exeter gun dealer pleads no contest,

[shooter]

 well the finially pleaded out on the tax evasion case,

   http://journalstar.com/news/local/911/former-nebraksa-gun-dealers-enter-pleas-to-tax-evasion/article_41698fdd-a19f-5f43-b7aa-9e08eef9b67a.html

   and Im not one to talk about anyones spelling, but you would think a news paper would know how to spell Nebraska!

[barmandr]

What a couple of class A douche bags.  I wonder if this is what caused their divorce or if it's some kind of legal maneuver...

[Mali]

    and Im not one to talk about anyones spelling, but you would think a news paper would know how to spell Nebraska!

Wahts wrogn wthi their speling?

The irony of their typo is that they are a newspaper located in the capital of "Nebraksa"

[Chris C]

What a couple of class A douche bags.  I wonder if this is what caused their divorce or if it's some kind of legal maneuver...

A BF might have had something to do with it also but who knows.  lol  It's never came out that I've seen but were they paying federal taxes?

[newfalguy101]

I don't suppose somebody could copy and paste the story, I cant see anything except the first couple of lines.

[00BUCK]

I don't suppose somebody could copy and paste the story, I cant see anything except the first couple of lines.

I don't thank anyone will, that is copyrighted data and is blocked out because you are not a paying Urinal Star subscriber. Anyone that pastes the entire story could be up a creek.

[GreyGeek]

Back when ... I wrote the software (using FoxPro) that compared the federal income tax returns with the state income tax returns.   If the income he claimed on his IRS return did not compare with that claimed on his state returns the Dept of Revenue investigators KNEW when they asked him to bring in his returns that he had fudged the data.  IF those investigators are the same lawyers I knew when I was working for the Dept of Rev then I know they were not trying to trap him or take down his business, but were giving him an opportunity to explain the discrepancies. 

I don't know what the other 3 felony charges were, that were dropped, but failing to report income or pay income taxes is stupid.   One would think a fire arms dealer, especially one doing millions of dollars worth of business,  would be smarter than that and not risk loosing his business licenses, his 2nd Amendment rights or his personal freedom.  Just plain dumb.

[newfalguy101]

I don't thank anyone will, that is copyrighted data and is blocked out because you are not a paying Urinal Star subscriber. Anyone that pastes the entire story could be up a creek.

I suppose so, but I highly doubt it, the entire purpose of the newspaper is to share the information, it would be no different than buying a paper and photo copying a page for a friend.

[CitizenClark]

Back when ... I wrote the software (using FoxPro) that compared the federal income tax returns with the state income tax returns.   If the income he claimed on his IRS return did not compare with that claimed on his state returns the Dept of Revenue investigators KNEW when they asked him to bring in his returns that he had fudged the data.  IF those investigators are the same lawyers I knew when I was working for the Dept of Rev then I know they were not trying to trap him or take down his business, but were giving him an opportunity to explain the discrepancies. 

My church's worship leader (like a "cantor," for you Catholics) worked on the case for Revenue, and from what he tells me you are correct.

I don't know what the other 3 felony charges were, that were dropped, but failing to report income or pay income taxes is stupid.   

Rob's case:

 Count                 Charge                    Offense Class                 
  01  Fail to pay sales tax                    ; Class 4 Felony                 
         Offense Date is 12/10/2010                                             
  02  Fail to pay sales tax                    ; Class 4 Felony                 
         Offense Date is 12/10/2010                                             
  03  Fail to pay sales tax                    ; Class 4 Felony                 
         Offense Date is 12/10/2010                                             
  04  Evade income tax                         ; Class 4 Felony                 
         Offense Date is 12/10/2010                                             
  05  File fraudulent Nebr income tax return   ; Class 4 Felony                 
         Offense Date is 12/10/2010     

Hope's case:

 Count                 Charge                    Offense Class                 
  01  Fail to pay sales tax                    ; Class 4 Felony                 
         Offense Date is 01/25/2011                                             
  02  Fail to pay sales tax                    ; Class 4 Felony                 
         Offense Date is 01/25/2011                                             
  03  Fail to pay sales tax                    ; Class 4 Felony                 
         Offense Date is 01/25/2011                                             
  04  Evade income tax                         ; Class 4 Felony                 
         Offense Date is 01/25/2011                                             
  05  File fraudulent Nebr income tax return   ; Class 4 Felony                 
         Offense Date is 01/25/2011 

[CitizenClark]

Here are the publicly available judge's notes for the duration of Rob's case:

02/24/2014                                                                     
 Information for:                                                               
 Count 1.   Sales Tax Evasion:  77-2713(1) F 4                                 
 Count 2.   Sales Tax Evasion:  77-2713(1) F 4                                 
 Count 3.   Sales Tax Evasion:  77-2713(1) F 4                                 
 Count 4.   Income Tax Evasion:  77-27,113 F 4                                 
 Count 5.   Filing a False Income Tax Return:  77-27,116 F 4.                   
 02/25/2014                                                                     
 02-25-2014 Otte                                Reporter                       
 Discovery is granted to all parties to the extent allowed by statute,         
 compliance required within 14 days.  Depositions may be taken by               
 defendant within 30 days hereafter at a time and place agreed upon by         
 parties.  State to file a Certificate of Compliance.  State reminded           
 of duty to disclose exculpatory matters.  Defendant is to reciprocate.         
 Unless objection filed within 14 days, State to provide any Olsan and         
 404 information requested not later than the date of the first docket         
 call.                                                                         
          Email show below sent to counsel of record this date:                 
 The Attorney General's office counsel appeared 2/25/14 at 8:30 a.m.           
 for the no show discovery hearings on the above cases.                         
 The court has made the docket entries on the discovery motion and they         
 are reciprocal. I informed the attorneys of our docket call date and           
 told them docket call procedures.  They said they will be here for             
 that hearing and I am putting your clients on the docket call list for         
 3/13/14 at 1:30 p.m. in courtroom #33.  Since these cases are not             
 going to be included in the County Attorney's list for docket call,           
 please consider this your order to apear at docket call.  If your             
 clients are in jail they do not need to appear.  If they are not in           
 jail they do need to appear for docket call.  Depending on your status         
 update, the court may put this on a trial list.  If you have any               
 questions, feel free to call this office. If you need any pretrial             
 motions set which you would obtain dates for at docket call, please           
 call in advance.  I am including a cc to George Welch, attorney of             
 record from the Attorney General's Office, so we are all on the same           
 page on these two cases (CR14-184 and CR14-185).                               
 03/13/2014                                                                     
 03-13-2014 Otte                                Reporter na                     
 Case came on for docket call.  George Welch appeared for the State,           
 Mark Enenbach appeared with Defendant. Case is set for pretrial               
 conference on 7/24/14 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom #33.  Trial will be           
 held on August 11, 2014. Def. OTA 7/24/14 at 11:00 a.m. Def. waived           
 speedy trial this date.                                                       
 07/24/2014                                                                     
 07-24-2014 Otte                                Reporter nha                   
 Welch. Dft w Enenback. Parties are not ready for trial and the                 
 matter is now set for pretrial Sept 29 at 2pm. Parties are excused             
 from July and Sep Doc Call hearings.                                           
 DFT WAIVES SPEEDY.                                                             
 09/29/2014                                                                     
 09-29-2014 Otte                                Reporter nha                   
 Welch. Enenbach  w dft who is OTA 10/14/14/ at 4pm for Plea.                   
 10/14/2014                                                                     
 10-14-2014 Burns                               Reporter jm                     
 State by Laura Nigro.  Defendant with Pete Blakeslee.  Defendant               
 is given leave to withdraw his previous plea of not guilty.  Defendant         
 is re-arraigned on the information.  Defendant enters plea of no               
 contest to counts 1 & 4 of information.  Plea is accepted and                 
 defendant is found guilty.  Presentence investigation requested.  Bond         
 continued.  Sentencing set for 12/18/14 at 1:45 p.m. in DC                     
 #33.  Defendant is ordered to appear. 

[GreyGeek]

Code: [Select]

Count 1.   Sales Tax Evasion:  77-2713(1) F 4                                 
 Count 2.   Sales Tax Evasion:  77-2713(1) F 4                                 
 Count 3.   Sales Tax Evasion:  77-2713(1) F 4                                 
 Count 4.   Income Tax Evasion:  77-27,113 F 4                                 
 Count 5.   Filing a False Income Tax Return:  77-27,116 F 4. 
Defendant enters plea of no  contest to counts 1 & 4 of information.  Plea is accepted and  defendant is found guilty.

Did he plea no contest to counts 1 and 4 or counts 1 through 4?
(I know what "&" means  in non-legal settings.)

If the former then what is significant about count 1 when compared to counts 2 and 3? Just different years?

Also, he didn't plead out on 2, 3 and 5.  Will he go to trial for those counts or are they dropped?

The maximum penalty for a Class IV felony is up to 5 years in prison or a fine up to $10,000, or both.  If the former then he could face up to 15 years and/or $30,000 in penalties, if the latter just 5 years and $10,000 in penalties.  Either way he looses his FFL and other licenses along with his  CHP  or the right to buy or possess firearms.

During his time in business he supposedly had revenues $3.9 million dollars.  I wonder what his actual net profit was?   Did he evade part or all of the sales taxes due?   Also, why did he changed his plea?  Sometimes the accused, knowing their own guilt and the evidence against them,  changes their plea as part of a deal to choose the lessor of possible outcomes, making it easier on themselves and easier and less expensive for the State.  Sometimes the RICCO Act is employed to deprive the accused of funds to defend themselves, forcing them to plead out.

AN ASIDE:
Ten years ago, when I wrote the software which compared Nebraska Income Tax returns with Federal Income Tax returns I was given a special URL and password by the IRS from which I could download about two dozen zip files, sorted alphabetical by last name.  IIRC, the files contained about 5GB of data which expanded out to about 10GB.  After unzipping the files I  merged them into a FoxPro database table with a series of SQL commands.  Then I ran the program which compared the contents of the IRS foxpro table with the Nebraska foxpro table and stored in another FoxPro  table  the records containing the list of Nebraska returns  which differed from the IRS returns by a certain test amount.   Obviously, the smaller that test amount the greater the number of records which would appear in the table of Nebraska discrepancy returns.  $500 as a test value produced a couple thousand records, too many for the lawyers to process in a single season, and anyone could make a $500 mistake on their return.    $10,000 produced only a handful of records.  One person had reported $100,000 less on their Nebraska return than on their IRS return.  The value chosen was $1,000, which produced about 200-300 records.  The lawyers started with the greatest difference and worked down.  I heard that they handled most differences by a single phone call, which resulted in an amended tax return plus penalties.

[CitizenClark]

Did he plea no contest to counts 1 and 4 or counts 1 through 4?
(I know what "&" means  in non-legal settings.)

The former.

If the former then what is significant about count 1 when compared to counts 2 and 3? Just different years?

There is probably nothing significant about that particular count other than the possible penalty and the deal the prosecutor made on recommending a specific sentence on a plea deal.

Also, he didn't plead out on 2, 3 and 5.  Will he go to trial for those counts or are they dropped?

They are arising out of the same circumstances involving the same parties and the same evidence, so I would guess that they have to try them, if at all, together. In other words, those other charges are probably dropped as past of the deal. (I'm shooting from the hip here — it has been several years since I did any litigation work and that was in a different state.)

The maximum penalty for a Class IV felony is up to 5 years in prison or a fine up to $10,000, or both.  If the former then he could face up to 15 years and/or $30,000 in penalties, if the latter just 5 years and $10,000 in penalties.  Either way he looses his FFL and other licenses along with his  CHP  or the right to buy or possess firearms.

Yep. Unless he can get a pardon a decade from now, he will never be able to legally own guns again.

During his time in business he supposedly had revenues $3.9 million dollars.  I wonder what his actual net profit was?   Did he evade part or all of the sales taxes due?   Also, why did he changed his plea?

Almost everyone initially enters a plea of not guilty. If you started out with a guilty plea, you wouldn't have anything to bargain with.

Sometimes the accused, knowing their own guilt and the evidence against them,  changes their plea as part of a deal to choose the lessor of possible outcomes, making it easier on themselves and easier and less expensive for the State.

Plea bargaining is how the vast majority of criminal cases are disposed of: around 95 percent of federal criminal cases and somewhere between 90 and 95 percent of state criminal cases. (https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf)

[Sandhillian]

They entered guilty pleas to two Class IV felonies.  The remaining counts were dismissed.  If sentenced to prison, the "actual" sentence for a Class IV felony is 20 to 60 months.  The court can choose to impose consecutive (one sentence after the other) or concurrent (serve both at the same time) sentences.  If concurrent, they would be eligible for parole after serving 10 months, and would be discharged after serving 30 months (with "good time" figured in).  If consecutive, those numbers would essentially be doubled.  Probation and/or a fine are also possible penalties.

[Husker_Fan]

I suppose so, but I highly doubt it, the entire purpose of the newspaper is to share the information, it would be no different than buying a paper and photo copying a page for a friend.

The point of the paper is to make money, usually by selling advertising. You are right that it would be no different than buying a paper and copying it. Both are copyright violations.