Schiff, Irwin

[Cathulhu]

Does display a certain frothing at the mouth...is Irwin's girlfriend out of jail yet?

[Judge Roy Bean]

...Anyway, the hate that posters here spew towards some harmless old guy they've never met, and towards someone who A. did nothing to them, and B. only exercised his 1st amendment rights, is downright sickening.

Harmless old guy? Any idea how many people he lured into the scheme who wound up paying far more than they would have had to?

And your contention smacks of letting the elderly commit crimes and not have to be punished.

You all should be ashamed of yourselves. An old man is being treated like a murderer, and has lost his life, just because he SAID some things that the irs doesn't want said.

No, Irwin is in prison for luring people into a scheme to avoid paying taxes.

What 1st amendment. You people clearly don't support freedom of speech. This was the only time in our history that the US "government" pretended to have the authority to ban a BOOK.

Wrong again. Publication of materials that are specifically designed to get other people to break the law has been and will be prosecuted, particularly when the author/promoter's scheme has been repeatedly proven to be illegal. "Here, let me show you how to get away with breaking the law" is not protected speech and you're conflating the meaning of the 1st amendment to suit your misguided argument.

I wish you people would drop your foaming at the mouth hatred towards Irwin Schiff and cheering at his awful and unjust prison sentence long enough to take notice of the evil tactics that the "government" had to use to send him to the gulag. Banning a book, in full opposition to the 1st amendment for one.

See above - and you're getting redundant.

And another desperate tactic of the "government" was telling Irwin he's not allowed to defend himself in court and then punishing him with "contempt" for merely quoting the constitution. The court essentially said "How DARE you defend yourself in this chinese sham court. As punishment for defending yourself we shall steal an extra year of your already diminishing life."

The court did not say that. Defendants must adhere to the rules of procedure. Attempting to make "evidence" out of specious theory won't fly.

How EVIL, and you people defend this and CHEER it. Yuck. None of this is defensible and you all avoid these facts and create some personal sounding hatred for Irwin. You people are disgusting. I don't see posts dealing with Irwin's legal arguments.

Then you're spouting off without doing any research. Schiff has been roundly and routinely proven to be a charlatan with utterly nonsensical theories that do not amount to 'legal arguments'.

I see posts where childish and evil people are cheering that a harmless man has had his life taken away for speaking. You all should be ashamed. I wouldn't even shake your hands if I met you in person. Would you people send your own grandfather to the federal gulag merely because he believed differently than you? And by the way, you people talk like you are irs employees, with the attitude that the U.S. federal "government" is wonderful and obeys the law, which it doesn't.

You people lie so much. Irwin is not a "denier" either. He always admitted the legality of the income tax, it was the definition of income that he told the truth about. He even said on many occasions that the U.S. code was actually our friend, but that the irs didn't obey it OR even their own regulations. You people cheer lawlessness, a dictatorship, and throwing a harmless old man in the gulag. You lack honor, basic honor, a sense of justice, and basic human decency.

You're getting the 'Department of Redundancy Department' award today.

Government will illegally do something awful to YOU people one day and you'll cry like stuck pigs. You'll whine and try to defend yourself to no avail as the judge ignores your every word and railroads you. You'll wonder why no one has sympathy for you. Irwin would have sympathy for you or anyone railroaded by criminal government because he's a kind man who never hurt anyone, even though you won't deserve anyone's sympathy when government turns it's fangs on you.

It must be miserable in your fantasy world; it will become more miserable when none of those things happen.

[The Observer]

Anyway, the hate that posters here spew towards some harmless old guy they've never met, and towards someone who A. did nothing to them, and B. only exercised his 1st amendment rights, is downright sickening. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. An old man is being treated like a murderer, and has lost his life, just because he SAID some things that the irs doesn't want said.

