Wes does have a point. The place is filled with crackers. And he's never resided there. So the prosecutor is bringing a high profile black moviestar from another part of the USA up on charges in Klan country. If I was his lawyer, I'd be making the same argument.

He is scheduled to go on trial in Ocala in January.

Not Ocala. He doesn't stand a chance. Wow.

Snipes is not being brought up on murder or sex charges - he's being prosecuted for tax evasion! If his lawyer can present the receipts that show that Mr.Snipes has faithfully "Paid" his taxes,then thats all he needs for a not guilty verdict! Do the math!

Do the math? If it was that simple prosecutors would win all their cases, first making sure they were bulletproof. But often it's a matter of judgement, thus a jury, often ruling in the defendant's favor. Snipes argues, rightly or wrongly, he'd get a better shake up north. It ain't black and white, Cad.

How can it be a judgement call? It's like anticadillac said. There is no gray area. Either he paid or he didn't. If he paid, easy to prove. If he didn't -- well he's fucked no matter what color the jury is or where it is located.

I don't much care about Snipes, but where in the US Code is this crime defined and punishments listed? One of you tax talkers care to reply?

Ocala is as white as Florida gets.

What's up with scheduling a trial far out of state for someone who's legal residence is California? I think we know the answer to that one. Make it as inconvenient as possible, and then have it in one of the whitest counties in Florida.

I think I'd be crying foul too if I were in Snipe's shoes.

Um, he either did or didn't pay his taxes. If he did pay them, he wouldn't be charged with evasion. Seems to me like he knows he's guilty and is looking for a more sympathetic jury. I wish him luck, but any jury of law abiding tax payers would vote to convict.

"Um, he either did or didn't pay his taxes. If he did pay them, he wouldn't be charged with evasion."
A new addendum to the "if your not guilty, then you have nothing to worry about" argument.

RACE CARD ALERT!! RACE CARD ALERT!! Snipes seems to have committed a crime, but rather than face the music, it's all about white people. We whites spend all day every day thinking up new ways to oppress the bruthas. We're so comsumed with it, it's amazing we get any of our own work done. I wonder if Snipes had this big of a problem with white people when we were buying tickets to his movies.

If Snipes paid his taxes, then he should have no problems. If he didn't, it's not like he's going to see jail time anyway. He'll pay a fine (drop in the bucket for him), do some community service, and then go back to Hollywood where everything makes sense again. Next case.

"f he didn't, it's not like he's going to see jail time anyway. "

Not true. That's tax fraud. He's going to jail.

Of course, why the IRS would refund $12 million without looking at the return is beyond me.

so he did pay his taxes or didnt he?

and isnt a good question maybe to ask him if he knew that he was a 'high profile' tax payer, then maybe it just might be a good idea to pay them...
or is there a shady deal somewhere.......

I mean if I cheat on my taxes and make 2 or 3 hundred dollars more than reported, will the irs see that and raise thier eyebrows......uh no.

but if someone reports a couple of million less...wouldnt that sort of get you to looking deeper into it........and surely the irs computer would pick that up........


ssssoooooooooooo............wh
o believes that he REALLY paid them? my first thought is,....no.

but hey........remember he is fighting the AMERICAN GESTAPO known as the irs.......so if he didnt pay and still wins...that cant be all bad

I'm sure (if it's a jury trial) both sides will attempt to effectively screen the jury pool.

Havne't been to Ocala, eh? Listen, from what I've read I don't think Snipes is innocent - but holding the trial in Ocala is off the wall stupid.

and lets suppose the irs misses .oooohhhhh say.....about 150 dollars less reported than last year......
will I be able to play the retired, old white guy with a paunch who smokes a little too much and likes to play the horses a little too much
CARD.............

A new addendum to the "if your not guilty, then you have nothing to worry about" argument.

Posted by JeffnDenmark


Show me a case where a rich black man was railroaded in a tax evasion case.

This might be good for Snipes. this county is wealthy??? yes? this would be wealthy people judging another wealthy person.

