Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Irwin Schiff Trial Coverage by Freedom Law School (Segment 2 of 4)

12 Old Comments:

Rothschild, a London Banker, once wrote a letter saying "It (the Central Bank) gives the National Bank almost complete control of national finance.

The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class... The great body of the people, mentally incapable of comprehending, will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical (contrary) to their interests."

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/today/articles/fedprivatelyowned.htm

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 11:26 PM  

Trial by Jury is trial by the people. When juries are not allowed to judge the law [they ARE by the way], it becomes trial by government. When juries are not allowed to judge the justice of the law, they cannot protect the people from the oppressions of government because, AS HISTORY HAS SHOWN, GOVERNMENT MAY AUTHORIZE ANY OPPRESSION BY LAW (or at least Color of Law).

http://www.fija.org/torf.pdf

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/12/2005 11:34 PM  

"When juries are not allowed to judge the law"

Juries have NEVER been allowed to judge the law in the 800+ years of Anglo-American jurisprudence.

As far as the jury being "fully informed", they should be informed of Irwin's two prior felony convictions, as well as given a copy of Cindy's 90+ page palimony complaint where she complains about being raped and other things.

Why is this evidence being kept out? Cindy is a party, and it should be admissible.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 12:07 AM  

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

No need to put Hon befor his name there is nothing honarable about him

Be sure to let this baboon know how you feel about him. Maybe someone can find him a job in North Korea or Zimbabwe I am sure that he will be able to teach them something.

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 12:18 AM  

Isn’t it interesting the judge tells Irwin he can’t participate in these blogs but allows the prosecution team to do so. The proof the prosecutors are commenting is the fact they site, by name and their attorneys name and the case numbers, of over twenty people who have lost in court. They also site obscure court rulings to prove their point. Who, other than disparate Federal Prosecutors, would have that information or bother to point it out? I suggest the person in charge of these blogs run a trace on the commenters who site such cases for Irwin to be able to prove who those people are.
One of the Prosecutors pointed out in a comment to this blog that anyone could get that information. The answer to that prosecutor is, “Yes anyone can find that information. However, only a federal Prosecutor or IRS agent would do so because they have a dog in the fight. And at this point it looks like their/your dog is a poodle while Irwin's is a vicious Rottweiler with its jaws tearing into the neck of your helpless Poodle.”

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/13/2005 12:23 AM  

The Internet Privacy Act code 431.322.16-C compels the warning, If you are affiliated with any government agency or police, or any other related group, or were formally a worker, you CANNOT enter these web pages, links, nor access any of its files for the purposes of influencing, disinformation or general harassment or intimidation under the color of law. And you cannot view any of the HTML files for the purposes of intimidation or the influencing of any United States citizen or potential witness involved in a criminal preceding.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 12:30 AM  

"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included."
Karl Marx

What a COOL GUY to have proposed the Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated incometax.

Now we know whats in the heads of those who are FOR THE fallacious TAX. CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 8:19 AM  

Anonymous said...

Juries have NEVER been allowed to judge the law in the 800+ years of Anglo-American jurisprudence.

You are wrong.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

INFORMED Citizens on the jury that are capable of understanding the above excerpt from the Declaration of Independence will JUDGE THE LAW. Twelve informed Citizens at a time will give or withhold consent on behalf of ALL the governed.

If those 12 Informed Citizens consent to the law, THEN and ONLY THEN will those 12 informed Citizens judge the facts of the accused in relation to a law held to be just.

For example of the urgent necessity of this, consider this exchange from elsewhere in this blog where a statist sycophant ignored his Civic Duty:

Hypothetical situation:

You're a member of a jury in a criminal trial. The prosecutor has proven, with solid evidence, waaaay beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused did indeed commit the crime the accused was accused of doing. The accused even sat on the stand and said, "Yes, I broke that law".

Q.1. Are you required to vote guilty?

Q.2. If your answer to Q.1. is no,
Would you vote guilty?

The fawning government sycophant stated:

If I would voluntarily take that oath, something I take seriously (again I realize you have a hard time understanding that, but stick with me here), I would abide by that oath. So yes, by my own personal standards, I would be required to vote "guilty".

I forgot (on purpose) to explain the criminal act, and you didn't bother to ask.

Aiding and abetting the fugitive Anne Frank and her family.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 10/13/2005 12:23 PM  

Eastman, you learned a new word, congratulations.

"Sycophant" - Wow, you even spelled it correctly and for you, that's a big accomplishment; cut and pasted, huh? How long did it take you to look that one up?

By Anonymous Frank Buckner, at 10/13/2005 1:27 PM  

Eastman, you learned a new word, congratulations.

"Sycophant" - Wow, you even spelled it correctly and for you, that's a big accomplishment; cut and pasted, huh? How long did it take you to look that one up?


Mr. Buckner, is income in section 61(a) used in its Constitutional sense?

By Anonymous Mr. Eastman, at 10/13/2005 2:16 PM  

"The Constitutionalist"

Can anyone say KOOK, CRACKPOT, NUTCASE, LOSER, IDIOT!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/13/2005 6:32 PM  

Anonymous cowardly silly person asserted:

"Juries have NEVER been allowed to judge the law in the 800+ years of Anglo-American jurisprudence."

Anon, you ignorant slut:

Article 23 of Maryland’s Constitution states:

In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction. The right of trial by Jury of all issues of fact in civil proceedings in the several Courts of Law in this State, where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of five thousand dollars, shall be inviolably preserved.

Art. I, Sec. 19, of Indiana’s Constitution says:

In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

Art.I, Sec. 16 of Oregon’s Constitution says:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases.

Art. I, Sec. 1 of Georgia’s Constitution says:

The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be judges of the law and the facts.

"As far as the jury being "fully informed", they should be informed of Irwin's two prior felony convictions, as well as given a copy of Cindy's 90+ page palimony complaint where she complains about being raped and other things."

According to the reports we are listening to here, they were in fact informed of those convictions, and the palimony suit was settled well before this trial began. Maybe you should pay more attention. Ohhhhh, that's right: you already knew that, and were just trying to mislead casual lurkers.

Remember, lurkers: each case has to be proven SEPARATELY. You don't automatically become "guilty" in one case on account of having been found "guilty" in another. At least, not in America!

"Why is this evidence being kept out? Cindy is a party, and it should be admissible."

Who is keeping it out? You? Are your nostrils always that big, or have you just been peckish lately?


Another(?) anonymous cowardly silly person shrieked:

"The Constitutionalist"

"Can anyone say KOOK, CRACKPOT, NUTCASE, LOSER, IDIOT!"

Oh, oh, I think I can do this one! Me! Lemme try:

ANONYMOUS, COWARDLY, SILLY PERSON!

No! Wait, I can do it. OK:

STATIST, SHILL, SYCOPHANT, CATAMITE!

Ack. Damn, I'm no good at this game. Can we play something else?

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/16/2005 7:43 PM