Talk:Irwin Schiff/Archive 1

Archive 1

To the police state censor/editor

I have replaced the link to Irwin Schiff's site, because even though you may believe that "Schiff's web site should not be added to Wikipedia," readers should have the right to decide for themselves. Wikipedia is not comprised of only what Mateo SA believes should be seen. Perhaps you think the First Amendment is "a disservice to Wikipedia's readers." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.171.243.115 (talk • contribs) 30 September 2005 23:37.

With some reluctance, I have mentioned Schiff's site in the article, but without linking to it directly. Linking to it directly would increase Schiff's Google rank. — Mateo SA | talk 21:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

An article about Irwin Schiff should have a link to Irwin Schiff's site. The man should be allowed to speak for himself. Readers should be allowed to decide for themselves if Schiff's arguments have any merit or not. I'm sorry that you're afraid that someone with an opinion other than yours might be ranked higher in Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.243.115 (talk • contribs) on 1 October 2005.

I'm no tax protester, but I believe Wikipedia's job is not to protect readers from resources (the link mentioned above) germane to a subject -- especially with the implied purpose of preventing readers from coming to their own wrong conclusions. That's the primary reason Wikipedia is so popular, and censoring content based on protecting people from seeing something that might be dangerous... well, sounds kinda like Big Brother..., like it or not. -- My two cents as a taxpaying U.S. citizen not the least bit interested in playing tax roulette.. 11:31 ET March 11, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.118.76 (talk • contribs) (11 March 2007)

To MateoSA

Perhaps I was a little too emotional. I do thank you for putting the link up. However, you are correct that anyone can simply search for his website, and if it brings "heat" on Wikidpedia (or anyone else), I certainly don't want that.

Yes, Irwin Schiff has gone to jail in the past for "applying" his research of the law. He is actually fighting some charges now. But, consider this: This country was created by people who broke laws because they were unjust.

However, this movment isn't even about that. The laws enacted by Congress regarding taxation ARE just and perfectly Constitutional. I really do recommend to read his book (if you can get it), and look at his research. He simply rips the law (and Supreme Court decisions) right out of the Internal Revenue Code to back his claims. It's really quite a learning experience and an eye-opener.

In NO WAY do I recommend anyone to do what Schiff is doing. However, do some Google searches, read the different points of view on this subject. Read especailly on how judges deal with cases like this. I think you will be in for a shock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.127.124.141 (talk • contribs) on 11 October 2005.

• Sir, you're being taken for a ride if you think the President (who appoints all federal judges) and the Congress (which approves all federal judges) are not foursquare behind the application of the law as carried out by their appointees. They may sqwauk about the judiciary as cover for the unpopularity of the taxes, but the law is applied exactly as they intend it to be, and they could change it in a minute if it wasn't (see the Palm Sunday Compromise for evidence of how quickly Congress can change the law to react to a political opportunity, but note also that said legislation was intentionally made toothless, so it wouldn't change a thing, but again the courts could be blamed). The fact is, Congress is on such a spending binge that they need your tax dollars like a heroin drip, and they're going to do nothing to impede their supply.  BD2412 ^talk 20:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

To MateoSA

I understand that you only want one side of the story presented. I will continue to present the other side regardless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.243.115 (talk • contribs) on 4 November 2005.

• And I intend to see that all sides are presented with a neutral point of view based on properly sourced fact. BD2412 T 22:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Tax Honesty vs. Tax Protester

In a recent edit, BD2412 changed the phrase "tax honesty movement" to "tax protest movement" saying, "("tax honesty movement" is inherently POV, as it suggests that other views are dishonest; "tax protester movement" is NPOV, as it simply describes participants as being in protest, without judging)". The Tax Honesty movement refers to itself as the Tax Honesty movement. It is rude and degrading to refer a group (racial, political, etc) by something other than what it uses to refer to itself. For example, African Americans refer to themselves as African Americans. Let's try BD2412's statement with what African Americans call themselves; ("African American" is inherently POV, as it suggests that so-called African Americans were born in Africa; "negro" is NPOV, as it is the Latin word for "black" and simply describes members of the group as being black, without judging). I challenge BD2412 to try changing the title of the article African American using his POV justification, and see if he gets a warm reception.

"Tax protester" is a degrading and insulting political epithet. The IRS always prepends the word "illegal" to the word "tax protester", as if anyone speaking out against the income tax is of course doing something illegal. Worse, the implication is that the tax protester's very existence is illegal. This makes the "tax protester" seem less than human. Sympathizers of goverment tyranny typically try to de-humanize their enemies. For example, it's much easier for some to accept 30,000 dead Iraqis (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) if there is a subconcious sentiment which says, "it's okay, they were just ragheads". Similarly, it's much easier to jail and torture a 77 year-old man for 43 years (http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update2005-10-31.htm) by saying, "it's okay, he's just an illegal tax protester".

Beyond politeness, there is another reason that the tax honesty movement should be referred to as the tax honesty movement, and that is because the tax honesty movement is not protesting. First, the tax laws as written are constitutional. Therefore, the tax honesty movement does not protest them. The tax laws are being misapplied however, and this requires honesty with the public. Second, the tax honesty movement learned long ago that the federal government ignores petitions for redress of grievances even if they have hundreds of thousands of signatures on them, the First Amendment notwithstanding. Protest is useless. To say that even though the tax honesty movement does not protest, you'll just call them protesters anyway is like saying that even though Muslims say it's insulting to call them Mohammedans, you'll just call them that anyway.

From now on, I will refer to the tax honesty movement as the tax honesty movement in the article which I created (Irwin Schiff). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.243.115 (talk • contribs) on 9 November 2005.

• Whether you created the article is not relevant to the term being used. The contention that the tax laws are "are being misapplied" is a matter of opinion based on differing interpretations of the tax laws. To suggest that an interpretation other than your own is dishonest (which is the natural consequence of labeling your own view the "honesty" view) presents a POV which does not belong in an encyclopedia. After all, people who believe that they have an obligation to pay for the services the government provides, and actually do pay for those services instead of seeking ways to shelter or hide their wealth from the government, could also claim to be participating in a "tax honesty" movement. "Tax protester" is correct, whether you are protesting the constitutionality of the law, or protesting the application. However, if you insist on using the term "tax honesty", I will insist on neutralizing the POV inherent in the term by explaining that it is a self-applied label. BD2412 T 03:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Let me try to explain this again. The Republican Party refers to itself as the Republican Party. The contention that they support a constitutional republic is a matter of opinion; however, if you change the name of the Republican Party to the Big Fat Elephants, you will be in error. The Democratic Party refers to itself as the Democratic Party. The contention that they support democracy is a matter of opinion; however, if you change the name of the Democratic Party to the Jackasses, you will be in error. The African Americans refer to themselves as African Americans. This suggests that other Americans are not African; however, if you change the name of the African Americans to Negroes, you will be in error. Shall I continue? The Tax Honesty movement refers to itself as the Tax Honesty movement. This suggests that tax authorities are being dishonest; however, if you change the name of the tax honesty movement to the tax protesters, you will be in error. I do insist on using the term "tax honesty", and you may neutralize POV as you see fit. You might also neutralize the POV inherent in the term "Department of Justice"; it implies that they are just. --Metarob [comments added by user at IP 69.171.243.115 on 9 November 2005]

• • You'll notice, I hope, that I've left both terms in the article. Your analogies err in failing to note that it is not I, but the government that has chosen the label "tax protester". If members of Al Queda call themselves "freedom fighters", and the government labels them "terrorists", is it POV to call them something other than what they call themselves? BD2412 T 04:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I noticed; thank you. Hmm ... good point. I think I'd include both terms in that case as well. As a matter of fact, the government has called Al Qaeda "freedom fighters" (See sixth paragraph: www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/Sept05/240905invasion.htm) --Metarob [comments added by user at IP 69.171.243.115 on 10 November 2005] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.243.115 (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Reversion of massive infusion of non-neutral POV, non-Verifiable contentions

Dear fellow editors: I have removed the following verbiage inserted on 31 March 2006, as explained below:

At the time, The Law Review Journal published an extensive article showing Schiff was correct in his assertions.

