Malachi Smith's List: JOHN & JANE Q. PUBLIC

• Johnny Gaskins and the End of Law
• by   William L. Anderson
• As the federal   government has become more powerful and more invasive, we have seen   an explosion of new laws and regulations.
• Interestingly, as the   number of laws increase, we have seen a similar decrease   in anything that resembles the rule of law.
• The successful   North Carolina criminal defense attorney Johnny Gaskins has found   out the hard way that in the federal system, law has disappeared   altogether.
• Earlier this   month, Gaskins   was convicted in a Raleigh federal court for depositing money   in a bank and faces prison for the rest of his life as a result.   I am not kidding.
• The News   & Observer presented a misleading headline about the case:   Lawyer’s Career Ends in Crime. (Yes, the N&O is the same paper   that published the false story which set off the infamous Duke Lacrosse   Non-Rape Case almost four years ago.)
• True, the lawyer’s career   is over but, no, he did not commit any crimes, despite what the   N&O and a federal jury might be saying.

• According to   the N&O:

   

   

  Johnny Gaskins   was a keeper of the law who built his career defending those who   disregarded it.

   

  But a jury   decided Oct. 9 that Gaskins had gone from being an officer of   the court to being a criminal.

   

  Gaskins,   a Raleigh criminal defense lawyer, was convicted of dividing large   sums of money into small deposits so that his bank would not fulfill   an Internal Revenue Service requirement to report cash transactions   of more than $10,000. The rule is intended to flag large sums   of cash that might be tied to illegal activity.
• The legal term   for this activity is "structuring," and readers might   remember that Elliot Spitzer, a.k.a. "Client Number 9,"   was   caught doing something similar (except he was making small withdrawals   rather than deposits). However, there is a huge difference between   the two acts. Gaskins did not make his deposits in order to cover   up any illegal activity, while Spitzer did.
• Thus, it seems   to be the perfect commentary on federal criminal law that Spitzer   never was charged while Gaskins faces more than 30 years in prison.
• This is a compelling story, and as one who has seen injustice after   injustice in the federal system, this perhaps is the worst injustice   I ever have seen.

• The N&O   continues:

   

   

  Associates   of Gaskins said in interviews that many of his fees were paid   in cash, often offered by clients who didn't trust banks enough   to open checking accounts.

   

  Gaskins kept   the money in a safe in his home's upstairs closet. By September   2005, he had amassed more than $200,000 in cash.

   

  That month,   Gaskins hired a crew to work at his house. One evening, he noticed   a set of muddy footprints on the carpet leading to his safe, even   though he had locked his house. Gaskins was sure he would be robbed.   He began moving that cash, one chunk at a time, to a personal   account at RBC bank, careful to not alert any particular teller   about his supply of cash.

   

  "I was concerned   about any single bank teller having information that I had so   much cash," Gaskins testified during his trial.
• Each deposit   was just below $10,000, the threshold to report to the IRS so   that federal authorities can track cash that might be tied to   criminal activity. Purposely structuring cash deposits to cause   a bank to evade reporting requirements is against the law.
• This law was   passed as an "ancillary crime" to give prosecutors leverage   in cases where people had amassed huge amounts of cash via drug   sales or other illegal activities and were trying to avoid detection   as well as avoid paying taxes on their money. However, that clearly   was not the case here, as the N&O continues:

• Gaskins filed   forms to the IRS accounting for more than $450,000 in cash payments,   according to evidence at trial. Prosecutors agreed that he had   filed and paid his taxes.

   

  He didn't   dispute that he intentionally divided his money, but he testified   that it was for innocent reasons. His habits, he said, were born   of an exposure to a criminal world that most people only see on   television dramas.

   

  Prosecutors   did not offer evidence of any other motive for Gaskins' behavior.   They said at trial that Gaskins should have known better.

   

  "The point   of the law is to make sure we don't have people who try to fool   the bank," federal prosecutor Randall Galyon told jurors last   week. "The fact that he was trying is against the law."
• So, we had   an attorney who was paid legally in cash, decided he might   be robbed, so he deposited the money in a bank. Furthermore, he   already had paid taxes on his cash earnings, so it is clear that   he had no criminal motives.
• Furthermore,   I can guarantee the readers that there was a motive that was not   mentioned, but well should be: prosecutors would have tried to frame   Gaskins had he deposited all of his money at once.
• That kind of   a deposit – which prosecutors insist that he had to make in order   to be legal – would have sent alerts to the police and prosecutors,   who would have tried to make a drug case against him, claiming he   actually had received that money illegally.

• The question   is this: Why were prosecutors hell-bent on going after him? The   answer lies in the success that Gaskins had in his career:

   

   

  He had received   death threats and had been harassed for more than a decade after   he persuaded a jury to spare the life of a client convicted of   killing a popular Raleigh police detective. Some of Gaskins' clients   were robbed and tortured, targeted because they carried large   amounts of cash, court filings show.

• The N&O   continues:

   

   

  Gaskins was   a former agent with the State Bureau of Investigation who built   a legal career on a reputation for asking the right questions   and paying attention to detail. He won his first jury trial as   a third-year law student while attending Campbell University Law   School.

   

  Over the   years, Gaskins would represent more than 20 clients facing the   death penalty, nearly all too poor to afford their own lawyers.   In recent years, though, Gaskins carved a niche representing clients   in massive federal drug conspiracy cases. His clients stretched   across this state and into others.
• This was payback,   pure and simple. Gaskins had success representing people accused   of crimes, and the police and prosecutors paid him back with what   only can be a trumped-up charge.
• Remember,   Gaskins was convicted of depositing money in a bank. He did   not evade taxes, he did not gain his cash through illegal means,   he just put the money in the bank.
• This is the   first time I have seen someone convicted in federal court of only   an ancillary crime with no underlying accusation to buttress   it.
• Spitzer withdrew small amounts of money in order to evade   his lawbreaking. (Even if one believes prostitution should be legal,   we should not forget that Spitzer would not have hesitated to charge   someone else with the same crime if he had the chance.)
• Lest anyone   think that the "system works fairly," think again. The   federal criminal system works, but it only works for the prosecutors   and no one else.
• While I am   lambasting the prosecution, one also should save at least some venom   for the judge and the jurors. If the jurors in this case really   believe that depositing one's money into a bank at less than $10K   a pop is a crime, then they need to turn in themselves and plead   guilty to the same thing.
• If Americans   really can go to prison for what effectively will be for the rest   of their lives simply for depositing money in a bank, then the law   is lost. Lost. One cannot rescue this "legal" system,   for it is beyond rescue.
• October   21, 2009
• William   L. Anderson, Ph.D. [send him   mail], teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland,   and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig   von Mises Institute. He   also is a consultant with American Economic Services. Visit   his blog.
• Copyright   © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in   part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

29 more annotations...