Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Cohen, Schiff & Neun Trial Update from Angela Stark

19 Old Comments:

There is no doubt in the minds of open-minded thinking people that this "trial" is a star chamber being conducted in a kangaroo court. if justice was the goal, the "judge" would not limit defense evidence or witnesses. he would function as a referee and leave the decision up to the jury. if the persecutors chose to object, he would wait for the persecutor to state the basis for the objection, and then and only then rule on the objection.

the point is that in this country that the quatlosers and I love so much, a man is inocent until proven guilty. why can't we just follow that premise and get along?

By Anonymous hank, at 10/11/2005 7:21 PM  

OK OK OK I get it, give it a break...take a chill pill!

Irwin and anyone who understands is a Scum Sucking Pig! The most hated man in the Federal Territory U.S. is Irwin. Maybe he is even the worst to have ever walked the face of the earth, beneath the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Capone, Dillinger, Et al.

Now that that is cleared up, no one need bother to post anymore schoolyard garbage due to lacking the "stones" to have a face-to-face encounter.

See it would be more economical to build asylums for the sane instead of the demented!

I have learned two things reading these blogs...

1. That when men invented the American government they did so that they may run it; then the government machine begins to run them, and they become the slave of their slave.

2.The believer in justice is led to doubt justice when he sees the trickery of the fox triumph over the justice of the lion.

CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 7:43 PM  

You can tell by the judge's and prosecuotors' behavior that this is not unique, but business as usual.

The judicial system in this country is a sham! Why do you think they won't let you be on a jury if you have ever been convicted of a crime? It's because they know that you know how bad the defendant is going to get screwed, just like you did!

They should make this into a movie, but most people wouldn't believe that this could happen in this country!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 7:49 PM  

CJ,
Wow, thanks for letting us know "The most hated man in the Federal Territory U.S. is Irwin."

What planet are you on? Probably the planet quatloos.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 7:55 PM  

CJ,
The first half of your post is just nonsense and phsyco babble, and the 2nd half shows you offer no solution when it comes to helping bring this country back to what it was designed to be. Atleast some of the people here want to stand up to tyranny.

If you want to stand up to tyranny, please let us know.
Otherwise, go back to biz as usual.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 8:00 PM  

Back-To-Reality ...

I just ran across an interesting case, pertinent to the current discussion. USA v. Rutherford (No. 03-10158, June 10, 2004). This is also a 9th circuit case involving tax evasion.

In this case the 9th Circuit Appeals court overturned and remanded the lower court's conviction mostly because a group of IRS agents at the prosector's table were staring at jurors with intimidating looks.

I applaud the Appeals court judge (Reinhardt) on his decision to overturn and remand on this basis.

Of course, this leads to the question:

If the standard for mis-trial or being overturned in the 9th Circuit is "intimidating stares" then what the HECK is going on in this trial?

One would expect Judge Dawson to know about the Rutherford case and about Reinhartdt's decision in his own circuit. Would anyone not expect Dawson to get over-ruled for not allowing the Motion to Dismiss if it is taken to appeals? Certainly an ex parte communication, denial of witnesses, ruling on objections prejudicially, etc. are all much more serious grounds than "intimidating stares".

Star Chamber, indeed.

By Anonymous Interested Party, at 10/11/2005 8:04 PM  

Dear anon. 8:55 and 9:00
I guess you haven't read the weeks and weeks worth of name calling by the opposition to Irwin. And now you wish to attack me for my attempt to get "them" to give it a rest? Haven't you the comprehension to decern the message that the demented outnumber the sane? The demented are the name callers and those that accuse without merit as you did to me.

You also attack me as though I don't understand or haven't posted anything prior that explains what you may not know yourselves about "standing up."

How could you miss the message in #2

Why didn't you read my True Story of my father on recent thread?

Who are YOU to attack me?

See, even those who are supposed to know...don't know and that is why they win!

IF the BEST you got is to attack one who has been in the fight for over 20 years than I say I have few brothers in America.

Strange are the self-worshipers, since they worship their own dying flesh. CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 8:13 PM  

If there is error, it will be reversed on appeal.

Irwin screwed himself by not hiring a good attorney well in advance of trial. Certainly, he had more than enough money and time to do both.

Once again, Irwin's ego conquered common sense. It is something that has been repeated often during Irwin's life, but this time it will do him in for good.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 8:14 PM  

CJ,
I am not sure why you would equate irwin as the number one anything on this blog. That was psyco babble.
Please share your story of your dad again, my only beef with you was your blatant attack on irwin in the first half of the post. The 2nd half was thought provoking, but it still didn't offer a solution.

Also, in your post you say the demented are the name callers, and you are guilty of that. Go back and read your post about irwin, you named called him when you said:
"Scum Sucking Pig"

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 8:20 PM  

Thanks for asking. My post says
OK OK OK I get... in other words I give up. I grow weary of all the people calling names and having nothing to say. Just trying to insight fights. So I accept their emotions and beliefs as true to them now it can be left to rest!

I have previously discussed in restricted detail about the two governments created in the Constitution using Art. 1 Sec. 8 Clause 17 that being the Federal territory and how it overlays atop America and about the govenment being a corporation now and the phony money and on and on and on and I provided cites, history, quotes, evidence, facts and law.

Most important is the fact that they had us convert our status/citizenship from a free American into a US person as if we were born in Purto Rico and how the IRS commissioner is officed in Pureto Rico etc... and more and more...but most would rather cast stones.

