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.