“Motion in limine” means an effort to stop an opponent at the threshold (beginning) of a case. The government uses such a motion to stop IRS opponents from effectively arguing their case which they based on principles against which other courts have resolutely ruled, or which have utterly no relevance to the issues of the case. In the attached motion in limine, the government seeks to prevent the alleged taxpayers (Schwartzes) from prevailing by preventing the Schwartzes from presenting any case at all. They need to respond with a motion to strike or some other effort to get the court to allow them to put on their case as they planned.
What problem do we have with motions in limine? The fickleness and criminality of courts, of course. All judges pay income tax and therefore they suffer from prejudice against people like the Schwartzes against whom the IRS has a complaint. All jurors pay income tax and believe people like the Schwartzes should do the same. Besides that, panel courts like the appeals and Supremes often do not present unanimous rulings. Since even they disagree as to the meaning and applicability of the law, the arguments deserve to be thrashed out in every court of opportunity until they reach a unanimous ruling. Furthermore, unless the Supremes have heard and ruled on arguments, fairness and justice dictates that the opinions of lower courts really cannot rightly conclusively stand for the law.
Thus I give my opinion, one of principle here. Certainly the judges would and do disagree with me in practice, for I should know that they are the earthly equivalent of gods.
Here I give you the lead-in to the pleading. You will regurgitate those foul breakfast eggs when you read what evidence they want to suppress – every salient argument that might give the Schwartzes some hope of remedy.
Lindsey Patriot Comments as follows:
First, it is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 not 1990.
Second, the Plaintiff is not the "United States " it is the " United States of America ."
Third, it is not the IRS or the Court that has jurisdiction over the "person" but rather Article III provides both who the parties can be and what the limitation on their standing to bring any action in a Court under the Judicial Power of the United States. Where does the United States District Court obtain its "subject matter jurisdiction" over crimes? See 18 U.S.C. section 3231 which says "the District Courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the Courts of the States, over all offenses against the laws of the United States ."
Don Davis has no authority to represent a Grand Jury charge because the Grand Jury has no standing in a Judicial Power of the United States Court . Just try to find the words in Article III.
Once you get to Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, you will notice ol Don baby is carefully saying what cannot be raised, other than in establishing a defense of good faith, and it is up to the Defendants to dig deeper into his words of his motion to carefully separating not only when those words can appear uttered but upon who they can be uttered through.
Also, Defendants need to make the same Motion in Limine against Don ol boy or he will raise the issues he seeks limine on and they argue he is not prohibited.
Finally, Don relies upon saying the crime occurred in the Western District of Michigan. This Michigan is not the State of Michigan .
Defendants should also file a motion with the Court enquiring into the Court's relationship with Donald A. Davis. Judge Bell and Donald travel around the State of Michigan speaking to the Bar of the State of Michigan informing them how they handle Tax Protestor cases. They have a conspiracy together and these Defendants should move for Judge Bell's recusal on that ground alone.
Lindsey Springer 5.15.08