Introducing John Glavin

Introducing John Glavin

Postby Lambkin » Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:44 pm

Anybody know John?

GLAVIN v. U.S.

JOHN A. GLAVIN, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, and WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, special agent, Respondents.

Nos. 10-mc-6-slc, 10-mc-7-slc, 10-mc-11-slc

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin.

June 4, 2010.
ORDER

STEPHEN L. CROCKER, Magistrate Judge.

In March 2010, John A. Glavin petitioned the court to quash three administrative summons issued by respondent Internal Revenue Service. The court denied the motion in Case No. 10-mc-05 but through an oversight did not rule at that time on the summonses challenged in Case Nos. 10-mc-06 & -07. The court caught this oversight when on June 4, 2010, Glavin filed another petition to quash in Case No. 10-mc-11.

The IRS issued these in connection with an IRS investigation of petitioner's tax liability for 2001-2008. A summons, if challenged, must meet the requirements for enforcement set out in United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964). The Seventh Circuit has long applied the four operative factors from Powell to guide the judicial enforcement of a summons:

[T]he government must make a prima facie case that the IRS issued the summons in good faith.... The government must only show: the investigation underlying the summons has a legitimate purpose; the information sought may be relevant to that purpose; the information is not already in the IRS's hands; and the IRS has followed the statutory steps for issuing a summons. The government typically makes that showing through the affidavit of the revenue agent conducting the audit.

2121 Arlington Heights Corp. v. IRS, 109 F.3d 1221, 1224 (7th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).

If the government meets its burden, then the onus shifts to the taxpayer to show that enforcement of the summons would constitute an abuse of process. Id. The taxpayer can show that by disproving the existence of one of the Powell factors or pointing to specific facts indicating that the IRS issued the summons in bad faith. See United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 360 (1989); 2121 Arlington Heights, 109 F.3d at 1224.

Respondent William Cunningham, an IRS special agent, has submitted declarations in Case Nos. 10-mc-06 & -07 stating that the IRS is investigating whether petitioner has paid his tax liability for the years 2001-2008, that the records described in the summons are necessary for the investigation, that the IRS did not already have this information and that the IRS complied with the tax code when it issued the summons. This satisfies the Powell factors.

Petitioner fails to show that enforcement of the summons in Case Nos. 10-mc-06 & -07 would constitute an abuse of process. In his petitions, petitioner raises only long-discredited "sovereign citizen" arguments, such as that sovereign citizens are not citizens of the United States or that the IRS's 1040 form is illegitimate. These petitions are virtually identical to the one he filed in Case No. 10-mc-05. Petitioner failed to file replies to respondents' briefs in opposition. Because petitioner has failed to show an abuse of process, I will deny his motions to quash the summons in Case Nos. 10-mc-06 & -07.

In addition, respondents request that respondents IRS and Cunningham be dismissed from Case Nos. 10-mc-06 & -07, leaving the United States as the only respondent. I will grant these motions. The IRS is not a suable entity. Castleberry v. Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms Div. of Treas. Dept. of U.S., 530 F.2d 672, 673 n. 3 (5th Cir. 1976.) Further, Cunningham must be dismissed because a suit complaining of actions taken by a respondent in his official capacity as an agent of the United States is in fact one against the United States. Atkinson v. O'Neil, 867 F.2d 589, 590 (10th Cir. 1989).

Finally, I must address the fact that petitioner has filed yet another motion to quash in Case No. 10-mc-11 even though he has raised only frivolous arguments in his previous motions and has repeatedly failed to respond to the government's briefs. The court cannot continue to waste judicial resources on petitioner's frivolous motions to quash. Therefore, should petitioner file any additional motions to quash that parrot his previous filings, I will immediately issue an order quashing them, without need for the government to respond. In order for the court to consider future motions to quash, petitioner will have to explain why the summons would constitute an abuse of process, raising bonafide legal arguments rather than long-discredited sovereign citizen theories. As for Case No. 10-mc-11 itself, I will give petitioner until June 18, 2010 to submit a brief explaining why his motion should not be denied. After receiving this brief I will decide whether the government will need to respond.
ORDER

It is ORDERED that:

(1) Petitioner's motions to quash the administrative summonses issued by respondent Internal Revenue Service in Case Nos. 10-mc-06 & -07 are DENIED. The subjects of the summonses in those cases are hereby ordered to comply with those summonses.

