Court Notes Sept 12, 2005
This morning we will begin the criminal trial. It is set to begin at about 9:30 a.m.. We have been chained to our law books and rule books for the past 2 years and have been before many Courts as you know, between the Raid, the return of our seized property, the injunction, the First Amendment Writ of Prohibition and the criminal trial... All of the various appeals, it all adds up to a crash course in "no law and a-lotta' disorder" ... so far.
Plaintiff Search and Seizure of Property by Warrant (February 11, 2003); Petitioning for return of the seized exculpatory evidence (March 2003-August 2004); Emergency Restraining Order (March 16, 2003); Preliminary Injunction (Order June 16, 2003); Ninth Circuit Appeal (September 2003 - February 2004); Writ of Certiorari Supreme Court September 2004; and, presently proceeding to Permanent Injunction.
We have learned a great deal through all of this, but, surely, not enough.
The Plaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA filed a Motion in limine to keep us from speaking about the law in the criminal trial. Of course, we objected, and the Court will probably rule on that first when we arrive tomorrow. The judge clearly hates us or clearly hates what he must do in this case. For whatever reason, we have seen a very hostile judge.
The Supreme Court has sought to limit the judicial power to extend criminal statutes by interpretation, a long-standing principle articulated in 1820 by Chief Justice John Marshall for a unanimous Court:
"The rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly, is perhaps not much less old than construction itself . It is the legislature, not the court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment . It would be dangerous, indeed, to carry the principle, that a case which is within the reason or mischief of a statute is within its provisions, so far as to punish a crime not enumerated in the statute, because it is of equal atrocity, or of kindred character, with those which are enumerated. UNITED STATES v. WILTBERGER, 18 U.S. 76, 93-94, 5 Wheat. 35, 43-44 (1820).
Late on Friday afternoon, Judge Dawson denied all pre-trial jurisdictional Motions, (see attached) some of them of which were filed 17 months ago. He denied Irwin's Motion to Suppress the seized documents. Knowing this is the way that the trial will be handled, it is difficult not to feel some anxiety over what is to come.
I am looking up and I hope that the people I am thinking of and, that is all of you will look up too. We want to support you as we go through all of this by sharing our experiences, so please check the trial blogspots as we will be reporting in, beginning this morning. We will check in every day with the interesting goings on.
Thank you again for all of your good work and for all of your support.
The Criminal Trial: CASE NO. CR-S-04-0119 KJD(LRL)
Mondays through Thursdays 9:30 a.m. Until 4:30 p.m.
With a lunch break from 12 until 1:30.
Location: Lloyd D. George Federal Courthouse of FICTION and not of LAW. You are forbidden to mention the law in this place.
333 South Las Vegas Boulevard
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
John, chapter 8
44: Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Dishonorable Kent J. Dawson District Court Devil Presiding on the 6th Floor in a masonic building with an address of 333. How appropriate!
The epitomy of evil. Look at his shifty beady eyes! Now role your mouse over his photo. See what I mean? You can almost see his tail peaking from behind his shoulder and a forked tongue to dart out of his mouth any moment... He belongs in the same place as pedophile priests, who also wear black robes and speak of God. Which God do you worship Kent?
United States Trial Attorneys are:
Daniel R. SCHIESS, JEFFREY NEIMAN, in care of UNITED STATES ATTORNEY DANIEL BOGDEN'S OFFICE at 333 Las Vegas Boulevard, South, Suite 5000, in Las Vegas, Nevada, 
Jeffrey A. Neiman, Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Tax Division
601 D Street, NW Room 7922 Washington, D.C. 20004
202-305-1145 202-514-0961 (FAX)
For The Defense:
CHAD BOWERS, Esq. IRWIN A. Schiff
Counsel for Defendant Cohen Defendant, pro per
3202 W. Charleston Blvd. 444 East Sahara Avenue
Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 Las Vegas, Nevada 89104
Counsel for Defendant [the said] CYNTHIA NEUN
Cristalli & Saggese Ltd.
732 South Sixth Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
From what has been said, it appears the defense isn't thrilled with the final pick of the jury as it seems they were "pre-screened" by the government. Irwin would have liked more of the jurors to be a bit older and wiser, but...
Out of about 80 potential jurors in the pool they selected 12 and 2 alternates.
Cindy said she would have liked to have them all participate.
I haven't heard anything yet from Larry and his take on the proceedings so far.
