Home

PayNoIncomeTax.com

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

Irwin Schiff:
Federal Correctional Institution
Irwin Schiff 08537-014
PO Box 2000
Fort Dix, New Jersey 08640
 
Cynthia Neun 39011-048
FCI Phoenix
Satellite Camp
37930 N. 45TH Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85086

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!


Read the Entire
"Federal Mafia" for FREE

Federal Mafia

Irwin Schiff's
Great Giveaway

 

Read this Banned Book for FREE!
"The Federal Mafia"

Click Here for Irwin's Great Giveaway

Watch for FREE:
The Secrets of Living an Income Tax-Free Life

& Secrets Part 2

Read Irwin's Motion for Reconsideration Click Here
Government Memo 9th Circuit Click Here

Irwin's been helping us, and now it's time to help him.  If he's successful in reversing his conviction, all American's will benefit!

We must not let this illegal conviction stand.  All contributions will help. Whatever you can send would be greatly appreciated!

Please send your generous, "tax deductible" contribution by putting "Irwin Schiff Defense" in the memo area of your check and on the attention line of your envelope, and send to:

We The People Foundation
2458 Ridge Road
Queensbury, NY 12804

Read the Seton Law Review About Free Speech Infringement related to the "The Federal Mafia"

Read: Criminal Character of Judge Dawson Exposed  Plus: Exhibit

Trial Blog #1  Trial Blog #2

Irwin Schiff appears in this Incredible Aaron Russo film - "America Freedom to Fascism"!   Don't miss it

See the Trailer!        Arron Russo On Coast-To-Coast AM          Aaron Russo on Lou Epton

Very Important:  On July 5th 2005 I filed a motion calling for dismissal of my current criminal prosecution, because there are no laws establishing income tax "crimes".  To be thoroughly convinced of that, and also thoroughly convinced that if there are criminals involved in income tax prosecutions, it can only be the federal judges and the justice department lawyers conducting such trials -   Read these 12 pages.

My motion also provides the legal basis for filing criminal charges (either pursuant to a criminal complaint or trying to get before a grand jury and seeking indictments)
against judges and US attorneys who participate in such prosecutions, since in
doing so they are actually engaged in criminal activity punishable by law.

The information in here is simple and irrefutable and reveals that the government extraction of income taxes which has not only destroyed practically the Nation's entire industrial base, (3rd world status, here we come!), but it was done pursuant to a tax that has been extracted illegally and criminally - without practically anyone realizing it.

These 12 pages explain it all.  Disseminate the information to as many people as possible, and try and get it before you local newspaper.

Be sure to read the government's response.  Note that the government's response to all these issues is "frivolous" however  the government's response is criminal for the reasons given in my motion. Notice the government makes no attempt to address the fact that they can't produce any delegation of authority from the secretary of the treasury delegating to the IRS the authority to collect income taxes or it's publication in the federal register.  This of course demonstrates that the motto of the justice department which is "not to gain a conviction, but to see justice done" is so much BS.  In reality they represent a greater collection of criminals than the people they prosecute.

Here are the Exhibits from that go with my latest motion above, "Motion to Dismiss since this court cannot have jurisdiction since the indictment fails to charge an offense" filed July 5, 2005.

The following will provide extensive and irrefutable proof of how federal judges and the Dept. Of "Justice" lawyers knowingly violate the law in order to convict defendants (Illegally) charged with income tax crimes,  And why only mis-statements of law ever "comes from the bench" at such trials.

 Since the income tax was repealed in 1954 when Congress adopted the 1954 Code, it is clear that for 50 years federal judges in conspiracy with U. S. Department of Injustice prosecutors have been illegally and criminally prosecuting people for crimes that do not exist in connection with a tax that nobody owes.

Therefore, the fact that Judge Dawson along with all of the Government’s prosecutors in this case have been engaged in  the same criminal conduct should surprise no one – except  in this case, their criminal conduct was so blatant and Judge Dawson’s charge to the jury was so outrageously false in so many areas, that changes in the way criminal trials are conducted in the U.S. of A. must inevitably follow from these disclosures.

Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s  definitive Cheek decision, 498 US at page 201,  the government in a tax prosecution has a three- fold  burden,  it must prove:

(1) The law imposed a duty upon the defendant;

(2) The defendant knew of that duty; and (3) he deliberately and intentionally (willfully) violated that duty.  Notice that the issue of “willfulness” only enters the picture in connection with the Government’s third burden.   Obviously, a defendant has a right during the government’s presentation of its case, to establish that no law imposed any such “duty” upon him.  However to do that, the defendant must be able to raise the law itself and show that no law imposed any such “duty’ upon him, and that the IRS employees who testified for the Government, had no legal authority to do what they testified they did.

If the defendant can establish these claims during the Government’s presentation of its case, and knock out all of the Government’s IRS witnesses (which can easily be done by introducing into evidence their job descriptions, the significance of section 7608, and the nature of their “pocket commissions”) the defendant would be entitled to a direct verdict of acquittal at the close of the Government’s presentation of its case, without the defendant even having to put on a defense, largely based on the issue of “willfulness. ”Therefore, how did Judge Dawson prevent me from proving that no income tax law imposed a “duty” upon me, and that I knew of such a “duty” – thereby sparing the government the need of having to prove these first two elements of its burden, while preventing me from proving that none of the Government’s IRS witnesses had any legal authority to do what they testified they did. Judge Dawson sought to accomplished these tasks in a variety of ways.

The first way was to prevent me from bringing up the law itself, by continually claiming that “the law will come from the bench. How could I prove that no “law” imposed any “duty” upon me (and therefore I “knew” of  such a “duty”) if I could not bring up the law itself?    In fact when I asked Judge Dawson, if the Government intended to put on a witness who would testify that the law imposed a “duty” upon me to pay income taxes,  David Ignall, the Government’s lead prosecutor, specifically stated that the Government had no such intention of doing so, but would rely on the Judge Dawson’s jury instructions to establish these elements for the Government.   However, since I would never be able to cross-examine Judge Dawson concerning his jury instructions, he would be free to misstate the law (he literally threw all law out the window as he misstated it at least two dozen times – and such examples will follow) as he fabricated a “duty” that did not exist.

