Announcing the CREDITWRENCH WIKI
This is a peek at the new CREDITWRENCH WIKI which is located at pbwiki.com.
Wikis are not really new but this new one created by Yahoo and named PBWIKI is unique in that it works almost like any word processor as well as a webpage. You can create new wiki pages just like they were webpages and you can link to them just like you would place links to any other webpage.
Scroll down to register today!
Live seminar session:
– Save thousands of dollars in legal fees
– Deal with lawyers on an even-footing
– Transform your lawsuit into victory
– Master real-life courtroom problems
– Prevent simple errors that cause losses
- Guaranteed to expand your knowledge*
Learn how easy it is to win lawsuits while visiting Music City … Nashville, Tennessee!
All day Saturday (and into the early evening if you’re one of the lucky 20 who register first) you’ll receive case-winning power guaranteed to give you the competitive edge you need to win in court … and put this nation back on course by learning how to control our courts!
Embassy Suites, Airport – Opryland is our seminar location this year. Click image above for hotel information and directions.
From: GrinNBarrett
Date: May 27, 2005 3:28:15 PM EDT
To: economysos@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [economysos] re: who got how much?
Reply-To: economysos@yahoogroups.com
*A Letter to the Verizon/AT&T Five
*
Matt Stoller, Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 06:13:30 PM EST
/I’ve been asked for background, so here goes. This post refers to a
vote on internet freedom (or ‘net neutrality’) that took place in a
House Committee today. Right now your broadband ISP isn’t really allowed
to block legal web sites or services to their customers. A law that
passed in a House Committee today lets them. It’s a little more
complicated than that, but that’s the gist. Pretty soon your broadband
provider will be allowed to block Google, Vonage, or your favorite blog
if a competitor pays them, if they develop a competing service, or if
they just don’t like you. This sort of undermines the whole internet
thing, and I’m fighting against it. More info is at Savetheinternet.com
. These five people I’m highlighting
are the Democrats who voted against a free internet, and I’d like you to
call them up and let them know that their vote against the Markey
Amendment (that’s what the amendment was called) is simply outrageous.
They need to know people are mad.
Dear Verizon/ATT Five,
I know how much you enjoy getting campaign contributions from
telecommunications interests, and I hope that you find yourself swimming
in contributions. I mean, you’ve earned it, since voting against
freedom on the internet isn’t going to get you many fans. I’m also glad
you’re so accessible to your constituents, and I’ve taken the liberty to
list the amount of money you received from cable and telephone
interests, as well as your office’s phone number.
3. Charlie Gonzales : (TX-20) received
$16,500 from cable and telecom company interests. I’m glad I can you
reach you at (202) 225-3236.
4. Bobby Rush : (IL-01) received
$21,000 from cable and telecom company interests. I’m glad I can you
reach you at (202) 225-4372.
5. Gene Green : (TX-29) received
$12,000 from cable and telecom company interests. I’m glad I can you
reach you at (202) 225-1688 tel.
It’s hard work to make hundreds of thousands of internet users really
really mad. But you persevered, and in all likelihood your reelection
campaigns will be that much richer. Congrats, guys, you made Santa’s
naughty list.
Oh yeah, and incidentally Blogpac is making a list of people to primary
and people to make nice with in 2008. You know, the PAC for the
internets, which is raising money here
http://actblue.com/page/netrootscandidates#8266.
love,
The Internets
PS. And as an aside, we didn’t include Eliot Engel
(NY-17) and Bart Stupak
(MI-01) on this list, because they
changed their votes and decided to protect freedom on the internet. The
other Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee
, andRepublican Heather Wilson of New Mexico, voted to protect the internet
as well. Thanks. They can be thanked and should be thanked here.
Moveon.org
Survey
Bob Weninger, a law professor at Texas Tech University School of Law, is surveying lawyer reaction to a proposed amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 408. The proposal is now before the Supreme Court and may soon be before Congress. Under the amendment, statements made in settlement talks in civil cases brought by public agencies might be admissible in later criminal cases. He asked readers if they might take 10-15 minutes to complete a brief questionnaire online. He stated that responses will remain anonymous. Here is the link to his survey.
This hoax was circulated by a group trying to sell gold on the internet. Richard Cornforth a good friend of mine debunks it. I do the same thing with junk theories about how to proceed with collection agencies and court filing. Getting rid of garbage beliefs and teachings of the sellers of hoaxes and false information is a tough job because their yarns are so easy to believe.
Separating the truth from the fiction can be a tough job and the only way to know the truth from the bogus is through study and practical experience. That is why you need to become a Creditwrench student. We teach you the real truths and the practical steps you must take if you want to win against debt collectors.
Here is the hoax and the truth exposes the hoax.
ACCORDING TO OUR SOURCES IN THE US TREASURY THE WHITE HOUSE HAS SECRETLY ORDERED THE FEDERAL RESERVE TO PRINT TWO TRILLION DOLLARS IMMEDIATELY, AND PUT INTO CIRCULATION!
The federal reserve has never printed one single federal reserve note. not even one.
OUR SOURCES IN THE TREASURY ARE FLABBERGASTED!
Your sources must be government disinformation agents who prey on the gullible.
IT MEANS THE COLLAPSE OF THE US DOLLAR’S VALUE
No it doesn’t because it never happened.
THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN CORROBORATED BY THREE SEPARATE U.S. TREASURY SOURCES.
Their names?
Six months ago, the Federal Reserve quietly announced that as of March 20, 2006, they would no longer publish “M3″ Data.
True
The “M3″ was the amount of cash the government printed to put into circulation,
Bullshit – M3 is non liquid, non currency money such as commercial paper and stock certificates.
As of eight days ago, M3 data is no longer being reported, so there is no way for the public, investors or bond holders to know
how much currency exists
Bullshit! currency is M1 not M3 you idiot!
- and no way to gauge how much a “dollar” is truly worth.
A dollar will always be worth what it will buy, period.
Three separate sources in the U.S. Treasury have told us that this week, the Federal Reserve ordered TWO TRILLION dollars to be printed secretly!
The federal reserve doesn’t print money and has never loan money to the United States. These are myths made up by government disinformation agents and others wanting to sell books to the gullible.
The U.S. Treasury is allegedly running printing presses 24/7 to accommodate that order.
Why? you just claimed that the fed was printing the money! Make up your mind! Which lie do you want to perpetuate? The U.S. Treasury doesn’t print money either you idiot!
Treasury employees were specifically ORDERED not to talk about this to anyone because it could cause economic collapse.
Name your source.
This probably explains why the US Treasury Secretary resigned several months ago and was replaced by a Bush flunkey, and why Greenspan resigned from the Fed several weeks ago
Greenspan didn’t resign – Greenspan’s term of office expired – federal reserve chairmen are term limited.
The White House apparently hoped that by the time anyone found out about the flooding of the market with dollars, they could stage an event
What an idiot! How do you allege that the dollars are flooded into the market – do they leave bundles on street corners?
Watch for Gold, Silver, Platinum and other precious metals to skyrocket in price within days as the world wakes up and begins dumping the U.S. Dollar in favor of precious metals and the Euro.
I won’t hold my breath for this to happen. In fact, within a few days, which means less than a week, you should apologize for disseminating this fraud.
Last month a leading financial consultant told a Canadian television interviewer that he expected gold to jump to $2,000 an ounce in the coming months — but did not explain why, except to blame the Bush Administrations squandering of dollar reserves.
The United States does have gold reserves but the FRN is a pure fiat not related to gold. All the gold can be taken out of the Treasury, an that act alone would have no effect on the value of the FRN.
As of this morning, Silver was already at a ten year high and Gold was alrready within a few dollars of a 25 year high.
Silver still has not reached the value that it was thirty years ago! Some inflation hedge silver turned out to be. Even with the increasing value of gold, gold has less than doubled in 33 years – some inflation hedge gold has turned out to be!
The U.S. Dollar is falling against all major world currencies. We have been predicting this over the past two or three years, as the inevitable consequence of the Bush administration’s bizarre policies, although we were not certain exactly when it would occur.
More bullshit! Make up your mind! Have you been predicting this for two or is it three years? Actually, I published this information in August of 2002, nearly four years ago but the reasons are far too complex for the con artists who operate gold warriors to understand, to wit: you will not receive an intelligent response to this response.
IRS summons PayPal info on offshore bank users
IRS asks PayPal for help finding taxpayers hiding income offshore
WASHINGTON (AP) – The Internal Revenue Service won approval from a federal court in California to ask PayPal to turn over information about people who might be evading taxes by hiding income in other countries, officials said Tuesday.
A federal court in San Jose gave the IRS permission to ask PayPal –
a company that enables online money transfers — for account
information for American taxpayers who have bank accounts, credit cards or debit cards issued by financial institutions in more than 30 countries reputed to be tax havens.
PayPal spokeswoman Amanda Pires said the company just received the summons.
“We’re still evaluating our options,” she said. “The privacy of our customers’ information is something we take really seriously.”
PayPal enables individuals and businesses around the globe to send and receive money online. In 2005, users moved $27.5 billion through the money transmitter. The company, owned by eBay, has 100 million account holders globally.
The request for information is an outgrowth of an IRS effort, begun several years ago, to trace money that American taxpayers hold offshore to avoid paying taxes. The IRS said many of those taxpayers access their money through credit and debit cards. The tax collectors have already obtained information from some credit card companies, merchants and payment processors.
“PayPal is another one of the mechanisms by which money stashed overseas might be spent,” Eileen OConnor, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department Tax Division, told reporters.
The request covers transactions occurring from 1999 through 2004.
__________________
Creditwrench – The lethal weapon against debt collectors
ceo@creditwrench.com
Creditwrench Blog
backflips-get them & use them
(405) 616-7901 – CALL ANYTIME
(405)-227-9423 – CALL ANYTIME
Subject: Tea – US v Pete Hendrickson
UNITED STATES SUES NINE IN NATIONWIDE CRACKDOWN ON TAX-REFUND SCAM
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Justice Department announced today that, in a
nationwide crackdown against a tax-fraud scheme promoted by Peter
Eric Hendrickson of Commerce Township, Mich., it has brought suit
against nine people this week. According to the government
complaints, filed in seven lawsuits across the country, the nine
people—including Hendrickson and his wife Doreen M. Hendrickson—have
received a total of nearly $150,000 in erroneous tax refunds by
submitting false forms with their federal tax returns to replace W-2
and 1099 forms that correctly reported their income.
In seven suits filed in U.S. district courts in California, Nevada,
Michigan, Alabama, Florida and Kansas, the Justice Department seeks
to recover the erroneous refunds. In addition, the suit against
Hendrickson, filed in the Eastern District of Michigan, asks the
court to enjoin him from filing false tax forms and returns. A
violation of the injunction would be punishable as contempt of court.
According to the complaint, Hendrickson claims that only government
workers are subject to income taxes. Hendrickson tells people to not
submit their W-2 and 1099 forms with their tax returns, and in their
place submit substitute or corrected W-2 and 1099 forms that they
create on which they change their reported income to zero. Under the
scheme, people then submit the falsified forms with a tax return
falsely reporting no income and request a refund of all taxes
withheld from wages. This scheme is number one on the IRS’s 2006
list of the “Dirty Dozen” tax scams.
“Federal law provides serious penalties for filing false tax forms,”
said Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice
Department’s Tax Division. “People who engage in tax fraud schemes
can expect to pay back taxes, plus interest and penalties, and may
face criminal prosecution for evading taxes.”
The suit against Hendrickson alleges that he was convicted in 1992
on federal criminal charges for failing to file a federal income tax
return and for a conspiracy involving a firebomb placed in a bin at
a U.S. Post Office in Royal Oak, Mich. on April 16, 1990, the last
day on which tax returns could be postmarked that year. Hendrickson
testified at a co-conspirator’s trial that he wrapped a tea bag
around the bomb’s tubing as a reference to the Boston Tea Party tax
protest.
The seven people sued in addition to the Hendricksons are Sharon K.
Artman of Largo, Fla.; Michael J. Dowling of San Diego; Joy M.
Ferguson of Henderson, Nev.; Melvin L. Gerstenkorn of Topeka, Kan.;
Larry B. Golson and Debra G. Golson of Montgomery, Ala.; and James
A. Spitzer of Winter Park, Fla.
Copies of all seven complaints will be posted with this press release today
This week’s suits are part of the IRS’s and Justice Department’s
efforts against tax-fraud schemes. More information about these
efforts can be found at www.usdoj.gov/tax/taxpress2006.htm.
Information about the Tax Division can be found at www.usdoj.gov/tax.
