Skip to main content

Hey all. Greetings from the great state of Oregon. Had to diary this story since I seem entrenched in the middle.
It all started this last winter when I read about Ed and Elaine Brown's legal problems with the IRS and federal Government. Just the other day this was posted on kos.

      It truly is amazing how events that we don't even consider, let alone agree upon, somehow become intertwined with the events in our own  personal lives, sometimes in very unexpected ways.
When I first read about Ed and Elaine Brown, they were still going to trial on their tax evasion charges. What made me pay attention to their story? I also had an upcoming trial. Although on different charges (mine  being state charges, their's federal) both cases had similarities that couldn't be ignored.   Also, it is my opinion that Randy Weaver's presence at the Brown residence is also due, in part, to the similarities in his own criminal prosecution: prosecutor's malfeasance.

 In early 2003 I registered with the OMMP, as a caregiver for sick people who use cannabis to alleviate illness.
  Here is a little background on Oregon's medical cannabis law. It was passed overwhelmingly by voters in 1998 and then supplemented by legislators in 2005, to include more plants and more quantity in possession. Also in 2005 Oregon's Attorney general, Hardy Myers, issued THIS, reassuring the people of Oregon, that their law was still intact.
That year (2005) found me growing medical cannabis for a very ill man, a head trauma patient, who suffered frequent and intense migraines. Cannabis was the only medication that wouldn't upset his stomach. He really needed his cannabis!
 On August 17th of that year, while I was at work 100 miles away selling produce and nursery plants at the Bend Farmers Market, my business and nursery were raided by the authorities. First they flew and hovered over my place with an Army National Guard helicopter. And then they raided. I need to mention that when they hovered they were under 50 feet off the ground (according to a neighbor). This was apparent when I returned home. All my tomato plants were flattened and my nursery stock was dried out and defoliated. It was 98 degrees that day: think convection oven.
Of course I was in shock when I saw the damage. At first I thought I had been vandalized (actually I was). I immediately phoned the Sheriff's office and asked what the hell was up. Their response was that a search warrant had been served and illegal drugs had been seized. My response was that I was a legal OMMP caregiver and those plants were legal and that this must be some terrible mistake and that I wanted the plants returned immediately. Early the next morning, 1:00 am, I met personally with the Sheriff's deputy in charge, presented him with all my documentation and demanded the plants be returned. He copied the paperwork and said that he would fax it to OMMP and confirm my status. Since it was still early in the morning, he told me I would have to wait. At five that evening, I went back to the Sheriff's substation to meet with the aforementioned deputy.  Of course he wasn't there. So I drove around looking for him to no avail. On my way back home, I stopped at a friend's place of business to inform them of my predicament. As I was entering my vehicle to leave, I spotted my deputy sitting in his patrol vehicle across the street, concealed by some bushes. So I drove across the street and pulled up to him. He seemed a little taken aback, to say the least. As I started to ask him about my case, I noticed, in the back of his cruiser (a sport utility vehicle), a shitload of cannabis plants! I could tell they weren't the ones I had been growing since these plants had the lush look of live, healthy plants. Although it was still quite hot and dry, these plants where in no way wilted nor showing any sign of stress. I jokingly told the officer that he'd better make sure their soil was moist, or the plants might stress and wilt in the heat. He gruffly replied that he had cut them earlier in the day. At this point I smelled bullshit and stepped out of my vehicle to get a better look. As I approached the vehicle to peer inside, he tried to block my view, but I did get a glimpse of potted pot. He was very gruff with me and would not discuss the matter with me on the street.  He said, "Follow me down to the sheriff's substation to talk." At the station, he informed me that my legal status as a caregiver wasn't valid anymore and he handed me a citation for two felonies. No handcuffs.... no immediate jail... just a citation with a possible outcome of forty years behind bars!
Anyway, this is just the tip of the iceberg of the perfidy and corruption that I have experienced in the last 22 months. Perhaps I will diary the rest of the story later if I get enough comments on this one. Now, back to the Browns and how we share a collective dilemma.
  As I went through the different court proceedings in my case, I fired my first court appointed defender for malfeasance (denied subpoena of favorable witness, amongst other things) and was appointed none other than Mr. Ron D. Howen, former USA, lead prosecutor of the bungled Randy Weaver case in Idaho. Wow! Did that ever make me feel in safe hands. Now here was a man that was sure to help me!  
 It was a good three months before Ron and I actually got to meet and talk in person, this was done in the parking lot of a bar. (nice office, hmmm)
That meeting turned  into a shouting match between Mr. Howen and I. Here is the best qoute from that match:

Are you so naive, to think that the FBI doesn't have the list of all the OMMP patients and caregivers? Ron Howen

When I regained concisnous, I replied, "Then get this case thrown out on the grounds that the FBI violated patient privacy laws" and used military personel and hardware in the raid. His reply?
   

I don't believe in Posse Comitatus

To say the least, I was blown away!
So you can see how I have taken an interest in the Brown's case, not that I necessarily agree with their course of action, or Weavers either. However I can see how they were forced into their desperation.
I have to agree with arvo. We need to watch this case unfold carefully, not only for their safety and justice, but ours as well.

Originally posted to winchelenator on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 06:51 PM PDT.

Poll

Are ex USAs, still on the payroll?

44%4 votes
11%1 votes
22%2 votes
22%2 votes

| 9 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (4+ / 0-)

    Tip: or Flame, if its a shame

    If we don't all hang together, assuredly we will all hang separately-Ben Franklin

  •  Ron Howen (3+ / 0-)

    OK, I think that's an excellent line of inquiry.  What are all the ex-USA's doing today?  Geez, if Ron Howen,  prosecuting US attorney of Ruby Ridge fame wound up in a public defender's office in Oregon, defending those who can't afford an attorney...Where are the rest of them now?  This is an angle I had not considered...the appointing of weasels to supposedly protective positions.
    Has the perfidy infected all levels?  Probably.  This may take decades to untangle.  

    IMPEACH THEM NOW! It only takes One State.

    by arbortender on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:46:22 PM PDT

  •  OMMP (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arbortender, winchelenator

    Do diary on your odyssey with the OMMP.  That's a key struggle for medical freedom.  I would like to hear more about that case.  How did it turn out?  Were you acquitted?  Were you vindicated?  Are they coming to get you right after the Browns?  Ronald Howen?  Are you kidding?

    •  He's Here! (0+ / 0-)

      Ron Howen is practicing law, as a public defender.
      Yes it is a struggle for medical freedoms across the board. I am still waiting to go to trial, its been two years since I have been under this indictment... lots of changes in my life since then, some for the better a lot for the worse.
      If they do come for me  anytime soon I won't meet them at the gate with guns blazing, but I will not roll over, no way. I will continue to diary this story as events unfold. Oh and by the way, I think Ron is a Bulldog of an attorney, in other words he sets his mind on matters and gets the job done, I just wish he was on my side.

       Right Lies, left capitulates

  •  not impressed with (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Over the Edge

    the Brown's basic arguments. Don't go trying to make them out as heroes. I sure hope this doesn't get bloody in my neck of the woods, based on spelling and semantics. I have yet to hear a truly cogent argument from the man, Mr. Brown.

    "Well, we're a little disturbed by the situation in the Middle East, but other than that..." Cyril, Breaking Away (1979)

    by peaceloveandkucinich on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 08:56:17 PM PDT

    •  not heroes..... (2+ / 0-)

      ....just really desperate people, not unlike a lot of us, that feel poorly treated by the justice system. I wouldn't recommend doing what the Browns are, other than them taking a stand, there are other ways such as appeal if convicted, Or better yet pay your taxes and petition the Government for redress on the issue. Its a lot easier standing your ground as a free citizen than being incarcerated or under siege.
      I understand your concern about bloodshed... I hope and pray that Randy will take his hard learned lessons and help to end this siege peacefully without anyone getting hurt. Does nobody any good to have things explode, like they have in the past.

      Peace on

    •  I'm not sure.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peaceloveandkucinich

      ...what you meant by:

      I sure hope this doesn't get bloody in my neck of the woods, based on spelling and semantics.

      could you please elaborate?

      •  the guy is holed up (0+ / 0-)

        in his fortress of a house, not too far from where I live (not right next door, but yeah, local) with food, friends, and machine guns. Randy Weaver, when he showed up to "help" said:

        "I'd rather die on my feet right here with people like this- good American people- than live on my knees any more under this defacto government that'll lie to ya, steal from ya, and murder..."

        Coming from him, even though he says he comes in peace, makes me nervous. These people have already been convicted and sentenced, and here's an example of what happens when you don't get taken from the courtroom directly to jail the first time. They didn't show up in court in April, but instead barricaded themselves in their home.

        There has already been an incident, not described in
        the article, in which the Feds were supposedly just "surveilling" but when one of the Brown's friends there "walked the dog" a shot rang out...

        Please, watch the video in the link. It says everything else, (but I think the dog thing came a few days after) like the fact that it was the Town Administrator who wrote a letter to the US Marshall asking them to please, "come do what you are paid to do." The town and people in surrounding towns do NOT support this man in his belief that the Sixteenth Amendment was never actually ratified, thus annulling any claim the government has on our incomes.  
            But while I, and many others, may think we got screwed in 1913, I also believe that single incidents of protest are not a good idea. If you want change, convince us all in words, and if it's true we will ALL come with you and laws will change.  But I met this guy in a parkinglot in Plainfield in 1994. He invited me to come meet and join his militia, then, which I did not do, and he explained the thinking about the tax being illegal. I did go home and look that up, thinking that if he was right about that, well then I just might join him.  Turns out the objection really is based on

        errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.

        Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and — taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems — advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

          There are many other "objections" that people have put forth, but this is the one he presented to me, and it's baloney.

        The time to object is before you are convicted, and to hide from your sentence and invite someone from a former violent incident to come and say "Peace" "unless I have to die for my beliefs this time" (not on this video, but there's been a lot more airplay in our hometown area...) is to invite bloodshed.

        I work at a library and it's been front page news in the papers, and I like to ask people what they think of the issues. So far I have not met anyone who supports the Brown's cause, and he's got his wife so brainwashed (IMHO) that she's ready to die for it too.

             

        "Well, we're a little disturbed by the situation in the Middle East, but other than that..." Cyril, Breaking Away (1979)

        by peaceloveandkucinich on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:27:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I got it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peaceloveandkucinich

          It has become clearer to me why Mr. Brown puts forth his argument.

          "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes";

          For example: remuneration means something totally different than enumeration which means to count, while the prior means to pay. At best the sixteenth is quite confusing and muddled. Maybe they left it that way on purpose. Just like the current admin....muddle, muddle.
           Also I support Mr. Weaver and his choice to back the Browns, you don't have to look very far to see the controversy surrounding his case. And fifteen years after the incident the debate still rages on. Check out this page and you will see.
          Also as far as the Browns supporters go, yeah at times they may seem like wingnuts, but I will stand with them because the second amendment, unlike the sixteenth, is very clear

          •  Iagree that it seems like they kept (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            winchelenator

            the sixteenth muddled on purpose, althoug I can't really say why.

            I also support the second amendment for what it means relative to the declaration (when in the course of human events it becomes necessary, etc.)

            But I do not support individuals violently avoiding the prison terms they have already been handed. In fact, I don't support individual acts of civil disobedience, either, which I have been explaining here on dkos recently,   because: individuals will only get hurt. It must be a group effort: all together now.
            I also understand the difference between enumeration and remuneration, yes- that's more than a spelling error. However, both of those words are correct in context, and do not contradict each other, and so it is not completely wrong either, they simply relate back to the beginning of the sentence in different ways.

            How did it come to be that way that it was accepted by all involved and called ratified? I don't understand that, but since that appears to be the strongest argument they had, I think their case is way too weak, at best, and patently false at worst.

            ALso, people who know Mr. Brown have told me his "arrogance" isn't helping the situation, and with friends like this, they could probably use some help...

            "Well, we're a little disturbed by the situation in the Middle East, but other than that..." Cyril, Breaking Away (1979)

            by peaceloveandkucinich on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 01:26:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              peaceloveandkucinich

              ....that the authors of the sixteenth probably knew no matter how they wrote it, would be found unconstitutional, eventually. I also believe that was why it took so long for the State's to ratify. It was all about money, and where's ours? I wonder why the Brown's didn't use some of the other arguments out there like Title of Nobility amendment or this
              Just goes to show that if you don't pay your income tax be well prepared, with many options, to fight this thing in court. Your right about getting people to back you up, not to shoot back at cops, but to lend support in the courts.

  •  Oh I wish you would take Gene Zimmerman's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    winchelenator

    legal seminar. Please search for my diaries on this seminar as I took it at the end of April. You are so on track getting rid of lousy lawyers. The way to do it is pro se. Using your Constitutional rights. Email me if you have any questions and I'll try to help or direct you to someone who can.

    Anyone who has been tortured, remains tortured. Primo Levi The Drowned and the Saved

    by abbeysbooks on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 09:23:10 PM PDT

    •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      abbeysbooks

      Sounds very interesting, however how does this set with the courts, people defending themselves? What kind of track record do these Pro Se defendants have?