You turbotax types who think paying taxes is a black and white issue with no grey areas obviously haven't ever hired a tax accountant. They aren't paid the big bucks to draw inside the lines. They will take every opportunity to push the envelope on their client's behalf. That's why tax laws are so complicated - it guarantees them perpetual employment. I'm not saying Snipes is guilty or innocent. I'm just sayin'.

"Would he get a "fair" trial by a heavily black jury? "

Possibly not. That's the whole point, OOOH, he wants to be tried in a location that's more favorable. What's wrong with that? So would you , me, or anyone else. Especially if you think maybe you took liberties you oughtn't to have. Why the hell shouldn't he fight for a better locale?

Hey, Danforth! You're one of the tax experts, right? What sections of the US Code define this crime and establish punishments for its breach?

Tad,

Right after you show me some recent high-court decisions agreeing with your position.

Why the hell shouldn't he fight for a better locale?

Try to recognize that it is very possible that he is stalling because his attorneys know he is guilty as hell.

"Apart from the race issue I'd be as concerned with his celebrity status... some will give him a pass because he's famous. Others will want to "stick it" to the rich and famous."

I'm guessng guilty, guilty, guilty, if for no other reason than everyone can relate to having to pay taxes, and most would get irked that someone making that much isn't willing to pay their fair share.

How do you think Jane Sixpack will react when she hears Wesley paid less taxes than she did?

guessing

Too early for me, I'm guessing.

Fine. You state the obvious. Get the fuck off your high horse.

Danforth responds, "Right after you show me some recent high-court decisions agreeing with your position."

Whoa! Talk about tizzys! What 'position' is that, Dan? I was concerned about a US Circuit Court and jurisdiction. That must be in the US Criminal Code, right? Or, are they using UCC?

Dan seems a bit testy today, anyone?

"Try to recognize that it is very possible that he is stalling because his attorneys know he is guilty as hell."

Fine. You state the obvious. Get the fuck off your high horse, all of you.

The whole point is he's fighting for a trial location that just might possibly give him a slight edge. That's the arguement here, not whether he's guilty or innocent.

How do you think Jane Sixpack will react when she hears Wesley paid less taxes than she did?

There is no getting around that. Unless he gets a wealthy jury. I don't think the chances are very good that he can get that.

The whole point is he's fighting for a trial location that just might possibly give him a slight edge.

Fine. You state the obvious. Get the fuck off your high horse.

Sag wonders, "The whole point is he's fighting for a trial location that just might possibly give him a slight edge."

I think they should move the trial to D.C., and then call the prosecutor as a witness to ask him under what section of the US Criminal Code Snipes is being sued under, and what distraint is codified as punishment... that would get the ball rolling ... eh, Dan?

Taddy,

Just a guess, but...you paid your income taxes last year, didn't you?

Dan wonders if I will incriminate myself, "Just a guess, but...you paid your income taxes last year, didn't you?"

Unbelievable! I'm a working stiff, how could I not pay my taxes? They are removed before I can touch it! No arbitrage for the common man!

However, I am very much concerned over the subversion done to our Constititution and against the express intent of the Framers of the document.

Situations like this one illustrate the reality that our courts abuse the law by assuming juristiction under color of the law, and that punishment is applied not by the Code, but at the dictates of the IRS.

Wouldn't it be funny if the kangaroo tax court tried to jail anyone ...? It would instantly alert the population of the USA to the tyranny being imposed on them by our government!

Snipes could be a hero, if he argued jurisdiction ... but he won't ... he'll pay, because that is the 99% result of tyranny: compliance and bending of the knee ...

Can we all agree that the reason we have jury trials is in order to judge a person's guilt or innocence based upon a reasonable examination of evidence? It would be perfection if all juries everywhere reached the same conclusion with the same evidence, but that ain't so, and we can all point to examples wherre we'd have done things differently.

Black juries, white juries, rich juries, religious juries, liberal or conservative or gay or homophobic juries, every member is asked to put aside their prejudices to make a fair judgement. But we all come to court with certain beliefs depending upon how we difine ourselves. If it were otherwise, we'd all read an article on Hillary or Rudy, and draw the same conclsions about the schmucks.

