Saladino / Fuselier criminal trial 11/3/2009

[wserra]

A Portland jury this morning found three men guilty of defrauding the U.S. government under 18 USC 371. The amazing thing about the verdict is that no injured party came forward to make a claim of harm against them.

Who should have "come forward"? Uncle Sam?

In a clear case of jury-subornation the Attorney General introduced fraudulent documents

And the defendants didn't point out to the jury that those documents were "fraudulent"? Shocking. Or perhaps they did, and the jury thought they were full of it.

it is impossible to cross-examine a piece of paper to see if the information contained on it has any accuracy whatsoever.

It's actually quite easy to challenge information in a document. I do it every day. It's just harder to do if the document is in fact accurate.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Allan Garten claimed that the U.S. Treasury "lost" more than $9 million, yet as Defense Counsel Hoevet stated during closing, every single witness the DoJ called was assesed penalties and interest that exceeded any perceived lost by three to five times, as Hoevet reminded the jurors, the IRS actually made money on this, they should be giving the defendants a cut of the excess profits.

So if I rob you at gunpoint, invest what I steal from you, and you in fact recover more than I stole (assuming that's the truth in the first place) - well, I guess I didn't really do anything, right?

Without Fraud being shown, there is no conspiracy to defraud.

Actually, assuming again that what you say is accurate factually, that's an inaccurate statement of the law. A conspiracy can easily exist (and be proven) when its object is never accomplished.

You're not so good at this, are you?

[Famspear]

At his web page, Bob Hurt wrote:

I don't know about you, but I feel ready to SCREAM BLOODY MURDER over the conviction of Marcel Roy Bendshadler by the Oregon Kangaroo USDC this week. What a Thanksgiving present for Marcel and his attorney Nancy S. Bergeson, who put on a diligent and heartfelt defense. She believed in him, the jury looked friendly, and then, curiously, they returned the guilty verdict, obviously somehow suborned.

http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen/b ... f3ba94a83c

(bolding added).

Your analytical method leaves something to be desired, Bob.

For 21 months Bergeson held Marcel's hand through the after math of the indictment and through the trial and other events leading up to it. She gradually came to believe in Marcel's innocence and the criminality of the IRS and DOJ in tax crime prosecutions. And she seemed intensely interested in the prosecution's desperation about getting an 18 USC 1341 (Wire and Mail Fraud) conviction. Marcel now faces sentencing, and Judge (administrator) [administrator? administrator, Bob?] Anna Brown probably wants to know whether Marcel's defense team will ask for a sentencing extension.

I expect more nasty news in this case, news that could implicate the IRS in crimes of their own. I could not reach federal public defender Nancy Bergeson today for comment.

We now return you to Planet Earth.

[LPC]

The amazing thing about the verdict is that no injured party came forward to make a claim of harm against them. Even Assistant U.S. Attorney Allan Garten in closing statements said that none of the people he called to testify during the 12 day trial were victims,

[...]

Assistant U.S. Attorney Allan Garten claimed that the U.S. Treasury "lost" more than $9 million, yet as Defense Counsel Hoevet stated during closing, every single witness the DoJ called was assesed penalties and interest that exceeded any perceived lost by three to five times, as Hoevet reminded the jurors, the IRS actually made money on this,

Wait.

No individual lost any money, and the IRS also didn't lose any money because the penalties and interest assessed against the people who didn't lose any money exceeded the money the IRS otherwise would have lost?

So 2 plus 2 is less than 4?

[grixit]

Ah, Bob, even if someone were to run up to the bleachers at the Superbowl and let loose with a machine gun right in front of all the cameras, and if security managed to tackle them right there with the gun in their hands-- they would still be entitled to plead innocent and have a lawyer who would purport to believe them. This is one of the good things about our system of justice.

[Thule]

Ah, Bob, even if someone were to run up to the bleachers at the Superbowl and let loose with a machine gun right in front of all the cameras, and if security managed to tackle them right there with the gun in their hands-- they would still be entitled to plead innocent and have a lawyer who would purport to believe them. This is one of the good things about our system of justice.

