From the August 2005 Idaho Observer:

In the case of





by The Idaho Observer

If juries (or judges) were able to objectively digest the sum of the research as entered into the various federal courts throughout the land as evidence, there would be no question as to whether or not there is a law compelling people to pay taxes on their wages and salaries: There isn’t.

Tax-honesty icon Irwin Schiff first theorized the law-less nature of IRS wage-and-salary tax collection in the 70s and has been accumulating evidence to prove his theory ever since. By 2003 Schiff had become so confident in his research that he began a national, mainstream radio advertizing campaign. So the feds raided his Las Vegas home and office and have been attempting to persecute him into prison ever since.

But the IRS, the Department of Justice and the federal judiciary seem to have underestimated the seasoned elder activist and his humorously sarcastic contempt toward the government’s lawless minions as they pretend to legally justify their claims against him.

Schiff’s most recent filing is his answer to the government’s objection to his testifying as an expert witness. "The government’s penchant for making disingenuous statements simply knows no bounds," Schiff, pro per, began.

The government claims that Schiff must be disqualified as an "expert" witness at the trial scheduled to begin August 29, 2005, because his "probable" testimony would be his own "interpretations of the law" and "discussion of the validity of the tax laws." The government stated that "...such testimony is impermissible as it would usurp the role of the judge and inappropriately instruct the jury on the law..."

The reply from Schiff is arguably one of the funniest responses ever filed in federal court—unless you are a DOJ attorney charged with answering the response.

"First of all," Schiff began, "as the following will show, Schiff’s testimony (as an expert) will not involve his "interpretations of the law," but will largely focus on why statements on documents attributed to defendant Schiff, which the government claims are "false" (as a matter of law), are not false as a matter of law. In other words he will testify that government claims—based upon the opinions and claims of unknown, unidentified and phantom federal employees—are false. Certainly, defendants have a right to put on an expert [witness] who is prepared to testify, under oath, that claims made by phantom federal employee[s] with respect to documents which the government intends to use against such defendants—represent false claims, as a matter of law—especially when such experts can still be cross-examined with respect to their testimony. The irony is almost laughable. The government wants to indict and prosecute people based on: (1) the erroneous claims and charges of phantom federal employees who, (2) have not made their claims and charges under oath, where; (3) they would have been subject to cross-examination; but objects when real people want to testify openly and under oath and be subject to cross- examination that such claims and charges are false. What more proof does anyone need of the duplicity and deceit of the DOJ?"

The second point of Schiff’s response shot down the government’s claim that his "probable" testimony would be "his own interpretations of the tax laws."

You can feel the irony as Schiff explains, "... my testimony as an expert will not be to challenge the ‘validity’ of any tax law, but my testimony will be that ALL tax laws are valid. If anything, my 30 years of research and expertise have led to the inescapable conclusion that the DOJ in all of its civil and criminal prosecutions and litigation VIOLATES each and every law in the Internal Revenue Code bearing on the federal income tax, as well as violating all three of the Constitution’s three taxing clauses. My efforts over the last 30 years have been to try and force the DOJ to OBEY those laws. However, the DOJ does not want to do so, and its instant prosecution of me is designed to interfere and obstruct my efforts to make it do so."

Thirdly, Schiff shows that the court has qualified various agents of government as expert witnesses in this case and others, though they have considerably less experience than himself in areas critical to the testimony they were expected to give. Are we to believe that expert witness standards are arbitrarily raised and lowered depending upon whether or not the proposed expert witness is in the employ of government?

One of the government’s claims against Schiff is that people named the Dentices falsely amended their tax returns per unlawful counsel from Schiff. The government is allowing Revenue Agent Nancy McLeod to give expert testimony as to why the statements on the Dentices’ amended returns were false as a matter of law. "I certainly can testify as an "expert" as to why those statements were correct as a matter of law, since my credentials as an expert are far superior than hers," Schiff reasoned.

As previously stated, Schiff has been researching the income tax for 30 years, during which time he has written several highly acclaimed books on the subject and has lectured extensively throughout the country. McLeod has never written a book and simply works for the IRS.

"If the government doubts I am an expert on income taxes, they can certainly voir dire me with respect to my claimed "expertise" and impeach my "expertise" in front of the jury. They can use against me as a defendant, anything that I say as an "expert." And if, as the government claims, everything I say about the income tax is both false and fraudulent, the government should relish the opportunity to cross-examine me with respect to my claimed "expertise." So what is the government’s problem?" Schiff asked the court in his response.

Schiff also reasoned that, "...if the government can use ‘experts’ to testify at criminal trials that documents filed by defendant, and/or under his direction, were ‘false’ as a matter of law, defendants certainly have a similar right to use ‘experts’ to testify that such documents were ‘not false,’ as a matter of law. And who is more qualified than me to testify as an ‘expert’ on this issue?"

While Schiff is proceeding with a phenomenally cavalier attitude, he is going to trial as scheduled even though the court has failed to answer any of his extremely well-founded arguments rendered into motions challenging jurisdiction. A cornerstone of American jurisprudence is that once formally challenged at any time, the court must prove jurisdiction before it can proceed against a defendant.

The point is that the government is not bothering to observe its own rules in this case—an indication that it intends to convict Schiff regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of its case against him or whether or not Schiff had criminal intent.

If convicted, the court will send the 80-year-old Schiff to federal prison.

The truth is that Schiff has boxed the government into a corner and the only way out is for it to fix the trial so that the jury finds him guilty. Go to his website at and get familiar with this important case—and support this activist in body and/or spirit.

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