My Disappointment Over a Tax Crime Trial

[Famspear]

Poor, poor Ms. Montgomery. Here are the ten counts on which she was found guilty.

Count 1
Tax evasion: section 7201
Year 2002
Actual income $116,000
Income she reported (none; did not file)
Tax allegedly evaded $29,180
Felony up to 5 years prison

Count 2
Tax evasion: section 7201
Year 2003
Actual income $78,820
Income she reported: none; filed false return
Tax allegedly evaded $16,810
Felony up to 5 years prison

Count 3
Tax evasion: section 7201
Year 2004
Actual income $124,360
Income she reported: none; failed to file
Tax allegedly evaded $29,440
Felony up to 5 years prison

Count 4
Tax evasion: section 7201
Year 2005
Actual income $124,220
Income she reported: none: failed to file
Tax allegedly evaded $29,280
Felony up to 5 years prison

Count 5
Tax evasion: section 7201
Year 2006
Actual income $169,040
Income she reported; none; failed to file
Tax allegedly evaded: $42,375
Felony up to 5 years prison

Count 6
Failure to file: section 7203
Year 2008
Misdemeanor up to 1 year prison

Count 7
Failure to file: section 7203
Year 2009
Misdemeanor up to 1 year prison

Count 8
Failure to file: section 7203
Year 2010
Misdemeanor up to 1 year prison

Count 9
Failure to file: section 7203
Year 2011
Misdemeanor up to 1 year prison

Count 10
Failure to file; section 7203
Year 2012
Misdemeanor up to 1 year prison

xx

(Income and tax data not available for some years)

EDIT: Corrected maximum possible sentence on counts 6 thru 10, which would be one year on each count.

[Famspear]

So, just for the years for which we have data, she allegedly failed to report a total of $612,440 in income (either by filing a false return or by not filing at all), on which the tax liability allegedly was about $147,085, not counting penalties and interest. And that's only on the five years for which I have data.

Poor, poor Ms. Montgomery.

Oh, we weep, weep, weep -- along with Bob Hurt -- for the terrible injustice visited upon poor Ms. Montgomery.



For the 2004 tax year, for which she actually filed a return (albeit a false one which may or may not have qualified as a "return"), she also allegedly included an altered Form 1099 report, according to the superseding indictment (docket entry 33 on July 22, 2014).

Poor, poor, poor Ms. Montgomery.

[notorial dissent]

I can definitely see where this would get Bobby's knickers in a twist, oh the inhumanity of it all.... as this is right up his alley, or is it down his gutter????

And yet another win for Larry, at least in that she didn't get life. This is exactly his kind of case, although I'm surprised he hasn't been pushing it on the web, maybe he's getting smarter in his old age, nahh, has to be something else. Would be interesting to see what the actual commentary on the trial was though.

[The Observer]

But the piece de resistance in this trial was the fact that she was involved in a MLM and made a ton of money. And we all know that the only ones who make money in that amount in a MLM scheme are those who get in early and fleece their downline. So not only do we have a situation where she was found guilty of scamming the government but also the question of whether she was scamming others to bring in that money. If true, is this not also behavior worthy of a scoundrel?

[The Dog]

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.

I'm not aware of an emoticon, but the United States Patent & Trademark Office might be able to come to your aid.
http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US4608967

[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.

I'm not aware of an emoticon, but the United States Patent & Trademark Office might be able to come to your aid.
http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US4608967

That's impressive. Looks like an inventor had lots of time on his or her hands....

[bobhurt]

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.

You see the problem here, Famspear? The jury needs to feel the same confusion over the meaning and application of the law that the defendant feels, for that way the jury gets to "walk in the defendant's shoes" to the extent necessary to understand the paucity of the defendant's "willfuness." I know of only one way to accomplish that. The jury MUST see the law as the defendant saw it. The jury must actually confront and read that law.

The Supreme Court opinion you cited in support of your comment above merely supports the errant Public Policy of furthering government interest at the expense of the people's interest and in violation of principles of fairness and honesty. Tax protesters dispute the government's slant on the tax code and 16th Amendment for very good reasons. 16A seems to permit the Congress to impose a direct tax on incomes. But the Supremes have opined that the 16A puts the income tax in the class of indirect taxes on privileges or activities (using income as the measure of tax due), and does not contradict or undo the provisions of direct tax in I.2.3 or I.9.4. We reasonably should see the IRC in that context.

And so we should look for the privilege or activity upon which Congress imposes that income tax in IRC 1. Perhaps it applies only to non-resident aliens, foreign corporations and orgs earning income in the US, and on corporations, because THOSE receive "income" as a privilege bestowed by government.

You and others might dispute this, but unless badgered by the judge and prosecutor, why would a juror NOT feel some confusion over it, just as some tax protesters do?

