The left likes to call it the “birther” issue. The term birther is used as a derisive term by the left, much as truther is. Of course the difference is truthers beliefs are based on a paranoid ideology, where as the birther issue is based on facts.
I prefer to call it the eligibility issue, not the birther issue. Whether you agree or not, the people who are pushing the eligibility issue are on our side. It is certainly counter-productive to deride them like liberals do.
Recently a whole stream of Republicans have come out, at the prompting of the drive by media, to reassure us that Obama is a citizen and oh, yes, he is a Christian too.
Last Sunday, at the prodding of David Gregory on Meet the Press, or as Rush likes to call it, Meet the depressed, Boehner said, the State of Hawaii had said he was born there, that was good enough for him.
Karl Rove, not a friend of the Tea Party, pushed the RINO line that Obama is a citizen and Sarah Palin, at a meeting in Long Island, a few days ago, also denounced the eligibility issue. Palin ended her remarks on the subject by saying, “let’s stick with what really matters.”
This issue does matter.
There are three variations on the eligibility issue. Two are based on undisputed facts. The third is in dispute.
The most commonly reported of the eligibility challenges is the claim that Obama was actually born in Kenya, not Hawaii. I believe, based on the available evidence, that it is more likely than not, Obama was actually born in Hawaii. Obama has spent a lot of time and (other people’s) money, keeping his original birth certificate out of sight.
Jack Cashill is one of my favorite writers and he has a theory which I think makes sense, that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, but there is something else on his birth certificate that would destroy the myth of Barack Obama. (See his website, Cashill.com). In the law, there is a presumption that if a party has exclusive access to a piece of evidence and will not release it, the evidence must be adverse to their position.
The second eligibility issue is the claim that because Barack Obama’s father was a Kenyan, a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth, he is not a natural born citizen.
The third is the argument that because Barack Obama was adopted as a child by an Indonesian and moved to Indonesia, he is not an American citizen. Under the law at that time, if an American child was adopted by a citizen of another country and moved to that country, he lost his citizenship. He could regain his citizenship by applying at an American Embassy when he was 18, but would then be treated as a naturalized citizen and thus ineligible to be President.
What is stunning about all of this is the mainstream Republican reaction to the eligibility issues.
The RINOs turn their noses up at the people who want the answers, which, incidentally is 60% of Republican voters. They turn their noses up at the Tea Party movement. Yet, they do not take a moment to consider why this is important.
If Barack Obama is proved to be ineligible to be President, everything he has done is wiped out. Obamacare is gone. The START treaty is gone. The liberal lunatics Obama has appointed to the Federal Judiciary, including the two he has put on the Supreme Court are gone.
Much of the damage Obama has done to this country can be undone. Unfortunately, the Country Club Republicans remain clueless. In their minds, the Democrats are simply the lower class versions of themselves. They do not understand that if the party of treason has its way, America will be forever changed and ultimately destroyed.
The Courts have so far brushed aside all of the eligibility claims. None have been addressed on the merits under the claim that Americans lack standing to challenge the issue. Recently, the Supreme Court has given some indication it may consider one of the issues. We can only hope.
What are the chances of success? Who knows?
Why do football teams run the flea flicker play? It does not work all of the time, but when it does, the results are spectacular. Why should conservatives all hope this works out? Because this wipes out almost everything the Obama regime has done. We get a do over.
You would think, even the RINOs who want to denigrate the eligibility issue could figure this one out.
Dick Morris adviser to Bill Clinton has a video about Denise Rich renouncing her American Citizenship. She approached White House council Quinn for a pardon for her husband Marc Rich. Marc Rich fled the United States while under investigation. While residing in Switzerland, he was indicted for making an oil deal with Iran as they were holding Americans hostage. Denise Rich approached Jack Quinn and gave the Clinton's hundreds of thousands of dollars for Bill's Presidential Library. The pardon board rejected the pardon as did the prosecuting attorney. Quinn did an end run to Eric Holder. Holder wrote Bill Clinton a memo saying that DOJ approved the pardon. On Clinton's last day in office he signed the pardon for Marc Rich, who never served a day in prison.
Leo Wanta, CIA operative and Ambassador to Somalia, went to Switzerland to arrest Rich in July of 1993. Rich was tipped off of Wanta's arrival, most likely by fellow Mosad agent Rahm Emanuel. Rich got away and Wanta was imprisoned in Switzerland. Vince Foster at the same time had traveled to Switzerland to ask for $250,000,000 on behalf of Hillary for the Children's Defense Fund from Wanta's trust for the American People. The money was tansfered.
Vince Foster returned to America and tried to secure Wanta's release. On July 19,1993 Willliam Sessions, who had issued the arrest warrant for Rich was summarily fired as Director of the FBI. On the next day, July 20, 1993 Vince Foster committed suicide with a gun that showed no fingerprints and transported himself after the event to Fort Marcie Park in Alexandria, Virginia. Hillary had the hard drive removed from his computer before investigators arrived at Foster's White House office.
The Children's Defense Fund was Hillary's personal slush fund.
Marc Rich, Leo Wanta, Vince Foster, Eric Holder, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Children's Defense Fund. Connect the dots.
Eric Holder, a criminal enterprise, smack in the middle of murder, corruption, extortion, false imprisonment and scandal, yet again. Eric Holder has intimate knowledge of crime at the highest levels of our government spanning 4 administrations. The waterboarding of Holder would lay all the misdeeds of our lifetime open for all to see.
Isn't Leo Wanta part of the Vatican Bank Slush Fund? Romney is into this treason to America BIG-TIME and has his own account there!! For anyone here who knows the TRUTH and is still supporting oRobMe, then you have gone over to the Dark Side and are now part of the problem in this country, instead of being part of the solution!!
NOW is the Time for All Good Patriots to come to the aid of their Country and QUIT MITT & RECRUIT NEWT!! Open GOP Convention 2012!! NEWT 2012!! America SAVED 2012!!
We really DO have a chance to SAVE AMERICA, think about it!!
Are you suggesting that we support Obama because Romney is tied into the gravy train?
Here is some more on Marc Reich (renamed Rich) from a Vatican Bank blog:
Marc Rich the commodity bandit and "spook" was so interwoven with the White House of George Bush The Elder and later, Bill Clinton, you could not hardly tell whether the White House dirty tricks department was in Washington or Zug, Switzerland, one of Rich's outpposts. To escape being prosecuted, Rich did not return from Zug to face the big-time Federal Criminal music in the 1980s. At the time the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Rudolph W. Giuliani (later N.Y. city Mayor), wanted to put Rich in jail. A Bush Family confidant, Giuliani nevertheless found out too late that Marc Rich was the American CIA's laundry man and was immune. When Rudy started to run for U.S. Senator from New York against carpetbagger Hillary Clinton, in the year 2000 Election, she was afraid he would mouth off about her and Foster and Marc Rich. So, Hillary's press agents reportedly launched a pre-emptive strike planting details publicly of Giuliani's marital troubles. And so, Rudy side-stepped the whole mess and the Election, by divulging what he must have already known, that he was ill with cancer.
The choice is NOT between oRobMe & oVomit, yet!! That's what I'm talking about. Romney does NOT have enough delegates to get the nom on the first vote (I KNOW THIS), he's LYING to you about that, along with FAUX, and all of the other news orgs. DO NOT BELIEVE THEM, I KNOW some things behind the story! DO NOT PROMOTE oRobMe because he is a HUGE PART of this problem that we have here in this country. He's been CHOSEN to take the fall, just like McLame!! Well I'm not going to drink the COMMIE GOP ELITE POISON they are trying to shove down our throats!! Royce, I know you to be an excellent, reasonable person, please listen to me!! DO NOT PROMOTE a SNAKE to replace another SNAKE (ok, so oRobMe is an American citizen, but he may not be an NBC)!! I just cannot sit back at this point in time and be silent about this!! Again, supporting oRobMe at this time is the same as supporting oVomit because he CANNOT win against oVomit!!
If Barry and Willard debate Willard will bring his MITTENS. NEWT will bring his boxing gloves. He will be in this to wipe up the floor with Barry. Newt will also bring his KNIFE(VES) and his GUN(S)!!
HE WILL TALK THE TRUTH because he's the only one who has the balls to do it!! The difference between Romney and Newt is that Newt really does want to SAVE this country. Romney just wants to be president.
No "Link"? CCm'monnnn Saska I want to feel the seething hate for Romney that you feel. Just show me the proof dear.
I would look myself but I can't imagine where you're finding these heretofore unknown facts about Romney so, let's verify together.
