Pathetic letter from Art Farnsworth

[Demosthenes]

Greetings and Happy Memorial Day!

I am writing this second letter since the time of my imprisonment from my new location, in Cumberland County, New Jersey. After having spent twenty-seven days in the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia, I was transferred to the Fairton Correctional Institution Camp. It is a minimum security facility tucked away in the south west corner of my home state.

While in Philadelphia, I was able to not only participate in the few spiritual activities, but also take a significant role in educating the inmates on my block, by teaching a G.E.D. mathematics preparatory class.

Here at the camp, the ratio is reversed, with no real opportunity for me to teach (most of that occurs "across the street" in the medium security level main prison complex), but a large number of spiritual based activities to participate in and contribute to. I am availing myself of the opportunity to immerse myself even more fully in my faith, and know that I'll be coming out of here a better, stronger Christian.

In the legal realm, I switched attorneys, bringing on Jonathan Altman of the Paoli, Pennsylvania area to handle the appeal. Mr. Altman and his team have a perspective on things that we patriotic Americans and members of the tax honesty movement share, and it is a refreshing change to have that in my attorney. The usual "appeal process" things are happening -- transcipts ordered, bail motion work -- but due to the unexpected remand by Judge Padova at my April 3 sentencing hearing, I was left with my "outside" affairs unresolved before being sent to the "inside." It results in me having a greater need for bail pending appeal than if I'd been given some
time -- typically 30 plus days -- to arrange my affairs before surrendering myself.

Attorney Altman expects to file the bail motion in the last week of May or the first week of June. I do not know what the bail amount, if bail is granted, will be. My pretrial bail was $100,000 with a ten percent payment due. Due to a grave illness in my family, and the resulting stress upon the
Farnsworths at this time, I must refrain from looking there for financial support. It was, in addition to family support, a friend's gererosity which enabled me to come up with the $10,000 pre-trial bail payment, and I turn to friends and concerned folks from across the nation at this time. Bail money is, as you probably know, something which is first posted then later refunded. I have been told to expect a bail amount after conviction to be at least twice the pre-trial amount so I figure I need to raise (borrow) ten percent of $200,000 to $250,000; that is, $20,000 to $25,000. This isn't a trivial amount, but I hope and pray it can be achieved.

If I can not raise the bail money, and of course if I am not granted bail pending appeal (legal "heads" can look at 18 U.S.C. 3141, 3143), then a family member will probably not live long enough to see me again. Please help me so this does not happen.

There are some good appealable issues, but more than I want to win an appeal (conditions here are tolerable enough to survive for two years), I want to rejoin my family. I pray for your support, and thank you in advance if you are willing and able.

As my attorney Mark Lane pointed out in the trial "It's not about the money." - it is about stifling my voice because I shared the truth. Learn the truth. Implement the truth. Save America!

Regards,

Arthur Farnsworth


CONTACT/DONATION INFORMATION

Mail (not donations) (all mail opened in advance)

F.C.I. Fairton Camp
Arthur Farnsworth
58722-066
P.O. Box 420
Fairton, N.J. 08320

Legal Fund (appeal) donations
See the "Help Art" page at http://www.ArtFarnsworth.org


Commisary/phone account donations

- POSTAL MONEY ORDER ONLY via US Mail (make payable to Art Farnsworth) mail to:

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Arthur Farnsworth
58722-066
P.O. Box 474701
Des Moinse, Iowa 50947


- Western Union
- online at http://www.WesternUnion.com
- in stores with Western Union Machine or service
Reg#: 58722-066
City Code: FBOP State Code: DC

[webhick]

As my attorney Mark Lane pointed out in the trial "It's not about the money." - it is about stifling my voice because I shared the truth. Learn the truth. Implement the truth. Save America!

Wait, didn't he sell some de-tax/trust package? (I tried to do some looking up through google to verify but ended up pulling up a lot of propaganda).

If it wasn't about money, but about sharing the "truth", then he wouldn't have been selling the packages.

[SteveSy]

As my attorney Mark Lane pointed out in the trial "It's not about the money." - it is about stifling my voice because I shared the truth. Learn the truth. Implement the truth. Save America!

Wait, didn't he sell some de-tax/trust package? (I tried to do some looking up through google to verify but ended up pulling up a lot of propaganda).

If it wasn't about money, but about sharing the "truth", then he wouldn't have been selling the packages.

Yes, and none of you would be paid to help people with taxes and none of your spouses would be working to lobby to spend collected taxes IF your real interest was only to promote the "truth". I agree selling "packages" or "expert advice" of any sort concerning the truth you promote disqualifies you from claiming you're only doing it to help people.

[webhick]

As my attorney Mark Lane pointed out in the trial "It's not about the money." - it is about stifling my voice because I shared the truth. Learn the truth. Implement the truth. Save America!

Wait, didn't he sell some de-tax/trust package? (I tried to do some looking up through google to verify but ended up pulling up a lot of propaganda).

If it wasn't about money, but about sharing the "truth", then he wouldn't have been selling the packages.

Yes, and none of you would be paid to help with people with taxes and none of your spouses would be working to lobby to spend collected taxes IF your real interest was only to promote the "truth". I agree selling "packages" or "expert advice" of any sort concerning the truth you promote disqualifies you from claiming you're only doing it to help people.

I'm a bookkeeper. I'd love it if tax season up and disappeared. Wouldn't mind it if the job left either. Maybe I could find something I actually enjoy doing.

[Famspear]

Dear SteveSy:

You missed the point. Here's your verbiage again:

-----"Yes, and none of you would be paid to help with people with taxes and none of your spouses would be working to lobby to spend collected taxes IF your real interest was only to promote the "truth". I agree selling "packages" or "expert advice" of any sort concerning the truth you promote disqualifies you from claiming you're only doing it to help people."

I am going to provisionally agree (for the sake of argument) with your statements above. You're missing the point. I can't speak for others, but as a tax practitioner, I do not somehow claim that I am engaged in the practice only to help people, or only to get the truth out, or only for any other high ideal. I am engaged in a tax practice, like virtually all people so engaged, primarily to EARN A LIVING.

Go back and read the Mark Lane material again, and the critique of what Lane said. And refrain from irrelevant arguments, please. ---Thanks, Famspear

[Famspear]

Dear SteveSy:

In case you missed it this point too, please be advised that when I say I am in practice to earn a living, that means I AM IN IT FOR THE MONEY. Yours, Famspear

[SteveSy]

Dear SteveSy:

You missed the point. Here's your verbiage again:

-----"Yes, and none of you would be paid to help with people with taxes and none of your spouses would be working to lobby to spend collected taxes IF your real interest was only to promote the "truth". I agree selling "packages" or "expert advice" of any sort concerning the truth you promote disqualifies you from claiming you're only doing it to help people."

I am going to provisionally agree (for the sake of argument) with your statements above. You're missing the point. I can't speak for others, but as a tax practitioner, I do not somehow claim that I am engaged in the practice only to help people, or only to get the truth out, or only for any other high ideal. I am engaged in a tax practice, like virtually all people so engaged, primarily to EARN A LIVING.

Go back and read the Mark Lane material again, and the critique of what Lane said. And refrain from irrelevant arguments, please. ---Thanks, Famspear

Mark Lane? I responded to webhick's post concerning the selling of packages for money. Please refrain from implying I did something wrong when in fact you just failed to see what I responded too. Have a great day - Steve

[webhick]

I should clarify something. I'm salaried at a low rate. Tax season does not affect my check, but the hours I work go up considerably.

[Famspear]

Dear SteveSy: yes, and webhick was talking about this:

----"As my attorney Mark Lane pointed out in the trial "It's not about the money." - it is about stifling my voice because I shared the truth. Learn the truth. Implement the truth. Save America!"

You responded to what webhick said about this material. I responded to what you said. Mark Lane, on behalf of his client, is saying that his client's matter is "not about the money" but is instead about learning "the truth." webhick critiqued those statements, and you responded with your own comments. I then responded to your comments. Famspear

[SteveSy]

I should clarify something. I'm salaried at a low rate. Tax season does not affect my check, but the hours I work go up considerably.

Hold on, that just can't be true. The quatloosians have argued that taxes do not add a lot of work to accountants. Taxes are easy and so are audits. Actually I've seen it said you can just hand them records put them in some room in the office and walk off for the day, no biggie really.

[SteveSy]

Dear SteveSy: yes, and webhick was talking about this:

----"As my attorney Mark Lane pointed out in the trial "It's not about the money." - it is about stifling my voice because I shared the truth. Learn the truth. Implement the truth. Save America!"

You responded to what webhick said about this material. I responded to what you said. Mark Lane, on behalf of his client, is saying that his client's matter is "not about the money" but is instead about learning "the truth." webhick critiqued those statements, and you responded with your own comments. I then responded to your comments. Famspear

I was on point....lol Webhick thought he sold detax "packages" regardless of what the trial was about. If you respond again you win by default.

[webhick]

I should clarify something. I'm salaried at a low rate. Tax season does not affect my check, but the hours I work go up considerably.

Hold on, that just can't be true. The quatloosians have argued that taxes do not add a lot of work to accountants. Taxes are easy and so are audits. Actually I've seen it said you can just hand them records put them in some room in the office and walk off for the day, no biggie really.

I'm not an accountant, I'm a bookkeeper. It may may be true that it does not add a lot of work to the accountants. Who do you think does all the work - the heavy lifting? The underlings. The bookkeepers. We're the gatekeepers to hell and our hell is your shoebox full of crumpled up receipts. You bastards. Stop crumpling them!

[Famspear]

Dear SteveSy:

I think webhick said:

----"didn't he sell some de-tax/trust package? (I tried to do some looking up through google to verify but ended up pulling up a lot of propaganda).

If it wasn't about money, but about sharing the "truth", then he wouldn't have been selling the packages."

webhick was responding to the statements by the client or his attorney that it was about truth, and not about the money.

You responded to webhick in this way:

---"Yes, and none of you would be paid to help people with taxes and none of your spouses would be working to lobby to spend collected taxes IF your real interest was only to promote the "truth". I agree selling "packages" or "expert advice" of any sort concerning the truth you promote disqualifies you from claiming you're only doing it to help people."

In my opinion, your comments are off point. None of us (other than Mark Lane et al.) are claiming that our "real interest" is only to promote the truth. However, Mark Lane (or his client) obviously IS MAKING that claim. Whether my selling of packages or expert advice of any sort concerning the truth I promote "disqualifies" me from claiming that I am "only doing it to help people" is, again, beside the point, for the simple reason that I AM NOT MAKING THAT CLAIM. Neither is webhick. Neither is anyone else here/ Mark Lane or his client is/are making that claim.

I'm not sure what part of this you're not getting. --Yours, Famspear

[webhick]

And for the record, I was under the impression that *maybe* the guy got busted for selling de-tax packages, not "telling the truth". I was looking for clarification, since I couldn't find anything that said one way or the other.

[Demosthenes]

The quatloosians have argued that taxes do not add a lot of work to accountants.

No, they haven't.

[Paul]

Yes, and none of you would be paid to help people with taxes and none of your spouses would be working to lobby to spend collected taxes IF your real interest was only to promote the "truth".

As stevesy proves that he doesn't really believe Adam Smith.

[wserra]

In the legal realm, I switched attorneys, bringing on Jonathan Altman of the Paoli, Pennsylvania area to handle the appeal. Mr. Altman and his team have a perspective on things that we patriotic Americans and members of the tax honesty movement share, and it is a refreshing change to have that in my attorney.... Attorney Altman expects to file the bail motion in the last week of May or the first week of June.

Well, I guess that "refreshing change" is that Farnsworth likes his papers pro forma.

Altman filed a motion for bail pending appeal last week, on June 5, 2007. Anyone familiar with the practice knows that the part of the bail pending appeal statute [18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1)] with which Farnsworth would have the most trouble is the provision requiring that he show "substantial questions of law or fact likely to result in reversal or a new trial". So how does Altman describe these "substantial questions"? Like this: "These issues include substantive issues of jurisdiction and weight and sufficiency of evidence." That's it.

Jurisdiction? Jurisdiction?

Judge Padova denied the motion three days later, without waiting for the govt's opposition papers.

But send money anyway.

[The Observer]

Judge Padova denied the motion three days later, without waiting for the govt's opposition papers.

If Farnsworth's case is thhat bad, maybe the government can really save litigation costs and not bother sending its trial attorneys to court.