The jury might even listen carefully to everything you say, without frowning or waving pitchforks. They might even think that you deep down is a just a regular joe you could sit down and have a beer with, as long as the discussion stays well away from sports.

Although a Lex Bob might be fun; The jury shall at all times express their feelings about the defendant, in whatever manner they deem fitting. Said expressed feelings shall be considered binding in regards to the verdict.

[getaclue]

Nancy Bergeson was found murdered in her home yesterday evening. Coincidence?

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/inde ... der_f.html

[Judge Roy Bean]

The list of suspects is probably long; she's been a PD for a quite a while and you can't win large percentages of cases. But then again, we don't know the domestic situation and far too many women fall victim to people they have or have had relationships with.

[wserra]

Nancy Bergeson was found murdered in her home yesterday evening. Coincidence?

Absolutely, unless proven otherwise. Either way, of course, it's a tragedy. But assuming the existence of a conspiracy is an example of what statisticians call "filtering".

Have you ever dreamed that someone close to you died, only to find out shortly after that someone did? Certain people assume some sort of psychic connection. Others realize that they had similar thoughts or dreams hundreds or thousands of times when no one died. Those thoughts or dreams are not particularly remarkable, so the mind disregards them. Then, when the remarkable happens - the dream which proves to be true - one takes particular note to the exclusion of all the dreams which proved to be false. The odds are that at some point the dream will be true.

So the conspiracy is that either the govt or a friend of the convicted defendant murders someone who fought hard but lost on behalf of some Very Bad Guy? How many people have done that and not been murdered? The writer has gotten both acquittals and convictions on behalf of people considerably more dangerous than Bendshadler and, for better or worse, is still here. Why not suspend judgment and let the cops do their jobs?

"It is no great wonder if, in the long process of time, while fortune takes her course hither and thither, numerous coincidences should spontaneously occur."
- Plutarch

[notorial dissent]

If she was a PDA, she dealt with on a regular basis, some of the cream/dregs of society, and it is more than likely that one of her alumni, or one of their friends, decided to do some payback, or it may have just been a random act of violence. I suspect the police will eventually sort it out, either way, a tragedy, but hardly a conspiracy.

[Arthur Rubin]

Bendshadler maintained he committed no fraud and said he plans to appeal his case. But now he has no attorney.

PDs don't normally handle appeals, do they? The only case I'm sure of is that PDs may handle appeals of death penatlies, at least in California.

[bobhurt]

Tax Crime Public Defender Nancy S. Bergeson Dead of Homicide

Why does it not surprise me that Nancy S. Bergeson, the diligent public defender who represented Marcel Roy Bendshadler in the tax crimes case in which a Portland USDC jury found Bendshadler guilty Monday, suffered a gruesome murder on Tuesday?

She was found dead in her Portland Oregon home at her laptop keyboard in her pajamas on Tuesday. Of all the defense attorneys in the case, only Bergeson showed any sincere belief in the innocence of her client. Why? Because she really believed Bendshadler innocent. Why? Because for 21 months of their relationship in his case, Bendshadler had explained to her much of the skullduggery typical of the IRS and DOJ in tax crime cases, including subornation of both judge and jury, and many other dirty tricks, such as lugging into the courtroom many boxes to make the jury think the DOJ had a mountain of evidence against the defendants, so as to twist their minds and pervert their judgment. Her own research and observation corroborated the picture Bendshadler had painted for her.

And note that Bendshadler, 49, holds a Master’s degree in Constitutional Law, and has argued at least one case before the Idaho Supreme Court. He has studied income tax law and IRS behaviors for years. He knows his subject very well and has watched with others in the tax honesty community across America while the DOJ racked up a putative 95+% win ratio in tax crime cases, a phenomenal win record, even for the biggest law firm in the world, the U.S. Department of Justice. Many believe such a win could not happen without suborning both judges and juries repeatedly throughout the years.

Now, I suspect that Bergeson got so close to the truth in her own investigations over the months of association with Bendshadler that she became a dire threat to the IRS and DOJ, putting both at severe risk of exposure of their crimes that deprived Bendshadler of due process. As you know from my earlier report, Bendshadler said the jury seemed bright, alert, and friendly toward him one day, and then later returned a guilty verdict against him, atypical of such a jury.

For this reason, the IRS and DOJ people associated with the case have become highly elevated in MY suspect list . I would feel no surprise at the discovery that one or more of them bore direct or indirect guilt for Bergeson’s death.

“She held my hand for 21 months through this ordeal. Now she’s dead, and Judge Ann Brown wants to know whether the defense will seek an extension of time for the sentencing hearing, ” said Bendshadler in an interview Wednesday. “You may now SCREAM BLOODY MURDER, for Nancy Bergeson,” he concluded in sadness.

We agree. As the mob at the DOJ might say, Bergeson now “sleeps with the fishes.”

Bob Hurt

[bobhurt]

More regarding Bob Hurt:

I have an idea, fellow Quatloosers. Why don't you visit http://bobhurt.com to know a little more about me. Unlike all of you, I don't hide my identity.

And why don't you subscribe to the Lawmen mailing list. Only I post to it, but you can always comment to me directly, or at quatloos or your blog, or wherever.

Send email to lawmen+subscribe@googlegroups.com. Or visit the archives at http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen and sign up there.

By the way, I browsed through one of the threads famspear suggested, and I found it entertaining. You fellows have a great sense of humor. Thanks for sharing it with me.

I admit imperfection, and I claim student and truth-seeker status. I once thought it best for everyone to stop filing and stop paying taxes they don't owe. I believe the income tax laws as implemented and enforced constitute crimes against the people of America. I probably won't change my mind any time soon, but you never know. I fully realize that people who fight the IRS rigorously enough usually lose all their assets, do jail time, and still suffer efforts by the IRS to make them pay. I don't want to live that way. I encourage people to think and plan very carefully before taking the steps that will put them in that situation.

I don't encourage people to stop filing or stop paying, but to do whatever they can to avoid paying taxes they really don't owe. I do encourage people to take the IRS to task prodigiously for their abuses of due process, their lies, and their errors. I believe most actual IRS agents guilty of honest services fraud and tax collection crimes under IRC 7214, and I would like to see their victims break through the veil of IRS anonymity and file criminal complaints against them without going broke in the process.

The IRS and DOJ should have no fear of such action if the IRS is clean, which it isn't, as the GAO reports have proven. We all deserve honesty in government, regardless of the extent to which we disagree about the legality of the present implementation of income tax.

I feel certain all people of honor will agree with that.

Incidentally, by belittling me, a man of general good will towards people, you really show your own mean natures. You have no need to disparage me for my views about taxes. I encourage you to stick with the actual issues. Show up the errors you see in my position by pointing the way to the truth. In that way you will convert truth seekers, perhaps even me, with the truth. Using your pseudonyms to hide your identities while you poke fun at me suggests a certain smallness in your characters, like a gang of big bullies around a little kid at a playground. That disappoints me in you because your humorous comments reveal supple wit and high intelligence. Why should such smart people shrink their dignities on such pass-times as injuring the reputation of someone as insignificant as me? If the truth can withstand honest investigation (and I believe it can), why not investigate the truth with me? As famspear has pointed out, I eagerly involve myself in the process of learning and testing legal theories. He has shown considerable patience instructing me in his views in the past. He knows, even if he chooses not to admit, that I don't engage in sophistries, even though I have taken some unpardonable shortcuts to establish a position on the tax issue. You don't need to burn me at the stake. I make errors, but I do so honestly.

By the way, can any of you law practitioners tell me where to find the English law of Florida? See Florida Statute 2.01 if you don't know what I mean. The folks at the Stetson University College of Law Library don't seem to know.

