Patridge’s brief in the criminal appeal presents 19
issues, all frivolous. Many are in the style of tax-protest
arguments that we might expect from a layman representing
himself but do not expect to see in a brief filed by a
member of the bar.
EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge. Denny Patridge, who owned an insurance agency, decided to make life hard for the revenooers by transferring his income to an offshore trust and then pretending that he had no income.
One reason for this is
that §7203 requires a “return” but does not define that
word or require anyone to use Form 1040, or any “official”
form at all. All that is required is a complete and candid
report of income.
We therefore give Barringer [defense counsel] 14 days to show cause why he should not be fined $10,000 for his frivolous arguments and noncompliance with the Rules, and why he should not be suspended from practice until he demonstrates an ability to litigate an appeal competently and responsibly. See Fed. R. App. P. 38, 46(b), (c).
We therefore give [defendant's counsel] 14 days to show cause why he should not be fined $10,000 for his frivolous arguments and noncompliance with the Rules, and why he should not be suspended from practice until he demonstrates an ability to litigate an appeal competently and responsibly. See Fed. R. App. P. 38, 46(b), (c).
"How any of this could block a conviction for tax evasion is a mystery. Patridge evaded taxes by shuffling his income among trusts in an attempt to conceal it from the IRS. That crime does not depend on the contents of any form. Evading one’s taxes is illegal independent of the information one does or does not supply. Consider another example: the Clean Air Act requires businesses to curtail certain emissions using the best available technology, and to report on those emissions to the EPA. An error in the EPA’s forms might spare the business any penalties for bad information but would not license it to emit pollution without limit. The Paperwork Reduction Act does not change any substantive obligation.
Jerold W. Barringer represented Patridge at trial, in the
Tax Court, and during the three appeals to this court. He
has performed below the standard of a pro se litigant; we
have serious doubt about his fitness to practice law. The
problem is not simply his inability to distinguish between
plausible and preposterous arguments. It is his disdain
for the norms of legal practice (19 issues indeed!) and the rules of procedure.
This analogy is seriously flawed. The judge equates the legality of creating offshore trusts with polluting. But creating offshore trusts is not illegal in itself - it was the way they were reported in this case that created the violation.
The comment that "Evading one’s taxes is illegal independent of the information one does or does not supply" is particuarly head-scratching. Most evasion of taxes is direct related to the reporting on a tax return. It is not illegal for a contractor to be paid in cash - it is a problem only if he doesn't report the information on his 1040.
I sat through a lengthy argument by one who claimed that the USDC-CDCA lacked jurisdiction over him because the courtroom had a U.S. flag with a gold fringe, proving that it was only an admiralty court. The judge: "I'll pretend you're a boat."
Your comment is certainly logical, but it it not what the Judge wrote. He does not refer to not paying taxes
but that "Patridge evaded taxes by shuffling his income among trusts in an attempt to conceal it from the IRS." Simply shuffling income is not a crime.
Can any Ron Paul supporter make the distinction between his legitimate arguments (if they are) about abolishing the IRS, returning to the gold standard, etc., and some of these fanatical theories that we're dealing with in a case like the main one in this post?
Hmmmm...Agree that Easterbrook comment may not have been well-taken, suspect the IRS doesn't want to see taxes filed in crayon on brown paper bags and toilet paper.