The government presented their opening statements. From what I have gathered, the prosecutor went on and on for hours making Irwin look like the bad guy via accusations and bringing up his prior (unlawful) convictions. The US Attys theme for the trial is "trouble is on it's way" and/or "more trouble is coming" however the prosecutors didn't say the trouble came by IRS's silence and secret administrative processes. They made it sound like the trouble was coming if you followed Irwin Schiff's teachings. They are pretending that the people got in trouble for filing zero returns. To make the jury think that Irwin caused it. Prosecutions attorneys are Jeff Nieman and David Itnae and Sam Holland and Adam Steiner were also sitting at the prosecutors table. Jeff Neiman said to the jury, nobody likes this process but the law requires us to have this process... He said the defendants were aware of the law and chose to violate it and live off the profits and that they are obstructing the IRS and exploiting the customers and preventing the IRS from performing their functions. The prosecutors said to the jury that Irwin et al filed false tax returns and filed bogus lawsuits. Thomas Menaugh (spelling?) took Wiley Davis's place (Remember him? He is the IRS agent that physically assaulted Ken Nickelson when he was in attendance at another IRS meeting) and is going to be testifying against Irwin. The prosecutor said that Thomas Menaugh told Irwin et-al "here is the law" which is a lie. Cindy has the tape of that conversation. The prosecutors said Irwin prevented the customers to enter into offers and compromises with the IRS and was operating a scheme to defraud the government. They also said in opening statements that Irwin et al told people to use false social security numbers (which is a lie!) They said that Irwin didn't put any warnings in the Federal Mafia (check page 159) page (63) and page 67) The judge allowed more than he should have from the government, and it is very clear from the majority of the statements, from those I've spoken to, that the judge is going to allow whatever the prosecutors want in, regardless of whether it is relevant, truthful, legal or not. Overall feelings of some of the court watchers is that the judge and the prosecutors are downright hateful in their demeanor and appearance towards Irwin.
They mentioned Irwin's broadcast and said they were more like infomercials and seminars. They accused Irwin of trying to get the medias attention to cover his position and what the government is doing. And about the web site. They said the 2 page attachment was a misinterpretation of the law and that they waved refund checks around and the defendants knew trouble was on its way? Defendants Knew? If I recall, no one was ever charged under penalty of perjury. Or told they were doing something wrong.
Irwin presented, or should I say, attempted, to present his opening statement. But, every time Irwin spoke, either the government or the judge for the government, objected, so Irwin was only allowed to get-in maybe 20 minutes of his opening statement.
Irwin is not an attorney. He should be given the leeway afforded a pro per litigant. As provided for in court decisions that I won't cite here.
Guido, one of the spectators and a long time admirer of Irwin's, was cited for jury tampering. He said he was speaking to a woman in the hallway and had no idea she was a potential juror. I believe he mentioned something about not having to do what the judge advises them to do or something of that nature. It's called jury nullification. He had to attend an OSC hearing this morning (9/14/05) and has to return in 30 days to show why he shouldn't be held in contempt.
The first witness for the prosecution was called to the stand. A Toni Mitchell, I believe her name is. She had volunteered and later worked for Irwin Schiff at Freedom Books. The consensus is, the prosecution led her to make statements regarding her zero return that Irwin clarified when he had his turn to cross examine her. The government is trying to make it look like Irwin twisted her arm... Apparently she filed zero returns, but later had to file bankruptcy so she had to file amended returns to clear up that matter. She still emphatically stated that there is no law that she could find that requires her to pay the income tax and stated that she was never told what she was doing was illegal. frivolous maybe, but not illegal. (she may be called back by the defense) She turned out to be a very good witness for the defense and handled herself very well.
Irwin wanted to make sure he got the "attachment" to the zero return entered into evidence as the grand jury was only shown a sample of Irwin's zero return "without" the attachment which shows the law to back-up the position that the income tax is an illegal tax when it pertains to the average American. The cross examination continued the next day.
The feeling was that the judge was calmer and not as angry as the day before.
Irwin continued with his cross of the witness Toni Mitchell and it apparently went well.
About 30 people showed up for support (thank you)
Peymon of Freedom Law School was attending the trial but was threatened with arrest if he didn't leave the premises. Apparently on the first day, he had his laptop with him in the courtroom and the thing beeped. It annoyed the judge. The security at the court house said he led them to believe he was the press and then the next day he said he was a lawyer. Peymon said he was out in the parking lot when the judge came out and saw him there. The judge called security and made them tell Peymon to first move back, but the judge wanted him removed so they made him leave. He flew home that evening. Many thanks to Peymon for his efforts.
There was then a bit of tension, as we all know Irwin is not a lawyer and doesn't perform according to the proper procedures; rules of the court, or jump through their hoops as they'd like...
There was a bit of a fight at the sidebar with Irwin and the judge and judge said "your position is bogus!" Which told all the attys and the watchers, this case is over.
The judge said to Irwin, "you are cherry picking phrases out of these old cases". The law in this case is what the 9th circuit said and is going to apply the law from in re Becraft. One attorney for the defense said the whole thing should stop right now and Irwin should file an affidavit to recuse the judge because it is obvious that the judge has a hate for Irwin and that it's blatantly obvious that Irwin isn't going to get a fair trial with Judge Dawson presiding over it.
Toni Mitchell was called again for testimony. She has done her own research and is very knowledgeable about the law and she turned out better for the defense than for the prosecutors.
They proceeded to listen to testimony of a woman from the east coast named Ann Kennedy. Her husband recently passed away and in this most vulnerable time, the government chose her to testify against Irwin regarding issues from 1983. She said that the only argument she ever had with her husband was over the illegality of the income tax (boo hoo...) although she failed to mention that she filed her own returns without the 2 page attachment simply because she believed she wasn't liable for the tax. She could have done whatever she wanted. Irwin could have cleared up the matter on cross, but went on to other questions.
Tomorrow, witness testimony continues with a Ted Wedje a retired CID agent and Mel Lewis who has turned on Irwin. Also there will be 3 under cover Agents with testimony from wearing a wire and recording conversations at Freedom Books and Irwin and Cindy's seminars and meetings. Their names are Doug Malone, Doug Mc Cune and Sandy Iayers. Next will be the testimony of Bill Thomas who ran the shipping dept out Evansville Indiana for Irwin, who has now turned on Irwin. This will be a very interesting testimony.
Below are some articles that came up on search. I haven't had a chance to read them yet, but am sending them for your perusal.
My apologies for the choppiness of this update, but I'm not there yet so I am relying on what the folks there are saying. I hope this helps. Also do google and Yahoo Searches every day keyword "Irwin Schiff" to get the latest from the pulp and e-media.
Irwin called Friday night with an update.
He said that the judge was even more hostile than he had expected him to be. He conceded that he thought he could benefit from assistance of counsel to help with procedural issues. The judge has apparently assigned Irwin a stand-by counsel, however the counsel is not scheduled to arrive in Las Vegas until Monday, so I don't know how much help he will be.
Although Irwin seemed very upbeat, he was disappointed that more supporters were not in attendance at the trial. Apparently, there are lots of empty seats.
Irwin has been in the forefront of this fight for a long time, and deserves the support of those of us who are close enough to attend his trial.
If you're in the area, and it's at all possible, I'm sure Irwin, Cindy and Larry would really appreciate seeing a few more smiling faces sitting in the courtroom.
My notes from Sept 29th
First let me say that we overheard the government attys ask each other if they "caught last nights blog". Duh! Hi guys!
Today, jury Instructions were given re 6331(h) which they said was enacted after Irwin's 96 seizure of his car and some cash so they said it wasn't relevant to his seizure. Irwin reiterated the relevance of the law of 6331 and why congress wrote it into the 1998 R&R Act . Irwin wanted to recall Luddy Tally but the judge said no. The judge told Irwin he may not mention any legal issues or statutes in front of the jury. (so what else is new?)
Irwin wanted to enter the summons tape that occurred between him, agt Tally and Gritis. However, the Judge wouldn't allow the summons tape to be played nor Irwin's criminal complaint against them to be entered. The judge said "it doesn't matter!"
Agt Tally said that he had closed the account file on Irwin as it was getting to the 10 year point. And said that the government objects to litigating cases that are hopeless to collect. He mentioned that if it was under a certain dollar amount... Irwin asked what is the amount, and the judge cut in and said it wasn't relevant (which is par for this judge). Tally said the file never goes away and continues with the penalties and interest, but it goes into suspension. But, Good ole Gritis (they say he is now deceased, but he is probably alive and kicking, they just gave him a new name to avoid being called as a witness) re-opened Irwin's file and went after Irwin's social security. Not 15% but 100% percent. They have been taking it all since 1996. (nice huh?)
CDP Hearings ... Irwin put the governments witness, appeals team manager Mr. Menaugh (who was there to testify against Cindy) to the wall with questions regarding his authority. It was great! Irwin went step by step from the time you get the first letter, up to why a person would ask for a cdph, then adverse determination, to the point where he verified, that "the appeals officer has no authority, which is why you have to go to the tax court!" I thought the jury was going to stand up and applaud. It was a thing of beauty. The judge was pissed. The government got up and objected, but it was too late. I wish you could have been there. Irwin was hot! I believe EVERYBODY GOT IT! Irwin established that the IRS has no authority.
Irwin is making it perfectly clear what his beliefs are. He is so passionate about it. The court appointed lawyers cross examined Mr. Menaugh too.
Chad Bowers is Larry's appointed lawyer and he's Sharp as a whip! He stood up and asked the judge questions about what a levy and continuous levy is. He didn't know the difference and really wanted to know. He was very surprised when it wasn't explained. The judge interrupted and changed the questioning.
