United States District Court s1

Irwin A. Schiff, pro per 444 East Sahara Ave. Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 702-385-6920 1 Fax: 385-6917 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. CR-S-04-0119 – KJD(LRL) 7 Plaintiff, 8 vs. DEFENDANT Irwin Schiff's 9 IRWIN SCHIFF, CYNTHIA NEUN, CERTIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF 10 LAWRENCE N. COHEN, PROHIBITION ALTERNATIVELY MANDAMUS 11 AND NOTICE OF PETITION FOR Defendants. EMERGENCY STAY OF 12 PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL 13 REVIEW OF JUDGE KENT J. DAWSON'S 14 BENCH RULINGS FOR PLAIN ERROR 15 Title 18A Rule 52(b) 16 17 TITLE 18 App. Rule 52 (b) Plain Error. A plain error that affects substantial rights may be 18 considered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention. 19 COMES NOW, Defendant, Irwin A. Schiff, asserting this certified 20 Petition for Writ of Prohibition Alternatively Mandamus in extraordinary 21 circumstances where the matter is one of right and giving timely NOTICE that plain 22 judicial error exists involving the Court's abuse of discretion and constitutional 23 violations affecting substantial rights of and resulting prejudice to all Defendants in a 24 matter of wide scale public importance as evidenced on this trial record which cannot 25 be cured without an immediate stay of the trial pending appellate review of the record. 26 27 28 1 1 2 Grounds For Relief.

3 1. Defendant Irwin Schiff Motioned for and supported good cause for the Recusal 4 of Judge Kent J. Dawson during the week of September 22nd 2005. The Judge did not 5 remove himself from the bench; the prejudice continues to operate violations of 6 constituional and statutory rights, remedies and defenses, the Code of Judicial Ethics 7 affecting the substantial rights and justiciable cause of the defendants; and, no further 8 action has been taken by the Chief Judge to cure this matter denying an impartial and 9 fair trial. 10 2. No Written Record Event: On Thursday, October 6, 2005 "in open Court" the 11 defense found out that the trial judge held ex parte communication earlier in the day 12 with the federal prosecutors and without informing the defense. 13 When questioned as to the rumor of this event by Attorney Michael Cristalli 14 representing CYNTHIA NEUN, the Court affirmed the fact that the communication 15 had occurred, stating that a record had been made but gave no explanation to justify 16 the emergency or other basis for not informing and thereby excluding the defense 17 attorneys and the defendant appearing pro per and saying only that no impropriety was 18 involved in the ex parte communication, refusing to discuss or explain the matter 19 further. 20 21 3. The trial judge has issued a series of unwritten rulings requiring the defendant 22 pro per and the defense attorneys to proffer the testimony of all defense witnesses and 23 the evidence they will present outside the presence of the jury, and allowing the 24 prosecution to object to control the case for the defense and for the Court to disqualify the witnesses and evidence and to set unreasonable parameters upon the scant defense 25 26 27 28 2 1 testimony only as to opinions of truthfulness and honesty thereby concealing the 2 defendant's actual defensive facts and things done from the jury and demanding the defendants to do the impossible. 3 4 4. The trial Court has ruled from the bench that none of the reliance and good faith 5 belief testimony or other evidence in support shall be admitted in the defense case 6 until which time the defendants have testified themselves and have undergone the 7 cross examination of the prosecutors, thereby forcing the defendants to testify or 8 forego bringing a defense in the trial. 9 5. The defendant pro per is elderly, suffers severe hearing loss, is prescribed 10 medications that limit his ability to focus – conditions beyond his control – and has 11 not been able to compensate or remedy the problem of not knowing what has been 12 pleaded or ruled and has been sanctioned by the Court on many occasions operating a 13 severe prejudice and denial of his right to trial. 14 The foregoing are the emergency issues to be investigated and reviewed for plain 15 error and abuse of discretion, demonstrating that this case is ripe for emergency stay 16 and for immediate review by the appellate court having judicial jurisdiction under 17 Article III to protect the defendants from further irreparable prejudice, jeopardy and 18 harm where they are being wrongfully convicted by these and other forms of abuses, 19 misapplication of the law, Court Rules, and prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. A 20 review of the entire record is warranted and the defense reserves all remedies to cure 21 the other error found on the record of this trial Court. 22 Defendant is entitled to a trial. In support of this Petition, Defendant Irwin Schiff 23 verifies the truthfulness of the foregoing statements. 24

25 26 27 28 3 1 Because the act of appearing pro-se installs and grants an individual under the 2 Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Nevada, full authority to act as an officer of the court in all matters both civil and criminal, it 3 therefore stands to reason that a declaration signed by an individual pro-se verifying 4 the event harming him, has greater weight than a pleading signed by an attorney for a 5 litigant. 6

7 Whereas so many good and law abiding workers in this country are being set up 8 by the outcome of this trial, it is the Defendant’s duty to warn the unnamed affected 9 parties by having the issue on the Record of this case. 10 Notice is hereby given that an immediate stay of the trial is being sought by the 11 defense and justice demands that the trial court afford this remedy and certify the 12 appeal ability of the on bench rulings. 13 VERIFIED and Respectfully submitted on this13th day of October, 2005, by: 14 15 16 ______17 Irwin A. Schiff, pro per 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. 3 I, ______have this date hand delivered a copy of the foregoing to: 4 DANIEL R. SCHIESS, JEFFREY NEIMAN, in care of UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 5 DANIEL BOGDEN’S OFFICE at 333 Las Vegas Boulevard, South, Suite 5000, in Las 6 Vegas, Nevada [89101] and, have this day either hand delivered or mailed copies of this Petition to all parties in this action at their respective law offices: 7 8 9 CHAD BOWERS, Esq. Michael Cristalli Counsel for Defendant Cohen Counsel for Defendant Neun 10 3202 W. Charleston Blvd. 732 South Sixth St. Ste. 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 11 12 So Certified, October 15, 2005, by: 13 ______14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5