Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!dave From: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) Newsgroups: net.taxes,net.legal Subject: Re: Schiff Message-ID: <1082@lsuc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 29-Jan-86 10:40:34 EST Article-I.D.: lsuc.1082 Posted: Wed Jan 29 10:40:34 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 29-Jan-86 15:32:02 EST References: <662@decwrl.DEC.COM> Reply-To: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto Lines: 113 Xref: utcs net.taxes:899 net.legal:2810 Summary: get real (net.legal readers: this started in net.taxes but is getting into general legal issues as well) In article <662@decwrl.DEC.COM> alpert@chovax.DEC writes: > > (David Sherman writes:) >>Well, as a tax lawyer (albeit Canadian) I think I *will* jump all >>over you. I would like to see more details before I am prepared to >>believe your assertions about "political prisoners" and "guilty of no >>crime other than...". > >The simple fact is that the majority of persons in the U.S. who >are convicted of "tax crimes" are political prisoners. Why is that a simple fact? I see nothing in your posting which makes clear that it is a fact. > For example, >as Schiff points out, nowhere in our tax code is anyone "required" >to file "income" tax returns, nowhere is the language "mandatory" >or "required" used in connection with "income" tax returns, nor >is failing to file such returns specifically made a crime with >specific penalties. I would assume it's up to the courts to determine what is or is not required by the laws of any given jurisdiction. There is no question that there is an Internal Revenue Code in your country, and that it was enacted by your federal legislators. Whether it requires filing, and what filing it requires, can obviously be determined by the courts. > In addition, our tax agency regularly breaks >all laws, from the Constitution to the tax code itself, in the normal >course of their business. Again, if this is so, the courts should be there to protect you. >The reason a jury could be persuaded to convict Schiff is quite simple, >it is the principle of the Big Lie at work, with a good dose of >fear of the IRS thrown in for good measure. I have some difficulty with this analysis. First of all, this "Big Lie" that you allege could certainly be counteracted with appropriate proof by Schiff's lawyers, assuming they have a legal basis for argument. Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that jurors are fearful that they personally will be harassed by the IRS if they come down with a decision adverse to that agency? I find that suggestion somewhat repugnant, and would like to see evidence of such activities. I have no doubt that if any government agency were to try to interfere with the jury system in this way, there would be an uproar in the media. > Justice in tax cases >is nearly unknown in the U.S., one is presumed guilty by the IRS until >proven innocent, What the IRS presumes is irrelevant once you're into the court system. The court, not the IRS, makes the determinations of any tax and criminal liability. > the IRS has the courts in their pocket and uses >judges as hatchetmen, Again, I have some problems with this statement, and I think many judges would be offended by it. Can you provide examples? > and they are certainly not above lying to a jury >in a court of law. Lying to a jury, eh? Well, the issue in the Schiff case, to my knowledge, is not facts but law - whether, as a matter of LAW, Schiff is guilty given certain facts. I'm mystified as to how counsel for one side could "lie" to a jury about the law, when the other side has all the tools of argument at its disposal. To put it another way: if it's as clear as you allege that Schiff is no guilty, then surely Schiff's lawyer should have been able to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of one of the twelve jurors. The fact that this apparently could not be done suggests, to me, the obvious. And I will say the same about most criminal convictions. > Possibly in Canada things are done differently, >but in the U.S. the IRS has nearly unlimited powers that go far beyond >their actual legal authority. Again, I have some problems with that statement. Americans are not known for being reluctant to litigate. If the IRS attempts to exercise powers which "go beyond their actual legal authority", then taxpayers, obviously, will attempt to stop them by injunction or otherwise. If the taxpayers succeed, then the IRS's powers have not been shown to exist. If the taxpayers do not succeed, then the courts have determined what the legal authority is of the IRS, and hence they are not going beyond their legal authority. Q.E.D. Remember that, whether you are talking about the IRS's powers or the obligation to file, or anything else involving statutory interpretation, that the plain words of the statute may not say all there is to say. It is the job of the courts, in any case, to interpret the statute in the context in which a dispute arises. >For more details, see my original Schiff postings, plus the books >by Schiff, "The Biggest Con" , "The Great Income Tax Hoax", and >"The Social Security Swindle". > > Bob Alpert > ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-chovax!alpert Dave Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Osgoode Hall Toronto, Canada M5H 2N6 (416) 947-3466 -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave