[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Yea, but you and I don’t get the maximum sentence because of who we are. Why should Blade? As medivac pointed out, the logic that he should be punished worse is nonsense. [/quote]
Punishing someone more harshly because they happen to belong to some ambiguous collective is wrong. The punishment should always be determined by the crime.
I am completely biased against all tax laws so I can only say I wish he wasn’t being punished at all. I cheer all tax evaders who successfully evade.
“The Sate is a band of thieves writ large.”
~M. N. Rothbard.
…But he was enjoying all the freedoms established by the Federal Government and protected with federal funds.
OMG, OG. OG. OG. Time for Civics class.
Our freedoms were established by God. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution recognizes them and the federal government is charged with protecting them but the federal gov’t did not establish them. Tsk. Tsk.
(I know we’re just doing the semantics dance but then again I like dancing with you)
[/quote]
Gorge Carlin said it best so Ill let him say it. He starts to talk about Rights at 2min 25sec.
Im not going to comment on it b/c I want to hear what other ppl have to say about what he says.
Nonsense. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. It’s like saying I wasn’t aware I can’t go 100 mph down the highway, or that I can’t turn right on red at that intersection. It’s simply not a defense.
Where did I say he was using Ignorance as a defence? I said If you can prove that if is your beleif that taxes are unconstitutional you can avoid jail time but you still have to pay your back taxes. That is fact[/quote]
I just read the sentencing memorandum linked to in this thread on page 3. If, after perusing that document, you have any sympathy for Mr. Snipes, I would be very surprised. The man quite simply took leave of his senses. Read the passage of one of his letters where, on his own, he redefines the word “frivolous” and relies on freedom of speech principals to do so. The man, quite simply, embarked on a campaign to defraud the government (to which most of us pay), certainly had the means to pay and then, when called on it, engaged in what only can be described as bizarre legal arguments - such as his redefining the word frivolous.
I have absolutely no sympathy for him. He should do the entire 3 years and he’s lucky he didn’t get more (the guidelines actually saved him - without them, he was subject to more time given the amount of money involved)
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Joe D. wrote:
It strikes me that DUI is far more serious crime than fraud.
Three years for this seems a bit over the top to me. You could hardly argue that by not giving him a prison term his influence as a role model would cause people to stop paying their tax.
“Making an example” is great when we are talking about crimes that actually influence other people. Tax fraud is hardly one of those crimes.
Agreed, espcially when he goes ahead and pays the full amount and more. A second offense after this I could see as meaning definite jail time.
This decision will just make more people hate law enforcement.[/quote]
Well, it’s quite easy to be penitent once you get caught.
[quote]DanErickson wrote:
I really doubt the US government cares if more people will hate law enforcement. They keep flexing there arm to see what they can get away with and nobody does anything. Just look at the Patriot Act.[/quote]
Please, oh enlightened one, tell us all about ourselves. While you’re at it, tell us how ALL Canadians would react to a major terrorist attack and continuing threat. Name a country on this earth who hasn’t made any changes to their law enforcement, legislation and intelligence capabilities as a result of a terrorist attack. Hmm, can’t find any?
[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
DanErickson wrote:
I really doubt the US government cares if more people will hate law enforcement. They keep flexing there arm to see what they can get away with and nobody does anything. Just look at the Patriot Act.
Please, oh enlightened one, tell us all about ourselves. While you’re at it, tell us how ALL Canadians would react to a major terrorist attack and continuing threat. Name a country on this earth who hasn’t made any changes to their law enforcement, legislation and intelligence capabilities as a result of a terrorist attack. Hmm, can’t find any?
Shutup then, douchetard.
DB[/quote]
Good point DB.
Travelling anywhere in the world is more difficult now. It isn’t just US airports or borders.
Regarding Snipes, why would he think not paying taxes would be worth it?
Highly unlikely, but this Snipes case is the first I’ve seen a celebrity actually get treated worse because of their celebrity status, so maybe.[/quote]
Hey…I can’t believe you’ve forgotten the Martha Stewart (my favorite celeb) witch hunt/crusade !! Dear sweet Martha was crucified by the gummint like Christ by Pilate !
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Regarding Snipes, why would he think not paying taxes would be worth it?
[/quote]
Because not getting caught means more money in one’s pocket. It was his money to begin with. I think the more money one makes the harder it becomes to accept paying taxes.
I don’t know what I would do if the government wanted to steal that much money from me.
Highly unlikely, but this Snipes case is the first I’ve seen a celebrity actually get treated worse because of their celebrity status, so maybe.
Hey…I can’t believe you’ve forgotten the Martha Stewart (my favorite celeb) witch hunt/crusade !! Dear sweet Martha was crucified by the gummint like Christ by Pilate ![/quote]
And the dear, sweet, Leona Helmsley (“Only little people pay taxes”) who got 19 months for tax evasion.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Joe D. wrote:
It strikes me that DUI is far more serious crime than fraud.
Three years for this seems a bit over the top to me. You could hardly argue that by not giving him a prison term his influence as a role model would cause people to stop paying their tax.
“Making an example” is great when we are talking about crimes that actually influence other people. Tax fraud is hardly one of those crimes.
Agreed, espcially when he goes ahead and pays the full amount and more. A second offense after this I could see as meaning definite jail time.
This decision will just make more people hate law enforcement.[/quote]
So prof your saying that if he stole a 10,000 dollar tv and got charged, if he was willing to pay back say 15, he should be let go?
[quote]Split wrote:
So prof your saying that if he stole a 10,000 dollar tv and got charged, if he was willing to pay back say 15, he should be let go?
[/quote]
Not paying taxes and stealing is different. Stealing is depriving the owner of his or her physical/intellectual possession. Wesley Snipes didnt take 2.7 million from the government.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Regarding Snipes, why would he think not paying taxes would be worth it?
Because not getting caught means more money in one’s pocket. It was his money to begin with. I think the more money one makes the harder it becomes to accept paying taxes.
I don’t know what I would do if the government wanted to steal that much money from me.
[/quote]
I’ve been really astounded by your intellect, especially, thus far in the thread.
