Irwin Schiff

[Jerseee]

That's provided that they were in there in the first place.

[BOBT12]

The Irwin Schiff trial is underway:

The trial of Irwin Schiff, Cindy Neun, and Larry Cohen starts today.

I recieved a heartfelt message from Cindy Neun who points out that


...the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA will attempt to convince the jury that we should serve life sentences for reading the law out loud word for word so that the American Public can understand the rights and securities Congress put there to defend against unauthorized abuses of executive branch agency usurpation of powers.

http://triallogs.blogspot.com/

Why should the People allow the arrogant government to harrass and charge innocent members of the public for "voluntary compliance" and other nonsense (non-crimes). Who did Irwin Schiff harm. What a bunch of BS.

[weishaupt1776]

His Classic, The Federal Mafia, is banned

I have a few lying around . . . .

[Smith]

I have a few of those too.

My father used to sell them by the case.

I have met Irvin though it was about 3yrs ago still he is a very intelligent man sharp as a knife.

What I found the most interesting his how he disected the code and showed you every little detail to prove using their ( The Goverments ) "own documents how a person can have no " INCOME" .

He said that this is like hitting a nail you do not stop until it is done then you move to the next one.

[iamfreeru2]

From what I am hearing Irwin is not doing well in court. It is very difficult for him to stay on point. Sort of like someone else I recently met. I am only hoping that Irwin can get his point accross to the jury to show what a fraud the "income tax" is. His pleadings are very well done, but can he articulate those pleadings in a court setting? Time will tell. I know this is a biggie folks.

[weishaupt1776]

It seems like they've got him figured out.

He is relying 100% on substantive law w/0% procedure(NOT OBJECTING)

They are proceduring him to death & they know it.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

It seems like they've got him figured out.

He is relying 100% on substantive law w/0% procedure(NOT OBJECTING)

They are proceduring him to death & they know it.

Let's hope the jury can see through the procedural BS and get the meat of what Irwin has. If they can do that then he has a chance otherwise he is toast. The one thing he has on his side is truth. The biggest question is will the jury open their ears to hear and their eyes to see it. If not, then Irwin is in big trouble. Of course we know the courts are there to keep the truth from being known. We all need to lift this in prayer.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

Let's hope the jury can see through the procedural BS and get the meat of what Irwin has. If they can do that then he has a chance otherwise he is toast. The one thing he has on his side is truth. The biggest question is will the jury open their ears to hear and their eyes to see it. If not, then Irwin is in big trouble. Of course we know the courts are there to keep the truth from being known. We all need to lift this in prayer.

The thing is, Juries weigh Facts NOT LAW. IRWIN is RELYING ON LAW 100%

Same prob w/ Larken

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

The thing is, Juries weigh Facts NOT LAW. IRWIN is RELYING ON LAW 100%

Same prob w/ Larken

This is why we need informed juries who will render decisions based on fact and the law. If there is anyone on that jury that will see that the "law", and I use that term loosely, says they are not required to pay an "income tax" then Irwin has a chance. If I were sitting on a jury I would not tell them I am informed. Also in that "law" are facts that contradict what the government is claiming. Let's just see how this all plays out.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

This is why we need informed juries who will render decisions based on fact and the law. If there is anyone on that jury that will see that the "law", and I use that term loosely, says they are not required to pay an "income tax" then Irwin has a chance. If I were sitting on a jury I would not tell them I am informed. Also in that "law" are facts that contradict what the government is claiming. Let's just see how this all plays out.

Of course you are correct. Court procedure is what caused Larken Rose great difficulty. It would be admirable if the jury (the real judges) understood their job, that is, to make sure justice is served in spite of the prejudicial actions of the black robed referee. They must review the facts and the law! Sadly, this did not work out for Larken Rose, I hope it will turn out better for Schiff.

It seems that the only chance to get a decent jury, is to work the voir dire process agressively, to make sure that there are some jury members that think like you, who understand that they must review the facts and the law of the case. Yes, the court process may hinder ones ability to do this in order to insure that the jury is easily directed by the referee. In other words, to insure that there is an unfair trial.

I feel that we must spend some time reviewing court procedure rules. Especially, how to use the term "I OBJECT"! You must then provide grounds for the objection, such as, "I demand proof of claim", "hearsay" or "If the proceeding continues, it will be absent subject matter jurisdiction".

I know that many here don't want any bother from the court system. A system that is proving to be corrupt, at least to some degree. I certainly feel this way to a large extent.

However, we often do not go before the court in a voluntary capacity. Many people are hauled into the court in chains. Ask Johnny Liberty, **** Simkanin, Al Thompson, and many others. Once you are in prison, you may find that the study tools are not all that you had desired.

Additionally, I feel that outlets of honest infomation, such as this website, while a small ( compared to many major media outlets NY Times, TV news, ect.) are making a dent in the public mind. Thus, they are attracting their share of bootlicking detractors.