Thursday, September 29, 2005

Cohen, Schiff & Neun Trial Update from Angela Stark

31 Old Comments:

Since the Plaintiff, Defendent and the Judge are unwilling to clear- up the matter, then maybe the Jury is trying to reconcile the confusion by asking the Judge:

Third Question:

What IS the law that makes someone liable to file a U.S. Income Tax Return?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 7:49 AM  

Go Mr. SCHIFF.
answer to third question: What ever they want it to be in order to take the lunch money. Please read Karl Marx and his 10 points and maybe you'll figure out how we are at the threshold of Tyranny, you up and coming molded little SLAVE.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 8:41 AM  

Couldn't someone record the trial? I thought anyone in a public place could be recorded.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 8:46 AM  

If the law is so readily apparent, than why doesn't the Judge just come out and explain the LAW to the Jury. We are on Day 12 now and there still remains no explanation. It appears that even the Judge is afraid to claim what the Law is to make someone liable to file a U.S. income tax return. This bodes poorly for the Gvt.'s case against Mr. Schiff. I am sure the Jury is wondering why the answer can not be readily given.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 8:56 AM  

What ever they want it to be in order to take the lunch money!!!!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 8:57 AM  

Maybe the judge will just give the jury http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/frivolousarguments-3-14-2005.pdf and then a copy of Irwin's previous convictions, and that will be all they need.

Oh, and some of the audio from Irwin's blog where he talks about how stupid the jurors are. That should go over really swell. Maybe one of the Marshalls can slip the jury some of that audio!

Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 9:05 AM  

"Maybe the judge will just give the jury http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/frivolousarguments-3-14-2005.pdf and then a copy of Irwin's previous convictions, and that will be all they need."
------------------------

If this was the case, then the Judge would have done so the first time the question was asked in his courtroom. You people at Quatlose keep coming up with this document, that ironically no Judge or Gvt. official will use to respond to a petition or a question in a court of law, so obviously the IRS document explains nothing to answer the question.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 9:13 AM  

If Irwin cannot hear, he should say,"Please repeat that, I did not hear it".

If they do not repeat, he should continue to place his request on the record, for any appeal.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 9:16 AM  

Quatloos, you seem to be anti-government - accusing government actors of committing unlawful activties. you must be a terrorist. you should report yourself to homeland security

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 9:18 AM  

Has anyone heard of the American Disability ACT. The law requires that some type of accommadation be provided to those with a disability. In Irwin's case, they must provide him with a hearing device so he can hear the testimony in court. This judge is an asshole, how can he tell Irwin to sit down and read lips. The judge is suppose to follow the law. Well that doesn;t make any sense, if he followed the law, Irwin would not be on trial because thereis no law that makes Irwin liable for the payment or penalties, of income taxes. Check out the IRC index for yourself, you'll see Irwin is correct.

Fullloos! not Quatloos.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 9:24 AM  

Irwin is simplying exposing what we have been doing for the past fifty-years. So what, now you know. If you really cared, which we know you don't, you would get organized and go and suppot him with your "Million Man March."
You said your numbers are growing everyday. If you are that large as you say, you should have had at least 20 of you idiot TP's marching in front of the court house with your ghetto homemade signs. But you are not organized, you are just a bunch of wussies, who cry and do nothing and get nothing done or changed.
At leaset the Blackman MLK had balls enough to march on Washington. You guys are to lazy to drive to Vegas and show you " Leader any type of support.
We know you have jobs and its too inconvient.
GOOD, thats why we will always prevail, we don't need to follow some foolish law that gets in our way of collecting you money. NOW SHUT UP AND GO BACK TO WORK, OH BTW, when you do over-time, we just smile bigger.
Quatloos!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 9:26 AM  

Hey listen people, Irwin is correct, but this system cannot let him win. It has too much to lose and I certainley need my gig fellas, so just keep paying your taxes or else we will take your property and make you cry. WHO'S GOING TO STOP US?
Answer- NOBODY. You are like the children of Israel in Egypt. You will suffer for four hundred years before anyone listens to you TP's. The media doesn't even want to cover this trial because they already know the outcome.
Can't you idiots see that this jury was hand-picked. How else can you account for no one from the gaming industry ending up on the jury? COme on people, stop your pissing and moaning and just pay-up as you are told and prevent the pain that is knocking on your doors from the IRS. cAUSE WE ARE COMING AND WE WILL GET YOU AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.

Quatloos!

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

Okay, I just reported myself to Homeland Security and they are marching up to my door boot strapped and arms. Now they are taking me into custody. Are you happy now. Now I'm in jail. How has that help you in your cause? It hasn't. I'm in jail and they are still illegally collecting income taxes from you. So the hell what. You TP's are idiots. NOw go back to worrk and make me my money.

PIMP DADDY!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 9:33 AM  

I hear the bags packing and the homes being bought in far away destinations, new factories and employees excited about their first day on the job....where am I talking about? Not the U.S...Say Goodbye to the U.S. eCONomy and its income Quotlosers!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 9:36 AM  

Since the comment has been made that the jury seems to be aware of what is going on and they are asking questions, its time to watch out for someone slipping valium into their lunch. I trust the gummint as far as I can throw them.

By Blogger cle262, at 9/29/2005 10:00 AM  

We know you have jobs and its too inconvient.
GOOD, thats why we will always prevail, we don't need to follow some foolish law that gets in our way of collecting you money. NOW SHUT UP AND GO BACK TO WORK, OH BTW, when you do over-time, we just smile bigger.
Quatloos!
______________________________________

Maybe one of the Marshalls could slip this comment to the jury as well. I'm sure its very funny.

