Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Tax Honesty Proponent Irwin Schiff Exposes Corrupt Federal Judiciary

by Mark Yannone
October 3, 2005

Now in the fourth week of his income tax trial, Irwin Schiff paints a sordid picture of the federal judiciary and the corrupt government that controls it by fear and intimidation. What this jury is seeing and hearing every day is shocking.

Irwin Schiff is not easily amazed. This 76-year-old fellow thought he had seen it all until the government dragged him into court yet again. But what he is witnessing in court now is the behavior of a government with no case trying desperately to fool a jury by resorting to outright lies.

After burning deep into its long list of witnesses for the prosecution, the government has yet to come close to making its case against Irwin Schiff. Instead, the government's witnesses have proved so favorable to the defense that one wonders repeatedly if the government hasn't made a mistake in its lists.

"And this was the government's witness?" the listener is heard to exclaim again and again.

This has happened so many times in this case that the government begged the judge to take some time out and flat out lie to the jury.

Throughout the case, a case in which the government has the burden to prove that Irwin Schiff had a legal obligation to pay income taxes and a legal duty to file income tax returns other than the ones he filed, Irwin Schiff has been forbidden by the government and by the judge from even mentioning the law. In fact, Mr. Schiff was sentenced to a day in jail for mentioning the law, then two more days, and then four more days. So far he has been punished with seven days in jail for mentioning the law he has been accused of violating.

Despite these obstacles, this old grandpa has persevered. He is hard of hearing, he has lost the use of one eye, and he has been gagged by the court, but the truth is strong and there is no way to suppress it. The government prosecutor recognizes this and understands he has not made a case against Irwin. So what is a desperate government prosecutor to do?

Lie to the jury. With the jury safely out of the room, the prosecutor asked the judge to lie to the jury with some highly unusual midtrial jury instructions, essentially telling the jury to disregard whatever favorable testimony may have come from the government's many witnesses and that no matter what the tax law actually says, the jury is to believe the opposite.

The judge, having sat through all of the proceedings and knowing that the truth contradicts what the prosecutor is asking for, called the jury back into the court room and . . . delivered the false jury instructions as requested.

You can hear it from Irwin Schiff's own mouth in the Monday, October 3, audioblogs at http://triallogs.blogspot.com.

29 Old Comments:

Doesn't the Fair and Informed Jury Act come into play? Can't the defense attorneys point this out that they don't have to OBEY the judge?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 6:25 AM  

Exposes it only to his koolaid-drinking sheeple followers.

No sane person thinks that this twice-convicted old fool is "exposing" anything other than that he lost his mental faculties long ago.

Why all the Belize trusts? Why hiding all the cash? If he is so smart, why can't he get his federal tax liens removed?

All Irwin wants to do is to sell books and junk to those of you dumb enough to buy it. However, as with Lynne Meredith and Phil Marsh before him, it is amazing how quickly Irwin's supporters have abandoned him and there are less than a half-dozen spectactors at his trial and even less than a dozen listeners nationwide to his audioblogs (and probably half of those are federal agents needing a good belly laugh).

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 6:26 AM  

I AM following the trial. I've been lurking here and am amazed by the hatred zooming about.

Whether or not you like or dislike Iriwn is irrelevant. The current income tax system is unfair, unjust, and tyrannical. I also pass around this blog link to everyone I know and constantly talk about the income tax issue with my friends.

So, Mr. Anonymous, there are those of us out here that ARE following this trial that ARE NOT "koolaid-drinking sheeple followers". I've never bought one of his books, but I do believe that the government is crooked as hell when it comes to tax law. Call up the IRS sometime, they will state that they aren't responsible for the tax advice that they give you... what the hell is that crap?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 8:33 AM  

