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
On The Book-Banning
Case...
June 9th 2003
WOULD THE GOVERNMENT BAN A BOOK SAYING ITS
OKAY TO BOOTLEG WHISKEY ?
As I write this article (June 9) it is now approximately 80 days since Las Vegas
Federal District Court Senior Judge, Lloyd D. George, gave the government its
temporary restraining order banning my book, The Federal Mafia: How the
Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes. It is
also 60 days since a hearing for a preliminary injunction was held. Since Judge
George has failed to rule on the government’s request for a preliminary
injunction, I am still being subjected to a temporary restraining order,
which the government said, at the initial hearing, was only good for 20 days.
Judge George initially banned my book while we had only 5 days notice to prepare
(including the week-end) for the initial hearing, held on March 19, 2003. No
testimony was taken at that hearing and Judge George banned the book after
looking at it for about 10 minutes. Apparently Judge George is able to judge a
book by its cover. The government sought to ban the book on the grounds I was
“promoting an abusive tax schemes” and for “asserting that the payment of
income taxes is voluntary.” Of course I sell a book, not a “tax scheme” or “tax
shelter” while the IRS’ own Mission Statement, (as shown on page 13 of The
Federal Mafia), stated, “The mission of the Service is to encourage and
achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliance.” Apparently
the government expects the American public to be so unconscious as to not
understand the meaning of “voluntary compliance”. In addition the
government did not cite one specific example in any of my books, tapes or the
“zero” return which promoted tax evasion.
However, at the preliminary injunction hearing held on April 11, 2003 sworn
testimony was taken. I put on three witnesses (Judge George would not
allow me to call any more) all of whom testified that they did not buy a “tax
shelter” or “tax scheme” from me – they bought a book, which led them to do
further research. And based on this additional research they all concluded
that: 1) no law required them “to pay” income taxes; 2) no law made them
“liable,” for income taxes; and, 3) they had no “income” which was taxable under
our revenue laws. Two witnesses testified that if Mr. Evan J. Davis, the
government’s attorney, would show them a law (on cross-examination) which
required them to pay taxes, they would go back to paying income taxes. But
Mr. Davis showed them no such law, nor did he attempt to impeach or contradict
their testimony in any way.
In addition, as I handed him the Internal Revenue Code, I offered to withdraw my
opposition to the preliminary injunction if Davis would simply cite the law that
made persons “liable” for income taxes; however, he refused to do so. When I
challenged Davis to cross-examine me concerning anything in my books and tapes
he claimed promoted tax evasion, he stated, “I don’t see any reason to
cross-examine this witness, your Honor.” When I sought to make Davis my
witness and examine him concerning statements he made in seeking the preliminary
injunction, he refused to take the witness stand. Naturally, all his allegations
were lies. As a U.S. Attorney, he can lie to his hearts content in making paper
allegations, but defending them on the witness stand is another matter. So at
the preliminary hearing held on April 11, 2003 the government: 1) put on no
witnesses that would testify as to why The Federal Mafia should be banned
on any basis, nor 2) did the government attempt to impeach – on any basis
- the testimony of any of my witnesses (including myself) as to why The
Federal Mafia should not be banned. One does not have to be a legal
scholar to know that Judge George should have denied the government’s request
for a preliminary injunction on the spot, because 1) the government produced
absolutely nothing at all, nor 2) did it challenge - in any way - anything that
my witnesses and I all testified to under oath. The point is, if Judge George
could grant a Temporary Restraining Order (in about 5 days) based on a “hearing”
in which no sworn testimony was taken, how can he fail to deny a request for a
preliminary injunction (after 55 days) based on a hearing in which 1) all of our
sworn testimony went in unchallenged, and 2) where the government offered no
testimony to support any portion of its request for a preliminary injunction?
Apparently if the government did not show up at all - Judge
George would still have problems reaching a verdict.
Of course, this whole episode is a farce and a blatant tossing aside of the 1st Amendment so let me put the banning of The Federal Mafia into a more understandable context. Suppose someone wrote a book claiming that people can distill and sell whiskey without paying federal alcohol taxes. Such a claim would be dead wrong, of course, but would the government ban such a book? The fact that a book claimed that it was legally okay to do so would be immaterial. If anyone were dumb enough to believe such a book they would soon suffer the legal consequences, and how many books would be sold giving out such advice? It is not the government’s job to protect the public from misinformation. (Here, I am not talking about false advertising with respect to a product. The government can deal with that under laws involving false advertising and consumer fraud, which is different than “prior restraint” which is the issue here.) The government has not charged me with false advertising, consumer fraud nor of committing any other crime with respect to the information contained in The Federal Mafia.(However they did so in April 2004 – after I filed “zero” returns for 14 years) It is an individual’s responsibility to check out such information before acting upon it, especially if it involves taxes. It is a simple matter to check out tax information either against the laws themselves or by contacting the proper federal agencies. The reason the government wants to ban The Federal Mafia is that the information in it is accurate and can be verified by checking out the information against the laws themselves (which is why I sell the Internal Revenue Code) and relevant Supreme Court decisions. Since I have filed “zero” returns myself for over 13 years without negative legal consequences, one might assume that others would be free to do the same.
Since, like myself, others avoided paying income taxes based on the information
derived from the The Federal Mafia (and which they further checked out
against the Code itself) without suffering the consequences that would occur
if they bootlegged whiskey, the government’s only recourse was to seek to ban
the book so it could continue to illegally extort the tax. I have reported on
my radio show for years that I don’t pay income taxes, and that I reported
“zero” income on the returns I filed. Did the government charge me with tax
evasion? No. Suppose I openly advertised and publicized that I sold untaxed
whiskey? How long do you think the government would allow me to get away with
it? But I openly say I file tax returns each year, report “zero” income, and
pay no income tax and the government did nothing about it! (Until April of 2004)
Why? If my claim wasn’t legally correct would the government have allowed me to
keep sending in such returns for 13 years? So to prevent the public from
finding how I did it - the government flushed the 1st Amendment down the toilet
(along with most other Amendments) and sought to ban the book. However I have
now posted my 2003 “zero” return to this web site as I will shortly post my 2004
“zero” return.
