An interesting filing in the upcoming Snipes trial

Post by **Demosthenes** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 8:34 pm

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/snipes208.pdf

Based on the histories of the defendants in this case, as reflected in the allegations in the indictment and the defendants’ pretrial motions, there is good reason to believe that one or more of the defendants will improperly attempt to present to the jury legal material and/or argument along various tax-protestor themes. Defendant Kahn has filed numerous pretrial motions and other documents frivolously denying the court’s jurisdiction over him and raising meritless tax-protestor claims. In a similar vein, defendant Snipes has advanced the long-discredited tax-protestor argument that an “MFR-01 notation” on his IRS Master File means that he does not have to file an income tax return, (Doc. 145 at 13), and has appended a cryptic footnote to each of his motions stating that the motions “do[] not waive any jurisdictional arguments Mr. Snipes may have with respect to the jurisdiction of the Court over this matter” or variations on that theme. (Doc. 144 at 3 n.1; 145 at 3 n.1; 146 at 3 n.2; 147 at 6 n.1; 148 at 3 n.1; 149 at 3 n.2; 161 at 1 n.1; 164 at 1 n.1; 192 at 1 n.1.)

Post by **Demosthenes** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 8:39 pm

Snipes also wants additional peremptary challenges during jury selection because he's "the only African/American among the defendants."

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/snipes207.pdf

As previously stated in motion for severance, there are anticipated separate and antagonistic defenses. Defendant Snipes is a national figure having appeared publicly in numerous movies, as well as being the only African/American among the defendants. He is particularly concerned with any questions of racial prejudice and any prejudice against “movie stars”.

Nikki · Post by **Nikki** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:21 pm

he seems to be operating in

There's no legitimate defense, so let's lay the ground work for an appeal

mode.

What's really surprising is that his attorneys let him go ahead with

a cryptic footnote to each of his motions stating that the motions “do[] not waive any jurisdictional arguments Mr. Snipes may have with respect to the jurisdiction of the Court over this matter” or variations on that theme

unless they are planning to challenge geographic jurisdiction -- again.

Post by **Judge Roy Bean** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:36 pm

Nikki wrote:he seems to be operating in
There's no legitimate defense, so let's lay the ground work for an appeal
mode.

What's really surprising is that his attorneys let him go ahead with
a cryptic footnote to each of his motions stating that the motions “do[] not waive any jurisdictional arguments Mr. Snipes may have with respect to the jurisdiction of the Court over this matter” or variations on that theme
unless they are planning to challenge geographic jurisdiction -- again.

Don't underestimate what financial resources mean to presenting a zealous defense. Trust me, even a motion to demonstrate a flying pig and appeal for the denial are not beyond the realm of possibility in this kind of case.

Nikki · Post by **Nikki** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 10:36 pm

How far can an attorney go by being zealous without crossing the line into sanctionable territory?

Cpt Banjo · Post by **Cpt Banjo** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:53 am

Nikki wrote:How far can an attorney go by being zealous without crossing the line into sanctionable territory?

Section 3.1 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct:

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.

Post by **wserra** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:00 am

Nikki wrote:How far can an attorney go by being zealous without crossing the line into sanctionable territory?

Pretty far, especially when defending criminal charges.

Post by **grixit** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:41 pm

I'm guessing some tp lawyers take their cue from the antics they see on lawyer tv shows.

Harrison Bergeron · Post by **Harrison Bergeron** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:26 pm

I just read at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ye ... ipes1.html that Snipes tried for a continuance by firing his entire legal team for "incompetence" on 10/3, but the motion was denied that same day.

I could have told him that wouldn't work, because his judge is William Terrell Hodges. Snipes is not going to get by with any crap as long as Hodges has anything to say about it.

Nikki · Post by **Nikki** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:24 pm

Harrison Bergeron wrote:I just read at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ye ... ipes1.html that Snipes tried for a continuance by firing his entire legal team for "incompetence" on 10/3, but the motion was denied that same day.

I could have told him that wouldn't work, because his judge is William Terrell Hodges. Snipes is not going to get by with any crap as long as Hodges has anything to say about it.

Interestingly enough

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 31, 2003
FEDERAL COURT BARS SORRENTO, FLORIDA MAN AND OTHERS FROM SELLING COUNTERFEIT CHECKS AND OTHER TAX SCAMS

The Justice Department today announced that the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Orlando has barred five defendants from promoting several abusive tax schemes. The schemes include selling counterfeit checks, setting up sham corporations to hide customers’ income and assets, and helping customers obstruct IRS investigations and collections.

On December 8, 2003, the Justice Department filed a complaint and moved for a preliminary injunction against Eddie and Kathleen (“Kookie”) Kahn of Sorrento, Florida; Milton Hargraves Baxley, II, a lawyer from Gainesville, Florida; David Stephen Lokietz of Mt. Dora, Florida; Bryan Malatesta, a certified public accountant in Cleburne, Texas; and Eddie Kahn’s businesses - American Rights Litigators, Guiding Light of God Ministries, as well as Eddie Kahn and Associates.

...

Today’s preliminary injunction, entered by Judge William Terrell Hodges

Also at http://www.quatloos.com/article.php?ID=198

Harrison Bergeron · Post by **Harrison Bergeron** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:33 pm

Attorneys in Jacksonville are intimidated by Hodges. If they're late for an appearance in his court, there is a very real fear that he'll throw them in jail for contempt. So he's not going to take any crap out of the defendants, without any doubt.

He's a good judge, though. I don't recall ever having a real disagreement with any of his rulings.

Post by **Demosthenes** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:33 pm

Snipes got his 90 day continuance.

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/snipes229.pdf

Post by **wserra** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:45 pm

Especially given Hodges' rep, I'm surprised.