OOHrah - who we THINK we are, determines how we THINK. Until zen enlightenment is reached, we've each got our baggage. Wesley's lawyers simply want to exploit that fact.

You're right, Tadowe. Which begs the question - will this thing even get to trial before a compromise is reached, wherein Snipes winds up paying a heavy fine?

"I'm a working stiff, how could I not pay my taxes? They are removed before I can touch it!"

You could increase your exemptions, and refuse to pay the shortage. Oh, that's if you had the courage of your convictions. (Or is it the courage to get convictions?)

"However, I am very much concerned over the subversion done to our Constititution..."

And I'm sure you can point to recent high-court decisions agreeing with you...right?

"will this thing even get to trial before a compromise is reached, wherein Snipes winds up paying a heavy fine?"

Nope. Wesley's going to jail. No way he stays out...even Richard Hatch went to jail and that was over a measly million. And Snipes is too high-profile for the IRS to let it go. Don't kid yourself: they love famous verdicts. They believe it's worth more to them than a hundred crack auditors.

Dan provide expert tax advise, "You could increase your exemptions, and refuse to pay the shortage. Oh, that's if you had the courage of your convictions. (Or is it the courage to get convictions?)"

I claim me-myself-and-I, is that enough? Will they put me in jail at the cost of 94,000 for the year (including trial ... a bit more ...)? Make me a local celebrity and allow me to question jurisdiction and distraint -- muzzle me finally and chain me to a chair?

"And I'm sure you can point to recent high-court decisions agreeing with you...right?"

The original is all that's needed, and you know it! The real political cowards of the court won't hear any cases though, will they? Nah! The seperation of branches got lost with the imposition of the "Volunteer Individual Tax" and "Voluntary Withholding".

Now, it is all VOLUNTARY ... so you don't have any complaint coming ...

For the love of God, I hope you're wrong, Danforth. But something tells me he knows he's toast in Ocala.

Will they put me in jail at the cost of 94,000 for the year (including trial ... a bit more ...)? Make me a local celebrity and allow me to question jurisdiction and distraint -- muzzle me finally and chain me to a chair?
Posted by tadowe

Hope springs eternal

"The real political cowards of the court "

There you have it, folks: No judge or lawyer sees it this way, no high-court decisions agree, but somehow, somehow Tad and only Tad can see it's unconstitutional.

I come here for the humor.

"I claim me-myself-and-I, is that enough?"

There's a line on the W-4 which allows for greater exemptions for any reason the taxpayer deems. And if you truly believe, you can write-in "exempt", and they'll only withhold payroll taxes (SS & Medicare).

C'mon, Tad...put your liberty where your mouth is!

Dan goes off to the side a bit, "There you have it, folks: No judge or lawyer sees it this way, no high-court decisions agree, but somehow, somehow Tad and only Tad can see it's unconstitutional."

Taxes are a necessity in the world we live in, now. I'm not arguing against taxes, just the way they are collected.

The Founders envisioned a state system of tax collection, and which funds for the federal government would be collected from the states by population. That is readily available to do, right now and within moments!

A National Sales Tax automatically collects taxes through apportionment, and doesn't require that the citizen be forced to pay at the pointing of a gun, arrest, confinement and forced labor ...

You know it, Dan, as well as I do, but cavil at anyone who mentions it? Sneer at and belittle them?

Say ... you wouldn't be a Democratic, now, would you?

"You know it, Dan, as well as I do, "

No, I don't know it, Tad. And, seemingly, neither do the legislators, the police, the courts, the lawyers, or the judges.

"Say ... you wouldn't be a Democratic, now, would you?"

Nope.

A National Sales Tax automatically collects taxes through apportionment, and doesn't require that the citizen be forced to pay at the pointing of a gun, arrest, confinement and forced labor ...

Ok real quick because I am off to give a presentation, but the Constition, specifically the 16th Amendment, does not allow a national sales tax. Read the 16th Amendment, it specifically provides for an income tax and that is all.

Secondly, the tax court CANNOT hear criminal cases. Moreover, the IRS doesn't handle criminal cases - the DOJ handles all of the criminal issues. The IRS handles the civil issues - they can only collect the tax.

He is just trying to perfect his victimization.

Doc pleads, "No, Tad, please, please, for Pete's sake, puhleeze lie to the federal prosecutor so you can get on the jury."

Too funny! I'm here tweaking your left-leaning noses, and you think I'm afraid of a Federal prosecutor hung by his own petard? In a hearbeat, Doc, and just as they are lying to the citizens of the USA in using the color of law to prosecute these cases; amongst a bunch of weapons infringement cases, in addition.

That the SC won't hear constitutional complaints vis a vis taxes is enough reason to nullify their effort to punish tax evasion, without jurisdiction under the Code. I don't owe the liars any requirement to either believe them, or be refused the chance to enlighten the rest of the Jury as to their criminal acts, because I told them the truth.

I'll answer as any Democratic would, and that should work just fine to provide me the chance.

Except, sigh, such juries are chosen by favoritism and not lot ... fat chance if you're not rich or otherwise influential in the right circles (government) ... the courts are 'fixed' that way.

"Then, since you're so principled, such a paragon of honesty, make sure you go up to that prosecutor after the verdict is announced and tell him or her exactly what you did and why."

AU was just saying how smart I was, and you're bragging up my honesty for me ... just to shoot it down, mock it, and call me stupid!

I can't tell you how thrilled that makes me -- natches! All these compliments and me the subject ... aum ... aum ... hea-e-ven ... the rain beats on the roof ... hea-e-ven ...

and call me stupid!

I didn't call you "stupid."
But you still get a point added to your score.
OK, now, which card am I thinking of?

I didn't say you called me stupid, Doc. Here, try this:

In 1920, the Supreme Court said:
Eisner vs Macomber 252 U.S. 189 at 205 (1920). "The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted."

Taxman was wrong, and the 16th did not changed the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned.

Brushaber vs Union Pacific R.R. Co 240 U.S. 1 at 10-11 (1916).
It states "The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be the subject of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, ..."

The applicable portions of the Constitution vis a vis direct and indirect taxes was not changed.

AU was just saying how smart I was, and you're bragging up my honesty for me ... just to shoot it down, mock it, and call me stupid!
Posted by tadowe at 2007-11-09 11:21 AM

I didn't say you called me stupid, Doc.
Posted by tadowe at 2007-11-09 11:38 AM

This stuff just writes itself.

"If he paid, easy to prove."

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the accused.

"If he did pay them, he wouldn't be charged with evasion."

If the IRS is never wrong, then why have a trial? Why not just allow them put people away without a trial? Save the taxpayer the expense, right?

Sheesh some people are simple.

Tad I think you may be confusing the issues:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, the Supreme Court ruled that (1) the Sixteenth Amendment removes the Pollock requirement that certain income taxes be apportioned among the states according to population; (2) the Federal income tax statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law; (3) the Federal income tax statute does not violate the uniformity clause of Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (relating to the requirement that excises, also known as indirect taxes, be imposed with geographical uniformity).

See wiki on 16th Amend.

I don't have time to get in real detail here as I am off to give a presentation on Louisiana tax credits to industry leaders but will be glad to resume this later on this afternoon.

"The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the accused."

Not with the tax code. If the US can prove a liability, Snipes must prove he paid.

The first four words in the instructions for claiming employee business expenses are: "YOU CANNOT DEDUCT EXPENSES". It's the fifth word which is one of the most valuable in the entire tax code:

unless

Doc says, "This stuff just writes itself."

Well, not really, Doc, and since if I had meant for the comment to be about your contribution, I would have said:

"AU was just saying how smart I was, and you're bragging up my honesty for me ... just to shoot it down, mock it, and call me DISHONEST!

Eh? But, nice sidle around the cases referenced.

BTW, folks, I was at a client audit this week and overheard something in the next cube which shocked me:

"Well, if you can't prove where that money came from, we're going to have to count that as Schedule C income."

