Extensive and Irrefutable Proof Federal Judges and DOJ Lawyers Knowingly Violate The Law In Order To Convict Defendants (Illegally) Charged With Incom

THE FOLLOWING WILL PROVIDE EXTENSIVE AND IRREFUTABLE PROOF OF HOW
FEDERAL JUDGES AND D.O.J. LAWYERS KNOWINGLY VIOLATE THE LAW IN ORDER TO
CONVICT DEFENDANTS (ILLEGALLY) CHARGED WITH INCOME TAX CRIMES, AND WHY
ONLY MISSTATEMENTS OF LAW EVER "COME 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Since the income tax was repealed in 1954 when Congress adopted the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 Governments´ 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 Dawsons´
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 the disclosures.
Pursuant to the Supreme Courts´ 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 Governments´ third
burden. Obviously, a defendant has a right during the governments´
presentation of its case, to establish 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 Governments´
presentation of its case, and knock out all of the Governments´ 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")

______________________________________
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 defendant would be entitled to a direct verdict of acquittal at the
close of the Governments´ 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 Governments´ IRS witnesses had any legal authority to do what
they testified they did. Judge Dawson sought to accomplish 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."2 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 Governments´ lead
prosecutor, specifically stated that the Government had no such
intention of doing so, but would rely on the Judge Dawsons´ 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 instructions 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.
_____________________________________
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.
______________________________________
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 culpabiliby 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 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. 3 She said "No," that was not
how it was done. I then asked her if she was familiar with Code
Section
6751. I forget 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,
______________________________
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.
____________________________________
"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 Governments´ witness
then sitting before him. Therefore, he sought to save the governments´
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")4 that she had testified extensively at both civil and
criminal trials, It is therefore,
____________________________________
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 defendant "to cooperate with the IRS," as if the IRS did all these
things legally and the defendant was legally obligated and subject to
what these terms imply. However, all such terms involve a basis of
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 Governments´ 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
___________________________________
apparent that all such trials her testimony was in direct conflict with
the law - unfortunately defendants at such trials would problably be
unaware of that fact.
b) One of the Governments´ 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.
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
(problably citing "relevance") and its objection was immediately
sustained by Judge Dawson in the following manner, "Sustained - move
on." However, I tried to argue that whether 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 Governments´ objection without giving me an
opportunity to argue why 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.
______________________________________

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 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 benifit. He had sent the Social Security
Administration
a fradulent, 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
"notice-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 than 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, 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 Governments´ prosecutors
and Judge Dawson interceded in order to prevent me from proving that
all
IRS seizures are illegal, and not provided for by law.
In addition, 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
al 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
complicated, beside I had a better way to do it. I was calling as a
witness Dr. Raymond Hartman of Beaver Falls, Pensylvania. 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. Hartmans´
testimony would also refute what Judge Dawson had told the jury
concerning the IRS legal authority to seize 100% of my Social Security
benefits had nothing to do with his decision.
(d) Along the same lines, the Governments´ 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. 5 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
recieved 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.
______________________________________

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 reciepts less traceable. Mr.
Lowder
continually referred to "transfers" between my "eight 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 reciepts 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.
______________________________________

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 has 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 the 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.
Lowder,
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 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.6 And no less than six government witnesses testified that
they could find no law that made them "liable" for income taxes, or
required the "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
the
allegations contained in its indictment and we should have gotten a
direct verdict of acquittal at the close of the governments´ case.

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

6 In addition, throughout the indictment I am accused of "knowing and
believing" that pratically everything I teach and write about the
income
tax I know to be false. Can you believe it?
_______________________________________

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 extremely
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 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 Governments´ 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 read
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 the absurd and unbelieveable 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 do so.

The point is, a claim that is fundamental to the governments´ 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 to 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 information they supplied me:

1) Former IRS Agent Joe Bannister
2) Former IRS Revenue Officer John Turner
3) Bob Shultz, Chairman of "We the People"
4) The Governments´ own clinical psychologist, Daniel 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
supercedes 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 breadth 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 naive 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 nations´
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" which is
what the Government continually repeated in its final argument to the
jury. Both the prosecutors and Judge Dawson knew that
Clinical Psychologist Daniel S. Hayes Ph.D., report made such a claim
totally spurious.

MORE TO FOLLOW: :damned: