Whitey Harrell... Anyone know how to get a transcript?

[ShadesOfKnight]

In chasing down each of Aaron Russo's tales in his recent movie, I've hit a wall on the issue of Whitey Harrell. Does anyone know how I can get a transcript of the case from Lincoln Nebraska? Is there a website for such, or no?

What I'm trying to determine is what his position in his defense was, and I've gotten three different conclusions from various media outlets (one of which is Russo's film). Given that, I want to go back to the original transcript to find out what was really entered.

Thanks in advance.

[Demosthenes]

In chasing down each of Aaron Russo's tales in his recent movie, I've hit a wall on the issue of Whitey Harrell. Does anyone know how I can get a transcript of the case from Lincoln Nebraska? Is there a website for such, or no?

What I'm trying to determine is what his position in his defense was, and I've gotten three different conclusions from various media outlets (one of which is Russo's film). Given that, I want to go back to the original transcript to find out what was really entered.

Thanks in advance.

Contrary to the picture painted in Russo's movie, Whitey Harrell was a state income tax case, not a federal income tax case.

Whitey has been indicted again and has a new state (not Federal) criminal trial which should be starting shortly. Last time I checked, the trial date was early May.

[ShadesOfKnight]

In chasing down each of Aaron Russo's tales in his recent movie, I've hit a wall on the issue of Whitey Harrell. Does anyone know how I can get a transcript of the case from Lincoln Nebraska? Is there a website for such, or no?

What I'm trying to determine is what his position in his defense was, and I've gotten three different conclusions from various media outlets (one of which is Russo's film). Given that, I want to go back to the original transcript to find out what was really entered.

Thanks in advance.

Contrary to the picture painted in Russo's movie, Whitey Harrell was a state income tax case, not a federal income tax case.

Whitey has been indicted again and has a new state (not Federal) criminal trial which should be starting shortly. Last time I checked, the trial date was early May.

Actually, I got that distinction from the Russo Film. They were actually very clear that it started in the State but had to move to the Federal level because the State Statute hinges on the Federal One (much like Colorado, in fact).

But do you happen to know how I can get a hold of the transcript of the trial? That's really the concern I have now.

[Demosthenes]

Actually, I got that distinction from the Russo Film. They were actually very clear that it started in the State but had to move to the Federal level because the State Statute hinges on the Federal One (much like Colorado, in fact).

Nope. It started at the state level and finished at the state level. Marcy Brooks likes to tell the story about theIRS agent that took the stand. No IRS agent ever testified in the case because it was a state income tax case.

Why don't you ask Whitey for the transcript.

[jg]

Harrell's case is cited as PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS vs. GAYLON L. HARRELL, Case Number 97CF89 in the Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois
from http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3932bf7e3f53.htm

Gaylon "Whitey" Harrell of rural Latham was acquitted by a 12 person jury of the 4 count criminal felony charges of willful failure to file an Illinois State Income Tax form.

The actual trial began on Wednesday May 24th in the Logan County Circuit Court room, presided over by Senior Judge David "Slick" Coogan ("Slick is how the judge identifies himself) and closed on Friday after four hours of deliberation when the jury returned with four consecutive "not guilty" verdicts.

There do appear to have been federal cases involving Gaylon Harrell:

http://law.onecle.com/tax/1998/harrell2.tcm.wpd01.html
T.C. Memo. 1998-207

P did not file a Federal income tax return for 1991, 1992, or 1993. R determined deficiencies and additions to tax for each year. R filed a motion under Rule 40, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This Court granted R’s motion, in part, with respect to the deficiencies in income tax and additions to tax under secs. 6651(a)(1) and 6654, I.R.C., but denied the motion as to the issue of P’s liability for the fraud addition to tax under sec. 6651 (f), I.R.C. 1986, for 1993.
1. Held: P is liable for an addition to tax for fraud under sec. 6651(f), I.R.C. 1986, for 1993.
2. Held, further, P is liable for a penalty of $10,000 under sec. 6673, I.R.C. 1986.

http://www.projectposner.org/case/1993/13F3d232
GAYLON L. HARRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 91-2077
November 16, 1993, Argued—December 30, 1993, Decided