Now, I know they're going after folks who underreport their income, but it's possible that taxpayer will be forking over $45 in taxes for gradma's $100 birthday check.

Keep good records!

Taxman replies reasonably (you are a wonder!), "In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, the Supreme Court ruled that (1) the Sixteenth Amendment removes the Pollock requirement that certain income taxes be apportioned among the states according to population..."

Brushaber case at pg 11-12:
"But it clearly results that the propositions and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another, that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes , and thus it would come to pass, that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax, not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographic uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one State or States, than was levied in another State or States. This result, instead of simplifying the situation, and making clear the limitation on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion."

"... (2) the Federal income tax statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law..."

I never said that it did.

"... (3) the Federal income tax statute does not violate the uniformity clause of Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (relating to the requirement that excises, also known as indirect taxes, be imposed with geographical uniformity)."

See, above.

"See wiki on 16th Amend."

Very funny, but I'll stick to the SC text.

(As Diogenes might wonder -- are you an reasonable Democrat, or a reasonable Republican? I'll bet the latter, or an honest 'independent'.)

AU was just saying how smart I was, and you're bragging up my honesty for me ... just to shoot it down, mock it, and call me stupid!
Posted by tadowe at 2007-11-09 11:21 AM

I didn't say you called me stupid, Doc.
Posted by tadowe at 2007-11-09 11:38 AM

...if I had meant for the comment to be about your contribution, I would have said:"AU was just saying how smart I was, and you're bragging up my honesty for me ... just to shoot it down, mock it, and call me DISHONEST!
Posted by tadowe at 2007-11-09 12:03 PM

But you didn't. You said I called you "stupid." But I didn't. You just can't face up to it when you lie.

By the way, pretty good score, so far. The folks at the J.B. Rhine Research Center and Institute for Parapsychology will undoubtedly be pleased.

Now, back to the matter at hand: What card am I thinking of?

Doc declares, " ut you didn't. You said I called you "stupid." But I didn't. You just can't face up to it when you lie."

Okay, I get it. You are supporting Dethspud and my taking his Black Ka-nig-hit comment out-of-context.

Fine, Doc, go ahead and continue to make me the subject in any way you care to, save any originality you may have left in your lock-step attitude for someone else.

"By the way, pretty good score, so far. The folks at the J.B. Rhine Research Center and Institute for Parapsychology will undoubtedly be pleased."

I really don't understand the reference, Doc. Are you some sort of believer in the psychic? Can't stand to face the SC text which disputes your claims, so you project your own self-criticism onto me? Pretty sad, if so.

"Now, I know they're going after folks who underreport their income, but it's possible that taxpayer will be forking over $45 in taxes for gradma's $100 birthday check."

Isn't there some kind of threshold under which they don't bother?

I'd hate to think they are going after people for $45 considering they would spend much more than that in doing so.

Okay, I get it.

No, you don't. You said I labeled you "stupid" on this thread, which is simply not true. You then denied making the statement, which is also untrue. Lying to cover up a lie makes you not only a liar but a gutless liar.

Doc goes on, "No, you don't. You said I labeled you "stupid" on this thread, which is simply not true. You then denied making the statement, which is also untrue. Lying to cover up a lie makes you not only a liar but a gutless liar."

What's original in your claim, Doc? Every single Leftist and every single Democratic on this site thinks, if they haven't said the same!

I don't care what you think of me as the subject. Believe what you want about me! I couldn't care less, otherwise I wouldn't be here.

You and a host of others want to discredit anything I, and other conservatives, might have to say, that was understood before I wrote one word on this site. Every single thing said with me as the subject is an effort to block some imaginary pass you think I'm making in the game you are playing with national security and the life-and-death decisions required in a dangerous present.

Your opinion is dreck to me, when unreasoned and simply declared out of partisan ignorance, or with me as your target to dehumanize. Political bullies like you are pissants to me ... sheesh ... I've said this so many times I'm convinced that 'liberals' are born with granite for braincells!

Fo, you petty tyrant.

"Isn't there some kind of threshold under which they don't bother? I'd hate to think they are going after people for $45 considering they would spend much more than that in doing so."

They're going after more that $45 total, I'm sure. But if it turns out the guy can't substantiate where that last $100 came from, the IRS will consider it income, and he could be paying 25% fed, 15% ss, and 5% state, or more. Almost half of Aunt Petunia's Annual Easter Check could end up in the tax coffers.

don't care what you think of me as the subject.

Naturally. It's simply testimony to the nature of your character, getting caught out as a proven liar who lies about his lies.

Get off your high horse and drink your milk.

Snipes's mistake was not to bribe a Congressman first, then claim exclusive deductions based on a Treasury Law written just for him. Rich people with access do this every year.

Doc, I'm thrilled to have you on my trotline.

Doc, I'm thrilled to have you on my trotline.

And I'm pleased to have snagged yet another liar on my bottom-feeder hook.

AU was just saying how smart I was, and you're bragging up my honesty for me ... just to shoot it down, mock it, and call me stupid!

TADOWE

I said Tadowe's intelligent (on another thread on another day). But, so was Dr. Gene Scott, who's intelligence didn't help him in the 'smart' department. He had a lot of information in his head, and the best he could come up with was to smoke cigars, stare for 10 minutes at a time, and chew out his own congregation of skid row alcoholics crashed in the audience while playing the 'Pissant Song' 25 times in a row.

Big difference between being intelligent and being smart. For the record, I don't think Tadowe's smart. I do think he's a lot like the late Rev. Dr. Gene Scott though, and just as entertaining in very small doses.

AU, ego driven, says, "I said Tadowe's intelligent (on another thread on another day). But, so was Dr. Gene Scott, who's intelligence didn't help him in the 'smart' department."

I stipulated that you complimented my IQ but called me stupid to Doc, already. No need to comment in contradiction to his claim that I'm a liar because I accused him of that, and not you.

"Big difference between being intelligent and being smart. For the record, I don't think Tadowe's smart. I do think he's a lot like the late Rev. Dr. Gene Scott though, and just as entertaining in very small doses."

I have never made any claims to being smart or intelligent, or honest, for that matter ...

All of your comments about me, personally, are from your own assumptions and effort to project insult. The more you all do this, the more obvious it becomes. That 'notice' does not devolve onto me ... as much as you wish it might ...

Well and truly snagged.
LOL

I DID say Tadowe's intelligent. It's a shame he chooses to insult more than half of America and this site daily rather than engage in civil discourse.

I never called TAD stupid. I said he isn't smart.

PS I'm reading 'Galileo's Daughter', a large biography of Galileo based on letters from his daughter discovered in the Vatican archives. One interesting fact was that opera was invented during his younger years and Galileo's father played a major role. A mathematician and music teacher, after reinventing the lute according to mathematical principals of harmonic structure, was part of a team of people that included poets, musicians, and actors who came up the the idea of recreating Greek tragedies while including music - thus creating opera.

Highly recommended it if you're a history buff.

PS I'm reading 'Galileo's Daughter'

I read that one a few years ago, AU. Excellent, excellent book!

I just finished reading Ann Coulter's recent book, Godless.

I read Galileo's Daughter back in 1999 while leaving a short a crap. Only NE yankees go to the bathroom to take one. We FlatlandhillbillyRednecks are more intelligent than such.

I read they don't wash their hands either. Does anyone know the origin of the term "Girlymen"? Ahnold has claimed it for himself.

GOATMAN

I'm loving it. I got on a Florence tear a few months back after reading 'Angels and Demons' by Dan Brown. Just finished a non-fiction book about the Medici. Facinating city during an incredible time of invention, exploration, and art.

AU :-)

Toilets and reading:

I just finished reading Ann Coulter's recent book, Godless.

OK. Puking covered

I read Galileo's Daughter back in 1999 while leaving a short a crap.