Peter Hendrickson’s own complaint can be found
Peter Hendrickson’s own complaint can be found here and alleges that
PH received more than $20,000 in erroneous refunds by filing false
income tax returns for 2002 and 2003.
__________________
It is now possible to track any UPS, DHL, FED EX or USPS package using the following form. Creditwrench students use certified mail return receipt requested a lot. They have to prove they sent letters to the collection agencies, attorneys and others and sometimes they send packages directly to Creditwrench as well and want to be able to track them quickly and easily. Before this service became available it was a real hassle having to go to each of the individual websites for USPS, DHL, FEDEX, or UPS in order to track their packages or mail and now they can just come here and check the current status of their packages or certified letters. That will make it much faster and simpler to get the info they need.
Gary B. asked me to distribute the case below:
THE CUSTODIAN OF IRS/IMF IS LOCATED IN MARTAINSBURG W. VA.– GARY B.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOB A. BUFORD and STEPHEN M. BUFORD, Defendants-Appellants
6 PAGES-LOCATED IN FED US v BUFORD-HEARSAY-C DRIVE
No. 88-1924
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
889 F.2d 1406; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 17943; 89-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9676; 65 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 479
November 29, 1989
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. No. CR-3-88-081-”G”, A. Joe Fish, Judge.
DISPOSITION: Reversed and Remanded.
|
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellants, who were in the business of selling trust instruments and arrangements to individuals, sought review of the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which convicted them in relation to the preparation of false tax returns and in relation to a conspiracy to defraud appellee government. |
|
|
OVERVIEW: Appellants, who were in the business of selling trust instruments and arrangements to individuals, told their clients to convey all of their assets to a trust and to open a checking account in its name. Each individual’s personal tax liability was ultimately reduced. The district court convicted appellants of aiding and abetting the preparation of false tax returns and conspiring to defraud appellee.
The court remanded the district court’s decision as to the district court’s failure to instruct the jury that they should or could consider appellants’ ignorance of the law because the district court’s instruction was erroneous. Thus, the government had the burden of proving that the legal duty violated was known to them. The district court’s charge relieved appellee of that burden and permitted the jury to presume that the appellants had the requisite knowledge. The court held that that was improper. The court remanded because the district court abused its discretion in denying appellants’ request for production of that document and failing to perform the in camera inspection. |
|
|
OUTCOME: The court remanded the district court’s decision, which convicted appellants, in the business of selling trust instruments and arrangements to individuals, because the district court abused its discretion in denying appellants’ request for production of a document. The court reversed for a new trial because the district court’s jury instruction was erroneous. |
|
CORE TERMS: in camera, inspection, ignorance, certificate, legal duty, specific intent, personal tax, intentionally, discovery, erroneous instruction, failure to file, instruct, willful, presume, aiding and abetting, elicited testimony, years probation, return filed, tax return, new trial, cross-examination, conspiring, outweighed, sentenced, convicted, meantime, defraud, forbids, freeze, coded
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes 
&_butType=1&_butStat=0&_butNum=0&_butInline=1&_butinfo==SETVAR P-CLX.CORECONCEPTSDISPLAY="N"&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_star”>&_butType=1&_butStat=0&_butNum=0&_butInline=1&_butinfo==SETVAR P-CLX.CORECONCEPTSDISPLAY="N"&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAz&_md5=da903784ac3a02a3aa73997081152f72″>&_butType=1&_butStat=0&_butNum=0&_butInline=1&_butinfo==SETVAR P-CLX.CORECONCEPTSDISPLAY="N"&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAz&_md5=da903784ac3a02a3aa73997081152f72″>Hide Headnotes
&_butType=1&_butStat=0&_butNum=16&_butInline=1&_butinfo==WEBSSA 00001500&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAz&_md5=d7334f47f442be10de8652ba5473fffc”>
&_butType=1&_butStat=0&_butNum=16&_butInline=1&_butinfo==WEBSSA 00001500&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAz&_md5=d7334f47f442be10de8652ba5473fffc”> Evidence > Writings & Real Evidence > Best Evidence Rule 
|
Fed. R. Evid. 1004 states that the original is required unless lost, destroyed, not obtainable, in possession of opponent, or collateral. More Like This Headnote |
|
COUNSEL: For Bob Buford, Michael Logan Ware, Fort Worth, Texas.
