Update from Art Farnsworth

[Demosthenes]

Dear subscriber,

As of this moment, my sentencing hearing is still scheduled for 9:30 a.m. this Wednesday, March 7. However, I have made a last minute decision that will change that. I have retained another lawyer to file a motion to dismiss which challenges personal jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a very basic legal issue, but it must be proven to exist before a court can hear a matter.
Personal jurisdiction deals with a court's ability to hear a matter dealing with an individual based upon who the individual is and where he is, and where the court is. Subject matter jurisdiction
is not about the person, but about the issue that is in dispute - taxes in my case. I proved two years ago in a Motion to Dismiss that the court here has no criminal subject matter jurisdiction, relying upon the law as written by Congress to prove the point, but the court said "wrong," basing *its* ruling upon what a couple of men in black robes said. Welcome to legal land.

The paperwork bringing the additional lawyer on board, along with his motions, will be filed Monday. Although the court will probably try and get the government to respond expeditiously, there's no way the sentencing will not be delayed. So, my recommendation at this point is that you do NOT plan on attending the hearing on Wednesday. I'll send a message advising about the new schedule, when I learn what it is.

I believe hiring this additional lawyer was the prudent thing to do. I do not need to tell you all that it also represents an additional and sizeable expense. If there is any way that you can assist in a financial sense, then please visit the Help Art page of my Web site at http://www.ArtFarnsworth.org/helpart.htm for information on doing so. Continued thoughts and prayers would also be appreciated.

For those of you who have attempted to contact me via the Contact page of my site, I apologize for the inconvenience - I only learned a week ago that the page had an error. I repaired it, and welcome your messages.

I am still hopeful for a victory. At some point this unlawful persecution of me and other good Americans must stop. Why not NOW?!

-- Arthur L. FarnsworthWest Rockhill Twp., Pa.www.ArtFarnsworth.orgDonate to the legal defense fund at http://www.HelpArt.org

[Demosthenes]

The docket updates:

03/05/2007 138 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by USA as to ARTHUR L. FARNSWORTH (GERSHENGORN, ARA) (Entered: 03/05/2007)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/farnsworth138.pdf

03/05/2007 139 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE JONATHAN F. ALTMAN appearing for ARTHUR L. FARNSWORTH by Special Appearance (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Filing)(ALTMAN, JONATHAN) (Entered: 03/05/2007)

03/05/2007 140 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by ARTHUR L. FARNSWORTH. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Certificate of Filing# 3 Exhibit A# 4 Exhibit B# 5 Exhibit C# 6 Exhibit D# 7 Exhibit E)(ALTMAN, JONATHAN) (Entered: 03/05/2007)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/farnsworth140.pdf
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/farnsworth140-3.pdf
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/farnsworth140-4.pdf
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/farnsworth140-5.pdf
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/farnsworth140-6.pdf
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/farnsworth140-7.pdf

03/05/2007 141 MOTION to Stay Sentencing by ARTHUR L. FARNSWORTH. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Certificate of Filing)(ALTMAN, JONATHAN) (Entered: 03/05/2007)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/farnsworth141.pdf

[Demosthenes]

The government is asking for a sentence with the guideline range of 21 to 27 months.

My favorite bit from the government's sentencing memorandum:

The defendant also notes that he is an active member of his church and a karoake singer. Neither of these facts calls for a lesser sentence in this case.

[wserra]

The docket updates:

03/05/2007 138 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by USA as to ARTHUR L. FARNSWORTH (GERSHENGORN, ARA) (Entered: 03/05/2007)

I don't know, Art, but at first blush it might be a good idea to choose a lawyer who at least claims to practice federal criminal defense.

From Altman's web site:

Practice Areas: Commercial Litigation; Civil Litigation; Real Estate Settlements; Personal Injury; Legal Malpractice; Medical Malpractice; Title Insurance; Tax Appeals; Zoning, Planning and Land Use; Construction Defects; Products Liability; Landlord and Tenant Law.

BTW, does the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction strike anyone other than me as sanctionable?

[Demosthenes]

Altman has another criminal case pending. He's also acting as the defense counsel for the Commonwealth Trust promoters, the very people who got Farnsworth into this mess to begin with.

[Demosthenes]

BTW, does the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction strike anyone other than me as sanctionable?

Check out this filing from Altman in the Commonwealth Trust case.

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/dadds27.pdf

[Demosthenes]

From Altman's website:

CORE VALUES

To fully consider all of the circumstances surrounding any given matter.
To be readily accessible to you and communicate with all in a timely and forthright manner.
To undertake only those matters that we are competent to represent.
To apply our resources and yours with care in order to be cost-effective and efficient.
To fully research legal issues in order to apply the most relevant and applicable law to your case.
To tell you if your case is no longer viable and why.

[Demosthenes]

The government moved to have Altman disqualified in the Commonwealth case, but it was denied by the judge.

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/dadds109.pdf
(the first few pages are a fun read)

One of the Commonwealth Trust defendants that Altman is representing is his own paralegal.

[The Observer]

I don't know, Art, but at first blush it might be a good idea to choose a lawyer who at least claims to practice federal criminal defense.

If he chose a competent defense attorney, he would be forced to give up all the typical TP clap-trap defense moves that we have come to know and love. At least with Altman, Farnsworth can have his 3-ring circus - and eat it too.

[notorial dissent]

I agree, the last thing he wants right now is a competent attorney, if he has to give up his song and dance then he won't be able to be martyred and to peddle his wares later on, and the fact that he is going down one way or another makes it a moot point any way. Changing attorneys in mid stream is not going to change the final outcome of an unflattering change of clothes and an uncomfortable suite in the graybar hotel.

I also disagree with the prosecuting attorney, i think karoake singing is probably grounds for a stiffer sentence, second only to being a practicing mime.

Wouldn't he also have a conflict of interest if he is representing other people in the Commonwealth case?

[LPC]

BTW, does the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction strike anyone other than me as sanctionable?

One of Larry Becraft's claims to fame is that he was sanctioned for making that same argument. See http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/protcase/becraft.htm

In imposing the sanctions, the 9th Circuit noted that there is often a reluctance to impose sanctions in criminal cases, and Becraft himself was sanctioned only after raising the same idiot argument three times, the last time in a petition for rehearing. *That* was what got the attention of the 9th Circuit, and resulted in sanctions sua sponte.

And Altman's motion is not only nonsensical, but almost incoherent, so I would say that sanctions should be an option.

[Demosthenes]

March 7, 2007
Bucks tax evader faces sentence today
But he is contesting his guilty verdict, claiming U.S. has no jurisdiction.

By Matt Birkbeck Of The Morning Call

A Bucks County man convicted of income tax evasion wants a federal judge to throw out his guilty verdict on the grounds that the U.S. attorney lacked ''territorial jurisdiction'' to prosecute him.

Arthur Farnsworth, who claimed during his trial that payment of federal income taxes is voluntary, also sought a stay of his sentencing, scheduled for today, pending a resolution of his motion to dismiss the verdict, which was filed late Monday.

Federal prosecutors are seeking 21 to 27 months in prison for Farnsworth, who was convicted in December of three counts of income tax evasion for failing to pay an estimated $80,000 in federal income taxes from 1998 through 2000.

In a sentencing memorandum filed Monday, prosecutors say Farnsworth, of West Rockhill Township, willfully attempted to evade paying federal income taxes and ''hid his assets – to look like a pauper.''

Farnsworth's co-counsel, Jonathan Altman of Paoli, Chester County, said the argument of territorial jurisdiction is rooted in law, and if the motion to dismiss is denied, an appeal would go to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.

''Many people contend it's a frivolous argument, in particular the U.S. government, but my research has concluded otherwise,'' said Altman.

Richard Manieri, a spokesman for U.S. Attorney Patrick Meehan in Philadelphia, said there was no word late Tuesday whether the sentencing would be delayed, and prosecutors were proceeding as if it were still on schedule for this morning.

A self-professed ''tax honesty'' advocate, Farnsworth publicly stated he hadn't paid federal income taxes since 1995 and operated a Web site offering tips on how to avoid paying federal income taxes.

In his motion to dismiss the guilty verdict, he asserts a narrowly held notion by tax honesty advocates that the U.S. government has limited jurisdiction in matters outside the District of Columbia.

Aside from exercising authority over ''erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other useful buildings,'' jurisdiction over all criminal matters rests with the states, and federal prosecutors throughout the United States have usurped their authority under the U.S. Constitution, Farnsworth claims.

''It is not provided by the Constitution for [the federal government] to prosecute criminal charges against individuals not within its jurisdiction,'' Altman said.

''States, not the federal government, in most circumstances, can prosecute unless there is a constitutional amendment to change that,'' he said. ''This is an issue that, in my opinion, has gone unchallenged. Mr. Farnsworth tried to say this during his trial, but he didn't articulate it properly.''

Farnsworth has been free on $100,000 bail since his conviction. His sentencing is scheduled for this morning in Philadelphia before U.S. District Judge John Padova.

[Demosthenes]

03/06/2007 142 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM certif of service by ARTHUR L. FARNSWORTH (GOLDBERGER, PETER) (Entered: 03/06/2007)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/farnsworth142.pdf

03/06/2007 143 ORDER AS TO ARTHUR L. FARNSWORTH THAT SENTENCING IN THIS MATTER IS CONTINUED TO 4/3/2007 AT 10:30 AM. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT 141 DEFT'S. MOTION TO STAY SENTENCING FILED BY ARTHUR L. FARNSWORTH IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge JOHN R. PADOVA on 3/6/07.3/7/07 Entered and Copies Mailed. (ke) (Entered: 03/07/2007)

03/07/2007 144 ORDER DENYING 140 DEFT'S. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION FILED BY ARTHUR L. FARNSWORTH. Signed by Judge JOHN R. PADOVA on 3/6/07.3/7/07 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ke) (Entered: 03/07/2007)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/farnsworth144.pdf

[Joey Smith]

Altmann is definitely a koolaid-drinker, and I would hate to see him off the case.

[Demosthenes]

I wonder what Peter Goldberger thinks of his new co-counsel sabbotaging his efforts?

[LPC]

03/07/2007 144 ORDER DENYING 140 DEFT'S. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION FILED BY ARTHUR L. FARNSWORTH. Signed by Judge JOHN R. PADOVA on 3/6/07.3/7/07 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ke) (Entered: 03/07/2007)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/farnsworth144.pdf

It's a one-sentence order, with a rather terse yet pungent footnote:

Defendant has moved to dismiss this criminal action on the ground that he is not a resident of any “federal zone” and is therefore not subject to federal income tax laws. This argument is completely without merit and patently frivolous. See United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994) (holding that this argument is patently frivolous); United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) (holding that the argument that federal criminal jurisdiction only extends to the District of Columbia, United States territorial possessions and ceded territories was a “hackneyed tax protester refrain” which blithely ignored 18 U.S.C. § 3231, explicitly vesting federal district courts with jurisdiction over “all offenses against the laws of the United States;” Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, empowering Congress to create, define and punish crimes irrespective of where they are committed; and the Sixteenth Amendment, empowering Congress to create and provide for the administration of an income tax).

I wonder if a motion for reconsideration is in order?

[notorial dissent]

A delightfully succinct and pungent order, wish more of them were that way.

I think a motion for sanctions would certainly be in order.

[Demosthenes]

So while one of Art's attorneys is filing a whole lot of tax protest crap, the other attorney is trying to argue that he has accepted responsibility:

his tax-related actions are best explained by certain deep-seated character traits, which have caused him to accept an illogical extrapolation of his otherwise admirable libertarian political views. As the Court must have observed even in the last 48 hours, Mr. Farnsworth has not been convinced that he was "wrong" in his amateur legal analysis of the tax code. However, his action since the trial in removing all tax related advocacy from his website, in response to counsel's and the Probation Officer's expressions of concern, constituted a willing abandonment of the full scope of his First Amendment rights. This alone might have warranted or contributed to justifying a downward departure under the pre-Booker regime. See United States v. Faulks, 143 F.3d 133, 137-38 (3d Cir. 1998) (willing abandonment of valid defense in favor of action demonstrating acceptance of responsibility can justify downward departure). He understands that he must now accept the consequences of his choices.

[Demosthenes]

action since the trial in removing all tax related advocacy from his website

And yet, it's still there:

Click on Taxpayer (are you a taxpayer?) at http://www.artfarnsworth.org/ and you get:

Since "subject to" for legal purposes means "liable", and none of us is liable, none of us is subject to the federal income tax, and therefore none of us is a taxpayer with regard to the federal income tax. The next time a letter comes from the I.R.S. with the demeaning "Dear Taxpayer" salutation, you might decide to waste some time (!) in your reply pointing out in a sentence or two that you are NOT a taxpayer. I suppose you could even use that as a basis for your entire return message, pointing out that you are taking no action with regard to their correspondence because it was addressed to a taxpayer, which you are not.

Even his disclaimer is loaded with tax denier cult talk:

Although the I.R.S. might claim otherwise, this Internet site does not promulgate a vehement anti-government and anti-tax sentiment. I am pro-government, so long as the government obeys the law, and I recommend that you do as I do and pay all taxes required to be paid by law. Additionally, I am not claiming that the federal income tax is unconstitutional - being voluntary, it's perfectly constitutional. Lastly, no material on this site is presented with the intent that it be used to impede the I.R.S. in its function. Of course, since the federal income tax is voluntary, the I.R.S.' function is purely administrative.

[grixit]

In his motion to dismiss the guilty verdict, he asserts a narrowly held notion by tax honesty advocates that the U.S. government has limited jurisdiction in matters outside the District of Columbia.

Silly. as soon as you get more than 3 miles away from the DC boundaries, you fall under Maritime Law.