Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Hank Goltz interviews Cindy Neun

19 Old Comments:

This is really sad. Listening to Cindy's description of the denial of witnesses, it sounds like the defense team didn't properly notify the prosecutor of the witnesses involved in the defense. If you're defending in Federal court, you need to understand the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence as these rules govern the conduct of a trial. The rules are set up to ensure that both parties in conflict get a fair trial. Surprising your opponent with a witness is not considered "fair". While some lattitude can be given to pro se litigants, this rule is so fundamental that the outcome is just sad. So much aggravation could be avoided if the defense would just play by the rule book.

What's wrong with the defense lawyers? Certainly, they know the FRCP and FRE, don't they?

Or, am I wrong about my perception of what happened? Were the witnesses properly presented to the prosecutor per the rules?

By Anonymous Interested Party, at 10/11/2005 8:49 PM  

I think that Cindy has just figured out that she is about to go down for a long, long time.

Sorry, Cindy, but appeals of evidentiary rulings cannot be heard in the middle of trials (what is known as an "interlocutory appeal") but must await the verdict and then the appeal of the case as a whole.

Why is Cindy so surprised to see Irwin in a criminal trial? It's not like he hasn't been there twice before, with bad results each time. Did she really believe that this time would be different?

Funny that Cindy never mentions how much money she and Irwin made selling junk to people.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 8:50 PM  

The technical issue is that Irwin is raising a reliance defense under Cheek, and since Irwin developed his theories long before Banister, Turner, or Shulz came on the scene, their testimony was irrelevant -- although the judge did allow them to testify as character witnesses.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 8:52 PM  

Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

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

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

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

Did you ever hear anyone say, "That work had better be banned because I might read it and it might be very damaging to me?" ~Joseph Henry Jackson

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 10:01 PM  

To choose a good book, look in an inquisitor’s prohibited list. ~John Aikin

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 10:02 PM  

It's unfortunate Mr. Schiff and other Americans are being subjecting the IRS shakedown - but then, what should we expect?

The U.S. is only a puppet government of the UK designed around the Bank of England and English laws.

The IRS is the enforcement agent for the Federal Reserve - a collective of International Bankers hell bent on destroying the United States while plundering the assets of Americans.

Laws do not apply to these monsters - the only recourse left to Americans is total, all-out revolution and rebellion.

Wake me up when Washington DC is in flames.

Watch these videos:

The Money Masters
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/multimedia/Money_Masters_Tape1_Part1_all.wmv
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/moneymasters1.wmv


The Money Masters (part2)
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/multimedia/Money_Masters_Tape2_128KBps.wmv
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/moneymasters2.wmv

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

The media blackout of this trial and all truths is proof of whats happing to we the people. I,am here and my pen is mightier than the sword.the rest can kiss someone elses ass.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 12:27 AM  

Excuse my education (happening)

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 12:32 AM  

The loonies are out in full force, full moon perhaps?

I wonder why it is that each of the aforementioned loonies have to accuse those that think Schiff is guilty and a snake oil salesman to boot, of being "government employees"?

I don't work for the government and I think Schiff is nuttier than a fruitcake.

Heck, he's claiming the cheek defense (that he is too stupid to believe he's liable for income taxes), but he's been jailed twice for not paying his taxes...any sane person would have realized that he's wrong.

There is no "media blackout", he's just not important.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/12/2005 10:54 AM  

Mr. Buckner,
You are a troll.
I've invited you to discuss the law.
You've ignored me.
I've asked you specific questions.
You've ignored me.

All you do is fling feces.

Tim Burton wants to make a movie about your life. I can't remember the movie entire title though.

Edward shinyhands. No that's not it.
Edward sillyhands. No that's not it either. Well it's Edward somethinghands for sure.

Is the word income used in its constitutional sense in section 61?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/12/2005 12:33 PM  

hey eastman,

Obvioulsy, Frank chooses to a be blind troll subject to a corrupt system, and doesn't care to do anything about it. All that's left for him to do is fling feces. LOL!

-Jerry Hosteg

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 1:22 PM  

slinging feces? Isn't that one of the charges shifty is facing? Oh, no it's selling feces to the myriad of drooling idiots that lap it up. That someone who believes the crap that shifty sells is able to put down someone else, with a straight face whilst doing it, is a testimony to your stepping off the edge of reality.

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/12/2005 3:32 PM  

Is the word income used in its constitutional sense in section 61?

Well Mr. Buckner, what's the answer.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/12/2005 5:19 PM  

Mr. Buckner,

Can you show me a statute that defines the liability for income taxes?

I know the courts have said that it exists and I gather that you believe them, but can you actually show such a statute?

By Anonymous Erik Heerlein, at 10/12/2005 5:19 PM  

You know, according to the government, there doesn’t have to be a Statute to specify anything, just as much as churches have to be 501(c)(3) corporations.

But first, here are the totals that the IRS wants to count on evidence of money to you personally regardless if it happens to be the same accountable money in a year.

Wages: $50,000
Payroll check deposits: $35,000
Cash withdrawals: $10,000

Total income by the IRS's perspective: $95,000

You failed to report "receiving payroll checks" and "cash money."
Your reported income was only from your employer on your "wages."

You MUST pay tax on the $95,000 as that is what you received from your sources, $10,000 was counted three times as you see.

Now according to Section 508 there appears to be a MANDATORY exemption for churches, but the government just ignores it;
Special rules with respect to section 501(c)(3) organizations
(c) Exceptions
(1) Mandatory exceptions
Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to--
(A) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions
or associations of churches, or

If the IRS believes only 501(c)(3) do NOT have to pay taxes they forgot to read the U.S. Constitution where there can be NO law made to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Today churches are controlled or pay the taxes.

By Blogger non-liable, at 10/12/2005 7:23 PM  

Special rules with respect to section 501(c)(3) organizations
(c) Exceptions
(1) Mandatory exceptions
Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to--
(A) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions
or associations of churches, or


Why does a church need to be a corporation in the first place?

Corporations are forced to follow public policy rules.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 9:54 PM  

Anonymous cowardly silly person whinnied:

"Why is Cindy so surprised to see Irwin in a criminal trial? It's not like he hasn't been there twice before, with bad results each time. Did she really believe that this time would be different?"

Why am I not surprised to see the Quatloosers flinging non sequiturs? It's not like they haven't done it dozens of times before in this blog, with bad results each time. Should I really believe that this time would be different?

"Funny that Cindy never mentions how much money she and Irwin made selling junk to people."

Funny that you Quatloosers are almost always so ashamed of the garbage you come here to dump that you hide behind anonymity, the same way your shill leader Jay Asskissin makes childish excuses every time he's invited to debate someone knowledgeable on these issues. Frank Buckner -- whoever that is -- is just about the only exception; he puts his(?) name over his maniacal rantings. The rest of you guys are doo-flinging zeroes.

Thanks for demonstrating it, BTW. Let the world see the facts.

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/15/2005 11:45 AM