By Blogger The Tarquin King, at 9/29/2005 10:29 AM  

Has anyone thought to take this case up with religous leaders in this country like Pat Robinson, Billy Graham the Pope. E- Forum on the Las Vegas Reveiw Journal is well attended. Direct people there to the blogs. I need to keep a low profile due to traffic warrants. God bless this couragous man Irwin.

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 10:46 AM  

Erwin should mention the recent case in Sacramento, California in June 2005. Former CID investigator for the IRS, Joe Bannister won his case against the government because the government
could not produce the law that make one liable for the federal income tax.

George

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 10:53 AM  

Erwin should mention the recent case in Sacramento, California in June 2005. Former CID investigator for the IRS, Joe Bannister won his case against the government because the government
could not produce the law that make one liable for the federal income tax.

George

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 10:53 AM  

I don't believe Irwin can mention the Bannister case because it was in a different Federal District Court...Is that correct?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 11:01 AM  

yeah I wonder what quatloos demonoids have to say about Bannister being a free man.I marched with him and we shut down Constitution avenue with a sign as big as a house.See the pics as we served a supenae on the IRS at http://www.givemeliberty.org

Ima Freeman
Panama or bust

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 11:02 AM  

Then why wasn't Banister prosecuted for failure to file, and why did Banister's attorney announce that Banister had been paying his own taxes all along?

Banister was only prosecuted for helping Al Thompson (who was convicted and is in prison as we speak) file a false return, and he was acquitted on the basis that as a member of the federal tax bar, Banister had a privilege to help Thompson file a "protest return".

Banister was not prosecuted for failure to file because -- according to his own attorney -- he had been paying his own taxes all along. Banister is not stupid, though his client Al Thompson didn't know that Banister had been paying all along.

Since the Banister case, there have has been the conviction of Larken Rose, Nick Jesson's plea bargain, and a bunch of other disasters for TPs, so the real-world effect of the Banister case appears to be zero.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 11:26 AM  

Irwin has hearing aides already of his own.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 11:29 AM  

Anonymous said...

Erwin should mention the recent case in Sacramento, California in June 2005. Former CID investigator for the IRS, Joe Bannister won his case against the government because the government
could not produce the law that make one liable for the federal income tax.

George
----------------------

Apprently you did not follow the trial. Banister was not found guilty because they could not produce the law that made him liable.

Banister was not on trial for tax evasion. He was on trial for aiding in filing of false witholding statements. DUH!

He was found not guilty of conspiracy and aiding.

Completely diferent issues.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 11:33 AM  

Banister did not file but he sent a check to the IRS every year. So when banister claims he does not file he is right. But ask him if he pays in any manner the income tax and he will avoid answering.

Banister is an idiot that cannot be trusted!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 11:35 AM  

"Banister was not found guilty because they could not produce the law that made him liable."

That is a lie, and Banister's client is currently serving 5 years.

That's pretty neat: Banister collects his fee from Thompson, Thompson relies on Banister and goes to jail, and Banister keeps the fee (and pays taxes on it too!).

What a guy.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 11:52 AM  

Quatloser said:
Maybe the judge will just give the jury http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/frivolousarguments

What's the official document number of this dreck?

Who's the author of this dreck?

Why is there no IRS logo on this dreck?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/29/2005 12:40 PM  

It does not need any of then since it is referenced through http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=136751,00.html

Expect to see this in EVERY trial where the tax proestors whines "I didn't know . . ."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 1:56 PM  

It does not need any of them

An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof.

You are wrong.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/29/2005 4:19 PM  

Dale, when anybody who matters cares what you think, let us know.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/29/2005 4:20 PM  

Angela assumed the last question was in favor of Irwin since the judge didn't want to read it aloud. Interesting that no Quatloosers challenged that assumption.


Anonymous cowardly silly person said:

"Maybe the judge will just give the jury http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/frivolousarguments-3-14-2005.pdf and then a copy of Irwin's previous convictions, and that will be all they need."

Got any money you wanna lose on that speculation?

"Oh, and some of the audio from Irwin's blog where he talks about how stupid the jurors are. That should go over really swell. Maybe one of the Marshalls can slip the jury some of that audio!"

Maybe they'll give the jury some of *your* comments so they can see the company the gummint keeps. (Nah, I don't think they will, either. They aren't THAT stupid.)

"Quatloos!"

Gezundheit!


Many of the rest of the self-professing Quatloosers on this thread were impostors. C'mon guys, knock that off; leave the dishonesty to the pros.


Anonymous cowardly silly persons made a handful of statements similar to this:

"Banister did not file but he sent a check to the IRS every year. So when banister claims he does not file he is right. But ask him if he pays in any manner the income tax and he will avoid answering.

Banister is an idiot that cannot be trusted!"

Joe is not an idiot. I've met idiots (hi!) and I've met Joe. Now as to your characterization, how have you determined that the checks Joe has said all along that he has been *writing* to the IRS have been *sent* to the IRS?

Regarding being trusted... I'm thinking I'll consider the source on that assertion. :-)


Another(?) anonymous cowardly silly person referenced an IRS fearmongering attempt containing comments from IRS Chief Counsel Donald L. Korb. I can't help wondering if he's any relation to this diligent domestic enemy of the Constitution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Korb

Just curious.

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/07/2005 7:31 AM