To: <debie@jusbelli.com>

Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 5:42 PM

Subject: Juries are Stupid and/or are Attorney's at Fault?

Question: In John's IRS trial in Anchorage, Alaska in which he was found guilty and was represented by Becraft, is the fault mostly with the jury that are ignorant of the law, or it it the problem with the attorney, whom is a purported Assistance of Counsel, the prosecution and the judge.

Problem 1. I go into the court room and in the jury voir dire selection process, you will hear the infamous Judge Singleton state to the the jury members that they must take the law as he gives it to them. You will also see this on the jury instructions that are on my home page in jury instruction one (1) of John Harpole's trial - represented by Becraft.

Problem 2. The jury sat through all of the "terms" that had definitions such "wages", "taxpayer", etc. and documents using said "terms" without Beacraft objecting and the jury was listening to words ONLY based on a believe system and presuming that said documents using said terms were evidence of something - no foundation of what crime of willfulness/? was ever laid by the prosecution. Now at the end of the trial by jury [sic], the jury are given a "few" of the terms purportedly to translate into words.Could you have a story told to you over the period of say one week and then at the end of the story, have only a few terms defined for you in the jury instructions? Did you really understand the evidence if you don't know what the "terms" really meant, or was it a trip down the rabbit hole with Alice in Wonderland with the Attorneys and judge leading the charge to conviction in the abyss? Remembering, now you can't replay the total story over again. Who in his right right mind with this being self-evident that of course the jury is ignorant going in and remains so at the end of trial before deliberation not able to understand that "terms" are being proffered repeatedly by the IRS tyrants as "words" with the blessing of the quiet attorneys [Becraft and Bradley] and Singleton." It is any wonder that Singleton was very happy with trial and falling all over himself with smiles and good ruling purportedly in favor of Becraft.

Proposed Solutions.

1. Every time a "term" is used, object on the grounds that it is a term, not defined, and no foundation has been laid to use said term in the trial - I sure don't understand and I am sure the jury doesn't either. This includes "United States" , United States of America, State, etc.

2. Demand that Singleton provide the definition of every term as he purports to "give us the law", so by damn you learned in the law tyrant, give it to me!!!

3. The burden of proof is upon the Prosecutor [check prosecuting attorney in blacks - which is correct - not prosecutor], but the prosecutor is not held to the highest standard of defining every "term" at the beginning of the trial and throughout the trial, and no objection being raised, it is presumed to be a word understood by the ignorant jury and the documents containing said "term" is valid.

So, where does the fault lie? Isn't allowing all of the purported "evidence" as terms with no definition or foundation to the purported crime to the documents/terms denying the defendant a "trial by jury" to have all of the inculpatory [against you] and exculpatory [for you] evidence withheld by with with the consent of the judge and both attorneys - in reality the trial by jury is a sham proceeding?

==================

See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280 (1999), to wit:

In Brady this Court held "that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. at 87. We have since held that the duty to disclose such evidence is applicable even though there has been no request by the accused, United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107, 49 L. Ed. 2d 342, 96 S. Ct. 2392 (1976), and that the duty encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence, United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 87 L. Ed. 2d 481, 105 S. Ct. 3375 (1985). Such evidence is material "if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 682; see also Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433-434, 131 L. Ed. 2d 490, 115 S. Ct. 1555 (1995). Moreover, the rule encompasses evidence "known only to police [*281] investigators and not to the prosecutor." Id. at 438. In order to comply with Brady, therefore, "the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in this case, including the police." Kyles, 514 U.S. at 437.

===================

Can we excuse Singleton, Becraft, or Bradley as being ignorant and/or stupid and/or in on it, or what?

Do you have a good answer?

Did John have a Trial by Jury or a judicial lynching?

=========

See State v. Lattimar, 111 S.E. 510, 511(1912), to wit: But he is entitled to a fair and impartial trial, to the calm, deliberate, and uninfluenced judgment of his peers. Orderly and constituted government demands such trial. It is a safeguard in which all members of society are interested, and which should be jealously upheld and guarded. A judicial lynching is a graver and more startling crime than a lynching by the irresponsible rabble. It undermines the foundation of orderly government, and weakens respect for law and order. Much of the success of any form of government depends upon the opinion of those governed, of its power to protect them in the administration of the laws, and in the wisdom and integrity of those who govern. When the courts do not uphold the laws, respect for law and for government ceases. There should be no compromise with the spirit of lynching for any crime. The mob in Jerusalem was clamoring to Pilate to crucify the Saviour. He "washed his hands" of guilt, and released the Christ to the "tender mercies" of his accusers, thereby perpetrating the greatest judicial crime of the ages. The representative of imperial Rome compromised with the congregated doers of evil. It is little wonder that the empire declined and fell.

================

My vote is a judicial lynching, and John paid for a new rope, the hangman, and a new scaffold. I think John needs to step back and re-evaluate the trial.

Could it also be that John was too much of threat to the system, and that the final Motion on a technical issue of no regulation will free John with no damage to the IRS"s system?

Ralph