[Arthur Rubin]

Show up the errors you see in my position by pointing the way to the truth.

It would take less time to show the few places where you have said something correct and relevant. I haven't found anything yet.

In that way you will convert truth seekers, perhaps even me, with the truth.

Doubtful.

Using your pseudonyms to hide your identities while you poke fun at me suggests a certain smallness in your characters, like a gang of big bullies around a little kid at a playground.

If you believed what you said in this thread, you'd understand the desire for anonymity.

[Thule]

And note that Bendshadler, 49, holds a Master’s degree in Constitutional Law, and has argued at least one case before the Idaho Supreme Court.

Out of curiosity, where is this degree from?

He knows his subject very well and has watched with others in the tax honesty community across America while the DOJ racked up a putative 95+% win ratio in tax crime cases, a phenomenal win record, even for the biggest law firm in the world, the U.S. Department of Justice. Many believe such a win could not happen without suborning both judges and juries repeatedly throughout the years.

More misuse of statistics. Yes, the DoJ have a high rate, in those cases they take to court. And what does that mean? Well, either you are correct, and everyone is corrupt. Or, the DoJ only proceeds with those cases in which they have a very good chance of success. I'm going to call Occam on this one.

Your comparison with law firms won't fly. A firm acts on the behalf of a client and is paid to get a certain result. Of course, a firm could state that they will only go to court if they are certain they have a winner, like the DoJ. Such a strategy would of course lead to swift bankrupcy, but what a rate they wil have in those last months.

[.]

I encourage people to think and plan very carefully before taking the steps that will put them in that situation.

Right. Plan. Very carefully. Then commit financial suicide. Got it.

Why should such smart people shrink their dignities on such pass-times [sic] as injuring the reputation of someone as insignificant as me?

Unfortunately, before you can ask such a question and not be laughed at, you have to have a reputation that has at least a remote possibility of being injured.

even though I have taken some unpardonable shortcuts to establish a position on the tax issue

Not to mention on other issues.

I make errors, but I do so honestly.

My reading of your blather leads me to conclude that your multitude of errors are due to the fact that you are ignorant, stupid, delusional or, most likely, some combination thereof.

I can't wait to read your further ruminations, it's been a while since the last lunatic "student and truth-seeker" showed up here couching their demented ramblings in terms of "honesty."

[wserra]

Why does it not surprise me that Nancy S. Bergeson, the diligent public defender who represented Marcel Roy Bendshadler in the tax crimes case in which a Portland USDC jury found Bendshadler guilty Monday, suffered a gruesome murder on Tuesday?

Likely because you don't realize that "post hoc ergo propter hoc" is a fallacy.

she really believed Bendshadler innocent.

Y'know, while the appearance of belief in a client's innocence is a necessity to an effective defense, an actual belief is a hindrance. Why? Because a lawyer who so believes has lost his or her objectivity. The jury - at least at first - will not share your belief; you must therefore be able to view evidence and arguments dispassionately, not from the point of view of a believer. If you can't do that, you have lost your ability to separate convincing from unconvincing arguments - a critical loss.

Many believe such a win could not happen without suborning both judges and juries repeatedly throughout the years.

Many others believe they were kidnapped by aliens.

Now, I suspect that Bergeson got so close to the truth in her own investigations over the months of association with Bendshadler that she became a dire threat to the IRS and DOJ

But why kill her rather than the source of the enlightenment? Did the Romans crucify Peter or Jesus?

You realize how little sense this is making.

[Gregg]

Did the Romans crucify Peter or Jesus?

Your point is taken, but in fact, the Romans crucified Jesus and Peter both.

[Famspear]

More regarding Bob Hurt:

I have an idea, fellow Quatloosers. Why don't you visit http://bobhurt.com to know a little more about me. Unlike all of you, I don't hide my identity.

Many regulars here are already familiar with your writings, Bob. Your work has already been posted here at Quatloos.

