Snipes loses appellate case

[Demosthenes]

Not particularly surprising.

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/snipes11thaffirmed.pdf

[Famspear]

I heard about this on the radio as I was driving home. As drunk on the Kool-Aid as Snipes appears to be, I am sure he will tell his attorneys to ask for reconsideration, an en banc hearing, for cert...anything to delay the inevitable.

With the federal guidelines, I think he'll have to serve at least 2 and a half years of the three year sentence. I would hope he's been getting himself mentally and financially prepared for this. It's been over 2 years since his conviction, so it's not like this should be a surprise out of left field.

[Nikki]

He's still here?

Why hasn't he spent the last couple of years moving his family, asets, etc out of the country to some place where he can deliver a one-finger salute to our courts?

Is he really THAT stupid?

[Joey Smith]

Huh? I thought that Snipes was pretty much vindicated? http://www.bernhoftlaw.com/wesley-snipes.htm

[Olsenfin]

How much of his tax liability has Mr. Snipes actually paid?

[Omne]

How much of his tax liability has Mr. Snipes actually paid?

IIRC he paid it in full.

[Famspear]

How much of his tax liability has Mr. Snipes actually paid?

IIRC he paid it in full.

I've looked through my records of this case, and I can't find anything that helps much on what he's actually paid.

We can talk about what he owed, though. I think that Quatloos contributor "Demosthenes" had come up with a tax estimate for years 1999 through 2004 of about $11.3 million in January 2008.

I did a calculation at that same time for years 1999 through 2004 where I came up with $14.8 million in taxes, plus $6.6 million in penalties and $6.9 million in interest -- the total estimate was over $28 million -- but I don't know how accurate that was.

[Nikki]

Hypothetically, he could still be negotiating with the IRS as to what income is attributable to himself versus various corporate entities and what deductions might apply.

However, that's totally hypothetical.

[Omne]

How much of his tax liability has Mr. Snipes actually paid?

IIRC he paid it in full.

According to CNN he paid $5 million, which was part of what he owed. He's still arguing about the total amount due.

[Noah]

How much of his tax liability has Mr. Snipes actually paid?

IIRC he paid it in full.

According to CNN he paid $5 million, which was part of what he owed. He's still arguing about the total amount due.

You just can't fix stupid.

[Olsenfin]

Lemme see now. Snipes was convicted in 2008. He owed taxes amounting to over ten million dollars. Now, two years later, he's STILL not in jail (though he's supposed to report for his 36 month sentence in...ah, well.. soon) and he's paid the IRS substantially less than he owes.

How many of us on this forum would enjoy that same treatment, had we refused to pay OUR (far smaller) tax liabilities?

This is outrageous!

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
How many of us on this forum would enjoy that same treatment, had we refused to pay OUR (far smaller) tax liabilities?

...

Zero.

[Imalawman]

Lemme see now. Snipes was convicted in 2008. He owed taxes amounting to over ten million dollars. Now, two years later, he's STILL not in jail (though he's supposed to report for his 36 month sentence in...ah, well.. soon) and he's paid the IRS substantially less than he owes.

How many of us on this forum would enjoy that same treatment, had we refused to pay OUR (far smaller) tax liabilities?

This is outrageous!

A few of my clients are in similar circumstances (not TPs, but just as bad) and they haven't even been prosecuted criminally and the IRS is working with them nicely. So, I'd have to say, most of us would not even be in as bad shape as he is in with our "far smaller" tax debts. I don't really think he got special treatment.

[johnnyrie]

While I think he's probably gotten some consideration out of being able to afford actual attorneys (not sure about the particulars so you can correct me if he used dbs, i.e. td barristers of some sort), I'd tend to agree that overall his notoriety and household name status has not necessarily served him well in this little venture of his. One would think at some point he'd realize it's much harder to intimidate and b-slap the taxman than it is to b-slap someone in the movies.

[Demosthenes]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. CASE NO. 5:06-cr-22(S1)-Oc-10GRJ
WESLEY TRENT SNIPES

UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO REVOKE SNIPES’S BAIL
The United States of America moves this Court to immediately revoke Wesley
Trent Snipes’s bail and order him to surrender at a time and place designated by the
Bureau of Prisons to serve his term of imprisonment. As explained below, given the
affirmance of his judgment and sentence, he cannot make the statutorily-required
showings necessary to remain at liberty, and there is no good reason to delay his
surrender.
1. On May 1, 2008, this Court entered final judgment against Snipes and
sentenced him to serve three years’ imprisonment. Doc. 458. (This Court later entered
an amended final judgment against Snipes to add costs. Doc. 500).
2. On May 22, 2008, this Court granted Snipes’s motion for bail pending
appeal, finding that he did not pose a substantial flight risk, he did not pose a danger to
the community, and the time for deciding his appeal might nearly equal his term of
imprisonment. Doc. 475. Snipes accordingly has remained at liberty for the last two
years.
3. On July 16, 2010, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Snipes’s
judgment and sentence “in all respects.” United States v. Snipes, No. 08-12402, 2010
WL 2794190, at *1 (11th Cir. July 16, 2010). Unless the Eleventh Circuit exercises its
discretion to shorten or lengthen the time, or Snipes files a petition for rehearing or
motion to stay the mandate, the Eleventh Circuit will issue its mandate on August 6,
2010.1 See Fed. R. App. P. 41.
5. The Eleventh Circuit rendered the judgment after extensive briefing and
oral argument. There is no point of law or fact that the Eleventh Circuit overlooked or
misapprehended, and there accordingly is no basis for a petition for rehearing or motion
to stay the mandate. See Fed. R. App. P. 40. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the
Eleventh Circuit would stay the mandate or otherwise postpone the ordinary time for its
issuance given that the Eleventh Circuit just denied Snipes’s very recent motion to
suspend or abate further action on the appeal. See Eleventh Circuit Order dated July
16, 2010 (attached).
4. The statutory provision governing bail pending appeal, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3143(b), presumes that a defendant’s convictions are valid and that he should be
detained without bail. United States v. Giancola, 754 F.2d 898, 900-01 (11th Cir. 1985).
A court therefore must detain a defendant who has been found guilty of an offense and
sentenced to a term of imprisonment pending his appeal unless he overcomes the
presumption by showing, among other things, that the appeal raises “a substantial
question of law or fact” that likely will result in reversal, a new trial, or a reduced
sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1)(B).
5. The Eleventh Circuit’s affirmance of Snipes’s judgment and sentence
necessarily means that: he cannot make that statutorily-required showing; there is no
good reason to delay his surrender; and revocation of his bail is warranted. See United
States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 984 (8th Cir. 1983) (district court properly revoked bail
immediately after the court of appeals issued the judgment but before it issued the
1Although the mandate has not yet issued, this Court has jurisdiction to revoke
bail. See United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 984 (8th Cir. 1983); United States v.
Elkins, 683 F.2d 143,145 (6th Cir. 1982); United States v. Black, 543 F.2d 35, 37 (7th
Cir. 1976); United States v. Catino, 562 F.2d 1, 4 (2d Cir. 1977).
mandate); United States v. Elkins, 683 F.2d 143,144 (6th Cir. 1982) (district court did not
abuse its discretion by revoking bail immediately after the court of appeals issued the en
banc judgment but before it issued the mandate; “The order to vacate appellant’s bonds
and rearrest them is not related to or governed by the issuance of the mandate of this
court.”); United States v. Black, 543 F.2d 35, 37 (7th Cir. 1976) (“[W]hen the district
judge was informed that Black’s conviction had been affirmed by this court, it was clear
that the appeal was not meritorious. Notwithstanding the fact that our mandate was not
received by the district court until March 17, 1975, it was proper . . . for the district judge
to order that the defendant report to the United States Marshal to commence service of
his sentence.”) (citation omitted).
WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests this Court to immediately
revoke Snipes's bail and order him to surrender at a time and place designated by the
Bureau of Prisons to serve his term of imprisonment .
Respectfully submitted,
A. BRIAN ALBRITTON
United States Attorney
By: s/ Robert E. O'Neill
Robert E. O'Neill
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Criminal Division
Florida Bar No. 0105155
400 North Tampa Street, Suite 3200
Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone: (813) 274-6337
Facsimile: (813) 274-6108
E-mail: Robert.O'Neill@usdoj.gov
s/ Jeffrey A. McLellan
JEFFREY A. McLELLAN
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
Tax Division
P.O. Box 972
Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: (202) 514-5181
Facsimile: (202) 514-8455
E-mail: jeffrey.a.mclellan@usdoj.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 21, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic
filing to the following CM/ECF participants:
Counsel for Wesley Trent Snipes:
Daniel R. Meachum
Kanan B. Henry
Linda G. Moreno
Carmen D. Hernandez
Wayne R. Gross
Roger Grad
s/ Robert E. O’Neill
Robert E. O'Neill
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Criminal Division
Florida Bar No. 0105155
400 North Tampa Street, Suite 3200
Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone: (813) 274-6337
Facsimile: (813) 274-6108
E-mail: Robert.O'Neill@usdoj.gov

[LPC]

But what about an appeal to the Supreme Court? Shouldn't the Supremes get a whack at the case before Blade goes in?

(I'm kidding, but I fully expect Snipes to try an appeal to the Supreme Court. It's only money.)

[Demosthenes]

Try reconciling this story with the ones that described Snipes' defense attorneys doing the "Not guilty on all felony counts!" victory dance as they left the courthouse after the verdict.

Wesley Snipes' Attorneys Want to Question Jurors
Wesley Snipes' attorneys seek to question jurors about guilty verdict in tax trial
The Associated Press
ATLANTA
Attorneys for Wesley Snipes say they want to question jurors who convicted the actor of tax-related charges to determine whether any had made up their minds about his guilt before trial.
The motion filed Friday in Florida federal court says that an unnamed juror sent Snipes' attorney Daniel Meachum an e-mail claiming that three other jurors had presumed Snipe's guilt.
The motion says that would violate Snipes' constitutional right to a fair trial.
Snipes was convicted in 2008 of three misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file his income tax returns. The 47-year-old is free on an appeals bond. However, federal prosecutors in Florida have asked a judge to revoke the bond and order Snipes to begin serving a three-year sentence.

[Imalawman]

Try reconciling this story with the ones that described Snipes' defense attorneys doing the "Not guilty on all felony counts!" victory dance as they left the courthouse after the verdict.

Wesley Snipes' Attorneys Want to Question Jurors
Wesley Snipes' attorneys seek to question jurors about guilty verdict in tax trial
The Associated Press
ATLANTA
Attorneys for Wesley Snipes say they want to question jurors who convicted the actor of tax-related charges to determine whether any had made up their minds about his guilt before trial.
The motion filed Friday in Florida federal court says that an unnamed juror sent Snipes' attorney Daniel Meachum an e-mail claiming that three other jurors had presumed Snipe's guilt.
The motion says that would violate Snipes' constitutional right to a fair trial.
Snipes was convicted in 2008 of three misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file his income tax returns. The 47-year-old is free on an appeals bond. However, federal prosecutors in Florida have asked a judge to revoke the bond and order Snipes to begin serving a three-year sentence.

I guess the reality of spending actual time in jail is starting really hit home with Snipes. He probably never really thought he'd have to go to jail.

[Demosthenes]

The text of the juror's email was included in the request, filed in federal court in Ocala.

It read: "I served on the jury in Ocala that found him guilty on 3 counts of failing to file taxes. It was a deal that had to be made because of certain jurors that had already presumed he was guilty before the trial started and we only found this out in the last few days of deliberation. We thought we were making the right deal because we did not think he would go to jail for not filing taxes. There were 3 on the jury that felt this way and told us he was guilty before they even heard the first piece of evidence going against what the judge had said."

[LPC]

"I served on the jury in Ocala that found him guilty on 3 counts of failing to file taxes. It was a deal that had to be made because of certain jurors that had already presumed he was guilty before the trial started and we only found this out in the last few days of deliberation. We thought we were making the right deal because we did not think he would go to jail for not filing taxes. There were 3 on the jury that felt this way and told us he was guilty before they even heard the first piece of evidence going against what the judge had said."

The two highlighted statements can't be easily reconciled, but I'm not sure if it's a function of sloppy writing, sloppy memory, or dishonesty in thinking that Snipes might be able to get a new trial.

And I find the timing of the email to be suspicious. This juror didn't say anything after Snipes was sentenced to three years in prison (which was highly publicized and the juror would probably have heard about), but supposedly waited until the conviction and sentence was affirmed on appeal (which is a relatively obscure event). How likely is that?

And why was there a "deal that had to be made"? Why couldn't the jury have deadlocked? And isn't this juror admitting that he voted in favor of a sentence in violation of his duty?

And why would three jurors insist that a famous actor is guilty regardless of the evidence?

I see a lot of problems with this story, and I suspect the story will change once it is questioned and compared with the recollections of other jurors.