Freedom Lawyers of America

The judge banned a book he never read
COLUMN: Vin Suprynowicz Sunday, March 30, 2003 Las Vegas Review-Journal
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Mar-30-Sun-2003/opinion/20961508.html

Tax author, radio host and IRS gadfly Irwin Schiff argues his reading of
statutes and Supreme Court decisions such as Brushaber v. Union Pacific
R.R. Co. (240 US 1, 1916) have convinced him that paying income taxes on
domestic wages is voluntary for most Americans.

Why? Because if such a tax were made mandatory it would be an
unconstitutional direct tax as currently enforced, under Article I of the
Constitution, Sections 2 and 9, which still stipulate that direct taxes
must be apportioned among the states by population. (Those sections were
unaffected by the 16th Amendment, as the high court found in the
aforementioned Brushaber case, as well as in Stanton v. Baltic Mining,
[1916], and Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 [1924].)

Whether you agree with him or not, in a free country like ours, surely
Schiff is free to shout what he believes from the rooftops ... right?

Apparently not.

In federal court in Las Vegas on March 19, U.S. District Senior Judge Lloyd
George ordered Schiff to stop giving lectures, and to stop selling his
latest book: "The Federal Mafia: How the Government Illegally Imposes and
Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes."

"If they can ban me from speaking ... what good is freedom of speech?"
Schiff asks. "I've never feared criminal prosecution, because I'd get to
cross-examine their claims while they were under oath. It never dawned on
me that they could ever ban a book ... especially when they can't present,
subject to cross-examination, what in my book is wrong."

Department of Justice trial attorney Evan Davis told the court Schiff has
been "running one of the largest tax scams in U.S. history," encouraging
people to file tax returns on which they assert they have no income subject
to the tax. Davis asserted this "is designed to clog the federal court
system and inundate the Internal Revenue Service."

"Lloyd George banned a book he never read," Schiff argues. "The government
was claiming this stuff I say is frivolous, that `He tells people to break
the law.' The judge asked `What book does that?' They said, 'The Federal
Mafia.' He said he'd like to see the book. On the counsel table I had all
the books I sell, plus five huge volumes of the regulations that execute
the Internal Revenue Code, so I gave him the book, which to my knowledge is
the first time he ever saw the book.

"There's a recess, he goes into chambers, he comes back within 10 minutes
and basically bans the book. All he did was take the government's
representations at face value. ... How can they ban a book without allowing
me to cross-examine anyone? Here we are bringing democracy to Iraq and we
can ban a book right here at home?"

Judge George did not return phone messages last week, asking whether in
fact he had read "The Federal Mafia" before he banned it. But local
attorney Richard Salas, who represented Schiff employee and co-defendant
Larry Cohen in the March 19 appearance (Mr. Cohen has since dismissed his
attorney, apparently preferring to represent himself) agrees: "They seem to
proceed from the notion that everyone knows what Schiff says is outrageous,
so it must be false."

Schiff attorney Noel Spaid of San Diego also agrees: "He didn't know the
book at all, and I consider the injunction to be in violation of the First
Amendment. ... It's vague and ambiguous; it doesn't specify what can and
can't be done; it enjoins him from making statements 'against Internal
Revenue law.' What does that mean? Search warrants have been quashed for
vagueness that were more specific than that. ... We're going to argue that
it's overly broad.

"This judge summarily decided Irwin's positions are frivolous; he made no
in-depth study or analysis; he offered no sound, reasoned decision as to
why Irwin's positions are wrong or frivolous."

"This is the first time I know of in the history of this country that a
book has been banned where I'm not telling how to build a bomb; it's not
pornographic." Schiff says.

"A restraining order is an extraordinary measure; it's designed for cases
where someone is in imminent danger. It's not as though I'm brewing up
explosives. The government said I cost them $54 million dollars over the
past three years. So what was I going to cost them over the next three
weeks? What was the big rush? Isn't the First Amendment more important?

"The United States government was established to protect rights," Schiff
insists, "not to raise revenue. But now the courts see their first duty
being to protect the raising of revenue. ... The government wants to ban me
not because what I say is frivolous but because it's correct; anyone can
verify it."

Federal statutes allow criminal prosecution of anyone who advises others to
break the law, Schiff contends. "But they haven't filed any criminal
charges. Why not? Because then we'd be in criminal court, where I'd get to
cross-examine them under oath. ..."

Salas agrees.

"When you look at it, it's really a lot easier for the government to do it
this way" -- through a civil action claiming damages in the form of lost
tax revenues from those who have read Schiff's book -- Salas says. If the
government chose the criminal route, "You can either prosecute someone for
failing to file -- but they can't do that because the zero return is a
return -- or you can charge fraudulent deductions. But then Mr. Schiff
could get the forum he wants, he could probably win recognition as an
expert witness, at which point he could take the stand to explain why he
thinks people should be able to file a zero return."