Tax Update Blog: Permalink

« Previous · Tax Update Blog Home · Next »

AT LEAST THE LAWYER DIDN'T GET CHEWED OUT

March 25, 2008

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Illinoisan Danny Patridge's tax evasion appeal yesterday. Mr. Patridge represented himself when he asked for Supreme Court review, which isn't too surprising considering what happened to his lawyer in his last courtroom visit:

Jerold W. Barringer represented Patridge at trial, in the Tax Court, and during the three appeals to this court. He has performed below the standard of a pro se litigant; we have serious doubt about his fitness to practice law. The problem is not simply his inability to distinguish between plausible and preposterous arguments. It is his disdain for the norms of legal practice (19 issues indeed!) and the rules of procedure.

Tax Notes ($link) says the request for a Supreme Court hearing was based on the following:

Patridge asserted that the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 foreclosed his conviction. Patridge also argued that the district court violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights since the district judge personally triggered a criminal investigation of a key defense witness and failed to disclose his involvement in the prosecution of the witness; that the district court failed to dismiss Patridge's indictment based on the rule of lenity; and that it was not reasonable for the district court to use a whipsawed tax loss to determine the sentencing guideline range.

Surprisingly, there's nothing about having poor legal help.

Tags: Patridge.tax crime.tax protesters.