No Knock Warrants... Cop = Judge, Jury & Executioner by 6ixStringJack

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

No Knock Warrants... Cop = Judge, Jury & Executioner

POSTED BY: 6IXSTRINGJACK
UPDATED: Monday, May 19, 2008 14:57
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5641
PAGE 3 of 4

Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:59 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
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

Neither his website, nor video, did any of this:

1) aid, assist in, procure, counsel, advise
2) the preparation or presentation of a return, affidavit, claim, or other document.

And there was never any charge or conviction that his website or video did any of this.

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. And despite the fact that no authority ever even accused his website or video of being illegal.

If you could post some of your friend's documents, we could get a better idea. As it is, I'm just going on the average case against someone promoting the 861 scheme.

All I have now is your paraphrase of his site: "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". Language like this is classic Section 861 protester. Courts have ruled it promoting tax avoidance for years and years, especially when it is packaged and sold to others.

You're doing the same thing your friend did with Section 861. You're reading and interpreting the law in a way which does not stand up when compared to cases previously adjudicated under that law.

As to the fact that your friend wasn't charged; like I said, the IRS tends to cut folks some slack first time out, and the presecutor has some discretion as to what charges to file. I'd suspect they had plenty of evidence to file promoting tax avoidance but chose not to.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 5:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
We do have evidence. We have the court memorandum and other documents that attest to his belief in a fallacious justification for tax evasions and that the website and video expounded on this interpretation.

"His belief" and "his interpretation" are not the same thing as advice for preparing tax documents.

It is dangerous to make no distinction between statement of one's belief and advice to others on a particular choice and action.

"I believe in God, and our president should be Christian." Does that mean I am helping you form a PAC to establish a theocracy?

"I believe Bush is an idiot, and the sooner he goes, the better." Am I helping you overthrow the President?

"I believe Firefly is the greatest show on earth." Am I helping you prepare a Firefly screening?

If one's statements of belief/opinion is the same thing as helping someone else commit certain actions, then we'd be safer not stating any opinion at all that is contrary to government positions.

Hey, isn't that one of the main characteristics of fascism?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 5:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
now he's whining about it.

Did you hear him whining? He isn't whining. *I* am.

Quote:
HE says there was nothing illegal in it and you just parrot that but YOU don't know and to be honest HE probably doesn't know.

FACT: Our opinions aside, no authority has charged him with or proven illegal content. FACT: The court cannot assume it was illegal without due process.

Quote:
I find it ironic that even you agree that he probably didnt have the legal smarts to defend himself or to propery evaluate the deal

I categorically do not believe that and never made any remarks to that effect. I believe you have misinterpreted whatever I said that led you to conclude this.

Quote:
When he was caught ...sounds like someone who never expected to be tried and when he was pannicked.

He wasn't caught. He mailed letters to the IRS and several other tax authorities, not only telling them what he was doing, but asking them to please prosecute him. He encouraged his readers to mail copies of those letters. He wanted his day in court, he got it, and then made a deal to spend less time in prison so his family won't have to suffer any more than they have to.

Boy Fletch, you sure made a lot of false assumptions from very little information.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 5:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Language like this is classic Section 861 protester. Courts have ruled it promoting tax avoidance for years and years, especially when it is packaged and sold to others.

Do you have citations, because I beg to differ.

All cases of conviction I am aware of involved people who either actively helped prepare tax documentation of some sort or gave "how-to" tax documentation advice (as in "This is how you avoid taxes.")

Simply saying, "The original intent of the IRC was not to tax all income. Go read the law and decide for yourself." is not illegal. In fact, I am so sure of that *I* will say it.

The original intent of the IRC was not to tax all income. Go read the law and decide for yourself.

Now someone, please prosecute me if that was illegal. Hero, Geezer, Finn, please feel free to report me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 5:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
If you could post some of your friend's documents, we could get a better idea.

Here you go:

http://www.theft-by-deception.com/

There's his video. I believe someone else is selling the video now.

Here is the video free on the internet:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023

The website was just a written version of the same content, a bit more tedious to read.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 5:46 AM

Not at all. The record shows that he was given advice as to how to challenge the legality of 861 in court. He chose instead to break the law. When that happened he took the deal rather than do all the time. Now that seems odd to me because if he was REALLY wanting to do time to highlight his opinion then surely he would want the sentence as agreegous as possible. Also he did everything he could to delay going to jail and tried to determine the jail he went to...

Sounds like a really commited martyr to me...

Let me tell you about people. People tend to present every incident so that it paints them in the best light. Let me tell you about Tessa and Bob (names changed to protect the guilty.) When I was in college there was a girl named Tessa, she was pretty, blonde, a bit of a flirt and the kind of person that thinks you either love her or hate her. Derick, a friend of mine was besotted with her and they got enguaged for 3 months. At the end of that time they broke up and Tessa moved in with Bob. At that time Tessa made it clear that you were either a friend of Derick or of hers, since I stayed with Derick I ended up on the enemies list.

One night Bob got drunk and started hitting on the girl I was with. She told him to P*** off but he just became abusive. I told him to step away and he did, Bob was almost a foot shorter than me and even drunk I think he'd realised that his banter had crossed the line. Nothing ever came of it and I forgot about the incident completely.

Now years later I was speaking with a mutual friend who eventually asked if I was really that drunk the night Bob had beaten me up? That surprised me, because I had never been in a fight with Bob.

It transpires that word had got back to Tessa that Bob and I had been in a public argument. Now obviously Bob wasn't going to tell her he had been flirting with another girl, so he said I'd insulted Tessa, that he'd asked me to step outside and had successfully defended her honor in a fist fight. Tessa, delighted, had passed that along which is how I heard of it.

