...my mother was found guilty. I don't know how, really...I'm angry and confused, mostly. As you can imagine, I need some time to process this outcome before I can do a full report.
For now, I'll just say sure was interrupted three times by the Prosecution during her closing argument, and once, they even went to side bar (Google it). In their closing, the government did the same things they objected to my mom doing, but she didn't know the terms to object. They attacked her character, misrepresented facts, and appealed to the jury's pride, jealousy, and spite. It was...truly low.
More later, I promise.
P.S. A quick chuckle, perhaps: it turns out that Melissa Siskind, the primary Prosecutor, when she was looking at my Facebook, accidentally sent me a friend request. She deleted it, of course, but I still got the notification. So, that answers a couple questions, I suppose.
(Days 3 & 4 here...)
Friday, July 25, 2014
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Trial of First Amendment Rights: Days 3 & 4
Day 3:
As it turns out, there was not much else to report besides what was mentioned here.
Day 4:
Today, it was the Defendant's turn to bring forth her witnesses and evidence. The questioning was straightforward, primarily going to the Defendant's state of mind regarding the court order that led her to this situation. The cross-examination by the Prosecution, however, was a little bit messy.
It seems the Prosecution has decided that ad hominem attacks are the best course of action in this case, as for each witness that they could manage it, they found pieces of writing done by the witnesses, and attempted to use those to damage the witnesses' credibility.
For example, they found this blog, and accused the author of encouraging jurors to lie during jury selection (see Day 1). The author, of course, said she would never encourage anyone to lie, and later clarified that, while such writing was perhaps rash, she has, like her family, been rather frustrated by this whole situation. Regardless, she meant no harm, and only hoped for truth and justice.
Perhaps even more interestingly, though, the Prosecution also mentioned the fact that the author desired assistance from the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) in informing the jury regarding their right to make their verdict based on the lawfulness and/or constitutionality of a law or order, and could disregard a court's instruction if they so chose. So, seeing as FIJA was unfortunately unable to distribute literature describing such rights, it was in fact serendipitous that the Prosecution questioned the author regarding that post, as it gave her the opportunity to explain it to the jury herself in open court, on the record.
Next came the questioning of the Defendant by her assisting counsel, which was a bit bumpy due to some interrupting objections and evidentiary disagreements, but ultimately allowed the Defendant to explain herself in her own words to the jury regarding all aspects of the case. This appeared effective, and we shall see what the Prosecution asks tomorrow.
Finally, the jury left, and so began the hashing out of Jury Instructions. The Defendant and the Prosecution agreed on many points, but unfortunately, despite extremely reasonable and well-made arguments on the part of the Defendant regarding such crucial topics as the lawfulness of the given order and the willfulness element in a case of contempt, for example, the judge ruled in the Prosecution's favor in each case. Considering the comparitively weak arguments made by the Prosecution, the author can only conclude that there is bias involved, but hopes that the jury is able to overcome such evils, and bring justice to this case.
VERDICT
As it turns out, there was not much else to report besides what was mentioned here.
Day 4:
Today, it was the Defendant's turn to bring forth her witnesses and evidence. The questioning was straightforward, primarily going to the Defendant's state of mind regarding the court order that led her to this situation. The cross-examination by the Prosecution, however, was a little bit messy.
It seems the Prosecution has decided that ad hominem attacks are the best course of action in this case, as for each witness that they could manage it, they found pieces of writing done by the witnesses, and attempted to use those to damage the witnesses' credibility.
For example, they found this blog, and accused the author of encouraging jurors to lie during jury selection (see Day 1). The author, of course, said she would never encourage anyone to lie, and later clarified that, while such writing was perhaps rash, she has, like her family, been rather frustrated by this whole situation. Regardless, she meant no harm, and only hoped for truth and justice.
Perhaps even more interestingly, though, the Prosecution also mentioned the fact that the author desired assistance from the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) in informing the jury regarding their right to make their verdict based on the lawfulness and/or constitutionality of a law or order, and could disregard a court's instruction if they so chose. So, seeing as FIJA was unfortunately unable to distribute literature describing such rights, it was in fact serendipitous that the Prosecution questioned the author regarding that post, as it gave her the opportunity to explain it to the jury herself in open court, on the record.
