Sherry Peel Jackson Getting Destroyed In Prison

[Number Six]

She had top billing at several "patriot" and American Free Press conventions with the likes of Joe Banister and Vernice Kuglin. Ms. Jackson should have followed the advice of her Attorneys. Larry Becraft knows something about when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. I spoke to crafty Larry several times as I contemplated my chances if the government had wanted to spend the resources to prosecute. He sent me the article "the uncertainty of the the income tax" citing numerous impressive court cases, with reasoning impugning the certainty of taxes--the letter came with suspicious markings on the rear seal, inviting the feds to take notice of this suspicious letter from an attorney. I spoke with people he referred me to and asked me what legal representation would cost--$60-80K for a trial. I would like to see an outcome % flow diagram showing likely results for each set of non-filer or tax protestor circumstances. I asked Mr. Becraft about his opinion of the information on Quatloos, he was not complimentary.

[wserra]

I asked Mr. Becraft about his opinion of the information on Quatloos, he was not complimentary.

Well, I doubt that anyone here is very complimentary about Becraft. Of course, his opinion (and mine, for that matter) is just the opinion of one lawyer. It, along with a Metrocard, will get you on the subway. On the other hand, the opinion of a U.S. Court of Appeals carries considerable weight:

In reaching the conclusion the Becraft's petition for rehearing is frivolous, we rely not only on the fact that the argument is in direct conflict with "firmly established rules of law for which there is no arguably reasonable expectation of reversal or favorable modification," McDougal v. Commissioner, 818 F.2d 453, 455 (5th Cir.1987), but also on the fact that this wholly meritless claim was pressed in a petition for rehearing after this court had already summarily rejected the claim and characterized it as having no basis in law. Thus, the result of the petition for rehearing was even more obvious than the initial appeal.
...
the fact that Becraft likely filed the petition for hearing absent a good faith belief of its justification contributes to our strong conviction that Becraft's conduct warrants the
imposition of sanctions. See Coghlan, 852 F.2d at 814 ("Bad faith may aggravate the circumstances justifying sanctions....")

Moreover, we believe that Mr. Becraft's litigation record in the federal appellate courts demonstrates the necessity of sending a message to Becraft that frivolous arguments will no longer be tolerated. Our research reveals that we are not the first appellate court in which Becraft has raised this patently frivolous Sixteenth Amendment claim. In Ward, a case in which Becraft served as defendant's appellate counsel, see supra, n. 1, the Eleventh Circuit characterized as "utterly without merit" the identical argument raised by Becraft here regarding the applicability of the federal tax laws to resident United States citizens. 833 F.2d at 1539. Moreover, Becraft also advanced the patently frivolous claim in Ward that the federal income tax laws apply only to residents of federal territories and the District of Columbia. Id.; see supra, n. 1.

Unfortunately, Becraft's record of advancing wholly meritless claims does not end with Ward. United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036, 107 S.Ct. 888, 93 L.Ed.2d 840 (1987), and United States v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 77, 102 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988), appeals in which Becraft served as co-counsel and counsel respectively, addressed the claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified and that therefore the federal courts lack jurisdiction to entertain tax evasion prosecutions. Needless to say, both courts soundly rejected this contention. See Sitka, 845 F.2d 44- 47; Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438-1441. Becraft's record in the federal courts thus exhibits an alarming willingness to utilize appellate court resources to adjudicate claims that a competent attorney should realize have no reasonable possibility of success.

Based on Becraft's conduct in this case and prior cases, it is clear to us that Becraft has no appreciation for the limited nature of the federal judicial resources upon which all aggrieved individuals depend for vindication of statutory and constitutional rights. For if he did have respect for the extreme demands constantly placed on the court's resources, he would not continue to use the courts as testing ground for revisionist historical theories that have absolutely no basis in law.

In re Lowell H. Becraft, Jr. (Nelson), 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989). Does anyone know if Becraft has ever won a tax appeal?

[LPC]

In re Lowell H. Becraft, Jr. (Nelson), 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989). Does anyone know if Becraft has ever won a tax appeal?

Not as far as I have been able to find.

