Snipes is in the hands of the jury

[Bill E. Branscum]

18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.

In order to establish a conspiracy offense it is not necessary for the Government to prove that all of the people named in the indictment were members of the scheme; or that those who were members had entered into any formal type of agreement; or that the members had planned together all of the details of the scheme or the 'overt acts' that the indictment charges would be carried out in an effort to commit the intended crime.

Also, because the essence of a conspiracy offense is the making of the agreement itself (followed by the commission of any overt act), it is not necessary for the Government to prove that the conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan.

What the evidence in the case must show beyond a reasonable doubt is:

First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment;

Second: That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy;

Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and

Fourth: That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.

I believe that's the definition the government is working from in its indictment against Snipes. What other definition are we supposed to use here?

Aren't you the guy who first asserted that the definition of conspiracy is two or more people agrreing to commit a crime in the future? That guy sure looked a lot like you.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I am not sure whether or not we convinced the jury

I'm sure you didn't.

[Bill E. Branscum]

I am not sure whether or not we convinced the jury

I'm sure you didn't.

Really?

That's a pretty expansive statement for a guy who doesn't know what the jury actiually saw ... or did I miss you in the court room?

[Doktor Avalanche]

You really stepped in it today, Mr. Branscum. First you called the common law definition of conspiracy that Doktor Avalanche gave "not even close." He was right on the mark. Any second year law student who passed first year criminal law will tell you that. Conspiracy = an agreement by two or more persons to commit an illegal act.

Is now a good time to point out I've never been to law school?

I should also point out that I did do the required research for the legal definition of conspiracy across several online sources and book references.

They all pretty much affirm the second year law student's definition.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Aren't you the guy who first asserted that the definition of conspiracy is two or more people agrreing to commit a crime in the future? That guy sure looked a lot like you.

First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment;

In other words: two or more people agree to commit a crime in the future.

Read much, Mr. Branscum?



Say, aren't you the guy who pretty much made his living on busting people who violated Title 18 conspiracy laws and would routinely school uppity lawyers on the subject? That guy sure looked a lot like you.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Sorry, no cigar. A conspiracy requires that:

A) Two or more people agree to either 1) Violate the law or 2) defraud the United States. The latter is generally called Klein Conspiracy and that is the charge here.

B) That the alleged conspirators know that the object of the conspiracy is against the law at the time they reach agreement. This is the scienter requirement.

C) An affirmative act, be any one of the conspirators, in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy.


Mr. Snipes is paying me quite enough; thank you for the concern.

A) Snipes, Rosiles and Kahn worked together to keep the IRS from collecting taxes from Snipes’ sizable income. That there violates the law and defrauds the United States.

B) The overt acts included sending in that amended return or trying to pay taxes with phony Bills of Exchange (you can't tell me that your benefactor didn't know passing a hot check was illegal and that it relieves him of having scienter).

C) The jury is going to have to decide if the correspondence (the affirmative act) they’ve seen where he rails against the government and threatens federal employees was really (as your patron asserts) "just asking questions".


Signing on to be a shill: $X dollars.

Shutting off your BS detector: $X dollars.

Getting pwned on Quatloos: priceless.

[LPC]

I am not sure whether or not we convinced the jury, but I know for a fact that Snipes never lived in Windermere - and that should be death to Counts 3-8.

Then it's too bad that what you "know for a fact" was not admissible as evidence and won't be considered by the jury.

[LPC]

Etymological chit-chat:

The word "conspire" comes (through Middle English) from the Latin "con" meaning "with" or "together" and "spiro" which means to breathe. So to conspire means to breathe together.

However, the concepts of breathing and life force are often intertwined in language. For example, in most mid-eastern languages (including Aramaic, which was most likely spoken by Jesus), the same word is used to mean both "breath" and "spirit." So what is usually translated in the Bible as "Holy Spirit" could also be translated as "Holy Breath." And so our words "inspiration" and "respiration" both come from the word for breath, as well as the word "spirit" itself.

So to conspire might literally mean to breathe together, but the figurative meaning is that you have joined your life forces (breath or spirit) together to work towards a common goal.

And a final note: My dictionary includes "secretly" in the definition of "conspire," so the jury might be confused by the difference between the legal definition and the common understanding, particularly in light of what I've read of the defense's closing arguments.

[wserra]

It's an agreement between two (or more) people to break the law sometime in the future.

If that's all their was to it, it wouldn't be hard to understand, but that is hardly a definition of conspiracy.

That's not even close.

Actually, Bill, with the addition of one thing - the requirement that one of the participants commit an overt act in furtherance of the goal - that is a perfectly fine one-sentence definition of "conspiracy", and has been for a long time. Don't believe me?

Although by the statute something more than the common-law definition of a conspiracy is necessary to complete the offence, to wit, some act done to effect the object of the conspiracy, it remains true that the combination of minds in an unlawful purpose is the foundation of the offence

United States v. Hirsch, 100 U.S. 33 (1879). I realize, of course, that the charge will be considerably more detailed, but I don't think Avalanche's purpose was to quote the charge.

BTW, Bill, when you excoriated Billy Martin in favor of Bernhoft, were you already on Bernhoft's team (or angling to get there)? Do you think that's something you might have disclosed to the readers here?

[Joey Smith]

Bill,

Set down the kool-aid and slowly step away.

It is OK for Bernhoff to represent Snipes and get paid for it. That is what lawyers do. It is OK for you to work for Bernhoff as his investigator and get paid for it. Power to you for picking up the work.

But don't take that as a license to tell us that the sun comes up in the West, that the earth is flat, and that you know of some nice oceanfront property within walking distance of Albuquerque.

Snipes cheated on his taxes, big-time, and he deserves to go away for some years. He cheated on his taxes even though his own professionals were telling him that it was wrong -- out of greed, he simply ignored them. Snipes is just a crook like the many other tax evaders out there; he just happens to be an actor too.

Snipes isn't going to be convicted because he is black; he is going to be convicted because he is guilty as sin. As far as the venue argument goes, that is the desperate grasp of a hyper-technicality of an obviously guilty man who did in fact have substantial contacts with that district.

Go stand in the hot shower and breath in and out deeply. It will help to get the koolaid out of your system faster. Please.

[Investor]

I'll mirror Joey's sentiment here. I know Branscum (from the "old days" of Quatloos) to be a very intelligent and rational person. I think he's just a little too emotionally invested in this - that's probably a good thing, as he has a job to do.

Some excellent points made by others (other than Joey):

LPC [addressing Bill's statement that he knows for a fact that Snipes never lived in Florida]: Then it's too bad that what you "know for a fact" was not admissible as evidence and won't be considered by the jury.

Bill [addressing Doktor Avalanche's rather silly comment that he was sure the defense did not convince the jury]: That's a pretty expansive statement for a guy who doesn't know what the jury actually saw ... or did I miss you in the court room?

I don't know why there needs to be arguing about what was and was not proven to the jury. We will know within a matter of hours (I would guess). Quite frankly, I'm a bit torn on what I'd like to see happen here. On one hand, I think Snipes has cheated the system and has taken a big bite out of the crazy apple. That being said, he didn't cook this craziness up himself, he was sold a bill of goods. Yes, he displayed a great deal of poor judgment when he decided which advisors to follow, but he is, to some extent, a victim in all of this.

On the other hand, an acquittal has a very poor consequence. An acquittal in this case gives the snake-oil salesmen, like Kahn and Rosile, more fuel for their scams. They will erroneously point to the jury's finding as proof that the income tax is illegal and that people don't have to pay if they don't want to. People will be easily confused by this because most people do not understand the difference between civil and criminal matters. I am constantly asked by people (who know I have a legal background) how OJ Simpson could be found "innocent" (I love when people say he was found innocent) but still have to pay the families of the victims. My explanation of the distinction between the civil matter the criminal matter, and the differing burdens of proof, usually elicits blank stares.

