Thursday, October 06, 2005

Irwin Schiff update by Mike Golden

15 Old Comments:

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.]

[/excerpt]
***********************************

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] CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/06/2005 3:18 PM  

Subject: [End_income_Tax] confirming USA v. Powell, 936 F.2d 1056, 1064 (9th Cir. 1991), fn 3 (later REMOVED)
Reply-To: End_income_Tax@yahoogroups.com

"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."  Ninth Circuit (June 13, 1991)
 
 
In case you missed it, or ignored it on purpose,
my memory of the case, its holding, and the
"editing" that was done, were correct ...


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.

[/excerpt]


United States of America v. Roy G. Powell and Dixie Lee Powell,
955 F.2d 1206, 1214 (order and amended opinion Feb. 6, 1992)

Opinion, 936 F.2d 1056, superseded.

The above footnote has been removed from the last page of this
amended opinion.


Now, compare the CONCLUSION in each:

936 F.2d 1064:

We reverse the conviction of Roy and
Dixie Lee Powell and remand for a new
trial.  Upon retrial, the district court
should allow proffered evidence of the stat-
utes, case law and legal materials the Pow-
ells relied upon in forming their intent to
fail to file tax returns.


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]


Now, those of you who chose to be outrageously rude
and obnoxious on this legal point, you can stick your
bloated heads into the nearest toilet and flush 3 times,
being careful to keep your fat mouths shut to avoid
ingesting any turds too large to fit into the soil line.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

By Blogger Tally Eddings, at 10/06/2005 3:30 PM  

Please forward to Irwin Schiff ASAP: HIS WEBSITE IS DOWN
Reply-To: End_income_Tax@yahoogroups.com

See discussion of Cheek decision, and 9th Circuit fall-out on June 13, 1991:
 
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/trumane/interview.htm
(search for "Cheek" et seq. )
 
We scanned the evidence of FRAUD by the Ninth Circuit here:
 
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/powell/
 
See, in particular:
 
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/powell/936.f2d.1064.gif

Later, Footnote 3 has been REMOVED from the decision above:
 
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/powell/955.f2d.1214.gif

Note also where the decision dated Feb. 6, 1992, states:
 
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/powell/955.f2d.1206.gif
 
"Order and Amended Opinion Feb. 6, 1992"
and
"Opinion, 936 F.2d 1056 superseded."  !!!
 

In my professional opinion, this is FRAUD by the Ninth Circuit.
 
 
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
 
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
 
 

By Blogger Tally Eddings, at 10/06/2005 3:33 PM  

FROM PAUL ANDREW MITCHELL:

Irwin Schiff is now being victimized by a MIS-TRIAL!!
 

I just faxed 4 of the most important pages

to Irwin Schiff at fax (702) 385-6917.

 

That was the only available fax number I could

find for him:  his website appears to be down,

and I couldn't locate a current email address

for him.

 

I did, however, find an email address

in the WHOIS entry at Network Solutions

for his website:

 

  http://www.netsol.com  (click on WHOIS)

 

 

I'M NOW CONVINCED THAT THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IS OVER-POPULATED WITH VICIOUS CROOKS.

 

For example, use Google http://www.google.com

to search for:

 

  site:www.supremelaw.org +"Harry Pregerson"

 

 

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

 

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

 

 

By Blogger Tally Eddings, at 10/06/2005 4:23 PM  

Please explain the ID photos of the CID on Irwin's blog site.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/06/2005 5:02 PM  

Dear Lawmen and Communications People:

I have sent a new Criminal Complaint to Judge Dawson who is the judge in
Irwin and Cindy's case. This will inform this judge what the law is and
of the Criminal activities of the IRS Operations Managers. Irwin's
lawyers may be doing a good job. I don't know. However, we can step in
and have standing with this judge and the prosecution of these IRS
criminals by doing this criminal complaint.

This is your chance to stand up for Irwin and Cindy and Cohen. We do not
have to sit and whine and complain anymore. We have a course of action. I
sent the signed and certified 50 page complaint out today. Each of you
should join yourself to the criminal complaint by sending the Affidavit
in to Judge Dawson. Irwin and Cindy have fought long and hard. It is time
for each of you to stand up.

I know that many of you have done so in the past but we still have some
people who want to sit and do nothing. I can tell you now, that if you do
not participate in this, I will not lift a finger on your behalf when you
get in trouble. We have 4,500 members and we should be able to muster up
at least 2,000 Affidavits. Don't spend money with certified mail unless
you want to. Just send it first class. The judge won't be able to deny
that he got 2,000 Affidavits. Let us inform Judge Dawson that we all now
know the law and the Supreme Court rulings.

I am attaching the Criminal Complaint which is signed by me. The
attachments won't come through the Yahoo posting, so if you don't get it,
email me for the affidavit. I ask our Communications People to forward
this on to all our members so everyone can join in. You only need to send
the Affidavit. Do it right.

Now RIDE OUT, Lawmen.

Go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/national_lawman/ and join to get
instant updates.
Please use this email address lawmancharles@juno.com . We are America's
Posse!
Please give your name and Lawman group to which you belong. 4,000 +
Lawmen.
http://www.lawmenamerica.com
God Bless. Chuck Conces

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/06/2005 5:55 PM  

“Very soon, every American will be required to register their biological
property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that
will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can
compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a
charge back for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register
or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our
chattels, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of
the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by
unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be
rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation,
secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be non the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.
After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud, which we will call “Social Insurance.”
Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may
incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”

**Note the Social Security card states that without it you may not, which is really cannot be employed.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/06/2005 6:04 PM  

The above written long ago by Edward Mandell House.

A soothsayer or prophet? I think not. More likely by design. CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/06/2005 6:06 PM  

You mean the Colonel House that gave orders to "President Wilson"? There is another quote by FDR to Colonel House exclaiming that "You and I know that the financial centers have controlled the country since the time of Andrew Jackson."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/06/2005 6:17 PM  

The U.S. Supreme Court gave Cheek a new trial. On remand to the district court, he was again convicted by a jury, and spent some years on prison.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/06/2005 7:54 PM  

"2,000 affidavits"?

Schiff doesn't even have a half-dozen supporters at his trial. What happened to the Million Man March (that turned out to be a march of, uh, nobody).

As far as Tally Eddings and Paul Andrew Mitchell (real name: Mitchell Modeleski) go, they are two of the biggest crazies in the whole TP movement (though Chuck Conces is right up there). PAM, for instance, filed "arrest warrants" on the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, which probably caused a lot of laughter in the court clerk's office.

Anybody who knows PAM's whereabouts please notify the nice men in the white coats with the butterfly nets.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/06/2005 8:00 PM  

Anybody know how many days that Bob Schulz has attended Irwin's trial?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/06/2005 8:36 PM  

Yeah, where is Bob? He should be there as well as the members of congress that belong to The Liberty Committee (Ron Paul, et al), those leaders of CATO Institute, The Libertarian Party leaders, The Constitution Party leaders, DownsizeDC, The Lawmen (Chuck Conces), etc. etc. (50 page affidates are geat, but wouldn't the presence of these individuals speak more than an entire set of encyclopedias?)

All of these (and many more) supposedly support the position that the IRS needs to be abolished and that the INCOME tax is illegally enforced, and that Judges/Courts need be held accountable for fair trials, but NONE have been at this trial.

What's up with that?

By Anonymous mikey, at 10/07/2005 9:08 AM  

Good point,

HELLO BOB, BOB, BOB, WHERE ARE YOU??

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/07/2005 11:48 AM  

Cheek was given a new "trial"... like this one?


Bob Shultz is a witness in the case for Irwin, right? (I'm still catching up here, but I heard that tonight.)

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/13/2005 2:11 AM