re: Jason Williams Jury Deliberating

quote:

---

By being black

---

sad but true

The biggest problem in the case is that the tax preparer cheated on his own taxes and cheated on taxes for seemingly everyone he represented, so the jury could possibly believe that he just did it on his own and it wasn't deliberate cheating by Williams. Also, the buffoon also lied about being a CPA.

Of course, Williams had his partner deal with him all the time (which in my mind shows that Williams knew exactly what he was doing). It's like he was trying to avoid any contact with the guy, but yet the guy was doing his taxes (seems like a major responsibility for someone you have zero verifiable contact with).

So Williams could be found guilty on some charges, but could possibly avoid the most serious felony charge. Dude listed yoga classes and music streaming as business expenses. He's definitely guilty of being a typical New Orleans politician.

quote:

---

That's how the Feds finally got EWE after 2 State juries found him not guilty.

---

Wrong. Those first two EWE trial were because US Attorney John Volz indicted EWE in the NOLA federal court. The first trial in 1985 resulted in a mistrial, and the second trial in 1986 resulted in acquittal.

Per Wikipedia: "After Edwards and his four co-defendants were acquitted, the hotel where the jurors had been sequestered revealed that half of the jurors had stolen towels as they left. Edwards quipped that he had been judged by a "jury of my peers".

quote:

---

Among other things, he never spoke to the accountant himself, pretty much ever. He never directed any action, directly. He can simply insinuate he trusted a professional and his partner, and the professional committed fraud and he was unaware. There's more to it than that but he was pretty smart about it. The tax preparer also fraudulently held himself out as a CPA and wasn't. Ultimately you are responsible for what you sign, but that might not matter to the jury.

---

The issue is you don’t get to be THAT wildly out of line and claim “aw shucks how’d that happen”

It’s hundreds of thousands in shady stuff. The only way he can defend it is to say he’s incapable of tying his own shoes and needs to be institutionalized so he can be cared for

quote:

---

Not guilty is my prediction.

---

Yeah, he will get off. The prosecution seems very messy/sloppy, which is a bit unusual with the Feds in this type of case. Their "star" witness was an untrustworthy bozo who stumbled all over himself and said he was testifying in an effort to get reduced charges.

The jury should find it odd that a lawyer who works for a firm that supposedly deals with a lot of cash payments "did not know about" the form 8300 and then claimed to divide the payments amongst others in the firm thereby thinking it absolved him from reporting. Ignorance is not a defense. He certainly appears to be hiding something, but I am not sure that was proven without a reasonable doubt based on media reports.

quote:

---

I’m going with he knew. I know their is a responsibility on the professional. But he’s also a professional. Why would your accountant risk their career to commit tax evasion for you for free?

---

The scope of this is like buying a brand new product from a crackhead for like 2% of its actual value and then acting shocked it’s stolen.

“Oh man, he never told me that $500 bike and $750 in tools were stolen when I gave him $20 and a beer for the whole lot of it!”

If it were smaller transgressions you could buy the mistake but this is a couple of teenagers selling him a new car for $100 without keys during the height of the car jacking sprees

quote:

---

The issue is you don’t get to be THAT wildly out of line and claim “aw shucks how’d that happen”

It’s hundreds of thousands in shady stuff. The only way he can defend it is to say he’s incapable of tying his own shoes and needs to be institutionalized so he can be cared for

---

The case isn't that he owes money.

He does.

The case is that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that he acted willfully. If all they have is "connect the dots, you know he did it" that's just not enough. The defense can create just enough doubt in the tax preparer.

Anyone know the racial composition of the jury? I know it's mostly female, and AA females don't take kindly to AA men married to white women.

Prediction? He’ll be the next mayor.