Later, at a hearing (conducted outside the presence of the jury) involving his proposed jury instructions,   I specifically pointed out to him how numerous of his proposed jury instruction misstated the law - but he gave those instructions anyway, although he did change a few, while he refused to give jury instructions that correctly stated the law.   Since my objections and corrections were recorded at that time, they will prove that Judge Dawson knew he was misstating the law to the jury, if my objections are not edited out of the transcript.       

Apart from already explaining why the actions of Judge Dawson and the prosecutors constituted criminal violations of 18 U.S.C. 241 in the 12 page motion I filed on July 5, 2005 (and which is posted immediately above this document) their criminal culpability was substantially extended at trial and would now include the crime of obstruction of justice – as the following will demonstrate.  

1) Judge Dawson would not allow me to bring up the law, especially when it would impeach the testimony of government witnesses. For example:

     a)  A government witness, with a very impressive title, was introduced as being in charge of the frivolous penalty program in the 9th Circuit area.   She testified that the IRS imposed the $500 frivolous penalty based upon guidelines established by the legal counsel for the IRS, and when the IRS received a tax return that fell within those guidelines, they imposed the $500 frivolous penalty.  I objected to her testimony as hearsay, since she was not the one who determined whether a return was frivolous or not, and what she was told by the IRS District Counsel constituted hearsay.

I stated that it was the IRS District Counsel who should be testifying concerning what constituted a “frivolous” return, since he was apparently the one who made that determination and not the witness who was now testifying.  But my objection was overruled.   When I cross-examined her, I specifically asked her whether or not any IRS agent took specific responsibility for imposing the frivolous penalty.   And she again elaborated on how the penalty was imposed pursuant to guidelines set up by the IRS District Counsel.  Therefore, I again asked her if she was sure that the frivolous penalty was not imposed by IRS employees taking specific responsibility for imposing the penalty. She said “No,” that was not how it was done.  I then asked her if she was familiar with Code section 6751 I forgot whether she said “Yes” or “No.” In any case I asked her, “If you saw a copy of IR Code Section 6751, would that refresh your recollection?” She must have said, “Yes,” since I now moved to admit Section 6751 into evidence.

I handed a copy of section 6751 to the U.S. attorney who was sitting right in back of me. He read it, but appeared to have a puzzled look on his face, when he said, “No objection.” I then handed the document to the clerk, so it could be marked as an Exhibit, and she handed it up to Judge Dawson, who proceeded to read it.   He read:  “No penalty under this title shall be assessed unless the initial determination of such assessment is personally approved (in writing) by the immediate supervisor of the individual making such determination or such higher level official as the Secretary may designate.”   Judge Dawson, of course, realized that section 6751 (which provided that a document containing at least two signatures was required in order for the frivolous penalty to be imposed) totally impeached the testimony of the Government’s witness then sitting before him.  Therefore, he sought to save the government’s witness from being totally discredited by saying:   “Well, courts have held (of course, he never named what courts) that this provision is not really binding on the IRS  (or words to that effect),   so this document is irrelevant and will not be admitted.”

So, Judge Dawson would not allow the law, section 6751,  to be admitted, since it would allow me to use it to discredit the entire testimony of this impressively titled,  government witness.  Since she also stated (in order to establish her alleged credentials, even though the government would not qualify her as an “expert”)  that she had testified extensively at both civil and criminal trials. It is, therefore, apparent that at all such trials her testimony was in direct conflict with the law – unfortunately defendants at such trials would probably be unaware of that fact.             

 b)  One of the Government's first witnesses was retired Special Agent Ted Wethje.  He is mentioned in the Federal Mafia on pages 221, 222, and 224 . The Government largely relied on his perjured testimony to gain my indictment and conviction in 1985 and therefore sought to use this experienced and unconscionable liar at this trial.  He had absolutely no legal authority to testify at either my 1985 trial or at this trial, since he has no more authority to enforce the payment of income taxes than the man in the moon.  He is precluded from doing so by his own job description (Exhibit A) and because he falls into subsection (a) of provision 7608 (Exhibit C).   Any IRS agent who claims he is legally authorized to carry a firearm must fall into subsection (a) of section 7608, since agents who fall into subsection (b) are not authorized to “carry firearms.”   So, if Special Agent Wethje was authorized to “carry firearms” during his employment with the IRS, he could only have been authorized to enforce the payment of liquor, tobacco, and firearms taxes and such other taxes as fall within the provisions of subtitle E of the IR Code – and not income taxes, which fall within subtitle A of the IR Code.  

So when I cross-examined him, the first thing I said to him was, “Isn’t it a fact Mr. Wethje, that when you worked at the IRS you carried a firearm?”   The government immediately objected to the question (probably citing “relevance”) and its objection was immediately sustained by Judge Dawson in the following manner, “Sustained - move on.”  However, I tried to argue that weather or not Wethje carried a firearm was relevant as to whether or not he was authorized to give testimony at this trial since it involved income taxes.  However, Judge Dawson would hear none of it.  He supposedly had warned me that when he sustained an objection, I was not to argue any further but had to “Move on.”  However, I was also under the impression, that one had a right to argue the validity and necessity of the question you asked, before it was ruled upon,  and in this case (as  well as in numerous other cases) Judge Dawson ruled upon the Government’s objection without giving me an opportunity to argue why the question was  relevant to my defense.

Also I am hard of hearing, and so I might not have heard him say “Sustained,” but believed I still had a right to argue the validity of my question – and so might have raised arguments after he had stated “Sustained.”   At such times Judge Dawson would bark,   “Sanction,” which meant I had just been held in contempt of court, which carried a jail sentence that was double to that meted out by the previous sanction.  Judge Dawson started the sanctions at one day in jail, which were then doubled for each succeeding sanction.  I must have received at least a dozen sanctions.  In any case, he also would not allow me to me bring up Wethje’s job description, which also showed that Wethje had no authority to investigate anybody living within the continental U.S.A. in connection with income taxes, and so he had no authority to be testifying at this trial.  In this manner Judge Dawson knowingly allowed the Government to use witnesses against me who he knew had absolutely no authority to testify at my trial.    

C.  Another Government witness, Revenue  Officer Luddie Talley testified that he was involved (at various times) in seizing numerous items from me  including: an automobile, monies taken from me which were being held for me at the Clark County Jail, and 100% of my monthly Social Security benefit.  He had sent the Social Security Administration a fraudulent, IRS notice-of- levy  (which he had no authority to send out, and which is totally benign and can be immediately thrown into the nearest trash can) on which he had added, in his own handwriting, “full levy”;  a term that appears no place in  the law governing “notices-of-levy.”  

