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

[ezrhythm]

The Snipes case had nothing to do with the truth.
It only had to do with the facts in evidence.

And the facts are what the parties agree to.

And you get agreement in the private.

And then you have the private agreement mirrored into the public.

If you argue stuff in the public forum you are in dishonor - automatically.

If you go to court without having first exhausted your private remedy you put yourself in dishonour.

If you are in dishonour you are put before the pubic to be judged and then punished.

Will an attorney tell you this? Not on your retainer wasting life!

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

ezrhythm:

It only had to do with the facts in evidence.

And the facts are what the parties agree to.

And you get agreement in the private.

Just checked the indictment- alleges many "facts not in evidence". Court has to consider, in finding probable cause, facts of common knowledge:

There is no such thing as a fraudulent argument. Like SNIPE's lawyers said- disagreeing w/ the IRS is not a crime, even if in error.

There is no such thing as a fictitious "bill of exchange". Either an order may be processed, or it can't. Its an offer to settle, an argument if you will; no such thing as a fake argument in the sense of legal fraud.

And of course he was not convicted on this. But the whole thing doesn't make any sense- all claims, orders, are just applications. Accept, or Deny, but its like saying its a crime to claim something.

There is a certain obligation on the part of the acceptor to make his own determination as to validity. There is nothing deceitful or tricky about offering ones own conclusions. We are entitled to our opinions.

So this is really about heresy, and "failure to do homework", getting a bad grade on your accountancy exam.

This is what happens when certain nerds and jocks team up for a very special a$$hole tyranny. Imagine we get put in jail for giving the wrong answer

When something comes down to the mere abstract character of account entries, this can't have a criminal aspect.

This is all about trying to criminalize arguments.

[Chinese Panda]

Originally Posted by joseph sugarman

I direct you attention to the exact wording of 26 US 7203:

7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax

Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. In the case of any person with respect to whom there is a failure to pay any estimated tax, this section shall not apply to such person with respect to such failure if there is no addition to tax under section 6654 or 6655 with respect to such failure. In the case of a willful violation of any provision of section 6050I, the first sentence of this section shall be applied by substituting “felony” for “misdemeanor” and “5 years” for “1 year”.

What's even more interesting is careful reading of the actual body of the section doesn't actually say file a return. The actual body of the section says make a return.

And what does 26 USC 7806(b) say about descriptions in the code?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...6----000-.html
"No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act before its enactment into law."
[/quote]

Hmmm, sees to me they are saying the section descriptions are not to be presumed to be part of the law for this title.

Originally Posted by joseph sugarman

In an honest system a person is brought to bar by the charging section of a statute. The charging section would, with specificity describe the acts to be, or not to be, done, and state, with specificity, the person is liable to conform to the conduct as described by the section.

In an honest system the code section that made a person liable would be in the pleading so a defendant could respond to that section.

Originally Posted by joseph sugarman

However, a close reading of section 6011 states you are only required if you are liable, as shown below:

"Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title....."

You forgot the best part about section 6011...
"shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations.
tax impositions on various conditions of taxable income.

I'm confused, best to ask the IRS, in an Examination Hearing, on the exclusive record. By the way, did Wesley Snipes or Sherry Jackson ever ask for an Examination Hearing?

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by joseph sugarman

Yes, Lawdog, I have a question for you. But before I ask it; I direct you attention to the exact wording of 26 US 7203:

7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax

Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. In the case of any person with respect to whom there is a failure to pay any estimated tax, this section shall not apply to such person with respect to such failure if there is no addition to tax under section 6654 or 6655 with respect to such failure. In the case of a willful violation of any provision of section 6050I, the first sentence of this section shall be applied by substituting “felony” for “misdemeanor” and “5 years” for “1 year”.

This section of the Title plainly describes the penalties which are to be place on some person with some undefined, alleged requirement. It refers, vaguely, to somewhere else in Title 26 or the regulations by the first 65 words, or so, to find out just what the acts committed or omitted are which would give rise to criminal charges.

This section is not a charging one. In an honest system noone can be brought to bar by the description of the penalty for doing or not doing something else required to do, or barred from doing.

In an honest system a person is brought to bar by the charging section of a statute. The charging section would, with specificity describe the acts to be, or not to be, done, and state, with specificity, the person is liable to conform to the conduct as described by the section.

Please note the first few words of section 7203, to wit: "Any person required...."

So part 7203 does not specify who is required. A person needs to look somewhere else to find out who is required, and under what conditions.

With a proper search, a person can find section 6011 which appears to place a requirement. However, a close reading of section 6011 states you are only required if you are liable, as shown below:

"Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title....."

It correctly uses, throughout the section, the legal term, "shall" which connotes requirement, and in some sentences of the section uses the word require, or one of its many forms.

What it does not do is, with specificity, describe a person who is liable.

That must be somewhere else in Title 26. Perhaps it is here in this subchapter:

"Subchapter A—Determination of Tax Liability"

It has to be here, doesn't it? After all, the title of this subchapter states it is here. But is it?

"PART I—TAX ON INDIVIDUALS-- § 1. Tax imposed".

"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of— "

All throughout this section are the descriptions of various level of tax impositions on various conditions of taxable income.

What is not to be found anywhere in the section is who is the person liable to pay taxes on this taxable income. This despite the title of the subchapter in which all these other words appear. Additionally, in none of the other parts or sections of this subchapter is the description, with specificity, of the person liable to pay the tax imposed on the various taxable incomes described.

I defy you to find and post to this thread the parts of Title 26 referred to by the first 65, or so, words of the penalty part. Just where in Title 26 is the person required because he/she/they are made liable?

In case this question is too far removed from my first statement in this post; this is the question to which I was referring at the beginning.

Please excuse me in advance for splitting hairs again.

Again, this is an outstanding post. However, the issue of who is "liable" is not introduced into evidence at trial, thus, there is no actual connection with with the charging statute, in this instance 26 US 7203. Nevertheless, the judge will often ask the jury to use their prejudice, their personal experience, or the courts have all ruled[of course, there appears to be a great difference of opinion in the courts], in place of an actual showing of evidence, a direct connection to the charging statute. It is clear that when there is no evidence that an individual is "liable", the jury must/should give an acquittal, based upon innocent until proven guilty.The juries are never informed about the issue of "jury nullification". Instead judges seem to encourage conviction. This is a major reason that the courts are seen to be quite biased regarding issues of taxation.

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

...the courts are seen to be quite biased regarding issues of taxation.

You know it! How else would the crown banking establishment have it?

[joseph sugarman]

Bob T12,

Again, thank you for your consideration. Thank you for the time you take to read my responses to Lawdog, and the time it takes you to offer your insightful thoughts.

By your stating the question of liability is not even introduced at trial; you reinforce exactly my point. 7203 has nothing to do with defining who, with specificity, is either required or liable. It is not even a charging section. It is only a penalty section. People are fraudulently dragged into federal court by being charged with a penalty section.

You are absolutely correct. Juries are really asked to convict based upon envy and prejudice, not the law.

The only statement I must disagree with is yours that the courts are biased. In my opinion district courts and judges in income tax cases are not just biased; they are willing co-conspirators with the DOJ in criminal fraud.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by joseph sugarman

Bob T12,

Again, thank you for your consideration. Thank you for the time you take to read my responses to Lawdog, and the time it takes you to offer your insightful thoughts.

My pleasure.

By your stating the question of liability is not even introduced at trial; you reinforce exactly my point. 7203 has nothing to do with defining who, with specificity, is either required or liable. It is not even a charging section. It is only a penalty section. People are fraudulently dragged into federal court by being charged with a penalty section.

I agree.

You are absolutely correct. Juries are really asked to convict based upon envy and prejudice, not the law.

The only statement I must disagree with is yours that the courts are biased. In my opinion district courts and judges in income tax cases are not just biased; they are willing co-conspirators with the DOJ in criminal fraud.

There is no disagreement, you are 100% on point.

[joseph sugarman]

Good Evening BobT12,

I understand something new about you. You state your positions in a much kinder, gentler manner than do I. From now one when I read what you say, I shall keep that in mind.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

JG:
I took one of my biweekly paychecks to a coin dealer and got it "cashed" for lawful money - $67 in gold and silver dollars.

Armed with the receipt, I was successful in rebutting the presumption that I was paid more than $1742 per annum.

I also asked if the judge would rule that FRNs were dollars.

He demurred...)

That is excellent.

[sheisaceo]

I have to ask that in any of this with Sherry Jackson, didn't she claimed her reservation of rights under UCC 1-207? How is it that she was dragged out this far for violation of rules with the IRS if she claimed this?

OR-

Did she not originally claim this and then have to fight this all the way to appellate as a result where she later claimed these rights? Thoughts?

I do believe that if anyone engages with any court using a bar attorney that all reservation of rights under UCC 1-207 are waived because the attorney is oathed to protect all interests other than ours. Thoughts please?

Thank you.