IRWIN A. SCHIFF, IN PRO PER
444 EAST SAHARA
LAS VEGAS, NV 89104
PHONE: 702 385-6920
FAX: 702 385-6917
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF LAS VEGAS
PREMISES KNOWN AS FREEDOM ) CASE NO: MJ-S-03-0029-LRL-LRL
BOOKS LOCATED AT 444 E. )
SAHARA AVENUE CITY OF LAS )
VEGAS COUNTY OF CLARK )
Movant ) NOTICE OF MOTION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) DATE:
____________________________________)
This court has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. And Section 7302 wherein Internal Revenue Agents seized property apparently under this code section.
STATEMENT OF FACT
On 2-11-03, at approximately 7:30 A.M., `approximately 15-20 Special Agents of the Internal Revenue Agents wearing guns, entered, searched and seized the business premises of Irwin Schiff, located at 444 E. Sahara Ave., Las Vegas, NV. Irwin A. Schiff is an author and the owner of Freedom Books, which distributes his books and tapes from these premises. The agents served the attached warrant, EXHIBIT A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, on Irwin Schiff when he arrived at the premises and did not serve him with an affidavit. The warrant states the affidavit is "under seal". The agents removed numerous files, whole file cabinets (without identifying the file folders in the cabinets), papers, documents, rolodexes, ongoing civil cases, virtually every piece of paper, disc, tape, memo, note, fax, etc., in sight, downloaded the contents of several computers, crumbling Irwin Schiff's ongoing business. This was a thinly disguised ruse on the part of the Government to totally disrupt a business the IRS finds distasteful, while also impeding an ongoing civil case it has with Schiff at a critical point in that case.
It is noteworthy that Irwin Schiff is currently in litigation with the United States of America, IRS, in Case No.CV-S-01-895-PMP-LRL, regarding old alleged income taxes that the government is attempting to collect (as far back as 1979). Schiff and the Government are involved in a serious discovery dispute at this very moment with Schiff about to bring a discovery motion with request for sanctions for government's violation of discovery codes. Since the Government absconded with the case, Schiff's ability to timely bring the motion is substantially impaired. Schiff has filed "0" returns for 11 years and the IRS have taken no action. Now, with his civil case pending and a very large discovery dispute brewing, they raid him, disrupt his ongoing business and substantially interfere with his ability to effectively and timely prosecute his civil case.
The Government has refused to respond (or has objected to) numerous Requests for Admissions that would narrow the issues for trial or allow for a summary judgment. Meet and confer has already transpired to no avail. Schiff had advised the Government, just prior to the "raid," that he was going to make the motion, although he will not move for answers to all of the questions that the United States did not respond adequately to. The Request for Admissions and the Responses to Request for Admissions are EXHIBIT B, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
The foregoing is short history prior to the execution of the search warrant. Irwin Schiff moves this court to quash this warrant and return his property based on the following points and authorities.
I-A
THE SEARCH WARRANT AT ISSUE WAS ILLEGAL
SINCE SPECIAL AGENT DAVID W. HOLLAND WAS NOT AUTHORIZED
TO REQUEST A SEARCH WARRANT
Rule 41(a) of 18 U.S.C. provides that a search warrant shall only be issued "upon the request of a federal law enforcement officer." Movant alleges that Special Agents of the IRS do not fall within the category of "law enforcement officers." Attached as Exhibit C is 26 CFR 1.-?? 5T(k)(6)(ii) and it specifically states, in relevant part, that "The term 'law enforcement officerdoes not include Internal Revenue Service special agents." In any case Rule 41(h) of Title 18 provides that such "law enforcement officers" must be "within any category of officers authorized by the Attorney General to request the issuance of a search warrant." Therefore at the forthcoming hearing, Schiff demands that the United States produce the Justice Department document that designates the category of officers who are authorized to make application for search warrants.
I-B
Exhibit D is 26 USC 7608 entitled "Authority of internal revenue enforcement officers." Exhibit E is an excerpt from the Parallel Table of Authorities. It shows that the implementing regulation for Code section 7608 is in 27 CFR 70, 170 and 296. The Parallel Table of Authorities does not show any implementing regulation for Section 7608 in CFR 26, as, for example Code Sections 6404, 6676, show implementing regulations in both CFR 26 and CFR 27. What does this mean? It means that there are no IRS personnel who have any enforcement authority in connection with income taxes. Why should they have such enforcement authority when there is no statute that makes anyone "liable" for any such "tax" or requires anyone to pay such an alleged tax?
Section 7608(a) makes clear that "Anyinternal revenue officer by whatever term designated" (Emphasis added) is only authorized to enforce "the criminal, seizure, or forfeiture provisions of subtitle E." But IRS agents don't enforce subtitle E taxes anyway. ATF agents, not IRS agents, enforce subtitle E taxes. So Code Section 7608(a) establishes all by itself - that all IRS agents and personnel, (with the possible exception of Special Agents and Internal Security agents who fall into 7608(b)), have no enforcement authority with respect to any internal revenue tax, including income taxes.
While section 7608(b) applies to "Enforcement of laws relating to internal revenue other than subtitle E", this does not necessarily mean that Section 7608(b) applies to income taxes. Notice that Section 7608(a) specifically states that it applies to "liquor, tobacco, and firearms" and "commodities subject to tax." There is nothing in subsection 7608(b) that states it applies to income taxes. And tax statutes have to be "strictly construed."
I-C
Special Agents of the IRS Have No Enforcement Authority
In Connection With Americans Living Within the Continental United States
Attached, as Exhibit F is the job description for Special Agents as it appears in the IRS "Organization and Staffing Manual." Note that it specifically states Special Agents of the IRS are only authorized to enforce "the criminal statutes applicable to income, estate, gift, employment, and excise taxesinvolving United States citizens residing in foreign countries and nonresident aliens subject to Federal income tax filing requirements" (Emphasis added). Since Schiff is not a "United States citizen residing in a foreign country," Special Agents have no legal authority to interfere with him in any way! Their lack of enforcement authority is further confirmed by the fact that there is no reference to the IRS (only the BATF) in the Parallel Table of Authorities as shown in paragraph in paragraph I-B.
I-D
As stated in paragraph I-B, The Parallel Table of Authorities shows that regulations for enforcing 26 USC 7608 are in 27 CFR 70, 170, and 296, not in 26 C.F.R. Attached, as Exhibit F is 27 CFR 70.33. It specifically authorizes ATF officers to "Execute and serve search warrants" Movant claims that at the forthcoming hearing, the United States will not be able to produce a similar, legislative regulation that authorizes Special Agents of the IRS to "Execute and serve search warrants" let alone to "apply for search warrants." Unless the United States can produce at the hearing a similar regulation that not only authorizes Special Agents of the IRS to "Execute and serve search warrants," but to apply for them, the application and enforcement of the instant Search Warrant will be proven to have been illegal from beginning to end just on this basis alone.I-E
IRS AGENTS WERE ILLEGALLY ARMED AND WERE NOT AUTHORIZED TO SEIZE THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE
Even assuming that Special Agents of the IRS have authority to enforce the income tax "laws" against Americans living within the continental USA, Section 7608(a)(1) clearly provides that IRS agents can "carry firearms" only in the "Enforcement of subtitle E and other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and firearms." Section 7608(b), on the other hand, which pertains to the "Enforcement of laws relating to internal revenue other than subtitle E," (emphasis added) contains no similar provision that authorizes IRS agents to "carry firearms" in connection with any other Federal tax, such as income taxes, which falls within subtitle A. Thus all of the Special Agents who were involved in seizing the documents at issue were all breaking the law just on this basis alone even if we assume that such Special Agents have enforcement authority with respect to income taxes, which Movant has already shown they don't have. Thus the lack of authority of Special Agents to carry firearms in connection with income taxes, as they did in the enforcement of the search warrant at issue, was totally illegal on a variety of grounds, and this is not even arguable, unless the laws as passed by Congress, are without force and effect.
