My Disappointment Over a Tax Crime Trial

[Famspear]

More from the Supreme Court in Cheek:

...There is no doubt that Cheek, from year to year, was free to pay the tax that the law purported to require, file for a refund and, if denied, present his claims of invalidity, constitutional or otherwise, to the courts. See 26 U. S. C. § 7422. Also, without paying the tax, he could have challenged claims of tax deficiencies in the Tax Court, § 6213, with the right to appeal to a higher court if unsuccessful. § 7482(a)(1). Cheek took neither course in some years, and when he did was unwilling to accept the outcome. As we see it, he is in no position to claim that his good-faith belief about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code negates willfulness or provides a defense to criminal prosecution under §§ 7201 and 7203. Of course, Cheek was free in this very case to present his claims of invalidity and have them adjudicated, but like defendants in criminal cases in other contexts, who "willfully" refuse to comply with the duties placed upon them by the law, he must take the risk of being wrong.

(large font added for emphasis).

[LPC]

Also from the Cheek opinion:

“Of course, the more unreasonable the asserted beliefs or misunderstandings are, the more likely the jury will consider them to be nothing more than simple disagreement with known legal duties imposed by the tax laws, and will find that the Government has carried its burden of proving knowledge.”

United States v. Cheek, 498 U.S. 192, 203-204 (1991).

What bobhurt, patriotdiscussions, and other delusional kool-aid drinkers refuse to understand is that their beliefs are so unreasonable, and so contrary to common sense and the experiences of most jurors, that most jurors simply can't believe that the asserted beliefs are anything but willful disagreements.

Because, as the Supreme Court made clear, if you know what the government's position is, and you choose to ignore it, then your violation of the law is willful.

[Famspear]

Bob Hurt wrote:

As I watched the defendant's nightmare unfold, I wondered what feat of logic possessed the judge to think it possible that a defendant who committed alleged crimes because of belief about the meaning or applicability of the law could possibly defend against the accusations without fully discussing the source of the belief that the law did not apply to the defendant.

Yes, and this can be a problem in these kinds of cases. Will the jury likely be confused if the defendant’s material is introduced? And, is the defendant really trying to show lack of awareness of the law -- or is the defendant trying to get the jury to agree with the defendant's interpretation of the law?

From a case at the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit back in 1991:

The problem with the type of material offered by Willie [the defendant] is that it can have both a proper and an improper purpose insofar as it is intended to show the offeror's belief that he need not file income tax returns. "Belief" is a mischievous and tricky concept in this context. It is not a single-faceted idea, but is better defined as having both a normative and descriptive side. A normative belief is how Willie wants the law to be interpreted and ardently believes it should be interpreted. How he believes the law is constitutes a descriptive belief. Thus, while "[tax protesters] believe with great fervor [many] preposterous things . . . ," Coleman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 791 F.2d 68, 69 (7th Cir. 1986), belief in their tax-free status, no matter how sincerely held, is not necessarily a defense to the government's claim of willfulness. Rather, only a belief possessing those characteristics that counter the elements of willfulness is a valid and relevant defense.

"Willfulness" is defined as the "voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty." Cheek v. United States, 111 S.Ct. at 610 (emphasis added). To be a relevant defense to willfulness, then, Willie, because of his belief or misunderstanding, must not have known he had a legal duty. Id. at 611 (defendant must be ignorant of his duty").

--from United States v. Willie, 941 F.2d 1384, 91-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50,409 (10th Cir. 1991) (large font added), at:

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?q ... 10&scilh=0

Thus, a sincere belief is not necessarily enough.

An actual belief is not necessarily enough.

An honest belief is not necessarily enough.

The specific kind of actual belief that negates willfulness (that negates awareness of the law) is an "actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law," per the U.S. Supreme Court in Cheek.

[Dr. Caligari]

You can beat the willful part by showing you relied on Supreme Court cases like Conner vs. us, etc.

Please show us this "Supreme Court decision" in Conner v. U.S., or be forever proven to be a liar.
Hint: there is no such "Supreme Court decision."

[Famspear]

You can beat the willful part by showing you relied on Supreme Court cases like Conner vs. us, etc.

Please show us this "Supreme Court decision" in Conner v. U.S., or be forever proven to be a liar.
Hint: there is no such "Supreme Court decision."

Yeah, he's doing the upteen-gazillionth tax protester reference to the out-of-context quote, "Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation" --

--which of course is from a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Conner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 1187 (S.D. Tex. 1969), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 439 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1971).

See:

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?c ... s_sdt=3,44

This is an old scam. It is the tax protester community's attempt to create the false impression that this case was about taxability of compensation received for services performed by the recipient of the compensation.

The Conner case had nothing to do with wages, or the taxability of wages.

This case was about the taxability of compensation paid by an insurance company to a policy holder whose house had burned down. The insurance company was reimbursing the homeowner for the costs of renting a place to stay after the home burned down -- under the terms of the insurance policy. The insurance company was not paying compensation to an employee (or anyone else) for services performed. The "compensation" was for PROPERTY DAMAGE -- for the loss of a home by fire.

[Famspear]

Bob Hurt wrote:

....I wondered what feat of logic possessed the judge to think it possible that a defendant who committed alleged crimes because of belief about the meaning or applicability of the law could possibly defend against the accusations without fully discussing the source of the belief that the law did not apply to the defendant.

The answer is the feat of LEGAL logic that requires that the judge follow the law in making rulings on admission of evidence.

Under the law, a piece of information otherwise not admissible does not magically become admissible merely because the defendant wants to “fully discuss the source of the belief that the law did not apply” to the defendant. Even if a piece of information is legally relevant, it can be excluded, and properly so, if the probative value of the information is substantially outweighed by a danger of confusion of the issues or a danger of misleading the jury. See Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Such dangers would often be likely the case if the defendant is trying to introduce either information about what the law is, or information the defendant used to reach his conclusion about what the law is.

The jury might be confused into thinking that the jury itself should ignore the judge’s instructions on the law and decide, for itself, what the law is. Or, the jury might be misled by the defendant into thinking that the law is what the defendant claimed to believe the law to be.

[Famspear]

Bob Hurt wrote:

Yes, I muse over the apparent injustice of a conviction in a court that allowed no discussion of the law or whether it applies or does not apply.

That's exactly why you are wrong, and why the judge may have been correct. That is, if you are talking about a "discussion" in front of the jury.

Under our legal system, it would generally be improper to have a discussion -- in front of the jury -- about whether the law applies or does not apply (in other words, whether the tax protester arguments are valid or not) for the purpose of trying to persuade the jury about what the law is. That would be an obvious attempt by a defendant (1) to confuse the jury about the proper function of a jury, and (2) to mislead the jury about what the law is.

The judge instructs the jury as to what the law is. A discussion of or dispute about "what the law is" is not properly to be put directly before the jury by either the prosecution or the defendant.

From the U.S. Supreme Court:

....where the matter is not controlled by express constitutional or statutory provisions, it cannot be regarded as the right of counsel [for either side in a court case] to dispute before the jury the law as declared by the court.[ . . . ] We must hold firmly to the doctrine that in the courts of the United States it is the duty of juries in criminal cases to take the law from the court and apply that law to the facts as they find them to be from the evidence. Upon the court [i.e., the judge] rests the responsibility of declaring the law; upon the jury, the responsibility of applying the law so declared [by the judge] to the facts as they, upon their conscience, believe them to be. Under any other system, the courts, although established in order to declare the law, would for every practical purpose be eliminated from our system of government as instrumentalities devised for the protection equally of society and of individuals in their essential rights. When that occurs our government will cease to be a government of laws, and become a government of men. Liberty regulated by law is the underlying principle of our institutions.[ . . . ] Public and private safety alike would be in peril, if the principle be established that juries in criminal cases may, of right, disregard the law as expounded to them by the court and become a law unto themselves.

--Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895).

[Judge Roy Bean]

I think something Bob and others among the TP community fail to realize is if you want to argue the law and applicability, the appropriate time is well before a jury is empaneled. Seriously, why wait - especially if you're behind bars or under house confinement? If your legal argument is all that persuasive you won't even have to stand trial.

Then again, if your objective is to make noise and reinforce mythology among your fellow sycophants, you probably believe the attempts to contaminate the process will make good internet fodder for jury-nullification types.

[Dr. Caligari]

Yeah, he's doing the upteen-gazillionth tax protester reference to the out-of-context quote, "Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation"

Oh, I realize that Patriotdiscussions was going to pull out that misleading, out-of-context quote. But before we even got there, I wanted to see him try to explain how the District Court for the Southern District of Texas is the "Supreme Court."

[Famspear]

Yeah, he's doing the upteen-gazillionth tax protester reference to the out-of-context quote, "Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation"

Oh, I realize that Patriotdiscussions was going to pull out that misleading, out-of-context quote. But before we even got there, I wanted to see him try to explain how the District Court for the Southern District of Texas is the "Supreme Court."

Yeah, I kinda figured I might be spoiling your fun by posting so quickly.

I... I.... I just.... can't help myself......



EDIT: By the way, I would argue that it shows great planning on my part to be able to have my work done so that am able to take time to post here at Quatloos on October 15th, of all days (major federal income tax return filing deadline). All my October 15th stuff was finished by Monday.....



EDIT 2: Back on topic: "Patriotdiscussions" took the same great care to slap the "Supreme Court" label on what was actually a lowly federal district court case from right here in Houston as he did in stupidly referring to the verbiage from, of all things, the losing taxpayer's brief in Lucas v. Earl as being from the text of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in that case.

[Famspear]

By the way, there should be an "emoticon" for "patting oneself on the back" -- so I could use it on myself. As far as I know, I was the first commentator (back in December 2005) to identify the specific source of the fake quote that is falsely attributed by tax protesters to the Supreme Court decision in Lucas v. Earl. In 2005, I found the source of the material (which, as I've said, was actually quotes and paraphrases from various pages of the taxpayer's losing brief) at the web site for the University of Cincinnati Law School. I still have the PDF files of that brief and other materials from that case.

Dimwits like "Patriotdiscussions" are blissfully unaware that Lucas v. Earl is a major case in the history of the U.S. federal income tax (the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine). A person who took the introductory federal income tax course in law school would recognize that Patriotdiscussion's "quote" is not from the Supreme Court decision in that case, even before having researched to find the actual source of the "quote."

[Jeffrey]

has already decided to buy the transcripts for $3500

The obsession with transcripts is ridiculous.

[wserra]

If you teach some theory of the law or Constitution that leaves earners believing they need not file returns or pay tax, you are a scoundrel if you do not also teach a proven method of beating the IRS and DOJ in federal court when they come after your earner for willful failure to file or for tax evasion, etc.

Y'know, I think I agree with that. Problem is, for years Bob has been "teach[ing] some theory of the law or Constitution that leaves earners believing they need not file returns or pay tax". For example, from his own site,

Bob Hurt Liberty Seminars (tm) teach you to liberate yourself from debt, government oppression and corruption (such as the IRS or crooked courts), and prevail in your personal goals. Sign up now for a seminar near you, or request one in your area.

"Liberate yourself from the IRS", huh, Bob? That wouldn't "leave earners believing they need not file returns or pay tax", would it?

And then there's your plug for Steve Hempfling, he of the permanent injunction:

You can watch a FREE video of 5 attorneys and 1 former IRS Special Agent showing that the average American is not liable for income taxes!

Think that might "leave earners believing they need not file returns or pay tax"?

And then there's this:

I would feel intensely pleased to see TENS OF THOUSANDS of Citizens file lawsuits against IRS agents in state and federal courts and against county clerks and county attorneys and sheriffs for allowing the IRS to operate outside D.C. without authority and for honoring their illegal liens and inserting them into the public record

Please show us one such lawsuit that has succeeded, Bob. I'm sure you wouldn't be encouraging folks to file TENS OF THOUSANDS of lawsuits you know they can't win. After all, that might "leave earners believing they need not file returns or pay tax".

And then there's your plug for Michael Minns, whom you call "the best tax defense lawyer in America". We've actually reviewed Minns' record. Here, let me help:

Diane Goulder Steiniger. Convicted on all counts. Top count: evasion.

Michael Diesel, 05-cr-20005 (KS). Convicted on all counts. Top count: false return.

Richard Hatch, 05-cr-00098 (RI). Convicted on top three counts (evasion).

Denny Patridge, 04-cr-20031 (ILCD). Convicted on multiple counts of evasion and money laundering.

Paul Harris, 02-cr-00541 (CO). Convicted of multiple counts of conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Pamela Moran, 02-cr-00423 (WAWD). Minns was cocounsel with a local federal defender named Jon Zulauf. Moran was acquitted of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and related charges. Good job by someone, can't tell who.

Wayne Anderson, 01-cr-00180 (CAED): convicted on top count (money laundering).

Pedro Rivera, 98-cr-00142 (TXND): convicted on multiple counts of evasion.

Frank J. Masiarczyk, Jr., 97-cr-00039 (WVND): convicted on all counts (conspiracy to defraud the U.S., evasion).

Jill Ann Proctor, 97-cr-00022 (OKND): convicted on all counts (false returns).

Bianca Apusen, 96-cr-00082 (TXSD): pleaded guilty to two counts of false returns.

Gary Harris, 94-cr-00353 (OHND): convicted of top count (evasion).

Joseph Delvecchio, 93-cr-14038 (FLSD): acquitted.

William Bussey, 91-cr-00064 (TXSD): pleaded guilty to false returns.

Emmett Doyle, 90-cr-00006 (TXSD): pleaded guilty to failure to file.

Roy Powell, 89-cr-00085 (AZ): convicted on all counts (failure to file).

You don't imagine that extolling the virtues of a lawyer - who incidentally lost 14 of the 16 cases he tried - might "leave earners believing they need not file returns or pay tax", do you?

It seems, Bob, that your own definitions make you a scoundrel. However, since I'm in a charitable mood, I've devised a defense for you. It starts with a few things you've written:

The problem in Negro society largely arises from its low average intelligence. It takes an IQ of at least 85 to graduate from high school. US Negroes have an average IQ of 84, so HALF lack the cognitive ability to graduate.
...
Negroes go to prison at a higher rate than Caucasians because they have a higher rate of "stupid" behavior than Caucasians, owing to their lower intelligence, not to racial prejudice in society. That lower average intelligence suggests that Negroes tend to feel irrational prejudice against Caucasians at a higher rate than vice versa.
...
American government need to establish eugenics programs to stifle procreation of the stupid of all races, and encourage procreation of physically superior people of average and superior intelligence.

Carry these with you, Bob. If someone calls you a scoundrel for making people believe they can win when they are in fact headed straight for the woodchipper, whip these out.

Then say you're not a scoundrel, just an asshole.

[LaVidaRoja]

Reminds me of an old joke -- A man is standing on a street corner crying out; "All politicians are jerks!" A passer-by says "I resent that remark!" "Why," asked the man, "are you a politician?"
"No." the passer-by responded, "I am a jerk."

[notorial dissent]

By the way WES, good catch, whining Bobby finally said something true and that I can agree whole heartedly with. He is a scoundrel, and self admitted by his very own mealy mouth, perfect!!! I couldn't ask for more on a perfect Fall day. Thanks Bobby for helping to make my day.

At this point Sovrunidjitjibber seems to be lying both by acts of omission, ignoring the bits that prove him a fool and liar, and commission, by flat out making things up. Nothing surprising, just getting worse.

[The Observer]

Wow too bad Bob has too few posts here to qualify for a title. "Self-Indicting Scoundrel of the Sovrun Main" is kinda catchy.

[notorial dissent]

So what the heck, couldn't happen to a nicer more deserving person scoundrel. I vote for it anyway. I don't think there will ever be anything more appropriate, and he so deserves the approbation.

[wserra]

"Self-Indicting Scoundrel of the Sovrun Main" is kinda catchy.

It is indeed.

[Famspear]

This may refer to the tax crime trial over which Bob Hurt is disappointed:

Federal Jury Finds Tarpon Springs Woman Guilty Of Tax Evasion

[October 14, 2014]

Tampa, Florida – United States Attorney A. Lee Bentley, III announces that a federal jury has found Nova A. Montgomery guilty of five counts of tax evasion and five counts of failure to file an income tax return. She faces a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment for each tax evasion count, and one year in prison for each count of failing to file a tax return. The jury returned the verdict on October 10, 2014, and a sentencing hearing is scheduled for January 12, 2015.

According to testimony and evidence presented at trial, Montgomery was self-employed as a distributor for a multi-level marketing company that sold nutritional and other products. Between 2002 and 2012, she received commissions and other income exceeding $2.7 million. Montgomery set up a complex corporate structure that made it appear that she personally received virtually none of the income from the commissions and sales. Further, on February 12, 2009, in the midst of an Internal Revenue Service audit, Montgomery filed false and fraudulent federal income tax returns claiming that she had no income for 2002 through 2006. In addition, she failed to file personal income tax returns for 2008 through 2012.....

--from the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida, at

http://www.justice.gov/usao/flm/press/2 ... omery.html

Edit: One of the two lawyers for Ms. Montgomery was Lowell H. Becraft. Jr.

[Famspear]

The case is United States v. Nova A. Montgomery, no. 8:13-cr-00178-JDW-AEP, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa Div.).