Post Content
|
Therefore, he had to give the absurd and unbelieveable answer in order to avoid his total embarrassment if he were forced to answer what he knew was going to be my follow up question.
In addition while he was on the witness stand I place a "zero" return in front of him and asked him to identify one statement on it that was false, and he was unable to do so. I believe the Government objected to my even asking him to do so.
The point is, a claim that is fundamental to the governments´ entire case was its claim that I am essentially a liar and a charlatan and simply do not believe what I say, write and teach in connection with income taxes. To refute such a claim, I was prepared to call no less than five attorneys who have known me over the years and most of whom had represented me in various matters in connection with my stand on income taxes. All of them were prepared to testify that overlooking the legal validity of my beliefs on the income tax, they all believed beyond any question that I held those beliefs honestly and sincerely. Their testimony alone would have knocked the Governments´ case into a cocked hat. But Judge Dawson would not let them to testify. Since California attorney Noel Spaid had already flown in, I put her on as a character witness, but told the other lawyers they need not show up, since they would not be allowed to testify.
Also Judge Dawson would not allow the following persons to testify concerning how they relied on my material and how I relied on research and information they supplied me:
1) Former IRS Agent Joe Bannister 2) Former IRS Revenue Officer John Turner 3) Bob Shultz, Chairman of "We the People" 4) The Governments´ own clinical psychologist, Daniel S. Hayes, Ph.D. L.L.C. whose analysis of me included the following: ...the research and documentation he believes to be in support of his beliefs, and the commitment and passion with which he holds his beliefs to be true. He appears to have extremely rigid, fixed, inflexible, doggedly determined opinions and beliefs that cannot be changed by others´ reasoning. And, in this case, even punishment has not had a corrective impact in his thinking or behaviors. He appears impervious to any suggestion that he reconsider his conclusions or his actions, in part because of the thorough research he has conducted which has yielded evidence and facts to support his conclusions, coupled with the fact that he considers himself to be an "expert" with knowledge that supercedes that of any other individual claiming to have expertise in this subject area. Most people have beliefs that have a greater degree of flexibility and openness to change than does Mr. Schiff. Although some may have beliefs that parallel Mr. Schiff´s, they differ from him in that they are unwilling to jeopardize their freedom and suffer the consequences of their beliefs to the degree that Mr. Schiff has. As a result, it would be almost impossible at this point in his life to persuade him that he is wrong, particularly since he feels that there are few if any individuals who could match the breadth and depth of knowledge he appears to have as a result of the time, effort, focus, and intellect he has devoted to the subject. Any arguments against him are likely to be seen by him as naive and sophomoric, and he is likely to dismantle any such arguments quickly and handily by quick reference to materials his opponent is unlikely to have at the ready for consideration and rebuttal.
He holds these beliefs with such conviction that even the severe consequences of incarceration for the rest of his natural life fails to shake his resolve. This does tend to set him apart from the average individual....He adamantly feels that he has discovered something that is very important to the American people regarding this nations´ economic and taxation practices, and whereas others who are not driven by a Mood Disorder might be more open minded to arguments, weigh personal consequences and elect not to pursue their campaign, Irwin Schiff has chosen a route fraught with significant and possible disastrous consequences."
His analysis alone eliminated any claim of "willfulness" which is what the Government continually repeated in its final argument to the jury. Both the prosecutors and Judge Dawson knew that Clinical Psychologist Daniel S. Hayes Ph.D., report made such a claim totally spurious.
MORE TO FOLLOW:
|