Wednesday, October 19, 2005

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

Peymon blasts patriot mythology in this segment.

7 Old Comments:

A nation that fears their government lives in tyranny.
Where the government fears the nation there is liberty.
Do you fear your government???

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 11:13 PM  

To all, I had 3 kids paper every car in the Norwalk parking structure which is 7 stories tall. It was done meticulously and completed in less than 10 minutes. Total of over 1000 pamphlets.


Every jury in the country has the right to bring in a verdict based on, not whether the defendant's act or omission was merely contrary to a dictionary interpretation of the words or phrases used in some man-made statute recited to it by the trial "judge", but whether or not the defendant's act or omission was truly blameworthy according to the jury's (and representatively, the community's) natural sense of morality and justice. It is a well- established principle in criminal jurisprudence that an act or omission does not make a man guilty unless he does so by intention.
The right of the jury to disregard either the law (as laid down by the trial "judge") or the facts (as permitted by the same trial "judge" to be placed into evidence) is referred to in legal terminology as the jury's prerogative of nullification (jury lawlessness) which means in ordinary language that where the jurors cannot in conscience impose blame, they cannot in conscience allow punishment.
The prerogative of nullification (jury lawlessness) is not only legitimate, but a praiseworthy right of the jury as well. Prerogative nullification is a mechanism that permits the jury as spokesman for the community's conscience to disregard the strict requirements of man-made law, as well as the "judge's" instructions to the jury where it finds those requirements cannot justly be applied in a particular case. Today in the courts this unassailable doctrine is concealed from the jury and is effectively condemned by the "judge" in the presence of the jury.

JURY POWER in the system of checks and balances:
In a Constitutional system of justice, such as ours, there is a judicial body with more power than Congress, the President, or even the Supreme Court. Yes, the trial jury protected under our Constitution has more power than all these government officials. This is because it has the final veto power over all "acts of the legislature" that may come to be called "laws".
That is the power of the jury at work; the power to decide the issues of law under which the defendant is charged, as well as the facts. In our system of checks and balances, the jury is our final check, the people's last safeguard against unjust law and tyranny.

A Jury's Rights, Powers, and Duties:
But does the jury's power to veto bad laws exist under our Constitution?
It certainly does! At the time the Constitution was written, the definition of the term "jury" referred to a group of citizens empowered to judge both the law and the evidence in the case before it. Then, in the February term of 1794, the Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford (3 Dall 1). The instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) " have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".
So you see, in an American courtroom there are in a sense twelve judges in attendance, not just one. And they are there with the power to review the "law" as well as the "facts"! Actually, the "judge" is there to conduct the proceedings in an orderly fashion and maintain the safety of all parties involved.

Go to the internet and check for yourselves, there are many, just type juries into a search engine on a computer.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 11:45 PM  

Those desiring to be FULLY INFORMED should check out Cindy's 90+ page palimony complaint against Irwin, where she reveals the real Irwin Schiff and also uses the word "rape".

FULLY INFORMED includes that too!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 11:56 PM  

No disrespect to Cindy, but who gives a rat's ass about your constantly posting suggestings to read palimony complaints.

Is this supposed to be some really hot news? Yes we're sure Irwin, Cindy and other people on the planet have a life outside being dragged through the courts by the IRS.

These people are fighting for their very lives - and palimony has ZERO to do with this trial.

Why do you want to inflict more misery on them - don't you have some business of your own to tend to?

Show us some dirt on you - we'd get a kick out of reading that - or are you just a perfect little sh!t starter?

# # #

By Anonymous notepad, at 10/20/2005 12:09 AM  

I agree. It's getting pretty old. If that's the best you can do... Like it really matters.

By Blogger LAWoman, at 10/20/2005 12:36 AM  

Not that Cindy's 90 page complaint has anything to do with the income tax law, or this trial, or the unfair way it is being conducted.
To the anonymous poster who keeps talk ing about this:
It REALLY looks like you and all the other detractors, socialist income tax lovers and government agents have no legitimate objection to make, so this is the only thing you can talk about now and everyone who is reading this sees this clearly.

By Blogger The Tarquin King, at 10/20/2005 9:00 AM  

Peymon cannot be trusted!

He asks for cash ONLY, so he is no different than all those that try and hide their assets.

Does he send a recordable money order over $3,000 or send cash to pay bills because he doesn’t have a bank account?

He says “patriot mythology is baseless;” Equity Law, Admiralty Law, Common Law, UCC Sec. 1-207, U.S. citizenship, Your name in capital letters, Using a ZIP code, and others. So what does he believe, if these are fairy tales?

He told me that any employer can terminate you within the first three months of employment even if you refuse to commit perjury on a government document!
He said; “You have NO case!!!”
That means your employer can order you to commit a crime or terminate you!

He will take your case, JUST TO GET YOUR MONEY, but he will tell you that you will loose!!!

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/20/2005 7:00 PM