Quote from ratboy88:
these are for teriyaki:
Well this just goes to show you that if you decide to not pay taxes, you're best off getting a jury trial, cuz you might get some morons like this broad...
Here's a run down of some incredibly stupid points that she seems to believe mean something :
1- Neither the prosecutor or the defense are allowed to talk about the law during a trial. A trial is to present evidence, nothing more. If you've ever served on a jury, one might know that. The judge gives instructions on the law. That's it, no matter what the case, whether it's a murder trial, or a trespassing trial, or whatever.
2- The judges response " you have all that you need" is also the response that any jury would get if they ask for more info on the law. They're not allowed to say any more - the jury is given the papers that contain the law, and they must interpret for themselves - happened to me before, so I know it to be true.
3- Agent Craner was a typical slack jaw govt empolyee - is there any surprise that he did such a poor job preparing for this case? He didn't keep his paperwork and he didn't respond to the defendants questions because he's not required to. This hardly shows 'trickery'.
4- The AG is also prohibited from giving the jury the law, so again, no story here.
5- I believe all laws are voluntary compliance, right? What's to prevent you from speeding, or driving drunk, or shooting your neighbor cuz he threw dog crap on your lawn? Voluntary compliance is used by these wackos to try and make the jury believe that paying income tax is a voluntary act, and not required. And it worked with these 12 mouth breathers.....
6- The jury requested evidence from the defendant, which stated their interpretation of what the law says. Again, that's not allowed. Only the judge gives instructions, and the jury must decide for themselves what the law means.
On the other hand -
1- The judges reaction is exactly what I would expect, when he realized what a bunch of retards he had for his jury, and when he realized that the defendant would get off. That's also why the defendant reacted the way HE did - cuz he knew that his whole case depended on getting a dumb enuf jury to be swayed by a good lawyer and that he had no legal grounds to not pay taxes, and at this point he knew that he couldn't be retried for the same offense..
2- No conviction has ever been overturned by the SC. What does that tell you? That the law is bogus, or that sometimes, some people are gonna get a bunch of no load, heel rocking, cock breathed, pencil necked geeks that can't decipher the admittedly vague laws that empower the govt to impose an income tax. Remember the phrase - "from whatever source derived" - as stated in the 16th A.