       When I asked Talley, “Are you aware of IRS pocket commissions?,”  the Government cried out, “Objection,” which Judge Dawson “Sustained” as usual.   However, had I been permitted to proceed with this line of questioning, it would have proceeded as follows.  Talley would have had to answer, “Yes” to my initial question. Based on that answer,  I  would then have said, “And they consist of enforcement and non-enforcement commissions, do they not?”  And he would have had to say, “Yes.”  And then I would have said, “And what kind of a pocket commission do you have?”   And he would have had to say, “A non-enforcement pocket commission.”   And then I would have said, “Therefore, you have no enforcement authority with respect to income taxes, isn’t that correct?”  In order not to commit perjury, he would have had to answer, “Correct.”  “Therefore,” I would have said, “you had no lawful authority to seize my automobile, the money being held for me at the Clark County Jail, or my monthly Social Security check, isn’t that correct?”   And he would have had to answer, “Correct.”  And then I would have said, “So you are no better than an ordinary thief, except you operate under color of law, isn’t that correct?” And he would have had to answer, “Correct.”  Except I would have corrected him, by saying.  “No, you are worse than an ordinary thief. Ordinary thieves at least don’t have the gall to pretend that their stealing is legal, and they, at least, take some risk.  They don’t have federal judges and U.S. attorneys protecting them.  Because of the hypocrisy in your brand of thievery,  and because it receives the protection of the courts and the DOJ,  it must be regarded as a lower form of thievery then that committed by ordinary criminals.”   However, I never got the chance to proceed along those lines, since I was prevented from doing so by Judge Dawson.      

     In addition, when I asked Talley, “When you seize property do you do it legally or illegally?” he responded by saying, “I do it legally.”  This laid the foundation for my next question, which was, “Did you ever see a statute that allowed the IRS to seize property?” However, before he could answer, the Government objected and Judge Dawson gave his usual “Sustained.”   If Talley had said “Yes,” to that question, I would have handed him the Code and asked him to show me the statute that allowed him to seize property legally, and he would not have been able to find such a statute,  because it doesn’t exist.  If he said “No,” I would have asked, “Then how do you know you seize property legally?”  So no matter how Talley  answered,  I would have been able to expose the fact that IRS agents have no authority to seize property.  But, again, the Government’s prosecutors and Judge Dawson interceded in order to prevent me from proving that all IRS seizures are illegal, and not provided for by law.

    Further I produced a document sent out by the Social Security Administration that showed that the seizure of Social Security benefits by the IRS is  limited to 15% (assuming they have any seizure authority at all, which they do not have.)  However based upon erroneous representations made by the Government, Judge Dawson instructed the jury that the law allowed the IRS to seize 100% of my monthly benefit.   That was dead wrong, but explaining it to the jury would have been too complicated, besides I had a better way to do it.  I was calling as a witness Dr. Raymond Hartman of Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania.

    His involvement in the movement even predates mine (See page 59 of “The Federal Mafia.”).  When he told me the IRS was taking 100% of his Social Security, I provided him with information which he sent to the Social Security Administration.   Shortly thereafter they sent him a refund of approximately $9,000  and restored 100% of his monthly benefit.   Since I had to supply Judge Dawson with an outline of what my witnesses were going to testify about, he informed me that he would not permit Dr. Hartman to testify about getting his Social Security benefits restored.  When I asked him why, he said that such testimony had nothing to do with income taxes.   I am sure that the fact that Dr.  Hartman’s  testimony would also refute what Judge Dawson had told the jury concerning the IRS’s legal authority to seize 100% of my Social Security benefits had nothing to do with his decision..  

            (d) Along the same lines, the Government’s summary “expert,” IRS Agent Clinton Lowder testified extensively concerning deposits to my bank accounts which he claimed revealed that substantial amounts of money had been deposited to my “eight bank accounts”  in connection with the years at issue. When I had previously inquired about the relevance of all his testimony regarding  these bank deposits, the Government claimed that it was related to how much “income” I had received during this period.  I said, no it didn’t.   I pointed out that it merely indicated how much money I had deposited to my bank accounts and nothing more,  and depositing money to ones bank account is not a crime – nor had I been charged with any such crime.  Such deposits might be related to a crime if I had been charged with money laundering, or selling products that were illegal.  I further pointed out that such  bank deposits could  not be considered as being indicative of the receipt of  “income” unless the Government put on an “expert” in the law, who would testify (and be subject to cross-examination) that deposits to ones bank accounts constituted the receipt of “income” within the meaning of Code Section 61. Since the Government had not put on any such “expert” witness (since they knew I would have eaten them up alive) they could not legally claim that mere bank deposits constituted – to any degree-   the receipt of “income” within the meaning of Code section 61.   But Judge Dawson (illegally) did so anyway.   

            In addition, when I cross-examined Mr. Lowder  I asked him, “Isn’t the purpose of your analysis of my bank deposits an attempt on your part to estimate the amount of income taxes you believe I  omitted from the tax returns I filed for the years at issue?”  I actually had to repeat that question three or four times before I got a straight answer from him.   When he finally admitted that was the purpose of his activity,  I asked:  “Isn’t it a fact that section 6201(2) (A) gives the Secretary the authority to estimate the amount of taxes that have been omitted to be paid by stamp, but no law authorizes the Secretary (or the IRS) to estimate the amount of taxes that has been omitted from an income tax return?”  “Objection! He is raising the law, your Honor.”    “Sustained. Move on.”    “But your Honor, I asked that question merely to show that the law does not allow Mr. Lowder to do what he claims he was doing.” “Mr. Schiff: you have deliberately violated my order that you are not to raise issues of law, nor argue with me when I sustain a Government objection; therefore, you will be sanctioned for doing so.”     

            Of  course, no law authorizes the IRS (nor the Government at criminal tax trials) to attribute to anyone more in income taxes than what they reported on their tax returns.  Therefore, seeking to pursue another tack, I said, “Mr. Lowder, when you attempt to analyze a persons various sources of income and possible deductions and seek to calculate a tax that is different from what that taxpayer reported on his return, do you do that legally or illegally?”  “I do it legally” he immediately replied.   I was therefore poised for my follow up question. “Mr. Lawder, have you ever seen a statute that authorized you to calculate a tax that is different from what a taxpayer reported on his return?”   “Objection”  “Sustained” “ But your Honor, I was only…..” Sanction. You are deliberately doing it again.”   

In this way, Judge Dawson in criminal collusion with the Government,  sought to prevent me from proving that no law authorized either the IRS,  Secretary of the Treasury (or his delegate), or the Justice Department in this prosecution,  to claim that I owed  more in income taxes than what I had reported on my “zero” returns for all of the years at issue.    

(f)  Therefore,  during the presentation of its case the Government did not put on one witness who would testify that I had any “income” or income tax “liability” for any of the years at issue, or that anything (not one word, sentence, or phrase)  in any of my books and tapes (including my “zero” return) violated any law or encouraged anyone to violate any law – though such allegations were contained throughout the indictment.  And though they had undercover agents at both of my last seminars (a two day seminar held in Las Vegas and a one day Seminar held in New York City) they played no excerpts from either seminar as showing I had advocated violations of law at either seminar – though such allegations were contained in indictment.[6]   And no less than  six  government witnesses testified that they could find no law  that made them “liable” for income taxes,  or required them “to pay” income taxes, and at least four of them testified that they believed “income,” within  the meaning of the IR Code,  meant  “corporate profit.”  In addition,  all three of my former employees who were witnesses for the prosecution testified that at no time did they, nor any of my other employees, ever believe that any of the material sold and sent out by Freedom Books  encouraged anyone to violate any law,  nor did I ever give them any reason to believe that I did  not hold my beliefs on taxes other than  sincerely and honestly.   In  short,  the Government did not present a scintilla of evidence to support any of allegations contained in its indictment and we  should have gotten a direct verdict of acquittal at the close of the government’s case. 

HOW JUDGE DAWSON SOUGHT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE BY PREVENTING  ME FROM PUTTING ON A DEFENSE

            Judge Dawson sought to prevent me from putting on an effective defense, by:

(1)   preventing me from calling witnesses whose testimony was crucial to my defense;

(2)   preventing me from testifying in the most effective manner;

(3)   by blatantly misstating the law in his jury instructions, and

(4)   by refusing to give a proper jury instruction on the meaning of “income” and by refusing to give a jury instruction that was favorable to my defense.   

 The fact that Judge Dawson would actually prevent me from calling witnesses whose testimony was material to my defense was totally shocking to many of those who attended my trial, as well as the witnesses who would not be allowed to testify in the manner we had intended.   For example, a key  theme that was repeated throughout the indictment was that I had prepared “false and fraudulent documents” and gave tax advice to people which I “well knew and believed” was false.   Such claims made to the grand jury D.O.J. prosecutors knew were false, but they wanted to get an in indictment and didn’t care how many lies they had to tell to the grand jury to get it.   Proof of this is that at trial, no government witness testified that anything I said or wrote about was untrue – let alone that I believed it was untrue   

At trial, I called as an adverse witness Special Agent  Sam Holland, who was the man most responsible for generating the indictment.  He was the one who illegally got the search warrant which was supported by his sealed affidavit that accused me of everything but kidnapping the Lindberg baby.  In his sealed affidavit Mr. Holland accused me of filing “false and fraudulent income tax returns,” and of “encouraging” others to do the same, and  “instructing” and “assisting” others to file…fraudulent Forms W-4.”  In The Federal Mafia I explain how to do both.  So, if my instruction were false, that  could easily be established by turning to where such documents are discussed in The Federal Mafia.    However, when I called Sam Holland to the stand as an adverse witness and   I asked him if he had read The Federal Mafia,  he said “No.” I had to ask him that question before I could ask him any question about that book.  If he had answered “yes,” my next question would have been, “Can you turn to any statement in that book that misstates the law or encourages anyone to violate the law?”  However, I couldn’t ask him that question, because he now claimed  he had never read that book!    Here is the Government’s lead investigator supposedly gathering evidence to support all of the charges in the indictment,  and he claims not to have read a book of mine that the Government enjoined me from selling because it promoted violations of our tax laws – and he claims not to have that book??!!!  He undoubtedly poured over it, but  couldn’t find anything in it that was untrue or encouraged people to violate the law.  Therefore, he had to give that absurd and unbelievable answer in order to avoid his total embarrassment if he were forced to answer what he knew was going to be my follow up question.   

In addition while he was on the witness stand I place a “zero” return in front of him and asked him to identify one statement on it that was false, and he was unable to do so.  I believe the Government objected to my even asking him to so. 

The point is, a claim that is fundamental to the government’s entire case was its claim that I am essentially a liar and a charlatan and simply do not believe what I say, write and teach in connection with income taxes.   To refute such a claim, I was prepared to call no less than five attorneys who have known me over the years and most of whom had represented me in various matters in connection with my stand on income taxes.   All of them were prepared to testify that overlooking the legal validity of my beliefs on the income tax,  they all believed beyond any question that I held those beliefs honestly and sincerely.  Their testimony alone would have knocked the Governments case into a cocked hat.  But Judge Dawson would not let them testify.  Since California attorney Noel Spaid had already flown in, I put her on as a character witness, but told the other lawyers they need not show up, since they would not be allowed to testify.

Also Judge Dawson would not allow the following persons to testify concerning how they relied on my material and how I relied on research and in formation they supplied to me:

1)     Former IRS Special Agent Joe Bannister

2)     Former  IRS Revenue Officer  John Turner

3)     Bob Schultz , Chairman of “We the People”

4)     The Government’s own clinical psychologist, Danial S. Hayes, Ph.D. L.L.C.                 whose analysis of me included the following:

… the research and documentation he believes to be in support of his beliefs, and the commitment and passion with which he holds his beliefs to be true.  He appears to have extremely rigid, fixed, inflexible, doggedly, determined opinions and beliefs that cannot be changed by others’ reasoning. And, in this case, even punishment has not had a corrective impact in his thinking or behaviors. He appears impervious to any suggestion that he reconsider his conclusions or his actions, in part because of the thorough research he has conducted which has yielded evidence and facts to support his conclusions, coupled with the fact that he considers himself to be an “expert” with knowledge that supersedes that of any other individual claiming to have expertise in this subject area.

Most people have beliefs that have a greater degree of flexibility and openness to change than does Mr. Schiff.  Although some may have beliefs that parallel Mr. Schiff’s, they differ from him in that they are unwilling to jeopardize their freedom and suffer the consequences of their beliefs to the degree that Mr. Schiff has.

As a result, it would be almost impossible at this point in his life to persuade him that he is wrong, particularly since he feels that there are few if any individuals who could match the breath and depth of knowledge he appears to have as a result of the time, effort, focus, and intellect he has devoted to the subject.

Any arguments against him are likely to be seen by him as naďve and sophomoric, and he is likely to dismantle any such arguments quickly and handily by quick reference to materials his opponent is unlikely to have at the ready for consideration and rebuttal.

He holds these beliefs with such conviction that even the severe consequences of incarceration for the rest of his natural life fails to shake his resolve.  This does tend to set him apart from the average individual…He adamantly feels that he has discovered something that is very important to the American people regarding this nation’s economic and taxation practices, and whereas others who are not driven by a Mood Disorder might be more open minded to arguments, weigh personal consequences and elect not to pursue their campaign, Irwin Schiff has chosen a route fraught with significant and possible disastrous consequences.”

            His analysis alone eliminated any claim of “willfulness” or that my past convictions were “notice to me” that wiped out “willfulness” which is what  the Government continually repeated in its final argument to the jury.  Both the prosecutors and Judge Dawson knew that Judge Hayes’s report made such a claim totally spurious.  

MORE TO FOLLOW:

[1] The job description of Special Agents (Exhibit A) clearly reveals that they have no authority to investigate the alleged income tax liabilities of persons residing within the continental USA;  Section 7608 (Exhibit B) reveals that the only IRS agents (subsection (b)) who might have authority to enforce the payment of income taxes [which falls into subtitle A] are those agents from the “Intelligence  Division of the IRS whom the Secretary charges etc. etc. etc”; however, the public never comes in contact with such agents;  while those agents whom the public deals with, Special Agents and Revenue  Officers,  must fall into section (a) and, therefore,  can  only have authority to enforce the payment of  subtitle E  taxes, such as liquor, tobacco and firearms.

With respect to “pocket commissions” (Exhibit C): the IRS issues two types, “enforcement” and “non-enforcement”  commissions.  All IRS seizures are done by Revenue Officers who are only issued  “non-enforcement” pocket commissions, which again  proves that they have no legal authority to seize anything, such as:  bank accounts, wages, automobiles, stock portfolios, etc. etc. etc., which they seize every day.   Thus all IRS Revenue Officers are essentially thieves operating  under color of law  whose thievery is protected by their partners in crime, the federal judiciary and  DOJ lawyers. 

[2] However, as the following will show, only misstatements of law come from the bench. 

[3] Since I could not get expedited transcripts of  the actual testimony (even though I was willing to pay extra for them) , these statements represent my best recollection of what was actually testified to, since I do not, as yet,  have actual transcripts.   

[4]  The Government never qualifies any of its witnesses as “experts” in tax law.   The Government does this deliberately, so that none of its witnesses can be cross-examined on the law itself.   However, their witnesses  continually testify about the law without appearing to do so and without their being subject to cross-examination on the “laws” they testify about.   The government accomplishes this in the following manner.   Government witnesses continually refer to such things as:   “income,”  “liability,” “deficiencies,” “levies,” “seizures” as well as “CDP hearings” “ books and records,”  “concealment”  and even the failure of the defendant  “to cooperate with the IRS, ” as if the IRS did all of these things  legally  and the defendant was legally obligated  and subject to what these terms imply.

However, all such terms involve a basis in law,  such as:  a statute (or the lack of a statute) or, as in the case of “income,” a legal conclusion.  However, defendants are prevented from cross-examining Government witnesses  concerning:  (1) their use of these terms; (2) the  legal basis of such  terms ;  and  (3) the substance of the  statutes in which these terms appear  – because both the court and the Government will contend that since such witnesses  “have not been qualified as  ‘experts’ in tax law, they cannot be cross-examined on the law.”

    In this manner, the Government deliberately and disingenuously has created a situation where it is able to use Government witnesses to casually (but effectively) testify about the “law,” but make it impossible for defendants to impeach their  testimony by cross-examining them on the “laws” they raise and refer to.   This diabolic scheme allows Government  witnesses to infer  that:

(1) the actions and activities of the defendant are illegal (when they generally are not);

(2) that the actions and activities of the IRS are legal (when they generally are not);  and

(3) allows Government witnesses (as well as the prosecutor and the court itself) to use such terms as  “income” and  “liability” against defendants, when such terms cannot apply to defendants  on any basis.     

  It should be noted that even in this case, the Government’s summary witness was  not offered as an “expert” in tax law.  He was offered only as an “expert in tax calculations, ” (whatever that means).  However, the Government subsequently sought to sneak in his testimony as coming from an expert in “income tax law.”  However, I prevented this from happening.  I am sure the Government gets away with this at other tax trials.                 

[5] The Government sought  to mislead the jury concerning the purpose and nature of my bank accounts – seeking to create the impression that I used eight bank accounts to make my receipts less traceable.

    Mr. Lowder continually referred to “transfers” between  my “eight bank accounts.”  Actually I only had four accounts (plus my PILL account) at any one time.  When  the IRS illegally seized my bank accounts with Bank of America (and ATM withdrawals from my PILL account saved the day, because it allowed me to pay my employees and other creditors)   I opened up accounts with the Nevada  State Bank because their Deposit Agreement said they would only turn over depositor funds “pursuant to legal process” which eliminated IRS notices-of-levy (if their differences were pointed out to them.)

   However,  they have since changed their Deposit Agreement to  make it more compatible for them to illegally honor IRS notices -of -levy, which doing so, is still a violation of Nevada State law.  In any case, two of the four accounts were for the Freedom Foundation.  One account was interest bearing, the other was not.   I kept funds not immediately needed in the interest bearing account, and transferred funds to the non interest bearing checking account as needed.  The two accounts I had for Freedom Books consisted of a merchant account and my general checking account.  The merchant account is where credit card receipts are automatically deposited by the company handling those funds, while checks and other receipts are deposited directly into the checking account.

  So there was nothing devious or shady about having these four accounts (or the eight the Government kept referring to) as the Government sought to depict.       

[6] In addition, throughout the indictment I am accused of “knowing and believing” that practically everything I teach and write about the income tax I know to be false.  Can you believe it?

 

On April 26, 2005 Schiff filed a Motion to Dismiss, which the government Opposed on May 24, 2005 to which Schiff Replied on May 27, 2005.

ALSO!   Read Irwin's Appeal to the 9th Circuit of Judge Philip Pro's totally lawless granting of a Summary Judgment to the government in connection with its $2.6 million civil lawsuit - more proof of the corruption of federal courts (and the criminal character of the DOJ) in civil as well as criminal matters. 


For an excellent condensation see this Las Vegas Tribune article.

I am immediately appealing this Injunction to the Supreme Court to find out for sure if the 1st Amendment no longer exists in America.

 

And to be on the safe side and not risk incarceration for contempt, for allegedly violating the Court’s Order, I am not selling any of my other informational packets and tapes until I can get clarification from Judge George as to what information I can, and can not sell.    The Order itself is not clear.  (Can you believe that an American citizen now has to worry about things like this? But more on the Injunction further on, let me get to my pending criminal trial and civil litigation) 

 

I believe that the pleadings and other documents now posted to this web site make it pretty clear that the government has for over 50 years been illegally prosecuting people in connection with income taxes in violation of:  (1) its taxing powers as contained in the Constitution; and (2) the actual laws as contained in the Internal Revenue Code itself.  It has been able to do this, I suggest, because of the duplicity and lawlessness of the federal judiciary and the Department of Justice   In short, I believe that if the American public knew what has been going on, practically the entire federal judiciary would be behind bars, along with practically every tax lawyer employed by the Justice Department.  However, that is merely my opinion, you can read the following pleadings and make up your own mind.    

 

Two weeks before my April 14, 2004 arraignment, I filed four motions to dismiss all of the criminal charges filed against me.  The Memoranda of Law I filed to support those motions explain why I concluded that federal district courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to prosecute me (or anyone else) for  alleged income tax crimes,  because: 

(1) No law makes me “liable” for income taxes;

(2) The income tax is not “traceable” to any power given to Congress by the Constitution to “lay and collect taxes”;

(3) The indictment were secured by fraud, because U.S. attorneys fraudulently misled the grand jury concerning the legal meaning of “income” as that term is used in our revenue laws;

(4) There is no provision in the Internal Revenue Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction to prosecute anyone for alleged criminal violations of our income tax laws.

Naturally, the government disagreed with all four of my conclusions.  On October 8, 2004 the Government filed it's answer opposing my four motions (click to read its Response). On November 23, 2004 I filed my Reply to the Government’s Response. By clicking here you can read my Reply.  

On December 3, 2004 U.S. Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt filed his “Report” recommending that U.S. District Court Judge Kent J. Dawson deny my four motions to dismiss.  Please read U.S. Magistrate Judge Leavitt’s “Report” and my “Reply

Read my Motion to Suppress all of the alleged evidence the Government confiscated in its Feb. 11, 2003  raid on Freedom Books. My Memorandum of Law argues that all such IRS searches and seizures  are illegal on a variety of grounds, which (if my arguments are correct), means that untold numbers of Americans have been prosecuted and convicted based upon illegally acquired evidence. On December 21, 2004, U.S. Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt filed his “Report”, contesting my claim and recommending that U.S.D.C. Judge Kent J. Dawson deny my "Motion to Suppress".  To read my reply to his report click here.

Apart from the federal government filing criminal charges against me, it also filed a civil lawsuit against me seeking to reduce to judgment some $2.4 million in income taxes, fraud and interest penalties it claimed I owed for the years 1979-1985. As I argue in my pleadings, I do not  owe the Government ONE DIME for any of those years. The government sought to reduce to judgment assessments (which I claimed were both fraudulent and time barred) it had made against me for those years. The actual taxes I allegedly owed for those years amounted to about $300,000.   The government now seeks to extract from me an amount in taxes and penalties that would exceed IN MULTIPLES what I could have conceivably grossed for those years.    

What medieval tyrant ever sought to extract from a conquered enemy far more in tribute than the vanquished nation could conceivably possess?  But the pleadings I filed in this case, reveal, I suggest, why federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to proceed against anyone either criminally or civilly in connection with income taxes.    

The taxes I allegedly owe for 1980-1985 were based on coerced tax returns I filed during a contrived probation violation hearing in the hopes that they would save me from being sent back to jail for allegedly violating the terms of my probation – which would be completed in only a week or so.  (See The Federal Mafia pp 281-283 for a full explanation) The taxes I allegedly owe for the 1979 are based upon a sham Tax Court determination (See The Federal Mafia pp 260-263), but were, in any case, no longer collectable, as explained in my Rule 59 pleading.  In any case, for a variety of reasons, I was entitled to have an impartial jury decide the entire matter. Instead, the government moved for a summary judgment, so the controversy could be settled, not by an impartial jury, but by a lone federal judge, who could be expected to be less impartial than a jury of private citizens.  Time and again federal courts have ruled that when a constitutional right collides with the government’s alleged  “need” for revenue, it is the constitutional right that must yield.   

On June 13, 2004 U.S. Federal Judge, Philip M. Pro granted the government its summary judgment. In moving for summary judgment the government literally buried me in a variety of legal pleadings and documents, which had to be addressed if I were to defeat its motion. Eventually, I discovered that: (1) the statute the government used to impose the fraud penalties could not apply to me on any basis, and (2) Judge Pro had based his ruling on a legal assumption that simply could not apply in this case. Therefore, his summary judgment in my view is clearly void as a matter of law just on these two grounds alone. Both issues are fully set forth in the documents that I have now posted to this website.

Since I believe that Judge Pro’s ruling is erroneous on a variety of grounds, on July 20, 2004 I moved that he “alter, amend, or vacate” his ruling pursuant to a Rule 59 motion. On September 3, 2004, I filed another motion requesting that he dismiss the government’s lawsuit altogether because I believe he lacked subject matter jurisdiction to even hear this case

On August 13, 2004 the government answered my Rule 59 Motion.  I Replied on September 3rd (click here for my Reply). On September 16, the Government answered my motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which I answered on September 3, 2004. (Click here for my answer) On January 18, 2005 U.S. District Judge Philip M. Pro denied without comment, my rule 59 motions, and also denied without comment my motion in connection with his alleged lack of jurisdiction.  Since he gave no reasons to support these decisions, on Jan 27th, 2005 I filed a motion requesting  “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.”  In any case, I have already served notice that I am appealing both of his rulings to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Read my appeal.

