The Schiff Trial

Video & Audio

Irwin's Great Giveway

Added 10/13/07
Answer to Order to Show Cause and motion to Vacate and Dismiss said Order

Observer Article

Write a Letter of Support and Thanks to Irwin Schiff.  As of 04/02/11 his location is as follows:

Irwin Schiff
FCI Terre Haute,
PO Box 33,
Terre Haute IN 47808

Download the BANNED
Federal Mafia


Who is Irwin Schiff
Toledo Law School
Senate Report
Mafia Chap1
Federal Mafia
Lien & Levy Packet
Video & Audio
861 Argument
Contact Us
Legal Battle

Irwin Schiff's 2004 "ZERO" Tax Return

Irwin Schiff

Irwin Schiff Railroaded by IRS by JIM DAVIES of  SimplySchiff e-groups Click Here

Criminal Character of Judge Dawson Exposed plus Exhibit

Trial Blogs

Link 1  Link 2


More Documents

July 17th Motions

Irwin's Letter to
Lou Dobbs

Apr 26, Motion to Dismiss.

The government opposed on
May 24

Schiff replied on May 27, 2005.
This motion and the reply, expose the entire fraudulent character of the federal income tax and it's criminal enforcement by the federal government.

Feature Article:
Las Vegas Tribune April 1, 2005

"Insanity" Defense

Read Irwin's Testimony before Congress from "The Biggest Con"

Irwin Schiff
appears in "America Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo!

Irwin's Counselor, Shelly Waxman has 5 books available at Amazon
Click Here

Important Information For All Americans!

PDF Printable Version

As you can see from these Congressional Reports, Congress, in adopting 1954 Internal Revenue Code declared that “income” as used in our revenue laws means “income” used in the “16th Amendment” and “constitutional sense.”   Does “income” in the “16th Amendment” and “constitutional sense” mean the same thing as “income” received in the “ordinary sense”?  When you or the government calculates your taxable “income,” is it calculated on “income” received in the “constitutional sense” or is it calculated on “income” received in the “ordinary sense” - or doesn’t it make any difference?   If it doesn’t make any difference, why did Congress make this distinction?

 While section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code claims to define “Gross income” – “income” itself is not defined anywhere in the Internal Revenue  Code – yet the definition of “Gross income” in section 61 is made dependant on the meaning of “income” which is not defined.”  So is “Gross income” defined in the Internal Revenue Code if “income” itself is not defined?

 It is my view that the Federal judiciary in criminal conspiracy with the Justice Department has been unconstitutionally and unlawfully extracting income taxes on “income” received in the “ordinary sense” and not on “income” received in the “constitutional sense” in blatant violations of these Congressional Reports.  It is my view that the Federal judiciary and the entire Tax Division of the Justice Department are all involved in a mind-boggling criminal conspiracy to extract income taxes in violation of law and the limitations placed on Congress’s taxing powers by the Constitution – which this definition of income was designed to be in accord with. Of course, the courts and the Justice Department do not agree with me on this.   

My understanding of the meaning if “income” received in the “constitutional sense” is explained in my 3rd Motion to Dismiss (as now posted on this web site) and as further developed and explained in my subsequent Replies to the Government’s and the Court’s Reponses to my briefs and motions on this issue.  So read what the government has to say as to the meaning of “income” as reflected in these Congressional Reports - and make up your own mind as to who is telling the truth as to what is taxable as “income” under our laws.

Home ] 

Who is Irwin Schiff ] Economy ] Toledo Law School ] Testimonials ] [ Senate Report ] Mafia Chap1 ] Federal Mafia ] Lien & Levy Packet ] Seminars ] Video & Audio ] 861 Argument ] Learn ] Contact Us ] Links ] Legal Battle ]


Freedom Books
444 East Sahara
Las Vegas, Nevada  89104
Online Store

E-Mail Irwin Schiff