      •  Zimmerman right now is going after the banks (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        arbortender, winchelenator

        as they are lending for mortgages on credit rather than solid assets. When you take out a morrtgage that mortgage is put on their books as an asset rather than a liability. You also sign a promissary note for that amount and that also is put on the books as an asset rather than a liability. So for every mortgage they put double that amount on their books as assets. So now you see what is really going on in the housing and mortgage market.

        But it is against federal law to lend on credit. So they are really at risk except no one calls them on it so the game continues. Zimmerman is getting clients to call them on it and they are so terrified they don't show up in court and the person's mortgage is dissolved, sometimes with punitive damages if they have been foreclosed upon, not for not paying, but for other snide reasons. In the fine print of a mortgage are lots of things they can use as reasons to call in a mortgage.

        Another case was a development that was going to ruin natural habitat for eagles, I think. And he was the brain behind winning that lawsuit that was brought by some property owners. You can google Gene Zimmerman and some stuff comes up. He is part of a foundation for ensuring civil liberties, altho he is a wing nut for sure. But he did say in the seminar that the arabs had a musch better money system than we did. They forbid usuary. I think that surprised some people there. But the religious right that takes these seminars are not stupid as to how they are going to use the info.

        halt.com and nola also have sites that promote pro se. If you represent yourself you have so much more power.

        The proper way for you to have gone about what happened to you was first of all to not talk with any of them. Then as far as court appearances go you say "I have not found counsel and I cannot proceed without counsel." The Supreme Court has ruled that bad representation  may be more detrimental to a defendent than no representation at all. The SC has also ruled that if there is any chance that the defendent could spend only one minute in jail, then the defendent must have representation in order to proceed. A quote from Ginsburg that he used a lot in class. You then make appontments with some counsel and the idea is to make sure they turn you down. No money. Your request to be co-counsel with them and the right for you to speak to the court when you want to. That will get them to say no. Another ploy: Can you guarantee me that you will win. And if you do not will you share the costs with me. No a thousand times no that lawyer will say. If the judge appoints a public defender in court for you ask permission to have a few words in private before you accept them. Then say the above and s/he wil come back into the courtroom with you and tell the judge they cannot represent you. So each time your case is rescheduled you say you have tried (present the names, dates, meetings,phone calls that got you refused), to no avail but you will keep trying. This can drag out for a long long time. You want to wear them out. They count on your wanting to get it over with fast and get it behind you.

        I am guessing but I bet that warrant they used was not not in order. A warrant must be dated correctly, signed by a judge, have an expiration date, say exactly what they are looking for, and specify where they intend to look. They cannot go through your house and upset everything and destroy your property. If they do and you are there you keep loudly protesting over and over and over and hopefully tape it all or video it as they are doing it.  Not only that they went in your home without your consent as you weren't home.

        I beg you to find 10 people and he will come to you and do a seminar. 10 days of 11 hours of lecturing for $500 each person. His mission is to get at least 12 people in each state doing this work full time to reverse the trend in the violation of our constitutional rights. There is so much more to it than my diaries or this comment.

        You have a great case. And it is loaded with punitive damages big time. And there is so much more you can do that I can't explain here. What is needed is to get his whole picture. The entire forest along with the trees.

        Anyone who has been tortured, remains tortured. Primo Levi The Drowned and the Saved

        by abbeysbooks on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 10:56:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks again (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          abbeysbooks

          Sounds like I need to contact Mr. Zimmmerman. I would like to add that Mr. Howen is no longer my attorney, in fact he quite because I filed a Motion to Dismiss based on a lack of speedy trial, on the morning of my trial. This independent act floored Howen as well as the judge. After Howen quite the judge threatened to go ahead with the trial, without counsel, if I didn't withdraw my motion. So you see I was drawn into a trap where I had no other option than to withdraw. At that point the judge continued and reset my trial for another date. Since then I have been appointed another defender and the case drags on.
          You are correct in assuming that the search warrant was not in order. I filed a motion, on my own, to controvert the affidavit and suppress the evidence seized. This was filed prior to Howen becoming my defender, when my first attorney did nothing. This motion was literally ignored by the courts. When Howen became my attorney, he finally succumbed to my insistence that he argue this motion. We finally got a court date and he did argue. I thought he did a good job in arguing, he even got law enforcement to contradict itself on the stand. Nonetheless the judge dismissed that motion after I had clearly won the argument. Its a hard thing to do, defend yourself when the judge is not impartial. Oh and another thing at my last trial date I was given the jury list that I would be selecting my jury from the day before trial. With a little help from my internet friends we spent the entire evening googling the list and found out that the pool had been stacked at least seventy five percent against me. Not that I have a lot of enemies but the people that were on list were either known big time drug dealers or goverment workers or convicted felons or the wives of cops. All these people had a vested intrest in putting me away. That is another proplem with our medical cannabis laws, they tend to infringe on the black market trade, taking revenue out of the pocket of these people. If you reveiw the facts cannabis users are the most frequent and most popular victim for criminal prosecution. This keeps the courts rolling, as well as providing a easy mark for the cops. Job security

          •  You are in the middle of the stew (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            winchelenator

            and I cannot get you out of the slush.

