Florida TP disbarred

[echopapa]

It looks like nobody's talked about Florida lawyer Charles Behm since 2009 at Quatloos. On July 1, he was disbarred for failure to file tax returns, with our old friend Tommy Cryer representing him.

Behm asserts, however, that he is not required to pay federal income taxes because "his time was his life capital and, in practicing law, he was trading his life capital for an hourly fee, both of equal value."

His attempt to avoid disbarment wasn't helped by the following exchange:

Behm: Your Honor, your Honors, I intend to follow the law as it applies to me. I would like somebody to show me where there is a law that makes me liable to pay a federal income tax. I would like somebody to show me where there is a law that makes me file an income tax absent—

The Court: So you are, basically, sir, are you representing to this Court that based on your interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code, you will not be paying income taxes?

Behm: No, ma‘am. Based upon my, based upon the interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court cases, and the Internal Revenue Code—

The Court: That you will not be paying income taxes—

Behm: —Unless the law changes or unless someone can show me a law that makes me clearly liable for income tax, for federal income tax, then I am going to pursue the course of action I have up ‘til now.

I have no idea why he cited to the Slaughter-House Cases and M'Culloch v. Maryland in his brief.

[Dezcad]

The full opinion of the Florida Supreme Court can be read here.

[Pottapaug1938]

No doubt, Behm will soon be "practicing" before a "common law court" in a trailer park or warehouse somewhere....

[LPC]

I have no idea why he cited to the Slaughter-House Cases and M'Culloch v. Maryland in his brief.

Actually, he didn't cite the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), but  Butcher's Union Slaughter-House & Live-Stock Landing Co. v. Crescent City Live-Stock Landing & Slaughter-House Co. (usually cited as Butchers Union Co. v. Crescent City Co.), 111 U.S. 746 (1884), which is a favorite of tax protesters because it has language in it about "the property which every man has in his own labor."

McCulloch v. Maryland is probably cited because of the dictum about "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

[Pottapaug1938]

I have no idea why he cited to the Slaughter-House Cases and M'Culloch v. Maryland in his brief.

Actually, he didn't cite the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), but  Butcher's Union Slaughter-House & Live-Stock Landing Co. v. Crescent City Live-Stock Landing & Slaughter-House Co. (usually cited as Butchers Union Co. v. Crescent City Co.), 111 U.S. 746 (1884), which is a favorite of tax protesters because it has language in it about "the property which every man has in his own labor."

McCulloch v. Maryland is probably cited because of the dictum about "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

...and once again, we have legal non-scholars mining court decisions for dicta/commentary and bannering their finds as if they were the holdings in the cited decisions. Hey, Behm -- what's the cost basis of the "property which every man has in his own labor"?

[LPC]

Behm's history of discipline:

2005: Complaint dismissed. Florida Bar v. Behm (Charles), 918 So.2d 293, No. SC05-148 (Fla. 2005) (decision without published opinion).

2007: Public reprimand. Florida Bar v. Behm (Charles), 963 So.2d 228, No. SC06-294 (Fla. 2007) (decision without published opinion).

2009: Suspended for 91 days. Florida Bar v. Behm (Charles), 9 So. 3d 615, No. SC08-85 (Fla. 2009) (table; violations of Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.1 (failing to provide competent representation); 4-3.3(a)(2) (knowingly failing to disclose a material fact to a tribunal to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client); 4-3.4(a) (unlawfully obstructing another party's access to evidence or unlawfully altering, destroying, or concealing a document or other material that is relevant to a pending or a reasonably foreseeable proceeding or counseling or assisting another person to do so); 4-3.4(h) (threatening to present disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter); 4-4.2(a) (while representing a client, communicating about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented, without the consent of the person's lawyer); and 4-8.4(g) (failing to respond, in writing, to any official inquiry by Bar counsel in an investigation into the lawyer's conduct).

2009: Suspended. Florida Bar v. Behm (Charles), 15 So.3d 581, No. SC09-847 (Fla. 2009) (decision without published opinion).

2010: Disbarred. Florida Bar v. Charles Behm, No. SC07-661 (Fla. 7/1/2010).

Not bad for a practice of only 10 years.

[LPC]

...and once again, we have legal non-scholars mining court decisions for dicta/commentary and bannering their finds as if they were the holdings in the cited decisions. Hey, Behm -- what's the cost basis of the "property which every man has in his own labor"?

Behm was a lawyer, and it doesn't require a "scholar" to read opinions and understand which are relevant and which aren't.

In retrospect, it might have been better for everyone if Behm had never been admitted to the bar.

[LPC]

...and once again, we have legal non-scholars mining court decisions for dicta/commentary and bannering their finds as if they were the holdings in the cited decisions. Hey, Behm -- what's the cost basis of the "property which every man has in his own labor"?

Behm was a lawyer, and it doesn't require a "scholar" to read opinions and understand which are relevant and which aren't.

And Behm's brief was written (or at signed) by Tommy Cryer, who was Order of the Coif.

The problem is not lack of lack of education, or even lack of skill, but the power of pathological delusions.