The posting recently on triallogs that was signed by me - was posted by me, you dickless wonders. You have to see conspiracy everywhere, don't you? It somehow validates your idiotic view of the world. Jesus, you people are fucking whacko. Yes, I used the "f" word, but it's the only word that conveys the total depth of my contempt for "people" such as you.

looks like. Here's a copy of a post left in the comment field of the triallogs insane blog.

Tim,
Perspective, Reasonable Guy, Frank Buckner, Peon and several others are IRS agents being paid, with citizen’s money, to interrupt the flow of real and informative information on this blog spot and try to convince bloggers they have to pay income tax. Sometimes they pretend to be on our side and suggest they have information that will help but that information is never forth coming. If you are bored, then jack with them. If not, then ignore them and they eventually tell their boss at the IRS they are wasting their time under that name and either change their online name to start over by telling us they know and are friends of Mr. Schiff then eventually write the same crap or, like Peon and Frankie Boy just go away for a while so they can take time to steal money for the IRS from their mothers.
Yes, what they are doing is against the law and we are told their ISP will be used to out them and charges will be filed.
The Constitutionalists | 03.03.06 - 4:32 pm | #

There you have it. People (ok, I'm making an assumption) too cowardly to post under their true names, yet have the nerve to accuse me of spreading disinformation. As you can see from the post prior to this one - the "constitutionalists" is/are about 3 fries short of a happy meal. For the record - I am not nor have I ever been an Agent, Employee or had any affiliation whatsoever with the IRS, and setting aside my military service, have never worked for the United States Government. But please "constitutionalists" don't let the facts get in your way, tax protestors never have before, don't start now.

Charges will be filed, huh? Bring it on dickheads. Bring it on.

We, the Constitutionalists, are in the process of building a website to post the transcript from Mr. Schiff's trial. Included on that site will be an Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) brief we are writing. If you agree with the brief we will invite you to be a signatory thereof. It is our belief if thousands of patriots sign it we will be able to get the attention of the media which is necessary to make the appellate court take it seriously and address the numerous arguments we will make which an attorney would never make.
The Constitutionalists | 02.25.06 - 7:47 pm | #

Shifty should start packing right now, his freedom is a done deal.

I can't make this kind of stuff up. These people should start writing for MadTV or something.

in Federal Prison. 68 months =5.6 years. Years Because she choose to follow a self-admitted crazy person. A nutcase that probably abused her physically and mentally from the moment they met. How someone can listen to Shifty and not realize he's about a brick short of a full load is a mystery for the ages. Soo, Cindy gets 68, I'm guessing at the very least that Shifty will get at least double that.

Here's Cindy's sentencing break-down (no pun intended Irwin):

68 months in prison
3 years supervised release
$1,325 in special assessments
$30,253 restitution
$1,107,357 is special restitution as a condition of supervised release.

I am curious as to why the douche-bags on triallogs (Coward2, "the law" Detective Tommy Enfeld) haven't spouted forth with their vast "intelligence" on the subject. Too busy engaging in mutual verbal masturbation I suppose. Eastman may be an idiot, but I don't really classify him as a douchebag.

*************************************************************************************
Irwin was sentenced today (2-24). He had 12 months added to his sentence for his multiple counts of contempt of court.

163 months (151 + 12)
3 years supervised release
$4,265,249 restitution
$1,300 in special assessments

13.5 years. Still a whole lot of silence over at triallogs. For a blog allegedly devoted to exposing the corrupt courts, they've been awful silent. Come on boys and girls, expose your knowledge for all to see. (hey, I just made a funny)

I said I wouldn't post comments on triallogs, I didn't say I wouldn't monitor what you idiots are up to.

"conrad" seemed to be attempting to engage you in a dialog --- for amusement I have to figure --- and you accused him of being me. Quick, your paranoid is showing.

***another correction*** must be the weather or something - the comment in which I was referring to was written by Coward2 (aka bobby sue) not Dale Eastman.

edited by Frank to add the below comment:
(***for the record - that comment that was left on triallogs was my better half who doesn't (apparently) understand the concept behind cookies and haloscans use of them...in the future, should she wish to post, she'll do so under her name)

Don't believe me? Here's shifty's lawyers. I wonder why the "geniuses" on triallogs ignored this? Could it be that it didn't fit in with their fantasy?

Todd M. Leventhal
600 South Third Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
702 384 1990

Michael B. Nash
53 West Jackson Blvd.
Suite 620
Chicago, Illinois
312 236 8788
Counsel for Defendant
Irwin A. Schiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

IRWIN A. SCHIFF

CR-S-04-119-KJD(LRL)

SCHIFF’S MOTION FOR DOWNWARD DEPARTURE

Defendant Irwin A. Schiff respectfully moves this Court for a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13. It states as follows:

“A downward departure may be warranted if (1) the defendant committed the offense while suffering from a significantly reduced mental capacity; and (2) the significantly reduced mental capacity contributed substantially to the commission of the offense. Similarly, if a departure is warranted under this police statement, the extent of the departure should reflect the extent to which the reduced mental capacity contributed to the commission of the offense.”

The Application Note defines “significantly reduced mental capacity.”

“‘Significantly reduced mental capacity’ means the defendant, although convicted, has a significantly impaired ability to (A) understand the wrongfulness of the behavior comprising the offense or to exercise the power of reason; or (B) control behavior that the defendant knows is wrongful” U.S.S.G § 5K2.13, Application Note 1

The burden is on the defendant to establish that he committed the offense while suffering from a reduced mental capacity, and that it contributed substantially to the commission of the offense. This is not a “but for” test. “(T)he policy statement rejects such a broad basis for departure by explicitly requiring that the defendant‘s reduced capacity merely ‘contribute to’ the offense.” United States v. Leandre, 132 F.3 796,803 (D.C. Cir. 1998). In United States v. Cantu, 12 F.3d 1506, 1515 (9th Cir. 1993) the Ninth Circuit noted that the other circuits which had addressed this issue were “unanimous in holding that the disorder need be only a contributing cause, not a but-for cause or sole cause” and it, therefore, “adopt(ed) this commonsense holding.”

There are two issues to examine. The first is whether defendant suffered from a significantly reduced mental capacity. The second is whether that reduced mental capacity contributed substantially to the commission of the offense. The answers to both questions are contained in the reports of Dr. Daniel S. Hayes, Ph.D., L.L.C. Clinical Psychologist, 2199 Ironwood Center Drive, Coeur d’Alene, ID 83814, Dr. Cynthia Barry, Ph.D. Licensed Psychologist PSY 10826, 1066 Saratoga Avenue Ste 100, San Jose, California 95129 and Dr. Luis Carlos Ortega, MD, Valley Hospital and Medical Center, 620 Shadow Lane, Las Vegas, NV 89106, which have previously been supplied to the Court.

Dr. Ortega hospitalized him in October 2003 for depression and “high risk for suicide.” Dr. Ortega’s professional opinion was as follows:

“In my professional opinion I felt that the patient did not pay taxes because he was convinced that the law does not require him to do so. I think this is a delusional disorder. He has this thing for a long time but no medication seems to make him believe otherwise.” Ortega Report, P.4.

Dr. Barry examined Schiff on January 6, 2004 at the request of his then attorney William A. Cohen. Her diagnosis was that Dr. Ortega was correct in concluding that Schiff suffered from Bipolar Disorder. She also stated that he suffered from Delusional Personality Disorder and an “Axis II personality disorder.” Her professional opinion was as follows:

“In my opinion, and in the history detailed above, Mr. Schiff’s distorted beliefs appear to have grown out of the stress of his business failures and his first, undiagnosed manic episode. However, once developed, these delusional beliefs have carried forward quite separate from the state of his bipolar mood swings and the impact of psychiatric medication. With very high probability they will continue unabated in the future. There is a significant element of paranoia in his MMPI protocol; however, he is extremely constricted emotionally so that underlying anger does not surface. His pseudo-rational belief system is confined to one area and this is no disorganization of thought. Further, it does not appear to originate from anti-social tendencies. However, the belief system is not under voluntary control. Individuals suffering from Delusional Disorder have little or no ability to alter their beliefs. Mr. Schiff acknowledges that even his two sons have advised him to pay his taxes and avoid the negative consequences. However, he states that he cannot do so because ‘I cannot pay what I do not owe.’ This despite the fact, that he recently experienced a suicidal depression serious enough to require hospitalization (related in part to recognition of a probable prison sentence if he is found guilty of the current charges.) In short, Mr. Schiff’s behavior is not rational. It is likely the product of a Delusional Personality Disorder that is not amenable to treatment and is unlikely to remit.” Barry Report, P. 2

Dr. Hayes examined Schiff on February 18, 2005 for six (6) hours at the request of Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt, District of Nevada. The examination was “to provide an opinion regarding his (Schiff’s) competency to stand trial and desire to represent himself during that trial.” Hayes Report, P. 1. Dr. Hayes’ report gives a brief history of Schiff’s mental health history and Schiff’s version of his history with the Internal Revenue Service. Dr. Hayes concluded his narrative quoting Schiff as follows: “‘If I lose now, I’ll spend the rest of my life in jail.’

He is absolutely sure and confident that he will win this time because he will not ‘make the same mistakes… I know the law. I don’t need it interpreted to me. Why would I mislead my family and everyone else?.... I know I have a tiger by that tail and I have to beat them at this point…. I can’t pretend I don’t know this. It’s not right what they’re doing to the American people.” Hayes Report, P. 3.

Although Dr. Hayes noted that it was not within the scope of his evaluation “to formally assess Mr. Schiff’s cognitive capacity,” he noted that Schiff’s “cognitive functioning appeared to be impacted by what appeared to be a mood disorder, affecting his ability to attend and sustain concentration and focus outside his areas of preoccupation.” Hayes Report, P. 4.

Dr. Hayes’ report clearly established that Schiff suffered from a “significantly reduced mental capacity” and that it contributed substantially to these offenses. He reviewed Dr. Ortega’s and Dr Barry’s diagnosis and concluded that Schiff suffers from “Bipolar II Disorder, with recurrent major episodes and hypomanic episodes, without full inter-episode recovery.” Hayes Report, P. 7. In reaching this conclusion Dr. Hayes stated that Schiff’s beliefs regarding taxation set him “apart from the average individual” and that to a certain degree “Mr. Schiff’s focus on this topic (is) being driven by his mental illness.” Hayes Report, P. 7. The basis for Dr. Hayes’ conclusion are “the years he (Schiff) has devoted to this subject area, the research and documentation he believes to be in support of his beliefs, and the commitment and passion with which he hold his beliefs to be true.” Hayes Report, P. 6.

“He appears to have extremely rigid, fixed, inflexible, doggedly determined opinions and beliefs that cannot be changed by others’ reasoning. And, in his case, even punishment has not had a corrective impact in his thinking or behaviors. He appears impervious to any suggestions that he reconsider his conclusions or his actions, in part because of the thorough research he has conducted which has yielded evidence and facts to support his conclusions, coupled with the fact that he considers himself to be an “expert” with knowledge that supersedes that of any other individual claiming to have expertise in this subject area. Most people have beliefs that have a greater degree of flexibility and openness to change that does Mr. Schiff. Although some may have beliefs that parallel Mr. Schiff’s, they differ from him in that they are unwilling to jeopardize their freedom and suffer the consequences of their beliefs to the degree that Mr. Schiff has. As a result, it would be almost impossible at this point in his life to persuade him that he is wrong, particularly since he feels that there are few, if any, individuals who could match the breadth and depth of knowledge he appears to have as a result of the time, effort, focus, and intellect he has devoted to the subject. Any arguments against him are likely to be seen by him as naïve and sophomoric, and he is likely to dismantle any such arguments quickly and handily by quick reference to materials his opponent is unlikely to have at the ready for consideration and rebuttal.” Hayes Report, P. 6-7.

The purpose of 5K2.13 is to treat with “lenity” a defendant whose mental illness contributes to his offense. “The defendant’s mental condition and the circumstances of the offense must be undertaken ‘with a view of lenity, as section 5K2.13 implicitly recommends.’” United States v. Cantu, 12 F.3d 1506, 1511 (9th Cir. 1993), quoting United States v. Chapman, 986 F.2 1446 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Cantu stated that lenity is appropriate because the purpose of 5K2.13 is to treat with “compassion” those with a reduced mental capacity which contributed to their offense. United States v. Cantu, at 1511. See also United States v. Leandre, at 804-805. According to Judge Orlofsky in United States v. Checoura,176 F Supp 310, 315, (D.C. N.J., 2005) 5K2.13 is an “encouraged departure.” The lynchpin is a defendant’s ability to reason and process information and to voluntarily form the intent to act in a criminal manner. United States v. Withers 100 F.3 1142, 1148 (4th Cir. 1996). The basis for 5K2.13 is the inability of an individual to fully understand ordinary concepts which others are able to grasp. It is a lack of “full intellectual functioning” or the ability to make “reasoned judgments.” United States v. Cantu, at 1512-1513.

As noted by Dr. Hayes, Schiff’s conduct was a result of extremely rigid, fixed, inflexible doggedly determined opinions and beliefs that cannot be changed by others’ reasoning.” He is “impervious to any suggestions.” His mental illness makes it “almost impossible… to persuade him he is wrong.” His opinions and thus his conduct is “driven by his mental illness.” Hayes Report, P. 6-7. According to Dr. Ortega he suffers from a “delusional disorder” which has convinced him “that the law does not require him to pay taxes.” Ortega Report, P. 4. Dr. Barry states that Schiff’s “belief system is not under voluntary control.” He has “little or no ability to alter his beliefs.” “Mr. Schiff’s behavior is not rational.” His conduct “is the product of a Delusional Personality Disorder.” Barry Report, P. 2. In United States v. Weedle, 30 F.3 532, 540 (4th Cir. 1994) the Fourth Circuit stated explicitly that “U.S.S.G § 5K2.13 is intended to create lenity for those who cannot control their actions but are not actually dangerous.” In United States v. Leandre, the court spoke of “the obligation to treat with lenity defendants who suffer significantly reduced mental capacity.” United States v. Leandre at 804. In doing so the Leandre court cited United States v. Cantu, a Ninth Circuit case, in which the court stated “(t)he goal of the guideline is lenity toward defendants whose ability to make reasoned decisions is impaired.” United States v. Cantu, at 1511.

There is a very practical side of this section of the Guidelines. Judge Easterbrook in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Poff, 926 F.2d 588, 595 (7th Cir. 1991) noted that legal sanctions are ineffective in dealing with persons suffering from mental illness. When “a disturbed person’s conduct is non-violent… incapacitation incarceration is less important.” United States v. Poff, at 595. In other words, “the power of specific deterence has little hold over an individual defendant whose conduct is somewhat involuntary.” United States v. Cheroura, at 314.

Schiff’s mental illness is significant and clearly contributed to his commission of the offenses here. Three reputable doctors have stated so unequivocally, one of whom was engaged by the Court. A downward departure is not only appropriate here; to do otherwise is to ignore the mandate of the guidelines.

Respectfully Submitted,

s/Michael B. Nash

Michael B. Nash
53 West Jackson Blvd.
Suite 620
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 236-8788

It's getting more difficult...

to not respond to that smug little prick on triallogs - Tom Enfeld (Detective Tommy).

I had stopped him from commenting on Jahn's censorblog by smacking him (verbally) around. He was hiding under his desk until he figured out I wasn't commenting anymore on the censorblog. Now, he even takes potshots at me, knowing I won't respond.

He's like the little pussy kid that someone managed to get in with the bully crowd (in exchange for being their gopher) and uses the bullies to make himself seem important. He stands behind saying "yeah" - while pissing his pants should someone actually make a move towards him.

That in a nut(no pun intended)shell is Detective Tommy Enfeld.

Post a comment here you little piece of shit.