A trio of Colorado Springs tax protesters claiming to be citizens of the Republic of Colorado will remain in federal prison after a 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge rejected each of their separate, self-written appeals.
In a 61-page document, Judge Scott M. Matheson Jr. made it clear that the only people John Pawelski, George Thomas Brokaw and Mimi Vigil have to blame for their current predicament — serving six years each in prison for various tax-fraud related charges — are themselves.
Matheson meticulously itemized myriad judicial missteps taken by the tax protesters, who were of filing false claims for tax refunds, corruptly working to obstruct or impede administration of internal revenue laws and conspiracy.
The defendants’ shenanigans included firing their attorneys, storming out of the court during jury selection, refusing to attend their own trial, and interrupting U.S. District Judge Christine M. Arguello by shouting political slogans.
The three tax protesters found themselves in federal court originally after Brokaw filed six false tax returns seeking $358,218 in refunds, Pawelski filed four false returns seeking $22.9 million and Vigil filed one false return seeking $372,169. They filed the fraudulent tax returns between 2008 and 2012.
The convicts harassed IRS and Department of Treasury employees who investigated and attempted to collect taxes from them by mailing them fraudulent liens claiming the employees owed them amounts of money ranging from tens of millions to billions of dollars, Matheson said. They mailed one fraudulent lien to an employee’s home and attempted to obtain the home address of another employee.
Matheson pointed out that although the defendants said their sentences were unreasonably long, Arguello set sentences that were below the recommended time for that offense with no prior criminal history. The trio was .
Vigil, who along with Pawelski and Brokaw wore matching sweaters during the trial, claimed Arguello erred when she declined to sever her case from her co-defendants to avoid prejudice, claiming that Pawelski and Brokaw were more culpable and that she was duped.
But Matheson pointed out that in a conspiracy trial those charged with conspiracy are tried together and that Vigil failed to make “a strong showing of prejudice.” Arguello had found that Vigil participated in “every aspect” of the tax fraud scheme for more than four years, the appeals judge pointed out.
“Ms. Vigil proceeded pro se and presented no defense at trial, much less a good-faith defense. She voluntarily absented herself until the last day of trial, when she delivered a closing argument focused on jury nullification,” Matheson said.
Vigil also argued that Arguello should have stopped her from representing herself when Vigil filed frivolous and incoherent documents and repeatedly ignored court orders. At one point, Vigil refused to state her name when the judge directed and identified herself only as a “living breathing woman of the land.” Her appeal took issue with Arguello’s failure to appoint advisory legal counsel, but Matheson pointed out that Vigil hadn’t requested advisory counsel.
In his appeal, Pawelsky had objected that Arguello didn’t reject his request to fire his attorney and proceed pro se.
Matheson found that Arguello was correct in allowing Pawelsky to proceed pro se.
He pointed out that Arguello held a separate hearing to weigh the legitimacy of his request and during the proceeding it was noted that Pawelsky had an associate’s degree in computer science and a bachelor’s degree in business, he had no mental condition and was not on medications, he was not on drugs and was not drunk. Furthermore, the judge repeatedly warned him that proceeding pro se put him at a “substantial professional disadvantage.”
Pawelsky also appealed Arguello’s failure to issue his subpoenas to potential witnesses including the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, the United States Attorney General and members of Congress even though Pawelsky had filed a motion seeking to “cancel the orders for subpoenas,” Matheson noted.
The three convicts also faulted Arguello for continuing the trial after they failed to attend. But Matheson said Arguello researched the issue and determined that it was legally up to the defendants whether they attended the trial. She said she did not want to arrest them and force them to attend the trial.
Matheson cited the judge’s admonition of the defendants to attend: “Now, I strongly advise you against what you are doing in terms of absenting yourself from these proceedings. I think it is important and in your best interest to be here. That being said, the decision ultimately whether you are present or not is yours. This trial will go on without you. And so you will still be subject to the verdict.”
But Matheson agreed that the defendants had a right not to attend the trial.