Explanation: Non-neutral POV (Wikipedia is not here to "show Schiff was correct"), and there’s no citation to the "article" in the "Law Review Journal" (in other words, not Verifiable).

Despite having spent four years in prison, Schiff continued his tax protest related activity because he truly believes what he has researched for the majority of his adult life. He has been referred to as the Nations Authority on the income tax and the Nations #1 seller of the Internal Revenue Code Manual.

Explanation, regarding the bolded material: The statement that Schiff "truly believes what he has researched" etc., may or may not be true. However, the statement is non-neutral POV and is unverified. Same problem for the statement that Schiff "has been referred to as the Nations Authority on the income tax and the Nations #1 seller of the Internal Revenue Code Manual."

In June of 2004, a Federal court ruled that Schiff was liable for over $2 million in taxes, penalties and interest for the years 1979 through 1985(Which appears to be Double Jeopardy).

Explanation regarding the bolded verbiage: Unverifiable statement. The ruling "appears" to be "double jeopardy" -- to whom? "Double jeopardy" is a criminal law concept. There is no such thing as "double jeopardy" with respect to civil tax matters (determination of tax, penalty and interest). In this regard, read the following excerpt from the Justice Department’s press release:

The Department of Justice announced today [June 17, 2004] that on June 14, 2004, a federal court in Las Vegas ruled that Irwin A. Schiff [ . . . ]is liable for over $2 million in individual income tax liabilities and related interest and penalties, in civil litigation brought by the government to recover Schiff’s unpaid income taxes for the years 1979 through 1985. [ . . . ]

The June 14 Order is not related to the grand jury’s March 24, 2004, indictment of Schiff and others on charges of criminal conspiracy and multiple violations of the internal revenue laws'.

(I added the bolding for emphasis). The year 2004 ruling (regarding taxes, penalties and interest) was a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Bottom line: unverifiable statement, and non-neutral POV.

Although the government would not allow Schiff to present the psychiatric evidence (3 reports)into his case during trial that he truly believes what he says.

Explanation: Again, this may be correct or incorrect, but it is unverified, and POV-ish. Also, if you did cite to the source that says Schiff was not allowed to present the evidence, you would also need to balance that with a discussion of the court’s ruling as to why he was not allowed to present the evidence. There are legal rules of evidence regarding admissibility.

Schiff is still waiting for the government to provide the law that requires the average American to pay the income tax and the law that makes the average American liable for the tax. S=4023270&nav=168Y] (see below).

Explanation for removal: Blatant non-neutral POV; tax protester rhetoric; incorrect and most importantly in violation of Wikipedia’s standard for Verifiability. The jury was instructed on the law by the judge. You and I and Mr. Schiff may agree or disagree about what the law is, or we may agree or disagree about what the law means, but this sentence falsely implies that Mr. Schiff and the jury were not told at trial what the law is. That is demonstrably false; indeed Mr. Schiff’s own copy of the Court’s jury instructions -- with what appears to be Mr. Schiff’s own handwritten comments in the margins -- is available on the internet! At one point a Schiff supporter even put a link to it in Wikipedia!

Neun was never repremanded [sic] or informed that she was wrong by the IRS prior to her trial.

Explanation: First of all whether Ms. Neun (one of Schiff's co-defendants) was "reprimanded" or "informed she was wrong" is irrelevant to whether she was properly convicted of the crimes for which she was charged. Defendants are informed of the charges and the law at the arraignment and at the trial. I have seen no evidence that Ms. Neun was not informed of all this at the arraignment and the trial, and no one has cited to any source that says she was not so informed. At any rate, that is a separate issue from whether she was "reprimanded" or "informed she was wrong." Irrelevant and misleading, and for purposes of Wikipedia both non-neutral POV and Unverified. The government is under no legal or moral obligation to "reprimand" or "inform you that you are wrong" prior to a criminal tax trial, any more than the government would be required to "reprimand" you or "inform you that you are wrong" prior to a murder trial or any other criminal matter.

[ . . . ] although that evidence never materialized on the record [. . . ]

Explanation for removal: Again, non-neutral POV, and not verified.

In this case during deliberations the jury asked Judge Dawson for the evidence that was allowed to be entered which consisted of Neun's well worn Internal Revenue Code manual, for their review, but Judge Dawson refused. Ex parte communications occurred between the prosecutors and the Judge and when confronted by the defence was told nothing proprietary was discussed. Schiff suffers from severe deafness and was repeatedly sanctioned by the judge when he continued speaking, unaware that prosecutors made objections behind him.

Reason for removal: Again all this may be true or it may be false, or parts may be true and other parts false. Where’s the sourcing for this? Answer: none was provided. Additionally, I argue that this is another attempt to insert non-neutral point of view. Yours, Famspear 03:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Reversion of Massive infusion......

• • I must laugh at the ignorance of some. I will quote what has been stated in the beginning of the above comment....

"Dear fellow editors: I have removed the following verbiage inserted on 31 March 2006, as explained below:

At the time, The Law Review Journal published an extensive article showing Schiff was correct in his assertions.

Explanation: Non-neutral POV (Wikipedia is not here to "show Schiff was correct"), and there’s no citation to the "article" in the "Law Review Journal"

• • If Wikipedia is not here to show Schiff "correct" as you state, then one is to assume that Wikipedia is here to show Schiff "incorrect". That too is bias. ROFL 24.126.162.199 04:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 24.126.162.199: Sorry, but Wikipedia also is not here to show that Schiff is "incorrect" either. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The article on Irwin Schiff describes his status as a tax protester and recounts his legal history in connection with the Federal income tax. The fact that Mr. Schiff has been unsuccessful from a legal standpoint is notable. The fact that he has again been convicted of tax crimes is notable. The fact that he is serving jail time is notable. Noting these facts in the case of a man who has claimed for many years that he is "correct" about the law and that the government is "incorrect" about the law does not constitute bias. Indeed, willful omission of these notable facts would, in itself, reveal bias. Any Wikipedia reader is free to reach his or her own conclusions, if desired, about whether Mr. Schiff is "correct" or "incorrect." Yours, Famspear 03:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[The following comments added on 13 September 2006 by anonymous user at IP 24.122.157.88:] Wouldnt it make this article more complete and objective if an or a lawyer could actually examine schiff's claims with an objective point of view and explain WHY Schiff is wrong? or is there some thruth about what he says and the judges really are illegaly misinterpreting the law to serve the purpose of those who gave them their job? i would like to see someone who has knowledge of the law explain in simple terms what schiff is saying, where is claims are from, if what he claims is based on anyhting at all... because this article doesnt explain anything at all. it is unworthy of a wikipedia article. just as bad as the one on the " dreyfus affair" . please do something someone. [End of comments by anonymous user at IP 24.122.157.88:]

Dear anonymous user at IP 24.122.157.88: I would argue that Wikipedia probably shouldn't put itself in a position of contending that Mr. Schiff is "right" or "wrong." What Wikipedia should do, where applicable, is to point out the arguments for a given point of view and the citations to sources "backing up" that point of view -- and also give the arguments for opposing points of view, with citations to sources backing up those views. In the context of Mr. Schiff, we certainly can expand the article to specifically state some of his theories, and then report how the courts have ruled those theories invalid -- without taking a position ourselves. (See below.)

This article is primarily a biography of Mr. Schiff himself. His views about income taxes are therefore relevant but perhaps only incidental to -- and not the primary focus of -- the article, at least as currently written. That doesn't mean the article can't be expanded to include more of his arguments, and why the courts have ruled his arguments to be legally invalid, so your point is well taken to some extent.