In retelling stories people paint themselves in the best possible light. "I got drunk and flirted with another girl" becomes "I defended you in public."

Your friend is not a neutral witness.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 6:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Now that seems odd to me because if he was REALLY wanting to do time to highlight his opinion then surely he would want the sentence as agreegous as possible.

There goes another assumption.

He did not want to do time. He wanted his day in court, which is not the same thing. He believed that there was a chance the jury would acquit him, and he wanted to take that chance. There have been 4 persons charged and acquitted for the 861 issue since Larken's trial, so he was not entirely wrong that there was a chance.

When he lost the gamble, he chose to mitigate the costs of that gamble. For him, the tax issue is everything. He didn't much care about the free speech issue. He's never complained about the deal, to my knowledge.

As I said, *I* am the one who saw the deal as an example of forcible suppression of oppositional speech, and whining about it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 6:18 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"As I said, *I* am the one who saw the deal as an example of forcible suppression of oppositional speech, and whining about it."

Why, again ? He made his stand, took a chance, and got what he very literally bargained for. (Not seeing the force here, it was an agreement he voluntarily entered into.) Don't you think he's adult enough to run his own life ? Make his own decisions ? Accept the results of those decisions ? Or do you feel like you have to be behind him, second-guessing and harping all the way ?

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 6:49 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
If you could post some of your friend's documents, we could get a better idea.
Here you go:

http://www.theft-by-deception.com/

There's his video. I believe someone else is selling the video now.

Here is the video free on the internet:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023

The website was just a written version of the same content, a bit more tedious to read.

Yep. Classic 861. "You don't have to pay taxes on your income and here's why." The Government does consider this selling and/or promoting a fraudulent tax avoidance scheme. These same arguments have been around since the 50's at least, and pop up again every few years. Lots of folks have gone to jail for doing exactly what your friend was doing.

Here's a Justice Department release about some of those recently sent up.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/files/summary.htm

BTW, does your friend have any idea of how many folks who bought into his idea ended up in trouble with IRS?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

I don't mind debating my interpretation of the facts, but I am unsettled by the inconsistencies in YOUR two interpretations. Which is it? Are the two issues (speaking out against the income tax and failure to file) related?

All they have to prove is that he made money and didn't file. How he made his money is not relevant to THAT charge.

Your saying that if he made money by selling videos that advocate against the income tax then the govt. must prove the videos advocated against the income tax. That is simply not so. What he was selling is not relevant to the case.

Quote:

If only only one action was charged and convicted in court, and the other action not addressed, are you allowed to coerce the defendant into being punished for both actions through a sentencing deal?

Yes.

Think Domestic Violance. If you are charged and convicted of beating your wife, the Judge can, as a condition of the sentencing order or probation, make an order forbidding contact with the victim. Abusive contact such as telephone harrassment, witness tampering, menacing, stalking, etc are all seperate offenses which were not charged. Once convicted the Judge has the power to put you in jail or on probation, the Judge can craft the sentencing order in a very broad fashion to avoid a repeat of the charged offense OR ANY OTHER offence.

You'll find many probabtion orders include a general 'obey all laws for x-number of years'. So you get convicted of tax evasion and get 'obey all laws for 2 years' then 18 months later you drive drunk...it violates your probation for the tax evasion even though the two cases have no relation whatsoever.

I know you don't like it. Hmm...maybe you should video yourself not liking it, sell those videos on a 'not liking it website', not report the income, get yourself convicted, then you can go to jail while steadfastly refusing to remove your website or show remorse for your crime. That should make you feel better until the govt. confiscates your computer equipment as criminal tools or you meet your new roomie Bubba makes you his bitch (either way the govt gets you in the end).

You sound like this little old lady I convicted today. Perfect driving record, 66 years old, walker and oxygen. She ran off the road in a terrible rain storm because she could not see her turn and turned too soon. Charged with Failure to Control. I said...honost mistake, accident, you accidently went off the road, no real harm, perfect record...plead guilty and I'll waive the fine, have a nice day ma'am. She refused. She NEVER lost control of her car, she said. It went exactly the way she wanted it to go...it just went too soon (for the turn). She refused to plead guilty, told her story to the Magistrate who found her guilty of Reckless Operation (not RecOP the crime, but rather finding her guilty of "recklessly" failing to control...little provision that if they make a "reckless finding they can suspend your license) because her defense was that she INTENTIONALLY ran off the road. Big fine and suspended license. All could have been avoided by a little common sense and compromise and listening to a nice guy prosecutor like myself.

She was wrong but could not admit it and it hurts far worse then it has to when you refuse common sense and there's no law says you have to like it. Your friend understands (and agrees), he may not admit it to you...but when it mattered he folded his tent and that says it all.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Do you have citations, because I beg to differ.

Off the top of my head: US v. Rose 05-101-01 (US Dist Ct. for ED of PA)

Quote:

The original intent of the IRC was not to tax all income. Go read the law and decide for yourself.

Now someone, please prosecute me if that was illegal. Hero, Geezer, Finn, please feel free to report me.

Wow, those must have been really short videos.

Saying..."The original intent of the IRC was not to tax all income. Go read the law and decide for yourself." Is fine.

Charging $19.99 for saying..."The original intent of the IRC was not to tax all income. Go read the law and decide for yourself."...and not reporting the income is a crime. A very ironic crime.

