mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (12/05/84)
All the legal sophistry about whether the IRS has the power to do this or that is very interesting, but I must protest the assumption that all members of the Federal government are biased in favor of letting the IRS steal from the taxpayers pockets by whatever means. In particular, I find this comment about a judge totally unfounded: > ...Of added interest in this case was the comment of District Court Judge > William T. Hart who, after the verdict was announced, told Ray that he > was "a very lucky man". Why was Ray "lucky"? The jury found him innocent. > Obviously he was lucky becaused the "judge" believed him to be guilty. But > a judge is supposed to be impartial. This is proof that the "judge" in > this case was not impartial (so, what else is new?) and thus could not > even function as a judge in this case. He believed that Ray was guilty even > after the jury pronounced him innocent! So much for federal judges... No evidence is presented that shows the judge believed Ray guilty BEFORE the trial, nor is evidence presented that shows the judge allowed his personal opinion to influence the conduct of the trial. The judge's job was not to judge the guilt of the defendant but to judge the fairness of the proceedings. Having heard all the arguments, it is only natural that the judge would have an opinion, and I do not see why it is unreasonable for him to continue to disagree with the jury. The jury's findings may be legally binding, but few people claim that God personally inspires juries to speak divine truth. This newsgroup will be better served by sticking to arguments with a factual basis. -- _Doctor_ Jon Mauney, mcnc!ncsu!mauney \__Mu__/ North Carolina State University