(2) Respondents' motions to dismiss respondents Internal Revenue Service and William Cunningham in Case Nos. 10-mc-06 & -07 are GRANTED.

(3) In Case No. 10-mc-11, petitioner will have until June 18, 2010 to submit a brief explaining why his motion should not be denied.

(4) All future identical motions to quash brought by petitioner will be immediately denied without need for the government to respond unless so ordered by the court.
User avatar
Lambkin
Warder of the Quatloosian Gibbet
 
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:43 pm

Re: Introducing John Glavin

Postby Thule » Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:00 pm

:thinking: So basically, John Glavin can't post unless approved by a moderator
Survivor of the Dark Agenda Whistleblower Award, August 2012.
User avatar
Thule
Tragedian of Sovereign Mythology
 
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:57 am
Location: 71 degrees north

Re: Introducing John Glavin

Postby Lambkin » Tue May 07, 2013 5:07 pm

John Glavin keeps finding trouble.
http://www.wiscnews.com/news/local/arti ... 963f4.html
John A. Glavin, 43, was charged in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on April 24 with two counts of filing false income tax returns in which he claimed refunds totaling $956,662.
In November, Glavin entered a no-contest Alford plea in Juneau County Circuit Court to a single felony charge of transferring the personal property of another stemming from a $95,137 loan in 2008 from The Bank of Necedah.
When arrested in 2011 on a Juneau County road driving an SUV bearing an invalid license plate that displayed the word “exempt,” Glavin told officers he was an “American National” and that they had no jurisdiction over him.

Before sentencing in January, Glavin, who has worked as a chiropractor, told the court that he never intended to commit a criminal act.
User avatar
Lambkin
Warder of the Quatloosian Gibbet
 
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:43 pm

Re: Introducing John Glavin

Postby Lambkin » Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:54 pm

http://www.wiscnews.com/juneaucountysta ... ce6d0.html
A New Lisbon man who fraudulently attempted to obtain $956,662 in tax refunds was sentenced Thursday in federal court to three years in prison followed by three years supervised release.
User avatar
Lambkin
Warder of the Quatloosian Gibbet
 
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:43 pm

Re: Introducing John Glavin

Postby KickahaOta » Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:45 pm

John's appeal denied.
Anders brief, as one could guess.
This haiku is lame.

John Glavin, the self-described governor of the Wisconsin Republic free state in
the Sovereign Citizens for Liberty movement, not only stopped paying federal income
taxes in 2001 but also filed fraudulent returns falsely claiming refunds for tax years 2005
and 2008 totaling more than $950,000. Glavin pleaded guilty to making a false claim
against the United States, see 18 U.S.C. § 287, and was sentenced to 36 months’
imprisonment. He filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed attorney asserts that all
possible appellate claims are frivolous and moves to withdraw under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Glavin has not accepted our invitation to comment on
counsel’s motion. See CIR. R. 51(b). Counsel submitted a brief that explains the nature of
the case and addresses the issues that an appeal of this kind might be expected to involve. Because the analysis in the brief appears to be thorough, we limit our review to
the subjects counsel discusses. See United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014);
United States v. Wagner, 103 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996).

Counsel first considers whether Glavin could challenge the voluntariness of his
guilty plea but neglects to say whether he discussed this possibility with his client.
See United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Knox, 287
F.3d 667, 670–71 (7th Cir. 2002). But counsel’s omission does not require that we deny
the Anders motion, because his discussion and our review of the record convince us that
such a challenge would be frivolous. See Konczak, 683 F.3d at 349. Glavin did not move
to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, so we would review the plea colloquy
only for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002); United States v.
Davenport, 719 F.3d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 2013). The transcript of the plea colloquy reflects
that the district court substantially complied with Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11. The court admonished Glavin about the rights he was waiving by
pleading guilty and assured that his plea was voluntary. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1),
(2). And the government proffered a factual basis for the crime, which Glavin confirmed
as correct. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(3). Although the court did not say expressly that it
would evaluate “possible departures under the Sentencing Guidelines” and “sentencing
factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),” see FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(M), the court did explain
to Glavin that after calculating the guidelines range it could “give a higher sentence or a
lower one” if “such a sentence would better carry out the purposes of sentencing.” This
slight variation from the language of the rule could not amount to plain error.
See Davenport, 719 F.3d at 618.

Counsel next considers arguing that the district judge erred by refusing to recuse
herself before sentencing. Glavin, through present counsel, filed a motion under 28
U.S.C. § 455(a) demanding that the judge recuse herself after describing him as selfish
and untrustworthy during the plea hearing because, while on pretrial release, he had
filed sovereign-citizen documents with the attorney, sheriff, and county court involved
with foreclosing on his home. The lawyer is correct that this possible claim would be
without merit, and there is another more fundamental reason why an appellate claim
would be frivolous: The denial of a motion for recusal under § 455(a) must be
challenged immediately by a mandamus action, see United States v. Johnson, 680 F.3d 966,
979–80 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Diekemper, 604 F.3d 345, 352 (7th Cir. 2010), and
Glavin’s failure to do so would prevent our review.

Finally, counsel considers whether Glavin could challenge the reasonableness of
his prison sentence. Counsel reviewed the district court’s guidelines calculations but did
not identify any basis for challenging the total offense level of 17 and criminal-history
category of II, which yielded an imprisonment range of 27 to 33 months. Glavin’s
36-month term is a little above the top of this range, but we agree with counsel that a
reasonableness challenge would be frivolous. We will uphold an above-guidelines
sentence so long as the district court gave adequate reasons consistent with the
statutory factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Abebe, 651 F.3d 653, 657 (7th
Cir. 2011); United States v. McIntyre, 531 F.3d 481, 483–84 (7th Cir. 2008). The district
court explained that Glavin, a chiropractor, had put his wife and their 11 children at risk
of losing their home and possessions by not paying taxes for years. And, the court
continued, Glavin had not promised to comply with the tax laws going forward, he had
ignored court orders prohibiting his filing of petitions raising “long-discredited”
sovereign-citizen arguments during the IRS investigation, and he had benefitted from
the government’s forbearance in not pursuing additional charges based on his filing of
fictitious promissory notes and bonds with the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and an
IRS agent from 2008 to 2010. These factors, the district court concluded, justified a
sentence three months above the guidelines range, and an argument that the court
abused its discretion in imposing that sentence would be frivolous. See United States v.
Taylor, 701 F.3d 1166, 1174–75 (7th Cir. 2012); McIntyre, 531 F.3d at 483–84.
User avatar
KickahaOta
Gunners Mate
 Gunners Mate
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:45 pm

Re: Introducing John Glavin

Postby LPC » Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:35 am

John Glavin, the self-described governor of the Wisconsin Republic free state in
the Sovereign Citizens for Liberty movement, not only stopped paying federal income
taxes in 2001 but also filed fraudulent returns falsely claiming refunds for tax years 2005
and 2008 totaling more than $950,000.

It looks as though the false refund claims greatly exceed any taxes that might actually have been withheld from any income earned.

I can understand claiming that the income tax is invalid in some way and refusing to file returns and pay tax. And I can understand claiming refunds for tax withheld, including Social Security tax, ala Peter Hendrickson's "CtC educated" returns.

What I don't understand is how you can claim that the income tax is inapplicable or invalid, and file returns claiming refunds greater than any tax ever paid or withheld.

That's not "tax protesting" or "tax denial" or "tax honesty"; that's just fraud or theft.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
User avatar
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
 
Posts: 5022
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Introducing John Glavin

Postby bmxninja357 » Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:41 am

Many sov cits would justify the extra money as processing fees and penalties. Think fee schedule.

Peace
Ninj
whoever said laughter is the best medicine never had gonorrhea....
User avatar
bmxninja357
First Mate
 First Mate
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 7:46 am

Re: Introducing John Glavin

Postby notorial dissent » Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:46 am

LPC wrote:What I don't understand is how you can claim that the income tax is inapplicable or invalid, and file returns claiming refunds greater than any tax ever paid or withheld.

It's easy when you're a lying POS and just using the rest of it as a dodge to justify what you're doing to begin with. Or to put it another way, liars lie.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
 
Posts: 5947
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm


Return to US

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest