Besides being in criminal violation (along with the U.S. Attorneys) of 18 U.S.C. 241 and obstructing justice (as described above) Judge Dawson continually misstated the law in all of his jury instructions involving income taxes.

For example in Jury Instruction 20 Judge Dawson states: "The actual task of collecting (income) taxes, however, has been delegated to local IRS directors, the delegation of authority from… the Secretary to the Commissioner... constitutes a valid delegation by the Secretary, .... And a redelegation by the Commissioner to the delegated (IRS) officers and employees." I have already posted to this web site my motion requesting the Government to produce: (1) The Delegation Order from the Secretary to the Commissioner as required by 26 U.S.C. 1701(a) (12); and (2), a copy of its publication in the Federal Register as required by 44 U.S.C. 1505 without which such a Delegation Order is without legal effect. And the Government could not produce either document, proving that Judge Dawson knew his jury instruction on this issue was a total fabrication.

Since Judge Dawson's other jury instructions on income taxes are all based on this erroneous instruction, all of his other instructions on income taxes are also false based just on this false claim alone. However, since they are also false on other grounds and since these other grounds reveal the elaborate lengths the Government has gone to enable it to collect income taxes in violation of law, I will cover them as well.

For example: In Jury Instruction 21 Judge Dawson states: "In the absence of a tax return the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue is authorized to independently calculate the tax owed and to prepare a substitute return for the taxpayer. However the Commissioner need not prepare a return for the taxpayer before determining the taxpayer's deficiency" Every element of that instruction constitutes a blatant misstatement of law.

For one thing, there is absolutely no statute in the Internal Revenue Code that authorizes the Secretary (or the IRS) "to prepare substitute returns." The only Code Section that authorizes the preparation of involuntary returns by the Secretary is section 6020(b), and returns prepared pursuant to that statute must contain information from which a tax can be assessed and must be "subscribed to" (i.e. signed) by the Secretary. IRS "substitute" returns (sometimes called "dummy" returns) never contain any information from which a tax can be assessed, and are never signed by anybody (See page 56 of "The Federal Mafia"), and the IRS can not produce a delegation order authorizing any IRS agent to produce such a return (See also Philips v. C.I.R., 1986 T.C. 433 and Vaira v. C.I.R. 404 F 2d 770). The only reason for substitute returns is to enable the IRS to fraudulently and illegally assess a person's total tax in the guise of assessing a "deficiency."

The IRS master computer is programmed to comply with the law. Therefore, it will not allow an account (i.e., a tax "module") to be opened unless that person: (1) files a tax return; and (2) reports a tax due on that return. If a person does not do both, then no law allows the IRS to attribute any taxable income to that person. If the Government wants to collect income taxes from such persons it must file a civil lawsuit against them as provided by 6501(c) (1) & (c) (3). (Their defense to such lawsuits would be that they are not "liable" for such a tax.) Therefore, in order to circumvent the law (sections 6501(c)(1) & (c)(3)), and fool their master computer, the Government has constructed an elaborate scam involving (1) the creation of unauthorized "substitute" returns; (2) the making of fictitious and illegal "zero" assessments; and (3) the creation of non-existent "deficiencies" - all elements of which are contained in Judge Dawson's jury instructions.

In order to trick its master computer that a return has been filed showing a tax due, the IRS illegally manufactures a "substitute" return, and then punches into its master computer "return filed," thus fooling its computer into thinking that a legitimate return has actually been filed. Then the IRS punches into the computer "00.00" as the amount allegedly reported on the "return filed," and since the computer cannot distinguish between one number and another, it assumes an actual amount of tax due was actually reported on the return, and subsequently assessed against that party.

However, when the IRS claims that it has posted a "zero" assessment to one's tax module, it is admitting to having violated the law. Section 3203 states: "The assessment shall be made by recording the liability of 'the taxpayer'" In CR-S-04-0119-KJD (LRL) Habeas Corpus 2243, claiming to have assessed all "zeros" the IRS would have assessed the absence of a liability - and IRS assessment officers are not authorized to assess an absence of a liability. My own belief is that no such assessments are ever made; the IRS merely claims to have made them - even recording them on one's 4340's - just for the purpose of the scam about to be unfolded here.