All of this information can be accessed by clicking the items listed below. 

In addition I have filled numerous other pleadings in connection with the above litigation.  I am in the process of posting these additional pleadings and the government’s responses to this web site.  To get to these pleadings and to find out how the government and the court may have responded click here.

To view these documents you'll need the free Acrobat reader - available
hereThe following are review of Irwin's pleadings.  The government's responses and pleadings are available above.
 

1a

Schiff’s Reply as to why all criminal charges against Cindy Neun, Larry Cohen, and himself must be dismissed, because federal courts have no subject matter jurisdiction to criminally prosecute anybody for alleged income tax crimes

1b

Read Schiff’s Reply to Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt’s “Report” in which he recommends that the Court deny Schiff’s four motions.

2a

Schiff’s Motion to Suppress all evidence gathered as a result of an illegal IRS “search and seizure,” showing why all such IRS “search and seizures” are illegal.

2b

Read Schiff’s Reply to Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt’s “Report” in which he recommends that the Court deny Schiff’s four motions.

3

Schiff’s Reply as to why Judge Pro had no jurisdiction to award the Government a $2.6 million summary judgment involving income taxes.

4

Schiff’s Reply why Judge Pro should “alter, amend, or vacate” his giving the Government a $2.6 million summary judgment, when clearly, the Government’s entire lawsuit should be thrown out for fraud. (Rule 59 Motion)

5

Schiff’s pre arraignment offer to plead guilty

6

Is America really a "great country"?

7

ALSO! Read Irwin's 9th Circuit Appeal of Judge Philip Pro's totally lawless granting of a Summary Judgment to the government in connection with its $2.6 million civil lawsuit - more proof of the corruption of federal courts (and the criminal character of the DOJ) in civil as well as criminal matters. 

 

 

Getting back to Judge Lloyd D. George’s Preliminary Injunction,  it appears from his Order and other statements he made at the Preliminary hearing that if I cut out certain pages from  “The Federal Mafia: How The Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes, I might be able to sell a sanitized version.

 Apparently by advertising other books and tapes in the back of  this book I converted the book  to “commercial speech,” thus denying it 1st Amendment protection. (Does this make sense to anybody?)

 

Therefore, for now, Freedom Books will only sell my other books and such related books as: (1) the Internal Revenue Code (unless I am enjoined from selling that too); (2) Title 28; (3) 26 C.F.R, a 5-volume set;  (4) Sen. William V. Roth’s book, “The Power to Destroy” (Its dust jacket claims that the book contains “Shocking revelations about the IRS…[such as] … How the IRS – with near absolute authority granted by Congress – plays judge, jury, and executioner, depriving countless taxpayers of basic rights.)”

 

It was Roth’s Senate Committee that investigated the IRS in 1997 and uncovered wide scale IRS abuse of taxpayers); and (5) the book “Fundamentals of Litigation For Paralegals.” (Incredibly, the government has passed a law that compels all Americans to acquire the litigating skills of professional lawyers.  How else can you fight the “deprivation” of your rights that Senator Roth speaks about?)  I will also still sell (for $5.00) my color - coded Guide to the Constitution of the United States and Declaration of Independence.  One cannot help but feel a twinge of nostalgia upon reading the Constitution, since it poignantly reminds us of days gone by.  All of these books are available on my Online Store.

 

It's also important to note that in my appeal to the 9th Circuit my lawyer did not argue the merits of my beliefs.  He could only argue that regardless of what my book said, it was protected by the 1st Amendment. If he argued the merits of my beliefs he would have been sanctioned by the court, since my beliefs are not in accord with what appellate courts have ruled our tax laws say, and lawyers are apparently bound by what appellate courts say the law is  – and cannot argue otherwise.

 

This is one of the reasons I am representing myself in my pending criminal trial since no lawyer can argue the merits (if any) of my income tax beliefs in federal courts or they will be sanctioned.

 

Along these lines, I cannot see how my beliefs on income taxes can mislead anyone.  Apart from checking my beliefs against the law itself - would I sell the Internal Revenue Code if it contradicted what I say in my books?  - all of my books cite numerous court decisions:  over 100 such decisions are cited in "The Federal Mafia" alone.

 

However, not only am I posting Judge Lloyd D. George’s entire 35 page Preliminary Injunction to this website (as he ordered me to do), which contains his analysis as to why Cindy Neun, Larry Cohen and myself prepared “false tax returns and other tax-related documents …(because)… These returns and documents falsely report that their customers have no taxable income and no tax liability.” (Page 13)  In addition, I have also posted to this website numerous Responses from different sets of Justice Department lawyers who also argue and contest my views regarding the meaning of  “income” and whether or not there is a law making anyone “liable” for income taxes.

 

In addition I have also posted  three “Reports and Recommendations” from U.S. Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt who also argues that  my views on these issues are dead wrong.

 

Therefore, in view of all these official, legal voices all explaining – on this website - why my views on income taxes are dead wrong, how can anyone be misled by me?

 

I urge everyone to read all of the pleadings now posted to this website filed by U.S. attorneys and the court all claiming that my understanding of our income tax laws is dead wrong.  (More such  pleadings and documents  will be posted to this web site as they become available)  I, therefore, urge everyone to: (1) check out the Internal Revenue Code itself; (2) consult with your lawyer and/or accountant concerning any and all material contained on this website and anything I might have written and said about income taxes; and (3) ask the IRS itself, before you rely on anything I might have said or written in connection with income taxes.

 

Remember, all federal judges and U.S. attorneys maintain that much of what I say about income taxes is dead wrong, and in many cases, might even constitute tax evasion.  I, of course, do not agree with that, since I would never advocate violations of law – which is why I sell the law and its implementing regulations. However, I may even be “delusional,” so don’t take my word for anything, without checking out all of the underlying facts and what the IRS, the DOJ, and the courts  have to say about the matter.

 

On pages 33 – 35 of the Preliminary Injunction you will find all the things I have been ordered to do by the Court.   Remember, I am appealing the constitutionality of this Injunction to the Supreme Court and hopefully that Court will accept certiorari.

