9th Circuit Hears Schiff Appeal; government lawyer makes feeble rebuttal.    

    Editor - taxhonestynews.com

            Two days ago, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco heard oral arguments in the appeal of the Irwin Schiff, Cindy Neun, and Larry Cohen.  The 3 judge panel was composed of Mr. Thomas, Mr. Tallman, and Ms. Ikuta.

            I've listened to the audio of the hearing (available here - docket # 06-10145) and have included my notes below.  Mr Waxman, representing Schiff, briefly discussed Irwin's alleged delusions and the proceed to list reason after reason as to why he should get a new trial.  I don't know why Mr. Waxman did not simply say the convictions should be overturned; not as profitable for him I guess.

            Michael Crystalli, representing Cindy, asserted a good faith defense and went on to argue that she relied, in part, on Irwin's 30 years of research and he also argued that she should have bee tried seperatly because judge Dawson's continuous belittlement of Irwin in front of the jury was prejudicial and reflected badly on Ms. Neun.  Also, one judge asked if the 'antics' of a pro se litigant were grounds for a seperate trial.  Mr. Crystalli answered 'yes'.

            Mr. Bowers, representing Larry, also adopted the good faith defense and and agreed that Larry should have been tried seperate from Irwin.  He then went on to discuss Larry's mental state and argued that a psychiatric report should have been admitted into evidence at trial.

            During rebuttal, the government lawyer actually said that Larry was not willful and was competent and the psychiatric report need not be introduced since it showed no evidence of delusion.  It was around this time that judge Ikuta's questioning seemed to indicate she was somewhat sympathetic to Larry's defense.

            The government attorney (I could not catch his name) presented a very lackluster rebuttal.  He entirely ignored the list of reason Mr. Waxman gave for granting a new trial and proceeded to focus on three main points and a few minor points.

1. Irwin's conduct  was not enough to warrant seperate trials.  Irwin's lack of skill as a trial advocate does not automatically mean the jury will assume Irwin lacks tax law knowledge
2. Since the jury was able to see and hear Irwin in person, they had ample opportunity to evaluate his defense and determine for themselves what kind of person he is.
3. The verdicts show that the jury was able to determine were minor players, relatively speaking, and were not in positions of great influence as Irwin was.
4. Cindy was found guilty of conspiracy.
5. Larry was only convicted on 1 count of assisting in preparing a false retuen and was not convicted of tax evasion or conspiracy.

            At this point the rebuttal concluded.  Mr. Waxman got back up and reiterated that there was not a competency hearing.  Cindy's attorney then got up to reinforce his argument for a seperate trial.  He stated that Irwin's attempts to explain his positions were antagonistic to Cindy's good faith defense and that her romantic relationship with Irwin may have given the impression to the jury that Cindy's influence was just as great as Irwin's.

            Mr. Bowers got up briefly and mentioned that judge Dawson erred when he summarily dismissed the report on Larry's mental state.  He also briefly mentioned the Cheek case.

            Mr. Waxman made an excellent 1 -line summary when he stated. "This was a circus-like trial and I think all 3 defendants deserve an American trial; a fair trial."

            Any rational person who followed the trial has to know that it was a farce and a mockery of justice.  The laundry list of errors and intentional sabotage by judge Dawson, as well as Dawson's blatant bias, should be more than enough to overturn all of the guilty verdicts in this case, or at the very least should be grounds for a new trial in fornt of a fair judge, if one can be found.

            We'll see what happens.  In the meantime you can contact Judges Thomas, Tallman, and Ikuta by sending them a letter.  Keep your letter short and respectful; no need to lower the chances of the convictions being upheld.  Pick two or three itms listed below as reasons to overturn the convictions, or use your own.

NOTES:

1. Dawson failed to appoint counsel or to even hold a competency hearing.
2. Dawson failed to provide daily transcripts even though he knew Irwin had bad hearing.
3. Dawson excluded relevant evidence.
4. Dawson required Schiff to make proffer of witnesses but made no such requirement of the government.
5. Dawson routinely demeaned Schiff in front of the jury and often antagonized him.
6. Dawson showed bias at sentencing when he said "I have to pay more taxes because of you."
7. Dawson Mirandized witnesses to intimidate them.
8. Dawson imposed a vindictive sentence after Schiff tried to get Dawson recused.
9. Dawson gave erroneous jury instructions and refused Schiff's tendered instructions.
10. Dawson waited until just before trial to rule on Schiff's pre-trail motions in order to impede his pre-trail preparations.
11. Dawson would not allow Schiff to call relevant witnesses or to introduce relevant documents.
12. Dawson held an ex parte  conference with prosecutors.
13. The government failed to prove guilt.
14. Count 17 should be dismissed because there was no deficiency as required by law.  A government witness testified that there were not any deficiencies for tax years 1979-1985.
15. Sections 1, 61, 63, and 6012 cannot be read together as Dawson claimed.
16. The government failed to prove net income; it mislead the jury to believe that gross receipts were the same as net receipts.
17. The government failed to prove willfullness as outlined in the Cheek case.