The Reasonable Juror (January 2, 2008)

The reasonable juror is a test that is built into the laws of man. This test is a question that measures if a person of reasonableness would come to a finding based upon the evidence presented. In our case as in most, 12 retards who have no sense in the laws of man get spoon fed inferences and ideas that move them to the folly, and destruction of their nation and people. In the corralled corrupted union of the federallies they have hand picked these retards out of the minions of their sheepish followers. There is no way they could be reasonable by any reasonable standard. Setting that aside to call their fantasy a reality we have now come to an interesting place in our process. Mr. Alsup now has to make a reasonable juror decision over our rule 29 motion. Know he has shown himself to be a very proud man who thinks very highly of his judicial skills. What will be comical is that on January 22nd when he has to figure out a way to deny our motion. I'm certain he will and that is good for us ultimately but he'll have to do it at the expense of his reasonableness. Our indictment was straight forward as an accusation of fraud of a financial institution based upon money or property right attached to a mortgage. Now pay attention! The mail fraud and conspiracy are essentially the same evidence. The mail fraud as a statute is required to give stand alone notice as to the prohibited conduct. That means I am not required to go anywhere else to be put on notice. From that statute the indictment is to give me notice of the accusations of prohibited behavior so that I can reasonably defend. The statute 1341 does not give me notice of a mortgage being a protected money or property right which is the first problem for a reasonable juror. Second the indictment only list financial institutions as the victims and it was limited to the fraudulent use of mails to carry out a scheme and forwarding that scheme in connection with the deprivation of this specific property interest. If you will recall almost 2 years ago now I told you that the clients were not a part of the indictment and that you could cry all you want, the government was not your champion and didn't plead your case. Well this is what I was talking about. Now the trial comes along and they don't present one financial institution. The damages they claim are not the mortgages but now honest services. Remember that I have not been given notice of these honest services by the statute or the indictment. As a reasonable juror where is the due process? The next question is, where is the evidence of mail fraud of a financial institution's money or property right of a mortgage plead in the statute or the indictment present in the evidence? If the evidence is not present how can a reasonable juror enter a guilty verdict? Now again these 12 stupid retards have an excuse. They could never be reasonable but Mr. Alsup is supposed to know these rules. He is not so easily duped. The fun of watching these little rascals dressed in men's clothes is that their lives are comical. Watch how Mr. Alsup knowing that the verdict handed down by the petite jury is unreasonable because of the lack of evidence will concur with them. This proud man of jurisprudence will set aside his integrity, knowledge, and pride to join the ranks of the retards. His personal bias works against him here. We saw this at the end of trial when we had 2 contempt charges ready to go before the jury. As we hammered out the jury instructions which were deadly for sure, I brought to his attention that they did not prove these charges in the trial and that the evidence was not presented. Mr. Alsup denied their dismissal and said plainly he thinks there is enough to take them before the jury. The next day when finalizing his instructions he mentioned a piece of evidence in the instruction regarding these charges that I again pointed out was not presented in trial. Now all of a sudden there is an insufficiency of the evidence not when I tell him but now the prosecution tells him that they are going to motion for a dismissal. He's not paying attention to anything that is outside his personal agenda for us. That my friends is my greatest weapon. Watch how an unreasonable juror works to my advantage in the end.