Joe Sweet and Jack Mallone were convicted

[Demosthenes]

The indictment:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/sweet6.pdf

[Demosthenes]

United States Attorney A. Brian Albritton
Middle District of Florida

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: STEVE COLE
May 8, 2009
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/flm/pr

TWO TAMPA AREA MEN CHARGED WITH FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DISRUPT AND OBSTRUCT THE IRS

Tampa, Florida - United States Attorney A. Brian Albritton announces the arrest
yesterday of Joseph Nelson Sweet (age 64, of Bradenton) and the unsealing of a
superseding indictment charging Sweet with conspiracy to defraud the United States,
corrupt interference with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and criminal contempt.
Sweet faces a maximum penalty of life in federal prison. The superseding indictment also
charges Jack Lee Malone (age 59, formerly of the Tampa area) with one count of
conspiracy to defraud the United States. Malone faces a maximum penalty of five years
in federal prison. Malone has not been arrested.

According to the superseding indictment, in 1999 Sweet and Malone joined forces
to sell and promote a scheme by which they claimed that purchasers could legally avoid
the payment of federal income taxes by, among other things, placing income and assets
in “sham” trusts called Unincorporated Business Trust Organizations (UBTOs). They sold
these trusts and other materials through two UBTOs, “They JoY Foundation” and “EDM
Enterprises.” Sweet and Malone instructed their clients that income is generally not
taxable and that filing a federal income tax return is a strictly voluntary act. According to
the indictment, Sweet and Malone instructed clients to submit obstructive paperwork to
deceive the IRS and to illegally conceal their income and assets.

On February 20, 2002, U.S. District Judge Steven D. Merryday issued an order permanently enjoining issued an order permanently enjoining Sweet and his employees, servants, and agents from further engaging in such activity. According to the superseding indictment, on March 2, 2005 and January 1, 2006, Sweet willfully and knowingly disobeyed Judge Merryday’s order.

This case was investigated by Internal Revenue Service- Criminal Investigation. It
is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Cherie L. Krigsman and Trial
Attorney Todd Ellinwood of the Department of Justice, Tax Division.

An indictment is merely a formal charge that a defendant has committed a violation
of the federal criminal laws, and every defendant is presumed innocent until, and unless,
proven guilty.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Stupid, stupid recidivists.

[LPC]

a superseding indictment charging Sweet with conspiracy to defraud the United States,
corrupt interference with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and criminal contempt.
Sweet faces a maximum penalty of life in federal prison.

What? Seriously? Not just a large number of years making it certain he will die in prison, but an actual sentence of life in prison?

I've never heard of a life sentence for anything other than homicide and similar crimes of violence. Or is "corrupt interference" considered to be (possibly) violent?

[Lambkin]

Bradenton Herald article:

http://www.bradenton.com/news/local/story/1426750.html

[Pottapaug1938]

LPC: just because a life sentence is possible does not mean that it is probable. Depending on the facts of the case, the defendants' past record, their likeliness to reoffend if released, the actual sentence could be something less. Judging from what little I know about these two, I suspect that their sentences, if they are convicted, will be on the more severe end of the scale -- whether or not they would merit a life sentence, no one knows.

[Demosthenes]

The use of "life sentence" was just sloppy writing. "Effectively a life sentence because the defendant is an old fart" would be more accurate.

[Dezcad]

The use of "life sentence" was just sloppy writing. "Effectively a life sentence because the defendant is an old fart" would be more accurate.

Here's the quote from IRS Criminal Investigations spokesman Norman Meadows, as it appeared in the Bradenton Herald article:

“Since the charge of criminal contempt does not have a maximum penalty, the defendant could be sentenced to life in prison,” he said.

[Demosthenes]

Yuck. There's a law that should be fixed.

[wserra]

It's not quite that simple.

While it's true that 18 USC 401 (criminal contempt) has no statutory maximum, that does not mean that the judge has the unbridled discretion to throw away the key. Although I don't think the Supremes have ruled on it, several circuits have directed sentencing jusges to apply a "most analogous crime" analysis. See United States v. Papadakis, 802 F.2d 618 (2nd Cir. 1986). Here, 26 USC 7212 (corrupt interference) seems a good analogue, and carries a three-year max. So: Count 1 is 18 USC 371 (five year max), Court 2 26 USC 7212 (three) and Counts 3 and 4 are the contempts (if 7212 is the analogue, each three years).

