Doreen’s Principal Appeal Brief Has Been Filed
You can find it at http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter/DoreenAssault/AppealBrief.pdf
. I encourage everyone to download it and read it through. It’s an easy read, and not nearly as long as it will appear from the page count. Many pages are taken up with non-argument uses, and the argument portions are double-spaced and wide-margined, meaning that it doesn’t take much text to fill a page.
You will see– beyond any doubt, and completely contrary to the troll and wormtongue community that have been trying to spin Doreen’s “conviction” into some kind of attack on CtC
— that the “conviction” of Doreen was only achieved by reliance on deep corruption to overcome the complete lack of merit to the government’s case.
As such, the prosecution of Doreen– which IS meant to be an attack on CtC— is actually an acknowledgement of the truth about the tax, as can be seen by the following simple reasoning:
There is no valid case against Doreen. Yet the government proceeded with its “prosecution” anyway, deliberately taking a series of law-defying steps in order to contrive a “conviction”. This can only have been done in order to try to make an argument that cannot be made on legitimate grounds.
This is axiomatic. Deceit, evasion and corruption are only resorted-to when truth, forthrightness and integrity will yield unwanted outcomes.
The outcome wanted here by the deceivers is the furnishing the trolls and wormtongues with a press-release saying that, “The wife of Pete Hendrickson, author of ‘Cracking the Code’ was convicted…” (Needless to say, no mention is made in such a release of the shenanigans by which the “conviction” was accomplished– only a fraction of which are included in this brief due to length-limitation rules and a few other factors.) The hope is that you would be somehow discouraged from spreading the word about CtC
‘s revelations, or find it more difficult due to having one more thing to have to explain and clarify to a skeptical listener.
But this brief is the perfect answer to that corrupt effort at fog-generation– from it you can distill a bullet-point list of what the government actually had to do to contrive this “conviction” that it wants your listener to believe is reason for them to not examine CtC
. By this you can make clear, in a nice bit of intellectual judo, that the effort is really the best evidence that your listener really, really needs to study CtC
and learn what the government is so fearful of him or her discovering.
P. S. Anyone wanting to file an amicus brief in the appeal– whether in vindication of Doreen’s rights of speech, conscience and due process, or in pre-emptive defense of their own– should contact Mark Cedrone via any of the various means listed in the appeal brief.
ON ANOTHER, RELATED SUBJECT, I’ve had some inquiries about the status of Doreen’s “Bond Pending Appeal” motion. You know, that’s the one in which the DOJ slipped-up and tacitly admitted that it’s purported hostility to CtC
has always been a complete fabrication.
In its Response to Doreen’s Motion, the DOJ shysters claim that CtC
argues that “ONLY wages are income”, contradicting its long-standing previous absurd falsehood that CtC claims that “wages are not income”
. This new one is an equally absurd assertion, but also an effective admission that the previous nonsense– which was declared over signature in several federal court filings instrumental in the issuance and upholding of the judgment in which the orders Doreen is accused of “criminally” resisting were issued– has always been a deliberate lie, with the inescapable implication that every other purported opposition to CtC
has also always been similarly bogus. (Make use of these facts, people!)
Anyway, here’s what’s going on with the bond motion:
Bond pending appeal is provided for by statute for anyone convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The statute provides that upon a showing that the defendant is not a flight risk or danger to the community, and that issues will be raised in the appeal which, if they were to be taken as the defendant suggests they should be by the panel which will eventually hear the actual appeal (as opposed to the panel hearing the bond motion), would result in a different trial outcome or a substantial reduction in the sentence (so as to take it below the time it will take to rule on the appeal), the defendant is to be left at liberty (or restored to liberty) until the appeal is ruled upon. This is to ensure that someone not validly convicted or sentenced doesn’t serve a sentence while waiting to learn that they should not have had to.
In short, if a defendant can show she has substantial issues to raise on appeal, the bond motion is supposed to be granted. Axiomatically (and this is important to what follows), doubt about whether the defendant should be granted the bond stands in the defendant’s favor (because remember, the panel hearing the motion is not deciding the appeal, only if the issues to be raised in the motion would have a chance of reversing the verdict or sentence, and if there is doubt about that, this means there is such a chance and the defendant should be released until the doubt is resolved).
So by statutory design, bond motions go the the trial court judge whose own “errors” are being complained of in the appeal, for the expected denial. Once that denial is issued, the motion can then go to the appellate panel, which is not supposed to have a dog in the fight. In Doreen’s case, the trial judge sat on her bond motion for 32 days after it was fully briefed (25 of them after Doreen reported to prison and began suffering the sentence), and only issued a ruling (the expected denial) after being copied on a petition to the appellate court to have her ordered to make a ruling so the matter could be taken higher up the food chain.
Now, however, the appellate court has been fully briefed on the motion for 23 days (see the filings here, here and here)
, and has yet to issue a decision. In the appellate court’s case, the delay can only be an expression of the validity of the motion, and yet it still has not been granted. One hesitates to speculate as to what’s going on here; I’ll leave that to you.
“Like a muddied stream or a polluted fountain is the righteous man who gives way before the wicked.”