As indicated above, the purpose of the fictional "00, 00„" assessment is to allow the IRS to illegally determine and assess a person's total tax which no statute allows the IRS (or the Secretary) to do. Since sections 6211-6215 allow for the determination and the assessment of " deficiencies" - the IRS has contrived the following scam to allow it to estimate and assess a person's total tax in the guise of assessing a deficiency pursuant to those statutes. Therefore, to fully protect yourself against these procedures you should have a good understanding of what a "deficiency" is and the statutes and regulations that define it. Fundamentally, a "deficiency" is defined in Section 6211 as: (a) "The amount by which the tax imposed by this chapter exceeds the amount shown as the tax by the taxpayer upon his return if a return was made by the taxpayer and an amount was shown thereon " Therefore, there cannot be a "deficiency" unless the person files a return and shows a tax due. A deficiency can only be an amount over and above what an individual reports on a return he filed. It is the additional amount the "Secretary" claims is due and owing over what the individual reported on his return. In a nutshell, if you filed a return showing you owe $10,000; the Secretary might claim you actually owe $20,000. Your deficiency in that case would be $10,000, but your total tax would be $20,000. In every case your deficiency would have to be less than your total tax.

In addition, a deficiency is defined in section 6204(a) & (b) (page 64 of "The Federal Mafia") as a "supplemental assessment" designed to correct a prior assessment which is "imperfect or incomplete." That prior assessment would have been made pursuant to Code section 6201(a)(1) which states: "The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made." This is additional proof that a "deficiency" can only arise after a return is filed and an assessment made from that return. Further proof that a deficiency can only arise from an examined return is provided by Treasury Regulation 601.103(b). It states in relevant part: "After returns are filed and processed… some returns are selected for examination... If the taxpayer agrees to the proposed adjustments and if the taxpayer waives restrictions on the assessment... the deficiency will be immediately assessed," Thus again we see that a "deficiency" can only arise after a return is filed, "examined" and a deficiency proposed. In addition, there are a number of appeals court decisions that have held "deficiency notices" invalid when they were not based on returns that were "examined." (See Scar v. Commissioner, 814 F. 2d 1363)

Therefore Judge Dawson's instruction that "In the absence of a tax return ,...the Commissioner need not prepare a return for the taxpayer before determining the taxpayer's deficiency" has absolutely no relationship to any law. As all of the above statutes and regulations clearly establish, there simply cannot be a deficiency based on the premises contained in Judge Dawson's example. Therefore how can Judge Dawson give a jury instruction that is so totally erroneous? The obvious answer is that the provisions of the IR Code are so complex that federal judges are apparently free to tell juries anything - and juries are compelled to believe them.

Okay. If you haven't filed a return or have filed one showing no tax due the first thing the IRS might send you is a 30 day letter which will indicate an amount of tax due. It will be based on what the IRS believes is your total income for that year, and the amount of tax will be the total amount of tax allegedly due for that year, and, of course, the IRS would have no authority (on various grounds) to make such a determination. At that point you might ask the IRS (you have a right to a hearing when you get your 30 day letter) what statute authorized the IRS to estimate the total tax you allegedly owed for that year? Of course they will not be able to show you any such statute and will probably simply ignore your request - but this might depend on how insistent and effective you are. Ultimately they will send you a "deficiency notice" and your total tax will now fraudulently appear as a "deficiency" and you will have 90 days to contest the "deficiency" by petitioning Tax Court: However Tax Court is only authorized to "re-determine" a "deficiency," it has absolutely no authority to determine or re-determine your "total tax„" In petitioning Tax Court you might inform them that you "disagree" with the "Notice of deficiency" and "dispute" the fact that a "deficiency" exists and therefore the Deficiency Notice is "invalid on a variety of grounds,"

In my petition, I would "Challenge the existence of the underlying liability" as you are authorized to do by 26 U.S.C. 6330 (c)(2)(B) - and if the Tax Court does not allow you to "dispute" this "liability" you can raise the issue at your Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing. In addition you want to raise as an averment in your Petition that the alleged "deficiency" is, in reality, your total tax. If the attorney for the IRS tries to obfuscate on the issue, you might ask him as part of discovery, "What is my total tax. for the year at issue?" If it is the same as your alleged "deficiency" then obviously what you are litigating is your total tax. not a "deficiency." If you are in Tax Court, you might ask the Judge, "Isn't the $8,942.00 (If this is the alleged "deficiency") my total tax for that year?" He will refuse to answer, since he knows that he has no authority to determine your total tax, so keep repeating the question, you'll never get an answer. So you will have to figure out how to proceed from there.

Normally anyone who has not filed a return or who has filed a return showing no tax due - who takes the usual approach (other than that discussed above) - will lose in Tax Court.. They will then discover that their "deficiency" will show up on their IRS Form 4340 as "additional tax assessed." They will then also see the following entries on their 4340... "Substitute return filed." There will also be an entry showing "0, 00" assessment, Now you see the purpose of the "0.00" assessment. A "deficiency" has to be assessed as an "additional" assessment. If there was no fictional "0.00" assessment, the IRS computer could not be tricked into allowing the "deficiency" (actually the person's total tax) to be assessed as an "additional" tax. Of course, the total tax (i.e., the alleged deficiency) is not really assessed as an "additional tax," it is actually assessed as the original tax assessed, since the "0,.00" assessment was never actually made, and could not qualify as an assessment on a variety of grounds. So this is the elaborate (and practically undetectable) scam the Government created to enable the IRS to determine and collect an individuals total alleged tax - even forcing the public into Tax Court which has no jurisdiction in this situation - when absolutely no statute in the Internal Revenue Code gives the Secretary (or the IRS) any authority to make any such determination. Talk about fraud, The Government wrote the book and Judge Dawson incorporated every element of this scam in his Jury Instructions.

In any event, when you are presented with your 4340 the entries on it are only presumptively correct and can be challenged as being incorrect. Therefore you should challenge all of the entries showing: (1)"substitute return"; (2)"0.00" assessment; and (3) your alleged "deficiency" as being fraudulent entries on the grounds covered above.

In Jury Instruction 25 Judge Dawson instructed the jury that "The IRS of the Department of Treasury is an agency of the United States. Therefore it is a violation of 18 U S C. 371 to conspire to frustrate or obstruct the IRS in performing its lawful function of ascertaining, computing, assessing, and collecting federal income taxes"

First of all, Congress never established the IRS as an agency of the federal government, so that is a false statement. Secondly, the IRS is not mentioned anywhere in Subtitle A (the subtitle dealing with income taxes), so how can it be a violation of law (and a conspiracy) to "frustrate or obstruct" the IRS from performing functions that no statute authorizes it to perform in the first place? When I was on the witness stand I offered to plead guilty to all charges if the government would merely produce one statute that authorized the IRS to do ANYTHING in connection with income taxes and the Government could not produce any such statute. So what the Government could not do on its own at trial, Judge Dawson did for them by way of a false jury instruction.

In Jury Instruction 34 Judge Dawson instructed the jury as follows: "As to Count 17, a tax due and owing may be ascertained in three ways; by the taxpayer reporting the amount of tax due and owing; by the IRS examining the taxpayer and assessing the tax; or if the taxpayer fails to file a return and the government can prove a tax deficiency, the deficiency arises on the date the return was due. In cases were the IRS examined the taxpayer and assessed the tax, a certificate of assessment and payments is adequate evidence of tax liability." Based on the statutes and regulations already covered herein, it should be obvious that almost nothing in that jury instruction has any connection with any law. The only portion of that instruction that can be said to be connected to any law, is that a tax might be said to be "due and owing" if the taxpayer reported the amount on his tax return. However, if the taxpayer fails to file a return, how can the government "prove a tax deficiency."? No deficiency is possible in that situation. But the most ludicrous claim of all in that instruction is that a deficiency can "arise on the date the return was due." Since a deficiency can not arise until an assessment is made from a filed return (that is examined) and a deficiency determined; there is simply no way a deficiency can arise (automatically) on the date the return is due, To nail this down further, Section 6212(a) states in part: "If the Secretary determines that there is a deficiency in respect of any tax imposed....he is authorized to send notice of such deficiency to the taxpayer by certified mail or registered mail." So obviously there can not be a deficiency until the Secretary "determines that there is a deficiency" and sends a notice of that to the taxpayer.

