Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. Gordon S. Buttorff and Charles A. Dodge

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
572 F.2d 619 (1978)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Speech that goes beyond mere advocacy of law violation and provides specific instructions on how to commit a crime, thereby inciting others to imminent lawless activity, is not protected by the First Amendment and may form the basis for a criminal conviction of aiding and abetting.


Facts:

  • In early 1975, Gordon S. Buttorff and Charles A. Dodge addressed several large public gatherings in Iowa and Wisconsin.
  • The main topics of their speeches were the Constitution, the Bible, and the alleged unconstitutionality of the graduated income tax.
  • During question-and-answer sessions, Buttorff and Dodge explained how to file false W-4 or W-4E forms to illegally stop income tax withholding.
  • They advised attendees to claim a specific number of allowances, such as 30 to 40, or to calculate the number by dividing their yearly salary by 750.
  • Numerous employees from the John Deere Tractor plant attended these meetings.
  • Following the meetings, fifteen of these employees filed W-4 or W-4E forms with John Deere, claiming between 28 and 40 allowances or falsely certifying their tax liability.
  • Buttorff personally provided a W-4 form to one employee, Vernon Van Natta, at his home and assisted him in writing the number of allowances on the form.
  • Many attendees paid Buttorff and Dodge for various tax-related services.

Procedural Posture:

  • Fifteen John Deere employees who filed false tax forms were convicted of or pleaded guilty to violations of 26 U.S.C. § 7205 in federal district court.
  • Gordon S. Buttorff was indicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa on 11 counts of aiding and abetting these employees.
  • Charles A. Dodge was separately indicted in the same court on 8 counts of aiding and abetting.
  • The defendants' cases were consolidated for a joint jury trial.
  • The jury convicted Buttorff on 9 counts and Dodge on all 8 counts.
  • Buttorff and Dodge, as appellants, appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the First Amendment protect speech that goes beyond mere advocacy of tax reform and incites others to commit an imminent federal crime by providing specific instructions on how to file fraudulent tax withholding forms?


Opinions:

Majority - Ross, J.

No, the First Amendment does not protect speech that goes beyond mere advocacy and incites imminent lawless activity by providing specific instructions on how to commit a crime. The court distinguished between speech that merely advocates for law violation, which is protected under the First Amendment, and speech that incites imminent lawless activity, which is not. Citing Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court found that although the defendants' speech did not incite violence, it went beyond mere advocacy of tax reform. By explaining the specific mechanics of how to file fraudulent withholding forms, the defendants' speech and explanations incited several individuals to immediate action that violated federal law and hindered the administration of revenue. This instructional speech, which directly caused the commission of crimes, is not entitled to First Amendment protection and was sufficient to constitute aiding and abetting.



Analysis:

This case is significant for applying the First Amendment's incitement doctrine, established in cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio, to non-violent, speech-based crimes like tax evasion. It clarifies that 'imminent lawless activity' is not limited to physical violence or public disorder but can include the immediate filing of fraudulent documents. The decision establishes that providing specific, instructional 'how-to' advice for committing a crime crosses the line from protected advocacy into unprotected incitement. This precedent is crucial for prosecuting individuals who use seminars, publications, or other platforms to teach others the mechanics of committing financial or regulatory crimes under the guise of political protest.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Gordon S. Buttorff and Charles A. Dodge (1978)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"