Michael Fitzpatrick, Stevens acolyte

[Quixote]

Michael George Fitzpatrick was charged with two counts of willful failure to file corporate income tax returns and two counts of tax evasion. A federal jury in Coeur d’Alene convicted him on the two misdemeanor counts and deadlocked on the two felony counts. Retrial on the two deadlocked counts begins on November 6.

On his blog, Marc Stevens, who had nothing to do with the trial, speculates on the reason for the hung jury."On cross-examination, Mike asked each witness if they had facts proving the US code was applicable, the prosecutor would object and [Judge] Lodge would rubber-stamp the objection. And that’s how it went for a week; not one prosecution witness testified the code was applicable to Mike." Stevens does not speculate as to why that strategy did not work on the misdemeanor charges.

Meanwhile, over at the LostBoys, CTC Worrier Ottopartsdemonstrates that he is as clueless as ever. "This is great news, Marc Stevens has done great work fighting the IRS."

[LPC]

One thing that you don't mention is that the corporations in question were how Fitzpatrick was marketing his debt elimination scam.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... On his blog, Marc Stevens, who had nothing to do with the trial, speculates on the reason for the hung jury. "On cross-examination, Mike asked each witness if they had facts proving the US code was applicable, the prosecutor would object and [Judge] Lodge would rubber-stamp the objection. And that’s how it went for a week; not one prosecution witness testified the code was applicable to Mike." Stevens does not speculate as to why that strategy did not work on the misdemeanor charges.

Dogs chase cars; doesn't mean they know how to drive.

[wserra]

In Stevens' blog - Quixote's link - this case has received many, many comments, most praising Stevens for his grasp of the law (as if that had anything to do with a hung jury; more likely it aided the govt in obtaining the misdemeanor convictions). Fitzpatrick has now filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (he is pro se). It squarely raises - insofar as it's possible to squarely raise gibberish - Stevens pet BS about no jurisdiction, no testimony that the code applies to Fitzie, no testimony that he has an obligation to pay taxes, etc. So we're about to see another DC (and perhaps later another CA) squarely toss Stevens in the trash.

Except, of course, this won't end the Stevens rodomontade. Watch. Fitzie will have argued it wrong, or the judge(s) is (are) corrupt, or the dog ate the real papers, or the moon was in the wrong house. There will be something.

This is worth posting to the Stevens thread as well.

[ArthurWankspittle]

One thing that you don't mention is that the corporations in question were how Fitzpatrick was marketing his debt elimination scam.

This must be personal though otherwise he shouldn't be pro se?

[LPC]

One thing that you don't mention is that the corporations in question were how Fitzpatrick was marketing his debt elimination scam.

This must be personal though otherwise he shouldn't be pro se?

He's being prosecuted in a criminal case, that makes it personal.

(A corporate office can be prosecuted for failing to file corporate returns, or attempting to evade corporate taxes.)

[Famspear]

....(A corporate office can be prosecuted for failing to file corporate returns, or attempting to evade corporate taxes.)

I've always thought that this was a bad interpretation of the federal criminal tax statutes -- the interpretation that a specific individual can be held criminally liable for failure to file a corporate tax return in the situation where there is nothing in the statute itself that expressly imposes a filing requirement on an individual.

I have no problem with criminal liability where the statute expressly names a person -- such as the bankruptcy trustee for a corporation in bankruptcy under section 6012(b)(3) -- as having a filing requirement for the corporation.

Where there's no statute that expressly requires someone such as a President or Vice President or Chief Financial Officer or a shareholder responsible for filing the corporate return, it just offends my personal sense of justice -- and my "sense of statutory construction," so to speak -- to hold such a person criminally liable.

Of course, there is the counter-argument that, hey, someone has to be responsible for filing each return. And I agree with that.

The problem is that since Congress has actually specified the "person responsible" in SOME cases, I would argue that a reasonable interpretation is that where Congress has NOT specified such a person, no one should be held criminally liable.

And Congress could easily amend the statutes for corporations, etc., to specify which corporate officers, etc., have the filing duty.

However, my personal view of how the statutes should be interpreted does not conform to what the courts have ruled (or at least to what some courts have ruled), as LPC has noted above.

For example, if I recall correctly, Irwin Schiff was convicted of willful failure to file a federal income tax return for a corporation (a corporation he controlled, I'm pretty sure).

[Famspear]

On the other thing LPC mentioned -- tax evasion -- I have no problem, because section 7201 (the tax evasion statute) is broadly worded, so that a willful attempt to evade any tax is criminalized. The wording of the statute does not limit the category of tax to "one which the defendant owes" (as opposed to a tax owed by a corporation or some other person other than the defendant).

[wserra]

It squarely raises - insofar as it's possible to squarely raise gibberish - Stevens pet BS about no jurisdiction, no testimony that the code applies to Fitzie, no testimony that he has an obligation to pay taxes, etc. So we're about to see another DC (and perhaps later another CA) squarely toss Stevens in the trash.

Which, of course, is exactly what happened:

The Court has jurisdiction and the laws apply to the Defendant. See United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008). “Under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, federal courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over ‘all offenses against the laws of the United States’” including offenses, as charged here, defined in Title 26 of the United States Code. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). Furthermore, the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant by virtue of the Defendant having been brought before this Court by way of a federal Indictment charging violations of federal laws. Marks, 530 F.3d at 810 (citing United States v. Lussier, 929 F.2d 25, 27 (1st Cir. 1991) (“It is well settled that a district court has personal jurisdiction over any party who appears before it, regardless of how his appearance was obtained.”)).
Moreover, an individual, such as the Defendant, as well as a partnership, association, company, or corporation are considered a “person” as defined in the Internal Revenue Code and, therefore, subject to 26 U.S.C. § 7203. Studley, 783 F.2d at 937 (citing 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(1)). Under § 7203 any such “person” is obligated to file a tax return and to pay taxes. Arguments that an individual is not a “person” as defined in the statute have been consistently and thoroughly rejected. Id.

Which would end it for anyone rational.

Fitzpatrick is now pro se. Jury trial set for Tuesday, January 8. Fitzpatrick's pro se filings (such as this most recent one and the one from last week) make it clear that he intends to continue the Stevens bullshit - no jurisdiction, no "injured party", no standing, he doesn't consent to be prosecuted.

My guess is this won't go well, but you never know what a jury will do. God bless 'em.

[notorial dissent]

Oh well, and I am equally sure he won't consent to be convicted and jailed, with equal and predictable and inevitable results.

[wserra]

Despite his lack of consent, Fitzpatrick was convicted on both evasion courts yesterday. According to the DOJ press release, the Court remanded him on the verdict. Sentencing set for May 13, 2013.

[wserra]

The knuckleheads over at Stevens' board are bouncing off the walls (fortunately their walls are padded) at the verdict. User "Ripsaw":

What ever happened to not being prosecuted twice for the same offense ?

The Supreme Court held a long time ago that a trial resulting in a hung jury is not jeopardy.

I assume an appeal is pending for Mike ?

Not before sentence.

Maybe we should all get together and prosecute the judge and Lori [the AUSA's first name - WS] for treason against the united 'no' states ?

Great plan. All of you together? How can it fail?

And not a soul, of course, points out how it's yet further proof (as if any were needed) that - unless the cop who issued the traffic ticket fails to show - Stevens' bullshit is completely useless.

[Pottapaug1938]

The knuckleheads over at Stevens' board are bouncing off the walls (fortunately their walls are padded) at the verdict. User "Ripsaw":

What ever happened to not being prosecuted twice for the same offense ?

The Supreme Court held a long time ago that a trial resulting in a hung jury is not jeopardy.

I assume an appeal is pending for Mike ?

Not before sentence.

Maybe we should all get together and prosecute the judge and Lori [the AUSA's first name - WS] for treason against the united 'no' states ?

Great plan. All of you together? How can it fail?

And not a soul, of course, points out how it's yet further proof (as if any were needed) that - unless the cop who issued the traffic ticket fails to show - Stevens' bullshit is completely useless.

Not to mention the fact that these Great Experts on Constitutional Law have never read Article III Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution and thus have no idea about the sole requirements for proving the crime of treason against this country.

[Dezcad]

The knuckleheads over at Stevens' board are bouncing off the walls (fortunately their walls are padded) at the verdict. User "Ripsaw":

What ever happened to not being prosecuted twice for the same offense ?

The Supreme Court held a long time ago that a trial resulting in a hung jury is not jeopardy.

I assume an appeal is pending for Mike ?

Not before sentence.

Maybe we should all get together and prosecute the judge and Lori [the AUSA's first name - WS] for treason against the united 'no' states ?

Great plan. All of you together? How can it fail?

And not a soul, of course, points out how it's yet further proof (as if any were needed) that - unless the cop who issued the traffic ticket fails to show - Stevens' bullshit is completely useless.

I like the comments about PH and that he is still challenging his conviction with a motion that was just filed last month (see PH's docket below).

peter hendrickson (no relation to lory) already had his circus in court , did his prison time now has chalenged his conviction, (juristiction may be challenged at anytime and conviction without subject matter juristiction or tainted by fraud upon or by the court is void abinitio).....:fact the jury never issued a verdict on an element of the offence charged.the code by definition does not apply. here is his new motion to vacate and dissmiss: http://losthorizons.com/Documents/PostMo...iction.pdf ..........i posted elswhere i was involved in an administative law court against sec of labor and one of gov lawyer sent out a foia request for the transcript. i dont remember if he got it that way, seems like he shared transcript with me. my tack isnt as sharp anymore

PH's docket:

12/26/2012 140 MOTION to Vacate and Dismiss by Peter Hendrickson. (DWor) (Entered: 12/27/2012)
01/03/2013 141 RESPONSE by United States of America as to Peter Hendrickson re 140 MOTION to Dismiss (Daly, Mark) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
01/11/2013 142 REPLY TO RESPONSE by Peter Hendrickson re 140 MOTION to Dismiss (DTyl) (Entered: 01/14/2013)

[rogfulton]

12/26/2012 140 MOTION to Vacate and Dismiss by Peter Hendrickson. (DWor) (Entered: 12/27/2012)
01/03/2013 141 RESPONSE by United States of America as to Peter Hendrickson re 140 MOTION to Dismiss (Daly, Mark) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
01/11/2013 142 REPLY TO RESPONSE by Peter Hendrickson re 140 MOTION to Dismiss (DTyl) (Entered: 01/14/2013)

Wow, such a quick turn around (bolding is mine). Almost makes me think he had the response already prepared to the point of only needing to tweek it based on the USA's Response.

Yes, I know it's possible he didn't, but....

[LPC]

Sentenced to 42 months in prison.

DOJ press release (13-549; 5/13/2013) below.

IDAHO BUSINESSMAN SENTENCED TO PRISON FOR TAX EVASION

WASHINGTON -- Michael George Fitzpatrick, 51, of Hope, Idaho, was sentenced to 42 months in prison by U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns, the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced today. Fitzpatrick was also ordered to serve three years supervised released and to pay just under $1.4 million in restitution to the IRS for unpaid individual and corporate federal income taxes.

Fitzpatrick was convicted of two counts of tax evasion in January 2013 by a Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, jury. A previous jury had convicted him in September 2012 on two counts of failure to file corporate income tax returns but was unable to reach verdicts on the tax evasion counts. Fitzpatrick was remanded into custody immediately after the second trial.

According to the indictment and evidence introduced at both trials, Fitzpatrick operated a business selling products which purported to help individuals eliminate credit card debt. During 2003 and 2004, gross sales from the business, operating under the names Dynamic Solutions Inc. (DSI) and North American Educational Services Inc. (NAES), exceeded $9 million. At trial the government proved the corporations failed to report $3.7 million and Fitzpatrick himself failed to report over $500,000 in income, resulting in a total tax loss of $1,397,762.

The evidence further established that Fitzpatrick last filed an individual income tax return in 1996. At trial, Fitzpatrick argued at length that the income tax laws did not apply to him. However, the evidence showed he expended significant time and expense to put all of his property in the names of nominees.

The evidence at trial also established Fitzpatrick sent over $5 million offshore to a bank located in the Dominican Republic. Fitzpatrick accessed this money through the use of a debit card and through wire transfers. During this two-year period Fitzpatrick used over $1 million of his money hidden offshore to buy real estate and to gamble in Las Vegas on nine separate trips to the Bellagio Casino. He also paid a contractor to build a schoolhouse for his kids in his backyard in Hope, Idaho.

"This case sends a strong message that those who defy our nation's tax laws will be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," said Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Tax Division Kathryn Keneally. "The sentence imposed today demonstrates that anyone who attempts to evade taxes by hiding assets in offshore bank accounts faces significant time in prison for these crimes."

"Paying taxes is a solemn obligation of citizenship," said U.S. Attorney Wendy J. Olson. "Mr. Fitzpatrick's conviction and sentence make clear that those who try to hide income or knowingly and falsely claim that the income tax laws do not apply to them will be prosecuted and ordered to pay. I commend the fine work of the Tax Division lawyers and the IRS criminal investigators in this case."

"The license to run a business is not a license to avoid paying taxes," said IRS Criminal Investigation Chief Richard Weber. "Today, Mr. Fitzpatrick has been held accountable for his actions of dodging his legal tax responsibilities to report all his income and pay his fair share of taxes. No one should doubt that IRS is committed to pursuing people hiding income offshore."

Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Tax Division Kathryn Keneally and U.S. Attorney Olson thanked special agents from the Boise, Idaho, and Seattle offices of IRS Criminal Investigation, who investigated the case, and Tax Division Trial Attorneys Lori A. Hendrickson, Christopher P. O'Donnell, and Erin S. Mellen, who prosecuted the case with valuable support from the U.S. Attorney's Offices in Boise and Coeur d'Alene.

[wserra]

MICHAEL GEORGE FITZPATRICK 14214-023 51-White-M 01-29-2016 FLORENCE ADMAX USP

Damn. Fitzpatrick is in Florence AdMax? For those who don't know, it's the highest security facility in the country. And on a relatively short sentence, at that. He's been a bad boy while locked up. Think he tried to file liens on judges or AUSAs?

Oh, and nice work, Marc. You have a "client" who hit the big time.

[fortinbras]

I think very unusual that a tax evader would go to Super-Max.

[notorial dissent]

If he's at Florence, he's done something way above and beyond cheating on his taxes. They don't send people there unless they are really really a problem. A holiday camp it ain't.

[LPC]

Fitzpatrick has now [10/2/12] filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (he is pro se). It squarely raises - insofar as it's possible to squarely raise gibberish - Stevens pet BS about no jurisdiction, no testimony that the code applies to Fitzie, no testimony that he has an obligation to pay taxes, etc. So we're about to see another DC (and perhaps later another CA) squarely toss Stevens in the trash.

I didn't see any follow-up to this, and I checked, and the results were somewhat disappointing.

The motion for judgement nov was denied, of course, but most of the claims were denied because they were not proper for a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. The denial of the claim of lack of jurisdiction referred to an order denying an earlier motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. In the earlier order, the court confirmed the sufficiency of the indictment, and then had this to say about jurisdiction:

The Court has jurisdiction and the laws apply to the Defendant. See United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008). “Under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, federal courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over ‘all offenses against the laws of the United States’” including offenses, as charged here, defined in Title 26 of the United States Code. United States v. Studley , 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). Furthermore, the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant by virtue of the Defendant having been brought before this Court by way of a federal Indictment charging violations of federal laws. Marks, 530 F.3d at 810 (citing United States v. Lussier, 929 F.2d 25, 27 (1st Cir. 1991) (“It is well settled that a district court has personal jurisdiction over any party who appears before it, regardless of how his appearance was obtained.”)).

Now, Stevens might say that the court didn't really address the question, but actually it did. As far as a district court is concerned (or a circuit court, or the Supreme Court, or Congress, for that matter), once you've established that there is a federal statute conferring subject matter jurisdiction, and there is personal jurisdiction over the defendant, that's it. Unless there is a strange constitutional issue (such as the plaintiff not having standing), the court has jurisdiction.

Stevens wants to claim that there is a "standing" issue but, as has been discussed before, that's silly. The government of the United States has standing to enforce the laws of the United States. See citations of authority at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#standing.

So, not a real thrashing in the District Court. Fitzpatrick appealed, but for some reason voluntarily withdrew his appeal, so the 9th Circuit never ruled on the merits. See the docket at No. 13-30154.

So it ended with a whimper and not a bang.