I have a recollection of testimony given in the trial by the widow of one of Irwin's "customers". The testimony basically showed that Irwin charged a lot of money for his "advice" or "information" on why his customer did not have to pay taxes, that this "information" or "advice" failed to work as Irwin promised it would, and caused the customer and his widow financial calamity, in terms of huge tax bills, penalties and interest. And while the customer was dying of terminal cancer, Irwin refused to refund the money he had charged for the bad "advice."

While the widow was giving this testimony in open court, Irwin smiled and laughed.

If anything is sickening, it is the picture of Irwin smirking at the thought of taking money from a dying man. Perhaps you should get your concept of what is sickening realigned.

[fortinbras]

Schiff is not by any stretch harmless. He's been a ruthless conman for decades and his current age is not atonement for his many crimes. He charged people enormous sums (which he did not refund) for "advice" which was, at best, useless and often wound up costing them (not him) so much more.

[wserra]

First, wow the password requirements for this site are ridiculous beyond belief. Really? Symbols are required in a password? Why? Upper AND lower case letters are required? Why? Seriously, why?

Because there have been a lot of attempts to gain brute force entry to the site. I've seen the logs.

only exercised his 1st amendment rights . . . he SAID some things that the irs doesn't want said. What 1st amendment. You people clearly don't support freedom of speech. This was the only time in our history that the US "government" pretended to have the authority to ban a BOOK. . . Banning a book, in full opposition to the 1st amendment for one.

You're obviously one of those folks who think that repetition enhances truth. It doesn't.

Nobody banned anything Schiff wrote. Go to Amazon and search. You can get anything he wrote there - or in lots of other places. I realize that accuracy isn't your strong suit, but the actual order only banned Schiff from selling his own snake oil. Such a ban no more violates the First Amendment than does a ban on advertising and selling extract of apricot pits (mainly arsenic, for those who care) as a cure for cancer. For that matter, Schiff could advocate his methods all he wanted - so long as he didn't sell them. That's why you can buy his books - just not from him - and that's what the First Amendment is about.

The rest of the post is equally false and equally a waste of time to try to refute to someone whose only ability to discuss consists of rant.

I don't see posts dealing with Irwin's legal arguments.

Then you didn't look very hard.

[notorial dissent]

Just as an aside, is there any kind of count as to just how many people's lives "that harmless old man" and his "first amendment rights" actually damaged or destroyed with his "advice"?

I think fortinbras pretty much has Schiff down to a tee. He isn't the least bit repentant or sorry for any of the harm he has done, and I am betting that given the chance, which mercifully I don't think he'll ever get, he'd go right back out and do it all over again.

[Famspear]

Just as an aside, is there any kind of count as to just how many people's lives "that harmless old man" and his "first amendment rights" actually damaged or destroyed with his "advice"?

I think fortinbras pretty much has Schiff down to a tee. He isn't the least bit repentant or sorry for any of the harm he has done, and I am betting that given the chance, which mercifully I don't think he'll ever get, he'd go right back out and do it all over again.

No telling. But here's a list of individuals who have been convicted of federal tax crimes after following Irwin Schiff.

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.

Christopher and Pamela Harrison: See generally 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[notorial dissent]

Ten too many in my opinion, and I am equally sure there are a good deal more who just haven't come up yet, or didn't make it to the tax courts and got hurt any way.

[Dezcad]

In his true conman fashion, this is how Schiff responded to Steven Swan's civil suit (a former client alleging fraud and deception in connection with the bogus tax advice that landed Swan in IRS trouble).

"If I told (Swan) to go rob a bank, would he do it? What is he, an idiot?"

[fortinbras]

Another of Schiff's excuses when he was sued by Steven Swan for his very bad advice was that, it was no secret - and certainly Swan knew - that Schiff had lost court cases and spent time in prison because of his tax scams, so Swan should have known better than to trust Schiff.

[Pottapaug1938]

Another of Schiff's excuses when he was sued by Steven Swan for his very bad advice was that, it was no secret - and certainly Swan knew - that Schiff had lost court cases and spent time in prison because of his tax scams, so Swan should have known better than to trust Schiff.

So Schiff was saying that he was pushing advice which he knew was criminally invalid and that people who relied on it all suffered loss of money and/or liberty? Boy, the chutzpah meter must have pegged hard when he let that one loose.

[notorial dissent]

So, in other words, and by Schiff's own words and admissions, he is an intentionally lying, sos, conartist, and everything he has done is nothing at all about first amendment rights, and everything about making dishonest money, and as much of it as possible, and that he has no remorse for anything he has knowingly done.

Yep, a real "harmless old man" there who is being persecuted for his beliefs. A real prince of humanity there.

[LPC]

I don't see posts dealing with Irwin's legal arguments.

If a madman stands on a street corner screaming that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it, and I don't take the time to deal with his "arguments," does that make them true, or reflect badly on me?

I'm not at the beck and call of every idiot with an Internet connection.

By my reckoning, Schiff probably has more published court decisions refuting his claims than any other person not in government office. A partial list can be found at http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/irwin-schiff

You people lie so much. Irwin is not a "denier" either. He always admitted the legality of the income tax, it was the definition of income that he told the truth about. He even said on many occasions that the U.S. code was actually our friend, but that the irs didn't obey it OR even their own regulations.

That's a common lie among what I might call the tax (or reality) impaired. They claim to support "the law" but lie about what "the law" means.

[Arthur Rubin]

Another of Schiff's excuses when he was sued by Steven Swan for his very bad advice was that, it was no secret - and certainly Swan knew - that Schiff had lost court cases and spent time in prison because of his tax scams, so Swan should have known better than to trust Schiff.

So Schiff was saying that he was pushing advice which he knew was criminally invalid and that people who relied on it all suffered loss of money and/or liberty? Boy, the chutzpah meter must have pegged hard when he let that one loose.

Not uncommon. A major bank creditor in a bankruptcy case (where I lost about $1100) was told "No rational person would have relied on the representations of the CFO [in regard a loan made to the company], so it couldn't be a fraudulent representation."

[The Observer]

And the 9th doesn't buy Irwin's claim that his counsel was ineffective in getting his mental problems admitted into evidence and appealing on that basis:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IRWIN SCHIFF,
Defendant - Appellant.

Release Date: NOVEMBER 07, 2013

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

D.C. No. 2:04-cr-00119-1-KJD

MEMORANDUM/*/

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent Dawson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted September 12, 2013
San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY, District Judge./**/

Federal prisoner Irwin Schiff appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. section 2255 motion challenging his jury conviction and 151-month sentence for conspiracy, aiding in the filing of false income tax returns, and failing to pay income tax. 1 A jury convicted Schiff and two co-defendants after a 23-day trial at which Schiff represented himself.

Schiff claims his appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising a number of issues on direct appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 2255, review the district court's denial de novo, and affirm.

A claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is subject to the two-prong standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 285 (2000). A defendant "must first show that his counsel was objectively unreasonable," meaning, in the appellate context, that "counsel unreasonably failed to discover nonfrivolous issues and to file a merits brief raising them," id., or "failed to raise a particular claim" in the merits brief. Id. at 288. Second, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel's errors prejudiced him. Id. at 285. That is, he "must show a reasonable probability that, but for his counsel's unreasonable failure . . . he would have prevailed on his appeal." Id.

1. Schiff's argument, that appellate counsel was ineffective for not appealing the district court's exclusion of evidence of his bipolar disorder, fails. Schiff's claim regarding the exclusion of mental health evidence is similar to one raised by codefendant Cohen on direct appeal, and which formed the basis for this Court reversing Cohen's conviction and remanding for a new trial. United States v. Cohen, 510 F.3d 1114, 1123-27 (9th Cir. 2007). But Schiff and Cohen were situated very differently with respect to knowledge about the validity of their beliefs. Even assuming Schiff's appellate counsel was ineffective, Schiff cannot demonstrate that he was harmed by counsel's failure to raise this issue on appeal.

In Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 201 (1991), the Court distinguished between "innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code," as opposed to positions that "reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable." Id. at 205. With regard to the second category, the Court held that "a defendant's views about the validity of the tax statutes are irrelevant to the issue of willfulness." Id. at 206.

On direct appeal, this Court characterized the evidence against Schiff as "overwhelming, particularly the evidence that he intended to deceive the government through the use of zero returns." United States v. Cohen, 262 F. App'x 14, 16 (9th Cir. 2007). The overwhelming evidence at trial was that Schiff was aware his claimed beliefs lacked merit and that he simply disagreed with the law. Schiff had previously been punished for filing zero returns. He knew that numerous tax returns submitted by his clients had been returned as frivolous by the IRS and had resulted in penalties upheld by courts. He also knew his positions regarding tax law were rejected in every court to consider them.

Trial testimony also showed that, knowing his beliefs and activities did not comport with tax law, Schiff counseled his clients to undertake affirmative acts of misrepresentation. Schiff engaged in evasive conduct too -- after his bank account was levied upon by the IRS, he opened bank accounts under false taxpayer identification numbers and avoided IRS seizure of his vehicle by titling it in a friend's name.

Given the extensive evidence that Schiff knew his views of the tax law were incorrect, he cannot establish that his Cheek good-faith defense was prejudiced by counsel's decision not to raise on direct appeal the district court's suppression of evidence of his bipolar disorder.

2. Schiff's counsel was not ineffective for choosing not to appeal the district court's exclusion of certain testimony seeking to confirm Schiff's own beliefs that the tax laws are invalid and unenforceable. Counsel could have reasonably concluded that evidence was irrelevant to the issue of willfulness. Cheek, 498 U.S. at 206 ("[A] defendant's views about the validity of the tax statutes are irrelevant to the issue of willfulness."). In addition, Schiff failed to lay a foundation as to how the actions of certain witnesses might have formed the basis of beliefs Schiff allegedly held about offshore assets.

3. Schiff next contends appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing on direct appeal that the district court erred when it excluded certain legal materials during trial. This claim fails as well. Schiff has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the exclusion of an article from the Journal of Taxation, which was not relevant to Schiff's alleged beliefs, or two Supreme Court cases, which were likely to mislead and confuse the jury. See United States v. Powell, 955 F.2d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir. 1992). And the district court never prohibited Schiff from reading a statute; it merely told him he must identify any document from which he was going to read during his testimony.

4. Finally, appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to appeal the district court's refusal to admit into evidence The Great Tax Hoax, a book Schiff authored which explains how he reached his beliefs about tax laws, and a 3 1/2-hour tape of a video seminar in which Schiff explains his beliefs. The book and video contained misstatements of the law and would have served to confuse the jury and waste its time. See Powell, 955 F.2d at 1214 (holding a court may exclude testimony or evidence containing misstatements of the law); Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 85 F.3d 1394, 1400 (9th Cir. 1996) (finding district court properly refused to admit into evidence excerpts of book because jury cannot be expected to read a whole book, and excerpts would be time consuming, misleading, and confusing). Further, Schiff was able to testify at trial about the basis for his beliefs; providing the jury with a written summary and video of his beliefs would only serve to repeat his testimony.

AFFIRMED.

//*//

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


//**//

The Honorable Jack Zouhary, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.


FOOTNOTES:

/1/ The district court also sentenced Schiff to eleven months of incarceration in connection with contempt charges for Schiff's behavior during trial.

[JamesVincent]

"In summary, you are not a whackjob, just an idiot and we fully believe you did this to yourself."

[fortinbras]

It's interesting that Schiff is appealing with the simultaneous arguments of (1) I'm crazy and (2) I'm really right about the tax laws.

[Number Six]

Forbes has this article with the son going to bat for the old man:

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

[Prof]

See also
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/1 ... f=business

An article about Schiff and his concerns that Wal-Mart might raise its wages. Charming man.

[notorial dissent]

It's obviously a dominant genetic trait in that family.