED TO "INCONSISTENCIES" IN WHAT MR. SATTERFIELD REPORTED TO
DIFFERENT DOCTORS, AND "THERE WERE A MULTIPLE OF INCONSISTENCIES." ACCORDING TO
DR. DORNEY, MR. SATTERFIELD TOLD HER THAT HE HEARD VOICES AROUND THE TIME HE
WROTE THE LETTER. HE TOLD THE STATE FORENSIC DOCTORS THAT HE HEARD VOICES FOR
EIGHT MONTHS. AND THEN HE ACTUALLY DENIED HEARING HALLUCINATIONS [VOICES] TO DR.
RICHARDS. AS MR. KILGORE LATER MAKES HER ADMIT, SHE COULD HAVE ASKED MR.
SATTERFIELD ABOUT ANY POSSIBLE INCONSISTENCIES BUT CHOSE NOT TO.

ALSO, DR. DORNEY HAD IT ALL WRONG, EVEN THE ORDER OF THE INTERVIEWS. IT ALL BEGAN
WHEN DR. RICHARDS FIRST ASKED IF MR. SATTERFIELD HEARD VOICES TO WHICH HE REPLIED
“YES.” THEN DR. RICHARDS ASKED FROM WHAT EARS LEFT, RIGHT, OR BOTH. SINCE MR.
SATTERFIELD HEARD THEM IN HIS HEAD, WHICH WAS NOT ONE OF THE OPTIONS, HE ANSWERED
"BOTH" WHICH WASN'T THE ACTUAL TRUTH. LATER, ANTICIPATING THE SAME QUESTION FROM
THE STATE DOCTORS AND WANTING TO CLEAR UP THE MISUNDERSTANDING, MR. SATTERFIELD
ANSWERED "NO" WHEN ASKED BECAUSE HE HAD NOT HEARD THEM THROUGH HIS EARS. BY THE
TIME DR. DORNEY ASKED, HE KNEW THAT HE HAD NOT TOLD THE "COMPLETE" TRUTH BEFORE
AND WENT INTO DETAIL. THE EIGHT MONTHS PART MUST BE A LIE ON HER PART OR A
MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE STATE DOCTORS AND HER OR MR. SATTERFIELD.

Page 649:14-15

P. Did he blame the judge?

A. He blamed the judge for the outcome of the divorce proceedings.

FOR WHAT WOULD MR. SATTERFIELD BLAME THE JUDGE? JUDGE GREEN HIMSELF STATED IN HIS
TESTIMONY THAT THE OUTCOME WAS AGREED ON BETWEEN MR. AND MS. SATTERFIELD, NOT
BY HIM. AND WHAT "OUTCOME" WAS SHE TALKING ABOUT? SHE MADE THIS WHOLE THING UP,
OR MR. GEARY TOLD HER THIS. BEFORE THIS BOOK BECOMES WELL KNOWN, SOMEONE SHOULD
CONTACT DR. DORNEY, THEN MR. GEARY, MR. KILGORE, AND VIC REYNOLDS AND ASK WHAT
PART OF THE DIVORCE’S OUTCOME PROMPTED MR. SATTERFIELD TO SEEK REVENGE?

Pages 650:21-652:8

P. Okay.
A. Which is the next part. All right. So what I did is I actually spoke with him about it. He said that he felt like that
the letter had to be written in order to potentially protect her and her children from a possible mentally ill person in
the community that would actually harm them in the future.
P. In your profession, does someone who is going to warn someone with that intent go through that diatribe as to
what were going to do to that family?
A. No. And that's the concern, is that if he was truly concerned about protecting Mrs. Green and her children from
another mentally person in the future at some point who could harm them because they were angry at Judge Green
for something he didn't do correctly in court, in his option, or their opinion, then why would he send a letter with all
the detail of what he would do to Ms. Green and her children, or would, have done three weeks before but suddenly
wasn't going to do it again? When I read the letter in detail—-and I read it with him when I saw him in jail—-I

69
basically didn't understand why he would create that level of fear in me, when I'm reading it, in fact, he really just is
trying to protect Mrs. Green and her children. So if that is true—-and, again, the report he gave
about protecting Mrs. Green and her children came after he was arrested, not prior to. Okay. That belief did not get
reported to mental health center staff.
P. So on November 30th, that wasn't anywhere?
A. That was not part of his concern. It was – he presented there wanting anger management help and to be back on
medication, because he had threats -- or he was thinking of harming Judge Green and his family three weeks before.
P. But then it came up in the letter?
A. It came up in the letter. It came up, actually, in a very…there was a comment in the note by the social worker at
the jail on 12/31 that it was a public service, but it was…that was the extent of it.

OMG! WHERE TO BEGIN? A SOUTHERN SAYING GOES, IT IS BETTER TO BE QUIET AND THOUGHT A
FOOL THAN TO OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT.

IN THE FIRST PLACE MR. SATTERFIELD. TOLD DR. DORNEY THE REASON HE WROTE THE LETTER,
BUT SHE WOULD NOT BELIEVE HIM BECAUSE OF TOO MUCH DETAIL? THAT IS WHAT
CONCERNED HER? CAN A PERSON GIVE TOO MUCH DETAIL WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO SAVE
THREE LIVES? IF ANYTHING, MORE MIGHT HAVE BEEN HELPFUL SUCH AS PLEASE DO NOT
MISUNDERSTAND ME! THIS NOT A THREAT! AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A THREAT! IF IT CAN BE
MANIPULATED INTO LOOKING LIKE A THREAT THAT'S BECAUSE I'M UNDER A LOT OF PRESSURE
AND, AS SAID IN THE INTRODUCTION MENTALLY ILL, BUT IT IS NOT A THREAT! IF MR.
SATTERFIELD HAD DONE THAT, DR. DORNEY WOULD HAVE CLAIMED HE WAS YELLING AND
THEREFORE THREATENING, WOULDN'T SHE?

SECOND, IF DR. DORNEY WANTED TO KNOW WHY MR. SATTERFIELD WOULD SEND THE LETTER
WITH ALL THAT DETAIL (AND REALLY, WAS IT THAT MUCH DETAIL?), SHE COULD HAVE ASKED
HIM OR REFERRED TO WHAT HE SAID WAS THE REASON IN THE LETTER. MR. SATTERFIELD WAS
SO CONCERNED THAT IF HE WASN'T "SO" DETAILED, MS. GREEN WOULD NOT RESPOND AND
PROTECT THE CHILDREN. HE WANTED IT TERRIFYING FOR HER. WHY ELSE WOULD MR.
SATTERFIELD BEGIN WITH THAT HE HAD BEEN DRIVEN SO MENTALLY OFF THAT HE WAS GOING
TO COOK AND EAT THE CHILDREN!

THIRD, THE SUPPOSED FIRST SELF-REPORT OF HIS INTENTIONS TO PROTECT THE FAMILY WAS
GIVEN TO MENTAL HEALTH STAFF RIGHT AFTER BEING JAILED. THE YOUNG LADY ASKED MR.
SATTERFIELD ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON, AND HE REFUSED TO TALK UNTIL SHE LOOKED
DISTRESSED AND TOLD HIM SHE WAS FROM HIS CLINIC MR. SATTERFIELD TOLD HER NOT TO
WORRY AND EXPLAINED HOW HE WAS PROTECTING MS. GREEN AND HER CHILDREN FROM THE
JUDGE. HE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO "MAKE UP" A STORY THAT WOULD FIT WHAT HE HAD WRITTEN.
THAT SOUNDED LIKE A DELUSION, PSYCHOTIC EPISODE, OR WHATEVER. ACCORDING TO DR.
DORNEY THE STAFF MEMBER CHECKED ON HER LIST THAT THERE WAS NO DELUSION
THEREFORE, IT STANDS TO REASON THAT THE STAFF WORKER MUST HAVE BELIEVED THE
JUDGE WAS TRYING TO KILL HIS WIFE. OR DR. DORNEY WAS MISTAKEN (OR LYING?).

70
FOURTH, AT THE END MR. GEARY SCREWS UP AND ASKS, "BUT THEN IT CAME UP IN THE LETTER"
WHICH BLEW DR. DORNEY'S ASSERTION THAT PROTECTING THE GREENS ONLY CAME UP AFTER
MR. SATTERFIELD WAS DETAINED. NOTICE HOW SHE STUMBLED OVER HER WORDS IN HER
ANSWER, TRYING TO COVER UP THE EXPOSED TRUTH.

FIFTH, "YES," PROTECTING THE KIDS FROM THEIR FATHER DURING HIS MEETING WITH MS.
CHRISTIAN ON NOVEMBER 30TH WAS NOT A CONCERN. IT BECAME ONE AFTERWARDS WHEN MR.
SATTERFIELD BEGAN THINKING THAT JUDGE GREEN WAS GOING TO MURDER MS. GREEN AND
THE CHILDREN COULD BECOME COLLATERAL DAMAGE. ON NOVEMBER 30TH, MR. SATTERFIELD
WAS SELFISHLY CONCERNED ONLY WITH HIS PROBLEMS.

AND SIXTH, DR. DORNEY'S TESTIMONY, "WHEN I READ THE LETTER IN DETAIL—-AND I READ IT
WITH HIM WHEN I SAW HIM IN JAIL" BELIES THE CLEAR TRUTH. SHE MAY WELL HAVE READ THE
LETTER IN DETAIL AS SHE SHOULD HAVE, BUT WHEN DR. DORNEY SPOKE WITH MR.
SATTERFIELD IN JAIL SHE ONLY READ A VERY FEW LIMITED LINES TO HIM AND NOTHING
ABOUT THE ISSUE OF THE LEVEL OF DETAIL WAS MENTIONED.

Page 654:13-18

A. The other piece that's very significant that stood

out in my mind is that he had seen the therapist at the mental health center on November 30th. And had she believed
him to be truly delusional and psychotic and at the risk of harming Judge Green because of psychosis or delusional
thinking, she had the option to hospitalize him.
P. The 1013?
A. 1013, which had happened before. She did not do
that, which means that she chose to let him go, which means she did not think he was psychotic to that degree.

DR. DORNEY'S STATEMENT, INTENDED TO SHOW THAT MR. SATTERFIELD WAS NOT SUFFERING A
DELUSION DURING HIS VISIT WITH MS. CHRISTIAN, IS TRUE BUT AGAIN MISLEADING. IT WAS
LATER WHEN MR. SATTERFIELD IMAGINED AN IMMINENT THREAT TO MS. GREEN AND WROTE
THE LETTER. HOWEVER, DR. DORNEY'S STATEMENT ALSO SHOWS THAT MS. CHRISTIAN'S
TESTIMONY ABOUT THE RESPONSIBILITIES SHE HAD AS A MANDATORY REPORTER WAS FALSE,
AS POINTED OUT EARLIER, SO OTHER THINGS MS CHRISTIAN STATED COULD WELL HAVE BEEN
AND WERE WRONG, YET THE EXPERTS GAVE MS. CHRISTIAN'S DOCUMENTS AND STATEMENTS
GREAT CREDIBILITY WHEN THEY WANTED TO.

WHAT IS NOT ANSWERED IS WHY, ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY, AFTER GOING TO THE CLINIC TO
BE THEORETICALLY PRESCRIBED MEDICINE (FOR ANGER?) AND JOINING AN ANGER
MANAGEMENT GROUP (WHICH HE DID WELL IN) AND HAVING ANGER FOR SO MANY MONTHS
BEFOREHAND, MR. SATTERFIELD BECAME SO ANGRY THAT HE WROTE A THREATENING LETTER,
WHICH HE KNEW HE WOULD BE ARRESTED FOR, INSTEAD OF JUST KILLING THE GREENS? WHAT
WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED BY SENDING A THREATENING LETTER?

71
TERRORISTIC THREATS FROM A KNOWN PERSON ARE MADE FOR SOMETHING IN RETURN OR FOR
CONTROL. WAS IT SUPPOSED TO BE MR. SATTERFIELD'S "INTENT" TO "GET REVENGE" BY
SCARING MS. GREEN AND GETTING ON THE NEWS FOR SCARING HER? WAS IT HIS "INTENT" TO
"GET REVENGE" BY SCARING HER THEN LATER MURDER HER AND HER FAMILY? IF EITHER OF
THESE WERE TRUE, HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO BEEN DELUSIONAL. WHY WOULD MR.
SATTERFIELD SEND MS. GREEN THE LETTER AND NOT THE JUDGE TO "GET REVENGE"? SHE AND
HER CHILDREN HAD DONE NOTHING TO HIM.

THERE ARE MORE ODDITIES IN DR. DORNEY'S TESTIMONY THAT ARE MOSTLY BASED ON THE
FALLACY OF OVERSIMPLIFICATION, BUT IN ORDER TO AVOID BEING CHARGED WITH THE
OFFENSE OF BEING A NIGGLE, THE AUTHOR REFRAINS FROM INCLUDING MORE WITHIN THIS
PUBLICATION.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENSE

Dr. Julie Rand-Dorney

THERE WAS NO VIGOROUS ATTEMPT BY THE DEFENSE TO TRICK OR AMBUSH DR. DORNEY. THE
ONLY THING MR. KILGORE DID THAT MAY HAVE CAUSED A TINY BIT OF DOUBT IN THE JURORS'
MIND WAS HIS IMPLYING THAT DR. DORNEY WAS TRYING TO GET IN GOOD WITH MR. GEARY
BECAUSE SHE WAS OPPOSING HIM IN A DIFFERENT CASE.

THIS, OBVIOUSLY, IS A WEAK CONJECTURE AND USUALLY HAS NO MERIT HOWEVER IN THIS
CASE, THERE WERE THINGS THAT INDICATE DR. DORNEY DID HAVE AN INTEREST IN ITS
OUTCOME. THINGS MR. KILGORE FAILED TO ASK ABOUT POSSIBLY BECAUSE HE DIDN'T SPEAK
WITH MR. SATTERFIELD OFTEN. FOR INSTANCE, AFTER READING THE LETTER MR. SATTERFIELD
HAD WRITTEN AND THE OPINIONS OF THE OTHER THREE EXPERTS DECLARING THE DOCTOR'S
MENTAL CONDITION, DR. DORNEY HAD MR. SATTERFIELD SIGN SEVERAL LEGAL PAPERS BEFORE
HER EXAMINATION. WHY? NONE OF THE OTHER DOCTORS DID THAT.

FURTHER, THE ONLY WAY THE DOCUMENTS COULD BE CONSIDERED LEGALLY BINDING WOULD
BE IF MR. SATTERFIELD WAS MENTALLY COMPETENT. WAS DR. DORNEY SO GOOD THAT SHE
HAD DETERMINED MR. SATTERFIELD WAS IN FACT MENTALLY COMPETENT BEFORE EVEN
SEEING HIM, OR DID SHE KNOW HIS MENTAL STATE THROUGH A PROVIDENTIAL BLESSING? WHY
DIDN'T DR. DORNEY HAVE MR. KILGORE REVIEW THE CONTRACTS BEFOREHAND? DID MR.
SATTERFIELD HAVE THE OPTION OF NOT SIGNING THE PAPERS? OF COURSE, HE DID NOT. STILL,
DR. DORNEY COULD HAVE OFFERED TO READ THEM TO MR. SATTERFIELD INSTEAD OF
ORDERING HIM TO JUST SIGN THEM, SO THAT SHE COULD BEGIN HER EXAMINATION.

ANOTHER THING DR. DORNEY DID DURING THE TRIAL WAS TO DISPARAGE MR. KILGORE BY
LAUGHING AT ONE OF HIS QUESTIONS. IT WAS A PROPER QUESTION, AND THERE WAS NO
REASON TO LAUGH EXCEPT TO INFLUENCE THE JURORS. IT IS NOT BECOMING OF AN EXPERT
WITNESS TO DEVIATE FROM BEING SERIOUS AND UNBIASED IN A COURT SETTING. A
MARKETING RULE STATES THAT IF THE FACTS ARE TRUE, THERE IS NO REASON FOR GIMMICKS
TO SELL A PRODUCT.

72
THE MOST PERPLEXING ASPECT OF THE DEFENSE'S CROSS-EXAMINATION IS THAT LOUD, ANGRY,
PROUD MR. KILGORE WAS SO IMPERTURBABLE WHEN DR. DORNEY BESMIRCHED HIS
INTELLIGENCE. BASED ON HIS PREVIOUS OUTBURSTS, IT SEEMS THAT MR. KILGORE WOULD
HAVE EXPLODED. ALSO, WHY DIDN'T HE TAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW HER PREJUDICE
FOR THE PROSECUTOR TO REINFORCE HIS CLAIM THAT DR. DORNEY'S INTENTIONS WERE TO
GAIN FAVOR FROM HIM. THIS TIME SUCH A CLAIM WAS APPROPRIATE. CAN THERE BE ANY
DOUBT, THAT BOTH THE EXPERT AND PROSECUTOR WERE TRYING TO GET IN GOOD WITH JUDGE
GREEN AND COBB COUNTY'S OTHER JUDGES?

WHY NO DOUBT? THE FINAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THIS CONCLUSION IS THAT THE
PROSECUTOR LATER MAKES THE POINT THAT DR. DORNEY WAS WORKING FOR FREE. IT WAS
IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE MEMBERS OF THE JURY THINK THAT SHE HAD NOTHING TO GAIN AND
WAS UNBIASED JUST AS THE STATE'S EXPERTS WERE. IN FACT, SHE MADE HERSELF LOOK LIKE A
GOOD, HONEST PERSON WHO DOES THIS CHARITY WORK OFTEN. THE MOST ESSENTIAL
ELEMENT OF A CON JOB, ACCORDING TO PROFESSIONAL CON MEN, IS TO GET THE VICTIM'S
TRUST.

ALL OF THE PRECEDING IS REASONABLE WHEN CONSIDERING ANY PREJUDICE ON HER PART
AND PRESENTED IN A MATTER THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO STAND AGAINST ANY CHALLENGE.
HOWEVER, THE ANGEL OF THE LORD TOLD MR. SATTERFIELD THAT HE HAD MISSED SOMETHING
IMPORTANT AND TO LOOK AGAIN.

RE-EXAMINING DR. DORNEY'S TESTIMONY, MR. SATTERFIELD BARELY NOTICED THAT MR.
KILGORE HAD DONE SOMETHING LIKE WHAT HE HIMSELF HAD DONE IN THE PAST. MR. KILGORE
CHANGED THE DIRECTION OF THE CONVERSATION. HOWEVER, WHILE MR. SATTERFIELD WOULD
VEER AWAY TO INCLUDE EXTRANEOUS INFORMATION, WHICH HE THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT
TO INCLUDE, THEN RETURN, MR. KILGORE HAD COMPLETELY CHANGED THE TOPIC LEAVING DR.
DORNEY'S PREVIOUS ANSWERS SOMEWHAT LACKING IN DEPTH.

THE TOPIC HE JUMPED TO WAS THAT DR. DORNEY'S CONCLUSION IN ANOTHER CASE BENEFITED
THAT PERSON'S DEFENSE AGAINST THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THERE WAS ONE THING
AND ONLY ONE THING ACCOMPLISHED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE OF THIS SUBJECT AND THAT
WAS THAT SINCE DR. DORNEY WAS IN OPPOSITION WITH THE D.A. IN THAT CASE, SHE MUST BE
ALSO UNBIASED IN MR. SATTERFIELD'S CASE, STRENGTHENING THE CASE AGAINST HIM BY MR.
KILGORE.

Page 678:18-25

D. Okay. Keep going. Mr. Satterfield disclosed his anger at Judge Green through his discussion of his divorce
case. No question about it. In fact, a lot of the letter focused very much on that right?
A. Well, was going to say, if anything, minimized the extent of that, because the bulk of the letter involved his
anger at Judge Green so—-I wrote one sentence, basically, on that issue.

73
THE DOCTOR'S ANSWER IS OBTRUSIVE: THE BULK OF THE LETTER INVOLVED STATING FACTS TO
CONVINCE MS. GREEN OF HER HUSBAND'S INTENTIONS. AND, WHILE MR. KILGORE'S QUESTION
SUPPORTED THE IDEA THAT MR. SATTERFIELD WROTE A THREATENING LETTER OUT OF ANGER
AND REVENGE, DR. DORNEY, NOT EXPECTING HELP FROM THE DEFENSE, DOESN'T NOTICE AND
ANSWERS WITH A CONVOLUTED REBUTTAL, THEN REALIZING HE IS HELPING HER, HESITATES
AND ENDS WITH A VAGUE REPLY.

Page 679:7-15

D. In the context of where that is in the letter, isn't it also crystal clear that he is talking about a former or past
thought he had?
A. It wasn't crystal clear to me. I think, as someone just reading a letter, he uses past tense, but the description
of what he would do to Mrs. Green and her children and the detail of that, if his primary concern was her safety it
created fear in me, so I would be concerned as to what that would create in her if she was to read it.

MR. SATTERFIELD WANTED THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER TO CREATE FEAR! THE FEAR OF
EXPERIENCING WHAT HAD ALMOST HAPPENED TO HER SO THAT SHE WOULD PROTECT HER
CHILDREN AND HERSELF FROM JUDGE GREEN. WHY DID DR. DORNEY BYPASS THE INTENDED
PERPETRATORS, JUDGE GREEN AND HIS ALLIES, AND PRESENT A FACTOID THAT THE FEAR WAS
OF MR. SATTERFIELD?

TO SOMEONE READING THE TRANSCRIPT OF THIS TRIAL, SEEING DR. DORNEY USING FUTURE
TENSE FOR "WHAT HE WOULD DO TO MRS. GREEN AND…,” WOULD BE A CONCERN OF WHAT HER
MOTIVE WAS TO PULL THE BUDDHIST AND SCIENTOLOGY PHILOSOPHY OF "IF IT IS REAL TO
YOU, IT IS REAL." NO, IT'S NOT!

MR. SATTERFIELD WAS SPEAKING OF WHAT HE HAD PLANNED ON DOING IN THE PAST, AND DR.
DORNEY IS TOO EDUCATED AND EXPERIENCED TO NOT HAVE KNOWN THAT WHICH MEANS SHE
CONSIDERED EVERYONE LISTENING TO HER STATEMENTS AS BEING TOO "SIMPLE" TO CATCH ON
TO WHAT SHE WAS DOING. SHE DOES THIS SEVERAL TIMES, PRETENDING TO HAVE ESOTERIC
KNOWLEDGE OF THE "LETTER OF SATTERFIELD." MR. SATTERFIELD BECOMES INDIGNANT AT
PROFESSIONALS LIKE DR. DORNEY WHO PRACTICALLY DEMAND RESPECT FOR THEIR TITLES,
POSITIONS, AND EDUCATIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND THEN EXCUSE THEIR IMPROPRIETIES
AS IF THE GENERAL POPULATION CANNOT COMPREHEND THEIR LIES HIDDEN IN PIOUS
RHETORIC.

Pages 680:15 - 682:1

D. Okay. He didn't say: Our divorce was granted, and I am free. He said I was free.
A. Right.
D. Okay. And that's because what he's talking about here—-and if you look at the paragraph before and the
paragraph after—-it’s real clear he's talking about something that he'd been thinking about three weeks earlier.
A. Okay. But if he was truly—-the purpose of this letter is—-
D. I understand that. Answer my question, then you can explain.

74
A. Yes.
D. It's past tense.
A. I know what you're saying. It's past tense.
D. He's talking about a thought that he was having—-

MR GEARY: Objection. She wants to answer the question.

NOTE HOW MR. GREARY INTERUPTS THE QUETIONING JUST BEFORE IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT
MR. SATTERFIELD WAS TALKING ABOUT A PAST EVENT AND NOT MAKING ANY TERRORISTIC
THREATS. THIS GIVES THE DOCTOR TIME TO COLLECT HERSELF AND COME UP WITH AN EXCUSE
RATHER THAN TO ANSWER THE QUESTION HONESTLY AND DIRECTLY.

THE WITNESS: I think it's confusing as far as the terminology: You would go fast, but your kids would go
slow. Is that past tense, or is it another time in the future? It's hard to know. I think the intent was actually to create
some fear, which is the bulk of what we see in the letter. And if it's concern about protecting her, it surely doesn't
appear that way as someone reading it.

D. (By Mr. Kilgore) Sure. The intent could also be to call the seriousness of the situation to the reader, to make
the reader know. This is a serious situation; please pay attention to what I am trying to warn you about. That's
entirely possible that that was the intent as well right?
A. Could be, which would create some fear.
D. Okay. Again, you're focusing on—-you’re testifying about -- about how it's perceived. That's not—-what you're
instructed to do. That's not—-when you're evaluating somebody, you're looking at them, not what somebody else's
response is?

PROFESSIONALS KNOW BETTER THAN TO CONSIDER THE ASSUMED EMOTIONS OF THE SUPPOSED
VICTIM(S), AND DR. DORNEY IS DEFINITIVELY A PROFESSIONAL, AND YET SHE MAKES IT A POINT
THAT HER EVALUATION WAS BASED PRIMARILY ON MS. GREEN'S FEELINGS AND NOT THE
EVIDENCE. FURTHER, THE ASSUMED EMOTIONS WERE NOT EVEN MS. GREEN'S, THEY WERE DR.
DORNEY'S. NONE THIS STUFF WAS CONFUSING TO THE OTHER THREE PROFESSIONAL EXPERTS.

Page 682:21, 22

D. That's exactly what it says right?

A. I think it could be interpreted that way.

ONE INDICATION OF DISCERNMENT IS A HIGHLY EDUCATED, KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON BEING

ABLE TO INTERPRET THEIR NATIVE LANGUAGE ON "EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS." YES, THIS
AUTHOR IS BEING FACTIOUS WITH THIS COMMENT.

Pages 683:20 - 684:5

D. That's kind of sounds like he expects her to be around a long time, doesn't it?
A. I don't know about a long time, but in the future.
D. Well, does it sound like he expects that her death is imminent by writing it?

75
A. You mean that he…hat he's going to hurt her at that moment?
D. Mm-hmm? It's a mix, because that would actually imply not, whereas the other information we talked about
could imply that it could, so it's inconsistent to me.

DR. DORNEY CONTINUES TO TAKE THE MOST PROBABLE WAY SECTIONS OF THE LETTER ARE
"INTERPRETED" AND TWISTS THEM AROUND IN WAYS TO CREATE SLIM POSSIBILITIES TO SUPPORT
HER CONCLUSIONS. WHEN CAUGHT SHE ACTS CHILDISHLY INNOCENT. TO UNDERSTAND THE
TRUTH, ALL SHE HAD TO DO WAS ASK MR. SATTERFIELD. APPARENTLY, HER STARTING POINT WAS
THE CONCLUSION, AND THEN SHE SEARCHED FOR THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE (THAT EXPLAINS
WHY SHE WAS A HERETIC). WHAT DID SHE EXPECT IN RETURN?

Page 686:3-11
Regarding Mr. Satterfield's list with the word revenge.

D. Like you got it in the last week or two?

A. No, I don't know. I know I met with Mr. Geary before the holidays. I know we looked at that particular document
then, but I don't know what I had it for this report.

THE HOLIDAYS WERE IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS! THE THEORY OF THE MOTIVE OF REVENGE WAS
NOT GIVEN TO HER UNTIL RECENTLY, AND SHE INCORPORATED IT INTO HER TESTIMONY
EAGERLY AND MALEVOLENTLY WITH HER OTHER CONCLUSIONS NOW THAT SHE HAD SUPPORT
FOR DOING SO.

THIS ALSO HELPS EXPLAIN WHY DR. RICHARDS WAS STARTLED WHEN QUESTIONED ABOUT THE
POSSIBLY OF REVENGE AS A MOTIVE. IT HAD BEEN INVENTED ALMOST A HALF OF A YEAR
AFTER THE REPORT HE SUBMITTED THAT DIDN'T SUIT THE PROSECUTOR.

MR. SATTERFIELD SAT IN JAIL FOR A YEAR WHILE THE PROSECUTOR TRIED TO FIND SOMETHING
HE COULD CLAIM AS THE MOTIVE.

Page 687:5-13

D. Okay. Do you know if maybe he sat down with Diane

Satterfield, his ex-wife, they sat down in her house an (sic) made this list together when they started dating again?
Do you have any idea if maybe that's the case?
A. I don't. I don't have any idea.
D. Well, if he had sat down with his wife, ex-wife, and done that could that make a difference in your opinion of the
relevance of this document?
A. I'm not sure why he would put "get revenge" in it.

DR. DORNEY DOES ALMOST THE SAME THING DR. RICHARDS DID WHEN ASKED A SIMILAR
QUESTION, WHICH WAS NOT TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER. ONLY SHE DEFLECTED HER ANSWER AND
DIDN'T GET FLUSTERED AS HE DID BECAUSE DR. DORNEY WAS IN THE KNOW ON THE REVENGE
ANGLE.

76
ALSO, MR. KILGORE WAS RIGHT ABOUT THE COMPOSITION OF THE LIST, BUT HE DIDN'T HAVE
MS. SATTERFIELD TESTIFY TO IT. WHY NOT? FOR MR. KILGORE TO HAVE KNOWN ABOUT HOW
THE DOCUMENT CAME ABOUT, HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE TALKED WITH MS. SATTERFIELD.

Page 690:15-19

D. What he reported, basically, was hearing those two

voices in his head—-one saying do it, one saying don't
do it—-is kind of what he told you?
A. Well, which—-I asked him specifically if it was
just thoughts and his conscience, and he said, no...

THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE PROBLEM WITH THE STATE'S DOCTORS THINKING THAT MR.
SATTERFIELD WAS HEARING VOICES IN HIS HEAD FOR EIGHT MONTHS WHEN HE WAS ACTUALLY
TALKING ABOUT HIS THOUGHTS—-NOT CLEAR DETACHED VOICES.

Page 701:10-20

D. On November the 30th, you said that Mr. Satterfield went to the Cobb Douglas Community Center, and you
indicated that from the records it appears that his purpose was for mental health help.
A. His purpose was to get mental health anger management through classes they have and to get back on edication.
D. That was the purpose for going there that day, and he accomplished that purpose, didn't he?
A Well, he started the process of doing that, because anger management group wasn't until the following week, the
medications weren't going to be ordered until later on.

THIS LIE OF MR. SATTERFIELD GOING TO THE CENTER TO GET HELP FOR ANGER MANAGEMENT
CONTRADICTS MS. CHRISTIAN'S TESTIMONY THAT THE VISIT WAS A REGULAR SESSION. NEITHER
ARE CORRECT, AS THE READER KNOWS, SO WHY DOES MR. KILGORE LEND SUPPORT TO IT?

