Brown Fab Three Gagged?

[Bud Dickman]

From Bill Riley's blog

Judge Disallows any Talk of the IRS at Trial

It looks like the motivation and mindset of the defendants won't see the light of day at this trial?! So much for a fully informed jury.



http://static.scribd.com/docs/453g6i76x ... VIEW=width

[webhick]

Defendants shall not argue to the jury or attempt to present evidence on the issue of whether the IRS in fact has the authority to collect personal income taxes.

The IRS and the law to collect taxes isn't on trial, they are for their own actions. It doesn't say anything about how they aren't allowed to argue how strongly they believe or what their state of mind was, just that they aren't allowed to try to prove their beliefs to a jury.

So I disagree. They can still demonstrate their beliefs ("The IRS are thieves and is part of a grand conspiracy") and mindset ("I went up there because the revolution is coming and I wanted to be a part of it") without introducing the IRC as evidence, or trying to prove that the 16th wasn't properly ratified, or demonstrating that Freemasons can fly out their butts (which would probably mark the first time in history that someone has mooned the jury).

Edit: I didn't realize that you were quoting Bill.

[LPC]

Defendants shall not argue to the jury or attempt to present evidence on the issue of whether the IRS in fact has the authority to collect personal income taxes.

The IRS and the law to collect taxes isn't on trial, they are for their own actions. It doesn't say anything about how they aren't allowed to argue how strongly they believe or what their state of mind was, just that they aren't allowed to try to prove their beliefs to a jury.

In this forum, we've had a lot of discussions about the "Cheek defense" and the issue of "willfulness" in tax prosecutions, but the "Fab Four/Three" aren't being prosecuted for any crime involving "willfulness," so their "good faith beliefs" are not relevant.

And the courts have often taken a dim view of defiance of judicial decisions. In the Cheek case, the Supreme Court held that a defendant could testify about the defendant's understanding of statutory law, but not constitutional law, because constitutional law can be/should be adjudicated in court.

As another example, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Martin Luther King Jr. for criminal contempt, even while admitting that the injunction he violated might have been wrongfully imposed, because King could have/should have appealed the injunction instead of ignoring it. Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967).

The Browns were convicted in a federal court and had appeals and other legal remedies if the conviction was wrongful. No federal judge is going to allow a collateral attack on the Brown trial in the trial of those accused of violently aiding the Brown's defiance of the law.

[Demosthenes]

From: VANMETER SAYS FREE RENO NOW
Date: Feb 17, 2008 7:43 PM

I want to know why all evidence can not be presented before the jury, I want to know why the gag that we can not discuss the IRS.
I want to know why there was 3 different reports filed by 3 different Marshals on what happened that day, 2 first denied the shots being fired, (RIL_ETAL 2153, and RIL_ETAL2155) But the Sniper/Shooter/MERC! reportedly (RIL_ETAL 2157) uses what is known as a KO1 non lethal round ( which is either rubber bullets, or bean bags) and in that the guy said one, he was aiming for his legs) But in Dannys report he heard rounds buzzing by his head, dont sound like they were intending on taking him down with regards to his safety that is for sure, but then this same Marshal told Danny he could had shot him if he wanted too, but missed on purpose. ( what would be the purpose wasting 2 rounds frpm non lethal weapons if your intentions were to stun or incompacitate him which later was done with the tasar.) Sounds like they werent nonlethal weapons and they all showed up to kill a few people if you ask me, their stories time and time again just dont add up to anything but the obvious. But this evidence is most likely to stay suppressed from the trial as well like the mysterious missing video tape of the moments of Riley being shot at and being Jumped and "Challenged" or in other words some guys getting up in his face decked out in their finest guillies with their guns shoved in his face!

i am sure i have signed my either my ticket to jail or my death warrant with releasement of some of this, and I am theres a few Marshals out there pretty pissed at me right now with the release of this article. but ya know how the saying goes...
"LIVE FREE or DIE!"
Donna
UFF

"My ticket to jail or my death warrant" -- no melodrama there, or anything.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

"My ticket to jail or my death warrant" -- no melodrama there, or anything.

If it's melodrama you want, then check this out. Pay special attention to the closing sentence from an "anonymous poster on the danriley blog.

How can they disallow it when it is the very crux of the peoples reasoning?

If the witnesses are not allowed to state the reasons for going there, then what will their testimony provide to the defense...

If consciousness isn't applicable then how does one get a trial based on temporary insanity?

To be kept from divulging all the facts is to subvert the jury and prevent them from making an informed conscionable decision that is based on law and fact.

That is against the very fundamental understanding of our laws, equivalent to jury tampering, evidence tampering, and not to mention a blatant mockery of our judicial system.

If the law believes it is above the law which it is demonstrating her by preventing the defendants from presenting evidence that will guarantee a fair and balanced trial, that equates to lawlessness and eventually the people will follow suit which would suggest that the Federal Judiciary would be complicit in crimes against American citizens by violating their constitutional right to a fair trial.

There is no where to go apparently for justice but your gun cabinet. God help us all.

Nonya

http://danrileyld.blogspot.com/2008/02/ ... rs-at.html

[grixit]

From: VANMETER SAYS FREE RENO NOW
Date: Feb 17, 2008 7:43 PM

I want to know why all evidence can not be presented before the jury, I want to know why the gag that we can not discuss the IRS.
I want to know why there was 3 different reports filed by 3 different Marshals on what happened that day, 2 first denied the shots being fired, (RIL_ETAL 2153, and RIL_ETAL2155) But the Sniper/Shooter/MERC! reportedly (RIL_ETAL 2157) uses what is known as a KO1 non lethal round ( which is either rubber bullets, or bean bags) and in that the guy said one, he was aiming for his legs) But in Dannys report he heard rounds buzzing by his head, dont sound like they were intending on taking him down with regards to his safety that is for sure, but then this same Marshal told Danny he could had shot him if he wanted too, but missed on purpose. ( what would be the purpose wasting 2 rounds frpm non lethal weapons if your intentions were to stun or incompacitate him which later was done with the tasar.) Sounds like they werent nonlethal weapons and they all showed up to kill a few people if you ask me, their stories time and time again just dont add up to anything but the obvious. But this evidence is most likely to stay suppressed from the trial as well like the mysterious missing video tape of the moments of Riley being shot at and being Jumped and "Challenged" or in other words some guys getting up in his face decked out in their finest guillies with their guns shoved in his face!

i am sure i have signed my either my ticket to jail or my death warrant with releasement of some of this, and I am theres a few Marshals out there pretty pissed at me right now with the release of this article. but ya know how the saying goes...
"LIVE FREE or DIE!"
Donna
UFF

"My ticket to jail or my death warrant" -- no melodrama there, or anything.

Pfui, that was only a 3 on the Van Meter. We know you can do better than that, Donna.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

How can they disallow it when it is the very crux of the peoples reasoning?

If the witnesses are not allowed to state the reasons for going there, then what will their testimony provide to the defense...

If consciousness isn't applicable then how does one get a trial based on temporary insanity?

http://danrileyld.blogspot.com/2008/02/ ... rs-at.html

The reason the testimony as to why they committed the crime is not relevant is that temporary insanity is an affirmative defense and must be asserted before the court. To the best of my knowledge, it has not been asserted. If the Tard Trio® wants to assert an insanity (temporary or otherwise), then they should do so. Otherwise, their mental state is simply not relevant to the issues before the Court. It may be relevant at sentencing, but I doubt that it will help them.

[wserra]

The reason the testimony as to why they committed the crime is not relevant is that temporary insanity is an affirmative defense and must be asserted before the court.

IPOF, "temporary insanity" is not a defense at all in federal court, although it may still be (the so-called "M'Naghton Rule") in some state courts. (In NY, for example, it's called "extreme emotional disturbance", and it only serves to reduce murder to manslaughter.) Following John Hinckley's acquittal, Congress preempted the field for federal courts in 18 USC 17:

It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.

The defendant has the burden of proof on the issue. While I can understand the contrary point of view in the case of these idiots, being a world-class numbnuts is not generally considered "a severe mental disease or defect". This statute served to overrule the state of the law in at least a few Circuits.

As usual, it's not quite that simple, since some courts have held that mental disease evidence is admissible to negate a required specific intent where the charged crime requires such - but it still must be evidence of mental disease.

[.]

being a world-class numbnuts is not generally considered "a severe mental disease or defect"

Clearly, Ron Paul needs to get right on this lest his world-class numbnuts fundraising suffer. Maybe Schulz could help him with a call-to-action letter.

Numbnuts, arise!

[Agent Observer]

releasement

Someone send that girl a copy of "Hooked on Phonics." Crazy made up words sort of detract from the overall humor of her posts...

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

releasement

Someone send that girl a copy of "Hooked on Phonics." Crazy made up words sort of detract from the overall humor of her posts...

Look at her pic on Myspace. It this situation, looks are definately not deceiving.

[grixit]

Her face seems muted in that picture, as if she's wearing an invisible veil, or maybe she's doing the broody goth bit. There are more upbeat pictures in her gallery.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

Her face seems muted in that picture, as if she's wearing an invisible veil, or maybe she's doing the broody goth bit. There are more upbeat pictures in her gallery.

I thought she was doing the skinny greasy-haired white trash look...maybe I'm looking at the wrong profile.