Hmm...the original intent of the Army was to fight the British, since we are not fighting the British the Army was illegal. The original intent of Pizza Hut was Pizza, so the hot wings I had last weekend were unconstitutional (and, like other violation of due process, tasty). The original intent of Firefly was to be a TV show...so everyone should throw out their unconstitutional copies of Serenity.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"As I said, *I* am the one who saw the deal as an example of forcible suppression of oppositional speech, and whining about it."

Why, again ? He made his stand, took a chance, and got what he very literally bargained for. (Not seeing the force here, it was an agreement he voluntarily entered into.)

Also not seeing the "suppression of oppositional speech" since he remains free to say what he wants to whom he wants on any subject he wants.

Its just a time, place, and manner restriction same as if he wanted to hold a parade or start shouting his tax opposition in the middle of a crowded theater (not as much fun as shouting 'fire' but still quite disruptive).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
The Government does consider this selling and/or promoting a fraudulent tax avoidance scheme.

Citation please? Where are all those court cases showing how merely explaining the 861 argument is considered fraudulent tax avoidance promotion, even when no tax advice is given?

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Off the top of my head: US v. Rose 05-101-01 (US Dist Ct. for ED of PA)

This case was about failure to file. It says nothing about the defendant nor the website violating Section 7206(2) of the IRC.

You are all clamoring about how this website is illegal in and of itself for 7206(2) violations. I'd like to see proof.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Your saying that if he made money by selling videos that advocate against the income tax then the govt. must prove the videos advocated against the income tax.

No. I am saying if the govt wants to shut down his website for "Possession of Criminal Enterprise" or some such thing, they should have charged him with it, proven it in court, and had him convicted by a jury. Then they could have ordered him to shut it down instead of offering a coercive backdoor deal without doing any of the work.

If his website was illegal, they should have proven that it was illegal in court. Unilaterally deciding that his speech was illegal without due process, and coercing the defendant to terminate his website is operating outside of the constraints of both criminal law and constitutional law.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
the Judge can craft the sentencing order in a very broad fashion to avoid a repeat of the charged offense OR ANY OTHER offence.

Except the website is not an offense. It is speech protected under the First Amendment.

It is a crime, you say?

1) If it is, doesn't the judge have to prove it is criminal before having the power to wave it away like any other crime?

2) If it is not proven in court to be criminal, should a judge have the power to unilaterally decide that this speech was criminal, include it under his purview, and wave it way?

-------------------

I think everyone is getting distracted by the content of the website. So let's imagine for a moment the website was not about taxes.

Let's say the website was about the war in Iraq. The author says he believes it is legal for soldiers to refuse to fight in an illegal war like the current one in Iraq, and he explains why. He makes a video and sells it. And he does not file tax returns on his income from the video or his medical transcription business.

After conviction, the judge offers him a more lenient sentence if he took down his war protester website and video.

1) If his war protester website was criminal, should it not have been included amongst his charges?

2) If the war protester speech wasn't proven to be criminal in court, should the judge be allowed to unilaterally decide the speech on the website was criminal without due process?

3) If his war protester speech wasn't criminal, should the judge have been able to make him take down legal, protected speech (not an offense, mind you) in exchange for less time in prison?

4) Is an offer to take down war protester speech in exchange for less prison time for a separate offense not coercion?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:05 AM

But that's not what happened. He used the website to run a business and earn income that he then didnt pay tax on. That made it a criminal enterprise. Then he was offered a deal that he chose to take in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Imagine your friend was an alcoholic who killed someone in a drunk driving incident. Driving while intoxicated is illegal, killing someone while intoxicated is illegal, drinking is not. Now suppose he appeared genuinely contrite at trial so the judge offers a deal, if he agrees to go into AA and stays sober he'll go easy on him. Now drinking is not a crime but it's obviously a contributory factor. Now the guy has two choices, he can take the deal and shave a few months off his sentence or he can serve his time.

Now drinking is not illegal the judge doesnt have to convict him of drinking (and cant actually) whether or not it's legal doesnt enter into the DEAL. The judge says in effect "stop doing legal act X which contributed to illegal act Y and we'll go easy on you, deal or no deal?" The drunkard could still refuse or he can take the deal and be happy.

In this case the guy made money off a website peddling bogus taxation advice. That advice was contributory to the guy failing to file, just like booze made the drunk driver drunk. As part of the deal the judge said "vollentarily stop doing this and we will take that as a sign that you are sorry and we can give you a lighter sentence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
In this case the guy made money off a website peddling bogus taxation advice.

Good god. The only words that are true in that sentence were "guy" and "website." Do you guys not read anything I write?

FACT: Website made no money.
FACT: Website did not peddle anything.
FACT: Website offered no taxation advice.
FACT: Website did not cause him to not file, so your whole analogy is neither here nor there. (He chose not to file first, then started the website.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:24 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS

I think the issue is if the judge has discretion, and I believe the answer is yes. The cooercive circumstance came about b/c your friend broke the law and was found guilty, which is on him. And since your friend took the deal, I suspect the judge offered him something he valued over his website. In that regard, the judge did him a favor.

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:31 AM

Website promoted a video he sold for money as such it was part of the money making process. All advertising loses money unless people pay you to show your ad, ie never. To say "the advertising made no money" is true, the advertisng however helps you to make money on the thing that was advertised.

He admitted that he sold video tapes effectively advertised by the website.

He offered taxation advice, he was just to chicken S*** to call it that. He pussyfooted around the wording trying to avoid a legal definition of giving advice.

The website advocated a theory he later used as a bogus defence in court. That theory is contribuory to the crime he was convicted of. That's why the Iraq war analogy doesnt fly. He was convicted of tax evasion and ran a tax evasion advocacy website... You are the only one here that doesnt see a connection.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:49 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Citation please? Where are all those court cases showing how merely explaining the 861 argument is considered fraudulent tax avoidance promotion, even when no tax advice is given?

It's been several years since I was involved with tax protestors so I don't have one off the top of my head. As I noted before, usually first timers just get prosecuted for tax evasion, even if they also peddle their 'opinions'.

Here's a link to the Justice Department's press releases concerning tax evasion schemes going back to 2001. Have fun coming up with ways that none of these cases quite exactly match your friend's scheme.

http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/taxpress2006.htm

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:04 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
FACT: Website made no money.

Doesn't matter.

Quote:
FACT: Website did not peddle anything.

But you said earlier in this thread that he was selling his video. was it sold off his website or door-to-door?

Quote:
FACT: Website offered no taxation advice.

But the video he was selling did. It stated the usual 861 arguments on taxability of income, and indicated that they were the true interpretation. If his site had a link to a .pdf of the video's text, like the link you provided above, then he sure was providing tax advice on his site.

Quote:
FACT: Website did not cause him to not file...He chose not to file first, then started the website.

The order in which he did it is irrelevent.

And once again, how many folks got hung out to dry by the IRS for following your friend's 'opinions'?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Citation please? Where are all those court cases showing how merely explaining the 861 argument is considered fraudulent tax avoidance promotion, even when no tax advice is given?

...

Here's a link to the Justice Department's press releases concerning tax evasion schemes going back to 2001. Have fun coming up with ways that none of these cases quite exactly match your friend's scheme.

http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/taxpress2006.htm

What is more to the point is none of them match your assertion that there are years of court rulings that merely stating the 861 position is considered "promotion" in violation of 7206(2).

I've exhausted every way I can think of to explain my position. Obviously none of you are convinced and will ever be convinced, so like everything else, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

6ix, I am very sorry for hijacking your thread, and for no good reason either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:05 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
What is more to the point is none of them match your assertion that there are years of court rulings that merely stating the 861 position is considered "promotion" in violation of 7206(2).

I've exhausted every way I can think of to explain my position. Obviously none of you are convinced and will ever be convinced, so like everything else, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Your friend was not 'merely stating' the 861 position. Aside from failing to file and pay taxes based on his opinion - for which he could have found voluminous refutation if he'd done any research somewhere other than tax protester sites and books - he was selling a video that encouraged other people to take a position which is in conflict with years of both government clarification and court decisions.

You can try to clarify your position all day long, but your opinion flies in the face of estalished case law and regulation. Your friend was encouraging people to file fraudulent tax returns, or not file at all, in violation of the law. He's lucky that he wasn't charged with this, probably due to the kindness of the prosecutor.

Your argument is like someone saying their understanding of the law is that killing someone during the commission of a robbery isn't against the law, and then selling a video explaining how robbers can use this 'loophole' to get away with murder. It doesn't matter what your understanding is if case law and regulation agree that it's still murder.

I would venture to guess that your friend didn't just come up with his 861 arguments out of thin air, but instead got them from some other tax protester. That's the usual way.

For the third time, BTW, how many folks did your friend get in trouble whth the IRS by peddling his opinion. I notice you're kind'a hesitant to say.

I admire your loyalty to your friend, and I think you're right in saying that we'll never agree. You believe what you want to believe, but be careful about buying this guy's ideas about income tax. They're trouble.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 1:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
But that's not what happened. He used the website to run a business and earn income that he then didnt pay tax on. That made it a criminal enterprise. Then he was offered a deal that he chose to take in exchange for a lighter sentence.

But that is EXACTLY what happened. The only thing I changed about the above war protester website/failure to file story was the content of the website.

1) If the website were criminal regardless of content, then my changing the content of the website would not be an issue.

(Imagine the situation if the speech were something you didn't really hate. We all find it easy to think of speech we hate as criminal, that it should be illegal anyway, even if it weren't. This time it happened to speech you don't care for. But what if next time, the same situation happened to speech you do care for?)

2) If the website were criminal because of its content, then this charge should have been proven in court. Hero confirmed that even Possession of Criminal Tools needs to be tried in court.

3) Short of being proven in court, no one here has shown that any content in the video applies to Section 7206(2). You guys have flung that accusation, but without any substantiation.

4) Geezer claims legal precedence that this content has been ruled as applying to 7206(2). But again, there is no substantiation.

If you guys cannot distintinguish between statement of belief and criminal solicitation, then one day this is going to happen to a statement of belief you DO agree with. You are going to say, "I believe in X" or "X is true" and someone will turn that into criminal solicitation.

I'm watching this country go down in flames, and I'm watching you guys fan the flames.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 2:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
For the third time, BTW, how many folks did your friend get in trouble whth the IRS by peddling his opinion. I notice you're kind'a hesitant to say.

I ignored the question on purpose. It is so full of shit I thought it was rhetorical.

I have no idea how many people bought his video or went to his website, or who they are. I have no idea how many of those people did not file. If any of these people did not file their tax returns, I have no idea if they didn't file because of the video or because of another website or some other reason. To date, I have not heard anyone say, "It's not my fault! I got tricked into this by Larken Rose!" If they did say it, I wouldn't know if they were lying or telling the truth.

Wesley Snipes made this accusation of his tax preparers. But they actually prepared his taxes, per 7206(2).

Beyond asking me to be psychic, the question is monumentally misleading. Unless Larken specifically said, "This is what YOU should do with your taxes," he is not legally responsible for those people's actions.

Once you start blaming other people's actions on one's statements of beliefs, once you start confusing "I believe it is legal to smoke marijuana" with someone smoking marijuana, you will no longer have free and protected speech.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 2:14 AM

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."

Life isn't fair and I think we've all been in situations that we've had to swallow our pride or let go of our principals in a certain situation. Some of us are stronger and have more resources to fight for what's right while others don't have the constitution or resources and have to play dead when their backs are up against the wall. I certainly agree with you that what happened here is devious and I don't believe necessacerrily that his site or video were illegal either. Problem is, just because he was working within the legal framework doesn't mean that he can't be pushed around by a government who holds almost all of the cards. If he was serious about this, he should have kept paying his taxes and kept the whole thing legal while spreading his word. That way, even if he was bringing attention to himself, it would be next to impossible for them to do what they did to him. What your friend did was foolish, and then when the shitstorm came down on him he cashed in his chips and walked away and screamed that his free speech was being trampled on.

Where he is at now though, he has no one but himself to blame.

Both parties here, regarding the website and the DVD, did nothing illegal. He gave them an open doorway to their wrath and when the time came he only proved that he didn't have the eternal vigilance that is necessary to secure and retain our freedom. I seem to remember a figure of somewhere around $500,000 of income with taxes unpaid. The guy isn't exactly poor and should have had legal representation that would have told him to stick by his guns.

He was getting busted hard for not paying his taxes and he certainly wasn't getting any sympathy because of his views on the matter of taxation. He was likely looking at the maximum prison time and fine because of this and they cut him a break if he shut down operations they didn't approve of.

It wasn't trampling free speech and I still think that he is well within his right if he opened up shop again non-profit. If free speech is what really matters to him, and not making a buck off of it, this shouldn't be a problem for him.

Sorry I can't agree with you here. I know we agree on most things.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 3:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
then when the shitstorm came down on him he cashed in his chips and walked away and screamed that his free speech was being trampled on.

I want to make it clear he never screamed about his free speech being trampled upon. He is also not complaining or blaming anyone about where he is now.

I brought his case up as an example of forcible suppression of oppositional speech. They used prison time for an unrelated offense to leverage shutting down a website they otherwise had no legal right to shut down.

The $500,000 of income for which he did not file tax returns was over several years' worth, and it was for two people, him and his wife. If you divided that by say, 5 years, it's about $50,000 per year per person. No, he's not poor, but roughly $50K per year is not rich either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 3:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
This case was about failure to file. It says nothing about the defendant nor the website violating Section 7206(2) of the IRC.

Actually his defense was his anti-tax argument and it was rejected.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 3:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Except the website is not an offense. It is speech protected under the First Amendment.

I think everyone is getting distracted by the content of the website. So let's imagine for a moment the website was not about taxes.

Ok. Lets imagine its a website devoted to showing naked pictures of your ex-wife who divorced you for domestic violence and who now has a protection order saying you cannot harrass, annoy, threaten, etc. Guess what, your going to get charged with violating the protection order AND when found guilty you'll be ordered to take the site down.

Just because something is protected speech does not mean the govt can't place time, place, and manner restrictions on that speech.

We had a case in Ohio that I cited when I prosectued the fella for his wife-website and he argued free speech. Lady had protection order and child support order against ex-husband. He makes a sign and pickets outside her house protesting the child support payments. He was convicted for violating the order, not because of what he was saying but rather because it violated the time, place, and manner restriction the court placed on him.

So what is it you want? If your friend appeals his sentence and wins...he loses. At best the sentence is thrown out...THEN the case is remanded back to the trial court for a new sentence which in this case would be the original sentence had he not taken the Judge's offer (if he's lucky...the Judge has the discretion to give him the maximum if he's pissed off).

Option two, violate the order. In that case the fella gets a NEW charge for violating the order and he CANNOT challenge the validity of the original order. That's called a collateral attack and court's don't allow them. That means you can't use case number 2 to challenge an order or verdict of case number 1. Argued that one myself on a free speech/protection order case similar to the above in the Court of Appeals. Great case...guy gave his protected wife the finger and then called it free speech and challenged the original order on the grounds that it prevented the free exercise of his speech.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 4:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
This case was about failure to file. It says nothing about the defendant nor the website violating Section 7206(2) of the IRC.

Actually his defense was his anti-tax argument and it was rejected.
H

His anti-tax 861 argument was rejected. But the case did not prove merely stating your belief in the 861 argument is violating Section 7206(2) of the IRC.

You are confusing the legal invalidity of the 861 position with illegality of stating the 861 position. Just because it is not legally true does not mean it is illegal to say it, see?

Besides you keep waffling back and forth on this Hero. Sometimes the speech is legal. Sometimes the speech is legal, but only if you pay taxes on any profits from it. Sometimes the speech is a violation of Section 7206(2) of the IRC. Which is it?

If I make a video explaining why George Bush is a great man and president, it's legal. If I sell the video, it's legal. If I don't pay taxes on the sales of the video, you're telling me the video suddenly becomes illegal without benefit of due process. And it would be perfectly within his legal authority for an anti-Bush judge to offer me a more lenient prison sentence in exchange for withdrawing the video from the market.

And for those of you who swing the other way, just imagine the video is anti-Bush, and the judge is pro-Bush.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 4:09 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Did you know your friend is famous? He's #2 on the etaxes.com list of tax protest scams - kicked out of #1 by Irwin Schiff of Wseley Snipes fame.

http://www.etaxes.com/tax_scams.html

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 4:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Ok. Lets imagine its a website devoted to showing naked pictures of your ex-wife ...

C'mon Hero. You can't post naked pictures of anyone without their legal consent. You should know that. And if the content of the website itself is a violation, then that offense has to be tried and convicted in court (which wasn't in Larken's case).

If content is not an issue, choose to substitute content that is indisputably legal.

If content is an issue, then cite the law it violates and cite where the speech violates the law. And show me where the court tried and convicted the defendant for this violation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 4:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Did you know your friend is famous? He's #2 on the etaxes.com list of tax protest scams - kicked out of #1 by Irwin Schiff of Wseley Snipes fame.

Yes, I did.

Funny, he was never charged or convicted of scamming anyone.

Unlike Irwin Schiff or Wesley's Snipes' tax preparers.

People can accuse anyone of any crime they want. Doesn't make it true. It's called "trial by jury," Geezer.

And trial by jury says my friend was guilty of failure to file tax returns. Not even failure to pay taxes, mind you--just he didn't mail in his forms by April 15th every year.

You can speculate as much as you want about what else he might be guilty of as much as you want. Scam, theft, adultery, jaywalking, whatever. There is still that inconvenient "trial by jury" thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 4:19 AM

Like my recent kick, I got to bring it up that even though I'm disagreeing with you on the principal that we can't stand behind every single inarguable case because we'll be viewed as the lunatic fringe, I do agree with the basis of your point.

I kind of assumed that the $500,000 was spread over some time but it wasn't presented that way and I wasn't going to ask. $50,000 for one or even $100,000 for two isn't burnin' Benjamin's rich, but if you make that much and you're smart, you should never have anything really to worry about as long as you have health insurance. I do understand that we live in a debt economy though and they likely were already living beyond their means before this.

Assuming he avoided jail and that he and his wife are still gainfully employed, might I suggest that he and his wife budget themselves and prepare for anything in the future that may require them to have some sort of emergency fund. I know if I were making $50,000 a year on my own I'd be saving at the very least 20k a year to buy a house with cash money when the housing crisis grinds to a halt. Times are prolly getting tougher in the future and it never hurts to prepare for it now when people who aint' used to struggling aren't yet finding them in the position to need to struggle.

Then I suggest when they feel comfortable, and trust me, it feels all sorts of wonderful when you're comfortable, you don't have debt and you're in the position to seriously consider sending your 2008 tax rebate back on principal.... well then I suggest that he open shop back up and run a non-profit site. Sure... he can ask for donations which some people really will willingly give if they truly like his message just to cover the costs 'cause that ain't free. It's a hobby and something that he believes in, but it ain't his primary job and he can't break the law they got the rest of us already living by to fund it. I don't agree with the tax laws or how our money is spent, but we need to get them changed, or in a grand gesture have at least 1 million people not pay their taxes and stand firm. Short of that, to really spread his word he will need a bit of cash to run it.... till then, just claim the tax.

When you're saving, there is plenty of ways to get stuff written off or deducted pre-tax. Up to 25% can go into 401k's tax free if one or both of them have it available to them, IRA's that you fund after tax but grow tax deffered and can be witdrawn without being taxed in retirement, Health Savings Accounts which can be invested as you want them to and save as long as you can and have a financial coushin for health insurance or other medical costs (tax free)... and I'm sure tons more stuff that people with more money than me get around to eventually when other legal tax shelters dry up. I can't even justify itemizing at this point, but I know I'll get breaks on about 6k more this year than last year because I know better now how the game is played.

Just tell him to pay whatever taxes he can't legally get out of before we elect Ron Paul in 2012 and get the tax laws and alphabet agencies out of the picture.

And I want to hear in a future thread (or a post added to this one) that he re-opened his site and what the address is. You make sure that he gets to the point where he'll re-open it the right way and get that message out.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 4:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
So what is it you want?

Free ice cream? World peace? Firefly back on TV!!!

I want some acknowledgement from fellow Americans that 1) the judge's offer was beyond his legal authority, and 2) the judge took advantage of a man facing prison to leverage the voluntary termination of a website he personally did not like. (Edited to change: ...termination of a website he had no legal authority to terminate.)

Short of that, it would be nice to see some substantiation for and consistency in the arguments you guys have made.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 4:55 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Funny, he was never charged or convicted of scamming anyone.

Based on my experience some 25 years ago in referring tax protester cases for proscution, he meets all the criteria for being charged with promoting a tax scheme. As I've noted before, and you continue to ignore, I can only assume that the prosecutors gave him a break by deciding not to charge him. This wasn't uncommon 25 years ago and probably still obtains today.

I note that his blog site is still up, and that it still links to a page selling his video. http://larkenrose.blogspot.com/ If he continues to violate the agreement he made with the judge, you may find that the DOJ will charge him with promoting tax avoidence this time around. Will that make you happy?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 4:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Besides you keep waffling back and forth on this Hero. Sometimes the speech is legal. Sometimes the speech is legal, but only if you pay taxes on any profits from it. Sometimes the speech is a violation of Section 7206(2) of the IRC. Which is it?

Both. All speech is legal in this country, even hate speech. Not all speech is protected, not all protected speech is free from govt. regulation. Not all regulated and protected speech is free from criminal or civil liability.

Lets say I stand up in a crowded theater and shout that you are a child molester while refusing to cease (after being asked to by a law enforcement officer) and allow enjoyment of the movie. Free speech and all still apply BUT I can be prosecuted for Disorderly Conduct, then sued for liable, and banned from returning to the theater (its court discretion...even if the theater says I can come back...although a court will generally craft such an order to meet the wishes of the property owner). Yet I still have every right to say what I said, believe what I believe, and even to say it again to other people in other forums (although I could, given the circumstances find myself once again in civil and criminal trouble).

In other words you can say what you want...but you might be breaking other laws while doing so.

I note for the record that my above example is content neutral and certainly applies in this case. The issue of if this tax resistance argument violates the tax code is not relevant since he was not convicted of that offense. A free speech argument in a case arising solely from such a charge would be interesting. I think it would ultimately turn on the context of the communication.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 4:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
And I want to hear in a future thread (or a post added to this one) that he re-opened his site and what the address is.

http://www.theft-by-deception.com/

His video is available for sale here. I don't know who is selling it, but the website says all proceeds go toward dissemination of this information.

There is also a link to a PDF file that is the same argument he made on his old website.

He has a newsletter now via a public mailing list. To subscribe, send an email to tmds-on@mail-list.com (blog-like essays on tyranny in general)

or

861-on@mail-list.com (blog-like essays on the 861 position)

And he did serve one year in a minimum security federal prison for not mailing in his forms by April 15th for 5 years.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 5:00 AM

Then you are going to be disappointed because nobody else sees the problem like you do. Normal person might take that as an indication that they have probably got it wrong... guess that wont happen with you though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 5:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
You can't post naked pictures of anyone without their legal consent. You should know that. And if the content of the website itself is a violation, then that offense has to be tried and convicted in court (which wasn't in Larken's case).

First of all, the legality of publishing naked nonconsensual pics depends of the state you live in (and the circumstances of the publication), but you are generally correct.

Second, a violation can be content neutral in any number of instances. I gave several examples. In the case of the fella picketing his wife's house there was no need to prove his sign about the child support was illegal, his conduct alone was sufficient to meet the elements of the offense.

Lets face it, you keep arguing this in circles cause you don't agree with the decision. Thats fine, its your right. Very few of the criminals I convict agree with the conviction. I had a fella this morning make a very eloquent argument in favor of allowing him to smoke pot...he lost, paid his fine and left. He was not happy, but he was dead wrong in his interpretation of the law, as is your friend about taxes and you about this speech issue. If you don't like it...run for Congress. I'll be glad to enforce the laws your way as soon as you get the laws changed (don't count on my vote though).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 5:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
s I've noted before, and you continue to ignore, I can only assume that the prosecutors gave him a break by deciding not to charge him.

I'm not ignoring your assumption. I am saying you haven't substantiated your assumption thus far. Allow me to be skeptical that your assumption is true until I see material substantiation.

Quote:
I note that his blog site is still up, and that it still links to a page selling his video. http://larkenrose.blogspot.com/ If he continues to violate the agreement he made with the judge, you may find that the DOJ will charge him with promoting tax avoidence this time around. Will that make you happy?

Politically speaking, yes. As friend, I would not be happy to see him go through the wringer just to prove something you won't believe anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 5:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Second, a violation can be content neutral in any number of instances. I gave several examples.

False analogies all of them.

Let's compare apples to apples:

Action (regardless of speech content): Picketing someone with a protection order against you is an offense. Disruption of a movie theatre is an offense.

Action (regardless of speech content): Running a website is not a criminal offense.

Give me an example of an action that is legal, where the content is legal, and connect that someone choosing not to file tax returns. Then we might have a logically valid analogy.

Edited to add: Why don't you use my analogies? Use the war protester website or the "I love Bush"/"I hate Bush" (whichever you prefer) website. Both identical actions, both legal speech. Only difference is content, to control for anti-tax-protester bias.

Sometimes his speech was legal. Sometimes his speech wasn't legal. Sometimes it wasn't legal. Now it was both. You change your rationalization to suit every argument I come up with. You're the one spinning the circles with false analogies and waffling positions, not me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 5:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Then you are going to be disappointed because nobody else sees the problem like you do. Normal person might take that as an indication that they have probably got it wrong... guess that wont happen with you though.

Nobody else who is talking on this thread on this board. I know plenty of people who see it like I do.

Not that popularity proves me right or wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 6:21 AM

I'm sure the members of the KKK has the same view on coloured people. A clique giving mutual support of their own biases means nothing. The thing that would make me worried is that folks on this board don't really agree on anything. If they look at it and all disagree with you then that's a pretty good indication that you are probably wrong. they are your peer group.

It doesnt matter what the KKK thinks about coloured folks because that isnt the view of the majority of Americans. The majority here, the folks without your emotional and idiological identification with your friend see the issue differently, that should tell you something.

Closing thought. Assume for the moment that your friend is right, 861 is a cast iron garenteed tax loophole backed by law. You know if that was the case it would be closed in days. It only hasn't been closed because it isnt a loophole. These are the IRS's own rules, they could change them. It's an exploit that well isn't an exploit. Your friend is like the kid who thinks he's found a hole in his parent's logic that will let him stay up later to watch TV, he doesnt realise that even if he's right the loophole will be gone tomorrow.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 6:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
If they look at it and all disagree with you then that's a pretty good indication that you are probably wrong. they are your peer group.

Who's "they"? We got Geezer, Fletch, Hero and Finn--mostly conservatives who I would hardly call my peer group. We got Rue, who apparently thinks it is an interesting question but hasn't come down hard on either side. And 6ix, who apparently agrees with me in principle, but thinks it is not as big a deal as I make it out to be.

The other "folks on this board who don't agree on anything" (Frem, SignyM, Sergeant, HK, Auraptor, Citizen, etc) have not posted. So it is NOT the overwhelming consensus of diverse thinkers against my position that you describe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 7:07 AM

Here is my closing thought. Forget we've been arguing about taxes and consider the following.

