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.
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:17 pm
Amen.
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:35 pm
It’s not a “judicial system”, it’s a crime syndicate. When deadly force is applicable in any police encounter, be it a speeding ticket, or an unpaid parking ticket, or even a “wrong address” and a gang mentality on steroids is their way of “serving the public”, something is seriously wrong. Police are more deadly than the criminals.
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:38 pm
Watch this dash cam clip.http://www.copblock.org/25639/police-brutality-punched-with-taser-west-palm-beach-florida-120912/
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:55 pm
does this shmuck understand that he can be sued personally for a violation of is oath of office and never be able to hold a so called public office again? despicable, just patently despicable!
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:34 pm
Why not go into court Propria Persona, Pro per (Proper Person) and ask if this an Article 3 Section 2 court, and ask for Proof of an Adverment of Jurisdiction, by the way of a Delegation of Authority Order and Prove there Status. The court can’t move forward, without one..lol Throw in Subject matter jurisdiction on the Prosecutor. He doesn’t have that either. This deals with Subject matter.
http://www.nacrs.org/docs/CarltonWeissNACRS2008.pdf
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:47 pm
Marc,
Great question on the phone, but next time maybe?… follow up with… “Just as a judge or an attorney decides a person has answered a question in agreement because they acquiesced, then I would thank you very much for your agreement.”
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:53 pm
Of course you throw in that your making a “Special” Appearance to the court, in Proper Person. This puts the courts on Notice that you are Challenging, Status. These are not True Courts, so why treat them as they are. Court can’t move forward until they place a D.O.A.O into the record. And they don’t have one! Call there FU@@ing bluff!
Without a “Real”crime, they don’t have NOTHING! Sad to say, even in a Real Crime, They Don’t have Nothing.. 27 CFR 72.11 all crimes are commercial events.
Proper court Procedure.. Status, Jurisdiction/Venue, then you can go pro se. But as Marc points out, where’s the corpus something, I’m drunk..lol
January 4th, 2013 at 3:25 am
Regards the phone call: How stupid are these people?
Run-of-the-mill criminals, that is, petty criminals, know when they’re caught red handed with their hand in the cookie jar. The cat burglar, car thief or bank robber caught in the act. They are not stupid. They don’t pretend they aren’t caught.
You can’t fix stupid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL6wbsGx9qw
January 4th, 2013 at 6:49 am
Larry has a great shit eating grin.
January 4th, 2013 at 7:37 am
” lawyers attacking you conflate facts with the opinions of lawyers. ”
This is reason #1 for why people continue to get screwed by the courts in ANY type of proceeding.
Statements of attorneys are not facts.
January 4th, 2013 at 8:09 am
DUI, what is “D.O.A.O into the record”. thanks, dr. mike
January 4th, 2013 at 8:53 am
@Marc, The frustration in your voice at the end is apparent. Damn!
January 4th, 2013 at 11:15 am
Nice Marc. It’s good that you and many others are keeping this in front of these criminals.
Thus says the LORD-
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter, Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight!”
Isaiah 5:20,21
Jesus didn’t have much toleration for lawyers and unjust men in ‘so called authority’. Matthew 23
Making headway a little at a time.
Nice info DUI.
January 4th, 2013 at 2:47 pm
Marc,
Will you be able to record the pre-trial conference?
January 4th, 2013 at 2:59 pm
Mike,
I know I’m not in the crucible like you and I’ve never been in this kind of “trial” (i.e., inquisition/witch burning) situation and I know that Marc has mucho good advice but if it does come down to a trial, in my opening statement to the jury, I’d make sure to hammer home the point that “the judge and prosecutor refused to answer questions, withheld evidence, did not let me depose witnesses, did not answer discovery, outright lied (I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to assume that they did), etc.” In addition, I might (if I didn’t die from their intimidation) tell the jury that the judge admitted that there was a conflict of interest in this case and refused to recuse himself because of it (all you veteran NSPers know what I mean). In fact I’d think you could say to the jury “watch this;” and then pose to the judge right there in front of the jury the questions “can I get a fair trial if there is a conflict of interest?” etc. etc.
I know this is in the category of throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks but I think it’s justified in this case (all of us of course are hoping that it never gets to the trial stage).
January 4th, 2013 at 4:11 pm
@ sidewinder – I won’t be there.
January 4th, 2013 at 4:12 pm
@ side – we do make those statements and tell the jury exactly what to expect, how the lawyers all work together.
January 5th, 2013 at 11:41 am
Marc,
I meant to ask if Mike is going to be able to record the conference.
February 2nd, 2013 at 9:07 pm
On March 20th 2011, I was ticketed for no Drivers License, No Registration and no Insurance, they ended charging me for not having insurance and suspended the privilege to drive that I never had, accepted or wanted. But I didn’t find out my privilege was suspended untill December 7, 2012 when I was stopped again, They said it was because I had a South Carolina ID card. So I did A FOIA request to the South Carolina DMV, and asked them if a South Carolina ID card was related in any way to the privilege to drive and their response was the ID card bears no relation to the privilege to Drive. So now South Carolina is trying to charge me with Driving under Suspention 2nd offense. Now I’m going to court Feb 7th, 2013 to fight that traffic ticket.
I have already put in Motions for the State to prove Subject matter Jurisdiction and Standing, when I go to court I’m going to ask the officer how he proved the applicability of the SC Title 56 motor vehicle code and if he filed a valid cause of action/how many elements are there to a valid cause of action?
I may need to ask you a couple of questions Marc
February 3rd, 2013 at 8:54 am
@those who say all crimes are commercial per 27 CFR 72.11
Although It lists many crimes, It does not list all or implicate all crimes.
see http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/72.11. We must be more precise in what we say because they certainly are.
It is interesting to note that this section begins with Ҥ 72.11
Meaning of terms.” It proceeds to actually define terms and when it gets to “commercial crimes” all it does is list examples. It never actually defines what a commercial crime is. I dont see commerce or commercial listed in the definitions.
Just an observation.
April 23rd, 2013 at 2:51 pm
Here is something I found online about this corrupt Judge “AKA Larry burns” It seems that he has a dirty track record.
LARRY A. BURNS IS A CRIMINAL HIDING BENEATH A JUDGE’S ROBE
http://www.frominside.com/larry.htm
WHEN JUDGES GO BAD
http://www.frominside.com/whenjudges.htm