Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Steve Swan Sentenced to 9 Years in Prison--Then Court Puts Sentence on Hold

Expand Messages
  • MFurtado
    Steven, I am happy to hear of the good news of re-sentencing. I have a couple of questons for you... 1) What kind of jury instructions were given? 2) Were
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 7, 2004
      Steven,
       
      I am happy to hear of the good news of re-sentencing.  I have a couple of questons for you...
       
      1)  What  kind of jury instructions were given? 
       
      2)  Were the points of:     a) proof of a legal duty - did the government present the "law" or did they just bypass that part as usual?
                                                 b) prove you willfully, knowingly, intentionally violated a "known legal duty"?  Probably not since there is none.
                                               
      3)  Were you aloud to use the law, present to the jury what it actually said, and were they aloud to take the law into deliberations?  Were you allowed to bring into evidence the specific code sections that you relied upon, like 1461 - the only liability, and 3402(n) for exempt status?
       
      3)  Were you aloud to drill the governments witnesses as to "where the hell is this slippery, invisible law that everyone knows exists, but no law scholar, IRS agent, or Congressman can apparently find?
       
      Good Luck Steven, my prayers are with you!
       
      Mel
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:16 AM
      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Steve Swan Sentenced to 9 Years in Prison--Then Court Puts Sentence on Hold

      Steve Swan Sentenced to 9 Years in Prison--Then Court Puts Sentence on Hold
       
      (Manchester, N.H.) I am a former follower and promoter of the income tax theories of Irwin Schiff of Las Vegas, Nevada. On June 24th, a federal judge sentenced me to 9 years in prison for violations of the internal revenue laws, even though I was not guilty. In order for me to actually have been guilty, I would have had to have believed that there was a law making the income tax mandatory (which I didn't) and I would have had to have willfully violated that law (which I didn't). In addition, I would have had to have believed that the Zero Returns which I filed for myself and which I prepared for others were false (which I didn't). However, I was unable to convince the jury of these facts and they found me guilty.
       
      My sentence was so long because the Government estimates that the tax returns which I filed for myself and which I prepared for others would have amounted to about a $3.4 million tax loss for the Government if everyone had been successful in receiving a refund. Very few people actually received a tax refund, but the Government doesn't care.
       
      Coincidently, on the very same day I was sentenced, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that any facts which are used to increase a criminal defendant's sentence must be determined by a jury and not by a judge. The case is Blakely v. Washington, 02-1632.
       
      Most of my sentence was based on facts determined by the judge, such as the amount of the tax loss, etc. So the next day the judge in my case vacated my sentence and told the clerk to re-schedule another sentencing hearing for me sometime next month. Hopefully, my new sentence will be much lower.
       
      No matter what the sentence is, I shall be working feverishly to get my convictions overturned on appeal because I am not guilty of the crimes for which I was charged. I am acting as my own lawyer in this case.
       
      For more information, I can be contacted at stevenswan@....
       
      Sincerely yours,
       
      Steven A. Swan

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.