United States v. George Gasich, 701 F. App'x 504

George and Barbara Gasich, long-time tax protesters, filed falsified 1099-OID attachments to their 2007 tax returns claiming $475,000 in refunds; indicted in 2014 under 18 U.S.C. § 287 for making false claims.
Both pleaded guilty pro se to one count each shortly before trial after standby counsel was appointed; no plea agreements were used.
At Rule 11 colloquies the district court explained the elements of § 287, corrected the Gasiches’ initial misconception that it is a strict-liability offense, and accepted factual admissions that they knowingly sought refunds not owed.
After the pleas were accepted, the Gasiches filed two motions to withdraw: first arguing they pleaded from fear of conviction; later submitting a psychiatrist’s report saying depression and PTSD impaired their judgment at the plea.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing, credited the psychiatrist’s diagnosis of stress and PTSD but found no impairment sufficient to render the pleas involuntary or to overcome the thorough plea colloquy; denied both withdrawal motions.
The Gasiches appealed, arguing the psychiatric evidence required withdrawal and that they lacked understanding of § 287 (including a disputed willfulness element).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether psychiatric evidence showing depression/PTSD required withdrawal of guilty pleas	Psychiatrists’ report and testimony show impairments that made pleas unknowing/involuntary	District court’s careful colloquy and hearing show defendants understood and voluntarily pleaded; psychiatric evidence did not negate plea	Denied — district court did not abuse discretion; psychiatric evidence insufficient to overcome plea colloquy
Whether defendants failed to understand elements of § 287 (mens rea) at plea	Defendants assert they didn’t understand that knowledge was required or the nature of the crime	Colloquy corrected misconception; defendants affirmed understanding and agreed to factual basis	Denied — record shows they understood elements after court’s explanation; plea statements carry presumption of verity
Whether court had duty to advise about circuit split on willfulness in § 287	Defendants say plea invalid without awareness of circuit split about willfulness element	No duty to inform of every possible defense or inter-circuit disagreement; willfulness not required in this circuit	Denied — no obligation to advise of split; lack of non-existent defense cannot justify withdrawal

United States v. Hardimon, 700 F.3d 940 (7th Cir. 2012) (a psychiatrist’s affidavit may be needed to show plea involuntariness when mental impairment is asserted)
United States v. Woodard, 744 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2014) (colloquy thoroughness is entitled to weight in assessing plea validity)
United States v. Chavers, 515 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2008) (defendant bears heavy burden to withdraw plea after a proper colloquy)
United States v. Collins, 796 F.3d 829 (7th Cir. 2015) (plea-court admissions carry a presumption of verity)
Broce v. United States, 488 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1989) (no requirement that plea colloquy obtain conscious waiver of every potential defense)
United States v. Clarke, 801 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2015) (holding the government need not prove willfulness under § 287)
United States v. Nash, 175 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 1999) (discussing willfulness instruction in § 287 context)
United States v. Ranum, 96 F.3d 1020 (7th Cir. 1996) (noting ignorance of a non-existent legal defense cannot justify plea withdrawal)
United States v. Catton, 89 F.3d 387 (7th Cir. 1996) (confirming § 287 does not require willfulness)

AFFIRMED.