On the topic of OJ, I usually use that example to point out the flaw in the logic of, "well, a jury said John Doe was innocent when he went to court for income tax evasion; that means the jury found that there was no law making him liable for taxes". I will point out that OJ was found "innocent" of murder when he was in court on murder charges; does that mean there is no law against murder? Most people get that example and have a better understanding of what the acquittal in the tax fraud case means after I use the example.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

Being the only Southerner on the defense team, I opined that folks generally forget that there never was a "War of Racism," the Civil War is otherwise generally known as the War of Succession. There are those who would like to re-write history, but we didn't incur 600,000 American casualties over the issue of slavery.

As much as I would love to debate your defense of the Myth of the Lost Cause, I will merely state that you should perhaps read the secession statements of the various states that rebelled against the union and the inauguration speech of Jefferson Davis. They are much more instructive than the post-war "reminiscences" of the Confederate leadership.

[wserra]

Quite frankly, I'm a bit torn on what I'd like to see happen here.

The only time I've ever rooted for conviction was in those cases I prosecuted, where I was not exactly an observer. (Note: I'm too young - although not by much - to have appreciated the import of the all-white juries acquitting obviously-guilty Kluxers.) If the govt does not prove someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to an unbiased jury, s/he should be acquitted. True, it will give the scammers ammunition, but you can't deny them ammunition at the expense of vital rights.

I find it really difficult to believe that a lawyer (Cryer) could fail to act willfully in disobeying the tax laws. However, I wasn't in the courtroom (let alone on the jury) so I don't know. Acquitted? Zay gezunt.

[LPC]

On the topic of OJ, I usually use that example to point out the flaw in the logic of, "well, a jury said John Doe was innocent when he went to court for income tax evasion; that means the jury found that there was no law making him liable for taxes". I will point out that OJ was found "innocent" of murder when he was in court on murder charges; does that mean there is no law against murder? Most people get that example and have a better understanding of what the acquittal in the tax fraud case means after I use the example.

The OJ case is also instructive because, after he was acquitted of criminal charges, a different jury using different evidence and a different standard of proof found that he was liable for civil damages for the wrongful death of Ron Goldman (who was murdered along with Nicole Simpson).

One of the smart things that Snipes's lawyers have done is admit to the jury that Snipes will (eventually) be required to pay the taxes he owes, along with interest and penalties. That might help him shed the "evader" label and get him some sympathy with the jury.

(Of course, as far as we know, Snipes has still not filed any returns or agreed to pay any taxes, and it's quite possible that, if he's acquitted, he'll simply start another round of foot-dragging and obstruction. In which case, what might be more interesting than his first criminal trial will be his *second.*)

[Investor]

Agreed, wserra. I am not saying I hope an example is set at the expense of Snipe's rights. I am saying that, if in fact the government did not meet its burden of proof in the eyes of the jury, there will be bad consequences. I am not suggesting that those bad consequences should have any bearing on the verdict.

I've already had some people tell me that Kuglin and Cryer "beat the IRS by proving to a jury that their interpretations of the law are correct". It is just so much effort to point out the flaws in that thinking. At least with the Snipes case, the defense attorneys are quoted in the media as acknowledging their client owes the taxes. Maybe (just maybe) that fact will make it easier to explain to people that an acquital does not mean he was successful in avoiding his taxes.

[Investor]

LPC: The OJ case is also instructive because, after he was acquitted of criminal charges, a different jury using different evidence and a different standard of proof found that he was liable for civil damages for the wrongful death of Ron Goldman (who was murdered along with Nicole Simpson).

That was my original point, Dan.

[Bill E. Branscum]

It's an agreement between two (or more) people to break the law sometime in the future.

If that's all their was to it, it wouldn't be hard to understand, but that is hardly a definition of conspiracy.

That's not even close.

Actually, Bill, with the addition of one thing - the requirement that one of the participants commit an overt act in furtherance of the goal - that is a perfectly fine one-sentence definition of "conspiracy", and has been for a long time. Don't believe me?

Although by the statute something more than the common-law definition of a conspiracy is necessary to complete the offence, to wit, some act done to effect the object of the conspiracy, it remains true that the combination of minds in an unlawful purpose is the foundation of the offence

United States v. Hirsch, 100 U.S. 33 (1879). I realize, of course, that the charge will be considerably more detailed, but I don't think Avalanche's purpose was to quote the charge.

BTW, Bill, when you excoriated Billy Martin in favor of Bernhoft, were you already on Bernhoft's team (or angling to get there)? Do you think that's something you might have disclosed to the readers here?

I own an investigative agency in Florida and the Bernhoft Firm has retained me to work on a number of cases over the years. I have also worked on cases related to Wesley Snipes - as some may recall, the media universally castigated him over the allegation that he was a deadbeat "baby daddy" to Lanise Pettis' child.

As we proved beyond all contest, that was based upon the delusions of a woman with serious problems - and Priscilla Jo Beckman, the nitwit prosecutor behind this crusade, knew it.

http://www.fraudsandscams.com/spotlight.htm

When I see the media talking about bogus "checks" that Snipes is reported to have sent the IRS, I see history repeating itself. That allegation is pure BS, and anyone familiar with the facts and documents in evidence knows it. There were no "checks."

Finally, we are talking about a federal criminal case, and every federal criminal case that charges a violation of Title 18 USC 371 must deal with the definition of conspiracy by statute - the version originally offered was completely deficient in the context of this thread.

I admit that you got me on "Secession" - what can I say.

[/url]

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

the Civil War is otherwise generally known as the War of Secession. There are those who would like to re-write history, but we didn't incur 600,000 American casualties over the issue of slavery.

First off the Civil War is not generally known as the War of Secession. Those people who want to forget that it really wasn't a noble cause would like to rename it.

History is correct: the South did start the war over slavery, and if you want I can cite the Successionist documents that explicitly state that they were leaving the Union over slavery and the results of a legal Presidential election they didn't agree with because they were afraid of losing their slaves, plus all overwhelming documented evidence that it was the South that opened hostilities without pursuing any other options other than military ones. Sorry, but if you want to rename the Civil War you need to call it the War of Stupid Southern Aggression in Defense of Slavery and the Kidnapping and Enslaving of Free Individuals who Happened to be Black.

The truth hurts. In other words, don't press me. I've shot down this revisionist history several times. Is simple, it's easy because Sucessionists were very explicit and articulate about their reasons for starting the war.

[Bill E. Branscum]

Bill,

Set down the kool-aid and slowly step away.

It is OK for Bernhoff to represent Snipes and get paid for it. That is what lawyers do. It is OK for you to work for Bernhoff as his investigator and get paid for it. Power to you for picking up the work.

But don't take that as a license to tell us that the sun comes up in the West, that the earth is flat, and that you know of some nice oceanfront property within walking distance of Albuquerque.

Snipes cheated on his taxes, big-time, and he deserves to go away for some years. He cheated on his taxes even though his own professionals were telling him that it was wrong -- out of greed, he simply ignored them. Snipes is just a crook like the many other tax evaders out there; he just happens to be an actor too.

Snipes isn't going to be convicted because he is black; he is going to be convicted because he is guilty as sin. As far as the venue argument goes, that is the desperate grasp of a hyper-technicality of an obviously guilty man who did in fact have substantial contacts with that district.

Go stand in the hot shower and breath in and out deeply. It will help to get the koolaid out of your system faster. Please.

Arguing a fundamental element of an offense is a "desperate grasp of hyper-technicality?" What are you smoking?

Frankly, I think it is a little ridiculous for people who didn't attend the trial, and have no knowledge as to what has been entered into the evidence other than what the media has told them, to preach to me about the facts.

Let's just wait and see what the jury says. Don't worry - if and when the jury acquits, it won't mean that the Earth is flat and the sun rises in the west . . . it will just mean that a person thoroughly familiar with the facts and evidence was in a better position to proffer and opinion than a person relying upon the media.

Will that mean I can expect an apology from you?

[Dezcad]

Finally, we are talking about a federal criminal case, and every federal criminal case that charges a violation of Title 18 USC 371 must deal with the definition of conspiracy by statute - the version originally offered was completely deficient in the context of this thread.

What statute defines "conspiracy"? I know 18 USC 371 doesn't.