Sherry Peel Jackson Getting Destroyed In Prison

[LPC]

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld torture ok with you folks? Innocent people are just collateral damage?

I doubt Jackson carries a thermometer around with her, so if she says its 50 degrees, it's probably 65.

And her description of the food sounds like what I ate at summer camp.

Bottom line: Jackson's not innocent, and she's not being tortured. She's being treated the same as any other prisoner.

If she has a legitimate complaint, she can file a civil action alleging cruel and unusual punishment. But I suspect that even the other prisoners will laugh at her whining.

[jg]

...Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld torture ok with you folks? Innocent people are just collateral damage? ...

No, it would not be all right with me to torture Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld since they have not been convicted of any crime although they have done much with which I did not and do not agree .

Those that are convicted of crimes and sentenced under the statutes should serve the sentence for which they have been convicted. If there were any laws for which I thought the punishment does not fit the crime I would work to change those laws. I would not whine or fuss about it on an internet board or attack those that thought differently.

[Gregg]

Ed. note: their words, not mine. From http://ronpaul.meetup.com/93/messages/b ... ad/4498505

It's prison, Ms. Jackson - it's supposed to be unpleasant.

WTF is wrong with you animals - FREE THE PEOPLE NOW!

If you actually practice the tripe you preach, I'm sure we can arrange to send you to comfort her in her trials...

[Gregg]

[quote="funwithsafety"![/quote
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time..."

Clever - is that an original thought. So the punishment isn't supposed to fit the crime. It should exceed the crime? Especially for political crimes? Is that your thinking Mr. Originial?

Again, I ask, WTF kind of animals are you encultured, brainwashed, hackmen of oligarchy?

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld torture ok with you folks? Innocent people are just collateral damage?

Get a grip on your humanity for cryin' out loud@!

PEACE -

She is not being punished for a political crime, she protested the income tax and no one lifted a finger to prosecute her, she quit paying taxes, and that's another matter, and she WAS prosecuted for that....and I personally think the sentence was on the lenient side.

[Trippy]

Clever - is that an original thought. So the punishment isn't supposed to fit the crime. It should exceed the crime? Especially for political crimes? Is that your thinking Mr. Originial?

Exceed the crime? I agree with Gregg; her sentence was light, especially when one takes into account that she worked for the IRS for some time and knew exactly what the laws were and are. Not filing taxes/lying on income tax returns is a crime, period. NOT a political crime, in the usual sense of those words.

Again, I ask, WTF kind of animals are you encultured, brainwashed, hackmen of oligarchy? Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld torture ok with you folks? Innocent people are just collateral damage?

Lame, lame, lame.

Get a grip on your humanity for cryin' out loud@! PEACE -

We do have a grip on our humanity; not a one of us doesn't sigh when we hear of how the economy is affecting people, and we all gripe about the tax code and how nutty it can be. (At least, I certainly do.) What we do NOT have a grip on is patience with the stupid -- nor sympathy for those who commit crimes. You don't want to obey the law, don't whine about where you end up when you're caught. At least face it like an ADULT.

There. I'm done. Next?

[Gregg]

Gregg, you are wrong on two counts. First, Jackson's trials are over. Second, I am guessing Funwithsafety is NOT female, so he would be in a seperate, but equal facility. Oh who am I kidding? It would not be equal - I doubt Mrs. Jackson has to deal with the Nazi Low Riders, or MS-13, or the black prison gangs.......

Sorry, I was a little sloppy with my choice of words, I didn't mean her legal trials, I meant the trials of her present situation, and you are correct, they don't have coed prisons, so I was being metaphorical there....

And I'll add that for a few moments I thought you were going soft on me, but I read it slower and see your point about the special intramural activities that male prisons have that do not get as much publicity in female institutions if they do exist.
Yes, our good fun friend will likely have at the very least as much fun in Marion or some similar facility. He won't get to meet Sherry in person, but he can hope for maybe Ed: Family Brown or maybe even Danny Riley.

[gezco]

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld torture ok with you folks? Innocent people are just collateral damage?

I doubt Jackson carries a thermometer around with her, so if she says its 50 degrees, it's probably 65.

I’m guessing closer to 75. How much would it cost to keep a prison at 50 degrees in the summer in Florida? There’s no way they got the budget for that. As far as the multi colored bologna, that was most likely olive loaf, which is actually quite tasty. These are the same people that come to the conclusion that title 26 doesn’t require them to pay tax. I’m thinking their description of life in prison would have that same level of accuracy.

[notorial dissent]

Ya think, maybe????

[Doktor Avalanche]

Ed. note: their words, not mine. From http://ronpaul.meetup.com/93/messages/b ... ad/4498505

It's prison, Ms. Jackson - it's supposed to be unpleasant.

WTF is wrong with you animals - FREE THE PEOPLE NOW!

WTF is wrong with you? Sherry Peel Jackson comitted a crime and she's being punished for it.

Oh, I get it - some crimes are okay with you.

[fortinbras]

How much would it cost to keep a prison at 50 degrees in the summer in Florida? There’s no way they got the budget for that.

I thought the article said she was in a facility in Atlanta, GA.
Even so, 50 degrees is quite a trick. At that temperature you can see your breath, and library books will last more than 500 years. She's damn lucky they keep the air conditioners on in summer. There are plenty of facilities around the South that don't attempt any climate control anytime of year and the inmates really suffer.

[Number Six]

She had top billing at several "patriot" and American Free Press conventions with the likes of Joe Banister and Vernice Kuglin. Ms. Jackson should have followed the advice of her Attorneys. Larry Becraft knows something about when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. I spoke to crafty Larry several times as I contemplated my chances if the government had wanted to spend the resources to prosecute. He sent me the article "the uncertainty of the the income tax" citing numerous impressive court cases, with reasoning impugning the certainty of taxes--the letter came with suspicious markings on the rear seal, inviting the feds to take notice of this suspicious letter from an attorney. I spoke with people he referred me to and asked me what legal representation would cost--$60-80K for a trial. I would like to see an outcome % flow diagram showing likely results for each set of non-filer or tax protestor circumstances. I asked Mr. Becraft about his opinion of the information on Quatloos, he was not complimentary.

[wserra]

I asked Mr. Becraft about his opinion of the information on Quatloos, he was not complimentary.

Well, I doubt that anyone here is very complimentary about Becraft. Of course, his opinion (and mine, for that matter) is just the opinion of one lawyer. It, along with a Metrocard, will get you on the subway. On the other hand, the opinion of a U.S. Court of Appeals carries considerable weight:

In reaching the conclusion the Becraft's petition for rehearing is frivolous, we rely not only on the fact that the argument is in direct conflict with "firmly established rules of law for which there is no arguably reasonable expectation of reversal or favorable modification," McDougal v. Commissioner, 818 F.2d 453, 455 (5th Cir.1987), but also on the fact that this wholly meritless claim was pressed in a petition for rehearing after this court had already summarily rejected the claim and characterized it as having no basis in law. Thus, the result of the petition for rehearing was even more obvious than the initial appeal.
...
the fact that Becraft likely filed the petition for hearing absent a good faith belief of its justification contributes to our strong conviction that Becraft's conduct warrants the
imposition of sanctions. See Coghlan, 852 F.2d at 814 ("Bad faith may aggravate the circumstances justifying sanctions....")

Moreover, we believe that Mr. Becraft's litigation record in the federal appellate courts demonstrates the necessity of sending a message to Becraft that frivolous arguments will no longer be tolerated. Our research reveals that we are not the first appellate court in which Becraft has raised this patently frivolous Sixteenth Amendment claim. In Ward, a case in which Becraft served as defendant's appellate counsel, see supra, n. 1, the Eleventh Circuit characterized as "utterly without merit" the identical argument raised by Becraft here regarding the applicability of the federal tax laws to resident United States citizens. 833 F.2d at 1539. Moreover, Becraft also advanced the patently frivolous claim in Ward that the federal income tax laws apply only to residents of federal territories and the District of Columbia. Id.; see supra, n. 1.

