What's the point of even having a trial? Or a constitution?

When every right and protection you have can be disregarded
in their sole discretion, one really has to wonder how anyone
can call it a 'free country' any more.

===========================

04/19/2014 22:14 -0400
By Simon Black via Sovereign Man blog

In the Land of the Free, people grow up hearing a lot of things about
their freedom.

You're told that you live in the freest country on the planet. You're
told that other nations 'hate you' for your freedom.

And you're told that you have the most open and fair justice system in
the world.

This justice system is supposedly founded on bedrock principles-- things
like a defendant being presumed innocent until proven guilty. The right
to due process and an impartial hearing. The right to counsel and
attorney-client privilege.

Yet each of these core pillars has been systematically dismantled over
the years:

1. So that it can operate with impunity outside of the law, the federal
government has set up its own secret FISA courts to rubber stamp NSA
surveillance.

According to data obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center,
of the nearly 34,000 surveillance requests made to FISA courts in the
last 35-years, only ELEVEN have been rejected.

Unsurprising given that FISA courts only hear the case from the
government's perspective. It is literally a one-sided argument in FISA
courts. Hardly an impartial hearing, no?

2. The concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' may officially exist in
courts, but administratively it was thrown out long ago.

These days there are hundreds of local, state, and federal agencies that
can confiscate your assets, levy your bank account, and freeze you out
of your life's savings. None of this requires a court order.

By the time a case goes to court, you have been deprived of the
resources you need to defend yourself. You might technically be presumed
innocent, but you have been treated and punished like a criminal from
day one.

3. Attorney-Client privilege is a long-standing legal concept which
ensures that communication between an attorney and his/her client is
completely private.

In Upjohn vs. the United States, the Supreme Court itself upheld
attorney-client privilege as necessary "to encourage full and frank
communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote
broader public interests in the observance of law. . ."

It doesn't matter what you're accused of-- theft. treason. triple
homicide. With very limited exceptions, an attorney cannot be compelled
to testify against a client, nor can their communications be subpoenaed
for evidence.

Yet in a United States Tax Court decision announced on Wednesday, the
court dismissed attorney client privilege, stating that:

"When a person puts into issue his subjective intent in deciding how to
comply with the law, he may forfeit the privilege afforded
attorney-client communications."

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistor...ern.TC.WPD.pdf

In other words, if a person works with legal counsel within the confines
of the tax code to legitimately minimize the amount of taxes owed, that
communication is no longer protected by attorney-client privilege.

Furthermore, the ruling states that if the individuals do not submit
attorney-client documentation as required, then the court would prohibit
them from introducing any evidence to demonstrate their innocence.

Unbelievable.

While it's true that attorney-client privilege has long been assailed in
numerous court cases (especially with regards to tax matters), this
decision sets the most dangerous precedent yet.

With this ruling, government now has carte blanche to set aside
long-standing legal protections and even deny a human being even the
chance to defend himself.

Naturally, you won't hear a word about this in the mainstream media.

But it certainly begs the question, what's the point of even having a
trial? Or a constitution?

When every right and protection you have can be disregarded in their
sole discretion, one really has to wonder how anyone can call it a 'free
country' any more.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...ient-privelege

Go away.

"Elliot Ness" wrote in message ...

What's the point of even having a trial? Or a constitution?

When every right and protection you have can be disregarded
in their sole discretion, one really has to wonder how anyone
can call it a 'free country' any more.

===========================

04/19/2014 22:14 -0400
By Simon Black via Sovereign Man blog

In the Land of the Free, people grow up hearing a lot of things about
their freedom.

You're told that you live in the freest country on the planet. You're
told that other nations 'hate you' for your freedom.

And you're told that you have the most open and fair justice system in
the world.

This justice system is supposedly founded on bedrock principles-- things
like a defendant being presumed innocent until proven guilty. The right
to due process and an impartial hearing. The right to counsel and
attorney-client privilege.

Yet each of these core pillars has been systematically dismantled over
the years:

1. So that it can operate with impunity outside of the law, the federal
government has set up its own secret FISA courts to rubber stamp NSA
surveillance.

According to data obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center,
of the nearly 34,000 surveillance requests made to FISA courts in the
last 35-years, only ELEVEN have been rejected.

Unsurprising given that FISA courts only hear the case from the
government's perspective. It is literally a one-sided argument in FISA
courts. Hardly an impartial hearing, no?

2. The concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' may officially exist in
courts, but administratively it was thrown out long ago.

These days there are hundreds of local, state, and federal agencies that
can confiscate your assets, levy your bank account, and freeze you out
of your life's savings. None of this requires a court order.

By the time a case goes to court, you have been deprived of the
resources you need to defend yourself. You might technically be presumed
innocent, but you have been treated and punished like a criminal from
day one.

3. Attorney-Client privilege is a long-standing legal concept which
ensures that communication between an attorney and his/her client is
completely private.

In Upjohn vs. the United States, the Supreme Court itself upheld
attorney-client privilege as necessary "to encourage full and frank
communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote
broader public interests in the observance of law. . ."

It doesn't matter what you're accused of-- theft. treason. triple
homicide. With very limited exceptions, an attorney cannot be compelled
to testify against a client, nor can their communications be subpoenaed
for evidence.

Yet in a United States Tax Court decision announced on Wednesday, the
court dismissed attorney client privilege, stating that:

"When a person puts into issue his subjective intent in deciding how to
comply with the law, he may forfeit the privilege afforded
attorney-client communications."

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistor...ern.TC.WPD.pdf

In other words, if a person works with legal counsel within the confines
of the tax code to legitimately minimize the amount of taxes owed, that
communication is no longer protected by attorney-client privilege.

Furthermore, the ruling states that if the individuals do not submit
attorney-client documentation as required, then the court would prohibit
them from introducing any evidence to demonstrate their innocence.

Unbelievable.

While it's true that attorney-client privilege has long been assailed in
numerous court cases (especially with regards to tax matters), this
decision sets the most dangerous precedent yet.

With this ruling, government now has carte blanche to set aside
long-standing legal protections and even deny a human being even the
chance to defend himself.

Naturally, you won't hear a word about this in the mainstream media.

But it certainly begs the question, what's the point of even having a
trial? Or a constitution?

When every right and protection you have can be disregarded in their
sole discretion, one really has to wonder how anyone can call it a 'free
country' any more.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...ient-privelege

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 10:30:31 AM UTC-4, Elliot Ness wrote:


It doesn't matter what you're accused of-- theft. treason. triple

homicide. With very limited exceptions, an attorney cannot be compelled

to testify against a client, nor can their communications be subpoenaed

for evidence.



You do acknowledge above that there are limited exceptions to attorney-client
privelege.



Yet in a United States Tax Court decision announced on Wednesday, the

court dismissed attorney client privilege, stating that:



"When a person puts into issue his subjective intent in deciding how to

comply with the law, he may forfeit the privilege afforded

attorney-client communications."



http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistor...ern.TC.WPD.pdf



And there you have an example of such an exception. It doesn't seem so
unreasonable to me.




In other words, if a person works with legal counsel within the confines

of the tax code to legitimately minimize the amount of taxes owed, that

communication is no longer protected by attorney-client privilege.



Per the ruling, you can't claim attorney client privilege if your
claiming that your defense against tax penalties for not paying the
correct amount of tax is that you made an honest, good faith attempt
to pay the correct amount. If you want to claim that, then it seems
somewhat reasonable that professional tax advice you were given is
relevant and fair game. And I'd also note that if in fact the tax attorney told
you that what you were doing with regard to paying taxes was likely OK,
then you'd almost certainly be willing to waive attorney-client
privilege on that narrow issue to prove your case. Your attorney
simply testifies that they told you what you were doing with regard
to the tax issue was valid and you've proven your case. Also, note this
isn't a criminal case, it's a civil one.



Furthermore, the ruling states that if the individuals do not submit

attorney-client documentation as required, then the court would prohibit

them from introducing any evidence to demonstrate their innocence.



Unbelievable.



It doesn't seem so unbelievable to me. What advice one got from a
tax attorney is the most relevant and key information as to the person's
mind at the time. And the person is arguing that his state of mind
was that he believed what he was doing with regard to taxes was kosher.




While it's true that attorney-client privilege has long been assailed in

numerous court cases (especially with regards to tax matters), this

decision sets the most dangerous precedent yet.



Yawn....



With this ruling, government now has carte blanche to set aside

long-standing legal protections and even deny a human being even the

chance to defend himself.



Naturally, you won't hear a word about this in the mainstream media.





But it certainly begs the question, what's the point of even having a

trial? Or a constitution?



When every right and protection you have can be disregarded in their

sole discretion, one really has to wonder how anyone can call it a 'free

country' any more.



Good grief. It's a ruling on one very narrow issue in a civil tax penalty
case.

In article ,
Elliot Ness wrote:


1. So that it can operate with impunity outside of the law, the federal
government has set up its own secret FISA courts to rubber stamp NSA
surveillance.

According to data obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center,
of the nearly 34,000 surveillance requests made to FISA courts in the
last 35-years, only ELEVEN have been rejected.

Unsurprising given that FISA courts only hear the case from the
government's perspective. It is literally a one-sided argument in FISA
courts. Hardly an impartial hearing, no?
This is such a BS statement, means nothing. First of all, what is
the %age of turn downs in the regular courts? Is FISA much worse?
Better? As a completely useless n=1 study, for the 9 years I was doing
fire investigations, we put in for over 100 a year and only had three
turned down, and one of those for about 30 seconds while we corrected a
small glitch.
Also, I don't know of a single court that lets the person or their
attorney in on the issuance of a warrant which is what the sentence
appears to be taking umbrage.

These days there are hundreds of local, state, and federal agencies that
can confiscate your assets, levy your bank account, and freeze you out
of your life's savings. None of this requires a court order.


Which ones?


Yet in a United States Tax Court decision announced on Wednesday, the
court dismissed attorney client privilege, stating that:

"When a person puts into issue his subjective intent in deciding how to
comply with the law, he may forfeit the privilege afforded
attorney-client communications."

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistor...ern.TC.WPD.pdf

In other words, if a person works with legal counsel within the confines
of the tax code to legitimately minimize the amount of taxes owed, that
communication is no longer protected by attorney-client privilege.

ONLY to the extent that a person uses that communication as part of
their defense when the legitimacy is not only questioned, but tossed out
entirely. You really can't say "I don't owe extra fines related to bad
faith because it wasn't bad faith because I relied on my attorney and
then not let what the attorney said enter into it. That is
well-established and nothing new.
"Respondent appears to accept that the opinions constitute
attorney-client communications but argues that, under the common law
doctrine of implied waiver, the attorney-client privilege is waived when
the client places otherwise privileged matters in controversy.
Respondent argues that petitioners placed the opinions into controversy
by relying on affirmative defenses to the penalties that turn on the
partnerships' beliefs or state of mind." The beliefs hinge on what the
attorney said in this case.
The court also noted:
United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285 (2d Cir. 1991), involves an
appeal from convictions for financial crimes. The trial court had ruled
that, if the defendant testified regarding his good-faith efforts to
comply with the securities laws, he would open the door to
cross-examination with respect to the basis for his belief regarding the
lawfulness of his actions and that such cross- examination would allow
inquiry to communications that he had with his attorney



While it's true that attorney-client privilege has long been assailed in
numerous court cases (especially with regards to tax matters), this
decision sets the most dangerous precedent yet.

By relying on a line of cases going back over 20 years?

With this ruling, government now has carte blanche to set aside
long-standing legal protections and even deny a human being even the
chance to defend himself.


Not according to the ruling. THis is nothing new and even if it might
be, this is still predicated on an action of the person. If you say you
don't owe penalties because of good faith reliance on legal, etc., then
you have to show that you did, indeed, rely on this. My guess is that
the person worked so hard to protect because counsel told him from the
get that he was full of ****.


Naturally, you won't hear a word about this in the mainstream media.

But it certainly begs the question, what's the point of even having a
trial? Or a constitution?

When every right and protection you have can be disregarded in their
sole discretion, one really has to wonder how anyone can call it a 'free
country' any more.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...court-denies-a
ttorney-client-privelege
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

Kurt Ullman wrote:

These days there are hundreds of local, state, and federal agencies
that can confiscate your assets, levy your bank account, and freeze
you out of your life's savings. None of this requires a court order.

Which ones?

All of them.

Apparently by using a widened interpretation of the RICO act.

The following is taken from he

http://www.mind-trek.com/practicl/aforfeit.htm

Which by itelf makes for interesting reading - at least the first few
pages.

====================
RICO: Threat or Weapon

RICO has become a threat to some groups and a weapon to others. The
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), passed by
Congress in 1970, which was meant to bring big-time, profit motivated
crime organizations to their knees, has taken yet another twist. In
January, 1994, the Supreme Court widened the scope of RICO by ruling
that federal racketeering laws can apply when the motivation is social
or political and not just economic. In other words, RICO has now become
a threat for those who engage in the national tradition of social or
political protest. That decision becomes spine-chilling to those of us
who value our freedom of speech and right to association.

RICO: WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

Is it true that government agencies in every state are profiteering at
the expense of innocent third parties by taking advantage of the federal
R.I.C.O. laws? RICO is the acronym for the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, a federal law passed by Congress in 1970, and
is commonly used to describe the legal process by which government
agencies take personal property away from individuals. And what can be
taken and who are the individuals?
=======================

"When a person puts into issue his subjective intent in deciding
how to comply with the law, he may forfeit the privilege afforded
attorney-client communications."

In other words, if a person works with legal counsel within the
confines of the tax code to legitimately minimize the amount of
taxes owed, that communication is no longer protected by attorney
-client privilege.

ONLY to the extent that a person uses that communication as part
of their defense when the legitimacy is not only questioned, but
tossed out entirely. You really can't say "I don't owe extra fines
related to bad faith because it wasn't bad faith because I relied
on my attorney and then not let what the attorney said enter into
it. That is well-established and nothing new.

What sort of government or rule of law do you people have where your
guilt or innocence (or tax penalty) is in some way based on the state of
your "faith" that what you were doing was within the rules, instead of
on the facts, as determined by a jury, that you did or didn't follow the
rules?

In article ,
Elliot Ness wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

These days there are hundreds of local, state, and federal agencies
that can confiscate your assets, levy your bank account, and freeze
you out of your life's savings. None of this requires a court order.

Which ones?

All of them.

Apparently by using a widened interpretation of the RICO act.

The following is taken from he

http://www.mind-trek.com/practicl/aforfeit.htm

Which by itelf makes for interesting reading - at least the first few
pages.

====================
RICO: Threat or Weapon

RICO has become a threat to some groups and a weapon to others. The
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), passed by
Congress in 1970, which was meant to bring big-time, profit motivated
crime organizations to their knees, has taken yet another twist. In
January, 1994, the Supreme Court widened the scope of RICO by ruling
that federal racketeering laws can apply when the motivation is social
or political and not just economic. In other words, RICO has now become
a threat for those who engage in the national tradition of social or
political protest. That decision becomes spine-chilling to those of us
who value our freedom of speech and right to association.

RICO: WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

Is it true that government agencies in every state are profiteering at
the expense of innocent third parties by taking advantage of the federal
R.I.C.O. laws? RICO is the acronym for the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, a federal law passed by Congress in 1970, and
is commonly used to describe the legal process by which government
agencies take personal property away from individuals. And what can be
taken and who are the individuals?
=======================

Which is completely unresponsive to the part where you assert that
this can be done w/o court involvement. Indeed the RICO Act itself notes:
? 1964. Civil remedies
(a) The ***district courts of the United States shall have
jurisdiction*** to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 of
this chapter by ***issuing appropriate orders***, including, but not
limited to: ordering any person to divest himself of any interest,
direct or indirect, in any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions
on the future activities or investments of any person, including, but
not limited to, prohibiting any person from engaging in the same type of
endeavor as the enterprise engaged in, the activities of which affect
interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering dissolution or
reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the rights of
innocent persons.
Forfeiture requires court involvement.
Heck even the IRS has to get okay:
Seizure Warrant

1. Property subject to forfeiture may be seized pursuant to a warrant
obtained in the same manner as provided for a search warrant under Rule
41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Fed. R. Crim. P. 41). The
AUSA must submit an application for the seizure of particular property,
as well as a special agent's sworn affidavit setting forth the facts
that provide probable cause for the seizure.
2. A seizure warrant may be issued in any judicial district in which
a civil forfeiture action against the property may be filed, and may be
executed in any judicial district in which the property is found. In the
event that an out-of-district seizure is contemplated, it must involve
consultation and coordination with the US Attorney's Office and the
field office within the judicial district in which the seizure is to
occur.
3. Title 18 USC ?985 requires that civil forfeiture of real property
proceed judicially. Except as provided in the statute, the real property
that is the subject of a civil forfeiture action cannot be seized before
entry of an order of forfeiture.



What sort of government or rule of law do you people have where your
guilt or innocence (or tax penalty) is in some way based on the state of
your "faith" that what you were doing was within the rules, instead of
on the facts, as determined by a jury, that you did or didn't follow the
rules?

Again, hoakum. Guilt or innocence isn't at issue in the instance
at hand. This is for additional penalties if you acted in bad faith. You
have to first be judged to have been guilty of the underlying offense by
a court of law (judge OR jury your choice). Most laws have aggravating
or mitigating circumstances that are taken into account during
sentencing. This is just one of them.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 9:00:40 PM UTC-4, Elliot Ness wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:



These days there are hundreds of local, state, and federal agencies

that can confiscate your assets, levy your bank account, and freeze

you out of your life's savings. None of this requires a court order.



Which ones?



All of them.



Apparently by using a widened interpretation of the RICO act.



The following is taken from he



http://www.mind-trek.com/practicl/aforfeit.htm



Which by itelf makes for interesting reading - at least the first few

pages.



====================

RICO: Threat or Weapon



RICO has become a threat to some groups and a weapon to others. The

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), passed by

Congress in 1970, which was meant to bring big-time, profit motivated

crime organizations to their knees, has taken yet another twist. In

January, 1994, the Supreme Court widened the scope of RICO by ruling

that federal racketeering laws can apply when the motivation is social

or political and not just economic. In other words, RICO has now become

a threat for those who engage in the national tradition of social or

political protest. That decision becomes spine-chilling to those of us

who value our freedom of speech and right to association.



RICO: WHAT ARE YOU DOING?



Is it true that government agencies in every state are profiteering at

the expense of innocent third parties by taking advantage of the federal

R.I.C.O. laws? RICO is the acronym for the Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations Act, a federal law passed by Congress in 1970, and

is commonly used to describe the legal process by which government

agencies take personal property away from individuals. And what can be

taken and who are the individuals?

=======================



"When a person puts into issue his subjective intent in deciding

how to comply with the law, he may forfeit the privilege afforded

attorney-client communications."



In other words, if a person works with legal counsel within the

confines of the tax code to legitimately minimize the amount of

taxes owed, that communication is no longer protected by attorney

-client privilege.



ONLY to the extent that a person uses that communication as part

of their defense when the legitimacy is not only questioned, but

tossed out entirely. You really can't say "I don't owe extra fines

related to bad faith because it wasn't bad faith because I relied

on my attorney and then not let what the attorney said enter into

it. That is well-established and nothing new.



What sort of government or rule of law do you people have where your

guilt or innocence (or tax penalty) is in some way based on the state of

your "faith" that what you were doing was within the rules, instead of

on the facts, as determined by a jury, that you did or didn't follow the

rules?

What sort? Seems like a very reasonable law to me. The tax code
is complex. The law apparently says that you can avoid paying penalties
on underpayment of taxes if you can show that what you did was based
on a legitimate belief that your interpretation and application of the
tax law and rules was correct. Apparently all you have to show is that
in the case of whatever is at issue, you believed that your application
of the law/rule was 50% or more likely to be correct. So, if there
was something where you were not sure, but thought it likely OK to take
a deduction for example, you don't owe a penalty. That seems very
reasonable and if the law didn't allow it, the same anti-govt wing nuts
would be bitching about that, and they would have a good point.

So, if you want to make a case out of not paying the penalty, then
of course what advice you were given before you filed the return is
fair gaime. And I agree with Kurt. If the attorney had told the
client that the deduction, application of the law, whatever was
legitimate, then any sane person would just agree to waive attorney-
client privilege on that one narrow issue. And it would instantly
prove their case. Almost certainly they were told it was not legitimate.

And the state of someone's mind going in to something isn't unique
to this tax code issue, either. There are criminal statutes that
involve whether you "knowingly", "purposefully", "intended", etc to
do something comes into play.