There have been a few other great posts the past week from Dale and others. Get a beer or your like, and go back and read all about it. You'll be enlightend and amazed.

We are cool! CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 8:54 PM  

Well folks, I have to admit I was wrong!

I see that it is true, that NO LAW EXISTS THAT MAKES MOST CITIZENS in this country LIABLE FOR AN INCOME TAX.

I have been researching and researching what you have been some of the TP's claims posted on this Blog, and I cannot rebutt.

I cannot find such a law!

And it is true, that Title 26 has no implementing regulation!

I've looked and looked, and cannot find it!

Oh, I did see that, according to 26 FR 1.01 that the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted into law.

It states: (a) Enactment of law. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 which became law upon enactment of Public Law 591, 83d Congress, approved August 16, 1954.

What I did not see was that in paragraph 4 of 26 CFR 1.01 is the following statement, which says: "In general, the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 are applicable with respect to taxable years BEGINNING after December 31, 1953, and ENDING after August 16, 1954.

How did I miss that one! Congress enacted the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 on August 16, 1954 then TERMINATED IT ON THE VERY SAME DAY!!!

Seems that every time one of us folks running one of the government sponsored propaganda programs realizes that you TP's are right, they replace us!

Look at former IRS agent Joe Bannister, and former IRS agent Sherri Jackson. Boy, did they get canned immediately when they questioned their findings after researching the law and exposing the IRS.

Mine was such an easy job, just like most taxpayer supported jobs are.

Where else could a guy earn big bucks, just for blogging and writing fabricated lies!

Alas! My conscience has gotten to me. I cannot deal with dishing out lie after lie after lie after lie after lie. Will God ever be able to forgive me for such mass deception?

Guess I'll have to get a real job now. The up side is, now that I know the truth, I'll buy a copy of Irwin's book and learn how to stop paying this illegally enforced income tax.

NOW, WHERE CAN I GET A COPY OF THAT BOOK WRITTEN BY IRWIN SCHIFF...YOU KNOW...THE ONE THE GOVERNMENT BANNED, THE FEDERAL MAFIA. I've actually never read it.

Probably has lot's of information the goverment doesn't want the people to know about!

GGS! TTFN!

By Blogger Quatloos!, at 10/11/2005 9:44 PM  

Hey, what happened to Banister's client, Al Thompson?

Also, Irwin's book wasn't banned. That is just more TP propoganda. You can find copies on E-Bay, or buy one from Angela.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 9:49 PM  

CJ,
From your posts, i thought you did not like irwin, just wanted to make sure you weren't a quatloos?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 10:23 PM  

It was never claimed that Irwins book was banned. Irwin and any associated with him are banned from selling it.

As for Al Thompson he was found guilty and sentenced before Banisters trial even started.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 10:24 PM  

"What I did not see was that in paragraph 4 of 26 CFR 1.01 is the following statement, which says: "In general, the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 are applicable with respect to taxable years BEGINNING after December 31, 1953, and ENDING after August 16, 1954.""

For those not familiar with the concept of a taxable year, please allow me to explain.

As a calendar year taxpayer, my year begins on January 1 and ends on December 31. The year begining January 1 1954 would be a year begining after December 31,1954 as would be the year begining January 1,1955 and January 1,1956 and so on.

The year ending December 31,1954 would be a year ending after August 16, 1954 as would the year ending December 31,1955 and December 31,1956 and so on.

Some entities have a taxable year that ends on a day other than December 31. At times a short year is used, as well.

The law was stating it was in regard to any taxable year ending after the date of enactment in the quote above; not that the law was or was not in force after August 16, 1954.

By Anonymous jg, at 10/11/2005 11:55 PM  

Print, Read, Use:
http://www.fija.org/torf.pdf

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 12:50 AM  

OK OK OK, CJ, I get it. the story about your father was quite moving. it is clear that you are on the right side of the thin line that separates good from evil. but, if you could tolerate a bit of constructive criticism - many of us are not as intellectually gifted as you. we tend to talk in contemporary vernacular. sometimes a second reading of your postings is required to make the translation. be patient my friend.

By Anonymous hank, at 10/12/2005 8:26 AM  

anonym-ASS wrote
Now that that is cleared up, no one need bother to post anymore schoolyard garbage due to lacking the "stones" to have a face-to-face encounter.

Now isn't he the chicken mother phaquer who is afraid to say who he is, thAT IS NOW SPOUTING OFF ABOUT "LACKING STONES TO HAVE A FACE TO FACE ENCOUNTER?"

DON'T THESE GOVERNMENT PUND-SHITS HAVE ANY SHAME OR RESERVATIONS ABOUT HOW DUMS THEY ARE|

Come on, anonym-ASS, who are you? Are you agent Gritis or Tally by chance.

Uhhhh, Commissioner Evans, is that you?

By Anonymous Mel in Honolulu, at 10/12/2005 2:36 PM  

Good observation about the case, "Interested Party". Thanks for pointing that out.


CJ, when you saw there were 2 people who had misconstrued your meaning, that should have tipped you off that perhaps your post was not as easily understood as you had thought. In turn that should lead you to not be severe in reproach toward those who did misunderstand. (I understood you all along, but I've read ALL the comments in this trial up to this point.)

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/15/2005 10:02 AM