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.
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.
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. 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, anybody else can do the same thing.
Since by following the information in The Federal Mafia individuals can avoid paying income taxes without suffering the consequences that would occur if they bootlegged whiskey, the government's only recourse is to seek to ban the book so it can continue to illegally extort the tax. I have reported on my radio show for years that I don't pay income taxes, and report "zero" income on the returns I file. Has the government charged me with tax evasion? No. Suppose I openly advertised and sold untaxed whiskey? How long do you think the government would let me 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 does nothing about it! Why? Because my claim is legally correct. So to prevent the public from finding how I do it, so they can do the same the government is attempting to flush the 1st Amendment down the toilet (along with most other Amendments) and seeks to ban a book, so it can continue to illegally extract income taxes from a misinformed and cowed American public.
These trials can be heard on the Internet at www.paynoincometax.com <http://www.paynoincometax.com
