PayNoIncomeTax.com

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

Idaho
Observer Article

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

Irwin Schiff
 #08537-014
FCI Terre Haute,
PO Box 33,
Terre Haute IN 47808

Download the BANNED
Federal Mafia
For FREE!

 

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

Irwin Schiff's 2004 "ZERO" Tax Return

New:
Irwin Schiff
Interviews

Judicial Rogues
Supreme Court
Illegal Prosecutions
Criminal Complaint
Irwin v. Dorsey
Lawyers

Back ] Next ]

Brief Details

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

Store

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

 SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO HEAR THE BROWN CASE
On Monday, October 2, 2000 we learned (from the Supreme Court’s Web site) that the Supreme Court declined to hear Brown v. The United States. However, I will leave my original analysis of this case ( as shown below) largely intact, since it proves conclusively (if proof were actually needed) that, despite what Americans are taught:

1) America is not a Nation of law, 

2) The Constitution is not the law of land, and 

3) The Supreme Court really has no interest in upholding the laws of the United States or its Constitution. 

 

The case that was put before the Supreme Court, Brown v. The United States, Docket No. 99-2066, if heard, would have ended the income tax.  The case focused on a tax that few Americans know exists: the Federal "wage tax." Since 1943, this tax has been collected (and disguised) by the Government as the withholding of income taxes "at the source."  However, the taxes that get "withheld" from a worker's pay each week are not income taxes.  They have nothing to do with income taxes or the 16th Amendment.  They represent a "wage tax" imposed in Section 3402 of the Internal Revenue Code.  Income taxes are imposed in Section 1.

When Robert and Elena Brown of Las Vegas filed their 1996 "zero" income tax return, they requested a refund of the $5,035 in "wage taxes" they had paid that year. When the Government failed to send them their refund check as 
required by over 20 statutes, three constitutional provisions, and numerous Supreme Court decisions they sued the Government in Federal court in Las Vegas.  They were entitled to the refund on at least two grounds.  The 
Government admitted that no income taxes for 1996 had been assessed against 
them and no court had ever held that they owed income taxes for that year.  In addition, they were entitled to a "credit" for the wage taxes they had paid against the income taxes they owed.  Since (as explained above) they owed no income taxes, the "credit" had to take the form of a cash refund. 

In ruling against the Browns and giving the Government a summary judgment, Judge Philip Pro ignored the wage tax issue altogether and claimed in his ruling that "There is no requirement that the IRS make a formal assessment of tax liability before payment is necessary,"  thereby ignoring some 40 statutes in the Internal Revenue Code mandating the making of assessments with respect to income taxes.

In its unpublished decision (Docket No. 99-15308) affirming Judge Pro's egregious ruling, the 9th Circuit also ignored the issue of the wage tax and stated, with respect to the lack of any assessment, that "There is no requirement that the IRS make a formal assessment of tax liability before payment is necessary."   The fraudulent nature of that claim is fully exposed in our Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court.  Suffice it to say that the 9th Circuit did not cite one statute to support its decision. 

Federal courts apparently don't need laws on which to base their decisions.  If Federal courts don't need laws on which to base their decisions, what are their decisions based on? 


Following is the Table of contents to the Appendix 
which accompanied our Petition for Certiorari.
The petition and index are published in booklet form and are available from Freedom Books for a minimum donation of $50. U.S.
Proceeds will be used to publicize this case.
 
APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
         Page
Appendix A. Ruling on Petition  for Rehearing..............1a

Appendix B.  Petitioner's Request that the Court Of Appeals Certify Whether or Not It Had Addressed the Constitutional Violations Raised on Appeal............ 3a 

Appendix C. Decision by Court of Appeals Of  October 26, 1999..............5a

Appendix D. Order of District Court Of January 19, 1999..........8a

Appendix E.  Plaintiff/Appellants’ Petition that the 9th Circuit Reconsider Its decision 
Of October 26, 1999.............11a 

Appendix F. Plaintiff/Appellants’ Opening Brief On Appeal to the 9th Circuit.......28a

Appendix G. Plaintiff/Appellants’ Reply Brief to the 9th Circuit .…….57a

NOTE:  Appendix C and D are shown below to provide the Actual Decisions handed down

 

The Actual Decisions Handed Down

APPENDIX C – 
DECISION BY COURT OF APPEALS OF OCTOBER 26, 1999

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

    FILED: October 26 1999
Cathy A. Catterson, Clerk, 
U.S. Court of Appeals 

No. 99-15208
D.C. No CV No. CV-98-00825-PMP

ROBERT A. BROWN,  ELENA H. BROWN,
 Plaintiff-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
 Defendant-Appellee 

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Philip M. Pro, District Judge Presiding

MEMORANDUM 1

Submitted October 18, 1999 2

Before:  BROWING, WALLACE AND LEAVY, 
  Circuit Judges.

Robert and Elena Brown appeal pro se the district court's summary judgment for the United States in the Brown's action seeking a refund of taxes paid for tax year 1996 on the ground the IRS had failed to make any assessment against them and they had no tax liability.

These arguments are frivolous.  First, the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct non apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens. See Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007,1008n.3 (9th Cir. 1988).  Second, compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, is income subject to taxation.  See United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014,1016 (9th Cir.1981).  The Browns are taxpayers within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code and are subject to federal tax laws and income tax.  See id.

Third, there is no requirement that the IRS make a formal assessment of tax liability before payment is necessary.  An assessment is merely a bookkeeping procedure that permits the government to bring its administrative apparatus to bear in collecting a tax.  See Zeier v. United States, 80 F.3d 1360, 1354 (9th Cir. 1996) (rejecting similar argument in estate tax context).  Most taxes are collected voluntarily, without an assessment; an assessment serves as the basis on which the IRS takes action against those who do not voluntarily pay their taxes on time.  See id.

 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

 AFFIRMED.
Footnotes:
1) This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of 
this circuit as may be provided by 9th Cir.R.  36-3.
2) The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.  See Fed. R. App. P 34(a)(2)


APPENDIX D – 
ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT OF
JANUARY 19, 1999

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

   ENTERED AND SERVED 
JAN 21 1999
CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

D.C. No CV No. CV-98-00825-PMP (RJJ)

ROBERT A. BROWN, 
ELENA H. BROWN,
   Plaintiffs,
v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
   Defendant.

ORDER

This action was commenced on May 29, 1998, by the filing of Plaintiffs’ Complaint to recover overpayment of federal income taxes for the year 1996 (#1).

On November 30,1998, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (#12). On December 14, 1998, Defendant United States filed a Response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment  (#13-#15).  On January 6, 1999, Plaintiffs filed a Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (#16).

The pleadings and Motions on file, and particularly the Form W-2’s submitted as exhibits to Defendant United States’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (#15), unambiguously show that Plaintiffs Robert A. Brown and Elena H. Brown received the sums of $23,846.73 and $20,354.42, respectively, for the year 1996 and that a total of $5,035.50 was withheld for that year.  Plaintiffs’ suit for refund is grounded in the claim that because no assessment had been made against them with regard to income taxes at the time they filed their income tax return, Form 1049 (sic), for the year 1996, they are entitled to a full refund of the entire amount of the taxes withheld.  Plaintiffs are wrong.

The absence of a tax assessment by the Internal Revenue Service does not prove that a taxpayer owes no taxes.  See 26 U.S.C. par. 6151 and Moran v. U.S., 63 F. 3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 1995). Indeed, the undisputed facts before the Court demonstrate that Plaintiffs cannot prove their claim of overpayment and entitlement to refund.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#12) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant United States’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment  (#13-#15) is granted and that Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendant United States and against Plaintiffs Robert A. Brown and Elena H. Brown.

DATED:   January 19, 1999 
 PHILIP M. PRO
            United States District Judge

 
The 
"Two Tax System"

The Government has been able to hide the "wage tax," tax because the law is diabolically written to allow for a "credit" for such wage taxes paid against the income taxes shown on your tax return.  When the credit is taken, it appears that the taxpayer got a "credit" for income taxes previously paid against the income taxes reported on their tax return. 

But this is not the case.  Two separate taxes are involved here, not one - as the American public has been fraudulently lead to believe. The Government initiates the deception by falsely labeling the Chapter that establishes the wage tax as the "COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE,"  while captioning the actual statute that imposes the tax as "Income tax collected at source". 

Obviously, if the imposition of a wage tax were legal, the Government would not have resorted to such deception to hide the nature of the tax.

The Government felt compelled to create the "wage tax" (and hide it) because of W.W.II.  During that war the Government, for the first time, sought to collect income taxes from America's working, middle class.  Up until then, only wealthy Americans paid income taxes, and they did so by making a lump sum payment (or they could arrange for three lump sum payments) by March 15th of the year following that taxable year - i.e. 1938 income taxes were paid in 1939. 
However, believing that America's working class would not have the money to pay their income taxes in the subsequent year, the Government sought to collect income taxes from them in advance - on a "pay-as-you-go" basis.  However, this presented the Government with a problem.  By law income taxes are collected on the basis of assessments, which are made only after returns are filed.  Thus, there was no legal way the Federal government could compel the payment of income taxes before returns were filed and assessments made

Therefore a "pay-as-you-go" income tax was out of the question.  So the government hit upon another idea which, for various reasons, was slightly unconstitutional.  (But, there was a war going on, remember?)  To solve the problem, Congress created a new tax, but forgot to tell the American public about it.  Instead they claimed  that the new so called "Victory Tax,"  constituted  a "pay-as-you-go" income tax, which would only last for the duration of  WW II. 

What saved the wage tax from being blatantly unconstitutional (since a direct tax on wages violates the apportionment provisions of the Constitution) was the ability of wage earners to get a refund of all the "wage taxes" they paid, as is currently provided in Code Section 31(a).



By publicizing this case we hope to bring this travesty to the attention of hard working Americans everywhere, whose Government has been unlawfully exploiting them and fleecing them of their hard-earned money.  If we do not come together and stand up for our rights as citizens, the existing tax structure will only continue to make our lives more difficult by demanding more and more of our money from us.  Please- join with us to pressure the Supreme Court into hearing this case and ruling on it.  As you can read from the information contained here, the whole matter of Brown vs. United States Of America is blatantly unlawful, and by definition as defined by other laws and statutes, Criminal in Nature.

Just as our forefathers did, we must take a stand against tyranny, and say to the Government, 
"ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!"

 The Supreme Court reconvenes in October, and when they do, we hope to have their chambers flooded with letters from citizens, demanding that this case be heard.  Together we have the power to take back control from the politicians and their Judiciary bedfellows.  There is a link at the bottom of this section that takes you to a form letter to copy and mail to the Supreme Court.  For the cost of a 33 cent stamp you too can be a part of the most historical event of the century. 
THESE ARE THE ISSUES WE HAVE  RAISED AND ARGUED 
IN OUR  PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT 


1. Whether the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with numerous statutes passed by Congress, prior rulings of this Court, and prior rulings of the Ninth Circuit and other circuit courts  in holding that plaintiffs can owe income taxes even though:
a) No assessments for the funds at issue exist, and
b) No court has ever ruled that plaintiffs owed any income taxes for the year at issue?
2. Whether the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of  Appeals is in conflict with the apportionment provisions of the Constitution and the holding of this Court in Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust , 158 U.S. 601, and Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR, 240 U.S. 1 in holding that petitioners were required to pay a direct tax on their wages (as imposed in  Code Section 3402(a)(1)) despite the fact that the such a direct tax was not imposed on the basis of apportionment and despite the fact that such funds were required to be refunded to petitioners pursuant to the provisions of 26 U.S.C 31(a)(1)?

3. Whether the Ruling of  the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with all of the taxing clauses of the Constitution and this Court's holdings in both Pollock, supra, and Brushaber, by  permitting the United States to retain funds collected as a federal tax but which were not collected either on the basis of apportionment as provided for in Article 1, Sections 2 and  9,  Clauses 3 and 4, nor on the  basis of geographic uniformity as  provided for in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution?

4. Whether the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with this Court's holding in Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR, supra, by claiming in its ruling that “The Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct non-apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens.”?

5. Whether the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution and decisions of this Court in holding that federal courts and the petitioners are not bound by the “legislative powers “ vested in Congress, but are only bound by such court decisions as the Ninth Circuit deems appropriate to select and cite?

6. Whether the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with 26 U.S.C. 61 and the holding of this Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR, supra and Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 in holding that  that “Compensation for labor services, paid in the form of wages or salary, is income subject to taxation.”

7.  Whether citizens of the United States have a right “to have the Assistance of Counsel” of their own choosing as guaranteed to them by the 6th Amendment, or are they now restricted by being allowed to have for such assistance only such “officers of the court” as are permitted by this Court?

The Department of Justice Does Not Serve the People

The following is a list of the Justice Department attorneys who supplied both courts with all of the erroneous and egregious arguments on which the court decisions were based:
  1.  Jennifer A. Giamo, a trial attorney for the Tax Division of the Justice Department (202-307-6572) fabricated the Government's pleadings to the District Court. 
  2. Gilbert S. Rothenberg (202-514-2914) and Alice L. Ronk (202-514-1882) fabricated the Government's pleading to the Ninth Circuit. 
  3. Kathryn E. Landreth, the U.S. Attorney of Nevada also took responsibility for the Government's fabricated pleadings to the District Court, 
  4. Loretta C. Argette, the Assistant Attorney General, took responsibility for the fabricated pleading to the Ninth Circuit.
It is patently obvious that based upon numerous statutes and constitutional provisions (overlooking relevant Supreme Court decisions and other supporting documentation) the Browns were clearly entitled to have refunded to them the $5,035 in wage taxes they paid.  In denying the Browns their refund, the four federal judges (identified in the above decisions) along with the five  Justice Department lawyers named above were all engaged in the obstruction of justice and violations of their oaths of office.  In addition, Section 241 of the U.S. Criminal Code makes it a crime for “Two or more to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” 

Therefore, apart from engaging in the obstruction of justice and violations of their oaths of office, it is also clear that these four Federal judges and five Justice Department lawyers conspired to deny the Browns the “enjoyment” of the refund to which they are legally entitled both by “the Constitution and laws of the United States.”  As such, they were all in criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. 241, and it would not be too difficult to get criminal indictments against all 9 of them, if I could get before a Federal grand jury.
 

.. Assurances from the United States Senate...

Do you recall Congressman Hyde’s moving discourse concerning how American courts are dedicated to upholding the “Rule or Law” and Kenneth Starr’s similar, heart wrenching speech concerning how our Justice Department is dedicated to  “not only gaining convictions, but seeing that Justice is done” (both speeches made in connection with Clinton’s impeachment proceedings)? These statements will be nothing more than sanctimonious hot air, if the real criminals in the Brown case go unpunished. 

 If the Supreme Court does not reverse the lower courts’ decisions in this case, then apart from those Justices being accessories to the crimes committed by the nine above,  the American public will have irrefutable proof that the Supreme Court of the United States is not concerned with upholding the Constitution and laws of the United States, but is primarily concerned with helping the Federal Government extort income taxes from the American public.. 

An analysis of this case follows.

Click Here

For more Information and copies
of the actual documents from this case:
Call:
 1- 800 829-6666


Back ] Home ] Up ] Next ] 

Brief Details ]

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