Langlois replies to critics on tax evasion

LANGLOIS_kanhema_20121002.jpg

Richmond city council candidate Marilyn Langlois was the target of a negative campaign mailer this week. Photo - Tawanda Kanhema

Richmond residents received a campaign mailer this week criticizing the taxpaying record of City Council candidate Marilyn Langlois.

The mailer, and connected website, add an additional narrative to the campaign for the three open city council seats. Both reveal that Langlois failed to pay taxes to the IRS and that she had two tax liens against her. The first came in 2007, for $9,728 and the second in 2008, for $5,940.

Langlois responded by sending out an emailed explanation of her record on Monday afternoon.

“I engaged in war tax resistance as a symbolic gesture to protest the use of federal tax dollars for the illegal and destructive Iraq war,” she wrote. “I informed my congressional representatives of what I was doing and why. I knew that the funds would ultimately be received by the IRS anyway (the amount owed plus interest and penalties was eventually taken from my bank account during the collections process).”

The federal tax liens against her in 2007 and 2008 are available online.

The mailer and website also criticize Langlois for her connections with the Richmond Progressive Alliance and Mayor Gayle McLaughlin.

The mailer and website were paid for by Moving Forward, which identifies itself as “a coalition of labor unions, small businesses and public safety and firefighters associations supporting Bell, Bates and Roberson, and opposing Martinez and Langlois for City Council 2012.”

The Moving Forward coalition also paid for a mailer in support of the re-election of Nat Bates earlier in the election season. Chevron is listed as a major funder.

Candidate Gary Bell said Tuesday that even though he’s listed on the mailer, he did not agree with the campaign tactics. “I do not support that kind of campaigning,” he said at the council meeting. “It is unfortunate that she has to undergo that kind of scrutiny.”

Friday, Oct. 5 is the first deadline to file campaign statements since July 31. The first pre-election statement covers the period from Jan. 1-Sept. 30, if a semi-annual statement was not filed on July, 31 and from July 1- Sept. 30, if a semi-annual statement was filed.

12 Comments

  1. Ginger Grant

    According to the article, the attack against Ms. Langlois is funded by Chevron, and Chevron is heavily promoting candidates Bell, Bates, and Roberson. As a voter, that information tells me a great deal.

    • Jeff Ritterman

      This is a dirty attempt by Chevron to interfere in Richmond’s politics. It’s not enough for Chevron to put up billboards of Bates, Bell and Roberson all over town. Chevron also needs to attack the integrity of Marilyn Langlois. Shame on them. Her tax protest was a highly ethical decision. Now more than ever, given the August 6th fire and Chevron’s negligence, we need a city council independent of Chevron.
      Vote for Marilyn Langlois, Eduardo Martinez and Tom Butt. They are all independent of Chevron and have the intelligence and work ethic to continue to lead our city forward.

      • Richmond Voter

        I have a principled objection to the way the city of Richmond spends my tax dollars, wasting money in feel-good stunts, while the population suffers. I also object to the West County School District dribbling away our funds while our children are becoming less educated all the time.

        Hence, I am making a principled decision to not pay Richmond or West County Property Taxes – I’m sure you will all agree that I am doing the right thing…..

        • Richmond Voter

          Oh, I forgot, I also have a principled objection to the moronic soda tax.

          Like most smart people, I’m voting with my feet and getting out of this dump – City of Pride & Purpose – if that was true, these crooks in cheap suits in the City Council would be bounced out on the pavement.

    • Gary Bell appears to be drawing votes in order to get RPA gang members Langlois and Martinez elected

  2. Both of the previous comments focus on the bearer of the message instead of the message itself. Who’s trying to obfuscate things now?

    Over the years we’ve seen a lot of different rationales for defying the law but at the end of the day the law prevails.

    I disagree with a lot of laws but I’ve always believed that as long as we have laws we’re obligated to obey them If I disagree with a law then I try to amend it but why would I think I would ever have the right to simply disobey a law?

    And when a person is running for an elected office, the public has an expectation that when sworn in the laws of the land will be obeyed. None of us has the right to pick and choose which laws we’ll obey and which we can ignore. That’s why a story like is so important for the electorate. Just as we need to know about personal bankruptcies before entrusting public funds to an elected official, we need to know whether we can trust that official to follow the laws. How many times have we seen elected officials that felt they were above the law? And how many of these scofflaw officials offer up reasons why their lawlessness is justified?

    And now we have one elected official publicly praising a member of his gang (the RPA) who broke law but did it for all the right reasons.

    He further encourages voters to support his candidates because they’re independent of Chevron but isn’t Chevron supporting one of his team?

    • Jeff Ritterman

      Don, I thought we figured out that if laws were immoral they should not be obeyed. Isn’t that one of the lessons of the holocaust. The Iraq War was immoral, was based on lies, torture and massacres were a regular part of our offensive. I have an Iraqi son I adopted who fled for his life. His brother wasn’t so lucky. Marilyn Langlois deserves our praise for her courage in standing up to the immoral war. I don’t belong to a gang. Learn how to be respectful.

    • Juan Reardon

      Don Gosney are you not an active member of the so called “Moving Forward” Chevron funded group that put out this piece out?

      Did you not collaborate in the past with with the infamous Darryl Reese providing him with pictures that you took for hit pieces ?

      Can you deny any of these two statements?

      • Andres Soto

        Juan, touché! The truth hurts. Too bad the old guard, (Dems having their strings pulled by Reps) such as Gosney, cannot run rough shod over our town the way they used to.

        • New Richmond Voter

          Soto, I belive your actual name is Andrew but as usual you are hiding behind a pseudo Hispanic nom de plume in order to try and fit in. Why should anyone listen to a person who at your age still lives with his Mommy and has to change his ‘publc’ name for the sake of appearances.

      • Actually, Mr. Reardon, I have nothing to do with this committee of which you refer. If you and your associates want to tar me with this brush then there’s nothing that can be done to stop you but you might want to actually verify your “facts” before you start casting aspersions. Or perhaps you and Mitt share the belief that you’re not going to let fact checking get in the way of your campaigns?

        You can lambast me because I’m a union member if you’d like; as a Democrat if you’d like; as a liberal if it makes you feel good; as a card carrying member of the ACLU if it serves your needs; as a proud member of the CLCV; and even a member of the fourth estate is it helps you to sleep at night.

        And as for my photos, I’m a professional photographer and I sell my photos all over the world. Do you and your friends want to try to make me look bad because of who uses my photos? Were you critical of Ms. Beckles, Mr. Ritterman or Mr. Butt when they used my photos in their mailers?

        By collaborate, is that the same as when you collaborate with BIG BUSINESS when you buy their products? Or when you collaborate with the government when you’re employed by them and take money from them for services rendered (don’t you work for the government, Mr. Reardon?).

        And Mr. Soto–is this the same Mr. Soto who can be seen on the YouTube video from earlier this year complaining because Mr. Ritterman refused to take orders from his fellow RPAers–what exactly do you think that I–as a person–did to run roughshod over Richmond? Was it when I stood up for the rights of working men and women of all races to ensure that they were handsomely paid, received the benefits they deserve and had a safe working environment to ply their trade? Or perhaps it was when I spent 17 years as the Community Co-Chair of the Point Molate Restoration Advisory Board ensuring that the Navy properly cleaned the site before turning it over to this community? Or maybe it was when I volunteered thousands of manhours to provide scholarships to local students to Ivy League Schools. Or perhaps it was when I raised many tens of thousands of dollars to help our local youth (such as the Original Richmond Half-Steppers). Which of these would you classify as running roughshod over Richmond?

        And Mr. Ritterman, if it walks like a duck…
        when members of the RPA try to bully and intimidate young women volunteering for a candidate or cause that are not the same as yours; when members of your group vandalize opponents’ property; and when members of your group publicly speak saying that another person doesn’t have the right to exist–all of that sounds something like we often see with gangs. We’re just not seeing the colors, the cuts and the tats. We could call it a social club if it makes you feel better about yourself.

        And what does any of this have to do with the story that was written here about a candidate for office refusing to pay her taxes?

        • Scares me to think “Dr.” Ritterman has access to my medical records at Kaiser….there oughta’ be a law prohibiting Socialist quacks from running for local office!!

Comments are closed.