For Stephen Buford, Michael Louis Minns, Houston, Texas.
Marvin Collins, USA, Delonia A. Watson, AUSA, Dallas, Texas, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
JUDGES: Gee, Jones and Smith, Circuit Judges.
OPINIONBY: GEE
OPINION: [*1407] GEE, Circuit Judge.
Facts
Stephen Buford and Charles Samuels were partners in the business of selling trust instruments and arrangements to individuals. Their clients were told to convey all of their assets to the trust and to open a checking account in its name. According to the Bufords, the clients were told not to use trust checks for personal items. According to the government, the clients paid [**2] all of their bills with trust checks.
Stephen Buford and his father, Bob Buford, assisted the clients in preparing trust returns. Personal expenses incurred by the individuals were shown as losses to their trusts. The loss generated on the trust return was then transferred to each individual’s personal tax return. In this manner, each individual’s personal tax liability was reduced.
Stephen and Bob Buford were each charged with 14 counts of aiding and abetting the preparation of false tax returns and one count of conspiring to defraud the United States government. Stephen was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 5 years on count I, three years each on counts II through VIII (all to run concurrently), and to five years probation on counts IX through XV. Bob Buford was convicted on the conspiracy count only and sentenced to three years probation. Both appeal, raising several issues only two of which need be discussed here:
1) whether the district court improperly denied discovery of certain Internal Revenue Service, Individual Master Files and 2) whether the charge to the jury was erroneous. We find error as to both issues.
Discussion
1. Discoverability of the IMF [**3]
In a pretrial order, the district court ordered the government to comply with all discovery and inspection requests required by &_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=4&_butInline=1&_butinfo=USCS FED RULES CRIM PROC R 16&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1″>&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=4&_butInline=1&_butinfo=USCS FED RULES CRIM PROC R 16&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAz&_md5=3226f6785e7e90f71f2e4fa3fad41fbf”>Fed.R.Crim.P. 16, and to provide the defendants by a specified date with all Brady and Jencks Act material. Stephen Buford requested a copy of his Individual Master File (herein “IMF”). n1 The government refused to produce the IMF on the ground that it was beyond the scope of the district court’s order. The government argued that the IMF was an internal document and was, therefore, not discoverable. &_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=5&_butInline=1&_butinfo=USCS FED RULES CRIM PROC R 16&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1″>&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=5&_butInline=1&_butinfo=USCS FED RULES CRIM PROC R 16&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAz&_md5=19bdf0262f5623af43f8884679313f24″>Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(2). It argued further that the document was immaterial and irrelevant and, finally, that Brady did not require its production. The district court denied Stephen Buford’s request, apparently relying on the government’s assertion that it contained no Brady material.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – Footnotes – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
n1 Individual Master File (“IMF”) – Every person who files a Form 1040 has, under his social security number, a file in the IRS master computer in West Virginia. The form generated by the computer is referred to as the Individual Master File (“IMF”). The IMF consists of one or more pages of coded information for each social security recipient and includes, primarily, a breakdown of all information relevant to the tax status of the individual concerning the filing of federal income tax forms, the payment of taxes, refunds due, filing status, number of children, dates of filings, audits, etc.
- – - – - – - – - – - – End Footnotes- – - – - – - – - – - – - – [**4]
At some later time, believing that his IMF was exculpatory, Stephen Buford requested that the district court review his IMF in camera. The court granted Buford’s request but failed to make the inspection. (The IMF is written in coded form. In order to decipher the codes, an “A.D.P. code book” is needed. The court ordered the government to produce the book. The government agreed to produce the book but failed to do so. In the meantime, the trial continued to a verdict before any in camera inspection was performed.)
At trial the government introduced evidence, for impeachment purposes only, that Stephen Buford had not filed his own income tax returns for the years 1980 to 1984. On cross-examination of Stephen Buford the government asked whether it was true that he had not filed tax returns [*1408] from 1980 to 1984. Buford testified that he had filed.
The government then called Marsha Boatright, an IRS records custodian, who testified that there was no record of a return filed for Stephen Buford. Ms. Boatright based her testimony on Certificates of Assessments and payments, which were admitted into evidence. Buford’s attorney, in a very able cross-examination of Boatright, [**5] elicited testimony that the Certificates of Assessments were hand prepared, using information taken from the IMF. When asked whether a mistake might have occurred, she said she had never seen one.
In addition, Buford’s attorney offered, through Boatright, AMDISA n2 reports on Stephen Buford for the years 1980 through 1984. He then elicited testimony from her that the AMDISA contained information that would not have been there unless a tax return had been filed.
Her testimony made clear that the Certificates of Assessments were hand prepared and that the entry “No record of return filed” was hand written onto the certificates (by someone other than Boatright), which had been prepared specifically for the trial. Her testimony continued that the AMDISA reports came directly from the computer and contained a Dif Score. n3 She also testified as to the effect of a freeze code. n4 In the meantime, repeated requests by Buford’s attorney for an in camera review of the IMF apparently fell on deaf ears.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – Footnotes – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
n2 AMDISA — A computer generated “summary” of the IMF.
n3 Dif Score — A discriminate information function number is assigned to each tax return filed. [**6]
n4 Freeze Code – A code placed in the IMF indicating that a tax return, if filed, should be rejected. Thus, if a freeze code is in the IMF, an individual can file a return and the computer will, even so, show that none was filed.
- – - – - – - – - – - – End Footnotes- – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Thus, the district court denied discovery of the IMF, yet admitted in evidence two conflicting secondary sources of the data contained in it. In addition, the court agreed to review the IMF in camera, but never did so. Stephen Buford’s conviction on the 14 counts of aiding and abetting likely rests, in part, on this evidence, or the lack thereof. The jury was far more likely to believe that Buford had assisted others to evade their taxes if they thought that he had failed to pay his own. The IMF will show conclusively whether or not Buford filed.
The district court abused its discretion in denying Stephen Buford’s request for production of the IMF and in failing to perform the promised in camera inspection.
There is no authority for the district court’s action. As Buford’s brief puts it, “The I.R.S. has successfully used the IMF transcript and often attached [**7] a Certificate [of Assessments] to it as an official interpretation and if the issue is not objected to or uncontested used a mere certificate, but there are no reported cases allowing a certificate over objection to be utilized without the underlying official record. To the contrary, the existing case law shows the government as the force generally trying to admit the I.M.F./N.C.C. [National Computer Center] rather than the Defendant.” See &_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=6&_butInline=1&_butinfo=&_fmtstr=FULL&doc”>&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=6&_butInline=1&_butinfo=&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAz&_md5=e0321ce0557ba10bb8190f2f8586a211″>United States v. Farris&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=6&_butInline=1&_butinfo=&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAz&_md5=e0321ce0557ba10bb8190f2f8586a211″>, 517 F.2d 226 (7th Cir. 1975) (officially certified “I.M.F. forms” are self-authenticating; IRS central data compilation introduced by government as evidence of defendant’s failure to file); &_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=7&_butInline=1&_butinfo=&_fmtstr=FULL&doc”>&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=7&_butInline=1&_butinfo=&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAz&_md5=b35b1ab201594ebeae956bd6ca1270ac”>United States v. Hays&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=7&_butInline=1&_butinfo=&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAz&_md5=b35b1ab201594ebeae956bd6ca1270ac”>, 525 F.2d 455 (7th Cir. 1975) (government proved the defendant’s failure to file by use of official computer data compilations) (citing Farris). See also HN1
&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=8&_butInline=1&_butinfo=USCS FED RULES EVID 1004&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp”>&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=8&_butInline=1&_butinfo=USCS FED RULES EVID 1004&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAz&_md5=c85ecc992d9158a5d70505eee831053b”>Fed.R.Evid. 1004 (original required unless lost, destroyed, not obtainable, in possession of opponent, or collateral). Neither the government nor the defendant has cited a case in which the government sought to exclude an IMF report.
2. Jury Instruction
Both Stephen and Bob complain that the district [**8] court’s charge to the jury impermissibly shifted the burden of proof and negated the willfulness element of the offenses charged. The court charged the jury as follows:
It is not necessary for the Government to prove that either defendant knew that a particular act or failure to act is a violation of law. Unless and until outweighed [*1409] by evidence in the case to the contrary, the presumption is that every person knows what the law forbids, and what the law requires to be done.
The court’s charge was erroneous.
The defendants were indicted under &_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=9&_butInline=1&_butinfo=18 USC 371&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAz”>&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=9&_butInline=1&_butinfo=18 USC 371&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAz&_md5=45de45d898af9e2fe05bfd8303e2057f”>18 U.S.C. section 371 for conspiring “to defraud the United States by impeding, impairing, obstructing and defeating the lawful functions of the Department of the Treasury and the collection of the revenues, to-wit; income taxes.” They were also charged with substantive violations of &_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=10&_butInline=1&_butinfo=26 USC 7206&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSk”>&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=10&_butInline=1&_butinfo=26 USC 7206&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAz&_md5=d1d5f458337f1750130088426a3e2aa7″>26 U.S.C. section 7206(2), which requires that the acts of the defendant be “willful.” “Willful” has been defined as a “voluntary intentional violation of a known legal duty.” &_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=11&_butInline=1&_butinfo=&_fmtstr=FU”>United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 12, 97 S. Ct. 22, 23, 50 L. Ed. 2d 12 (1976). Thus, [**9] the government had the burden of proving, as to both Stephen and Bob Buford n5 that the legal duty violated was “known” to them. The district court’s charge relieved the government of that burden and permitted the jury to presume that the defendants had the requisite knowledge. This was improper.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – Footnotes – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
n5 To sustain a conviction for conspiracy under section 371 the government must prove “the requisite intent to commit the substantive offense.” &_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=12&_butInline=1&_butinfo=&_fmtst”>&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=12&_butInline=1&_butinfo=&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAz&_md5=a37bca6b432106997badab84cb784082″>United States v. Dahlstrom&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=12&_butInline=1&_butinfo=&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAz&_md5=a37bca6b432106997badab84cb784082″>, 713 F.2d 1423, 1429 (9th Cir. 1983).
- – - – - – - – - – - – End Footnotes- – - – - – - – - – - – - -
To the government’s credit, it cites United States v. Davis, which they accurately assess as “militat[ing] for an automatic reversal of the instant cause.” See &_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=13&_butInline=1&_butinfo=&_fmtstr=FULL&do”>&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=13&_butInline=1&_butinfo=&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAz&_md5=7bd8c57c80ff4507dce505473ca3e97e”>United States v. Davis&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=13&_butInline=1&_butinfo=&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAz&_md5=7bd8c57c80ff4507dce505473ca3e97e”>, 583 F.2d 190 (5th Cir. 1978).
In Davis the court instructed the jury, in part:
“An act is done knowingly if it is done willfully and intentionally, if done voluntarily and intentionally, and not because of mistake, accident or other innocent reason or motive.
* * * [**10]
Unless outweighed by evidence to the contrary, the law presumes that every person knows what the law forbids and what the law requires to be done. Therefore, the evidence that the Defendant acted or failed to act because of ignorance of the law does not constitute a defense.”
We held that these instructions were inconsistent with the element of specific intent, which requires the government to prove that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally violated a known legal duty. Davis at 193. After citing a series of Fifth Circuit cases on the issue, we went on to say:
Considered together, these cases require that the trial court, when instructing that specific intent is required, may not instruct that ignorance of the law is no excuse, because ignorance of the law goes to the heart of the defendant’s denial of specific intent.
In the present case, the district court did not instruct the jury that they should, or could, consider the defendants’ ignorance of the law. The district court’s charge was erroneous. See also &_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=15&_butInline=1&_butinfo=&_fmtstr=FULL&do”>&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=15&_butInline=1&_butinfo=&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAz&_md5=41560ae3bcef35f16d18db3c6464ced4″>United States v. Flitcraft&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=15&_butInline=1&_butinfo=&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkAz&_md5=41560ae3bcef35f16d18db3c6464ced4″>, 803 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1986) (erroneous instruction concerning [**11] ignorance of the tax laws constitutes plain error).
We must therefore remand, with instructions to the district court to perform its in camera inspection of the IMF. If this reveals that Stephen actually did not file his personal tax returns in the years 1980 through 1984, no harm was done. If, on the other hand, it turns out that Stephen did file, as he says, then he must be granted the use of that evidence at the new trial which we direct.
As to the second issue, both defendants are entitled to a new trial because of the erroneous instruction.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
You are currently browsing the CREDITWRENCH blog archives for April, 2006.
