Sunday, October 09, 2005

In segment one of Doug Kenline's interview with Irwin Schiff on October 8th, it is revealed that Judge Dawson held at least one secret (exparte') meeting with U.S. Attorneys in violation of law. That Judge Dawson was caught holding one meeting in violation of law, leads to the question of how many unlawful meetings have been held.

This sham trial has crossed the line of decency on all fronts.

Judge Dawson continues to abuse these defendants. He has repeatedly interfered with their cross examination of government witnesses and the presentation of their cases. If his courtroom antics and temperament weren't sufficient evidence of the extreme bias and misconduct confronting these defendants, this unlawful meeting with prosecutors should clearly establish that our government has no intention of affording these defendants a fair trial.

Add to that, the government's intimidation of the defendants' witnesses with Miranda warnings, and the stacking of the deck in this case becomes quite clear.

Judge Dawson and the prosecuting attorneys have exposed our justice system at its worst. I don't know how Americans believing in good and decency and our system of justice can tolerate another day of this disgraceful trial.

It's obvious that Judge Dawson is incapable of presiding over a fair trial. Someone needs to intervene if we are to preserve even a glimmer of faith in this country's justice system.

30 Old Comments:

"A slender acquaintance with the world must convince every man that actions, not words, are the true criterion of the attachment of friends."
George Washington

Those of action to restore our "American" heritage and not be countrymen without a country... we are friends. CJ

To those who prefer and revere the fiction of law, the color of law, their fiction of status, I offer the following -

"When people abhor what they cannot comprehend, they are like those BURNING with fever, to whom the choicest food is unpalatable." Gibran

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 8:51 AM  

This is my reply to Mr. JG's post at the end of a 40 post blog thread.

JG-b.html

The Blog posts and replies that this is in regard to are shown on the web page.

BTW Mr. G, I'm still awaiting your response to my challenge of your naked assertion.

JG.html.

You made that naked assertion and then "took a break". You had the time to answer my blog post but you didn't answer my last post in our discussion of the law.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/09/2005 10:26 AM  

Mr. Buckner,
I've read all your posts to this blog.

You think you know the truth.
You have the stones to post under what is presumed to be your own name.

Do you have the stones to directly engage in ON TOPIC debate and discussion?

Do you have the stones to directly email me the ON TOPIC posts of the debate?

Do you have the skills to match the standards shown by Mr. G. when he does post?

Do you think you can stay on topic?

The exchanges between Mr. G. and myself show just how I will debate you.

The only editorial changes I make are those to make the exchange easier to read.

Now, have you got anything of substance on THE LAW you would like to debate, or are you just going to ankle bite for the rest of your life?

buckner.html

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/09/2005 10:36 AM  

Lets spread the word.

Go to: digg.com

Create an account and "digg" the story. The more times its dug, the better the chances are of getting it as front page news on the site.

This is a high-volume, tech-oriented site. The audiance is full of people who seek truth in complexity- and the tax code is that.

Post this link and message wherever you can. Spread the word, lets see the hit counts go through the roof!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 10:44 AM  

IF the judge had done anything wrong, then Irwin can appeal.

Mirandizing witnesses who are about to testify that they themselves committed a crime is something that is required for their own protection under the U.S. Constitution.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 11:27 AM  

If the judge had done anything wrong, then Irwin can appeal.

As in, appeal judicial misconduct from a jail cell? Are you going to say this judge has done nothing wrong? Are you suggesting this should be allowed to continue?

Mirandizing witnesses who are about to testify that they themselves committed a crime is something that is required for their own protection under the U.S. Constitution.

Was it required for all of the governments witnesses? Did they issue Miranda warnings to all of their witnesses?

If you can justify the governments actions, please bring it on. I believe many of us would like to have our faith in the system restored. But, judging from the evidence that is mounting up against the government in this case, that may take some doing.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 10/09/2005 11:51 AM  

Yeah, Irwin knows the procedure for appealing his criminal conviction, since he has done it twice before.

As far as Mirandizing witnesses, not all witnesses were committing crimes.

Stop drinking the koolaid and being one of Irwin's sheeple followers.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 11:56 AM  

Stop drinking the koolaid

Frank's fingerprint on his anonymous post.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 12:14 PM  

Yeah, Irwin knows the procedure for appealing his criminal conviction, since he has done it twice before.