Bob runs a "I love Bush" website. (You can make it "I hate Bush" if you want.) He makes a video on how much he loves Bush (sold on a separate website), which surprisingly sells like hotcakes. He decides not to file his tax returns, thus not declaring his income for either his day job (real estate business) or his video sales. He is tried and convicted for failure to file. The judge offers him leniency if he would do X. Which of the following X's do you think is within the judge's authority and which is definitely wrong?

1) Write "I will not cheat on my taxes" on the blackboard 100 times.
2) Write "I hate Bush" on the blackboard 100 hundred times.
3) Have sex with the judge.
4) Donate a house for the judge's favorite charity.
5) Take down the "I love Bush" website.
6) Take down the website through which he sold the videos.
7) Give up the names of any website collaborators who also love Bush.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 7:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Edited to add: Why don't you use my analogies?

Because is does not matter what the content of the website is. If he sold videos over his website the Judge can order it shut down as part of the sentencing order.

You want an example of something legal that the Judge can bar you from? Drinking. You get a DUI offense the Judge can order you not to drink and stick a SCRAM bracelet on you to enforce it.

Another? Going to court and watching. But if you expose yourself in court you can get banned from the Courtroom.

Another? Worshipping God in the Church of your choosing. But if your church abuses children (or livestock) they can shut that church down and prevent the excercise of that religeon.

Another? Living near a school. Not if your convicted of a sex offense (even one NOT involving children).

It goes on and on. The bottom line is your fella was convicted, which means he loses his liberty. How much does he lose? Thats up to the Judge and the sentencing guidelines...the Judge can throw him in jail or make conditions on his continued release or some combination of the two. Happens every day, in nearly every case.

One Judge I know forced a fella to read a book. Another was made to write an apology. Another went to jail for six months. Another got a slap on the wrist and 'don't do that again'. Another didn't get a sentence cause the Judge never rulled on it. Once the word "guilty" gets written down, the Judge can do anything they want (except be cruel...or unusual...or prejuducial...or abuse their discretion).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 7:34 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I am saying you haven't substantiated your assumption thus far. Allow me to be skeptical that your assumption is true until I see material substantiation.

As stated before I spent several years reviewing tax protester correspondence and referring it for legal action. Your friend's video contains the same arguments, almost some of the same wording, as the one's that met criteria for action under US Code, Title 26, 6701. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006701----000-
.html

I can tell you for sure, from personal experience, that folk were prosecuted for stuff materially identical to his video. Hard to find the exact cases 25 years after the fact.

Also note T26 7408. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/7408.html
"the court may enjoin such person from engaging in such conduct or in any other activity subject to penalty under this title."

So if your friend was convicted under 6700 for failure to file taxes, he could be enjoined from violating 6701, even if he was not previously charged with or convicted of violating it. Not having all the coupr papers, I can't say if such an injunction was brought, but it could have.

I got nothing against your friend, but suspect he was a dupe of the tax protester subculture, just like some folk are duped by charasmatic religious groups. If he'd bothered to do any research outside the protester community, he'd have found that the 861 position and similar have been refuted in court and in regulation time and time again. If you want to be mad at anyone, try being mad at the folks who suckered him into becoming a criminal.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 7:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Which of the following X's do you think is within the judge's authority and which is definitely wrong?

1) Write "I will not cheat on my taxes" on the blackboard 100 times.
2) Write "I hate Bush" on the blackboard 100 hundred times.
3) Have sex with the judge.
4) Donate a house for the judge's favorite charity.
5) Take down the "I love Bush" website.
6) Take down the website through which he sold the videos.
7) Give up the names of any website collaborators who also love Bush.

There are specific Canons of Judicial Ethics against Judges forcing Defendants to have sex with them.

Also a Judge cannot order someone to express a political opinion or donate to a charity...it could be a part of a consensual agreement.

He can order a person to write 'I will not cheat on my taxes'. I've seen it done in other contexts.

He can order the person give up the names of co-conspirators, but would not unless it was relevant to the case or the ongoing investigation. I note this rarely comes up in this context but rather in trial (on cross examination) or perhaps in a Grand Jury setting. In those cases a person will either be found in contempt or charged with Obstruction if they fail to comply.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 8:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I can tell you for sure, from personal experience, that folk were prosecuted for stuff materially identical to his video. Hard to find the exact cases 25 years after the fact.

Ok. But all I have is still your word for it. Not saying you're lying, but you could be mistaken that those cases and this case have identical material. After all, it was 25 years ago.

Until I see case law, I'm afraid your claim is still materially unsubstantiated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS

Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 21, 2024 14:36 - 7470 posts

Sir Jimmy Savile Knight of the BBC Empire raped children in Satanic rituals in hospitals with LOT'S of dead bodies
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:19 - 7 posts

Matt Gaetz, typical Republican
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:13 - 143 posts

Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:45 - 112 posts

Fauci gives the vaccinated permission to enjoy Thanksgiving
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:38 - 4 posts

English Common Law legalizes pedophilia in USA
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:42 - 8 posts

The parallel internet is coming
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:28 - 178 posts

Is the United States of America a CHRISTIAN Nation and if Not...then what comes after
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:33 - 21 posts

The Rise and Fall of Western Civilisation
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:12 - 51 posts

Biden* to punish border agents who were found NOT whipping illegal migrants
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:55 - 26 posts

Hip-Hop Artist Lauryn Hill Blames Slavery for Tax Evasion
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:52 - 11 posts

GOP House can't claim to speak for America
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:50 - 12 posts

VIEW MORE TOPICS

FFF.NET SOCIAL