Talk:Kent Dawson

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)

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 [[[Internal Revenue Code|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 [[[Internal Revenue Code|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 [[[Internal Revenue Code|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 [[[Internal Revenue Code|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)

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)

First I must thank you for the detailed and properly emphasized notes provided, it tempers opinion and is well-needed here on this talk page. Second I must say it is indeed difficult to "be neutral" and perhaps I have not executed this the precision expected here. Thirty minutes ago I thought simply to place this quote here and let the Wikipedia community at large determine it's merit, whether it would expand it prune it over time. But I do contend this judge is famous for this reason, and as such it should be included in the main page in some fashion. Considering however the sensitive nature of this can be viewed as slander of a living person, I hope someone can write this more neutrally if possible. I invite a rewriting on the main page to be more neutral, or reconsideration after 2 years of inactivity on this page. I agree with everything said on this page especially by User:Famspear. I must say however there is a beauty in concise statements, that are true, that is "hopefully unbiased" and shows the rare truth. 206.248.130.62 (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, our criteria for including biographies of individuals is notability, not fame. Dawson is not a "famous" person at all, and is in the encyclopedia because he is a United States district court judge, one of a few hundred in the country, and appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. We include all federal judges (even if we have not gotten around to writing the articles yet), and every federal judge manages hundreds of cases each year, each of which is of vital importance to the people involved and many of which involve interpretations of the law which affect entire industries. For the most part, you will not find these cases included in judge bios. bd2412 T 05:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. Let's talk about this. I think this information is important, and should be included somewhere in Wikipedia. Unfortunately I'm not understanding a significant distinction between notability and fame. What I am understanding is a strong desire to keep this off this page, perhaps for the only reason is it's dangerous to say it. I say this should be one of those few cases it is included in a biography. It is pretty powerful stuff, as indicated by the speedy reversion, length of the talk page, and the warning at the top here. Alternatively, if I we're to modify the article for Irwin Schiff similarly, do you think it would be rapidly reverted also? I ask if there's any way to successfully include this info in WP, and how? Everything is in life can be expressed in simple terms. Even the individual steps of rocket science can be taught simply. I guess I'm understanding this to be too simply slander, and I cannot really appreciate all those complexities of notability vs. fame. I feel this avoids the fact people are afraid to put out the truth. And my point is this is dangerous, which is simply the heart of the matter. I don't want to beat around the bush. To me the answers to include this or not are to be found exploring inside the word "slander", not in "notability". 69.196.180.230 (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Show me a neutral and reliable source. Show me, for example, an article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal or the Las Vegas Sun that reports this. America: Freedom to Fascism is an advocacy piece for a conspiracy theory, so it certainly doesn't support any factual allegations. bd2412 T 17:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed "laid to rest" comment

I have removed the following comment with regard to the Schiff case:

From this case a common tax protester argument, i.e. that there is no law imposing a income tax liability, is laid to rest. Jury instruction 19 given by Judge Dawson states in referring to sections 61, 62 and 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code that "these sections, working together, make an individual liable for income taxes".

It is incorrect to suggest that this case is what puts the theory to rest - there are numerous other cases before, from higher courts, which hold the same thing. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor BD2412 is correct. This was a criminal trial in the Federal district court in Nevada -- just a few short years ago. The legal issue described was decided was not "laid to rest" in this case. The legal issue was "laid to rest" by higher courts many, many years ago. Indeed the argument was laid to rest long before Mr. Schiff even started getting in trouble with the law -- and that was a long time ago. Some of the leading Federal court cases on this topic are already covered in the applicable article: Tax protester constitutional arguments, I believe. Famspear (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction: For examples, the article to read is Tax protester statutory arguments. Famspear (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: The frivolous argument that there is no law imposing a federal income tax liability takes various forms. The article talks about several of those forms. I don't recall which version of the argument Irwin Schiff used (the version he used may or may not be covered in the article). One of the recurring themes for tax protesters is that when a particular piece of nonsense (such as "there is no law making me liable for the federal income tax" or "there is no law imposing a federal income tax") is shot down by the courts, the tax protesters simply reword the argument and change the "theory" in a futile attempt to "try again." It never works. For the most comprehensive analysis of tax protester arguments available just about anywhere, check out the work of legal commentator Daniel B. Evans, the Tax Protester FAQ, at [1]. Evans is an attorney who has studied tax protesters in depth for many years. Yours, Famspear (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not confident that we can say Schiff argued that no income is taxable. Tax protesters typically concede that certain income is taxable, but that only foreign income or income earned by federal employees falls within this category. Have we the details on the arguments that Dawson rejected? bd2412 T 05:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that on his web site, Schiff once made the Merchants' Loan "corporate profits" argument -- essentially the argument that "income" itself means only corporate profits -- a hilariously stupid argument, since the income ruled to be taxable in Merchants' Loan was NOT corporate profits, as you recall. By implication, it would seem that Schiff was at least at one time arguing that SOME income was taxable. I don't recall off the top of my head, however, what Schiff specifically argued in this last case -- which is what we're referring to here, of course. Let me check on this, and see if I can find anything.... Stay tuned..... Famspear (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Kent J. Dawson was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)