The following are the published (and semi-published) decisions I have found involving Becraft as counsel:

United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1987) (federal income tax is not limited to the District of Columbia and federal territories); United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987); United States v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, _ U.S. _ (1988) (the validity of the ratification of the 16th Amendment and of the amendment itself "are no longer open questions"); United States v. Herbert Daniel Fleschner, et al., 78 AFTR2d Par. 96-5475, 96 TNT 205-77, No. 94-5929 (4th Cir. 10/11/1996) (conviction for conspiring to obstruct and defeat the functions of the Internal Revenue Service did not infringe on the 1st Amendment rights of the defendants); United States v. Larry R. Melton, et al., 77 AFTR2d Par. 96-864, 96 TNT 110-22, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 5/22/1996) (the duty to file returns and pay federal income tax is clear, and convictions for conspiracy to defraud the United States will not be overturned on the grounds that the law is vague or unclear); Fred W. Allnutt Sr. v. Mark J. Friedman (In re Allnutt), 75 AFTR2d Par. 95-937, 95 TNT 114-19, No. HAR 95-11 (U.S.D.C. D.Md. 4/11/1995) (collection of federal taxes by seizures did not violate automatic stay in bankruptcy proceedings); United States v. John L. Sasscer, 73 AFTR2d Par. 94-1011, 94 TNT 110-21, No. 92-5113 (4th Cir. 5/31/1994) (unpublished; convictions for failing to file tax returns upheld against challenges to evidentiary rulings and jury instructions); Burton Bliss, et ux. v. United States 92 TNT 154-20, No. CS-92-088-JLQ (U.S.D.C. E.D.Wa. 7/7/1992) (complaint to quiet title dismissed; a Form 4340 is presumptive proof that an assessment was properly made and notice and demand for payment sent in compliance with section 6303(a)); Fred W. Allnutt, Sr. v. Commissioner, 956 F.2d 1162, 72 TNT 63-7, No. 91-1073 (4th Cir. 2/26/1992) (per curiam; Tax Court decision upheld against challenges under the Paperwork Reduction Act), aff'ng T.C. Memo 1991-6; United States v. Donald L. Bowers, et ux., 90 TNT 246-10, No. 90-5640 (4th Cir. 11/29/1990) (failure of IRS to publish tax forms in Federal Register not a defense to convictions for tax evasion); First National Bank of Tulsa, et al. v. United States, et al., 865 F.2d 217, 89 TNT 11-17, No. 88-1623 (10th Cir. 1/4/1989) (grand jury subpoenas upheld against claims of infringement of 1st Amendment rights); Universal Church of Jesus Christ, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-65, No. 5759-82X ("church" found to operate for the profit of the "pastor" and not for exempt purposes); Dona H. Sly, et ux v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-443, Docket No. 23814-82 (deficiency upheld based on benefits received by pastor from Universal Church of Jesus Christ, Inc.).

The "First National Bank of Tulsa" case involved an investigation into the "Freeman Education Association," which was an unincorporated association led by Vernon Holland, whose name rings a bell but I don't have time to check today.

[ASITStands]

Consider:

United States v. Silkmam, 156 F.3d 833, Reversed and remanded.

Silkman was convicted of five counts of tax evasion in the United States District of South Dakota. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit held that an "Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax assessment that is administratively final for purposes of agency's civil collection remedies is not conclusive proof of tax deficiency in tax evasion prosecution."

The case was remanded for a new trial.

On retrial, Silkman was convicted of one count, upheld on subsequent appeal.

The briefs are posted on Becraft's website, and he's fairly proud of the decision. He feels it fleshed out the doctrine of assessment and deficiency in relation to criminal charges.

[Famspear]

Consider:

United States v. Silkmam, 156 F.3d 833, Reversed and remanded.

Silkman was convicted of five counts of tax evasion in the United States District of South Dakota. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit held that an "Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax assessment that is administratively final for purposes of agency's civil collection remedies is not conclusive proof of tax deficiency in tax evasion prosecution."

