torchbearer
Lizard King
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 38,926
(just passing peter's words on)
Irwin Schiff
Irwin Schiff
The Justice Department acknowledged something that we have all known for some time - that Irwin is innocent of the charges against him. He was obviously convicted because of a corrupt court system and the following will prove it. As you all know Irwin filed "zero" returns, based upon his reliance on the Supreme Court case of Merchant's Loan and Trust, 255 US 509 . In addition at trial he testified that his understanding was supported by Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust, 158 US 601.
Recently Irwin filed a 2255 petition which is designed to get a person released claiming violation of constitutional rights. In its response to it the Government admitted that it never proved the 13 counts which claim that Irwin filed false zero returns. This is shown on page 39 & 40 of the Government reply to Irwin's 2255, which you can read here. On page 39, the Government acknowledges that he relied on the Merchant's Trust and the Pollock decisions. He actually quoted from the Merchant decision on his zero return. In that decision the Supreme Court held that "income," for taxes purposes, meant corporate profit. And he explained that since he had no corporate profit he had no income to report, in all of the returns at issue. While he didn't quote the Pollock decision on his returns, at trial he testified how the Pollock decision supported his understanding of the Merchant decision. In Pollock the Supreme held that "Income Taxes on the income from Real and Personal Property (such as rent, interest, dividends, wages, etc. , etc. , etc.) is void and unconstitutional if not apportioned." Pollock has never been reversed. This illustrates the legal trickery by which the Government collects income tax.
Now on page 40 the Reply states "the government did not attempt specifically to refute Schiff's understanding regarding the meaning of these cases" (ie, Merchants Loan & Pollock.) Condensing their statement we have, "The Government did not attempt to refute Schiff's understanding of the Merchants' Loan and Trust Case."
Well, if the Justice Department at trial didn't attempt to refute Schiff's understanding of the Merchant Case, the Government certainly did not prove that his zero returns - based on this case - were false, let alone that Irwin believed they was false, which it had to do so as to make a false filing "willful." If you check the transcript of Irwin's trial which is posted on his website you'll find that the Government did not put up one witness who testified that Irwin's returns was false. In fact, on page 4482 the Government tells the Court that the Government intends to put on no witnesses who would testify on this issue. So obviously, Irwin was prosecuted in a Kangaroo Court.
Incredibly, Irwin's attorney did not recognize the significance of this Government admission, and so he did not point this out to the Ninth Circuit in his reply to the Government reply. Therefore the Ninth Circuit can pretend that it did not recognize that the Government admission vacated 13 counts in his indictment. In the past The Ninth Circuit has held that the evidence against Schiff was "overwhelming" (when it was actually non-existent) and that he attempted to "Deceive the Government with his zero returns" (when those zero returns expressly notified the Government on what basis Irwin was filing them.) Therefore unless we specifically bring the significance of what the Government said to the Ninth Circuit's attention, the Ninth Circuit could pretend it did not notice it. Therefore it is important that Irwin's friends and admirers write to the Ninth Circuit somewhat as follows. These are two separate suggestions - mix, match and augment to form your own coherent letter:
Version #1
Gentlemen, undoubtly you have seen the Government's admission as contained in page 40 of their reply brief to Irwin Schiff's 2255; they state in relevant part that the Government made no attempt to refute Mr. Schiff's understanding of the Merchant Loan & Trust decision. Mr. Schiff's zero returns quoted this decision and it was the basis of his belief that in tax law "income" refers to corporate profit, and since he had not received any corporate profit, and since he (nor any of those whom he had prepared zero returns) had any corporate profit to report, he was legally entitled to report zero income on all his zero returns at issue. Obviously since the Government admitted at Trial that they did not attempt to refute Mr. Schiff's understanding of the Merchant Loan & Trust Case, they certainly didn't prove that his returns based on this case were false, let alone that he knew they were false. Based on this Government submission, it is therefore irrefutable that the Government never proved the charges as contained in Mr. Schiff's indictment. Therefore it is equally irrefutable that an innocent 85 year old man is now illegally languishing in prison.
If justice plays a role in the Court's consideration of Mr Schiff's 2255, it will order his immediate release.
Version #2
In its reply to Irwin Schiff's 2255 the government declared (at page 40) that at his trial, the government did not attempt to refute Schiff's understand the Supreme Court's decision that persuaded him that he could lawfully report zero income on all the returns at issue.
This means that the government admitted that it never proved that those returns were both "false and fraudulent" as repeatedly charged in his indictment. Therefore the 9th Circuit has no lawful basis for keeping Mr. Schiff locked up, and it should order that he be released immediately. America is not the Soviet Union or Iran.
Letters should quote the reference US versus Schiff et al, Docket Number 12-17712
and be sent to
The Clerk of the Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
P.O. Box 193939
San Francisco, CA 94119-3939
DoJ Admission
takelifeback.comGentlemen, undoubtly you have seen the Government's admission as contained in page 40 of their reply brief to Irwin Schiff's 2255; they state in relevant part that the Government made no attempt to refute Mr. Schiff's
Last edited:
