Talk:Kent Dawson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] Judge Dawson's jury instructions

As explained below, I have removed the following verbiage from the main article:

Judge Dawson is on record as giving the legal ruling whereby three Internal Revenue Code sections are "working together" to impose the required legal liability to pay federal income taxes and that the Internal Revenue Service may seize property without court orders (Jury Instuction #19, http://www.dougkenline.com/20051020101734638.pdf.pdf).

The verbiage above was removed not because it is not correct; indeed it is correct. It appears from the link provided that Judge Dawson did give this instruction.

As a matter of law, there are indeed several Internal Revenue Code sections that work together to impose Federal income tax liability. Likewise, it is certainly correct that the Internal Revenue Code empowers the Federal tax collector to seize property without going to court. Both of these legal points are possible subjects for elaboration, perhaps in one or more existing or future Wikipedia articles on taxation.

In my opinion, the problem with inserting this correct material in this particular form in the article on Judge Dawson is that because these kinds of instructions are pretty basic tax law, a typical reader (who is not a tax law expert) would probably be left to wonder what the statements are doing in an article on this particular judge. If I were not a tax lawyer, for example, I would probably wonder whether maybe Judge Dawson's instructions were somehow unusual or incorrect. Or is he the first judge ever to rule on such basic points of law? The inserted language seems (intentionally or unintentionally) to put Judge Dawson in a false light -- seems to falsely imply that such a jury instruction does not follow the law. It's like someone coming on the TV news and, without any explanation, making the true statement that "The mayor did not beat his wife today." We have a perfectly true statement that puts both Judge Dawson and the law in a false light. This appears to be an intentional or unintentional insertion of "POV through the back door" so to speak.

Perhaps the anonymous editor can shed some light on what he or she believes the significance of the edit is. Yours, Famspear 01:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seizing of assets by the Internal Revenue Service

The current statutes authorizing the Internal Revenue Service to seize assets without going to court (including 26 U.S.C. § 6331) have been on the books since at least August 16, 1954 (the date of enactment of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954) -- over fifty-one years. I haven't even bothered to check the 1939 Code or the prior statutes going back further. I'm confident the same kinds of provisions were found in the 1939 and prior statutes.

The section 6331 administrative seizure (i.e., seizure without going to court) is so fundamental to Federal tax law and has been part of our legal system for so many years that the concept is almost second nature to those who deal with the Federal tax code on a regular basis.

Because some people apparently may not realize that section 6331 and related provisions have been the law for many years, I am providing an excerpt from the case of Brian v. Gugin, 853 F. Supp. 358, 94-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,278 (D. Idaho 1994), aff’d, 95-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,067 (9th Cir. 1995). In this case, a group of taxpayers (including a Mr. Ralph Brian) sued a group of IRS and other government employees, (including Ms. Phylis Gugin), for what the taxpayers claimed was a violation of their rights. The following is an excerpt from the court’s decision in the case:

The plaintiffs' premise for their complaint is that the IRS agents were required to have a court order in order to be able to legally seize property for delinquent taxes. Unfortunately, this is a faulty premise. Title 26 U.S.C. §6331 [26 U.S.C. § 6331] authorizes the IRS to seize property of any person liable for any tax upon ten days notice. The plaintiffs are incorrect in stating that §§6331 and 6321 [26 U.S.C. § 6321] only apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The statute specifically states that any person may have their property levied upon. 26 U.S.C. §§6331(a) and 6321. The plaintiffs also cite 26 U.S.C. §7402 [26 U.S.C. § 7402] which grants jurisdiction to the district courts to issue orders, processes and judgments as well as enforce IRS summons. This section does not require a court order in order to levy on property under §6331.
A "levy" by definition is a summary non-judicial process which provides the IRS with prompt and convenient method for satisfying delinquent tax claims. Singleton v. U.S., 73-1 USTC 9119 (W.D. Pa. 1972). In Maisano v. Welcher [91-2 USTC 50,478], 940 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1991), the court specifically interpreted §6331 and held that §6331 applies to all property of any person liable to the IRS. The court also held that the IRS has the option under §6502 [26 U.S.C. § 6502] to collect its assessment by either a levy or a court proceeding [ . . . ]. Id. at 502. Also see, Vote v. U.S., 753 F. Supp 866 (D. Nev. 1991) aff'd, 930 F.2d 31 (9th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff Ralph Brian acknowledges on the Notice of Seizure attached as an exhibit to the complaint that notice of tax liens had been filed by the IRS with the county recorder. The Notice of Tax Lien Under Internal Revenue Laws submitted by the plaintiffs is dated August 19, 1992. The Notice of Seizure and Levy are each for $11,285.90. The Notice of Seizure is dated September 20, 1993, which is the date the plaintiffs allege the IRS agents entered the property to seize the property of Ralph Brian. [ . . . ] Plaintiffs do not argue in their pleadings or briefing that the statutory requirements for the levy were not complied with. Therefore, this court will assume from the facts presented by the parties that the procedure of the filing of the notice of lien with the county, the notice of lien being sent to the taxpayer, notice of seizure and levy forms being provided to the taxpayer at time of seizure were all properly completed.
Accordingly, the IRS agents were acting within the authority granted under §6331 and no court order was required for the attempted levy on Ralph Brian's property. Concerning the constitutional violations alleged by the plaintiffs, this court cannot find that any constitutional rights were allegedly violated if the attempted seizure was lawful under §6331.
It is important to note that the plaintiff Ralph Brian is not without a course of action under the Internal Revenue Code. If the delinquent taxes claimed are not delinquent, the taxpayer may bring an action with the IRS for a refund. The court finds that the plaintiffs could have a course of action under §7433 if the plaintiffs could allege facts showing the IRS agents recklessly or intentionally disregarded the Internal Revenue Code. Facts of this nature have not been alleged by the plaintiffs in either their complaint [or] amended complaint.

(Bolding added; italics in original).

At some point, I may incorporate some of this material into one of the Wikipedia articles on taxation. Yours, Famspear 04:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: Because the IRS does not have to go to court to seize assets, it goes to court for this purpose only rarely. Famspear 04:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the elucidation, Famspear. Obviously, nothing about this statute really belongs in the bio of Kent Dawson (else pretty much everything that any judge ruled on would belong in their bio) so future misleading additions of this nature will be deleted without warning unless a consensus of editors feels otherwise. BD2412 T 04:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear BD2412: I agree. In fact, I have now removed the following language from the article:

Some of the more noteworthy legal issues from this trial stem from the nineteeth jury instuction given by Judge Dawson to the jury: that a person is made liable for income taxes by three Internal Revenue Code sections "working together"; this is hardly new to legal case law. Although a liability is usually established by one specific statute, Congress has enacted many statutes (such as RICO statutes) that "work together" with others to establish liability.

The reason I have removed this language is that, based on all the information above, it appears that the anonymous editor who inserted the language -- particularly the language that these jury instructions are somehow "more noteworthy" -- simply has not demonstrated how or why the instructions would be "noteworthy" or unusual in any way. It appears the anonymous editor simply did not realize what the law is and has been for years. In my opinion, leaving the language before the semi-colon in the article in its present form is still misleading. I agree with your clarifying language and the reference to RICO. (Since I'm removing the language before the semi-colon, I'm just removing your clarifying language as well.) Yours, Famspear 18:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely - I agree completely. BD2412 T 18:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The role of the judge and the role of the jury in the U.S. legal system

An anonymous user at IP 63.243.21.162, who apparently is on a first-name basis with "Irwin" (i.e., Irwin Schiff), inserted the following material into the article about Kent Dawson on 21 November 2006:

Irwin was prohibited from speaking about the LAW. He was even forbidden from reading the LAW as it is written for all Americans to see. When the jury asked to see the LAW, the court refused to comply, and instead prohibited the jury from seeing the LAW as evidence.

I have moved the material from the article to this talk page. This material is non-neutral POV, and is misleading. The verbiage is a reference to a point covered at America: From Freedom to Fascism. As stated in that article, the presiding judge in the Schiff case allegedly "denied Irwin the ability to prove to a jury that there was no law requiring Americans to file an income tax return. He denied Irwin the right to attempt to prove to a jury there was no law, allegedly by stating, 'I will not allow the law in my courtroom.'"

Under the U.S. legal system, the general rule (with exceptions) is that neither side in a civil or criminal case is allowed to try to prove to the jury what the law is. For example, in a murder case the defendant is not generally allowed to persuade the jury that there is no law against murder, or to try to interpret the law for the jury. Likewise, the prosecution is not allowed to try to persuade the jury about what the law is, or how it should be interpreted.

Official interpretation of the law in a U.S. court cannot be done by the jury, or by the bailiff, or the court reporter, or the court clerk. Interpreting the law itself can be done only by the judge.

Under the U.S. legal system, disagreements about what the law is are argued by both sides before the judge, who then makes a ruling. Prior to jury deliberations, the judge -- and only the judge -- instructs the jury on the law.

Occasionally, a member of a jury in a trial (civil or criminal) will ask to see a copy of a statute, regulation, or other law. Under the law, such requests should normally be denied. The jury's job is not to decided what the law is. Under the U.S. legal system, the jury's job is to take the law as given to the jury by the judge in the form of instructions or the "charge to the jury." A mistrial could be declared if a jury tries to review the statutes and make its own separate determination of the law.

Under the U.S. system, the job of the jury is to determine the facts and then to apply the law to those facts and render a verdict -- not to interpret the law itself. A "verdict" is a finding of fact, not a conclusion of law.

For examples of application of this rule in tax cases, see United States v. Ambort, 2005-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,453 (10th Cir. 2005); United States v. Bonneau, 970 F.2d 929, 92-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,385 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Willie, 91-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,409 (10th Cir. 1991). Yours, Famspear 21:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)