- Actual Innocence Project -

FILED: December 1, 2020 - Pardon request mailed to White House - Learn more / participate

DONATE HERE / Your support is essential

Conviction & Clemency

- FaceBook -

Exceptionally harsh treatment, false charges, coerced plea agreements, or personal hardship are great reasons to ask for clemency relative to federal criminal charges and convictions. The Dept. of Justice is vested with the duty to evaluate such claims and to make recommendations to the US President. The profile of the current US Pardon Attorney indicates a likely understanding of such problems from the view of defense counsel, and a non-bureaucrat personality.

*GOAL: Clemency for any and all employee and self employed contractor convictions and indictments for tax evasion, failure to file, fraudulent tax documents, and corrupt endeavors to impede the IRS. (See 26 USC (Tax Code) §§ 7201, 7203, 7206, and 7212). All such actions have common attributes under the law that render them void as a matter of due process, regardless of the conduct of the accused. The enforcement of complex and voluminous statutes and regulations upon average Americans has always been a violation of due process.

SINCE March of 2014: 5 actions in 3 US Dist. Courts, US Tax Court in TX and IN, appeals on the 7th-9th-11th circuits, and 3 Petitions to the US Supreme Court in 2018 (denied), and in each of these actions and in all of these courts the IRS and DOJ ran from 30-40 specific tax provisions as argued in 6-7 claims alleging IRS misenforcement of the Tax Code.

Judicial remedy to which all Americans are entitled has been exhausted and exposed as utterly corrupted by its judges. If the statute that explains how to tax the entire workforce (26 USC § 83(a)) is entirely off limits, what business do the IRS and DOJ have accusing any American of tax crimes, or maintaining an individual's tax conviction? The DOJ's definition of innocence in tax cases at pp.7-10 of its own memorandum.

If you believe that your conviction is false or unfair, consider clemency as an option.

THIS EFFORT CANNOT CONTINUE without funding (grants) to cover several months of writing, social media campaigns, mailing campaigns to lawmakers, and possibly travel to D.C.. This effort also includes several other cases where actual innocence can be proved, today, so don't view all of this through the income tax prism alone. Example of bogus charge resulting in conviction and prison.

"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax."

Albert Einstein (about 1953)

"What's the big deal? Been there, done that."

David R. Myrland (January 1994)

Injustice is its own prison

A FALSE CONVICTION or other gross injustice can be humiliating, perhaps even debilitating, and it can pose enormous challenges regarding housing, travel, right to bear arms, and employment, to say nothing of the time spent in confinement. The US President and the governor of each state have the authority to set aside a criminal conviction, and this should be viewed as an opportunity that avoids the corruption of the court system that likely contributed in the first place to the injustice you seek to correct.

Neither the US Dept. of Justice or the IRS can even prove Americans owe an income tax, and the courts call governing statutes "outlandish theories" but can provide no opposing or alternative interpretations. This is also true of state authorities that collect income taxes and commence criminal proceedings for nonpayment. This situation is a hole in due process that warrants clemency for anyone who's been criminally charged or imprisoned for alleged tax crimes. This operating standard on the part of the US gov't violates due process in a number of ways the Supreme Court has described in literally dozens of decisions.

Tax crime handbook / Tax sentencing guidelines

The US President is under oath to uphold the US constitution, which would include clemency for any tax conviction of an American who had only sold his or her labor for compensation. The gov't has no business imposing years or even days in prison under law (the Tax Code) it refuses to explain. Let's do this!

Old clemency regulations for DOJ US Pardon Attorney

Clemency comes in different forms -

The President of the United States can provide clemency in relation to federal criminal charges and convictions, whereas a conviction under the laws of a state requires that your state's governor provide the clemency sought. The chance for federal clemency has never been greater than it is through US President Donald J. Trump. Even guilty people are getting pardoned. (See).

Proof of actual innocence is, of course, the easiest path to a full pardon, and one can be innocent of a crime, especially a tax crime, for numerous reasons. According to dozens of appellate and US Supreme Court decisions, you win if:

Precious little of those grounds for dismissal are about personal conduct, but rather it points toward having a right to be taxed by clear statutory language. If the law's text is vague or unclear a defendant is innocent. A closer and better informed review of many convictions can expose actual innocence. There's more of this than one might perceive, but with how complex the law has become, and because of society's overall ignorance of the law, the system is a target rich environment for exposing prosecutorial abuses of discretion; the courts are a meat grinder. See Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929, 934-35 (CA9 March 3, 2011) ("It is difficult to imagine a stronger equitable claim for keeping open the courthouse doors than one of actual innocence, "the ultimate equity on the prisoner's side.") citing Withrow v. Wilson, 506 US 680, 700 (1993).

Since 2014 the US Supreme Court has detailed several times how integral to a valid conviction a defendant's criminal intent (mens rea) really is. The federal government has ignored for decades this essential element in the prosecution of alleged crimes. The authorities have never asked anyone, "Did you know you were breaking the law by doing what you're doing?" The prosecutors bring the charges, the Dept. of Homeland Security makes the arrest, and thereafter they coerce and steamroll the defendant into a plea agreement with total disregard for the possible lack of criminal intent, and in some cases, a disregard for the obvious factual innocence of the accused. At the time of the crime, did you know you were violating the law? Can the gov't prove that tax law imposes a legal duty? If not, is one required to simply believe a legal duty exists?

SINCE U.S. COURTS simply ignore the law and all the great precedent when you get to court, seeking relief from another source is the best thing to do next; clemency does not involve the courts, the DOJ, or the IRS.

A TAX CONVICTION - The current administration (federal) treats clemency authority in a more realistic fashion than any admn. in the past, so the time is now to collaterally attack in this manner any individual's tax conviction. Compared to other methods of vacating a conviction, clemency is very simple, it is much less formal and less complex than litigation, and stands a better chance of obtaining justice than one might expect from the court system.

There will be a meticulous briefing of current tax law which has been proven effective in closing IRS criminal investigations and in preventing indictments. Two blaringly false convictions have already been selected as poster children for this cause and approach. When the single best mind in tax law (David R. Myrland) explains a few simple things the President simply can't disprove, he'll see that every conviction of an American who has merely sold their personal services is void. The President is under oath; due process requires a full pardon.

DONATE HERE / Your support is essential

Ramirez v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office, 2:04-cv-06102-GAF-FMO, 2006 WL 1428310 (Cent. Dist. Cal. Feb. 16, 2006) ($18m in damages for malicious prosecution and ten months' incarceration, or $21.6m per yr./$59.18k per day);

Pitt v. District of Columbia, 404 F.Supp.2d 351 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 2005) ($100k damages for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of distress from six days' imprisonment, or $6.3m per yr./$17.26k per day);

Jones v. City of Chicago, 1987 US District. LEXIS 10510 at *1 (N.Dist.Illinois, Nov. 10, 1987) aff'd, 856 F.2d 985 (CA7 1988) ($71.1k for false arrest; $71.1k for intentional infliction of emotional distress; $355.5k for false imprisonment; and $213.3k for malicious prosecution and one month's imprisonment, or $5.4m per yr./$14.8k per day).

- FaceBook -