On Wednesday, James Back, through his attorney, filed a memorandum addressing his up-coming sentencing next week. Both Pete Hendrickson and Marc Stevens get some, ummmm... publicity here.
Not the kind I would want, though.
Some excerpts:
Mr. Back paid his taxes for his entire adult life, until he read a book, published in 2003, entitled “Cracking the Code” by Peter Eric Hendrickson [footnote on Hendrickson’s conviction not reproduced]. In Cracking the Code the author provides a novel definition for “income” and makes the argument that income tax only applies to people who are employed by foreign corporations or the federal government. Mr. Back then started to question the legitimacy of taxation generally, and started researching various tax protester internet sites and books promoted by those sites.
There is an entire industry devoted to the futile pursuit to evade taxation. Purveyors of these websites feed off the naiveté of their customers and profit from their reliance on what amounts to horrible advice. Friends of Mr. Back universally describe him as stubborn and gullible, arguably the perfect combination of consumer traits for those looking to profit from this type of endeavor.
When Mr. Back was finally charged in Federal Court in the instant case, he turned to a notorious tax protester named Marc Stevens for assistance. Mr. Stevens hosts a website and an internet radio show devoted to the idea of a stateless, voluntary society where taxation does not exist. (See [Marc Stevens web site links not reproduced] for arguments reminiscent of those Mr. Back argued during trial.) Mr. Back was influenced by, and in essence, was “represented” by Mr. Stevens during his trial. Mr. Stevens charges $100 per hour for phone consultations and was well compensated by Mr. Back for his “counsel”. All of the pleadings filed by Mr. Back were prepared by Mr. Stevens. Mr. Back provided Mr. Stevens with transportation and lodging to attend the jury trial. Mr. Back disregarded the advice of standby counsel, and instead, relied solely on the advice of Mr. Stevens during breaks in the jury trial. Interestingly, Mr. Stevens sat through most of the trial, but flew back to Arizona prior to the jury verdict. After Mr. Back was remanded into custody, standby counsel received a “Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict” purportedly drafted by Mr. Back for filing with the Court. This document espoused the same philosophy (and font) as Mr. Back’s other filings, and was in fact sent by Mr. Stevens. (See Exhibit A.)
Mr. Back now realizes that Mr. Stevens used him as a pawn to further his own agenda with respect to the federal government. Mr. Stevens took to the airwaves after the conviction to criticize Mr. Back’s performance and distance himself from the loss in Federal Court. One week after his conviction, Mr. Back sent a letter to the court acknowledging the “error of [his] ways in stubbornly dealing with the tax system.” (See SEALED Docket No. 95.) He also expressed his desire to make things right by paying fines, restitution, and costs of prosecution. This abrupt change in demeanor bodes well for Mr. Back’s prospects for rehabilitation and compliance during supervision.
III. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENDER.
Prior to his introduction to the protester movement, Mr. Back was a productive member of society for many years. He was employed by Alyeska Pipeline Company since 1977, and was liked and respected by his colleagues. The letters filed as Exhibit B paint the picture of a loyal son, a helpful friend, and a good hearted neighbor. Mr. Back has elderly parents in Soldotna who depend on him for help in their advancing years . . . . .
[ . . . ]
Mr. Back, having filed his tax returns, plans to settle his debt with the court and with the IRS at the time of sentencing. The government has requested restitution in the amount of $113,707.00. Mr. Back is prepared to pay restitution in the amount of $113,286.00, based on the tax returns submitted to IRS agent Kelly for tax years 2006-2013.
VII. FINE.
Mr. Back requests a fine of $5000.00, at the low end of the applicable range. Although Mr. Back does have assets, he is paying his entire obligation to the IRS at the time of sentencing. In addition, he will be ineligible for rehire after he is released from custody. This conviction has essentially forced retirement upon Mr. Back, and he will have to rely on his now existing assets throughout his retirement. At age 60, and in good health, Mr. Back is facing an early retirement and a healthy life expectancy.
VIII. CONCLUSION.
Mr. Back stands before the Court contrite and ready to move on with his life. His conduct at trial is mitigated by his renewed desire to bring his behavior into compliance with the law. [ . . ]
--from Sentencing Memorandum [by James R. Back], docket entry 103, Dec. 10, 2014,
United States v. James R. Back, case no. 3:14-CR-00020-RRB, U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska.
Sentencing for James Back is scheduled for Tuesday, December 16, 2014.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