In the meantime, if you are interested in the kinds of arguments he has raised, Wikipedia has articles on tax protester arguments -- without focusing specifically on Mr. Schiff's arguments. For example, see Tax protester constitutional arguments, Tax protester statutory arguments, Tax protester conspiracy arguments (note that Schiff has specifically raised a conspiracy theory - I don't recall if he's mentioned in that article, though), and Tax protester history.

Stay tuned, and I will try to add, to this article, some of Mr. Schiff's specific arguments and how the courts have ruled on them. (He was in court over and over on both civil and criminal tax matters, so there's a lot to chew on.) It will take me a while to get to this, but I believe I do have a copy of every reported court decision involving Mr. Schiff, going back many years. Yours, Famspear 14:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: With all due respect, however, I do disagree with the comments: "because this article doesnt explain anything at all. it is unworthy of a wikipedia article." (Of course, I'm biased to the extent that I wrote a lot of the article.) Everything in the article is absolutely accurate, and the article is well sourced -- so the material is verifiable. The article takes no position on whether Mr. Schiff is right or wrong, and to that extent represents neutral point of view. I would like to suggest what may be my fellow editor's problem with the article. The article reports (accurately) that Mr. Schiff is serving a long prison term for convictions for tax crimes. To the average reader, this fact tends to reflect negatively on Mr. Schiff. The article also reports (accurately) Mr. Schiff's prior convictions and prison time. These facts might tend to reflect negatively on Mr. Schiff in the minds of many readers. It is not the tenor of the article itself that is the problem. It is not that the article "doesn't explain anything at all." It is instead the nature of Mr. Schiff's problems.

However, as my fellow editor pointed out, perhaps the article should be expanded to include at least a few of Mr. Schiff's tax arguments, and why the courts rejected them. Yours, Famspear 14:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As a footnote, I checked it out and I note that Irwin Schiff is mentioned in Tax protester constitutional arguments, in Tax protester statutory arguments, and in Tax protester conspiracy arguments. Yours, Famspear 17:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I have now added examples of a few of the tax protester arguments that Schiff raised over the years. Yours, Famspear 20:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

How about a link to HIS website.

Nice. Two external links to sites that don't agree with Schiff, but no one seems to contribute HIS OWN website: www paynoincometax com, which has a lot of free material and explains his insanity defense, as well as his legal positions, etc.

Also, www givemeliberty org may be another link to add, as they have mentioned Schiff from time to time.

If you actually read the laws and Supreme Court cases he cites instead of reading about the consequences he has faced (or might face in the future) by judges who simply dismiss his arguments as "frivolous and baseless" without stating why, you might learn something about our government and what it's doing to it's own citizens these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.127.124.141 (talk • contribs) 22:43, September 23, 2005 (UTC)

I have disabledremoved the links that the above anonymous contributer embedded in his comment. Links to Schiff's web site should not be added to Wikipedia. A reader of this page can easily find Schiff's web site by doing a Google search. However, adding a link to Schiff's web site, or to web sites like that of the "We the People Foundation" would be a disservice to Wikipedia's readers. Schiff has lost every one of the cases he has been involved in, has gone to jail for tax evasion because of using his theories, and clients of his who used those theories have also gone to jail. People who use his theories will most likely go to jail. WP should not appear to endorse his ideas; to do so would put its readers in jeopardy (and possibly even expose WP to liability).

Judges may have dismissed some of Schiff's cases without giving an explanation, but this is because the arguments he makes have been refuted multiple times by multiple courts, which did state their reasons. Judges understandably become frustrated when dealing with people like Schiff, who repeat the same arguments no matter how many times they have been refuted. — Mateo SA | talk 00:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC); 13:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• A link to his website is not an endorsment of his ideas by Wikipedia. If Wikipedia would be liable, would Google also be liable? Kalmia 09:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but We The People foundation is actually winning some ground in the court cases in the year 2006; just check their website (www.givemeliberty.org). I'm not American, but I cross my fingers on their activities:) Look especially at the following headlines:

"NO."U.S. Court Of Appeals Soundly Rejects IRS Plea To Soften Ruling In Schulz v IRS"

and

Hard Evidence That Form 1040 Has NO Legal Basis In Law; IRS Withdraws Criminal Allegation, Tax Convict Walks Free

and

1040 Checkmate? DOJ Dismisses Felony Tax Prosecution -- With Prejudice -- After PRA Defense Raised

and

IRS: Gut Schulz v IRS DOJ: Court's Opinion Threatens Tax System

As for linking or not linking; in my opinion, you will never have the big picture of any case by not presenting one of the sides of any debate, so linking to those sites is helpful. And the folks from We The People Foundation are doing a good, hard legal work suing the government and inciting others to do the same. They present the legal documents as the lawsuits, judical sentences, legal reports, etc at each article. There's nothing illegal in it; everybody has the right to sue. Critto

Dear editor Critto: I would just point out that there is a link to Mr. Schiff's web site. As an aside, neither the "We the People Foundation" nor any other group fomenting Tax protester arguments is making any progress on Federal income tax issues in U.S. courts. The correct information on the Schulz case, for example, is found right here in Wikipedia at Tax protester statutory arguments#Demanding an explanation of tax obligations.

Next, there is no "evidence" that "Form 1040" has "no legal basis in law" -- and a statement to the contrary is legally nonsensical.

Finally, there is no valid "PRA (Paperwork Reduction Act) defense" in a felony prosecution for willful failure to timely pay Federal income taxes or willful failure to timely file the related return. Every court that has decided this issue has ruled that the PRA is not a defense to a charge of violating a duty imposed by statute. Notice that the reference in the cited web site is to the Lawrence case. Tax protesters all over the web have been repeating the false implication that the Lawrence case was dismissed because a PRA defense was raised. That tax protester disinformation has already been exposed in the discussion pages of Wikipedia. Let me know if you want to know how to find the information on the Lawrence case. Yours, Famspear 19:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

....Wikipedia should concentrate on a dispassionate evaluation of the facts, but more and more Wikipedia looks to me like a tool supporting mainstream mind control.—Preceding unsigned comment added by UnawareSheepleofAmerica (talk • contribs) on 2 August 2007.

More NNPOV troubles

The article starts by stating who Irwin Schiff is. Great. It then goes right to discrediting him by going to his arrest and conviction history. The article should be rearranged to discuss "Arguments raised by Schiff" first, since it's synonymous with who is. I've corrected this oversight. 206.124.31.24 20:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 206.124.31.24: Until a few days ago the material on "Arguments raised by Schiff" was in the middle of the article. Another editor moved it to the bottom, on 25 January 2007. As you have now moved it to the top of the article, I guess we can say that section has been everywhere now.

At any rate, the order of presentation of the material, at least in this particular case, does not seem (in my opinion) to have a material effect at making the presentation either "more neutral" or "less neutral." That's just my perception, and I know you view it differently.

I don't know how other editors analyze this, but to me your choice for the position of the section on "Arguments raised by Schiff" looks good, just as good as any other.

I assume you're also implying that the mention, in Wikipedia, of multiple convictions for tax crimes "discredits" Mr. Schiff, who has claimed for many years to be eminently knowledgeable about the tax laws under which he was thrice convicted. Recognize, however, that discrediting Mr. Schiff is not the purpose of the article. Wikipedia itself did not find Mr. Schiff guilty of anything. Three different sets of juries over the years did that. If, in your view, Mr. Schiff has been "discredited," then Wikipedia is not responsible for that. His exploits are a matter of public record, quite apart from Wikipedia. Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and No Original Research. Yours, Famspear 22:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It does not discredit him. It is meant to. I admire him for showing more courage than people who would enjoy the lap of their master. The juries you're so proud of have been incorrectly instructed that they cannot rule on the existence or validity of the law. At least two juries have ignored that travesty and found the persecuted not guilty. In any case, the article now at least appears more neutral. Enjoy! 206.124.31.24 04:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 206.124.31.24: No, including information about Mr. Schiff's tax convictions is not done with an intention to "discredit" Mr. Schiff although, as explained below, including that information may certainly result in his being discredited in a reader's eyes.

This is a good place to talk about neutral point of view.

