skally wagger: look what you did. i was looking foward to an easy day of hearing about shunning, or how the wt is JOE-HOOVER'S ORG. VACUUM CLEANING SERV. now you got my interest. and now i have to do research. IT WILL be worth the time. my C.O. friend is pretty ballsy. and a challange for me. i'm boning up to give him the coup da grace in our next talk. but i may need to pm you for some info. i know if i need your help you willn't let me down. john
Who is/ was Norman H. Crowhurst?
by sf 23 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
sf
{{{{{{{{{{{{{ johnny }}}}}}}}}}}}}
Absolutely.
I did find something, yet will wait until I'm sure it's related.
sKally
-
VM44
sKally, what did you find?
Online one can find mention of a "United States v. Norman H. Crowhurst" court case that concerned the proper filing of income taxes. I think it is the same person.
--VM44
-
sf
VM,
I'll wait on the first 'hit' I found until I'm positive it is related.
I did just find this though:
Libertarian Forum (2 Volume Set)
... Facing Bureaucracy (Norman H Crowhurst); In Defense of Non-Romantic Literature ... John C Calhoun (Lance Lamberton); Libertarians on the Battlements ...
www.mises.org/store/Libertarian-Forum-P300C1.aspx - 62k - Cached - Similar pagesI'm doing a search on this, now...
Got it:
-
sf
Will a forum assistant please delete out the embedded PDF page, but leave the link. It is not allowing me to "undo" the 'paste'.
Thank you.
sKally
I tried to delete the PDF sKally but no can do.......
-
sf
Wow! is all I can say right now. Fascinating. I love to connect dots...
-
sf
I'm still trying to get my head around the fantastic notion that, with such a brilliant mind, he fell for ANYTHING the JW's had. I mean, come on.
Regarding the suit, is THIS what you are referring to?:
US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Reports - UNITED STATES v ...
Subscription - United States 9th Circuit Court of... - Loislaw - May 7, 1979NORMAN H. CROWHURST, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. No. 77-4004. ... Page 390 Norman H. Crowhurst, pro se. Ronald Hovet, Asst. US Atty., Portland, Or., ... All 5 related - Related web pages I found this in googles "TIMELINE" search. It's a great engine....
-
sf
US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Reports - UNITED STATES v ...
Subscription - United States 9th Circuit Court of... - Loislaw - Oct 20, 1980NORMAN H. CROWHURST, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. No. 79-1746. ... Page 1299 Norman H. Crowhurst, Levi J. Smith, Portland, Or., for defendant-appellant. ... All 4 related - Related web pages Button v. Crowhurst,Button v. Crowhurst, 698 P.2d 1054, 73 Or.App. 526
Subscription - Court of Appeals of Oregon, In Banc - Fastcase - Apr 24, 1985Button (Myron S.), Button (Jane L.) v. Crowhurst (Norman H.) NO. CA A32718. Court of Appeals of Oregon. APR 24, 1985. AFFIRMED WITHOUT OPINION. Related web pages -
sf
United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Reports - UNITED STATES v. CROWHURST, 596 F.2d 389 (9th Cir. 1979)
UNITED STATES v. CROWHURST, 596 F.2d 389 (9th Cir. 1979) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. NORMAN H. CROWHURST, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. No. 77-4004. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. May 7, 1979. Page 390 Norman H. Crowhurst, pro se. Ronald Hovet, Asst. U.S. Atty., Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Before SMITH,[fn*] ELY, and CARTER, Circuit Judges. [fn*] Honorable J. Joseph Smith, Senior United States Circuit Judge, Second Circuit, sitting by designation. PER CURIAM: [1] On March 8, 1977, a five-count indictment was returned against Crowhurst, the appellant. Counts I and II charged Crowhurst with the willful filing of false tax returns in 1970 and 1971, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), and Counts III, IV, and V charged willful failure to file income tax returns for the years 1972, 1973, and 1974, 26 U.S.C. § 7203. In July, 1977, Crowhurst was convicted on all counts after a trial before a jury. We reverse. [2] The most critical issue here is whether Crowhurst knowingly, competently, and intelligently waived his right to counsel before electing to represent himself. The record, as supplemented by Order of this court, includes the transcripts of various proceedings wherein the question of waiver of counsel and the decision of Crowhurst to represent himself was specifically addressed. In one of those proceedings, on July 19, 1977, the District Court advised Crowhurst of his right to counsel and discussed, with laudable care and patience, the general disadvantages to an accused of waiving counsel and undertaking to represent himself. Regrettably, however, the District Court did not discuss the nature of the charges and the possible penalties involved should Crowhurst eventually be convicted. Moreover, this subject was not addressed in the other proceedings when the waiver of counsel was discussed and considered. [3] As written in United States v. Dujanovic,486 F.2d 182, 186 (9th Cir. 1973): We cannot visualize a less minimal requirement than the District Court shall not grant a request to waive counsel and proceed pro se without addressing the accused personally and determining on the record that the demand to waive counsel and proceed pro se is competently and intelligently made withunderstanding of the nature of the charge and thepenalties involved. (Emphasis added.) [4] See also United States v. Aponte,591 F.2d 1247, 1249-50 (9th Cir. 1978). [5] No decision of our court that has addressed the waiver of counsel issue has held that the District Court may dispense with the requirement that an accused individual must specifically be made aware of the charges and their possible penalties and sanctions. See, e. g., United States v. Aponte, supra; UnitedStates v. Gillings,568 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir. 1978); Cooley v.United States,501 F.2d 1249 (9th Cir. 1974); Hodge v. UnitedStates,414 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1969) (en banc). It may be that the District Court's inadvertent omission in this Page 391 respect would not constitute reversible error if the record clearly disclosed that Crowhurst had, in some manner, been fully informed as to the nature and possible penalties of the crimes charged in the indictment. See United States v. Aponte, supra, at 1249-50; Cooley v. United States, supra, at 1252. We have, however, studied and restudied the record before us, and we can find no evidence whatsoever that the required information was imparted. [6] We do not reach other issues that are presented. [7] REVERSED and REMANDED.
-
sf
United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Reports UNITED STATES v. CROWHURST, 629 F.2d 1297 (9th Cir. 1980) No. 79-1746. Decided August 18, 1980. Rehearing Denied October 20, 1980. [1] Defendant-Appellant Crowhurst appeals from his conviction of two counts of willfully filing false tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) and three counts of willful failure to file tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. These violations occurred in the years 1970-74.
United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Reports UNITED STATES v. CROWHURST, 596 F.2d 389 (9th Cir. 1979) No. 77-4004. May 7, 1979. [1] On March 8, 1977, a five-count indictment was returned against Crowhurst, the appellant. Counts I and II charged Crowhurst with the willful filing of false tax returns in 1970 and 1971, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), and Counts III, IV, and V charged willful failure to file income tax returns for the years 1972, 1973, and 1974, 26 U.S.C. § 7203. In July, 1977, Crowhurst was convicted on all counts after a trial before a jury. We reverse.