Clarkson and Schiff. http://www.paynoincometax.com/
In 1986, 99.5 million Americans were tricked into filing and paying federal income taxes when legally; they didn’t have to do either. If this statement shocks you, it is only because you and the rest of the nation have been thoroughly deceived by the federal government (with federal courts playing the key role), and an army of accountants, lawyers, and other tax preparers. All of these have a vested interest in keeping you ignorant concerning the real nature of federal income taxes.
The Schiff Trial
Irwin’s Great Giveway
Answer to Order to Show Cause and motion to Vacate and Dismiss said Order
Write a Letter of Support and Thanks to Irwin Schiff. As of 04/02/11 his location is as follows:
FCI Terre Haute,
PO Box 33,
Terre Haute IN 47808
Download the BANNED
Who is Irwin Schiff
Toledo Law School
Lien & Levy Packet
Video & Audio
Irwin Schiff’s 2004 “ZERO” Tax Return
Irwin Schiff Railroaded by IRS by JIM DAVIES of SimplySchiff e-groups Click Here
Criminal Character of Judge Dawson Exposed plus Exhibit
Link 1 Link 2
July 17th Motions
Irwin’s Letter to
Apr 26, Motion to Dismiss.
The government opposed on
Schiff replied on May 27, 2005.
This motion and the reply, expose the entire fraudulent character of the federal income tax and it’s criminal enforcement by the federal government.
Las Vegas Tribune April 1, 2005
Read Irwin’s Testimony before Congress from “The Biggest Con”
appears in “America Freedom to Fascism” by Aaron Russo!
Irwin’s Counselor, Shelly Waxman has 5 books available at Amazon
Important Notice – Please Read:
On October 14, 2008, Las Vegas Federal Judge, Lloyd D. George pursuant to to a summary judgment (i.e. no hearing) gave the United States a permanent injunction, barring Cindy and myself from doing things we don’t do anyway and asking me to remove from my website material that is also not there. (No I’m not kidding). On November 24, 2008 I filed a 23 page motion requesting Judge George to stay his injunction pending a review by the Ninth Circuit.
It is extremely important that you read both documents below, since they will provide you with unique and overwhelming proof the the U.S. Justice Department knowingly enforces the “income tax” in violation of law, while Federal judges, knowingly do the same thing. More proof that organized crimes in the U.S. begin with the Federal government.
After I posted Judge George’s “Permanent Injunction” Ruling, and my response to it; the Court sent me its related “Order,” to which I subsequently responded. In order to appreciate the full extent of the income tax hoax, I urge everybody to read all four documents. There is really not that much to read, considering how clear these show that the government is the one scamming the American People.
Below is the first of 4 documents organized, first the government followed by my response, then the order and then my supplemental response in PDF format.
Case 2:03-cv-00281-LDG-RJJ Document 251 Filed 10/15/2008 Click for the PDF version.
Findings of Fact. Based on the evidence and the parties’ arguments, the Court finds as follows:
(1) Defendants Irwin Schiff and Cynthia Neun promote abusive tax schemes including Schiff’s “zero income” tax return scam, which incites and assists customers to file false federal income tax returns claiming they received zero income and owe zero taxes. The defendants promote their schemes through seminars, radio shows, and advertisements, and charge customers for products and services related to their abusive tax schemes;
(2) Schiff and Neun also have interfered with the administration of the internal revenue laws by appearing with customers at IRS appeals hearings and encouraging their customers to raise frivolous arguments, by inciting and assisting customers to file frivolous lawsuits and Tax Court petitions and by inciting and assisting customers to send frivolous correspondence and other documents to the IRS;
(3) Schiff and Neun and their Freedom Books associates and employees have continually and repeatedly prepared and filed federal income tax returns (IRS Forms 1040), falsely claiming that their customers have no taxable income based
on Schiff’s frivolous theories and arguments;
(4) The returns that Schiff and Neun and their associated entities have continually and repeatedly prepared are based on unrealistic positions, namely Schiff’s claims that paying taxes is voluntary and that wages and other income are not subject to taxation, and result in a gross understatement of their customers’ tax liability;
(5) Schiff and Neun knew or should have known that their representations regarding the “zero income” tax return scheme and the tax benefits to be derived from participation in their scheme are false because (1) the “zero income” tax return scheme is frivolous on its face, (2) there are numerous judicial decisions rejecting this and similar “zero income” schemes, (3) Schiff has been convicted twice of tax crimes for asserting these and similar arguments, (4) at least four people who followed Schiff’s program have been convicted of tax crimes, and (5) Schiff, individually and through Neun, and Freedom Books advertisements, holds himself out as an expert in tax law;
(6) Absent this permanent injunction, Schiff and Neun will continue to promote the abusive tax schemes;
(7) Schiff’s “zero income” tax return scheme and the “payment of income taxes is voluntary,” “there is no law requiring Americans to file tax returns or pay income taxes,” and “the income tax only applies to corporate profits” arguments on which the “zero income” tax return scheme is based, are frivolous and without merit; and
(8) The public is served by granting this injunction. This permanent injunction will help stem the spread of and protect the public from defendants’ fraudulent tax schemes. To the extent that any of the factual findings above can also be construed as legal
conclusions, the factual findings shall also serve as conclusions of law.
Conclusions of Law
The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345, and 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(a), 7407, and 7408. Based on the evidence presented by the United States and the defendants, the Court finds that Irwin Schiff and Cynthia Neun, individually and doing business as Freedom Books, http://www.paynoincometax.com, and http://www.ischiff.com, are engaging in conduct subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6694, 6695, 6700, and 6701. Accordingly, the court finds that Schiff and Neun, and their associated entities and websites should be
permanently enjoined under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7407, and 7408. The Court finds that the United States and the public will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of this permanent injunction and that Schiff and Neun will suffer little, if any, harm if the permanent injunction is granted. The United States has shown that Schiff’s and Neun’s tax positions are frivolous. Further, the United States has shown the public interest will be served through granting this permanent injunction.
Finally, the evidence presented by the United States and the defendants show that absent this permanent injunction, Schiff and Neun will continue to violate 26 U.S.C. §§ 6694, 6695, 6700, and 6701 and interfere with the enforcement of the internal revenue laws. Accordingly, the Court finds that a permanent injunction under 26 U.S.C. § 7402 is necessary and appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws. Order Based on the foregoing factual findings and for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS that defendants Irwin Schiff and Cynthia Neun, individually and doing business as Freedom Books, http://www.paynoincometax.com, and http://www.ischiff.com, and their agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Order are permanently enjoined from:
(1) Engaging in activity subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6700, including organizing or selling a plan or arrangement and making a statement regarding the excludibility of income that they know or have reason to know is false or fraudulent as to any material matter;
(2) Engaging in activity subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6701, including preparing and/or assisting in the preparation of a document related to a matter material to the internal revenue laws that includes a position that they know will result in an understatement of tax liability;
(3) Making false or misleading statements when marketing or advertising any tax-related products or services, including books, videotapes, audiotapes, seminars, packages, and consultation sessions;
(4) Making any statements, whether written or oral, that, in light of the situation, are likely to incite others to imminently violate the law, including to evade the assessment, payment, and collection of taxes;
(5) Assisting or aiding others to violate the law, including to evade the assessment and payment of taxes, through any means, including through giving in-person advice, posting information on the Internet, or selling books, tapes, CDs, that instruct or explain how to fill out fraudulent or false tax returns or other documents to be filed with the IRS;
(6) Providing any tax advice or services for compensation, including providing consultative services, “witness” services, or other tax advice to, or purported representation of, customers;
(7) Engaging in other activity that hinders the enforcement of internal revenue laws, including instructing and assisting others to file frivolous lawsuits or to disrupt and impede IRS audits and IRS or judicial Collection Due Process Hearings;
(8) Preparing or assisting in the preparation of any federal income tax returns for any other person;
(9) Engaging in any conduct subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6694, i.e., preparing any part of a return or claim for refund that includes an unrealistic position;
(10) Engaging in any conduct subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6695, i.e., failing to sign and furnish the correct identifying number on tax returns that they prepare; and
(11) Engaging in any other activity subject to injunction or penalty under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7407, 6694 or 6695, including fraudulent or deceptive conduct that substantially interferes with the proper administration of the internal revenue laws; Further, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7402, the Court ORDERS that, within ten days of the date of this order, Schiff and Neun must place this order, in its entirety, on the http://www.paynoincometax.com, and http://www.ischiff.com “Home” pages (i.e., the first page seen when accessing the websites at the listed addresses), prominently featured at the top so that it is easily visible and readable without further action. The defendants must also remove from their websites and others signs and advertising all information that violates this order, including false commercial speech, speech that violates 26 U.S.C. §§ 6700, and speech that assists or is likely to incite others to violate the law.
Further, that the United States be permitted to engage in post-injunction discovery to monitor Schiff’s and Neun’s compliance with this and any other order entered by this Court.
SO ORDERED this _______ day of _____________, 2008. _________________________________
LLOYD D. GEORGE Senior United States District Judge
Prepared by: s/MICHAEL J. ROESSNER MICHAEL J. ROESSNER Trial Attorney, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 7238 Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: (202) 305-3227 Attorney for Plaintiff United States
There is a five line quote on page 12 of my motion, that I say appears on page 2 of the Court’s Order. Actually it was in the Government’s “Reply To My Objection To Its Motion For Summary Judgment.” However in paragraphs (3) & (4) of page 2 of the Court’s Order, Judge George says about the same thing.
Notice (page 5, last line) where Judge George talks about speech that is likely to “incite” others to violate the law. This is his attempt to fraudulently bring material on my website into the following quote of Justice Brandies as contained in, Whitney v. Cal., 274 U.S. 357, 376.
Even advocacy of [law] violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on.
So Brandies points out that even advocating violations of law is protected speech. Only when the speech might incite others to immediately break the law – like inciting a mob to storm a jail and drag the prisoner out for a lunching – is such speech not protected. Does anyone believe that someone who has paid taxes all his life (and overlooking all my warnings and disclaimers) is going to read something on my web site an immediately run out and break the law? So how can Judge George believe he can legally censor anything on my website?
But remember we are now dealing with the Federal Mafia and my website may be in danger, so download and save as much material as you can.
The following is my motion to stay the permanent injunction:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA UNITED STATES, v. IRWIN SCHIFF & CYNTHIA Plaintiff, NEUN,
Civil No. Motion for Permanent CV-S-03-0281-LDG-RJJ Motion for stay of the Permanent Injunction
Pursuant to Rule 18 (0) (1) of the Fed. Rules of Appellate Procedure permanent injunction issued defendant Schiff moves for a stay of the by this Court on October 14, 2008 pending review of its Order by the Ninth Circuit, for the following reasons.
The Court Gave No Reason Why the Government Was Entitled to a Summary Judgment and Indeed the Government Was Not Entitled To One Because the practical result of applying the summary judgment is to deprive the party against whom judgment is granted of a trial in the usual course, the remedy is a drastic one that should be used with great caution. Schuck v. Motefiore, 2001 ND 93, 626 N.W.2d 698. Although summary judgment saves time, effort, and expense by avoiding a full trial I under certain circumstances, those savings may not be gained at the expense of denying a litigant the right of trial if there is a genuine issue of material fact to be litigated. Iannelli v. Burger King Corp. , 761 A.2d 417 (N.H. 2000).
Because a summary judgment proceeding is a drastic remedy, strict compliance with the applicable rule is required (U.S. v. Bosurgi, 530 F.2d 1105; Parmedmelee v. Chicago Eye Shiel Co., 157 F.2d 582, 168 A.L.R. 1130 (C.C.A. 8th Cir. 1946), and this is so whether or not the opposing affidavits are sufficient. Manchester Memorial Hospital v. Whitney, 6 Conn. Cit. Ct. Ct. 212, 269 A.2d 300
(App Div 1969). Rule 56 provides that summary judgment “should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Rule 56 of the Fed. R. Civ. P also provides that supporting and opposing affidavits in a summary judgment proceeding shall be made on personal knowledge. In this case the Government in seeking summary judgment submitted no affidavits while the defendant submitted a 66 page sworn statement (plus 31 pages of the Government’s answers to Admissions and Interrogatories plus 9 other relevant Exhibits) opposing the Government’s request for summary judgment. In addition, on the basis of the Government’s answers and non-answers to discovery requests, defendant Schiff filed a sworn statement of “Uncontested Issues of Fact” which the Government did not contest and which the Court in its Order did not contest, let alone refute.
Defendant’s sworn “Uncontested Issues of fact” (which the Court could verify based on the Government’s discovery answers which were attached to Schiff’s 66 page Objection to the Government’s Motion for summary judgment) stated, the following as being “Uncontested Issues of Fact” in this litigation:
1) There is no statute in the Internal Revenue Code that specifically makes persons “liable” for an “income” tax.
2) When the United States uses the term “income” in this litigation, it uses the term in its ordinary, every day sense, and does not use the term in its “constitutional” sense.
3) When the United States uses the term “income” in this litigation, it does not separate such income from its sources, but alleges that the sources themselves are subject to an “income” tax.
4) The United States cannot identify how and in what manner “The Federal Mafia” advises people to file “false and fraudulent” W-4’s.
5) The United States cannot quote (giving the page number) any statement in “The Federal Mafia” that is “false and Fraudulent.”
