Fellow patriots for
liberty -
In light of the open bias of the
judges in the recent criminal cases of Larken Rose, Dick Simkanin and
Irwin Schiff/Cindy Neun, it should be clear that the days of the
specious arguments and esoteric discussions on the nuances of the
federal income tax are behind us.
By a long train of obvious abuses,
it should also be clear to all that we are no longer facing a rule of
law and a level playing field in the judicial arena. What
we are facing is open judicial tyranny by the judges who are pursuing
the same object to alter the rule of law in order to aid the
prosecution of those who would expose the income tax fraud.
Although not totally established
why federal court judges are so bent on denying justice in tax cases,
it could be they feel that their own paychecks are at risk or it could
be because the IRS has a hook in their fannies. Regardless
of the reason, the reality is that our system of justice, in at least
tax cases, is essentially broken. Whether it can be fixed
or not is debatable. Regardless, drastic action must be
taken and taken now.
Our founding fathers expressed our
duty just as clearly 230 years ago as we have that duty today, when
they said: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them
under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw
off such government, and to provide new guards for their future
security."
I believe that before we take the
judges out behind the woodshed and beat the living hell out of them, we
should give them the benefit of the doubt and destroy that which
adversely influences all of them. For now the bottom
line is this: A free people with an impartial judiciary and
the IRS cannot co-exist. The IRS must be
destroyed!!!!!!!!!!!
Let's make it happen with no
compromise!!
bob minarik - patriots for liberty -
rochester indiana -
http://freedomlaw.com/PFL.html
PS - Note the article below
expressing a common example of this judicial tyranny.
***************************************************************************************************
A Travesty of Justice in United States v. Larken Rose
by Mark Yannone
October 30, 2005
The United States Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant both the
right to have a jury decide his case and a right to have the prosecutor
prove to that jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, every element of the
charged offense. To preserve these guarantees, the trial court is
required to properly instruct the jury on each and every element of the
crime.
Larken Rose was charged with five counts of willful failure to file
federal income tax returns. The offense has three elements:
**
1. The person must have a legal duty to perform.
2. The person must fail to perform the legal duty.
3. The person must know that he failed to perform the legal duty.
Did the prosecutor prove that Larken Rose had a legal duty to
perform? No, he did not. The judge told the jury that he
would give them the law, thereby relieving the prosecutor of his legal
obligation to prove the first of the three key elements of the offense.
Did the prosecutor prove that Larken Rose failed to perform the legal
duty? No, he did not. Not having proved the first element,
the
second element begs the question. However, Larken Rose conceded
that he did not perform the action that the prosecutor merely claimed
(but didn't prove) was a legal duty. Larken Rose went to great
lengths to explain to the government many times over the years what he
was doing and precisely why.
Did the prosecutor prove that Larken Rose knew that he failed to
perform the legal duty? No, he did not. This, too, begs the
question, since the prosecutor did not prove the first element, and no
legal duty was established.
Was Larken Rose allowed to present to the jury the material he relied
on, using a level of detail that was commensurate with the complexity
of the material? No, he was not. The videotaped material he
presented was greatly abbreviated by the court, and the jury was
prevented from hearing any of it.
Did the judge properly instruct the jury regarding the prosecutor's
obligation to prove the three elements of the alleged offense?
No, he did not. Instead, the judge improperly preempted the
prosecutor's obligation to prove to the jury that Larken Rose had a
legal duty to
perform and merely proclaimed that it was true.
The jury, being none the wiser after the jury instructions were read,
had no idea that the prosecutor had failed to prove Larken Rose's guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, they had no idea that they
didn't need to agree with Larken Rose--or believe his position was
reasonable--in order to find him not guilty. Unknown to them,
what they had to do was judge whether the prosecutor had proven all
three
elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Left with nothing to deliberate but their lunch menu, the unwitting
jury quickly came to an impossible conclusion: guilty on all counts.
"Without truth, there can be no justice. Without justice, there
can be no peace."
Mark Yannone - October 30, 2005
**************************************************************
**The manual of the Tax Division of the Department of Justice, which is
the instruction manual for US attorneys who actually prosecute tax law
violations, reveals the three elements:
10.04[1] Elements
To establish the offense of failure to make (file) a return, the
government must prove three essential elements beyond a reasonable
doubt:
1. Defendant was a person required to file a return;
2. Defendant failed to file at the time required by law; and,
3. The failure to file was willful.
That same manual provides the definition of "willfulness," as follows:
8.06 WILLFULNESS
8.06[1] Definition
Willfulness has been defined by the courts as a voluntary, intentional
violation of a known legal duty… Willfulness is determined by a
subjective standard, thus the defendant is not required to have been
objectively reasonable in his misunderstanding of his legal duties or
belief that he was in compliance with the law. Cheek v. United States,
498 US 192 (1991)
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=27520