 

For those of you who would like to help me make that voyage to the Supreme Court so I can attempt to salvage that portion of the 1st Amendment that guarantees “freedom of speech, and of the press,” contributions for that voyage  will be gratefully accepted – since if I allow this Injunction to stand, the 1st Amendment is effectively dead in America. The briefs we filed on this issue with the 9th Circuit Appeal will shortly be posted to this web site.

 

Also Judge Lloyd D. George’s Preliminary Injunction order, was based on a hearing in which the government did not put on one witness that I could cross-examine.  I, on the other hand, demanded to be put under oath and challenged the government to cross-examine me and identify any passage in any of my books that encouraged people to break the law.  They refused to do so even though I offered to (1) stop selling all of my books; and (2) not oppose their Injunction if they did so.  You can listen to the 2-˝ hour hearing by clicking here.

The primary reason the government gave, for banning The Federal Mafia was that it contains information on how to file a “zero” return. The government claimed that my “zero” return promoted tax evasion and was somehow tied in to “commercial speech,” therefore; The Federal Mafia was not protected by the 1st Amendment.  However, I have now posted the “zero” return I personally filed for the year 2003 on this website.  Therefore, anyone can have the information free of charge. So, where is the “commercial speech”?  

I have also posted to this website a wage statement that shows how the IRS (actually the U.S. Government) goes about confiscating 90% of a person’s wages without hearings or court orders of any kind. Is this the action of a “great nation”?

If you'd like to help rid America of this economically destructive and illegally enforced “tax,” help disseminate these pleadings far and wide. The Government and all of its minions obviously are trying to crush me in order to prevent me from informing and educating the American public concerning how it illegally and destructively collects income taxes – and what the public might do to protect itself.

 

Besides having unlimited manpower to come at me, the Government also has a printing press which allows it to (illegally) print as much fiat currency as it needs to do the job. I, of course, have no such printing press. All I have to fight with is truth, and whatever energy I can muster at age 76.


However, fighting the Government both civilly and criminally takes both time and money. So if you would like to help me financially fight a Government whose lawless enforcement of the income tax has literally bankrupted this Nation, and converted it into being the world’s biggest debtor Nation, while destroying its railroads, shipping lines, and most of its factories, you can mail contributions to Freedom Books, 444 East Sahara, Las Vegas, Nevada 89104. Or buy copies of the books and research from Freedom Books.

 
However, not only has the federal government been illegally collecting income taxes, as is clearly shown in the documents now posted to this web site, but it has been the lawless, irresponsible and destructive collection of this tax that is responsible for the disappearance of practically America’s entire industrial base and our total dependence on foreign capital to fund federal deficits. Where 50 years ago practically all the products American’s used and wore were made in America, almost nothing we use or ware is made in America today.  And it is not cheap foreign labor that has driven American jobs overseas, but the Government’s destructive economic and fiscal policies (pushed by both Democrat and Republican administrations) that have done it.


I saw this happening 30 years ago, which is why I wrote The Biggest Con: How the Government is Fleecing You. The last two chapters of that book are entitled, “The Decline of U.S. Economic Power – How the Government and the Federal Reserve Arranged It” and “The Solution to America’s Economic and Social Problems.” A more simplified version is covered in How An Economy Grows and Why It Doesn’t, published in 1985.


The solution to the problem of job loss in America and “outsourcing” is the same today as it was when I focused on the problem some 30 years ago. Lou Dobbs of CNN has been talking about this problem for months. So I sent him an e-mail on the subject, since none of his guests appeared to have a clue as to why this is happening and what we should do about it. Read my economic commentary to Lou Dobbs.  "When will Lou Dobbs get it right?".

 

Why not write or e-mail Lou Dobbs and ask him to have me on his show, since its about time the American public heard someone on network TV who knows something about the problem; why it developed, and what steps the Nation must take if the problem is to be solved, if it is not already too late.


Purchase my books, research and other information now for there is no guarantee that the 9th Circuit will reverse its Opinion sustaining the First Amendment injunction. Get all of the truth while you still can.


Welcome to Amerika.
 



[1] For all practical purposes, the income tax started in 1943 when the Government instituted the “withholding tax” as a temporary, wartime measure and called it a “Victory Tax.” Congressmen would have risked being lynched had they attempted to pass a law, during peacetime that took taxes out of the paychecks of working Americans. However, with 10 million Americans under arms and numerous servicemen dying everyday, how could those on the home front object to a “Victory Tax”? In this manner, Congress was able to pass a tax that was unconstitutional on a variety of grounds, (for one such surprising ground See the Federal Mafia - PP159-161), and the federal government has been growing like a cancer ever since.
 

50 years ago Americans generated the savings needed to fund federal deficits. But for a number of years, the government has been  encouraging Americans  to spend (and not save), since this is how  government statisticians and economists (idiotically) measure American “prosperity,” not by how much Americans produce and save, but how much Americans  spend and consume.  However, when Americans spend, practically all the products they now buy are manufactured in foreign countries.  Therefore, American consumer spending does not enrich Americans, it enriches those foreign workers who produce the products that Americans now buy.

 

Therefore, when our government needs money to fund its deficits, it can’t look to Americans, since Americans are hard at work “spending” not “saving.” Therefore, our government now has to rely on foreigners to fund its deficits.   So, where once American factories produced the consumer goods that gave America the world’s highest standard of living, and where its economy  generated the savings needed to finance federal deficits, today the American economy produces neither. 

 

America, thanks to federal programs designed to promote: “The New Deal,” “The Fair Deal,” “The Great Society,” The New Frontier,” and the “Welfare State,” (all variations of socialism) have resulted in America now becoming totally dependant on: (1) the consumer goods produced by foreigners (and their willingness to ship them to us on credit), and (2) the willingness of foreigners to lend us their money, so our federal government can pay its bills.  What  happens to the American standard of living (to say nothing of America’s ability to wage war) when foreign nations no longer want to do either?  So, America’s once great, economy, which took past generations of productive Americans approximately 300 years to build (under a free enterprise system which no longer exists here),  Washington D.C. politicians  managed to destroy in approximately 50 years of meddling.  Tragically,  the day must inevitably arrive when somebody will write a book entitled, “The Rise and Fall of America.”

For Archived Radio Shows click Here



 

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