CHEEK v. UNITED STATES, 498 U.S. 192 (1991)

[citizensoldier]

I think there is valuable information contained in the case not only pointing out how John Cheek neglected to place the burden of proof on the IRS/DOJ in establishing the following according to Title 26 USC:

1. He was a taxpayer
2. What defines income
3. Show he derived income
4. How is a Trade or Business defined
5. Show how he was engaged in Trade or Business as defined
6. Definition of the United States
7. Establish his status in relation to the defined United States

It is also noteworthy the jury was having extreme difficulty in deciding willfulness of failure to file. The jury sent three requests to the judge for clarification on what constitutes good faith and understanding. Here is what is written in the case:

After several hours of deliberation, the jury sent a note to the judge that stated in part:


"`We have a basic disagreement between some of us as to if Mr. Cheek honestly & reasonably believed that he was not required to pay income taxes.

. . . . .

"` [498 U.S. 192, 32] [the relevant jury instruction] discusses good faith misunderstanding & disagreement. Is there any additional clarification you can give us on this point?'" Id., at 85.

The District Judge responded with a supplemental instruction containing the following statements:

"[A] person's opinion that the tax laws violate his constitutional rights does not constitute a good faith misunderstanding of the law. Furthermore, a person's disagreement with the government's tax collection systems and policies does not constitute a good faith misunderstanding of the law." Id., at 86.

At the end of the first day of deliberation, the jury sent out another note saying that it still could not reach a verdict because "[w]e are divided on the issue as to if Mr. Cheek honestly & reasonably believed that he was not required to pay income tax.'" Id., at 87. When the jury resumed its deliberations, the District Judge gave the jury an additional instruction. This instruction stated in part that "[a]n honest but unreasonable belief is not a defense, and does not negate willfulness," id., at 88, and that "[a]dvice or research resulting in the conclusion that wages of a privately employed person are not income or that the tax laws are unconstitutional is not objectively reasonable, and cannot serve as the basis for a good faith misunderstanding of the law defense." Ibid. The court also instructed the jury that "[p]ersistent refusal to acknowledge the law does not constitute a good [498 U.S. 192, 198] faith misunderstanding of the law." Ibid. Approximately two hours later, the jury returned a verdict finding petitioner guilty on all counts.[6]

First, the above shows how the judge tampered with the jury by determining what was up to the jury - TO DECIDE WHAT IS OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE and WHAT CONSTITUTES GOOD FAITH. Second, the judge led the jury away from the issue of the law itself to the idea of refusal to acknowledge the law. Such actions stand as evidence to the extent a judge will protect the fraud.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=498&invol=192

[citizensoldier]

[6] A note signed by all 12 jurors also informed the judge that, although the jury found petitioner guilty, several jurors wanted to express their personal opinions of the case, and that notes from these individual jurors to the court were "a complaint against the narrow & hard expression under the constraints of the law." Id., at 90. At least two notes from individual jurors expressed the opinion that petitioner sincerely believed in his cause, even though his beliefs might have been unreasonable.

I believe if the jurors knew their authority of jury nullification that we may not have such battles like the Cheek case today? Matter of fact, we may not even have Title 26 USC.

[scottinalaska]

Let us pray that we do not encounter a judge like that when our time comes. No matter the simplicity of questions and poor responses we receive, if the jury is coached by the employee (judge) of the system that also pays him indirectly from the guilty verdicts, we have as much chance with today's dumbed down juries as a snowball...well you know where that goes - same place they want to send us, I'm sure.

scottinalaska

The judicial system carefully attempts to screen out men and women who are aware of their rights under jury nullification. A few slip through voire dire, but rarely in cases that later becomes notorious.

Sever shortage of certiori grants is probably your best argument as a jury nullifier for perfecting the law in the jury box. If enough law gets overturned in the jury box, the legislature can take notice and have the law repealed (God willing it happens sooner her in California!!!)

If somebody wants to have fun with this, they can look up one of those silly statutes about spitting on the sidewalk, have one neighbor do it while the other neighbor observes it, and then have the observing neighbor file a complaint and pester the DA for prosecution!