Imagine you’re prosecuted by a team of professional litigators with millions in resources to use against you. You’ve never had a trial before and the prosecutor’s team is planning on bringing forty (40) witnesses in to testify against you. To add insult to injury, the only media coverage is slanted against you.
With the first twenty seven witnesses, when you ask about facts proving two essential elements of the code violations, the prosecutor objects on grounds the witnesses have no relevant testimony. When the last prosecution witness is on cross-examination, you ask for the facts and the witness claims the testimony of the previous twenty seven witnesses.
Despite no evidence proving two elements of the code violations, the judge, over your objection, still gives the matter to the jury who then hang on the more serious felony accusations. You think the more stressful part is over, but it’s not, it’s just getting started. The lawyers who traumatized your family want to do it again, with the same witnesses who had no relevant testimony to prove two elements of the crimes. That is what is being done to Michael Fitzpatrick of Sandpoint, Idaho.
It’s like the Twilight Zone, where the lawyers attacking you conflate facts with the opinions of lawyers. The rules do not matter when lawyers accuse you. You would think the application of rule 602 of the Federal Rules of Evidence would be enough:
“A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own testimony.”
The new judge, a lawyer named Larry Alan Burns, doesn’t care though, he has not ruled on the motion to exclude the witnesses even though they are not qualified under the rules. Larry, like the other lawyers involved with the attack against Mike Fitzpatrick, conflates lawyer opinions with facts and engages in circular logic as he believes the code is applicable because the code says so.
There is a pretrial conference scheduled for Monday January 7, 2013 in the Coeur d’Alene, Idaho district court. Will Larry permit Lori Hendrickson to rely on witnesses Lori and the previous judge, lawyer Edward Lodge, ruled had no relevant facts to prove two elements of the alleged code violations? Larry has already shown himself to be little more than a rubber stamp for Lori Hendrickson, a prosecutor from Washington, DC.
If Larry continues rejecting Mike’s motions though, then the next day, January 8, 2013, a new trial will start and Lori Hendrickson will be relying on the same twenty-eight witnesses as before. If that is the case, if you are in the Coeur d’Alene area, then you’ll be able to witness first hand the gross corruption that is the American legal system first hand.
Mike is accused of violating a code Lori has no facts proving applies to Mike. That is not only an element of the code violation that must be proven with facts beyond a reasonable doubt, but without those facts jurisdiction cannot be proven. What will probably happen in that Coeur d’Alene court starting Tuesday will be another circus where Lori and Larry will do everything they can to divert attention away from Lori’s lack of evidence the code is applicable to Mike.
If so, maybe the jury will again have the guts to stand up to these lawyers forcing them to participate and refuse to convict.
But I have to also include here what I believe is some real irony (the recording is below). I spoke with a tax agent today and she claimed she and her associates (a tax agency) do not steal. So I asked her a simple question: “If I did business in the same manner that you guys did by forcing people, under threat, to pay me, would I be considered a criminal?” Her response?
“I’m not going to argue with you.”
Asking a question is arguing to a bureaucrat. We know the answer yes, if I forced people to pay me, I would be a criminal. But why would someone actively engaged in a criminal enterprise admit the obvious truth? People calling themselves governments are gangs of killers, thieves and liars and it’s understandable they do not want to admit it.
That’s why it’s so ironic people like Larry and Lori, who are paid only because millions of people are forced to pay them, are calling Mike a criminal.