Va. Man, Daughter Get Prison for Slavery Tax Claim

By Michelle Boorstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 24, 2003; Page A10

RICHMOND, Oct. 23 -- A Richmond accountant who helped his daughter get a $507,490 tax refund for nonexistent "federal slavery tax credits" was sentenced Thursday to 13 years in prison. His daughter was sentenced to three years.

The case was being closely watched by advocates of reparations for black Americans whose ancestors were slaves. But Thursday's hearing in a packed U.S. District courtroom was equal parts tax protest and ugly family drama.

Crystal Foster, 25, wailed hysterically after her sentencing and fell to the floor before about two dozen friends and relatives, leaving many of them sobbing and begging the bailiff to open the courtroom doors so they wouldn't have to watch federal marshals drag her away.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9423-2003Oct23.html

I'm interested in what people have to say about this. It's a major reparations case and not only shows the government's willingness to lock up tax criminals, but also shows how wacko some of the proponents are. The father in the article, if you read down far enough, has even copyrighted his name and vows to sue anyone who uses it.

Even as an African-American, I think reparations is ridiculous. I think it was paid in blood some time back. That doesn't mean we have no issues, it just means that as a nation we need to move forward and fix our problems together.

Reparations today is just a divisive wedge that prevents true and meaningful dialog to work through the issues that matter.

It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. ... "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

paying the reparations. When Japan paid reparations for the "comfort girls", they did it because it was the right thing to do. Whenever one party pays reparations to another party, it is an attempt to redress legitimate grievances, the only question is are they legitimate. Mostly, the arguments against reparations are ones of expediency - it would cost too much, it would make white people mad, it would "set back" race elations, etc. There are no legitimate arguments that show that reparations are undeserved, only that they are too difficult and too devisive. Four hundred years of slavery and a hundred and fifty years of aparteid deserves some sort of final restitution. Just MHO.

"There are no legitimate arguments that show that reparations are undeserved..."

How about the fact that not one living African American was actually enslaved? I think the fact that some people object to paying people for the suffering of their great-great-grandparents is a "legitimate argument."

A chld of an enslaved African American would also have a legitimate claim.

Those are the only two groups that have legal standing on the issue.

Try the pro reparations argument on those of us of Irish descent. We need reparations from the Norse (primarily Danes), the Romans (Italy), and England.

Read the history before you respond.

How many from Ireland, Scotland, and England were stripped of all rights and property for minor offenses or no offenses at all and forcibly sent here, usually as slave labor (indentured servitude if you wish).

My ancestors fit that category. I need reparations, too.

A better idea! Anyone who has a(n) ancestor(s) who committed a crime should be incarcerated. If my brother commits a crime, lock me up, too. It makes as much sense.

But of course you have to move forward and deal with what you have and what you can make of it.

The father's eccentricities don't discredit the basic argument in my mind, nor does his daughter's wrongdoing. It makes me sad, because even though I think the young woman was guilty of cheating the IRS, I empathize with her sense of being treated unjustly, and her despair. In the grand scheme of things, a college education and a luxury car ain't a whole lot in the way of payback.

Well, Crystal could have paid off her loans and bought a Mercedes Benz the hard way. But for all the opportunities young people have nowadays, there are still barriers and disadvantages. It's not like you're going to be able to cut a check and make that go away. And yet, when you consider all the daily injustices and indignities African Americans put up with, not to mention the deeper wounds that racism inflicts (and I'm white, so I don't really know first hand, but I do have eyes and ears), then what you are actually accomplishing with reparations is something more than what you can drive out of the showroom.

In the Jewish cases that were settled in Germany, no amount of money was going to make up for the holocaust, or any aspect of it like using Jews for slave labor. It had to be enough to hurt, enough to mean something, but it's ultimate value is symbolic. It shows that the Germans are sincere in their commitment to never again allowing such a thing to happen, that Jews can expect the German government to dispense justice instead of persecution. What that means for people's lives won't be fully felt for many years, long after all of the original survivors have been buried and the other financial beneficiaries too. It will come to pass when a Jew living in Berlin or Munich can go to work or do the shopping and not have an everpresent, vague feeling of being persecuted, of being a secret enemy, the first to be scapegoated when times get tough. That's what it means for Germany anyway. By owning up to its responsibilities it grows as a nation.

