Peter Schiff asks, "How do I prove I've never eaten a ham sandwich!?"

[Knightskye]

YouTube - Peter Schiff The Schiff Report Video Blog May 4 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4r7546ep98#t=7m07s)

:)

No due process if the government thinks you own a foreign bank account.

Brought to you by the "Constitutional Law Professor"-in-chief.

[hotbrownsauce]

YouTube - Peter Schiff Wasted Bailout Billions April 21 2009 CNN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0fQwYfbigY#t=2m08s) watch at the 2 minute 8 second mark

Summary.... the government thinks it can do what ever it want. The only thing stopping it from complete take over of our liberty is us, but for how much longer?

[Bern]

It's what Ron Paul was asking in a very rambling, round-a-bout way here:

YouTube - Ron Paul: Why Doesn't the Government Have To Prove Guilt? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=AXJb-JkysEQ)

If you are spreading this around to other places, you might find these links helpful:


...
The burden of proof is a legal term that refers to a party's duty to prove a disputed assertion. The burden of proof is generally on the petitioner. This means that you need to bring to court evidence, such as documents and testimony of witnesses (you and maybe others), to prove that the determination of the IRS is not correct and that your position is correct.

There are some limited circumstances where the burden of proof is on the IRS. For the burden of proof to shift to the IRS on a factual issue, the petitioner must introduce credible evidence in court with respect to that issue. The petitioner must also comply with substantiation and record-keeping requirements set forth in the tax laws. Also the petitioner must show that he or she cooperated with reasonable requests from the IRS for witnesses, information, documents, meetings, and interviews. In most cases, the burden of proof does not shift to the IRS and the petitioner must show that the IRS's determinations are wrong.
...

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/taxpayer_info_during.htm#DURING7


...
For individuals, Obama will propose shifting the burden of proof when the IRS believes money is being hidden offshore. In cases where individuals bank with financial institutions that haven’t agreed to report certain account information to the IRS, the individual will have to prove he or she doesn’t own the account, rather than requiring the IRS to prove ownership.
...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4.7CIfqd5h0&refer=home

[eduardo89]

haha i love his analogies. I must admit, i've stolen a few of them, they're just too good

[Knightskye]

haha i love his analogies. I must admit, i've stolen a few of them, they're just too good

YouTube - Peter Schiff Analogies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vweLBpE4mso)

Totally. :D

[roho76]

YouTube - Peter Schiff The Schiff Report Video Blog May 4 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4r7546ep98#t=7m07s)

:)

No due process if the government thinks you own a foreign bank account.

Brought to you by the "Constitutional Law Professor"-in-chief.

Are those shredded tax forms on the desk behind him? Ha. Just kidding.

[nate895]

Government: This man, Leonard Goldstein, has eaten a ham sandwich, and he is a registered person of the Jewish faith.

Judge: You have eaten a ham sandwich, in violation of your religious registration as a person of the Jewish Faith. Your possible sentence could be 10 years in prison should you not prove that you did not eat a ham sandwich.

Leonard: I didn't eat the sandwich.

Government: Prove it.

Leonard: But I...

Judge: (interrupting) Order, only proof will be accepted.

Leonard: I don't have any, but I...

Judge: (interrupting) Silence. Since you have proven yourself incapable of proving your innocence, you must be guilty, and I therefore sentence you to ten years of hard labor in service to your government.

[eduardo89]

Did anyone catch peter's vblog today, he's going to decide whether to run for senate within the next few weeks! Let's keep our fingers crossed!

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Did anyone catch peter's vblog today, he's going to decide whether to run for senate within the next few weeks! Let's keep our fingers crossed!

Yeah, right here:

YouTube - Peter Schiff The Schiff Report Video Blog May 8 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxdp7gFe1no)

Sounds like he really might do it. If so, 2010 is going to open up quite a powerful volley, what with Rand Paul, Kokesh, and maybe Schiff running!

[Knightskye]

Are those shredded tax forms on the desk behind him? Ha. Just kidding.

:)

[mczerone]

It's what Ron Paul was asking in a very rambling, round-a-bout way here:

YouTube - Ron Paul: Why Doesn't the Government Have To Prove Guilt? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=AXJb-JkysEQ)

If you are spreading this around to other places, you might find these links helpful:



http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/taxpayer_info_during.htm#DURING7



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4.7CIfqd5h0&refer=home

Great research!

When debating a statist they will respond with "well the burden of proof (or persuasion) is just a construct for our criminal or civil courts, they have no sway in a Section 16 (IRS) Court."

The flaw in that logic is because they have failed to see why there is this burden on the plaintiff - because assuming guilt or liability for any claim encourages fraudulent claims or claims that cannot be easily disproven.

For instance - what if you took $20k/mo. out of your business for a perfectly lawful, but maybe embarrassing, purpose - lets say under the table child support for your secret children. If the government doesn't think that you've paid enough in taxes - they can charge you with evasion and claim that you've been putting that money into a tax shelter.

Now what? Come clean with what you've been doing with the money, or make a plea deal with the lawyers who all answer to the same State and Federal regulators?

Land of the Free (to search your car, wallet, home, to make claims against you that are taken at face value as proof of the claim, and to spend your money however a few people vote to spend it) and Home of the Brave (Brave enough to send others to die to justify a warfare state).