IRC Applies (and Marc Stevens Fails Again)

User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

IRC Applies (and Marc Stevens Fails Again)

Postby LPC » Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:25 pm

A federal district court has upheld a magistrate judge's recommendation to enforce an IRS summons, despite a special guest appearance by Marc Stevens.

United States v. Crisandra J. Thornton et al., No. 0:13-mc-00087 (U.S.D.C. Minn. 8/1/2014)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner,
v.
CRISANDRA J. THORNTON,
Respondent.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner,
v.
JOHN K. THORNTON,
Respondent.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

D. Gerald Wilhelm, Assistant United States Attorney, 600 United States Courthouse, 300 Fourth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Petitioner; and

Crisandra J. Thornton, 4128 Utica Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN 55416, Pro Se.

John K. Thornton, 4128 Utica Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN 55416, Pro Se.

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Respondents' objections (J. Thornton Obj. [Doc. No. 22]; C. Thornton Obj. [Doc. No. 18]) to the April 9, 2014, Report and Recommendations ("R&Rs") issued in their respective cases. (J. Thornton R & R [Doc. No. 21]; C. Thornton R & R [Doc. No. 17].) United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung recommended that this Court deny Respondents' Motions to Dismiss (J. Thornton Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. Nos. 5, 14]; C. Thornton Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 5]) and enforce Petitioner's Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") Summonses [Doc. No. 1]. (J. Thornton R & R at 9 [Doc. No. 21]; C. Thornton R & R at 11 [Doc. No. 17].) For the reasons set forth below, Respondents' objections are overruled and the Court adopts both R & Rs in their entirety.

II. BACKGROUND

IRS Revenue Officer Jeffrey Wagner ("Wagner") is conducting an investigation into the tax liability of Respondent John K. Thornton for the years 2001-2012. (J. Thornton Pet. ¶ 4 [Doc. No. 1]; J. Thornton Wagner Decl. ¶ 3 [Doc. No. 2].) Respondent Crisandra J. Thornton is Mr. Thornton's spouse. On July 25, 2013, and August 13, 2013, Wagner issued and personally served on Mr. and Mrs. Thornton two IRS administrative summonses, directing the parties to appear at the IRS office located in Bloomington, Minnesota. (J. Thornton Pet. ¶¶ 6-7 [Doc. No. 1].)

The Summonses directed both Mr. and Mrs. Thornton to appear before Wagner on August 9, 2013, and September 4, 2013, to testify and produce records, books, and other related data. (Id.) The first Summons related to the IRS's investigation of Mr. Thornton's income tax liability for the calendar years ending 2001, 2002, and 2003. (J. Thornton Wagner Decl. ¶ 20 [Doc. No. 2].) The second Summons related to the IRS's investigation regarding delinquent individual income tax returns for the calendar years ending 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. (Id.)

On July 29, 2013, and July 30, 2013, Wagner received phone calls from Mr. and Mrs. Thornton and a third party identified as Marc Stevens. (C. Thornton Wagner Decl. ¶ 8 [Doc. No. 2; J. Thornton Wagner Decl. ¶ 10 [Doc. No. 2].) Mr. Stevens claimed to represent Mr. and Mrs. Thornton but was unable to demonstrate that he was an attorney. (J. Thornton Wagner Decl. ¶ 10 [Doc. No. 2].) During the calls, Wagner informed Mr. and Mrs. Thornton that failure to appear as directed by the Summonses would result in enforcement proceedings. (Id.) On August 6, 2013, at Mr. Thornton's request, Wagner sent a letter to Mr. Thornton rescheduling the appearance date of the first Summons to August 13, 2013. (Id. at ¶ 12, Ex. C.)

On August 13, 2013, Mr. Thornton appeared in accordance with the first Summons, accompanied by two men who identified themselves as Marc Stevens and John Thomas, neither of whom is licensed to practice law. (J. Thornton Pet. ¶ 9 [Doc. No. 1].) Mr. Thornton refused to take the required oath and demanded that Wagner provide evidence demonstrating that the Internal Revenue Code and Constitution applied to him. (Id.) Again, Wagner informed Mr. Thornton that failure to comply would result in enforcement proceedings. (J. Thornton Wagner Decl. ¶ 13 [Doc. No. 2].) Mr. Thornton continued to refuse to take the oath or provide the requested documentation. (Id.)

On August 20, 2013, Wagner sent Mrs. Thornton a "last chance" letter, providing her another opportunity to comply with the Summonses by appearing before Wagner on September 4, 2013 with the requested documentation. (C. Thornton Wagner Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. C [Doc. No. 2].) Mrs. Thornton failed to appear and her refusal to comply with both Summonses continues to date. (Id. at ¶ 12.)

The following day, Wagner sent Mr. Thornton a "last chance" letter, providing him another opportunity to comply with the Summonses by appearing before Wagner on September 4, 2013 with the requested documentation. (J. Thornton Wagner Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. D [Doc. No. 2].) Mr. Thornton failed to appear and his refusal to comply with both Summonses continues to date. (Id. at ¶¶ 15, 17.)

On October 25, 2013, the Government filed Petitions to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summons [J. Thornton Doc. No. 1; C. Thornton Doc. No 1]. This Court concluded that Petitioner made a prima facie showing in its Petitions and ordered Mr. and Mrs. Thornton to show cause why they should not be compelled to obey the Summonses. (J. Thornton Order at ¶ 1 [Doc. No. 4]; C. Thornton Order at ¶ 1 [Doc. No. 4].) On November 14, 2013, Mr. Thornton filed a "Motion to strike/dismiss" [J. Thornton Doc. No. 5]. On November 27, 2013, Mrs. Thornton filed a "Motion to strike/dismiss" [C. Thornton Doc. No. 5]. The court heard oral argument on the Orders to Show Cause on December 11, 2013, and on Respondents' Motions to Dismiss on January 27, 2014. On April 9, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued his Report and Recommendations in the respective cases. (J. Thornton R &R [Doc. No. 21]; C. Thornton R & R [Doc. No. 17].)

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

The district court reviews de novo those portions of the R & R to which an objection is made and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b).

B. Objections

Respondents' objections to the R & Rs were timely filed on May 9, 2014. (J. Thornton Obj. [Doc. No. 22]; C. Thornton Obj. [Doc. No. 18].) The Court gives Respondents' objections the most liberal construction possible in light of their pro se status. Even the most liberal construction, however, cannot cure the inherent flaws in Respondents' objections.

1. Mr. Thornton's Objections

Mr. Thornton's "Motion to strike/dismiss" argued primarily that this Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because there was "no justiciable case or controversy." (J. Thornton's Mot. to Dismiss at 2 [Doc. No. 5].) Magistrate Judge Leung's R & R addressed this issue, finding that Congress has vested in the IRS the legal right to summons individuals when investigating tax liability and that Mr. Thornton's refusal to comply with the Summonses violated federal law -- creating a justiciable case or controversy within the district court's jurisdiction. (J. Thornton R & R at 6-7 [Doc. No. 21]) (citing I.R.C. § 7602(a)).

In his objections to the R & R, Mr. Thornton argues that Magistrate Judge Leung has misstated his primary argument. (J. Thornton Obj. at ¶ 3 [Doc. No. 22].) Mr. Thornton appears to assert that his argument is not that "there is no evidence that the Government has the authority to issue summonses" but rather that there is "no evidence proving the [United States] Constitution and [Internal Revenue] Code apply to [him]." (Id.) If this is, in fact, Mr. Thornton's argument, it also fails. Mr. Thornton is a citizen of the United States, residing in St. Louis Park, Minnesota.1 (J. Thornton Pet. ¶ 3 [Doc. No. 1].) By virtue of his citizenship, Mr. Thornton is bound by the laws of the United States and its Constitution. This includes Congress' power and authority to make laws to "lay and collect Taxes." U.S. Const. art I, § 1. Accordingly, his objection that the Constitution and Internal Revenue Code are inapplicable to him lacks merit.

Mr. Thornton also objects to Magistrate Judge Leung's finding that "[b]ecause Respondent lives within the District of Minnesota he is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Court" giving this Court the authority to enforce the Summonses. (J. Thornton Obj. at ¶ 4 [Doc. No. 22]) (citing J. Thornton R & R at 6 [Doc. No. 21].) This objection is also without merit. The Internal Revenue Code provides:
If any person is summoned under the internal revenue laws to appear, to testify, or to produce books, papers, or other data, the district court of the United States for the district in which such person resides or may be found shall have jurisdiction by appropriate process to compel such attendance, testimony, or production of books, papers, or other data.

I.R.C. § 7402(b). Both Summonses were issued in Minnesota. (J. Thornton Wagner Decl. ¶¶ 5-6 [Doc. No. 2].) Wagner personally served both Summonses upon Mr. Thornton at his residence in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. (Id.) Without question, the Court has properly established jurisdiction with respect to Mr. Thornton under I.R.C. § 7402(b).

2. Mrs. Thornton's Objections

Mrs. Thornton asserts the same objections as Mr. Thornton (C. Thornton Obj. at ¶¶ 1-5 [Doc. No. 18]), with one exception: Mrs. Thornton objects to Magistrate Judge Leung's finding that she failed to meet her burden of proof with respect to the applicability of spousal privilege. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Mrs. Thornton's spousal privilege argument from her Motion to Dismiss is provided below in its entirety:
Further evidence it is not for a legitimate purpose is that Jeffrey persists in forcing me to testify against my husband. Jeffrey [Wagner] and [Assistant United States Attorney] Wilhelm both know this is not permissible, United States v. Porter, 986 F.2d. 1014, 1018 (6th Cir. 1993); United States v. Marashi, 913 F.2d. 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1990)].


(C. Thornton Mot. to Dismiss at ¶ 6 [Doc. No. 5]) (typographical errors in original). Magistrate Judge Leung correctly concluded that Mrs. Thornton's conclusory statements did not meet the burden required to assert spousal privilege. (C. Thornton R & R at 10 [Doc. No. 17].)

Under the Eighth Circuit's decision in In re Martenson, to successfully assert the privilege, Mrs. Thornton must demonstrate that her anticipated testimony would, in fact, be adverse to a protected interest of her spouse. 779 F.2d 461, 463 (8th Cir. 1985). In her objections to the R & R, Mrs. Thornton states only that "[b]eing coerced is ALWAYS against our interests." (C. Thornton Obj. at ¶ 8 [Doc. No. 18].) This conclusory statement again fails to meet the burden of proof necessary to assert spousal privilege. Accordingly, Mrs. Thornton's objection lacks merit.

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record and, for all the reasons set forth herein, finds that the R & Rs are fully supported by law and fact.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Respondents' objections (J. Thornton, 13-mc-87 [Doc. No. 22]; C. Thornton, 13-mc-86 [Doc. No. 18]) to Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung's April 9, 2014 Report and Recommendations are OVERRULED;

2. Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung's April 9, 2014 Report and Recommendations (J. Thornton, 13-mc-87 [Doc. No. 21]; C. Thornton, 13-mc-86 [Doc. No. 17]) are ADOPTED;

3. Respondents' Motions to Dismiss (J. Thornton, 13-mc-87 [Doc. Nos. 5, 14]; C. Thornton, 13-mc-86 [Doc. No. 5]) are DENIED;

4. Petitioner's Internal Revenue Service Summonses (J. Thornton, 13-mc-87 [Doc. No. 1]; C. Thornton, 13-mc-86 [Doc. No. 1]) shall be ENFORCED.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

DATED: August 1, 2014

Susan Richard Nelson
United States District Judge

FOOTNOTE

1 Wagner served Mr. Thornton at his last known and usual place of residence in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Mr. Thornton's "Motion to strike/dismiss" listed a P.O. Box address in Mesa, Arizona. It is believed that at all time relevant to this matter, Mr. Thornton was a resident of Minnesota. He does not argue that he is a resident of Arizona.

END OF FOOTNOTE
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

User avatar
Dezcad
Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:19 pm

Re: IRC Applies (and Marc Stevens Fails Again)

Postby Dezcad » Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:31 pm

LPC wrote:A federal district court has upheld a magistrate judge's recommendation to enforce an IRS summons, despite a special guest appearance by Marc Stevens.

United States v. Crisandra J. Thornton et al., No. 0:13-mc-00087 (U.S.D.C. Minn. 8/1/2014)


Marc Steven's article about the IRS Agent and his article about the Magistrate's ruling.