II - A
IRS AGENTS COULD ONLY BE AUTHORIZED TO SEIZE PROPERTY "Subject to Forfeiture" and "Propertyusedin violation of the internal revenue laws." AND NONE OF THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE FALLS INTO EITHER CATEGORY
The application and enforcement of the instant search warrant was illegal on a variety of grounds as has already been demonstrated. But even assuming that Special Agents had enforcement authority with respect to income taxes, subsection C of subsection 7608(b) only authorizes Special Agents to "make seizures of property subject to forfeiture under the internal revenue laws." (Emphasis added) It does not authorize them to seize books and records to see whether someone might have violated a law with respect to income taxes.
For example, their benign Delegation Order No. 157 (Rev. 5) (Exhibit G) only authorizes Special Agents "to seize personal property for forfeiturewhen involved, used, or intended to be used in violation of the internal revenue laws" Since none of the documents at issue constituted "property used in violation of the internal revenue laws," they did not constitute "property" which were authorized to be seized by Special Agents of the IRS.
In addition their benign Delegation Order precludes Special Agents from seizing property included in Chapters 51, 52 and 53, which (overlooking the 1/2 page Chapter 54 on "Greenmail") covers the entire Subchapter E, which encompasses all the liquor, tobacco and firearms taxes included in that Subtitle. This clearly establishes that since Special Agents are precluded from seizing property in connection with liquor, tobacco and firearms taxes, they have no authority to "seize" anything, since all property "subject to seizure under the internal revenue laws" (as the following will show) is property that falls within the provisions of Subtitle E.
In addition, nothing in this alleged Delegation Order that authorizes Special Agents to apply for, and/or execute search warrants in connection with income taxes
II-B
WHAT PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE
UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE LAW?
Subchapter C, of Subtitle F, is entitled "Forfeitures." PART 1 of that subchapter is
entitled "PROPERTY SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE." The first Section of PART 1 is section 7301.
26 U.S.C 7301
Section 7301, is broken down into 5 subsections which describe the types of property "subject to forfeiture" under the Internal Revenue Code. Subsection 7301(a), in pertinent part, authorizes the forfeiture of "any property on which "any tax is imposedfor the purpose of being sold or removed with design to avoid payment." None of the documents at issue falls into subsection (a). Subsection (b) entitled "Raw Materials," (in pertinent part) describes property "intending to manufacture the same into property of a kind subject to tax for the purpose of selling such property in fraud. or with design to evade the payment of such tax." None of the documents at issue falls into subsection (b). Subsection (c) entitled "Equipment," provides (in pertinent part) for the seizure of "All propertydescribed in subsection (a) or (b).." None of the documents at issue falls into subsection (c ). Subsection (d) is entitled, "Packages," and applies to "All property used as a container" as "described in subsection (a) or (b)." None of the documents at issue falls into subsection (d). Subsection (e) entitled, "Conveyances," provides for the seizure of "aircraft, vehicles, vessels, or draft animals" used to transportproperty described in subsection (a) or (b)." None of the documents at issue falls into subsection (e). Thus none of the property at issue falls into the category of "Property subject to forfeiture" as described in 26 U.S.C. 7301
II-C
26 U.S.C. 7302 STATES, AS FOLLOWS:
It shall be unlawful to have or possess any property intended for use in violation the provisions of the internal revenue laws, or regulations prescribed under such laws, or which has been so used, and no such property rights shall exist in any such property. A search warrant may issue as provided in chapter 205 of title 18 of the United States Code and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, for the seizure of such property. Nothing in this section shall in any manner limit or affect any criminal or forfeiture provision of the internal revenue laws or any other law. The seizure and forfeiture of any property under the provisions of this section and the disposition of such property subsequent to seizure and forfeiture, or the disposition of the proceeds from the sale of such property, shall be in accordance with existing laws or those hereafter in existence relating to seizures, forfeitures, and disposition of property or proceeds, for violation of the internal revenue laws.
It is clear that none of the documents at issue fall within the provisions of Section 7302. It is clear that this section contemplates the seizure of physical "property" used in violation of the internal revenue code (generally in regard to liquor, tobacco, and firearms taxes) that can be "sold."
There is nothing in Code Sections 7301 or 7302 that even remotely suggests that the property described as "property subject to forfeiture" and "used in violation of internal revenue laws" contemplates the seizure of personal documents and records (and the contents of a citizens computer), so the Government can go on "a fishing expedition" through them to determine if the party in question has violated some provision of the internal revenue laws related to income taxes. As a matter of fact, the 4th and 5th Amendments to the United States Constitution specifically prohibit this kind of "fishing expedition" by the Government. If Government agents can: a) inform a citizen that he is under criminal investigation, then 2) proceed to bar him from his personal office, 3) remove entire file cabinets of documents without identifying their contents, 3) suck out the contents of all of his computers which include five chapters of his forthcoming book, 4) take his rolodex and appointment books, 5) numerous files containing legal briefs and legal files then what purpose do the 4th and 5th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution serve?
III
THE INVENTORY AT ISSUE WAS ILLEGALLY COMPILED
Section 41(d) of the United States Criminal Code provides, in relevant part:
The officer taking property under warrant shall give to the person from whomthe property was takena receipt for the property. . The inventory shall be made in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the person from whose possession or premises the property was takenand shall be verified by the officer.
The inventory was not made "in the presence of..the person from whose possession the property was taken." Special Agent Holland would not allow Schiff to enter his office to observe what the agents were taking. Holland presented Schiff with the inventory after the Special Agents had completed the removal of all of the seized documents. Therefore the "inventory" was prepared in violation of rule 41(d), since it was not "made in the presence of (Schiff).. The person from whose possession or premises the property was taken." When Schiff arrived at his office he attempted to enter it to see what the IRS agents were taking. However, he was physically restrained from doing so by David W. Holland who was assisted by three or four other agents. They blocked the doorway and would simply not allow Schiff to enter his offices to observe what the agents were taking and/or what they were doing. Therefore, Schiff has no idea what other documents, files or personal articles might have been taken which were not listed in the inventory. In addition, the inventory was not "verified" by anyone.
Movant has been told by various employees of Freedom Books that they are missing files and documents not shown on the inventory, while Schiff is missing certain personal items not shown on the inventory list.
IV -A
4TH AND 5TH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS
The 4th and 5th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution provide fundamental protection from unreasonable search and seizure and supposedly protect Americans from being witnesses against themselves. The totally unconstitutional and outrageous nature of the warrant at issue and the seizures that followed is revealed merely by referring to Code Section 26 U.S.C. 7602(d). Section 7602(d) deals with IRS summonses, and provides, in pertinent part, that "No summons may be issued under this title and the Secretary may not begin any action under section 7604 to enforce any summons with respect to any person if a Justice Department referral is in effect with respect to such person." So the IRS can not even issue a summons to compel a taxpayer to produce his books and records, if there is a Justice Department referral. However, in this case, not only was there a Justice Department "referral in effect," but Schiff was specifically given a Miranda Warning by Special Agent, David W. Holland (who applied for the warrant) who notified Schiff that he was under criminal investigation and that, "Anything you say can be used against you, and you have a right to remain silent." If anything Schiff said could be used against him, and Schiff had a "right" to remain silent," what good was that "right" if, at that very moment, some 15-20 IRS Special Agents were rummaging through Schiff's personal books and records looking for documents that could "speak for Schiff" and be used against him?
