The Tax Protestor Doctrine
by Don Kostyu
An official IRS memorandum disclosed by the National Coalition of IRS
Whistleblowers proved that as far back as 1973 the IRS has been waging a
campaign to "educate" federal judges on the importance of prison sentences
for tax protestors. Known as the "Croasman Memorandum" the report emanated
from Homer D. Croasman, Regional IRS Commissioner, Western Region, to the
participants in the Conference on the Tax Rebellion Movement.
The unethical and unlawful plan to influence federal judges completely
undermines the Constitutional mandate of an impartial, independent
judiciary.
The reason federal judges are appointed for life under Article III of the
Constitution is to guarantee their independence from other branches of
government -- even the IRS!
In most cases that may still hold true. But when a "Tax Protester" is
hauled into the courts things change radically. Injustice becomes the order
of the day as prosecutors, clerks, magistrates and judges team up in pursuit
of a speedy conviction.
Unfortunately, as recent cases indicate, the "Tax Protestor Doctrine" is
becoming firmly rooted in the federal judiciary as an acceptable practice to
be exercised at the whim of the court.
Some examples of the "Tax Protestor Doctrine" at work are:
U.S. v. Frieda Grosshans, U.S. District Court, Eastern District (1986).
During the course of the trial, Asst. U.S. Atty. Steven Hiyama repeatedly
referred to Freida Grosshans as a "tax protestor". At sentencing, U.S.
District Judge George Woods ordered defendant Grosshans, a 52 year-old
grandmother, imprisoned in Wayne County Jail until space was available in a
federal minimum security facility. Freida Grosshans spent over a month
imprisoned under the worst conditions with hardened criminals. The same
judge suspended the sentence of John Rye who was guilty of tax evasion on
$1.3 million in income. Rye had to serve 5 months in a halfway house. Rye
was not a "tax protestor", you see, he was merely a crook! Rye was a
purposeful tax evader, a cheat, a thief. But Freida Grosshans did the
unthinkable. She made a Constitutional challenge. She believed in the
Constitution and her rights, and she questioned the IRS. But she couldn't
tell the jury about that because of a gag order which the courts routinely
apply as part of the Tax Protestor Doctrine", known as a motion in limne.
Judge Woods sentenced Freida Grosshans to 5 years and she is currently
incarcerated in a federal prison camp in Texas.
Another recent case, U.S. v. Arthur W. Morris, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan (1987), saw another flagrant use of the "Tax
Protestor Doctrine" when, at sentencing, U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn
compared defendant Morris with those who sell information to the Soviet
Union. Equating Morris with treason and espionage, Cohn invoked the "Tax
Protestor Doctrine" to toss out sentencing guidelines and gave the maximum
sentence of 3 years and $30,000 to Morris, a first time misdemeanor
offender. Morris was denied bond pending appeal and is incarcerated in a
federal prison in Indiana.
The case of U.S. v. Kevin Krzyske, No. 95-1760/1799, U.S. District
Court, Ann Arbor, is an example of the extreme injustice which can be
accomplished under the "Tax Protestor Doctrine".
During pre-trial hearing, Asst. U.S. Atty. Karen Reynolds repeatedly
branded Kevin Krzyske as a "tax protestor", notifying the court that the
"Tax Protestor Doctrine" could be applied throughout the proceedings. And
was it ever.
Krzyske's pre-trial motions were routinely denied by Magistrate Steven Pepe,
at trial. Judge Joinder denied Krzyske the assistance of counsel and
withheld vital information which was requested by the jury.
Charged with 10 counts of various tax charges, Krzyske successfully defended
against 5 counts and was convicted of 5 counts. Krzyske appealed the
convictions.
Once again the "Tax Protestor Doctrine" came into play as Judge Charles
Joiner forced Krzyske's needless and unjust imprisonment by setting
inappropriate conditions on his remaining free on bond. As a result of the
untenable conditions set by Joiner, Krzyske needlessly served over a year in
a federal prison camp in Minnesota.
We can confidently say Joiner forced Krzyske's wrongful imprisonment because
the U.S. Court of Appeals recently overruled Joiner's conditions and
ordered Krzyske's release.
The Tax Protestor Doctrine was invoked to cover up an unlawful arrest in the
case of U.S. V. Franklin, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Michigan (1987). The defendant was arrested on a defective warrant which
was not supported by a sworn oath of probable cause. This detail was
brushed aside at the arraignment when Magistrate Lynn V. Hooe incredibly,
inquired from the bench if this was a "tax protestor case". Hooe silenced
the Defendant and refused to hear any objections to the unlawful arrest
warrant. Franklin was not allowed to make a record, a plea of not guilty
was entered over his objection, and he was bound over for trial.
By invocation of the Tax Protestor Doctrine a federal Magistrate ignored an
obvious unlawful arrest, suspended the Court Rules, and abrogated the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Also, this hearing marked a new and
particularly repugnant trend, being it was raised by the Court without the
prompting of government prosecutors. Lynn V. Hooe, a supposedly "neutral
and detached" Magistrate, took it upon himself to brand the defendant a "tax
protestor" and arraigned Franklin on the unlawful arrest warrant.
Hooe's oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution apparently doesn't apply to
defendants he brands as "tax protestors". (It can be argued that Franklin's
[not?] guilty plea necessarily included a plea of guilty to being a "tax
protestor". But even so Hooe's abrogation of the Constitution is
inexcusable.)
These are not isolated cases. Far from it. There are more, many more. The
"Tax Protestor Doctrine" is becoming more widely used with each passing day.
The "Tax Protestor Doctrine" is by no means unique to criminal tax cases,
but is used to routinely deny due process in civil cases where "tax
protestors" are involved. Where plaintiffs in civil actions are labeled as
"tax protestors" by government attorneys, the "Doctrine" is regularly
invoked to dismiss their cases without regard to the issues raised. After
all, if "tax protestors" have no rights, how could their rights be violated?
Case dismissed!
[Reprinted from `CBA Bulletin', Aug. 1988]
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757
512/299-5001 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------
