Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [tips_and_tricks] My Arraignment on the Government's Superseding Indictment

Expand Messages
  • Dessie Andrews
    I attempted to send this off line to Mr. Swan, but I assume his box has a block on it, as it came back. So as not to be a complete waste of my typing time,
    Message 1 of 2 , May 2, 2003
      I attempted to send this off line to Mr. Swan, but I assume his box has a block on it, as it came back.  So as not to be a complete waste of my typing time, I'm posting it:
      There are many reasons why you have already positioned yourself to go to jail.  Number one, when you were hauled in front of the magaistrate, you didn't question his ability to take a plea.  You are entitled to a fair and impartial law giver and a man who sits on the bench and fills out and funds 1040s is not impartial.  You have a judge who pays income taxes, a prosecutor who pays income taxes and an IRS CID agent who pays taxes sitting in front of you.  What do you think your chances are?  Was the judge one who was able to hear facts or was he an administrative judge subject to the executive branch?
      Perhaps you should have been studying and drawing your own conclusions rather than following Schiff blindly.  Irwin is fine, as far as he goes.  The 0 return was bunk, and he doesn't do it himself, but Irwin is a first course in a long and extended meal.  Irwin is a book publisher and his mission is to sell books.  He hasn't done any new research in years.  Surely, you might have noticed.  You have to take everything with a grain of salt and make your own investigations.  Even what I am telling you here.
      For instance.  You might investigate the authority of the District court to which you were summoned.  Does it have the right to sit and convene in one of the several states?  Where can it sit?  Are you a Federal employee and one who is subject to the "government's" actions?  Did you have assistance of counsel as promulgated by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution before you pled?  REad Argersinger v. Hamlin, a SC case.  The arraignment is every bit as crucial as the presentation to the jury.  You need to employ competent "assistance of counsel".  One who will uphold and guarantee your substantive rights.  One who will guarantee that your prosecutors do not violate any of the rights the "government" must uphold in the Bill of Rights.  Good luck on finding such counsel, yet, without such counsel, they can not proceed. 
      Do you have a diversity of citizenship issue?  They are U.S. citizens, what are you? 
      Those are far more important issues than what you are about to defend.
      -----Original Message-----
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Steven Swan [mailto:stevenswan@...]
      Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 3:47 PM
      To: Steven Swan
      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] My Arraignment on the Government's Superseding Indictment

