What do the New York Times, the IRS and David Cay Johnston have in common?
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Are the New York Times, the IRS and David Cay Johnston involved in a ménage a trois of lies?
If the New York Times does not have an agenda regarding the legitimacy of
If the New York Times does not have an agenda regarding the legitimacy of
the income tax then why would it assign two of its reporters,
David Cay Johnston and Nathan Lee, to lambaste a film,
"America-From Freedom to Fascism"
which reveals there is no law requiring a citizen living in the United States to pay the income tax?
The further proof the Times has a dog in the fight is the fact there were over
"America-From Freedom to Fascism"
which reveals there is no law requiring a citizen living in the United States to pay the income tax?
The further proof the Times has a dog in the fight is the fact there were over
twenty other films which opened in the last two weeks that were ignored by
the Times and this film is currently being shown on only
ten screens nationwide.
Although it appears the New York Times reporter, David Cay
Johnston, is attempting to strangle Mr. Schiff, in reality he
is deceitfully pretending to console Mr. Schiff after the federal
court strippedMr. Schiff of his free speech right by banning
"The Federal Mafia"
"The Federal Mafia"
On July 5th, 1995, Mr. David Cay Johnston wrote his first article about Mr. Schiff entitled "The Anti-Tax Man Cometh." This article was a fair report of Mr. Schiff’s stance on the income tax. However, that was the last truthful column Mr. Johnson has written about Mr. Schiff or the people involved in the "Tax Honesty" movement! This fact begs the question, "WHY?" Did his superiors at the New York Times and/or agents from the Internal Revenue Service order him to tow the IRS line and dispel, with lies if necessary, every fact presented by Mr. Schiff? Or, perhaps, at that point in time, being a younger reporter he was idealistic and wanted to do the right thing. If neither of the above are true then we are left believing Mr. Johnson is just, by nature, a liar!
The above picture and the ones below were taken in Las Vegas, in 2003, during a hearing held by a federal court to ban Mr. Schiff’s book "The Federal Mafia" and incarcerate him for selling it. As the pictures below attest Mr. Johnson pretended he was a sympathetic supporter of Mr. Schiff and then immediately began an onslaught of written lies, half truths, misquotes and savage attacks against Mr. Schiff. In total, since that day, Mr. Johnson has written at least sixteen articles trashing Mr. Schiff and/or his followers. His latest effort to deceive and discredit those who know the truth about the income tax involved a friend of ours, Mr. Aaron Russo’s film "America-From Freedom to Fascism." If you would like to read MR. Johnston’s less than stellar effort and are in possession of a strong stomach for lies go to,
The following is an email we sent to Mr. Johnston in response to that article.
Dear Mr. Johnston,
For years we have followed the New York Times and your efforts to discredit the people in the "Tax Honesty" movement and in particular Mr. Schiff. If you had bothered to get your facts straight, as a reputable reporter is honor and morally bound to do, then we might not have such disdain for you.
In your article on 7-31-2006 you wrote, "Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution begins with the phrase "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes."" Then you correctly wrote, "One limitation, however, was a requirement that taxes be "apportioned among the several states."" However, you either fail to understand what the apportionment clause means or you ignore it to make your failed argument. The apportionment clause requires the INDIVIDUAL STATES to decide who will pay what and then collect the tax and forward it to the federal government.
Then, you and the federal government try to get around this little problem by saying the 16th amendment removed the apportionment barrier therein allowing for a direct tax on citizens wages. Once again you either failed to do your research and discover that this is a lie or you intentionally failed to mention that The Supreme Court, on at least six occasions, ruled the 16th amendment gave the federal government "NO NEW TAXING POWER!" Those rulings have never been overturned!! Even if the 16th amendment did give the federal government a new taxing power the right to lay a direct tax on citizens could not be included in that power because it would be repugnant to the fundamental basic tax clauses of the Constitution’s sections 2, 8 and 9. As an example, do you believe the congress could pass an amendment to the Constitution to remove our fundamental basic right of freedom of speech or the New York Times right of freedom of the press?
