Wesley Snipes acquitted of tax fraud, convicted of failing to file tax return

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Chinese Panda

Hmmm. I never considered that! IF Art IV of Confederation, 1777 actually does say that, then I would have to agree!

EXCEPTED FROM PROTECTION

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, PAUPERS, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice EXCEPTED, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ...."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]

In support of that fact, is found in the definition of "status crimes" which directly connect to the pre-constitutional exclusion.

"Constitutional" violations of inalienable rights

" State code 124 Sections 6, and 7, authorizing the overseer of the poor to commit to the workhouse able-bodied persons, not having the means to support themselves, and who live a dissolute and vagrant life, and do not work sufficiently to support themselves, are not repugnant to the constitution, giving every man an inalienable right to defend his life and liberty."
In re Nott, 11 Me. (2 Fairf.) 208. (Me. 1834)

Translation: compelled labor and restricted liberty is constitutional - when dealing with paupers and vagabonds.

"Act May 29, 1879, providing for the committal to the industrial school of dependent infant girls, who are beggars, wanderers, homeless, or without proper parental care, in no way violates the right of personal liberty, and is constitutional."
Ex parte Ferrier, 103 Ill. 367, 42 Am. Rep. 10 (Ill. 1882)

Remember the exclusions: pauper and vagabond?
Compelled labor and restricted liberty are constitutional - when dealing with paupers and vagabonds.

" An act providing for the care and custody of the person and the estate of habitual drunkards is not unconstitutional, as depriving a citizen of the right to enjoy, control, and dispose of his property, and to make contracts."
Devin v. Scott, 34 Ind. 67 (Ind. 1870)

Translation: taking custody of the person and property of a drunkard (impaired person) is not unconstitutional.
How long does that authority last?

LOSING YOUR CHILDREN

" ... where a minor child is abandoned by the parent, to be supported by the town, such parent shall be deemed a pauper, and be subject to the same rules and regulations as a pauper, [this statute] is not in conflict with those provisions of the constitution of the United States or of the state of Connecticut which guaranty security to the person."
McCarthy v. Hinman, 35 Conn. 538 (Conn. 1869)

Translation: parent who surrenders a child to the state becomes a pauper. And parent (as well as child) becomes subject to the (Collective) State. Did you
"voluntarily" enroll your children into national so******m? At birth? Now you know why you can't spank your children. They're no longer yours.

"STATUS CRIME - A class of crime which consists not in proscribed action or inaction, but in the accused's having a certain personal condition or being a person of a specified character. An example of a status crime is vagrancy. Status crimes are constitutionally suspect."
BL 6, p.1410

" VAGRANT - At common law (!), wandering or going about from place to place by idle person who has no lawful or visible means of support and who subsisted
on charity and did not work, though able to do so.... One who is apt to become a public charge through his own laziness."
BL 6, p. 1549

"PAUPER - One so poor that he must be supported at public expense."
BL 6, p. 1128

The lack of the financial means or property to support oneself is the prerequisite for being indigent, but as soon as one is supported at public expense, the trap door springs open, and down he falls.

A pauper was and is a status criminal. But under national so******m, he is no longer prosecuted for just "being a pauper". The "Homeless" problem is evidence of that fact. Prior to national so******m, a vagrant was arrested and incarcerated. After national so******m, no one is arrested or incarcerated for mere vagrancy because "everybody" has no domicile and all have claimed to be vagabonds at law.

That's the reason why it is a foolish waste of effort to argue about "unconstitutional" violations of the person and property of paupers. As long as the government can assume we're paupers, as evidenced by our participation in national so******m (and usury), there is no limit on the mistreatment. The logic is simple - you can't encourage the parasites to drain the public treasury.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