Since an actual tax deficiency -- an actual unpaid tax -- is an element of the offense under section 7201, it is interesting that government lawyers would try to argue that an assessment is "conclusive" proof in a section 7201 case. This is a criminal matter, not a civil matter. Yet, a federal district court apparently actually bought this argument, and it took an appeals court to get this reversed. From the Eighth Circuit's opinion in Silkman:

The issue in this case--one of first impression--is whether an IRS tax assessment that is administratively final for purposes of the agency's civil collection remedies is also conclusive proof of the tax deficiency in a tax evasion prosecution. The district court reasoned that this criminal trial was not the appropriate forum to contest the IRS assessments after Silkman slept on his right under the tax laws to challenge them administratively or by Tax Court litigation. But Silkman was not charged with willfully refusing to obey an agency order; in that type of case, the criminal defendant may be barred from attacking the validity of the order he disobeyed. Compare Cox v. United States, 332 U.S. 442, 453 (1947), with Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114, 122 (1946). Here, the IRS assessments were offered as conclusive proof of an underlying fact that is an element of the crime--that taxes were in fact owed. In this type of case, the overriding principle is that "one charged with the commission of a felony . . . has an absolute right to a jury determination upon all essential elements of the offense." United States v. England, 347 F.2d 425, 430 (7th Cir. 1965); see Koontz v. United States, 277 F.2d 53, 55 (5th Cir. 1960).

The government has no authority for its startling contention that an IRS assessment is conclusive proof in a criminal trial that taxes were in fact owing. The government cites Dack, 747 F.2d at 1174, and United States v. Daniel, 956 F.2d 540, 542 (6th Cir. 1992), but they merely held that when an alleged tax evasion arose from the failure to file a tax return, no formal assessment is necessary because the deficiency is deemed to arise by operation of law on the date a return should have been filed. Accord United States v. Hogan, 861 F.2d 312, 315 (1st Cir. 1988). These cases did not address whether a formal assessment when made is conclusive proof of the asserted deficiency. The government also cites United States v. Voorhies, 658 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1981), but that case supports Silkman's position. In Voorhies, the taxpayer was charged with evading the payment of taxes by concealing assets at a time prior to the formal assessment. The government's proof of a tax deficiency consisted of the certificates of assessment and the testimony of an agent explaining how the tax liability had been determined. Like the later decisions in Dack and Daniel, the court first rejected the taxpayer's contention that a tax deficiency cannot exist prior to formal assessment. It then went on to conclude that the government's uncontradicted evidence was sufficient to prove a tax deficiency because "the certificates of assessment were prima facie correct and therefore adequate evidence of the amount of Voorhies' tax liability." Id. at 715 (emphasis added).

We agree with the analysis in Voorhies--a formal tax assessment that has become administratively final is prima facie evidence of the asserted tax deficiency, and if unchallenged, it may suffice to prove this element of the crime. But the assessment is only prima facie proof of a deficiency. The assessed deficiency may be challenged by the defendant accused of tax evasion, and the issue is one for the jury. As the Supreme Court said in United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 572-73 (1977), the jury's overriding responsibility is to stand between the accused and a potentially arbitrary or abusive government that is in command of the criminal sanction. For this reason, a trial judge is prohibited from entering a judgment of conviction or directing a jury to come forward with such a verdict, regardless of how overwhelmingly the evidence may point in that direction.

--(bolding added) from United States v. Silkman, 156 F.3d 833, 98-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50,724 (8th Cir. 1998).

The Cheek case dealt with the mens rea element of willfulness -- a jury question -- but you would think that people could draw a little analogy from Cheek and conclude that any other element of a federal tax crime would also be a jury question.

I guess I don't remember much from that first year criminal law class, but I do seem to remember that in the United States of America, the ultimate burden of persuasion in a criminal case is pretty much on the prosecution -- as to each and every element of the crime.

[fortinbras]

In tax cases, the element of willfulness, in the context of willful failure to file tax returns or pay taxes, means nothing more than a decision not to file or pay. So, for example, an excuse based on lost mail or some terrible distraction like serious sickness or the house burning down, plausibly suggests that these tasks were unintentionally overlooked. But a decision not to file or not to pay is willful, showing intent, notwithstanding that the decision was motivated by some theory about the law. In such a case, the fact that the defendant had filed and paid in previous years and then stopped is considered sufficient evidence that his non-filing and non-paying now is a deliberate decision not to do what he already knew he was expected to do. That's one reason the IRS usually waits for a defendant to fail to file/pay for more than just one year, to show there was a deliberate decision.

[gezco]

How much would it cost to keep a prison at 50 degrees in the summer in Florida? There’s no way they got the budget for that.

I thought the article said she was in a facility in Atlanta, GA.

