Tax Fraud in the Eastern District

Tax Fraud in the Eastern District of Texas.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/txe/News/2013/edtx-tax-cotton-052813.html

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

 

Don't Talk 9

Well, we have reached the end of this thread.  Obviously, it is one with a simple theme - DO NOT TALK TO THE AUTHORITIES WITHOUT TALKING TO A QUALIFIED ATTORNEY FIRST.

     There are only so many ways to say this simple phrase and it has been said.  DON'T DO IT!

     Re-read the post by my friend Mark Bennett (the second post in this thread), this is million-dollar advice.  People are in jail because of they spoke to the authorities thinking everything would be fine.  Life does not work this way.  This is not an indictment against the police, against the FBI, against the Justice Department or any other State or Federal agency.  It is just a fact that the members of these organizations are not on your side and they are not paid to be on your side. 

     When you talk to the police, you need someone on your side.  That "someone" is a qualified criminal defense attorney. 

     If any of my blog readers learn anything from reading this blog, please let it be this. 

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

Don't Talk 8

It's amazing the criticism I get sometimes when I make posts like the ones in this thread.  I am not going to repost the emails in question, but suffice it to say that I know how it feels to be called "unpatriotic" or that I support Islamic terrorists who want to destroy the U.S. because I am reprinting the basic laws of criminal procedure of the U.S. - the accused has the right to remain silent AND SHOULD DO SO until speaking with a competent criminal-defense attorney.

      In the words of my daughter, whatever.

     I respond with my usual answer:

1.  Any decent criminal-defense attorney will always give this advice;

2.  The right to remain silent is the core of American criminal procedure.  This is not some cutting-edge legal theory but rather the core of our legal system;

3.  People are in jail because they spoke to law-enforcement before speaking with a criminal-defense attorney;

4.  I am not some anti-government nut.  I worked for several years at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow with a Top Secret Clearance.  I love my country, and our legal system, more than I can say.

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

 

Don't Talk 7

Let's tie today's post with the conversation I posted a few posts back.  The Boston bombers (two Chechen brothers accused of terrorism when they allegedly planted bombs at the Boston Marathon, killing and wounding many innocent victims) are now the "poster boys" of the right to remain silent.  One of the bombers is dead, killed in a shoot-out with authorities.  The surviving brother is in the hospital and was being debriefed by the FBI and other security agencies when he was given legal counsel by a Federal judge.  Once the accused's attorney showed up, further interviews ceased.

     The reason I state this is the "poster boy" because many people in the U.S. are howling mad about this.  Our country suffered a terrorist attack and the accused, who has a great deal of evidence against him, immediately "clammed up" when told to do so (allegedly) by his attorney.  Arguments and opinions are flying back and forth across the net and on TV that this person has a "duty" to speak about anyone who helped him. 

     Yet this is the crux of the right against self-incrimination and the right not to speak to the police - it applies even in these horrendous situations.  Yes, the great weight of the evidence is against the accused and yes, the situation looks like he is guilty.

    But - the right against self-incrimination exists here as well

    He still has the right to remain silent.  If it does not apply in these situations, it certainly does not apply in situations where their is much less evidence against the accused. 

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

Don' Talk 6

I hope you read the article about the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona in the previous post.  To say this is one of the most important cases in American criminal law is a massive understatement.  It set the extremely important legal principle that a person does not have to talk to the police, to any legal authority, if he does not want to.

     Remember one of the previous posts in this thread from my friend Mark Bennett.  He explains clearly that so many people are in jail because they spoke to the police.  Because they wanted to tell their stories.  Because they believed that once the police heard their stories, everything would be fine.  They would understand.  This is all a big misunderstanding and once the police hear my story, hear what really happened, everything will be fine.  I don't need an attorney.  I don't need to talk to an attorney.  I can talk to the police (read: local police, FBI, IRS, CIA whatever) and we will iron this all out.

   Suckers. 

   DON'T GIVE UP THIS RIGHT THAT WAS FOUGHT FOR BY SO MANY PEOPLE.  Criminal defense attorneys put in thousands of hours  of work to define this right.  The Supreme Court of the United States of America deliberated and brought this right into law.  The Miranda case went through massive litigation before it even reached the Supreme Court.

    Don't let it all go to waste.  Use this right.  We are lucky enough to have this right here in the United States, but like all rights, it did not happen overnight or in a vacuum. 

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

 

Don't Talk 5

Here is the Miranda case I was discussing for the other post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

Don't Talk 4

One of the basic underpinnings of American Law is known to everyone who has ever watched a TV show about lawyers and/or the legal system.  It is more than familiar to any law student, a foundation of criminal defense law and every cop who has ever undergone training and graduated from a police academy in the U.S. knows what I am about to say:

"You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

    These are part of the Miranda warnings and we will discuss the Miranda case later in this thread.

    But the important point is this - when a person is being interrogated or is in threat of being interrogated, he does not have to say anything.  He cannot be compelled to make any statement.

   Since this is true, the obvious question is: why say anything before speaking to legal counsel?  You have nothing to lose and everything to gain by speaking to legal counsel before speaking to the police.   

    I cannot emphasize this enough - the Miranda warnings are the Constitutional right against self-incrimination are a basic foundation of American law.  Individual liberties are paramount.  Please - do not throw these fundamental and precious rights away and spit in the face of American laws and our Constitution. 

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

Don't Talk 3

OK - getting back to our topic at hand - DO NOT TALK TO GOVERNMENT AGENTS WITHOUT GETTING AN ATTORNEY FIRST!
     One of the common criticisms I get from some people for giving this advice is "well, if you didn't do something wrong, then you have nothing to hide."  Criticism such as this is stupid and misses the point entirely.  As pointed out in previous posts, and as should be obvious now - there is nothing to be gained and potentially everything to lose by making statements to government agents.  It is not a question of "if you did something wrong," it is more of this question: "why is the government (State, Federal) interested in you in the first place? 

    The fact that a government agency wishes to question you is alarming in and of itself.  The real question, therefore, is: what does the government think YOU did wrong? 

    When the question is asked this way, the real situation becomes apparent.  You are under the government spotlight.  Why?  Why are you the one being interrogated?  If you are going to be placed into a situation where you are the subject of interrogation and when the other side (in this case the government) will have multiple agencies involved in your interrogation (the police (Federal, State, local) and the District Attorneys' office or Justice Department (after all, the cops are not going to keep your story to themselves, it is going to go into the hands of a prosecutor one way or another, even if the prosecutor simply throws the statement in the trash), doesn't it make sense for you to have someone in your corner?

    Shouldn't you have at least one person on your side who is looking out for YOUR interests, and not the interests of the government?

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

 

Don't talk 2

We will be exploring the reasons why you shouldn't speak to government agents before speaking with an attorney first.

As we explore this topic, however, I want to put in a statement from my friend and fellow criminal-defense attorney Mark Bennett.  Mark, in his usual fashion, explains things very well and very succinctly:

"The following advice is worth millions of dollars, countless years in prison, and many saved lives.
If everyone followed this advice:

Many fewer people would be charged with crimes. They would, collectively, be saved millions of dollars in attorneys fees (not to mention lower taxes from needing fewer prosecutors and judges).
Of those charged with crimes, many fewer would be convicted. They would, collectively, be saved countless years in prison.
Of those who avoided prosecution or conviction, many would also avoid the death penalty. Their lives would be saved.

I give you this advice for free:
Don't talk to government agents.
Almost everyone in prison is there because they talked to the cops. They thought they could explain; they thought they could help themselves; they wanted to tell the truth.
When the police want to talk to you, it's not for your own good. They're not looking for evidence to clear you. They're looking for evidence against you. They're looking to twist whatever you say -- true or false -- against you.
The police tell you, "we're your friends, we can help. Make it easier on yourself. Confess now," so you confess, and go away for the maximum anyway. The police are not your friends.
Or the police ask about a murder: "what do you know about it?" He says, "I was there, but I didn't do it." They ignore the denial, write down "he admits being there," and use that to convict him. The police only hear what they want to hear.
Or the police ask about a robbery: "what do you know about the robbery?" You say, "I didn't do the robbery. I just sold the guy drugs." They charge you with dealing drugs, and you go to prison. The police are sneaky. They are allowed to lie to you to get a confession.
You have a constitutional right not to talk to the police. That means that your refusal to talk can't be used against you. If you keep your mouth shut, nobody will legally be able to consider that in deciding whether you're guilty or not. (The cops may think you're guilty, but they think you're guilty anyway.)"

Well said, Mark.

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

Don't Talk 1

I will be starting a new blog series for the next week or so with the simple title as above - "don't talk."

     I have posted before about the dangers of speaking to authorities, Federal or State, without an attorney present.  If you are invited to speak to a U.S. attorney, a district attorney, the police, the FBI, the CIA or for that matter, to a dogcatcher, my advice is always the same:
DON'T SPEAK TO ANYONE WITHOUT SPEAKING TO AN ATTORNEY FIRST, PREFERABLY AN ATTORNEY WHO HAS A BACKGROUND AND EXPERTISE IN CRIMINAL LAW AND/OR WHITE-COLLAR CRIMINAL DEFENSE

     It is worth revisiting this issue because of the tragic events in Boston recently.  The surviving terrorism suspect was being interviewed by various Federal agencies.  He was then appointed counsel and stopped speaking to the police.  Various news outlets express outrage at this.  But why? 

     This is the heart of these next series of posts.

And, incidentally, I have stopped using Roman numerals to outline my posts.  Although I am a big fan of the Romans and their legacy to Western civilization, let's face it - higher mathematics was not one of their contributions.

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

Massive fraud ring uncovered

This story will obviously continued to develop.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-charges-89-people-223-million-medicare-fraud-200553746.html

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

Tax Fraud in the Northern District

Tax Fraud in the Northern District of Texas

http://www.justice.gov/usao/txn/PressRelease/2013/APR2013/apr30lockett_edgar_tax_evasion_arrest.html

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

Embezzlement in the Northern District

Embezzlement in the Northern District of Texas

http://www.justice.gov/usao/txn/PressRelease/2013/MAY2013/may10portillo_theresa_embezzlement_sen.html

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

Wire Fraud in the Western District

Wire Fraud in the Western District of Texas

http://www.justice.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/2013/SanAntonio%20Businessman.pdf

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

Tax related indictments in the Western District

Tax related indictments in the Western District of Texas

http://www.justice.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/2013/SA%20tax%20indictments.pdf

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

Interesting fraud case - New York

An interesting fraud case is in the initial stages of development and prosecution in New York. 

http://www.sheepsheadbites.com/2013/05/michael-levitis-rasputin-fraud/

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

Tax Return Fraud in the Southern District

Tax Return Fraud in the Southern District of Texas.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/txs/1News/Releases/2013%20April/130429%20-%20Kitine.html

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

Insurance Fraud in the Southern District

Insurance fraud involving a chiropractic clinic in the Southern District of Texas

http://www.justice.gov/usao/txs/1News/Releases/2013%20April/130429%20-%20Young.html

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

Credit Card Fraud in the Southern District

Credit Card Fraud in the Southern District of Texas

http://www.justice.gov/usao/txs/1News/Releases/2013%20May/130501%20-%20Nguyen.html

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

 

Theft of Government Property in the Southern District

Theft of Government Property in the Southern District of Texas.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/txs/1News/Releases/2013%20May/130501%20-%20Ortiz.html

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk

Review of Mortgage Fraud Scams XIV

We've discussed this topic before and at some point I know we will discuss it again.  Mortgage fraud is too pervasive and too important to be limited to a one-time only round.  As stated earlier in this thread, mortgage fraud almost brought down the U.S. economy in 2008.  For most people, houses are the single most important purchase they will ever make in their lives. 

      As with all white-collar crimes, the most important factor in determining whether a criminal act has occurred in intent.  Was there an intent to defraud someone or some organization?  Remember the example we gave in the last post - there is a huge difference between "flipping" a house by buying a house that is in need of repairs, fixing up the house and reselling it vs. conspiring with a group of people to deliberately undervalue the purchase price of a house buy the house for the undervalued price and then resell it.  The word "flipping" applies to both practices, but there is a vast difference in the intent between the two.

     There is always much more to discuss regarding mortgage fraud, but we will leave it at this point for now.

NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.

                                             

http://www.tauskvega.com

 

----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk