Monday, September 26, 2005

Cohen, Schiff & Neun Trial Update, Doug Kenline interview with Mike Goldman the Radio Rebel



You can catch Mike on the radio on Saturday nights at Crusade Radio

26 Old Comments:

The reason, in my opinion, that there are probably no gaming industry jurors is because the Nevada gaming industry has a long history of conflict with the IRS. There have been several times that the IRS and NV gaming industry have butted heads over the issue of cash tips received by employees. In other owrds, placing a blackjack dealer on the jury would not help the Gvt.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 12:47 AM  

One thing is for sure, hatred stems from fear and this judge had better get that verdict or it might be an early reirement. Not only that, if the verdict is not achieved, we will see the number of these cases escalate in due measure. So the Gvt. had better come up with the law....

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 12:50 AM  

This is true...NV has a long history of conflict with the IRS. They are the only state throughout all the states and territories of the United States that does not have an information sharing agreement with the IRS. The reason for this is NV does not have the type of information needed because they have no state income tax and it is not written in the NV Constitution. The state didn't give all that silver to help the Federal Gvt. win its Civil War for nothing. The Governor at the time had many mining interests and wanted to keep his business affairs private from the Federal Gvt. Thereto, the silver for no information-sharing agreement and statehood in the Union. Moreover, in the early 90's, the IRS tried to access the NV DMV records, but the Governor at the time denied the IRS access by stating that the NV Constitution does not contain any laws to allow the sharing of information on NV Citizens with the Federal Gvt. Case closed.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 1:01 AM  

Anonymous said...
One thing is for sure, hatred stems from fear and this judge had better get that verdict or it might be an early reirement. Not only that, if the verdict is not achieved, we will see the number of these cases escalate in due measure. So the Gvt. had better come up with the law....

9/27/2005 1:50 AM

*************************

How about Shifty coming up with a defense? The law has already been established. It's up to Shifty to defend himself and prove that his interpretation of the law is correct.

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 9/27/2005 1:15 AM  

The problem is the law hasn't been established...the judge tried that trick today and it almost ended the whole trial.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 1:29 AM  

Anonymous said...
The problem is the law hasn't been established...the judge tried that trick today and it almost ended the whole trial.

9/27/2005 2:29 AM

**************************

What a ridiculous statement. Of course the law has been established. The interpretation of the law is where TP's are needing help.

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 9/27/2005 1:37 AM  

Ok, I am on the sidelines here, reading and learning....could you please be kind enough to show where the law makes the income (private receipts) liable to the Federal Income Tax...

Why hasen't someone shown this before..

thank you!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 7:09 AM  

Anonymous said...
Ok, I am on the sidelines here, reading and learning....could you please be kind enough to show where the law makes the income (private receipts) liable to the Federal Income Tax...

Why hasen't someone shown this before..

thank you!

9/27/2005 8:09 AM

***************************

Here you go...

BTW, the favorite thing TP's like to to do after being shown the law is to "prove" it doesn't apply to them. Save your typing fingers because you don't have to convice me, it's the established case law interprestations you need to change.


http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 9/27/2005 8:33 AM  

Why is it that those who openly accept the current income tax scheme can never identify the LAW and substantial authority that the U.S. Gvt. has to collect the tax in the first place?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 8:47 AM  

Maybe both sides are a little bias, BUT, the law is the law, and the constitution is the constitution. I don't ever remember seeing an expiration date on either!

Why won't the government answer the question when presented to them? The reply that it's "frivolous", is not legal according to the constitution.

Only in corrupt courts can the government get away with that defense.

This country is pathetic! It's run by self-righteous, lying thieving people who only care about themselves and how much they can put in their pockets!

Haliburton is a prime example!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 9:27 AM  

QUOTE:
Anonymous said...
Why is it that those who openly accept the current income tax scheme can never identify the LAW and substantial authority that the U.S. Gvt. has to collect the tax in the first place?

9/27/2005 9:47 AM


It's because they prefer to accept what they are told by their "authorities" rather than trouble themselves dare do anything that challenges the official definition of reality such as read the law and decide for themselves. Their neurons ache when they enounter information that stresses their given-from-above world view. It's a matter of fundamental laziness. They never questioned what mommy and daddy told them so they haven't learned to take their authorities' word with a grain of salt. They live in a happy state of blissful ignorance ... a happy state of existence so long as they don't draw the ire of those who define their reality. What better way to maintain that blissful state than to pull up the blinders and say "Yes, massa'" whenever their loyalty to authority is challenged.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 11:37 AM  

Mike Goldman the "radio idiot" is more like it.

That's the rules of evidence you frigging moron, it's not "bias" on the point of the judge, it's not "kangaroo" - it works both ways, the Government can't introduce evidence without following the same procedures.

Did you know that Cindy is suing Irwin?

Cynthia Lynn, Neun, sui juris
Plaintiff-Complainant

V.

Irwin Allan, Schiff and
Michael Stein

CASE NO A489213
Filed Jul 22, 2004

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 9/27/2005 12:33 PM  

Irwin Schiff - what a "hero" for you guys. From Cindy' lawsuit:

Irwin moved into my home under the pretence that he was my boyfriend. We were never "engaged", but Irwin said several times that he intended marriage at some point. He said this in front of other people who liked me and who chided him for not making an "honest woman" out of me. These statements were a part of the fraud. His deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying and conning others for personal profit or pleasure, to remain in honor for those students, customers, friends and family who expressed their fondness for me

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 9/27/2005 1:15 PM  

Frank,
are you another quatlooser?

1) rules of evidence are not "law". they are a collection of opinions generated by the courts in order to control how cases evolve. the so-called "unbiased" judges have total control over whether they will allow evidence to be admitted or not, and they don't have to give a reason.

"works both ways"? are you naturally niave or do you have to take lessons? the federal judges are paid by the federal government. the irss keeps special files on the federal judges that even the judges have no access to by FOIA. can you really believe that a federal judge is going to allow great exculpatory evidence and piss off the irss when he can just say "denied" and give no reason?

2) Cindy v. Irwin !!!
another diversion; another allegation without data.

3) the two quatlooser techniques -a) "if you can't dazzle 'em with your footwork, baffle 'em with your bullshit!"
b) "if you can't attack the message, attack the messanger."

By Anonymous hank, at 9/27/2005 1:37 PM  

I'm sorry. How - exactly - is pointing out that Shifty's "girlfriend" thinks he's a deceitful piece of waste matter, a "diverson". The matter of the law suit that Cindy filed is a matter of public record. It's not an "allegation" it's a properly filed lawsuit against Schiff filed by Cindy. Department 10 of the Clark County District Court, Judge Jessie Walsh is where the case is assigned.

Cindy's case

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 9/27/2005 2:08 PM  

Bummer. The link just takes you to a blank page, I guess the information doesn't remain. Should you be interested in learning the truth, use the "Party Search" feature on the left hand side and search "Neun". But, why do I get the feeling that people such as dale won't allow anything like the truth to get in their way?

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 9/27/2005 2:11 PM  

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

That is NOT the LAW. It doesn't even have a document number, the author is not listed, and it's NOT an official document.

It's dreck.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 2:38 PM  

Frank Buckner said...

Mike Goldman the "radio idiot" is more like it.

Frank, Wipe your lips

By Anonymous You know who, at 9/27/2005 4:20 PM  

Mr. Buckner states:
That's the rules of evidence you frigging moron,

With that wonderful teacher's persona perhaps you would enlighten us regarding:
1. Best Evidence;
2. Hearsay Evidence;
3. Void for vagueness doctrine;
4. How keeping the actual words of the law from the jury helps them to understand whether the accused broke the law.

I'll help you on that last one in a new post.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 4:24 PM  

Okay, Mr. Buckner. Hypothetical situation:

You're a member of a jury in a criminal trial. The prosecutor has proven, with solid evidence, waaaay beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused did indeed commit the crime the accused was accused of doing.

Q.1. Are you required to vote guilty?

Q.2. If your answer to Q.1. is no, Would you vote guilty?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 4:31 PM  

P.S. The accused in the above hypothetical situation even sat on the stand and testified, "Yes. I broke that law."

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 4:36 PM  

Hank said:
2) Cindy v. Irwin !!!
another diversion; another allegation without data.


There is data, it just doesn't match what Mr. Buckner said it is.

It's a palimony case, and it is another diversion.

It becomes even more irrelevent to anybody that has listened to Ms. Nuen's audio reports.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 5:03 PM  

Anonymous said...

Why won't the government answer the question when presented to them?

Because.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/27/2005 5:07 PM  

Looks like Mikey and Dougie are starting their spin for when Irwin loses!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/27/2005 5:20 PM  

"you know who"? Why didn't you post under your real name of Goldman? You're still an idiot.

Will Irwin's prison number be all zeroes? Inquiring minds want to know!

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 9/28/2005 2:52 AM  

Frank Buckner said...

"you know who"? Why didn't you post under your real name of Goldman? You're still an idiot.

Such acumen.

Check the URL, dummy.

By Anonymous You know who (again), at 9/28/2005 4:23 AM