Although the complaint states that the Internal Revenue Service did not follow proper procedures in placing a levy on Harrell's wages, the memorandum that Harrell (proceeding pro se) filed in the district court in support of his motion for injunctive relief explains that the reason the government was unable to comply with the requirements for a valid levy is that Congress has no constitutional authority over citizens of the states of the United States, as opposed to residents either of the District of Columbia or of U.S. territories and possessions. Lacking such authority the federal government could not make a valid tax assessment against Harrell and therefore had no basis for levying on his wages. Clearly, then, the challenge is not to the levy as a method of collection but to the taxes sought to be collected, and such a challenge cannot be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2410 and is in any event barred by 26 U.S.C. § 7421. So the district court was correct that it had no jurisdiction over the case--and for another reason: Harrell's challenge to the tax assessment is frivolous, United States v. Hilgeford, 7 F.3d 1340, slip op. at 4-5 (7th Cir. 1993), and frivolousness is an independent jurisdictional basis for dismissing a suit. Ricketts v. Midwest 236 National Bank, 874 F.2d 1177, 1180 (7th Cir. 1989); Crowley Cutlery Co. v. United States, 849 F.2d 273, 276-77 (7th Cir. 1988).

Hope this helps. (No effort was made to confirm all these cases involve the same person named Gaylon L. Harrell)

[Quixote]

They were actually very clear that it started in the State but had to move to the Federal level because the State Statute hinges on the Federal One

Anyone who takes the trouble to read the Illinois statute will find that the Illinois statute does NOT hinge on the IRC. It's possible that the Illinois income tax in effect for the years in question hinged on the IRC. However, in accordance with standard TP operating procedures, key details, such as the tax years involved, are never mentioned in discussions of the case. In the unlikely event that Whitey's brush with the law involved pre-1978 (iirc) tax years, the Illinois income tax may have been amended to separate it from the IRC.

[Demosthenes]

Here's the docket for Whitey's upcoming criminal trial. Looks like he's using that lame Paperwork Reduction defense.

2006CM215 HARRELL, GAYLON L Last Search | Information | Dispositions | History | Payments | Fines & Fees
Name No. Qualifier Desc Type Date Plea Status
Count 3 Ticket Number 215
Charge 1 None INCOME TAX FRAUD Original Class A Misdemeanor
Count 2 Ticket Number 215
Charge 1 None INCOME TAX FRAUD Original Class A Misdemeanor
Count 1 Ticket Number 215
Charge 1 None INCOME TAX FRAUD Original Class A Misdemeanor

Date Entry Judge
Entered Under: HARRELL, GAYLON L
05/03/2007 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Violations of the Paperwork Reduction Act filed. Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Income Tax Act Does not Apply) filed. UNASSIGNED
05/01/2007 People's Response to Motion to Dismiss Information filed. Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Information filed. UNASSIGNED
02/20/2007 AGA Bian appears. Atty Barringer appears. Motion to Dismiss filed instanter. Response to be filed within 45 days. Cause set for argument on 5/8/07 at 3:00 p.m. All have notice. Courtesy copies to Judge Robb at Bloomington office. EAR
02/20/2007 Motion to Dismiss Information filed. UNASSIGNED
12/19/2006 AG Atty Bian, Atty Barringer and defendant appear. Deft Age 68, appears in person with copy of complaint. Deft pleads not guilty and (does not) waive (s) jury. Cause ordered set for PT on 2/20/07 at 1:30 p.m. EAR
12/12/2006 AG Gene Bian & Attorney Jerold Barringer contacted by phone informing them that we will not have a Judge available on 12/19/06 in the morning. They both agreed to con't cause to 12/19/06 @ 1:30p.m. Both Attorney's notified by phone. Chief Judge Elizabeth Robb will be hearing this case on the 2nd floor,courtroom #26. Copy of this docket entry mailed to Mr. Bian & Mr. Barringer. UNASSIGNED
11/30/2006 Notice of Arraignment filed, ret 12/19/06 @ 10:30 a.m. UNASSIGNED
11/29/2006 AG Gene Bian calls & sets arraignment hearing for 12/19/06 @ 10:30. He will send Notice. UNASSIGNED
08/18/2006 **Complaint filed on 8/16/2006 3 Counts of Information filed. UNASSIGNED

[Dr. Caligari]

How does the paperwork Reduction Act apply to a state tax return?

[Quixote]

The simple answer: It doesn't.

The TP answer:

§ 551. Definitions

For the purpose of this subchapter—
(1) “agency” means each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency, but does not include—
(A) the Congress;
(B) the courts of the United States;
(C) the governments of the territories or possessions of the United States;
(D) the government of the District of Columbia;

The government of the District of Columbia is expressly excluded from the definition of "agency" in the PRA. No other statelike entity is excluded, and is therefore included. So each state is an agency under the PRA. Dang, this stuff is easy.