And why don't you subscribe to the Lawmen mailing list. Only I post to it, but you can always comment to me directly, or at quatloos or your blog, or wherever.

We've been monitoring your Lawmen web pages for a long time, and reporting on them here.

I admit imperfection, and I claim student and truth-seeker status. I once thought it best for everyone to stop filing and stop paying taxes they don't owe. I believe the income tax laws as implemented and enforced constitute crimes against the people of America.

Well, you're wrong. And you've already been supplied with plenty of information about that.

I believe most actual IRS agents guilty of honest services fraud and tax collection crimes under IRC 7214....

Yet, your "belief" is based on .....what? Exceptional circumstances where IRS personnel have done bad things? You will certainly find things like that. There are bad apples in every barrel. But you are saying "most" agents? That's more than half. How did you come up with this? You study the exceptions and falsely conclude that the exceptional circumstances prove a "rule"?

The IRS and DOJ should have no fear of such action if the IRS is clean, which it isn't, as the GAO reports have proven.

Guess what, Bob, I doubt that the IRS and the DOJ have any "fear of such action".

Incidentally, by belittling me, a man of general good will towards people, you really show your own mean natures.

Glad to hear you've changed, Bob. In your very first internet interaction with me some years ago, you called me a "coward" -- showing both your own mean nature and your willingness to belittle someone with whom you had had essentially no previous interaction, and you showed that you were willing to use an epithet like "coward" indiscriminately.

You have no need to disparage me for my views about taxes. I encourage you to stick with the actual issues. Show up the errors you see in my position by pointing the way to the truth.

Come on, Bob. Go back and review your user talk pages in Wikipedia. You're already been supplied with lots of information about the federal income tax laws. Do you want us to repeat everything?

By the way, can any of you law practitioners tell me where to find the English law of Florida? See Florida Statute 2.01 if you don't know what I mean. The folks at the Stetson University College of Law Library don't seem to know.

Yes, the folks at Stetson University College of Law Library know where to find the "English law of Florida." The Florida statute is referring to English common law and English statutes. The English common law is case law -- judge made law -- and is found in the case reports for the English courts. The statutes are found in the published acts of Parliament, etc.

[bobhurt]

But why kill her rather than the source of the enlightenment? Did the Romans crucify Peter or Jesus?

Because the source had zero likelihood of blabbing, while the p.d. may have expressed an intent to expose the truth. She certainly had means and motive.

[Famspear]

Here's what Bob Hurt wrote about "case law" in June of 2007:

Why Case Law Serves Evil Purposes, and What to Do about It

Case law often serves evil purposes in America. So often, in fact, that the legislature should outlaw it, with only rare exceptions. My reaons [sic] include the folloiwng [sic].

Case law has the following application. When litigants cannot understand the law or its application, a judge will decide the matter. Later, other judges, dealing with the same kind of issue with generally the same merits, follow the ruling of the previous judge rather than re-thinking and re-researching the relevant issues. This saves a lot of time and money.

This method of deciding cases could make sense if judges had high levels of integrity and no one could "get to them" and bribe or otherwise convince them to give an unrighteous ruling. Unfortunately, the real world does not even remotely approach that ideal.

Nowadays, as in the Anastoff I and II rulings, judges seem to lose their minds. In the first ruling, the judge denied a woman's request for the IRS to refund a tax overpayment. The IRS quoted a prior ruling as the basis for denial. Anastasoff claimed that ruling did not count because it was unpublished and rule of procedure 28(a)(i) made unpublished rulings inapplicable as precedent case law, stupidly in my opinion. Why stupidly? Because precedent provides a way for the judiciary to legislate from the bench and the rule hides embarassing case law by allowing judges the discretion as to whether to publish it. As a result, the courts deny justice to one or more litigants.

Even worse, case law often undermines the intention of legislators. As a classic example, look at the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act, and the mess the government has made of it in the Lindsey Springer cases. Lindsey clearly showed how various circuit courts differ in opinion on the matter, some judges even concocting an outrageous exception to the law by saying it did not apply to the IRS form 1040, thereby totally contradicting the intent, spirit, and purpose of Congress in the PRA.

