Posted on 06/22/2003 10:10:59 AM PDT by freepatriot32
LAS VEGAS — A tax protester may not sell his book that contends paying income tax is voluntary, a federal judge ruled June 16.
U.S. District Judge Lloyd D. George wrote in an order banning the book that Irwin Schiff is not protected by the First Amendment because he has encouraged people not to pay taxes.
"There is no protection ... for speech or advocacy that is directed toward producing imminent lawless action," George wrote in support of the preliminary injunction on the book, The Federal Mafia: How It Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes.
The Internal Revenue Service claims Schiff has 3,100 clients attempting to evade $56 million in taxes.
Government attorneys have argued Schiff had been advocating the "false and frivolous position that paying federal income taxes is voluntary," and one called it one of the largest tax scams in U.S. history.
Schiff said the judge's order was wrong on all counts and he planned to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
"There's a reason why my book is called The Federal Mafia and this is a perfect example," he said. "The government has just thrown the First Amendment out of the window, and if anybody can't see that they should be declared legally blind."
Schiff has been convicted twice on tax charges since 1978.
The IRS raided Schiff's office Feb. 11, and the government later filed a civil complaint against him and two associates in March. George issued a temporary order March 19 against Schiff, ordering him to stop selling his book, lecturing and giving seminars.
The latest ruling, in effect indefinitely, means Schiff, 75, cannot sell his book through his Web sites or the Las Vegas, Nev., office of his company, Freedom Books. The order also prohibits Schiff and his associates from preparing tax returns for others or assisting in tax preparation.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada filed a friend-of-the-court brief saying Schiff's expression of his opinions should not be outlawed.
"It is unfortunate that the judge did not see the First Amendment violation," ACLU lawyer Allen Lichtenstein said. Lichtenstein also said the injunction only limits Schiff from distributing the book.
"There's a bit of irony that the injunction prevents Mr. Schiff from distributing the book but doesn't prevent anybody else" from doing so, he said. "One has to wonder what's the point since the book is clearly available to the public."
Eileen J. O'Connor, assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department's Tax Division in Washington, D.C., praised the judge's ruling.
"Today's order is another in the long line of court orders stopping the sale of fraudulent tax scams," she said.
I've been hearing that argument for ages. It may actually have some truth to it, but it has no legal standing. As far as I know, there are no actions in court to determine the 16th's status of ratification. The site itself argues against it's own position by first stating that it is not a law ( not ratified) then quoting Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 where the USSC ruled upon it as if it were law, therefore making it law for all legal purposes ( a court ruling is law and by ruling on the 16th the court recognizes the 16th as valid law.). It's unfortunate that the ratification argument didn't arise before or during Brushaber. I doubt that anything could be done about it now.
It used to say that on the tax forms, sorta like it used to say, "Not for identification" on Social Security cards
If we followed his advice, the IRS wouldn't know who to go after first.
Yes. Wrong, as I have said, is a value judgment. What you may think of as being right or wrong may be the exact opposite from anothers idea of the same. The law is what we must live by, otherwise it comes down to anarchy, the law of the fastest gun. There are many people who openly disobey laws on moral principles and willingly accept the consequenses. Some of these people I have personal respect for, but that doesn't make them any less criminal in the view of rule of law.
And you didn't respond to all my examples. This man has a right to his opinions and he certainly has a right to publish a book.
Too many examples. I tried representative ones. Schiff isn't expressing opinions. If he were he would have no problems. He is advocating illegal action by his readers.
People are here arguing in favour of rightness and you're taunting them with legality.
Rightness and wrongness will not do anything to keep you from losing everything you have and maybe going to jail. Legality is what will matter. I've seen two people lose everything they had (including a very nice retirement that was just two years away), their jobs, homes, families, money, everything, by following Schiff's advice. I've heard of suicides as a result (though I've not known one). I will not stand by and let anyone do something as stupid as follow Schiff without giving a strong warning about it's legality and Schiff's charlatanism in the matter. If you do something knowingly, that's your perogative, but I won't stand by and let you do something stupid without at least giving a warning (the same way I wouldn't let you step into a mine field without warning).
You can take your "it's illegal period" and shove it.
OK, I will. I assume you're doing or getting ready to do something really stupid. I hope you're not deceiving others into doing it as well, like Schiff does. I warned you, that's as far as my responsibility goes. I feel sorry for your family, if you have one. You, OTOH, will get what you ask for by the actions you willingly and knowingly take.
That is what he did.
IMO, this is why this book is being suppressed. The fellow's advice is only kooky depending on the number of people who don't take it. If enough people do, he effectively wins.
But he is writing his oppinion. How is that wrong?
I think GW is proving to be a dork.
Should I shut up?
If you honestly believe that anyone who has faced prosecution couldn't possibly be a con man because they wouldn't take the punishment and harrassment he has, then you mustn't believe there are con men.
He tries to make a living by getting people to believe that they can avoid paying any taxes. He is a charlatan.
But we sure can impoverish 25 to 30 million people.
That is odd, I thought American people thought for themselves.
Guess I was wrong.
What about Gandhi-- he practiced civil disobedience and non-payment of taxes as an example to his followers?
How about the Boston Tea Party, and all the books that refer to it?
Ok, I will go to the back of the bus now. Sorry for bothering you.
I believe the Secret Service would be there.
No it is not. It is what we agree to live by. When the law is immoral, we must not live by it.
Too many examples.
Baloney. I listed a mere handful. You don't want to address them because of the can of worms they would open. You have used many lines of argument on other details, you could have addressed all my examples too. To wit, you actually agreeing that I would be right to advocate one point even if I were not legal in doing so. If you have to choose between right and legal- which is it going to be?
He is advocating illegal action by his readers.
Legality is an arbitrary value. Rights are not. Rights are intrinsic to your very nature. If we were discussing his ability to fornicate on a public street we might see things differently but we are arguing his right to speak openly and print a book with his thoughts (opinions, advice, witticisms- whatever they might be). Congress shall make no law...
Rightness and wrongness will not do anything to keep you from losing everything you have and maybe going to jail. Legality is what will matter.
Going to jail is the least of my worries. I would gladly go to jail knowing my actions were right but I would not suffer to walk the streets free knowing I bowed my head to oppression from the State.
I will not stand by and let anyone do something as stupid as follow Schiff without giving a strong warning about it's legality and Schiff's charlatanism in the matter.
And I will not stand by and let someone argue away the First Ammendment rights of my fellow citizens in the name of mere law and order.
The laws be damned, Sir! My rights are not open to negotiation.
You, OTOH, will get what you ask for by the actions you willingly and knowingly take.
How far do your responsibilities to the State and preserving law and order go? If I told you now that I haven't paid taxes in five years, would you feel the need to turn me in? And if not- why not? Given your arguments, I would think it would be your duty as a good upstanding citizen to pass on a tip to the feds about my reckless and lawless nature.
I mentioned this in my previous post on this thread- if enough people were to follow this fellow's advice, crazy as it might be, he would win. This is exactly why his message is being suppressed.
One always hopes that a fight for what is right will be clear. That there will be no tough questions. That evil will come riding in with on the winds of Hell and in a form that is easy to oppose. The dems live in a fantasy world where they will die to defend free speech as long as the battle is presented to them in a clearcut manner. In real life, it is not that way. We do not get to choose our battles, only which side we defend. Things are not always clear cut. The fight for freedom is not always unambiguous. All too often, people choose not to defend what it is right for the sake of not having to take a stand on ground they did not choose.
I would prefer not to defend this fellow's methods, for I do not necessarily agree with them. But if forced to defend them, I will. It is just that simple. He might be a jackass- but he has a right to speak his peace. Not to be sponsored but to speak. The gov't has no call to tell him to shut up. If I have to choose between my government and this man's right to speak (or yours) I will choose the latter.
Seems they are afaid of Schiff. :)
How is he phony?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.