Talk:Irwin Schiff

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

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

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.

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)

Have another correction to make

Irwin Schiff was not convicted in 2004 for tax evasion. He was charged back then and is undergoing the trial right now.

From my memory of reading his book, he WAS convicted back in the 80's and served jail-time. But not in 2004. Please correct. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.127.124.141 (talk • contribs) on 11 October 2005.

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: http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/Sept05/240905invasion.htm) --Metarob [comments added by user at IP 69.171.243.115 on 10 November 2005]

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)

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)

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)

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)