Monday, October 10, 2005

powered by Audioblog.com

13 Old Comments:

Of course, if the jury does visit this blog, they'll get to read and hear about how Irwin's witness Ken Nicholson called them nothing but fat lazy slobs. And Mike the Radio Rebel said that all 14 jurors had a combined IQ of 100.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/10/2005 10:39 PM  

That's a good reason to hang an innocent man right there. Thank you Mr. Anonymous. You are a smart and brave man. Thank you for your courage and patriotism.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/10/2005 10:46 PM  

It is becoming plainly obvious that the people who are anti-Irwin are beginning to believe that he is going to be found innocent as he should be. They are getting desperate enough to try and lead a jury who might be reading or listening to this blog into a guilty verdict. Remember the jury can not do anything other that judge the case as fairly as they understand the facts. They can also decide on an innocent verdict if they decide that the defendant was not given a fair trial. You would have to be quite a moron to believe that this was a fair trial. I don’t believe the jury is a bunch of morons. They all know they have a judgment day coming and they want to be judged fairly. They’ll do the right thing.

John

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

Huh? Why would anybody with half a brain cell think that a twice-convicted felon attempting to assert the Cheek defense of all things would be anything other than a slam-dunk conviction?

Plus, Bob Schulz is coming to testify! We all know the magic that Bob Schulz has on trials, just look at how much he helped Dick Simkanin.

BTW, it looks like a fair trial to everybody but the koolaid-drinking cultist Schifty sheeple followers.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 12:43 AM  

What the hell? What kind of stupid idiot are you? Anybody who hasn't been smoking crack cocaine 24 hours a day for the last 15 years could easily see that the IRS is trying to convict an innocent man again just like they did Dick Simkanin. Anybody who doesn't make a living lying to people and stealing from people would be backing Irwin Schiff in this battle.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 1:07 AM  

The pro communist income tax crowd previously posted that the bankruptcy below and the current super high bankruptcy rate right is meaningless. You Decide

By Dee-Ann Durbin
The Associated Press
ANN ARBOR, Michigan -- Delphi's bankruptcy could change the face of the U.S. auto industry, ratcheting up the pressure to produce cheaper auto parts overseas and forcing unprecedented cuts in union wages and benefits, industry analysts and autoworkers said Sunday.
Delphi's largest customer and former parent, said it might have to assume up to $11 billion in retirement benefits for Delphi's union-represented employees.

But the ripple effects will not end there.
Delphi's bankruptcy, which is expected to result in plant closures and layoffs, is one of the largest in U.S. history. The Troy-based company has 50,000 U.S. employees.

The above is DIRECTLY related to why Irwin even looked at the tax issue.

When the country is dead the pro tax persons (a corporation is a person in law) will be so very very happy. CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 7:27 AM  

"Of course, if the jury does visit this blog, they'll get to read and hear about how Irwin's witness Ken Nicholson called them nothing but fat lazy slobs. And Mike the Radio Rebel said that all 14 jurors had a combined IQ of 100."

AND IF the jury were to do so, they would have VIOLATED their duty as jurors and thus would also have to HANG THEMSELVES. SO to assume Irwin to be in violation, they would also be in violation. Judge ye not, least ye be judged.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 8:04 AM  

"AND IF the jury were to do so, they would have VIOLATED their duty as jurors and thus would also have to HANG THEMSELVES. SO to assume Irwin to be in violation, they would also be in violation. Judge ye not, least ye be judged."

It wasn't my assumption. Didn't you listen to the audioblog the comment was tacked on to?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 8:33 AM  

"Of course, if the jury does visit this blog, they'll get to read and hear about how Irwin's witness Ken Nicholson called them nothing but fat lazy slobs. And Mike the Radio Rebel said that all 14 jurors had a combined IQ of 100."

The above is a direct quote from the 1st post.

My comment with regard to the above only uses the term "assume" with regard to Irwin and his suspected/alleged violation. MY COMMENT does not use the term "assume" with regard to any other matter including the audio.

Again -t o ASSUME IRWIN wrong and the JURY listened, they would be WRONG as well thus, judge he not least ye be judged.

("It wasn't my assumption. Didn't you listen to the audioblog the comment was tacked on to?") Yes and odd comments were made with regard to the jury, but not by Irwin, who is on trial not the witnesses.

Didn't your read and comprehend the post?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 8:45 AM  

"Yes and odd comments were made with regard to the jury, but not by Irwin, who is on trial not the witnesses."

It doesn't matter whether Irwin made the comments or not. If the jury is breaking the rules by reading these posts, they be mad as hell at Nicholson calling them fat lazy slobs and Mike the Radio Rebel saying they are mentally retarded.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 10:45 AM  

"BTW, it looks like a fair trial to everybody but the koolaid-drinking cultist Schifty sheeple followers."

I'm not saying he is guilty or innocent, all I saying is when a judge tells a defendant/lawyer to learn to read lips when he can't hear well it isn't what anybody in their right mind would call fair.

By Anonymous Name Withheld, at 10/11/2005 10:58 AM  

It is counter productive to call people names. It is also not productive or proper to deny one his defense. It is not proper for the jury to read or listen to blogs or anything with regard to the trial (if they were to do so). It is not proper for the DOJ to have private meetings with the judge, for any reason for it serves to imply impropriety at very least. It is not productive or proper to attempt to intimidate/threaten/marandize witnesses for one side and grant immunity to the other. (this act alone says the judge has his mind made up prior to the case).

With the above said it is easy to understand the error in judgment and intense emotion taken out upon the wrong parties, the jurors, and I personally cannot defend it. Sometimes men are governed by urges rather than by reason. BUT I ask, “What is so reasonable, correct, proper and productive with regard to this entire trial?”

It is also not productive for those who name call, & without substance I might add, to post on these pages, for TRUTH comes of Inspiration; analysis and hostile debate keep the people away from the Truth! CJ
.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/11/2005 11:29 AM  

Anonymous cowardly silly person again tried:

"Of course, if the jury does visit this blog, they'll get to read and hear about how Irwin's witness Ken Nicholson called them nothing but fat lazy slobs. And Mike the Radio Rebel said that all 14 jurors had a combined IQ of 100."

Of course, if that makes them mad, just think how mad they'll be when they find out WHY those comments were made, and then what CHANGED those opinions, and then see how you SPAMMED those old, outdated opinions LATER ON.

Yep, they'll have plenty to get mad about, alright. Then, after they've gotten over the anger rush, you know what they may well start to wonder about? This:

Why would you try to draw their attention AWAY from the facts and the law WITHIN THIS TRIAL and ONTO irrelevant external facts?

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/14/2005 12:14 PM