Marc continues to be confused.

User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: IRC Applies (and Marc Stevens Fails Again)

Postby LPC » Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:24 pm

Dezcad wrote:Marc Steven's article about the IRS Agent and his article about the Magistrate's ruling.

Marc continues to be confused.

I think you mean "willfully obtuse" and not "confused."

And I figured that Stevens had ranted or rationalized about out these latest smacks to the side of the head, but didn't have time to look for them. Thanks for the links.

Some comments on the rants/rationalizations by Stevens:
Marc Stevens wrote:I cover this in detail in the video, however, my proof Jeffrey [Wagner, the IRS revenue officer] is lying is simple. Asking for evidence is not an argument, frivolous or otherwise.

Asking for evidence might not be an argument, but claiming that you have the *right* to evidence, or that evidence is *required* (or is lacking) is an argument, and in this case, it's frivolous.

It's frivolous because all of the "evidence" needed to prove that the constitution and laws of the United States apply to Thornton was supplied by Thornton himself. As explained in the district court's opinion:
US District Court wrote:Mr. Thornton is a citizen of the United States, residing in St. Louis Park, Minnesota.1 (J. Thornton Pet. ¶ 3 [Doc. No. 1].) By virtue of his citizenship, Mr. Thornton is bound by the laws of the United States and its Constitution. This includes Congress' power and authority to make laws to "lay and collect Taxes." U.S. Const. art I, § 1. Accordingly, his objection that the Constitution and Internal Revenue Code are inapplicable to him lacks merit.

In his petition, Thornton claimed to be a citizen of the United States and a resident of Minnesota. That's all the "evidence" that is needed to conclude that the laws of the United States apply to him.

And the claim that the tax laws do not apply to citizens or residents of the United States is one of the claims that the IRS has identified as frivolous.

So, by claiming that further "evidence" is needed that the tax laws apply to him, Thornton (and Stevens) are making arguments that have been identified as "frivolous."

Marc Stevens wrote:Even if my position is there’s no evidence the constitution and code apply, to be wrong the evidence has to be provided. Such illustration or demonstration shows it’s not frivolous.

But Stevens is not asking for factual evidence (such as citizenship or residency), he's asking for "evidence" of a legal conclusion. Whether or not a law applies to a particular set of facts is a legal conclusion, and the only "evidence" of a legal conclusion is the opinion (or conclusion) itself.

Marc Stevens wrote:The question isn’t going away: What evidence do you have that four pieces of paper from 1787, no one bothered to sign as a party, apply to me in any way?

And my asking for evidence the constitution and laws apply is not that I don’t understand law, I understand what it is very well. I ask for evidence because I don’t believe in magic. I don’t believe that just writing my orders on a piece of paper, calling it a “law”, makes them magically apply to everyone.

Actually, Stevens shows that he has no understanding of "law" whatsoever.

"Law" is the set of rules adopted by a society that the society enforces by use of collective force. The rules apply, and are enforced, because society as a whole has decided (by various means, both democratic and judicial) that they should be. It's not "magic"; it's just the reality of what governments are and how they work.

So, let's try a reductio ad absurdam. Let's assume that Stevens is right and that "evidence" is needed that laws apply. What would that "evidence" be and what form would it take? The only possible answers are (a) the express consent of each person to whom the law is to be applied, or (b) some kind of magic ritual or incantation that Stevens has not yet described. No other kind "evidence" is imaginable.

But allowing each person to self-decide what laws should apply to them is not "law," but anarchy.

QED, Stevens has the result he wants.

(Not that Stevens actually wants anarchy. If he really wanted anarchy, he could move to Somalia or Afghanistan or some other freedom-loving society. What he wants is the right to rant against governments and feel superior, and he's settled on an argument that let's him do that.)
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: IRC Applies (and Marc Stevens Fails Again)

Postby Jeffrey » Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:29 pm

I've gotten into arguments with Marc Stevens followers, they just keep repeating "where's the evidence laws apply to anyone", no matter what you say, they just keep repeating that line.

I suspect Marc doesn't even know what he means by that.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6338
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: IRC Applies (and Marc Stevens Fails Again)

Postby wserra » Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:55 pm

Another question (actually, amongst the many questions) which dumfound them: what evidence would they accept? God writing on the wall of Stevens' house? Anything less simply returns them to their unanswerable mental masturbation: "What evidence do you have that [whatever it is] applies to me?"

And, frankly, I'm not so sure that divine wall-writing would do it either.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3533
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: IRC Applies (and Marc Stevens Fails Again)

Postby Judge Roy Bean » Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:18 pm

The evidence that the law applies to the perpetrator of a crime is actually simple: It's that sound he or she hears when the handcuffs are put on. :)
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three

User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: IRC Applies (and Marc Stevens Fails Again)

Postby LPC » Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:46 pm

wserra wrote:Another question (actually, amongst the many questions) which dumfound them: what evidence would they accept?

A similar but somewhat different question I would like to ask is whether there has ever been sufficient evidence *ever* produced in *any* case for *any* law to show that it applied to *anyone*?

In other words, asking for an example of "evidence" produced in the past, rather than what would be sufficient evidence in the future.

If the answer is "no," no such evidence has ever been produced, then the inescapable conclusion is that there has never been such a thing as "law" in all of human history, meaning that Stevens's definition of "law" is a definition of something that has never existed and never will exist, and is not what everyone else means by "law."

Trying to discuss "law" with Stevens is therefore like trying to discuss "wages" with Hendrickson. It's a waste of time because each is insisting on his own definition of words, and positively refusing to understand the possibility of any other meanings for the words they use. (Or admit that the words they use are deliberately deceptive.)
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10752
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: IRC Applies (and Marc Stevens Fails Again)

Postby notorial dissent » Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:06 pm

Stevens is real big on this "evidence" thing, the problem is that he is real vague on what this "evidence" really is, and his followers are even worse, but they all seem to think(well pretend really since I don't think they ever actually do) they have found some silver bullet for all their woes.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: IRC Applies (and Marc Stevens Fails Again)

Postby Jeffrey » Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:44 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4Idmj71NY0

Is the the call being referred to?

Edit: Just noticed Marc went so far as to publish the IRS agent's full name. Jeffrey Wagner, sounds familiar.

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1515
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: IRC Applies (and Marc Stevens Fails Again)

Postby Dr. Caligari » Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:06 pm

Jeffrey Wagner, sounds familiar.


Didn't his wife use to bake pies?

(For those of you who are below geezer age, or who lived on the West Coast:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs._Wagner's_Pies )
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)

User avatar
JamesVincent
A Councilor of the Kabosh
Posts: 2648
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:01 am

Re: IRC Applies (and Marc Stevens Fails Again)

Postby JamesVincent » Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:33 pm

wserra wrote:.... "What evidence do you have that [whatever it is] applies to me?"


Frankly, at least to me, the question I want answered is: "What evidence do you have that it doesn't apply to you?" Every argument they have presented has already been countered, what is left? Like was said if you start with, "Are you a US citizen living in the US?" and they answer in the affirmative then the law applies. What evidence that hasn't been refuted continues to allow you to believe that they don't?
Lift me up above this, the flames and the ashes,
Lift me up and help me to fly away.
Lift me up above this, the broken, the empty,
Lift me up and help me to fly away,
Lift me up!

Five Finger Death Punch "Lift Me Up"

AndyK
Illuminatian Revenue Supremo Emeritus
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:13 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: IRC Applies (and Marc Stevens Fails Again)

Postby AndyK » Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:08 pm

To an evidence demander:

"I intend to punch you in the noise so strongly that it will break your nose and knock you to the ground. After that, I plan to relieve you of your wallet and any other valuables in your possession. Please provide me with appropriate evidence of anything which would dissuade me from my planned actions. Your evidence is not permitted to include the fact that you might resist me since I have means to overcome your resistance. Also, any evidence you provide must be acceptable to me"

A reasonable alternative to a 2X4 upside the head?
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders

User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5231
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: IRC Applies (and Marc Stevens Fails Again)

Postby LPC » Wed Aug 06, 2014 11:02 pm

Dr. Caligari wrote:
Jeffrey Wagner, sounds familiar.


