My Disappointment Over a Tax Crime Trial

[wserra]

I maintain ... as I understand it ... As I understand it, ... I personally believe ... I see ... I believe ... In my opinion ... I believe ... I consider ... I do not recommend ... I recommend ... I have yet to learn ... I believe

Well, Bob, those beliefs, understandings and opinions might mean something in our hypothetical jurisdiction World o' Hurt. In the real world, though, they and a Metrocard will get you on the subway. It's as unclear to me as it is to everyone else why you believe that your opinions are the law.

I suppose that narcissism is as good an explanation as any.

[AndyK]

I maintain ... as I understand it ... As I understand it, ... I personally believe ... I see ... I believe ... In my opinion ... I believe ... I consider ... I do not recommend ... I recommend ... I have yet to learn ... I believe

Well, Bob, those beliefs, understandings and opinions might mean something in our hypothetical jurisdiction World o' Hurt. In the real world, though, they and a Metrocard will get you on the subway. It's as unclear to me as it is to everyone else why you believe that your opinions are the law.

I suppose that narcissism is as good an explanation as any.

It better be a MetroSmartCard. If it's a paper card, there's a surcharge. Unfortunately, Metro hasn't yet implemented the 'stupid' surcharge.

[jg]

<snip for brevity>

Meanwhile I do not recommend that tax protesters put themselves and their families at risk by refusing to file returns or pay taxes that the law, as the IRS, DOJ, and Courts construe it, require. Rather, I recommend arranging one's life and affairs so as lawfully to avoid all tax possible, file returns, and pay the minimum possible, then use the time in political activism which one would have spent defending against an IRS/DOJ attack. I have yet to learn of any tax protester effectively becoming politically active from federal prison.

I believe Quatloosians have no reason NOT to endorse the above paragraph wholeheartedly, for it demonstrates clearly that one need not snipe like a terrorist at the delusional, outraged, misfortunate, partly-informed Americans who make tax-related mistakes that put them on the IRS radar and cause them legal problems.

...

I do wholeheartedly endorse filing and paying taxes (the minimum possible) to avoid legal problems and, if so inclined, to then use the time in political activism which one would have spent defending against an IRS/DOJ attack.

But, given that you have previously promoted your beliefs on the web and on the radio, may I presume that your website and radio show will now, or very soon, be modified to focus not on your understanding that there is a misapplication of the income tax lest that focus lead to some refusing to file returns or pay taxes as actions based on that understanding of the law?
Will you change your message so as to not possibly put any partly-informed Americans who make tax-related mistakes on the IRS radar and cause them legal problems?

Will you now actively promote that everyone should file returns, and pay the minimum possible, and then use the time in political activism which everyone would have spent defending against an IRS/DOJ attack?

Or is your stated recommendation only for publication on this site and will not appear on your site or radio show (or perhaps appear just in passing mention) ?

Will you continue to feed the flames for the delusional, outraged, misfortunate tax protester that, like a moth to a flame, is drawn to your understanding and promotion of the idea of income tax misapplication and so chooses to refuse to file or to pay income taxes?

[LPC]

I maintain that three simple realities clarify the income tax dispute:

1. The income tax as implemented by the IRS is Unamerican, crooked, and does not comport with the Constitution as I understand it. As I understand it, Congress MUST impose the income tax through an excise-like mechanism, and must NOT collect it directly from people OR implement it as a direct tax on property.

Your understanding of the Constitution has nothing to do with reality, and the phrase "excise-like mechanism" is gibberish.

Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had no power to impose taxes, and could only "requisition" money from the states. The most important, and most fundamental change that was made by the Constitution that was proposed by the convention of 1787 was that Congress would have the power to impose taxes on the people and property of the United States. It was heatedly debated in the ratification process, with the Federalists arguing in favor of the power to tax, and the Anti-Federalists arguing against.

News flash: THE FEDERALISTS WON, and the Constitution was ratified.

Fast forward to 1913: Because of a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court, Congress had effectively lost the power to tax all kinds of incomes. Congress proposed, and the states rapidly ratified, a constitutional amendment that stated (in its entirety) that “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Tax protesters (or "tax deniers") spend their entire lives (in many cases literally) arguing that the framers of the Constitution did not actually intend to give Congress the power to impose taxes on citizens of the United States, and that the 16th Amendment (quoted above) does not actually give Congress the power to impose taxes on incomes earned by citizens of the United States.

Those arguments ARE INSANE.

The idea that there is some unexpressed, mystical "excise-like mechanism" that Congress must use to impose taxes on incomes, which "mechanism" appears no where in the Constitution or in any debate about the ratification of the Constitution or the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, IS INSANE.

And by "insane" I mean completely lacking any basis in reality, delusional, or the product of a diseased mind.

I see, any contrary interpretation of the tax code as dead wrong, and as an essential element of establishing a Communist dictatorship.

I am quite sure that you see almost all interpretations of the tax code as an essential element of a communist dictatorship.

2. The Congress (through the convoluted tax code), IRS (through refusal ever to discuss the laws they follow and enforce), DOJ (through finagling judges to disallow discussion of law), and courts (through disallowing discussion of law) seem to have conspired to allow a mafia-like operation to squeeze money out of people wrongfully, destroying many families as a consequence.

That's not a "simple reality," but a paranoid delusion.

3. In view of the foregoing, Income taxation is a POLITICAL matter, for no litigation means exists to challenge it successfully.

Right.

As I've explained above, the present Internal Revenue Code is the product of the democratic ratification of the Constitution, and the democratic ratification of the 16th Amendment, following by the democratic enactment of the Internal Revenue Code by a lawfully elected Congress. The Internal Revenue Code is therefore the "supreme Law of the Land" within the meaning of the Constitution.

Any other result would be an essential element of establishing a communist dictatorship.

I personally believe nothing short of violent rebellion will repair it because 25% of the voter base is too stupid to graduate from high school, much less vote intelligently, another 25% is just as irresponsible, owing to apathy about government and to deficient educations, and another 15% or thereabouts is brainwashed into believing the USA actually needs the income tax when Congress borrows all it needs to run the country, fight endless no-win wars, and sustain the irresponsible through unconstitutional largess.

Yes, up-and-coming dictators always believe that they are smarter than the "proletariat." That belief is an essential element of establishing a communist dictatorship.

As for those tax protesters who delude, misinform, deceive, etc, it should suffice to identify them on Quatloos and eruditely show the errors in their pronouncements WITHOUT the hatefulness and carping snidery.

Consider yourself identified. Your errors in pronouncements have been eruditely shown without hatefulness or carping snidery.

[JamesVincent]

I did a little research of my own. The list of 16 cases you listed in this thread was itself a lie. Michael Minns didn't try 5 of them, 3 of which were plea bargains.. That means the 2 acquittals comprised about 20%. Whom among you has won 20% of your cases against the IRS and DOJ? Furthermore, he actually won 90% or more of the counts in those cases.

Honestly, from what I have seen, and others may correct me, I think they would have stood a better chance if they all had pled out. You act like the DoJ and the IRS has absolutely nothing to do but try and find tax evaders, which is what they are no matter how many times you use the word tax protestor. They have much better things to do with their time and have a lot more sympathy for someone who comes up and owns up to what they did and admits they were wrong. So if pleading out gives you a downward change in sentencing with the distinct possibility of certain charges being dropped it is only the ego that stops you from doing it. As far as "winning" 90% of the counts in certain cases, who cares? That's like saying, "well, you still got convicted of murder but they dropped all the assault and handgun charges. Victory!" A conviction is a conviction, if you still go to jail, but maybe not quite as long, how is it a win? Really? If you own up to what you did (and they knew it was wrong) maybe you won't go to jail at all. Unless you're a career defendant the court doesn't want to send you to jail, they too have better uses for their time and bigger fish to feed.

[The Observer]

They have much better things to do with their time and have a lot more sympathy for someone who comes up and owns up to what they did and admits they were wrong.

What Bob Hurt does not know or has failed to understand is that contrary to his claim that the government has unlimited funds to litigate, it doesn't. Only 5% of the Department of Justice budget for bringing actions in court are targeted for tax litigation. So the logical approach is that DOJ makes sure that they only litigate cases that they know are most likely to win or will have a significant impact on tax enforcement. That is the reason that DOJ attorneys bat about .950 in the courts.

The fact that tax protesters stick themselves out into the limelight by arguing gibberish just makes it all the more easier for DOJ to get a conviction or ruling in their favor. The exact kind of gibberish that Bob is indulging in right now.

The IRS is not a subterranean lair of jack-booted trolls who do nothing more than conspire new and devious ways to assault the American public

Well, you burst my bubble.

[notorial dissent]

It kind of comes down to, if you're going to go around carrying a sign that says I'm breaking the law, and you post utuby things telling how you did it and what you did, you are going to make some prosecutor VERY happy and get them an easy prosecution. Sorry, it just works out that way, and that seems to be what the majority of the big tax evader types have done. Low hanging fruit.

