Legal Question Challenge (February 4, 2008)

On the 23rd judge Alsup ruled on the motion for acquittal. It was denied as expected but one thing promising was obtained. This is something that I've been saying all along but now have the judge's stipulation. I have said that they pled only financial institutions as victims and that none appeared at trial. If you read his order of that day you will find that he agrees with the evidence issue but quotes this case 727 F.2d. 1293, (1984) U.S. v. Coachman as justification that none were required. My contention for many reasons is that they absolutely are required. This is a question in legal terms called the sufficiency of the evidence. If the appeals court reviews this it is simple. If Mr. Alsup is right the verdict sticks, if wrong the verdict is thrown out and no retrial is possible. These are fairly hefty stakes. I wanted to pose the issue to you as a study challenge to see if you can comfort yourself or figure out that I am a liar. My opinion is simple and I give you my case in support. 256 F.2d. 306, 311, 312 U.S. v. Alsugair (D.N.J. 2003) If they can do the bait and switch on the victim then congress has no right to punish others for the practice or to consider it a violation of public policy. Further I will add that mail fraud is a specific intent crime meaning they must determine that I had a mindset to swindle. Is it possible for someone to intend to defraud and in his intention contemplate someone else's something else without contemplation? Is it possible for a reasonable trier of fact to think that the human mind is possible of intentions not thought of? You might say here that other victims were proved so what does it matter? Let's try this idea on a rape charge. The victim listed in the indictment never appears but some other women never contemplated, appears and uses the facts of the rape incident of the other woman and obtains a conviction. Is this how your reason would work as a juror? Please tell me you're not as retarded as the gaggle forced upon me. Perhaps the smart people can come forward on this issue. Certainly this is right up the alley of JDJD, or Bean Head, maybe even Notorial D. Here is your chance to convince everyone that I don't have a snowballs chance in hell and that I got a fair trial. You and judge Alsup would be in agreement so you have the advantage. Show everyone how smart you are. Minute entry 14 is the superseding indictment but it was substantially redacted before it went to the jury. All the bank fraud and wire fraud charges were redacted with the contempt charges. If you review this you must redact those out and then look at it as the jury saw it. Do you think that the financial institutions were a necessary element to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt or not will be the conclusion you must arrive at? Count one the conspiracy charge had no redactions.