Added
10/13/07
Answer to Order to Show Cause and motion to Vacate and Dismiss said Order
Irwin Schiff
#08537-014
FCI Terre Haute,
PO Box 33,
Terre Haute IN 47808
Download the
BANNED
For FREE!
Irwin Schiff's 2004
"ZERO" Tax Return
New:
Irwin Schiff
Interviews
Irwin Schiff Railroaded by IRS by JIM DAVIES of SimplySchiff e-groups Click Here
Criminal Character of Judge Dawson Exposed plus Exhibit
Shocking
Trial Blogs
Link 1
Link 2
Irwin's Letter to
Lou Dobbs
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
|
Irwin Schiff
|
Irwin's Counselor, Shelly Waxman has 5 books available at
Amazon
Click Here
|
Important Information For All Americans! |
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.
