You're lucky. I must have clicked on the wrong icon (so to speak) because I suddenly began hearing tax protester voices and thought my computer was possessed.
Oh good...for a moment I thought it was time for the men in the white coats and butterfly nets to pay me a little visit.
Thank you for verifying that, Dan.
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros
The prosecutors have introduced thousands of pages of evidence but not really explained most of it. For example, several witnesses have discussed Snipes' pure trust in detail, but no one has told the jury that it's a bogus instrument. Same with Kahn's corporation sole. And while they've tried to explain the Bills of Exchange, no one has explicitly told the jury what a whopping fraud they are or that the secret "treasury direct" account that Snipes kept trying to write checks on is a myth.
Oh crap...the jury's gonna think that he was just putting his money in a trust and just writing checks. Way to go, prosecution...
Is it too late to file a trial brief?
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros
It's disturbing that they haven't told the jury that any of that crap is bogus. There's still a few days left before the prosecution wraps up, right? I'm hoping that they'll get to it before the end. Although, if I wasn't told it was bullpooky, I'd probably be thinking that it didn't do a whole lot of good so how valid could it have possibly been? Kind of like a guy I know with seven "accidental" hellspawn who swears by his cheap condoms and never does it without one.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
As every poster here knows, tax protester documents and letters are not easy to decipher, even for seasoned pros. For example, yesterday they showed some "14th Amendment" docs that Eddie filed. A juror has no idea what that means.
They might as well be showing doucments written in a foreign language.
The standard modus operandi of a U.S. Attorney is to blandly and without fanfare introduce mountains of documents and then tie them all together in the end. But from what I've heard, the testimony alone of these people who told Snipes that he was required to file might be enough.
- - - - - - - - - - -
"The real George Washington was shot dead fairly early in the Revolution." ~ David Merrill, 9-17-2004 --- "This is where I belong" ~ Heidi Guedel, 7-1-2006 (referring to suijuris.net)
- - - - - - - - - - -
Demosthenes wrote:As every poster here knows, tax protester documents and letters are not easy to decipher, even for seasoned pros. For example, yesterday they showed some "14th Amendment" docs that Eddie filed. A juror has no idea what that means.
They might as well be showing doucments written in a foreign language.
The problem I see is that the courts regularly rule that tax protesters can testify about their beliefs, but not about "the law." Should the same thing hold for the prosecution? Can a prosecution witness take the stand and testify that a document is "bogus," or is that for the judge to rule on, or for the judge to instruct the jury so the jury can decide?
But even without asking a witness about the legal effect of a particular document, would it be possible to ask a witness about the witness's experience with that kind of document? (I.e., Question: "Where have you seen this kind of document before?" Answer: "They often show up in fraud prosecutions.")
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
They'll put on some people later who will explain what the previously introduced junk is really all about and then tie it all together in closing argument.
Surely the government has learned a few things from its previous excursions into TP-la-la-land. Then again, this is the government.
We can hope, anyway.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
LPC wrote:... Can a prosecution witness take the stand and testify that a document is "bogus," or is that for the judge to rule on, or for the judge to instruct the jury so the jury can decide?...
IMHO, to survive a defense objection, testimony that a document (i.e., BOE) is "bogus" would have to come as an opinion from someone who is an expert acceptable to the court.
One would hope the USA's team would have some clear depictions of the relevant law in their version of the jury instructions and that the Judge includes them.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy. The Devil Makes Three
Criminal tax cases involving tax protesters are, in my opinion, so important that DOJ should have a policy (if it does not already have one) checking each such prosecution in the planning stages to obtain assurance that the guys and gals in the trenches (the AUSAs or whoever is handling the case) are up to speed on all the ins and outs of the whole tax protester phenomenon, the arguments, the case law, etc.
For the people who post here regularly, this kind of stuff probably seems second nature; we've seen the frivolous arguments so many times, we see the same citations to the same cases. We've seen and heard it all.
Does the Tax Division of DOJ have some small unit somewhere that concentrates on tax protester arguments, and that can provide technical support to the average AUSA? If not, should there be a special task force to at least provide such support?
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Famspear wrote:Does the Tax Division of DOJ have some small unit somewhere that concentrates on tax protester arguments, and that can provide technical support to the average AUSA?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.
Postby Imalawman »
wserra wrote:
Famspear wrote:Does the Tax Division of DOJ have some small unit somewhere that concentrates on tax protester arguments, and that can provide technical support to the average AUSA?
Man, I really liked my last keyboard...I hope this new one lasts a little longer or maybe I shouldn't drink coffee when I read Quatloos.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.
Postby Imalawman »
Famspear wrote:Criminal tax cases involving tax protesters are, in my opinion, so important that DOJ should have a policy (if it does not already have one) checking each such prosecution in the planning stages to obtain assurance that the guys and gals in the trenches (the AUSAs or whoever is handling the case) are up to speed on all the ins and outs of the whole tax protester phenomenon, the arguments, the case law, etc.
I really don't think they're ever going to be as important to the DOJ as they are to you. Even for me, TP's are a distraction from what I consider to be my "important" cases. I wouldn't consider 99% of my TP cases as important relative to my other cases. There are some larger names in the TP field that serve as examples and so I consider them more important. This case is important because of the high profile nature of the case - not because of the subject matter.
When you have federal child sex cases, kidnapping, drugs, etc., TP screwballs are not going to be all that important in the grand scheme of things.
But yes, there is a division that handles most of the TP cases and are very much aware of the arguments and are aware of Quatloos.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
I really don't think they're ever going to be as important to the DOJ as they are to you. Even for me, TP's are a distraction from what I consider to be my "important" cases. I wouldn't consider 99% of my TP cases as important relative to my other cases. There are some larger names in the TP field that serve as examples and so I consider them more important. This case is important because of the high profile nature of the case - not because of the subject matter.
When you have federal child sex cases, kidnapping, drugs, etc., TP screwballs are not going to be all that important in the grand scheme of things.
But yes, there is a division that handles most of the TP cases and are very much aware of the arguments and are aware of Quatloos.
Point well taken. I don't work for the government, so I don't get to see the big picture from that perspective.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
LPC wrote:
... Can a prosecution witness take the stand and testify that a document is "bogus," or is that for the judge to rule on, or for the judge to instruct the jury so the jury can decide?...
(From Demo's site)
Government witness: William Kerr is a recently retired 39 year veteran with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The court accepted him as an expert witness and he made it clear that the Bills of Exchange created by Kahn and used by Snipes were worthless fictitious instruments. There is no secret account that tax protesters in the know can use to pay off their obligations.
Mr. Kerr should have an interesting retirement if the nutjob debt elimination crowd stays the course. Of course, one does tire of air travel and hotels.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy. The Devil Makes Three
They'll put on some people later who will explain what the previously introduced junk is really all about and then tie it all together in closing argument.
I do have some faith in the ability of government functionaries to at least get some stuff done right at least some of the time.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