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, she’s at the Coleman Federal Correctional Complex in central Florida.

[notorial dissent]

I don’t claim to be an expert on the trials and tribulations of Larry Becraft, but to the best of my knowledge his batting record is more or less 0 for all. He has managed a couple of pyrrhic victories for his clients along the way, but nothing that really mattered other than in lessening the sentences of some of his clients, although I put that more on the jury than I do on his persuasiveness or grasp of the law, since if he actually had anything they would have gotten off and this has yet to happen. He has, as was pointed out above, been smacked by the Federal Courts for frivolousness, which I guess is something of an accomplishment. He has been roundly derided in TP circles for hijacking some other players pet theories for his court cases, although since he has lost at every turn it obviously didn’t much matter. Looney Larry is amusing if only for his all to willing and wilfull suspension of disbelief and reality and his consistent record of loss.

[Number Six]

Becraft's "Destroyed Arguments" is an honest document, which earned him the ire of the pay-triot community. When "Save A Patriot" is finally keel-hauled, it could be a windfall for Mr. Becraft's legal practice. He has made a lot of money as a supposed "friend" of tax protestors. I wonder if he files his taxes honestly, considering that many of his clients are desperate and have been living in the cash/hard asset economy...

[wserra]

Becraft's "Destroyed Arguments" is an honest document

Not really. While it does put down obvious, fish-in-a-barrel hallucinations like the "all capitals" name and "redeeming the strawman", it also refers to his home page, which extols almost as obvious hucksters like Joe Banister, Devvy Kidd and Phil Hart.

Can't alienate all the marks.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I've seen the equivalent of Becraft in other realms. Lots and lots of alleged "expert" advice right up to the point where your life depends on it. Seems a lot like "Why not? I'll hold your beer."

Guys like Becraft wind up only being discredited when their clients or acolytes wind up on the losing end because bad legal theory isn't often fatal except in death penalty cases.

In more tangible realms involving skills and knowledge we have more certain and timely outcomes. Stupid or incompetent people don't get far enough to find out if they will survive. Eventually nature has a way of weeding them out if irresponsible people let them try to operate dangerous machinery that is beyond their capabilities.

Becraft apparently tries to walk the fine line between maintaining his status as an authority figure for the protest/defier/sovereign community and still having a practice he can derive an income from.

That deserves some respect. On the other hand, the damage being wrought on the ignorant who tend to gravitate to the fringe myths raises the question about how tolerant the judiciary and the bar should be with Mr. Becraft and his clients.

Just my late night thoughts - partly because I have the luxury of a handy cattle prod that seems to be beyond the reach of most everyone else.

[ASITStands]

Don't forget Tommy Cryer!

While a major part of his victory [over incarceration] was played by himself, he credits Larry Becraft with crafting a strategy that helped him convince the jury of his innocence.

And, yes, it hinged on the jury believing he acted "willfully" or in "good faith."

Lloyd Long, Vernice Kuglin, Tommy Cryer. Three "good faith" victories that can be attributed to Larry Becraft, and though it did not save the defendants from eventually paying taxes and penalties, it at least allowed them freedom from incarceration. And, that was the point.

But the question was whether anyone knew of any Becraft appellate victories.

Larry Becraft's expertise is a "good faith" defense in willful failure to file cases.

When he has a good client with a convincing story, like Vernice Kuglin asking questions prior to indictment, he usually prevails, but he's probably not effective with any other defense.

He's tried to prove for years that citizenship creates a nexus to tax liability.

[Number Six]

Excellent information on how fruitless the legal challenges are to settled tax law and the 16th Amendment. Any non-filers reading should just get the returns filed through a good CPA or by walking in to the local IRS office. Once you get a letter from the IRS challenging your position that you are not an individual required to file, you will probably need a good lawyer. Then go back year by year to establish a good faith determination to get in to compliance.

What kind of lives have those who beat the criminal charges of evasion, had? I'm reminded of a scene from the film "The Running Man"--with Arnold Schwartzenegger and Jesse Ventura. There is a scene where three past challengers to the predatory system who supposedly "beat" the system were shown to be rewarded with life on an exotic island. Only it later develops that that was just a ruse to show there could be a successful outcome. Only with the MLATs and other law enforcement resources there is no good escape to tax fraud. It isn't worth it.