Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The information in the videotapes may not have, by itself, been illegal (or it may have been), but in association with his practice of tax evasion the videotapes not only demonstrate a willful conduct to break the law, but also illustrate to others his criminal practice.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
According to the 28 NOV 05 memorandum the defendant refused repeatedly to file income tax for his Medical Transcription business ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
His videotapes illustrate his criminal practice? OK...for the sake of argument. But is illustration itself illegal?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
According to the 28 NOV 05 memorandum the defendant refused repeatedly to file income tax for his Medical Transcription business ...

---

Yeah, and notice how they didn't make shutting his medical transcription business down as part of the deal for less prison time.

By Hero's logic, the medical transcription business should have been part of his "criminal enterprise." So out of his three enterprises for which he failed to file tax returns (website, video, and medical transcription), they chose to shut down the two with speech oppositional to the govt position.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No they chose to shut down the two that he was using to facilitate others to his criminal enterprise.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
so creating a tool to recruit others into your criminal enterprise is not protected either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No they chose to shut down the two that he was using to facilitate others to his criminal enterprise.

---

Without submitting one shred of evidence, through due process required by the Constitution, that those enterprises were being used to "facilitate others to his criminal enterprise" (whatever that means). You might think it is ok for the State and the Court to wield their power that way--to get people to shut up without any evidence that what they were saying was criminal or any due process to prove such speech was criminal.

Not mistaking mere accusation for fact or evidence is what trial by jury is all about. This is yet another instance of Constitutional erosion. It is sadder yet that people like you and Hero defend such erosion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
so creating a tool to recruit others into your criminal enterprise is not protected either.

---

Where is their evidence that his speech was used to recruit others into his crime(failure to file)?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Where is their evidence that his speech was used to recruit others into his crime(failure to file)?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The state simply offered a degree of leniency if he demonstrated a desire not to try to extol his criminal practice in a way that advertised to others a means of breaking the law. This is not a case of the state stomping on your friends freedom of speech, but rather your friend not being willing stand by his stated convictions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
And the term "criminal enterprise" is complete and utter bullshit. If the enterprise itself were criminal, they'd have to charge him with that crime and get him convicted for that crime.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
His website and video are as "criminal" as his medical transcription business.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Unless you think telling people that the IRS should not be collecting certain types of income tax should be a crime. Maybe that is what this is all about? You agree that speech protesting taxes should be criminalized?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The state simply offered a degree of leniency if he demonstrated a desire not to try to extol his criminal practice in a way that advertised to others a means of breaking the law. This is not a case of the state stomping on your friends freedom of speech, but rather your friend not being willing stand by his stated convictions.

---

Offering less prison time (incurred for an unrelated crime) for shutting up is not stomping on freedom of speech. There was no coercion or intimidation involved. My friend just chose to shut up on his own.

I see.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Your friend was deriving income from the website which he refused to pay taxes on. Could he have shut it down at their request so that he would not have to pay the back taxes?

---

Quote:

---

You wouldn't give an arsonist a Molotov cocktail right? So why allow someone unwilling to pay income tax another means of income?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
According to the memorandum his video tapes were a demonstration of his interpretation of the income tax, which he refused to pay, repeatedly. That’s enough evidence for me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
And I have thoroughly examined both the website and video. There are absolutely NO tactics involved, no tax resister advice, nothing that can be construed as solicitation to commit a crime. As a prosecutor, you should know that the onus of evidence of a crime is on the State. And there was no evidence presented demonstrating that his source of income was itself criminal.

---

Quote:

---

So when did the enterprise itself become criminal? Couldn't it have been sufficient to say, "OK, there is nothing wrong with your business, but you'll file and pay taxes from now on"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
He was not deriving income from his website. He derived some income from the sale of his video.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
And he did owe back taxes. There was no reduction in taxes or tax penalties for shutting down the website or withdrawing the video. What he got for that was less prison time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Are you saying people who fail to file tax returns should be punished with not having any more means of income? How are they supposed to come up with the back taxes without income? Or feed their families? You don't want to share your money, so you don't get to make any more?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Besides, that isn't what happened. He could keep making money, no problem. He just had to shut down his non-profit-generating website.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
You know what?

Your opinions creep me out more than those of either Hero or Auraptor. More than the two combined.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
According to the memorandum his video tapes were a demonstration of his interpretation of the income tax, which he refused to pay, repeatedly. That’s enough evidence for me.

---

You know what?

Your opinions creep me out more than those of either Hero or Auraptor. More than the two combined. Their views annoy me quite often, and sometimes they scare me.

But yours--they're downright creepy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Much like if you are charged with not paying taxes on your income, is it wise to continue making income from secondary and tertiary sources without paying taxes on it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
To be ORDERED to take down the website the person would have to be charged and convicted with hate speech.

