Sedona doctor convicted

[Demosthenes]

Treatment center operators guilty of tax evasion





Associated Press - December 14, 2009 2:24 PM ET

PHOENIX (AP) - A Sedona couple who operated a drug and alcohol treatment facility await sentencing after a federal court jury returned guilty verdicts for tax evasion.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Phoenix said 65-year-old Dr. William Howard Steiniger and his wife, 52-year-old Diane Steiniger were each convicted of 1 count of conspiracy to impede and impair the Internal Revenue Service and four counts of tax evasion.

Testimony revealed the couple evaded assessment and payment of more than $390,000 in federal income tax from 2002 to 2005. Neither defendant paid any federal income tax from at least 1997 through 2005.

Prosecutors said the couple set up sham accounts and funneled money into them

Steiniger said he plans to appeal the conviction. In an interview with The Associated Press, Steiniger said he does not believe there is a personal income tax that exists.

On The Net:

//http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/az/

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/az

[Demosthenes]

Additional tidbits from a follow up story:

In an interview with The Associated Press Monday, Steiniger said the 1040 tax form is illegal because it is not registered with the Federal Register in Washington.

"It's never been because it was never approved, so all of us are paying on that form which is not an official form, and all taxes should be thrown out," he said.

Steiniger said he plans to appeal the tax evasion conviction.

"We are not done with them. We're going to appeal, obviously, and we're doing everything we can to expose the agency (IRS) as doing harm to people."

Steiniger said they took it on as a fight against the government anticipating the case would be dismissed.

Asked of he was worried about going to prison, Steiniger said he is not.

"I think we're going to have the case dismissed. That's our position. Evidence will show and come to light. We have a case that is appealable," he said.

Idiot.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Idiot.

Another proud graduate of the Doktor Avalanche Univeristy of Internet Communications.

[LPC]

Prosecutors said the couple set up sham accounts and funneled money into them

Steiniger said he plans to appeal the conviction. In an interview with The Associated Press, Steiniger said he does not believe there is a personal income tax that exists.

Of course, if the personal income tax didn't exist, then there would have been no reason to hide your income, would there?

In an interview with The Associated Press Monday, Steiniger said the 1040 tax form is illegal because it is not registered with the Federal Register in Washington.

Which has been argued before, of course, and has already failed.

From the Tax Protester FAQ:

Tax protesters have occasionally argued that Form 1040 and its instructions constitute a “rule” for purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and therefore must be published in the Federal Register. This defense has been deemed “meritless.” United States v. Bentson, 947 F.2d 1353, 1360 (9th Cir. 1991). The tax code itself, a statute and not a regulation, imposes the duty to file a return. See 26 U.S.C. 6012.

See also United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220, 221-23 (4th Cir. 1990) (APA protects only those with no notice: to reverse conviction, court would need to find that: (1) the statutes provided no notice of obligation to pay taxes, (2) the IRS forms and offices were secret -- although 200 million Americans know about them, and (3) the defendants, who had previously filed returns, had forgotten about the required forms and the IRS offices); United States v. Kahn, 753 F.2d 1208, 1222 (3d Cir. 1985) (claim that IRS failure to publish interpretive guidelines in Federal Register violates Title 5, U.S.C. § 552(a)(1)(D), “totally devoid of merit”).

But back to our regularly scheduled idiot:

Steiniger said they took it on as a fight against the government anticipating the case would be dismissed.

Steiniger "took it on"? I suppose I could check the docket, but I'm pretty sure that the government indicted him, and not vice versa.

"I think we're going to have the case dismissed. That's our position. Evidence will show and come to light. We have a case that is appealable," he said.

Evidence will "come to light"? It's a little late for that.

Yes, a true "Black Knight" moment.

And I think that, in applying the sentencing guidelines, we can put a big fat zero in the "remorse" column.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Having re-read this, there's....well, there's a lot that does not compute here but this definitely takes the cake:

"I think we're going to have the case dismissed. That's our position. Evidence will show and come to light. We have a case that is appealable," he said.

He wants to appeal a case that he thinks will be dismissed?

I can just hear this guy's lawyer:

"Yes, your honor, my client was wrongfully found not guilty and would like to appeal that ruling."

This almost smacks of the joke about the lawyer who was tasked with defending a client charged with animal necrophilia.

"Your honor, my client was not aware the cat was dead when he was..."

I don't think I'm gonna finish that sentence.