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

POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 00:57
VIEWED: 11141
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, May 11, 2008 5:46 AM

Tracy needs justice.

http://www.justicefortracy.com/

"About a month ago I got a call from a reporter for the Arkansas Times inquiring about my research into paramilitary drug raids. He'd been reporting on a raid in North Little Rock involving a 40-year-old man named Tracy Ingle. When he told me the story over the phone, I was floored, even given all the abuses and mistakes I've reported and read about over the last few years. What makes the case especially egregious is not that the police may have gotten the wrong home, that they shot a man, or that they were covering it up or going silent. We've seen all that before. What's mind-blowing about this one is that they've continued abusing the poor guy, even after it should have been clear for some time now that they made a mistake." ~ Radley Balko, Reason.com

http://reason.com/blog/show/126284.html

“We're giving these cops military equipment. We're giving them military training in military tactics, and then we send them out and tell them they're fighting a war on drugs. It shouldn't surprise us at all when they start to treat public streets like a battlefield and private citizens like enemy combatants.”

http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=99fc8214
-b6a6-4c39-b5b2-eb9e39dd8d33

If you support the tactics used in this and similar cases, then this thread is not for you and you can move along. If you are as appalled by this as I am, I implore you to donate to his struggles as a show of solidarity. There is a Paypal account set up which will hopefully end up being enough to get him a real attorney (not some 3-time bar examination failure public defender), and anything left over will help pay for the man's medical bills. The cops sure as shit aren't going to pay for the situation they've put this man in. At the time of writing this, they haven't accepted any responsibility or fault.

Frem.... know this ain't a kid case, but anybody you can talk to that might get this more exposure?

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

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, May 11, 2008 10:14 AM

We're stretched kinda thin right now, but gimme some time to shake the PA state legislature tree and we'll see if any coconuts fall out.

I am up to my eyes in the other mess, and have a responsibility to those folk, so we can't put all hands on it.

I'd reccommend making contact with William N. Grigg on this one as well, and see if he will expound at length cause I do believe he would have an interest and he could get it quite a bit of exposure, which'd help a lot.

They're going about it wrong though, when the State stops playing by the rules, no amount of legal representation is gonna do the job, you need to get in above those guys and threaten their cushy employment if you wanna put the arm on them, and that means State legislators.

Certain elements of PA police force corruption are already on the "to-do" list and several folks local the situation who are uninvolved with the TX matter might also have useful info, so I'll check in with them, but we're unlikely to get any major motion on this till prolly Tuesday or later, for reasons I ain't at liberty to share.

I know that ain't a lot to offer, but we'll see, basically try to force exposure of the story, cause that riles up the citizenry and causes them to get in the ass of their representatives, who then get off their ass and act just to stop the bitchin... make sure they go STATE level though, not federal, or it'll bog down in a different system and become all manner of hassle to sort out.

-Frem

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, May 11, 2008 1:39 PM

Thanks for anything you can do Frem. lol... you work fast man. I'm sure a guy in dire straits isn't going to sweat help if he's only got to wait until Tuesday or so to get it.

I'll give 'em your advice about upping the level and exposure on this instead of wasting time and any available funds on a lawer/case that he's going to lose in the first place. Won't tell him where I got it from though.

Mr. Grigg from Payette? If that's the guy, I like him already from what I've read.

Gotta run with your advice on this one man, and if they're smart they'll consider it too. After that kid getting out of the system just a short while after we talked..... Ain't saying you did nothin', just saying that it's one hell of a coincidence is all.

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

AURAPTOR

Sunday, May 11, 2008 5:29 PM

Tragic story here in Atlanta where cops busted down the door of a 92 yr lady and shot her to death, on a no-knock warrant. Her address was mistakenly given by a drug informant, who claimed there were drugs in the house. Cops busted down the door, unannounced, and she, not knowing who the intruders were, tried to defend herself by utilizing her 2nd Amendment Rights. The cops shot back, and killed her.

No drugs were found in the house.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, May 11, 2008 9:12 PM

That'd be Ms Kathryn Johnson, Rap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston

And yeah, that caused a whole mess of stuff to spill out, and lead to some badly needed housecleaning in that department, but sadly, it was a little to late to help HER any, alas.

-F

CHRISISALL

Sunday, May 11, 2008 10:29 PM

So, exactly WHEN was low-level martial law declared again? I seem to have missed it....

Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Monday, May 12, 2008 1:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
So, exactly WHEN was low-level martial law declared again? I seem to have missed it....

Chrisisall

Hey, drugs are bad, mmmmkay? So, don't do drugs, or else. Mmmmkay?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Monday, May 12, 2008 1:38 AM

Thanks for the non-sequitur, AU.
I can always use spares.

Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, May 12, 2008 8:35 PM

No-Knock-warrants, SWAT teams, unreliable informants and rubber stamping judges are a recipe for casualties, but what I want to know is if a cop can mistakenly shoot an innocent civilian in the course of duty given reasonable cause and not be prosecuted as a murderer, then why can’t a man use deadly force to protect his family from multiple unannounced armed assailants breaking into his house?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Monday, May 12, 2008 8:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
why can’t a man use deadly force to protect his family from multiple unannounced armed assailants breaking into his house?

Fascism....

Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, May 12, 2008 8:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
why can’t a man use deadly force to protect his family from multiple unannounced armed assailants breaking into his house?
Fascism.…

No.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Monday, May 12, 2008 9:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No.

The authorities don't want you to stub your toe in an attempt to defend your family, then?

Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, May 12, 2008 9:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No.

The authorities don't want you to stub your toe in an attempt to defend your family, then?

The US is not a fascist state, Chris.

Is it possible for you and certain others to criticize the US or Bush without shooting off into some extremist fringe? Is every criticisms of the US capitalized for some anti-American rhetoric?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, May 12, 2008 9:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Chrisisall:
So, exactly WHEN was low-level martial law declared again? I seem to have missed it....

I think low level martial law's been around for decades, but not widely known. It became known and supported by people at large after 9/11.

Cause you know, anything to prevent terrorism from happening again. And six degrees of terrorism allow everything to be tied to it, including the war on drugs.

Cops have always been like this. We just haven't heard much about it. Internet helps.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, May 12, 2008 10:21 PM

He's just calling it like he sees it, Finn.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has feathers...

Until proven otherwise, imma call it a fuckin duck, right-O ?

You got some OTHER theory that fits the facts, then I'd sure like to hear it.

-F

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, May 12, 2008 10:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
He's just calling it like he sees it, Finn.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has feathers...

Until proven otherwise, imma call it a fuckin duck, right-O ?

You got some OTHER theory that fits the facts, then I'd sure like to hear it.

Corruption? Abuse of authority? You like to pretend you’re calling a duck a duck, but you’re calling a duck an alligator and trivializing yourself and your cause. Right-O?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

KIRKULES

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 12:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Chrisisall:
So, exactly WHEN was low-level martial law declared again? I seem to have missed it....
I think low level martial law's been around for decades, but not widely known. It became known and supported by people at large after 9/11.

Don't forget to tell them about the gold fringe on the flag. I mean, what more evidence do you need, we're talkin gold fringe!

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:50 AM

Working:

Gag order's been downed, never shoulda had one on a case like this in the first place.

Pulled a few folk off other website work to pass the word and wild the story, making sure to hit up other activists that'd likely take an interest.

And some state politicos gonna get an earful soon as they show up today.

Apparently the entirety of the "evidence" is some baggies and a kitchen food scale - I call bullshit and submit that you can find THOSE items in almost any kitchen in america, and considering such mundane things evidence of drug trafficking is as asinine as considering a cigarette lighter evidence of arson.

This one's gonna be a bit trickier cause the guy ain't no angel so you don't get the sympathy vote from the holier than thou masses - but on the other hand, the sheer *amount* of dirt that can be turned on the Little Rock PD is kinda impressive, these guys are laughably crooked, and not even any good at hiding it.

The way this one is probably gonna go, is some asshole plea-deal in exchange for not pulling a conga line of skeletons out of the local PD's closet, is what it looks like, but we'll find out soon enough.

And for those that made comment that this particular PD doesn't act like a buncha Fascists, remember that these are the guys who pulled this crap.
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2008/04/05/News/345838.html
I don't have the transcript handy, but if I recall correctly the officer in question was almost comically stupid and abusive about it.

Hassling the media doesn't help much neither.
http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2008/mar/27/trooper-who-arrested-j
ournalist-suspended-reassign/

But the real jackboot crown jewel comes from Carroll County.
http://www.lovelycitizen.com/story/1251762.html

Not to mention one sheriff in trouble for misuse of the database, another officer in trouble for tasering a cow and videotaping it for entertainment purposes, and lets not even talk about that pervo Trotter - there's a freakin laundry list so bit it's just overkill for the purpose at hand really.

So yes, upon further examination, the accusation of fascist behavior stands - the AK police as a whole, and specifically Little Rock and Bentonville, are almost as bad a pack of goons as Rampart was.

And if they'd like to keep a lid on that, they'll be cutting a deal with mister ingels.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
This one's gonna be a bit trickier cause the guy ain't no angel so you don't get the sympathy vote from the holier than thou masses

Those are the people cops like to pick on for these types of abuses. You get into trouble once, and you might as well paint a bullseye on your forehead. If you don't have a lot of money, you might as well bend over and grab your ankles and get it over with. If you don't have a lot of friends nearby, then just tattoo "FUBAR" on your butt. That's where Tracy is: FUBAR.

Here's another case of fascism in this country. According to Wikipedia:

Quote:
The number of no-knock raids has increased from 3,000 in 1981 to more than 50,000 last year, according to Peter Kraska, a criminologist at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, Kentucky.

Now these are special warrants issued under exigent circumstances. Apparently, the meaning of exigent is not what it used to be.

Fascism is not all or nothing. You don't have to have the Third Reich before you call it "fascist." In the last 40-50 years, I'd say the USA has been slowly but steadily moving towards increasing fascism. Then in 1991, the pace changed to double-time, or faster.

Read this and see if you don't see the USA in it just a bit, and growing more like it everyday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

We're not flagrantly repressing opposition yet, but don't mistake that for not repressing opposition at all.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
We're not flagrantly repressing opposition yet, but don't mistake that for not repressing opposition at all.

The US is not a state that could be characterized as having a tendency towards or exercising strong autocratic control by a centralized authority, severe economic and social regimentation or forcible suppression of opposition. If you say the US is a fascist state, you will look stupid. It is not true. It makes you look as if you have no real understanding of the issues and as a result the opinions and criticisms about the US from people that use that kind of anti-American rhetoric don’t receive nor deserve any real consideration. It’s nothing more then the punditry equivalent of name-calling.

The discussion of whether the US is heading in that direction is perhaps an interesting one, but at this point in this discussion it is nothing more then an excuse to justify already fanatical and ridiculous language. If you can't recognize that the US is not fascist, you sure as hell can't reasonably assess whether it's moving in that direction.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:38 PM

Quote:
The US is not a state that could be characterized as having a tendency towards or exercising strong autocratic control by a centralized authority, severe economic and social regimentation or forcible suppression of opposition.

First of all, just because YOU'VE never personally experienced these aspects of the USA doesn't mean others haven't or that it is not there. Ask anyone who has had his life ruined by the DEA or the IRS or the FBI or any of the alphabet agencies, and you might get a different perspective on forcible suppression and severe economic regimentation or centralized autocratic control. I have a friend who spent 1 year in prison for speaking out against the income tax. The pretext for sending him to prison was "failure to file," but the real reason was made clear when authorities granted him a more lenient sentence in exchange for shutting down his website and withdrawing all sales of his video. And there is absolutely no illegal content on his website or video. So, from where I stand, I see forcible suppression of oppositional speech.

Quote:
If you can't recognize that the US is not fascist, you sure as hell can't reasonably assess whether it's moving in that direction.

Like I said, it is not all fascist or not fascist at all. It is a continuum, and where it stands on the continuum depends on one's personal perspective (ask Tracy Ingle, for example, how fascist the country is). The USA is somewhat fascist, and getting more fascist with time.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Like I said, it is not all fascist or not fascist at all. It is a continuum, and where it stands on the continuum depends on one's personal perspective (ask Tracy Ingle, for example, how fascist the country is). The USA is somewhat fascist, and getting more fascist with time.

No. Fascism has a definition, and the US does not meet hardly any of the criteria to be called Fascist. Just because people throw it around irresponsibly doesn’t mean it applies to the US, it just means those people are dumb and/or operating on an agenda. If you wish to criticism the US then I might entertain reasonable criticism perhaps even offer some of my own, but not outright fabrication.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

HERO

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 3:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I have a friend who spent 1 year in prison for speaking out against the income tax. The pretext for sending him to prison was "failure to file," but the real reason was made clear when authorities granted him a more lenient sentence in exchange for shutting down his website and withdrawing all sales of his video. And there is absolutely no illegal content on his website or video. So, from where I stand, I see forcible suppression of oppositional speech.

Never happened. Either you made it all up to make a point or your friend lied to you to make himself look like a victim.

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. If he got a deal its probably because he filed his taxes to correct the problem, when I prosecute folks for this I always give them a deal when they correct their mistake (its an easy mistake to make at the City level...the IRS is less understanding).

There are legitimate problems with the country. One of them is abuse of government power. Another one is people embellishing or lying about the abuse of government power.

So lets make a deal you and me...I promise to not abuse my power today (except with regard to PirateNews) and you promise not to lie or embellish or pass on stories that you have not verified as 100% accurate (except about Dick Cheney).

As for No Knock warrants...I attended the Police Memorial Service today for National Peace Officers Memorial Day (which is on May 15th...making this National Police Week). No knock warrants are rarely used here...most recently to raid a Meth Lab where we had confirmed by confidential informant that they had firearms. The raid was conducted, nobody got hurt, and we seized a large Meth Lab and a number of weapons including an assault rifle (AK-47). Its a matter of safety. We send police into really ugly situations and they were getting shot when they knocked...so we as a society said "then don't knock". Duh.

"Doctor my arms hurts when I do this."
"Then don't do that." (Laugh track)
"I want a second opinion."
"Ok, your ugly too." (Laugh track)

Officer safety is a very serious public concern...almost as important to the public as it is to the Officer's family. Its generally not as important to the criminals. Accidents happen, people get hurt or killed, the solution is not to give up on crime or stop policing...the solution is to give officers the very best training and equipment possible and the room to learn from the mistakes they make and adapt to new tactics and technolgy as they become available.

No matter their training, equipment, tactics, or what situations they find themselves in...the first rule of police work remains the same: 'at the end of your shift, go home alive'.

H

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 3:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Fascism has a definition, and the US does not meet hardly any of the criteria to be called Fascist.

You don't modulate well intellectually, do you?

The USA meets the criteria in some situations some of the time. Not all situations, not all the time. Not even most situations, most of the time. That is what "somewhat" means.

The concern is that the country is meeting the criteria in more and more situations, more and more of the time. Again, think continuum.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 3:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Never happened. Either you made it all up to make a point or your friend lied to you to make himself look like a victim.

.. you promise not to lie or embellish or pass on stories that you have not verified as 100% accurate

I have known my friend for over 12 years, and I am 100% sure he is not lying. If you are willing to give me your email address, I can put you in touch with my friend, who can discuss the details with you.

Don't believe it if you don't want to. But it is ugly and lazy to accuse me of lying just because you don't believe a court is capable of going outside the law. "Liar, liar, pants on fire" is not a very rigorous argument.

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:42 PM

FLETCH2

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Never happened. Either you made it all up to make a point or your friend lied to you to make himself look like a victim.

.. you promise not to lie or embellish or pass on stories that you have not verified as 100% accurate
I have known my friend for over 12 years, and I am 100% sure he is not lying. If you are willing to give me your email address, I can put you in touch with my friend, who can discuss the details with you.

As a guess, your friend advocated not paying taxes and being a principled type didn't file. Subsequently he was prosecuted for failing to file, which the government saw as tax evasion and your friend saw as a free speech issue. I would note that there are very few places in the world no matter how liberal where failing to pay taxes is tolerated. I think the US may be one of the few places that will jail you for it though (as opposed to just taking the money from your income.)

HERO

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 6:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I have known my friend for over 12 years, and I am 100% sure he is not lying.

So you want to believe him. He's your friend and he's saying something you find credible because it fits a preconcieved world view. I suppose that in 12 years he's never lied to you. Nobody EVER lies I guess...at least not your friends.

Post his case number and the jurisdiction and we'll look at the docket. Lot of truth posted in online public records these days.

Quote:

But it is ugly and lazy to accuse me of lying just because you don't believe a court is capable of going outside the law.

I accused you OR your friend of lying OR embellishing the truth. I did it because I've heard the story before from Crazy talkers who claim this, that, or the other thing to make themselves look good or sympathetic. Many times it the friend or friend of a friend with no more basis in reality then when they claimed they scored with this girl or that one. Yeah...he's ugly too...