[nattyb]

Quatloosians might do a lot to repair that tax protester thinking.

That is the weirdest thing you have said. Tax protesting is a religion/believers of conspiracy. No amount of logic, reason, or common sense will convince otherwise.

Bob, what would convince you that your legal theories are flawed? You have been shown over and over again yet you refuse to change your mind.

[Famspear]

Sentencing for Nova Montgomery is still set for Monday, January 12, 2015, at 1:30 pm eastern time.

[Hyrion]

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

Wow... "such as by calling me wrong". You are, in essence saying:

• One is showing poor sense and/or a lack of integrity by saying another is wrong

I'm sure you could have found a better example to make your primary point - that of not showing good sense or integrity if that's what you truly believed occurred - but this is the example of proof you choose. So let's see how well you actually believe in that statement yourself.

I put forth the supposition that:

• 7 times 13 equals 28

Are you going to:

• A) accept that math thereby maintaining your good sense and integrity

• B) state that math is wrong thereby showing poor sense or poor integrity

• C) publicly admit that a person can say another is wrong and still maintain both sound sense and sound integrity

If you're not familiar with the source of the above equation, I suggest you google it. Much like what TPs/Sov Cits/Freemen/OPCA/etc. do, the source of the equation had to alter the rules of the language in order to prove the formula correct.

The rules applied however simply can not hold up to reality. If you think they can, I suggest you put 7 groups of 13 oranges on a table and see how many total oranges you really do have.

The source of the equation above didn't try to actually apply the rules in reality. The "math rules" were only applied for entertainment purposes. That's where the entertainers differ from TPs/Sov Cits/Freemen/OPCA/whatever-they-want-to-call-themselves.

So... are you going to openly admit one can call another wrong while maintaining good sense and integrity or are you going to firmly stick by your statement and accept the equation above as correct? Curious minds will be looking forward to your response.

[Famspear]

She was sentenced:

JUDGMENT as to Nova A. Montgomery (1), Count(s) 1s, 36 MONTHS Federal Bureau of Prisons; 36 MONTHS Supervised Release; $10,000.00 Fine; $338,308.00 Restitution; $100 Special Assessment; Count(s) 2s, 3s, 4s, and 5s, 36 MONTHS Federal Bureau of Prisons, CONCURRENT with Count 1s; 36 MONTHS Supervised Release, CONCURRENT with Count 1s; $10,000.00 Fine; $338,308.00 Restitution; $100 Special Assessment; Count(s) 6s, 7s, 8s, 9s, and 10s, 12 MONTHS Federal Bureau of Prisons, CONCURRENT with Count 1s; 12 MONTHS Supervised Release, CONCURRENT with Count 1s; $10,000.00 Fine; $338,308.00 Restitution; $25 Special Assessment. Signed by Judge James D. Whittemore on 1/13/2015. (AO) (Entered: 01/13/2015)

--docket entry 91 on January 13, 2015, United States v. Nova A. Montgomery, case no. 8:13-cr-00178-JDW-AEP, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa Div.).

[The Observer]

I am sure that bobhurt is even more disappointed after Ms. Montgomery's appeal to overturn her convictions failed:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
NOVA A. MONTGOMERY,
Defendant-Appellant.

Release Date: NOVEMBER 05, 2015


[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Non-Argument Calendar

D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cr-00178-JDW-AEP-1

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida

(November 5, 2015)

Before MARCUS, JULIE CARNES and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Nova Montgomery appeals her convictions for five counts of tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. section 7201, and five counts of failing to file a tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. section 7203. On appeal, Montgomery argues that: (1) the district court abused its discretion in excluding her testimony about certain proposed defense exhibits and in excluding the admission of several of those exhibits; and (2) the district court erred in its instruction to the jury on reasonable doubt. After careful review, we affirm.

We review a district court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Reeves, 742 F.3d 487, 501 (11th Cir. 2014). We apply the harmless error standard to erroneous evidentiary rulings. United States v. Henderson, 409 F.3d 1293, 1300 (11th Cir. 2005). An error is harmless unless it had a substantial influence on the case's outcome or leaves a grave doubt as to whether the error affected the outcome. Id. We review jury instructions properly challenged below de novo to determine whether the given instructions misstated the law or misled the jury to the prejudice of the objecting party. United States v. Felts, 579 F.3d 1341, 1342 (11th Cir. 2009). We will reverse because of an erroneous instruction only if we are "left with a substantial and in eradicable doubt as to whether the jury was properly guided in its deliberations." Id. at 1342-43 (quotation omitted).

First, we are unpersuaded by Montgomery's claim that the district court abused its discretion in excluding certain testimony and exhibits. In Cheek v. United States, the defendant was charged with tax evasion and failing to file a tax return. 498 U.S. 192, 194 (1991). The Supreme Court held that "a defendant's views about the validity of the tax statutes are irrelevant to the issue of willfulness and need not be heard by the jury." Id. at 206. However, if someone simply fails to understand that he has a duty to pay income taxes under the Internal Revenue Code, he cannot be guilty of "willfully" evading those taxes. Id. at 201-02. Thus, the Supreme Court held that Cheek was entitled to have the jury instructed about his asserted beliefs that wages were not income and that he was not a taxpayer within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. Id. at 206-07.

When a defendant testifies at trial, any of the defendant's statements that are disbelieved by the jury may be considered as substantive evidence of the defendant's guilt, and the jury may therefore conclude that the opposite of the defendant's testimony is true. United States v. Brown, 53 F.3d 312, 314 (11th Cir. 1995). "This rule applies with special force" where the elements to be proven are highly subjective, such as intent or knowledge. Id. at 315.

Here, Montgomery claims that the district court abused its discretion by excluding from evidence the substance of cases, government publications, and other materials that allegedly supported Montgomery's good-faith belief that she had no duty to pay income taxes or file returns. Yet, even if the district court erred by excluding this evidence, that error would have been harmless. As the record reveals, the district court permitted Montgomery to testify, in great detail, about her beliefs on income taxes, based on specific cases that she had read. This testimony spanned over 100 pages, and she was often allowed to go through the cases by name, one-by-one. The court also admitted a seven-page statement of her beliefs into evidence. Moreover, Montgomery chose to testify at trial, so any statements that the jury disbelieved could be considered as substantive evidence of her guilt, especially when the element to be proven was willfulness. See Brown, 53 F.3d at 314-15. In short, because the jury did not believe Montgomery's testimony, the admission of the exhibits at issue and of her testimony about the substance of several of those exhibits would not have had a substantial influence on the case's outcome. Accordingly, the error, if any, was harmless.

We also find no merit to Montgomery's claim that the district court erred when it instructed the jury on reasonable doubt by equating reasonable doubt to proof that jurors would rely on in the most important of their own affairs. We've upheld jury instructions defining reasonable doubt, in which the instruction equated the proof to that which a juror would be willing to rely or act upon without hesitation in the most important of their affairs. See United States v. Hansen, 262 F.3d 1217, 1249 (11th Cir. 2001). Further, we have "repeatedly approved of the definition of reasonable doubt provided in the Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions." United States v. James, 642 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2011).

In this case, the district court did not misstate the law or mislead the jury to the prejudice of Montgomery by giving the Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction, in which proof beyond a reasonable doubt was equated to that which a juror would be willing to rely and act upon without hesitation in their important affairs. That definition of reasonable doubt is supported by our precedent. See Hansen, 262 F.3d at 1249. We are bound by our prior precedent until it is overruled by the Supreme Court or our Court sitting en banc. United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the district court did not err by instructing the jury in this way.

AFFIRMED.

[Famspear]

Status report: Sixty-three year old Nova A. Montgomery is inmate # 60381-018 at a Federal prison system facility near Wildwood, Florida (Orlando), and is scheduled for release on February 5, 2019.

[Lambkin]

Status report: Sixty-three year old Nova A. Montgomery is inmate # 60381-018 at a Federal prison system facility near Wildwood, Florida (Orlando), and is scheduled for release on February 5, 2019.

But is Bob still disappointed? Find out in the next chapter...

[notorial dissent]

Bobby Butthurt lives in a world and state of perpetual disappointment. Last I heard he was having a whinefest with fellow con artist Dennis Montgomery. My feeling is that they deserve each other.

[Famspear]

Ms. Nova Montgomery is still scheduled for release on Tuesday, February 5, 2019.

[grixit]

Will Bob be there to meet her and let her know that her martyrdom has strengthened the movement by inspiring thousands of brave patriots to join the strugge?

[Gregg]

Will Bob be there to meet her and let her know that her martyrdom has strengthened the movement by inspiring thousands of brave patriots to join the struggesend him money?

FIFY

[Famspear]

Nova Montgomery was released on schedule, on February 5, 2019.

[lurker9000]

I'm always curious after someone gets released will they learn their lesson or start all over again? Does anyone want to give odds?