In addition, it is clear, based upon the extensive motions I filed on this issue (and the Government's vapid and unresponsive answers) all of which are already posted to this web site; there is simply no statute that makes anyone "liable" for income taxes. Therefore, Judge Dawson's suggestion that such a statute and/or provision exists is simply made up as is most of his other claims related to income taxes. Based, on all of the above, it is clear that Cindy Neun and I were convicted of tax crimes based on jury instructions that had absolutely no relationship to any law passed by the U.S. Congress.

One further thing on this issue, there are at least three major Supreme Court decisions that have held that a deficiency is an essential element of a 7201 (tax evasion) prosecution. Therefore, if you haven't filed an income tax return or have filed one but have not shown a tax due, you cannot be guilty of tax evasion. However, since Justice Department lawyers couldn't care less about law, they bring tax evasion charges in such cases anyway. However, if such parties move to dismiss such charges on the grounds that no deficiency exists, Justice Department lawyers will attempt to fabricate a non-existent deficiency on grounds similar to those contained in Judge Dawson's jury instructions. Therefore the laws and regulations cited herein should enable such individuals to protect themselves against such fraudulent government claims.

In Jury Instruction 37 Judge Dawson raised the issue of whether or not false information on my return "affected the ability of the IRS to audit or verify the accuracy of my tax returns." Or course, there is no statute that authorizes the IRS to "audit or verify" anybodies tax return - but this instruction would mislead the jury to think otherwise.

In Jury Instruction 38 Judge Dawson told the jury that the IRS can "legally use the bank deposit method" to calculate a person's taxable income. That statement is false. There is no statute that authorizes either the Secretary or the IRS to do so. When on cross-examination, I attempted to ask the IRS summation witness, who had done the bank deposit calculation, to identify for me the statute that authorized him to make such a calculation - Judge Dawson would not allow him to answer my question. If Judge Dawson believed that the IRS could "legally" use the "bank deposit method" why did he prevent the Government's witness from answering the question?

In Jury Instruction 44 Judge Dawson gives the jury a totally false instruction as to the meaning of "income" for tax purposes. I had requested that he instruct the jury that "for the purpose of this trial the word 'income' is used in its constitutional sense," and I gave as my authority House Report No 1337 and Senate Report No. 1622 (83rd Congress, 2nd Session) since both Reports stated that this is the meaning that must be given to the word "income" as that term is used in Section 61 of the 1954 Code. During the course of the trial, I had moved that the Government explain how it was using the term "income" However, Judge Dawson stated he would instruct the jury as to its meaning in his jury instructions. Well he instructed the jury all right, except he instructed them all wrong. Not only did his instruction violate the intent of Congress as contained in those Congressional Reports, and the meaning of income as contained in Section 61, but it also violated what the word "income" had to mean if it were to avoid being in conflict with such bedrock Supreme Court decisions as Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust, 158 U.S. 601 (never overturned or overruled) ; and Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR., 240 U.S. 1. As well as a number of other Supreme Court decisions. (To appreciate the full extent of Judge Dawson's false charge to the jury as to the legal meaning of "income," read my Motion to Dismiss based on the meaning of "income" which is already posted to this web site,)

Judge Dawson instructed the jury on the meaning of income as follows: "Gross income is the following: (1) Compensation for services; (4) interest; (5) rents; (6) royalties; (7) dividends; etc. etc. etc" In doing so, Judge Dawson used the wording as it appeared in Section 22 of the 1939 Code. In so doing Judge Dawson deliberately misled the jury as to the meaning of "income" as that term appears in Section 61 of the 1954 Code. The 1939 Code imposed the income tax directly on "sources" of income, while the 1954 Code imposed the tax on "income" separated from those "sources" - which is what the House and Senate Committees meant when they said that "income" in the 1954 Code was used in its "constitutional sense" - which, of course, is different from income used in its "ordinary" sense. Judge Dawson knew about these differences (since he was aware of these Congressional Reports) but chose to ignore them as he misled the jury to believe that "income" in the 1954 Code was used in its "ordinary" sense and not in its "constitutional" sense.. Judge Dawson's charge suggests that such items as compensation for services, interest, dividends, rents, etc. etc. etc. are directly taxable as "income." However, if such were the case, these items would be specifically taxable if received by a corporation, but they are not. Corporations only pay income taxes on their profit (if any) "derived" from these items but do not pay income taxes on receipt of such items themselves - as Judge Dawson's jury instruction suggests. And since Section 61 does not make a distinction between individuals and corporations, whatever is taxable as "income" to corporations must apply equally to individuals. In the final analysis the wording of Section 22 of the 1939 Code was changed in Section 61 of the 1954 Code so what would be taxable as "income" in the 1954 Code would not conflict with the taxing clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the 'Pollock and Brushaber decisions. The jury instruction on "income" given by Judge Dawson is in conflict with all three - as well as the law (section 61) itself, as well as a number of other Supreme Court decisions as covered in my Motion to Dismiss referred to earlier. Therefore how could Cindy Neun and I be guilty of crimes involving "income taxes" when the jury was totally misinformed concerning what that term means?

Thus my conviction was engineered by Judge Dawson who prevented me from proving at trial that: (1) No law made me (or anyone else) "liable" for income taxes;
(2) No law required me (or anyone else) "to pay" income taxes;
(3) I had no "income" within the meaning of Section 61 of the 1954 IR Code:
(4) None of the Government's IRS witnesses had any statutory authority to perform any act in connection with the collection of income tax;
(5) None of the Government's IRS witnesses had any statutory authority to testify at trial;
(6) In addition, Judge Dawson prevented me from calling numerous witnesses material to my defense;
(7) And he charged the jury pursuant to laws that did not exist.

In short, it is hard to imagine how a political defendant on trial in Nazi Germany or in the old Soviet Union could have been accorded less due process of law than I received at my "trial" - yet most Americans would believe that there would have been a significant difference in these trials. When will Americans wake up?

That fact is I committed no crime - as a matter of law. And anyone can prove that for themselves by merely checking the Index of the Internal Revenue Code. Yet if I do not overturn my conviction I could spend the rest of my life in jail, while Cindy could spend the better portion of her life in jail- in connection with something that is not even a crime. The nonsense is that Cindy (and I) were charged with a "conspiracy." I was exposing the government's illegal collection of income taxes long before I met Cindy - and eventually she merely promoted my research (as did all of those at Freedom Books) which she always assumed was legal, so apart from everything else, the "conspiracy" charge is total nonsense.

So if you are outraged that Americans can actually be convicted of things that are not crimes and if you would like to help overturn these outrageous fascist like convictions, download this material and e-mail it to everyone in your address book, to the fact that I committed no crime. And anyone can easily prove that for themselves by merely checking the Index of the Internal Revenue Code as published by the Research Institute of America. You will find no entry in that index for "penalties", " liability", "payment" or "Books of Record" in connection with Income Taxes. However, you will find numerous such entries in the index in connection with other Federal taxes. Obviously, therefore, there are no statutes creating crime in connection with income taxes. However if I do not reverse my conviction, I could spend the rest of my life in prison and Cindy could spend the better part of the rest of her life in prison. The added nonsense is the "conspiracy" charge made against Cindy and me. Apart from the fact that there could not be a conspiracy to prevent the IRS from doing something that no statute authorizes them to do anyway. I was writing books and exposing the Government's illegal collection of income taxes long before I even met Cindy. All of the books, tapes and informational packets distributed by Freedom Books were my creation. Cindy had nothing to do with creating any of it. She merely sold this material in the same manner as did dozens of other people (employees and volunteers) who worked at Freedom Books. As a matter of fact three of my former employees who testified as government witnesses all testified that it was their belief that neither they nor any other person employed by Freedom Books ever believed that any of the material they sold encouraged anybody to violate the law. So why should Cindy have thought otherwise? So, apart from everything else the "conspiracy" charge is so egregious as to demonstrate the fascist lengths the Government will go in order to bury anyone they believe is capable of exposing how it criminally enforces the income tax.

So if you are appalled (as you should be) that America has become a fascist like state whose innocent people are framed and given long prison terms for things that are not crimes, then download this material and email it to everyone in your address books. Distribute it to people in the media and send it to the House and Senate Judicial Committee and demand an explanation! You want to know if this is what "due process of law" has come to mean in America.

Thanks for your help and support,

Irwin Schiff