But the person was not ordered to take down their website, it was part of a voluntary agreement reached between the judge and convicted. Should the judge be able to offer a deal like that ? Linking two unrelated laws. That's the rub.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
But the person was not ordered to take down their website, it was part of a voluntary agreement reached between the judge and convicted. Should the judge be able to offer a deal like that ? Linking two unrelated laws. That's the rub.

Any legal opinions ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Same as your friend's website and tapes. They were part and parcel to his criminal enterprise...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
The exception here is tax protesting speech is not hate speech and is NOT against the law. So should a judge be able to offer a deal to shut down perfectly legal speech in exchange for a more lenient sentence?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Promoting tax avoidance schemes is against the law. It's not legal speech. See Section 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Promoting tax avoidance schemes is against the law. It's not legal speech. See Section 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
He simply said this:

If you read the Internal Revenue Code carefully, you will see that the original intent of the federal income tax in 1913 was to tax very specific sources of income, not all sources of income as they claim today. Go read the law and decide for yourself.

See? No scheme, no advice, nothing illegal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Without seeing your friend's video or pamphlets I can't say for sure, but I will tell you that other folks have been successfully prosecuted for promoting, suggesting, or describing how to use the so-called "Section 861 Position" using pretty much the same language you quote.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Now let's imagine someone, say Bob says, "I believe stealing from Walmart is legal as long as it is done after midnight. And this is why I believe it. You read the law and decide for yourself." Note that he does not promote or solicit crime. He is simply what he personally believes. Is he not permitted to say what he believes? Is his interpretation of the law, albeit wrong, not protected speech? Is an erroneous interpretation of the law the same thing as soliciting or promoting illegal behavior?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Nothing illegal about owning a hammer. If you use the hammer to break into a window for a robbery...suddenly possessing the hammer is a crime (Possession of Criminal Tools). Paper is innocent...unless you use the paper to roll a joint...then its Possession of Drug Paraphenalia.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
The problem is with the sentencing procedure - the sentence apparently reached by agreement between the judge and convicted man. The issue is - was that legal ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Now let's imagine someone named Bob says, "I believe stealing from Walmart is legal as long as it is done after midnight. And this is why I believe it. You read the law and decide for yourself." Note that Bob does not promote or solicit crime. He is simply stating what he personally believes. Is he not permitted to say what he believes? Is his interpretation of the law, albeit wrong, not protected speech? Is an erroneous interpretation of the law the same thing as soliciting or promoting illegal behavior?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
And he would have to be convicted by a jury of that charge, right? Can you as a prosecutor simply decide he was guilty of that charge, without due process?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Any legal opinions ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
But he's paying taxes NOW. He was no longer committing the crime of failure to file. So why couldn't he keep SPEAKING, which has nothing to do with the crime in the first place.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Promoting tax avoidance schemes is against the law. It's not legal speech. See Section 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
[But you have to charge the defendant with Possession of Criminal Tools, or Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, right? And he would have to be convicted by a jury of that charge, right? Can you as a prosecutor simply decide he was guilty of that charge, without due process?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
was that legal ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
They've just made laws to circumvent it and there are plenty of "Hero's" out there who are more than happy to stand up for those illegal taxes because it just gives them another justification for their sleezy existance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
You pay the fine, the resitution...now you want to return to the store but you can't cause it would violate the judge's order.

---

Quote:

---

Never happened...

Simply put, there is no law against speaking out against the income tax. Millions do it every year. Your friend 'failed to file' and that is a crime. The two issues are not related.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Except for the witty banter and the inevitable 'Law and Order' twist, thats pretty much how it works.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
He allowed his free speech to be muzzled.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
He allowed his free speech to be muzzled.

---

Imagine someone pointing a gun at you and says, "Stop critizing Bush or I'll put you in prison for X number of years." If you complain that there was forcible suppression of oppositional speech, my response might be, "Shit Jack, you should have stuck by your principles and gone to prison. Why did you allow your free speech to be muzzled? There was no violation of free speech here."

---

Quote:

---

Aid or assistance
Willfully aids or assists in, or procures, counsels, or advises the preparation or presentation under, or in connection with any matter arising under, the internal revenue laws, of a return, affidavit, claim, or other document, which is fraudulent or is false as to any material matter, whether or not such falsity or fraud is with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or required to present such return, affidavit, claim, or document; or

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
The prosecutor could say, "We have decided not to charge you with promoting tax evasion at this time, although we have evidence you did. If you stop doing it, we won't charge you, and will be lenient in sentencing for failure to file."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I find it interesting that all of you seem to assume and conclude that his website and video must have violated this law, or they wouldn't have been shut down--without ever having seen any evidence at all.

---