H

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Subsequently he was prosecuted for failing to file, which the government saw as tax evasion and your friend saw as a free speech issue.

Oh no, you misunderstand. He didn't file as a matter of principle, and he was fully prepared to pay the consequences of not filing. As Hero said, not filing has nothing to do with free speech--legally speaking.

The free speech issue came in when the judge (I believe, though it could have been the prosecutor--I'll have to ask my friend who exactly) offered him a more lenient sentence for failure to file in exchange for shutting down his website and withdrawing the sale of his video. The authorities thus made it a free speech issue.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
We're not flagrantly repressing opposition yet, but don't mistake that for not repressing opposition at all.
The US is not a state that could be characterized as having a tendency towards or exercising strong autocratic control by a centralized authority, severe economic and social regimentation or forcible suppression of opposition. If you say the US is a fascist state, you will look stupid. It is not true.

I think it's flat-out too disturbing for you to see that that's the direction BushCo is bent on steering us toward.

Just sayin'isall

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
offered him a more lenient sentence for failure to file in exchange for shutting down his website and withdrawing the sale of his video. The authorities thus made it a free speech issue.

That's a gray area that those in power can easily change to black or white at a whim....

Golden Ruleisall

FLETCH2

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Subsequently he was prosecuted for failing to file, which the government saw as tax evasion and your friend saw as a free speech issue.
Oh no, you misunderstand. He didn't file as a matter of principle, and he was fully prepared to pay the consequences of not filing. As Hero said, not filing has nothing to do with free speech--legally speaking.

The free speech issue came in when the judge (I believe, though it could have been the prosecutor--I'll have to ask my friend who exactly) offered him a more lenient sentence for failure to file in exchange for shutting down his website and withdrawing the sale of his video. The authorities thus made it a free speech issue.

Are you sure that's what happened exactly? I'm sure if he gives incorrect legal or financial advice "The income tax is illegal and so you dont have to pay it" for example, he can probably be brought up on numberous secondary charges (at least in the UK if you encourage someone to commit a criminal act you can be considered a conspirator to that act even if you never actually do anything yourself, it's a common law principle and I suspect you have it too.)

So was it "I'll go easy on your tax evasion if you pull down your website" or was it "I will drop these additional solicitation charges if you drop the website?"

This may seem ironic to you but the judge may even have been doing your friend a favour. If you shot someone and then put up a website gloating about it I'm pretty sure you would get the maximum sentence. If your friend broke the law on "principle" and then gloated or encouraged others with his website he's looking at the same kind of issue. The judge could have said something like "you know this website agrivates the crime for which you have been convicted, keep it up and I'll have no choice but to give you maximum sentence, if you bring it down this court may see this as contrition when it comes to sentencing."

Oh, and you friend should have told them to stuff their deal if he believed in his cause that much. Otherwise he's just scoring points to make himself look good amongst his peers.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I think it's flat-out too disturbing for you to see that that's the direction BushCo is bent on steering us toward.

No.

I entered this thread with the intent of discussing how much I don’t like no-knock warrants, but instead, I’m faced with a couple of crazies who refuse to permit themselves to entertain any discussion of the State’s use of power that doesn't involve admitting to lies about some fantasy fascism. So if anyone can’t see something - it’s you. But why? What makes you hate the US so much that you are dead set on describing it with such negative fabrications?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Fascism has a definition, and the US does not meet hardly any of the criteria to be called Fascist.
You don't modulate well intellectually, do you?

This from the person whose capacity for critical thought doesn’t extend beyond the political equivalent of name-calling.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
If your friend broke the law on "principle" and then gloated or encouraged others with his website he's looking at the same kind of issue. The judge could have said something like "you know this website agrivates the crime for which you have been convicted, keep it up and I'll have no choice but to give you maximum sentence, if you bring it down this court may see this as contrition when it comes to sentencing."

I am asking my friend for more details now on exactly what was offered, so I can explain it more precisely.

This is what I do know for a fact. I read almost every word on that website, and the website had absolutely nothing illegal in it. He was meticulously careful not to give any tax advice, for precisely the potential scenarios you cited. His website presented some citations of federal law, encouraged visitors to read said federal law, explained his interpretation of the law, and encouraged visitors to come to their own interpretation. That is it. No more, no less.

Maybe the judge did erroneously see the website as an aggravation of a crime. But deciding that the website was also criminal, without evidence and a conviction, is beyond the limits of his bench. No matter what his reasoning, he restricted free speech based on his interpretation only, without due process. Maybe some here would think that is not so bad, but that is exactly the point I'm making. We're slipping into rationalizing for the govt's abuses and increasing fascism.

Regarding what he should have done when presented with the offer, well, that is neither here nor there. He has principles, and he was willing to go to prison for them. He also lives in a real world with a real family who depended on him, so I don't think anyone here needs to judge what he should have done in taking the offer. Those types of decisions, how far are you willing to go in protest and civil disobedience, are very personal.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Maybe the judge did erroneously see the website as an aggravation of a crime. But deciding that the website was also criminal, without evidence and a conviction, is beyond the limits of his bench. No matter what his reasoning, he restricted free speech based on his interpretation only, without due process. Maybe some here would think that is not so bad, but that is exactly the point I'm making. We're slipping into rationalizing for the govt's abuses and increasing fascism.

You don't have an infinite right to free speech even in the real world. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded movie theatre and you can't use your website to solicit others to commit crimes. I suspect the problem is that ideologically neither you nor your friend accept the law that makes what he's doing illegal and consequently you view it's application as an abridgment of your rights. My guess is that they could probably have added X years for the website, your friend was offered a deal and he took it for all the reasons you said. Now that's over he's playing the free speech card.

If I post a website giving someone's personal details, their daily patterns and the suggestion that person should really be murdered, I can be tried at least for solicitation even if no murder takes place. If the intent of the site is to encourage others to commit a felony even if the author is not involved directly then you have a problem. I suspect criminal solicitation is not protected speech.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I suspect criminal solicitation is not protected speech.

Good effing grief. How many times do I have to say there was no criminal solicitation? There was no illegal content or anything that can be construed as illegal content!!! You guys simply can't believe that the govt would want to shut down a website with no illegal content, can you?

My friend's response to Hero's request for a docket number is this:

Quote:
Though it started before this, the sentencing hearing transcript is
all he needs to read. MOST of it was about the feds making sure my web sites were disabled, and my video wasn't for sale. The case number is 2:05-CR-101-01, from the Eastern District of PA. (It should all be on the PACER system.) Neither the judge nor the persecutors made any secrets of their agenda to shut me up.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I suspect criminal solicitation is not protected speech.
Good effing grief. How many times do I have to say there was no criminal solicitation? There was no illegal content or anything that can be construed as illegal content!!! You guys simply can't believe that the govt would want to shut down a website with no illegal content, can you?

Actually, no I can't and I'll tell you why, because if your friend's lawyers REALLY believed that was what was going on they would have a fantastic civil rights case, I mean one of the ones that can make someone's legal rep and potentially go all the way to SCOTUS.

So that leaves two possibilities.

1) Your friend represented himself, which would explain why he was cut some slack.

or

2) People with actual legal training determined that despite your friends layman's belief that his site was clean the prosecutor had stuff that could stick. It might not be what your friend believes, but belief and reality are not necessarily compatible but that is probably what was happening.

My friend's response to Hero's request for a docket number is this:
Quote:
Though it started before this, the sentencing hearing transcript is
all he needs to read. MOST of it was about the feds making sure my web sites were disabled, and my video wasn't for sale. The case number is 2:05-CR-101-01, from the Eastern District of PA. (It should all be on the PACER system.) Neither the judge nor the persecutors made any secrets of their agenda to shut me up.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:41 AM

is this it?
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0642P.pdf

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D1432P.pdf

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06D0301P.pdf

For context

http://www.slate.com/id/2086425/

and the DOJ version

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/August/05_tax_418.htm

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:57 PM

Back to the topic at hand...

While some efforts have been initiated, this is gonna take time, especially since I need *everyone* right now on another issue, Jack.

I'll offer suggestions and advice, as well as dropping a word to two to some folk, but at the moment the lids come off with a bang in TX and imma be busy as hell for a while on that, in hopes of averting the seemingly inevitable.

-F

HERO

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
The free speech issue came in when the judge (I believe, though it could have been the prosecutor--I'll have to ask my friend who exactly) offered him a more lenient sentence for failure to file in exchange for shutting down his website and withdrawing the sale of his video. The authorities thus made it a free speech issue.

What case? What judge?

Didn't happen. Lie, ebellishment...whatever. What you say did not happen. No judge would do it, no judge would allow it as part of a deal.

The only similar situation I can think of is a person using a website to advise others on methods for tax evasion (kinda like what got Wesley Snipes). Thats illegal (for one thing it amounts to practicing law without a license). Often those kind of cases involve shutting down the websites.

Even by your own statement it is not a free speech issue. Assuming what you said was true and is whole story (and assuming the sky is not blue and the the Easter Bunny is responsible for rainbows and sunshine) it is STILL not a speech issue. He was free to speak and still keep his website...he CHOSE not to do so.

So, cite me the case number and court. Put up or shut up as they say. I call.

H

HERO

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
What case? What judge?

Didn't happen. Lie, ebellishment...whatever. What you say did not happen. No judge would do it, no judge would allow it as part of a deal.

Ok, it seems its 05-101-01 in US Dist Court for the Eastern District of PA. Thanks for the help with finding more information.

Reading the links provided indicate that your friend operated a website and sold videos expounding on his tax resister opinions and tactics. While the former would be protected speech, the later is not (well, not always). His arguments were rejected by the Judge and the Jury. He also made the mistake of defending himself (probably cause no lawyer would argue the case the way he wanted it done).

The speech issue was never...the issue. He sold his program and never reported the income. That meant that the govenment NEVER had to argue the merits of the speech or the content of the site or videos because merely failing to report the income was sufficient to merit conviction. Thus shutting down the website was not about speech but about ceasing his criminal enterprise.

So, as you can see, the story was embellished in a light most favorable to the Defendant. I urge everyone caution when looking at stories like this. Self-serving lies about government abuse can be very dangerous. It demeans otherwise good and just work by the government when it acts properly in a difficult or controversal situation. It also distracts from legitimate acts of government abuse in the same manner as crying wolf.

Like 'no knock' warrants (finally managing to relate this to the original topic) there exists the potential for abuse or honost mistakes in any government action. The solution is training, equipment, transparency of process, oversite, and room to learn and adapt.

H

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
So, as you can see, the story was embellished in a light most favorable to the Defendant. I urge everyone caution when looking at stories like this. Self-serving lies about government abuse can be very dangerous. It demeans otherwise good and just work by the government when it acts properly in a difficult or controversal situation. It also distracts from legitimate acts of government abuse in the same manner as crying wolf.

Like 'no knock' warrants (finally managing to relate this to the original topic) there exists the potential for abuse or honost mistakes in any government action. The solution is training, equipment, transparency of process, oversite, and room to learn and adapt.

This is an excellent point, but one that will fall on def ears to the people that need to listen to it the most. Ironically the people who appear to be the most diligent against government abuse, are often the ones who are the most blind to it. When you see every cop as an abuser, you will never see the real abusers. When you see the system as “fascist,” you never know when the system works and when it doesn't.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
What makes you hate the US so much that you are dead set on describing it with such negative fabrications?

In strawman alley again...

I love my country- what I hate is the bending and/or shredding of the Constitution to bring favour upon certain individuals and/or corporations. This bending/shredding is dangerous, as the end result of tossing out the Constitution as a whole (is that not the logical end of continuing to chip away at it??) is another fascist dictatorship. Yeah, we're decades & decades from that ever happening, if indeed it ever will (I think prolly not), but regardless, I RESENT every small step in that direction for the lives it ruins and/or ends in the process.

American Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The solution is training, equipment, transparency of process, oversite, and room to learn and adapt.
When you see every cop as an abuser, you will never see the real abusers. When you see the system as “fascist,” you never know when the system works and when it doesn't.

Both you guys are spot-on here, there can be the tendency to go too far to the edge with anything...
Everything in moderation, including moderation is my motto...

if I started having a mottoisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I love my country- what I hate is the bending and/or shredding of the Constitution to bring favour upon certain individuals and/or corporations. This bending/shredding is dangerous, as the end result of tossing out the Constitution as a whole (is that not the logical end of continuing to chip away at it??) is another fascist dictatorship. Yeah, we're decades & decades from that ever happening, if indeed it ever will (I think prolly not), but regardless, I RESENT every small step in that direction for the lives it ruins and/or ends in the process.

So, you’re solution is to give up. You’ve decided that since there’s a few cracks in the paint, we shouldn’t even bother - the whole things ruined. You know we probably see more eye-to-eye on these things then it appears, but I simply can't see over accusations like fascism.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So, you’re solution is to give up.

Hell no. Scream- wake folks up, vote!!! Resist media manipulation & control. Keep flyin'.

isall

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Reading the links provided indicate that your friend operated a website and sold videos expounding on his tax resister opinions and tactics. While the former would be protected speech, the later is not (well, not always)...

The speech issue was never...the issue. He sold his program and never reported the income. That meant that the govenment NEVER had to argue the merits of the speech or the content of the site or videos because merely failing to report the income was sufficient to merit conviction. Thus shutting down the website was not about speech but about ceasing his criminal enterprise.

Ok, by your own admission, his website was protected speech. The website itself was not a criminal enterprise.

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.

The crime was failure to file. As you repeated pointed out in the past, the enterprise and failing to file taxes for the enterprise are two separate legal issues.

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"?

To cease the criminal activity for which he was convicted, all he had to do was file and pay taxes. That was it. The source of the income was completely legal and neither here nor there.

It is you who is twisting the facts to defend an indefensible act of fascism.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
is this it?
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0642P.pdf

Yes, this is the case. But none of them are the sentencing hearing transcripts.

Hero, would you be willing to do me a favor? I have not read the sentencing hearing transcripts myself. If you have an electronic copy, would you be willing to send a copy to me at canttakesky@att.net ? Thank you very much. I don't have access to PACER, obviously.

I want to keep the focus of this discussion on the free speech issue, that is the leniency of the sentencing granted in exchange for shutting down a perfectly legal website.

And yes, Fletch, he did represent himself.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:24 PM

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.

I’m not confident that your interpretation of this website and these tapes is likely to a very accurate assessment. My guess is that you examine these things with a pretty prejudicial point of view, not the least of which is your views towards the government. According to the 28 NOV 05 memorandum the defendant refused repeatedly to file income tax for his Medical Transcription business or his internet business where he sold videotapes expounding on his interpretation of the income tax. 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.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:42 PM

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.

His videotapes illustrate his criminal practice? OK...for the sake of argument. But is illustration itself illegal? Should the illustrations be forced to shut down in exchange for less prison time? Isn't that the equivalent of saying, "If you don't shut up, you'll spend more time in prison"? Isn't that a backdoor manner of forcible suppression of oppositional speech without directly attacking it?

For the record, his crime again is failure to file. His videotapes say absolutely nothing about filing for taxes. They are a computer animated presentation of the federal code and his interpretation of the federal code. That is it. Maybe his interpretation was wrong, but he still has a first amendment right to say it.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:46 PM

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.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:46 PM

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

It doesn't make any difference whether it's legal or not - it's not protected. In the same way screaming fire in a crowded room is not protected speech, so creating a tool to recruit others into your criminal enterprise is not protected either.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:50 PM

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.

No they chose to shut down the two that he was using to facilitate others to his criminal enterprise.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:57 PM

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.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:01 PM

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)?

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.

His website and video are as "criminal" as his medical transcription business.

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?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:03 PM

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.

The decision to remove his website and stop selling his videos was not made by the state, it was made by your friend, so there was no burden on the state to prove such. 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.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:05 PM

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)?

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.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:07 PM

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

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

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:10 PM

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.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:11 PM

I posted all the freely available sources I could find. I am not a lawyer, and since PACER seems to be a subscription service I don't have access to it.

I'm sure Hero and Frem do... for different reasons.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:11 PM

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.

They did.

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

According to you, for what that’s worth.

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?

No. And it’s not being. That’s just your little fantasy. You’re confusing your friends’ weak convictions with the state.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:14 PM

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.

Yes, that's right. If you’re friend really believed in the stuff he was touting, he could have stood by it and taken the full sentence for the crime he was convicted of. The state offered him a deal and he took it.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:22 PM

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?

He was not deriving income from his website. He derived some income from the sale of his video. His main source of income was his medical transcription business. He filed no tax returns, thus did not claim income for any of these 3 activities.

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

Huh, what? 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?

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

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:32 PM

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.

HERO

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:47 PM

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.

The issue of the content of the speech was not relevant. That he sold the videos and failed to report the income was the ONLY consideration. A jury found him guilty beyond a resonable doubt. It did not matter whether the content was tax resistance, white supremacy, or selling Barrack '08 t-shirts...successful prosecution was content neutral.

Hey, its also how they got Capone.

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"?

Failing to pay taxes on it made it a criminal enterprise. That was his big mistake here. It allowed the government to go after the website without regard to the content.

I had a guy who I convicted for carrying concealed weapons. He owned a custom made .45...very nice and expensive. Nothing illegal about buying the gun, nothing illegal about owning the gun. It was illegal to CARRY the gun without a permit. He was a good guy and was honost about having the weapon (he was in a car accident and told police right away so it would not be a problem). I gave him a break on fines and suspended jail time...the weapon was forfeited and destroyed (damn shame, in the old days we could have sold it).

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.

Same as your friend's website and tapes. They were part and parcel to his criminal enterprise...his scheme to fail to file taxes and to file fraudulant taxes on income in excess of $500,000 for which he was convicted by a jury who rejected both his legal argument and found him guilty on the facts.

H

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:24 PM

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

Which I assume he advertised on his website.

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.

Sounds like a good deal to me.

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?

No. I was trying to point out why perhaps your friend was asked to pull his website. If someone was charged with assault, do you think their case would be helped or hindered by continuing to assault people? 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 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.

Or stop advertising his revenue generating video at the very least.
If your friend's debt to society is paid, He should try to start up the website again (non-profit) and see what happens. Could be a freedom of speech issue than if there are any problems, unless he is under court order not to.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:36 PM

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.

Yeah, sometimes, seeing a guy as intelligent and giving of himself to his community as Finn back the state & their sometimes questionable interpretations of "that Goddamn piece of paper" turns me around too...

isall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:57 PM

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.

Awesome!!

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:07 PM

Been thinking about the whole scenario -

Suppose someone operates a Nazi website which definitely has hate speech (not protected) and which sells a few items. Said person doesn't declare income from those sales. They get nailed by the IRS for not filing which normally results in fines and penalties, and in some cases, jail time. In sentencing, the judge says - take down the website and I'll reduce your sentence.

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.

Any legal opinions ?

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

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:23 PM

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?

Sigh. 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.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:24 PM

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.

C'mon guys!! RUE gets it! Why is it so hard?

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?

GEEZER

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:27 PM

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 ?

Failure to file is a crime. So is promoting tax avoidance. Both are pretty much related. CTS's friend could have been charged with both, but usually for a first offense the Government cuts some slack. I suspect that if he hadn't shut down his site and quit selling his "how to not pay tax" videos, they'd have charged him with promoting tax avoidance. Since he did shut it down, file his returns, and make an effort to pay his back taxes, they gave him the benefit of the doubt and eased up on him.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:28 PM

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

If that is true, why didn't they make him shut down his medical transcription business?

And not to badger you, but would you be so kind as to send me an electronic version of the sentencing hearing transcripts? If not, just let me know. I'll ask him to send me his hard copy. Just the e-copy would be easier. Thanks.

GEEZER

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:31 PM

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?

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:37 PM

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.

Being Geezer is against the law...I'll cite the section & Code when I inevitably find it...

isall

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:50 PM

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.

I said tax protesting speech. Not tax avoidance schemes. He promoted no schemes, offered no tax or legal advice, and never told anyone what to do about taxes.

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.

GEEZER

Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:54 AM

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.

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. The "go read the law and decide for yourself" disclaimer isn't considered valid as a defense.

You can argue the rightness or wrongness of the tax law all you want, but case law supporting it has been upheld, both for failure to file and for promoting failure to file, in all courts up to and including the Supreme Court.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:13 AM

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.

Yes, if they gave tax advice. As in, this is what you should do with your taxes. Recently, Wesley Snipes' tax advisers were convicted precisely for this argument, I believe. The key is, as you said, describing HOW TO USE the 861 position.

I was intimately familiar with the website and the video. Larken was meticulously careful and precise to never give advice or anything that can be construed as "how to use."

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?

Now let's say Bob goes and steals from Walmart after midnight and gets convicted. The judge says, "I'll be lenient on you if you take down your website on that belief." Maybe most of you can understand the judge, and side with him.

But I see it as one judge not having clear boundaries on his legal jurisdiction and a dangerous erosion of our first amendment rights.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:21 AM

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?

If he is convicted of doing what he believes then it’s not just what he believes, it what he does. It skirts the line of protected speech. One could argue that by explaining what he “believes” he is in fact promoting breaking the law.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:33 AM

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.

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?

RUE

Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:40 AM

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."

FLETCH2

Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:05 AM

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."

I think that depends. He represented himself and remember the old saying that someone who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. It could be that the judge used some discretion in sentencing.

GEEZER

Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:12 AM

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?

It's settled law, based on decisions in previous trials which have been appealed up to the Supreme Court that, relating to income tax evasion, suggesting that the "Section 861 position" means you don't have to pay taxes is illegal.

Let's change the wording a bit.
"I believe killing niggers 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." Is this protected speech under the First Amendment, or incitement to murder?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:17 AM

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?

No. 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."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, May 15, 2008 6:33 AM

Holy crap this thread went all sorts of ape-shit off topic while I was away. Thanks for your advice and anything you've done on their behalf. I've been away from the internet for a few days and haven't been able to do anything myself. I know the guy's not got a squeaky clean record, but this is just so flagrantly in violation of the man's constitutional rights that getting him some justice just looks good for future violations as a prescendent. I will be following this and hope to see the powers that be do the right thing. Normally I'm opposed to any pain and suffering lawsuits, but hell, if an old bag can get 3mil out of McDonalds for having her coffee hot I think this guy should get a few bucks for having his femur blown to bits.

As for the other topic that started here, though I do see things I agree with on both sides, I think the guy is guilty of tax-evasion (obviously) and guilty of letting the government get away with something because he let the government get away with something. He didn't have to take that deal, and then he would have to serve his whole sentence. Also then, the court would have had to try to convict him for running an illegal website and selling an illegal video if that's what they believed he was doing.

