Becraft Strikes Again

[LPC]

From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Jury to decide if Shaler man really didn't know he had to pay taxes

By Brian Bowling
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, March 16, 2010

A federal jury in Pittsburgh will decide whether a former Westmoreland County businessman honestly believed he didn't have to pay income taxes.

Ronald Gardner Jr., 52, of Shaler is charged with interfering with the assessment and collection of income taxes and failing to file three years' worth of tax returns.

His attorney, Lowell H. Becraft of Huntsville, Ala., said in a closing statement to the jury Monday that Gardner isn't a tax protester who believes the income tax laws are unconstitutional. Instead, he believes tax laws only apply to people living in the District of Columbia or U.S. territories such as Guam or Puerto Rico.

"It's a belief that goes down to his soul," Becraft said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Luke Dembosky said Gardner's efforts to hide income and his evasion of state and local income taxes show he knew he was breaking the law.

Gardner closed his bank account, tried to get all of his clients to pay by cash instead of check and put his business and eventually his house into fraudulent "pure trusts," Dembosky said. None of that is consistent with someone who simply believes he doesn't have to pay the income tax, he said.

"It doesn't even come close to adding up," Dembosky said.

The jury is scheduled to start deliberations today.

[bmielke]

From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

"It's a belief that goes down to his soul," Becraft said.

Did he say that with a straight face? If so I think I need to take some acting lessons from him.

[Demosthenes]

Jury found him guilty.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10076/1043403-28.stm

Excerpts:

Ronald J. Gardner Jr. told the jury that paying taxes is voluntary, and more than that, that the federal government has no authority over him to force him to pay them.

But he wasn't persuasive enough.

Mr. Gardner, who was on the run for nearly two years after his April 2005 indictment, was found guilty in U.S. District Court on Tuesday of willfully failing to file his tax returns and for trying to obstruct or impede the administration of internal revenue laws.

Mr. Gardner, a former professional wrestler, fled after his indictment and wasn't arrested until February 2007

[LPC]

Well, that didn't take long.

Shaler man guilty of evasion

By Brian Bowling
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, March 17, 2010

A federal jury in Pittsburgh deliberated about two hours Tuesday before convicting a Shaler man of interfering with the assessment and collection of income taxes and failing to file three years' worth of returns.

Ronald Gardner Jr., 52, deliberately hid income from his business, Gardner Detective Agency, and assets such as his Somerset County home and his car in an attempt to keep the Internal Revenue Service from collecting taxes dating to 1992, prosecutors say.

Gardner declined comment after the verdict. His lawyer, Lowell H. Becraft of Huntsville, Ala., said any decision on an appeal would be made after U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti sentences Gardner.

Becraft told jurors that Gardner relied on government documents in coming to the conclusion that he wasn't subject to federal income taxes. Gardner believed federal jurisdiction was limited to the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories such as Guam and Puerto Rico, so it couldn't impose taxes on people in the 50 states, his attorney said.

Becraft said he wasn't surprised at how quickly the jury convicted Gardner of four felonies.

"You never can tell," he said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Luke Dembosky said there was little to say about the verdict except that it illustrates the importance of filing tax returns and paying taxes.

Dembosky told jurors the "mountain of evidence" in the case shows Gardner knew he was breaking the law. If he simply believed he didn't owe taxes, he wouldn't have stopped using his Social Security number, closed his bank account, put his business into one fraudulent trust and his home and car into another fraudulent trust, Dembosky said.

[LPC]

Jury found him guilty.

Yeah, I should have checked for a more recent story before posting the first one.

Well, there were a few seconds of suspense.

[Pottapaug1938]

I can't believe that this shyster is still practicing law.

[grixit]

Mr. Gardner, a former professional wrestler

Who booked himself to job hard.

[Pottapaug1938]

It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall when Gardner and Becraft have their first post-conviction conversation. At first, I imagined Gardner saying something like "O.K., Genius; what's your next bright move?" Then, I realized that Gardner probably isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, or else he never would have fallen for Becraft's horsedada in the first place....

[bmielke]

I can't believe that this shyster is still practicing law.

His taxes must be spotless and he must never break any traffic laws. I would think the IRS want to get rid of him.

[bmielke]

It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall when Gardner and Becraft have their first post-conviction conversation. At first, I imagined Gardner saying something like "O.K., Genius; what's your next bright move?" Then, I realized that Gardner probably isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, or else he never would have fallen for Becraft's horsedada in the first place....

He was a world class athlete in a demanding sport...he got hit with a lot of chairs...it's not his fault.



I was saying that I woulf not have gotten past the first part, anyone that intentionally puts themselves in a place to be hit by a metal chair is not the brightest bulb in the circuit.

[Pottapaug1938]

I can't believe that this shyster is still practicing law.

His taxes must be spotless and he must never break any traffic laws. I would think the IRS want to get rid of him.

... as in "do as I say, not as I do".

[bmielke]

I can't believe that this shyster is still practicing law.

His taxes must be spotless and he must never break any traffic laws. I would think the IRS want to get rid of him.

... as in "do as I say, not as I do".

exactly, I would imagine (meaning I have no idea and could be completely wrong) that certain people would send up red flags in the IRS computer. If it doesn't work that way it should.

[Pottapaug1938]

I recall that, back when I was practicing law, my signature on a complaint or court pleading was my certification that, to the best of my knowledge, and allegation or statement in it was true. Why, I wonder, has Becraft not fallen afoul of a rule like this?

[Dezcad]

I recall that, back when I was practicing law, my signature on a complaint or court pleading was my certification that, to the best of my knowledge, and allegation or statement in it was true. Why, I wonder, has Becraft not fallen afoul of a rule like this?

He has had a $2,500 sanction against him, see the opinion here.

Here's a portion of the opinion:

By memorandum disposition dated March 22, 1989, this court affirmed Nelson's conviction, noting that Becraft's argument regarding the inapplicability of the federal tax laws to resident United States citizens had no basis in law. Becraft thereafter filed a petition for rehearing and/or suggestion for rehearing en banc [hereafter "petition for rehearing"]. In the petition for rehearing, Becraft once again argued that the federal tax laws are inapplicable to resident United States citizens.

Upon receipt of the petition for rehearing, we, sua sponte, issued a show cause order requesting Becraft to explain why damages in the sum of $2500 should not be assessed against him for filing a frivolous petition for rehearing. See Appendix A. We have now reviewed Becraft's several-hundred-page reply to our show cause order [hereinafter "reply"] and have reached the conclusion that Becraft's conduct warrants sanctions.

[LPC]

I can't believe that this shyster is still practicing law.

I wouldn't call Becraft a shyster.

He has legal opinions that I would have to call eccentric at best, but he seems to do a fairly respectable just in the courtroom, taking into account that most of his clients are pretty hopeless to start with.

So he's not (as far as I know) dishonest or unethical, and he's not incompetent, so I wouldn't call him a shyster.

[LPC]

I would imagine (meaning I have no idea and could be completely wrong) that certain people would send up red flags in the IRS computer. If it doesn't work that way it should.

I disagree.

People who file frivolous (or fraudulent) returns should get extra scrutiny, and I believe they do. (Hence the "frivolous filers" program.)

But a lawyer should never be subjected to greater scrutiny by the IRS because of positions he takes in the courtroom, any more than a politician should be subjected to greater scrutiny because of the political positions he takes. That's using the IRS for political purposes, a form of Big Brotherism, and I'm against it.

[LPC]

I would think the IRS want to get rid of him [Becraft].

I wouldn't think that. If I were a prosecutor, I would want a lawyer like Becraft on the defense. He's not an idiot, he knows the rules, and he'll present a good defense and I won't have to face claims of "ineffective counsel" later.

Most importantly, the defendant will know (or at least think) that Becraft understands the "real issues" and will fight for the defendant, so the defendant will know he got a zealous defense and was not railroaded by some shyster who's been brainwashed by "the system" and is more interested in kissing up to the judge than in presenting the defendant's point of view. So the defendant has a better chance of understanding that he lost because the evidence was against him and not because "the fix was in" or "the system" was against him.

And, although my litigation practice is very limited, I believe that it's often easier to litigate against a knowledgeable zealous lawyer than a lazy ignorant lawyer. With the lazy ignorant lawyer you'll have to waste a lot of time explaining what needs to be done or getting agreement on routine procedural issues. And the ignorant lawyer is likely to surprise you with something stupid that you didn't expect and are unprepared for. The knowledgeable lawyer will tend to do what you expect, or at least what you understand, and so will be easier to deal with in many ways.

[Number Six]

I can't believe that this shyster is still practicing law.

I wouldn't call Becraft a shyster.

He has legal opinions that I would have to call eccentric at best, but he seems to do a fairly respectable just in the courtroom, taking into account that most of his clients are pretty hopeless to start with.

So he's not (as far as I know) dishonest or unethical, and he's not incompetent, so I wouldn't call him a shyster.

I ran into some local "Conch Republic" patriots in Florida last month. One of them was furious at how crafty Larry manages to pocket big bucks in cases like this, essentially presiding over the legal funerals of schlubs who bet all on an impossible defense that has never succeeded unless you were lucky enough to get a hung jury as in the Vernice Kuglin trial.

I met Mr. Becraft, he's a sharp guy who gives the law a run for its money. I sent him a little money with an inquiry, he sent me this article--(http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/UNCERTAIN.html) in a very suspicious envelope, with all but "investigate me" written on the envelope. Look, I still think his "Destroyed Arguments" is a courageous piece.

If I were a multimillion dollar non-filer on the receiving end of a nasty DOJ suit, I would sit down with Becraft, Bernhoft, and Mac McPherson and ask them what my odds were with the best possible defense. It's no fun wearing an orange jump suit for years. By the way Larry referred to this site as run by AHs.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... By the way Larry referred to this site as run by AHs.

When there are sites that try to prevent people from doing things that result in them banging their heads against the prison bars it really cuts in to a specialized defense practice.

[Number Six]

Every one who tries to warn others of consequences of dangerous conduct is sooner or later called an a$$H. Every convict believes he got a raw deal, that he was really innocent. I guess tax cheats score pretty high on the pecking order in prison. "What are you in for". "Tax evasion".