Next came the questioning of the Defendant by her assisting counsel, which was a bit bumpy due to some interrupting objections and evidentiary disagreements, but ultimately allowed the Defendant to explain herself in her own words to the jury regarding all aspects of the case. This appeared effective, and we shall see what the Prosecution asks tomorrow.
Finally, the jury left, and so began the hashing out of Jury Instructions. The Defendant and the Prosecution agreed on many points, but unfortunately, despite extremely reasonable and well-made arguments on the part of the Defendant regarding such crucial topics as the lawfulness of the given order and the willfulness element in a case of contempt, for example, the judge ruled in the Prosecution's favor in each case. Considering the comparitively weak arguments made by the Prosecution, the author can only conclude that there is bias involved, but hopes that the jury is able to overcome such evils, and bring justice to this case.
VERDICT
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Day 3 Update Coming Soon...
Hello, friends!
I don't know whether any of you are in different time zones, but where I am, it's 2:28am, and I've just finished prepping copies of exhibits for tomorrow, and I still have to get at least some sleep, so I'll post updates for Days 3 and 4 tomorrow. The super-short report of Day 3 is, though, that the government witnesses took the whole day, and of course were shady and dodgy the majority of that time. So, business as usual.
More on the morrow!
In the meantime, here's Day 2.
I don't know whether any of you are in different time zones, but where I am, it's 2:28am, and I've just finished prepping copies of exhibits for tomorrow, and I still have to get at least some sleep, so I'll post updates for Days 3 and 4 tomorrow. The super-short report of Day 3 is, though, that the government witnesses took the whole day, and of course were shady and dodgy the majority of that time. So, business as usual.
More on the morrow!
In the meantime, here's Day 2.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Trial of First Amendment Rights: Day 2
Day 1
A short report today, as much of the day consisted of an IRS agent droning on like a futuristic Amazon delivery, confirming that the Prosecution's exhibits were indeed what the Prosecution claimed them to be. It is interesting to note, though, that during this thorough examination of records and testimony, the judge was actually seen tipping her head back, appearing to be asleep!
Still, it must be noted that she did not actually sleep through the whole trial. She in fact managed to join the Prosecution in objecting to the Defendant's opening statement (a total of seven objections/interruptions). The reason given for the objections was that the statement was "too much like a closing argument." Finally, the judge simply told the Defendant she could not continue, even though she wasn't even halfway done.
However, we will end on a note of amusement. During the Prosecution's questioning of the aforementioned IRS agent, some of the pieces of evidence they claimed were IRS records were, in fact, copies of refund checks posted to the Defendant's husband's website (which the Defendant promptly pointed out). So, I suppose it's a good thing those exhibits were verified, after all.
Day 3
A short report today, as much of the day consisted of an IRS agent droning on like a futuristic Amazon delivery, confirming that the Prosecution's exhibits were indeed what the Prosecution claimed them to be. It is interesting to note, though, that during this thorough examination of records and testimony, the judge was actually seen tipping her head back, appearing to be asleep!
Still, it must be noted that she did not actually sleep through the whole trial. She in fact managed to join the Prosecution in objecting to the Defendant's opening statement (a total of seven objections/interruptions). The reason given for the objections was that the statement was "too much like a closing argument." Finally, the judge simply told the Defendant she could not continue, even though she wasn't even halfway done.
However, we will end on a note of amusement. During the Prosecution's questioning of the aforementioned IRS agent, some of the pieces of evidence they claimed were IRS records were, in fact, copies of refund checks posted to the Defendant's husband's website (which the Defendant promptly pointed out). So, I suppose it's a good thing those exhibits were verified, after all.
