The Federal Tap Dance!
The following articals are hard to believe but they are true.

During Mr. Schiff’s trial Mr. Schiff was trying to cross examine the IRS agent in charge of the Schiff case.Mr. Schiff showed the IRS agent his 2002 1040 tax return and asked him to explain what was wrong with it.The prosecutor objected on the grounds that whatever was wrong with it was immaterial! Judge Dawson sustained that objection and would not let Mr. Schiff ask any further questions about that tax return!One of the charges against Mr. Schiff was he filed illegal tax returns. So, how could whatever was illegal about that tax return be immaterial? It was so obvious Federal Judge Dawson was tap dancing around the truth!Mr. Schiff is seventy eight years old and his health is failing. He is a proud, kind and gentle man who the government wants to die in jail before the truth of what was done to him and countless others is found out by the media.

AN ATTORNEY AN ATTORNEYMY FREEDOM FOR AN ATTORNEY

It is evident that even the thought of defending a person charged with any income tax related crime strikes fear into ninety-five percent of the attorneys. If the client wants the attorney to argue there is no law that requires the filing and or payment of such tax that remaining five percent disappear. Is it their fear of the government and the IRS or is it in their best interest not to make waves that causes their disappearing act? However, in the final analysis, regardless of the attorney’s motivation, or in this case a lack thereof, it leaves the defendants no recourse but to defend themselves. That, in turn, because they are a babe in the woods as far a court procedures are concerned, leaves them at a distinct disadvantage which the judges and prosecution take every advantage of. This proved to be true during Mr. Schiff’s trial. Since no attorney was willing to defend him using the truth, Judge Dawson and the prosecution took full advantage of Mr. Schiff’s lack of legal training at every turn.Therefore, we think it is safe to say that any citizen of the United States who has done the research, discovered and can prove there is no law requiring the filing of or paying of the income tax, is being discriminated against for his/her educated beliefs.At this point we must pose these questions,“Is it fair or Constitutional for every members of the bar to turn their back on the truth because of their fear of retribution from the system?”Does this not make the premise of RULE OF LAW a joke?
Does this not contradict everything America and the Constitution is supposed to stand for?
Should Irwin or anyone else have to ignore the truth and buckle under to a criminal government because they cannot get a qualified attorney to represent them using the truth as their defense?It is ourbelief that it only takes one injustice which is condoned by every member of the justice system to allow for the possibility there is one more on the horizon. History has taught us where that path leads. As an example, during Hitler’s rise to power, when the first Jew was spat upon did any sane man envision where that would lead?We compare the government, when it comes to Federal Judges lying about the law requiring the payment of income tax, to an alcoholic’s philosophy. One is too many and a million is not enough.Conclusion: If the courts can rule the government owns a percentage of any citizen’s work product, then they can also rule the government owns all of the work product of all its citizens?

VOID FOR VAGUENESS

The legal definition of “Void for vagueness” is, “referring to a statute defining a crime which is so vague that a reasonable person of at least average intelligence could not determine what elements constitute the crime. Such a vague statute is unconstitutional on the basis that a defendant could not defend against a charge of a crime which he/she could not understand, and thus would be denied "due process" mandated by 5th Amendment, applied to the states by the 14th Amendment.”Our question is if any law that ever existed was declared to be Void For Vagueness then how can the, never found by anyone, law which requires the filing of or payment of income tax not be void for vagueness?

A LIVING DOCUMENT?

The politicians say The Constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT. Well, we say Judge Dawson took a legal knife and thrust it into the heart of The Constitution with his rulings. What is further sickening is as it lay bleeding to death the prosecutors stomped and kicked it with their glee.we generally do nor believe in conspiracy theories but we cannot believe not one of the jurors heard Irwin’s words or saw what was going on. Therefore, if the truth is to come out as to what happened in the jury room, or prior to jury selections, then it must come from the mouth of one of those jurors. Even if we have to pay a juror for an interview then that is what we must do because misconduct during or prior to deliberations is an automatic mistrial. In that regard it was obvious Judge Dawson and the prosecution team knew what the verdict was before the jury delivered it.
Mark the date Mr. Schoff was convicted on your calender as
THE DAY THE CONSTITUTION DIED BY THE HAND OF FEDERAL JUDGE KENT J. DAWSON AT THE ORDER OF THE FEDERAL MAFIA!
However, for your children or grandchildren’s sake the one thing we can do is flood the appeals court and the ACLU with protests regarding Judge Dawson’s rulings and jury instructions. Or, if you are capable, file an Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) brief with the appellate court in support of Irwin, Cindy and Mr. Cohen.We will be posting an example (ours) of an Amicus Curiae brief as soon as we get a copy of the transcript of the trial at and we will also scan the transcript which will be posted at the-constitutionalists.com

Is there no justice for the disabled?

During the first days of the trial Mr. Schiff made it clear he had a unique hearing problem which kept him from understanding certain intermittent tones. From that point forward the prosecution and the judge occasionally, like hateful irritating little children would do to a weaker child, intentional spoke in virtual whispers. With Mr. Schiff constantly objecting this continued for three weeks. At that point, after an objection by Mr. Schiff, the judge told him to sit down, shut up and read lips!The Americans with disabilities Act, which in pertinent part says, people with disabilities cannot be discriminated against and must be given the opportunity to compete on an equal basis. This could obviously be a reason to overturn the verdict so after that was pointed out to the judge he relented and provided a monitor to Mr. Schiff which projected the court reporters continuous written chronology of everything spoken in the courtroom. While this was helpful to Mr. Schiff it did not solve the problem because when he was speaking, asking witnesses questions or was distracted he would miss whatever was said. So he asked the judge for a daily copy of the court reporters written report. This request was denied by the judge.

DANCING WITH JUDGE DAWSON
CHEEK TO CHEEK

During Mr. Schiff’s trial Judge Dawson prohibited Mr. Schiff from defending himself using any Supreme Court decision such as, the Supreme Court in CHEEK v. UNITED STATES, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) which laid out a three prong test in tax cases when it said, “Willfulness, as construed by our prior decisions in criminal tax cases,1. requires the Government to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant,2. that the defendant knew of this duty,3. and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty.”During Mr. Schiff’s trial when he brought up the CHEEK decision the prosecution informed Mr. Schiff that they would not produce the law that imposed a duty on him but would instead rely on the judge to instruct the jury in regards to the law. This made the judge a member of the prosecution team whose duty it was to prove the law imposed a duty! Also, it kept Mr. Schiff from knowing what this supposed law was until the jury instructions were made. This prevented Mr. Schiff from cross examining in regards to this supposed law.What Judge Dawson eventually did was take some words from one area of the tax code and combined them with words from two other areas of the tax code and declared that to be the law. However, during the jury instructions he added words to his word scramble law that did not come from any area of the current tax code!And, the last fragment of a possible fair trial was stripped from Mr. Schiff when the judge did not allow Mr. Schiff to enter the CHEEK decision into evidence or any other Supreme Court ruling or law or the tax code which supported Mr. Schiff’s defense.