Translation: The judge told the jury what the law is, rather than leaving that to Pete.iplawyer wrote:From Pete to the Lost Heads:
Five hours after being given the following instructions over my strenuous objection and demand that the jurors be provided the actual language of the statutes
(1) Bad judge.
Translation: Two jurors designated as alternates (which can happen either before the trial starts or immediately before deliberations, depending on statute, local practice and/or the judge) were discharged, as they must be. Those, of course, were my two best jurors, which became clear as soon as they were discharged. The rest were nitwits....and after the two most attentive jurors-- one of whom had actually asked during the trial to see the language of 3401 and 3121, and been rebuffed-- were bumped as alternates, the jury in my trial came back with guilty verdicts on all counts.
(2) Bad jury.
(3) Molehills => mountains.It was also after an extended introduction of documents by a State of Michigan "disclosure officer" blah blah blah. Further, although the "disclosure officer" testified that Michigan had made "assessments" concerning Doreen and me blah blah blah. Indeed, included in the document dump provided by the government blah blah blah. The prosecution also presented a "disclosure officer" from the IRS, who bored and bewildered everyone blah blah blah. The 2005 and 2006 transcripts show "Substitutes for Return" listed as the data source based on the fiction that blah blah blah. On another interesting subject, one IRS witness testified that, conservatively estimated blah blah blah.
(4) Blame the lawyers. Forget that it is highly likely that the defendant's book is inadmissible, on multiple grounds. He can testify to what he claims to believe. And I certainly agree that Pete's lawyers should have advised him to drone on for hour after hour, rather than "keeping [his] testimony simple". Of course, if they had advised him to drone on, he would have blamed them for not advising him to keep it simple.CtC itself never made it to the jury, nor any portions of the book. This was in part, at least, just a screw-up on the part of my legal help, who forgot to publish to the jury selected chapters that had been prepared as exhibits when the opportunity to do so arose.... I hadn't taken the opportunity during my own testimony to discuss the nuances of the law in any depth, due to a recommended approach of keeping that testimony simple, while relying on the published material to cover the details.
(5) Peter ****ing AgonistesNeedless to say, I'm not happy, and my family is in serious distress. But we will persevere, and intend to appeal over the matter of the instructions above, and other issues, as well.... I stepped forward and pulled back that curtain, and now the liars are trying to cut off my hand so that the curtain can drop back into place and their exploitations can continue unhindered. I need my fellows to help, right now.
Barf.But conscience asks the question - is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right."
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