If those trials were anything like this, appeals would be understandable and appropriate.

As far as Mirandizing witnesses, not all witnesses were committing crimes.

Of course, any of the government's witnesses that did violate the law would have been granted immunity by the goverment in return for their testimony. Are any such privileges offered to the defendants witnesses?

Stop drinking the koolaid and being one of Irwin's sheeple followers.

It seems to me that the sheeple are the one's who continue to defend the governments side of this trial. Maybe you can explain away the judges little exparte meeting for us. We're all ears.

The interest of the public might also be better served by a fair and impartial trial. Perhaps, you should spend time improving your judicial tempermant and start treating these defendants with impartiality and decency instead of making these annonymous posts to blogs.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 10/09/2005 12:32 PM  

I am confused...please help...
Please cite for me the Article, Section and Clause in the body of the Constitution wherein the term "Marandize" is mentioned?

My question comes from the statement as quoted below -
"Mirandizing witnesses who are about to testify that they themselves committed a crime is something that is required for their own protection under the U.S. Constitution."

Now my other questions...and these are very serious and I would like an factual answer...

Is the judge a soothsayer for he somehow knows the witness is going to commit a crime? What crime other than purjury could a witness committ? Were any of the defense witnesses asked if they are knowingly committing crimes?

OK there you have it - my questions.
Please answer and advise -
1. Where in the Constitution is the word Marandize?
2. Is the judge also a soothsayer?
3. What crime did the witnesses commit upon the witness stand?
4. Were the witnesses asked if they were committing a crime?

It is incumbent upon those making "claims" that those claims be verified as true and correct...if not the claims are void and then one must wonder about the character of those making false claims.

The ill-intentioned always fall short of achieving their purpose. CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 1:31 PM  

VOICE YOUR OPINION!

Are you too disgusted with the way Irwin is being treated by the judge and prosecutors at his trial? Then let the judge know what you think of his actions. You can write him directly using the address below. Let’s inundate him with mail, and let him know how we feel. If you received thousands of letters telling you that they way you are doing your job is unacceptable, wouldn’t it have an impact on you?
WRITE A SHORT LETTER TODAY! DO IT RIGHT NOW!

Hon. Kent J. Dawson,
United States District Court Judge,
U.S. District Court of Nevada,
333 South Las Vegas Boulevard,
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101


DON’T STOP THERE! Write to the U.S. Attorney General too! Tell him guilty or not guilty, Irwin Schiff deserves a fair trial, as guaranteed by the constitution!

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 1:36 PM  

Anonymous said:

Mirandizing witnesses who are about to testify that they themselves committed a crime is something that is required for their own protection under the U.S. Constitution.

WRONG! Numbskull! That is absolutely false. What's your authority for the assertion? Give a statutory reference and/or a case citation. Likely we won't see any because they don't exist.

Miranda warnings are required to be given to persons who are the subjects of custodial interrogation by governmen agents. I have never heard of a defendant's witnesses being mirandized before testifying for the defense. If a witness believes s/he is being asked to make incriminating statements, s/he can assert her 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, but that privilege is for the witness to claim.

The obvious purpose and effect of mirandizing Mr. Schiff's defense witnesses is to intimidate them. If the jury members are awake and have any sense of jusice when exposed to that spectacle, they will hold it aganst the court and the prosecution, seeing it for the unseemly tampering with a witness that it is.

By Anonymous HK, at 10/09/2005 2:23 PM  

Wow, you Schiff-heads are insane.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 4:56 PM  

For me, I don't know if Irwin is guilty or innocent, but it seems like the conduct of the judge is reprehensible. A defendant representing himself pro se is usually granted more latitude in court anyway. What is the recourse when there is evidence of misconduct? Does he get impeached? Who do you complain to? The American Bar association?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 4:59 PM  

Hey Frank Buckner - DO YOU THINK THAT THE JUDGE IS ACTING IMPARTIALLY IN THIS TRIAL?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 5:00 PM  

Jerry Hosteg here,

wow! In 2004 the IRS collected over 2 trillion dollars in tax money!

Read this article:
http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=98141,00.html


In this article, they also mention their mission and statutory authority. Can anyone tell me if in fact, section 7801 officially gives the IRS the authority to collect taxes for the Secretery of the Treasury or sieze property?

(People who side on the government, you are also welcomed to answer this question for me).

The article also claims that Section 7803 gives the Secretery of the Treasury the authority to create an agency to perform his duties, and that the IRS is such agency.

Now I tried looking at these sections, but I can't understand a damn thing on what it's saying. LOL!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 5:36 PM  

"10/09/2005 1:14 PM"

Wrong, I don't post under anonymous...I realize that you people have "reality issues", but why ever would I fear your intellect enough to post under "anonymous"?

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/09/2005 7:29 PM  

Section 7608 (b) which applies to "Enforcement of laws relating to Internal revenue other than subtitle E only convey such authority to "Criminal investigators of the intelligence division of the IRS whom the Secretary charges with certain duties involving Internal Revenue laws. All other Internal Revenue personel "by whatever term designated" can only be delegated (as provided in 7608 (a) with authority to enforce the laws pertaining to Subtitle Eor laws "pertaining to the commodities subject to tax. No other employee of the IRS can be delegated to do anything in connection with income taxes which come under Subtitle A.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 7:33 PM  

With the evolving circumstances of this trial, it is now all the more apparent why J.A.I.L. For Judges (http://www.jail4judges.org) is a requirement in every state of America. We are now full speed ahead in South Dakota with the J.A.I.L. Amendment! (http://www.SouthDakotaJudicialAccountability.Com)

By Blogger Jim Paulson, at 10/09/2005 8:52 PM  

Hey Frank Buckner - DO YOU THINK THAT THE JUDGE IS ACTING IMPARTIALLY IN THIS TRIAL?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 9:23 PM  

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 80 - GENERAL RULES
Subchapter A - Application of Internal Revenue Laws

-HEAD-
Sec. 7801. Authority of Department of the Treasury


-STATUTE-
(a) Powers and duties of Secretary
(1) In general
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the administration and enforcement of this title shall be performed by or under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury.
(2) Administration and enforcement of certain provisions by Attorney General
(A) In general
The administration and enforcement of the following provisions of this title shall be performed by or under the supervision of the Attorney General; and the term "Secretary" or "Secretary of the Treasury" shall, when applied to those provisions, mean the Attorney General; and the term "internal revenue officer" shall, when applied to those provisions, mean any officer of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives so designated by the Attorney General:
(i) Chapter 53.
(ii) Chapters 61 through 80, to the extent such chapters relate to the enforcement and administration of the provisions referred to in clause (i).
(B) Use of existing rulings and interpretations
Nothing in this Act (!1) alters or repeals the rulings and interpretations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in effect on the effective date of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which concern the provisions of this title referred to in subparagraph (A). The Attorney General shall consult with the Secretary to achieve uniformity and consistency in administering provisions under chapter 53 of title 26, United States Code.

[(b) Repealed. Pub. L. 97-258, Sec. 5(b), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat.
1068, 1078]
(c) Functions of Department of Justice unaffected
Nothing in this section or section 301(f) of title 31 shall be considered to affect the duties, powers, or functions imposed upon, or vested in, the Department of Justice, or any officer thereof, by law existing on May 10, 1934.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/09/2005 9:41 PM  

"The government always tells the truth...even when they're lying."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 9:50 PM  

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 80 - GENERAL RULES
Subchapter A - Application of Internal Revenue Laws

-HEAD-
Sec. 7803. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; other officials

-STATUTE-
(a) Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(1) Appointment
(A) In general
There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Commissioner of Internal Revenue who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to a 5-year term. Such appointment shall be made from individuals who, among other qualifications, have a demonstrated ability in management.
(B) Vacancy
Any individual appointed to fill a vacancy in the position of Commissioner occurring before the expiration of the term for which such individual's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for the remainder of that term.
(C) Removal
The Commissioner may be removed at the will of the President.
(D) Reappointment
The Commissioner may be appointed to more than one 5-year term.
(2) Duties
The Commissioner shall have such duties and powers as the Secretary may prescribe, including the power to -
(A) administer, manage, conduct, direct, and supervise the execution and application of the internal revenue laws or related statutes and tax conventions to which the United States is a party; and
(B) recommend to the President a candidate for appointment as Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service when a vacancy occurs, and recommend to the President the removal of such Chief Counsel.

If the Secretary determines not to delegate a power specified in subparagraph (A) or (B), such determination may not take effect until 30 days after the Secretary notifies the Committees on Ways and Means, Government Reform and Oversight, and Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Finance, Governmental Affairs, and Appropriations of the Senate....

Continued here

The Commissioner shall have such duties and powers as the Secretary may prescribe

It is the Delegation Order, published in the Federal Register that Mr. Schiff is demanding the government produce.

Without that Delegation Order, the Commissioner HAS NO AUTHORITY.

That IIRC would be what has been purported to be Treasury Order 150- something.

If it wasn't published in the Federal Register in 1954, Then the Commissioner HAD NO AUTHORITY to do ANYTHING relating to the tax code of 1954 at any time what so ever.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/09/2005 9:51 PM  

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 78 - DISCOVERY OF LIABILITY AND ENFORCEMENT OF TITLE
Subchapter A - Examination and Inspection

-HEAD-
Sec. 7608. Authority of internal revenue enforcement officers

-STATUTE-
(a) Enforcement of subtitle E and other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and firearms
Any investigator, agent, or other internal revenue officer by whatever term designated, whom the Secretary charges with the duty of enforcing any of the criminal, seizure, or forfeiture provisions of subtitle E or of any other law of the United States pertaining to the commodities subject to tax under such subtitle for the enforcement of which the Secretary is responsible may -
(1) carry firearms;
(2) execute and serve search warrants and arrest warrants, and serve subpoenas and summonses issued under authority of the United States;
(3) in respect to the performance of such duty, make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in his presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed, or is committing, such felony; and
(4) in respect to the performance of such duty, make seizures of property subject to forfeiture to the United States.

(b) Enforcement of laws relating to internal revenue other than subtitle E
(1) Any criminal investigator of the Intelligence Division of the Internal Revenue Service whom the Secretary charges with the duty of enforcing any of the criminal provisions of the internal revenue laws, any other criminal provisions of law relating to internal revenue for the enforcement of which the Secretary is responsible, or any other law for which the Secretary has delegated investigatory authority to the Internal Revenue Service, is, in the performance of his duties, authorized to perform the functions described in paragraph (2).
(2) The functions authorized under this subsection to be performed by an officer referred to in paragraph (1) are -
(A) to execute and serve search warrants and arrest warrants, and serve subpoenas and summonses issued under authority of the United States;
(B) to make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States relating to the internal revenue laws committed in his presence, or for any felony cognizable under such laws if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing any such felony; and
(C) to make seizures of property subject to forfeiture under the internal revenue laws.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/09/2005 10:00 PM  

This case is becoming more about an indictment on the U.S. court system than the income tax issue. This Judge Dawson would have done better for himself and the courts to remain impartial....he's only burying himself and taking the court system along with him.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/09/2005 10:35 PM  

This case is becoming more about an indictment on the U.S. court system than the income tax issue. This Judge Dawson would have done better for himself and the courts to remain impartial....he's only burying himself and taking the court system along with him.

EXACTLY - The corruption of the judicial system is what is the problem. For justice to be served in this or any other case, the judge MUST me impartial. It is obvious in this case (and who knows how many others) that Judge Dawson is doing everything he can to give the government the conviction.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/10/2005 12:56 AM  

Judge Dawson is being impartial, but he's having to deal with a twice-convicted felon who absolutely cannot abide by the rules.

Schifty had a chance to hire an attorney before the trial, and certainly had enough money in his Belize offshore trusts to do so. He made a bad decision to wait until the trial had already started to ask for counsel, and now must bear the consequences.

But don't worry. Prison will be no shock to Schifty since he's spent so much time there before.

The only impartial thing is that Schifty's koolaid-drinking sheeple followers can only see one side of the story.

Two months from now, Schifty will be like Steve Swan, Lynne Meredith, Dick Simkananin, Al Thompson, etc., etc., sitting in prison and everybody has totally forgotten about him as his sheeple follower go on to their next snake-oil selling paytriot guru.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/10/2005 7:49 AM  

The previous poster's post is nothing but incitement to riot.

He WANTS the blood running in the streets.

Why else would he post to inflame.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/10/2005 11:20 AM  

When NO LAW backs your claims AND YOU KNOW IT, all you are left with are insults. Obviously posts like that above come from people behind the scam.

By Anonymous An Ant, at 10/10/2005 12:04 PM  

Amen an ant!

But you should have expected such behavior. Even the IRS employees raise their voices and call names (taxprotestor being the most commonly used name) when they don't want to look at the law!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 12:57 PM