There is a TREMENDOUS anount of information behind this entire issue -- all valiable and all elating to both the mighest and lowewst plains of morality! I think that picture can be best personified in the remarks highlighted in red below! It has occurred to me over long years America has neglected to learn or completely forgotten ALL such lessons! ~Hal~
----- Forwarded Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, November 5, 2009 3:14:17 PM Subject: Re: This trial is over... Just passing this on for the benefit of those who may suffer from the same aspirations many others of us have only to end up with the same results. Using their law as a defense is tantamount to asking the hangman for the rope to hang oneself with. A word to the wise... -----Original Message----- From: rivera office <[email protected]> To: Quentin Morgan <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Nov 5, 2009 10:44 am Subject: RE: This trial is over... Quentin, Territorial jurisdiction and all the factors that comprise it are issues that should be raised before trial for maximum impact on appeal. Pete was aware of my work and research. I’m afraid that Pete was more interested in selling books than in learning the truth. Years ago I had one telephone conversation with him, which he initiated concerning his book. In that conversation he recognized what I had then discovered and said he would send a copy of his newly printed book. I remember the book had significant errors, so I gave it away. I have had no personal contact with Pete other than that telephone conversation. God writes unwritten law for those with the faith to believe. Satan the devil is the chief instigator of written law, but he needs human assistants to produce the end product. I don’t know that Pete has learned this lesson. Ed -----Original Message----- From: Quentin Morgan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 3:54 AM To: Edurado Rivera Subject: FW: This trial is over... Dr. Rivera, I sent this rather detailed background on Hendrickson's case, who I think you are familiar with the name at the minimum. Can matters relating to jury qualification, jurisdiction, and judge hankypanky be brought to the forefront post conviction? Hypothetically speaking, obviously... This is a good man with a supporting family getting the shaft. He also has 1000s of followers using his suggestions relating to administrative procedures who are now thinking thay are at risk. Before I offer my support I would really appreciate your views. I would like to help in some way. I read everything you write with great interest and I respect your views tremendously. Q ________________________________ From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: This trial is over... Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:13:38 -0500 The Truth Gets Mugged (for the moment...) Four hours after being given the following instructions over my strenuous objection and insistence that the jurors be provided the actual language of the statutes, to which the judge replied (in court, but with the jury absent) that he wasn't going to let the jurors see that actual language because doing so "might cause them to speculate as to its meaning": WAGES DEFINED As it relates to the charges in this case, I instruct you that the term “wages” means all payments for services performed by an employee for his employer. The term wages applies to all employees and is not restricted to persons working for the government. 26 U.S.C. § 3401(a); 26 U.S.C. § 3121(a). EMPLOYER DEFINED As it relates to the charges in this case, I instruct you that the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person . This definition applies to all employers, whether private or government. 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d); 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b). EMPLOYEE DEFINED As it relates to the charges in this case, I instruct you that the term “employee” means any individual who performs services and who has a legal employer-employee relationship with the person for whom he performs these services. 26 U.S.C. § 3121(d)(2); 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c). ...and after the two most attentive jurors-- one of whom had actually asked during the trial to see the language of 3401 and 3121, and been rebuffed-- were bumped as alternates... Click herefor the rest of this story (or navigate to www.losthorizons.com/LastShotForTheLawDefiers.htm#Mugged) ________________________________ Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now.