ANOTHER REVIEW OF MS. CHRISTIAN'S TESTIMONY ENDS WITH TWO INTERESTING ITEMS.

FIRST, MS. CHRISTIAN NEVER SAID THAT THE PURPOSE OF MR. SATTERFIELD'S VISIT WAS TO GET
ANGER MANAGEMENT. SO SOMEONE (MORE IN LIKELY DR. DORNEY HERSELF) BEGAN THAT LINE
OF THINKING.

AND SECOND, MS. CHRISTIAN STATED THAT MR. SATTERFIELD WAS PARTICIPATING IN HER
DEPRESSION GROUP. HER DEPRESSION GROUP HAD ENDED BY THE TIME MR. SATTERFIELD
REACHED OUT TO HER FOR HELP AND THAT, AS STATED EARLIER, WAS WHY MR. SATTERFIELD,
IN HIS DESPERATION FOR ANY TREATMENT, WAS ONLY ABLE TO GET INTO THE ANGER
MANAGEMENT CLASS. IT SEEMS LIKE WITH ALL THESE SAVANTS AT LEAST ONE WOULD HAVE
HAD THE GOOD SENSE TO ASK MR. SATTERFIELD WHY HE MADE THAT VISIT ON NOVEMBER THE
30TH.

77
FURTHERMORE, DR. DORNEY, TO SUPPORT THE "REVENGE DUE TO ANGER" MOTIVE, STATES
THAT THE MEDICATION WAS NOT GOING TO BE ORDERED UNTIL LATER WHICH IS WRONG
BECAUSE: (A) MR. SATTERFIELD HAD PLENTY OF MEDICATION ON HAND, (B) MS. CHRISTIAN
COULD NOT PRESCRIBE DRUGS, (C) NOBODY ASKED A DOCTOR TO EVALUATE MR. SATTERFIELD
SO THAT THE MEDICAL DOCTOR COULD PRESCRIBE MEDICINE, AND (D) NO ORDER WAS EVER
MADE.

OH! WHAT A TANGLED WEB DR. DORNEY WEAVES WHEN SHE FIRST PLANNED TO DECEIVE…

Page 703:1-9

D. —-get back into group right?

A. You have to go through an evaluation when you do that, and the therapist asked questions. So the questions are
going to actually inquire about homicidal ideation, suicidal ideation, psychosis, those things, there's discussion that
goes on between the therapist and the patient—-
D. Okay. Well—-
A —-for the therapist to make the decision on what to do.
D. Sure. Well, and when you interviewed Rene Christian, who is the one who talked to him that day, did she tell you
what the entirety of the conversation was?
A. I didn't interview Rene Christian. I was looking at her records
D. Right. An (sic) her notation of that event, about three sentences, wasn't it?
A. I don't know how many sentences it was—-I don't have it in front of me—-but it was a very short notation.

WHAT? ALL THOSE CONJECTURES FROM "A VERY SHORT NOTATION"? FURTHER, MS. CHRISTIAN
(WHO HAD WORKED WITH MR. SATTERFIELD FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS) DID NOT HAVE TO DO
ANOTHER EVALUATION FOR ENTRANCE INTO THE ONLY AVAILABLE CLASS.

Page 705:2-16

D. Well, I want to make sure I'm hearing what I think

I'm hearing here. To 1013 someone, you're telling me that
someone could be 1013'd because of something they suggested they thought about in the past?
A. Yes. If they basically are unable to care for
themselves because of a severe mental illness, absolutely, they can be 1013'd. It doesn't have to be that day.
D. Well, that's not the issue here right? I mean, nobody has ever suggested that he can't care for himself right?
A. I don't know. There were several months he was not leaving his house, with depression. I think, you know,
obviously, he had lost weight. I mean, there were questions on that issue, too, like there would be with anyone who
suffers from clinical depression.

WELL, DR. DORNEY'S ANSWER TO MR. KILGORE'S QUESTION IS UNEXPECTED AND

INSUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED BECAUSE THE ISSUE OF MR. SATTERFIELD NOT BEING ABLE TO
TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF HAD NEVER BEEN BROUGHT UP. HER ANSWER THAT A SEVERELY
MENTALLY ILL PERSON WHO CAN'T TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES BECAUSE OF HAVING
THOUGHTS IN THE PAST IS SUSPECT AT THE LEAST. ALSO, HER ANSWER TO THE SECOND
QUESTION IS GREATLY MISLEADING SINCE THE FEW MONTHS MR. SATTERFIELD "WAS NOT

78
LEAVING HIS HOUSE, WITH DEPRESSION" WAS YEARS IN THE PAST. FURTHERMORE, MR.
SATTERFIELD WEIGHED AN OBESE 221 POUNDS THE DAY OF HIS ARREST.

IN PRISON, MR. SATTERFIELD LEARNED THAT HE WAS NOT SUFFERING FROM "CLINICAL"
DEPRESSION BUT FROM "ENVIRONMENTAL" DEPRESSION, WHICH IS WHY NONE OF THE DRUGS
WERE DOING ANYTHING FOR HIM. INSTEAD OF DIAGNOSING THE PROBLEM, ALL THE PAST
PSYCHIATRISTS HAD RUSHED HIM OUT OF THEIR OFFICES WITH PILLS.

Pages 706 and 707

WITHIN THESE TWO PAGES, DR. DORNEY EXPLAINS THAT MS. CHRISTIAN'S TESTIMONY WAS
WRONG AND THAT SHE HAD NO LEGAL DUTY TO MAKE A REPORT BASED ON MR. SATTERFIELD'S
PREVIOUS THOUGHTS, WHICH MR. SATTERFIELD KNEW. ALSO, WHILE NOT CLEAR, SHE STATES
THAT IF MR. SATTERFIELD HAD BEEN HOMICIDAL AND ACTED BECAUSE OF HIS SUPPOSED
ANGER AND MS. CHRISTIAN HAD ONLY WARNED INSTEAD OF 1013ING MR. SATTERFIELD FOR
HIM TO BE PLACED UNDER RESTRICTED OBSERVATION, MS. CHRISTIAN WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
"GRANTED IMMUNITY FOR DOING THAT." THEREFORE, MR. SATTERFIELD WAS NOT ANGRY
ENOUGH TO BE DELUSIONAL WHEREAS THE TRUTH WAS THAT MR. SATTERFIELD HAD
ABSOLUTELY "NO" ANGER AND WAS NOT DELUSIONAL AT THE TIME HE RAN TO THE CLINIC.
WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO MR. SATTERFIELD THAT NIGHT AND THE TERROR HE FELT HAS NEVER
BEEN ASSIGNED AN OFFICIAL DIAGNOSTIC NAME BY ANY DOCTOR.

Pages 707:22-708:6

D. Okay. So you would agree that you were brought in immediately after two experts from the Department of
Behavioral Health found that James Satterfield suffered from a delusional compulsion at the time that he sent this
letter?
A. Yes. I was brought in after that, yes.
D. Within two weeks after that?
A. Close. I mean, I don't know the exact dates of their evaluations, but they were—-the reports were in July, and
Dr. Richards(sic) was in—-I’m assuming July. He saw him last in July.

DR. RICHARDS SAW MR. SATTERFIELD FIRST, LONG BEFORE THE OTHER THREE EXPERTS, NOT
LAST. THE TWO STATE DOCTORS INTERVIEWED MR. SATTERFIELD ON JUNE 12TH, 2013 AND
SUBMITTED THEIR REPORTS THE NEXT MONTH. WHEN NONE OF THE THREE REPORTS PROVIDED
WHAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, VIC REYNOLDS, WANTED, INSTEAD OF HAVING ANOTHER
BOND HEARING TO ALLOW MR. SATTERFIELD TO GET OUT OF JAIL AND HAVING NO OTHER
OPTION, TO PLEASE JUDGE GREEN, IN DESPERATION, HE QUICKLY AUTHORIZED, OR BETTER YET
DEMANDED, ANOTHER EVALUATION. DR. DORNEY WAS CONTACTED TO TAKE CARE OF THE
PROBLEM. IN CONTRAST TO THE FIRST THREE EXPERTS TURNING IN THEIR REPORTS SHORTLY
AFTER INTERVIEWING MR. SATTERFIELD, DR. DORNEY WAITED MONTHS TO DO SO. SHE
STAMMERS OUT, TWICE AND NONSPECIFICALLY, THE TIME SHE OBTAINED THE KNOWLEDGE OF
THE WORDS: GET REVENGE.

79
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION
Dr. Julie Rand-Dorney

Page 709:10-13

P. Doctor, are you getting paid to make a this evaluation?

A. No. No.
P. Nothing at all?
A. Nothing at all.

THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE JURORS TO KNOW FOR NOW DR. DORNEY'S UNUSUAL TESTIMONY
AND CONCLUSIONS WOULD BE THOUGHT UNDENIABLY UNFETTERED. MR. SATTERFIELD
BELIEVES THIS TYPE OF QUESTION SHOULD BE FORBIDDEN BECAUSE IT HAS NO RELEVANCE TO
ANY CASE, SERVING ONLY TO STIFLE THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH. JUST BECAUSE DR. DORNEY
DOESN'T CHARGE CURRENCY FOR HER SERVICES DOESN'T MEAN SHE WASN'T BEING PAID EVEN
MORE IN OTHER WAYS. TO FIND AN EXAMPLE OF THIS COMMON PRACTICE, RESEARCH THE
HISTORY OF AMERICA'S HERO AND FOUNDING FATHER GEORGE WASHINGTON.

RECROSS EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENSE

Dr. Julie Rand-Dorney

Page 712:9-25

D. Okay. And you are—-you indicated you are not being paid for your opinion?
A. No. I actually took this case pro bono. Once—- about once a year I take a case pro bono for the State as a way to
give back after 20 years of working with the State. And this year, in particular, I took this case. A few years ago I
took the Newman case, and before that a case in Fulton County.
D. All right. And when you took the case, you didn't know anything about it?
A. No.
D. Okay. You just received a phone call from the district's attorney's office saying: Hey would you like to work on
this case?
A. Right. We didn't talk about fees. I assumed I would charge for the case, but I realized that this case was going to
be complicated, expensive, and at times I can choose not to charge. Mr. Geary didn't really support that and said,
"We'll pay for it," but I basically volunteered to take this case pro bono.

