Wesley Snipes Gets Max Sentence

[sratiug]

They're not challenging the law. Look at their argument -- they're not saying that it's wrong to levy taxes. They're saying that the IRS's math is wrong since ordinary labor is not covered under the tax laws.

That's not challenging the law -- that's the legal equivalent of saying the government made an error in calculating your tax liability. If they were actually convinced that the laws were wrong, they would civilly disobey them -- not play legal games around them.

The Rosa Parks analogy is totally apt here -- these people aren't saying that black people should be able to ride at the front of the bus. They're arguing that it's fine to discriminate against black people -- but they're not black, so telling them to go to the back of the bus is wrong.

Say what?

 

[scotto2008]

Didn't some guy defeat the IRS in court and got off of having to pay taxes?

Yes, it was an attorney who was acquitted by a Louisiana jury. His case was, "I want to fully abide by the law, so please show me the law and I'll pay." They couldn't come up with a law, so he got off.

HOWEVER,

He warned people to think long and hard before taking this course. He was lucky because of his legal background and the fact that he got a sympathetic jury.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Good lord no you don't. The Federal Debt would exist even if the government went on the gold standard. The rate of debt creation would fall, but outstanding liabilities still must be paid.

Well jeez, then I guess I'm all upside down on this issue.

Better get over to the McPain forums.

I heard that from Ron Paul's mouth. I was standing ten feet away in Conway NH.

If they were actually convinced that the laws were wrong, they would civilly disobey them

The Browns DID. They walked out of the court.

They holed up at their farm and told the feds "come and get us". You cannot get more civilly disobedient than that.

Unfortunately for them they did, and they joined the largest prison population, in both raw numbers and per capita, in the world.

 

[walter]

The duty of government is to uphold laws. That guy wasn't saying he SUPPORTED the Income Tax, just that laws should be enforced.

The IRS code is 687,000 pages long, more than 26 sets of encycolpedias and impossible for any of YOU to learn and obey! Not to mention it is all written in legal jargon and very hard for the average guy to understand. ANY ONE OF YOU, and all of you could be in the same situation as Mr. Snipes if a determined IRS agent decided to come after you! No matter how hard you try to do it right, there IS something you are missing. Even if you did manage to defend yourself and you did get off, a determined IRS agent could financially and spiritually BREAK YOU! Even if you tried to obey and filed! So, the system is messed up!

 

[walter]

Good lord no you don't. The Federal Debt would exist even if the government went on the gold standard. The rate of debt creation would fall, but outstanding liabilities still must be paid.

Actually no! If gold and silver were allowed to circulate beside dollars, people would soon be taking their dollars to the US Treasury and exchanging them for gold and silver coins. Dollars would become unwanted and would be taken to the Fed in dump trucks. There are many stories and articles about how good money pushes out bad money. At some point, probably sooner than you would realize, businesses would be posting signs that read "Dollars no longer accepted". These dollars would accumulate and be delivered to the Fed until there were no more dollars in circulation, at that point, it really doesn't matter if there is still interest due to the Fed because the dollar would be worthless! That is why Dr. Paul calls for the innocent sounding idea of allowing a competing currency, because just by allowing a better competing currency he would be eliminating the FED! No laws would have to be passed, nothing would have to be done to them, they would just become irrelevant! And the best part is all of the money they have would also be worthless!!

 

[Conza88]

He deserves it

We all do it, its the law. You may not necessarily agree with it, but you need to follow the rules. I have no sympathy for a man who has more wealth than the common man get thrown in jail when millions of hard working citizens put into the system and get nothing.

Omfg. FFS.

You belong in jail more than he does. He's taken a stand on principle.
[Redacted by Moderator] Income tax is unconstitutional - go watch Freedom to Fascism so you don't look like such a statist idiot.

</furious rant>

 

[Conza88]

The United States Code is law... passed by Congress.

Title 26 of the code requires you to file a return and pay taxes.

It may not be right, but it is the law currently on the books.

The constitution is the law of the land.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[asgardshill]

Conza88, your abusive posts have been reported. Grow up.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

The Federal Government and the IRS/Treasury Department have turned into the worst version of the Mafia.

Absolutely Appalling and the TAXPAYERS have to pay for the 3 years of jail time, etc, for some NEOCON JUDGE to EXPLOIT the self written political laws for his own VENDETTA GRANDSTANDING.

Convicted on failure to ACT... I love this Federal governments dictator laws!

WHAT DEMOCRACY? This country is turning into a NIGHTMARE!

What next, Fahrenheit 451?

 

[sidster]

Don't worry guys. Just as the Big Government put him in Federal prison,
the Big Government will kick him out of Federal prison. See, this new law
that the Federal Government is trying to enforce is the loophole that will
get Snipes out of Federal prison!

The law I'm referring to is The Real ID Act. See without a Real ID, you can't
enter a Federal building. So don't worry, he'll be out soon along with the rest
of Federal inmates!

