Aaron Russo

[Quixote]

BTW: A "zero success rate" refers to getting out of paying taxes. In that sense, it's 100% accurate.

Funny. If ever you have to use "in that sense" and "100% accurate" in the same sentence, it seems that someone isn't being wholly forthright.

Unfortunately, this kind of wordplay seems to be common on BOTH sides of the fence, which is why I find myself unable to accept either argument. Neither side seems able to simply state objective fact clearly and succinctly.

The only one not stating objective fact clearly and distinctly on this thread is you. The statement that tax denier theories have never won in court is clear and perfectly correct. What do you not understand?

[ShadesOfKnight]

Is English not your primary language?

Does it matter? Or is this merely another assholier-than-thou moment on this board?

Stating that those particular theories have never worked is a far cry from "no one has ever won."

If the theory (for example, "there is no law requiring I file") has never worked then no one has ever won by using that theory... Logic and grammar don't always work in synch, my friend, but this time they do.

Does Russo allege that he has an example of any of the theories winning? No, he doesn't, proving that there is a limit even to Russo's lies.

Even here, on this board, Ms. Kuglin is credited with "winning" in criminal court... It seems that that does put a certain twist on assuming that Russo lied. But perhaps not. Which is why I posed the question in the first place.

[ShadesOfKnight]

The only one not stating objective fact clearly and distinctly on this thread is you. The statement that tax denier theories have never won in court is clear and perfectly correct. What do you not understand?

Simply put (and repeated again, in case it was missed earlier). Did Kuglin win or not? Was her claim, that there was no law requiring her to file, victorious in court or not?

I trust that that is clear and succinct enough?

[Quixote]

So, sticking strictly to Kuglin. She wins in criminal court, claiming that there was no law requiring her to file... but loses in civil court...

So we say she lost?

No, now that you have clarified your question, i.e., that you are discussing the statement that no tax denier fantasies have ever won in court, we say that Kuglin's win is irrelevant, because she did not win on a tax denier theory. Contrary to your statement, Kuglin did not claim that there was no law requiring her to file. She and her attorney agreed during the pre-trial phase that she was required to file a return.

[ShadesOfKnight]

No, now that you have clarified your question, i.e., that you are discussing the statement that no tax denier fantasies have ever won in court, we say that Kuglin's win is irrelevant, because she did not win on a tax denier theory. Contrary to your statement, Kuglin did not claim that there was no law requiring her to file. She and her attorney agreed during the pre-trial phase that she was required to file a return.

Then what, exactly, was she being charged with?

[Quixote]

Did Kuglin win or not? Was her claim, that there was no law requiring her to file, victorious in court or not?

No, because she did not make that claim at her trial.

[Randall]

So, sticking strictly to Kuglin. She wins in criminal court, claiming that there was no law requiring her to file... but loses in civil court...

Her win was on a charge of willful failure to file, not whether there was a law requiring her to file. The court essentially ruled that there is such a law, but she was to stupid to understand it, thus she was not criminally liable.

So we say she lost?

Well, she still had to pay the tax PLUS interest and penalties, all she won was to stay out of the iron bar hotel. Perhaps one could call that a victory, but with great financial cost. She would have been better off to have filed and paid the tax when it was due. She would have saved interest, penalties and legal fees.

[Quixote]

No, now that you have clarified your question, i.e., that you are discussing the statement that no tax denier fantasies have ever won in court, we say that Kuglin's win is irrelevant, because she did not win on a tax denier theory. Contrary to your statement, Kuglin did not claim that there was no law requiring her to file. She and her attorney agreed during the pre-trial phase that she was required to file a return.

Then what, exactly, was she being charged with?

Tax evasion. Is Russo's film your sole source of information about the Kuglin case? If so, I can understand your confusion. Russo's film is, as far as his claims about the income tax, a fact free snack.

[Prof]

The only one not stating objective fact clearly and distinctly on this thread is you. The statement that tax denier theories have never won in court is clear and perfectly correct. What do you not understand?

Simply put (and repeated again, in case it was missed earlier). Did Kuglin win or not? Was her claim, that there was no law requiring her to file, victorious in court or not?

I trust that that is clear and succinct enough?

Kuglin was acquited by the jury, which found that the government did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she knew/understood that she had to comply with the IRC. She still had to comply, and file and pay taxes, but she had not committed a criminal act-- a willful violation of the criminal parts of the tax law. In criminal law, there is an element called scienter which can be translated as intent. Here, the government failed to prove intent to violate the criminal law.

Kuglin did not even bother to go to trial on the issue of civil obligation to pay -- she just agreed to pay principle, interest, etc., over time.

So, Kuglin lost on cash liability, but was not convicted of a crime.

[ShadesOfKnight]

Kuglin did not even bother to go to trial on the issue of civil obligation to pay -- she just agreed to pay principle, interest, etc., over time.

So, Kuglin lost on cash liability, but was not convicted of a crime.

See, that's what makes no sense to me. She was aquitted, and yet still got penalized.

That's the kicker to the American Justice System. You can "win" legally and still be punished (over and over again, even) by your opposition going to civil court.

Seems to me (again, not a lawyer), if you are not guilty then you're not to be punished.

[Demosthenes]

No one has ever won a federal civil lawsuit against the IRS on the BS theories set out on the internet by folks like Shiff, etc. Vernice and the 861 proponents are classic examples.

So, sticking strictly to Kuglin. She wins in criminal court, claiming that there was no law requiring her to file... but loses in civil court...

So we say she lost?

Back to an earlier point I made, it seems reasonable to think that a criminal court is the more correct when asking questions of law and whether or not someone "wins" in a contest of law...

But I'm no lawyer, so perhaps reason doesn't apply? LOL

Kuglin never argued the law in her criminal case. She argued whether her acts were willful.

Kuglin did argue the law in her civil case and she lost.

The legal arguments made by tax protesters have never resulted in a win.

[wserra]

So, sticking strictly to Kuglin. She wins in criminal court, claiming that there was no law requiring her to file... but loses in civil court...

Why don't you look at what Kuglin's own lawyer, Larry Becraft, argued to the jury that acquitted her (p 704-705):

23 this defense of good faith is this: If the defendant

24 acted in good faith, that is to say she actually believed

25 the actions she took were allowable by law, then she is

1 not guilty of the offense of tax evasion. It does not

2 matter whether the defendant was right or wrong in her

3 beliefs, nor does it matter if her beliefs make sense,

4 sound reasonable to you, the jury, or to me, as the judge.

5 The only thing that matters is whether or not the

6 defendant actually believed she was correct in her

7 actions. That, ladies and gentlemen, that's the standard

8 there for willfulness. Willfulness means, in essence, you

9 got to know, Vernie Kuglin has got to know she was

10 required to file an income tax return.

Please note the part where Becraft says that it doesn't matter whether Kuglin is right or wrong, or even if her beliefs make sense. Do you still believe that her defense was that she actually wasn't required to file? That may have been her defense in the civil case, but that lost (actually, I think she gave up and settled).

[ShadesOfKnight]

Tax evasion. Is Russo's film your sole source of information about the Kuglin case? If so, I can understand your confusion. Russo's film is, as far as his claims about the income tax, a fact free snack.

Avoiding for a moment the assumption that Russo's film is inaccurate, the answer to your question is yes. Aside from the news media (whom I personally am disinclined to take as "fact"), I have no other information on the case... and that is why I posted this in the first place!

The problem I see is that everyone claims success... but that claim hinges wholly on "in that sense" kind of statements. Personally, I despise that sort of thing.

[Demosthenes]

See, that's what makes no sense to me. She was aquitted, and yet still got penalized.

She was on trial for whether or not she really truly believed in the TP legal arguments. The only thing the jury had to decide: was her evasion of taxes willful?

Her tax liability was never in question during the criminal trial.

[ShadesOfKnight]

Kuglin never argued the law in her criminal case. She argued whether her acts were willful.

Kuglin did argue the law in her civil case and she lost.

Perhaps that latter statement is only true because of the difference in rules between criminal and civil courts (which I've been railing about here anyway)?

On the one side (Criminal), the intent element counts and on the other (Civil), it doesn't?

[Duke2Earl]

Kuglin did not even bother to go to trial on the issue of civil obligation to pay -- she just agreed to pay principle, interest, etc., over time.

So, Kuglin lost on cash liability, but was not convicted of a crime.

See, that's what makes no sense to me. She was aquitted, and yet still got penalized.

That's the kicker to the American Justice System. You can "win" legally and still be punished (over and over again, even) by your opposition going to civil court.

Seems to me (again, not a lawyer), if you are not guilty then you're not to be punished.

I'm sorry this is too complicated for you but it really is quite simple. She was always guilty of failing to pay tax that she legally owed. That was never in question. All that was in question in the criminal case is what her intent was. If she intentionally broke the law with knowledge she was breaking the law...then she goes to jail. If she was too dumb to know she was breaking the law, she doesn't go to jail. BUT in all cases she broke the law and owes the tax money plus interest and penalties. This jury found that she was too dumb to understand that she was breaking the law.

[Demosthenes]

If your goal was to be tax-free, would you consider it a victory if your $200,000 a year job as a Fedex pilot was garnished down to $185 a paycheck?

Those who claim victory in the above case are lying. The only victory is that she isn't doing time in prison in addition to having her wages garnished to $185 a paycheck. If your original goal is to be tax free, what kind of victory is that?

And furthermore, a not guilty verdict in a criminal case doesn't set a precedent for any future cases. Just because OJ was acquitted, does that mean that murder is now legal?

[ShadesOfKnight]

Why don't you look at what Kuglin's own lawyer, Larry Becraft, argued to the jury that acquitted her (p 704-705):

23 this defense of good faith is this:

Thank you for that, wserra. That helps greatly, actually.

Please note the part where Becraft says that it doesn't matter whether Kuglin is right or wrong, or even if her beliefs make sense. Do you still believe that her defense was that she actually wasn't required to file? That may have been her defense in the civil case, but that lost (actually, I think she gave up and settled).

I did notice that. Interesting and very helpful.

Does anyone happen to have a similar transcript from the civil case? Personally, I am loathe to accept "that may have been." I had been led to believe that she did in fact assert that there was no law requiring her to file.

[ShadesOfKnight]

I'm sorry this is too complicated for you but it really is quite simple. She was always guilty of failing to pay tax that she legally owed.

Forgive my ignorance, but why then would that not have been at issue in the CRIMINAL case, where issues of whether or not someone did or did not do something legally required are settled? Why use two different courts, and more importantly, why use the CIVIL court to punish for what your own statement indicates would be a CRIMINAL issue??

Again, forgive me, but crime is not ONLY about intent. If it were, "involuntary manslaughter" would not be a criminal charge. Similarly, Kuglin should have been charged for failing to pay taxes in CRIMINAL court if she had broken a law.

See how it doesn't add up for me?

[Nikki]

The civil case never went to a stage where a transcript would be available.

She rolled over and admitted that she owed the taxes and agreed to a repayment plan that left her taking home something around minimum wage level PLUS having to pay taxes on her full earnings before the garnishments.

Call it a win if you want, but she's looking at many years of subsistence living off a significant income.