Aaron Russo

[Quixote]

Surely, the charge they used in civil court was not the same one as in criminal court?

I don't think anyone understands what you mean by "the charge they used in civil court".

[Demosthenes]

I don't think our new poster understands that Kuglin took the IRS to civil court to delay collection. The IRS didn't take her to civil court. There were no civil "charges".

[ShadesOfKnight]

I don't think our new poster understands that Kuglin took the IRS to civil court to delay collection. The IRS didn't take her to civil court. There were no civil "charges".

That's true. I did not understand that.

If not from a Civil court, and not from a Criminal Court, where then did the collections come from?

[Quixote]

Sure it does. If she were not required to file, she would not be required to pay, so she would not be guilty of evasion.

My understanding differs. Filing has little (if anything) to do with paying... One can pay and not file, or file and not pay.

Just because you have to file doesn't mean you have to pay, and vice-versa.

After all, if they were as inextricably linked as you say here, why would withholding exist? Can't pay without filing, so why pay year round and only file once?

I was not talking about what people might or might not do, but rather what they are required or not required to do. While examples abound of people who are required to file, but not required to pay, because their tax liability is zero, I cannot think of a set of circumstances under which one would be required to pay, but not required to file.

[Agent Observer]

Could be me, but it seems pretty obvious that Shades is just another tax protester of the "just invoke the magic words" variety who is playing dumb to elicit responses. Just look at the pattern of responses:

- Shade asks a question.
- Someone answers.
- Shade doesn’t like the answer and proceeds to dissect the meaning of the words and/or applies Shade(y) logic, ignoring the premise of the answer.

I think I've seen that before somewhere...

[Demosthenes]

Question: do you know if the Kuglin case did bring up the issue of law being valid, since that would happen before the trial in your sequence of events?

She did not bring up the validity of the law either before or during the trial. Here's the entire docket for the criminal trial.

Date Filed # Docket Text

03/26/2003 1 INDICTMENT by USA Counts filed against Vernice B. Kuglin (1) count(s) 1-6 (PWM) (Entered: 03/27/2003)

03/26/2003 2 ARREST Warrant issued for Vernice B. Kuglin by Mag Judge James H. Allen (PWM) (Entered: 03/27/2003)

04/01/2003 3 ARREST Warrant returned executed as to Vernice B. Kuglin on 4/1/03 (PWM) (Entered: 04/04/2003)

04/01/2003 4 MINUTES: Before Mag Judge James H. Allen $10,000.00 SECURETY Bond set for Vernice B. Kuglin , & ; arraignment set for 9:30 4/9/03 before Mag Judge Diane K. Vescovo Type of hearing held: Initial Appearance - Court read the charges & advised of rights; DFt. retain counsel; BRA explained & signed; Bond set; Arraignment set. AUSA: C. Andre for J. Murphy Dft Atty: R. Pierce (LIMITED APPEARANCE) C/R: FTR (PWM) (Entered: 04/04/2003)

04/01/2003 5 ORDER setting conditions of release for Vernice B. Kuglin by Mag Judge James H. Allen (PWM) (Entered: 04/04/2003)

04/01/2003 6 SETTING LETTER ; arraignment set for 9:30 4/9/03 for Vernice B. Kuglin before Mag Judge Diane K. Vescovo (PWM) (Entered: 04/04/2003)

04/01/2003 7 BOND Posted ( 10,000.00 SURETY) 00249841 by Liberty Bail Bonds Vernice B. Kuglin (PWM) (Entered: 04/04/2003)

04/02/2003 8 NOTICE OF DELIVERANCE OF FOREIGN PASSPORT & RECEIPT (FILED UNDER SEAL) (document placed in vault) (PWM) Modified on 04/04/2003 (Entered: 04/04/2003)

04/09/2003 9 MINUTES: Before Mag Judge Diane K. Vescovo ON EXCLUDABLE DELAY for period from 4/9/03 thru 4/29/03 as to dft , & ; arraignment reset for 9:30 4/30/03 for Vernice B. Kuglin before Mag Judge Diane K. Vescovo As To: V. Kuglin Type of hearing held: Arraignment - Dft requested continuance to retain counsel. AUSA: T. Arvin for Murphy Dft Atty: R. Pierce C/R: FTR (PWM) (Entered: 04/10/2003)

04/09/2003 10 ORDER ON CONTINUANCE AND SPECIFYING PERIOD OF EXCLUDABLE DELAY by Mag Judge Diane K. Vescovo period of excludable time from 4/9/03 to 4/29/03 (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 04/10/2003)

04/30/2003 11 MINUTES: Before Mag Judge Diane K. Vescovo dft Vernice B. Kuglin arraigned; Not Guilty plea entered; Attorney Lowell H. Becraft Jr. present; As To: V. Kuglin Type of hearing held: Arraignment - Dft was arraigned & waives formal reading of charges; Speedy Trial deadline 7/8/03; Trial & report date to be set before Mag Judge. Trail & Report Date notices handed to attys; Dft to remain on present bond. AUSA: D. Henry for Murphy Dft Atty: L. Becraft C/R: FTR (PWM) (Entered: 05/02/2003)

05/01/2003 12 ORDER ON ARRAIGNMENT AS TO DFT V. KUBLIN by Mag Judge Diane K. Vescovo re [11-1] (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 05/02/2003)

05/01/2003 13 APPEARANCE for defendant Vernice B. Kuglin by Attorney Vernice B. Kuglin (PWM) (Entered: 05/02/2003)

05/20/2003 14 SETTING LETTER report date set for 9:00 5/23/03 for Vernice B. Kuglin (PWM) (Entered: 05/21/2003)

05/23/2003 15 MINUTES: Before Judge Jon P. McCalla Report date held 5/2/03. Dft on bond. Request for cont by dft. Cont trial to 7/7/03, report date set for 9:00 6/27/03 for Vernice B. Kuglin , ON EXCLUDABLE DELAY as to defendant Vernice B. Kuglin . Time excluded through 7/18/03. Reason for cont -additional time to prepare. Dft's counsel did not appear due to insufficient/untimely notice. AUSA: J. Murphy Dft Atty: L. Becraft C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) (Entered: 05/30/2003)

05/29/2003 16 ORDER ON CONTINUANCE AND SPECIFYING PERIOD OF EXCLUDABLE DELAY by Judge Jon P. McCalla period of excludable time from 6/13/03 to 7/18/03 (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 05/30/2003)

05/30/2003 17 SETTING LETTER report date set for 9:00 6/27/03 for Vernice B. Kuglin (EHG) (Entered: 06/02/2003)

06/26/2003 19 NOTICE; by plaintiff USA in response to a letter 6/20/03, requesting discovery (CCP) (Entered: 07/02/2003)

06/27/2003 18 CONSENT ORDER ON CRIMINAL by Judge Jon P. McCalla to continuance , and to exclusion of time as to Vernice B. Kuglin ; case reset for report at 2:00pm on 7/24/03 (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 07/01/2003)

06/27/2003 20 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Vernice B. Kuglin to continue trial (CCP) (Entered: 07/03/2003)

06/27/2003 21 MINUTES: Before Judge Jon P. McCalla report date set for 2:00 7/24/03 for Vernice B. Kuglin ; request for continuance by dft; continued trial to 8/4/03; time excluded through 8/15/03; reason for continuance additonal time to prepare; AUSA: Colthurst for J. Murphy Dft Atty: L. Becraft C/R: Brenda Parker (CCP) (Entered: 07/03/2003)

07/02/2003 22 NOTICE by plaintiff USA; additional documents are to be included with the documents previously delivered to you on 6/26/03 (CCP) (Entered: 07/10/2003)

07/16/2003 23 SETTING LETTER report date set for 2:00 7/24/03 for Vernice B. Kuglin (CCP) (Entered: 07/17/2003)

07/24/2003 24 BRIEF Concerning Trial Issues by defendant Vernice B. Kuglin (CCP) (Entered: 07/25/2003)

07/24/2003 25 DEFENDANT KUGLIN'S REQUESTED VOIR DIRE by Vernice B. Kuglin proposed to the jury panel (CCP) (Entered: 07/25/2003)

07/24/2003 39 MINUTES: Before Judge Jon P. McCalla ; jury trial set for 8/4/03 for Vernice B. Kuglin AUSA: J. Murphy Dft Atty: L. Becraft C/R: Brenda Parker (CCP) (Entered: 08/12/2003)

07/24/2003 40 MINUTES: Before Judge Jon P. McCalla ; jury trial set for 8/4/03 for Vernice B. Kuglin AUSA: J. Murphy Dft Atty: L. Becraft C/R: Brenda Parker (CCP) (Entered: 08/13/2003)

07/28/2003 26 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA; to prior discovery and the evidence in this case will also include copies of blank Forms W-4 and the Deduction and Adjustment Worksheets for 1996-2001; (CCP) (Entered: 07/28/2003)

07/30/2003 27 RULE 16 Discovery Response as to defendant Vernice B. Kuglin (JAE) (Entered: 07/30/2003)

08/01/2003 28 PROPOSED JURY Instructions by defendant Vernice B. Kuglin (CCP) (Entered: 08/04/2003)

08/04/2003 PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID: in the amount of $ 100.00 receipt # 081962 by Robert G. Bernhoft (CCP) (Entered: 08/05/2003)

08/04/2003 29 MOTION as to Vernice B. Kuglin for admission of attorney Robert G. Bernhoft to appear pro hac vice (CCP) (Entered: 08/05/2003)

08/04/2003 30 AFFIDAVIT/Declaration of Attorney Robert G. Bernhoft (CCP) (Entered: 08/05/2003)

08/04/2003 31 GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS by and through Terrell L. Harris (CCP) (Entered: 08/05/2003)

08/04/2003 32 APPEARANCE for defendant Vernice B. Kuglin by Attorney Robert G. Bernhoft (CCP) (Entered: 08/05/2003)

08/04/2003 33 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE; Robert G. Bernhoft to Appear pro hac vice as to Vernice Kuglin (CCP) (Entered: 08/05/2003)

08/04/2003 34 MINUTES: Before Judge Jon P. McCalla jury trial held on 8/4/03; trial will resume on 8/5/03; AUSA: J. Murphy Dft Atty: L. Becraft, R. Bernhoft C/R: Brenda Parker (CCP) (Entered: 08/13/2003)

08/05/2003 35 MINUTES: Before Judge Jon P. McCalla trial will resume on 8/6/03 at 9:00 AUSA: J. Murphy Dft Atty: Becraft, Bernhoft C/R: Brenda Parker (CCP) (Entered: 08/13/2003)

08/06/2003 36 MINUTES: Before Judge Jon P. McCalla Trial resumes on 8/7/03 at 9:00 AUSA: J. Murphy Dft Atty: Becraft, Bernhoft C/R: Brenda Parker (CCP) (Entered: 08/13/2003)

08/07/2003 37 MINUTES: Before Judge Jon P. McCalla trial resume 8/8/03 at 8:30 AUSA: J. Murphy Dft Atty: Becraft, Bernhoft C/R: Brenda Parker (CCP) (Entered: 08/13/2003)

08/08/2003 38 MINUTES: Criminal Jury Trial; verdict: not guilty on cts 1-6 as charged; jury deliberations resumed at 8:45 on day 5 ; Before Judge Jon P. McCalla AUSA: J. Murphy Dft Atty: Becraft, Bernhoft C/R: Brenda Parker (CCP) (Entered: 08/13/2003)

08/08/2003 39 VERDICT as to Vernice B. Kuglin; find the defendant , Vernice B. Kuglin as to 1-6 not guilty (CCP) (Entered: 08/13/2003)

08/18/2003 41 MOTION as to Vernice B. Kuglin for return of Passport ; and any other personal property of Kuglin; (CCP) (Entered: 08/19/2003)

08/19/2003 42 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for return of Passport [41-1] (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 08/20/2003)

08/19/2003 43 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla dismissing counts as to Vernice B. Kuglin (1) count(s) 1-6. Order and Adjudged that counts 1 through 6 are hereby DISMISSED as to the defendant Vernice Kuglin as to Vernice B. Kuglin , case terminated as to Vernice B. Kuglin (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 08/20/2003)

08/27/2003 44 RETURNED RECEIPT on 8/27/03 ; receipt of passport Number 054202401 previously surrender to the court pursuant to a prior order of the court; (CCP) (Entered: 08/28/2003)

10/29/2003 45 RECEIPT FOR PERMANENT RELEASE OF EXHIBIT(S); EXHS. 25&26 (CHARTS-OVERSIZEX) (CCP) (Entered: 10/29/2003)

02/18/2004 46 EXHIBIT/WITNESS list; presiding Judge McCalla; Pltf attorney Joseph Murphy; Dft Attorney Lowell Bercraft; Trial dates 8/4/03; C/R Brenda Parker (CCP) (Entered: 02/18/2004)

02/19/2004 47 MOTION by USA as to Vernice B. Kuglin to release trial exhibits , which are now in the custody of the U.S. District Court Clerk's office, be released to Assistant U.S. Atty, Joseph C. Murphy, Jr. (CCP) (Entered: 02/20/2004)

02/20/2004 48 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting USA motion to release trial exhibits [47-1] (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 02/23/2004)

02/24/2004 49 RETURNED RECEIPT; this is to acknowledge that Joseph Murphy Atty of US Atty Office has received the exhibits in the above case, or has the following exhibit numbers 1-59 (CCP) (Entered: 02/26/2004)

[ShadesOfKnight]

I was not talking about what people might or might not do, but rather what they are required or not required to do.

Wait a moment. I had thought you were required to pay because you had income, not because you filed.

Is that not true?

[LPC]

If she were not required to file, she would not be required to pay, so she would not be guilty of evasion.

My understanding differs.

Surprise, surprise.

Filing has little (if anything) to do with paying...

Nonsense. The people who are not required to file are those who could not possibly owe taxes. If you owe tax, then you have enough income that you are required to file.

One can pay and not file, or file and not pay.

And both are crimes.

After all, if they were as inextricably linked as you say here, why would withholding exist?

Withholding is a method of collecting taxes, and has nothing to do with the requirement to file or whether or not there is a tax liability. You can have taxes withheld even though you are not required to file and owe no tax, and you can have no tax withheld even though you are required to file and you owe tax.

Example of the first case: I am working at my regular job in January and taxes are withheld. I then lose my job and have no income for the remaining 11 months of the year. My income for the year is so small that I am not required to file a return, and I do not owe any tax, but I have to file in order to claim a refund for the tax withheld.

Example of the second case: I have a part-time job that pays a salary so small that no withholding is required. However, I have a lot of investments and receive enough in dividends and interest to require me to file a return and pay taxes on both the investment income and the salary. (And if I have not paid estimated taxes, I may be liable for a penalty.)

[ShadesOfKnight]

Could be me, but it seems pretty obvious that Shades is just another tax protester of the "just invoke the magic words" variety who is playing dumb to elicit responses.

Could be you... or it could be that you are wrong. As I said with my very first post, I am a Tax Agnostic. I don't yet have a formed opinion and am walking through the logic of both sides to seek a simple answer.

Call me a liar directly, or not at all, please.

[ShadesOfKnight]

Withholding is a method of collecting taxes, and has nothing to do with the requirement to file or whether or not there is a tax liability.

As I understand it, withholding also provides evidence of a liability (through filing and W-2/W-4 documents). Is this not true?

[ShadesOfKnight]

She did not bring up the validity of the law either before or during the trial. Here's the entire docket for the criminal trial.

Thank you, this will be most helpful once I sift through it.

[Quixote]

I was not talking about what people might or might not do, but rather what they are required or not required to do.

Wait a moment. I had thought you were required to pay because you had income, not because you filed.

Is that not true?

One is required to pay because one owes tax. One is required to file if one's income is sufficiently large. (There are other, more esoteric reasons that one might be required to file, but they are not relevant here.) But as I wrote in my post above, there are no circumstances of which I am aware in which one would have a tax liability, but not a filing requirement.

[Agent Observer]

Call me a liar directly, or not at all, please.

Uh, I thought my opinion was pretty clear the first time, but I'll re-quote it since you didn't follow:

Shades is just another tax protester of the "just invoke the magic words" variety who is playing dumb to elicit responses.

[ShadesOfKnight]

Uh, I thought my opinion was pretty clear the first time, but I'll re-quote it since you didn't follow:

No. Clear is "liar."

Your statement is just more words to accomplish what could have been done simpler. Seems to be common in the camp of folk who dismiss "TPs" out of hand.

[Demosthenes]

Thread too long. I've started a new one.

[grixit]

She was not charged with failing to file then, it seems... on which the entire "No one has ever won" argument hinges.

Whether the charge was evasion or failure to file isn't the issue. No one has ever won based on the theories Russo propounds. Period.

Agreed, but as we've found here... the theories Russo put forth were never tried for Kuglin and in fact weren't applicable.

Saying "I'm not required to file" as a defense against a charge other than "Failure to file" makes no sense. As you said, wserra, such intricacies of grammar are critical, yes?

Exaxctly. And she did not say "I'm not required to file". She said "I was deluded into thinking i was not required to file". The jury agreed.