CA1: mistake of law explained

US v. Swan, No. 04-2078 (unpublished) appears to be a tax protestor case.  The First does provide an interesting summary of the mistake of law principles announced in Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991):

1. A willful violation is a voluntary, intentional relinquishment of a known legal duty
2. ....An error arising from a bona fide misunderstanding of the Tax Code is not willful...
3. an error arising from a constitutional or philosophical objection is willful...  The appellant argues that he sincerely believed that the Tax Code was unconstitutional. This is just the sort of argument that Cheek precludes.
4. In any event, he makes no showing that a reasonable jury could not have found that he knew his tax obligations and intentionally renounced them.  [Let me state this in plain English: The government presented evidence that he knew his tax obligations and renounced them.]

Obviously selective prosecution claims go nowhere, as do First amendment claims. 

This bar exam tip brought to you courtesy of the letter § -- makers of the BarBri Dream House.

Note: I think the First did a good job with this unpublished opinion, but this just might be because I really hate tax protestors.