Snipes' Rule 29 Motion

[Demosthenes]

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/snipes389.pdf

On friday, Bernhoft asked the judge for permission to submit a written Rule 29 Motion by midnight last night. The judge agreed.

[webhick]

Cheatin' Frenzy, eh? You might want to add a 'g' to that url.

[Doktor Avalanche]

After the government closes its evidence . . ., the court
on the defendant’s motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

In his opinion. Presume much, Mr. Snipes? And just how is the evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction?

Let's see....we're citing United States v. O'Keefe 825 F.2d 314 to bolster our claim? Okay...

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant city official sought relief from convictions from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, of multi-count indictments with violations of the tax code for filing false tax returns, the Hobbs Act, and the Travel Act, for events occurring in connection with the construction of a nursing home.

All right, I'm with you so far...

OVERVIEW: Defendant city officials were convicted of filing false tax returns, failing to disclose their gross business receipts, and extortion under the Hobbs Act and the Travel Act, in connection with the construction of a nursing home. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the indictments based upon allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and filed motions for judgments of acquittal on all counts. The district court granted defendants' motion for acquittal as to the extortion charges and denied the motions as to the tax charges. The court affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that plaintiff government presented no evidence to show that defendants received payments for official acts in their capacity as city officials as opposed to legitimate real estate services in connection with the nursing home. The defendants produced evidence that they performed legitimate work to which they were entitled to compensation, which could lead a rational fact finder to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants were not extorting money.

And how does it end?

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the district court's judgment of conviction of defendant city officials for falsifying tax returns, and failing to disclose their gross business receipts; and acquittal of defendants for extortion under the Hobbs Act and Travel Act for lack of sufficient evidence to establish that defendants had received compensation unlawfully.

If I read this correctly O'Keefe was convicted on the falsifying tax returns but acquitted on extortion. How is this going to help Snipes?

Or is this just typical tax-protestor nonsense du jour?

[LPC]

The motion to dismiss count 2 is just plain silly.

The argument is that, because Snipes altered the jurat on the refund claim, inserting the word "no" before "penalties of perjury," no reasonable jury could find that he had submitted a "claim" because the lack of a proper jurat made the amended return a legal nullity.

So Snipes can't be convicted of filing a false claim because his claim was invalid? But if the claim were valid, how could it be false? It sounds like they are arguing that a defendant can't be guilty of armed robbery if his gun had no bullets.

And I fully expect the government to point out that the altered jurat is evidence from which the jury could properly conclude that Snipes *knew* the claim was false.

[Joey Smith]

More commonly known as a "Rule 29 motion to extract more fees from client"

[Doktor Avalanche]

As predicted....




Next the contempt charges will be handed out like Hollywood swag.

[webhick]

Altering the jurat on a frivolous tax return only to try to have it declared void because of the altered jurat is a tactic once used by a vampiric oompah loompah who was charged with murder after he drained the blood of his 100 year old scullery maid, effectively killing her, then tried to declare that she was one of the undead the moment he started the feeding process and we all know that the termination of the undead are not covered under traditional murder statutes, so the murder charge was dropped. It was quite a clever legal feat back then, but it's been a number of centuries since then and that crap simply doesn't fly anymore. As a matter of fact, the only crap that flies these days are from flying rat asses, and not only does it not fly for long, you also don't want to be around when it comes in for a landing.

And rat asses hardly ever get into their aerial positions anymore, not since the Gluteus Emancipation of 1906 in which the back of the rats were finally freed from the enslavement from the front and the backs no longer felt the need to migrate south for the winter in protest of their situation.

We, at the Illuminati, firmly believe that the back end of animal should not automatically be forced to follow the front end wherever it goes. And that's why when baby animals try to go down stairs, they go ass over tea kettle.