Didn't his wife use to bake pies?

(For those of you who are below geezer age, or who lived on the West Coast:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs._Wagner's_Pies )

So we bought a pack of cigarettes, and ....
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: IRC Applies (and Marc Stevens Fails Again)

Postby Jeffrey » Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:19 pm

What's going on with this case? Last update was August 2014.

User avatar
Dezcad
Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:19 pm

Re: IRC Applies (and Marc Stevens Fails Again)

Postby Dezcad » Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:20 pm

Jeffrey wrote:What's going on with this case? Last update was August 2014.



Not surprisingly, they complied with the Summons.


1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
United States of America,Petitioner
v.
Crisandra J. Thornton, Respondent

File No. 13-mc-86(SRN/TNL)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court, Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung, on several
motions filed by Respondent Crisandra J. Thornton. (ECF Nos. 50-51, 53, 55.) On
November 4, 2014, this Court held a show cause hearing why Respondent should not be
held in contempt for failing to comply with the August 1, 2014 Order requiring her to
comply with the IRS summons. (See ECF No. 41.) This Court ordered that if Respondent
failed to respond to the IRS summons by December 8, 2014, this Court would
recommend that she be held in contempt for failing to comply with a Court order. (Id.) At
the same hearing, the Government was directed to inform the Court on or before
December 9, 2014, whether Respondent had complied as ordered. (Id.)

After the November 4 hearing but before December 8, Respondent filed several motions: one motion requested the Court’s interdiction concerning scheduling the meeting with the IRS agent (ECF No. 50); a second motion sought to “clarify” respondent’s withdrawal of two earlier motions (ECF No. 51); and two separate motions sought to quash the IRS summons as issue in this case (ECF Nos. 53, 55.)

On December 8, 2014, the Government filed a letter and supporting affidavit
representing that Respondent substantially complied with the summons as ordered by the
Court. (ECF Nos. 57-58.) Because Respondent has substantially complied with the IRS
summons as set forth in the August 1, 2014 Order (ECF No. 19), no recommendation to
hold respondent in contempt will be forthcoming. Moreover, in light of Respondent’s
substantial compliance, any issues raised by her outstanding motions are moot. The Court
sees no reason to expect further motion practice from either Respondent or the Government in this matter.
Accordingly, based on all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that
Respondent’s Motion for Court Interdiction (ECF No. 50), Motion to Clarify the Withdrawal of Motions at Docket 42 and Docket 43 (ECF No. 51), Motion to Quash Summons (ECF No. 53), and Expedited Motion to Quash the Summons (ECF No. 55) are DENIED AS MOOT.

Date: December 11, 2014
s/ Tony N. Leung
Tony N. Leung
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Minnesota

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6642
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: IRC Applies (and Marc Stevens Fails Again)

Postby The Observer » Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:45 pm

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Petitioner-Appellee
v.
JOHN K. THORNTON
Respondent-Appellant

Release Date: NOVEMBER 06, 2015


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota -- Minneapolis

Submitted: October 28, 2015
Filed: November 6, 2015
[Unpublished]

Before SMITH, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

John Thornton appeals after the district court 1 found him in constructive civil contempt and imposed sanctions for his failure to comply with its order enforcing Internal Revenue Service summonses served on him. For reversal, Thornton challenges the court's subject matter jurisdiction over federal taxation matters, asserts that he is a citizen of Minnesota and not a citizen of the United States, and questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of contempt. Upon careful review of the record and the parties' submissions on appeal, we find Thornton's arguments unavailing: the court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction to compel compliance with the IRS summonses under specific statutory authority, see 26 U.S.C. section 7402(b), 7604; his citizenship argument is frivolous, see United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992); and a transcript of his interview with IRS officials shows by clear and convincing evidence that he failed to comply with the enforcement order by providing non-responsive answers and refusing to produce relevant financial documents, and nothing in the record suggests he was unable to comply, see Chicago Truck Drivers v. Bhd. Labor Leasing, 207 F.3d 500, 505 (8th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. The pending motion is denied.

FOOTNOTES:

/1/ The Honorable Susan Richardson Nelson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Tony N. Leung, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff


Return to “US”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], DotBot [Bot] and 1 guest