            However, when the judge ordered you to withdraw your motion or he would go ahead without counsel here is what you should have done:

            I object. I cannot proceed without counsel. And everytime he opened his mouth to say he would proceed you must object.  If you don't object that legally means you agree.

            The judge is never your friend. Zimmerman's whole thrust is to constrict their boundaries into the legal cage the law puts them in. They have been expanding and expanding and your job is to apply the constrainsts.

            If you objected to trial without counsel and objected all through the trial that you didn't have counsel, that is grounds for appeal. An appeal, contrary to the public perception, is not a going over the evidence and arriving at a new conclusion. No. And no again. An appeal is granted on the basis of the court overstepping its legal constraints. You were being intimidated and punished for filing a motion. No matter how well your lawyer finally argued, remember he is in bed with the prosecutor and the judge.

            Oh god you need Zimmerman and I can't get you to him but I will email him and send your comments and ask him if you may call him. OK?

            You are in the soup and I don't know your next move as it is all gummed up. But Z works with cases like these all the time because people ask his advice and then go get a lawyer and get messed up and then come running back.

            You are absolutely on the right tract. You just don't know all the rules of the game and so they are calling the shots. But when you really get informed, they don't know the real rules, and you get to cite case after case supporting your position.

            There is a SCrt decision that goes against what that judge was trying to do to you. If you had been able to cite it at that moment by saying "I object. And cite the case that is relevant." I assure you he would have backed down and might even have dismissed. If they did not give you a speedy trial, forced you to go to trial, and you objected then you have the grounds for an appeal.

            Z taught us that always, always, when you are in the first level of the court you are setting up the foundation for an appeal.  Judges do not want an appeal as it goes against their record. Once they know you know how to fight, they won't bother you.

            Still you have a great weapon you don't know about yet for all of the officers and officials involved in what they did to you. You can bankrupt every fucking one of them. Z will tell you how. Believe me when I say you have weapons you have never even dreamed of.

            For a jury you need Wenke's The Art of Selecting a Jury which is in the second hand market and also republished by a legal publisher. It is excellent. But the idea is to never go to jury trial in the first place. Ask Z but I suggest you get rid of your lawyer at the earliest moment.

            Anyone who has been tortured, remains tortured. Primo Levi The Drowned and the Saved

            by abbeysbooks on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 01:25:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  OK I'm convinced...where's Z? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              abbeysbooks

              Again outstanding comment. If I only knew then what I know now. However, not too worry, I'm not convicted yet, and I don't intend to be. I will be emailing you right away for that information, and I appreciate a lead in for a phone conversation with Mr. Zimmerman.
              Thanks again abbeybooks, for all the great information.

              Those that would give up essential liberties for temporary security, deserve neither-Ben Franklin

              •  Will email him tonight. Guess he will get back (0+ / 0-)

                in two days or so. He likes to help people. His personal story that got him into all this is unbelievable. A wife the IRS stressed to death and a murdered son. So he feels he has nothing else to lose. They hate him.

                He stonewalls them every single time they try something. Even for a missing brake light which gets him stopped in traffic. He has a great procedure for that too.

                I urge you to get a group of likeminded people together where you are and get the whole picture from him.

                One of the books for the course is Sun-Tzu's The Art of War. Do not send the link to your diary as I call the people I took it with wingnuts. That would anger him. I think I have just learned my lesson about namecalling.

                Anyone who has been tortured, remains tortured. Primo Levi The Drowned and the Saved

                by abbeysbooks on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:55:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Here's a link for Wenke's book on (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                winchelenator

                selecting a jury. It just came in my wants from abebooks.

                http://www.abebooks.com/...

                34.xx and some change. janet

                A good text to have. He is just wonderful.

                Anyone who has been tortured, remains tortured. Primo Levi The Drowned and the Saved

                by abbeysbooks on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 07:36:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site