Speed reader or takes an incredibly long time to crap

LOL

Nothing upsets rightwingers more than when the subject of race is pointed out. They immediately accuse who ever points it out of "playing the race card". The reason this is so stupid and disingenuous of them is because the kneejerk way in which they always respond clearly demonstrates that they do not believe race is ever an issue in any criminal prosecution. Those of us who live and work in the real world know better.

GOATMAN

Funny thing is, when I got 50 pages into it I thought to myself that you'd enjoy Galelio's Daughter based on our space conversations. I was gonna email you to see if you'd like me to send it to you when I was done for some reading material on the rig. Cool.

My wife volunteers at the library branch where people donate books. The ones they don't sell in their fundraising sales are thrown away. She brings home boxes at a time, and luckily I'm a voracious reader.

We found a couple of schools on Indian reservations that are overjoyed to receive boxes at a time for their sparce collections. I can finally move a little through the attic now. LOL

Galelio = Galileo

I've seen an all black jury one time and that was on the Dave Chappalle show.

In the real world, it never happens.

Snipes may be guilty as hell, but still the justice system shouldn't schedule a trial 3000 miles from your primary residence just to make it difficult on the defendant.

We have been through Cryer before. He got out of the criminal charges not the civil - do you know the difference in the standard of proof between a criminal and civil trial? The jury found that he did not guilty of fraud, the jury did not find that taxes could not be levied against US citizens. Moreover, ask Tom Cryer if he is paying taxes today.

Taxman says, "The jury found that he did not guilty of fraud, the jury did not find that taxes could not be levied against US citizens."

And, I don't agree with this way of fighting taxation of individuals under distraint. Well, although civil disobedience is a lawful method for the citizens to gain immediate redress.

I don't suppose you want to enable me further by continuing to discuss the SC decisions. They are embarrassing to members of your profession; puts you all in the 'Saul of Tarsus' stage of enlightenment, eh?

How can it be a judgement call? It's like anticadillac said. There is no gray area. Either he paid or he didn't. If he paid, easy to prove. If he didn't -- well he's fucked no matter what color the jury is or where it is located.

Posted by goatman at 2007-11-09 12:44 AM | Reply |

Really goat? US Tax code? No grey area's? Holy shit thats funny.

You've heard of the caymen islands before haven't ya?

Wow! I count coup on Danforth who scurried away, in apparent fear, from every question asked him. The Pussy.

I'm a bit disappointed with Taxman, he apparently gave up the debate in defeat, but argued his position excellently. Sorry he retired the argument.

"Wow! I count coup on Danforth who scurried away, in apparent fear, from every question asked him. The Pussy."

Hmph...some victory barometer you've got. I was in rehearsals for a show which opens a week from tonight; sorry I couldn't be on call for you. Your "coup", such as it is, it delusional. You've yet to answer Taxman's questions about Cryer and civil vs. criminal situations. Or have a rebuttal to the fact Cryer (and you!) are paying income taxes.

I said I'd answer you when you showed me some recent high court decisions which saw the world in your particularly skewed way, You couldn't, and still can't.

But go ahead, claim a "coup". We know you don't see much "coups".

The last citation of the SC is still there, Dan, go for it.

Really goat? US Tax code? No grey area's? Holy shit thats funny.

You've heard of the caymen islands before haven't ya?

Yes. And still, he either paid his taxes (in accordance with the law) or he didn't.

Money, unlike speculative evidence in a murder trial, leaves a hard, indisputable trail.

I wonder if Willy Nelson could say his Tax troubles were caused becaused he has a beard or looks like a redneck.

Snipes broke the law plain and simple.

Where is Jesse Jackson when you need him?

I happen to know that Willie Nelson became a target after he told an IRS agent to 'fuck off'. After that, all the hoopla......

Try googling the name "Tommy K. Cryer".

And what happened after he was found not guilty in the criminal trial for tax evasion?

Answer that one.

"And what happened after he was found not guilty in the criminal trial for tax evasion?"

He paid his income taxes.

"Cryer was acquitted on both remaining counts of willful failure to file."

"Failure to file" has NOTHING to do with the legality of the income tax...NOTHING.