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.
He's a man who is comfortable duping people out of their money and risking jail.
He is NOT a con man. A con man would not take the punishment and harrassment he has to make his point. If you read "The Great American Income Tax Hoax," you will find a very eye-opening and extremely well researched treatment of the history and operation of our tax laws.
He raises important points and issues and makes a very compelling case for his position. It is very difficult to dismiss his arguments out of hand if one is truly objective.
True, following his advice will certainly land someone in jail and in a heap of trouble with the IRS. But that says more about about the blatant tyranny of the income tax system -- and the judges who refuse to do the right thing when it comes to preserving our constitutional liberties.
Maybe you think that judges' opinions are always right and not subject to question. Certainly that is true from an enforcement standpoint. But I'm sure if you think about it, you will find at some issues on which you believe that the courts are overstepping their reach and making law -- as opposed to honestly applying it.
I have heard Schiff speak. He is brilliant, dynamic and totally dedicated to the cause for which he has sacrificed much. I do not have the courage he does, and so I have chosen not to follow his advice. I pay my taxes just like everybody else. But that says more about my own failings than it does about his.
Based on what he has put on the line -- and his total commitment to the continuing struggle for liberty as he sees it -- I would have to rank his patriotism right up there with that of the founders.
It has in some circumstances. It is illegal to use the bible or it's phrases in many kinds of advertising (employment, housing, etc.)
OK, I'll bite. Which books are you referring to that advocate making bombs illegally, particularly ones that claim ther is no law against doing so and encouraging you to make or use one? Remember, I'm not talking about simple information, I'm talking about advocating and encouraging illegal acts. You see, Schiff isn't simply making philosophical arguments about tax laws, he is advocating tax evasion under the guise of phony legal arguments.
In a book, in an newspaper or magazine article, a pamphlet -- there is plenty of time for a reader to digect the words and to weigh fully his own actions as may be based on the advice of the author.
It will be a sad day for Liberty and the Constitution if this ruling is allowed to stand. To remember Ben Franklin's words of waring "If you can keep it!" Well, for idiotic rulings like this, we have NOT kept it.
Geez, doesn't anybody bother o read the article? "There is no protection ... for speech or advocacy that is directed toward producing imminent lawless action," . That means he can't legally advocate it at all.
Would I be wrong to publish a work calling for people to keep their kids at home?
No ABSOLUTELY NOT. You would be right to advocate such. You would also be doing something ILLEGAL, which is what we are talking about. To think that right and wrong is related to legal and illegal is foolish. Right and wrong are value judgments, Legal and Illegal are matters of law.
Finally, a book that explains a form of cryptography that will allow others to write the above illegal books/papers with no fear of the government detecting the illegal works. Illegal or not?
Well, at least we're back to legal and illegal. I have no idea if this would be legal or not. Probably fall under the USA Patriot Act, if not specifically ruled on elsewhere.
If he puts a disclaimer in the front that says they ought to consult their tax attoureny before following his advice that derails any "con-game" aspect.
A point I've already made. He doesn't do this, nor does he warn you of all the court cases that have ruled against him. He presents phony legal arguments as if he were giving you valid legal advice (this could be unauthorized practice of law as well, I'm surprised he hasn't been busted on this too).
You do not. Show me any example in law of this and I will stand corrected. You have a right to talk about illegal acts (as we are doing here), but not to advocate doing them. Many people have found this out the hard way (like the once yearly or so idiot that advocates killing a president while he's drunk in a bar, or talks about sneaking bombs or guns into an airport). Don't believe me? Try it and find out. But absolutely not until you have consulted an attorney first, (this statement made as a disclaimer of advocacy).
Actualy, the courts perception. Mine or yours is of no legal value. The number of people following his advice seems to concur with "imminent lawless action" as a result of his advocacy.
First, that argument doesn't eliminate the income tax, it merely outlaws taxing rental income.
Second, the argument is worthless in court because it is a LONG-settled point of jurisprudence that the question of a constitutional amendment being ratified or not is a political question (not a LEGAL question) between Congress and the legislatures of the several states.
You would be right to advocate such.
That's more important than legality. The point is- Any freedom loving individual would not care about the legality of this but the rightness of it. He has a right to write his thoughts down in a book and distribute it. I would fight over that as my ancestors did. I would not argue against people advocating the man's rightness to publish his book and in favour of the State's "legal" mandate to suppress it. That's what you're doing. People are here arguing in favour of rightness and you're taunting them with legality.
You can take your "it's illegal period" and shove it. Hitler outlawed the Jews. If our laws are immoral, one is immoral for abiding by them. That legality argument can lead one right down the road to happily accepting the yoke of oppression. When it gets to the point where the State has to force people to couch what they mean in code or disguise in order to say it- it's time for that State to be brought down- Legal or not doesn't enter the equation.
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.