Unless correspondents ask us not to, this Website will post selected letters that it receives and invite open debate.
Joe B writes on Monday, December 23, 2002 about the David Duke case
David Duke: Guilty as charged?
You wrote that this appears to be a civil rights issue rather than a tax issue. It is a tax issue because he filed inaccurate IRS returns, in which large sums of money that he had received were not mentioned. He has admitted this, although he is trying to shift the blame to his accountant at that time. Thus that is one charge that is valid.
Another valid charge is that of mail fraud. This involves Duke soliciting money from supporters for his political operations and expenses, and then take hundreds of thousands of dollars of that money and blowing it in gambling casinos and for personal investments. That is the 'fraud', i.e. using the US mails to deceive people into sending him funds. Duke has admitted to gambling donor money but tries to say that he did nothing illegal, i.e. posturing that all money received can be spent any which way he pleases.
Don Black tries to dismiss the gambling of donor money thing as mere 'character assassination'. He doesn't specifically deny that the funds were gambled away. He also doesn't deny that DD filed inaccurate income tax returns. Black's piece is essentially simple a somewhat dishonest whitewash of an old friend.
One charge dismissed was that involving Duke's sale of his mailing list to another politician. Authorities looked into that and found nothing illegal having occurred there. But it is very much of interest to his supporters as a moral or ethical issue as it involves a breach of trust, as most of Duke's supporters and donors did not and do not want their names and addresses and other contact information passed to others and Duke was and is perfectly well aware of that.
It is true that some US authorities do want to 'get' Duke, but it is equally true that he gave them the ammunition they needed for them, by his own choices and deeds in committing illegal acts. The bottom line is that he misled his donors, and he abused their trust, period. I for one will never send another cent to him and I certainly won't go along with the 'conspiracy' spin.
Bookmark the download page to find the latest new free books
David Irving replies:
THANKS for that note and for permission to publish. I do not know the rights and wrongs of the issue, but feel it should be ventilated in public, rather than in the secrecy of private plea bargains. I myself have always been careful to make plain to all my supporters that the funds which I raise go partly for the legal costs, partly for the cost of raising the legal funds (stationery, mail, labour etc), and partly for the cost of staying alive. When my legal battle ends, then I will stop appealing for funds. The enemies of free speech have seemingly limitless funds (remember the six million pound they poured into the London High Court to defeat me!)
PS: I have never in my life gambled, and don't drink or smoke. So none of the funds go thataway!