I offer the opinion in United States v. Matthew Fox, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97638 (D. N.J. 2009) particularly for students in the tax crimes area. In the opinion, the district court denies a convicted defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding a jury verdict and, alternatively, for a new trial. The opinion does give some sense of how the net worth case developed at trial and how the defense impemented its defense strategies, albeit unsuccessfully.
The case does have some sex it, although barely exposed and only for context. That context is work with a strip club "an Atlantic City gentleman's club called Bare Exposure." The work involved is by the defendant and his wife, appropriate named Melody Fox.
Addressed in the case are:
1. The application of the net worth method of proving a tax crime (how to serve up lead and the tracing of reasonable leads).
2. Inconsistency of verdicts (inconsistent verdicts have a place in our law; reminds me of Emerson's line "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.").
And other delightful things. Nothing ground shaking here in terms of establishing new law, but the package of the application of old law is very good.
Read and enjoy.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please make sure that your comment is relevant to the blog entry. For those regular commenters on the blog who otherwise do not want to identify by name, readers would find it helpful if you would choose a unique anonymous indentifier other than just Anonymous. This will help readers identify other comments from a trusted source, so to speak.