6) The United States cannot quote any statement as contained in a ‘zero” return that is “false and fraudulent.”
7) The United States cannot cite any statute in the the Internal Revenue Code which authorizes the IRS Commissioner (or the-IRS) to enforce and administer a federal “income” tax.
8) The United States cannot produce a delegation order from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Commissioner of the IRS delegating him with the authority to enforce and administer an “income” tax which was published in the Federal Register.
All of the above, sworn to facts, supported by the government’s answers, and non answers to discovery questions, had to be held as true by this
Court. Instead, the Court simply ignored these uncontested facts when it unlawfully granted the Government a summary judgment.
Facts asserted by a party opposing a summary judgment motion, and supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material must be regarded as true. Anderson p. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 US 242, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 4 Fed. R. Servo 3rd 1041 (1986); Van Houten Svc.v Shell Oil, 417 F. Supp. 523 (D.N.J. 1975), aff’d 546 F.2d 421 (3rd Cir 1976); Dobson v. Harrise, 352 N.C. 77, 530 S.E. 2d 829 (2000). In deciding on motion for summary judgment, all factual disputes (Gen. Elec. V. Joiner,522 US 136, 118 S. Ct. 512, 139 L. Ed. 2nd 508, 48 Fed. R. Evidence. Service 1 (1997).) and justifiable or reasonable inferences are to be resolved favorably for the non moving party and against the moving party. Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 US 541, 119 S Ct. 1545, 143 L. Ep. 2d 731 (1999); Grayson v. McGowan , 1543 F.2d 79 (9th Cir. 1976; Quinn, V. Syracuse Model Corp. , 613 F. 2d 438 II (2d Cir. 1980).
Affidavits of the moving party for summary judgment (not submitted /in this case) should be strictly construed, while those of the opponent .should be liberally construed. Hatch v. Bush, 215 Cal.. App. 2d 692, 30 Cal. Rptr. 397 13 A.L.R. 3rd 503 (1st Dist. 1963).
Also a court hearing a motion for summary judgment must construe all the pleadings, liberally in favor of the party against whom the motion is made. First Bank of Chicago v. Pendell, 651 F. 2d 419 (5th Cir. 1981), In addition, all doubt and all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn .from the evidence will be resolved against a party moving for a summary judgment, (Deshazer v. Tompkins, 89 Idaho 347, 404 P.2d 604 (1965); Breen v. Peck, 28 N.J. 351, 146 A.2d 665, 73 A.L.R. 2d 390 (1958), ruling that in determining the right to a summary judgment, all doubts must be resolved against the moving party.), and the evidence and inferences will be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Aka v. Jefferson Hosp, 344 Ark. 627, 42 S.W. 3d 508(2001); Appleton v. Board of Educ. Town of Stonington , 254 Conn. 205,757 A.2d 1059, 146 Ed. Law Rep. 1097 (2000).
The appellate court, as well as the trial court, must view the record on summary judgment in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is rendered. Stanturf v. Sipes, 447 S.W.2d 558, 35 A.L.R. 3rd 834 (Mo 1969)
In addition, the mere fact that this Court awarded the Government a preliminary injunction does not constitute final adjudication of the ultimate rights in controversy. Shoemaker v. County of Los Angeles, 37 Cal. App. 4th 618, 43 Cal. rptr. 2d 774, 102 Ed. Law Rep. 259 (2d. Dist. 1995).
Whether a preliminary injunction is granted or denied has no effect on whether a final, permanent injunction will ultimately be issued. Berger By and Through Berger West Jefferson Hill School Dist., 669 A. 2d 1084, that issue must be resolved at trial; Gambar Enterprises, Inc. v. Kelly Services, 69 A.S 2d 297, 418 N.Y.S. 2d 818 (4th Dep’t 1979).
The findings of fact and conclusions of law made in a preliminary injunction do not preclude the reexamination of the merits at a subsequent trial; the parties are free to offer additional evidence, and the court can come to opposite conclusions. Irish Lesbian & Gay Organization v. Giuliani, 143 F. 3d 638(2d Cir. 1998); Electronic Design & Mfg. v. Konopka, 272 Ill. App. 3d 410 208 Jll. Dec. 563, 649 N.E.2d 619 (1st Dist 1995; Toho Co. Ltd v. William Morrow & Co., Inc, 33 F. Supp 2d 1206 46 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1801 (C.O. Cal. 1998).
A final and permanent injunction can be granted only following a final hearing on the merits. U.S. v. Baltimore & ‘ O.R. Co 225 u.s. 306, 32 S. Ct. 817, 56L. Ed 1100 (Comm. Ct. 1912); Plummer v. Am. Inst. of C.P.A.’s, 97 F. 3rd 220 (7th Cit. 1996)
In addition the Court failed to mention in its decision that the injunction is being awarded to the Government on the basis of a summary judgment; nor does the Court explain why the Government was entitled to a summary judgment, and why the defendants -whose First Amendment rights were being abridged -were not entitled to a trial on the merits. In addition, unlike the litigation that led to the preliminary injunction, in connection with the permanent injunction, the defendants got discovery, which led to the following factual revelations.
1) The Government could not identify any law that specifically made persons “liable” for income taxes. (As fully covered in pages 8-12 in Schiff’s Response to the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment, here and after referred to as SR)
2) The Government could not identify any law that fell into Subtitle A (the Subtitle dealing with income taxes) that required persons “to pay” income taxes. (Pages 12-13 of SR)
3) The Government admitted to not knowing the legal meaning of “income.” (pages 13-17 of SR)
4) The Government could not explain in what way “The Federal Mafia” advises people to file false W-4’s. (Pages 17-23 of SR)
5) The Government could not identify any statement in “The Federal Mafia” that was either “false or fraudulent.” (See pages 23-27 of SR)
6) The Government admitted (by default) that compliance with income tax statutes is voluntary. In order to avoid admitting that the income tax is based on voluntary compliance and not on twice compulsory compliance, the Government claimed, among other things, that it did not know the difference between “voluntary compliance” and “compulsory compliance.” (See pages 27-34 of SR)
7) By failing to deny two relevant Admissions, the Government in fact admitted that the IRS has no statutory authority to enforce the Federal income tax. (See pages 35-36 of SR)
8) The Government could not identify one statement in “The Federal Mafia” that is false. (See pages 36-42 of SR) Therefore, not only did the Court disregard all of the material and significant revelations revealed in the Government’s answers to discovery requests (which should have resulted in the Court’s giving summary judgment to defendants, and not the other way around (l), but the Court also disregarded all the provisions of Rule 56 and all of the case law cited above, as well as all the factual claims established by defendants (which went un-refuted by the United States), illegally resolved every factual issue which it either ignored or misrepresented -in favor of the Government. In addition as shown below, the Court based its injunction on facts that it had to know were false.
1. “Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, a court may grant summary judgment in favor of a party that did not request it, but only upon proper notice to the adverse party.” ; citing, Daniels v. McKay Machine, 607 F.2d 771 (7th Cir 1979); and Snelwar v. Snelwar, 27 Misc. 2d 933, 212 N.Y.S.2d 882 (Sup 1961).As quoted in Am. Jur. Vol 73 ” 61. Defendants did not seek a summary judgment, since they believed a trial on the merits was in the public’s interest.
It is clear from all of the above, and the First Amendment issue involved, defendants were entitled to a trial in which to cross-examine Government witnesses. This is further clearly established in “American Jurisprudence 2d”, Vol. 42 t1 264 which states:
An application for a permanent injunction is determined on the merits only after a full evidentiary trial, (70 ) even though the hearing on the proceedings to obtain a preliminary injunction may touch upon or tentatively decide merit-issues. (71)
Caution: The court may grant a permanent injunction without a trial on merits if there are no material issues of fact and the issues of law have been correctly resolved. (72)
Whether a preliminary injunction is granted or denied has no effect on whether a final, permanent injunction will ultimately be issued; that issue must he resolved at the trial, at which parties are free to offer additional evidence and the court .may come to different conclusions. (73)
Emphasis added and numerous citings omitted
Since numerous material issues of fact needed to be resolved (if the Court ? didn’t believe they had already been resolved against the Government), they were required to be resolved at trial. Since they were not resolved at trial, the Court’s Order of October 14, 2008 is actually a nullity.
The Preliminary v. the Permanent Injunction
Undoubtedly the Government’s inability (as revealed through its answers to discovery questions) to identify in what way “The Federal Mafia” advises people to file “false and fraudulent” W-4’s and false income tax returns did have an impact on the claims contained in the permanent injunction in contrast to those contained in the preliminary injunction. For example: On page 5 of the preliminary injunction the court claimed. that:
Schiff identifies The Federal Mafia as the starting point of his program “It shows you how to file the zero return stop wage withholding, and explains the basics.”…Schiff also advertises his program (2), and states that services on the internet through testimonials, some of which identify only The Federal Mafia as the resource for avoiding paying taxes. The Federal Mafia is priced at $38.00
Indeed, The Federal Mafia was considered so fundamental to Schiff’s “fraudulent tax: schemes” that the book was mentioned 47 times in the Court’s preliminary injunction; while the preliminary injunction also accused Schiff of advising people to file false W-4’s, so as to wrongfully stop having taxes taken from their pay. This accusation appears approximately 12 times in the preliminary injunction. However, there is no mention of The Federal Mafia in the permanent injunction, and no accusation that Schiff advises anyone to file false W-4’s. So~ obviously, such references and such charges were erroneously contained in the preliminary injunction.
The Permanent Injunction Contains Patently False Claims
Contrary To the Court’s Claim
It’s Permanent Injunction Was Not Based On Any “Evidence”
On page 3 of its Injunction Order the Court writes, under the caption, “Conclusions of Law” the following.• Based on the evidence presented by the United States and te defendants, the Court finds that Irwin Schiff and Cynthla Neun, individually and doing business as Freedom Books, http://www.paynoincometax.com, and http://www.ischiff.com, are engaging in conduct subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. §§6694, 6695,6700 and 6700. Accordingly, the court finds that Schiff and Cynthia Neun and their associated entities and websites should be permanently enjoined under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7407, 7408.
The Court finds that the United States and the public will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of this permanent. injunction and that Schiff and Neun will suffer little, if any harm, lf the permanent injunction is granted. The United States has shown the public interest will be served through granting this permanent injunction. Finally the evidence presented by the United States and the defendants show that absent this permanent injunction, Schiff and Neun will continue to violate 26 U.S.C. §§ 6694, 6695, 6700, and 6701 and interfere with the enforcement of the internal revenue laws. Accordingly, the Court finds that a permanent injunction under 26 U.S.C. § 7402 is necessary and appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws.
First of all, though the Court twice states that it is basing its Order on “evidence presented by the United States,”. The United States presented no evidence’ whatsoever in this litigation. “American Jurisprudence 2nd” defines evidence in Vol. 29 ¶1 as follows:
1. Nature and definition of evidence
Evidence is matter that makes clear the truth of fact, persuades a court of the existence of fact, or produces a just conviction of truth. It is further defined as any species of proof legally presented at trial through the medium of witnesses, records, documents, exhibits, and concrete objects for the purpose of inducing belief in the minds of the court or jury. The word “evidence” thus includes all the means by which any fact in dispute at a judicial trial is established or disproved. Any circumstance which affords an inference as to whether the matter alleged is true or false is therefore evidence, and is commonly understood to be within the meaning of that term.
Further on “Am Jur.” states, in relevant part.
3. Requirement that matter be received· in court
Matter which was not introduced or presented as evidence at trial does not come within the commonly accepted definition of “evidence.” In this regard, neither testimony nor physical objects are evidence unless they are produced, introduced, and received in a trial.
Because evidence is matter, Which has actually been presented at trial, facts obtained through the use of discovery devices, such as written interrogatories, are not themselves evidence. They may, however, become evidence by introduction as such at the trial of the matter. (Footnotes and supporting court decisions omitted)
From the above, it is pretty clear that the Court I s Order was not based on any “evidence presented by the United States and the defendants.” Its Order was obviously based on the Court I s partisanship in favor of the Government, and by its own preconceived, erroneously held, understanding of our revenue laws and by refusal to be bound by relevant Supreme Court decisions and House and Senate Reports.
Contrary to the Court’s Claim Schiff and Neun Are Not “Doing Business as Freedom Books”
In case it has escaped the Court’s attention, Schiff would respectfully remind the Court that both Schiff and Neun have been Federally incarcerated for over three years and its against prison policy (if not against the law, for Federal prisoners to conduct any business whatsoever while incarcerated. If the warden of this facility thought for a moment that I was conducting a business, he would put me in solitary and take away other privileges, such as: denying me II phone privileges, visiting privileges, and commissary privileges.
Neither Schiff nor Freedom Books has a bank account, phone number or address, other than where he is confined. The building where Freedom Books was located was sold, and all of Schiff’s records were put in storage.
Even Freedom Books old phone number (which appears in thousands of books published by Freedom Books) was taken by another party, so calls to that number go to that party and not to Freedom Books. The people who Schiff and Neun can call are limited to 30 people, and they have to be approved as do those on their visiting list. Neither Schiff nor Neun have spoken to each other in over 3 years. Based on all of the above, how can Schiff and Neun, “individually and doing business as Freedom Books …be… engaging in conduct subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6694, 6695,6700 and 6701.”?
Obviously §§ 6694, 6695, 6700 and 6700 could only apply if Schiff and Neun were “doing business as Freedom Books” -but since they obviously are not (and would be in solitary if they were) the Court egregiously creates a “business” where one could not possibly exist and then proceeds to fraudulently apply the law where it cannot possibly apply.
The Defendants Are Not Engaged In “Commercial Speech”
The Court granted the Government a preliminary injunction largely on the basis that the defendants were involved in “false commercial speech.” This Court devoted pages 14 to 20 to this claim alone, in its’ preliminary injunction while I referring to the ‘charge in other parts of the injunction. Some II excerpts from these pages are, as follows:
A.. Commercial Speech Aspects of the Scheme
Promoter’s statement regarding the tax benefits of his [ abusive tax schemes]
constitute commercial speech..• As previously discussed, Schiff’s enterprise advertises and sells books, tapes and other products over the internet, and through Freedom Books, his store in Las Vegas, Nevada, and other avenues promote his scheme. Schiff also advertises and markets seminars and workshops to instruck attendees on how anyone can implement his formulas for avoiding payment of taxes.
As part of the scheme, Schiff offers for sale letter-writing services and “personal consults.” He holds himself out as a “tax consultant,” With experience and background in fields· related to taxation. Definitely, the portions of the scheme that would be considered “core” commercial speech i.e. that speech which proposes no more than a commercial transaction, may be enjoined if they are deceptive or misleading. (2)
Since Schiff does not sell anything, advertise anything, put on seminars or do consulting, does not have an office, phone, bank account, or address other than his prison address), it is patently absurd for the Court to claim that Schiff is currently, doing business” or engaging in “commercial speech” on any basis.
2. Of course, nothing that Schiff ever wrote or said, constituted false commercial speech or constituted an abusive tax shelter. Schiff’s written and stated tax opinions merely reflected what was in the laws themselves, which were enacted to conform to the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions. Schiff did not have to devise “formulas” and “tax shelters” to avoid the payment of income taxes: the laws themselves -largely unknown to the American public -did it.
As far as Schiff engaging in false commercial speech is concerned, this is what the 38 page criticism that appeared in the January, 1986 Seton Hall University School of Law “law Review” had to say about the matter -in connection with the preliminary injunction and its sustaining Ninth Circuit decision:
“‘The Federal Mafia’ so convincingly criticizes the practices of the government of the United States, that the government has regulated Schiff’s book under the guise of protecting the public from deceptive commercial speech, rather then providing Schiff’s speech with the full First Amendment protection it deserves!’ (Page 589)
Therefore, there cannot be any “Commercial Speech Aspects of the (alleged) Scheme” as captioned in the Court’s injunction. Therefore, there cannot be any commercial speech or : abusive tax shelter to enjoin, which were the alleged reasons for the Court granting the preliminary injunction.
The Court In Its Order Knowingly and Egregiously Misrepresented
Why Schiff Claimed People Could Claim “Zero Income” Regardless Of How Much Ordinary Income They Might Have
On page 2 of its Order the Court writes:
Defendants Schemes are based on the false premise that income earned by individuals is not subject to federal income taxes. Defendants refer to this business as the “zero income” scheme because they falsely advise their customers that “[fJor income tax purposes, you can legally report ,zero’ income and pay no income taxes regardless of how much you might have earned.”
First of all, defendants have never referred to their position with respect to reporting “zero income” as a “scheme.” Defendant’s have always claimed that in reporting “zero Income” people were following the law. Its the Government and its courts who have referred to this as a “scheme,” hoping, in this manner, to continue misleading the public as to what “income” means in our revenue laws.
When Schiff (and others) report “zero income” on their tax returns they explain that they do so because: 1. “income” is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code (citing Conner v. US, 303 F. Sup. 1187,1189; and US v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400,404); while 2. “income” is defined by the Supreme Court in Merchant Loan Trust vs. Smietanka, 255 US 509 as, having “the same meaning in all of the Income, Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909.” So the Supreme Court held that “income” in our revenue laws was synonymous with corporate profit.
In addition, Schiff included his Response excerpts from House Report 1337 and Senate Report 1622 (83rd Congress, 2d Session), which was issued by Congress in 1954, along with the 1954 Code~ Congress stated in those Reports that “income” was used in the 1954 Code in its “constitutional sense,” which does not mean in its ordinary sense, which is how the Court and the Government obviously and erroneously use the term. When I asked the Government in discovery to admit that Justice Department lawyers always calculate income in the “ordinary sense, “and not in its “constitutional sense,” the Government claimed it was “uncertain as to what Schiff means when he uses the phrases ‘Constitutional sense’ and ‘ordinary sense,'” as they relate to taxable income; proving, that in both civil and criminal litigation, the U.S. Department of Justice is always fraudulently attributing income to those it prosecutes and to those whose property it: seeks to confiscate In addition, Schiff attached, as Exhibit D, page 637 from the 1895 Pollock decision, 158 US 601, in which the Supreme Court held that a tax on income from real, and personal property (i.e. dividends, interest, rent, wages) could only be constitutionally taxed if the tax were apportioned.
Schiff also attached as Exhibit E an excerpt from “Shepard’s Citations” showing that the Pollock decision -the 16th Amendment not withstanding -has never been reversed or overturned, and so remains good law even today. In addition, Schiff attached as Exhibit G. a recent page excerpt from the “Digest of the United States Supreme Court Reports.” Three Supreme Court cases were cited in that excerpt as holding that the whole purpose of the 16th Amendment ” …was to exclude the source from which a taxed income was derived.” Those cases were: Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR.,’ 240 U.S. 1, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.; 240 U.S.l03; and Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 US 115. As shown on pages 47 -49, at the preliminary hearing all three of Schiff’s witnesses testified that when they reported “zero” income they were reporting their income in the “constitutional sense,” and the Government’s attorney did not even challenge them on this.
Therefore, on page 49 of his Response Brief Schiff asked the Court to explain the meaning it gave to the term “income” when it used it in its Ruling: would it be using the term in its” ordinary sense” or in its Schiff then reminded the Court ….”constitutional sense”?
If the Court is silent on the matter, then I would remind the Court that it has been held that: “Silence can be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. (US v. Tweel, SSO F.2d 297,299; quoting US v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir.) The Court was silent on the matter. Why? Why in its “Findings of Fact” and “Conclusions of Law” -didn’t the Court rule that Schiff’s reliance on all these Supreme Court cases and Congressional Reports was misplaced? Indeed,
the Court in its Ruling does not even mention this relevant case law and Congressional Reports.
The Court Misstates Schiff’s. Claim Concerning the Voluntary Nature of the Income Tax While It Ignores the Government’s Fraudulent Responses On This Issue
On page 2 paragraph 4 of its Order, the Court writes: The returns that Schiff and Neun and their associated entities (3) have continually and repeatedly prepared are based on unrealistic positions namely Schiff’s claims that paying income taxes is voluntary and that’ wages and other income are not subject to taxation, and result in gross understatement of their customer’s tax liability.
3. Schiff and Neun have no “associated entities” and 99% of all the “zero” returns filed; were prepared by the filers themselves and neither Schiff nor Neun had anything to do with them.
4. Such as:
1) Income from real and personal property can only be taxed on the basis of apportionment
2) pursuant to the 16th Amendment, income must be separated from its sources, if it is to avoid apportionment; and
3) only income received in the “constitutional sense” is taxable under our revenue laws.
‘Where the Court refers to Schiff’s claim “that paying income tax is voluntary,” the Court would lead the readers of its Order to believe that Schiff’s claim originated in Schiff’s own irrational and demented mind. The Court’s order does not mention that Schiff supported his claim with a least a dozen Government documents and published statements of IRS officials which all said the same thing. For example:
The IRS’s own “mission statement” states its mission is to promote “voluntary compliance.” A high School teaching syllabus stated that the income tax was based on “voluntary compliance” no less than three times. Former [RS Commissioner Jerome Kurtz, stated no less than six time in the 1979 IRS “Annual Report” that people pay income taxes “voluntarily.” I even provided the Court with an excerpt from a the Hearing Report of a Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee in which the then head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Division of the IRS (Dwight E. Davis) testified that “Your income tax is 100% voluntary, and your ,liquor tax is 100% enforced. Now, the situation is as different as day and night.”
Then Schiff asked the Court: “What could Mr. Avis possibly have meant to convey by this comparison?” in addition, Schiff provided the Court with additional documents, such as a page from one of the most ‘authoritative books on the income tax; Michael Saltzman’s book, “IRS Practice and Procedure.” On page 13.01 Mr. Saltzman states: “The internal Revenue laws are based on the premise taxpayers will voluntarily confess (5) and report and pay the correct amount of their tax liability.” (Emphasis added).
In addition, Schiff included a page from the decision in In Re Schmitt, 140 B.R. 571 (1992) in which the Court wrote in its decision, “Our income tax system is voluntary and the Internal Revenue Service must perforce rely on self-assessment of the taxpayer.”
5. Mr. Saltzman correctly identifies what a taxpayer files: it is a “confession,” not a “return.” But he is still confused on the issue of “liability.”
In addition, Schiff supplied the Court with a page from the ,IRS’ “Penalty Handbook,” that stated no less than 11 times, that the income tax is either “voluntary” or based on “voluntary compliance.” In addition, during discovery, Schiff asked the Government to admit that while the IRS claims that income tax is based on “voluntary compliance” the IRS “never claims (it) is based on ‘compulsory compliance'” Instead of simply denying the admission, if it were not true, the Government (to avoid answering truthfully) raised contrived objections to the admission and then said, “the United States is uncertain as to what Schiff means when he uses the phrases ‘voluntary compliance’ and ‘compulsory compliance.'”
In another Admission Schiff asked the Government to admit, that: “If the English language is properly interpreted, there has to be a difference between “voluntary compliance’ and ‘compulsory compliance’?”
Can there be any conceivable reason that that Admission could .not be admitted? However, the Government refused to answer the Admission and again stated: “The United States is uncertain as to what Schiff means when he uses the phrases ‘voluntary compliance’ and ‘compulsory· compliance.”
Thus on this issue Schiff provided the Court with a number of IRS documents and statements of responsible officials that compliance with income tax statutes was voluntary. The Government, on the other hand, provided no contrary documents – all the Government provided were obviously disingenuous answers to discovery questions. At trial, it would have been interesting to have a Government witness explain, why, if the income tax is based on compulsory compliance, do all these Government documents and informed people say that it is voluntary?
In any case, whether compliance with income tax statutes was voluntary or compulsory was a contested issue of fact. It was an abuse of discretion for the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Government
The Court Had No Jurisdiction to Hear This Matter Because It Was Unable To Identify the Statute That Made Persons “Liable” For Income Taxes
Obviously, the Court can have no jurisdiction to enjoin anyone from doing anything in connection with an alleged tax for which no statute makes anyone “liable.” On page 49 of his Response Brief Schiff reminded the Court, “Since the Government could not identify any statute during discovery” that made persons “liable for income taxes, it was incumbent for the Court to do so, if the Court claims that such a statute exists.” However, the Court did not do so. This is another factual question in dispute. Schiff claims that no statute exists that make persons “liable” for income taxes, and neither the Government in response to discovery, nor the Court in its Order could identify any such statute. Therefore, it was again an abuse of the Court’s discretion for the Court to resolve this contested issue in favor of the Government.
This Court Is Barred By the Rules of Equity From Granting Equity Relief. To the United States Since It Comes To Court With “Unclean Hands”
As pointed out in Schiff’s” Response to the Government’s Opposition that the Court Impose Sanctions On the Government” (For its having fabricated an answer as to why it couldn’t answer the Admission here discussed) and in his Response Brief (at pages 54-56); Schiff pointed out that , Robert Wesley, a witness at the hearing held in connection with the preliminary injunction testified that his employer (the State of California) honored his “exempt” W-4 from 1998 until January of 2003, when the IRS notified his employer to cease honoring it.
In addition, Schiff supplied the Court with an affidavit of Howard OIlman which certified that: the IRS sent a “letter to my employer, the United States Postal Service, informing them that the Internal Revenue Service had determined’ that my W-4 was incorrect, and that it does not conform with the requirements of … section 26 USC 3402′ and that my employer was to ‘disregard’ my W-4 and ‘withhold taxes as if I were single claiming 1 withholding allowance.
Because of that letter, Mr. OIlman was denied his right to not having withholding taxes taken from his pay, as provided by 3402(n). In its “Opposition to Defendant Schiff’s Motion To Impose Sanctions and Compel Discovery Responses” the Government admitted that no law allowed the IRS to send out such letters, and by implication, allows the IRS to interfere with our revenue laws in this manner. It is hornbook law that a party seeking equity relief must come to court with “clean hands.” Both in Schiff’s .”Response to the Government’s Opposition to Sanctions” and in his Response to the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Schiff pointed out that The United States further admits (in relevant part) that:
To demonstrate the necessity for an injunction … the United States must demonstrate … that Schiff interferes with the administration of the internal revenue laws.
-Then Schiff went on to point out:
This actor, of course, is an attempt by the United States to seek injunctive relief and in any such equitable action, it is fundamental that the United States must cOOle into court with “clean hands.” And where a party seeking an injunction has committed acts similar to those explained of, the court should leave the parties where it finds them and deny injunctive relief. Edward Thompson Co. v. American Law Book 122 F. 922 (C.C.A. 2d Cir. 1903); Weegham v. Killifer, 215 F. 289 (C.C.A. 6th Cir. 1914; 110 Oil Indiana Natural Gas &Oil Co, 174 Ind. 635, 92 N.E. 1 (1910.
Then Schiff went on to point out:
So here have the United States seeking to enjoin Defendants from ‘interfering with the administration of the. revenue laws … (even though) the United States has already admitted that the IRS does interfere with with the administration of the internal revenue laws by blatantly interfering with the public’s right to claim “exempt” from withholding pursuant to 26 USC 3402(n)…Therefore, just on this issue issue alone, the United States is not entitled to injunctive relief.
Even though Schiff twice raised this issue in his pleadings, the Court refused to address it. Even if Schiff were wrong, it was incumbent upon the Court to address the issue in its “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.” The fact that the Court did not do so, raises serious questions regarding the Court’s impartiality.
With Respect To Schiff’s Website In its final paragraph, the Court states:
The defendants must also remove from their websites and other signs and advertising all information that violates this order, including false commercial speech, speech that violates 26 U.S.C. §§ 6700, and speech that assists or is likely to incite others to violate the law.
First of all, Schiff does not sell anything, and nothing on his website is for sale, therefore Schiff cannot be engaged in commercial speech”. There are books on Schiff’s website that can be downloaded free of charge. What Schiff has posted to his website is his understanding of the revenue laws and why he believes his current incarceration is illegal as well the trial that put him there. According to Schiff’s understanding of the First Amendment, such speech is supposedly protected under that Amendment.
Schiff has also posted to his website numerous motions that he submitted to the Court in connection with his criminal trial. He has also posted Government responses to those Motions along with Magistrate Leavitt’s recommendation’s to the Court, showing that the Government contested Schiff’s argument while Magistrate Leavitt rejected them.
As a federal prisoner Schiff has no access to the internet, and has not seen his website in over three years. However, the Government in its “Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment” provided Schiff with extensive excerpts from his website but which only constituted a small portion of .the website, since it included none of the legal pleadings and the Recommendations of Magistrate Leavitt.
The following are excerpts from the pages supplied to Schiff by the Government.
(6) For example, on page 27 of 36 Schiff’s website states: with respect to his four motions to dismiss: “Naturally the government disagreed with all four of my conclusions (and on) October 8, 2004 the Government filed its answer opposing my (four motions.) Click here to read its Response. On November 23, 2004 I filed my reply to the Government’s Response. By clicking here you an read my Response. On December 3, 2004 U.S. Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. (Leavitt filed his) ‘Report” recommending that U.S. District Court Judge, Kent J. (Dawson deny) my four motions to dismiss. Please read U.S. Magistrate Judge (Leavitt’s) Report and my Reply.
Read my Motion to Suppress all of the alleged evidence the Government confiscated from Freedom Books on Feb. 11, 2003… On December 21 2004, U.S. Magistrate Leavitt filed his ”Report” contesting my claim and recommending that Judge Dawson deny my (Motion to) Suppress. To read my reply to his report, click here.
6. Since portions of the wording (largely the ends of a line) are cut off, Schiff guessed what the words were and enclosed them in brackets.
on page 31 of 36 we find the following:
in addition I have also posted three ”Reports and Recommendations” from U.S. Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt Who argues (that my) views on these issues are dead wrong.
Therefore, in view of all these official, legal voices all explaining (on my website) -why my views on income taxes are dead wrong, how can anyone be misled by me?
I urge everyone I to read all of the pleadings now posted to this website by. U.S. attorneys and the court all claiming that my understanding of our income tax laws is dead wrong. (More such pleadings and documents will be posted to this website as they become available;) therefore, I urge everyone to: (1) check out the Internal Revenue Code itself; (2) consult with your lawyer and/or accountant concerning all material contained on this website and anything I might have said about income taxes; and (3) ask the IRS itself. before (you rely) ,on anything I might have said or written in connection with income (taxes),
And further on page 32 of 36 Remember, all federal judges and U.S. attorneys maintain that what I say about income taxes is dead wrong, and in many cases even constitute tax evasion. I, of course, do not agree with them and I would never advocate violations of law -which is why I sell (the Code and its) implementing regulations. However, I may even be “delusional” (so don’t) take my word for anything, without checking out all of the (underlying laws) and what the IRS, the DOJ and the courts have to say about it.
Therefore my website warns the public that they are to take nothing on my web site as being the law; that the courts and the DOJ claim that all my views on the income tax are Dead Wrong, and might even constitute tax evasion. In addition, my website makes it clear that I am in prison because of my income tax views, and that I may even be delusional, so in what way can my website “incite others to violate the law.”
Now, having said all the above, Schiff still believes that his understanding of tax law is correct, and that the Government (with the held of its courts) is enforcing the revenue laws un-Constitutionally, and in violation of the revenue statutes themselves -as the Government’s responses (and non-responses) to discovery questions make abundantly clear. Certainly the First Amendment gives an American the right to argue that the Government is acting illegally and unconstitutionally, and such argument has nothing to do with “commercial speech” or the promotion, of an “abusive tax shelter”
As stated in the Seton Hall Law School “Law Review’s” critical analysis of the preliminary injunction (which wa~ incorporated in . Schiff “s Response but totally ignored by the Court) : At pages 554-555.
Political speech, including criticism of the government, occupies the core of the protection afforded by the First Amendment. As the court in Mills v. Alabama ( 384 U.S. 214 (1966) stated:
Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect free discussion of governmental affairs.
Most importantly, the right to criticize the government is “the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect” (McConnell v. Fed. Election Commission, 540 U.S)93, 248 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
Based on all of the above, there is nothing on Schiff’s web site that reflects his views that he does not believe is is true and correct. He also does not believe that there is anything on his web site -that will “incite” anyone to “violate” the law. There are enough disclaimers and warnings on his web site to force anyone to do a lot of independent research before they acted on any information contained on his website. However, if the U.S. attorney or the Court believes there is something on Schiff’s web site that is in violation of the Court’s order, if they tell me what it is; why it is false, and why it violates the court’s order; I will see that it gets removed from the web site.
In any case, Schiff is moving the Court -based on all of the above to stay its Order pending review by the Ninth Circuit. Dated: 11/23/2008 Respectfully submitted Irwin Schiff, pro se
(1) There are only two quotes from this 38 page critique of the preliminary injunction.The critique contained 328 footnotes, approximately half of Which referenced court decisions which the author believed buttressed her conclusion that in issuing and sustaining the preliminary injunction, the trial and appellate courts “denied Schiff his freedom of speech guaranteed under the First Amendment’ (At page 551)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing “Motion For Stay of the Permanent Injunction” was deposited in our unit mailbox on November 24, 2008 for delivery to a U.S. Post Office and addressed to:
Michael J. Roessner, Trial Attorney, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7238, Wash. D.C.
And a copy was sent to: Cynthia Neun, FPC Phoenix, 37930 North 45th, Unit Papago B 012L Phoenix, AZ 85086
Read The Order from Judge Lloyd D. George
Read Irwin’s Supplement to the above by clicking here
Irwin Schiff #08537-014
Federal Prison Camp
PO Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808
August 12, 2008
Hello Boys and Girls,
The photo shown here is just for dramatic effect. In April of 2008, I was moved again from Otisville, NY to Terre Haute, IN. In Otisville I was less than a two hour ride from my children and grandchildren; now it will be a two day trip, so I won’t be seeing my family as much. Also we had only 125 inmates at Otisville, here we have 500; so Otisville was a lot cozier and prettier. Like Otisville there is no fence around this place, but also no deer or squirrels. Also I am a little more nervous about being here, since this complex (which contains two higher level institutions) has an execution chamber.
They moved me for medical reasons. There is a large hospital not too far away, so if I had a coronary or a stroke or a bad stomach ache, they could more quickly get me to a hospital. But I am not sick (they move people here with pacemakers) so I will try to get back to Otisville. If anyone has any connection with the BOP, give them a call on my behalf.
My nearby Supplemental Appeal briefs reveal not only the blatant injustice in the convictions of Cindy and myself but also the fraud and illegality involved in all such prosecutions. They also provide information that will help all those being harassed by the IRS as it goes about (without authority) illegally enforcing the income tax. Download them by all means, and send copies to newspapers and radio talk show hosts.
The public should also be made aware that it is the government’s illegal enforcement of the income tax that has destroyed America’s industrial base, making America now totally dependent on the importation of foreign goods (on credit) and on the importation of capital, making America’s forthcoming economic collapse all but inevitable. Unfortunately – thanks to our own government – we are destined to experience what Chief Justice John Marshall warned us of that: “The power to tax involves the power to destroy.”
I have always believed that Federal Judges misrepresented the income tax laws because they believed they were sufficiently complicated (even though they are benign) so that the public could not figure out what they were doing; and even if they could figure that out, they still could not generate the interest and publicity to expose them. But I really believe that my two Supplemental Briefs solve this problem. They are short enough and interesting enough and incisive enough (and the Court’s actions blatant enough) to convince anyone of the obvious scam that has been going on in connection with the government’s criminal enforcement of the income tax.
I will write more later.
Read Irwin’s appeal documents: Appeal 1 Appeal 2
Newly added the following as of August 20, 2007
I have petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari in connection with the 9th Circuit’s sustaining the $2.6 million summary judgment Judge Pro awarded to the Federal government.
If the Supreme Court can allow that appellate decision to stand in the face of all the laws and Constitutional provisions that decision violated, then the Supreme Court will have conceded that the U.S. is nothing more than a big banana republic where laws and constitutional rights mean nothing to our courts, including the Supreme Court.
1. Can district and appellate courts attribute taxable income to individuals even when they have been provided with proof that they have received no taxable income as a matter of law?
2. Are federal courts free to attribute tax liabilities to individuals even when no statute exists that establishes the tax liability in question?
3. Can federal courts require the public to pay a tax which is not authorized by any of the Constitution’s three taxing clauses?
4. Can federal courts subject the public to the authority of federal employees even when such employees have no statutory or delegated authority to act in that manner?
5. Are federal courts free to entertain appeals, but then refuse to address any of the non— frivolous issues raised in them?
6. Are appellate courts free to impose sanctions upon individuals simply because those individuals raise issues that the appeals court would rather not deal with?
Comment: Petitioner suggests that every American has a substantial, personal interest in each of these issues; since, if federal courts can do any of these things, then constitutional rights and the rule of law in America is a fiction. However, as the record will show, it was based on just such court actions that the final orders of both lower courts involved in this action were based.
[l] Senate Report 1622 (p.J68) and House Report 1337 (P. A 18), 83d Congress, 2d Session (Exhibit J herein) in which Congress specifically declared that “income” as used in section 6l of the 1954 Code was used in its “constitutional sense” and was not used in its ordinary sense, as was used by all of the lower courts involved in this litigation.
The questions are: Is the United States a Nation of law? Is it the duty of the Supreme Court to uphold and enforce the Constitution of the United States and those laws enacted pursuant to it, or not? If the Supreme Court can allow this Ninth Circuit Ruling to stand, then the Supreme Court will have definitively answered both questions in the negative.
Both the trial and appeals court claim the Petitioner owes the United States approximately 2.5 million dollars in taxes, penalties, and interest for the years 1979-1985. Thus both courts would allow U.S. marshals to seize all of Petitioner’s property to satisfy this horrific debt – when all the legal evidence shows the Petitioner owes the United States Government absolutely nothing for any of the years at issue. Indeed, the legal evidence is overwhelming that the trial court did not have jurisdiction
to even entertain the Government’s lawsuit – evidence that the appeals Court did not challenge. Therefore, if the Supreme Court can stand by and allow U.S. Marshals to confiscate citizens’ property – reducing them to abject poverty – even when the law clearly shows that the citizen owes the Government nothing, then Americans, in reality, now have no more rights than those who live under fascism, making all those slogans and aphorisms that adorn all of America’s courthouses… so much hypocritical prattle.
— 36 —
If the Ninth Circuit’s decision is allowed to stand, no one can seriously contend that America is a Nation of law where citizens have inalienable rights secured to them by a Constitution.
The petition for a writ of certiorari should he granted.
June 30, 2007
Hello Boys and Girls.
Here is something that I believe can stop the government from getting convictions in income tax prosecutions. However, nothing is certain in connection with such prosecutions, since, as we all know tax trials are orchestrated by individuals who have no regard for either truth or law.
One of the reasons I was willing to defend myself at my trial is that I believed I had the knowledge and legal proof to show that none of the government’s IRS witnesses were legally authorized to testify; and without their testimony the government had no case. (Government had no case anyway, on other grounds, but let’s forget about that.) However, the government’s three prosecutors (two from the Justice Department and one who pretended to be a judge), conspired to prevent me from introducing such proof. Therefore I suggest that all those facing a contrived criminal prosecution for allegedly violating some income tax law, proceed as follows.
First familiarize yourself with code §7608. It alone proves that the IRS has no authority to enforce the payment of income taxes. §7608 is broken down into subsections (a) and (b), and all the IRS personnel who enforce a federal tax must fall into one subsection or the other. Now, all Agents who fall under subsection (a) are only authorized to enforce Subtitle E Taxes, such as liquor, tobacco and firearms; while only those Agents who fall under subsection (b) might be authorized to enforce income taxes. However, the statute only identifies “Criminal Investigations of the Intelligence Division of the IRS” as falling within subsection (b). All other IRS Agents “by whatever term designated” are plainly excluded from subsection (b) and are specifically assigned to subsection (a), the subsection dealing with Subtitle E Taxes. Therefore, the only IRS Agents who can have any authority to enforce the income tax are criminal investigators of the Intelligence Division of the IRS. All other IRS personal “by whatever term designated” can only be involved in enforcing Subtitle E Taxes. I don’t see how this statute can be read any other way. [FN1]
Now Judge Dawson would not allow me to raise §7608 in order to impeach government IRS witnesses. For example, §7608(a)(1) specifically authorizes those falling within this subsection to “carry firearms.” However, no such authorization is given to those who fall into subsection (b). Therefore it is clear that it is against the law for any IRS Agent to carry a firearm in connection with the enforcement of income taxes. So when the government called former special agent Ted Wethje as a witness, I immediately asked him on cross examination, “Did you carry a firearm in connection with your IRS duties?” He would have had to answer yes, since all Special Agents carry guns. This would mean he could only have been authorized to enforce liquor, tobacco and firearms taxes while all his enforcement activities involving income taxes, including testifying at my trial, were unauthorized and illegal. But Judge Dawson knew where I was going with this (since I covered it in my Motion to Suppress, [FN2] (since armed Special Agents concluded the raid on Freedom books). So he wouldn’t let Wethjie answer the question and stated that my question was “irrelevant,” and ordered me to “move on.”
For this reason I didn’t bother to raise the issue, when the government called another Special Agent as a witness, Sam Holland. Mr. Holland testified at length before the Grand Jury, and it was he who led the raid on Freedom books when his Gestapo Squad of 15 armed Special Agents carted off some 14,000 of my personal papers from Freedom Books. §7608(b)(1) proves that Holland’s testimony before the Grand Jury was unauthorized and illegal, as well as the seizure of those documents from Freedom Books. (So what else is new?)
The question is what can we do to stop these illegal IRS witnesses from testifying? I think I have the solution. If you are being subjected to a criminal prosecution involving income taxes, prior to going to trial (and after filing my motions to dismiss as posted on my web site) file a motion in limine in which you move that only those IRS employees attached to the Intelligence Division of the IRS be allowed to testify. On what basis can the government oppose such a motion, since these are the only IRS personnel that §7608(b) authorizes to enforce the income tax?
In my view, all IRS personnel, other than those connected to the Intelligent Division of the IRS, must fall into subsection (a)—otherwise the statute is inconsistent. Certainly §7608 makes a distinction between those IRS Agents authorized to enforce Subtitle E taxes, and those supposedly authorized to enforce income taxes, a Subtitle A tax.
Therefore, how can any IRS employee who does not fall into subsection 7608(b) be authorized to testify at a trial designed to enforce the payment of income taxes?
But by raising this issue, pre trial, in the form of a motion in limine you have an opportunity to argue the issue; while at trial, the judge can arbitrarily, cut off all argument on the issue as happened to me. In my case, a motion in limine would certainly make it more difficult for the government to get special Agents and Revenue Officers to testify since, for a variety of reasons, they clearly fall into §7608(a) and thus can have no authority to enforce the income tax and this would be a very easy argument to make. And those are the IRS Agents, who at trial provide the most damaging (though totally fraudulent) testimony.
So get those motion in limine filed and let’s see how the Justice Department and the courts try to weasel out of §7608!
FN #1 Of course no IRS Agent is authorized to enforce the income tax for the reason contained in my supplemental appeal as posted on my web site. In addition, the the “Parallel Table of Authorities” shows that the implementing regulations for §7608 is in 27 CFR. There is no reference to their being in 26 CFR. Obviously all those convicted of an income tax crime have been framed on a variety of grounds. Hopefully these motions in limine will make it more difficult for the government to do so in the future.
FN #2 My Motion to suppress (which is posted on my web site) contains a variety of reasons why the IRS raid on Freedom Books was illegal. Numerous personal documents, illegally taken in that raid, were misrepresented and used against me at trial. Judge Dawson summarily denied my motion to suppress (after holding it for over a year) without comment, thus making a mockery at the 4th and 5th Amendments which, in effect, the federal judiciary has all but abolished, as shown here.
Irwin’s Motion to Suppress http://www.paynoincometax.com/pdf/401corrected_motion_to_suppress.pdf
For more on IRS § 7608 visit http://www.uhuh.com/laws/irs7608.htm
Read Irwin’s: Supplemental Appeal Document
Read this Banned Book for FREE! “The Federal Mafia”
Trial Blog #1 Trial Blog #2
Watch for FREE:
The Secrets of Living an Income Tax-Free Life
& Secrets Part 2
Read the Entire
“Federal Mafia” for FREE
Click Here for Irwin’s Great Giveaway
Irwin’s been helping us, and now it’s time to help him. If he’s successful in reversing his conviction, all Americans will benefit!
Read Irwin’s Motion for Reconsideration Click Here
Government Memo 9th Circuit Click Here
We must not let this illegal conviction stand. All contributions will help. Whatever you can send would be greatly appreciated!
Please send your generous, “tax deductible” contribution by putting “Irwin Schiff Defense” in the memo area of your check and on the attention line of your envelope, and send to:
We The People Foundation
2458 Ridge Road
Queensbury, NY 12804
Read the Seton Law Review About Free Speech Infringement related to the “The Federal Mafia”
Read: Criminal Character of Judge Dawson Exposed Plus: Exhibit
Irwin Schiff’s son, Peter Schiff offers his new book to Irwin’s subscribers. Peter knows that you’re aware of the economic crisis looming ahead.
Click here for more
America Freedom to Fascism
See the Movie they wouldn’t let you see in theatres
Featuring Irwin Schiff
Arron Russo On Coast-To-Coast AM Aaron Russo on Lou Epton
Very Important: On July 5th 2005 I filed a motion calling for dismissal of my current criminal prosecution, because there are no laws establishing income tax “crimes”. To be thoroughly convinced of that, and also thoroughly convinced that if there are criminals involved in income tax prosecutions, it can only be the federal judges and the justice department lawyers conducting such trials – Read these 12 pages.
My motion also provides the legal basis for filing criminal charges (either pursuant to a criminal complaint or trying to get before a grand jury and seeking indictments) against judges and US attorneys who participate in such prosecutions, since in doing so they are actually engaged in criminal activity punishable by law.
The information in here is simple and irrefutable and reveals that the government extraction of income taxes which has not only destroyed practically the Nation’s entire industrial base, (3rd world status, here we come!), but it was done pursuant to a tax that has been extracted illegally and criminally – without practically anyone realizing it.
These 12 pages explain it all. Disseminate the information to as many people as possible, and try and get it before you local newspaper.
Be sure to read the government’s response. Note that the government’s response to all these issues is “frivolous” however the government’s response is criminal for the reasons given in my motion. Notice the government makes no attempt to address the fact that they can’t produce any delegation of authority from the secretary of the treasury delegating to the IRS the authority to collect income taxes or it’s publication in the federal register. This of course demonstrates that the motto of the justice department which is “not to gain a conviction, but to see justice done” is so much BS. In reality they represent a greater collection of criminals than the people they prosecute.
Here are the Exhibits from that go with my latest motion above, “Motion to Dismiss since this court cannot have jurisdiction since the indictment fails to charge an offense” filed July 5, 2005.
The following will provide extensive and irrefutable proof of how federal judges and the Dept. Of “Justice” lawyers knowingly violate the law in order to convict defendants (Illegally) charged with income tax crimes, And why only misstatements of law ever “comes from the bench” at such trials.
Since the income tax was repealed in 1954 when Congress adopted the 1954 Code, it is clear that for 50 years federal judges in conspiracy with U. S. Department of Injustice prosecutors have been illegally and criminally prosecuting people for crimes that do not exist in connection with a tax that nobody owes.
Therefore, the fact that Judge Dawson along with all of the Government’s prosecutors in this case have been engaged in the same criminal conduct should surprise no one – except in this case, their criminal conduct was so blatant and Judge Dawson’s charge to the jury was so outrageously false in so many areas, that changes in the way criminal trials are conducted in the U.S. of A. must inevitably follow from these disclosures.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s definitive Cheek decision, 498 US at page 201, the government in a tax prosecution has a three- fold burden, it must prove:
(1) The law imposed a duty upon the defendant;
(2) The defendant knew of that duty; and (3) he deliberately and intentionally (willfully) violated that duty. Notice that the issue of “willfulness” only enters the picture in connection with the Government’s third burden. Obviously, a defendant has a right during the government’s presentation of its case, to establish that no law imposed any such “duty” upon him. However to do that, the defendant must be able to raise the law itself and show that no law imposed any such “duty’ upon him, and that the IRS employees who testified for the Government, had no legal authority to do what they testified they did.
If the defendant can establish these claims during the Government’s presentation of its case, and knock out all of the Government’s IRS witnesses (which can easily be done by introducing into evidence their job descriptions, the significance of section 7608, and the nature of their “pocket commissions”) the defendant would be entitled to a direct verdict of acquittal at the close of the Government’s presentation of its case, without the defendant even having to put on a defense, largely based on the issue of “willfulness. ”Therefore, how did Judge Dawson prevent me from proving that no income tax law imposed a “duty” upon me, and that I knew of such a “duty” – thereby sparing the government the need of having to prove these first two elements of its burden, while preventing me from proving that none of the Government’s IRS witnesses had any legal authority to do what they testified they did. Judge Dawson sought to accomplished these tasks in a variety of ways.
The first way was to prevent me from bringing up the law itself, by continually claiming that “the law will come from the bench. How could I prove that no “law” imposed any “duty” upon me (and therefore I “knew” of such a “duty”) if I could not bring up the law itself? In fact when I asked Judge Dawson, if the Government intended to put on a witness who would testify that the law imposed a “duty” upon me to pay income taxes, David Ignall, the Government’s lead prosecutor, specifically stated that the Government had no such intention of doing so, but would rely on the Judge Dawson’s jury instructions to establish these elements for the Government. However, since I would never be able to cross-examine Judge Dawson concerning his jury instructions, he would be free to misstate the law (he literally threw all law out the window as he misstated it at least two dozen times – and such examples will follow) as he fabricated a “duty” that did not exist.
Later, at a hearing (conducted outside the presence of the jury) involving his proposed jury instructions, I specifically pointed out to him how numerous of his proposed jury instruction misstated the law – but he gave those instructions anyway, although he did change a few, while he refused to give jury instructions that correctly stated the law. Since my objections and corrections were recorded at that time, they will prove that Judge Dawson knew he was misstating the law to the jury, if my objections are not edited out of the transcript.
Apart from already explaining why the actions of Judge Dawson and the prosecutors constituted criminal violations of 18 U.S.C. 241 in the 12 page motion I filed on July 5, 2005 (and which is posted immediately above this document) their criminal culpability was substantially extended at trial and would now include the crime of obstruction of justice – as the following will demonstrate.
1) Judge Dawson would not allow me to bring up the law, especially when it would impeach the testimony of government witnesses. For example:
a) A government witness, with a very impressive title, was introduced as being in charge of the frivolous penalty program in the 9th Circuit area. She testified that the IRS imposed the $500 frivolous penalty based upon guidelines established by the legal counsel for the IRS, and when the IRS received a tax return that fell within those guidelines, they imposed the $500 frivolous penalty. I objected to her testimony as hearsay, since she was not the one who determined whether a return was frivolous or not, and what she was told by the IRS District Counsel constituted hearsay.
I stated that it was the IRS District Counsel who should be testifying concerning what constituted a “frivolous” return, since he was apparently the one who made that determination and not the witness who was now testifying. But my objection was overruled. When I cross-examined her, I specifically asked her whether or not any IRS agent took specific responsibility for imposing the frivolous penalty. And she again elaborated on how the penalty was imposed pursuant to guidelines set up by the IRS District Counsel. Therefore, I again asked her if she was sure that the frivolous penalty was not imposed by IRS employees taking specific responsibility for imposing the penalty. She said “No,” that was not how it was done. I then asked her if she was familiar with Code section 6751 I forgot whether she said “Yes” or “No.” In any case I asked her, “If you saw a copy of IR Code Section 6751, would that refresh your recollection?” She must have said, “Yes,” since I now moved to admit Section 6751 into evidence.
I handed a copy of section 6751 to the U.S. attorney who was sitting right in back of me. He read it, but appeared to have a puzzled look on his face, when he said, “No objection.” I then handed the document to the clerk, so it could be marked as an Exhibit, and she handed it up to Judge Dawson, who proceeded to read it. He read: “No penalty under this title shall be assessed unless the initial determination of such assessment is personally approved (in writing) by the immediate supervisor of the individual making such determination or such higher level official as the Secretary may designate.” Judge Dawson, of course, realized that section 6751 (which provided that a document containing at least two signatures was required in order for the frivolous penalty to be imposed) totally impeached the testimony of the Government’s witness then sitting before him. Therefore, he sought to save the government’s witness from being totally discredited by saying: “Well, courts have held (of course, he never named what courts) that this provision is not really binding on the IRS (or words to that effect), so this document is irrelevant and will not be admitted.”
So, Judge Dawson would not allow the law, section 6751, to be admitted, since it would allow me to use it to discredit the entire testimony of this impressively titled, government witness. Since she also stated (in order to establish her alleged credentials, even though the government would not qualify her as an “expert”) that she had testified extensively at both civil and criminal trials. It is, therefore, apparent that at all such trials her testimony was in direct conflict with the law – unfortunately defendants at such trials would probably be unaware of that fact.
b) One of the Government’s first witnesses was retired Special Agent Ted Wethje. He is mentioned in the Federal Mafia on pages 221, 222, and 224 . The Government largely relied on his perjured testimony to gain my indictment and conviction in 1985 and therefore sought to use this experienced and unconscionable liar at this trial. He had absolutely no legal authority to testify at either my 1985 trial or at this trial, since he has no more authority to enforce the payment of income taxes than the man in the moon. He is precluded from doing so by his own job description (Exhibit A) and because he falls into subsection (a) of provision 7608 (Exhibit C). Any IRS agent who claims he is legally authorized to carry a firearm must fall into subsection (a) of section 7608, since agents who fall into subsection (b) are not authorized to “carry firearms.” So, if Special Agent Wethje was authorized to “carry firearms” during his employment with the IRS, he could only have been authorized to enforce the payment of liquor, tobacco, and firearms taxes and such other taxes as fall within the provisions of subtitle E of the IR Code – and not income taxes, which fall within subtitle A of the IR Code.
So when I cross-examined him, the first thing I said to him was, “Isn’t it a fact Mr. Wethje, that when you worked at the IRS you carried a firearm?” The government immediately objected to the question (probably citing “relevance”) and its objection was immediately sustained by Judge Dawson in the following manner, “Sustained – move on.” However, I tried to argue that weather or not Wethje carried a firearm was relevant as to whether or not he was authorized to give testimony at this trial since it involved income taxes. However, Judge Dawson would hear none of it. He supposedly had warned me that when he sustained an objection, I was not to argue any further but had to “Move on.” However, I was also under the impression, that one had a right to argue the validity and necessity of the question you asked, before it was ruled upon, and in this case (as well as in numerous other cases) Judge Dawson ruled upon the Government’s objection without giving me an opportunity to argue why the question was relevant to my defense.
Also I am hard of hearing, and so I might not have heard him say “Sustained,” but believed I still had a right to argue the validity of my question – and so might have raised arguments after he had stated “Sustained.” At such times Judge Dawson would bark, “Sanction,” which meant I had just been held in contempt of court, which carried a jail sentence that was double to that meted out by the previous sanction. Judge Dawson started the sanctions at one day in jail, which were then doubled for each succeeding sanction. I must have received at least a dozen sanctions. In any case, he also would not allow me to me bring up Wethje’s job description, which also showed that Wethje had no authority to investigate anybody living within the continental U.S.A. in connection with income taxes, and so he had no authority to be testifying at this trial. In this manner Judge Dawson knowingly allowed the Government to use witnesses against me who he knew had absolutely no authority to testify at my trial.
C. Another Government witness, Revenue Officer Luddie Talley testified that he was involved (at various times) in seizing numerous items from me including: an automobile, monies taken from me which were being held for me at the Clark County Jail, and 100% of my monthly Social Security benefit. He had sent the Social Security Administration a fraudulent, IRS notice-of- levy (which he had no authority to send out, and which is totally benign and can be immediately thrown into the nearest trash can) on which he had added, in his own handwriting, “full levy”; a term that appears no place in the law governing “notices-of-levy.”
When I asked Talley, “Are you aware of IRS pocket commissions?,” the Government cried out, “Objection,” which Judge Dawson “Sustained” as usual. However, had I been permitted to proceed with this line of questioning, it would have proceeded as follows. Talley would have had to answer, “Yes” to my initial question. Based on that answer, I would then have said, “And they consist of enforcement and non-enforcement commissions, do they not?” And he would have had to say, “Yes.” And then I would have said, “And what kind of a pocket commission do you have?” And he would have had to say, “A non-enforcement pocket commission.” And then I would have said, “Therefore, you have no enforcement authority with respect to income taxes, isn’t that correct?” In order not to commit perjury, he would have had to answer, “Correct.” “Therefore,” I would have said, “you had no lawful authority to seize my automobile, the money being held for me at the Clark County Jail, or my monthly Social Security check, isn’t that correct?” And he would have had to answer, “Correct.” And then I would have said, “So you are no better than an ordinary thief, except you operate under color of law, isn’t that correct?” And he would have had to answer, “Correct.” Except I would have corrected him, by saying. “No, you are worse than an ordinary thief. Ordinary thieves at least don’t have the gall to pretend that their stealing is legal, and they, at least, take some risk. They don’t have federal judges and U.S. attorneys protecting them. Because of the hypocrisy in your brand of thievery, and because it receives the protection of the courts and the DOJ, it must be regarded as a lower form of thievery then that committed by ordinary criminals.” However, I never got the chance to proceed along those lines, since I was prevented from doing so by Judge Dawson.
In addition, when I asked Talley, “When you seize property do you do it legally or illegally?” he responded by saying, “I do it legally.” This laid the foundation for my next question, which was, “Did you ever see a statute that allowed the IRS to seize property?” However, before he could answer, the Government objected and Judge Dawson gave his usual “Sustained.” If Talley had said “Yes,” to that question, I would have handed him the Code and asked him to show me the statute that allowed him to seize property legally, and he would not have been able to find such a statute, because it doesn’t exist. If he said “No,” I would have asked, “Then how do you know you seize property legally?” So no matter how Talley answered, I would have been able to expose the fact that IRS agents have no authority to seize property. But, again, the Government’s prosecutors and Judge Dawson interceded in order to prevent me from proving that all IRS seizures are illegal, and not provided for by law.
Further I produced a document sent out by the Social Security Administration that showed that the seizure of Social Security benefits by the IRS is limited to 15% (assuming they have any seizure authority at all, which they do not have.) However based upon erroneous representations made by the Government, Judge Dawson instructed the jury that the law allowed the IRS to seize 100% of my monthly benefit. That was dead wrong, but explaining it to the jury would have been too complicated, besides I had a better way to do it. I was calling as a witness Dr. Raymond Hartman of Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania.
His involvement in the movement even predates mine (See page 59 of “The Federal Mafia.”). When he told me the IRS was taking 100% of his Social Security, I provided him with information which he sent to the Social Security Administration. Shortly thereafter they sent him a refund of approximately $9,000 and restored 100% of his monthly benefit. Since I had to supply Judge Dawson with an outline of what my witnesses were going to testify about, he informed me that he would not permit Dr. Hartman to testify about getting his Social Security benefits restored. When I asked him why, he said that such testimony had nothing to do with income taxes. I am sure that the fact that Dr. Hartman’s testimony would also refute what Judge Dawson had told the jury concerning the IRS’s legal authority to seize 100% of my Social Security benefits had nothing to do with his decision..
(d) Along the same lines, the Government’s summary “expert,” IRS Agent Clinton Lowder testified extensively concerning deposits to my bank accounts which he claimed revealed that substantial amounts of money had been deposited to my “eight bank accounts” in connection with the years at issue. When I had previously inquired about the relevance of all his testimony regarding these bank deposits, the Government claimed that it was related to how much “income” I had received during this period. I said, no it didn’t. I pointed out that it merely indicated how much money I had deposited to my bank accounts and nothing more, and depositing money to ones bank account is not a crime – nor had I been charged with any such crime. Such deposits might be related to a crime if I had been charged with money laundering, or selling products that were illegal. I further pointed out that such bank deposits could not be considered as being indicative of the receipt of “income” unless the Government put on an “expert” in the law, who would testify (and be subject to cross-examination) that deposits to ones bank accounts constituted the receipt of “income” within the meaning of Code Section 61. Since the Government had not put on any such “expert” witness (since they knew I would have eaten them up alive) they could not legally claim that mere bank deposits constituted – to any degree- the receipt of “income” within the meaning of Code section 61. But Judge Dawson (illegally) did so anyway.
In addition, when I cross-examined Mr. Lowder I asked him, “Isn’t the purpose of your analysis of my bank deposits an attempt on your part to estimate the amount of income taxes you believe I omitted from the tax returns I filed for the years at issue?” I actually had to repeat that question three or four times before I got a straight answer from him. When he finally admitted that was the purpose of his activity, I asked: “Isn’t it a fact that section 6201(2) (A) gives the Secretary the authority to estimate the amount of taxes that have been omitted to be paid by stamp, but no law authorizes the Secretary (or the IRS) to estimate the amount of taxes that has been omitted from an income tax return?” “Objection! He is raising the law, your Honor.” “Sustained. Move on.” “But your Honor, I asked that question merely to show that the law does not allow Mr. Lowder to do what he claims he was doing.” “Mr. Schiff: you have deliberately violated my order that you are not to raise issues of law, nor argue with me when I sustain a Government objection; therefore, you will be sanctioned for doing so.”
Of course, no law authorizes the IRS (nor the Government at criminal tax trials) to attribute to anyone more in income taxes than what they reported on their tax returns. Therefore, seeking to pursue another tack, I said, “Mr. Lowder, when you attempt to analyze a persons various sources of income and possible deductions and seek to calculate a tax that is different from what that taxpayer reported on his return, do you do that legally or illegally?” “I do it legally” he immediately replied. I was therefore poised for my follow up question. “Mr. Lawder, have you ever seen a statute that authorized you to calculate a tax that is different from what a taxpayer reported on his return?” “Objection” “Sustained” “ But your Honor, I was only…..” Sanction. You are deliberately doing it again.”
In this way, Judge Dawson in criminal collusion with the Government, sought to prevent me from proving that no law authorized either the IRS, Secretary of the Treasury (or his delegate), or the Justice Department in this prosecution, to claim that I owed more in income taxes than what I had reported on my “zero” returns for all of the years at issue.
(f) Therefore, during the presentation of its case the Government did not put on one witness who would testify that I had any “income” or income tax “liability” for any of the years at issue, or that anything (not one word, sentence, or phrase) in any of my books and tapes (including my “zero” return) violated any law or encouraged anyone to violate any law – though such allegations were contained throughout the indictment. And though they had undercover agents at both of my last seminars (a two day seminar held in Las Vegas and a one day Seminar held in New York City) they played no excerpts from either seminar as showing I had advocated violations of law at either seminar – though such allegations were contained in indictment. And no less than six government witnesses testified that they could find no law that made them “liable” for income taxes, or required them “to pay” income taxes, and at least four of them testified that they believed “income,” within the meaning of the IR Code, meant “corporate profit.” In addition, all three of my former employees who were witnesses for the prosecution testified that at no time did they, nor any of my other employees, ever believe that any of the material sold and sent out by Freedom Books encouraged anyone to violate any law, nor did I ever give them any reason to believe that I did not hold my beliefs on taxes other than sincerely and honestly. In short, the Government did not present a scintilla of evidence to support any of allegations contained in its indictment and we should have gotten a direct verdict of acquittal at the close of the government’s case.
HOW JUDGE DAWSON SOUGHT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE BY PREVENTING ME FROM PUTTING ON A DEFENSE
Judge Dawson sought to prevent me from putting on an effective defense, by:
(1) preventing me from calling witnesses whose testimony was crucial to my defense;
(2) preventing me from testifying in the most effective manner;
(3) by blatantly misstating the law in his jury instructions, and
(4) by refusing to give a proper jury instruction on the meaning of “income” and by refusing to give a jury instruction that was favorable to my defense.
The fact that Judge Dawson would actually prevent me from calling witnesses whose testimony was material to my defense was totally shocking to many of those who attended my trial, as well as the witnesses who would not be allowed to testify in the manner we had intended. For example, a key theme that was repeated throughout the indictment was that I had prepared “false and fraudulent documents” and gave tax advice to people which I “well knew and believed” was false. Such claims made to the grand jury D.O.J. prosecutors knew were false, but they wanted to get an in indictment and didn’t care how many lies they had to tell to the grand jury to get it. Proof of this is that at trial, no government witness testified that anything I said or wrote about was untrue – let alone that I believed it was untrue
At trial, I called as an adverse witness Special Agent Sam Holland, who was the man most responsible for generating the indictment. He was the one who illegally got the search warrant which was supported by his sealed affidavit that accused me of everything but kidnapping the Lindberg baby. In his sealed affidavit Mr. Holland accused me of filing “false and fraudulent income tax returns,” and of “encouraging” others to do the same, and “instructing” and “assisting” others to file…fraudulent Forms W-4.” In The Federal Mafia I explain how to do both. So, if my instruction were false, that could easily be established by turning to where such documents are discussed in The Federal Mafia. However, when I called Sam Holland to the stand as an adverse witness and I asked him if he had read The Federal Mafia, he said “No.” I had to ask him that question before I could ask him any question about that book. If he had answered “yes,” my next question would have been, “Can you turn to any statement in that book that misstates the law or encourages anyone to violate the law?” However, I couldn’t ask him that question, because he now claimed he had never read that book! Here is the Government’s lead investigator supposedly gathering evidence to support all of the charges in the indictment, and he claims not to have read a book of mine that the Government enjoined me from selling because it promoted violations of our tax laws – and he claims not to have that book??!!! He undoubtedly poured over it, but couldn’t find anything in it that was untrue or encouraged people to violate the law. Therefore, he had to give that absurd and unbelievable answer in order to avoid his total embarrassment if he were forced to answer what he knew was going to be my follow up question.
In addition while he was on the witness stand I place a “zero” return in front of him and asked him to identify one statement on it that was false, and he was unable to do so. I believe the Government objected to my even asking him to so.
The point is, a claim that is fundamental to the government’s entire case was its claim that I am essentially a liar and a charlatan and simply do not believe what I say, write and teach in connection with income taxes. To refute such a claim, I was prepared to call no less than five attorneys who have known me over the years and most of whom had represented me in various matters in connection with my stand on income taxes. All of them were prepared to testify that overlooking the legal validity of my beliefs on the income tax, they all believed beyond any question that I held those beliefs honestly and sincerely. Their testimony alone would have knocked the Governments case into a cocked hat. But Judge Dawson would not let them testify. Since California attorney Noel Spaid had already flown in, I put her on as a character witness, but told the other lawyers they need not show up, since they would not be allowed to testify.
Also Judge Dawson would not allow the following persons to testify concerning how they relied on my material and how I relied on research and in formation they supplied to me:
1) Former IRS Special Agent Joe Bannister
2) Former IRS Revenue Officer John Turner
3) Bob Schultz , Chairman of “We the People”
4) The Government’s own clinical psychologist, Danial S. Hayes, Ph.D. L.L.C. whose analysis of me included the following:
… the research and documentation he believes to be in support of his beliefs, and the commitment and passion with which he holds his beliefs to be true. He appears to have extremely rigid, fixed, inflexible, doggedly, determined opinions and beliefs that cannot be changed by others’ reasoning. And, in this case, even punishment has not had a corrective impact in his thinking or behaviors. He appears impervious to any suggestion that he reconsider his conclusions or his actions, in part because of the thorough research he has conducted which has yielded evidence and facts to support his conclusions, coupled with the fact that he considers himself to be an “expert” with knowledge that supersedes that of any other individual claiming to have expertise in this subject area.
Most people have beliefs that have a greater degree of flexibility and openness to change than does Mr. Schiff. Although some may have beliefs that parallel Mr. Schiff’s, they differ from him in that they are unwilling to jeopardize their freedom and suffer the consequences of their beliefs to the degree that Mr. Schiff has.
As a result, it would be almost impossible at this point in his life to persuade him that he is wrong, particularly since he feels that there are few if any individuals who could match the breath and depth of knowledge he appears to have as a result of the time, effort, focus, and intellect he has devoted to the subject.
Any arguments against him are likely to be seen by him as naïve and sophomoric, and he is likely to dismantle any such arguments quickly and handily by quick reference to materials his opponent is unlikely to have at the ready for consideration and rebuttal.
He holds these beliefs with such conviction that even the severe consequences of incarceration for the rest of his natural life fails to shake his resolve. This does tend to set him apart from the average individual…He adamantly feels that he has discovered something that is very important to the American people regarding this nation’s economic and taxation practices, and whereas others who are not driven by a Mood Disorder might be more open minded to arguments, weigh personal consequences and elect not to pursue their campaign, Irwin Schiff has chosen a route fraught with significant and possible disastrous consequences.”
His analysis alone eliminated any claim of “willfulness” or that my past convictions were “notice to me” that wiped out “willfulness” which is what the Government continually repeated in its final argument to the jury. Both the prosecutors and Judge Dawson knew that Judge Hayes’s report made such a claim totally spurious.
MORE TO FOLLOW:
 The job description of Special Agents (Exhibit A) clearly reveals that they have no authority to investigate the alleged income tax liabilities of persons residing within the continental USA; Section 7608 (Exhibit B) reveals that the only IRS agents (subsection (b)) who might have authority to enforce the payment of income taxes [which falls into subtitle A] are those agents from the “Intelligence Division of the IRS whom the Secretary charges etc. etc. etc”; however, the public never comes in contact with such agents; while those agents whom the public deals with, Special Agents and Revenue Officers, must fall into section (a) and, therefore, can only have authority to enforce the payment of subtitle E taxes, such as liquor, tobacco and firearms.
With respect to “pocket commissions” (Exhibit C): the IRS issues two types, “enforcement” and “non-enforcement” commissions. All IRS seizures are done by Revenue Officers who are only issued “non-enforcement” pocket commissions, which again proves that they have no legal authority to seize anything, such as: bank accounts, wages, automobiles, stock portfolios, etc. etc. etc., which they seize every day. Thus all IRS Revenue Officers are essentially thieves operating under color of law whose thievery is protected by their partners in crime, the federal judiciary and DOJ lawyers.
 However, as the following will show, only misstatements of law come from the bench.
 Since I could not get expedited transcripts of the actual testimony (even though I was willing to pay extra for them) , these statements represent my best recollection of what was actually testified to, since I do not, as yet, have actual transcripts.
 The Government never qualifies any of its witnesses as “experts” in tax law. The Government does this deliberately, so that none of its witnesses can be cross-examined on the law itself. However, their witnesses continually testify about the law without appearing to do so and without their being subject to cross-examination on the “laws” they testify about. The government accomplishes this in the following manner. Government witnesses continually refer to such things as: “income,” “liability,” “deficiencies,” “levies,” “seizures” as well as “CDP hearings” “ books and records,” “concealment” and even the failure of the defendant “to cooperate with the IRS, ” as if the IRS did all of these things legally and the defendant was legally obligated and subject to what these terms imply.
However, all such terms involve a basis in law, such as: a statute (or the lack of a statute) or, as in the case of “income,” a legal conclusion. However, defendants are prevented from cross-examining Government witnesses concerning: (1) their use of these terms; (2) the legal basis of such terms ; and (3) the substance of the statutes in which these terms appear – because both the court and the Government will contend that since such witnesses “have not been qualified as ‘experts’ in tax law, they cannot be cross-examined on the law.”
In this manner, the Government deliberately and disingenuously has created a situation where it is able to use Government witnesses to casually (but effectively) testify about the “law,” but make it impossible for defendants to impeach their testimony by cross-examining them on the “laws” they raise and refer to. This diabolic scheme allows Government witnesses to infer that:
(1) the actions and activities of the defendant are illegal (when they generally are not);
(2) that the actions and activities of the IRS are legal (when they generally are not); and
(3) allows Government witnesses (as well as the prosecutor and the court itself) to use such terms as “income” and “liability” against defendants, when such terms cannot apply to defendants on any basis.
It should be noted that even in this case, the Government’s summary witness was not offered as an “expert” in tax law. He was offered only as an “expert in tax calculations, ” (whatever that means). However, the Government subsequently sought to sneak in his testimony as coming from an expert in “income tax law.” However, I prevented this from happening. I am sure the Government gets away with this at other tax trials.
 The Government sought to mislead the jury concerning the purpose and nature of my bank accounts – seeking to create the impression that I used eight bank accounts to make my receipts less traceable.
Mr. Lowder continually referred to “transfers” between my “eight bank accounts.” Actually I only had four accounts (plus my PILL account) at any one time. When the IRS illegally seized my bank accounts with Bank of America (and ATM withdrawals from my PILL account saved the day, because it allowed me to pay my employees and other creditors) I opened up accounts with the Nevada State Bank because their Deposit Agreement said they would only turn over depositor funds “pursuant to legal process” which eliminated IRS notices-of-levy (if their differences were pointed out to them.)
However, they have since changed their Deposit Agreement to make it more compatible for them to illegally honor IRS notices -of -levy, which doing so, is still a violation of Nevada State law. In any case, two of the four accounts were for the Freedom Foundation. One account was interest bearing, the other was not. I kept funds not immediately needed in the interest bearing account, and transferred funds to the non interest bearing checking account as needed. The two accounts I had for Freedom Books consisted of a merchant account and my general checking account. The merchant account is where credit card receipts are automatically deposited by the company handling those funds, while checks and other receipts are deposited directly into the checking account.
So there was nothing devious or shady about having these four accounts (or the eight the Government kept referring to) as the Government sought to depict.
 In addition, throughout the indictment I am accused of “knowing and believing” that practically everything I teach and write about the income tax I know to be false. Can you believe it?
On April 26, 2005 Schiff filed a Motion to Dismiss, which the government Opposed on May 24, 2005 to which Schiff Replied on May 27, 2005.
ALSO! Read Irwin’s Appeal to the 9th Circuit of Judge Philip Pro’s totally lawless granting of a Summary Judgment to the government in connection with its $2.6 million civil lawsuit – more proof of the corruption of federal courts (and the criminal character of the DOJ) in civil as well as criminal matters.
For an excellent condensation see this Las Vegas Tribune article.
I am immediately appealing this Injunction to the Supreme Court to find out for sure if the 1st Amendment no longer exists in America.
And to be on the safe side and not risk incarceration for contempt, for allegedly violating the Court’s Order, I am not selling any of my other informational packets and tapes until I can get clarification from Judge George as to what information I can, and can not sell. The Order itself is not clear. (Can you believe that an American citizen now has to worry about things like this? But more on the Injunction further on, let me get to my pending criminal trial and civil litigation)
I believe that the pleadings and other documents now posted to this web site make it pretty clear that the government has for over 50 years been illegally prosecuting people in connection with income taxes in violation of: (1) its taxing powers as contained in the Constitution; and (2) the actual laws as contained in the Internal Revenue Code itself. It has been able to do this, I suggest, because of the duplicity and lawlessness of the federal judiciary and the Department of Justice In short, I believe that if the American public knew what has been going on, practically the entire federal judiciary would be behind bars, along with practically every tax lawyer employed by the Justice Department. However, that is merely my opinion, you can read the following pleadings and make up your own mind.
Two weeks before my April 14, 2004 arraignment, I filed four motions to dismiss all of the criminal charges filed against me. The Memoranda of Law I filed to support those motions explain why I concluded that federal district courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to prosecute me (or anyone else) for alleged income tax crimes, because:
(1) No law makes me “liable” for income taxes;
(2) The income tax is not “traceable” to any power given to Congress by the Constitution to “lay and collect taxes”;
(3) The indictment were secured by fraud, because U.S. attorneys fraudulently misled the grand jury concerning the legal meaning of “income” as that term is used in our revenue laws;
(4) There is no provision in the Internal Revenue Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction to prosecute anyone for alleged criminal violations of our income tax laws.
Naturally, the government disagreed with all four of my conclusions. On October 8, 2004 the Government filed it’s answer opposing my four motions (click to read its Response). On November 23, 2004 I filed my Reply to the Government’s Response. By clicking here you can read my Reply.
On December 3, 2004 U.S. Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt filed his “Report” recommending that U.S. District Court Judge Kent J. Dawson deny my four motions to dismiss. Please read U.S. Magistrate Judge Leavitt’s “Report” and my “Reply”
Read my Motion to Suppress all of the alleged evidence the Government confiscated in its Feb. 11, 2003 raid on Freedom Books. My Memorandum of Law argues that all such IRS searches and seizures are illegal on a variety of grounds, which (if my arguments are correct), means that untold numbers of Americans have been prosecuted and convicted based upon illegally acquired evidence. On December 21, 2004, U.S. Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt filed his “Report”, contesting my claim and recommending that U.S.D.C. Judge Kent J. Dawson deny my “Motion to Suppress”. To read my reply to his report click here.
Apart from the federal government filing criminal charges against me, it also filed a civil lawsuit against me seeking to reduce to judgment some $2.4 million in income taxes, fraud and interest penalties it claimed I owed for the years 1979-1985. As I argue in my pleadings, I do not owe the Government ONE DIME for any of those years. The government sought to reduce to judgment assessments (which I claimed were both fraudulent and time barred) it had made against me for those years. The actual taxes I allegedly owed for those years amounted to about $300,000. The government now seeks to extract from me an amount in taxes and penalties that would exceed IN MULTIPLES what I could have conceivably grossed for those years.
What medieval tyrant ever sought to extract from a conquered enemy far more in tribute than the vanquished nation could conceivably possess? But the pleadings I filed in this case, reveal, I suggest, why federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to proceed against anyone either criminally or civilly in connection with income taxes.
The taxes I allegedly owe for 1980-1985 were based on coerced tax returns I filed during a contrived probation violation hearing in the hopes that they would save me from being sent back to jail for allegedly violating the terms of my probation – which would be completed in only a week or so. (See The Federal Mafia pp 281-283 for a full explanation) The taxes I allegedly owe for the 1979 are based upon a sham Tax Court determination (See The Federal Mafia pp 260-263), but were, in any case, no longer collectable, as explained in my Rule 59 pleading. In any case, for a variety of reasons, I was entitled to have an impartial jury decide the entire matter. Instead, the government moved for a summary judgment, so the controversy could be settled, not by an impartial jury, but by a lone federal judge, who could be expected to be less impartial than a jury of private citizens. Time and again federal courts have ruled that when a constitutional right collides with the government’s alleged “need” for revenue, it is the constitutional right that must yield.
On June 13, 2004 U.S. Federal Judge, Philip M. Pro granted the government its summary judgment. In moving for summary judgment the government literally buried me in a variety of legal pleadings and documents, which had to be addressed if I were to defeat its motion. Eventually, I discovered that: (1) the statute the government used to impose the fraud penalties could not apply to me on any basis, and (2) Judge Pro had based his ruling on a legal assumption that simply could not apply in this case. Therefore, his summary judgment in my view is clearly void as a matter of law just on these two grounds alone. Both issues are fully set forth in the documents that I have now posted to this website.
Since I believe that Judge Pro’s ruling is erroneous on a variety of grounds, on July 20, 2004 I moved that he “alter, amend, or vacate” his ruling pursuant to a Rule 59 motion. On September 3, 2004, I filed another motion requesting that he dismiss the government’s lawsuit altogether because I believe he lacked subject matter jurisdiction to even hear this case
On August 13, 2004 the government answered my Rule 59 Motion. I Replied on September 3rd (click here for my Reply). On September 16, the Government answered my motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which I answered on September 3, 2004. (Click here for my answer) On January 18, 2005 U.S. District Judge Philip M. Pro denied without comment, my rule 59 motions, and also denied without comment my motion in connection with his alleged lack of jurisdiction. Since he gave no reasons to support these decisions, on Jan 27th, 2005 I filed a motion requesting “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.” In any case, I have already served notice that I am appealing both of his rulings to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Read my appeal.
All of this information can be accessed by clicking the items listed below.
In addition I have filled numerous other pleadings in connection with the above litigation. I am in the process of posting these additional pleadings and the government’s responses to this web site. To get to these pleadings and to find out how the government and the court may have responded click here.
To view these documents you’ll need the free Acrobat reader – available here. The following are review of Irwin’s pleadings. The government’s responses and pleadings are available above.
Schiff’s Reply as to why all criminal charges against Cindy Neun, Larry Cohen, and himself must be dismissed, because federal courts have no subject matter jurisdiction to criminally prosecute anybody for alleged income tax crimes
Read Schiff’s Reply to Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt’s “Report” in which he recommends that the Court deny Schiff’s four motions.
Schiff’s Motion to Suppress all evidence gathered as a result of an illegal IRS “search and seizure,” showing why all such IRS “search and seizures” are illegal.
Read Schiff’s Reply to Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt’s “Report” in which he recommends that the Court deny Schiff’s four motions.
Schiff’s Reply as to why Judge Pro had no jurisdiction to award the Government a $2.6 million summary judgment involving income taxes.
Schiff’s Reply why Judge Pro should “alter, amend, or vacate” his giving the Government a $2.6 million summary judgment, when clearly, the Government’s entire lawsuit should be thrown out for fraud. (Rule 59 Motion)
Schiff’s pre arraignment offer to plead guilty
Is America really a “great country”?
ALSO! Read Irwin’s 9th Circuit Appeal of Judge Philip Pro’s totally lawless granting of a Summary Judgment to the government in connection with its $2.6 million civil lawsuit – more proof of the corruption of federal courts (and the criminal character of the DOJ) in civil as well as criminal matters.
Getting back to Judge Lloyd D. George’s Preliminary Injunction, it appears from his Order and other statements he made at the Preliminary hearing that if I cut out certain pages from “The Federal Mafia: How The Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes, I might be able to sell a sanitized version. Apparently by advertising other books and tapes in the back of this book I converted the book to “commercial speech,” thus denying it 1st Amendment protection. (Does this make sense to anybody?)
Therefore, for now, Freedom Books will only sell my other books and such related books as: (1) the Internal Revenue Code (unless I am enjoined from selling that too); (2) Title 28; (3) 26 C.F.R, a 5-volume set; (4) Sen. William V. Roth’s book, “The Power to Destroy” (Its dust jacket claims that the book contains “Shocking revelations about the IRS…[such as] … How the IRS – with near absolute authority granted by Congress – plays judge, jury, and executioner, depriving countless taxpayers of basic rights.)”
It was Roth’s Senate Committee that investigated the IRS in 1997 and uncovered wide scale IRS abuse of taxpayers); and (5) the book “Fundamentals of Litigation For Paralegals.” (Incredibly, the government has passed a law that compels all Americans to acquire the litigating skills of professional lawyers. How else can you fight the “deprivation” of your rights that Senator Roth speaks about?) I will also still sell (for $5.00) my color – coded Guide to the Constitution of the United States and Declaration of Independence. One cannot help but feel a twinge of nostalgia upon reading the Constitution, since it poignantly reminds us of days gone by. All of these books were available on my Online Store.
It’s also important to note that in my appeal to the 9th Circuit my lawyer did not argue the merits of my beliefs. He could only argue that regardless of what my book said, it was protected by the 1st Amendment. If he argued the merits of my beliefs he would have been sanctioned by the court, since my beliefs are not in accord with what appellate courts have ruled our tax laws say, and lawyers are apparently bound by what appellate courts say the law is – and cannot argue otherwise.
This is one of the reasons I am representing myself in my pending criminal trial since no lawyer can argue the merits (if any) of my income tax beliefs in federal courts or they will be sanctioned.
Along these lines, I cannot see how my beliefs on income taxes can mislead anyone. Apart from checking my beliefs against the law itself – would I sell the Internal Revenue Code if it contradicted what I say in my books? – all of my books cite numerous court decisions: over 100 such decisions are cited in “The Federal Mafia” alone.
However, not only am I posting Judge Lloyd D. George’s entire 35 page Preliminary Injunction to this website (as he ordered me to do), which contains his analysis as to why Cindy Neun, Larry Cohen and myself prepared “false tax returns and other tax-related documents …(because)… These returns and documents falsely report that their customers have no taxable income and no tax liability.” (Page 13) In addition, I have also posted to this website numerous Responses from different sets of Justice Department lawyers who also argue and contest my views regarding the meaning of “income” and whether or not there is a law making anyone “liable” for income taxes.
In addition I have also posted three “Reports and Recommendations” from U.S. Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt who also argues that my views on these issues are dead wrong.
Therefore, in view of all these official, legal voices all explaining – on this website – why my views on income taxes are dead wrong, how can anyone be misled by me?
I urge everyone to read all of the pleadings now posted to this website filed by U.S. attorneys and the court all claiming that my understanding of our income tax laws is dead wrong. (More such pleadings and documents will be posted to this web site as they become available) I, therefore, urge everyone to: (1) check out the Internal Revenue Code itself; (2) consult with your lawyer and/or accountant concerning any and all material contained on this website and anything I might have written and said about income taxes; and (3) ask the IRS itself, before you rely on anything I might have said or written in connection with income taxes.
Remember, all federal judges and U.S. attorneys maintain that much of what I say about income taxes is dead wrong, and in many cases, might even constitute tax evasion. I, of course, do not agree with that, since I would never advocate violations of law – which is why I sell the law and its implementing regulations. However, I may even be “delusional,” so don’t take my word for anything, without checking out all of the underlying facts and what the IRS, the DOJ, and the courts have to say about the matter.
On pages 33 – 35 of the Preliminary Injunction you will find all the things I have been ordered to do by the Court. Remember, I am appealing the constitutionality of this Injunction to the Supreme Court and hopefully that Court will accept certiorari.
For those of you who would like to help me make that voyage to the Supreme Court so I can attempt to salvage that portion of the 1st Amendment that guarantees “freedom of speech, and of the press,” contributions for that voyage will be gratefully accepted – since if I allow this Injunction to stand, the 1st Amendment is effectively dead in America. The briefs we filed on this issue with the 9th Circuit Appeal will shortly be posted to this web site.
Also Judge Lloyd D. George’s Preliminary Injunction order, was based on a hearing in which the government did not put on one witness that I could cross-examine. I, on the other hand, demanded to be put under oath and challenged the government to cross-examine me and identify any passage in any of my books that encouraged people to break the law. They refused to do so even though I offered to (1) stop selling all of my books; and (2) not oppose their Injunction if they did so. You can listen to the 2-½ hour hearing by clicking here.
The primary reason the government gave, for banning The Federal Mafia was that it contains information on how to file a “zero” return. The government claimed that my “zero” return promoted tax evasion and was somehow tied in to “commercial speech,” therefore; The Federal Mafia was not protected by the 1st Amendment. However, I have now posted the “zero” return I personally filed for the year 2003 on this website. Therefore, anyone can have the information free of charge. So, where is the “commercial speech”?
I have also posted to this website a wage statement that shows how the IRS (actually the U.S. Government) goes about confiscating 90% of a person’s wages without hearings or court orders of any kind. Is this the action of a “great nation”?
If you’d like to help rid America of this economically destructive and illegally enforced “tax,” help disseminate these pleadings far and wide. The Government and all of its minions obviously are trying to crush me in order to prevent me from informing and educating the American public concerning how it illegally and destructively collects income taxes – and what the public might do to protect itself.
Besides having unlimited manpower to come at me, the Government also has a printing press which allows it to (illegally) print as much fiat currency as it needs to do the job. I, of course, have no such printing press. All I have to fight with is truth, and whatever energy I can muster at age 76.
However, fighting the Government both civilly and criminally takes both time and money. So if you would like to help me financially fight a Government whose lawless enforcement of the income tax has literally bankrupted this Nation, and converted it into being the world’s biggest debtor Nation, while destroying its railroads, shipping lines, and most of its factories, you can mail contributions to Freedom Books, 444 East Sahara, Las Vegas, Nevada 89104. Or buy copies of the books and research from Freedom Books.
However, not only has the federal government been illegally collecting income taxes, as is clearly shown in the documents now posted to this web site, but it has been the lawless, irresponsible and destructive collection of this tax that is responsible for the disappearance of practically America’s entire industrial base and our total dependence on foreign capital to fund federal deficits. Where 50 years ago practically all the products American’s used and wore were made in America, almost nothing we use or ware is made in America today. And it is not cheap foreign labor that has driven American jobs overseas, but the Government’s destructive economic and fiscal policies (pushed by both Democrat and Republican administrations) that have done it.
I saw this happening 30 years ago, which is why I wrote The Biggest Con: How the Government is Fleecing You. The last two chapters of that book are entitled, “The Decline of U.S. Economic Power – How the Government and the Federal Reserve Arranged It” and “The Solution to America’s Economic and Social Problems.” A more simplified version is covered in How An Economy Grows and Why It Doesn’t, published in 1985.
The solution to the problem of job loss in America and “outsourcing” is the same today as it was when I focused on the problem some 30 years ago. Lou Dobbs of CNN has been talking about this problem for months. So I sent him an e-mail on the subject, since none of his guests appeared to have a clue as to why this is happening and what we should do about it. Read my economic commentary to Lou Dobbs. “When will Lou Dobbs get it right?”.
Why not write or e-mail Lou Dobbs and ask him to have me on his show, since its about time the American public heard someone on network TV who knows something about the problem; why it developed, and what steps the Nation must take if the problem is to be solved, if it is not already too late.
Purchase my books, research and other information now for there is no guarantee that the 9th Circuit will reverse its Opinion sustaining the First Amendment injunction. Get all of the truth while you still can.
Welcome to Amerika.
 For all practical purposes, the income tax started in 1943 when the Government instituted the “withholding tax” as a temporary, wartime measure and called it a “Victory Tax.” Congressmen would have risked being lynched had they attempted to pass a law, during peacetime that took taxes out of the paychecks of working Americans. However, with 10 million Americans under arms and numerous servicemen dying everyday, how could those on the home front object to a “Victory Tax”? In this manner, Congress was able to pass a tax that was unconstitutional on a variety of grounds, (for one such surprising ground See the Federal Mafia – PP159-161), and the federal government has been growing like a cancer ever since.
50 years ago Americans generated the savings needed to fund federal deficits. But for a number of years, the government has been encouraging Americans to spend (and not save), since this is how government statisticians and economists (idiotically) measure American “prosperity,” not by how much Americans produce and save, but how much Americans spend and consume. However, when Americans spend, practically all the products they now buy are manufactured in foreign countries. Therefore, American consumer spending does not enrich Americans, it enriches those foreign workers who produce the products that Americans now buy.
Therefore, when our government needs money to fund its deficits, it can’t look to Americans, since Americans are hard at work “spending” not “saving.” Therefore, our government now has to rely on foreigners to fund its deficits. So, where once American factories produced the consumer goods that gave America the world’s highest standard of living, and where its economy generated the savings needed to finance federal deficits, today the American economy produces neither.
America, thanks to federal programs designed to promote: “The New Deal,” “The Fair Deal,” “The Great Society,” The New Frontier,” and the “Welfare State,” (all variations of socialism) have resulted in America now becoming totally dependant on: (1) the consumer goods produced by foreigners (and their willingness to ship them to us on credit), and (2) the willingness of foreigners to lend us their money, so our federal government can pay its bills. What happens to the American standard of living (to say nothing of America’s ability to wage war) when foreign nations no longer want to do either? So, America’s once great, economy, which took past generations of productive Americans approximately 300 years to build (under a free enterprise system which no longer exists here), Washington D.C. politicians managed to destroy in approximately 50 years of meddling. Tragically, the day must inevitably arrive when somebody will write a book entitled, “The Rise and Fall of America.”
America Freedom to Fascism
See the movie they wouldn’t let you see in theatres
featuring Irwin Schiff
For Irwin Schiff Archived Radio Shows click Here
[ Who is Irwin Schiff ] [ Economy ] [ Toledo Law School ] [ Testimonials ] [ Senate Report ] [ Mafia Chap1 ] [ Federal Mafia ] [ Lien & Levy Packet ] [ Seminars ] [ Video & Audio ] [ 861 Argument ] [ Learn ] [ Contact Us ] [ Links ] [ Legal Battle ]
444 East Sahara
Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 Online Store
E-Mail Irwin Schiff