Thomas Menaugh Team Appeals manager (33 yrs with the IRS with a staff of six in Las Vegas) now located in Arizona, said that the IRS uses "Choice Point" to get their information. He said they use Choice Point because their info is more current than the IRS's. He participated in CDPH's when Cindy was an advocate for a man named Matthew Diamond. Matthew Diamond was former NYPD and also a bailiff. Mr. Menaugh testified that they used the Pierson case as Notice of the IRS's position to Cindy.
Irwin brought out that it wasn't a real case, then it came out that they gave the document to the non taxpayer and not to Cindy. Cindy anticipated this and her lawyer and Irwin got the tape of the actual CDPH played for the jury with a written transcript projected up on a large screen so the jury could read along with the audio. The jury and the defense got a very good lesson from it too. Cindy wasn't allowed to speak at the cdph, but Mr. Diamond did his presentation really well and asked for the required documents. Mr. Menaugh, The poor guy, couldn't clean up his testimony after that. I thought it was glorious! I believe the jury got it.
Irwin asked the witness (I forget which one) if the IRS's web site explains tax court. The witness said no. The jury got it.
Yesterday the judge told Irwin that Bob Shulz's 2nd circuit court decision re summonses wasn't relevant to his court, so today along with the above line of testimony regarding the Pierson case, Irwin asked the judge, well if this court isn't held to 2nd circuit court decisions, how can it be held to tax court decisions? The jury got it.
They got into the 1998 R&R Act and when liability was raised by Irwin and Cindy's lawyer, the government objected. The judge sustained the objection. The jury got it. And it's refreshing to see the defense attys are getting it too. The more they learn the more they are stating their own objections and covering for Irwin' s lack of procedural knowledge. However the judge never sustains their objections. Of course. Judge Dawson is so predictable. But, I have a feeling it's backfiring on them.
It was mentioned by Mr. Menaugh that the NOD requires an assessment and is a DEFAULT. But we already knew that, didn't we.
Next witness Audrey Garder testified that Irwin's business wasn't registered as a seller with the state. Irwin spelled out the Nevada constitution and the fact that it precludes taxes on tapes and records etc... They ultimately changed the locks on Freedom Books and forced Irwin to pay for the registration to get the keys. Irwin made a complaint. He brought up the OSC hearing and had to use the transcript (they didn't know he had) to refresh her memory on it as she couldn't recall it. (These people have terrible memories.) Irwin and the defense lawyers objected to her personal opinions, so the judge gave a jury instruction as to the witnesses personal opinions of what the law meant to her.
Another retired IRS appeals officer Ms. Fisher (she said she also trained newbies) had meetings with Cindy and the non taxpayer. The government mentioned publication 2105 is what they use to deal with taxpayers questions and of course their web site. www.irs.gov Irwin and the defense for Larry and Cindy cross examined Ms Fisher.
Regarding Irwins poor hearing and eyesight, The judge, toward the end of the day told Irwin to fill out "the form" and give it to the court reporter and they will let him see what the judge sees on his screen. However the governments testimony is almost over, so if Irwin loses, it could still be appealed on that issue alone. This is not a fair trial to say the least. But even then, we would still need to find a fair judge.
Listen to Irwin's audio blogs for this day click just above where it says "posted by David Jahn @ 9/29/2005 10:50:42 PM" and this one "posted by David Jahn @ 9/29/2005 11:50:49 PM" on www.triallogs.blogspot.com for more from Irwin that I am not covering in this e-mail.
No court on Fridays..
The good part will come when the defense brings their witnesses. I think there is a good chance of Irwin, Cindy and Larry winning, but if the government taints the jury... Would they stoop that low? I wouldn't put it past them...
Just Keep the faith!
The governments attorneys are such characters. Jeffrey A. Neiman (I believe his name is) looked so familiar to me. For 4 days I was trying to put my finger on it. And today it dawned on me.
Sans the cigarette, He could be her twin brother. Right down to the haircut.
The other, I think his name is Neiman, reminds me of an exclamation point that is always smiling. More of a cartoon character with a perpetual shit eating grin.
There is one that is a bit older and very quiet that sits right behind the governments table. He must be their lead council. He's the tall and handsome one. He is the best dressed in the place and has a lovely smile. If he wasn't married... Yes, I asked him. Actually I wanted to ask him to dinner. Oh well... I believe he is the one that wanted me to remove my Irwin Schiff T-shirt today, because they were "afraid" it would influence the jury. I guess they are worried. I was told by one of the security officers to just turn it inside out. So I did. No biggie. I didn't wear it with that in mind. I wore it to show Irwin support. So much for freedom of speech, eh? I wonder how they would have reacted to my Jail 4 Judges t-shirt?
Everything the government is doing is going to backfire on them. The jury is witnessing the blatant abuse of the IRS along with the judges help and I believe the jury is now looking at Irwin as their grandpa. A grandpa you can't help, but love and be proud of.
Irwin's the odds-on favorite.