From the July 2000 Idaho Observer:

Petition to Supreme Court reveals existence of concealed wage tax

Courts and Justice Department conspire to allow government collection of unconstitutional tax

Is the income tax on wages an illegal extortion racket? Irwin Schiff has filed a Petition of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. He claims that he has uncovered evidence that Congressional treachery from 1943 enables the federal government to justify deducting an unconstitional tax on your wages. Whether or not the high court ever hears the petition may be up to you.

LAS VEGAS -- A Petition for Certiorari was filed June 20, 2000, in the United States Supreme Court. The petition reveals the existence of a federal tax that is largely unknown to the American public, despite the fact that it represents the federal government's principle source of revenue. Styled as a Writ of Certiorari, or an appellate motion for reexamination of an action taken by an inferior tribunal, the petition was prepared by noted income-tax researcher and critic Irwin Schiff of Las Vegas, Nevada. The writ reveals how and why the U.S. Congress instituted a new (and unconstitutional) “wage- tax” in 1943 in the guise of withholding income taxes from wages.

The petition was filed on behalf of Robert and Elena Brown of Las Vegas who sued the federal government for a refund of the $5,035 in “wage taxes” they paid in 1996. The Browns paid the “wage taxes” as ordinary withholding taxes, which the public has always assumed constitutes the withholding of income taxes. However, the petition reveals that the “wage tax” has nothing to do with income taxes and the 16th Amendment, and is collected in clear violation of the apportionment provisions of the Constitution.

The Petition For Certiorari (and Appendix) also reveal that Federal law, in America, is not enforced on the basis of statutes passed by Congress, but is enforced on the basis of erroneous court decisions known to be false by the federal judges who hand them down.

In 1943, while America was engaged in WWII, the government, for the first time, sought to collect income taxes from America's working middle class. Up until then, only wealthy Americans paid income taxes, and they did so by making lump sum payments (or three installment payments) by March 15th of the year following that taxable year - i.e. 1938 income taxes were paid in 1939.

However, believing that America's working class would not have the money to pay their income taxes on that basis, the government sought to collect income taxes from them in advance -- on a “pay-as-you-go” basis. However, this presented the government with an insolvable problem because income taxes are based on assessments, and assessments are made only after the close of that taxable year. Thus there was no way the federal government could compel the payment of income taxes in advance of assessments, on a “pay-as-you-go-basis.”

So the government devised an unconstitutional ruse to get around the problem. Congress imposed a new, direct tax on wages, and provided that such “wage taxes” could be taken as a “credit” against the income tax ultimately found due. Thus the public was made to believe that withholding taxes represented income taxes paid in advance, and as long as no one challenged the constitutionality of the “wage tax” (which no one knew even existed) the Government could get away with it. What saved the wage tax from being blatantly unconstitutional is the ability of wage earners to get a refund of all the “wage taxes” they paid, as is currently provided in Code section 31(a)(l).

The Browns filed a “zero” income tax return for 1996 showing no income taxes due for that year and requested a refund of the “wage taxes” they had paid. The government admitted that no assessment of any 1996 income taxes was ever made against them and that no court had ever ruled that they owed income taxes for that year. Therefore, pursuant to no less than 14 statutes passed by Congress, five constitutional Provisions, and at least 11 Supreme Court decisions (all listed on pages v-x of the Petition for Certiorari) they were clearly entitled, by law, to receive a refund of the “wage taxes” they had paid. Not receiving the refund to which they were legally entitled, they sued the government for the refund in Las Vegas federal District Court.

In rejecting their lawsuit and awarding the Government a summary judgement, District Court Judge Philip M. Pro ruled that, “The absence of a tax assessment ... does not prove that a taxpayer owes no taxes.”

In doing so, Judge Pro ignored some 40 statutes and numerous court decisions, all of which establish that assessments are a condition precedent to the owing of income taxes. In addition, Judge Pro refused to even address Browns' claim that, pursuant to Code Section 31(a)(1), they were entitled to a refund of all the wage taxes they had paid. In not addressing this issue, Judge Pro denied the Browns the protection of three constitutional provisions along with the specific statutes that guaranteed them the refund.

Based on Judge Pro's decision, the Browns appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which sustained Judge Pro's decision. In sustaining that decision the Ninth Circuit did not cite one statute proving that Federal judges don't need laws on which to base their decisions, but can base their decisions on the erroneous decisions of other judges, even when such decisions are clearly contrary to laws passed by Congress and the Constitution -- as is the case here.

It is clear from the material in this Petition for Certiorari that, based upon the laws passed by Congress and the three taxing clauses in the Constitution, the Browns were entitled to have refunded to them the $5,035 in wage taxes they paid. In denying the Browns their refund, the four federal judges and all four Justice Department lawyers (who opposed the Browns' claim) were engaged in obstruction of justice and violations of their oaths of office. In addition, Section 241 of the U.S. Criminal Code makes it a crime for, “Two or more to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Therefore, apart from engaging in the obstruction of justice and violations of their oaths of office, it is also clear that all four of the federal judges and four U.S. attorneys who conspired to deny the Browns the “enjoyment” of the refund to which they are legally entitled, were also in criminal violation of 18 US 241. So much therefore, for how federal judges and U.S. attorneys are concerned about the “Rule of Law.”

Schiff's research documents proof beyond doubt that the federal government built into the law an unconstitutional and unlawful method of extortion that has criminally bilked the American people of trillions of dollars. It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will hear the writ. Schiff believes that if enough people read the petition and are able to grasp its significance and make the appropriate demands upon their state and federal congresspersons and federal court officials, the Supreme Court will be forced to address the issue.

See advertisement below for information on how you can receive a copy of the Petition for Certiorari and participate in forcing the highest court in the land to address its criminal taxation of the American people.

You can contact Schiff through his website at or call Freedom Books at 1-800-829-6666 and receive a copy of the writ and the appendix for a donation of $50.

Home - Current Edition
Advertising Rate Sheet
About the Idaho Observer
Some recent articles
Some older articles
Why we're here
Our Writers
Corrections and Clarifications

Hari Heath

Vaccination Liberation -

The Idaho Observer
P.O. Box 457
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869
Phone: 208-255-2307