Howardo????????

[Paths of the Sea]

An anonymous "Howardo" has made his appearance on Forbes today in the readers' comments section of an article on Irwin Schiff.

I thought I would make reference here should there be any who might be clever enough to figure out who he is and a reference to his alleged criminal case.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreill ... in-schiff/

From: Howardo
Date: Sunday, October 12, 2014
Readers' Comments Page #42 (or #41 if you don't "expand all comments").

[does anyone here know what it means to be called out, if it is asking for an answer as to why i said what i said, ask me then with out all this mobo jumbo! k? i know what i say is true and are facts, and am able to show anyone if they just ask. it is all there for all to see.]

EntNed Netterville, glad to know you. your 100% correct, the judicial system is as bad as it gets in the USA, and perhaps the world, for reasons you state and a few others.

Irwin is a political prisoner, period. and this USA has many.

first, like so many seems to know and then state, the INCOME TAX is not an income tax on INCOME. it is a tax on a trust fund! it is a trust fund tax.

i was not charged with and found guilty of income tax invasion, i was tried and convicted of TAX FRAUD on a trust that i am a stranger to.

now then, i think you may be the only one here that either understand what i just said, or has any chance of doing so.

i will stop here for now, i think i may have gotten someones attention.

[then perhaps not.]

-------------------------------------------

[Paths of the Sea]

I came up with this as one possibility:

http://www.southflalaw.com/the-united-s ... fer-1.html

-----------------------------------------

[Famspear]

PACER shows a Howard O. Kieffer as a defendant in various cases in various places.

He has a judgment of conviction against him in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado United States v. Howard O. Kieffer, case no. 09-cr-00410-CMA-01.

The convictions in this case:

1. One count of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2(b);

2. One count of false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001;

3. One count of contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401(1) and (3).

He was sentenced to eighty-eight months as to Count 1, sixty months as to Count 2, and thirty-seven (37) months as to Count 3, each count to be served concurrently with each other and with a sentence imposed in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, in case number 1:08-cr-00054-PAC-01. I haven't checked yet to see what the North Dakota thing I\is about.

Kieffer is inmate number 90513-012, a guest at a Federal Bureau of Prisons facility at Oklahoma City. His projected release date is January 2, 2017.

[Famspear]

An excerpt from the Superseding Indictment in his Colorado case:

1. The Defendant HOWARD O. KIEFFER is an individual who never graduated from a law school and was never admitted to practice law in the bar of any state of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any other jurisdiction.

2. Despite those facts, the Defendant HOWARD O. KIEFFER held himself out to be an attorney and posted information on the internet falsely representing that he had obtained a J.D. (Doctor of Jurisprudence) degree from Antioch School of Law, Washington, D.C.

3. Despite having never obtained a law degree and never having been admitted to the bar of a state or the District of Columbia, the Defendant HOWARD O. KIEFFER fraudulently engaged in the practice of law in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and other courts.

4. The Defendant HOWARD O. KIEFFER fraudulently engaged in the practice of law in the District of Colorado by representing the defendant in the trial of United States v. Gwen Bergman, which trial took place in May, 2008. The Defendant was paid $65,750 in fees for that representation by Gwen Bergman’s family members, one of whom obtained information about the Defendant HOWARD O. KIEFFER from the internet. The Defendant HOWARD O. KIEFFER created the fraudulent impression in this family member that he, KIEFFER, was an attorney able to practice by stating that he was licensed to practice federal law and therefore he did not need to be licensed by a state.

5. At the time of his admission to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, that Court had a local rule that required an attorney to be licensed by the highest court of a state, federal territory or the District of Columbia and be on active status in a state, federal territory or the District of Columbia in order to be admitted to the District of Colorado. Despite knowing that he was not licensed by the highest court of a state, federal territory or the District of Columbia, the Defendant HOWARD O. KIEFFER gained admission to practice in the District of Colorado for the Bergman case by falsely stating that he was so licensed in the District of Columbia.

6. On or about October 21, 2007, in the District of Colorado and elsewhere,

HOWARD O. KIEFFER,
Defendant herein, having devised and intended to devise the scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, as described in paragraphs 1. through 5. above, for the purpose of executing said scheme and artifice to defraud and in attempting to do so, did cause certain writings, signs, signals, and sounds to be transmitted by wire and radio communication in interstate commerce, that is, the Defendant did cause to be posted and published on the internet a website advertising his legal services; all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2(b)....

It goes on from there. It doesn't get any better.

[Paths of the Sea]

Thanks to all for the added details.

I don't know if that Howard O. is the same "Howardo" who posted to Forbes, or had someone post for him.

It appears for now that the Forbes poster is not going to return with any specifics or further explanation as to what he was talking about.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!