Unfortunately, Becraft's record of advancing wholly meritless claims does not end with Ward. United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036, 107 S.Ct. 888, 93 L.Ed.2d 840 (1987), and United States v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 77, 102 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988), appeals in which Becraft served as co-counsel and counsel respectively, addressed the claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified and that therefore the federal courts lack jurisdiction to entertain tax evasion prosecutions. Needless to say, both courts soundly rejected this contention. See Sitka, 845 F.2d 44- 47; Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438-1441. Becraft's record in the federal courts thus exhibits an alarming willingness to utilize appellate court resources to adjudicate claims that a competent attorney should realize have no reasonable possibility of success.

Based on Becraft's conduct in this case and prior cases, it is clear to us that Becraft has no appreciation for the limited nature of the federal judicial resources upon which all aggrieved individuals depend for vindication of statutory and constitutional rights. For if he did have respect for the extreme demands constantly placed on the court's resources, he would not continue to use the courts as testing ground for revisionist historical theories that have absolutely no basis in law.

In re Lowell H. Becraft, Jr. (Nelson), 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989). Does anyone know if Becraft has ever won a tax appeal?

[LPC]

In re Lowell H. Becraft, Jr. (Nelson), 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989). Does anyone know if Becraft has ever won a tax appeal?

Not as far as I have been able to find.

The following are the published (and semi-published) decisions I have found involving Becraft as counsel:

United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1987) (federal income tax is not limited to the District of Columbia and federal territories); United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987); United States v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, _ U.S. _ (1988) (the validity of the ratification of the 16th Amendment and of the amendment itself "are no longer open questions"); United States v. Herbert Daniel Fleschner, et al., 78 AFTR2d Par. 96-5475, 96 TNT 205-77, No. 94-5929 (4th Cir. 10/11/1996) (conviction for conspiring to obstruct and defeat the functions of the Internal Revenue Service did not infringe on the 1st Amendment rights of the defendants); United States v. Larry R. Melton, et al., 77 AFTR2d Par. 96-864, 96 TNT 110-22, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 5/22/1996) (the duty to file returns and pay federal income tax is clear, and convictions for conspiracy to defraud the United States will not be overturned on the grounds that the law is vague or unclear); Fred W. Allnutt Sr. v. Mark J. Friedman (In re Allnutt), 75 AFTR2d Par. 95-937, 95 TNT 114-19, No. HAR 95-11 (U.S.D.C. D.Md. 4/11/1995) (collection of federal taxes by seizures did not violate automatic stay in bankruptcy proceedings); United States v. John L. Sasscer, 73 AFTR2d Par. 94-1011, 94 TNT 110-21, No. 92-5113 (4th Cir. 5/31/1994) (unpublished; convictions for failing to file tax returns upheld against challenges to evidentiary rulings and jury instructions); Burton Bliss, et ux. v. United States 92 TNT 154-20, No. CS-92-088-JLQ (U.S.D.C. E.D.Wa. 7/7/1992) (complaint to quiet title dismissed; a Form 4340 is presumptive proof that an assessment was properly made and notice and demand for payment sent in compliance with section 6303(a)); Fred W. Allnutt, Sr. v. Commissioner, 956 F.2d 1162, 72 TNT 63-7, No. 91-1073 (4th Cir. 2/26/1992) (per curiam; Tax Court decision upheld against challenges under the Paperwork Reduction Act), aff'ng T.C. Memo 1991-6; United States v. Donald L. Bowers, et ux., 90 TNT 246-10, No. 90-5640 (4th Cir. 11/29/1990) (failure of IRS to publish tax forms in Federal Register not a defense to convictions for tax evasion); First National Bank of Tulsa, et al. v. United States, et al., 865 F.2d 217, 89 TNT 11-17, No. 88-1623 (10th Cir. 1/4/1989) (grand jury subpoenas upheld against claims of infringement of 1st Amendment rights); Universal Church of Jesus Christ, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-65, No. 5759-82X ("church" found to operate for the profit of the "pastor" and not for exempt purposes); Dona H. Sly, et ux v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-443, Docket No. 23814-82 (deficiency upheld based on benefits received by pastor from Universal Church of Jesus Christ, Inc.).

