Thursday, September 22, 2005

Irwin Schiff Trial update by Mark Yannone

44 Old Comments:

This has to be one of the most compelling posts of Irwin's trial so far. The part where Irwin is talking about the witness from the IRS and how he tries to get a statute that talks about what is required for the imposition of the "frivolous" penalty admitted shows how stacked the deck is against Irwin. The judge denied the admittance of the statute since it directly contradicts the testimony of the IRS witness. This whole trial would be a joke if the stakes weren't so high. Go get 'em Irwin. You know you are on the right track when you are frustating the judge since he can't control the facts to the extent he wants to (and get the predetermined outcome he and the government needs)

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 12:03 AM  

If Irwin was "right" why was he telling his employees to hide money, and why was he sending cash to Belize?

Why can't Irwin find any legal scholar to testify in is favor. As it is, it is no more than the statements of a twice-convicted felon who by his own psychiatrist's own sworn testimony is "delusional".

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 12:49 AM  

Wow. I'll bet that left another mosquito bite on Irwin's ankle.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 1:04 AM  

"mosquito bite on Irwin's ankle"

How rich. Anon (again love those that have enough courage in their convictions to post under their real name), Shifty will be found guilty, because he is guilty. He's a used car salesman that found willing marks in the "THM". Heck, you idiots searched him out and begged him to lead you down the path of ruin. Some hero.



PS. Doug Kenline is still a p***y.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 9/23/2005 1:25 AM  

Irwin confesses in the tape: "I never say that there is no law requiring the payment of income taxes".

Funny stuff, but about what one would expect from a twice-convicted felon.

Also funny to hear about so many of Irwin's old clients turning on him. I wonder if Steve Swan (who got 16 years for following Irwin) will testify?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 1:38 AM  

Also funny to hear Irwin trash Larken Rose. It about 30 minutes into it.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 1:52 AM  

"If Irwin was "right" why was he telling his employees to hide money, and why was he sending cash to Belize?"

That's the wrong question. Why does the judge not want to allow the statute in as evidence? When it comes down to it, the jury is going believe what the statute says since that's what is written. And since that is the exact opposite of what the IRS witness testified to the judge can't have that happen, can he?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 7:06 AM  

If Irwin was "right" why was he telling his employees to hide money, and why was he sending cash to Belize?

This is understandable if true. Our government has a long track record of seizing assests without affording due process. They monitor where each of us bank and are advised of any sizable deposits or withdraws. They seize cash from bank accounts and lien properties with the stroke of a pen.

Today, people can be arrested and charged with a crime for simply withdrawing money from there own bank accounts.

I'm sure many of you quatloos types support all of this as well since it's the law after all. I suppose if you had your way blacks would still be riding in the backs of buses simply because it was the law after all.

All that I've stated above is the truth. Daring to state it will likely ruffle you quatloos types leading to personal attacks demonstrative of your true characters.

Your eagerness to oppress American citizens amazes me.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 9/23/2005 8:06 AM  

Because the judge will instruct the jury on the statute at the end of the trial. Statutes have never been introduceable into "evidence" in the 700+ year history of Anglo-American jurisprudence, Irwin's continuing desire for special treatment notwithstanding.

That none of you TPs understand this, or have more than a Wal-Mart level of understanding of the evidentiary rules is quite predictable. But of course you see it as part of the "giant conspiracy" though it would be the same result in a murder case or a grand theft auto case too.

You may return to your window washings and pool cleanings now.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 8:53 AM  

Insults insults.

Sad, when that's all you have is insults.

I know the knowledgeable public sees you have nothing but insults. You proved that time and time again, move on to something more constructive.

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/23/2005 11:18 AM  

And once again, these Quatlosers still cannot state a law requiring individual income tax on citizens.

"SHOW US THE LAW"

By Anonymous Concerned Conferderate Citizen, at 9/23/2005 12:34 PM  

show me the law

here is the law

show me the law

here is the law

show me the law

here is the law

show me the law

here is the law

to infinity.........

The 5 year old speaks. I am reminded of the car trip:

are we there yet

no

are we there yet

no

are we there yet

no

are we there yet

no

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 12:40 PM  

Anonymous 9/23/2005 2:38 AM said...

Irwin confesses in the tape: "I never say that there is no law requiring the payment of income taxes".

Followed by something to the effect of "Maybe there is, I NEVER found it".

So maybe Schiff is wrong. As his court document says, he'll plead guilty if they show him the law.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/23/2005 12:45 PM  

Anonymous legal scholar 9/23/2005 9:53 AM said...

Because the judge will instruct the jury on the statute at the end of the trial. Statutes have never been introduceable into "evidence" in the 700+ year history of Anglo-American jurisprudence, Irwin's continuing desire for special treatment notwithstanding.

Okay, Legal Scholar, we prostrate ourselves before you.
Pease 'splain to us unwashed masses:
1. Hearsay evidence.
2. Best Evidence.
3. Void for vagueness doctrine.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/23/2005 12:50 PM  

I am importing AND distilling alcohol.

What law makes me liable?

By Anonymous Ace Distiller, at 9/23/2005 12:55 PM  

Ace Distiller said...
I am importing AND distilling alcohol.

What law makes me liable?

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

Are you selling it, giving it away, or consuming for personal use only?

My grandfather made wine in his basement and used it personally while giving it away to family.

If he had sold it commercially, he would have been liable.

I don't understand why that is hard for you to understand. Are you challenged in some way?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 1:03 PM  

26 U.S.C. 5005(a) The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by subsection 5001(a)(1)

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/23/2005 1:05 PM  

26 U.S.C. 5005(a) The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by subsection 5001(a)(1)

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/23/2005 1:06 PM  

I guess I said it twice...

Sorry...PC lag.

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/23/2005 1:08 PM  

I am importing AND distilling alcohol.

What law makes me liable?

Are you selling it, giving it away, or consuming for personal use only?

Yes.

By Anonymous Ace Distiller, at 9/23/2005 1:26 PM  

Ace Distiller said...
I am importing AND distilling alcohol.

What law makes me liable?

Are you selling it, giving it away, or consuming for personal use only?

Yes.

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

I sell lemonade from a stand on the sidewalk. Sometimes I drink some to and give it away to friends.

I was was wondering what law makes liable for tax?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 1:41 PM  

All right, I don't give it away, and I don't consume it myself. I import and distill the spirits for sale.

Now what law makes me liable?

My browser messed up and I just can't read An Ant's reply. My browser will only accept an answer from a quatloos poster.

By Anonymous Ace Distiller, at 9/23/2005 1:45 PM  

"Also funny to hear about so many of Irwin's old clients turning on him. I wonder if Steve Swan (who got 16 years for following Irwin) will testify?"

Doubtful. For now, he's serving his nine year (not 16) prison sentence in a psychiatric facility.

By Anonymous Jack Spitz, at 9/23/2005 1:50 PM  

LOL. Sorry.

Don't wait too long for a quatloos poster...they won't post an answer to your question, well not an honest one anyway, they don't deal in honesty...but hey you might get one hell of an insult!

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/23/2005 1:54 PM  

Today, people can be arrested and charged with a crime for simply withdrawing money from there own bank accounts.

Of all the remarkably moronic statements that Jahn has made, this one takes the cake. Please oh great scholar, show me instances where that's happened.

"Withdrawing money from your own bank account" (that's rich, like tax protesters have bank accounts)

By Blogger Frank Buckner, at 9/23/2005 1:57 PM  

Ace Distiller said...
All right, I don't give it away, and I don't consume it myself. I import and distill the spirits for sale.

Now what law makes me liable?

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

If you sell it commercially, your gross income must be reported like other companies do. The law has been shown to you many times, you should know it by now.

Why is your business exempt from the laws that others must obey?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 2:05 PM  

Nice posting of the law there Anonymous.

Wow...it is impossible for you to post the law...even when one EXIST.

You must be a tax lawyer.

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/23/2005 2:14 PM  

...sorry for the insult.

By Anonymous An Ant, at 9/23/2005 2:18 PM  

------------------------
Today, people can be arrested and charged with a crime for simply withdrawing money from there own bank accounts.
----------------------
Of all the remarkably moronic statements that Jahn has made,

-----------------------

Frank, careful your ignorance is showing.


------------------------
this one takes the cake.
------------------------

For once we agree, it does take the cake.


------------------------
Please oh great scholar, show me instances where that's happened.
------------------------

Here you go, your government at work...

Structured Withdrawals

You should be careful how you withdraw money from your bank account Frank. If you appear to be avoiding the banks government imposed reporting requirements, you can be facing federal charges. Just ask Rush Limbaugh, the republican mouth piece who has been investigated for this crime.

------------------------
"Withdrawing money from your own bank account" (that's rich, like tax protesters have bank accounts)
------------------------

I can't speak for tax protesters, but I have met a few folks involved with the tax honesty movement and I can tell you, from what I've seen, a healthy cross section of society is represented.

It's obvious that you would like everyone to believe those seeking truth in taxation are protesters who lack the inteligence to hang onto a meaningful job.

I suppose this is one of those things that if you say it enough you'll start believing it. Just because some of your fellow oppressors chime in with your chorus, doesn't make it so.

Ironically, you statist fail to see how all aspects of our government are failing. Our judicial system is failing us, our legislators are failing us and the entire nation is on the verge of economic collapse.

Through all of that, your greatest concern seems to be the continued oppression of American citizens. What is it going to take to wake you people up to the problems confronting this nation?

Thus far you've impressed those participating on this blog with name calling, insults and vulagrity.

Perhaps, it's time you impressed us with something else.

Maybe you can advise us morons about the steps you'll be taking to assure you don't commit a crime when withdrawing money from your bank.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 9/23/2005 7:54 PM  

"simply withdrawing..."

and "structuring your transactions to circumvent the reporting requirements of Title 31" are two entirely different animals Jahn.

You of all people Mr. Tax Protester, should understand the importance of how you phrase a question, right?

Withdrawing money from your bank account is not a crime and never will be.

Withdrawing money in an attempt to avoid the reporting requirements of Title 31, which among other things, is in existence to prevent money laundering by drug dealers, terrorists and other unsavory persons, is a crime.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 8:37 PM  

Structuring" is the illegal practice of routinely drawing just under the reporting limit for the purpose of evading the filing requirement.

Meaning a "pattern of withdrawals" Jahn.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 8:40 PM  

The fact is that throughout the history of civilization those that question the right of the sovereign to enforce direct taxation have been regarded as heretics. The rulers make the laws to whatever benefits them for they have the keys to the jail cell....

However, when Queen Elizabeth began her war with Spain, she did not have the resources available at the time because she believed that the sovereign was to be absent in the affairs of the nation's commerce. Thereto, she was forced to ask (request) aid from her subjects. What was the response? Overwhelming. Why? Because before this she understood the proper role between the sovereign and its subjects and that is:

"To be taxed and loved is not to be." Queen Elizabeth I

Would U.S. Citizens and Residents come to the aid of its sovereign today? This sovereign in Washington, D.C. has much to learn from Queen Elizabeth I.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 9:29 PM  

"Because the judge will instruct the jury on the statute at the end of the trial. Statutes have never been introduceable into "evidence" in the 700+ year history of Anglo-American jurisprudence, Irwin's continuing desire for special treatment notwithstanding.

That none of you TPs understand this, or have more than a Wal-Mart level of understanding of the evidentiary rules is quite predictable. But of course you see it as part of the "giant conspiracy" though it would be the same result in a murder case or a grand theft auto case too.

You may return to your window washings and pool cleanings now."

First of all, the CONSTITUTION is not even close to 700 years old and it is the CONSTITUTION, which is the law of THIS land. Second,those who are representing themselves pro se are supposed to have more lattitude in court anyway. So he SHOULD get special treatment.
Third, Anonymous said that he doesn't need the job at Wal Mart anymore. Your wife supports him.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 9:40 PM  

"simply withdrawing..."

and "structuring your transactions to circumvent the reporting requirements of Title 31" are two entirely different animals Jahn.


Not necessarily. Is someone who makes two $6,000 withdraws making an innocent mistake or intentionally circumventing the reporting requirements? And, how many government agents does it take to determine that?

You of all people Mr. Tax Protester, should understand the importance of how you phrase a question, right?

You oppressors sure are brave with the name calling while hiding behind annoymous posts.

Withdrawing money from your bank account is not a crime and never will be.

As long as you are aware of the federal laws that are applicable to how you withdraw your money before hand, which I doubt most people are. If you inadvertantly make two or more withdraws, you're a federal criminal.

Withdrawing money in an attempt to avoid the reporting requirements of Title 31, which among other things, is in existence to prevent money laundering by drug dealers, terrorists and other unsavory persons, is a crime.

So, we require government agents and bank employees to monitor the bank accounts and transactions of over 300 million citizens in this nation in the hope of catching a drug dealer, terrrorist, or other unsavory persons. And, how many have we caught?

I guess the assumtion is that these drug dealer, terrorist, and other unsavory persons are too stupid to figure out how to avoid the reporting requirements. Hell, even if their withdraws were reported, their transactions would probably go unnoticed by our inept intellignce agencies dealing with the sea of reports being generated by the banks each day.

The fact is, that anyone who unkowingly makes a withdraw that gives the appearance of avoiding the reporting requirements commits a federal crime. Therfore, I stand by my statement, "people can be arrested and charged with a crime for simply withdrawing money from there own bank accounts."

Your inability to recognize how stupid this law is speaks volumes.

I would think that all of us on this blog want the same things. A strong nation. A justice system that affords due process and efficiently parses the innocent from the guilty. An understandable system of taxation that doesn't divide the nation. The right to live our lives freely without unecessary government intrusion.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Your side so far seems to delight in the status quo, unconcerned that our nation has evolved into the worlds leading debtor. You celebrate a court system that treats citizens like lepers and sentences innocent people to death at an alarming rate. You seem to delight in the imprisonment of citizens and obviously unconcerned that we now hold the largest percentage of our citizens in prison than any other nation in the world.

