Schiff v. Chandler

[Famspear]

Irwin Schiff has been in prison for nearly 10 years on this, his third federal prison term for tax crimes. He is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Fort Worth, Texas (inmate # 08537-014).

On June 22, 2015, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, under 28 USC section 2241, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, naming Rodney Chandler, the warden, as the Respondent. Schiff did not cross all his T's and dot all his i's, missing a few details such as actually serving the Respondent with papers.

Schiff's "legal" memorandum is 40 pages, and he appended 126 pages of exhibits. It's the usual stuff you would expect from him.

On page 2, he argues that because he filed no tax returns for the tax years (1979 through 1985) for which he was convicted of section 7201 tax evasion, he could not properly be convicted of that crime.

His "reasoning"?

He claims that there can be no "deficiency" in tax where the taxpayer does not file a return, based on a tortured, delusional interpretation of section 6211 which has not only been rejected in various cases but which, I believe, has already been rejected in one of his own prior cases.

Not only does he mis-interpret the definition of "deficiency" in section 6211, he seems unaware that the term "deficiency" in section 6211 does not have the same meaning as the term "deficiency" where used by the courts in interpreting the elements of tax evasion under section 7201.

The term "deficiency" as used to describe the elements under section 7201 has a "normal" every day meaning: the amount of unpaid tax. One of the three elements of tax evasion is the attendant circumstance of a "deficiency" in the sense of an unpaid federal tax.

By contrast, under section 6211, the term generally means the excess of what the correct tax is (or, at least, what the government claims the correct tax to be) over the amount of tax shown by the taxpayer on his return -- with both amounts computed without subtracting any withholding, payments, or credits. (The definition is a bit more complex, but you get the idea.) The section 6211 deficiency may or may not be equal to the amount of unpaid tax. Indeed, it is theoretically possible to have a section 6211 "deficiency" even if the tax has been overpaid (i.e., even if the taxpayer is entitled to a refund).

On page 10, Schiff argues that "unless the taxpayer files a return showing an amount determined by him to be due and owing, no tax assessment can be made."

On page 29 of the memo, Schiff is still -- after all these years -- citing the Merchants' Loan decision (Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921)) in support of his idea that his own income is not taxable. We recall that Schiff and other dimwits have argued for years that the Merchants' Loan case somehow stands for the laughable proposition that "income" means only corporate profit or corporate gain -- despite the fact that the income ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court to be income in that very case was NOT corporate profit or corporate gain.

Schiff argued these grounds for relief:

1. He claimed that his conviction for attempting to evade and defeat payment of tax for tax years 1979-1985, could not stand as a matter of law based upon the statutory requirement that a deficiency existed for each of the years at issue, arguing that because he filed no tax returns, there could be no deficiency.

2. He argued that the convicting court abused its discretion and violated constitutional due process by continuing to exercise jurisdiction for eleven months while his motions challenging jurisdiction were filed and awaiting the court’s disposition.

3. He argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal.

4. He argued that the government engaged in misconduct and misfeasance tantamount to jury tampering in violation of his right to due and fair process before a jury of his peers.

He asked for immediate release.

Result?

Schiff's petition was dismissed on June 25, 2015, for lack of jurisdiction.

See Schiff v. Chandler, case no. 15-cv-00454-Y, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Schiff states in his memo that he has lost all sight in his right eye, and that he has glaucoma that has caused substantial loss of vision in his left eye.

He is scheduled for release on July 26, 2017.

[Dr. Caligari]

He is scheduled for release on July 26, 2017.

Holy cow, he might actually make it. I was sure that he would die in prison this time. (Not wishing it on him, just surprised-- prison is not usually conducive to longevity.)

[JamesVincent]

He is scheduled for release on July 26, 2017.

Holy cow, he might actually make it. I was sure that he would die in prison this time. (Not wishing it on him, just surprised-- prison is not usually conducive to longevity.)

Neither is stupidity yet somehow he lingers on.

[The Observer]

...[P]rison is not usually conducive to longevity.

Neither is stupidity yet somehow he lingers on.

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." - Friedrich Nietzsche

[JamesVincent]

Friedrich Nietzsche

[Incomprehensibly inappropriate response deleted by LPC. Note: I hesitated to delete it only because it was such a non sequitur that I thought there must be some reason to it that I wasn't seeing. I finally decided I was wrong.]

[The Observer]

[Incomprehensibly inappropriate response deleted by LPC. Note: I hesitated to delete it only because it was such a non sequitur that I thought there must be some reason to it that I wasn't seeing. I finally decided I was wrong.]

It was a reference to a scene from "Blazing Saddles." So your inclination about there being a reason for it that you were not seeing was right.

[LPC]

[Incomprehensibly inappropriate response deleted by LPC. Note: I hesitated to delete it only because it was such a non sequitur that I thought there must be some reason to it that I wasn't seeing. I finally decided I was wrong.]

It was a reference to a scene from "Blazing Saddles." So your inclination about there being a reason for it that you were not seeing was right.

In which case I apologize for my misunderstanding.

But I think that, in the interests of decorum, and because of the likelihood that other, equally naive, readers, will misunderstand, we'll just leave it deleted.

[Demosthenes]

Schiff is not likely to make it until 2017. According to his son, he has lung cancer.

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

[wserra]

Now, let's see. Schiff hasn't asked for compassionate release. His son asks on Alex Jones' show, under the title "Son of Political Prisoner Speaks Out".

Really tugging at the heartstrings here.

[Demosthenes]

I wonder how much Schiff has cost taxpayers just in court costs. This list doesn't include his criminal and civil cases from the 1970s and 1980s, or the thousands of cases involving his clients.

[Demosthenes]

Now, let's see. Schiff hasn't asked for compassionate release. His son asks on Alex Jones' show, under the title "Son of Political Prisoner Speaks Out".

Really tugging at the heartstrings here.

His son didn't ask for a compassionate release. He demanded it in the name of patriotic righteousness, but Jones cut him off just as he was starting to call for a Revolution.

[The Observer]

Now, let's see. Schiff hasn't asked for compassionate release. His son asks on Alex Jones' show, under the title "Son of Political Prisoner Speaks Out".

Really tugging at the heartstrings here.

His son didn't ask for a compassionate release. He demanded it in the name of patriotic righteousness, but Jones cut him off just as he was starting to call for a Revolution.

While in most situations, I would support a compassionate release for a dying non-violent felon, I simply cannot support such a request for Schiff. I recall reading testimony in his trial where a widow told the court that she and her terminally ill husband (he had cancer) had requested Schiff to refund the monies they had given him for his worthless de-tax packages; the resulting tax mess that was triggered by following his worthless tripe had taken all of their money, leaving her husband without adequate medical care. And as one can guess, Schiff declined to refund the money.

You might suppose that is the reason that I won't support compassionate release for Schiff. But you would be wrong. Even then, I would be willing to tolerate the lack of compassion that he showed. It is what happened following that testimony of that widow that fails to elicit any sympathy from me for Schiff's situation. At that point, Schiff was observed to be laughing and smirking at her testimony. In short, Schiff proved to me that he had no empathy and no compassion for her and her husbands' situation, as well as no remorse for his responsibility for getting them into that mess. There is a bit of ironic justice that it is now Schiff that is facing a similar terminal disease, and not having the resources or the ability to deal with it.

[notorial dissent]

Schiff was and still is a liar, a fraud, and a conman. I have never seen any indication that he has ever been concerned about any one or thing but himself. His ego is paramount and everything else doesn't matter. He has worked long and hard to get where he is, I see no good reason to deny him the fruits of his labors.

[noblepa]

There is a bit of ironic justice that it is now Schiff that is facing a similar terminal disease, and not having the resources or the ability to deal with it.

Actually, Schiff IS getting health care. Granted, the care given in federal prison is probably not the absolute best there is, but it is free. Why not let him out and make him or his family pay for his health care?

[Famspear]

My impression is that Schiff has always known that what he was doing was both immoral and illegal, his pseudo-self-righteous claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

For example, in one of his cases, the Court noted that the prosecutors introduced evidence that Schiff used banks in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes, and that Schiff used -- and recommended that others use -- special pens with nonreproducible ink to thwart IRS attempts to photocopy financial records. See United States v. Schiff, 801 F.2d 108 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 945 (1987).

In another case involving Schiff, the Court noted:

If Schiff's knowing marketing of his tax scheme were not enough, he also falsely and perversely tries to allay his customers' reasonable fears of the civil or criminal consequences for following his tax advice. On Schiff's publicly posted online bulletin board, a customer involved in legal proceedings expressed fear of the loss of her home and prison for following Schiff's counsel. Schiff responded that "[n]o one is going to prison or is even being charged criminally.... You need to be studying my material and finding a better confidence level. If you did that, you would not be so afraid!"

--from United States v. Schiff, 269 F.Supp.2d 1262 (D. Nev. 2003).

I am guessing that Schiff did not have an online bulletin board until about 1994 or thereafter at the earliest -- when the internet became readily available to the general public. Yet, by the 1990s, Schiff himself had already spent two terms in federal prison for using his scheme (in the 1970s and 1980s).

[Famspear]

And here is a list of some of the people who have spent time in federal prison for using Schiff's tax scheme.

1. Warren J. Burdett; United States v. Burdett, 962 F.2d 228 (2d Cir. 1992); Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate # 37866-053, released on August 13, 1993.

2. and 3. Christopher and Pamela Harrison; mentioned in Harrison v. Internal Revenue Serv. (In re Harrison), 91-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,078 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1991); Christopher Harrison, Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate # 01338-027, released on October 31, 1984; Pamela Harrison, Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate # 01337-027, released on October 31, 1984.

4. Scott D. Haynes; Two sets of convictions: for tax evasion in the 1998 case of United States v. Haynes, case no. 2:98-cr-00082-WFN-1, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington (Spokane Div.); and for failure to file or failure to pay tax in the 2010 case of United States v. Haynes, case no. 2:10-cr-00034-JLQ-2, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington (Spokane Div.); Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate # 09258-085, incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary at Atwater, California, released on May 16, 2013.

5. Kenneth Heath; United States v. Heath, 525 F.3d 451 (6th Cir. 2008); Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate # 40858-039, released on October 6, 2008.

6. Joseph Letscher; United States v. Letscher, 83 F. Supp. 2d 367 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate # 30328-054, released on December 11, 1995.

7. David Middleton; United States v. Middleton, 246 F.3d 825 (6th Cir. 2001); Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate # 53258-060, released on November 5, 2001.

8. Robert L. Mosel; United States v. Mosel, 738 F.2d 157 (6th Cir. 1984) (per curiam); Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate # 60727-061, released on November 15, 1984.

9. James C. Payne; United States v. Payne, 978 F.2d 1177 (10th Cir. 1992), ''cert. denied'', 508 U.S. 950, 113 S.Ct. 2441, 124 L.Ed.2d 659 (1993); Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate # 04491-091, released on December 11, 1992.

10. David G. Pflum; United States v. Pflum, 2005-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50,603 (10th Cir. 2005) (not for pub.); Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate # 14685-031, released on September 15, 2009.

11. Steven A. Swan; United States v. Swan, case no. 1:03-cr-00036-PB, jury verdict, docket entry 118, Feb. 12, 2004, U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire; Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate # 00259-049, released on October 23, 2009.

My suspicion is that Schiff was aware of many of these criminal cases. And, notice the dates on which these people were released from prison. Yet, Schiff is reported to have claimed that no one was going to prison or even being charged.

[The Observer]

Why not let him out and make him or his family pay for his health care?

Because that is what apparently Schiff and his family want - they want Schiff to be able to free to deal with his illness on his own. But that was also what his victims essentially asked Schiff to do for them by refunding their money - to give them the ability to pay for health care that they could not pay for due to Schiff's fraud. So please explain why Schiff should get the option that he denied to others?

[The Observer]

...Steven A. Swan; United States v. Swan...

Another fine moment of chutzpah from Schiff when he said called Swan an idiot for essentially believing that Schiff's theories were right.

[Demosthenes]

Now, let's see. Schiff hasn't asked for compassionate release. His son asks on Alex Jones' show, under the title "Son of Political Prisoner Speaks Out".

Really tugging at the heartstrings here.

His son didn't ask for a compassionate release. He demanded it in the name of patriotic righteousness, but Jones cut him off just as he was starting to call for a Revolution.

While in most situations, I would support a compassionate release for a dying non-violent felon, I simply cannot support such a request for Schiff. I recall reading testimony in his trial where a widow told the court that she and her terminally ill husband (he had cancer) had requested Schiff to refund the monies they had given him for his worthless de-tax packages; the resulting tax mess that was triggered by following his worthless tripe had taken all of their money, leaving her husband without adequate medical care. And as one can guess, Schiff declined to refund the money.

You might suppose that is the reason that I won't support compassionate release for Schiff. But you would be wrong. Even then, I would be willing to tolerate the lack of compassion that he showed. It is what happened following that testimony of that widow that fails to elicit any sympathy from me for Schiff's situation. At that point, Schiff was observed to be laughing and smirking at her testimony. In short, Schiff proved to me that he had no empathy and no compassion for her and her husbands' situation, as well as no remorse for his responsibility for getting them into that mess. There is a bit of ironic justice that it is now Schiff that is facing a similar terminal disease, and not having the resources or the ability to deal with it.

I had the same reaction. When I first read about the compassionate release demand, I went back and reviewed the trial testimony by that widow.

http://realtruth.biz/misc/irwin%20Schif ... l.%208.pdf

Starts on page 2031.

[webhick]

Starts on page 2031.

For those playing the home game: 2031 is actually 165, since the PDF is only 322 pages. You can either "goto" page 165 or do a find for 2031.