Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Irwin Schiff Trial Coverage by Freedom Law School (Segment 2 of 3)

posted by David Jahn @ 10/05/2005 10:41:00 PM  

13 Old Comments:

From Cindy's lawsuit against Irwin written under penalty of perjury. She sure doesn't sound like she was getting money only as "gifts".

"Plaintiff complains that Defendant-Respondent Irwin Allan Schiff, with calculated intent and purpose perpetrated a fraud against her beginning in 1998 by exploiting her for the purpose of turning to his advantage and for his profit, (as evidenced in the attached Affidavit), her artistic talent for the benefit of his business, products, promotions, and credibility and offering as consideration false promises to pay for creating her artwork; by making constant demands of Plaintiff and leaving her no time and energy to pursue any other course to rectify the situation of his control over her; by using false promises and the withholding of money and security to force her into involuntary servitude for his personal benefit, pleasure, and business profit; by falsely promising to make her a [sic] financially well and secure in exchange for the many contributions she made to his healthcare and business; by falsely promising in public to support her and to provide financial security for her future; by falsely promising to hold her harmless in any event where there may come a legal dispute over the working of his business; by willfully taking advantage of her honest and trusting nature, her affection, appreciation and advocacy for the protection of rights of the elderly and other disadvantaged; and, to be further unjustly enriched by knowingly committing fraudulent acts and uttering fraudulent statements in order to keep her detained in the relationship."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/05/2005 11:49 PM  

And that link is...?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/06/2005 12:50 AM  

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 61 - INFORMATION AND RETURNS
Subchapter A - Returns and Records
PART I - RECORDS, STATEMENTS, AND SPECIAL RETURNS

-HEAD-
Sec. 6001. Notice or regulations requiring records, statements, and special returns

-STATUTE-
Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe.

Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records, as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable for tax under this title.

Q1. Is any person required to keep records and make returns IF such person is NOT liable?

Q2. If the Secretary does NOT serve notice on any person, does such non-existent notice place a duty on such person to make such returns and keep such records to show the secretary whether or not such person is liable?

Q3. If the Secretary does NOT serve notice on any person by regulation, does such non-existent notice place a duty on such person to make such returns and keep such records to show the secretary whether or not such person is liable?

Q4. Is a corporation a person?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/06/2005 1:10 AM  

Get a life. Don't you have anything better to do with your time? Don't you have any family or friends you can go out with or maybe spend some time with? You are wasting your time. Nobody here cares about what you say, but you are rudely taking up our space. Go find yourself. Start by looking in the mirror.

By Blogger Unknown, at 10/06/2005 8:01 AM  

"Nobody here cares about what you say"

Nobody here gives a damn about the truth unless it's their guru sells it to them in a $95 package of tapes?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/06/2005 9:13 AM  

I am not accustomed to blog sites, this being my first time, I would ask LAWOMAN to please advise me as to the law, regulations, 1st amendment limitations, private use of, etc... this site when refering to her claim that another (Dale Eastman, who I do not know) is "rudely taking up our space?" (key word is our). Please explain from the owners rules or by-laws etc... just who is OUR referencing! Is this a pay or private site that I should be informed or am accessing wrongly? Truly I do not know so please advise and supply authorities so I may have the knowledge and understanding of this forum.

AND

Would you please advise just how you came to the conclusions that "nobody here cares about what you say" when refering to the aforementioned individual? Do you have an accurate accounting of this claim. I thought that when one makes a claim the burden of proof is upon that person to substantiate their claim. I respectfully ask for your proof please? Your handle, "Lawoman" certainly implies that you have great respect and/or much knowledge of the law so I would hope to learn something from your response.

AND

Can you present for all the readers your factual analysis and authorities or valid psychological studies to prove the individual you referrence must, because you said so, "go find himself" and that he "start by looking in the mirror?" I find it curious as I have always learned that a person doesn't actually "find themselves" for if it were true someone would say they actually found themself 10 N. of Denver or somewhere. I was always taught that a person is to create their self through effort, dedication, and that their conscience is their guide not a mirror. Please advise and correct so I may further my path through life. Sincerely, CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/06/2005 9:44 AM  

"LAWOMAN"

Is that "LAW Of MAN"

or

"LA WOMAN"

or

"LAw WOMAN"?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/06/2005 11:08 AM  

Don't you have anything better to do with your time?

Yes. As a matter of fact, I do. There are tons of things I would enjoy better than having to:

Challenge government liars on the laws they deliberately mis-state;

Answer ankle biters such as yourself that make personal attacks... Anonymously;

Compose webpages to expose the truth;

Compose blog and newsgroup posts to expose the truth;

Contemplate the reality of living under the tyranny in new Amerika;

Contemplate where this is headed without some serious attempts to get this country back to Liberty.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/06/2005 11:23 AM  

I think its time to upraise with a civil war against the goverment and start all over without these bast.... there making me sick . anything to do with the goverment i have no respect for them! there LAZY - STUPID- IGNORANT- AND SHOULDNT BE LET TO REPRESENT THIS COUNTRY!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/06/2005 11:59 AM  

lawoman,

With respect, Dale's FUD campaign regarding the law is not worth your time.

He knows that the Court's interpretation of the law is the one that counts and he has no plan for changing it. His posts only expose his ravings for what they are, a rehash of discredited frivolous arguments that no one but Dale and other deluded guru followers believe.

I am occasionally checking in to see when Shifty gets convicted and I see nothing has changed.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/06/2005 12:28 PM  

WAAAAAAAAAA!

[un]reasonable guy BIT MY ANKLE!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/06/2005 1:06 PM  

HERE's ONE FOR YOU ALL!

United States of America v. Roy G. Powell and Dixie Lee Powell,
936 F.2d 1056, 1064 (9th Cir., decided June 13, 1991), footnote 3:

3. We have repeatedly held that the district court
acts correctly when it excludes evidence of what
the law is or should be. United States v. Posch-
watta, 829 F.2d 1477, 1483 (9th Cir. 1987), cert.
denied, 484 U.S. 1064, 108 S.Ct. 1024, 98 L.Ed.2d
989 (1988); United States v. Mueller, 778 F.2d
539, 540-41 (9th Cir. 1985); Cooley v. United
States, 501 F.2d 1249, 1253 (9th Cir. 1974), cert.
denied, 419 U.S. 1123, 95 S.Ct. 809, 42 L.Ed.2d
824 (1975). These precedents are based on the
premise that the district court is the jury's sole
source of the law. Poschwatta, 829 F.2d at
1483. [The Supreme Court's decision in Cheek
has effectively overruled these cases when con-
sidering a defendant's good faith belief in the
interpretation of the law.]...read on..........

955 F.2d 1214:

We reverse the convictions of Roy and
Dixie Lee Powell and remand for a new
trial. Upon retrial, if the Powells again
proffer evidence of statutes, case law, and
legal materials upon which they claim to
have relied, the district court shall consider
the admissibility of such evidence in light
of Cheek and of our discussion of the issue
in the body of this opinion.

[/excerpt]

Respectfully submitted, CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/06/2005 2:55 PM  

LMAO at [un]reasonable guy.

I had to go look up FUD

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) is a sales or marketing strategy of disseminating negative but vague or inaccurate information on a competitor's product. The term originated to describe misinformation tactics in the computer software industry and has since been used more broadly.

So, bringing the text of [un]reasonable's post into this one:

Dale's FUD campaign regarding the law is not worth your time

So [un]reasonable is accusing me of "disseminating negative but vague or inaccurate information on a competitor's product", said product being "THE LAW"

So posting verbatim citations and corroborating links is vague and inaccurate...

Uh huh.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/07/2005 6:04 PM