JG: NO - it is not a win.
Point #1 - conviction for willful failure to file means he has an open, interest bearing account with an instrumentality of the Federal Reserve Corporation.
Point #2 - Kahn misled him to file forms (with "the number") in order to get "refunds" for past taxes paid. (dumb move).
Point #3 - As Mr Snipes has agreed, via "signature card", to abide by the rules of "The Bank", whose U.S. governor is the Secretary of Treasury, he had no grounds to disobey the rules of his "master".
Point #4 - He still has to file "returns" -and- pay back taxes, fines, etc.
Point #5 - He is still a "contributor" equally liable for the national debt (unpayable due to usury).
Point #6 - As one engaged in usury, via bank account, he is a self condemned man (see Ezekiel 18:13 KJV). He has no expectation of "Divine Justice" on his behalf, and the government can rightly assume (In God We Trust) that they're absolved of any blame for 'kicking him around'.
Point #7 - He's still a pauper at law, and thus excepted from the protections normally available to free citizens (see Art IV of Confederation, 1777).


For more indepth, See post #77, #94
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/taxati...-income-8.html
Re: pauperization
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/361

How do you KNOW all of this about the man?

Are you privy to his private matters?

[mrg]

reserved....

[mrg]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Is that McNabb the same scumbag that graced us with her presence here?

Indeed...............

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Why do you think a no interest bearing account is excluded from creating this liability? It still has a signature card.

Are you saying that in your experience, people with funds in an account of this type were left undisturbed by the IRS?

Since ss#'s are permanent and belong to the government, is there a known time limit to establish "dormancy", ie "nonparticipation"?

What practical steps do you think Mr Snipes could take if he wants to withdraw from the system?

[Shoonra]

Here's the Washington Post, Feb. 2, 2008, news report of the case. I have emphasized some passages that seemed especially relevant:
---------
---------
Wesley Snipes Fights Taxman To a Draw
Action Star Found Guilty Only of Lesser Charges

By Linton Weeks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 2, 2008; C01



Wesley Snipes is known for playing independent, ornery characters -- Blade, the Detonator, the Marksman -- who outwit, outfight, out-blow-up their adversaries.

In his latest role, he appeared in a federal courtroom in Ocala, Fla., as Tax Evader.

Yesterday he may have triumphed again. Though he was found guilty on three misdemeanor charges, for not filing annual tax returns, he was found not guilty of more serious felony charges of tax fraud and conspiracy that could have put him behind bars for up to 16 years. (He could still go to prison for up to three years.)

Snipes was the pretty face in this story. The brains behind the operation -- Eddie Ray Kahn and Douglas P. Rosile -- were found guilty of tax fraud and conspiracy. They face up to 10 years in prison.

The Internal Revenue Service took Snipes to court because he did not file tax returns for six years. In fact, the IRS said, Snipes badgered the agency to repay him millions of dollars for taxes he once paid. He also clogged the IRS pipeline, according to the government's prosecution team, by sending reams of letters and documents, and he tried to "pay" his taxes using worthless documents called "bills of exchange."

The trial was held in Florida because Snipes owns a home there and carries a state-issued driver's license. He was born in Orlando. He had asked that the proceedings be moved because, he said, Ocala, a central Florida city of 50,000, is a bastion of racial prejudice.

Attorneys for the movie star fully conceded that Snipes owes the back taxes and can be ordered to pay it. But they contended that he had no criminal intent.

Defense attorney Robert Barnes agreed that Snipes's actions may have been outrageous, but not necessarily unlawful. "Disagreement with the IRS is not fraud of the IRS," Barnes told the Associated Press. "It was an attempt to engage the IRS, to go through the IRS procedures and processes and see who's right."

The prosecutors, of course, had a different view. "Nobody likes paying taxes, but paying taxes is the price we pay to live in a civilized society," Assistant U.S. Attorney M. Scotland Morris told the court on Tuesday. "And it's the law, and that's what this case is about. It's about three men who felt they were above the law."

Co-defendant Kahn founded American Rights Litigators, and Guiding Light of God Ministries, two groups that offered assistance to Americans who want to avoid paying taxes. He does not acknowledge the authority of the court and refused to appear there. Kahn's compatriot Rosile, a certified public accountant who lost licenses in Ohio and Florida, helped clients prepare their tax returns. For years, Kahn has advertised "tax advice" seminars in which he teaches people ways around paying taxes, telling them that the IRS is not a legitimate government agency. The Kahn men successfully persuaded up to 4,000 people not to pay taxes.

In surreal, rambling screeds addressed to the agency, Snipes asserted that he was a nonresident alien, that the IRS abuses citizens and that any attempt to bring him to justice would result in "increased collateral risk." Whatever that means.

It's been several years since Snipes, 45, was among Hollywood's box-office leaders. The "Blade" trilogy, which concluded in 2004, was his most recent big splash. But from the late 1980s through the mid-90s, he was a prolific, reliably bankable star, often in action-filled dramas and comedies ("Money Train," "New Jack City," "Passenger 57," "White Men Can't Jump") but also in offbeat character roles ("Jungle Fever," "To Wong Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar").

The trial had all kinds of twists -- assertions by Snipes that he paid his taxes using the "bills of exchange," drawn on a secret government-sponsored bank account, and objections by Kahn that his indictment was invalid because his name was spelled out in uppercase letters. Defense attorneys did not call any witnesses to the stand, saying it wasn't necessary.

The IRS has long been a target of disgruntlement. Presidential candidate Ron Paul wants to abolish the personal income tax. Mike Huckabee advocates doing away with the IRS. Through the decades, some Americans have refused to pay taxes for antiwar reasons, on religious grounds or because of various other aggrievements.

Last spring Edward and Elaine Brown of New Hampshire were found guilty of tax evasion. They refused to surrender to authorities, but were apprehended in October when deputy U.S. marshals pretended to be sympathizers. Also last year, a federal court shut down an anti-tax scheme by Robert L. Schulz, founder of We the People, who gave advice on how to prevent tax payments from being withheld from paychecks. "There has been a tremendous crackdown on tax protesters in the last four or five years," says Mark Potok, who tracks hate groups for the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala. "We cover the tax protest movement because it's part of the radical right. The ideology emanates from white supremacist groups."

Traditionally, he says, tax protest groups have been racist and/or anti-Semitic.

One of the best-known tax protesters was Federal Express pilot Vernice Kuglin, who was acquitted in 2003 of tax fraud by a jury that believed she was sincere in her misunderstanding of the process. She eventually settled with the IRS and agreed to pay half a million dollars in back taxes. A few weeks ago the IRS held an auction of some of Kuglin's possessions, including a 1994 Toyota Land Cruiser, in Memphis to try to raise some of the money.

The few tax protesters like Kuglin who have been successful in court, says Jon Almeras, editor of Tax Notes, a Falls Church-based tax analysis journal, "have won on the criminal arguments, usually by asserting that they sincerely believed or that they were misled into thinking they didn't have to pay taxes, thereby nullifying an element of the crime. What they haven't won on are the tax arguments."

Therefore, he adds, "there's little to be gained from frivolous tax arguments because the IRS doesn't like them and neither do the courts."

In other words, the IRS may not always get its man, but it does get its money.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
----

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

The brains behind the operation -- Eddie Ray Kahn and Douglas P. Rosile -- were found guilty of tax fraud and conspiracy. They face up to 10 years in prison.

but curiously, not charged w/ "willful failure"... have they been out of the system too long?

He also clogged the IRS pipeline, according to the government's prosecution team, by sending reams of letters and documents,

just too funny, the image-conjuring of "clogged pipes" at the IRS... maybe they need an enema.

The trial was held in Florida because Snipes owns a home there and carries a state-issued driver's license. He was born in Orlando.

Now that is a telling bit of info! Sounds like a re-statement of the 14th amendment:

1. born in the United States (Orlando)

2. state resident (owns home in FL)

3. subject to the jurisdiction thereof (domestic-issue "driver's license")

In other words, the IRS may not always get its man, but it does get its money.

apparently not.

men successfully persuaded up to 4,000 people not to pay taxes.

[ezrhythm]

AWAY FROM HERE Shoonra/Bernie and your anti sui juris posts!!!

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by mrg

How do you KNOW all of this about the man?

Are you privy to his private matters?

It was posted in various news reports.

[KarenM]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

AWAY FROM HERE Shoonra/Bernie and your anti sui juris posts!!!

If you don't agree with the party line, you can only post articles about puppies and bunnies.

The truth is forbidden.