On or about June 28th, 1998 Schiff received an IRS civil summons (Attached as Exhibit H) requesting that Schiff turn over all of his records for the years 1979-1985). Schiff didn't turn over a single document after it was established that all such records and all the "testimony" sought to be extracted from Schiff could be used against Schiff in any subsequent criminal action. And the Government did nothing to compel Schiff to turn over any documents covered in the summons. So, if Schiff could "refuse to exhibit his books and records for examination on the ground that compelling him to do so might violate his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and constitute an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment" (as stated in the "Handbook for Special Agents," Exhibit I), can the Government proceed to get them anyway BY THE USE OF GUNS?
Schiff's "right" to remain silent as relayed to him by Agent Holland is obviously a worthless "right" if the Government can legally confiscate a truckload of Schiff's personal records which would obviously "speak" for him, even if Schiff chose to exercise his alleged "right" not to speak. What verbal testimony could Schiff withhold from the Government, that the Government could not get from his personal records and the contents of 5 or 6 of his computers? If the Government can get away with this kind of "search and seizure" then the protections affo by the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution no longer apply in the United States. What more proof of this would the Government have to provide?
IV-B
In Boyd v. Untied States, 116 U.S. 616 (1896) the Supreme Court faced the issue (p. 622) of:
Is a search and seizure, or, what is equivalent thereto, a compulsory production of a man's private papers, to be used in evidence against him in a proceeding to forfeit his property for alleged fraud against the revenue laws is such a proceeding for such a purpose an "unreasonable search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution."
And even though the issue in the Boyd was civil, not criminal, the Court concluded:
Whereas, by the proceeding now under consideration, the court attempts to extort from the party his private books and papers to make him liable for a penalty or to forfeit his property, (p.624)
Then the court proceeded to compare the compulsory production of private papers to "The practiceof issuing writs of assistance to the revenue officers," and quoted a James Otis as stating "'the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty, and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law book,' since they placed 'the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.'" The Court went on to observe:
Breaking into a house and opening boxes and drawers are circumstances of aggravation; but any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man's own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence to convict him of a crime or to forfeit his goods, is within the condemnation of that judgment. In this regard the Fourth and Fifth Amendments run almost into each other. (p 630)
We think that the notice to produce the invoice in this case, the order by virtue of which it was issued, and the law which authorized the order, were unconstitutional and void, and that the inspection by the district attorney of said invoice, when produced in obedience to said notice, and its admission in evidence by the court, were erroneous and unconstitutional proceedings. We are of the opinion, therefore, that The judgment of the Circuit Court should be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to award a new trial. (italics in original)(p. 638) The Court also observed:
And any compulsory discovery by extorting the party's oath, or compelling the production of his private books and papers, to convict him of a crime, or to forfeit his property is contrary to the principles of a free government. It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman; it is abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes of a despotic power; but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom. (p 632) (Emphasis added)
One would think, it would be equally "abhorrent" to this Court. And the Supreme Court further observed.
We are further of the opinion that a compulsory production of the private books and papers of the owner of goods sought to be forfeited in such a suit is compelling him to be a witness against himself, within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, and is the equivalent of a search and seizure and an unreasonable search and seizure- within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." (p. 634)
Other observations of the Court were:
The search for and seizure of stolen goods or forfeited goods, or goods liable to duties and concealed to avoid the payment thereof, are totally different things from a search for and seizure of a man's private books and papers for the purpose of obtaining information therein contained, or of using them as evidence against him. The two things differ toto coelo. In the one case, the government is entitled to the possession of the property; in the other it is not. (p. 623)
We have been unable to perceive that the seizure of a man's private books and papers to be used in evidence against him is substantially different from compelling him to be a witness against himself. (p. 633, Emphasis added)
If the Supreme Court could conclude that the compulsory production of one document in a civil case was unconstitutional how much more unconstitutional is the seizure by armed Government Agents of a truckload of personal records and documents in order to establish whether Schiff violated some unidentified revenue law?
V
THE CLAIM THAT IRWIN SCHIFF ADVISES ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING "IN VIOLATION OF INCOME TAX LAWS"
IS AN OUTRAGEOUS AND LAWLESS FABRICATION
Irwin Schiff has written approximately 5 books on the income tax and related subjects, which have sold in the neighborhood of 500,000 copies. His books will be found in libraries around the country and in the UNLV Law Library. His books are sold by all of the major book retail chains and are prominently advertised and reviewed on the Internet at Amazon.com. He has sold thousands of copies of the Internal Revenue Code itself, and is probably one of Research Institute of America's biggest customers. When Schiff puts on seminars, attendees are invited to bring their C.P.A.'s and tax lawyers with them at no extra charge. The Government does not have a shred not a smidgen - of evidence that Schiff advises anyone to violate "income tax laws", including advice on "hiding assets and income", as was stated in the Search Warrant. Schiff challenges the Government to produce one document of all the documents it has seized that would indicate any such thing. True, Schiff exposes the illegal and unconstitutional manner by which the Government collects the income tax, which apparently upsets the Government: so this raid was the Government's attempt to interfere in Schiff's ability to spread the truth. Thus the raid violated Schiff's 1st Amendment right to speak and publish the truth concerning the manner by which the Government illegally and unconstitutionally enforces the collection of income taxes in violation of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code itself and in violation of numerous provisions of the Constitution . The Government's illegal and unconstitutional enforcement of the income tax can be encapsulated as follows.
VI-A
The Alleged Income Tax Is Not Imposed
Pursuant to Any One Of the Constitution's Three Taxing Clauses
Therefore, Its Payment Can Not Legally Be Made Mandatory
All of the government's taxing powers are contained in three clauses of the Constitution. These three clauses establish two classes of taxes:
1)Direct taxes which are authorized in Article 1, Sections 2 & 9, Clauses 3 & 4, and
2)Indirect taxes which are authorized in Article 1, Section 8, Clause1
The clauses authorizing direct taxes require that all direct taxes be imposed pursuant to the rule of apportionment. Indirect taxes (such as "duties, excises and imposts"), on the other hand, must be imposed pursuant to the rule of geographic uniformity. Obviously, any federal tax in order to be mandatory must be imposed pursuant to one rule or the other. No other class of taxation is authorized by the Constitution and this was not changed by the 16th Amendment, as Movant will proceed to show. Therefore, since the current income tax in not imposed either on the basis of apportioned, nor as a uniform "excise, duty, or impost" its payment cannot be made mandatory. The current 1954 Code, by not making the paying of income taxes compulsory, is not in conflict with the taxing clauses of the Constitution, while the 1939 and earlier Codes, which made the payment of income taxes mandatory, were in conflict with those taxing clauses. Therefore the claim in the search warrant that Irwin Schiff and Cindy Neun advise or assist people to prepare returns which are in violation of the income tax laws is nonsense. It is Federal employees who extract the income tax in violation of the Constitution and the IR Code, not Schiff and Neun. The Government is seeking to prevent Schiff and Neun from exposing the Government's illegal collection of the income tax - since it wants a free hand in robbing the American public blind, while it destroys America's industrial base with its irresponsible levels of taxation and collection costs.
VI-B
THE 16TH AMENDMENT DID NOT CHANGE THE TAXING CLAUSES
OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITITION
NOR GIVE THE GOVERNMENT ANY NEW TAXING POWER
Contrary to the popular belief, the 16th Amendment did not "amend" the U.S. Constitution, nor modify in any way the Constitution's three taxing clauses. The Supreme Court ruled in the definitive decision, Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR, 240 U.S.1 (1915), that the sole purpose of the 16th Amendment was to prevent an income tax from being classified as a direct tax and thus subject to the rule of apportionment. That had been the basis upon which the Supreme Court in 1895 ( Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co, 158 U.S. 601) held the Income Tax Act of 1894 unconstitutional. The 1915 Brushaber Court, contrary to the 1895 Pollock Court, held (on pages 16 & 17) that "taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such." (Emphasis added) On pages 17, 18, and 19 the Brushaber Court further held:
The contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of sources from which the taxed income may be derived, forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under the other or direct class. (Emphasis added)
So, the Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber that the 16th Amendment did not give the government any new taxing power, but merely provided that the United States could impose an income tax in the form of an indirect, excise tax which would still be subject to the rule of uniformity. Therefore, any claim by the United States that the 16th Amendment gave it a new taxing power, such as to allow it to impose an income tax in the form of a direct tax, but not subject to the rule of apportionment is "wholly without foundation" and would, in fact, "destroy" the "two great classifications" of taxes provided for in the Constitution. So, any claim by the United States that the 16th Amendment gave the government a new taxing power, which would allow it to impose an income tax as a direct tax but without apportioning the tax, would be based on criminal fraud.
Corroboration that the 16th Amendment did not give the United States any new taxing power, but merely allowed the United States to impose an income tax in the form of an excise can be found in Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240U.S.103(1915) which held:
The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment."(Emphasis added)
VI-C
CONFIRNMATION FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
THAT THE 16TH AMENDMENT ONLY ALLOWED THE GOVERNMENT
TO IMPOSE AN INCOME TAX AS AN EXCISE TAX
Further confirmation that the Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment merely authorized the United States to impose an income tax in the form of an excise is provided in Exhibit J. It is page 5 of a "Congressional Research Report" prepared by John R. Luckey as of 12/5/1996. Note that paragraph 3 is captioned "WHAT DOES THE (SUPREME) COURT MEAN WHEN IT STATES THAT THE INCOME TAX IS IN THE NATURE OF AN EXCISE TAX?" The CRS Report goes on to point out that excise taxes are "levied on the manufacture, sale or consumption of a commodity or any of various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee." Obviously, the income tax is not imposed in this manner. Therefore the income tax is not imposed pursuant to the 16th Amendment and the Brushaber and Stanton decisions.
Exhibit K is an excerpt from IRS Manual MT 9900-26 (1-29-75). The entry in the IRS Manual is captioned "Excise and Income Taxes Distinguished" which admits, therefore, that the income tax is not imposed pursuant to the 16th Amendment, as the excise tax the Brushaber and Stanton Courts held it to be if it were to be imposed without apportionment.
In addition, the Supreme Court went on to say (on page 17)
The whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.
So the Supreme Court said in Brushaber, supra, that the whole purpose of the 16TH Amendment, was not to amend the Constitution but to "relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived." In considering whether Schiff (or anyone he is alleged to have advised) had any taxable income for any or the years at issue, did the DOJ lawyers "relieve" all such alleged "incomefrom a consideration of the source whence (such alleged income) was derived" as required by the 16th Amendment? If not, such DOJ lawyers were breaking the law. Therefore, Movant demands that at the hearing to be convened, the United States explain how, when it determined that Schiff (or anyone he is alleged to have advised) had taxable "income" for any particular year, it "relieved" all such alleged taxable income "from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived."
VI-D
NEITHER MOVANT (NOR ANYONE HE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE ADVISED) RECEIVED ANY INCOME IN A "CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE"
THAT COULD HAVE BEEN TAXABLE PURSUANT TO CODE SECTION 61
Movant has attached as Exhibit L, pages 432 and 433 of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Glenshaw Glass Co, 348 U.S.426. Please note that in footnote 11 the Supreme Court notes that the "definition" of "income" as used in Section 61(a) of the 1954 Code is "based upon the 16th Amendment and the word 'income' is used in its constitutional sense." (Emphasis added). Thus the word "income" as used in Code Section 61 is used in its "constitutional sense" not in its "ordinary" sense. Therefore, Movant requests that the United States be ordered to explain at the forthcoming hearing, in what manner Movant (and any one who he is alleged to have advised) received income in a "constitutional sense" as opposed to their having received "income" in its "ordinary sense." Obviously, if neither Movant (nor anyone he is alleged to have advised) ever received "income" in a "constitutional sense" they received no "income" that would be taxable under our revenue laws.
Movant declares that, based upon years of research, "income" in its "constitutional sense" means "corporate profit" since a direct tax on corporate profit would not be a direct tax on the sources that generated that profit. Thus a tax on corporate "profit" would not have considered the sources "whence (such) income was derived." This is clearly stated in Merchants Loan & Trust Company v. Smietanka, 255 US 509, 518, 519 (1921), wherein the Supreme Court said:
There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word (income) must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporate Excise Tax Act (of 1909) and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court. (Emphasis added)
And none of the "income" that Schiff (nor anyone he is alleged to have advised) would have received any "income" that would have been taxable under the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909.
Further conformation that income in its "constitutional sense" means a corporate profit was furnished by the Supreme Court in Doyle v. Mitchell, 247 US 179, 184, 185 (1918) wherein the Court held, in pertinent part:
Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of "income"(it conveys)the idea of a gain or increase arising from corporate activities. (Emphasis added)
VII-A
MOVANT (AND ANYONE HE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE ADVISED) ALL HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT NOT TO BE COMPELLED TO PAY A FEDERAL TAX WHICH IS NOT IMPOSED EITHER AS
AN APPORTIONED DIRECT TAX NOR AS AN INDIRECT EXCISE TAX
Based on the information and the supporting Exhibits contained above, it is clear that the income tax is neither apportioned as a direct tax, nor imposed or enforced as the excise tax the Supreme Court, in Brushaber, supra, declared it to be. It should be further obvious that Schiff (and those he is alleged to have advised) all have a Constitutional right not to be compelled to pay a federal tax that is not authorized by the United States Constitution. Since the income "tax" is not imposed pursuant to any of the Constitution's three taxing clauses - it is clear that its enforced extraction is not authorized by the Constitution (nor any provision of the Internal Revenue Code) and thus Schiff's 1st Amendment right in educating the public concerning the differences between income in its "ordinary sense" and income in its "constitutional sense" and the "self-assessment" (as contained in 6201 and 26 CFR 601.103(a) and the "voluntary" nature of the income "tax" can not be enjoined by this court nor be converted into a crime as the United States is attempting to do here. What can be clearer than that?
VII-B
THE UNITED STATE'S ACTION HERE IS CLEARLY CRIM INAL
18 U.S.C 241 makes it a crime for "Two or more persons (to) conspire to injure, oppress, 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" It is clear that Schiff (and those he is alleged to have advised) "enjoy" a right "secured to them by the Constitution" not to be subject to a federal tax that is not imposed either as a direct tax pursuant to the rule of apportionment, nor imposed as an excise tax, pursuant to the rule of geographic uniformity. Clearly the income "tax" is not imposed pursuant to either rule. Therefore, if this Court were to hold that Schiff's books and records can be seized in order to prosecute him criminally in connection with an alleged Federal income tax:
1)That is not imposed pursuant to any of the taxing clauses contained in the United States Constitution;
2) For which no statute passed by Congress makes anyone "liable" for, nor requires them "to pay" (as the following will show); and
3)Even though neither he (nor anyone he is alleged to have advised) had any "income" in a "constitutional sense" within the meaning of Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code:
Then it will be clear that this Court, in league with United States Attorneys, Melissa Schriabman, Daniel Schiess, and Special Agent David Holland are engaged in a criminal conspiracy to "injure and oppress" Schiff and deny him the protection and "enjoyment " of numerous rights "secured to him by the Constitution" and "laws of the United States" in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241.