Here's a link, I notice that Royce is not posting links about Wanta, and he's not denying that oRobMe is involved. Newt is NOT DONE and oRobMe is IMPLODING right on schedule!! All I can ask is that you silly Romney supporters hope for the TRUTH and we get an OPEN Convention or WE ARE F'd, same with oVomit, because oRobMe, the FLAWED Candidate can't even discuss obamaoromneycare intelligently because its based on romneycare! If you are delusional enough to think that oRobMe can beat oVomit with his MITTENS on you are crazy!! The link below is where Royce is getting his Wanta info, he's just leaving out MittWitt when he posts!
I had read some articles and research info a while back and one of them inferred that Leo Wanta was a hoax.
I'll try to find what I read on this, I don't think I saved it.
I find many stories claiming the Leo Wanta narrative to be a hoax. I was reasonably sure that it is a credible story although clearly fantastic. All the other elements in the series of stories were known to me except for the part about Dulles. If Wanta was an agent of the CIA, one would expect much of the corroborating online evidence to be nonexistant. If this story is false someone made up the following court case:
†Petition for Review filed.
State of Wisconsin,
Leo E. Wanta,
Opinion Filed: February 4, 1999
Submitted on Briefs: November 11, 1998
JUDGES: Vergeront, Roggensack and Deininger, JJ.
ATTORNEYS: On behalf of the defendant-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of James M. Shellow and Craig W. Albee of Shellow, Shellow & Glynn, S.C. of Milwaukee.
ATTORNEYS: On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of James E. Doyle, attorney general, William C. Wolford, assistant attorney general, and Sally L. Wellman, assistant attorney general.
COURT OF APPEALS
DATED AND FILED
February 4, 1999
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports.
Marilyn L. Graves
Clerk, Court of Appeals
A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See § 808.10 and Rule 809.62, Stats.
STATE OF WISCONSIN
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Wisconsin,
Leo E. Wanta,
APPEAL from a judgment and orders of the circuit court for Dane County: michael b. torphy, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Vergeront, Roggensack and Deininger, JJ.
ROGGENSACK, J. Leo Wanta appeals from his conviction of two counts of intentionally filing false and fraudulent Wisconsin individual income tax returns with intent to evade the income tax due in violation of § 71.83(2)(b)1., Stats., and four counts of intentionally concealing property upon which levy was authorized with the intent to evade the collection of taxes in violation of § 71.83(2)(b)3. Wanta claims that his conviction should be overturned for the following reasons: (1) Section 971.14(4)(b), Stats., unconstitutionally requires proof of incompetence by clear and convincing evidence when an accused claims he is competent; (2) the evidence does not support his convictions; (3) venue was improperly maintained in Dane County; (4) the circuit court failed to give the jury sufficient instructions to afford him a fair trial; (5) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel; (6) he was denied counsel of his choice; and (7) he has paid the amount owed. We conclude that no appealable error was committed and therefore, we affirm.
In 1988, Wanta allegedly kept money he received in the name of a corporation he controlled, New Republic/USA Financial Group, Ltd. (New Republic), and made payments from the corporate accounts for his own benefit. The Department of Revenue (DOR) suspected that Wanta used the New Republic name to avoid collection of outstanding tax warrants against him for the back taxes of Falls Vending Company, a company with which Wanta had been associated in the early 1980’s.
DOR received Wanta’s 1988 and 1989 state tax returns in June 1991. The 1988 return contained no entry for federal adjusted gross income. Wanta attached federal form 4868 to his state return. On line one of form 4868, Wanta entered a “0” to indicate his federal tax liability for 1988. Wanta’s 1989 state tax return contained a dash on the line designated as federal adjusted gross income. Wanta and his wife signed all of the returns, indicating that the information was “true, correct and complete.”
On May 8, 1992, the State charged Wanta with two counts of filing false tax returns to evade 1988 and 1989 taxes and with four counts of concealing property upon which levy was authorized. Prior to the preliminary hearing, because the issue of Wanta’s competency had been raised, the court ordered a competency evaluation which was completed by Dr. Parikh. At the first competency hearing held on March 10, 1994, Wanta asserted that he was competent. Dr. Parikh’s report, which concluded that Wanta was competent, was presented, and both Wanta’s attorney and the State waived the presentation of additional evidence regarding competency. The circuit court found Wanta competent to stand trial.
On June 22, 1994, two weeks prior to the then scheduled trial date, Wanta’s second attorney, John Chavez, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. The court denied the motion, reasoning that it would not release Chavez until the court was certain that successor counsel had been secured.
