Should Waxman be Sanctioned?

[Truthstalker]

Sheldon seems like a nice enough guy to me...but what do I know, I'm just an old tire-kickin' strut-wiper.

IN THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


UNITED STATES,
Plaintiff-Appellee


v. Nos. 06-10199, consolidated
with
06-10145 and 06-10201
IRWIN SCHIFF,
Defendant-Appellant


ANSWER TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND MOTION TO VACATE AND
DISMISS SAID ORDER

Now comes Sheldon R. Waxman, an attorney appearing pro se and answers the
Order to Show Cause (hereafter, “OTSC”), and moves that it be vacated for the following
reasons:

INTRODUCTION

Counsel did not file Schiff’s Original Appeal, nor did he file Schiff’s Opening
Brief. Schiff’s previous counsel, Michael Nash, who Schiff discharged on June 20, 2007,
did that. Counsel filed his Appearance as Schiff’s attorney on June 25, 2007. On July 30,
Counsel presented a Motion for Leave to File a Supplement To Schiff’s Opening Brief
(hereafter, “Motion”). The Motion was denied by OTSC dated, September 25, 2007, and
the Supplement To Schiff’s Opening Brief (hereafter, “Supplement”) would not be
considered by the Court.

The Court incorporated into the OTSC of September 25th, issued sua sponte, an
allegation that Counsel should show cause why he should not be sanctioned “for
attempting to raise frivolous issues on appeal by signing the Supplemental Brief and
supporting motion”. A Deputy Clerk, on behalf of the Panel, signed the Order.
The OTSC part of the Order stated, among other things, that the Supplement was
“frivolous” in its entirety. The OTSC did not assign any specific part or parts of the
Supplement that it considered frivolous but only that it was frivolous in its entirety
because of two cited cases (In Re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989) and McConnell v.
Critchlow, 661 F.2d 116, 118 (9th Cir. 1981) and, also, because of the court’s authority to
issue sanctions, pursuant to Rule 38 of the FRAP. See, Copy of OTSC attached hereto, as
Ex. F. This Answer proposes to provide reasons why this Court should not sanction
Counsel.

Read More Here

[Truthstalker]

Deny the motion, give Waxman a stern warning, which includes in no uncertain terms that if he revisits the sam issues again, it will result in sanctions, big ones to boot.

He was threatening the Court with surface-to-air missiles?

[Demosthenes]

That is a whoppin' fun read, Truthstalker.

[LPC]

Waxman's most ridiculous threat:

Whether Counsel is sanctioned or not, he will request the Clerk after Oral Argument to strike his name from role of Attorneys in this Circuit. Counsel does not wish to practice before a Court that would threaten the imposition of sanctions on him under the circumstances of this case.

That'll teach them!

And I'd like to see the motion that resulted in the order to show cause. Do you have a copy, TruthStalker?

[Imalawman]

And I'd like to see the motion that resulted in the order to show cause. Do you have a copy, TruthStalker?

I'd like to see it as well. I think that Mr. Waxman is missing the point here. He assumes that his supplemental brief was meritorious and therefore he is being punished for merely being associated with Mr. Schiff. I do not think that is the case. This filing does not bode well for his supplemental brief having any merit at all.

[LPC]

This filing does not bode well for his supplemental brief having any merit at all.

Whether or not he was going to be sanctioned for the supplemental brief might now be moot, because the 9th Circuit might sanction him for his answer to the order to show cause.

For example, the reference to German Nazis might not go down well at all.

[Demosthenes]

I'm shocked that he's sponging off the system he's fighting. Shocked, I tell you...

Counsel has served as a CJA attorney both in Chicago and Grand Rapids. He now represents indigent defendants as a Court appointed attorney. His remuneration is minimal, as would be verified by the 3 IRS audits in the past 5 years, the results of which were that each time money was refunded to him. Counsel mostly survives on Social Security retirement, his wife’s Social Security Disability, slim book sales, and, therefore cannot afford to pay any large sanction against him.

And yet,

To sanction Counsel would be a blot on the American Justice System. Tax Protestors are not greedy people who do not want to pay their “fair share”. They are ordinary Americans who feel that their country has become an Empire and they chose the tax protest as their way of protesting Big Government.

Uh, Mr. Waxman, taxes are what pay your CJA salary, your SS, and your wife's SSDI income...

[Imalawman]

This filing does not bode well for his supplemental brief having any merit at all.

Whether or not he was going to be sanctioned for the supplemental brief might now be moot, because the 9th Circuit might sanction him for his answer to the order to show cause.

For example, the reference to German Nazis might not go down well at all.

I could see Koscinski doing something like that and granting him his wish of revoking his privileges to practice in the 9th circuit.

[Truthstalker]

LPC asks:

And I'd like to see the motion that resulted in the order to show cause. Do you have a copy, TruthStalker?

No, that's all there was on Schiff's site. I found it really interesting. Waxman seems to have what Joos call "chutz-pa" or is it "hoot-spa?"

I also found this:

[LPC]

I'm shocked that he's sponging off the system he's fighting. Shocked, I tell you...

Counsel mostly survives on Social Security retirement, his wife’s Social Security Disability, slim book sales, and, therefore cannot afford to pay any large sanction against him.

And yet,

To sanction Counsel would be a blot on the American Justice System. Tax Protestors are not greedy people who do not want to pay their “fair share”. They are ordinary Americans who feel that their country has become an Empire and they chose the tax protest as their way of protesting Big Government.

Uh, Mr. Waxman, taxes are what pay your CJA salary, your SS, and your wife's SSDI income...

Yes, and it is only by supporting Sheldon Waxman that you can help fight the forces that make Sheldon Waxman possible.

And why do I feel like I'm quoting Firesign Theater?

[The Observer]

My nearby Supplemental Appeals..."

Nearby? Is Irwin suggesting that his previous appeals failed because they were too far away from him?

[The appeals] also provide information that will help all those being harassed by the IRS...

Given the fact that Irwin is 0 for infinity, I'm not sure what he means by "help."

If you feel [the appeals] conclusions are justified, write the 9th Circuit...

And again Irwin unwittingly admits that he knows that his arguments don't hold legal water, so he resorts to trying to influence the courts through public opinon. Well, I think he picked the worst court possible for that tactic...