VIII-A
THE SEARCH WARRANT AT ISSUE REFERS TO A TAX
THAT, LEGALLY, DOES NOT EXIST
Since no law makes Schiff (and those he is alleged to have advised) "liable" for, or requires them "to pay," an income "tax," an income "tax" does not legally exist. A tax is defined as a "mandatory exaction for the support of government." Since there is no law creating a "liability" for an income "tax" nor mandating that such an alleged tax "be paid" - and the United States will not be able to identify any such statutes in the Internal Revenue Code in response to this Reply - the income "tax" can not, legally, be regarded as a "tax." Therefore, all references in Plaintiff's Complaint to such an alleged "tax" are fraudulent and void and must be stricken from the warrant and any of its attachments.
The IRS admits in numerous publications that the income tax is based on "voluntary," not "compulsory" compliance. (See Exhibits M through T). It is based on "voluntary compliance" because there are no laws making anyone "liable" for the "tax" or requiring them "to pay" it so, naturally its payment can only be based on "voluntary compliance". If there were a law requiring Americans "to pay" income taxes, such a tax would be based on "compulsory compliance" Is the United States claiming that "voluntary compliance" and "compulsory compliance" both mean the same thing?
In addition, if there were a law requiring the payment of income taxes, there would also be a law requiring the public to keep books and records for income tax purposes, so that the government could verify whether they paid the correct amount of income taxes. However, there is no law requiring Americans to keep books and records for income tax purposes and the United States will not be able to produce or cite any such law at the forthcoming hearing.
Schiff, therefore, requests that the Court order the United States to produce at the forthcoming hearing, to support its Search Warrant, the statute that makes Schiff (and those he is alleged to have advised):
1)"Liable" for an income tax;
2) Requires them "to pay" an income tax;
3) Requires them to keep books and records (as, for example Code sections 4403, 5114(a), and 5741, do with respect to wagering, liquor, and tobacco taxes), and
4) The statute that "defines" the meaning of "income" itself.
Exhibit U is a page from the Index of the Internal Revenue Code as published by the Research Institute of America. Under the heading "Liability for tax" the Index lists some 30 federal taxes and identifies the statute where the "liability" for each tax will be found. Schiff asks the Court to take judicial notice that there is no entry for an "income tax". Schiff asks the Court to take judicial notice that Section 4401(c) of the IR Code states, in connection with the federal wagering tax, "Each person who is engaged in the business of accepting wagers shall be liable for and shall pay the tax under this subchapter. (Emphasis added.) Section 5703(a) & (b) state, in connection with tobacco products, "The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by Section 5701 (And, that) Such taxes shall be paid on the basis of a return." (Emphasis added). Code Sections 5005(a) and 5007 state, in connection with the taxes on distilled spirits, "The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the tax imposed thereon by Section 5001(a)(1)" while "The tax on domestic distilled spiritsshall be paid in accordance with section 5061" (Emphasis added). Schiff challenges the Government to produce at the forthcoming hearing any statute that similarly requires Schiff (and those he is alleged to have advised) "to pay" income taxes or that makes them "liable" for any such "tax."
In addition, The Second Circuit held in Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. at page 506: "Moreover even the collection of taxes should be extracted only from persons upon whom a tax liability is imposed by some statute." Since no statute imposes an income tax liability on anyone, neither Schiff (nor anyone he is alleged to have advised) can be said to have been "in violation of income tax laws including (the) hiding of assets and income" in connection with a tax that legally does not exist, as charged in "ATTACHMENT B" of the Search Warrant.
VIII-B
ALL MANDATORY PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO INCOME "TAXES"
WERE REMOVED FROM THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
WHEN CONGRESS ENACTED THE 1954 CODE:
When Congress changed from the 1939 Code to the 1954 Code, Congress apparently sought to bring the income laws into compliance with a number of Supreme Court decisions which were decided after the original Income Tax Act of 1913 was passed - in which the payment of income taxes was made mandatory. However, these later Supreme Court decisions made a compulsory income tax, unconstitutional on a variety of grounds. Originally, Congress believed that the 16th Amendment gave the government a new taxing power, so it had initially made the payment of income taxes mandatory. The original wording in the Tax Act of 1913, provided, "There shall be levied, collected and paid for each taxable year upon the net income of every individual a tax." This same wording appeared in Section 11 of the 1939 Code. However In going from the 1939 to the 1954 Code, however, Congress removed the wording "levied, collected and paid" and merely provided (in Section 1) that a tax on "income" was merely "imposed". However, unlike the 1939 Code, nowhere in the 1954 Code did Congress include a provision that anyone was made "liable" for the tax so "imposed", or that anyone was required "to pay" the tax "imposed".
The reason that the payment of income "taxes" was no longer made mandatory is obvious. Since the Supreme Court held in Brushaber that an income tax was an excise tax, and could not Constitutionally be imposed as a direct tax without apportionment - Congress realized that, as a practical matter, there was no way it could impose an income tax either as an apportioned direct tax, nor as a uniform excise. Thus, the only way the income tax statutes could be written so as not to be unconstitutional and run afoul of the Brushaber and other decisions, was to remove all the mandatory provisions that applied to income taxes as contained in the 1939 Code and to collect the tax based on "self-assessment" (as provided in Section 6201 and 26 CFR 601.103(a) and "voluntary" compliance
Therefore, the 1954 Code is not unconstitutional in any way because, 1) it does not make the payment of income taxes mandatory, and 2) it does not give the IRS any enforcement powers whatsoever. Any claim by the lawyers representing the United States that the current Internal Revenue Code gives the IRS any enforcement powers whatsoever would be based on criminal fraud.
Exhibit V shows how Congress changed the law when Congress went from the 1939 Code to the 1954 Code.
1)Congress removed from Section 61 all references to "wages, salaries, or compensation for personal service" as these items had appeared in Section 22 of the 1939. And whereas Code Section 22 did not attempt to "define" income, Section 61 now "defined" income in a manner that only a corporate profit (income in a "constitutional sense") would fall within that alleged definition.
2)Congress removed from the 1954 Code, as stated above, the provision that an income tax "shall be levied. Collected, and paid" and only included in Section 1 a benign and meaningless reference to the "imposition" of such an alleged tax.
3)While Section 271 in the 1939 Code allowed the IRS Commissioner to estimate a income tax deficiency even if "no return is made." Such a provision was removed from Section 6211 of the 1954 and no deficiency can now legally exist unless an "amount (is) shown as the tax by the taxpayer upon his return; if a return was made by the taxpayer and amount was shown as the tax by the taxpayer thereon."
If a taxpayer does not file a return or files a "zero" return, he falls outside the provisions of the 1954 Code and no provision of the Code actually applies to him.
In addition to making these changes all references to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue were removed from the 1954 Code as they had appeared in the 1939 Code, and only the Secretary of the Treasury was given any authority to enforce the income tax and he has never delegated any of his authority to the IRS as provided in Section 7701(a) 11 & 12. Therefore at the forthcoming hearing Schiff requests that the Court order the United States to produce such Delegation of Authority from the Secretary and the date it was published in the Federal Register, in order for such a Delegation Order to be binding on the public.
Based on all of the above it is clear that
1)The Search Warrant at issue was issued illegally. 2) Executed illegally on a variety of grounds, and 3) was issued and executed in violation of numerous provisions of the Constitution and numerous provisions as contained in the Internal Revenue Code.
From: Cynthia Smith-Neun RESPONSE TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PRESS RELEASE
Irwin Schiff's FREEDOM BOOKS, 444 East Sahara Ave., Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 702-385-6920
Dear Mrs. Eileen O'Conner,
I am in receipt of the attached DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PRESS RELEASE, dated March 20, 2003, where you mention my name and the names of two of my friends from Freedom Books in Las Vegas, Nevada, Irwin Schiff and Lawrence Cohen. You said that we pitch "Tax Scams" in your Press Release. Interestingly, you forgot to say the word "allegedly", in consideration of our due process rights and an opportunity to defend ourselves from such bias and slander, but instead, phrased your allegations as if they were already adjudged. I'll take your "cue" now, for your comments as phrased lead me to understand that you may indeed already have the "judgment" arranged according to your assertions, so, this may be my only opportunity to respond to your allegations that we "pitch TAX SCAMS".
The TRUTH is, we are your sacrificial offerings for the D.O.J.'s "2003 taxing season propaganda campaign". Why don't you tell the Truth about that much? We already know. Almost everybody knows now, so, when you make public statements like these, you are embarrassing yourself. Government officials are lying to the American Public and have hijacked America's Courts for cover! I can prove what I am saying.
Your Department accuses me of filing false and fraudulent income tax returns:
By virtue of my CAF Authorization Number issued by the Ogden Service Center, several years ago, I have been representing American citizens in the Internal Revenue Service Examinations Functions, Appeals Functions, and before the Taxpayer Advocate over the course of the past 4 years and as a witness in attendance of approximately 200 such meetings, where the agency has acknowledged me as an un-enrolled return preparer, designation "h" and as a Taxpayer Representative. As recently as today I received correspondence from the Internal Revenue Service proving their recognition of me as Power of Attorney for many people who still have cases pending in examinations and on appeal. No one at the "Service" has attempted to discharge me, nor have they ever barred me regarding the signing of the returns. Your own agency circular states that I may represent people in examinations at the IRS if I have signed their returns and that is the reason I signed the returns. I have been following agency guidelines, and, all Internal Revenue Service personnel have been doing the same in this instance. Neither your Department nor the Internal Revenue Service has sent me one piece of correspondence stating that I have been filing false, fraudulent, or frivolous returns in all of these years. But they have sent me about a thousand other pieces of correspondences, as the Taxpayer Representative for about 100 of my fellow American workers and friends.
Your Department alleges that I mislead or defraud individuals when I state that income tax is voluntary.
When we attend examinations and other meetings and conferences at the Internal Revenue Service, we take the Internal Revenue Code Book to the meeting with us. We place it in the middle of the "examination" table. On every occasion, we ask what law passed by Congress the agent is applying when they ask us to pay the income tax, and, without fail, the agents run out of the room. Then, they call the Security Guard to escort us out of the building. The agents do not even pretend to have a legal basis for what they are doing. IRS agents won't point to the law when it is sitting on the table in front of them, and when we are offering to pay that tax if they will simply point the law out to us. Are the agents involved not aware of the law, or, do they want to keep the law a secret - when we are offering to pay the income tax if they will only show us our legal obligation to do so?
Irwin Schiff and myself have attended many hearings and other conferences at the IRS. We represent people who are elderly and ill and who may have a handicap, disability or language barrier that would interfere with their ability to defend themselves from illegal IRS practices and procedures.
The job descriptions of the IRS personnel we meet with state that they have extensive knowledge of the Code and the Regulations. The job descriptions also state that they must be able to explain it to the public in non-technical terms so that they will understand it. The agents of the IRS are not doing any of the things outlined on their job descriptions during the course of their correspondence or the interviews they are conducting, but, instead, they are using intimidation and extortion threats, attempting to get people to do what the agents want or wish the Public to do: They want us to "Take their WORD" for it.
An enormous amount of LAW and other LEGAL evidence supports the position that we must be presented with signed documentation, and very specific papers before we can ascertain the authority for what the agents are doing, and, where Congress and the Supreme Court agree, "The public does not DARE" accept the agent's word for anything! This is why the Government put in place volumes of Delegation Orders to outline the authority for certain practices and why the Courts have been consistent on the Necessity for Delegated Authority before the Public enters into an arrangement with these Government employees. Your Department's frustration comes from the fact that there is no legal standing for what these Government agents are doing. So, all that the agent can do is to break the law, then run and hide, and, that is exactly what they do. (I hold the largest collection of audio tape recordings of these hearings in America.)
We ask for the applicable law, but we don't get to see that. Instead, the agents throw a pile of Tax Court Memos and little souvenirs they have found surfing on the Internet, along with warnings about "Court Imposed Sanctions of up to $25,000.00 more", if we ask for the law "over there" (in the Courts) "So, pay our extortion now, or there will be more where you are going," as they run out of the room and down the hall, like any other bandit. Sometimes, they actually sneer and jeer about the Court's participation in this scheme against individuals who dare to question authority or to ask for the laws being applied to them.
I attended one Collection Due Process Hearing where the taxpayer had to run after the agent going down the hall to get a badge number for his notes! The meeting did not last 5 minutes. The agent was poised to leave the room as soon as the taxpayer introduced himself as a former United States Department of Prisons Due Process Officer, retired after 20 years. The wife introduced herself as the mother of two boys currently serving in the military in the Gulf War. The agent's head went down. Immediately, she started dealing her "cards" as fast as she could deal them across the table: Tax Court memo #1, (Davis) #2, (Pierson), where Sanctions were Imposed; a 4340 Form, (That is, the little tiny transcript in codes nobody can understand); and, for the kicker The Jason Pierce article on Steven Swan who has filed a lawsuit against Irwin Schiff. The agent ran out of the hearing so fast that Mr. Patterson thought that she had a stomach ache and was only leaving to relieve herself. He appeared dazed when I told him that his Impartial Appeals Officer had left the room for good and that this is how they dispense with Due Process at the IRS. The Patterson Case is now pending in the District Court, and they intend to take their appeal of the adverse determination from this "Collection Due Process Hearing" all the way to the Supreme Court. The Patterson Case is one of the "frivolous lawsuits" the government is complaining about and attempting to use against us at Freedom Books because we have helped these fine people to prepare a timely appeal of that hearing thereby protecting them from illegal seizure of their property as provided by law.
We are doing only that which the laws tell us to do. Congress sent us to the Courts with the enactment of the 1998 Restructuring and Reform Act. We didn't write these laws. Congress wrote them to protect us from abuses such as these. How were we supposed to know that the Courts were going to pretend that an important Act of Congress like that doesn't count, or was indeed a big joke on American citizens to make them feel safe? The laws have told us to do certain things and to ask for specific documents and proof, which is what we have done. Why not admit that this whole Act of Legislation was a frame-up? IRS agents in concert with the Courts are using it as a new trap to tack on additional interest and penalties; and, now, Court sanctions, while uttering a host of other fraudulent conveyances as they do these dirty deeds. So, you see, we know that all your Department could do at this time was to come around with Search Warrants and guns to steal our evidence and files hoping to cover up for these crimes, and with the possession of the stolen evidence - to move by Restraining Order to shut us down like bullies.
The IRS agents threaten that they will ruin people financially, seize their paychecks, Social Security Benefits and other retirement income, and they use other non legal verbiage to press their "power", which you and I both know doesn't even exist. Not in the law, that is. What exactly is it that Congress and the Senate do if IRS agents and judges make law? I mean, if this is all for the "show"and LAW is what IRS agents say it is not what Congress says - don't you think the $56 Million dollars your Department is complaining about that Freedom Books has allegedly cost you is peanuts, "small potatoes" - compared with what the Government could save by simply closing down that "show"?