On June 24, 1994, the court ordered a second competency evaluation, after Chavez filed a motion asserting that Wanta was unable to assist in his own defense. At the second competency hearing on July 13, 1994, Dr. David Mays concluded that Wanta was incompetent. Dr. Mays noted Wanta’s grandiose and unbelievable claims and doubted whether Wanta could “transcend his delusional disorder to the extent that he is able to work with his attorney to provide a plausible defense to present in court.” Because Wanta again asserted that he was competent, the court noted that the State bore the burden of proving his incompetence by clear and convincing evidence. The next day the court found Wanta incompetent and ordered him committed to the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), pursuant to § 971.14(5), Stats.
On November 4, 1994, the court held a third hearing on competency, at which Wanta again claimed he was competent; Dr. Mays again testified that in his opinion Wanta was not competent. The court again found Wanta incompetent and continued his commitment. On February 3, 1995, the court held a fourth competency hearing. Prior to the hearing, the court, counsel for the State and counsel for Wanta all had received a report from Dr. Lee, who had recently examined Wanta. Both the State and Wanta’s attorney waived the opportunity to present additional evidence. Wanta continued to maintain he was competent. Relying on an evaluation letter from Dr. Lee, who was of the opinion that Wanta could appreciate the charges against him, assist in his own defense, and if found guilty, understand the consequences, the court found Wanta competent to proceed to trial, thereby releasing him from commitment to DHSS.
On May 2, 1995, the court heard another motion to withdraw filed by Chavez and a motion from Attorney Steven Epstein conditionally requesting to be substituted as Wanta’s counsel, if the court would reschedule the trial date to give Epstein time to prepare. The court denied both motions.
On May 8, 1995, Wanta’s four-day trial commenced. DOR agent Dennis Ullman testified for the State. Using a simple method of showing actual payments to or on behalf of Wanta from a New Republic bank account, Ullman demonstrated that Wanta had taxable income in 1988 and 1989. Wanta was the only defense witness. He testified that he never intentionally filed fraudulent tax returns; that he had no income between 1986 and 1989, but survived by borrowing and selling personal property; that money received and vehicles purchased were for his business; that he was not a resident of Wisconsin in 1989; and that he was not liable for the Falls Vending taxes because he was not the owner of the company. Wanta’s testimony also included grandiose and unbelievable claims.
The jury convicted Wanta on all six counts. On September 20, 1995, Wanta’s new attorney, Epstein, again expressed concern about Wanta’s competency, even though Wanta still asserted that he was competent. The court ordered a fifth competency evaluation. On October 27, 1995, a competency hearing was held and the court admitted the reports of Doctors Van Rybroek, Friedman and Treffert. No other evidence was presented. On October 30, 1995, the court issued an opinion concluding that Wanta was competent.
On November 20, 1995, the court sentenced Wanta to two years in prison on Counts 3 through 6, to run consecutively, for a total of eight years and imposed a six-year consecutive probation sentence on Counts 1 and 2. On June 3, 1996, the court ordered Wanta to reimburse the State Public Defender $4,167.64 for the cost of legal representation. The court also ordered Wanta to pay restitution of $24,900.91, which did not include Wanta’s payment of $14,129 applied to a civil fraud penalty. On January 23, 1998, the court reduced the total restitution to $14,128.10 because the original amount erroneously included interest. The court denied Wanta’s postconviction motions, and this appeal followed.
Wanta argues that the State did not establish facts sufficient to warrant venue in Dane County on the charges of concealing property to avoid levy because it failed to present evidence that any of the property at issue was ever located in Dane County. Wanta claims that he raised this issue on his own motion before the circuit court while he was represented by counsel. While a defendant has a constitutional right to be represented at trial, he has no constitutional right to concurrent self-representation and representation by counsel. Moore v. State, 83 Wis.2d 285, 297-302, 265 N.W.2d 540, 544-47 (1978); see also State v. Debra A.E., 188 Wis.2d 111, 138, 523 N.W.2d 727, 737 (1994). Therefore, the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion by deciding not to consider Wanta’s pro se objection because he was represented in the proceedings by counsel. See Moore, 83 Wis.2d at 301-02, 265 N.W.2d at 546-47. However, Wanta could have brought his concerns about venue and the charges brought pursuant to § 71.83(2)(b)3., Stats., to the attention of circuit court through counsel. Because he did not do so, he has waived the appeal of this issue. See Dolan v. State, 48 Wis.2d 696, 703, 180 N.W.2d 623, 626 (1970).
At the circuit court’s jury instruction conference, Wanta failed to request jury instructions beyond those submitted by the State and the court. Additionally, he did not object to the State’s proposed instructions. Therefore, we conclude Wanta has waived the appeal of this issue. State v. Schumacher, 144 Wis.2d 388, 409, 424 N.W.2d 672, 680 (1988).
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.
The right to effective assistance of counsel stems from the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which guarantee a criminal defendant a fair trial. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 684-86; State v. Sanchez, 201 Wis.2d 219, 227-28, 548 N.W.2d 69, 72-73 (1996). The test for ineffective assistance of counsel has two prongs: (1) a demonstration that counsel’s performance was deficient, and (2) a demonstration that the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. A defendant has the burden of proof on both components of the test. Id. at 688.
To prove deficient performance, a defendant must establish that his or her counsel “made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” State v. (Edward) Johnson, 153 Wis.2d 121, 127, 449 N.W.2d 845, 847 (1990) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687). A defendant must also overcome a strong presumption that his or her counsel acted reasonably within professional norms. Id. To satisfy the prejudice prong, a defendant usually must show that counsel’s errors were serious enough to render the resulting conviction unreliable. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.
Wanta argues that Chavez was ineffective in: (1) failing to present a defense; (2) failing to renew the competency issue; and (3) failing to renew his motion to withdraw. Contrary to Wanta’s assertion, this case does not present complex tax issues. Rather, it addresses factual issues such as whether Wanta intentionally evaded paying his taxes. In regard to the issue of intent, and based on Wanta’s testimony that he did not think he had any taxable income, Chavez argued that Wanta did not intentionally file a false return under § 71.83(2)(b)1., Stats. Additionally, Chavez explained that he did not present the defenses that no taxes were due because Wanta was not a Wisconsin resident and because the money he spent was obtained from loans, as those defenses were not supported by credible evidence. This was a strategic decision, not ineffective assistance, as Wanta suggests. Cf. State v. Felton, 110 Wis.2d 485, 329 N.W.2d 161 (1983) (defense counsel ineffective for failing to consider the defense of manslaughter in a homicide case because he was unaware of the law).
Additionally, Chavez was not ineffective in failing to revisit the competency issue after the circuit court found Wanta competent to stand trial in February 1995. The record reveals no new evidence concerning Wanta’s competence between February and the trial. Therefore, Chavez had no reason to doubt the most recent competency determination and absent reasonable doubt, he was not required to again raise the issue of Wanta’s competency. See (Oliver) Johnson, 133 Wis.2d at 219-20, 395 N.W.2d at 182. Finally, Chavez was not ineffective in failing to renew his motion to withdraw. If substitute counsel became available, the court said it would reconsider its decision; however, the record does not reflect that substitute counsel was ever available in a timely fashion that would have obviated the need for further delays.
Given the limits Chavez described as having been placed on him due to Wanta’s proposed defense, inconsistent testimony, and failure to cooperate in developing credible evidence, Chavez demonstrated representation which was reasonable and within professional norms. He adequately developed the most prudent defenses and did not continue to raise previously denied motions when circumstances underlying the denials had not changed. Therefore, his performance was not defective.
Substitution of Counsel.
The sixth amendment guarantee of assistance of counsel includes a qualified right to representation by counsel of the accused’s choice. State v. Miller, 160 Wis.2d 646, 652, 467 N.W.2d 118, 119 (1991). Wanta contends that he was unconstitutionally denied his choice of counsel when the circuit court denied Chavez’s June 22, 1994 motion to withdraw, Chavez’s May 2, 1995 motion to withdraw, and Epstein’s May 2, 1995 motion for substitution and adjournment. In evaluating whether the circuit court properly denied these motions for withdrawal and substitution of counsel, we address three considerations: (1) the adequacy of the court’s inquiry into a defendant’s complaint; (2) the timeliness of the motion; and (3) whether the alleged conflict between a defendant and his attorney was so great that it likely resulted in a total lack of communication that prevented an adequate defense and frustrated a fair presentation of the case. State v. Lomax, 146 Wis.2d 356, 359, 432 N.W.2d 89, 90 (1988).
With regard to the first consideration, there may be instances in which a court may make a decision without a full inquiry into a defendant’s reasons for requesting a change of counsel. Id. at 361, 432 N.W.2d at 91. If a defendant repeatedly makes such requests without presenting evidence of the attorney’s incompetency or of conflict, the circuit court may summarily conclude, without a full inquiry, that the request is merely a ploy to disrupt the trial process. Id. With regard to the third consideration, to warrant substitution of appointed counsel, a defendant must show good cause, such as conflict of interest, a complete breakdown in communication or an irreconcilable conflict which leads to an apparently unjust verdict. State v. Robinson, 145 Wis.2d 273, 279, 426 N.W.2d 606, 609 (1988). Mere disagreement over trial strategy does not constitute good cause to require the court to permit an appointed attorney to withdraw. Id. at 278, 426 N.W.2d at 609. In addition, the right to counsel cannot be manipulated in order to obstruct the processing of a case by the courts or to interfere with the administration of justice. State v. Clifton, 150 Wis.2d 673, 684, 443 N.W.2d 26, 30 (Ct. App. 1989).
When deciding whether to grant or deny a request for substitution with the associated request for continuance, the circuit court must balance a defendant’s constitutional right to counsel of choice against the societal interest in prompt and efficient administration of justice. Lomax, 146 Wis.2d at 360, 432 N.W.2d at 91. Several factors assist in balancing the relevant interests: the length of delay requested; whether there is competent counsel presently available to try the case; whether other continuances have been requested and received by the defendant; the convenience or inconvenience to the parties, witnesses and the court; whether the delay seems to be for legitimate reasons or whether its purpose is dilatory. Id.
In denying Chavez’s June 1994 request to withdraw as counsel, the court considered Chavez’s stated reasons, as well as Wanta’s claim to have private counsel, even though none appeared at the hearing. The court also considered the fact that Chavez was available and prepared to try the case. Therefore, the court’s conclusion that under the circumstances it would consider a motion for withdrawal and substitution only if the Public Defender’s office found new counsel for Wanta was not clearly erroneous.
In May 1995, Chavez again moved to withdraw, alleging the same conflicts as those in his earlier motion, and Attorney Epstein moved to be substituted, conditioned upon adjournment of trial. The court denied both motions, noting the history of delay in the case, the nonmandatory nature of the request for withdrawal, Wanta’s prior, unfounded claims that he had secured alternative counsel, and the proximity to trial. Based on the history of the case and the fact that Wanta’s position was adequately addressed by his affidavit attached to the motion to adjourn and by Epstein’s comments at the hearing, the court properly exercised its discretion when it denied the motions for withdrawal and substitution.
The validity and reasonableness of restitution is measured by how well it serves to effectuate the State’s objectives. Monosso, 103 Wis.2d at 378, 308 N.W.2d at 896. Such objectives include rehabilitation, protection of the public, and making the victim whole. Id.; State v. Heyn, 155 Wis.2d 621, 629, 456 N.W.2d 157, 160 (1990). With regard to delinquent taxes, a person found guilty of tax evasion may be assessed a penalty in an amount equal to 100% of the entire underpayment. Section 71.83(1)(b)1., Stats. Payments made by a defendant, as restitution or otherwise, are first applied to penalties. Section 71.74(15), Stats.
Based on the applicable statutes and principles underlying restitution, the court properly applied Wanta’s $14,129 payment to the civil fraud penalty. DOR was authorized to assess such a penalty under § 71.83(1)(b)1., Stats., and it properly applied the payment to the penalty instead of the principal amount of the tax, pursuant to § 71.74(15), Stats. In addition, the assessment of a penalty, although not necessary to make a victim whole, furthers the objectives of rehabilitation and protection of the public by forcing a defendant to take responsibility for his actions. Therefore, the circuit court did not err when it ordered restitution of $14,128.10, the amount still owed after subtracting the $14,129 payment made by Wanta.
For the forgoing reasons, we conclude that Wanta’s convictions were based on constitutional statutes, credible evidence, proper performance of defense counsel and reasonable decisions of the circuit court.
By the Court.—Judgment and orders affirmed.
So where is Leo Wanta now?
Wanta may be a real person, but some of the stories about him having trillions in safekeeping for the US is a bit far out.
I had read some emails disputing his claim. I have a friend who might have the emails. I just can't go thru my 19,000 plus emails to find it.
I will let you know if I find more.
I know that Romney is the choice we are given and not the choice we made. Romney has been accused of being CRF and going to the 2012 Bilderberg meeting in Chantilly, VA.
On the other hand Newt is accused of being a 32nd degree Freemason.
Whoever the Republicans pick except an ineligible candidate, I will support.
But I will oppose Obama and Holder at all times.
Romney is NOT the choise we are given, sorry. Last time I checked the Convention is in late August in Tampa, and a whole lot of things are happening behind the scenes and by the day. For ONCE ovomit is telling the truth that oRobMe is almost a felon, and if not, he should be!