[Imalawman]

Actually, I got that distinction from the Russo Film. They were actually very clear that it started in the State but had to move to the Federal level because the State Statute hinges on the Federal One (much like Colorado, in fact).

That is very much likely. However, state courts interpret the IRC on a regular basis. Almost every individual income tax case I have on the state level involves, in some way, the IRC. This is because the starting point for taxable income, is taxable income for purposes of your federal taxes. So most of the time we're arguing about deductions or exclusions at the federal level. This does not mean that the case must be moved to federal court. (or else I would be in federal court a lot)

[wserra]

This does not mean that the case must be moved to federal court. (or else I would be in federal court a lot)

It means more than that. The case likely can't be moved to federal court, and (as I understand the Harrell case) wasn't. On what basis would there be federal jurisdiction? Even if the state statute tracks the IRC, it's still state law.

Edit: What am I talking about? It was a state indictment, no? It couldn't possibly be tried in federal court.

Duh (directed at me). Must be the brief I'm working on between posts. Yeah, that's it.

[Judge Roy Bean]

In chasing down each of Aaron Russo's tales in his recent movie, I've hit a wall on the issue of Whitey Harrell. Does anyone know how I can get a transcript of the case from Lincoln Nebraska? Is there a website for such, or no?

You can call the court clerk's office, but you'd better be prepared to spend thousands of dollars for complete transcripts.

[Demosthenes]

In chasing down each of Aaron Russo's tales in his recent movie, I've hit a wall on the issue of Whitey Harrell. Does anyone know how I can get a transcript of the case from Lincoln Nebraska? Is there a website for such, or no?

You can call the court clerk's office, but you'd better be prepared to spend thousands of dollars for complete transcripts.

What's in Lincoln Nebraska? Whitey Harrell's criminal cases are in Illinois, and they charge $1.80 per page for transcripts.

[Imalawman]

This does not mean that the case must be moved to federal court. (or else I would be in federal court a lot)

It means more than that. The case likely can't be moved to federal court, and (as I understand the Harrell case) wasn't. On what basis would there be federal jurisdiction? Even if the state statute tracks the IRC, it's still state law.

Edit: What am I talking about? It was a state indictment, no? It couldn't possibly be tried in federal court.

Duh (directed at me). Must be the brief I'm working on between posts. Yeah, that's it.

Exactly, I didn't mean to imply that it was a possibility.

[LPC]

Actually, I got that distinction from the Russo Film. They were actually very clear that it started in the State but had to move to the Federal level because the State Statute hinges on the Federal One (much like Colorado, in fact).

That is very much likely. However, state courts interpret the IRC on a regular basis. Almost every individual income tax case I have on the state level involves, in some way, the IRC. This is because the starting point for taxable income, is taxable income for purposes of your federal taxes. So most of the time we're arguing about deductions or exclusions at the federal level. This does not mean that the case must be moved to federal court. (or else I would be in federal court a lot)

An example from a recent decision of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court (an intermediate appellate court for--among other things--tax disputes):

The Estate argues that the fact that the I.R.S. allowed the discount is dispositive. This does not necessarily follow. That the same regulations which the I.R.S. followed in making its determination are applicable here is not in dispute. The conclusion that the I.R.S. reached, however, basing itself on those regulations, is binding neither upon the Board nor upon this Court. Rather, Section 2137 of the Act states, "The Department shall have supervision over, and make or cause to be made fair and conscionable appraisements of property .." 72 P.S. § 9137 (emphasis added). There is no statutory or common-law authority for the proposition that the Department or this Court is bound by an assessment of the I.R.S. when considering the correct assessment of Pennsylvania inheritance tax.

In Re the Estate of Berry, 2007 STT 87-18, 1485 CD 2006 (Pa.Cmwlth. 4/24/2007).

Here is a dispute over a tax imposed by the state and not did all of the parties agree that federal valuation regulations applied, but the IRS had already made a decision regarding the application of those regulations to this estate. And yet I can state with great confidence that it never occurred to any party that the dispute should be (or could be) in federal court, and I can state with equal confidence that the federal courts never would have accepted the dispute even if someone had tried to move it there.

[ShadesOfKnight]

Greetings, and thank you to all who answered this thread; A LOT of good information to sift through and a lot to digest.

Thank you all for the time (and I do apologise for my mistake on identifying it as Nebraska instead of Illinois... not sure why I got the location wrong) you have given to this.