Paul Burks files Motion for Acquittal on 4th indictment count
The evidence part of Paul Burks’ criminal trial appears to be over, with a Motion for an Acquittal filed by Burks on July 19th.
As provided in Burks’ motion;
The test for deciding a motion for a judgment of acquittal is whether there is substantial evidence … which, taken in the light most favorable to the prosecution, would warrant a jury finding that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Specific to count four, Burks claims
Taking the evidence in the government’s favor, it has failed to prove each and every element of Count Four.
The government has failed to present any evidence that Mr. Burks
conspired with others and formed a specific agreement to impede the lawful functions of the IRS by issuing 1099s to affiliates.
The evidence presented by the government conspicuously fails to
show any discernible agreement between Mr. Burks and others to defraud the government.
If anything, the evidence shows that Mr. Burks and others, in good faith, reported more taxable income than the law requires.
While that may have been mistaken or incorrect, there is simply no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt establishing that it was done in an effort to defraud the government.
Then there’s this gem:
The government has presented evidence of “acts”—for example, generating
1099s and providing them to Kimatha Anderson for issuing—that arguably would have furthered the goals of a conspiracy if there had been one.
“Yes, the evidence clearly points to conspiracy to commit tax fraud… but uh that’s totally not what we were doing.”
At most, the evidence shows that the allegedly fraudulent Forms 1099 were filed with the purpose of perpetuating a Ponzi scheme by making it seem legitimate.
There has been no evidence from the government, however, that the primary purpose of the alleged conspiracy was to impede the functions of the IRS or defraud the government by issuing 1099s.
Well, except for the whole “purpose of perpetuating a Ponzi scheme”.
Part of Burks’ plan to “perpetuate a Ponzi scheme” saw him “impede the functions of the IRS and defraud the government” through bogus 1099s.
That much is obvious.
Even if impeding the IRS were a “foreseeable consequence” of operating a Ponzi scheme of the sort alleged in this case, such a consequence would still be merely the “collateral effect of an agreement, rather than one of its purposes.”
Riiiiiiiiight. That’s some pretty frantic straw-clutching right there.
A response from the DOJ has been ordered filed by the 29th of July. Stay tuned…
Footnote: Our thanks to Don@ASDUpdates for providing a copy of Paul Burks’ “Motion for Acquittal Under Rule 29 (Count Four)” (filed July 19th).