Mr. Schiff made a long career of making certain claims about the legality and applicability of the U.S. Federal income tax laws. When this article was originally created (before I came to Wikipedia), a writer had deliberately included Schiff's arguments, or at least statements supporting Schiff's theories -- without also including factual, clear information on how his arguments have fared in the legal system. Deliberately leaving out the information on the actual legal status of his arguments was not neutral point of view.

Under the U.S. legal system, the legal status of any argument is determined by whether courts of law accept or reject that argument when it is raised by an actual litigant in an actual case. See Stare decisis, Ratio decidendi, and Precedent, and in particular compare to Obiter dictum. Legal status is not determined by the fact that Mr. Schiff fervently believes or claims to believe his own arguments. Legal status is determined through a process of formal legal analysis, and is not determined by ignoring the holdings (the rulings) in a case.

Regarding juries deciding what the law is: Actually, under the U.S. legal system, the general rule (with exceptions) is that neither side in a civil or criminal case is allowed to try to persuade the jury about what the law is or is not. For example, in a murder case the defendant is not allowed to persuade the jury that there is no law against murder. Disagreements about what the law is are argued by both sides before the judge, who then makes a ruling. Neither the jury members, nor the bailiff, nor the court reporter, nor the court clerk, nor the attorneys make any official determination of what the law is. The judge, and only the judge, instructs the jury (generally, in writing) on the law. Juries are not allowed to do their own legal research. Juries simply cannot rule on "the existence or validity of the law," and there is no legal procedure in the U.S. system that would allow a jury to do so. You are thinking of jury nullification, which is a different legal concept.

Mr. Schiff was repeatedly unsuccessful in his efforts in the legal system with the very arguments he always claimed were legally correct. Mr. Schiff cannot have it both ways. He obviously wanted to test his arguments in the legal system each time he brought those arguments up. It is only fair that an encyclopedia article about him would chronicle the results of those efforts. If anything, the article is going "easy" on him; there are a lot more tax-related court cases involving Mr. Schiff that aren't even mentioned in the article. Here is a list, including some cases mentioned in the article:

United States v. Schiff, 612 F.2d 73, 80-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9112 (2d Cir. 1979).

United States v. Schiff, 647 F.2d 163 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 835 (1981).

Schiff v. Commissioner, 47 T.C.M. (CCH) 1706, T.C. Memo 1984-223, CCH Dec. 41,174(M) (1984), aff’d per curiam, 751 F.2d 116, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9108 (2d Cir. 1984).

Schiff v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 766 F.2d 61, 85-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9532 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam).

Schiff v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 780 F.2d 210, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9204 (2d Cir. 1985).

United States v. Schiff, 801 F.2d 108, 86-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9684 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 945 (1987).

United States v. Schiff, 876 F.2d 272, 89-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9465 (2d Cir. 1989).

Schiff v. United States, 89-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9551 (D. Conn. 1989), aff’d, 919 F.2d 830, 90-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,591 (2d Cir. 1990).

Schiff v. United States, 91-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,458 (Cl. Ct. 1991), motion for reconsideration denied, 91-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,572 (Cl. Ct. 1991).

Schiff v. Commissioner, 63 T.C.M. (CCH) 2572, T.C. Memo 1992-183, CCH Dec. 48,108(M) (1992).

United States v. Schiff, 269 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 2003-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,546 (D. Nev. 2003), aff’d, 2004-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,328 (9th Cir. 2004).

Conviction, United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Las Vegas Division (October 24, 2005), 2:04-CR-00119-KJD-LRL; sentenced on February 24, 2006, to 13 years 7 months in prison.

I'm not sure that this is even a complete list of all Schiff's cases. Care to hazard a guess as to how many of these cases involved decisions where any of Mr. Schiff's tax protester arguments were upheld? I'll give you one guess.

What if the article were to include an analysis of how Mr. Schiff fared in each one of these cases? How do you think that would make Mr. Schiff look? If anything, the article is going easy on Mr. Schiff -- by omitting the detail of most of these cases.

The purpose of including the information in the article is not to "discredit" Mr. Schiff, but rather to provide the reader with complete information. The nuance here is that while the purpose of the article is not to discredit the subject, the effect of a balanced presentation in Wikipedia may sometimes be that the subject is discredited in your eyes, or in my eyes, or in the eyes of some other reader. The mere fact that this result sometimes occurs does not mean that the article itself is not neutral. Neutral point of view refers to how the material is presented. To deliberately leave readers (most of whom are not learned in the intricacies of Federal taxation law) with the false impression that Mr. Schiff's tax protester arguments are legally valid, when in fact he has been stunningly, repeatedly, and uniformly unsuccessful with his tax protester theories, which have been ruled legally frivolous -- would be irresponsible, and definitely not neutral. Yours, Famspear 06:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your whole spiel hinges on your repeated disingenuous assertion that I believe "including" the information is to discredit him. You're an attorney, so you are obviously doing it intentionally, not misunderstanding. I plainly stated that I moved his history behind his ideas, because putting his convictions before his ideas was obviously meant to discredit him. So you didn't have to bother with the diatribe, based on an attempt to deceive. 206.124.31.24 00:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 206.124.31.24: No, I stated above that "I assume you're also implying that the mention, in Wikipedia, of multiple convictions for tax crimes 'discredits' Mr. Schiff [ . . . ]" The very first words of your reply were: "It does not discredit him. It is meant to." Sorry, but a reasonable reader would assume that by the use of the word "It" in your response, you were responding and referring to my phrase "the mention, in Wikipedia, of multiple convictions," and that you were saying that the inclusion of that material in the article is meant to discredit Mr. Schiff. Those were your words. That is not a reference to the position of the material in the text -- it's a reference to the very inclusion of that material. And your statement: "You're an attorney, so you are obviously doing it intentionally, not misunderstanding" is still another example of both a personal attack and a failure to assume good faith.

A "diatribe" is "a bitter, abusive criticism or denunciation." See Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p.390 (2d College Ed. 1978). I have reviewed the record of your interactions with others here in Wikipedia to date, and I can assure you that you will not find anything close to a bitter, abusive criticism or denunciation of you by me or by any other editors here in Wikipedia. And you will not find any "attempt to deceive" you -- by me or by other editors -- here in Wikipedia. If and when you ever do find someone you believe is attempting to deceive you, you are free to point out whatever specific falsehood you believe has been perpetrated. You, on the other hand, have engaged in personal attacks against me, in violation of the rules. I assume from your comments here [1] and here [2] and here [3] and here [4] and here [5] and here [6] that you feel a deep hatred for lawyers or the legal community as a group, but I encourage you to control your anger, compose yourself, read the Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and make constructive contributions. Yours, Famspear 19:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear readers: Add the following case to the list of Schiff cases above: United States v. Schiff, 2006-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,566 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). This one was decided on September 11, 2006 -- several months after he was imprisoned. This was a decision on an appeal from a tax case in the Federal District Court in Nevada involving civil penalties imposed on Schiff for tax fraud. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court. The government's motion for the imposition of $6,000 in civil sanctions against Schiff for tax fraud was granted. Yours, Famspear 02:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Related to The Schiffs?

Does anyone know if he and his son (Peter Schiff) are related to the famous Schiff family (especially Jacob Schiff -- Category:Schiff family)? --Wassermann 09:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Famspear's arguments

They're all based on the assumption that the organization which runs around with guns and abducts people for attempting to keep their own property will suddenly become impartial when asked to judge on whether the abducted has been treated fairly and/or legally by its own rules. When the abducted individual attempts to offer the legal defense he chooses and is deprived to do so, members of your cult sing in unison that the abducted individual and those who commiserate with him "don't understand the legal system." We understand perfectly that it is unjust, immoral, and worthy of all the violence it receives (and more) in response to the violence it dishes out. It is my profound wish that you and your cult members receive the true justice you deserve. Your type will, again, one day, hang from trees, and being a well-paid gas-bag will not save you from true justice. 206.124.31.24 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that the judge in any trial cannot allow the jury to deliberate on the meaning of the law. If he did, the prosecution would request and be granted a mistrial; even if the jury found Schiff innocent he would have to be retried on the same charges anyway. Irwin Schiff himself shouldn't ask the judge to do this since it is against his best interest. If you want to allow this type of defense, you will have to change the criminal justice procedure as it has existed in this country from the beginning. I'm guessing that you can see the obvious drawbacks in having a jury of peers decide what the laws are on a case-by-case basis in all criminal proceedings, robbery, murder, rape, etc. And any reasonable person willing to read and interpret English in its plain meaning can understand the legal system, by the way. What is difficult is following the torturous reasoning used by Schiff in trying to deny the plain meaning set down in Income Tax laws. --Riromero 17:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear IP206.124.31.24: No, my arguments are not based on any assumption about the organization called the Internal Revenue Service, or whether the IRS is good or bad, or has treated people fairly or unfairly. This is not about whether the IRS is "unjust, immoral, and worthy of all the violence it receives." This is an encyclopedia, and we are here to edit in conformity with the rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, No Original Research, and No Personal Attacks. Yours, Famspear 15:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment

A request for comment has been opened on the general topic of tax protester theories, and whether the articles that address them are NPOV. bd2412 T 18:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment reminder

Just a reminder that I have proposed to call for a conclusion to this discussion on tax protester rhetoric on February 6. If anyone has anything more to add to the discussion, speak now! bd2412 T 16:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Schiff calls on followers/meatpuppets to attack this page

Schiff, through phone conversations from his prison, has "said he wanted us to go and redo Wikipedia. The IRS and the goons from squatloos has gone in there and left false information about Irwin. Someone wrote to him about it and he wants it corrected." [[7]] This should warrant a page protection for WP:SOCK and specifically WP:MEATPUPPET. 93.174.88.67 (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

However, it should also warrant a review of the article since he is making a claim of false information about himself. --StormCommander (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy to defraud the United States

An anonymous user removed the "fraudster" tag, basically under the theory that Mr. Schiff actually believes what he says, etc., and is therefore not a fraudster. I reverted the edit. As stated in the article, Mr. Schiff was charged with and was convicted in a Federal court of conspiracy to defraud the United States. That's 18 U.S.C. § 371. The jury made the decision on whether Mr. Schiff is a "fraudster." He is serving a long prison sentence for that and other crimes. Yours, Famspear 18:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems a little strange. Why would you remove the fraudster label when it has been adjudicated that he is one? Obviously he doesn't believe what he contended or else he could not of been found guilty of the crime, right? If he sincerely believes in what he said then it would have been a civil matter and not a criminal conviction, right? The "fraudster" label should then remain because not one person in the world would ever believe in Mr. Schiff's sincerity in his cause, right? I mean who would ever believe that our government would inforce a law that doesn't exist to collect trillions of dollars....that is just absurd...oh wait I am forgetting though, the government's own expert witness (that wasn't allowed to testify) found that Irwin was dillusional. Never mind the above, I just remembered... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.13.29.164 (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 64.13.29.164: The jury concluded that Schiff's conduct was willful. In federal criminal tax law, that means that the defendant voluntarily, intentionally violated a known legal duty. The key word is "known." What that means, under the law, is that the defendant was aware of the existence of the duty.

The mere fact that the defendant doesn't actually believe that the legal duty is a legal duty is not necessarily a valid defense under the law. Under the Cheek doctrine (a famous United States Supreme Court decision), an actual belief is not necessarily a defense. The kind of actual belief that constitutes a valid defense must be an actual belief that is based on a misunderstanding that is caused by the complexity of the tax law -- not based on the defendant's own extensive "study" and "research." Schiff "studied" and "reseached" the tax law for years, and refused to accept the courts' interpretations of the tax law. He even published his own faked analysis of the law on his web site -- like the famous doofus argument that "income" under the Merchants' Loan case (another famous U.S. Supreme Court decision) means only "corporate profit" -- despite the fact that Schiff knew very well that the income that was ruled to be income in that very case wasn't corporate profit, but was the income of the estate of an individual who had passed away. Mr. Schiff is an educated man, and Schiff knew very well that a dead person's estate is not a "corporation." The words "corporate profit" and "corporate gain" aren't even found in the text of the Merchants' Loan case -- another point about which Mr. Schiff had to be aware, considering all his years of "study" and "research".

No, Schiff was just another delusional tax protester/tax denier who "studied" the case law and refused to accept the law. Under the Cheek doctrine, a jury can properly find that this kind of activity is evidence of disagreement with the law -- and under the doctrine, disagreement with the law is not an "actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law." The fact that Mr. Schiff may have been delusional is not necessarily a valid legal defense under the Cheek doctrine.

The jury found Schiff guilty of tax fraud, the judge sentenced him for tax fraud, he is in prison for tax fraud, these facts have been reported by reliable third party sources, and that's what counts in Wikipedia. Wikipedia provides that articles are to be based on reliable, previously published third party sources -- not on the basis of our own personal feelings about Mr. Schiff, and not on our personal feelings about what the tax law should be. Famspear (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Famspear, maybe I wasn't clear, I was supporting you. I was speaking to his personal character not any legal arguments. As I said before, why would anyone believe that Mr. Schiff actually believes what he purports to believe? Do you? Do you have any idea why anyone would? Like you said "like the famous doofus argument", obviously you think he is stupid and dishonest, right?

Since you brought up legal arguements I am wondering if you could expound on two of your statements. At first blush they appear incongruent to me:

"The mere fact that the defendant doesn't actually believe that the legal duty is a legal duty is not necessarily a valid defense under the law."

"disagreement with the law is not an 'actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law.'"

You quote somethings about a good faith belief but they appear to contradict. If Mr. Schiff sincerely believes that he is correct under the law would that be sufficient to find him not guilty? Your first statment appears to imply "no" but your second seems to change that to a "yes". It is difficult to tell since the context of your two quotes appears to be filled with your words rather than the context of the import of the quote. Do you beleive Mr. Schiff disagrees with the law or actually believes what he says? I find it a little hard to follow when you say on one hand that "Schiff knew very well" and then on the other use the word "doofus". I think we need to be clear in our words so that people have confindence in our logic and fairness, so as not to think that the site is hijacked by propogandists.

Also you state:

"Schiff was just another delusional tax protester/tax denier..."

If a person is not of sound mind (which I assume is what delusional means) would that not necessitate a not guilty verdict? So I assume that your statement is not intented to imply that you believe Mr. Schiff is actually delusional. Obviously the jury thought that he was nondilusional. Kind Regards.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.13.29.164 (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear User at IP64.13.29.164: You've asked several questions, and I'll try to answer only some of them.

"why would anyone believe that Mr. Schiff actually believes what he purports to believe? Do you?"

This is just my personal opinion: I suspect that Schiff believes some, but perhaps not all, of what he says and writes. That's just my personal opinion.

Regarding these two statements: (A) The mere fact that the defendant doesn't actually believe that the legal duty is a legal duty is not necessarily a valid defense under the law" and (B) "disagreement with the law is not an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law" --I don't see the inconsistency. Perhaps you may want to explain what you believe is inconsistent about the statements.

The mere fact that a person is "not of sound mind" is not necessarily a valid legal defense in a criminal case. (There is, however, something in criminal law called an insanity defense.) In a federal criminal tax case where "willfulness" must be proven by the prosecution, willfulness means the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. The defendant (1) must have had a duty, (2) must have been aware of that duty, and (3) must have voluntarily, intentionally violated that duty. As long as those elements are proven in the eyes of the jury, it doesn't matter whether the defendant was mentally ill or delusional, or whatever. In other words, we cannot equate "delusional" and "could not be willful".

No, the jury may have felt Schiff was "delusional," or they may have felt he was not delusional -- but that's not the issue that was presented to the jury. The issue presented to the jury was "willfulness". Likewise, the issue was not whether Schiff "sincerely believed" he was correct -- not in a strict sense. The issue is whether he was willful. "Sincere" belief in and of itself is not exactly the test under the law. "Sincere belief", taken by itself, isn't even a legally defined term under the Cheek doctrine. Willfulness is the defined term. Willfulness can be negated where the defendant had an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law.

For example, an actual belief that the federal income tax is unconstitutional based on your own extensive, personal study would NOT be an "actual belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law" -- no matter how deeply or "sincerely" that belief was held. Willfulness connotes an honest mistake -- not years and years of "study" in a straining effort to "prove" that the law is unconstitutional or that the courts are wrong, etc., etc. As the Supreme Court stated in the Cheek case, if you take it upon yourself to reject the court rulings, you must take the risk of being wrong.

One way to look at it is this: The more a tax protester-tax denier strains to argue that the law is something other than what the IRS and the courts say the law is, the more "study" he does, the more he fights the IRS, etc., the less likely the protester will be able to persuade the jury that he just had a good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law. Indeed, at least one court has stated that engaging in tax protester-type activity (making frivolous arguments, etc.) may actually be evidence of willfulness -- evidence of a lack of a good faith belief, etc. It's not impossible to win using a Cheek defense -- a few protesters have been acquitted in criminal tax cases -- it's just very hard to persuade a jury when the protester has obviously been fighting the tax system. Schiff was a classic example of someone who simply refused to stop breaking the law, even after he was convicted and released from prison. It's very hard for someone like that to persuade a jury that he had an actual good faith belief, etc. Famspear (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a note on his conviction to people who would follow in his footsteps...

By definition, no court would convict itself(at least not very often). "The snake does not eat the snake." so to speak. It's why you can't win no matter what against the IRS. You're asking them to call themselves thieves when you're the one being put on trial. Rather that's right or not doesn't even matter so far as winning goes. It's a foregone conclusion who will win. It applies the other way around as well - a 'tax protestor' or however you want to call them wouldn't consider themselves tax evaders.71.196.246.113 (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 71.196.246.113: That is blatant nonsense. People "win against the IRS" all the time -- both in civil and criminal tax trials. So, no, it is not a "foregone conclusion" as to "who will win." Your comments about "snakes" and "thieves" are meaningless in this context.

And despite the delusions of some people, and despite what you yourself might believe, anyone who deals with IRS personnel at many levels on a regular basis (as I have for over twenty years) would know that the idea that a sitting federal judge would somehow be afraid to rule against the IRS or would consider himself or herself part of the "snakes" and "thieves" at the IRS (as you seem to think) is laughable. Any IRS employee who would dare to retaliate against a federal judge because the judge ruled in favor of a taxpayer in a federal tax case could not only find himself or herself out of a job, but could also eventually land in federal prison, depending on the circumstances.

IRS employees also tend to be very concerned about being seen as violating any criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, especially section 7213A(a)(1) -- and I know that based on my personal experience in dealing with hundreds of IRS personnel over the years. See also section 7213(a)(1) and section 7214.

I should also point out that technically, in federal criminal tax trials, you don't "win or lose" against the Internal Revenue Service. Although the IRS is the agency that investigates federal criminal tax violations, it is the U.S. Department of Justice that actually decides whether to prosecute all federal criminal tax cases (and the Department of Justice handles the prosecution). In federal civil tax cases, whether it is the Department of Justice attorneys or the IRS attorneys that you're up against depends on the kind of case.

The U.S. government does win most federal civil and criminal tax cases. On the criminal side, the government is very picky and choosy about which cases they decide to prosecute -- they tend to pick the ones that they're most likely to win. By no means does the government win all federal criminal or civil tax cases.

The fact that a tax protester might not consider himself or herself to be a tax evader is of no signficance. Whether someone is a tax evader is a question that is decided by a judge and jury in a court of law -- not by the person accused of being a tax evader. Famspear (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, another thing: Your apparent implication that IRS employees are "thieves" because they collect federal taxes is blatant nonsense. The fact that you may not like federal taxes is of no significance. The tax laws are not enacted by IRS employees. The tax laws are enacted by the U.S. Congress. If you're unhappy, I suggest you write to your elected representative and senators. Famspear (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Famspear, you are conflating legality and morality. Just because theft is legal does not mean it is moral.Dude6935 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dude6935: No, you are conflating legality and morality. The term "thief" (plural "thieves") is a legal term. The fact that someone may consider IRS employees to be "thieves" because that someone objects to taxes does not make IRS employees "thieves" in the legal sense. My comment posted just above said nothing about the morality of what IRS employees are doing when they follow the law. I didn't bring up the subject of morality; you did.

I will say this: I've never worked for the government, but calling IRS employees "thieves" because they legally collect taxes that are legally owed is childish. Calling taxation "theft" because one is opposed to taxation or feels it is wrong is also childish. Using this kind of rhetoric is also intellectually dishonest. Famspear (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

I think this page should be altered to become way more objective.

Agreed. For example, can someone cite the basis for referring to him as a "political prisoner?" Last I checked, he was convicted for violating Federal tax laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.150.222.52 (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree --Jfiling 22:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC) 22:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Also agreed. A lot of important information about the case is missing. Renegademinds 2012-10-24

Well, in my view the article is quite objective. What "important information" do you think is missing? In Wikipedia, the applicable rule is Neutral Point of View, or NPOV. I would say that the material in the article is presented with a Neutral Point of View. However, if there are complaints about lack of NPOV, this talk page is certainly the place to discuss that. Please provide specifics about precisely which language in the article is not written in a neutral way.

Note: Under the rules of Wikipedia, Neutral Point of View does not mean giving equal weight to Mr. Schiff's crackpot ideas about federal taxation. His ideas are nonsense, and Wikipedia is not here to push his nonsense. Famspear (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Examples of some of Schiff's lunacy: The argument that there can be no statutory deficiency in a federal income tax until the IRS has assessed the tax. That's completely idiotic. He got it completely backwards. Under the Code, the IRS cannot even assess a deficiency in federal income tax (usually, this means an amount greater than the amount shown by the taxpayer on the return) until the IRS first "determines" a "deficiency" and issues a "statutory notice of deficiency" and then waits at least 90 days for the taxpayer to file a Tax Court petition. If the taxpayer does not file the petition, THEN the IRS is allowed to make the assessment. Schiff got it completely backward.

Another goofy argument that Schiff made was that "income" somehow meant only "corporate profit." And, like many, many tax protesters, he cited as support for that nonsense the famous U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Merchants' Loan case -- a decision in which the income ruled by the Supreme Court to be taxable was NOT corporate profit, corporate gain, or corporate income. Famspear (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Political Prisoner?

Seeing as how "political prisoner" is one who is imprisoned for criticizing the government (according to the Wiki page on "political prisoners"), I removed the portion of this article that referred to Irwin Schiff as a political prisoner. He is in prison because he violated federal tax laws...not because he has criticized the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.150.222.52 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. The "political prisoner" rhetoric is an example of what is known in Wikipedia as "soapboxing." It is not allowed. Irwin Schiff is not a "political prisoner"; he is a convicted fraudster who is now serving his third term in federal prison. He was convicted for violating the law over and over and over and over again, not for having beliefs or for criticizing the government. Famspear (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

N P O V --

My opinion is that there are some subjects that ABSOLUTELY CANNOT HAVE N P O V!

The issue of taxation in the USA - and specifically "THE INCOME TAX" -- is one of those issues. I followed Irwin Schiff since 1976 when he published "The Biggest Con: How the Government is Fleecing You"

Now, I see that it is a matter of fact that certain events happen, and Wikipedia is reporting them. But within the report, and between the lines there is THAT BIAS - intended or not - in the tone of the writing...

If the statement is that Mr Schiff was on trial in a CIVIL CASE but was found guilty of TAX CRIMES -- it sure gives the notion that the writer does not understand what a CRIME IS! For a crime to occur, there MUST BE A VICTIM!