DR. DORNEY HAD TO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE CASE BEFORE SHE “BASICALLY”
VOLUNTEERED TO TAKE IT. UNLESS THEY WANT/NEED MONEY BADLY NO ONE ETHNICALLY
TAKES ON A CASE WITHOUT KNOWING SOMETHING ABOUT IT, AND THERE IS NO INDICATION
THAT DR. DORNEY WAS DESPERATE FOR MONEY.

FURTHERMORE, HER EXCUSE OF THE CASE BEING COMPLICATED, AND, THEREFORE, EXPENSIVE
EXPOSES HER DECEPTION. WERE THERE NOT ANY SMALL COUNTIES THAT COULD HAVE
"FINANCIALLY" NEEDED HER GENEROSITY? A VETTING OF HER TESTIMONY LEADS TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT SHE TAKES AS PRO BONO CASES THOSE THAT WILL BE APPLICABLE TO A

80
FUTURE BOOK DEALS AND/OR GAINS HER FAVOR WITH THE POWERFUL LIKE JUDGE REUBEN
GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY REYNOLDS, WHO HIMSELF WAS DESPERATE TO GET A
CONFLICTING OPINION FROM THAT OF THREE HIGHLY QUALIFIED EXPERTS, AND ALL GEORGIA'S
JUDGES. THEN THERE ARE, OF COURSE, GOVERNORS. THIS CASE WAS BY NO MEANS
COMPLICATED IN THE BEGINNING.

AGAIN, WHAT WAS MR. KILGORE DOING? WHAT A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO ATTACK THE
DOCTOR'S MOTIVES. HE HAD ESTABLISHED THAT SHE HAD ANOTHER PENDING CASE IN COBB
COUNTY, SO WHAT MADE HER DECIDE TO DONATE HER SERVICE TO COBB COUNTY? SHE
STATED THAT A REASON SHE WAS WORKING FOR FREE WAS BECAUSE IT WAS GOING TO BE
EXPENSIVE FOR THE PROSECUTION. SHE WOULD HAVE EARNED A LOT OF MONEY WAS A
REASON TO NOT EARN ANYTHING AT ALL NOT EVEN A STIPEND? IT ACTUALLY COST HER
EXPENSE MONEY TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS CASE. WHY DID SHE HAVE TO BE ON THIS
PARTICULAR CASE SO BADLY?

FURTHERMORE, ONE MUST ASK WHY WHEN THERE WERE THREE PROFESSIONAL EXPERT
OPINIONS AGAINST HIS ONE DIDN'T THE PROSECUTOR USE THE SAVINGS FROM DR. DORNEY'S
QUESTIONABLE GENEROSITY TO HIRE ANOTHER SPECIALIST TO SUPPORT DR. DORNEY'S
OPINION. DID HE KNOW HE WOULDN'T FIND ONE?

FIRST EXPERT WITNESS CALLED BY THE COURT; DR. SAM PERRY DR. PERRY CONFIDENTLY
STRODE INTO THE COURTROOM. LIKE DR. RICHARDS, HE HAD DECADES OF EXPERIENCE
EVALUATING THE MENTALLY ILL AND YEARS OF EXPERIENCE TESTIFYING IN COURTROOMS.
AND AGAIN LIKE DR. RICHARDS, HE WAS SMILING, PLEASANT, AND RELAXED. WHY SHOULD NOT
HE BE? HE WASN'T THE ONE ON TRIAL. WITHIN A FEW MINUTES, DR. PERRY WOULD EXPRESS HIS
OPINION, ANSWER THE USUAL QUESTIONS, AND GO BACK TO HIS OFFICE OR HOME. JUST LIKE HE
HAD DONE IN THE HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF CASES HE HAD TESTIFIED IN BEFORE. IT IS
EVEN POSSIBLE THAT DR. PERRY, KNOWING THAT IT IS HUMAN NATURE TO QUESTION THE
MOTIVES OF EXPERTS HIRED BY THE PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE TEAMS, FELT A BIT OF PRIDE
AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO BE THROUGH AND CERTAIN IN HIS CONCLUSIONS.

THE PROCEEDINGS STARTED OUT WITH DR. PERRY INFORMING THE JURY MEMBERS ABOUT HIS
CONSIDERABLE EXPERIENCE AND IMPRESSIVE CREDENTIALS. MR. KILGORE RESPECTFULLY
ASKED THE QUESTIONS EXPECTED AS TO THE MENTAL CONDITION OF MR. SATTERFIELD AT THE
TIME THE LETTER WAS WRITTEN AND, OF COURSE, THE WITNESS'S CONCLUSION WAS THE SAME
AS DR. RICHARD'S:

"Satterfield was under an irresistible compulsion at the time of writing the letter."

IN ANSWER TO THE COURT'S QUESTION ABOUT HIS DIAGNOSIS, DR. PERRY AVOIDED SAYING
THAT MR. SATTERFIELD'S LETTER DID NOT CONTAIN A THREAT.

EXAMINATION BY THE COURT

81
Page 717:10-15

A. Well, we didn't reach a diagnosis. We reached a conclusion to what was going on with him at the time of the
alleged offense.
C. Okay, what was that?
A. It was our opinion that he was suffering from a delusion and that he was compelled to act on his delusion.

LIMITED AND STRAIGHT TO THE POINT—-NOTHING ADDED. DR. PERRY DIDN'T SAY WHAT THE
DELUSION WAS, WHAT THE ACT WAS (WRITING AND SENDING A LETTER OR MAKING SEVERAL
THREATS), OR WHAT THE INTENT WAS (TO PROTECT OR HARM). HE MADE NO CONCLUSION TO
"GUILTY" OR "NOT GUILTY." THE NEW STATE OF GEORGIA'S LAW, WHICH DID NOT MAKE SENSE
TO EVEN JUDGE HOWE, FORBIDS HIM TO DO SO.

UNFORTUNATELY FOR DR. PERRY, HE HAD NOT WITNESSED THE HOODWINKING OF HIS FELLOW
PRACTITIONER DR. RICHARDS FOR HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF AD HOMINEM, HE WOULD HAVE
EASILY RECOGNIZED THE PROSECUTOR'S TRICKERY AND PREPARED HIMSELF INSTEAD OF
WAITING ON A QUESTION ABOUT HIS CONCLUSION.

THE CROSS-EXAMINATION BEGAN SMOOTHLY, AGAIN IN THE MANNER TO BE EXPECTED. THEN

MR. GEARY ASKED THE SETUP QUESTION! IT WAS PRESENTED PERFECTLY HAVING THE
APPEARANCE OF JUST ROUTINE CURIOSITY. HOWEVER, NOT BEING ON GUARD AGAINST ANY
TREACHERY WHEN THE ASSAULT CAME DR. PERRY REACTED LIKE A CHILD WHOSE BELOVED
MOTHER BACKHANDED HER ACROSS THE PEWS OF A CHURCH FOR BRIEFLY OPENING HER EYES
DURING PRAYER.

DR. PERRY VIOLENTLY JERKED HIS UPPER BODY BACK AND LOOKED AROUND DAZED. HE
SHOOK HIS HEAD AND GESTURED AROUND WITH HIS ARMS AND HANDS AS HE TRIED TO
ANSWER THE PROSECUTOR'S QUESTION WHILE ALSO ATTEMPTING TO UNDERSTAND THE
LOGICAL PURPOSE OF IT. "HOW IN THE WORLD DID THE QUESTION RELATE TO HIS
PROFESSIONAL OPINION OF MR. SATTERFIELD'S MENTAL CONDITION AT THE TIME OF HIS
WRITING THE WARNING LETTER," DR. PERRY MUST HAVE THOUGHT TO HIMSELF. WITHOUT A
DOUBT THE JURORS QUESTIONED HIS PROFESSIONAL DIAGNOSIS AS HE REPEATEDLY
ATTEMPTED TO BLATHER OUT AN ANSWER.

DR. PERRY WAS TOTALLY CONFUSED, AND IT SHOWED. HE MUST HAVE WONDERED IF THIS WAS
A TRICK QUESTION THAT HE HAD NEVER EXPERIENCED? MR. GEARY WAS MUCH MORE OF AN
EXPERT ON THAT LEGAL QUESTION THAN HE WAS. SHOULDN'T THE PROSECUTOR BE ASKING
HIM PSYCHOLOGICAL QUESTIONS RATHER THAN LEGAL QUESTIONS? HE WASN'T AN ATTORNEY
OR A JUDGE.

BY THE TIME DR. PERRY WAS ABLE TO CAUTIOUSLY SAY THAT IT WAS THE JURORS WHO MADE
THE DECISION THE PROSECUTOR ASKED ABOUT, HIS CREDIBILITY AS A PERSON FULL OF
KNOWLEDGE WAS DESTROYED. THE JURY MEMBERS WOULD REMEMBER HIM AS AN OLDER,
SLIGHT MAN FLOUNDERING FOR AN ANSWER.

82
AT THIS TIME, IT APPEARED TO THE JURY THAT THERE ARE TWO BUMBLING EXPERTS AND ONE,
WHO WAS NEW TO THE DEPARTMENT, AGAINST THE PROSECUTOR'S EXPERT WHO WAS SO GOOD
SHE LAUGHS (MOCKS, IF YOU MAY) THE DEFENSE. ADDED TO THAT, AS STATED EARLIER, IS HER
HOLINESS FOR GIVING AWAY HER EXPENSIVE SERVICE FOR FREE.

SO, WHY DID NOT THE DEFENSE MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. WHY DIDN'T HE
PUT UP A CARDBOARD DISPLAY SHOWING A TIMELINE SO CLEAR THAT A CHILD COULD SEE
WHAT THE PROSECUTOR WAS DOING? GIVING MR. KILGORE THE BENEFIT OF ANY DOUBT, THE
DEFENSE WAS FORBIDDEN TO DO ANYTHING TO SHOW THAT MR. SATTERFIELD WAS INNOCENT
OF THE CRIMES HE WAS ACCUSED OF ("DO NOT CONCEAL THE TRUTH." AL BAQARAH:
JUZ:1/SURAH: 2:42).

NOW IT WAS DOWN TO ONE EXPERT'S OPINION, IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENSE, AGAINST ONE FOR
THE PROSECUTION PLUS THE TOTALITY OF THE MULTITUDE OF OPINIONS FROM THE WITNESSES
CALLED BY THE PROSECUTOR. SUBCONSCIOUSLY IN THE MINDS OF THE JURORS, THE
PROSECUTOR WOULD NOT HAVE ASKED ALL OF THESE OTHER WITNESSES TO TESTIFY UNLESS
THEY SUPPORTED MR. GEARY'S ACCUSATIONS.

THE COURT'S FINAL EXPERT WAS DR. KIANA WRIGHT, WHO HAD ALSO ASSESSED MR.
SATTERFIELD TO BE WORKING UNDER A COMPULSION AND WAS THE LEAST EXPERIENCED OF
ALL IN TESTIFYING. CONTRARY TO THE NORM, IN THIS CASE THAT INEXPERIENCE TURNED OUT
TO BE A GOOD THING FOR MR. SATTERFIELD BECAUSE DR. WRIGHT HAD NOT DEVELOPED AN
EXPECTATION OF THE PROPER ETIQUETTE BETWEEN MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AND
PROSECUTORS.

BEFORE MR. GEARY STARTS HIS DIRECT EXAMINATION, THE COURT ASKS DR. WRIGHT OF HER
CONCLUSION.

Page 734:7-13

C. Okay. All right. Did you reach a conclusion with respect to Mr. Satterfield's mental condition?
A. Yes, we did.
C. What was that conclusion, please.
A. It was our opinion that Mr. Satterfield was overwhelmed by a delusional compulsion that over mastered his will
to resist committing the alleged offense.

UNFORTUNATELY, DR. WRIGHT, POSSIBLY DUE TO THE RESTRAINTS PUT UPON HER AND HER
PENCHANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING, WAS WRONG.

DR. WRIGHT, AS WELL AS JUDGE GREEN, MS. GREEN, INVESTIGATOR CARTER, DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, VIC REYNOLDS, CHIEF ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY MR. GEARY, MR. KILGORE,
DR. DORNEY, DR. RICHARDS, AND DR. PERRY KNEW MR. SATTERFIELD HAD COMMITTED
ABSOLUTELY NO TERRORIST THREATS, WHICH WERE THE ALLEGED OFFENSES. THEREFORE, HER

83
STATEMENT, "OVERMASTERED HIS WILL TO RESIST COMMITTING THE ALLEGED OFFENSE
(TERRORIST THREATS)" WAS IN ERROR—AS NONE WERE EVER MADE. IF DR. WRIGHT HAD SAID
"WRITING OR SENDING THE LETTER," SHE WOULD HAVE THEN BEEN CORRECT.

DURING HIS QUESTIONING, MR. GEARY DID NOT EVEN TRY TO AMBUSH DR. WRIGHT. INSTEAD,
HE TRIED TO INTIMIDATE HER. BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGAN, HE TOLD HER THAT SHE WAS WRONG
AND THAT HE WAS GOING TO TEAR HER UP DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION. HIS ATTEMPT TO
SCARE HER APPEARS TO HAVE BACKFIRED ON HIM BECAUSE NO MATTER WHAT MR. GEARY DID
DR. WRIGHT HELD FIRM AGAINST HIM.

Fourteenth witness called by the Prosecution,

Dr. Don Hughey.

IT APPEARED THAT DR. HUGHEY WAS CALLED ONLY TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT THE
PROSECUTOR DID NO LEGAL WRONG. BUT HIS BEING SEEN BY THE JURORS CALLED BY THE
PROSECUTION ADDED ANOTHER TO THAT SIDE'S COUNT. NOT TO BE UNSTATED, THE
PROSECUTION HAD CALLED 14 WITNESSES WHILE THE DEFENSE CALLED ONLY ". LOOKS LIKE
THERE IS A 2 TO 1 RATIO OF WITNESSES WHO ARE ON THE PROSECUTOR'S SIDE. EVEN THOUGH
THE JURY MEMBERS MAY NOT HAVE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THEY ARE TO FIND MR. SATTERFIELD
GUILTY OF, IT IS REASONABLE THAT AT THIS TIME THEY WERE LEANING TOWARDS GUILT OF
SOMETHING FROM THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES AND THE LACK OF TESTIMONY IN REBUTTAL.

ALL WITNESSES HAD TESTIFIED, AND THE NEXT THINGS LEFT FOR THE JURY TO HEAR WERE THE
CLOSING REMARKS SCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT DAY.

84
 CHARGE CONFERENCE

IT IS DURING THIS CONFERENCE THAT JUDGE HOWE DECIDES THAT THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF
JUSTIFICATION APPLIES TO THE CASE. SO, AT THIS LATE DATE, AFTER ALL OF THE EVIDENCE
AND TESTIMONY HAS BEEN GONE THROUGH, THE CONCEPT OF IMMINENCE IS ATTACHED TO
THE ELEMENTS FOR THE DEFENSE OF "ACTING UNDER AN IRRESISTIBLE COMPULSION THAT
OVERMASTERED MR. SATTERFIELD'S WILL TO COMMIT THE CHARGED CRIMES." THAT TOTALLY
WIPED-OUT MR. SATTERFIELD'S DEFENSE SINCE HE WAITED ALMOST A WEEK BEFORE MAILING
THE WRITTEN LETTER.

HOW WAS IT THAT MR. KILGORE, SELF-PROCLAIMED AS ONE OF THE BEST CRIMINAL ATTORNEY
SPECIALISTS, DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THESE RULES? NOT COUNTING HIS YEARS OF EXPERIENCE,
HE HAD A YEAR TO LEARN THEM. AND NOW THAT THE JUDGE HAS MADE THAT DECISION AND
MR. KILGORE CANNOT PLEAD IGNORANCE OF WHAT IS ATTACHED TO THE ELEMENTS (HE
KNOWS HE CAN'T WIN) DOES HE FINALLY CHANGE MR. SATTERFIELD'S PLEA OR SPEAK WITH
HIM ABOUT IT? NO.

FROM MR. SATTERFIELD'S PAST, IT IS EASY TO SEE THAT AFTER READING THE LETTER HE,
ACTING IN THE CAPACITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, EXPERT
WITNESS, JUDGE, AND SO ON, WOULD HAVE REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS
AND QUIT HIS JOB, IF NECESSARY, RATHER THAN TO BE A PARTY TO A TRIAL OF AN OSTENSIBLY
INNOCENT PERSON. MR. SATTERFIELD HAD DEMONSTRATED HIS STRONG MORAL FORTITUDE
MANY TIMES BEFORE. IT'S HAS BEEN SHOWN HERE THAT NO ONE ELSE INVOLVED IN THE
PROCEEDING OF THIS CASE HAD THE SAME MORAL STANDARDS ABOUT DOING THE RIGHT
THING AS MR. SATTERFIELD.

85
 CLOSING ARGUMENTS AND RESULTS

THE OPENING AND CLOSING STATEMENTS MAKE A HUGE IMPACT ON A JUROR'S DECISION WITH
THE CLOSING MORE INFLUENTIAL BECAUSE IT, BEING LAST, IS WHAT THE JUROR REMEMBERS
MOST CLEARLY. THAT'S WHY IN A COUNTRY THAT VALUES JUSTICE THE DEFENSE PRESENTS
THEIR STATEMENTS LAST.

(Mr. Kilgore for the DEFENSE)

Page 808:1-4

Let me start off by telling you very clearly, very directly, that the Greens are nice people, and they absolutely did
not deserve to be frightened in the way that they obviously were in this case. No doubt about it.”

MR. KILGORE BEGAN HIS SPEECH BY LETTING THE JURORS KNOW HOW HORRIBLE THE WORDS
OF THE LETTER WERE AND HOW GOOD PEOPLE LIKE THE GREENS DID NOT DESERVE TO HAVE TO
GO THROUGH WHAT THEY DID, WHICH SUPPORTED THE NOTION THAT THE LETTER CONTAINED
THREATS. MR. KILGORE THEN PROJECTED HIS WRITTEN POINTS ON A WHITE SCREEN, AND
THERE IT WAS STARING OUT TO EVERYONE: A MISSPELLED WORD. JUST LIKE AS IS TAUGHT IN
SCHOOLS, TAKE A BIG WHITE POSTER AND PUT A TINY BLACK DOT SOMEWHERE ON IT AND THE
AUDIENCE WILL FOCUS THEIR ATTENTION ON THAT BLACK DOT.

TO GIVE MR. KILGORE HIS DUE, HE DID A THOROUGH JOB EVEN BRIEFLY MENTIONING THAT IF
THE JURORS FOUND NO THREAT, THEY COULD CHOOSE THE OPTION OF NOT GUILTY. THIS SAID
WHILE THAT MISSPELLED WORD WAS THE GLARING FOCUS OF ALL WHO LOOKED AT THE
SCREEN. MR. SATTERFIELD SHOOK HIS HEAD IN DISBELIEF.

KNOWING THAT THE PROSECUTOR HAD WON THE CASE ALREADY A PROFESSIONAL DEFENSE
ATTORNEY WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY NARROWED HIS CLOSING REMARKS TO
ENCOURAGING THE JURORS TO TAKE (EXCEPT FOR THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS WHERE
INVESTIGATOR CARTER AND THE EXPERTS HAD ALREADY ADMITTED THAT MR. SATTERFIELD
WAS SPEAKING ABOUT HIS PAST FEELINGS), AS THEIR FIRST STEP, THE TIME TO UNDERLINE
EACH THREAT IN THE LETTER AND NOTE TO WHOM IT WAS MADE. THE JURORS WOULD HAVE
HAD A HARD TIME FINDING WHAT WAS NOT THERE, ESPECIALLY SOMETHING BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT. FURTHERMORE, SHE WOULD HAVE POINTED OUT THE WORTHLESSNESS
OF THE STAMPS, GUN, GUN BOX, AND ENVELOPE AS EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING AND THE MISSING
AMMUNITION AS TRICKERY.

Page 823:1-6

D. Remember I asked him [Investigator Carter] to point out just one place in the letter where Mr. Satterfield, you
know, made some declaration of a present intent to harm. Remember that? I asked him to point out one place. And
he points to a line which, actually suggested a future tense threat by some other person.