Don't you believe the American public has a right to know if it is as the IRS agents say: That they have the guns and, therefore, we will pay now or pay later because they have the whole 3rd-party racket wrapped up in fear, as well? They have control over our paychecks by threatening our employers; our bank accounts by threatening our bankers; and, America's judges by threatening with the consequences of past illegal Rulings made by the Courts. The agents clearly know that they are operating in open violation of the laws as written by Congress and a host of other rules and regulations regarding procedures and conduct. The transcripts and tapes of these hearings prove that the agents are unrelenting in their abusive tactics. The United States Tax Court, The United States District Courts, and, State Courts have been hijacked now in this process. It bothers the "Government employees" involved in these cases that we won't play the game, of "Let's Pretend". "Let's pretend there is a law", to be exact!
I do not doubt that there is a great deal of screaming going on in the background at your office over our appearances in Appeals functions at the IRS and in the Courts. The decisions handed down so far in these cases are very embarrassing for the people involved on the Government's side. It is getting worse and worse for them. The entire racket is being exposed so fast and so brilliantly by people the Government assumed had been properly put to sleep. Many American citizens are waking up, digging for the truth - and they are doing it in all directions at once. When they were downsized and lost their jobs, they were freed up to find the truth. You can't really blame us for that. We didn't cause them to lose their jobs.
We are not just a bunch of hippies anymore. We are truck drivers, farm wives, students, active and retired military personnel, real estate brokers, doctors, dentists, police officers, bailiffs, firemen, former IRS Agents, and, now, even a few lawyers. The Chicago University, Graduate School of Business asked for permission to use a couple of Irwin Schiff's books for this year's curriculum. This has got to hurt. But, we are not the bad guys. We did not write the laws, your rules and regulations, publications and circulars outlining and asserting "Our Rights as Taxpayers", Congress did that. We did not participate in the re-writing of the Internal Revenue Code in 1954 when all of the mandatory language regarding the income tax and powers of the Internal Revenue Commissioner were removed.
We tried to stop you from wrongfully prosecuting and jailing people for a crime that does not even exist called income tax evasion, but Courts would not allow Irwin Schiff to testify.
We made a proper Petition for Redress of Grievance last year. We all showed up for the Truth-In-Taxation Hearings. We, the "Tax Scammers", were there, but members of Congress and IRS Senior Executives and the Justice Department did not show even though they had committed in writing to come. Instead, they ran and hid for two solid days as we broadcast our coverage live over the World Wide Web. The media locked themselves up along with our Government Officials who had all previously committed in writing to be in attendance. (This is all available at www.givemeliberty.org.) Do you want us to believe that when your Department, The Department of Justice, had every leading income tax protestor in the country in one room for two solid days in Washington, D.C., begging for your appearance, that you would not have come if you had the answer to our question: "What LAW?" You could have exposed us all in one fell swoop in front of the whole country, when we were paying for the Internet coverage in your own neighborhood. The "income tax" Freedom Movement would have been wiped out with the production of that one law: The law requiring us to pay the income tax. Your Department could not have sent a messenger to deliver the law that requires Americans to pay income taxes? Why wouldn't your Department move in to arrest us and hang us when we were there in your own town? If mainstream media really believed what they print and broadcast that we are the "Tax Cheats" Why didn't they send cameras and note-takers to record this obvious opportunity for the Government to produce the law and to arrest every one of us for our "Tax Scam pitch" on that spot? What was the reason, the sense, in waiting another year running around the country with your team of "IRS POLICE", terrorizing citizens with Search Warrants, Raids, Restraining Orders and Guns, and tying up the nation's Court System in the process to litigate these so-called Tax Scams one at a time? How do you explain this to the citizens who watched The Truth In Taxation Hearings, and, those who are only finding out about it at this time? Your Department cannot hold any of us culpable in this matter Your Department should have shown up with the law.
Irwin Schiff conducted two Freedom Now Seminars in Washington, D.C. that week. He invited Attorney Henry Darmstadter from your Department to attend these Seminars, but he refused to come.
Are we supposed to believe that you have the law but that you want to keep it a secret? What would be the point of that? Many people learned about the Truth-In-Taxation Hearings over the past year. I believe that many people will not file 1040 Forms this year until they hear the Government's answer to the question. We didn't tell them not to file. They decided to handle their concern in this fashion when your Department failed to show in answer to our Redress of Grievance Petition, and as a result of the way IRS agents are re-working the 1998 Restructuring and Reform Act to fit their desires. The citizens of this country feel responsible to follow the laws as written and to protect the integrity of this important Act of Congress and challenge the integrity of America's judiciary by taking the lawbreakers to Court. What else can they do? Fake reality?
Please read what Congressman Cleland of Georgia had to say about this intolerable situation.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON THE IRS REFORM AND RESTRUCTURING BILL (H.R. 2676) (Senate - July 14, 1998)
Mr. President, I support, 100 percent, the public's right to know when a federal agency abuses a taxpayer, and I support the public's demand for a remedy to that intolerable situation. I was extremely proud to have been chosen to serve as a member of the conference committee on the IRS bill. Chairman Roth, Vice Chairman Archer, Senator Moynihan, Congressman Rangel, and the remaining conferees from the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee did yeoman's work in crafting one of the most significant acts of the 105th Congress--the IRS Reform and Restructuring bill.
This is groundbreaking legislation which recreates the IRS and puts in place dramatic changes which will make the agency more accountable to the American taxpayer. This bill revives the original purpose of the Internal Revenue Service: to collect tax revenue while providing the assistance and service taxpayers deserve.
Most importantly, taxpayers will receive overdue rights under the IRS Reform and Restructuring Act. Under the new law, the burden of proof will lie with the IRS, and taxpayers' rights in recovering civil damages as a result of unacceptable collection practices by the IRS will be expanded.
Congress told us to ask for certain documentation before we offer to pay the taxes or penalties the IRS agents are attempting to impose and collect from us. They told us in the laws to ascertain the authority of the agents making determinations, sending out notices and imposing penalties against us. We are entitled by law to see the determinations made and the agents' authority for doing so with a supervisors' written declaration. These are brand new laws, enacted by Congress to protect the Public from IRS abuses. We have never seen this kind of documentation. Further, Congress said that we "may raise any relevant issue with respect to the unpaid tax including challenges to the existence of the underlying liability". Why would they say that, if they did not want us to do it? Further, Congress described the "impartial Appeals Officer" who must "conduct an impartial investigation", and make "an impartial determination" on these matters. Is it your Department's contention that, (as an acceptable substitute), snotty, mean, and sarcastic thieves and thugs good at hit- and -run extortion tactics should fill that job description? Or, are we supposed to pretend that we don't know these new laws and hand over our property because IRS agents want it? Should we fake reality, so that we can help you to pretend that the 1998 Restructuring and Reform Act does not apply when it has not been repealed?
The Supreme Court and many other Courts have consistently ruled that we are taking a risk when we do not ascertain the authority of agents who purport to work for the government before entering into an arrangement with them. This explains why the Internal Revenue Manual provides for 43 different numbers of Delegations of Authority in one chapter alone. I do not have time to count how many times we find the necessity for Delegation Orders in the Statutes, Regulations, Federal Register and a host of Court decisions as mentioned earlier. When we go to the IRS, or write to the IRS, asking for the Delegation Orders for such important matters as audits, deficiencies, collections, levies and lienswe are never afforded even one copy of anyone's Delegation Order. Our County Recorders, Banks, Employers and other third parties that the agency "delegates" to carry out these illegal seizures cannot obtain a copy of a Delegation Order, either. And this is why we are coming to the Courts. The agents are not authorized to be doing what they are doing. What would be the point in hiding the authority from us? The laws and rules say that we have to ask for the Delegation Order and those agents must produce them. That's it, until Congress repeals all of those laws, (or, until your Department brings out the bright shiny guns.)