Day 3
Monday, July 21, 2014
Trial of First Amendment Rights: Day 1
Background
Day 1
According to reports, the trial didn't really begin today because the opposing parties eliminated so many potential jurors during selection that they ran out, and will continue tomorrow. However, the Defendant has only one remaining elimination, and the Prosecutor two, so proceedings will certainly get off the ground tomorrow.
However, prior to jury selection, the Prosecution introduced some pre-trial motions, as well as the prior testimony of a witness they intended to call to the stand. The motions were in regards to the content of the Defendant's opening statement from October 2013's trial, asking the court to prohibit the Defendant from making certain claims in this round's statement. The Defendant had been filing motions for months leading up to this trial, giving the Prosecution plenty of time to incorporate her requests, but the Prosecution chose to spring their requested changes on the Defendant potentially hours before opening statements were to be given. The reader may conclude, as the author has, this was a dirty, cheap tactic employed to make the Defendant flustered and unprepared.
The other introduction was that of the new witness' testimony, which the Defendant have never before seen. It was approximately 300 pages long. Of course, had the trial commenced, she would have been able to request adjournment until she'd had time to read this extensive document, but the tactic employed here was, of course, the same as in the introduction of the impromptu motions. One has to wonder, if the Prosecution is stooping to such tactics in an attempt to gain the upper hand, how secure can they really feel about their case?
And finally, a PSA: if you are a potential juror in a federal case, and you really don't like the government or one of its extensions, don't say you don't like them when you're being interviewed during selection, as some would-be jurors did today (and for which they were promptly eliminated by the Prosecution). That's just silly.
Day 2
Day 1
According to reports, the trial didn't really begin today because the opposing parties eliminated so many potential jurors during selection that they ran out, and will continue tomorrow. However, the Defendant has only one remaining elimination, and the Prosecutor two, so proceedings will certainly get off the ground tomorrow.
However, prior to jury selection, the Prosecution introduced some pre-trial motions, as well as the prior testimony of a witness they intended to call to the stand. The motions were in regards to the content of the Defendant's opening statement from October 2013's trial, asking the court to prohibit the Defendant from making certain claims in this round's statement. The Defendant had been filing motions for months leading up to this trial, giving the Prosecution plenty of time to incorporate her requests, but the Prosecution chose to spring their requested changes on the Defendant potentially hours before opening statements were to be given. The reader may conclude, as the author has, this was a dirty, cheap tactic employed to make the Defendant flustered and unprepared.
The other introduction was that of the new witness' testimony, which the Defendant have never before seen. It was approximately 300 pages long. Of course, had the trial commenced, she would have been able to request adjournment until she'd had time to read this extensive document, but the tactic employed here was, of course, the same as in the introduction of the impromptu motions. One has to wonder, if the Prosecution is stooping to such tactics in an attempt to gain the upper hand, how secure can they really feel about their case?
And finally, a PSA: if you are a potential juror in a federal case, and you really don't like the government or one of its extensions, don't say you don't like them when you're being interviewed during selection, as some would-be jurors did today (and for which they were promptly eliminated by the Prosecution). That's just silly.
Day 2
Thursday, July 17, 2014
This post could literally change your life...
Friends, something is happening that could change everything about the American justice system. I encourage you to please give the two pieces below a few moments of your time, as the outcome in this case could affect the rest of your life.
The first is an opening statement I wrote for my mom to use, wholly or in part, in her trial (the charge is contained in the statement). The second is something I posted to the Fully Informed Jury Association's Detroit branch Facebook page.
As you'll see, this is of vital importance. Please read it, and share this post with your friends, family, anyone you care about, and even everyone you don't care about.
We are Americans. We live in the land of the free. Let's keep it that way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My fellow Americans,
You are here to decide my fate, and the fate of my family,
and also the fate of you and yours, as well.
Let me explain.
The government will try to tell you that this case is about
taxes. However, while it’s true that
the forms in question are tax forms, the charges against me are not
tax-related. The charge is that of
contempt of court, and I’m charged with that because I have resisted making
testimony I believe to be false. I was
told to make such testimony, and not tell anyone I’d been forced to do so.
