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
Irwin Schiff Railroaded by IRS by JIM DAVIES of SimplySchiff e-groups Click Here
Irwin's Letter to
The government opposed on
Schiff replied on
May 27, 2005.
Irwin's Counselor, Shelly Waxman has 5 books available at
The DOJ's Admission - Added 9/18/2013
to rule on the effect of his own errors at my trial:
The attorney who was rendered ineffective because he did not raise these issues in my direct appeal was Michael B. Nash of Chicago. There were other strong issues that Mr. Nash should have raised but did not, but for reasons I need not go into, they could not be raised here....
Transcript of Irwin Schiff Kangroo court "trial" - Click for the Habeas Corpus,Jury Trial Day 1 091205.pdf, Jury Trial Day 2 091305.pdf, Jury Trial Day 3 091405.pdf, Jury Trial Day 4 091505.pdf, Jury Trial Day 5 091905.pdf, Jury Trial Day 6 092005.pdf, Jury Trial Day 7 092105.pdf, Jury Trial Day 8 092205.pdf, Jury Trial Day 9 092612.pdf, Jury Trial Day 10 092705.pdf, Jury Trial Day 11 092805.pdf, Jury Trial Day 12 092905.pdf, Jury Trial Day 13 100305.pdf, Jury Trial Day 14 100505.pdf, Jury Trial Day 15 100505.pdf, Jury Trial Day 16 100605.pdf, Jury Trial Day 17 101105.pdf, Jury Trial Day 18 101205.pdf, Jury Trial Day 19 101305.pdf, Jury Trial Day 20 101705.pdf, Jury Trial Day 22 101905.pdf, Jury Trial Day 23 102005.pdf, Jury Trial Day 24 102405.pdf
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
(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
Conclusions of Law
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, www.paynoincometax.com, and 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
(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
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.
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,
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:
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.
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
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)
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)
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.
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
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, www.paynoincometax.com, and 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
Newly added the following as of August 20, 2007
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 #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"
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!
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 Read the
Seton Law Review
About Free Speech Infringement related to the "The
Read the Seton Law Review About Free Speech Infringement related to the "The Federal Mafia"
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?
For an excellent condensation see this Las Vegas Tribune article.
I am immediately appealing this Injunction to the Supreme Court to find outfor 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:
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.
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
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”?
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
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.
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.
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.”See the movie they wouldn't let you see in theatres
featuring Irwin Schiff
For Irwin Schiff Archived Radio Shows click Here