From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Section F - Appeal Brief - Agent Tejeda
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>
Hi,
You'll have one final reply doc at the end. I am not going to closely review the case law. I just can't be bothered. My comments are in the notes. I would say that the author of this document is entirely arrogant and a liar. I have no idea who wrote it. Someone who is sloppy, doesn't care about facts, and is a so-so lawyer.
All the best,
Kelley
An appellate court applies the “abuse of discretion” Standard of review to any ruling by a trial court on the admissibility of evidence. Citations.” People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 717. The aplication of ordinary rules of evidence does not generally implicate a defendant’s due process right to a fair trial, including the right to present a defense. People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 58. Even if the court erred in its decision to exclude defense evidence, reversal of the judgment is not warranted unless the error resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Evid. Code Section 354; People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1001. A miscarriage of justice occurs when the reviewing court concludes upon review of the entire record “that is reasonably probable … a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.” People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.
Kelley’s Notes: My first thought - you have my legal research; I have studied this extensively; and I remain unconvinced that Schmitter is a good attorney. Beyond that, it’s travesty of justice the record is not a record - the lies, fraud, perjury, concealment, etc. are simply too extensive. Vanderet wouldn’t wait two hours for Agent Tejeda to call. Let me quote all lawyers - what was his rush? In jury debriefing, they wanted to hear from the IRS; relied on Streeter’s lie about the $100-150K assets; and Nikhil thought there was a prosecution plant. I thought - this is what corruption looks like up close and personal. I think they generally implicated themselves to borrow one of Schmitter’s phrases. I don''t like even if arguments. I think they’re pathetic. You’re headed into rotten logic at this point of your legal ranting.
Date: Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Section F - Appeal Brief - Agent Tejeda
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>
Hi,
You'll have one final reply doc at the end. I am not going to closely review the case law. I just can't be bothered. My comments are in the notes. I would say that the author of this document is entirely arrogant and a liar. I have no idea who wrote it. Someone who is sloppy, doesn't care about facts, and is a so-so lawyer.
All the best,
Kelley
An appellate court applies the “abuse of discretion” Standard of review to any ruling by a trial court on the admissibility of evidence. Citations.” People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 717. The aplication of ordinary rules of evidence does not generally implicate a defendant’s due process right to a fair trial, including the right to present a defense. People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 58. Even if the court erred in its decision to exclude defense evidence, reversal of the judgment is not warranted unless the error resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Evid. Code Section 354; People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1001. A miscarriage of justice occurs when the reviewing court concludes upon review of the entire record “that is reasonably probable … a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.” People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.
Kelley’s Notes: My first thought - you have my legal research; I have studied this extensively; and I remain unconvinced that Schmitter is a good attorney. Beyond that, it’s travesty of justice the record is not a record - the lies, fraud, perjury, concealment, etc. are simply too extensive. Vanderet wouldn’t wait two hours for Agent Tejeda to call. Let me quote all lawyers - what was his rush? In jury debriefing, they wanted to hear from the IRS; relied on Streeter’s lie about the $100-150K assets; and Nikhil thought there was a prosecution plant. I thought - this is what corruption looks like up close and personal. I think they generally implicated themselves to borrow one of Schmitter’s phrases. I don''t like even if arguments. I think they’re pathetic. You’re headed into rotten logic at this point of your legal ranting.
--
The
Judge admonished the witness, “Do you understand that you have sworn to
tell the truth?” “I do.” “Do you understand what will happen if you are
not truthful?” “Sure,” said the witness. “My side will win.”