86
NO, THEY WOULD NOT REMEMBER BECAUSE IT DID NOT HAPPEN.

MR. KILGORE DID EXACTLY WHAT MR. SATTERFIELD HAD INSTRUCTED HIM TO DO COMPLETELY
PROVING HIS INNOCENCE WELL OVER A YEAR EARLIER YET CHOSE TO CHANGE THE PLEA TO
GUILTY BUT INSANE THUS ALLOWING THE POSSIBILITY OF MR. SATTERFIELD BEING FOUND
GUILTY OF CRIMES HE DID NOT COMMIT.

(Mr. Geary for the PROSECUTION)

WHEN MR. GEARY INSTRUCTED THE JURORS TO READ THE LETTER, MR. SATTERFIELD SAT
STUNNED. MR. GEARY HAD THE CASE WRAPPED UP AND WAS NOW PUSHING THE JURORS TO
READ SOMETHING THAT SHOWED MR. SATTERFIELD HAD MADE NO THREATS WHATSOEVER,
MUCH LESS FIVE. IF THE JURORS READ HIS LETTER AND UNLESS COGNITIVE BIAS HAD SET IN,
THEY MIGHT SEE THE TRUTH. IN THE MR. SATTERFIELD’S OPINION, WITH THAT ONE ACT, MR.
GEARY HAD UNINTENTIONALLY DONE MORE THAN MR. KILGORE IN PROVIDING FOR THE
POSSIBILITY OF JUSTICE BEING DONE.

MR. GEARY DID AN EXCELLENT JOB IN HIS CLOSING STATEMENT OF CONVINCING THE JURY OF
MR. SATTERFIELD'S GUILT. TWISTING THE WITNESSES' STATEMENTS, TALKING ABOUT THE
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT HAD BEEN ADMITTED BY THE COURT, AND INCLUDING THE
CLOSENESS OF THE NONEXISTENT AMMUNITION TO THE GUN. SO WELL DID HE DO SO, THAT
AFTERWARDS MR. SATTERFIELD COMPLIMENTED MR. GEARY'S TALENTS BY TELLING MR.
KILGORE THAT HE HIMSELF HAD BEEN TEMPORARILY CONVINCED THAT HE HAD THREATENED
THE GREENS.

Page 838:11-13

P. Look at the other issues that show the intent. You're going to be killed around New Year's. It's December 30th.
Okay?

MR. SATTERFIELD NEVER SAID THAT. HE FELT THAT IT WAS A GOOD CHANCE OF IT HAPPENING
THEN AND PUT OFF MAILING THE LETTER, WHICH WAS THE REAL PROOF THAT HIS DEFENSE OF
INSANITY DID NOT MEET THE LEGAL STANDARDS, BUT HE DID NOT SAY WHAT THE
PROSECUTOR STATES. CHECK THE TRANSCRIPT.

Page 383:14-16

P, Fom a prior case even Dr. Richards stated, yeah, he got stopped because he had a gun in his car and he wanted to
threaten his coworkers.”

NOPE, DID NOT HAPPEN. MR. GEARY MADE THIS UP. MR. SATTERFIELD DESIRED TO "KILL" HIS
COWORKERS, BUT HE NEVER WAS PREVENTED FROM DOING SO BECAUSE OF HAVING A GUN
NOR BEING STOPPED. INSTEAD, HE SOUGHT HELP FROM HIS PSYCHIATRIST. CHECK THE
TRANSCRIPT

87
.
Page 838:24-25

P. He blamed the judge for the divorce even though he filed the divorce. All he had to do was dismiss it.

THE READER KNOWS MR. SATTERFIELD DID NOT BLAME JUDGE GREEN FOR THE DIVORCE, BUT
WHAT'S MORE IS THAT MR. SATTERFIELD WAS IN SUCH A MISERABLE MENTAL SHAPE HE TOLD
HIS ATTORNEY, MR. TED HERBERT, TO DISMISS THE CASE, WHICH MR. HERBERT REFUSED TO DO.

Page 339:8-11

P. So he moved out. He had no place to live. Why? Read the letter. He knew he was going to jail. All his belongings
were there, he took them over to his ex-wife's house.

IF ALL HIS BELONGINGS WERE AT HIS EX-WIFE'S HOUSE, WHY JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION THAT
HE WAS HOMELESS? MR. SATTERFIELD HAD HIS MOTHER, BROTHER, SISTER, DAUGHTER, AND
MORE THAN LIKELY HIS EX-MOTHER-IN-LAW WITH WHOM HE COULD HAVE LIVED. ALSO, HE
HAD HIS DISABILITY CHECK COMING MONTHLY UNTIL HIS ARREST.

ONCE MORE THE JURORS HAD BEEN INFORMED ABOUT THE CASE BEING BETWEEN A
WONDERFUL FAMILY AND A HOMELESS, MENTALLY ILL PARIAH—-A DRAIN ON SOCIETY.

Page 842:11, 12

“ . . . He just said: I have anger for this Judge, and I need anger management.”

NOPE. DID NOT HAPPEN. CHECK THE TRANSCRIPT.

Page 842:18, 19

P. . . He told Rene Christian: I'm fine. I'm just angry.”

NOPE. DID NOT HAPPEN. CHECK THE TRANSCRIPT.

Page 843:1, 2

P. What do I mean? Dr. Linda Thomas, look at how much time she spent with him.

TEN MINUTES. THAT'S WHAT IRRITATED MR. SATTERFIELD ABOUT HER.

Page 844:6, 7

TALKING ABOUT PSYCHIATRIST AS MEDICAL DOCTORS

.

88
P. . . Look how much more qualified they are than a Ph.D.

Page 845:1, 2

P Six medical doctors with all of that training and residency say no delusion.

AHH, THE GIFT OF SENTENCE CONSTRUCTION FOR DECEPTION. SUCH A WONDERFUL TOOL FOR
FINDING JUSTICE. NOT!

WELL USED BY PROSECUTORS THROUGHOUT THE USA. THESE MEDICAL DOCTORS DID NOT SAY
"NO" DELUSION. THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T SEE ANY DELUSIONS IN THE "PAST" AND ONLY WITHIN
THE FEW MINUTES OF THEIR CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. SATTERFIELD. THEY DID NOT SAY THAT
MR. SATTERFIELD DID NOT HAVE "A" DELUSION, NOR THAT A PATIENT CAN ONLY HAVE A
DELUSION IF THEY HAVE ALREADY HAD ONE. THIS IS THE APPEAL TO IGNORANCE FALLACY.
EXAMPLE: JUST BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T SEE THE APPLE FALL OFF OF THE TREE DOESN'T MEAN IT
DIDN'T HAPPEN, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS LAYING ON THE GROUND UNDER THE TREE.

AS A PLUG FOR THE PHDS, THEIR EDUCATION COVERS PRIMARILY THE MIND AND PERSONALLY
INSTEAD OF BODY PARTS, DRUGS, CHEMISTRY, ETC., WHICH MEDICAL DOCTORS SPEND MOST OF
THEIR TIME STUDYING. AND SINCE IT WAS COUNSELORS (PHDS) WHO HELPED MR. SATTERFIELD
THE MOST THEY APPEARED TO BE THE REAL EXPERTS.

COMPARE A DENTIST TO A MD WHEN NEEDING A PAINFULLY THROBBING TOOTH FILLED.

Page 846:16-18

P. She [Dr. Dorney] even cited Richard's report that said there was evidence of malingering. Even Richards says
that.”

THAT WAS LIE. DR. RICHARDS DID NOT SAY THAT! HE EVEN DID TESTS TO REMOVE THE
POSSIBILITY OF MR. SATTERFIELD MALINGERING.

Page 846:18-21

P. The only inconsistency is what happened with three PhDs after he was arrested, after he has a motive to lie. Dr.
Dorney simply saw through that motive.”

OKAY? WHAT WAS THIS "MOTIVE TO LIE"? REMEMBER THE PROSECUTOR HIMSELF CORRECTED
DR. DORNEY ON THIS ALLEGATION.

Page 848:4, 5

P. But what did Richards do? He wouldn't give an inch, because he was an advocate.”

89
IN NORTH AMERICA, PEOPLE WHO WON'T CHANGE THEIR MIND OR GIVE IN TO SOMETHING THAT
THEY KNOW IS WRONG ARE BAD PEOPLE.

Pages 848:24 - 849:7

P. Dr. Richard's own record very clearly stated remember we read it that Mr. Satterfield stated, this the quote,
unequivocally, that he had decided to kill Judge Green's family and children because he believed Judge Green was
in league with the attorneys in his, [sic] and they acted against his interest. That was why he did this. For a past
event. If you want to get even with someone for a past event, it is called, in the English language, revenge.”

MR. GEARY KNOWINGLY MISREPRESENTS DR. RICHARDS' TESTIMONY TO INDICATE MR.

SATTERFIELD HAD A PRESENT INTENT TO KILL THE JUDGE AND HIS FAMILY. IF A PROSECUTOR
CAN DO THAT IN AMERICA, DON'T ALL AMERICANS FEEL JUSTIFIED IN DOING THE SAME?

Page 849:22-25

P. The defendant had a belief that he was wronged in his divorce. That does not mean that the belief itself rose to a
delusion. Many people believe they got the short end of the divorce.”

OKAY. YES, MR. SATTERFIELD FELT THAT JUDGE GREEN HAD DONE HIM AND OTHERS WRONG,
AND JUDGE GREEN DID, BUT WHAT IS THIS ABOUT A "SHORT END OF THE DIVORCE"? MS.
SATTERFIELD COULD HAVE HAD EVERYTHING AS FAR AS MR. SATTERFIELD WAS CONCERNED IF
THAT WAS WHAT A JUDGE AWARDED HER, HIS UNBIASED OPINION WAS FAIR, THAT IS, BASED
ON ALL THE FACTS. IT WAS JUDGE GREEN WHO HAD EARLIER COMPLAINED THAT MR.
SATTERFIELD HAD BASICALLY PRESENTED ALL THE FACTS.

Page 861:23, 24

P. You have to follow the law.

NOTICE THAT NORTH AMERICAN JURORS WHO ARE TO BASE THEIR DECISIONS ON THE LAW
DON'T KNOW THE LAW. IT HAS BEEN SHOWN HERE THAT EVEN THE ATTORNEYS DIDN'T KNOW
THE LAW PERTAINING TO THIS CASE AND DIDN'T LEARN IT (ALL OF IT) UNTIL AFTER THE JURORS
LEFT TO DELIBERATE.

