Joe Sweet and Jack Mallone were convicted

[Doktor Avalanche]

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

You weren't looking hard enough.

[Imalawman]

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

No...I don't believe it.

[Imalawman]

But isn't a life sentence possible for some criminal contempt where its dependent on some future action. For instance, if an IRS summons is ignored the judge has the discretion to toss you in jail until you comply - are you saying, wes, that where a limit isn't specified, there is still some overarching constitutional limitation on how long the judge can let the person stay in jail?

[LPC]

But isn't a life sentence possible for some criminal contempt where its dependent on some future action. For instance, if an IRS summons is ignored the judge has the discretion to toss you in jail until you comply - are you saying, wes, that where a limit isn't specified, there is still some overarching constitutional limitation on how long the judge can let the person stay in jail?

What you're describing is not criminal contempt but civil contempt.

Criminal contempt is punishment for a past violation of a court order and the punishment is applied regardless of what the defendant is doing now or in the future. Civil contempt is a sanction intended to force compliance in the present and future, and the sanction is lifted as soon as the defendant complies.

I don't know of any constitutional limit on civil contempt, but there is a practical limitation, which is that it must be directed towards compliance. If it becomes clear that the defendant is not going to comply no matter what you do, then civil contempt can longer apply.

There are also procedural differences, because civil contempt could result (in theory) and has resulted (in some cases) of imprisonment of more than a year based on an order of judge, but criminal contempt cannot be punished by more than one year's imprisonment without a jury trial.

[wserra]

What Dan said.

A couple of additional points: As for civil contempt, the Eighth Amendment doesn't really apply, since it's coercive rather than punitive. As judges frequently say when locking someone up for civil contempt, "You hold the keys" - purge the contempt and you're out. An actual jail sentence (as opposed to "You're in until you comply") for a civil contempt does raise constitutional issues, because one is entitled to the panoply of criminal protections before being sentenced to jail. See Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (1911), in which Samuel Gompers of the AFL get his jail sentence reversed when the Supreme Court found that (whatever the judge called it) it was really for a civil contempt.

A criminal contempt is subject (like all crimes) to the Eighth Amendment's proscription on excessive punishments - hence the "most analogous crime" cases.

HTH.

[Imalawman]

Not to disagree, well, yes, to disagree, but non-compliance with a summons can be criminal contempt in certain situations. see Steinert v. United States, 571 F.2d 1105. But it is rare, I admit. I guess my questions were essentially answered though in that just because a statute doesn't limit the incarceration limits, there are external limitations in place...which is what I suspected.

[Dezcad]

Not to disagree, well, yes, to disagree, but non-compliance with a summons can be criminal contempt in certain situations. see Steinert v. United States, 571 F.2d 1105. But it is rare, I admit. I guess my questions were essentially answered though in that just because a statute doesn't limit the incarceration limits, there are external limitations in place...which is what I suspected.

To be entirely accurate, Steinert wasn't punished for failure to comply with a summons, but failure to comply with a District Court order enforcing the summons. And this was in a separate criminal action against Steinert and not within the same case that the Order originated in.

This recalcitrance resulted in an indictment returned on May 26, 1976 charging appellant with criminal contempt for failing to comply with the District Court's October 3, 1975 order. Appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced to 30 days imprisonment.

The prosecution of Steinert wasn't intended to be coercive but punitive.

[wserra]

I keep finding myself behind the wave. Damn work. If I didn't have to do it, I could post fulltime to Q. Y'know, like Famspear.

Anyway, what Dezcad says is right. The point which is perhaps confusing is that the same conduct can constitute both civil and criminal contempt. That is the case with Steinert. Instead of indicting him, the govt could have brought an order to show cause to further punish him for the civil contempt (in addition to the $250 fine the Court had already levied) by incarcerating him until he complied. Instead, the govt elected to indict - as it did with Sweet. Indeed, one can be incarcerated longer on a civil contempt than a criminal for the same act, depending on the "most analogous crime" to the criminal contempt.

When it gets interesting is if a case can be made that a prior civil sanction is in fact punitive, and thus a subsequent criminal action is barred by double jeopardy. For several years after United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989), this was a hot issue. The Supreme Court cooled it off considerably in Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997). Those eight years were all during the time I was practicing federal criminal defense.

Fun, fun, fun - in a twisted, get-a-life sort of way.

[Imalawman]

Not to disagree, well, yes, to disagree, but non-compliance with a summons can be criminal contempt in certain situations. see Steinert v. United States, 571 F.2d 1105. But it is rare, I admit. I guess my questions were essentially answered though in that just because a statute doesn't limit the incarceration limits, there are external limitations in place...which is what I suspected.

To be entirely accurate, Steinert wasn't punished for failure to comply with a summons, but failure to comply with a District Court order enforcing the summons. And this was in a separate criminal action against Steinert and not within the same case that the Order originated in.

This recalcitrance resulted in an indictment returned on May 26, 1976 charging appellant with criminal contempt for failing to comply with the District Court's October 3, 1975 order. Appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced to 30 days imprisonment.

The prosecution of Steinert wasn't intended to be coercive but punitive.

My only point was that a rejection of a civil summons can turn into a criminal contempt action. The non-compliance with the summons was the sina qua non of the subsequent criminal action. But thanks for the input, interesting stuff....in a get-a-life sort of way

[Demosthenes]

The criminal case against Joe Sweet and Jack Mallone goes to the jury tomorrow.

[Demosthenes]

Joe and Jack were found guilty on all counts.

[Demosthenes]

Middle District of Florida
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: STEVE COLE
MARCH 11, 2010

PHONE: (813) 274-6136
FAX: (813) 274-6300

TWO CONVICTED OF FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO OBSTRUCT IRS

Tampa, Florida - U.S. Attorney A. Brian Albritton, along with Linda J. Osuna, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation, announces that a federal jury yesterday found Joseph Nelson Sweet (age 65, of Bradenton) and Jack Lee Malone (age 60, of Largo) guilty of conspiring to defraud the United States by impeding, impairing, and obstructing the lawful functions of the Internal Revenue Service. The jury also found Sweet guilty of corrupt interference with the Internal Revenue Laws and two counts of criminal contempt. Sweet faces a maximum penalty of life in federal prison and Malone faces a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison. Sentencing for both defendants has been set for June 8, 2010.

According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, Sweet and Malone engaged in a fraudulent scheme to interfere with the Internal Revenue Laws by selling services and products that they claimed would legally remove their customers from the federal tax system. They operated under the auspices of two sham trust entities, EDM Enterprises in Bradenton, Florida and The JoY Foundation in Tampa, Florida. Sweet and Malone advocated the position that income earned in the United States is generally not taxable and that the payment of income taxes is voluntary.

In February 2002, a federal district court in Tampa had enjoined Sweet and others working with him from promoting anti-tax views and marketing anti-tax materials. The evidence at trial showed that both Sweet and Malone violated that injunction by continuing to provide false tax advice to customers and concealing revenue derived from their business.

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

[Demosthenes]

Joe Sweet was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

http://www.bradenton.com/2010/10/16/265 ... rison.html

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/cri ... on/1128480

Before his sentencing, Sweet, of Bradenton, showed no remorse and offered no apology.

"I honestly believe that I had discovered that the (tax) system was based on systemic and institutional fraud," he said.

But Assistant U.S. Attorney Cherie L. Krigsman called him "an inveterate con man" and "someone who thought he was too smart and too good to obey the law."

[Gregg]

Joe Sweet was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Before his sentencing, Sweet, of Bradenton, showed no remorse and offered no apology.

"I honestly believe that I had discovered that the (tax) system was based on systemic and institutional fraud," he said.

But Assistant U.S. Attorney Cherie L. Krigsman called him "an inveterate con man" and "someone who thought he was too smart and too good to obey the law."

Gee, sounds like Lee Harvey Lorne to me.

Ten Years, Harvester. Ten Years.

[LPC]

Convictions and sentences affirmed.

See full text in new thread here.