Few Americans can afford to litigate against the IRS in Federal District court, much les sin [sic] Circuit or Supreme courts. We depend heavily upon our judges making sane, rational, crystal clear decisions in accord with the Constitution first and foremost, and in accord with constitutional laws second. District Courts (whose rulings can serve as precedent) often rule against the law for the express purpose of depriving a litigant of justice because the USDC judge knows most litigants will not bear the expense of the appeal.

Bottom line: in America, our courts, especially below the Supreme level, have embraced wholesale corruption, and the people cannot trust them to administer justice, fairly or otherwise.

For this reason, ALL precedent should be thrown out.

In fact, I do not know of a constitution's provision that empowers the courts to make rulings OTHER than fresh, freshly though, freshly reasoned, freshly researched rulings. As a convention, custom, or tradition, case law has subverted America's system of justice and forced it toward injustice.

We can only solve such a problem by requiring our legislators to pass an amendment to the Constitution like this:

* All decisions of all courts at all levels shall comply to the letter of any and all provisions of the Constitution of the US and of the state wherein the court exists, and with the letter of any and all associated laws enacted by Congress.

* Any judge who violates the above shall suffer removal from position and forfeiture of all pensions and pay.

* Upon petition and affidavit of 10 people of good repute, Congress shall within 30 days after receipt of the petition review the decision of a court and decide whether to modify the laws or initiate impeachment proceedings correct any associated error.

* Case law shall stand for a maximum of one year, after which no court shall use the ruling as a precedent basis for a new ruling, but instead the court shall fully review the matter and rule in accordance with the Constitution and applicable laws pursuant thereto.

* Congress shall each year review all federal court rulings for the preceeding [sic] year, and modify the laws as needed to eliminate any confusion in the law that led to a ruling that did not comply with the law. For all cases requiring a consequent modification of the law for clarity inconsistent with the court ruling, Congress shall notify the court of the modification, and the Court shall reverse its ruling and pay any litigant adversely affected the full cost of litigation and inconvenience.

* In any tribunal having more than one judge and judging an issue of law or its application in any case of any government entity in opposition to a natural person, the judges must either agree unanimously or acquit the person. In any such case having more than one juror, the jurors must either agree unanimously or acquit the person.

* Every court shall instruct every juror and prospective juror of the juror's right to decide matters of law as well as of fact, and the courts shall not interfere.

* Juries must consist of non-felon people of good reputation from the community in which live the defendant and other natural persons litigating live, and all jurors must have gainful employment or own real property and have successfully passed 12 or more years of formal education.

* In all income tax cases against natural person defendants, the defendant shall have a compulsory trial by jury, jurors shall come from a pool of non-tax-payers, the judge shall have no authority to prevent the defendant to enter evidence or subpoena and use defense witnesses, the government shall pay the defendant's full cost of litigation, the defendant shall have total prerogative of choice of counsel to assist in the litigation, including choice of a non-attorney, and no court shall exhibit any prejudice against pro-se litigants.

Bob Hurt, June 25, 2007, at one of his Wikipedia user talk pages (bolding added).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobhurt

Back in June of 2007, you obviously had some misconceptions about how courts decide cases, among other things. I hope you've been enlightened since then.

Notice your reference to Lindsey Springer. As late as June of 2007, you were still clinging to the Lindsey Springer nonsense about the Paperwork Reduction Act, just as Springer continued to cling to his nonsense, even in the face of criminal prosecution. Now Springer is awaiting sentencing.

One of the problems with you people who claim to be searching for "truth" is that you simply refuse to take the truth as an answer. Springer (and all other tax protesters) lost every single case under the Paperwork Reduction Act/OMB control number argument, and yet people like Springer continue to present the same legally frivolous argument to the courts, again and again. That is not intellectual honesty. That is not evidence of an honest search for truth.