Thursday, October 06, 2005

Irwin Schiff Trial Coverage by Freedom Law School (Segment 3 of 5)

14 Old Comments:

By warning the Brooking and Murphy that 1) what they say under oath can be used against them later, and 2) be careful not to elaborate, the judge is trying to protect the witnesses. While it is unlikely due to their low incomes that they will ever face their own criminal trials, it is still important that they understand what risks they are taking in testifying.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/07/2005 10:47 AM  

"By warning the Brooking and Murphy that 1) what they say under oath can be used against them later,"

ahh yes the benevolent judge who throughout the trial has offered his thoughtful consideration for all parties involved...Has the author of the above quote ever stopped to think that maybe the witnesses are not lying and never had any intent to lie because that is the purpose of swearing in, not Maranda.

"2) be careful not to elaborate, the judge is trying to protect the witnesses."

In reality, be careful not to elaborate meaning to tell too many facts and truths as the witness knows the facts and truth to be. Benevolence or censorship?

"While it is unlikely due to their low incomes that they will ever face their own criminal trials,..."

Now the author wants to have us believe that the measure of a man is due to his wealth maybe? I'll take an honest, or a man/woman with principles before I put to them the test of the false God of this world...that being money.

Problem for the author above, he doesn't define income as to be legally used in the trial nor does he understand that the money he uses to judge another is in reality fiat currency and foreign owned to boot. CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/07/2005 12:48 PM  

"Has the author of the above quote ever stopped to think that maybe the witnesses are not lying and never had any intent to lie because that is the purpose of swearing in, not Maranda."

The judge wasn't warning them about impeachment or perjury. He was warning them that they might be admitting under oath to tax evasion or willful failure to file. If and when they are ever prosecuted, their sworn statements will prove the government's case for them.

"Now the author wants to have us believe that the measure of a man is due to his wealth maybe?"

Yeesh, what a snob you are. In case you haven't noticed, the DOJ and IRS tend to target people who make lots of money (doctors, Leona Helmsley, chiropractors, lawyers, CEOs, etc.) on tax evasion cases. They make better press than homeless guys and truck drivers.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/07/2005 1:02 PM  

"The judge wasn't warning them about impeachment or perjury. He was warning them that they might be admitting under oath to tax evasion or willful failure to file. If and when they are ever prosecuted, their sworn statements will prove the government's case for them."

How nice...Warn a witness to not tell what he knows to be true...warn a witness that his truth is not his truth and therefore he could be prosecuted not for purjury but for the un-stated law that proves their sense of truth as not true!

"Yeesh, what a snob you are. In case you haven't noticed, the DOJ and IRS tend to target people who make lots of money (doctors, Leona Helmsley, chiropractors, lawyers, CEOs, etc.) on tax evasion cases. They make better press than homeless guys and truck drivers."

Now we have decended to name calling in effort to bolster the IRS positiong or shall I say marketing program by "SELECTIVE PROSECUTION" in order to scare the general public which includes truck drivers, who I respect greatly, and homeless people, who as people can make tremendous friends...

Of course given that a large percentage of the population is in POVERTY and I have concern for that and other issues...I am somehow a snob? Thanks, CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/07/2005 1:59 PM  

I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.
George Washington

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/07/2005 2:37 PM  

Of course prosecution is selective. The IRS and DOJ only have the resources to prosecute a few hundred tax cases per year. It's not rocket science that they'd choose the ones with the most impact.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/07/2005 4:14 PM  

But it seems to be a bit like rocket science for them to actually state the law that makes one Unequivocally liable and that they have effectively connected "income."

Not to mention it must be rocket science, and they not being rocket scientists, to simply produce the documents, as stated in law, that Irwin moved the court to have them produce.

Not only is prosecution selective, so are the facts, the evidence and the truth. CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/07/2005 4:27 PM  

"But it seems to be a bit like rocket science for them to actually state the law that makes one Unequivocally liable and that they have effectively connected 'income.'"

