Dave Champion
The trial of Lynne Meredith and 7 other defendants began
Mon Feb 16 16:30:53 2004
64.140.158.126

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [oi-ar] The inside scoop on the Lynne Meredith trial...
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:28:25 -0800
From: Executive Director, Original Intent execdir@originalintent.org

Friends and Supporters,

The trial of Lynne Meredith and 7 other defendants began last week.

When I was first exposed to the Tax Honesty Movement a decade ago, the name "Lynne Meredith" was everywhere. Lynne had made a huge splash with her book, Vultures in Eagles Clothing, and her boundless enthusiasm, frequent seminars, and marketing savvy had made her a household name in the Movement. Not that Lynne is absent her critics; she has been roundly criticized for painting an overly rosy picture of what is involved in being a nontaxpayer, thus causing people a lot of pain when things didn't go as smoothly for them as for Lynne. Critics notwithstanding, Lynne was extremely popular in the Movement.

Today many people in the Tax Honesty Movement have never heard of Lynne Meredith because she's been out of the game for a while.

A few years back, Lynne Meredith was indicted. Now it should be pointed out that this was no ordinary indictment. The IRS had Lynne under investigation for 6 years before it finally went to a grand jury seeking an indictment against her. So why did it take the government 6 years of investigating to decide to seek an indictment? Two reasons: First; Lynne is not a person one tackles lightly. She's knowledgeable, financially well off, and fiercely protective of her rights. Such people are not easy targets for the IRS. Second; it is not easy to get an indictment against someone who is not doing anything wrong!

What eventually caused the IRS to seek an indictment against Lynne was their allegation that Lynne used false SSNs on some banking documents. This is a common IRS tactic. The IRS waits for a Tax Honesty leader to make a small mistake and then use that mistake to convince a grand jury that the target is plainly a law-breaker. Once the government convinces the grand jury that the target is a law-breaker (at least in one area), the government then asks the grand jury to indict on a slew of additional charges that have little if anything to do with the one thing that the target may have done that was actually illegal. Human nature being what it is, the grand jury will usually fall for this tactic and hand down indictments on just about anything the government wants. Such was the case with Lynne.

Did Lynne really put false SSNs on banking documents? I don't know, but I suspect we'll know by the end of the trial.

The trial hasn't started well for the government. Shortly after jury selection, United States District Court judge Dean Pregerson told the government that the trial needed to be simplified and instructed the government to make some of the charges go away. This is a clear indicator that Pregerson believes the government has overreached on a number of charges and is not likely to get convictions on some charges. And since Pregerson is a staunch IRS supporter, if he's telling the government to get rid of some charges, the government's case on those charges must look very weak to Pregerson.

The government opened its case with the testimony of a "trust expert". [Some of the charges against Lynne involved illegal trust activities.] The government was paying San Francisco attorney Robert Sommers $4,000.00 a day to testify about the proper operation of trusts. Under direct examination by government attorneys, Sommers stated that the trusts sold by Meredith were "sham trusts". However, under hours of highly detailed cross-examination by Meredith's attorney, Joe Izen, Sommers was forced to admit to the jury that there was nothing really "wrong" with the trusts, but that they simply weren't recognized by the IRS. This admission was a huge blow for the government's case. Sommers is the government's only witness concerning trusts and his admission that the trusts are legal sound will damage a large part of the government's case against Meredith.

Insiders to the case tell me that the government's investigation of the activities of the eight defendants was done in a slip-shod manner. Defense-team investigators say that they have rarely seen a case so poorly documented and riddled with inaccuracies. Inaccuracies in government documentation are deadly to the government because the information can be used to discredit government agents. Here's a fictitious example:

Defense: Agent Loser, is this an investigative report you prepared concerning Mr. Jones?
Loser: Yes it is.
Defense: In this report do you state that Mr. Jones was a resident of California and selling illegal widgets in California beginning on May 13, 1994?
Loser: That's correct.
Defense: Is this report an accurate reflection of the facts you uncovered in the course of your investigation?
Loser: It is.
Defense: Are you aware that Mr. Jones was living and working in Argentina until April of 1996?
Loser: What? I mean... I don't think... I don't know... I'd have to check my notes.
Defense: Your Honor I'd like to enter into evidence Mr. Jones' passport which shows that he was not in the Unites States during the time that Agent Loser alleges that my client was in California selling illegal widgets. I have no more questions for this witness your Honor.

Although I cannot be specific as to the nature of the government's numerous errors, the fictitious example above demonstrates that faulty investigative reports can be a real problem for the government.

Some of the government's charges involve "conspiracy". The burden that the government has to meet in a conspiracy charge is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged conspirators "knew or believed" that they were joining together to commit a criminal act. I can't imagine how the jury could possibly be persuaded that the defendants knew or believed that they were joining together to commit a criminal act. All but one of the defendants in this case are "true believers" - they believe with every shred of their soul that most Americans are not liable for federal income tax. All I can see the jury being convinced of is that the defendants colluded to do what they thought was morally and legally proper.

In closing, while this will not be brought up in the trial, it is interesting to note that while Lynne had literally tens of thousands of customers over her years in the Tax Honesty Movement, the government has only been able to find 8 customer who are willing to testify against her about anything. In any venue except a tax prosecution, 8 seriously dissatisfied customers out of 10,000 would be considered an incredibly successful enterprise, and any disagreement with those 8 people would clearly be classified as an ordinary business dispute.

In summary, while the government's case appears weak, there is still the actions of the judge to consider. Dean Pregerson is to the Los Angeles area, what John McBride is to the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. Pregerson is the IRS' lackey in this district. Much like the Simkanin case, Pregerson was not the originally assigned judge on the Meredith case. The Presiding Judge pulled the case from the originally assigned trial judge and gave the case to Pregerson, a known adversary of the Tax Honesty Movement. [Dean Pregerson should not be confused with his father, Harry Pregerson (81 years of age), who is also a judge in the 9th circuit.]

It should be remembered that the turning point in the Simkanin trial came when judge McBride gave the jury an unlawful answer to one of their most critical questions. We shall see if Dean Pregerson is willing to degrading himself with such conduct during the Meredith trial.

Dave Champion
Executive Director
Original Intent