Bad News (January 17, 2008)

Some big numbers have been thrown around even by Mr. Alsup but the truth of the matter is that the maximum statutory sentence is 5 years. Read the statute 1341 and 1349 from title 18. The maximum sentence is 5 years unless it effected a financial institution. Since no financial institution showed up at trial and no such evidence was entered the 30 years enhancement is not applicable. The conviction was on 1 count of conspiracy 1349 and 35 counts of mail fraud 1341. Now at first glance one would think that 35 times 5 is the maximum exposure of which Mr. Alsup might settle in around the 15-20 years range being bantered about on this Blog. I think Dr. Caligirl vacillates between these numbers. There is a code section in the sentencing guideline called 3D 1.2 and 5G.2 that make it clear that because all these counts are part of the same scheme they must be grouped and the sentence must run concurrent. That means he can sentence me to 35 times 5 years but they must run concurrent. This is the bad news. We went to trial and kept all our "rights," if you believe in such things, intact for appeal purposes and Farrel and Bill get the same time without any appeal possibilities. Again it appears we are stupid. Things that the court of appeals will overturn on that were present should also be considered in your honest examination of the facts. The conspiracy count, which was count one of the indictment, was written in a way that was duplicitous and can't be cured by any remedy except retrial and a new indictment. Problem though; jeopardy has attached by the verdict and can't retry. Guess just have to acquit. Indictment pled only financial institutions as defined in title 18 § 20 as the victims. Remember I told you long ago that you clients had no interest in the trial. This is what I was talking about. Next problem; they pled one victim and brought in others not pled which left a sufficiency of evidence problem for the conviction. Yes I wasn't able to delude the 12 retards who couldn't distinguish an appropriate set of facts with reason. I'm the one full of shit remember. Next problem; the jury instructions state that the banks had legal rights that they were precluded by law from having. The judge trumped the legislators to our brilliant panel of retards. They didn't catch it of course but try that on the 9th circuit. The instructions were also deficient on two mandatory instructions that were omitted and 3-4 others that should have been addresses based upon the evidence submitted. There are about a good dozen areas where the brilliant Mr. Alsup abused his discretion. At this level piss-off this is my court works on the average coward but that is not legal justification accepted at the next level. Next problem; without financial institutions the jurisdictional hook that supposedly gives the feds an interest is lost. If I defrauded a California corporation it is not a fed case. Oops! No federal victim appeared at trial. Can you say overturn? Next problem; the indictment pled damages of loan loss but no losses were presented into evidence so the prosecution changed the element of loss to honest services also which were not proven. You cannot change victims or elements of the crime midstream especially if you don't plead it. This would create so many due process problems I won't bore you with listing them. Perhaps a Beaner or JDJD can enlighten you. Check their brilliance cause they can't be duped by my clever twist. Next problem; the statute 1341 is vague as to the property right in question or it is specific. If it is specific than no proof was offered and a sufficiency of the evidence problem resurfaces. If it is not what is listed in the statute then due process which requires adequate notice of the charges and what needs to be defended is violated by the vagueness. Now this little issue has not been adjudicated as raised by ourselves in 120 years. Do you believe that? Kurt and Scott are the first to raise it. Yeah right! What that means is that the courts find a way to avoid this question of law on some other basis to avoid exposing the governments’ liberal construction that has convictions broadly applied throughout the land. Always ask a question they don't want answered and they will make you go away. Can you say overturn for some other reason? Next problem; the indictment was constructively amended by various redactions that removed the necessary elements of the crimes and the jury was never instructed of their necessity or absence. How are you going to fix that? Can you say overturn? There are other problems that will never have to be relied upon though pled but why bore you with too much obvious. Yeah we are in great peril. Crushed by the very best retards available. Take a peak and see if I'm the liar. Might be surprised.


UPDATE:

I have misstated the above sentencing requirements because I did not have access to a 2002 amendment to the statute 1341. At that time the 5 years was modified to 20 years. Before this becomes an "Aha" for the haters let me explain that this now means that the sentencing guidelines will now become relevant. In a future post I will detail these for you. You'll find that under these conditions I will either get 24 months or 20 years depending on what make believe gets accepted. This is what we'll be deliberating in February.