320 U. S. 81, 85; Whitfield v. Ohio, 297 U. S. 431, 438. Like my Brother STEWART, I believe that Epton's convictions for advocating criminal anarchy and conspiracy to advocate criminal anarchy should be reviewed by this Court to consider whether New York's anarchy statutes either on their face or as applied here pass beyond the pale of constitutionality. See Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589; Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. Accordingly, I would grant certiorari in No. 502, Misc., note probable jurisdiction in No. 771, Misc., and set the cases for oral argument. 652 KNIGHT ET AL. v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 826. Decided January 22, 1968. 269 F. Supp. 339, affirmed. Alan H. Levine and Jeremiah S. Gutman for appellants. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. La Torella, Jr., and Maria L. Marcus, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. MR. JUSTICE STEWART is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. PAULAITIS v. PAULAITIS. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. No. 815. Decided January 22, 1968. Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. WETTER ET AL. v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA. - Ind. denied. No. 895. Decided January 22, 1968. 226 N. E. 2d 886, appeal dismissed and certiorari Edward H. Knight and Richard M. Givan for appellants. Harry T. Ice for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. BOGART v. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. No. 806, Misc. Decided January 22, 1968. Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. Peter D. Bogart, appellant, pro se. Homer I. Mitchell and F. La Mar Forshee for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. CROSS v. UNITED STATES BOARD OF APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. No. 842, Misc. Decided January 22, 1968. Appeal dismissed. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. CREPEAULT v. VERMONT. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VERMONT. Vt. No. 778, Misc. Decided January 22, 1968. 229 A. 2d 245, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. Syllabus. MARCHETTI v. UNITED STATES. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 2. Argued January 17-18, 1967.-Reargued October 10, 1967.— Decided January 29, 1968. Petitioner was convicted for conspiring to evade payment of the occupational tax relating to wagers imposed by 26 U. S. C. § 4411, for evading such payment, and for failing to comply with § 4412, which requires those liable for the occupational tax to register annually with the Internal Revenue Service and to supply detailed information for which a special form is prescribed. Under other provisions of the interrelated statutory system for taxing wagers, registrants must "conspicuously" post at their business places or keep on their persons stamps showing payment of the tax; maintain daily wagering records; and keep their books open for inspection. Payment of the occupational taxes is declared not to exempt persons from federal or state laws which broadly proscribe wagering, and federal tax authorities are required by § 6107 to furnish prosecuting officers lists of those who have paid the occupational tax. Petitioner, whose alleged wagering activities subjected him. to possible state or federal prosecution, contended that the statutory requirements to register and to pay the occupational tax violated his privilege against self-incrimination. The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22, and Lewis v. United States, 348 U. S. 419, which held the privilege unavailable in a situation like the one here involved. Held: 1. The recognized principle that taxes may be imposed upon unlawful activities is not at issue here. P. 44. 2. Petitioner's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination barred his prosecution for violating the federal wagering tax statutes. Pp. 48-61. (a) All the requirements for registration and payment of the occupational tax would have had the direct and unmistakable consequence of incriminating petitioner. Pp. 48-49. (b) Petitioner did not waive his constitutional privilege by failing to assert it when the tax payments were due. Pp. 50–51. (c) United States v. Kahriger, supra, Lewis v. United States, supra, both pro tanto overruled. Pp. 50-54. |