It might help if you consider the case of Meriam Ibrahim,
the Sudanese woman being charged with apostasy and sentenced to death. Apostasy
is the abandonment of a religion. This
woman could likely have that charge dropped against her if she simply said she
was a Muslim. She wouldn’t even have to
believe it; she could just play the part.
But is that right? Should
someone have to claim to believe something they don’t in order to be safe? No, and that right, the right to express our
beliefs freely without fear of condemnation, applies to all human beings.
If the government were telling me I had to sign my name to a
document claiming I believed that Zeus was the only true god, they wouldn’t
even have a case. But that hypothetical
situation is not far from what’s happening here. The government is not arguing the law; they’re arguing my
beliefs. They say I can’t possibly
believe what I wrote on my tax forms, so I have to sign my name to forms with
their beliefs on them, instead. The
thing is, there are very specific methods the IRS is supposed to use when it
disagrees with someone’s return. For
example, they are required by law to simply file forms with the numbers they
believe are correct. They don’t even
need my signature on them. But they
haven’t done that, which leads me to believe that they don't actually disagree with the information on my returns, they simply dislike it. Therefore, they’re
trying to force me to testify something I don’t believe to be true, so they don't have to.
As I’m sure you can imagine, this is incredibly frustrating
to me, to say the least. How can I
swear to something I don’t believe, and not tell anyone I don’t believe
it? If I did that by choice, it would
be perjury, a crime in and of itself.
I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place. If I sign, I’ll be committing a crime, but if I don’t…well, here
we are.
As I said, the government will try to tell you this is about
taxes. It’s not. It’s not even about money, to be
honest. Even with the numbers they want
me to sign to, I wouldn’t owe any taxes.
So what is it about?
It’s about basic human rights.
If I’m condemned, what else can the government make someone swear
to? Will America become the Sudan? This is what I meant when I said you’d be
deciding your own fate, too.
Please, remember our rights, and protect them.
Thank you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FIJA of Detroit! I'm not sure whether you've heard, but my mother will be on trial (again -- last time, in October, there was a hung jury) next week. She's being held in contempt of court for not following a judge's order. In her case, the jury is being instructed as follows:
1) The lawfulness of the order given by the judge need not be considered.
[This is a flagrant disregard for the rule of law, as part of the requirements for this charge is that the order be lawful.]
2) The jury does not need to be unanimous in its determination regarding both charges.
[She's charged with refusing to sign her name to testimony she doesn't believe, and also refusing to file testimony of the same type in the future. This rule says that, if some jurors think she's guilty of one charge, and the rest think she's guilty of the other, they can submit a Guilty verdict, anyway.]
The jury is being instructed to act against the law. If we could have a couple of representatives outside the courthouse for this trial (dates can be found at the end of this page: http://www.losthorizons.com/Documents/AssaultOnTheTruth-SpeechRights-AndTheJury.pdf), that would be phenomenal.
Stand up against this assault on justice!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, please share this post! Preserve our rights...before it's too late.
Read about Day 1
FIJA of Detroit! I'm not sure whether you've heard, but my mother will be on trial (again -- last time, in October, there was a hung jury) next week. She's being held in contempt of court for not following a judge's order. In her case, the jury is being instructed as follows:
1) The lawfulness of the order given by the judge need not be considered.
[This is a flagrant disregard for the rule of law, as part of the requirements for this charge is that the order be lawful.]
2) The jury does not need to be unanimous in its determination regarding both charges.
[She's charged with refusing to sign her name to testimony she doesn't believe, and also refusing to file testimony of the same type in the future. This rule says that, if some jurors think she's guilty of one charge, and the rest think she's guilty of the other, they can submit a Guilty verdict, anyway.]
The jury is being instructed to act against the law. If we could have a couple of representatives outside the courthouse for this trial (dates can be found at the end of this page: http://www.losthorizons.com/Documents/AssaultOnTheTruth-SpeechRights-AndTheJury.pdf), that would be phenomenal.
Stand up against this assault on justice!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, please share this post! Preserve our rights...before it's too late.
Read about Day 1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)