Note that I have not stated above my position on the meaning or application of the law. I have simply made the case that jurors ought to struggle with the vicissitudes of the tax code and Constitution just people charged with tax crimes did.

Also, you do not show good sense or integrity by denouncing me in your comments, such as by calling me wrong. I made my initial comments to present the point that regardless of what the law means or how one should apply it to one's life, the reality of criminal proceedings should influence one's actions. I have made my life and the evolution of my understanding and conclusions an open book. Anyone knows who I am and where to find me. But YOU snipe and cat-call from behind a pseudonym.

That does not mean I disagree with your presentation of points of law or your citation of supporting court opinions, including your denunciation of incorrect citation of opinions by others. I appreciate your effort to educate others. I simply make the point that you could educate more people more thoroughly if you showed diplomacy and sensitivity. Most of those you denigrate do not have the benefit of a good education generally, or an education and experience in the law, specifically tax litigation. Your teachings really will have a more resounding impact if you ingenuously deliver them.

You will notice that I always treat you with love and respect. Try responding that way to me. You might end up making it a habit. People tend to appreciate those who steadfastly refuse to use their power to crush others.

[LPC]

You see the problem here, Famspear? The jury needs to feel the same confusion over the meaning and application of the law that the defendant feels, for that way the jury gets to "walk in the defendant's shoes" to the extent necessary to understand the paucity of the defendant's "willfuness." I know of only one way to accomplish that. The jury MUST see the law as the defendant saw it. The jury must actually confront and read that law.

No.

The defendant can testify to what cases he read, and why he reached the conclusions he reached. The defendant does NOT have the right to try to deliberately confuse the jury.

For that reason, judges don't allow is for the cases themselves to be entered into evidence, and doesn't allow the jury to read the cases.

[LPC]

The Supreme Court opinion you cited in support of your comment above merely supports the errant Public Policy of furthering government interest at the expense of the people's interest and in violation of principles of fairness and honesty. Tax protesters dispute the government's slant on the tax code and 16th Amendment for very good reasons. 16A seems to permit the Congress to impose a direct tax on incomes. But the Supremes have opined that the 16A puts the income tax in the class of indirect taxes on privileges or activities (using income as the measure of tax due), and does not contradict or undo the provisions of direct tax in I.2.3 or I.9.4. We reasonably should see the IRC in that context.

You're undercutting your own argument here, because you're not confused, just obstinately refusing to accept the rulings of the courts who have rejected your arguments.

And so we should look for the privilege or activity upon which Congress imposes that income tax in IRC 1.

Once again, you're being deliberately obtuse. The 16th Amendment says nothing about any need for any "privilege or activity." It says that Congress can tax incomes. Period. You're taking words from opinions out of context in order to claim that the court meant something different than what it said.

Furthermore, you're arguing about the constitutionality of the income tax, which the Supreme Court in Cheek said could NOT be a defense to "willfulness" and can be excluded from consideration by the jury.

You and others might dispute this, but unless badgered by the judge and prosecutor, why would a juror NOT feel some confusion over it, just as some tax protesters do?

Unless badgered by the defendant and his counsel, why would a juror ever consider that the 16th Amendment doesn't mean what it says? Or that section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code doesn't mean what it says?

Also, you do not show good sense or integrity by denouncing me in your comments, such as by calling me wrong.

Wrong again. Calling you "wrong" when you are obviously wrong is the essence of good sense and integrity.

[The Observer]

Wrong again. Calling you "wrong" when you are obviously wrong is the essence of good sense and integrity.

Bob, I would agree with you - but then we would both be wrong.

[Famspear]

You see the problem here, Famspear? The jury needs to feel the same confusion over the meaning and application of the law that the defendant feels, for that way the jury gets to "walk in the defendant's shoes" to the extent necessary to understand the paucity of the defendant's "willfuness." I know of only one way to accomplish that. The jury MUST see the law as the defendant saw it. The jury must actually confront and read that law.

I understand that you feel that way, but I don't agree. What the jury needs to see is sufficient evidence, presented by the prosecution, that persuades the jury of each element of the crime charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. With respect to the "willfulness" requirement for federal tax crimes, I would argue that it is NOT necessary that the jury see the law as the defendant saw it, by confronting and reading that law. Assuming that the defendant has raised the Cheek defense, the jury needs to have enough evidence to determine whether the defendant had an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law. Whether the defendant's actual belief was based on a true good faith misunderstanding that was caused the complexity of the tax law (which would result in a valid legal defense) or, alternatively, was based on obdurate, recalcitrant, deliberate straining to try to interpret the law differently from the way the courts interpret the law (which does not result in a valid legal defense) does not require that the jury read the same materials that the defendant read.

The Supreme Court opinion you cited in support of your comment above merely supports the errant Public Policy of furthering government interest at the expense of the people's interest and in violation of principles of fairness and honesty.

I respectfully disagree. I think the Supreme Court has the better argument, not you.

Tax protesters dispute the government's slant on the tax code and 16th Amendment for very good reasons. 16A seems to permit the Congress to impose a direct tax on incomes. But the Supremes have opined that the 16A puts the income tax in the class of indirect taxes on privileges or activities (using income as the measure of tax due), and does not contradict or undo the provisions of direct tax in I.2.3 or I.9.4.

No. The United States Supreme Court has never opined any such thing about INCOME taxes.

The key mistake you made is the phrase "privileges or activities."

Yes, the Supreme Court has referred to the income tax as an indirect tax, as an excise.

But the Supreme Court has never stated that the income tax must be tied to a privilege or activity.

The Supreme Court cases where the Court associated the exercises of privileges or activities were related to OTHER kinds of excises (or indirect taxes). You are trying to transplant broad statements by the Court in cases involving excises OTHER than the income tax to the cases that DO involve income tax. That does not work.

You are making the fundamental error of focusing on what the Court SAID in certain cases, rather than on what the Court RULED. You then take what the Court said in one case OUT OF ITS CONTEXT and you try to say that the income tax must be tied to a privilege or activity. The Supreme Court has never said that and, more importantly, the Court has never RULED that way.

And so we should look for the privilege or activity upon which Congress imposes that income tax in IRC 1.

Again, that is wrong. Congress does not impose the section 1 tax on a "privilege" or "activity". The tax is imposed on a legal concept called "taxable income." And "taxable income" is not limited to any items related to the exercise of a privilege; neither is it limited to items in connection with any "activity." You are quite wrong.

Also, you do not show good sense or integrity by denouncing me in your comments, such as by calling me wrong. I made my initial comments to present the point that regardless of what the law means or how one should apply it to one's life, the reality of criminal proceedings should influence one's actions. I have made my life and the evolution of my understanding and conclusions an open book. Anyone knows who I am and where to find me. But YOU snipe and cat-call from behind a pseudonym.

Uh, no Bob. You and I have been interacting since about 2006 or so, and I have told you that you are wrong over and over and over.

If you don't want others to "cat-call" at you from "behind a pseudonym," then don't post nonsense on the internet.

I simply make the point that you could educate more people more thoroughly if you showed diplomacy and sensitivity. Most of those you denigrate do not have the benefit of a good education generally, or an education and experience in the law, specifically tax litigation. Your teachings really will have a more resounding impact if you ingenuously deliver them.

Think of it as tough love, Bob.

You will notice that I always treat you with love and respect. Try responding that way to me. You might end up making it a habit. People tend to appreciate those who steadfastly refuse to use their power to crush others.

Let's remember Bob, that in one of your first interactions with me on the internet, in May of 2006, you referred to me as a "coward":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=52150213

You were later blocked (not by me, but by an administrator) from editing at Wikipedia because of your behavior there.

Over the years, Bob, you have repeatedly propounded theories that, if actually put into practice by people, would result in criminal activity. I don't feel the need to treat you with any more consideration than I have shown. You and others like you do a lot of damage.

The power I have to "crush others" as you put it derives from many years of careful study and from my ability to express myself. My power is directed, in this forum, at exposing the wrongful nonsense that you perpetuate. With all due respect, my position is that my power is being properly used.

[webhick]

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

It is indeed.

Third-ed-ed. Or fourth-ed-ed. This new math eludes me fiercely.

[wserra]

You will notice that I always treat you with love and respect. Try responding that way to me.

But why, Bob? Do you remember writing this:

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

As we saw beyond any doubt above, for years you have taught "some theory of the law or Constitution that leaves earners believing they need not file returns or pay tax". You have surely not also taught "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", perhaps because there isn't one. You therefore fit your own definition of "scoundrel" quite nicely.

Do you treat a scoundrel with "love and respect", Bob? Perhaps you do. But I tend to treat a scoundrel like, well, a scoundrel.

[Dr. Caligari]

The defendant can testify to what cases he read, and why he reached the conclusions he reached. The defendant does NOT have the right to try to deliberately confuse the jury.

For that reason, judges don't allow is for the cases themselves to be entered into evidence, and doesn't allow the jury to read the cases.

A slight disagreement. There is no hard and fast rule that the defendant cannot introduce into evidence the legal materials upon which he allegedly relied. There are many cases in which judges have excluded such materials, and the appellate courts have usually upheld the exclusion under the broad discretion a judge has under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 to exclude relevant evidence that might confuse the jury, but some judges do allow such materials into evidence and, if I were defending a tax case on a Cheek theory, I would push very hard to get those materials in.

In a non-protestor criminal tax case, where the defense is that the defendant relied on an opinion of an accountant or lawyer that he could legally take a certain position on a tax return, do you have any doubt that the opinion itself should be admitted into evidence?

[Famspear]

Questions for Bob Hurt:

1. Is stealing someone else's money an activity involving a "privilege" that would prevent the receipt of the money from being constitutionally taxed to the thief under the U.S. federal income tax law?

2. Does the fact that the stolen money (in question 1 above) does not belong to the thief mean that the receipt of the money would not be constitutionally taxed to the thief under the U.S. federal income tax law?

3. Is giving your child a gift of $50,000,000 in property an activity involving a "privilege" that would prevent the gift from being constitutionally taxed under the U.S. federal gift tax law (per Internal Revenue Code section 2501)? Hint: The gift tax is an excise (an indirect tax).

4. Is dying and leaving $50,000,000 in property to your child an activity involving a "privilege" that would prevent the transfer of the property from being constitutionally taxed as part of the estate under the U.S. federal estate tax law (per Internal Revenue Code section 2001)? Hint: The estate tax is an excise (an indirect tax).

Big hint: The answer to all four questions is no, Bob.

Some excises involve the exercise of privileges (as you are using the term "privilege"), and others do not.

[.]

She seems to have caused a tax loss of about 150K, give or take based on available numbers for 5 years. Assuming it's between 80 and 200K, and assuming that she has no prior convictions (perhaps she should have one or two or six,) the federal sentencing guidelines say she gets 21 to 27 months.

If the tax loss is over 200K (and it might be) she would have a guideline range of 27-33 months.

She'd have to go over 400K in tax loss to get 33-41 months. With a prior felony conviction, you could actually get close to 4 years.

I think these guidelines are way too easy on her and all similar miscreants. With median household income being in the 50K range (approximately 4K/month,) if you underpay via non-reporting or fraud (or for whatever reason,) the prison penalty in months should be the amount underpaid divided by 4K (as in about the median monthly U.S. household income.)

That would be somewhere in the range of 40 months, maybe 100 months+ if the IRS had bothered to assess the full extent of what actually happened in this case over more than a decade.

And she's no garden variety miscreant, she's been screwing everyone in sight forever (including the IRS and thus taxpayers indirectly,) and isn't likely to stop, having never demonstrated any inclination to do so.

[notorial dissent]

You see the problem here, Famspear? The jury needs to feel the same confusion over the meaning and application of the law that the defendant feels, for that way the jury gets to "walk in the defendant's shoes" to the extent necessary to understand the paucity of the defendant's "willfuness." I know of only one way to accomplish that. The jury MUST see the law as the defendant saw it. The jury must actually confront and read that law.

So, Bobby, you're saying then that a jury hearing a case on drug use and drug possession needs to be high on whatever the drug was to understand what the defendant's understanding of the law was??? I don't think so!!!!

While I must admit that I find this politer more conciliatory pretend, and make no mistake that is what it is, of yours much more pleasant, or at least less annoying, it still rings just as hollow and false as the old nasty and obnoxious you. The plain facts are that you, in my opinion at the very least, are a scoundrel, a serial liar, a wannabe tax cheat with no real originality or cleverness, a nasty petty little man who can't stand being contradicted or told you're wrong, with a total inability to actually look at anything squarely and honestly. In other words, a waste of time and protoplasm. You bring nothing to the table, and leave nothing behind but a trail of slime, that and possibly a number of damaged people who wouldn't be if they'd been smart enough to laugh at you and walk off instead of believing you had clue one about what you were talking about. Your problem is that the people here know you for the vacuousness that you and we do laugh and point, admittedly because you provide the opportunity, but also because you have it coming, and like every other TP, you never learn from prior experience, and keep coming back for more.

[AndyK]

Quatloosian discussion / debate with Bob Hurt (and PD) =

Bob Hurt's (and PD's) posts on Quatloos =

[Judge Roy Bean]

You see the problem here, Famspear? The jury needs to feel the same confusion over the meaning and application of the law that the defendant feels, ...

Why?

[The Observer]

You see the problem here, Famspear? The jury needs to feel the same confusion over the meaning and application of the law that the defendant feels, ...

Why?

I am not even sure we need to ask that question first. I have yet to see any tax protester prove that they were genuinely confused by the law or would even admit to being confused by the law. Like bobhurt, they all argue profusely and strenuously that they know the law better than judges, attornies and law professors. It is only when they are facing the reality of serving some time in the Big House that they suddenly want to ditch the gibberish they have been swearing by previously and now want to argue that they have no idea what the law really meant.

And you only have to look at this thread to see the intellectual dishonesty that goes with the TP mindset. Despite bobhurt saying that he recognizes that TP arguments are only going to lose in court, he goes back to arguing the same old nonsense about what the 16th amendment really means.

So we know why bobhurt wants the jury to feel his supposed confusion. It's his feeble attempt to get jury nullification in through the backdoor of the courthouse.