No Willful Failure to File cover art

No Willful Failure to File

No Willful Failure to File

Listen for free

View show details

About this listen

 It is April 2nd. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.Today I want to talk about one phrase.“Intentional violation of a known legal duty.”Those are the words the federal government uses in criminal tax cases. They call it willfulness.But stop and think about what those words actually mean.An intentional violation. Of a known legal duty.That does not mean a man failed to file.That does not mean a man changed his mind.That does not mean a man studied the law and reached a different conclusion.No.The government must prove something far more serious.It must prove that a man knew, with certainty, that the law imposed a duty upon him personally……and then deliberately chose to violate that duty anyway.In the law there are two parts to a crime.The first is called actus reus. That means the act itself. In this case, the actus reus is simply the failure to file.But the act alone is not enough.There is a second requirement. Mens rea.Mens rea means the guilty mind. The deliberate, conscious, intentional decision to violate a duty that the man knows applies to him.Without mens rea, there is no crime.So even if the government points to the actus reus—the failure to file—that proves nothing by itself.The government must still prove the mens rea. It must prove what was in the man’s mind.Ask yourself:How can they possibly know that?How can any prosecutor, any judge, any jury climb inside a man’s mind and heart and prove what he truly believed?They cannot.So what do they do instead?They substitute presumption for proof.They point to circumstances.“He filed before.” “He received notices.” “He signed papers.” “He stopped filing.”And then they say:“Therefore, he must have known.”But that is not proof.That is assumption.A man may have filed for years because he never questioned it. Because he was afraid. Because he trusted others. Because he had never studied the law.Then one day he studies.He reads. He researches. He writes letters. He asks questions. He struggles to understand.And after years of study, he sincerely concludes that no legal duty applies to him.Now ask yourself:Would a sane man risk four years in prison if he truly knew he was violating the law?Of course not.It makes no sense.The government wants you to believe that a man studies the law for years, risks everything, destroys his life, jeopardizes his freedom—and all the while secretly knows he is guilty.No.That is absurd.If a man sincerely believes no duty applies, then there is no “known legal duty.”And if there is no known legal duty…there can be no intentional violation.That means there is no mens rea. And without mens rea, the actus reus alone is not enough.The Supreme Court itself admitted this in Cheek v. United States.The Court said that if a man sincerely misunderstands the law—even if the government thinks he is wrong—then he may lack the willfulness required for conviction.Why?Because criminal guilt requires more than an act.It requires a guilty mind.The act is simple: failure to file.That is the actus reus.But the mind is everything.That is the mens rea.Did he know? Did he believe? Did he intentionally violate a duty he understood applied to him?That is the real question.And that is exactly why the government fights so hard to keep the jury from seeing a man’s letters, notes, research, questions, statutes, and good-faith beliefs.Because once the jury sees the record…the presumption begins to collapse.That is why the government often depends upon an unsuspecting, naive, compliant jury. A jury that has never studied these words. A jury that hears “he failed to file” and immediately assumes “therefore he intended to violate the law.”But those are not the same thing.A compliant jury may never be told the difference between actus reus and mens rea. A compliant jury may never be told that the act alone proves nothing unless the government also proves the guilty mind. A compliant jury may never be shown the years of study, the letters, the questions, the statutes, the doubts, and the sincere effort to understand.Instead, the jury is given a superficial argument:“He filed before, therefore he knew.” “He stopped filing, therefore he intended to violate the law.”And an unsuspecting jury may accept that shallow argument because no one has explained to them that the law requires far more. Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
No reviews yet
In the spirit of reconciliation, Audible acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.