tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481330.post116570952033121274..comments2023-10-24T11:05:25.288-04:00Comments on Mark Rauterkus & Running Mates ponder current events: Philly Jury without brotherly love. Rejects voluntary-tax argument & link to Wesley SnipesMark Rauterkushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17157914569686528007noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481330.post-1167715863008524912007-01-02T00:31:00.000-05:002007-01-02T00:31:00.000-05:00The law here is extremely harsh, but it's neccesar...The law here is extremely harsh, but it's neccesary. I think there's sometimes too much emphasis on how evidance is obtained rather than it's value in prosecuting the case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481330.post-1165808164660327082006-12-10T22:36:00.000-05:002006-12-10T22:36:00.000-05:00http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492...http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023&q=Theft+by+deceptionAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481330.post-1165807391129948282006-12-10T22:23:00.000-05:002006-12-10T22:23:00.000-05:00... snip...> The judge also said that the PROSECUT...... snip...<BR/><BR/>> The judge also said that the PROSECUTION must have proved beyond a<BR/>> reasonable doubt that "the defendant was required by law to file a tax<BR/>> return." But the prosecution only argued that Art received money and<BR/>> then claimed that said money was "gross income" without ever citing a law<BR/>> that<BR/>> classified Art's money as "gross income" or described the activites in<BR/>> which<BR/>> Art engaged as those which give rise to "gross income."<BR/>><BR/><BR/>It is important to recognize that the jury has preconceived notions about<BR/>income tax obligations. Although they have never read the law, jury members<BR/>have been conditioned for years by credentialed accountants that their<BR/>income must be reported and a fraction thereof surrendered to the<BR/>government. This works to the government's advantage. Prosecutors just<BR/>show the jury that there was income, and that the defendant hasn't filed a<BR/>return and hasn't paid their fair share of taxes. Once they have<BR/>accomplished that, the jury sees the defendant as un-American, greedy and<BR/>evil. With hardly any effort at all, the government has successfully<BR/>portrayed the defendant as a villain, and there is no need to produce any<BR/>law to support their claims.<BR/><BR/>After the prosecution rests their case, the defendants must overcome the<BR/>jury's perception. The jury is skeptical of the defendant and their<BR/>attempts to present interpretations of law, especially when they conflict<BR/>with their preconceived notions. After all, the defendant is asking the<BR/>jury to abandon the beliefs that have been instilled in them by credentialed<BR/>accountants over their entire lives. It takes powerful and convincing<BR/>arguments to overcome the jury's skepticism and the subsequent mockery of<BR/>those arguments by the prosecution who also has the advantage of getting the<BR/>last words in closing arguments.<BR/><BR/>In the end, these cases are not about a determination of law. They are more<BR/>about winning the hearts and minds of a jury. In fact, discussions of law<BR/>often confuse the jury. Art's interpretations of law could be one hundred<BR/>percent right and he can still lose due to the jury's inability to grasp the<BR/>information and material he is presenting to them.<BR/><BR/>Let me also point out that it is very difficult to get your side of the case<BR/>out. Defendants and witnesses are not permitted to give speeches. They can<BR/>only provide answers to the questions posed to them by councilors for the<BR/>prosecution and defense. They are often limited to simple yes/no answers<BR/>and find themselves being scolded by the judge when they try to offer<BR/>anything more. Many of these people leave the court feeling that they were<BR/>never truly able to present their side of the case.<BR/><BR/>Once you understand the dynamics of how these trials play out, you begin to<BR/>understand how so many innocent people are being convicted of crimes they<BR/>never committed. And the problem isn't limited to just tax cases.<BR/><BR/>It is frightening when we consider the number of people that have been<BR/>sentenced to death in this nation that are now being exonerated by DNA<BR/>evidence. Obviously, our court system is failing us.<BR/><BR/>Our justice system was intended to assure that no one was wrongfully<BR/>convicted, even if it meant a few guilty people got away. I wonder if we<BR/>have forgotten when I witness the deceptive tactics employed by the<BR/>prosecution and the courts.<BR/><BR/>I could write more, but this should give you an idea of the dynamics<BR/>involved in these cases.<BR/><BR/>David JahnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481330.post-1165807231103955092006-12-10T22:20:00.000-05:002006-12-10T22:20:00.000-05:00I know this mistake was inadvertant, but in my cas...I know this mistake was inadvertant, but in my case, I was the<BR/>'prosecution.' The government was the defendant, as it was a civil suit<BR/>that I had instituted.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>---------<BR/>The IRS bases the entire income tax fraud on the definition of 'gross<BR/>income' which is generally defined as 'all income from whatever source<BR/>derived,' language taken directly from the 16th Amendment<BR/><BR/>The Supreme Court has said....<BR/><BR/>“'From whatever source derived,' as it is written in the Sixteenth<BR/>Amendment, does not mean from whatever source derived.” US Supreme Court,<BR/>Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583, 607 (1938)<BR/><BR/>Ken EvansAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481330.post-1165807170638343492006-12-10T22:19:00.000-05:002006-12-10T22:19:00.000-05:00Art was convicted of violating 26 USC 7201 which r...Art was convicted of violating 26 USC 7201 which reads in part:<BR/><BR/>"Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax<BR/>imposed by this title..."<BR/><BR/>However, I heard not one mention throughout the entire trial of any section<BR/>of law that "imposed" a tax on Art directly or on the activities in which<BR/>Art engaged. To the best of my recollection, the prosecution didn't even<BR/>mention Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which actually "imposes" the<BR/>income tax (on the activites described in the 'operative sections' of<BR/>course).<BR/><BR/>In the judge's instructions he made mention of Section 61 which is the<BR/>GENERAL definition of "gross income" and defines it as "all income from<BR/>whatever source derived." (see my e-signature below).<BR/><BR/>The judge also said that the PROSECUTION must have proved beyond a<BR/>reasonable doubt that "the defendant was required by law to file a tax<BR/>return." But the prosecution only argued that Art received money and then<BR/>claimed that said money was "gross income" without ever citing a law that<BR/>classified Art's money as "gross income" or described the activites in which<BR/>Art engaged as those which give rise to "gross income."<BR/><BR/>The government was required to prove that Art "was required by law to file a<BR/>return," but according to the judge ONLY the judge can say what the law is.<BR/> The contradiction is obvious.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>---------<BR/>The IRS bases the entire income tax fraud on the definition of 'gross<BR/>income' which is generally defined as 'all income from whatever source<BR/>derived,' language taken directly from the 16th Amendment<BR/><BR/>The Supreme Court has said....<BR/><BR/>“'From whatever source derived,' as it is written in the Sixteenth<BR/>Amendment, does not mean from whatever source derived.” US Supreme Court,<BR/>Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583, 607 (1938)<BR/><BR/>Ken Evans<BR/><BR/>Please consider becoming a Liberty Associate with NORFED. Learn more by<BR/>clicking below:<BR/><BR/>http://www.libertydollar.org/index.php?REFERER=NRC60219Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481330.post-1165807100792684292006-12-10T22:18:00.000-05:002006-12-10T22:18:00.000-05:00lthough I don't have any details about Art's trial...lthough I don't have any details about Art's trial, travesties of<BR/>justice usually involve some of several misdeed.<BR/><BR/>1. The prosecution is allowed to introduce evidence that would not<BR/>otherwise be allowed. In Art's case, the judge reportedly allowed<BR/>evidence that he had previously ruled out.<BR/>2. The prosecution is not obligated to follow the judges orders. In<BR/>Ken Evan's case, the prosecution was order to provide something yet<BR/>never did.<BR/>3. The defense is not allowed to introduce essential evidence. In<BR/>Irwin Schiff's trial the judge notoriously claimed, something like, the<BR/>law is not relevant in his courtroom.<BR/>4. The judge delivers instructions to the jury that are outrageously bias.<BR/><BR/>Again although I'm not an expert on tax trials, these are a few of my<BR/>personal observations. Generally the law is very clearly written --<BR/>although complicated -- but horribly misrepresented to the public,<BR/>misapplied by the government and ignored in the courtroom.<BR/><BR/>As I said in my original response to Art's conviction, the rule of law<BR/>is an illusion in this country. Justice seems to favor the expedience<BR/>of the powerful -- government and big corporations.<BR/><BR/>John S.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481330.post-1165753777970748902006-12-10T07:29:00.000-05:002006-12-10T07:29:00.000-05:00This extra attention with (W.S.) may work against ...This extra attention with (W.S.) may work against Art in his upcomming sentencing in March, 2007. He is facing 5 years each on the three felony counts of which he was convicted. Others who were convicted in the past were charged with misdmeanor "failure to file" which carry one year per count.Mark Rauterkushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17157914569686528007noreply@blogger.com