What really boggles the mind is that you promote a system of taxation that pries into the private financial affairs of every American citizen instead of pursuing all of the other non-intrusive revenue sources available.

The logical conclusion is that you must be a parasite that draws your income off of the work of others. A taker instead of someone that produces a product. I can only assume you are either a government employee, a CPA, or just plain stupid.

All of you cowardly high and mighty anonymous types are really becoming a bore and proving incapable of holding an intelligent conversation.

All you people do is spew venom. Maybe, it's time you grew out of that.

The government has had numerous opportunities to resolve the income tax issue. There must be a reason they continue to let it fester. Maybe haggling over how we tax citizens is a convenient distraction from the real problems confronting this nation.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 9/23/2005 10:04 PM  

So what's the issue with withdrawing money from bank accounts?

Millions of transactions occur every day. It's part of life.

Will someone please explain?

Thanks!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/23/2005 11:24 PM  

Amount and timing. Multiple withdrawals make it appear that the withdrawals are to defeat the reporting requirements to big brother.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/24/2005 12:08 AM  

So what's the issue with withdrawing money from bank accounts?

Millions of transactions occur every day. It's part of life.

Will someone please explain?
-----

Banks and the Government monitor financial transactions:

For example,

1. If a customer engages in transactions that appear to be structured to avoid $10,000 government reporting requirements, especially if the cash or monetary instruments are in an amount just below reporting or recording thresholds.

2. Customer's account has sudden or extensive wire activity.

3. Customer's account shows currency or cashiers check transactions.

4. Customer asks for exemptions for the deposit of cash (especially in large amounts).

5. Transfers of $3000 or More under the Joint and Travel Rule:

Transfers of $3000 or more...various information must be recorded: name and address of transmitter adn recipient, amount of transmittal order, identity of the recipient's financial institution, account number of recipient.....


So there you have it...the fact is that freedom does not ring and excessive transfers of money is being monitored. The real questions is when Hillary Clinton becomes President in 2008, will we have controls on the transfer of capital?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/24/2005 12:18 AM  

Transfers of $3,000.00 or more occur countless times per day.

Heck, there's probably half a million or more mortgage payments in California alone larger than that. They must have a big staff.

LOL

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/24/2005 12:55 AM  

The operative word in all this is "cash". Cash withdrawals done in such a way as to avoid the reporting requirements of title 31 is against the law. You can be charged, but they still have to prove you intentionally violated the statute.

Seriously though, why would a hard-core member of the "THM" have to worry about A) a bank account and B) having enough money to trigger title 31 requirements?

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 9/24/2005 1:18 AM  

The operative word in all this is "cash". Cash withdrawals done in such a way as to avoid the reporting requirements of title 31 is against the law. You can be charged, but they still have to prove you intentionally violated the statute.

I believe cash and cashiers checks are monitored which leads me to wonder how else anyone would withdraw money from there bank account? And, why should anyone be charged with a crime for withdrawing money from their own bank account. Do you really think it would be difficult to convict anyone of this in our court system?

Seriously though, why would a hard-core member of the "THM" have to worry about A) a bank account and B) having enough money to trigger title 31 requirements?

Seriously Frank, do you have anything of substance to bring to this list. I reveiwed all of your post thus far, and they reveal nothing more than a simple mind that obsesses on mindless insults and vulgarity.

Everyone is entitled to their views, but I know truckers that exhibit more civility. You might want to work on that.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 9/24/2005 1:53 AM  

Everyone is entitled to their views, but I know truckers that exhibit more civility.

ROTFLMAO!

Four and a half years

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 9/24/2005 2:57 AM  

I thought there was some sort of amendment that states we have a right to privacy in our papers, etc. But we have to tell them every time we withdraw a certain amount of cash?!

By Anonymous mikey, at 9/26/2005 6:44 AM  

The bank's will tell them of your affairs. All you have to do is make the big withdrawals

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/26/2005 12:29 PM  

Anonymous cowardly silly person at 9/23/2005 9:53 AM asserted that "Statutes have never been introduceable into "evidence" in the 700+ year history of Anglo-American jurisprudence".

How has this been determined? http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/chapters/chap490.htm (for one example) seems to indicate otherwise.


David Jahn said:

"Ironically, you statist fail to see how all aspects of our government are failing. Our judicial system is failing us, our legislators are failing us and the entire nation is on the verge of economic collapse.

Through all of that, your greatest concern seems to be the continued oppression of American citizens. What is it going to take to wake you people up to the problems confronting this nation?"

Dave, I'm pretty sure you meant to say their "greatest concern seems to be CONTINUING the oppression of American citizens." Also, you forgot to pluralize "statist". I've noticed that happening repeatedly so I thought I'd mention it.

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/04/2005 8:25 AM