Oral Argument takes place in S.F. on Monday, Nov. 5th.
 

Irwin Schiff #08537-014 FCI Otisville Satellite Camp PO Box 1000 OTISVILLE, NY 10963   October 24, 2007 Hello Boys and Girls, The photo shows the Fort Dix Prisoner of War Camp - but on September 25th I was moved to a different facility in Otisville, NY. There is actually no fence around this place, but Dobermans and Pit Bulls circle the perimeter. I am kidding, of course, about the dogs - all we have around the perimeter are squirrels and deer. However I am leaving up the picture showing gun towers and barbed wire for their dramatic effect. Besides, I couldn't get the squirrels and deer to sit still for a picture. The Supplemental Appeal briefs that follow, reveal not only the blatant injustice in the convictions of Cindy, Larry 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. How can the 9th Circuit overlook the "four statutes working together" instruction, when it has already ruled in principle that such an instruction is nonsense? - and the Tally cross examination? So please, when you have studied these Appeals and if you feel their conclusions are justified, write the 9th Circuit accordingly. Let them know what you think of the quality of justice provided at our trial and whether you believe a reversal of our convictions is warranted; see "Communicating" at www.ca9.uscourts.gov. Keep your letters short and respectful, and be sure to cite the case name and Docket Number. So, here is insight into how tax trials are conducted in the US of A; the Honorable Kent J Dawson presiding. Your friend, Irwin Schiff.

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.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

            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.

CONCLUSION

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.

Respectfully submitted,

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 5^th 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   Click Here to Order the DVD

Arron Russo On Coast-To-Coast AM

Aaron Russo on Lou Epton

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..