Page 864:15-17

P. Ten days later, on December 30th, he puts that plan in action. He says: I will be going to jail. I will enjoy it.

THE PROSECUTOR AGAIN DECEIVES (NOTE: THE WORD DEVIL TRANSLATES AS DECEIVER) THE
JURORS IN TO THINKING THAT MR. SATTERFIELD WAS SAYING "GOING TO JAIL" FOR IN THE
FUTURE WHILE THE PROSECUTOR KNEW THAT MR. SATTERFIELD WAS REFERRING TO THE
THOUGHTS HE HAD THAT LED HIM TO SEEK HELP THE MONTH BEFORE. ALSO, MR. SATTERFIELD
NOW ENJOYS SUFFERING IN DOING GOD’S WILL.

90
Page 866:11-14

P. As the judge said, If you follow the law, you will do that justice. You will either return a verdict of guilty or a
verdict of guilty but mentally ill, because that's what justice demands.

AT THE VERY END OF HIS CLOSING STATEMENT, MR. GEARY, AGAIN, USES LINGUISTIC GAMES
TO DECEIVE. JUDGE HOWE HAD NOT SAID ALL OF THAT. HE NEVER LIMITED THE CHOICES TO
ONLY TWO.

AFTER THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS, JUDGE HOWE GAVE THE FORMAL JURY INSTRUCTION, WHICH,
EVEN THOUGH CRITICISM HAS BEEN MADE, IS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN. THE READER IS
ENCOURAGED TO READ THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT FOR MANY OTHER QUESTIONABLE
OCCURRENCES THAT HAPPENED.

C. “The burden of proof rests upon the State to prove every material allegation of the indictment and every essential
element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt (which should have been easy since Mr. Satterfield had pled
guilty and was forbidden to prove otherwise). There is no burden to prove upon the defendant whatsoever.
Now, I modified that because the defense does have a burden to prove about preponderance of the evidence his
insanity.

IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR MR. SATTERFIELD TO PROVE HIS INSANITY AT THE TIME HE WAS
DELUSIONAL AS HE WAS ALONE WHEN IT BEGAN AND NEVER DISCUSSED WHAT HE THOUGHT
WAS REALITY. HE DID NOT WANT TO WORRY HIS WIFE ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE MIGHT BE
MURDERED BY THE POLICE SOON.

THE NEXT DAY THE JURORS FOUND MR. SATTERFIELD GUILTY ON ALL CHARGES.

DAYS LATER THE SENTENCING HEARING OCCURRED AND THERE WERE ONLY A FEW NOTABLE
PARTICULARITIES. FIRST, BECAUSE MR. SATTERFIELD WAS APATHETIC TO THE HAPPENINGS
AND IN A JOVIAL MOOD, THE SURPRISED MR. KILGORE ASKED HIM WHY HE FELT LIKE HE DID
AND MR. SATTERFIELD'S VOUCHSAFED REPLY WAS: "BECAUSE LAST NIGHT, GOD'S SERVANT
TOLD ME I WOULD GET 10 YEARS AND TO CONTINUE TO WAIT ON THE LORD."

THE SECOND NOTABLE THING WAS THAT THE PEWS WERE FILLED WITH THE COTERIE OF COBB
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES. APPARENTLY, APPEARING TO JOINTLY SHOW THEIR
AUTOMATIC ENMITY TOWARDS ANYBODY IN CONFLICT WITH ONE OF THEIR MEMBERS BY
MAKING A SHOWING TO ENCOURAGE JUDGE HOWE IN GIVING A HEFTY SENTENCE (THIS IS A USE
OF THE BANDWAGON FALLACY).

FINALLY, AFTER MR. KILGORE EXPRESSED TO JUDGE HOWE THAT FROM HIS EXTENSIVE
RESEARCH, HE FOUND THAT THE USUAL JAIL TIME IMPOSED BY JUDGES IN COBB COUNTY WAS
ONE TO TWO YEARS, MR. SATTERFIELD WAS SENTENCED TO A TOTAL OF 35 YEARS.

91
EARLIER, THE PROSECUTOR ADMITTED THAT HE HAD SEARCHED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE
UNITED STATES AND COULD NOT FIND EVEN A PARKING TICKET AGAINST THE REVEREND. SO
WHY SUCH A HARSH SENTENCE? (WAS IT TO IMPRESS THE COBB COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
JUDGES WHO HAD ALL IT APPEARED ATTENDED THE HEARING TO INFLUENCE JUDGE HOWE?)

THIS BEING MR. SATTERFIELD'S FIRST OFFENSE, BY STATE LAW, MR. SATTERFIELD'S ACTUAL
TIME WAS REDUCED TO 10 YEARS WITH EIGHT SERVED INCARCERATED AND, BECAUSE OF
JUDGE HOWE’S KINDLY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION MR. SATTERFIELD'S MENTAL ILLNESS,
TWO ON PROBATION. THE LAUDABLE MR. SATTERFIELD GRINNED ONE OF THE BIGGEST GRINS IN
HIS LIFE FOR HE KNEW THAT GOD WOULD GIVE EACH AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPENT THEIR SINS,
THEN, IF NOT, SHE WOULD REVEAL HER JUDGMENT AGAINST THEM.

FOR THE SUPERCILIOUS MACHIAVELLIANS TO HAVE AVIATED MR. SATTERFIELD FOR TEN YEARS
MUST HAVE BEEN A TOTAL VICTORY FOR THERE WAS A GOOD CHANCE THAT THIS SUPPOSED
HOMELESS, DESOLATE, UNEDUCATED, DERANGED, ELDERLY TROUBLEMAKER COULD EASILY
PERISH IN PRISON AND NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN. THEY WERE WRONG, WEREN'T THEY?

NOW CIRCLE WHO YOU THINK WAS REALLY GUILTY OF WRONG-DOING.

James Satterfield
Nathan Deal
Sonny Perdue
Ruben Green
Philip Taylor
Donald Howe
Maddox Kilgore
Carlos Rodriguez
Vic Reynolds
Don Geary
Julie Rand-Dorney
Kevin Richards
Inspector William Paul Carter
Deputy Jeffrey Potter
Detective Berry
Heidi Green
Deborah Green
Others

THE READER MAY WONDER WHY AN OPTION OF “OTHERS” IS AVAILABLE. WHAT IS NOT
REVEALED IN THIS ABRIDGED EDITION IS THE FACT THAT MR. SATTERFIELD WAS FIRST

92
GIVEN AN APPOINTED ATTORNEY FROM CHEROKEE COUNTY TO HANDLE THIS SIMPLE
CASE, AND WHO WAS LATER REPLACED WITH MR. KILGORE. THOUGH MR. SATTERFIELD
FOUGHT THE CHANGE, MR. KILGORE BAGGERED HIM INTO ACCEPTING HIM AS HIS
ATTORNEY. WHOEVER HAD THE POLITICAL CLOUT TO DEMAND THAT MR. KILGORE
TAKE OVER THE CASE SO AS TO LOSE IT IS THE OTHER. FEW PEOPLE KNOW WHO THIS
PERSON IS AND UNLESS MR. KILGORE REVEALS THE PERSON’S IDENTITY, WE WILL
NEVER KNOW HIS/HER NAME.

IN AN UNRELATED INCIDENT, THE ATLANTA JOURNAL AND CONSTITUTION LATER

REPORTED THAT MARIETTA LAWYER JOHN MERCHANT SAID, “THIS SMACKS OF POLITICS
AND SHOWS THAT ALL THE AGENCIES IN COBB COUNTY WILL DO WHATEVER JUDGE
GREEN TELLS THEM TO DO.” HOW MANY OTHER DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN UNJUSTLY
IMPRISONED JUST AS MR. SATTERFIELD WAS BY THE COBB COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
JUDGE’S CLICK?

FORTUNATELY, AFTER MANY ETHIC COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGE GREEN, THE PWT OF
COBB COUNTY JOINED WITH THEIR BLACK NEIGHBORS TO ELECT JUDGE ANGELA Z.
BROWN IN JUNE 2020 TO THE POSITION OF COBB COUNTY’S SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE.

UNFORTUNATELY, JUST AS JUDGE GREEN, JUDGE BROWN IS A “PERSON OF FAITH” AND

BEING THE DAUGHTER OF A SCHOOL TEACHER AND TUSKEGEE AIRMAN GREW UP IN
PRIVILEGE -- SO HER ETHICS TOO ARE TO BE WATCHED. SHE WORKED MANY YEARS IN
BOTH COBB AND DEKALB COUNTY FOR JUDGESHIPS AND NOW HAVING OBTAINED THIS
HIGH OFFICE WILL SHE STAND UP FOR EQUAL JUSTICE OR JUST BECOME A BLACK
MEMBER OF THE JUDICIAL CLICK WITH HOPES OF MOVING UP EVEN HIGHER IN THE
POLITICAL WORLD.

The trial transcripts show many more examples of a conspiracy, and one is encouraged to read it in its
entirety. However, it really does not matter for remember, Mr. Satterfield was illegally arrested in the first
place and should never have gone to trial.

Furthermore, if you think Mr. Satterfield’s trial was a farce and that only the Cobb County Superior Judges
are corrupt, wait until you read about the antic of the members of the Georgia Appeals Court in:

93
 PERSONS OF INTEREST

Georgia State Appeals Court Judges:

Christopher J. McFadden
Brian M. Rickman
Anne Elizabeth Barnes
M. Yvette Miller
Sara L. Doyle
Stephen Louis A. Dillard
Amanda H. Mercier
Clyde L. Reese
E. Trenton Brown, III
Elizabeth Gobeil
Herbert E. Phipps
Todd Markle
Trea Pipkin
Kenneth B. Hodges, III
Verda M. Colvin

BOOK TWO OF:

WHO KIPNAPPED JAMES SATTERFIELD;

YOU DECIDE WHO IS GUILTY!

A Challenge of Wits with Educational Benefits

94
As will be proven in this book, the person who made sure that Mr. Satterfield would be put away for a long
time must have a lot of power or the judges on the Appeals Court are extremely stupid. There is no third
option.

95