Irwin Schiff Petitions for Cert

[Joey Smith]

Newly added the following as of August 20, 2007

I have petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari in connection with the 9th Circuit’s sustaining the $2.6 million summary judgment Judge Pro awarded to the Federal government.

If the Supreme Court can allow that appellate decision to stand in the face of all the laws and Constitutional provisions that decision violated, then the Supreme Court will have conceded that the U.S. is nothing more than a big banana republic where laws and constitutional rights mean nothing to our courts, including the Supreme Court.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Can district and appellate courts attribute taxable income to individuals even when they

have been provided with proof that they have received no taxable income as a matter of

law?



2. Are federal courts free to attribute tax liabilities to individuals even when no statute exists

that establishes the tax liability in question?



3. Can federal courts require the public to pay a tax which is not authorized by any of the

Constitution’s three taxing clauses?



4. Can federal courts subject the public to the authority of federal employees even

for more go to......http://www.paynoincometax.com/

[Judge Roy Bean]

Almost, but not quite sad.

Those eloquent questions are destined to stymie the entire panel.

[grixit]

1. Can district and appellate courts attribute taxable income to individuals even when they have been provided with proof that they have received no taxable income as a matter of law?

No. But that has not happened in this case.

2. Are federal courts free to attribute tax liabilities to individuals even when no statute exists that establishes the tax liability in question?

No. But that has not happened in this case.

3. Can federal courts require the public to pay a tax which is not authorized by any of the Constitution’s three taxing clauses?

No. But that has not happened in this case.

4. Can federal courts subject the public to the authority of federal employees even

No, but they can recognize when a given member of the public is already subject to the law even.

(Is Snagglepus writing his briefs now?)

[grammarian44]

Regarding Question #1: It may not make it to the desk of an actual Supreme Court clerk. Their time is pretty valuable. If it does, it will be passed around for giggles, but no one will admit it.

Regarding #2: After cert is denied, case closed. Apoplexy is all that's left.

Regarding #3: The USSC does not look only at "things of a constitutional nature." Many--probably most--Supreme Court cases do not interpret or apply the Constitution. The USSC can look at cases involving statutory interpretation, especially where different Circuit Courts have drawn inconsistent conclusions about what the statute means. They are free to look at any appeal from the circuits that they wish; it's just that they seldom grant cert unless the lower court got it clearly wrong, they are in the mood to change their minds about what they ruled in the past (e.g., Brown v. Board), or the circuits disagree. That being said, there is not a ghost of a chance Schiff will be granted cert.

Regarding #4. I don't know the rule on sanctions, but the court will get rid of his case with very little effort and in the way they get rid of most cases--by denying cert in a one page pro-forma statement. Because he hasn't really wasted their time, they would probably not sua sponte propose sanctions.

[notorial dissent]

Almost, but not quite sad.

Those eloquent questions are destined to stymie the entire panel.

Oh, for all of about thirty seconds while they try and keep from lauging out loud and then finally give in to it.

And why on earth would the SC grant cert when there is nothing in question, other than Schiff's sanity?

Anyone care to guess on how long it will take for cert denial to come back?

As to "sua sponte sanctions" maybe they would care to make an exception for old "Shifty" since he is such a maligned individual.

[LPC]

Regarding Question #1: It may not make it to the desk of an actual Supreme Court clerk.

Who is going to look at the petition if not a clerk?

The problem with the petition is that the "issues presented" are so vague that it is not immediately apparent whether Schiff is incoherent or incompetent. Are there real issues badly described, or no real issues at all?

For example, the first "issue presented" was "1. Can district and appellate courts attribute taxable income to individuals even when they have been provided with proof that they have received no taxable income as a matter of law?" We know that Schiff is incompetent and his "issue" is a delusion, but the question presented is so vague that the clerk reviewing the petition will not know what Schiff is thinking without looking further at the brief.

If Schiff had stated the issue precisely and coherently, such as "Does the federal income tax apply to persons who are not government employees and have no corporate profit or other "income" within the meaning of the 16th Amendment?", then the clerk can toss the petition immediately.

But as vague as it is, it should still take a good clerk no more than a few minutes to realize that it's crap.

Another point worth remembering is that the Supreme Court does NOT take time to correct mistakes by lower courts. In order to convince the court to take a case, you have to convince them that the issue is important. The easiest way to do that is to show that there is a split in the Circuits, so the law is being applied inconsistently. By using the word "proof" in his issue, Schiff suggests that the issue is factual, which is almost certain to be denied.

Finally, I very much doubt that the petition will be circulated for "giggles." The Supreme Court gets so much crap from prisoners and other pro se litigants that the clerks are used to a lot of weirdness. Without knowing who Schiff is (which they won't) and without caring much about federal tax issues (which they also won't), I doubt that the clerk that reviews it will give it more than a few minutes of attention before tossing it into the pile with the other crackpots.

Regarding #3: The USSC does not look only at "things of a constitutional nature." Many--probably most--Supreme Court cases do not interpret or apply the Constitution.