Not really. How many times has Section 1 been provided as the answer both in the courtroom and on this blog so far.

Such willful blindness is interesting.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/07/2005 4:35 PM  

Section 1???

How about you go read section 1 before you post here.

IT DOES NOT MENTION LIABLITY IN THAT SECTION!!

Now, how many times has that been posted ANYWHERE and EVEYWHERE?!

By Anonymous An Ant, at 10/07/2005 5:01 PM  

"Not really. How many times has Section 1 been provided as the answer both in the courtroom and on this blog so far."

well, one could say that Section 61 defines "income", (and in fact that has probably been said) but it does not define anything. Nor does Section 1 make a person liable. It "imposes" a tax on "taxable income"; it DOES NOT "make a person liable". In other words, the statements about Section 1 and Section 61 are, at best, misstatements or, at worst, outright lies.

THE REASON THAT THE WORD "LIABLE" IS SO IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE THAT IS THE WORD THAT THE IRSS USES IN THE PRIVACY STATEMENT IN ITS OWN 1040 "TAX" BOOKLET.

By Anonymous hank, at 10/07/2005 5:02 PM  

Yeesh, what a snob you are. In case you haven't noticed, the DOJ and IRS tend to target people who make lots of money (doctors, Leona Helmsley, chiropractors, lawyers, CEOs, etc.) on tax evasion cases. They make better press than homeless guys and truck drivers.

SEE:
IRS Abuse Reports
prepared for the
United States Congress

http://www.neo-tech.com/irs-class-action/1.html

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/07/2005 5:02 PM  

"Not really. How many times has Section 1 been provided as the answer both in the courtroom and on this blog so far."

well, one could say that Section 61 defines "income", (and in fact that has probably been said) but it does not define anything. Nor does Section 1 make a person liable. It "imposes" a tax on "taxable income"; it DOES NOT "make a person liable". In other words, the statements about Section 1 and Section 61 are, at best, misstatements or, at worst, outright lies.

THE REASON THAT THE WORD "LIABLE" IS SO IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE THAT IS THE WORD THAT THE IRSS USES IN THE PRIVACY STATEMENT IN ITS OWN 1040 "TAX" BOOKLET.

By Anonymous hank, at 10/07/2005 5:02 PM  

"THE REASON THAT THE WORD "LIABLE" IS SO IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE THAT IS THE WORD THAT THE IRSS USES IN THE PRIVACY STATEMENT IN ITS OWN 1040 "TAX" BOOKLET."

You just keep playing those word games if that's what makes you feel better, Mr. Clinton.

The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/07/2005 5:24 PM  

Anonymous cowardly silly person tried: "Yeesh, what a snob you are. In case you haven't noticed, the DOJ and IRS tend to target people who make lots of money (doctors, Leona Helmsley, chiropractors, lawyers, CEOs, etc.) on tax evasion cases. They make better press than homeless guys and truck drivers."

Then why didn't the nice, considerate judge have the gummint give them immunity, like the prosecution witnesses got? Since they have not much blood -- er, money -- to be squeezed from them, the gummint isn't going to go after them anyway... right?


Another(?) ACSP read:

"But it seems to be a bit like rocket science for them to actually state the law that makes one Unequivocally liable and that they have effectively connected 'income.'"

...and in response tried:

"Not really. How many times has Section 1 been provided as the answer both in the courtroom and on this blog so far.

Such willful blindness is interesting."

LOL. Willful blindness is interesting, but you are the one engaging in it. You ignore all the many times within these comment sections where your precious Section 1 has been debunked. I'll bet you can even find one of those places all by yourself -- if you want to.


Another(?) ACSP tried the "founding fathers spinning in their graves" and Clinton word games Quatlooser spin again, which has gotten no less risible since the last time you loons tried it, earlier in these comments pages. The gummint wrote the tax code, not us, ergo the gummint is the one playing word games.

If you are not intelligent enough to understand the concepts involved, you may want to phrase your contributions in the form of questions so that others can enlighten you.

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/13/2005 9:19 AM