[Pottapaug1938]

"Since the charge of criminal contempt does not have a maximum penalty, the defendant could be sentenced to life in prison,” he said.

"Could be" does not equal "will be" or "must be", as another poster explained to us all (very well, too).

[Nikki]

Why does it take so f*****g long between enjoining someone from performing criminal acts to actually prosecuting them for their criminal acts?

Just because a snake-oil salesman has been enjoined from doing X doesn't slow him down the slightest bit from doing X delta .00000000001. which doesn't violate the injunction.

Federal law enforcement wheels need to grind a tad less slowly.

[LPC]

While it's true that 18 USC 401 (criminal contempt) has no statutory maximum, that does not mean that the judge has the unbridled discretion to throw away the key. Although I don't think the Supremes have ruled on it, several circuits have directed sentencing jusges to apply a "most analogous crime" analysis. See United States v. Papadakis, 802 F.2d 618 (2nd Cir. 1986). Here, 26 USC 7212 (corrupt interference) seems a good analogue, and carries a three-year max. So: Count 1 is 18 USC 371 (five year max), Court 2 26 USC 7212 (three) and Counts 3 and 4 are the contempts (if 7212 is the analogue, each three years).

Thanks. That puts a better perspective on the issue.

[LPC]

LPC: just because a life sentence is possible does not mean that it is probable.

And my question was, is it possible?

Please try to address the question I raise, and not the question you want to answer.

Or, if you want, you can address the question you want to answer. Just don't pontificate in my direction when you do.

As someone I consider to be a friend once observed, I'm "prickly."

[ASITStands]

While it's true that 18 USC 401 (criminal contempt) has no statutory maximum, that does not mean that the judge has the unbridled discretion to throw away the key. Although I don't think the Supremes have ruled on it, several circuits have directed sentencing jusges to apply a "most analogous crime" analysis. See United States v. Papadakis, 802 F.2d 618 (2nd Cir. 1986). Here, 26 USC 7212 (corrupt interference) seems a good analogue, and carries a three-year max. So: Count 1 is 18 USC 371 (five year max), Court 2 26 USC 7212 (three) and Counts 3 and 4 are the contempts (if 7212 is the analogue, each three years).

Thanks. That puts a better perspective on the issue.

Agree. That makes more sense than anything. The rest is speculation.

[Pottapaug1938]

LPC: if you reread my post, and the one next to it, you'll have your answer. A life sentence is theoretically possible; but whether or not it would become probable or actual will depend on a lot of factors, most of which were listed by the post next to mine.

Life sentences are possible in many different kinds of criminal cases, not just this kind. In most instances, though, they are never imposed; and although the Browns are certified wackos, from what I know about their case I would be surprised if one were imposed on them.

[wserra]

A life sentence is theoretically possible

A life sentence, if imposed, would surely be vacated as excessive. See, e.g., United States v. Gracia, 755 F.2d 984 (2nd Cir. 1985); United States v. Green, 630 F.2d 566 (8th Cir. 1980); United States v. Underwood, 880 F.2d 612 (1st Cir. 1989).

Does that mean that "A life sentence is theoretically possible" or not? I dunno. But how many writs can dance on the docket of an assize? Were the sentencing judge to impose a life sentence, it wouldn't last.

[absdes96]

The JoY Foundation scheme is one that I am familiar with. They operated heavily in the area I live. I wondered how long it would be before I saw the names of Joe Sweet and Jack Malone brought up for federal charges. It seems they have been playing this game longer than most.

[ASITStands]

A life sentence is theoretically possible

A life sentence, if imposed, would surely be vacated as excessive. See, e.g., United States v. Gracia, 755 F.2d 984 (2nd Cir. 1985); United States v. Green, 630 F.2d 566 (8th Cir. 1980); United States v. Underwood, 880 F.2d 612 (1st Cir. 1989).

Does that mean that "A life sentence is theoretically possible" or not? I dunno. But how many writs can dance on the docket of an assize? Were the sentencing judge to impose a life sentence, it wouldn't last.

"... theoretically possible" is theorizing, and "... vacated as excessive" is the law as it stands.

Or, maybe, I should say, "As-It-Stands!"

[absdes96]

Stupid, stupid recidivists.

Judge,

I have been looking for that pin-up of the eagle and the mouse for years. Thank You.