`Dear user at IP 206.124.31.24: There are no ad hominem attacks on Mr. Schiff in the Irwin Schiff article. And yes, the comments by you here  and here  and here  are what a reasonable person would characterize as personal attacks by you, which violate Wikipedia rules.  And yes, it doesn't take the brightest individual to figure out that when Mr. Schiff could not get a Federal judge to instruct a jury that the jury could not be the judge of what the law is, Mr. Schiff was not going to get his own way in court on that point. Indeed, Mr. Schiff's very purpose was to try to get the jury to decide on what the law is, and specifically to try to get the jury to somehow ``rule`` that Mr. Schiff's arguments about tax law were correct. Mr. Schiff was incorrect as a matter of law  both on the substance of the tax law itself, and on the law governing how our legal system works. As explained elsewhere here in Wikipedia, neither the jury, nor the bailiff, nor the court reporter, nor the court clerk, nor the attorneys, are allowed to rule on what the law is. Only the judge can rule on what the law is.  Instead of referring to other people's comments as ``hot air,`` and instead of repeatedly expressing anger at the legal profession, which you repeatedly refer to as a ``cult,`` and instead of announcing that the ``cult will fall,`` and instead of standing on a cyberspace soapbox and proclaiming that ``justice will prevail,`` please stick to commentary on how to improve the article. If ``the POV is obvious`` then you should have no problem pointing out specific examples of specific language in the article that exhibit non-neutral POV. Yours,    `