What are Bulten's chances?

[Famspear]

I have the statistics on tax prosecutions, etc., republished by Syracuse University that I guess everyone else can find on the internet. This may be a gloomy subject, but I am curious, not really knowing Mr. Bulten's tax protest history and not working for the government myself. Realistically, knowing everything that is known about Bulten, would anyone hazard a rough guess as to his odds of being referred by CID (even if the tax amount is not substantial)? And if a referral were made, what would the chance be that DOJ Tax Division would go forward? I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts (whether gov't employee or not). I guess this would be hard to quantify. Prosecution is ultimately a decision made in DC, isn’t it? --Famspear

[Nikki]

CID referral -- Guaranteed. John has pissed off too many people in the various IRS offices and mainained too high a profile to avoid criminal investigation.

DoJ prosecution -- Depends on who else is in the pipeline and what resources are available. Given that John is a major loudmouth CtC advocate, DoJ might be interested in going after him just to establish a good exampple for the other CtCheads.

Likelihood of conviction if prosecuted -- Slam dunk.

[Quixote]

If Bulten is prosecuted, wouldn't that make him the poorest person convicted of tax evasion?

[Joey Smith]

Very high because of his high profile.

[ASITStands]

Very high. But it depends on what else is happening, as 'Nikki' said.

Bulten may be something similar to a 'useful idiot' in the TP community, as the more he convinces others, the more he incriminates himself. Or, he may be a key witness against someone higher on the food chain.

Any referral may not be for a while longer, but I'd be fairly certain there's already an active investigation. And, prosecution may be a year or two away.

[Demosthenes]

Very high chance of prosecution, because they'll need witnesses to testify against Hendrickson.

[wserra]

Very high chance of prosecution, because they'll need witnesses to testify against Hendrickson.

What Demo said.

Bulten probably isn't a big enough fish to prosecute on his own merits, even given how hard he tries to raise his profile. However, someone who has not seen it first hand would have a hard time appreciating how much a part of the culture it is at DOJ to pile cooperators high and deep. There is no such thing as "too many cooperators". They pick up the little guys and sit on them with (quite realistic) threats of lengthy incarceration unless they roll over.

Federal prosecutors have somewhat less power to do this after Booker/Fanfan, but still have plenty. Before Booker/Fanfan, a rational defendant frequently, quite literally, had no choice.

In that respect, I'm glad to be out of that world.

[Demosthenes]

They pick up the little guys and sit on them with (quite realistic) threats of lengthy incarceration unless they roll over.

And in cases where the little guy is hip deep in Koolaid, they're perfectly content to sit on spouses too. While John may be willing to take a multi-month sentence for the team, is John willing to have Mrs. John do the same? Assuming she signed his wingnutty returns, she's on the hook too.

[.]

I'm glad to be out of that world.

I take it that you have an objection to plea-bargains.

Why? Granted, the use of lesser conspirators to gain convictions may not be the best of all possible worlds, but it is at least somewhat efficient. If every single offender was prosecuted to the full extent, I can see many objecting to the use of too many prosecutorial resources to "oppress" small fish. Not to mention that the bigger fish might not be convicted absent the cooperation of the minnows.

What's the problem you see?

[wserra]

I'm glad to be out of that world.

I take it that you have an objection to plea-bargains.

I have no objection to plea bargains. I entered into plea bargains all the time. Some of my best clients plea-bargained. You, Senator, are no . . . . Oops. Wrong context.

My objection was to the completely one-sided nature of the process pre-Booker/Fanfan - in other words, when the Guidelines were all but immutable, and a letter pursuant to 5K1.1 (render material assistance to law enforcement) was the only out from a draconian sentence. As Demo correctly writes, the govt will hold spouses hostage to the same provisions. I had one case in which the govt forced a father to testify against a son - I think it backfired, though, because the jury acquitted where they might well have convicted. Couldn't happen to nicer people. And their "we just want you to tell the truth" - well, suffice to say that there were nuances to that.

My objection isn't to plea bargaining, but to a system which placed 95 percent of the power in the hands, not even of the court, but of a party.

[.]

95 percent of the power in the hands, not even of the court, but of a party

OK. I get it. You don't like situations similar to the Scooter Libby prosecution. That is, those where there is an obvious abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

[LPC]

95 percent of the power in the hands, not even of the court, but of a party

OK. I get it. You don't like situations similar to the Scooter Libby prosecution.

Scooter Libby? What underlings were prosecuted in the Scooter Libby case?

Serra is talking about cases in which people are investigated and prosecuted for the sole purpose of getting them to give testimony against a bigger fish.

For example, Ken Starr was accused of harshly prosecuting people like Susan McDougal and Webster Hubbell solely to try to get them to testify against Bill Clinton. Starr's office spent a great deal of time and money investigation things that had nothing to do with the Whitewater or the Clintons just to try to get something that could be used as leverage against potential witnesses.

[Demosthenes]

In Irwin Schiff's case, they tapped Larry Cohen to be the little fish who was supposed to turn, but Larry was too stupid to understand his role. So they tapped a bunch of other Schiff employees who all testified in exchange for immunity, and Larry was sentenced to three years in prison.

[Prof]

95 percent of the power in the hands, not even of the court, but of a party

OK. I get it. You don't like situations similar to the Scooter Libby prosecution.

Scooter Libby? What underlings were prosecuted in the Scooter Libby case?

Serra is talking about cases in which people are investigated and prosecuted for the sole purpose of getting them to give testimony against a bigger fish.

For example, Ken Starr was accused of harshly prosecuting people like Susan McDougal and Webster Hubbell solely to try to get them to testify against Bill Clinton. Starr's office spent a great deal of time and money investigation things that had nothing to do with the Whitewater or the Clintons just to try to get something that could be used as leverage against potential witnesses.

Well, there is the equally common indictment of spouse, child, parent in hopes that the target will plead or roll over on someone else.

[wserra]

95 percent of the power in the hands, not even of the court, but of a party

OK. I get it. You don't like situations similar to the Scooter Libby prosecution. That is, those where there is an obvious abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

I am rumored to be able to say something pretty close to what I mean.

What I mean has nothing at all to do with the Libby prosecution. I see Demo and Dan got it right. I object to the schmoes of the world being put through the ringer to force them to cooperate - and especially providing them (at least pre-Booker/Fanfan) with no means to defend themselves other than to do what the prosecutor wants. Although Libby was not charged as the source of the leak, he was hardly a schmo. He was one of the most powerful men in government, and had plenty of ability to defend himself. Since the Guidelines are no longer binding, this was even true post-conviction.

And, for whatever it's worth, I don't believe that the Libby prosecution was an abuse at all, much less an obvious one. Full disclosure: I know Pat Fitzgerald fairly well, and think quite well of him.

[Famspear]

So, what would a prosecutor want from John Bulten that would be useful? What kinds of things could Bulten possibly provide that would nail a bigger fish?

[.]

Serra is talking about cases in which people are investigated and prosecuted for the sole purpose of getting them to give testimony against a bigger fish.

Yeah, I know. Just giving you liberals a little grief.

[wserra]

So, what would a prosecutor want from John Bulten that would be useful? What kinds of things could Bulten possibly provide that would nail a bigger fish?

Conversations with Hendrickson. Where the gold is buried. Where the bodies are buried.

Perhaps you don't appreciate the federal prosecutor's view of the natural order of things:

Little fish have bigger fish
That feed on 'em and bite 'em.
And big fish have bigger fish,
And so, ad infinitum.

[Famspear]

Perhaps you don't appreciate the federal prosecutor's view of the natural order of things:

Little fish have bigger fish
That feed on 'em and bite 'em.
And big fish have bigger fish,
And so, ad infinitum.

I see. It is somehow comforting to know that the universe is an orderly system. --Famspear

[grixit]

Little fish have bigger fish
That feed on 'em and bite 'em.
And big fish have bigger fish,
And so, ad infinitum.

That's fleas, not fish.