I am quoting  FIND LAW::
    Criminal offenses and civil offenses are generally different in terms of their punishment. 
    Criminal cases will have jail time as  a potential punishment, whereas civil cases generally 
    only result in monetary damages or orders to do or not do something. Note that a criminal case
    may involve both jail time and monetary punishments in the form of fines. 

   See more at: 
    http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basis/the-differences-between-a-criminal-case-and-a-civil-ase.html#sthash.GeqF97CC.dpuf  

If "TAX CRIMES" are civil in nature, then how come Mr Schiff is rotting in prison, just because he QUOTED THE LAW as advertised by the IRS & GOVERNMENT? And his book ("The Federal Mafia") is forbidden to be printed or sold as if what he writes there are lies? NAZI style government! And, again, all he does in the book is QUOTE the law itself - TITLE 26 - and PROVES THE GOVERNMENT WRONG !!?? !!?? Hell, they were trying to prevent him from selling the IRS CODE !!

Yes, Mr Schiff was found guilty by "The Courts" - and that is a fact - but this fact has to be augmented by the FACT that he was derailed and sent to jail by CORRUPT JUDGES & SYSTEM -- and THIS IS A FACT TOO!

So, for Wikipedia to post ALL the facts, there is a need to look at THE WHOLE PICTURE and do decide if Mr Schiff is right or wrong! If Wikipedia writes an objective article about Galileo Galilei - does it state that he was right about Earth going around the Sun and not the other way around? Well, Mr Schiff is very much like Galileo - because HE IS RIGHT, and for that he is being PERSECUTED!

Anybody who thinks that Mr Schiff is a nut, should just think about this: The Fifth Amendment prohibits the government to force ANYBODY to be a witness against themselves! So how come they can force you to sign those 1040 forms and then prosecute you IN A CRIMINAL COURT for any mistakes you make? There is NOWHERE an exempt from The Fifth when it comes to "income tax" !! And just because some "judges" say so, does not make it so!

As I stated - there CANNOT BE NPOV on this subject!

Wikipedia is claiming to be AN ENCYCLOPEDIA of knowledge - and therefore it disallows the debate to explore the truth! Do you see the IDIOCY in this NPOV ???

p.s. Irwin Schiff is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT and The Government is ABSOLUTELY CORRUPT AND TYRANNICAL!

Al Qudsi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al.Qudsi (talk • contribs) 08:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Al.Qudai: Please read the article again. "Tax crimes" are not civil in nature. Schiff was involved in both civil tax cases and criminal tax cases. He lost all the cases. No, he is not being "persecuted."

Nowhere in the article does anyone claim that Schiff is a "nut."

Wikipedia is not the place to "debate" the truth.

And yes, when a judge makes a ruling in a court -- that does indeed "make it so" under the U.S. legal system.

As you mentioned, and as the courts have ruled, over and over and over again, requiring a person to file a U.S. federal income tax return does not violate that person's Fifth Amendment right against being compelled to be a witness against himself. However, the courts have ruled that if a particular description of a particular amount of income would be incriminating, the individual can claim the Fifth Amendment protection for that particular item by reporting the amount but by not mentioning the source of the income.

No, Irwin Schiff is not "absolutely right." He is absolutely wrong about the U.S. federal tax laws, and he is a convicted felon.

The reason you apparently get a bad feeling about Mr. Schiff from this article is that he has done bad things and he is being punished for it. The article presents all this with a Neutral Point of View. Famspear (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Schiff's book, The Federal Mafia

An anonymous editor has attempted to post information from The Economist to the effect that sales of Schiff's book, The Federal Mafia, were banned in the United States. I will check on this, but if my memory serves me correctly, that claim is incorrect. I believe that the court issued an order prohibiting Schiff himself from selling the book as part of his tax scam. If I remember correctly, there was nothing in the court order prohibiting someone else from selling the book. That would not be a "banning" of sale of the book. Anyway, I'll check on that. Famspear (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I checked, and yes, The Economist got it wrong. The sale of the book, per se was not "banned". The sale operation by Irwin Schiff, Cynthia Neun, and Lawrence Cohen was a fraudulent activity involving fraudulent commercial speech. In the United States, it is no more legal to engage in fraudulent commercial speech regarding federal income taxes than it would be to engage in fraudulent commercial speech regarding anything else. There are all sorts of laws prohibiting such scams.

For background, see United States v. Schiff, 379 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 812, 126 S. Ct. 335 (2005).

The nonsense about the book being "banned" was actually nonsense that Schiff or his associates put out. The Economist apparently picked up on that, without doing the homework. Famspear (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Irwin Schiff/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article has a mix of citation formats. It uses both web links and ref statements. It should be updated to only use one format (ref format). Add Infobox for Irwin. Give it a good copyedit and submit for peer-review under both WikiProject Taxation and Biography to move this article toward GA. Morphh (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 19:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

More tax protester rhetoric

Editor Ned Netterville is here, with his commentary:

However, it must be noted that in all of his criminal conviction, because his essential defense was that the taxes laws he was charged with violating were void ab initio for being unlawful under the terms of the federal Constitution, the federal judges in all of his cases had a personal, monetary interest in the cases because their emoluments directly depended on revenues from the taxes Schiff was challenging as unconstitutional. The judges were all required by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges [8] to recuse themselves, and no federal judge could have replaced them for being similarly disqualified. The Code states in Cannon 3(C)(1)(c): "C) Disqualification.(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including, but not limited to instances in which...(c) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding..." [9] All of the federal judges in every court case in which Schiff was involved should have been disqualified because the federal government for whom the judges worked and who paid their emoluments from tax revenues produced by the taxes Schiff challenged were acting in palpable violation of the Code of Conduct.

I removed the material from the article.

First, this verbiage is typical tax protester rhetoric. None of the source material cited by Mr. Netterville says that federal judges are deemed to have a personal monetary interest in Federal tax case merely because the judges are paid from funds obtained through the imposition of taxes. Netterville's post violates ALL THREE of the basic Wikipedia rules: Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research.

Second, Netterville's very idea is nonsensical. If the law -- including the canons of judicial conduct -- were as described by Mr. Netterville, then no Federal tax cases could be heard or decided by Federal judges. That's not only nonsensical, it's silly. In short: its' a frivolous argument. It's not worthy of serious consideration.

Third, Netterville's idea is an example of the very kind of frivolous argument that the courts have always ruled to be without legal merit. Famspear (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

To those not familiar with this kind of goofy foolishness, Netterville's argument is taking the old argument that the U.S. Tax Court is controlled by the IRS and always rules in its favor, and expanding the argument to include all Federal court judges in general. For background, see: [10]. Famspear (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Another way to look at this nonsense is to look at it from the standpoint of personnel of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). If ANYONE should have a vested interest in being unfair and collecting taxes erroneously, then under Netterville's twisted "logic" it should be IRS employees. Yet, in disputes with taxpayers, IRS employees routinely decide the disputes in favor of the taxpayer. Any attorney, CPA or enrolled agent who represents taxpayers in dealings with the IRS is well aware of this fact.

First, if IRS employees simply made decisions the way Netterville claims Federal judges do, then every IRS audit would end up in Federal court.

Second, if this were the case, then everyone would know about it! How could this even BE -- without all the tax attorneys, CPAs and enrolled agents who actually handle the thousands and thousands of IRS-taxpayer disputes every year knowing about it?

Ned, in Wikipedia articles, let's stick to what reliable, previously published third party sources actually say. Do not cite the canons or codes of judicial conduct, of all things, and then try to argue that those sources are saying something that you and I both know is preposterous. Stick to the rules of Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Famspear. You are being demonstrably dishonest,as I will demonstrate:

Quoteing Famspear: "First, this verbiage is typical tax protester rhetoric." No, it isn't. It is a statement of facts made manifest in the references cited, all of which are reliable sources. Just claiming it is typical tax protester rhetoric doesn't make it so. You haven't produced a shred of evidence from a reliable source supporting your false claim.

