Paying Income tax? Part 2
C. Another Government witness, Revenue Officer Luddie Talley testified that he was involved (at various times) in seizing numerous items from me including: an automobile, monies taken from me which were being held for me at the Clark County Jail, and 100% of my monthly Social Security benefit. He had sent the Social Security Administration a fraudulent, IRS notice-of- levy (which he had no authority to send out, and which is totally benign and can be immediately thrown into the nearest trash can) on which he had added, in his own handwriting, “full levy”; a term that appears no place in the law governing “notices-of-levy.”
When I asked Talley, “Are you aware of IRS pocket commissions?,” the Government cried out, “Objection,” which Judge Dawson “Sustained” as usual. However, had I been permitted to proceed with this line of questioning, it would have proceeded as follows. Talley would have had to answer, “Yes” to my initial question. Based on that answer, I would then have said, “And they consist of enforcement and non-enforcement commissions, do they not?” And he would have had to say, “Yes.” And then I would have said, “And what kind of a pocket commission do you have?” And he would have had to say, “A non-enforcement pocket commission.” And then I would have said, “Therefore, you have no enforcement authority with respect to income taxes, isn’t that correct?” In order not to commit perjury, he would have had to answer, “Correct.” “Therefore,” I would have said, “you had no lawful authority to seize my automobile, the money being held for me at the Clark County Jail, or my monthly Social Security check, isn’t that correct?” And he would have had to answer, “Correct.” And then I would have said, “So you are no better than an ordinary thief, except you operate under color of law, isn’t that correct?” And he would have had to answer, “Correct.” Except I would have corrected him, by saying. “No, you are worse than an ordinary thief. Ordinary thieves at least don’t have the gall to pretend that their stealing is legal, and they, at least, take some risk. They don’t have federal judges and U.S. attorneys protecting them. Because of the hypocrisy in your brand of thievery, and because it receives the protection of the courts and the DOJ, it must be regarded as a lower form of thievery then that committed by ordinary criminals.” However, I never got the chance to proceed along those lines, since I was prevented from doing so by Judge Dawson.
In addition, when I asked Talley, “When you seize property do you do it legally or illegally?” he responded by saying, “I do it legally.” This laid the foundation for my next question, which was, “Did you ever see a statute that allowed the IRS to seize property?” However, before he could answer, the Government objected and Judge Dawson gave his usual “Sustained.” If Talley had said “Yes,” to that question, I would have handed him the Code and asked him to show me the statute that allowed him to seize property legally, and he would not have been able to find such a statute, because it doesn’t exist. If he said “No,” I would have asked, “Then how do you know you seize property legally?” So no matter how Talley answered, I would have been able to expose the fact that IRS agents have no authority to seize property. But, again, the Government’s prosecutors and Judge Dawson interceded in order to prevent me from proving that all IRS seizures are illegal, and not provided for by law.
Further I produced a document sent out by the Social Security Administration that showed that the seizure of Social Security benefits by the IRS is limited to 15% (assuming they have any seizure authority at all, which they do not have.) However based upon erroneous representations made by the Government, Judge Dawson instructed the jury that the law allowed the IRS to seize 100% of my monthly benefit. That was dead wrong, but explaining it to the jury would have been too complicated, besides I had a better way to do it. I was calling as a witness Dr. Raymond Hartman of Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania.
His involvement in the movement even predates mine (See page 59 of “The Federal Mafia.”). When he told me the IRS was taking 100% of his Social Security, I provided him with information which he sent to the Social Security Administration. Shortly thereafter they sent him a refund of approximately $9,000 and restored 100% of his monthly benefit. Since I had to supply Judge Dawson with an outline of what my witnesses were going to testify about, he informed me that he would not permit Dr. Hartman to testify about getting his Social Security benefits restored. When I asked him why, he said that such testimony had nothing to do with income taxes. I am sure that the fact that Dr. Hartman’s testimony would also refute what Judge Dawson had told the jury concerning the IRS’s legal authority to seize 100% of my Social Security benefits had nothing to do with his decision..
(d) Along the same lines, the Government’s summary “expert,” IRS Agent Clinton Lowder testified extensively concerning deposits to my bank accounts which he claimed revealed that substantial amounts of money had been deposited to my “eight bank accounts” in connection with the years at issue. When I had previously inquired about the relevance of all his testimony regarding these bank deposits, the Government claimed that it was related to how much “income” I had received during this period. I said, no it didn’t. I pointed out that it merely indicated how much money I had deposited to my bank accounts and nothing more, and depositing money to ones bank account is not a crime – nor had I been charged with any such crime. Such deposits might be related to a crime if I had been charged with money laundering, or selling products that were illegal. I further pointed out that such bank deposits could not be considered as being indicative of the receipt of “income” unless the Government put on an “expert” in the law, who would testify (and be subject to cross-examination) that deposits to ones bank accounts constituted the receipt of “income” within the meaning of Code Section 61. Since the Government had not put on any such “expert” witness (since they knew I would have eaten them up alive) they could not legally claim that mere bank deposits constituted – to any degree- the receipt of “income” within the meaning of Code section 61. But Judge Dawson (illegally) did so anyway.
In addition, when I cross-examined Mr. Lowder I asked him, “Isn’t the purpose of your analysis of my bank deposits an attempt on your part to estimate the amount of income taxes you believe I omitted from the tax returns I filed for the years at issue?” I actually had to repeat that question three or four times before I got a straight answer from him. When he finally admitted that was the purpose of his activity, I asked: “Isn’t it a fact that section 6201(2) (A) gives the Secretary the authority to estimate the amount of taxes that have been omitted to be paid by stamp, but no law authorizes the Secretary (or the IRS) to estimate the amount of taxes that has been omitted from an income tax return?” “Objection! He is raising the law, your Honor.” “Sustained. Move on.” “But your Honor, I asked that question merely to show that the law does not allow Mr. Lowder to do what he claims he was doing.” “Mr. Schiff: you have deliberately violated my order that you are not to raise issues of law, nor argue with me when I sustain a Government objection; therefore, you will be sanctioned for doing so.”
Of course, no law authorizes the IRS (nor the Government at criminal tax trials) to attribute to anyone more in income taxes than what they reported on their tax returns. Therefore, seeking to pursue another tack, I said, “Mr. Lowder, when you attempt to analyze a persons various sources of income and possible deductions and seek to calculate a tax that is different from what that taxpayer reported on his return, do you do that legally or illegally?” “I do it legally” he immediately replied. I was therefore poised for my follow up question. “Mr. Lawder, have you ever seen a statute that authorized you to calculate a tax that is different from what a taxpayer reported on his return?” “Objection” “Sustained” “ But your Honor, I was only…..” Sanction. You are deliberately doing it again.”
In this way, Judge Dawson in criminal collusion with the Government, sought to prevent me from proving that no law authorized either the IRS, Secretary of the Treasury (or his delegate), or the Justice Department in this prosecution, to claim that I owed more in income taxes than what I had reported on my “zero” returns for all of the years at issue.
(f) Therefore, during the presentation of its case the Government did not put on one witness who would testify that I had any “income” or income tax “liability” for any of the years at issue, or that anything (not one word, sentence, or phrase) in any of my books and tapes (including my “zero” return) violated any law or encouraged anyone to violate any law – though such allegations were contained throughout the indictment. And though they had undercover agents at both of my last seminars (a two day seminar held in Las Vegas and a one day Seminar held in New York City) they played no excerpts from either seminar as showing I had advocated violations of law at either seminar – though such allegations were contained in indictment.[6] And no less than six government witnesses testified that they could find no law that made them “liable” for income taxes, or required them “to pay” income taxes, and at least four of them testified that they believed “income,” within the meaning of the IR Code, meant “corporate profit.” In addition, all three of my former employees who were witnesses for the prosecution testified that at no time did they, nor any of my other employees, ever believe that any of the material sold and sent out by Freedom Books encouraged anyone to violate any law, nor did I ever give them any reason to believe that I did not hold my beliefs on taxes other than sincerely and honestly. In short, the Government did not present a scintilla of evidence to support any of allegations contained in its indictment and we should have gotten a direct verdict of acquittal at the close of the government’s case.