      My Arraignment on the Government's Superseding Indictment
      On April 30th, I was arraigned in U.S. District Court in Concord, New Hampshire on 18 felony counts of allegedly violating the internal revenue laws. I has already been arraigned on these counts last March under the original indictment, but because the U.S. Attorney had made some mistakes on it, he brought forth a Superseding Indictment to correct them. He realized that I was going to do everything that I could to try to get these charges dismissed, so he figured he had better correct them now rather than waiting until later. So I had to appear in court again in order to plead "not guilty" again to all 18 counts. At least they didn't arrest me again this time. They simply issued me a summons which informed me when and where I was required to appear.
      The U.S. Attorney could have issued me a summons the first time rather than having me arrested. However, he was angry with me because I had attempted to assert my rights before the federal grand jury. So he had me arrested commando-style at my home-town Post Office by IRS Special Agents, who hauled me away in handcuffs and turned me over to the U.S. Marshal. Then the U.S. Marshal brought me before a U.S. Magistrate Judge so that I could plead "not guilty" and be released. It was a real show of force and entirely unnecessary. However, this is what the Government does in order to try to intimidate people.
      One of the reasons that the U.S. Attorney was angry with me was because he had set up an opportunity for me to appear before the federal grand jury that was investigating me to tell them my side of the story. However, before I could testify before the grand jury, I had to agree to allow a professional prosecuter interrogate me in front of them first so that he could get me to say things on the record that I didn't really mean to say. Then the U.S. Attorney could just bring up the statements I made before the grand jury at my trial and his job of attempting to convict me would be that much easier. They even brought an experienced trial attorney from the Tax Division of the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. to New Hampshire to interrogate me in front of the grand jury.
      However once I got in front of the grand jury, I informed them that they were an independent body and that they didn't have to agree to allow the Government ambush me before they could receive my testimony. So the experienced trial attorney from Washington didn't get to interrogate me and get me to say things on the record that I did not really mean. Because the U.S. Attorney was angry with me because I had spoiled his plan, he had me arrested rather than issuing me a summons to appear in court to plead to the charges.
      One of the things that a person must do any time he is being prosecuted is to ask questions and get things on the record any time there is a hearing. At my arraignment yesterday I asked the magistrate judge why I was arrested in order to be arraigned on the original indictment whereas I was only issued a summons this time. I told him that I believe that the U.S. Attorney was simply being vindictive for the reasons stated above. I also told him that I thought that the U.S. Attorney was being vindictive because shortly after the IRS had executed the search warrants against me in January of 2002, the U.S. Attorney had told me that if I were to plead guilty to some unspecified income tax crime, he would recommend to the court that I receive no more than 2 and a half years in prison. Because I was not about to plead guilty to a crime that I hadn't committed, I refused. So now the U.S. Attorney has indicted me on 18 felony counts and I am facing 54 years in prison and a $4 and a half million fine. Talk about being vindictive.
      The reason that I got into the income tax movement in the first place was because of the teachings of Irwin Schiff. For the last 13 years Schiff has convinced hundreds of thousands of Americans that the federal income tax is the biggest fraud that has ever been perpetrated upon the American people, that there is no law making the federal income tax mandatory, and that anyone can legally stop paying it.
      One of the reasons that I believed Schiff was correct in his income tax theories was that for 13 years the Government did nothing to try to prevent him from promoting his theories and from encouraging people to stop paying income taxes, even though he was doing so in a highly visible manner. In 1996, he even ran for the office of President of the United States as a way to get more exposure for his theories. I figured that if the Government wasn't prosecuting Schiff or otherwise trying to prevent him from promoting his income tax theories, then his theories must be correct. I was so convinced that his income tax theories were correct that I began helping him disseminate them to others.
      However over the years, I began to realize that some of Schiff's income tax theories were incorrect. Then after the IRS executed the search warrants at my home/office a little over a year ago, I came to the realization that none of Schiff's theories were correct. Then after I realized that none of Schiff's theories were correct, I began wondering why the Government had done nothing to Schiff for the past 13 years to try to prevent him from promoting his erroneous theories to the detriment to thousands of Americans who the IRS was attempting to collect money from. And it really began to bother me.
      Then it finally dawned on me that the reason that the Government had not bothered Schiff for so many years was because by allowing him to remain in business convincing people that they could legally stop paying income taxes, the IRS could collect much more money in taxes, penalties and interest than it otherwise could. Most people know that over time IRS penalties and interest increase substantially.
      In addition, the IRS could justify its requests for more IRS agents and IRS attorneys and the Justice Department could justify its requests for more Justice Department employees and Justice Department Attorneys. And both of these agencies could justify their requests for the ever-increasing annual budgets for their respective agencies. Many people believe that it is a natural tendency for Government to want to increase its size and to acquire more and more power for itself. By the IRS and the Justice Department purposely allowing Schiff to remain in business all these years so that they would have more common Americans to go after, these Government agencies were able to achieve all of these goals. Call it providing job security for themselves if you will.
      So I informed the magistrate judge at my arraignment that I believe that employees of the IRS and attorneys from the Justice Department had entered into a criminal conspiracy a long time ago to allow Schiff to remain in business for the reasons mentioned above. I informed him that I had written to the President, the Attorney General, the Inspectors General of the Treasury Department and the Justice Department, some Congressional committees, some individual Senators and Congressmen, and others requesting that they investigate this criminal conspiracy between the IRS and the Justice Department. I also informed him that I had formally requested the U.S. Attorney for my state to empanel a Special Grand Jury to investigate this criminal conspiracy.
      In addition, I informed him that as part of discovery in my case, I am going to be requesting from the Government copies of any evidence that the IRS or the Justice Department or the Treasury Department has about the income tax-related activities of Irwin Schiff over the past 13 years and any evidence that they have that Government employees have purposely allowed Schiff to remain in business all these years so that they would have more average Americans to go after.
      As you can see, I have a lot of work to do on my case. In addition to all of the above, I am also going to ask the court to rule the federal income tax unconstitutional because it is not imposed in accordance with the original intent of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. However, I still have a lot of work to do on my legal brief before I can submit it to the court. For more information on this, you can go to my Web site www.zeroincometax.com. To stay up to date on the Government's prosecution of me, you can go to www.stevenswan.com.
      Any donations that anyone can make to assist me in fighting this battle will be greatly appreciated. Just mail them to Steven A. Swan, P.O. Box 453, Auburn, NH 03032. To contribute by credit card, you can go to www.PayPal.com and make it to my e-mail address stevenswan@.... Or you can go to one of my Web sites.
      Thank you for any support you might be able to give me in this battle. I truly appreciate any help that I can get.
      Sincerely yours,
      Steve Swan

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.