I read recently that about two thirds of cases before the Supreme Court are issues of statutory interpretation or procedural issues, not constitutional. Which means that Supreme Court rulings can be over-ruled by Congress, which often happens.

For example, one of the notable cases of the last term was a decision restricting the ability of employees to sue for employment discrimination by strictly construing the statute of limitations on those claims. There is a bill now moving through Congress that would amend the statute to change that result.

Another example that is germane to this forum is the Paperwork Reduction Act, and tax protesters frequently cite the Dole v. Steelworkers decision for the proposition that the PRA applies to tax returns. I was surprised to learn that the actual issue decided by the Supreme Court in that case, which was whether the PRA applied to information required to be given to third parties and not the government, was reversed by Congress in later amendments to the PRA. So the actual holding in the case is no longer good law.

Regarding #4. I don't know the rule on sanctions, but the court will get rid of his case with very little effort and in the way they get rid of most cases--by denying cert in a one page pro-forma statement.

Someone (Wes?) once cited an order in which the court directed that one particular nuisance would not be allowed to file any more petitions with the court without prior approval. What was interesting was that Stevens dissented. His reasoning was that it was so easy to deny cert. that there was no reason to impose such an order. In fact, enforcing the order might be more time-consuming than simply continuing to deny cert.

Anyway, I have never heard of the Supreme Court ever sanctioning anyone for anything.

[Imalawman]

I have a few questions which people here may or may not know the answer to:

1. How do the clerks at the USSC react when something like Schiff's request gets dropped in their in box? And does it get passed around for laughs and giggles?

Just curious

The crazy filings are screened by legal secretaries and the like and so they are processed pretty quickly by the clerks. A scant few of them are passed around for laughs, but they have to be more crazy then schiff's. They get quite a bit of crazy stuff and it takes a lot to warrant any discussion. Mainly its a bother to their already busy schedule. A lot of times, the form is wrong and they first send notice of a procedural error and how to fix it. Then when its fixed, a denial of cert. is issued. All in all, a total waste of time and rather vexing.

(according to a supreme court clerk who just finished his tour)

[.]

I read The Brethren in about 1981 and while it made reference to a lot of meritless inmate scribblings, mostly about prison conditions, TPs were apparently not yet extant in the universe of incoherent USSC filings.

Schiffty will get two words out of them. Cert denied.

[Kimokeo]

Let's all assume the Supreme Court hears the case.
They just might for their own laughs.

Now, let's give this full attention in the highest court and place all the issues on the table.

After the Justices finish the case and rule against it all, I have but one question.

Has the Supreme Court ever sanctioned someone for frivolous arguments?

[Judge Roy Bean]

SCOTUS is more than welcome to a three-minute PowerPoint presentation on the efficacy of the cattle prod.

Thus far, they have not availed themselves.

We are all diminished as a result.

[notorial dissent]

And truly a pity.

[LPC]

Supreme Court denied cert. today in No. 07-5812.

[grammarian44]

If the Supreme Court can allow that appellate decision to stand in the face of all the laws and Constitutional provisions that decision violated, then the Supreme Court will have conceded that the U.S. is nothing more than a big banana republic where laws and constitutional rights mean nothing to our courts, including the Supreme Court.

Because he knew all along he would lose, Schiff's only reason for filing the appeal in the first place was so that he could point to a denial of cert. to justify the above conclusion.

On an emotional level, denial of cert. is a victory.

[Demosthenes]

As an aside, it looks like Irwin has been moved from Fort Dix to Lewisburg, PA.

Name Register Number Age Race Sex Release Date Location

IRWIN A SCHIFF 08537-014 79 White M 10-07-2016 LEWISBURG USP

[The Observer]

But that is all TP "victories" boil down to: a series of self-proclaimed moral victories that had nothing to do with the original reason they brought suit in the first place.

[grixit]

As an aside, it looks like Irwin has been moved from Fort Dix to Lewisburg, PA.

Name Register Number Age Race Sex Release Date Location

IRWIN A SCHIFF 08537-014 79 White M 10-07-2016 LEWISBURG USP

Pity he couldn't be moved to Leavenworth, that would really boost his martyr cred.

[LPC]

But that is all TP "victories" boil down to: a series of self-proclaimed moral victories that had nothing to do with the original reason they brought suit in the first place.

There are, I think, at least four different kinds of tax denier legal "victories":

1. Unmistakeable (and unspinnable) losses which "prove" that the system is corrupt and are therefore claimed as "moral victories." (This is the kind of victory that Schiff proclaimed above.)

2. Confused juries (or poor prosecutions) resulting in not guilty verdicts in criminal trials for lack of "willfulness," as well as the occasional screw-up by the IRS (or even judges) in civil cases.

3. Actual wins on procedural or other issues unrelated to the validity of the tax laws.

4. Losses that are claimed as wins by mis-reading the court's opinion. (I'm thinking here of Schulz's "win" when his petition to quash a summons against him was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.)

[LPC]

Adding insult to injury, Tax Analysts have reported today in Tax Notes Today that the Supreme Court denied cert. in nine tax cases, but the articles doesn't even mention Schiff.

How quickly they forget.