Though it is hard to address silliness, I'll try to address the above message...per tax liens- Sec. 902 Fed. rules of civil proceedure says, in part, that once a "NOTICE of Lien" (key word notice is not a lien and you won't find a "notice" on any other valid lien) is recorded and a certified copy issued it becomes a "self-authenticating" document and that conversion allows for it's enforcement. Now let's think on this...no lien in Washington or anywhere else. I have written to find the actual liens and no one has them or can find them...why you ask...because they don't exist! BUT, a notice that a lien may or may not exist is recorded and a.s.a.p. a certified copy is pulled converting the notice into an enforcable document but still not an actual factual lien. Did you get it yet? There is not an actual lien. They record a notice and pull a certified copy and the act of pulling a certified copy transforms or converts (the act of conversion) the "notice" into an enforceable document. It doesn't make it an actual lien but makes it enforceable! Now I did repeat myself many times for those who have such thick and high walls built into their minds that even a tank has a hard time bringing those walls down. I however believe that everyone is capable of thinking and learning and as soon as those walls begin to shrink they become less of what they are and exhibit more of what a man or woman should be...
Why all the Belize trusts you ask. Why not ask why all the covert actions by your government on this subject and countless others? Why not ask how and why your property was converted from being yours, if you lived long ago, into the property of the State. Not just the State of Nevada but the State is the government. Senate document #43; Senate Resolution No. 62 (pg.9, Para 2) April 17, 1933 "The ultimate ownership of ALL property is in the State: individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of teh State." Why not ask why this was stated during the similar time that the U.S. corporation filed BANKRUPTCY? hmmm...have you checked the national debt yet? Is China more or less a debtor nation? Does China have a better export to import ratio than the U.S.? Maybe a thinking individual would want some money somewhere a bit safer than the U.S. and note I don't say America I use the U.S. for the U.S. is a legislative democracy whereas America is a Republic. Why not ask why James Madison stated that a legislative democracy is the most vial form of government? With so many important questions to ask, why ask such trite ones? Why not ask if the Social Security you signed up for converts (theres that word again) your status/citizenship or does it create a "trust" with a name that sounds like yours but looks a bit different and THERE is the "trust fund" the government always talks about but never identifies the trustee...since they don't have a trustee for the alleged trust fund, might you be the trustee and now that you act in that capacity are to, by statutory law, do exactly what they say? Ask, why would S.S. be "Voluntary" to an American but not to a foreigner for only they have to obtain the card prior to their first work...why not ask yourself why haven't you READ the entire act and comprehended it? Gee Whiz...so many real and important questions and so many people asking the elementary ones not having the facts and answers to the important ones! Sorry for my lack of brevity, but it is indeed crucial that we become informed and less knee jerk reationary. Sincerely CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 8:35 AM  

"Irwin Schiff is not easily amazed. This 76-year-old fellow thought he had seen it all until the government dragged him into court yet again."

What a loon. First he markets his con artistry by saying, "If I were doing something wrong, they'd have shut me down by now."

When they finally shut him down (I should add again, since this is criminal trial number three for Schiff) he cries foul.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 8:52 AM  

"Throughout the case, a case in which the government has the burden to prove that Irwin Schiff had a legal obligation to pay income taxes and a legal duty to file income tax returns other than the ones he filed, Irwin Schiff has been forbidden by the government and by the judge from even mentioning the law."

The government doesn't have that burden of proof. They have to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt the FACTS in the case, not the law.

The facts would include that Irwin obstructed the government's collection of money, that Irwin didn't pay taxes, that Cindy falsely collected welfare checks, and so on.

You'd think after two prior criminal convictions, Schiff would figure out the difference between facts and laws.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 8:56 AM  

"Instead, the government's witnesses have proved so favorable to the defense that one wonders repeatedly if the government hasn't made a mistake in its lists."

Yet another delusion from Schiff and gang.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 8:57 AM  

A brilliantly written reply CJ even the 70 IQ idiot knows that we are dealing with a government of tyranny. He is most likely is one of them.

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 9:00 AM  

"Whether or not you like or dislike Iriwn is irrelevant. The current income tax system is unfair, unjust, and tyrannical."

And the answer to that problem is:

1) Throw money at a paytriot guru for useless products that get you nothing but financial ruin but who makes you feel all warm and fuzzy because he couches his con game in politically correct patriot buzzwords; or

2) Work on getting the tax laws changed by voting Congressmen into office who vow to fix a broken system.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 9:01 AM  

"Call up the IRS sometime, they will state that they aren't responsible for the tax advice that they give you... what the hell is that crap?"

You want the IRS to replace $10 an hour clerks with a few thousand $200,000 a year tax lawyers? How exactly would you like to pay for that? Would you like the government to wipe your nose when you have a cold, too?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 9:04 AM  

"You want the IRS to replace $10 an hour clerks with a few thousand $200,000 a year tax lawyers? How exactly would you like to pay for that? Would you like the government to wipe your nose when you have a cold, too?"

No, I want a tax system that is easy to understand and doesn't have multiple loopholes. I want a tax system that is fair. I want a tax system that doesn't PUNISH hard work and getting ahead. I want a tax system that DOESN'T REQUIRE A $200,000 lawyer for me to understand.

I rather the government just wipe my ass, I can blow my own nose.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 9:24 AM  

"Why all the Belize trusts?"

It is interesting that Non-Resident Aliens open bank and brokerage accounts in the U.S. (those without a trade or business in the U.S.) and they do not pay capital gains taxes on financial transactions. Moreover, they do not pay taxes on the interst of U.S. Treasury Bonds and Corporate Bonds after 1984 and money market funds (considered portfolio interest). In addition, very limited reporting is necessary on these Non-Resident Alien accounts to the taxing authority in the U.S. which enables foreigners to not only use the U.S. as a tax haven, but to have greater rights to their income than U.S. Citizens and Residents. Only in the good ole' Anerika.

Therefore, it is interesting that U.S. Citizens and Residents pay taxes on capital gains and interest and are discouraged to go elsewhere to receive the same treatment as these Non-Resident Alien accounts in the U.S. This is because the U.S. Gvt. is putting pressure on other countrtries to avoid opening accounts for U.S. Citizens.

So my question is why did the U.S. Congress create this lack of uniformity in our tax scheme? Why do foreigners have more right to their capital gains and interest than U.S. Citizens and Residents?


That's exaclty the point and why other countries are yelling when the U.S. comes knocking on their door to demand that they not open accounts for U.S. citizens. These countries say, "Hey, this is unfair, you allow our citizens to open accounts and recieve tax exemptions in your country, but you won't allow your own citizens to do the same in our country?!" The goal is to keep U.S. citizens locked into the U.S. tax scheme...that's why it is a worldwide income tax scheme. So when you report that income from outside the U.S., your foreign friends (non-resident aliens) do not report their income from their U.S. accounts on their home income tax return (if they have to file one) and this goes on and on around the world. Thereto, what is happening here is the U.S. citizen and resident are at an unfair disadvantage. If a non-resident alien receive tax exemptions from an account in the U.S., than so should a U.S. citizen have the same right with accounts outside the U.S.

This is nothing less than discrimination against U.S. Citizens and Residents by the U.S. Congress.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 9:31 AM  

"No, I want a tax system that is easy to understand and doesn't have multiple loopholes. I want a tax system that is fair. I want a tax system that doesn't PUNISH hard work and getting ahead. I want a tax system that DOESN'T REQUIRE A $200,000 lawyer for me to understand."

So tell your Congressmen. The IRS doesn't write the laws; they're just stuck with the task of collecting on the mish mash that the politicians have passed into law. The problem is political.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 9:37 AM  

"The IRS doesn't write the laws"

Not only that...they don't have the right to enforce them either...only U.S. Courts have the right to enforcement.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 9:44 AM  

"Not only that...they don't have the right to enforce them either...only U.S. Courts have the right to enforcement."

Commissioner of Internal Revenue

7803(a)(1)(A)There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Commissioner of Internal Revenue who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to a 5-year term.

7803(a)(2) Duties -- The Commissioner shall have such duties and powers as the Secretary may prescribe, including the power to—
(A) administer, manage, conduct, direct, and supervise the execution and application of the internal revenue laws or related statutes and tax conventions to which the United States is a party

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 9:51 AM  

"This is nothing less than discrimination against U.S. Citizens and Residents by the U.S. Congress."

