Irwin Schiff
Irwin Schiff
Irwin Schiff

Monday, November 24, 2003


A Message From Mr. Big and Admissions From The Government

From: Irwin Schiff ischiff@earthlink.net
Date: 2003/11/24 Mon AM 12:35:47 EST
To: tax freedom now tax-freedom-now@yahoogroups.com
Subject: FW: A Message From Mr. Big and Admissions From The Government

Hello boys and girls.

I know it appears that I have been neglecting everyone of late, but I am involved in so much personal litigation that I did not have time for much of anything else. The taking of thousands of my documents by the IRS in its raid on Freedom Books has been exceptionally disruptive and troublesome. The government sues you, and then steals your records so you can’t adequately defend yourself. The raid occurred while I was involved in discovery in connection with the $ 2-1/2 million dollar lawsuit in which the Government seeks to reduce to judgment the assessments it made from the coerced returns I filed during my 1991 probation violation hearings. I had submitted to the government about 200 admissions which would have forced the government to admit that IRS revenue agents have no authority to seize anything in connection with income taxes. However the U.S. attorneys refused to answer the bulk of these admissions, and gave nonsensical reasons for avoiding having to do so. I have attached some of these admissions and their answers.

Their answers to my admissions regarding “liability” and “payment of” income taxes and the alleged requirement to keep books and records are particularly revealing. Notice they didn’t deny any of these admissions but simply refused to answer and claimed that the admissions were designed to “embarrass and oppress the United States.” How could I “oppress” the United States by simply asking what law makes me “liable” for income taxes? Notice how they refuse to answer the simple, factual admission concerning whether T.D. 1995 had ever been revoked or repealed. In any case, I was getting ready to file a Motion to compel them to answer these admissions and seeking to take depositions when I was raided. So I had to turn my attention to filing pleadings to get my records back. Then I was hit with the Restraining Order, which I now had to turn to. Before I knew it, the period of discovery was over, so I didn’t have a chance to force the government to answer them.

First the government sues you, than makes it impossible for you to defend yourself. What is ridiculous is that for the period 1979-1985 the government claims that my gross income was approximately 1 million dollars, But those were the years in which I printed and promoted “How Anyone Can Stop Paying Income Taxes” and “The Social Security Swindle” which probably cost me around $350,000 to publish and promote. Remember I sold about 200,000 copies of “How Anyone” during this period. In addition, the government took over $200,000 from Simon & Schuster in 1983 (which is what they owed me) but still attributed this amount to me as “income.” So in seeking to extract $2.5 million from me for the period 1979-1985 (based on returns I was coerced into filing during the course of a probation violation hearing) the Government wants me to pay 5 times more than I could possibly have earned and overlooking what it cost me to live on during this period. And this is the kind of nonsense the government is getting away with. They seriously expect people to pay in taxes and penalties far more than they possibly could have earned. What kind of lunacy is this?

In any case, I was looking forward to going to trial on this case, since I know I can beat the Government in front of a jury. However, the Government filed a mammoth Motion for Summary Judgment involving 4 large Declarations (involving numerous exhibits) from 3 IRS agents and the U.S. Attorney. I spent about three weeks trying to answer it, and realized that I was incapable of effectively doing so. Since I can’t take a chance of losing on this issue, because I would be totally indebted to the U.S. for the rest of my life and would never be able to get out of debt, I was forced to hire a lawyer to answer the government’s motion. This I where I am today on this. We haven’t answered it yet. Also we just answered the Government’s Reply on our Motion to the 9th Circuit to rescind Judge George’s Preliminary Injunction baring me from selling “The Federal Mafia” and most of my updated material. Of course you all know we got a “stay” on this order from the 9th Circuit. So until there is a final decision, we can sell “The Federal Mafia” and all our other material.

I had an opportunity to meet with Dr. Ward Dean yesterday. He was in Las Vegas for a medical convention. He showed me an extensive excerpt from Schiff Report Series 2 in which I discussed House Report 1337 and Senate Report 1622 and the meaning of “income” in the “constitutional sense.” I couldn’t believe it. I had no idea I knew about this way back then. I thought this was a recent discovery of mine. I couldn’t get over it, and we both had a good laugh about this. He thinks Schiff Reports 1 and 2 are great (we have transcripts for them) and he can’t understand why I don’t publicize and push them more. Well. I obviously forgot what was in them.

Here is a little preview of the Admissions I gave the Government and their totally nonsensical answers designed to avoid having to correctly answer them....

5. In connection with the above reference to defendant's alleged income tax “liability” as referred to in paragraph 11(3) of plaintiff's complaint;

Admit that there is no statute in the Internal Revenue Code that specifically provides and makes defendant “liable” for income taxes as referred to in paragraph 11(3) of plaintiff's complaint.

Response to Request for Admission No. 5: The United States objects to this request on the ground that it contains argumentative, scandalous, indecent, and impertinent matter calculated to annoy, embarrass, and oppress the United States in the eyes of the Court, the ultimate fact finder at the trial of this matter, the news media, and the public, all in violation of the principles expressed in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7(b)(2), 11, 12(f), and 26. In particular, the request contains shopworn, tax-protestor rhetoric that has been unequivocally and repeatedly rejected by the courts. Without waiving or in any way limiting any objection the United States has or might have to this request, the United States denies the request.

Hope you enjoy the attached admissions and I hope I will soon have good news to report.

Irwin Schiff


Home