I don't believe this was a violation of free speech. He allowed his free speech to be muzzled. He should have had legal representation and he should have stood by his convicitons then, not after-the-fact as he is doing now. I think that he should start up the website again as a non-profit venture and then he'd have my support if they gave him trouble about it.

Although, I probalby agree with most to everything the man would have to say about the tax. Most tax, as it is today is illegal Constitutionally. 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.

I got Finn's back here mostly. Though there are points made on both sides here, there is also too much crying wolf, and nobody is going to take any of these greivances seriously if we get behind every single one that isn't legitimate and call the entirity of the American Government fascists. They aren't all bad; there's just plenty of bad ones that need to be weeded out.

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

HERO

Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Any legal opinions ?

Lots and lots of legal opinions (and a couple illegal ones too).

Wait...you meant about what you said. Based upon my years of legal experiance and fine educational background as well as extensive research on the subject I can with absolute legal confidence and resovle say...maybe.

H

HERO

Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:37 PM

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.

Because its a condition of his sentence.

Lets say you steal a loaf of bread. You get caught, convicted and are ordered to pay a fine, resitution, and not return to the store.

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.

I would note for the record that he still has his freedom of speech, they court has merely placed a restriction on the time, place, and manner of the speech based upon his past conduct. Time, place, and manner restrictions are Constitutional so long as they serve a compelling govt interest, are not overly restrictive, and are content neutral. Such is the case here.

H

HERO

Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:45 PM

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.

I try not to confuse them with the law.

Here 7206(2):

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

H

HERO

Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:56 PM

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?

Yes, I as the Prosecutor am the sole decider of guilt. Me alone. Why, in Ohio, we have abolished that whole Judge and Jury business. After all, if they were not guilty I'd not be charging them with a crime. Due process? Hah! Thats like saying we can't throw you in jail for no reason at all and what kind of justice is that? Ooooh...here I come, big bad Prosecutor violating your rights...soooo scary!

Please. Did you miss you special-ed bus this morning? I mean I honostly thought you were further along then 6th Grade Civics.

Tell you what, go watch an episode of Law and Order. Besides the witty banter you'll see a police investigation, THEN the fella gets charged with a crime, THEN a trial (with lawyers arguing BOTH sides) and THEN FINALLY...a verdict by a Jury that can be either Guilty or Not Guilty (or Hung). Except for the witty banter and the inevitable 'Law and Order' twist, thats pretty much how it works.

H

HERO

Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
was that legal ?

"I will make it legal."
―Darth Sidious

H

HERO

Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:02 PM

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.

Not me. I hate tax law.

H

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:09 PM

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.

That's just my problem. The judge didn't order it. If it were perfectly legal for the judge to shut down his website, why didn't the judge order it to begin with? Why did he offer it as part of a deal?

In my view, the judge coerced him into doing it "voluntarily." Yes, it is coercion. What else do you call "Shut your website or serve an additional X amount of time in prison"? Placing any threat of force behind an offer is coercion.

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

While I am still waiting for your answer to my question about whether you are required to charge and convict for Possession of Criminal Tools before removing the alleged criminal tool, I got an additional question.

When I first brought up the case, I presented 3 points:
1) Fact#1: He was convicted of failure to file.
2) Fact#2: He was offered a more lenient sentence in exchange for shutting down his website.
3) Interpretation: The real reason for prosecuting him was forcible suppression of oppositional speech.

Your reaction was:

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.

Then, when you found out I did not lie about either Fact#1 or Fact#2, then all of a sudden the two issues ARE related. Speaking out against the income tax WHILE not filing is a crime after all. And the judge was perfectly within his legal purview to make that offer.

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? Or are they not? And if they are related, don't they have to prove each charge in court? 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?

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:15 PM

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

That's what I thought.

However, he was never charged or convicted of Possession of Criminal Enterprises, or whatever the crime of operating his website might be called. The only crime he was charged and convicted with was failure to file. So how is it legal for him to be relieved of an enterprise when it has not been determined by a jury to be criminal?

I've watched enough Law and Order to know the answer is it wasn't legal. That's why the judge didn't order it upfront; he couldn't do it legally. He coerced Larken into shutting it down by leveraging the punishment of an unrelated crime (unrelated because it hasn't yet been proven in court to be related).

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:20 PM

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."

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:25 PM

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."

What bullshit!!! He was convicted of tax evasion and sentenced. No one held a gun to his head. They simply offered him a favor if he stopped promoting his illegal activities.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:35 PM

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.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:44 PM

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."

Or the prosecutor could say, "We have no evidence that your website is illegal, and that is why we didn't charge you with the crime. If you stop the website yourself, you'll be doing us a favor. We'll return the favor by being lenient on this unrelated crime."

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:45 PM

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.

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.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FLETCH2

Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:54 PM

Here's the thing.

1) It was a deal and one he could have refused. So he willingly gave up his right and got something in exchange, now he's whining about it. If he REALLY believed in what he was doing he should have done the jail time and appealed.

2)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. He proved his encyclopedic legal knowledge when he 1) chose to represent himself in court, 2) lost that case and 3) agreed to the deal he is now whining over. That really doesn't show a great level of legal judgement. 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 and yet you still slavishly believe that same legal judgement when it comes to the contents of the website.

The court records we have show that he was given a method in writing to challenge 861 in court, something that would have made him a hero had he won but required him to pay the tax first. He chose not to follow that route. When he was caught and convicted he

1) Made restitution immediately (not a firm believer in his own position)

2) accepted the deal

3) Did all he could to delay jail time or have his sentence served in a nicer prison.

Doesn't sound like a hard core idealist to me, sounds like someone who never expected to be tried and when he was pannicked.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE