Irwin Schiff's Preliminary Injunction Hearing
Criminals in the Courtroom!
I will give you a brief synopsis of what transpired at the
Preliminary Injunction “hearing” that took place today. When I get the tape I
will post it to my web site, so you can hear the whole “hearing” and get an
understanding of what passes as “due process of law” in the good ol’ U.S. of A.
First of all, the Government put on no witnesses, even though they had assured my attorney (at that time) that they would produce at least two witnesses, an IRS attorney and another witness. But apparently, after hearing my opening remarks they were too frightened to put anyone on. After I testified under oath, I invited the Government to cross-examine me. They refused. I invited the Government to identify one phrase from “The Federal Mafia” or any of my supplemental material that encouraged anyone to “evade” income taxes – since that was one of the Government’s claims. And they refused to do that too. I put on three witnesses. I had 4 more to put on, but Judge George refused to allow me to call any more additional witnesses because “Their testimony would be repetitive.” Well it would have to be repetitive, because the heart of the Government’s case was that I was selling a “tax shelter” or a “scheme.” So I could put on 100 witnesses that would testify that they stopped paying income taxes because “The Federal Mafia” merely led them to research the law itself, and it was their own research that led them to the belief that they did not have to pay income taxes. The Government was claiming that what I sold was a “tax shelter” or a “scheme” yet they did not put on witness who testified that they purchased a “tax shelter” or “scheme” from me.
Each of my three witnesses testified that I sold them no such thing. “The Federal Mafia,” they said, merely piqued their interest in the legality of the income tax. They all testified that as the result of their reading “The Federal Mafia” they preceded to check out the law itself (all of them testified they subsequently purchased the Internal Revenue Code from me) and the court cases I cited. I then asked them if The Federal Mafia” caused them to stop paying income taxes. They all said, “No.” And when I asked them what persuaded them to stop paying income taxes, they all answered, “Their own independent research” or words to that effect. And when I asked them, what made them conclude from their independent research that they didn’t have to pay income taxes, they all testified that their independent research persuaded them that: 1) "They could find no law that required them to pay income taxes; 2) They could find no law that made them “liable” for income taxes; and that 3) They had no “income” in a “constitutional sense” – which meant a corporate profit and they all referenced the Smitntanka decision.
I then asked each of them, “Did you stop paying income taxes because I sold you a “tax shelter,” “No.” Did you stop paying income taxes because I sold you a scheme?” “No.” “Then on what basis did you stop paying income taxes?” “My own independent research” was the answer. I asked two of my witness, “If when the Government cross-examines you, the US Attorney shows you a law that makes you liable for income taxes or required you to pay income taxes would you start paying income taxes again? ” Both witnesses answered, “Yes.” (I failed to ask this question of the first witnesses)
Therefore it was incumbent on the Government to produce such a law on cross-examination – but the Government failed to do so. Earlier in the “trial” I offered to withdraw my opposition to the Injunction issue, if the Government would simply turn to the law that made me ‘liable’ for income taxes or required me ‘to pay’ the tax.”
When I said that, I actually handed the Code to the Government’s attorney, Evan
J. Davis, a total liar and a scoundrel (in other words, he has all the
qualification to be a U.S. attorney in the Tax Division of the DOJ)) yet with
the Code sitting in front of him, he refused to produce the Code sections, even
though I offered to drop my opposition to the Government’s suit if he would do
There is a principle in law, that failure to answer when a response is called for is indicative of fraud. It was incumbent upon the Government to respond to my offer and those of my witnesses – but Davis failed to do so. Why? Because that scoundrel knows that there aren’t any such laws – yet he criminally prosecutes others and steals property from them (by way of civil litigation) pursuant to a tax he knows does not exist. Did I say he was a scoundrel? He is worse: he is a criminal. If I could question him before a grand jury I could easily get him indicted under 18 USC 241 and 26 USC 7214 as well getting him indicted for violating his oath of office – which I also explained to Judge George in my opening remarks.
But you will hear all of this when I post the tape of the “hearing” to my Web site.
Meanwhile, this is a good time to order all of my other sensational books that you might not have. So, stay tuned. Irwin Schiff