Cases

FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Yair Berkowitz, together with a host of others, participated in a massive tax fraud scheme with the object of filing false tax returns in the names of over 3,000 unknowing, incarcerated, or deceased people. The scheme netted over $10 million in refund payments from the IRS and state tax agencies before it was discovered. Yair1 is the son of the scheme’s mastermind, and was a

ORDER BUA, District Judge. Pursuant to the ruling of the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376 (7th Cir.1991), the court has held an evidentiary hearing concerning the legality of Marvin Berkowitz’s arrest. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. FINDINGS OF FACT

712 F.Supp. 707 (1989) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Marvin BERKOWITZ, Defendant. No. 88 CR 873. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. May 26, 1989. Anton R. Valukas, U.S. Atty. by Jacquelin Stern and Ted S. Helwig, Asst. U.S. Attys., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff. William T. Huyck, Robert E. Gordon, Gordon & Gordon, Ltd., Chicago, Il

ORDER BUA, District Judge. Pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b), defendant Marvin Berkowitz moves to dismiss Counts I and II of the indictment in this case. Each of these counts charges Ber-kowitz with obstruction of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1503. Count I alleges that Berkowitz stole certain tax documents re*1527lating to his previous indictm

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 13‐1349 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff‐Appellee, v. YAIR BERKOWITZ, Defendant‐Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for

835 F.2d 284 U.S.v.Berkowitz (Joseph) NO. 87-1171 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. NOV 12, 1987 Appeal From: E.D.Pa., Katz, J. 1 AFFIRMED.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Alan Berkowitz seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying in part and granting in part the United States’ motion to dismiss some, but not all, of the respondents in his petition to quash summonses issued by the Internal Revenue Service upon third-party

355 F.Supp. 897 (1973) UNITED STATES of America and Lawrence H. Pennington, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service v. Arnold BERKOWITZ and A&M Berk Tax Service, Inc. Civ. A. No. 72-207. United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. March 7, 1973. *898 Arthur L. Gutkin, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs. Richard A.

Griesbach, District Judge. *838 Relator Jeffrey Berkowitz filed a qui tam complaint against nine separate defendants, alleging violations of the False Claims Act (FCA),

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

STALEY, Circuit Judge. The United States filed a civil action in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to recover taxes it alleged were due and owing from the defendant, Morton Berkowitz. The complaint averred that a penalty assessment in the amount of $63,653.73 had been made against the defendant on May 31, 1956, because he was a responsible officer of a corporation which had become delinquent in the pa

JOSEPH S. LORD, III, District Judge. This is a suit to recover a penalty in the amount of $63,653.75, the assessment having been made on May 31, 1956, against the defendant by the District Director of Internal Revenue of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The complaint was filed on May 14, 1962, 17 days short of the statute of limitations. See 26 U.S.C. § 6502(a) (1). At the time the assessment was made the defe

JOSEPH S. LORD, III, District Judge. The present action involves a suit to reduce defendant’s tax liability to judgment. The tax liability arose in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the tax returns appear to have been filed in this District. Hence, venue was properly laid here under 28 U.S.C. § 1396. However, defendant now lives in Brooklyn and cannot be served here. The statute of limitations [26 U.S.C. § 6502(a) (1)] h

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent from that portion of the panel majority opinion that excuses the failure of the district court to comply with the mandate of Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), that a criminal defendant “should be made aware of the' dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that