Schiff conviction upheld; law and justice ignored

Lady Justice was poked in the eye for Christmas when a 3 judge panel in San Fransisco, California upheld the convictions of Irwin Schiff and Cynthia Neun. Larry Cohen's conviction was reversed on a technicality, the sentence vacated, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

Judges Sidney Thomas, Richard Tallman, and Sandra Ikuta made no effort to appear neutral, referring to Cindy and Larry as being "acolytes" of Irwin's. In the 20+ page opinion written by Judge Tallman, the Court all but ignored the many issues raied by attorney Sheldon Waxman. See Court Hears Schiff Appeal. The Court could have easily reversed all convictions on a variety of grounds and still maintain the illusion of a mandatory income tax system. Instead, the majority of the opinion is devoted to Cohen's conviction on 1 count. The Court went on and on about how Judge Dawson erred in not allowing testimony and written report by Dr. Norton Roitman who concluded that Cohen suffered from "Narcissistic personality disorder" and "...did not intend to violate the law...".

The appeals court had the unmitigaed gall to use the Cheek case (498 U.S. 192, 201) in overturning Cohen's conviction but completely ignored it when it came to Schiff and Neun. In Cheek, the Supreme Court basically held that in order for one to be convicted of a tax crime, the violation of law must be willful. Schiff, Neun, and Cohen all correctly, and honestly believe that the federal income tax is voluntary but only Cohen's conviction was reversed? Schiff and Neun's alleged violations of law were not willful and so the Cheek case should also have been applied to them.

Apart from the reversal of Cohen's conviction, the only bright spot was the reversal of Schiff's convictions for contempt of court. Those convictions, like Cohen's, were reversed on a technicality. Nevermind the fact that Schiff was a pro se defendant and should have been given some leeway during the trial. The contempt convictions can still be reimposed by trial judge Kent Dawson if he files the contempt orders as reqired by F.R.C.P. 42(b); a rule he ingnored at post-trial sentencing.

The appeals court corrected an error made by Dawson. He had calculated that Irwin serve a total of 12 months for contempt. The appeals court rightfully notice that it should be 11 months.

See also: paynoincometax.com and Jim Davies' website