What Irwin Schiff, Larry Cohen and I do is bring people the law and show them how to use it to protect themselves. No doubt, this has been "bugging" your Department for some time. The Court should be interested to hear that your Department has never called to talk to me. I have corresponded with Charles Rossotti's Office, Paul O'Neill's Office, Patrick McDonough's Office, (these, and other National Executive Offices) - by telephone and by mail, leaving my home telephone numbers on the message machinesDo you want me to believe that you could communicate with me with various correspondences for over four years and not include as much as a little blurb or statement about my so-called "tax scam pitch"? And, I believe that this is why the "IRS POLICE" raided our bookstore on February 11, 2003 to steal the evidence to support these facts. Your department knew that we had a truckload of evidence to prove that you are not moving to the Court with clean hands. We can prove that the IRS and your Department has done everything it can think to do to stall and to mislead and to "play" with the truth-seeking and law abiding Public keeping these fine American citizens in a "rat's maze" of paperwork while avoiding our question: "Where is the Law?"
What have you said about what we were doing before the Temporary Restraining Order issued? Before seeking the Restraining Order, the worst you ever called us was "Silly"!
The Government is afraid of Irwin Schiff. We understand that fact more and more every day. This means that he's got a chance to end the charade. When your Department has to hit him from so many fronts all at the same time, you reveal that Irwin Schiff has got a "shot at it". That he could end the income tax in America, not that it really exists. This is why we stand proudly behind him, and are pulling for him now as you take this bizarre approach to shutting him up and his business down.
On February 11, 2003, about 25 armed Special Agents of the IRS came to our premises in Las Vegas, and took over our bookstore from the hours of 7 a.m. until 3 p.m., when they raided, vandalized and ransacked our operation and where they took the transcripts of the hearings so that we would not be able to present the information to the Courts proving the true nature of our work, and to defend ourselves against illegal activities executed by the lawless Internal Revenue Service, and, now, your Department in the issuance of this instant Temporary Restraining Order, banning our sign, "WHY PAY INCOME TAX WHEN NO LAW SAYS YOU HAVE TO?", and, the book, "THE FEDERAL MAFIA: HOW THE GOVERNMENT ILLEGALLY IMPOSES AND UNLAWFULLY COLLECTS INCOME TAXES", and all instruction material relating to the Exempt W-4 Form and the "0" Return.
How convenient for you that you have such a big army with guns and all of those powerful friends in the judiciary to help you out as they do: Rejecting Rules of Civil Procedure; hiding the fact that you have no law; and, slap by slap, redesigning the law through erroneous Court decisions. This is good warfare. ("Shock and Awe"?) It is clear that the truth-seekers and freedom lovers have your Department "on the ropes". We are very much aware of what you are up to here, but we won't " turn tail and run". We are continuing to face you as we have always done, carrying the law and speaking the truth.
Mrs. O'Conner, please issue a PRESS RELEASE explaining how your Department overlooked our alleged Tax Scam and, in fact, "played along with it" for more than a decade; and, how the Government issued over $700,000.00 worth of refund checks as a result of zero return filings. (More evidence the "IRS POLICE" stole during the raid.) And while you are celebrating the "honest taxpayer's victory" as you call it, have you thought to explain why your Department had to go to such great lengths to shut us up and our livelihoods down? Can you explain to the "honest taxpayers" why it is that you spent so much of their hard earned wages on fancy cars, guns, special "IRS POLICE" jackets, high-tech imaging equipment, countless man hours and a U-Haul truck; not to mention all of the Attorneys and clerks working on all three of these cases going on all at once? Such risky and expensive operations and litigation in the Courts; flying your Attorneys to Las Vegas from Washington, D.C. on a regular basis; when it would cost practically nothing to bring a perjury charge in a Criminal Court against Irwin Schiff or myself? Prove perjury, and you'd wipe out all zero return filers; don't you think so? Perhaps you'd like us to fake reality here again and accept that you could charge us with perjury and get it over with quickly, but you enjoy batting us around, like a cat with the mouse. Why would two "Special Agents follow me all of the way across town and pull in behind my car in my driveway, when I was coming home from the IRS? Why wouldn't they simply stop me in the "Service Center" lobby or in the parking lot? (I wasn't running!) Why did they want to follow me all the way to my house to approach me and to read me a Miranda Warning? Do you folks do this part for "kicks"?
Why mess around with all of the Code Sections that don't even apply to us? Why not go criminal? Just a guess on my part, but, could it be that in a criminal case, you can't get one of your buddies on the bench to issue a Summary or Declaratory judgment at the snap of your fingers, absent a trial? Would you have to give us a trial, first, where the burden of proof would be on your Department?
Are you simply afraid to face us, and most particularly, Irwin Schiff? Why else would the Government use such overkill against a 75-year-old man running a little bookstore with about 4 employees? Your Department is "hunting for Bear"! (Just so you know, we know.)
Perhaps your Department budget has too much in the way of surplus funds. If so, why are you complaining about the $56 Million dollars allegedly attributable to the works of Irwin Schiff? (Or, are you using us to get free trips to Vegas and to justify your jobs?) Are there any Supervisors in The Justice Department questioning you, regarding whether or not you ever attempted to inform us about how we are in violation of the income tax law? That is where civilized people would start. Civilized people wouldn't shake my hand, act courteous to my face, send me letters over the course of 4 years, and then storm me with guns, ransack my personal belongings, stalk me, and conduct surveillance on me when I visit them at their own place of business up to nine times in one week. If you want to hear what I have to say, why not simply allow me to speak at the IRS, where your Department has the opportunity to impeach me and expose the "Tax Scam" in front of my "victims"?
Why do you feel the need to hide on my telephone lines and send undercover agents "wired for sound" to our store? I have been begging to show you what I have found, but you don't want to meet with me. When I visit the IRS with other citizens, I am not allowed to speak, in violation of law. By way of "Memorandum", all recorders are now banned in the Appeals meetings today, in violation of law. Recently, one American taxpayer was told that he cannot bring a witness to his "Due Process hearing" to take notes. What's next? - Will you be blindfolding us before we enter the building? Why wouldn't the agents at the IRS or that work in your Department want to sit down with me to see all of my evidence and to record it? I would gladly hand it over to you, but you don't want to receive it that way, do you? You'd prefer to rob me; rifle through my private papers; to scare me; to bully me; and, to see if you can make me run.
Why wouldn't you want to approach me? Would that make too much sense? Be too easy? Too cheap?
This little article is just the "tip of the iceberg" with respect to the information I will share with the Court and in front of the gallery of Court Watchers. You may have our "conviction" already wrapped up, as it sounds in your Press Release, but you won't be able to keep my testimony off the record. Eventually, your Department will be exposed for what it really is, and all of your illegal prosecutions and imprisonments will come back to haunt you. And, that is what you are afraid of, and why you are coming at us so violently and viciously. We have already exposed you. Irwin Schiff's case has exposed you Discovery has proven that he was wrongfully convicted, and all you can do to avoid this truth coming out is to attack him the way you are moving now and to rig the judicial process! The Court has already bent the rules on time and discovery and everything else in your favor, and I will probably be denied my right to speak. So, I am saying this now: Mrs. O'Conner, who is breaking the law and scamming the "honest taxpayers" You or me?
I believe that you owe all of your "honest (income) taxpayers" and "the rest of us" American taxpayers an explanation on the points I have raised in this answer to your Press Release.
Thank you for your attention to and consideration of this very important matter. I look forward to hearing your response.
Sincerely,
Cynthia L. Neun
