Cheek really didn't win

[Kimokeo]

From Wikipedia:

In the case of John Cheek:
The 48-year-old airline pilot said in a telephone interview that he had changed his views about paying taxes and was now "straightened out with the I.R.S." after paying the money he owed the Government and "substantial" penalties. From now on, he said, he intended to pay taxes.[12]
Further, the case was remanded for a re-trial. In the re-trial, the jury rejected Mr. Cheek's argument that he actually "believed" that wages were not taxable. He was again convicted. The second conviction was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court let that decision stand by denying John Cheek's petition for a writ of certiorari.[13]John L. Cheek was sentenced to a year and a day in prison, and was released from prison in December of 1992.[14]


I must admit I never really looked at the Cheek case. I wonder how many protestors, that claim the Cheek defense, actually read what happened. I didn't know that Cheek WAS convicted at re-trial.

So, his defense should have been allowable to use, but even Cheek failed before the jury.
It appears that the error was with the judge's instructions.

[LPC]

From the Tax Protester FAQ:

John Cheek was a classic tax protester. He was a pilot for American Airlines who filed no tax returns for 5 years. He was convicted of willfully failing to file and appealed his conviction all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed his conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. The opinion of the Supreme Court is rather confusing, and deals entirely with the issue of whether Cheek should have been allowed to present evidence that he sincerely believed that he was not required to file a tax return. The opinion is confusing because the court characterized his beliefs as “absurd” and ruled that he could not argue that the income tax was unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, but that he must be allowed to present evidence (and arguments) that he did not understand his statutory duty to file tax returns. United States v. Cheek, 498 U.S. 192 (1991). He was therefore allowed a new trial, but it didn’t do him any good, because he was convicted again at his second trial. See United States v. Cheek, 3 F3d 1057 (7th Cir. 1993).

Tax protesters will often try to claim that their violations of the tax laws were not “willful” because they had a “good faith belief” in what they were doing, but it didn’t work for John Cheek and it rarely works for anyone else.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Cheek, IMHO was in some part a victim of his training. I haven't looked, but chances are he had a military background. But even without it, everything is supposed to operate in a rationally defined and clearly understood set of rules and procedures that include overly-detailed documentation. There shouldn't be any ambiguity or conflict with the exception of unexpected combat circumstances you're faced with in the moment.

So when a known authority (i.e., your crew chief you've come to rely on) tells you there is a mission-dependent system fault you are no longer "mission ready." You're out until the issue is resolved.

Mentally, a pilot shouldn't be made the touch-stone of such a case. You should not expect them to function as an ordinary person if there is any ambiguity at all.

Sorry - survival issues at the pointy end of the spear require almost absolute reliance on the team behind you. Lots of stuff on the periphery is dumbed down.