Write a Letter of Support and Thanks to Irwin Schiff. As of 04/02/11 his location is as follows:
FCI Terre Haute,
PO Box 33,
Terre Haute IN 47808
Irwin Schiff Railroaded by IRS by JIM DAVIES of SimplySchiff e-groups Click Here
Irwin's Letter to
The government opposed on
Schiff replied on
May 27, 2005.
Irwin's Counselor, Shelly Waxman has 5 books available at
Below you will find reference to other pleadings I filed in this case, and either the government’s Response or the Court’s response or both. Read with Acrobat reader.
(3) Schiff's third (and so far futile) attempt to get Judge Philip Pro to provide "findings of fact" and conclusions of law" as to why he: (1) Denied my Rule 59 motion; and (2) why he denied my motion claiming he lacked subject matter jurisdiction to even entertain the governments $2.6 million law suit.
The following two motions together prove that -by law- no IRS agent is allowed to testify as a witness at any income tax trial, but they always do.
(5) Clearly establishes that IRS agents, who generally testify at tax trials, are barred by law from doing so. Thus all convictions which were based on such testimony were illegially secured and should be reversed.
In short, my latest three motions clearly establish why criminal trials involving income taxes are conducted illegally on a variety of grounds - which is why most federal judges and the entire Tax Division of the Justice Department should be behind bars.
(9) Here's the government's Motion in response - It's an open and shut admission that there's no statute that makes anyone liable for income taxes and automatically renders a number of statutes (like 6331 for instance) not applicable to income taxes.
I'll answer it and tell the judge that if he grants it - it's obstruction of justice and what more proof would the public need of the criminal conspiracy between the federal courts and Justice Department.
To those of who might still have lingering doubts as to why all tax lawyers employed by the U.S. Department of Justice should be behind bars, above documents (10) and (11) will remove all such lingering doubts.
Document (11) is an example of an insidious motion generally filed by government prosecutors to prevent people (especially alleged “tax protesters”) from effectively defending themselves at income tax trials - all of which (as shown by document 10) are illegal to begin with.
Some judges will actually use these motions to literally bar defendants from putting on any sort of a "good faith" (i.e. lack of "willfulness) defense.
These motions are filed approximately 30 days before trial, leaving defendants little time to effectively answer and/or argue against them. They are designed to illegally curtail a defendant's ability to present evidence as to why they believed they were not required to pay income taxes - even though those beliefs might be or might not be “legally correct.” ( see footnote) To be found innocent in connection with an alleged income tax “crime” ones beliefs do not have to be legally correct - as long as the defendant can convince a jury that it was those beliefs that shaped their understanding and attitude as to why they thought they didn’t have to pay income taxes.
These insidious “Motion in Limine” are designed to prevent a defendant from “proving” his “good faith” beliefs and effectively explaining and communicating those beliefs to the jury – especially introducing documents that were responsible for shaping those beliefs; documents that would also go to the jury in the jury room, were their guilt or innocence is being determined.
Obviously what a defendant might say on the witness stand (which juries can ultimately forget) is far less persuasive than a document, book, or statute that is before them in the jury room. Therefore, these motions are really an insidious attempt to "obstruct justice" (under the color of law) and make it easier for federal judges, in conspiracy with DOJ lawyers, to frame defendants (i.e. especially alleged “tax protesters” ) in connection with laws and crimes that do not exist – as shown in my Reply (No. 10).
Since no one is legally required to pay income taxes, there is really no such
thing as any such beliefs not being “legally correct.” Except some “beliefs” are
“more correct” then others, and more logical for juries to accept – given their
false understanding that there are laws requiring people to file and pay income
I filed the above motion on August 29, 2005 asking for a dismissal of all the charges filed against me since I can not get a fair trial in accordance with the provisions of the the 6th Amendment.
Above Irwin files Motion and Memorandum of Law requesting that "TV cameras be allowed in the court room." 9/1/05