Next Page | Contents | IRS Abuse Reports | Profound Honesty | Previous Page
| CA-93-10703/September 12, 1994 U.S. 9th-Circuit Court of Appeals Oral Argument by Frank R. Wallace before appellate judges Robert R. Beezer, Jerome Farris, Linda McLaughlin |
Your honors: My written brief contains the legal points of this appeal. Those points are based on a-point law: meaning technical points and case law. But, for all a points, one must ask, "What is the point?" The point behind this appeal is singular: Objective law must be upheld.
My written brief cites a number of illegalities by the judge and prosecutor who improperly forced a conviction. That brief identifies those illegalities with citations from the trial transcripts, case law, and affidavits.
My oral argument today focuses on the violations of objective law that led to an improper conviction:
The trial testimony under the honesty oath explained how all tax obligations were met in excess by the defendant through the Golden Helmet.
The Golden Helmet recognizes that through excess personal acquisitions, one increasingly loses his or her potential to create, produce, and deliver maximum values to others and society. The trial testimony explains how and why the defendant lived monastically, lived a life of being rather than a life of having. He lived a life of creating not consuming, personally drawing no taxable income for the years in question. ...The prosecution neither challenged nor cross-examined that testimony. Thus, the prosecution accepted the Golden-Helmet testimony in full.
So, why was the defendant convicted? In addition to the trial errors detailed in the written brief, the defendant was blocked from obtaining his own business and accounting records. Such facts and figures would prove that (1) the defendant had no personal tax liability, and (2) more than the required taxes were always paid through the Golden Helmet.
Indeed, without those facts and figures contained in the seized records, the confusion among the jury was obvious: As the transcripts reveal, a mistrial nearly resulted from a juror's aggressive quest to a bailiff for more information about the Golden Helmet on behalf of herself and the other jurors. That quest went unfulfilled, leaving the jurors confused and dependent on an intimidating judge demanding a conviction.
Now, why was the defendant unable to provide the jury with the specific facts and figures from the seized financial records? Because the prosecution withheld from the defendant key records and accounting figures seized by armed IRS agents in 1986 -- key documents covering the three years in question.
Just days before the trial in August 1993, the prosecution handed the defendant only a cherry-picked portion of the discovery -- only that portion to be used out of context against the defendant. The prosecution withheld all evidence favorable to the defendant -- especially the computer accounting records that would have let the defendant prove his testimony with specific facts and figures buried in that discovery.
Those facts and figures were contained in the never returned books, files, and computer disks. The IRS had seized not only 100% of the original disks but 100% of the backup disks. At any time after April, 1990, the prosecution could have easily, simply provided the defendant with a copy of its paid informant's bookkeeping records as well as a copied set of the seized computer disks to fulfill its discovery obligations.
Why did not the prosecution simply provide that discovery as soon as this case became an open-file case in April, 1990? Because, giving the defendant those disks and bookkeeping records with enough time to develop them into evidence would have vanished the prosecution's case.
Despite numerous requests by the defendant dating back to 1990, the prosecution did not allow access to that discovery until just days before the scheduled date of the second trial. The defendant's voluntary accountant promptly went to the IRS evidence room to examine the discovery. Over a period of two days, he inventoried an overwhelming amount of discovery: seized assets, cartons, personal diaries, files, bookkeeping records, and computer disks. Then, in his affidavit, as exhibited in my brief, the accountant estimated that just to print out the seized computer records from pre-1986 Radio-Shack Tandy disks on obsolete printing equipment in the IRS evidence room would require up to 81 days involving up to 2610 documents on 87 disks.
Within that huge accumulation of records, which had not been seen for 7 to 10 years, lie the data not just to demonstrate but to prove factually the Golden-Helmet taxpayments.
Yet, to properly prepare for the trial and present the Golden Helmet, the defendant already needed 16-hour work days right up to the trial date. Thus, the defendant knew that, without a continuance, that massive discovery could not be used. Those few days before trial were urgently needed for basic trial preparation, exhibit preparation, and crucial motions.
Moreover, even if the full discovery had been presented to the defendant in a usable form and work commenced around the clock, time would still have been grossly insufficient to pull together three full years of records and accounting figures in those few remaining days before the trial. Time simply did not exist for converting that multi-year-delayed discovery into trial evidence -- evidence that factually proves the defendant's absence of tax liability.
Both the prosecution and the judge were fully aware of that time problem as presented in both the defendant's written and oral motions for a single continuance. Yet, the prosecution declined to stipulate and the judge denied the defendant's fully documented motion justifying that continuance. The judge's denial prevented any chance to utilize the newly availed discovery. ...Thus, the denial of that continuance saved the case for the prosecution by effectively denying discovery to the defendant.
Still, through careful trial preparation and utilizing the honesty oath for the first time in judicial history, the defendant was grateful to present the Golden Helmet, in part at least, in a court trial. Although the presentation was undermined by the denied discovery and a vindictively biased judge as detailed in the written brief and trial transcripts, the defendant exercised restraint. He exercised that restraint in order to avoid any future, out-of-context claim by the judge or prosecutor that the honesty oath was in any way abusively used in its very first courtroom application. That restraint was exercised even though the judge defensively, subjectively, in front of the jury, mocked the honesty oath twice. ...A noncontroversial courtroom experience was important for developing the full legal potential of the honesty oath for the future benefit of society, including the prosecution and the court.
During the trial, the judicial and prosecutorial errors prevented the jurors from learning the contextual facts -- the factual proof behind the testimony demonstrating no criminal intent or tax liability. And, most important, the opportunity was denied to fully demonstrate in a court of law the meaning, legality, and supreme value of the Golden Helmet to all governments and societies.
Let us deliver our civilization from the arbitrary rule of subjective law -- from the rule of political-agenda laws and personal egos that place self-serving bias above justice. Let us build a new civilization based on objective law free from the arbitrary whims of dishonest politicians, destructive bureaucrats, and ego-driven judges. For, a civilization ruled solely by objective law yields eternal peace and prosperity.
Today, the following fact is known: By combining Neo-Tech's continuing court efforts with its expanding penetration of worldwide cyberspace communications, the Golden Helmet will increasingly become understood and accepted by the world's populations. Indeed, by eliminating ego "justice", the Golden Helmet will reshape our political and economic futures to deliver its promise of eternal peace and prosperity.
Next Page | Contents | IRS Abuse Reports | Profound Honesty | Previous Page
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com