The "First National Bank of Tulsa" case involved an investigation into the "Freeman Education Association," which was an unincorporated association led by Vernon Holland, whose name rings a bell but I don't have time to check today.

[ASITStands]

Consider:

United States v. Silkmam, 156 F.3d 833, Reversed and remanded.

Silkman was convicted of five counts of tax evasion in the United States District of South Dakota. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit held that an "Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax assessment that is administratively final for purposes of agency's civil collection remedies is not conclusive proof of tax deficiency in tax evasion prosecution."

The case was remanded for a new trial.

On retrial, Silkman was convicted of one count, upheld on subsequent appeal.

The briefs are posted on Becraft's website, and he's fairly proud of the decision. He feels it fleshed out the doctrine of assessment and deficiency in relation to criminal charges.

[Famspear]

Consider:

United States v. Silkmam, 156 F.3d 833, Reversed and remanded.

Silkman was convicted of five counts of tax evasion in the United States District of South Dakota. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit held that an "Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax assessment that is administratively final for purposes of agency's civil collection remedies is not conclusive proof of tax deficiency in tax evasion prosecution."

Since an actual tax deficiency -- an actual unpaid tax -- is an element of the offense under section 7201, it is interesting that government lawyers would try to argue that an assessment is "conclusive" proof in a section 7201 case. This is a criminal matter, not a civil matter. Yet, a federal district court apparently actually bought this argument, and it took an appeals court to get this reversed. From the Eighth Circuit's opinion in Silkman:

The issue in this case--one of first impression--is whether an IRS tax assessment that is administratively final for purposes of the agency's civil collection remedies is also conclusive proof of the tax deficiency in a tax evasion prosecution. The district court reasoned that this criminal trial was not the appropriate forum to contest the IRS assessments after Silkman slept on his right under the tax laws to challenge them administratively or by Tax Court litigation. But Silkman was not charged with willfully refusing to obey an agency order; in that type of case, the criminal defendant may be barred from attacking the validity of the order he disobeyed. Compare Cox v. United States, 332 U.S. 442, 453 (1947), with Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114, 122 (1946). Here, the IRS assessments were offered as conclusive proof of an underlying fact that is an element of the crime--that taxes were in fact owed. In this type of case, the overriding principle is that "one charged with the commission of a felony . . . has an absolute right to a jury determination upon all essential elements of the offense." United States v. England, 347 F.2d 425, 430 (7th Cir. 1965); see Koontz v. United States, 277 F.2d 53, 55 (5th Cir. 1960).

The government has no authority for its startling contention that an IRS assessment is conclusive proof in a criminal trial that taxes were in fact owing. The government cites Dack, 747 F.2d at 1174, and United States v. Daniel, 956 F.2d 540, 542 (6th Cir. 1992), but they merely held that when an alleged tax evasion arose from the failure to file a tax return, no formal assessment is necessary because the deficiency is deemed to arise by operation of law on the date a return should have been filed. Accord United States v. Hogan, 861 F.2d 312, 315 (1st Cir. 1988). These cases did not address whether a formal assessment when made is conclusive proof of the asserted deficiency. The government also cites United States v. Voorhies, 658 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1981), but that case supports Silkman's position. In Voorhies, the taxpayer was charged with evading the payment of taxes by concealing assets at a time prior to the formal assessment. The government's proof of a tax deficiency consisted of the certificates of assessment and the testimony of an agent explaining how the tax liability had been determined. Like the later decisions in Dack and Daniel, the court first rejected the taxpayer's contention that a tax deficiency cannot exist prior to formal assessment. It then went on to conclude that the government's uncontradicted evidence was sufficient to prove a tax deficiency because "the certificates of assessment were prima facie correct and therefore adequate evidence of the amount of Voorhies' tax liability." Id. at 715 (emphasis added).

We agree with the analysis in Voorhies--a formal tax assessment that has become administratively final is prima facie evidence of the asserted tax deficiency, and if unchallenged, it may suffice to prove this element of the crime. But the assessment is only prima facie proof of a deficiency. The assessed deficiency may be challenged by the defendant accused of tax evasion, and the issue is one for the jury. As the Supreme Court said in United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 572-73 (1977), the jury's overriding responsibility is to stand between the accused and a potentially arbitrary or abusive government that is in command of the criminal sanction. For this reason, a trial judge is prohibited from entering a judgment of conviction or directing a jury to come forward with such a verdict, regardless of how overwhelmingly the evidence may point in that direction.

--(bolding added) from United States v. Silkman, 156 F.3d 833, 98-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50,724 (8th Cir. 1998).

The Cheek case dealt with the mens rea element of willfulness -- a jury question -- but you would think that people could draw a little analogy from Cheek and conclude that any other element of a federal tax crime would also be a jury question.

I guess I don't remember much from that first year criminal law class, but I do seem to remember that in the United States of America, the ultimate burden of persuasion in a criminal case is pretty much on the prosecution -- as to each and every element of the crime.

[fortinbras]

In tax cases, the element of willfulness, in the context of willful failure to file tax returns or pay taxes, means nothing more than a decision not to file or pay. So, for example, an excuse based on lost mail or some terrible distraction like serious sickness or the house burning down, plausibly suggests that these tasks were unintentionally overlooked. But a decision not to file or not to pay is willful, showing intent, notwithstanding that the decision was motivated by some theory about the law. In such a case, the fact that the defendant had filed and paid in previous years and then stopped is considered sufficient evidence that his non-filing and non-paying now is a deliberate decision not to do what he already knew he was expected to do. That's one reason the IRS usually waits for a defendant to fail to file/pay for more than just one year, to show there was a deliberate decision.

[gezco]

How much would it cost to keep a prison at 50 degrees in the summer in Florida? There’s no way they got the budget for that.

I thought the article said she was in a facility in Atlanta, GA.

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, she’s at the Coleman Federal Correctional Complex in central Florida.

[notorial dissent]

I don’t claim to be an expert on the trials and tribulations of Larry Becraft, but to the best of my knowledge his batting record is more or less 0 for all. He has managed a couple of pyrrhic victories for his clients along the way, but nothing that really mattered other than in lessening the sentences of some of his clients, although I put that more on the jury than I do on his persuasiveness or grasp of the law, since if he actually had anything they would have gotten off and this has yet to happen. He has, as was pointed out above, been smacked by the Federal Courts for frivolousness, which I guess is something of an accomplishment. He has been roundly derided in TP circles for hijacking some other players pet theories for his court cases, although since he has lost at every turn it obviously didn’t much matter. Looney Larry is amusing if only for his all to willing and wilfull suspension of disbelief and reality and his consistent record of loss.

[Number Six]

Becraft's "Destroyed Arguments" is an honest document, which earned him the ire of the pay-triot community. When "Save A Patriot" is finally keel-hauled, it could be a windfall for Mr. Becraft's legal practice. He has made a lot of money as a supposed "friend" of tax protestors. I wonder if he files his taxes honestly, considering that many of his clients are desperate and have been living in the cash/hard asset economy...

[wserra]

Becraft's "Destroyed Arguments" is an honest document

Not really. While it does put down obvious, fish-in-a-barrel hallucinations like the "all capitals" name and "redeeming the strawman", it also refers to his home page, which extols almost as obvious hucksters like Joe Banister, Devvy Kidd and Phil Hart.

Can't alienate all the marks.