Quoting Famspear: "None of the source material cited by Mr. Netterville says that federal judges are deemed to have a personal monetary interest in Federal tax case merely because the judges are paid from funds obtained through the imposition of taxes."

Famspear, You are dishonestly distorting my words and what I cited. My words were, "the federal judges in all of his cases had a personal, monetary interest in the cases because their emoluments directly depended on revenues from the taxes Schiff was challenging as unconstitutional." What I said isn't even disputable. You cannot dispute the fact that United States judges are employed and paid by the United States. You cannot dispute the fact that "Almost half of all federal revenue (47 percent) comes from individual income taxes," because the government's financial affairs are public record. You can hardly be so silly as to dispute the fact that federal judges have a personal, financial interest in their salaries and benefits, or that they aren't compensated with a salary and benefits by the United States. Nor can you dispute the fact that the funds to pay their salaries and benefits are derived from taxes, including in large the individual income tax.

Quoting Famspear: "Netterville's post violates ALL THREE of the basic Wikipedia rules: Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research."

Famspear, that assertion is frivolous. It is a completely unsupported assertion. I will demonstrated that what I have posted is verifiable in every respect, it is written from a Neutral Point of View, and it neither involves nor cites any original research. In order to ensure my edit is reflects a NPOV , I have removed the words "were obviously biased" in reference to the federal judges, and inserted the word "should" so that it now reads "should have been disqualified..." Except for that deletion, everything else is factual and the facts are verified by reliable sources.

Quoting Famspear: "Second, Netterville's very idea is nonsensical. If the law -- including the canons of judicial conduct -- were as described by Mr. Netterville, then no Federal tax cases could be heard or decided by Federal judges. That's not only nonsensical, it's silly. In short: its' a frivolous argument. It's not worthy of serious consideration."

Famspear, your second point is utterly dishonest. I did not "describe" the law (the Code of Conduct for United States Judges). I quoted the law (the Code) verbatim without editing, adding, subtracting or interpreting. I let the law speak for itself. Nor did I draw the conclusion that the judges in Schiff's cases "should have been disqualified because the federal government for whom the judges worked and who paid their emoluments from tax revenues produced by the taxes Schiff challenged were acting in palpable violation of the Code of Conduct." That isn't my conclusion, it is the only conclusion logically derived from the law, and from the indisputable facts that federal judges receive financial compensation from the United States, and the United States was a party to every one of Schiff's cases. The law speaks for itself. It doesn't need me to interpret it. Famspear, you are the only one here who is being "nonsensical," "silly," and making "frivolous arguemtns" "not worthy of serious consideration," for you offer no support whatsoever for you insulting comments. Please grow up. Your condescending comments are unworthy of a Wikipedia editor who should know better.

Quoting Famspear: "Third, Netterville's idea is an example of the very kind of frivolous argument that the courts have always ruled to be without legal merit. Famspear (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)"

Famspear, your third point is frivolous. In the first place, I have not argued, I have merely elucidated facts and the law and let those do the arguing. You haven't, and you cannot, cite a single case wherein "courts have always ruled" that the points I have entered as edits are without legal merit. They can only be without legal merit if the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges is not the law as I have quoted it, or if U.S. Judges are not employees of the United States and subject to the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges.

Famspear, the balance of your comments are not worth rebutting, except to notice that you offer nothing more in support of your bald assertions, which constitute a vile attack on my intelligence and integrity, than an internet article by your good friend Dan Evans. Evans' article, which you cite, is intended to rebut certain tax protester arguments that Tax Courts are controlled by the IRS. The edit I have made makes no mention whatsoever of Tax Courts, and is concerned only with federal district and appeals courts. My edit says not a word about the IRS. Nothing you say is germane to what I have posted in my edit.

Because Famspear has provided no evidence the material he removed violated any Wiki rules, I am incorporating it into the existing article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ned Netterville (talk • contribs) 06:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Tendentious edits by Ned Netterville

User Ned Netterville has been adding his commentary to this article, including his own original research -- erroneous research at that -- on the rules governing conflict of interest of Federal judges. At his own talk page, Ned admits that he refuses to pay Federal income tax himself and that he was an acquaintance and admirer of Schiff -- even accompanying Schiff at one point many years ago.

Part of Ned's schtick is essentially that he himself is not biased about the subject of Federal income tax (even though he admits he refuses to pay taxes and that he had a bad experience with an IRS audit many years ago and that he has spent time in jail in connection with his opposition to enforcement of the tax law) but that, instead, all federal judges are biased about the subject merely because Federal are paid salaries from the U.S. Treasury.

Ned's additions to the article are examples of tendentious, prohibited Original Research; the material he cites does not claim what he claims the material says. Famspear (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Here are some excerpts from Ned's comments, on his talk page, that illuminate his motivation for making the edits in the Irwin Schiff article:

"I’m going to answer some of the questions you asked me earlier because I think they will tell you where I am coming from on the subjects of Irwin Schiff and his take as well as my own on what both Schiff and I believe(d) is the unconstitutional manner in which employment taxes—income, SS, etc.—are enforced in order to collect them....

[ . . .]

"I personally have no regard for the Constitution...

[ . . . ]

"It appears evident to me, that federal judges who are paid overly generous salaries and given “Cadillac” benefits by the federal government, which are derived from tax revenues, only uphold the Constitution when it is convenient for members of the government hierarchy. However, because the federal judiciary and almost all lawyers rotely proclaim the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and staunchly support the myth that it is universally enforced by the federal judiciary, I will state my objections to income and employment taxes . . .

[ . . . ]

"My 1971 tax return, the first time I had filed without the assistance of a CPA firm. was audited by the IRS.

[ . . . ]

"I have since learned that the deceitful manner it was sprung on me violated IRS rules agents conducting such audits....

[ . . . ] "the experience of being subjected to a wanton breach of my privacy, and of having to answer questions about my personal financial affairs from a so-called public servant, whose demeanor throughout was supercilious, was an excruciating, humiliating ordeal. I determined I would never again allow such a flagrant violation of my privacy to be done to me by the government. That arbitrarily “adjusted” tax return is the last return I ever filed, whether federal, state or local. That $250 is the last income tax I ever paid.

[ . . . ] "I’ve been about this business of resisting taxes for substantially longer that you have been a practicing tax lawyer….

[ . . . . ]

"So if you mean by the word “follower,” which you’ve been using here, a person who has been influenced by Irwin Schiff in resisting the IRS, then count me proudly in.

[ . . . ]

"I also spent 34 days in jail for “civil contempt” of court for refusing a district judge’s order to comply with an “IRS Collection Summons.”

[ . . . . ]

"If my own experience means anything, counting on the government to obey the Constitution is akin to poisonous-snake handling—you may or may not get bit.

[ . . . ]

"Now a few words about my personal relationship with Irwin Schiff. I met Irwin when he spoke at a Libertarian Party state convention, I think it was in the early or mid-1980s. I subsequently saw him once or maybe twice in the next two decades when he came to my hometown to put on one of his seminars. I had lunch with him on one of these occasions (he picked up the check), and as I remember it was then I suggested to him that he run for the Libertarian Party’s nomination for President of the United States as a way to get his message about the income tax across to a larger audience. Then, by pure coincidence, I was in New Hampshire when Irwin came there to campaign in the state's primary for the LP nomination for president. I guess this would have been 1995. I had ridden my bike to NH to visit my daughter and grandson. When I learned Schiff would be speaking at a candidates’ forum in Manchester, NH, I had Wendy drive me over there to hear him. After he spoke, I met with Irwin who was traveling with an older gentleman friend of his from Pittsburgh whose name escapes me. They were travelling together in Schiff’s car and neither one of them liked driving those New Hampshire roads. Since I had time on my hands, I offered to be their chauffer if Irwin would cover my expenses. So for four or five days and nights solid I was with Irwin as he spoke in several NH towns [ . . . ]"

--from Ned Netterville's comments, on his talk page. Famspear (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)