United States v. Lavigne
| Decision Date | 14 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | 21-20355 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DONALD STANLEY LAVIGNE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
OPINION AFTER TRIAL
I. Introduction
The government alleges in an indictment that between 2013 and 2018, defendant Donald Stanley Lavigne earned commissions from working as an independent insurance salesman and making sales for a gutter-protection business. Indictment, ¶ 2 ECF No. 1, PageID.1. According to the miscellaneous income forms (Forms 1099-Misc) insurance companies and the gutter-protection company filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Lavigne earned $301,523 in non-employee compensation from those businesses during those calendar years. Id. at ¶ 3, PageID.2. However, Lavigne failed to report any of his insurance or gutter-protection sales income on his federal tax returns, instead reporting that his income was “$0,” or reporting only his wife's income. He also submitted other documents to the IRS indicating that the Forms 1099-MISC filed by the insurance and gutter-protection companies were erroneous and stating that he did not earn any reportable income for the years 2013 through 2018. Id. at ¶ 5.
The government also alleges that Lavigne filed for bankruptcy on January 12, 2018, and that as part of the bankruptcy process Lavigne filed schedules falsely stating that he did not owe any taxes, and he falsely stated under oath that the bankruptcy schedules he filed were truthful and accurate. Id. at ¶¶ 6-9, PageID.3-4. He also filed an Official Form 107, Statement of Financial Affairs for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy, in which, it is alleged, he falsely stated that he earned zero gross income in 2016 and 2017. Id. at ¶ 8.
Finally the indictment charges that after being notified that he was the target of a federal grand jury investigation, Lavigne sent a letter to the Department of Justice in which he falsely asserted that his bankruptcy attorney had reviewed his 2017 income tax return and advised him that it was complete and correct. Id. at ¶ 10.
Lavigne waived his right to an attorney, asserting his right to represent himself, and the Court accepted the waiver after holding a hearing. The Court appointed standby counsel for Lavigne. Thereafter, Lavigne waived his right to a jury trial. Subsequently, after Lavigne filed certain documents with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) alleging that standby counsel engaged in improper financial conduct, the Court granted counsel's motion to withdraw as standby counsel. Lavigne persisted in his desire to represent himself.
A trial was scheduled to commence on January 10, 2023. The defendant failed to appear. The Court issued a bench warrant, and the defendant was arrested and brought to court later that day. The Court cancelled the defendant's bond and remanded him to the Marshal's custody. Trial began on January 11, 2023 before the Court sitting without a jury. The trial continued on January 12 and 13 and February 13 and 14, 2023. The defendant again was released on bond after the January 13 session. The government called nine witnesses and presented 112 exhibits that were received in evidence. The defendant called two witnesses and presented one exhibit that was received in evidence. The defendant elected not to testify in his own behalf, as is his right.
From the outset of the case, Lavigne has taken the position that he is not the defendant in this case, nor is he a corporation, an estate, or a legal fiction, but rather is “a living man, . . . living on the land.” The defendant is an educated and intelligent man, but he has fallen under the influence of others who have advanced pseudolegal arguments based on invalid and discredited concepts of law and government. Those arguments are based on specific but irrelevant formalities and language, which he mistakenly believes are significant.
Mr. Lavigne appears to subscribe to the concept that he has two aspects or identities, one which he labels as a “person” or “corporate entity,” and the other as his “flesh and blood' form. One spells his name with upper case letters. The other adds spurious and meaningless punctuation to his name. Although Mr. Lavigne puts special significance on these alternative nomenclature forms, these are ineffectual in law and are meaningless paper masks. They have no force or meaning in law, other than that they indicate an intention on Mr. Lavigne's part to evade his lawful obligations and the authority of the Court and other branches of government. Rather, this language is often used by a certain category of tax protester who believes that “the United States Government, including the IRS, is a fraud and that ‘they, the sovereign citizens, retain an individual common law identity exempting them from the authority of those fraudulent government institutions.'” United States v. Gooch, 595 Fed.Appx. 524, 527 (6th Cir. 2014) ().
Lavigne's doppelganger approach to his personal identity is tied to the idea that government credentials such as birth certificates embody a fictional “strawman,” each with its own corresponding bank or trust account that is distinct from the “flesh-and-blood” person. Joshua P. Weir, Sovereign Citizens: A Reasoned Response to the Madness, 19 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 830, 840 (2015). The strawman operates in the commercial world, the argument goes, so only the strawman is subject to the jurisdiction of a court. Ibid. “But since the gold standard was abolished, [this movement asserts,] the strawman accounts have been used to secure government debt; by filing the right documents, the flesh-and-blood person can ‘redeem' money from the strawman account.” United States v. Cook, No. 18-CR-00019, 2019 WL 2721305, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. June 28, 2019) (citing J.M. Berger, Geo. Wash. Program on Extremism, Without Prejudice: What Sovereign Citizens Believe 6 (June 2016)).
These concepts have no basis in law or fact, and no reasonable person would subscribe to them. Therefore, based on the record evidence adduced at trial, the Court makes the following findings of fact:
II. Findings of Fact
1. The defendant Donald Stanley Lavigne is the person brought before the court and the person named in the indictment.
2. The defendant submitted to the IRS a Form 1040X, received by the IRS on September 8, 2015 [ex. 4], for tax year 2013 listing $0 adjusted gross income.
3. The form was signed by the defendant and contains a jurat indicating that it was signed under the penalty of perjury.
4. The defendant earned commissions as a seller of insurance products for nine insurance companies in 2013 totaling $87,615.
5. The defendant received Form 1099-Misc from each insurance company reporting the commissions paid during 2013.
6. The defendant's misstatement of income on the 2013 Form 1040X could have a tendency to influence the IRS in determining the tax owed by the defendant for that year.
7. The defendant submitted to the IRS a Form 1040, received by the IRS on September 8, 2015 [ex. 5], for tax year 2014 listing on line 22 $0 total income.
8. The form was signed by the defendant and contains a jurat indicating that it was signed under the penalty of perjury.
9. The defendant earned commissions as a seller of insurance products for seven insurance companies in 2014 totaling $65,759.
10. The defendant received Form 1099-Misc from each insurance company reporting the commissions paid during 2014.
11. The defendant's misstatement of income on the 2014 Form 1040 could have a tendency to influence the IRS in determining the tax owed by the defendant for that year.
12. The defendant submitted to the IRS a Form 1040X, received by the IRS on September 21, 2017 [ex. 6], for tax year 2014 listing on line 1(C) adjusted gross income of $28,459. The defendant's commissions of $65,759 were not reflected in the total income reported on line 1(C).
13. The form was signed by the defendant and contains a jurat indicating that it was signed under the penalty of perjury.
14. The defendant's misstatement of income on the 2014 Form 1040X could have a tendency to influence the IRS in determining the tax owed by the defendant for that year.
15. The defendant submitted to the IRS a Form 1040, received by the IRS on October 13, 2017 [ex. 7], for tax year 2015 listing on line 22 $0 total income.
16. The form was signed by the defendant and contains a jurat indicating that it was signed under the penalty of perjury.
17. The defendant earned commissions as a seller of insurance products for eight insurance companies in 2015 totaling $36,404.
18. The defendant received Form 1099-Misc from each insurance company reporting the commissions paid during 2015.
19. The defendant's misstatement of income on the 2015 Form 1040 could have a tendency to influence the IRS in determining the tax owed by the defendant for that year.
20. The defendant submitted to the IRS a Form 1040, received by the IRS on March 2, 2017 [ex. 8], for tax year 2016 listing on line 22 $37,032 as total income.
21. The form was signed by the defendant and contains a jurat indicating that it was signed under the penalty of perjury.
22. The defendant earned commissions as a seller of insurance products for five insurance companies in 2016 totaling $36,532, which was not reflected in the total income reported on line 22.
23. The defendant received Form 1099-Misc from each insurance company reporting the commissions paid during 2016.
24. The defendant's misstatement of income on the 2016 Form 1040 could...
To continue reading
Request your trial