Judge won't let jury see the law

For those who aren't aware of this guy, he is one of those who is on top of the IRS scam and refuses to play their silly little Stick'em up highway robbery game anymore.

Here's the problem. The judge presiding over his court trial won't allow the jury to see the law he seems to have broken. The judge say that would be "problematic". Problematic? Anybody else have a problem with that?
Here's the real problem; when courts are behaving in such a manner, is there really any justice? It happens all the time. Juries are charged inappropriately by the judgdes; the juries are told how they must find the defendant if they decide that certain facts have been established (The judge has no business doing that as it is the jury's total right to behave as a "lawless jury" as they not only weigh the evidence but also the law itself!), and now we have a judge refusing to allow the jury the very law the defendant is supposed to have violated?

I sonder why? Could it be that there is no statute and implementing regulation? Interesting, and I suggest all Americans follow this case:

www.irwinschiff.blogspot.com...

Interesting. But I'm having a hard time finding a good overview of what's happening with this guy and the law(s) he's being charged with breaking.

What Law is it that the Judge won't let the Jury read for themselves exactly??? I'd like to read it.

lol TC... That case is a hoot! I love it!

This makes me ask a question, shouldn't the jury be as educated as possible in the case to come to an intelligent decision regarding the case? Is that not one of the points of having a jury? Is the judge allowed to do this, it seems like a very mischievous act by the judge. I would also like to read on this case. Keeping the jury in ignorance not only seems wrong, but seems a tad...stupid. Hope see more, sounds interesting, thanks!

ps- I see no justice in keeping juries in the dark on any matter, they might as well have a jury of monkies, whom even would probably like to see that law.

[edit on 10/21/2005 by coffeewench]

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, TC.

I can speculate why the judge won't read the law to the jury. Perhaps the "law" is really just the IRS code....which is not the law.
I can see the government trying to get away with this. Thinking we citizens can't figure things out.

I had my own run in with the IRS years ago *looks around furtively*
*hesitates even talking about the issue*
The IRS tried to get me to be liable for payroll taxes for a company that had mail coming to my house. I had no other connection to the company and was never connected in any way to the business.
It took years to get them to absolve me of the wrongful charges and get them to apologize to me.

The article said he hasn't paid income tax in 13 years. So if it’s not tax evasion he's being charged with, than what is it?
How can a jury come to a verdict of guilty or innocent if they don't even know what he's guilty/innocent of?

Government Psychologist Says Irwin Schiff Believes He Is Not Liable For The Federal Income Tax.
Judge Dawson refused to let government psychologist testify during the trial.
The government's own psychologist's testimony would have totally demolished any suggestion of willfulness

I believe that the judge just may have concerns about the jury being influenced by his defence and testimony. Although the judge's decision is inappropriate, I think I understand his standing point.
This one man decides he doesn't has to pay taxes, when the other millions of us do pay them, he could just very well convince the jury they do not have to pay them as well
Hell, I'd sure like to believe that we shouldn't have to pay income tax.

Even if this man is correct in his views, and the information his websites and books is factual, one man cannot directly influence the government to change the laws.
He must influence the general population first, and then change might be in order- which is what I think this judge is trying to prevent.


Edit to fix quote

[edit on 21/10/05 by ju stab urden]

I have heard about this kind of situation before where people stop paying income taxes and argue that there is no law on the books that say an individual person has to pay taxes on their income. I have never looked at the laws, and I suppose I should but supposedly the laws state that in they eyes of the IRS and taxable income only a corpration can earn income which is then legally taxable. AFAIK income taxes were started to pay for WWI or WWII but were never lifted or removed when the war was over. Its sickening to think about how much tax is payed on an item. For instance the manufacturer gets taxed, pays property tax etc.. then the distributor has to pay taxes, then the retailer, employees are taxed on their income, but then have to pay sales tax on what they buy and own Thanks for posting this as I find it interestiong and will watch it more closely now

[edit on 21-10-2005 by warpboost]

For those wanting more info:
www.paynoincometax.com...

The main problem is that the written law has no bearing anymore. It is how the law has been interpreted by the courts that is the main factor. The problem with allowing the jury to read the written law is that the jury may interpret the law as it is written and find the defendant not guilty. As far as Federal Income Tax goes I have always wondered why I am not allowed to have no withholding taken from my check? I after all am liable for the amount of taxes that I owe and would have to face the consequences if the taxes were not paid. My company tells me that they have to with hold by law.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
As far as Federal Income Tax goes I have always wondered why I am not allowed to have no withholding taken from my check? I after all am liable for the amount of taxes that I owe and would have to face the consequences if the taxes were not paid. My company tells me that they have to with hold by law.

That's a good point. If you own your house and have certain LTV % with the bank they will let you pay your own property taxes vs. the bank collecting the taxes in escrow. I bet some large corporations make millions of dollars per year from withholding their employee's income taxes and investing them until it's time to pay the IRS. I know companies make lot's of money by paying employee's monthly or biweekly vs weekly as they can keep the funds invested longer.

I keep reading how the Sixteenth Amendment, which levies income taxes, was never really ratified (or it was ratified improperly) and thus null and void.

Of course it appears that they make it so it's not worth fighting about. It's like "it's easier to pay your taxes and shut up."

Thing of it is, if we got rid of unconstitutional agencies such as the Federal Deparment of Education and Homeland Security, they wouldn't "need" those dollars to begin with!

My Dad used to scream about this all the time.......He said the states had never ratified the authorization for income tax, there fore it was illegal....

The so-called 16th Amendment legalizing income tax was most probably never fully ratified and therefore does not exist. But even if it does, two Supreme Court cases ruled it moot. The 16th Amendment is nothing more than double talk. The IRS operates on 90 percent bluff.

.....more on this site

The problem sounds like there might not be a law stating you have to pay income taxes, but the IRS doesnt exactly tell you and the courts play games by how the laws are interurperted. The real problem is if you stop paying taxes you have to go thru the troubles and expense of proving you havent broken a law.

does this have anything to do with section 861? Is that his loophole, or is it something else?

I have been following this case and if I were on the jury, I would vote not-guilty simply as a protest against the judge's action.

income tax was supposed to be temporary when it was brought into law. does anybody have a link to the law as it was first passed?

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I have been following this case and if I were on the jury, I would vote not-guilty simply as a protest against the judge's action.

Same here. Why have a jury at all if you're not going them enough information to make a fair decision? But, a fair decision isn't what the government wants is it?

Personally I don't see how a jury can convict someone of a crime if they don't even know the law that the defendant is accused of breaking. The laws are written specifically word for word, each with a purpose. The jury should have access to that information.

Most people still believe that Juries in the USA are meant to judge the facts of the case and the law fairly. Nothing could be further from the truth. An entire industry of jury consultants has grown up out of trying to creat juries that will rule in favor of either the defendant or the prosecution.

The average juror sought is a middle-aged male with no more than a high school diploma. Anyone that has shown any interest in the rights and responsibilities of citizenship is considered to be a bad juror. When you are up for jury selection you are often given a battery of tests that you cannot refuse without being held in contempt. (Personally, I find this an extreme abuse of Court power.) These questionnaires are used to wean out anyone who might have expertise that would allow them to come to a meaningful conclusion.

For instance, someone with a background as a Ham Radio operator would be disqualified if the case had to do with micro-broadcasting. Almost anyone with a master's or professional degree is automatically considered overqualified to be a juror. And Gawd Forbid you should have a background in history! You might actually know that juries are traditionally unruly bunches who have regularly ignored the law in favor of the Common Good. (Not a term used by a lot of folks these days.)

The poster who said interpretations of the laws come from the courts is only partially correct. You have to read all the Rules and Regulations that come from the governing body - in this particular case, the IRS - to know how that law is interpreted. The court cases only narrow those interpretations. (Our legal system is royally screwed up as of today.)

The law is messed up in regards to juries, judges, etc. Let's not even get into the fact that Judges can preclude scientific evidence from being entered when absolutely relevant because they don't understand it! Something has gone very wrong with my country and I have to say, I weep almost every night that the powers-that-be are in control. It is going to be a long hard struggle to recapture first the local and then national governments from the usurpers in power today.

Remember, run and vote in local elections if you want to create a better world. The local feeds the state, and the state feeds the national.

Pax.

Originally posted by warpboost

Originally posted by JIMC5499
As far as Federal Income Tax goes I have always wondered why I am not allowed to have no withholding taken from my check? I after all am liable for the amount of taxes that I owe and would have to face the consequences if the taxes were not paid. My company tells me that they have to with hold by law.

That's a good point. If you own your house and have certain LTV % with the bank they will let you pay your own property taxes vs. the bank collecting the taxes in escrow. I bet some large corporations make millions of dollars per year from withholding their employee's income taxes and investing them until it's time to pay the IRS. I know companies make lot's of money by paying employee's monthly or biweekly vs weekly as they can keep the funds invested longer.

absolutely. i am a federal employee who, in actuallity, gets payed every other thursday. however, the money doesnt make it into my account until the following tuesday. know why? because the bank (a federal credit union) makes money off the interest during those five days. and the federal government lets them get away with this crap.