As to Mr. Schiff, if you had attended his latest trial, even you would have walked out knowing it was a travesty of justice. However, we are confident you would not have reported that fact or *(see below) what the feds have done to Mr. Schiff in the interim.
And, even though you faked concern when you consoled Mr. Schiff (See the photo above of yourself with Mr. Schiff) we did not see you pitch a bitch when the federal courts banned his book "The Federal Mafia" even though there was not one word in it that was not true. (See the Seton Hall Law review http://seton-hall-law-review-article.blogspot.com/ )
In the final analysis, the overall tone of your article is typical of a republican politician's reaction to being exposed as being incompetent, that being, attack the messenger and ignore the message... Which is surprising because The Times has demonstrated it knows if the news media does not expose the transgressions on the American citizen’s rights such as the "Patriot Act," freedom of speech, freedom of the press (The New York Times?) and the illegal enforcement of non-existent laws, then Big Brother will prevail.
Didn’t your mommy tell you not to get in bed with the devil, Davy? In that regard, we hope you are saving the money you are paid to help spread the federal government’s lies, because you will need it to relocate to a desert island when the feds pass a law requiring all reporters to have a lobotomy and be castrated. However, if you don’t, as they start to drill and cut, rest assured we will inform one and all that even your stupidity does not warrant such drastic treatment.
As to the Federal Reserve and the fixing of elections by tampering with the computers...these are facts that a REAL reporter would expose. However, the government will not have to forcibly insert a computer tracking chip in you. All it needs to do is sprinkle a few such chips on Uncle Sam’s butt and eventually you will naturally ingest one.
Dear Mr. Johnston,
For years we have followed the New York Times and your efforts to discredit the people in the "Tax Honesty" movement and in particular Mr. Schiff. If you had bothered to get your facts straight, as a reputable reporter is honor and morally bound to do, then we might not have such disdain for you.
In your article on 7-31-2006 you wrote, "Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution begins with the phrase "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes."" Then you correctly wrote, "One limitation, however, was a requirement that taxes be "apportioned among the several states."" However, you either fail to understand what the apportionment clause means or you ignore it to make your failed argument. The apportionment clause requires the INDIVIDUAL STATES to decide who will pay what and then collect the tax and forward it to the federal government.
Then, you and the federal government try to get around this little problem by saying the 16th amendment removed the apportionment barrier therein allowing for a direct tax on citizens wages. Once again you either failed to do your research and discover that this is a lie or you intentionally failed to mention that The Supreme Court, on at least six occasions, ruled the 16th amendment gave the federal government "NO NEW TAXING POWER!" Those rulings have never been overturned!! Even if the 16th amendment did give the federal government a new taxing power the right to lay a direct tax on citizens could not be included in that power because it would be repugnant to the fundamental basic tax clauses of the Constitution’s sections 2, 8 and 9. As an example, do you believe the congress could pass an amendment to the Constitution to remove our fundamental basic right of freedom of speech or the New York Times right of freedom of the press?
As to Mr. Schiff, if you had attended his latest trial, even you would have walked out knowing it was a travesty of justice. However, we are confident you would not have reported that fact or *(see below) what the feds have done to Mr. Schiff in the interim.
And, even though you faked concern when you consoled Mr. Schiff (See the photo above of yourself with Mr. Schiff) we did not see you pitch a bitch when the federal courts banned his book "The Federal Mafia" even though there was not one word in it that was not true. (See the Seton Hall Law review http://seton-hall-law-review-article.blogspot.com/ )
In the final analysis, the overall tone of your article is typical of a republican politician's reaction to being exposed as being incompetent, that being, attack the messenger and ignore the message... Which is surprising because The Times has demonstrated it knows if the news media does not expose the transgressions on the American citizen’s rights such as the "Patriot Act," freedom of speech, freedom of the press (The New York Times?) and the illegal enforcement of non-existent laws, then Big Brother will prevail.
Didn’t your mommy tell you not to get in bed with the devil, Davy? In that regard, we hope you are saving the money you are paid to help spread the federal government’s lies, because you will need it to relocate to a desert island when the feds pass a law requiring all reporters to have a lobotomy and be castrated. However, if you don’t, as they start to drill and cut, rest assured we will inform one and all that even your stupidity does not warrant such drastic treatment.
As to the Federal Reserve and the fixing of elections by tampering with the computers...these are facts that a REAL reporter would expose. However, the government will not have to forcibly insert a computer tracking chip in you. All it needs to do is sprinkle a few such chips on Uncle Sam’s butt and eventually you will naturally ingest one.
Can’t you almost imagine Mr. Johnson telling Mr. Schiff, "Don’t worry! I’m on your side! See I'm writing everything you say down. You can trust me to write the truth."
*When Mr. Schiff was not allowed to present exculpatory evidence or any law or any witnesses whose credentials would impress the jury at his trial the New York Times reporter, David Cay Johnson, did not expose those facts. When the IRS illegally took Mr. Schiff's commissary funds, which they did not do to Alphonse Capone, Vice President Spiro Agnew or John Gotti, therein preventing Mr. Schiff him from buying anything in prison or make a phone call to make his life tolerable Mr. Johnson was silent. Well, here is another activity the fair and balanced reporter, (is Fox News correct about The Times?) Mr. Johnson, will not write about.
Mr. Schiff requested his sentence be served in Connecticut. The real criminal during Me. Schiff's trial, Judge Dawson, granted that request. However, that is not exactly what happened. During a four month period the almost eighty year old Mr. Schiff was transferred from Las Vegas via New Mexico to Arizona. Then to California. Next came Oklahoma. Now he is in New Jersey. Each time he was shackled hand to foot and in a cage on a bus sitting on a hard bench for hours on end. This is referred to as "Diesel Therapy." Even though they know Mr. Schiff has a condition that prevents him from feeling anything below his knees they made him wear army boots. After he removed those boots his socks were soaked with blood and all the skin had worn off of his toes! Not only is he being physically tortured but because the prison system does not forward mail it also keeps Mr. Schiff from receiving mail from the people who are helping him with his appeal or are concerned about his welfare. Five of our letters to him have been returned as "Unknown Inmate."
We will not be surprised if the next address for Mr. Schiff is Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq or Boot Hill in Las Vegas in an unmarked pauper's grave.
It is obvious to us this is an effort to incapacitate or kill Mr. Schiff to shut him up before he can embarrass the federal justice system during his appeal.
Therefore, we hope Mr. Johnson beams with pride as he tells his reading audience just how proud they should be of the humane way their master, the federal government, treats a proud, honest patriot whose only crime was telling the truth as his health is failing him.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
IMAGINE
Imagine, if you can, a government banning a book which contains only truthful words because a segment of that government does not like the content! Imagine further that same government putting the seventy eight year old author of that book on trial for having violated a nonexistent law which carries a virtual life sentence! Taking your imagination one step further imagine the prosecution and the judge working in tandem to keep the author from offering any Supreme Court rulings, any laws, introducing witnesses or cross examining the prosecution’s witnesses! To stretch your imagination to its breaking point imagine the prosecution’s final words to the jury being, *“If you don’t find him guilty you, the jury, will be breaking the law!”
If you thought this could only have happened to a Jew in Nazi Germany during World War Two you would be mistaken. Perhaps, not so coincidentally the author is Jewish. His name is Irwin Schiff. The title of the book is ‘The Federal Mafia’ and the trial was held in a federal court in Las Vegas, Nevada in the United States of America.
During that trial Federal Judge Kent Dawson upheld every objection made by the prosecution and denied virtually every objection made by the defense. And, as if that were not enough to convince anyone there was no evident justice administered during that trial Judge Dawson made sure the defendant would never be released, even if found not guilty, by sanctioning him to over three hundred (300) years in jail for attempting to bring up laws in his courtroom!
Stranger still is the fact that even though Mr. Schiff is best known legal authority on the income tax in the world there was no newspaper, wire services or television coverage of that trial until the day the verdict was read which unsurprisingly was GUILITY.
The only remaining question is, "When will the Federal Government be forced to abide by the rule of law and The Constitution?”
* Paraphrased.