 

[sidster]

this is wrong. taxes are a crock. he works, you work, i work, but the government gets a big chunk each week? its stealing.

Actually, that's called enslavement.

 

[Conza88]

Conza88, your abusive posts have been reported. Grow up.

"But, you've got to get MAD!"​

 

[xflashjr]

can he not appeal the ruling? Or am i mistaken?

 

[TheEvilDetector]

They're not challenging the law. Look at their argument -- they're not saying that it's wrong to levy taxes.

This is precisely what I had in mind when I said you are playing semantic word games. The law is an abstract entity and the tax law is actually a collection of 100s if not 1000s of provisions or mini laws if you will. They said it is wrong to levy taxes on them. They were challenging the provision relevant to them and in this regard there were saying it is wrong to levy taxes as far as they were concerned.

They're saying that the IRS's math is wrong since ordinary labor is not covered under the tax laws.

It could also be construed that they were saying IRS' application of the law is improper.
What is "challenging the law" to you? Refusing to obey a whole book of law which (according to the government) contains a provision that applies to you?

That's not challenging the law --

I believe they are in court because they are in fact challenging the law or more strictly speaking the application of the tax law.

They are in fact taking the position their income cannot be taxed, while certain readings of the law convince many millions of americans it can.

Is that not a challenge?

that's the legal equivalent of saying the government made an error in calculating your tax liability.

It is not the same thing.

Browns did not admit any liability, they did not concede anything to the government and rather took a very hard line position with respect to the tax law.
Of course ultimately they paid a heavy price.

If they were actually convinced that the laws were wrong, they would civilly disobey them -- not play legal games around them.

They did not pay taxes, they refused to be arrested willingly, they refused to appear for trial, they lost much of their assets, they stockpiled many munitions and booby traps.

You do not believe this qualifies as civil disobedience?

You would be hard pressed to find much cooperation from the Browns in this process, in fact I challenge you to find instances of civil obedience.

The Rosa Parks analogy is totally apt here -- these people aren't saying that black people should be able to ride at the front of the bus. They're arguing that it's fine to discriminate against black people -- but they're not black, so telling them to go to the back of the bus is wrong.

With your use of Rosa Parks, you implied that they did not make a big enough deal of the situation, that they should have pronounced the whole tome of tax law null and void.

You imply that this act would be preferable to the narrower road that they took.

I ask you why doing this is somehow preferable, in light of the fact, that the government does in fact have a constitutional power to tax and more often than not when it comes to tax protesters it is simply the way that power is exercised rather than the existence of the power that ruffles their feathers?

Not in a 1000 years you will get a government that will abdicate all powers of taxation, for such a government simply cannot exist.

 

[Danke]

That's absolutely not true.

Look at the 20th Amendment, and compare it to the text of Article II

Are you looking at the original Constitution? In the case of the 20th Amendment, you need to look at a copy written after 1933. It should be annotated showing the change.

You will also see that any copy of the Constitution has no such changes for taxation.

The 16th Amendment did not change the nature of Federal taxation. Supreme court cases have stated this clearly.

But these people aren't fighting the laws. They're arguing they found a magical loophole which means the laws don't apply to them. That's the opposite of principled opposition.

"These people"? Can't address all that take on the IRS, but many are certainly addressing the law as written. By the way, can you cite the income tax law? Not the Regulation nor Code, but the actual statue written by congress?

That's not how a democracy works, and that's not the virtues upon which America was founded. That's an argument for the rule of the man who has the most strength, and its an invitation to fascism.

We are supposedly a Republic with a rule of law. Whole thing kinda falls apart when our four branches only pay lip service to that and no longer follow the Constitution.

 

[The One]

Conza88, your abusive posts have been reported. Grow up.

I'm telling!!! Teeeaaaacher!!!!!

 

[voytechs]

Do we have any RPR judges running anywhere? We've got 1 person in senate a dozen in congress any in the legislature branch?

 

[DriftWood]

He deserves it

We all do it, its the law. You may not necessarily agree with it, but you need to follow the rules. I have no sympathy for a man who has more wealth than the common man get thrown in jail when millions of hard working citizens put into the system and get nothing.

Just because everyone else lets the govt steal their money does not make it right. Nobody deserves to be put in jail for standing up for their rights to self ownership. Voting will not change the govt, not paying taxes will.

 

[amy31416]

Just because everyone else lets the govt steal their money does not make it right. Nobody deserves to be put in jail for standing up for their rights to self ownership. Voting will not change the govt, not paying taxes will.

+1

Just be aware of the risks involved.

 

[DriftWood]

Do you feel the same way about corporations who try to avoid taxes?

Yes! People own companies. When the govt taxes comapanies they are stealing money from people just the same. A government does not produce anything, it is a parasite and can only make a country and its people less wealty. All the govt can do is take money from where it would have been efficiently spent, to where it will be wasted.