Looking at the US justice system in 2003, it's hard to be so optimistic.

For slavery are impossible. There are no living victims. How do you determine who would get the money? Would all blacks living in America qualify or would they have to prove they descended from slaves? What percentage black would you have to be? Personally, I have slave ancestors, but I am not 100% genetically black, would I only get a percentage of the settlement?

I believe that there are problems in America that impact all of us. I would rather focus on them than this.

The victims of the Holocaust were able to get compensation even though they were dead too. It went to their heirs. I have a sneaky suspicion the victims wouldn't mind that their descendents received compensation.

Futhermore, the legitimate reparations movement is asking for money to set up charitable trusts. The money isn't intended to go to individuals.

I believe that there are problems in America that impact all of us. I would rather focus on them than this.

The theft of labor worth millions, and possibly billions, and the continuing legacy of poverty and discrimination that is (at least) partly the result of this theft, impact all of us.

Usually, it's the Republicans who argue that they oppose an issue because

1) The beneficiaries are undeserving (ie "they weren't slaves")
2) An issue of basic fairness is unimportant
3) An issue doesn't affect "us" all (a definition that obviously excludes blacks)

They Repukes also regularly ignore the fact that our courts are well-equipped to handle issues far more complex than this.

And there were many eyewitnesses to the crimes, many criminals alive, etc. It was, in some Law and Order way, a still open criminal case.

Personally, I grew up a big history buff. In my opinion, those guys in blue paid all the reparations I will ever seek.

Rather than seek reparations, I'd rather aid the poor and fix the inner cities which will both aid African-Americans and serve NOT to inflame racial issues.

and none of them complained when their descendants received the money. And the theft of labor the US perpetrated against the slaves is also still open, and still criminal, unless you're under the impression that theft was not criminal.

Irregardless of your opinion, the law is the law, and when someone steals something from someone else, they can be forced to pay recompense. Your opinion is nothing more than an exploitation of emotion that says nothing about the underlying theft. It exploits the sympathy we feel for those who fought for a noble cause, but it ignores the fact that the battle did not compensate for the theft, it merely prevented additioinal thefts. It's like saying "Because the cops caught the man who robbed my house, I have no right to expect my belongings to be returned"

Rather than seek reparations, I'd rather aid the poor and fix the inner cities which will both aid African-Americans and serve NOT to inflame racial issues

And that's EXACTLY what the reparations movement is seeking. Another typical Repuke ploy is to ignore the facts of the issue, the way you have ignored the facts concerning what the reparations movement is trying to do.

All of your objections are bullshit.

1) The slaves are dead

The law considers this irrelevant.

2) It's too hard to figure out which blacks deserve compensation

It's not, and the compensation is to go to a charitable fund, and not individuals, making this objection moot.

3) There are better ways to help blacks, like aid to the poor

The people who make this argument haven't provided the aid. In fact, they fight it. Meanwhile, that's exactly what the reparations movement wants, and you object to it.

4) It's not an "open criminal case"

I have to admit, that's a new one. Too bad the reparations movement is based on civil law.

Now all you ahve to do is bring up "the statue of limitations", and your ignorance will be complete.

You're all argument is based on the premise that there was something stolen and that the 'law is the law.' Well, according to the 'law,' there was nothing illegal about slavery so how could anyone then expect some compensation for it?

Also, while descendents might expect compensation in other cases, it is still usually the guilty who are made to pay.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Was entirely legal at the time. Abhorent, but legal.

Based on this concept, anything we don't like now, we can sue in retrospect for.

It's an issue of "torts". Torts are legal acts, but they open one up to civil liabilities. Just because someone did something legal doesn't keep them out of court.

"Irregardless of your opinion, the law is the law, and when someone steals something from someone else, they can be forced to pay recompense."

You're right...the law is the law. But according to the law, it wasn't stealing. So how do you hold someone responsible for something that wasn't illegal...as you said, the law is the law. You can't mix and match circumstances to suit your agenda. If you don't think the law should matter, don't bring it up in the first place for one portion of your argument and then dismiss it for another.

You also said this..."And the theft of labor the US perpetrated against the slaves is also still open, and still criminal, unless you're under the impression that theft was not criminal."

You yourself are arguing that it is criminal and the fact is, it's not criminal. Try a little consistency in the argument.

You also seem to think that the government is some independent entity...if you might recall, 'their' money comes from us. Therefore, we would ALL be paying reparations, even blacks would be paying them.

I shouldn't have used the word "stolen". BFD.

Actually, it has to do with contract law, not criminal law. The principle remains the same. You're supposed to pay people for the work they do. Does the fact that the law calls it a "tort" make it any less immoral? Does the fact that it's a civil matter, and not a criminal one, make the victim any less entitled to recompense?

You also seem to think that the government is some independent entity...if you might recall, 'their' money comes from us. Therefore, we would ALL be paying reparations, even blacks would be paying them.

Nope, the govt's money, contrary to anything Bush* may have said, is NOT "your money". It's the govts, and if you don't believe me, try taking some of "your money" back from the govt.

Actually, it has to do with contract law, not criminal law. The principle remains the same. You're supposed to pay people for the work they do. Does the fact that the law calls it a "tort" make it any less immoral? Does the fact that it's a civil matter, and not a criminal one, make the victim any less entitled to recompense?

Does the fact that victim doesn't exist make this hypothetical person less entitled to recompense? I would think so. People are paid now for what they do...back then, they weren't supposed to be. Whether immoral or not (and of course I think it was), that's what matters.

Nope, the govt's money, contrary to anything Bush* may have said, is NOT "your money". It's the govts, and if you don't believe me, try taking some of "your money" back from the govt.

Oh please! Regardless of whatever little token argument you put up here, they got the money from us citizens and therefore we would be the ones paying...ALL of us.

which is that the law provides remedies for those who did not get paid for the work they performed.

Does the fact that victim doesn't exist make this hypothetical person less entitled to recompense?

The victims DO exist. They're just dead, but according to the law, that doesn't relieve the defendant from their liabilities.

Oh please! Regardless of whatever little token argument you put up here, they got the money from us citizens and therefore we would be the ones paying...ALL of us.

And the grocery store gets it's money from us citizens, but it's not our money once we hand it over.

BTW, this is a standard Republican argument. Bush* used it to justify his tax cuts.

You don't address at all why they don't deserve NOW to be paid for that work...which also explains why the defendent has no liabilities.

And the grocery store gets it's money from us citizens, but it's not our money once we hand it over.

It can't be possible that you can't grasp the difference between voluntarily buying products from a grocery store and money confiscated involuntarily from a government, can it? As in, you can choose whether or not to go to a certain grocery store...your analogy doesn't even come close. And on the heels of that...

BTW, this is a standard Republican argument. Bush* used it to justify his tax cuts.

THAT is a standard argument of someone who has no logic or facts to back up their statement and uses it as an ad hominem attack instead.

You don't address at all why they don't deserve NOW to be paid for that work...which also explains why the defendent has no liabilities

They deserve it because the law entitles them to it. The law doesn't excuse the liability for torts when the plaintiff dies. That's why the Simpson family could sue OJ after Nicole had died.

It can't be possible that you can't grasp the difference between voluntarily buying products from a grocery store and money confiscated involuntarily from a government, can it? As in, you can choose whether or not to go to a certain grocery store...your analogy doesn't even come close. And on the heels of that...

And your taxes are not just voluntary - they were agreed to by "the people" through the democratic process. If you don't like them, you can move to a country with no taxes and no democracy.

They deserve it because the law entitles them to it. The law doesn't excuse the liability for torts when the plaintiff dies. That's why the Simpson family could sue OJ after Nicole had died.

But when I explained why the law shouldn't have any say in this, you said I was being trivial. Also, OJ was the actual perpetrator.

And your taxes are not just voluntary - they were agreed to by "the people" through the democratic process. If you don't like them, you can move to a country with no taxes and no democracy.

Before we go too far off topic, this does not change the fact at all that all taxpayers would be paying for reparations if the government were held responsible for it. Not many people are going to vote to have their money confiscated in your civil suit (and has government's are supposedly of the people and by the people, the money is indeed ours).

BTW, 'love it or leave it' is a republican argument, isn't it?!?

and I do understand why you feel that way, but the law, for some odd reason, does not take your opinions into account. The law has always allowed tort claims to proceed even after the complainant has died. There's no reason why we should make a special exclusion for this in the case of slave reparations.

All the reparations people want is for the govt to be subject to the same laws everyone else is. They don't want any special treatment.

WRT taxes, there IS a political aspect to this, but it relates to the idea of sovereign immunity, and has nothing to do with taxes. Whenever anybody sues the govt in a civil matter and wins, suchas Wen Ho Lee, the money comes out of the treasury. There shouldn't be a special rule for reparations.

When the govt does wrong, we all pay. The govt "interned" Japanese-Americans, and we all paid for that. No one complained that it was taxpayers money because it was recognized as the right and just thing to do.

How is slavery reparations different from this?

And the argument isn't "love it or leave it". The argument is that the process was determined through a democratic process that we almost all support.

"love it or leave it" implies supporting acts even when they weren't determined by the democratic process.

"Irregardless" is not a word. It is a non-standard word. Grammar Nazi on patrol.

Who do you think funds the U.S. Government? If reparations are paid, WE WILL BE PAYING THEM!

There were three types of claims paid out by the German government to Jews after WWII. 1) Reparations for those who performed forced labor. This was a pay and pension issue...the GOVERNMENT made people perform forced labor, and the government had to pay them back. This was ONLY paid to people who survived the war. 2) Reparations for lost property. This was paid to both survivors and their descendants, and was a direct payout to reimburse families for land and property stolen by the German government. In order to qualify, you had to prove your losses. 3) Wrongful death reparations. The government, through its own direct action, killed millions and millions of people and is therefore recognized as being liable for their deaths under modern international law. Their wrongful deaths deprived their family members of the enjoyment and experience of knowing them, which the government had to compensate them for.

Unfortunatly, none of these apply to the descendants of former American slaves.

Reparations for the value of forced labor? Has to be paid to the worker or the estate of that worker, by the slave owner or the estate of that slave owner.

Reparations for lost land and property? Slaves were typically brought to the U.S. by British, Dutch, and later Confederate slave ships...the U.S. government never took them from their land.

Reparations for wrongful death? This one probably has the best chance, but it still has one major problem: The government actually owned very, very few slaves. There were a handful held in and around Washington D.C., but nearly all slaves were actually privately owned. In order to be compensated for wrongful death, you not only have to prove that these people were worked until they dropped, but that the government directly caused that to happen.

Reparations are a losing issue. Most people agree that something needs to be done to improve the plight of poor African Americans today, but the reparations movement itself enjoys little support outside of the black political community. As a political issue, it's little more than a noose for the party to hang itself with.

However, I would like to point out that, like the Holocaust reparations, the reparations movement here is based on our govt's use of forced labor and property. Though the things you mention were NOT actions of our govt, and therefore not grounds for reparations, our govt has engaged in actions that make it liable.

The government actually owned very, very few slaves. There were a handful held in and around Washington D.C., but nearly all slaves were actually privately owned. In order to be compensated for wrongful death, you not only have to prove that these people were worked until they dropped, but that the government directly caused that to happen.

Two points:

1) They don't have to show that they were worked until they dropped. All they have to show is that they did work for the USG, but were not paid for it, and the USG knew they would not be paid for it.

2) Aside from the objection I mention above, that is exactly what the reparations movement is shooting for.

Reparations are a losing issue. Most people agree that something needs to be done to improve the plight of poor African Americans today, but the reparations movement itself enjoys little support outside of the black political community. As a political issue, it's little more than a noose for the party to hang itself with.

Good thing that reparations is a legal issue, and not a political one.

It was written into the Constitution that government could collect taxes on the importation of slaves.

Article 1., section 9:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

And I happen to believe that the history of slavery does impact all of us, that we are all living victims of our nation's racism.

The details of who gets what don't concern me. The crucial thing is that our justice system recognizes the wrong that was done, that was written into our Constitution, you know the legal framework that was ordained and ratified "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." That's what it's about, making that happen for all of us. About the only thing reparations doesn't obviously cover is the common defence--but one could argue that as well.

Like you, or so I gather, I would rather not play the victim. That's why I want to justice done here, so we can move on for real.

Obviously there are many pressing problems that are difficult to solve. This one is relatively easy. There are documents, precedents in international law, wherewithal. The real obstacles it seems to me are symbolic and political. If we can overcome them in this case, then we will be that much more prepared to overcome them in other cases in which the apparent harms are more immediate and vicious.

There's no "playing" here. There are actual victims here. People and families have been impoverished by a theft of labor of historic proportions.

It was there for a reason.

Muddleoftheroad, you'll recall, said there were no living victims of slavery. I argued that there are indeed living victims of slavery. I took it one step further by arguing that every American is impoverished by the history and persistence of racial injustice.

I said "play the victim" to undermine Muddleoftheroad's claim that reparations don't represent a serious movement towards justice and political empowerment. You see, normally, when somebody says "play the victim" they don't believe any injustice has actually occurred. But as I think I was very clear in arguing that an injustice had occurred, and that it had not been properly addressed was still in fact still claiming victims and will continue to do so until we can come together to resolve it.

Now had I been agreeing with Muddleoftheroad that we ought to move on and let by-gones be by-gones, and not let ourselves understand the connection between injustice here and injustice there, well, then I'd know why you were questioning me on this point.

??

Consider this: 600,000 lives were lost in the Civil War, as an indirect result of slavery in the US. Many of those deceased left impoverished families with no breadwinner in their wake.

That's just one facet of how slavery affected and hurt everyone. If we're going to do reparations, shouldn't their descendents be included as well?

the idea that people would be imprisoned, for what is essentially a method of non-violent protest is chilling.


Furthermore, I fail to see how any jury could actually convict on this basis based on what's in the article; they could (possibly) IMO been convicted of failing to file a tax return, but this?

The reason I say this is because such a stunt is clearly done not to actually soak the government (unless there's lots of documents, witnesses, and such saying "We're going to soak the government!" or...ah, I've got it! The people were stupid enough to keep the money. That's how they got it! )

If they didn't keep the money, it would merey be irony...and not filing a false return I bet

Imprisoning someone for stealing $500,000 in tax payers dollars is chilling?

But if they keept the money the Feds sent them (which was stupid on their part, if they did), they might have some exposure here.

But the Feds never had any intention of letting these people walk. Sending the money (rather than ackwowledging a tax error) was the govt's way of setting up a "sting" operation.

Boy, you are naieve.

They did keep the money. They spent it on bills and luxury items. And when the government told them to pay it back, they didn't.

Off to jail is my opinion.

It was serious fraud.

Because the Feds, above all, should know that there's no such thing as a "Federal Slavery Tax credit."

If I offer to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, are you really going to believe me?

His attitude, and calling the judge, in court, a "white devil" was not helpful to his case either.

....that has ben in distribution for longer than 13 months. Since Robert Foster is 51 (according to the article), his name is in the public domain.

