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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Swan Sentencing

Expand Messages
  • Tally Eddings
    You are not a criminally minded man and your prison sentencing for ANY time, even being indicted, is because you know too much about how the oppressive
    Message 1 of 7 , Jul 29, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      You are not a criminally minded man and your prison sentencing for ANY time, even being indicted, is because you know too much about how the oppressive government is functioning. Tell me, WHAT is accomplished by putting you in prison?

      FEAR.

      That is all they have.

      God bless and protect you.

      Sincerely,

      Tally Eddings
      Orlando, Florida
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Steven Swan
      To: Tips and Tricks
      Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 8:06 PM
      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Swan Sentencing


      On June 24, 2004, a federal judge in Concord, New Hampshire sentenced me to 9 years in federal prison for 18 felony violations of the internal revenue laws. Two of the counts against me were for filing Irwin Schiff-style Amended Zero Income Tax Returns for myself and 15 of the counts against me were for preparing Irwin Schiff-style Zero Income Tax Returns for others.
    • Kevin Hart
      Alfred, We the people shouldn t ever lower our standards just to cast a ballot for the lessor of two evils. The bible has stated in James 4:17 that: Therefore
      Message 2 of 7 , Jul 29, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Alfred,

        We the people shouldn't ever lower our standards just to cast a ballot for the lessor of two evils.

        The bible has stated in James 4:17 that: Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

        My question to the board is, do either one of these candidates reflect how you would like them to run this nation? If the answer is no, then cast your ballot for the minor Presidential Candidate instead of letting the lying RIP (Realty Impaired Press) and the RIM (Realty Impaired Media) tell us what is best for the nation. We are suppose to be free Americans, why don't we act like it for a change and let them know how you think and feel about what is going on here in America. Why don't reflect our views and cast the ballots where they will let the people in power tell us what we are to think and act like when they condition us to respond to them? This will send a powerful message to the traditional two party system that has failed the people for far to long. The two party system doesn't work well any more. The communist have both parties, the RIP and RIM in their pockets to use whenever it suits their need. Our view to the RIP and RIM is expressed at the following URL:
        http://paynoohioincometax.com/Pages/RIP_and_RIM.htm

        Tell everyone that you have higher standards than what they will attempt to lower you to become. If we act as they tell us, we deserve to be their salves. Let's tell everyone we meet know the truth of this message and get out there and do what is right as commanded by James 4:17 and tell them about this URL link if you agree with our view. If you don't agree with it now, you may agree with it later as more people are aware of how we are to act as free Americans. I'd ask the people one question after telling them our views on the two current Presidential Candidate. That being, are you a salve to the traditional two party system? Does either on of the two major parties reflect your view or do you want someone who reflects a candidate who represents your personal views of how you'd want this nation to be for the rest of the world to see? Our lights are dim and faint to the rest of the world and the rest of the world are laughing at us. Ask any foreigner if you leave this nation what
        they think of America and ask them to be honest with you and tell you the truth. It may surprise you when you see it from a different point of view outside the united States of America.

        America needs our voices and our actions. Please circulate this message out to everyone and let's take back America one person at a time. It the only way we can force them to work harder and harder to win the current governments of this nation. If anyone would like the current Communist Manifesto that both parties are now using to take us to course of destruction it leads to, I will furnish it to you. If enough people want it, I will put it up as a download for you to circulate to people before the election.

        As always, have an income tax-free day and life,

        /s/ Kevin Hart, All Rights Reserved
        General Manager
        Truth in Taxation Ministries
        http://www.paynoohioincometax.com
        (216) 253-5965

        Alfred Adask <alfredadask@...> wrote:
        I've just heard through the grapevine that Sherry Jackson, the former IRS agent and now superb IRS critic was raided today. It's only rumor, but it's my understanding the the good folks at the IRS took all of their former compatriots computer, software, disks, etc.
      • John Wilde
        The U.S. Attorney s offices are undermanned by as much as a third. DOJ attorneys are in their offices at 11:00pm on a Sunday night (my clients are getting
        Message 3 of 7 , Jul 30, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          The U.S. Attorney's offices are undermanned by as much as a third.
          DOJ attorneys are in their offices at 11:00pm on a Sunday night (my
          clients are getting calls at 8pm on a Sunday night in Phoenix, AZ).
          IRS, District Counsel attorneys are openly complaining about not having
          enough attorneys in the office.

          I liken to what is going on as the Battle of the Buldge. The
          gummint is making one last ditch offensive in an effort to break the
          movement. Just like that famous battle, the gummint is going to run out
          of fuel and we'll eventually get to send them marching back to
          Washington on foot.

          g'day
          John Wilde

          Alfred Adask wrote:

          >I've just heard through the grapevine that Sherry Jackson, the former IRS agent and now superb IRS critic was raided today. It's only rumor, but it's my understanding the the good folks at the IRS took all of their former compatriots computer, software, disks, etc.
          >
          >Simkanin, Swan, Sherry Jackson, Eddie Kahn, whatsisname in Las Vegas, Lynne Meredith, etc., etc.--the drooly constituted authorities are clearly concentrating on leaders of the tax resistence movement. I've heard that both Joe Bannister and John Turner (former IRS agents turned crtics) are also under some federal pressure. This is blatant political oppression and selective prosecution.
          >
          >
          >
        • Alfred Adask
          The issue of criminal intent is probably unnecessary if they charged Steven under penal law rather than criminal. So far as I know, penal law is defined as a
          Message 4 of 7 , Jul 30, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            The issue of criminal intent is probably unnecessary if they charged Steven under penal law rather than criminal.  So far as I know, penal law is defined as a CIVIL offense with attached criminal penalties. 
             
            The central issue of criminal law is the defendant's INTENT.  The central issue in penal law is the defendant's CONDUCT.
             
            The government much prefers to enforce penal codes rather than criminal codes because intent (under the criminal code) is very hard to prove (who knows what you really intended other than you?), while mere conduct is relatively easy prove and punish.
             
            I haven't studied the issue, but I suspect the Internal Revenue Code must be essentially "penal" in nature.  As criminal law, it would seem impossible to enforce since almost no one fully undertands the IRC and thus no one could be held accountable for "intentionally" violating some portion of that code.  How can anyone "intentionally" violate a law that virtually no one can understand?  How could the IRS prosecute a man criminally if he were able to show the jury that neither he nor the jurors nor even most government witnesses are even capable of understanding the IRC?  I.e., unless one is capable of understanding the law, one is necessarily incapable of forming the requisite intent to criminally violate that law.
             
            But if the IRC were enforced penally as a mere violation of conduct, that's would be relatively easy to enforce.  Did you or did you not file a 1040?  That's "conduct".  Did you do it or not do it.  Intent is irrelevant.  You don't need to know the law, you only need to obey it.  It's like traffic law.  If the officer stops you for driving 40 MPH in a 20 MPH school zone, he's not going to turn you loose if you argue you didn't know it was a school zone and therefore didn't intend to speed.  If you're speeding, you're guilty--penally--by virtue of your mere conduct.  But you're not guilty criminally since an issue of mere conduct does not depend on one's intent. 
             
            Again, I haven't studied the issue, but I'll bet that the IRC is much like traffic laws.  They are both probably penal in nature and thus enforceable against mere conduct.  Accidental violations are every bit as subject to punishment as intentional (criminal) violations since intent is not an element of the alleged crime.
             
            The question is:  How does a man become subject to penal rather than criminal laws?  I believe the answer is by unwittingly entangling himself in a trust relationship where he is presumed to be a fiduciary.  I suspect that, at bottom, Steven Swan was convicted of breach of his fiduciary obligations.
             
            Given that such obligations can be imposed by mere implication, Steven probably had no idea what he was really charged with and probably tried to make a "criminal" defense to a "penal" (civil) case.  He thought he was playing defense like a center fielder in a baseball game and only had to keep his eye out for ball hit to his position.  Instead, he was playing defensive safety in a football game and had to stop one man carrying the ball who was backed up by ten other blockers all eager to knock the defender into the ground. 
             
            I am only recently looking at penal law.  A cursory view of the Texas Penal Code suggests that that Code may have originated in A.D. 1973 and is therefore only about 30 years old.
             
            If any of the rest of you are interested in the Penal Codes of your state, I'd appreciated hearing when those penal codes originated.  I suspect they are all created since A.D. 1933. 
             
            Federal penal codes may go back much further, but if they do, it may be because criminal jurisdiction was originally confined to the States and penal may have been the only jurisdiction available for quasi-criminal prosecutions by the federales.
             
            Again, I'm only beginning to investigate penal codes and compare penal law to criminal.  I could be very mistaken in my initial impressions and I welcome correction.
             
            without prejudice to my God-given, unalienable Right and at arm's length,
            Alfred Adask
             
                 
             
             
             


            Tally Eddings <tallyeddings@...> wrote:
            You are not a criminally minded man and your prison sentencing for ANY time, even being indicted, is because you know too much about how the oppressive government is functioning. Tell me, WHAT is accomplished by putting you in prison?

            FEAR.

            That is all they have.

            God bless and protect you.

            Sincerely,

            Tally Eddings
            Orlando, Florida
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Steven Swan
              To: Tips and Tricks
              Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 8:06 PM
              Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Swan Sentencing


              On June 24, 2004, a federal judge in Concord, New Hampshire sentenced me to 9 years in federal prison for 18 felony violations of the internal revenue laws. Two of the counts against me were for filing Irwin Schiff-style Amended Zero Income Tax Returns for myself and 15 of the counts against me were for preparing Irwin Schiff-style Zero Income Tax Returns for others.





            http://www.antishyster.net
            without prejudice to my God-given, unalienable Rights
            at arm's length
            Alfred Adask


            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

          • jm367@bellsouth.net
            Yes, it s no longer pronounced a sentence of death, but the sentencing phase of the proceedings may yield the death penalty. Wangrud used to say there was no
            Message 5 of 7 , Jul 30, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes, it's no longer pronounced a sentence of death, but the sentencing phase of the proceedings may yield the death penalty.
              Wangrud used to say there was no criminal jurisdiction in admiralty, but I have found in old cases where the Government argued the reverse and many citations of the criminal jurisdiction in admiralty.
              All the States codified their common law in the 70's.   Now, State courts enforce statutes. 

              courts enforcing statutes do not act judicially. [Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579; FRC v. GE, 281 U.S. 464; Keller v. PE, 261 U.S. 428; Boswell's Lessee v. Otis, 50 U.S. 336 (1850)]

              Trial by jury is supposed to be a judicial trial.  How can it be trial by jury when the court of trial is not acting judicially ?  When Government was arguing for admiralty criminal jurisdiction, it argued if there was a jury to advise the court, there was trial by jury.

              What you are calling penal is merely criminal proceedings which, indeed, are civil law proceedings with penalties, as opposed to a common law trial for crime.  Criminal is what Congress says it is.  Crime is mala in se.

              In the context of criminal proceedings, legislatively authorized multiple punishments are permissible if imposed in a single proceeding, but impermissible if imposed in successive proceedings.  see Missouri v Huner 469 US 359.

              Bona fides non patitur, ut bis idem exigatur. Natural equity or good faith do not allow us to demand twice the payment of the same thing. Dig. 50, 17, 57.

              Are not multiple punishments multiple retribution for payment of the same thing ?

              I think they have rejected natural equity at the high court because in legal contemplation these are not people on trial, but things.

              ----- Original Message -----

              The issue of criminal intent is probably unnecessary if they charged Steven under penal law rather than criminal.  So far as I know, penal law is defined as a CIVIL offense with attached criminal penalties. 
               
              The central issue of criminal law is the defendant's INTENT.  The central issue in penal law is the defendant's CONDUCT.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.