That is why the U.S. Congress should not expect Americans to support the U.S. financial system, at least in U.S. accounts, with this type of hypocrisy going on.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 9:57 AM  

Silly ME, I actually thought that my previous post (by CJ) would quell the reactionary and trite posts that have little to no substance and even contridictory ones. It didn't work so I'll try again noting that not one word was stated to dispute the factual data or real concerns for our country that I previously stated. Here goes -

NOTE EVERYONE the use of "name calling" by those seemingly trying to sound learned, important and/or righteous or for other reasons. I direct you to "loon" and "con artistry for example. Countless studies have proven that generalized statements and name calling are signs of emotional disturbances and/or the lacking to understand the relative importance of things. Now move down the posts to the idea that the "government doesn't have the burdon of proof" hmmm...think on this... the government is the "Plaintiff" yet doesn't have a burdon of proof? So I take it I can sue someone and since I am the plaintiff I don't have to prove I was LAWFULLY damaged? Seems I would have to be damaged, under law, to recover. So given the alleged facts as stated in the other post I would like the name, address and other data of that writer so I can file suit aginst that writer and since I don't have a burdon of lawful proof I will win! Cool free and easy money! Ooops, reading further is states, the govt. only has to prove the Facts, not the law. Oh darn, now I have a problem with my law suit, let's see if I can still make it fly? I could dummy up some "facts" that this persons existance has somehow harmed me in some manner or form, outside any law and now I can sue the author because I can say that factually I have been harmed by something they may or may not have said or done...remember this all takes place without having any law stated, violated, or firmly and agreeably established. Oh and I can "IMPOSE" this upon someone without having any factual evidence that they are, in fact, the actual person made "LIABLE" to actually pay me for my alleged damage. YES, I've got it...time to file my lawsuit.

Now for the real zinger - how does wanting a government to act in accordance with their own rules and regulations and within the law make someone want them to also wipe noses when having a cold?

No lack of emotionalism and knee jerk reactionary statements with a severe lack of actual and factual data, thought and/or comprehension.

Could the phrase coined by someone other than me that there is a "dumbing down of America" be true? Could my fellow man have been denied the intellect and learned abilities of our forefathers? Heck, I admit, that sometimes it is difficult to fully comprehend the common language of the time of our forefathers without a dictionary at hand. I don't blame or denounce my fellow man. I do however blame bureaucratic agencies wherein the motto may more accurately be stated "The National Education Association, where good enough is our very best." Sincerely, CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 10:01 AM  

Commissioner of Internal Revenue

7803(a)(1)(A)There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Commissioner of Internal Revenue who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to a 5-year term.

7803(a)(2) Duties -- The Commissioner shall have such duties and powers as the Secretary may prescribe, including the power to—
(A) administer, manage, conduct, direct, and supervise the execution and application of the internal revenue laws or related statutes and tax conventions to which the United States is a party
--------------

Well then why is Irwin in a Federal District Courtroom battling with the DOJ over the legality of the supposed tax system created by the U.S. Congress? If the Commissioner of the IRS has this ultimate responsibility to enforce the supposed tax laws, then what are people wasting their time going to U.S. tax courts?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 10:01 AM  

More on Legislative Democracy! Remember we were a Republic but have been "converted" (conversion, there is that word again...look it up) into a Legislative Democracy. Below is snipit from the Lew Rockwell site as posted Monday the 3rd in article titled "$300 Billion Terrorist Training Ground" by Mr. Roberts. (emphisis added)

Little wonder that Republican minority token Condi Rice was dispatched to Princeton last week to inform the university that DEMOCRACY comes out of the BARREL OF A GUN. US military force, said the secretary of state with a straight face, is required to force democracy down the throats of the Muslims in order to save future American generations from "insecurity and fear."

Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

Might the tax code, under the legislative democracy, be force upon people by the barrel of a gun, literally and figuratively as well? How's that for a question with backing and not made by presumption or assumption? Certainly more interesting to me than why did Irwin have a trust account... Peace and love, CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 10:24 AM  

Why does the DOJ have to take extreme measures like this when the truth, as the proponents on here claim, is on their side?

Hearing Ordered on Charge That I.R.S. Influenced Jury

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

Published: June 12, 2004

Federal appeals court ordered a hearing yesterday into a Nevada couple's claim that Internal Revenue Service agents and Justice Department lawyers in a courtroom audience "glared" at jurors in a successful effort to intimidate them into reaching a guilty verdict.
The decision could result in the overturning of the tax evasion convictions of Dr. Martin P. Rutherford, a Reno chiropractor, and his wife, Nanja. Pending appeal, their sentences of five months in prison each and payment of $141,813 in restitution for taxes owed in 1992 and 1993 have been stayed.


Dr. Rutherford said: "Nine to 15 I.R.S. agents and Justice Department people sat in on our trial, which lasted 19 days, and then under oath some of then initially denied they had been there. Then they changed their story a bit to say they were there for training."
Dr. Rutherford said he and his wife were not tax protesters. He said they had retained a lawyer whose tax advice they followed only to learn later that he was not a lawyer. He said they then hired proper counsel but that the I.R.S. seized more money from their bank accounts and from insurance payments for treating patients than the couple owed in taxes.
The Rutherfords asked the original trial judge, Edward C. Reed of Federal District Court in Reno, to set aside the verdict because they said the government agents intimidated the jurors.
During a hearing, the government officials denied glaring or seeking to influence the jury. An I.R.S. agent, Dick Stufflebeam, who was in the jury pool until he was dismissed, and others said they attended the trial as part of their training. Dr. Rutherford said he accepted that assertion as accurate.
The jury foreman and two other jurors submitted affidavits stating that jurors discussed the prospect of retaliation by the I.R.S. if the jury acquitted the Rutherfords.
One juror, Vicki Walker, wrote that "several jurors discussed the power of the I.R.S., the treatment of Dr. Rutherford and his wife by certain I.R.S. auditors and the possibility of retaliation on the part of the I.R.S."
Graham Hartung, another juror, added that "there was also some discussion as to possible retaliation against jurors by certain I.R.S. auditors and the fact that given the behavior of the I.R.S. in the Rutherford matter the I.R.S. would be able to make it very difficult for individuals to cross them."
Judge Reed, after the hearing, concluded that the I.R.S. and Justice Department agents did not intend to influence the jury.
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed that finding yesterday and said the wrong legal standard was applied.
The issue, Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote, is whether the jurors had reason to believe they were being tampered with, not the intent of the government agents.
Because of juror perceptions about the power of government officials, and the actual power they wield, Judge Reinhardt wrote, "we have held that even seemingly innocuous conversations and contact between" government officials and jurors "can trigger a presumption of prejudice" against defendants.
The appeals court did not conclude that the jury had been influenced. Instead, it ordered a broader hearing and directed Judge Reed to reinstate or vacate the convictions based on whether he found that the government influenced the jury's verdict, even unintentionally.
Dr. Rutherford said he thought Judge Reed had been careful and fair in the trial and that he expected the government would now move to drop the prosecution. "That it took 19 days of trial over whether two tax returns were filed shows how complicated the government's case was," he said.
Robert E. Lindsay, the prosecutor, said he was not authorized to comment. Government offices were closed yesterday because of the funeral of former President Ronald Reagan and efforts to reach I.R.S. representatives were unsuccessful.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 10:32 AM  

"Well then why is Irwin in a Federal District Courtroom battling with the DOJ over the legality of the supposed tax system created by the U.S. Congress?"

Irwin isn't in court battling the DOJ over the legality of the tax system. He chose not to argue the law the minute he aimed for the Cheek defense. He's arguing that his BELIEF in what the law says was sincere. If you want to understand this case, you have to read the Cheek case.

"If the Commissioner of the IRS has this ultimate responsibility to enforce the supposed tax laws, then what are people wasting their time going to U.S. tax courts?"

Where do you read that the IRS has the "ultimate" authority? They have the authority to collect taxes. When a taxpayer disagrees with the IRS, the courts decide who is right.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 10:56 AM  

"Now move down the posts to the idea that the "government doesn't have the burdon of proof" hmmm...think on this... the government is the "Plaintiff" yet doesn't have a burdon of proof?"

CJ, is your argument so weak that you feel it necessary to surgically snip a quote out of context?

The DOJ has the burden of proof on the facts of the case.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 10:58 AM  

"Whether or not you like or dislike Iriwn is irrelevant. The current income tax system is unfair, unjust, and tyrannical."

And the answer to that problem is:

1) Throw money at a paytriot guru for useless products that get you nothing but financial ruin but who makes you feel all warm and fuzzy because he couches his con game in politically correct patriot buzzwords; or

2) Work on getting the tax laws changed by voting Congressmen into office who vow to fix a broken system.

Well in your opinion, in what way is it broken? We 80 IQ idiots would like to hear your input. And try to resist the temptation to talk about fiddling with the code like congress does for social engineering. Really tell us what you think.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 11:24 AM  

"Well in your opinion, in what way is it broken? We 80 IQ idiots would like to hear your input. And try to resist the temptation to talk about fiddling with the code like congress does for social engineering."

Of course it is. It's a convoluted mess. The difference between you and me isn't politics; the difference is that I don't wear blinders as a result of my politics. Hating the tax system doesn't change the fact that Section 1 exists.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 11:34 AM  

"CJ, is your argument so weak that you feel it necessary to surgically snip a quote out of context?"

If you will read my entire post you will see that I addressed the entire issue of burdon of proof for law and facts.
Could it be you who may have left something out?

Ahh... to read those with the art of pointing the splinter in anothers eye while failing to address the log in one's own. CJ

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 12:50 PM  

Please add link to article in your post. It is good blogging etiquitte.

http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=26419

Thank you.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 1:49 PM  

Besides that there is no tax
statute that makes most americans
liable for the federal income tax,
the IRS does not have jurisdiction
within the 50 sovereign states
except for federal zones within the states that were ceded to the federal government through its state legislation. In tax law, the "United States" does not refer
to the 50 sovereign states.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 8:55 PM  

Why waste time with a fool that likes being a slave (anonymous)? There will always be a surplus of dupes and stooges to parrot the official propaganda line.

History has shown that only a very small percentage of men will ever stand up for the cause of liberty. Irwin is one of the most influential people in modern times in the effort to rid America of the parasitic monster that has all but strangled the life out of our people. I salute his valiant efforts!

Mr. anonymous can crouch down and lick the hands of the master he depends on for his security. May his ignominious life be tormented by the slavery and oppression he now supports through his opposition to real Americans.

By Anonymous Libfyter, at 10/05/2005 12:52 AM  

I see at least one of the Quatlooser types got back from their coffee break, to excrete:

"The government doesn't have that burden of proof. They have to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt the FACTS in the case, not the law."

How has this been determined?

"The facts would include that Irwin obstructed the government's collection of money,"

I'll bet he'd obstruct a rapist from collection of girls at a bus stop too, if he had that chance.

"that Irwin didn't pay taxes,"

Why pay taxes not due? Just because criminals want you to?? That would be abetting fraud. Who would support doing that?

"that Cindy falsely collected welfare checks,"

How has this been determined?

"and so on."

LOL. Now take your so on and compare it to the list of crimes and tyrannical acts committed by the feds JUST WITHIN THIS TRIAL.

"You'd think after two prior criminal convictions, Schiff would figure out the difference between facts and laws."

You'd think after this much theft, the gummint would have enough to finish whatever it was working on. I guess the world is just full of surprises.


Another(?) one spewed:

"Work on getting the tax laws changed by voting Congressmen into office who vow to fix a broken system."

Yeah, and how's that working out for you?

Meantime, what? Let them commit as much fraud as they can get away with? As long as they SAY they're acting properly, we should just smile and submit?


"The issue, Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote, is whether the jurors had reason to believe they were being tampered with, not the intent of the government agents."

Once in a while, judges do get it right.


Another(?) 'nother anon said:

"Of course it is. It's a convoluted mess."

I'm glad you agree there's a serious problem.

"The difference between you and me isn't politics; the difference is that I don't wear blinders as a result of my politics. Hating the tax system doesn't change the fact that Section 1 exists."

And that attempted slam-dunk is supposed to implicitly prove... what? (I'd guess but I don't want to put words in your mouth.)

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/11/2005 8:53 AM