Any lawyers out there who can provide more insight????

1) It's absurd to focus on this divisive issue, when other far more important obstacles to African American progress are in place. For example, the law that takes away the right of convicted felons to vote. Because of our racist drug laws, a huge fraction of the male African American population cannot vote. We should be fighting to restore voting rights, not chasing the pipe dream of reparations.

2) It will only inflame racial tensions. Whites will react overwhelmingly negatively. Blacks will interpret their reaction to be a sympton of residual racism. Race relations will suffer horribly.

Just decriminalize the damn minor drug offenses and turn to treatment instead of punishment. Then nowhere near the same number of people are felons and they don't lose their votes.

1) And unsurprisingly, those who, like you, claim that there are more important things to do, regularly oppose proposals to do those things. That is, unless I"ve missed the many threads where you advocate for those things.

2) Naturally, it goes without saying that if the US govt has to pay people for the labor it stole from slaves, white people will "react overwhelmingly negatively" (a racist assumption in an of itself) and of course the idea that it's NOT "a sympton of residual racism" is just silly.

Race relations will suffer horribly.

The fact that compensating people for a theft of labor is a "racial issue" indicates the sorry state of race relations.

Because I've advocated for fixing the cities so many times my head is spinning. I lived in D.C. and for the less than super wealthy, it's not a good place to be. Legislation created the road network that fed suburban sprawl. It can be used to fix the urban decay that was caused by the sprawl.

Actually, there was no theft of labor because it was legal. It's a horrible truth, but a truth nevertheless.

And yes, race relations will plummet to a place I'd rather not contemplate.

Fixing DC, or any other city is not a way to redress a theft. We should fix our cities because it's the right thing to do, and because it's the smart thing to do. We should fix our cities because it benefits us all. It's like saying, "My taxes help pay for the flu shots, which also benefit blacks, so why should they be compensated by the theives who stole from them?"

Actually, there was no theft of labor because it was legal. It's a horrible truth, but a truth nevertheless.

You are terribly confused. The reparations cases are CIVIL matters, not criminal matters. It's not a matter of criminality. It's a matter of equity and rights.

alone be responsible for these reparations? Slavery existed for thousands of years before America. And why absolve the African nations who sold their people into slavery? They were the originators of the wrong done against these people.

The reparations movements seeks compensation from the US govt and from those corporations that used slave labor.

And why absolve the African nations who sold their people into slavery?

Because our laws have no jurisdiction on African nations. And because two wrongs don't make a right. And because there were no "African nations" at that time. They were tribes, not nations.

that the reparations movement is focused virtually entirely on the United States is clear... We have the most money and deepest pockets to go after. Period.

I will never, under any circumstances support reperations.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It is a simple fraud case. They made false claims of overpayment of taxes and thereby conned the IRS into sending them a check for half a million dollars that they were not entitled to.

These are real dollars paid into the federal treasury by hard working, overtaxed, poor and middle class americans to fund legitimate goverment services. They stole them and now they are going to prison. I feel the same about people who steal from the government as I do about those who steal from me.

Good riddance.

It's just being pushed so people can argue against reparations, the argument being "you see. Those reparations people are frauds"

It seems as if the only people using this to push their agenda were the many reparations advocates at the trial.

I have no doubt that there were reparations people pushing their agenda. However, I don't think they started this thread on DU, and that was what I was referring to.

I thought you were referring to the article itself.

I wasn't clear.

Aunt Grace, a writer for the Belize Times sums it up pretty well in a part of this article: http://www.belizetimes.bz/news/story/2580.shtml

Belize, formerly British Honduras, did essentailly the same thing that was done here concerning slavery.

"The Colonialists came in and began to exploit the poor class by making slaves out of them. This part of history should be a closed chapter in our life. Let’s move on, I can only speak for myself. My roots are from Africa and I am proud of my culture and my heritage. Don’t let anyone tell you that you don’t have a culture. If some of us don’t believe in who we are, we are deceiving our selves."