David Cay Johnson to get 10 years

[Truthstalker]

TAX EXTREMIST APPREHENDED
April 15, 2010
(c)2010 Associated Militant Press - Washington, DC

This week the Militia Department of Justice announced the arrest of
another in a long line of "freedom protestors" who have been
thumbing their noses at the American public, duping people into
handing over money they didn't owe. "This should send a strong
message to any other freedom protestors that their lawlessness will
not be tolerated," said Militia Attorney General Trooth D. Fender,
after the arrest of so-called "district judge" Powe R. Happee,
adding that "These scam artists are duping the public and
defrauding innocent people, and must be held accountable."

Last month Common Law Court Justice B. Dunn issued an injunction,
barring an extremist cult publication called "The New York Times"
from printing any more tax-related articles. "This abusive
extortion scheme is an affront to all law-abiding citizens," said
Judge Dunn in his ruling, before imposing a ten-year prison
sentence on David Cay Johnston, the leader and head guru of the
"freedom deniers" sect at the "New York Times" cult.

"If you tell Americans that they owe the tax, you can expect to be
forcibly silenced," said tax expert Ikan Reed. "Even the few judges
and IRS agents who have been found not guilty of fraud have had all
their money stolen and their houses burned to the ground, as a
warning to others who might be considering taking their advice."
Mr. Reed also added, "I mean, if we all owe the tax like they
claim, why do these guys keep getting captured and locked up?"

Commissioner of Liberty, Propper T. Wrights, said that he is asking
the Militia Congress for more powers to fight against the freedom
protestors, including the ability to impose more severe fines and
penalties against the promoters of the "61 fraud scheme"--a
frivolous argument in which proponents claim that Section 61 of the
Internal Revenue Code means that all income is taxable for all
Americans. "These frivolous scams must be stopped at all costs, to
protect the innocent," said Mr. Wrights.

Read more here

[The Observer]

Hmmmmm. How much longer before everybody here at Quatloos starts getting sentences?

[Prof]

LPC, and others, doesn't this crap somehow violate the injunction and terms of his criminal conviction? Just curious. Like Schiff, it seems, he cannot accept the simple fact that he is wrong and that he admitted he was wrong by asserting only the Cheek defense.

[SteveSy]

Are you guys really that stupid?

It's a parity....a fictitious example. It's the tactic that people like David Cay and the government use to show how wrong TP's are. Instead of it being used on TP's it's used on them.

Prof, you're that screwy that you would want to punish someone for disagreeing with the government. So what he writes his stuff. Don't like it don't read it....it's pretty sad when people start advocating punishing people for voicing their opinion. btw, he never admitted he was wrong...ever. The cheek defense is based on willfulness. You can't willfully violate a law that you didn't think was a law to begin with.

In such a case, if the Government proves actual knowledge of the pertinent legal duty, the prosecution, without more, has satisfied the knowledge component of the willfulness requirement. But carrying this burden requires negating a defendant's claim of ignorance of the law or a claim that, because of a misunderstanding of the law, he had a good-faith belief that he was not violating any of the provisions of the tax laws. This is so because one cannot be aware that the law imposes a duty upon him and yet be ignorant of it, misunderstand the law, or believe that the duty does not exist. In the end, the issue is whether, based on all the evidence, the Government has proved that the defendant was aware of the duty at issue, which cannot be true if the jury credits a good-faith misunderstanding and belief submission, whether or not the claimed belief or misunderstanding is objectively reasonable.

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

Juries are led down the path beyond what the court stated. Just about every trial that I have seen where this defense is used the judge has denied any direct quote from this opinion or even an accurate representation of what the court said except Kuglin and one other, they won. The government with the assistance of the federal judges lead the jury to believe mere personal knowledge by the defendant of the government's position on the law negates willfulness. That of course is not what the SC has said.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Are you guys really that stupid?

It's a parity....a fictitious example. It's the tactic that people like David Cay and the government use to show how wrong TP's are. Instead of it being used on TP's it's used on them.

And it's a parody, too!

We understood it was a joke, Steve.

Guys, can we get Steve in the loop so he gets the memos from now on?

[SteveSy]

Are you guys really that stupid?

It's a parity....a fictitious example. It's the tactic that people like David Cay and the government use to show how wrong TP's are. Instead of it being used on TP's it's used on them.

And it's a parody, too!

We understood it was a joke, Steve.

Guys, can we get Steve in the loop so he gets the memos from now on?

You're right, I'm tired, parody.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Oh yeah...one last thing, Steve:

Did you notice that your buddy Larken Rose wrote that piece?

[SteveSy]

Oh yeah...one last thing, Steve:

Did you notice that your buddy Larken Rose wrote that piece?

He's not my buddy, but ya I did.

[natty]

The government with the assistance of the federal judges lead the jury to believe mere personal knowledge by the defendant of the government's position on the law negates willfulness. That of course is not what the SC has said.

In such a case, if the Government proves actual knowledge of the pertinent legal duty, the prosecution, without more, has satisfied the knowledge component of the willfulness requirement.

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

That is exactly what the SC said, stevesy.
The jury is free to conclude the defendant knew the law but disagreed. If you know enough to have a different opinion than another, then you certainly know enough to be willful.

[LPC]

It's a parity....a fictitious example. It's the tactic that people like David Cay and the government use to show how wrong TP's are.

Does anyone have any idea what Sybil is babbling about now?

I'd be curious to know if he is hallucinating or fabricating.