PDA

View Full Version : Judge orders tax-evasion site to close




klamath
08-30-2007, 10:22 AM
Thought you guys would appreciate this.

http://news.com.com/Judge+orders+tax-evasion+site+to+close/2100-1030_3-6205327.html?tag=nefd.top

"McAvoy also ordered that the names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Social Security numbers of every person who received materials on how to stop paying taxes be turned over to the government."

Oddball
08-30-2007, 01:55 PM
Incredible.

They gonna try to shut down the High Times website next??

hard@work
08-30-2007, 01:57 PM
this is outrageous...

Chester Copperpot
08-30-2007, 02:01 PM
Theyre pissed at Schultz because his group is the one that sent the petition to the govt for a redress of grievances.. They wanted the government to just show the law that required average ordinary citizens to pay an income tax and file a 1040.. The judge in the case responded that the govt DIDNT HAVE TO answer the petition or even look at it.. (even though this IS listed in the 1st ammendment)

SO now this group has had to go to the Supreme Court so THEY can DEFINE exactly what it means to "petition the government for a re-dress of grievances."


This has been in court for a while. theyre probably trying to do everything they can to force this guy into no money.


I mean its a simple questions right? Just show us the law that requires us to pay?

The Govt is certainly going thru an awful big hassle. I find it suspicious that the government wont do this very simple thing.

Ozwest
08-30-2007, 02:06 PM
When are people going to wake up! Slip Sliding Away...

constituent
08-30-2007, 02:30 PM
oddball- they want people getting high.

that's why erowid will be around forever.

nullvalu
08-30-2007, 02:33 PM
if they're "instructing others how to engage in illegal activity", could someone please show me the law they're breaking?

Oddball
08-30-2007, 02:41 PM
You just earned yourself a roving wiretap, buddy! :D

Omnis
08-30-2007, 02:43 PM
if they're "instructing others how to engage in illegal activity", could someone please show me the law they're breaking?

Yes, please show us.

Bryan
08-30-2007, 02:47 PM
At the rate we're going we'll soon not be able to even talk about being free.

constituent
08-30-2007, 02:50 PM
we've all earned ourselves roving wiretaps... there has to come a point where everyone says...

you know what, f* you. i'm doing my thing.

BillyDkid
08-30-2007, 02:53 PM
Another example of the governments unquenchable thirst to invent and prosecute uncrimes. I remember reading about some guy who wrote in the note on a check he was paying for an unjust fine "legal extortion" - which by definition it actually was. The judge brought charges against him for it. It's like grade school - form a straight line and don't step out of it. It's what they teach you from the very start. It's like that John Lennon song - as soon as you're born they make you feel small.

nunaem
08-30-2007, 02:56 PM
McAvoy ruled that some people who went to the Web site stopped paying taxes, causing the government harm.
Oh no! The government might have to cut back and buy the measly $500 dollar hammer instead of the $2000 dollar one! If this continues it might not be able to afford $20,000 to ship a bolt.

constituent
08-30-2007, 02:57 PM
" 'til you're so f*n crazy you can't follow their rules"

nullvalu
08-30-2007, 03:09 PM
" 'til you're so f*n crazy you can't follow their rules"

Oh there are solutions for that, like "Room 101"..

Oddball
08-30-2007, 03:09 PM
..or Gitmo! :D

cjhowe
08-30-2007, 03:23 PM
if they're "instructing others how to engage in illegal activity", could someone please show me the law they're breaking?

Tax evasion would be the illegal activity and since they are instructing others how to engage in illegal activity, their speech isn't protected by the 1st amendment. This really isn't a difficult concept people.

Oddball
08-30-2007, 03:26 PM
Tax evasion is legally defined as the filing of fraudulent tax returns. That's clearly illegal.

Bob Schultz has never, ever advocated doing such a thing.

cjhowe
08-30-2007, 03:36 PM
Tax evasion is legally defined as the filing of fraudulent tax returns. That's clearly illegal.

Bob Schultz has never, ever advocated doing such a thing.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/26/subtitles/f/chapters/75/subchapters/a/parts/i/sections/section_7201.html
Section 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or
defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall,
in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a
felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than
$100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not
more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Oddball
08-30-2007, 03:40 PM
Did you look up how the terms "evade" and "defeat" are properly defined??

They are active attempts, where merely failing to file is passive non-compliance.

cjhowe
08-30-2007, 03:46 PM
Did you look up how the terms "evade" and "defeat" are properly defined??

They are active attempts, where merely failing to file is passive non-compliance.

No matter how much evidence I show you, you're not going to believe it and you'll end up calling me a disinfo shill. This isn't worth my time.

Ozwest
08-30-2007, 04:02 PM
What is happening? No-one wants to complain about anything. No-one seems to be bothered by the continual errosion of America. Everyone seems to be in a trance-like state. Well, 60 odd years ago the Germans and their victims remained silent and docile and we all know how that ended. I was raised in the States until the age of 23. Im now 48 and an Australian. I have a brother in Albuquerque, a U.S. citizen, and some of my Aussie dollars are getting to Ron Paul via him. Reading this forum and watching your hard work gives me hope that things can be turned around. POWER TO YOU!

noxagol
08-30-2007, 04:28 PM
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/26/subtitles/f/chapters/75/subchapters/a/parts/i/sections/section_7201.html
Section 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or
defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall,
in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a
felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than
$100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not
more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

The key here is that the tax is NOT imposed because there is no law saying to pay it.

Oddball
08-30-2007, 04:36 PM
No matter how much evidence I show you, you're not going to believe it and you'll end up calling me a disinfo shill. This isn't worth my time.
Supposing you're right, why are there the two different charges of:

1) Tax evasion

and

2) Willful failure to file??

If evasion covers all the bases, who would need any more??

cjhowe
08-30-2007, 04:39 PM
Supposing you're right, why are there the two different charges of:

1) Tax evasion

and

2) Willful failure to file??

If evasion covers all the bases, who would need any more??

If I show you, will you believe me or will you find another excuse?

Oddball
08-30-2007, 04:40 PM
I'll decide for myself.

Can't ask for more than that, can you??

cjhowe
08-30-2007, 05:56 PM
I'll decide for myself.

Can't ask for more than that, can you??

In a "Spies-evasion", where you fail to file a tax return coupled with an affirmative act of evasion, the wilful failure to file is included as a lesser charge. You're charged with both.

All of the tax protester arguments do is compound the liability of the protester.

They start out owing the tax like any other American.
They don't file a tax return, thus compounding the problem to "Willful failure to file".
Then in order to avert that charge of willful failure to file, they evade the tax by saying things such as "I have no income"

While it does need to be an active attempt as you say, the active attempt does not have to be a false return. It can be legal things like entry into an independent contractor agreement, if that contract is to conceal income.

Chester Copperpot
08-30-2007, 06:00 PM
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/26/subtitles/f/chapters/75/subchapters/a/parts/i/sections/section_7201.html
Section 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or
defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall,
in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a
felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than
$100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not
more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Boy you really dont get it do you? Everybody knows you are not a Ron Paul supporter and are only here to talk about how good things like the federal reserve and income tax are...

Thats fine if you believe that dude, but you are wasting youre time here. Everybody here already knows there is no law requirining anybody to pay a federal income tax just like we all know the federal reserve is ripping off this country and receives the income tax money collected.

Geez..

Oddball
08-30-2007, 06:03 PM
In a "Spies-evasion", where you fail to file a tax return coupled with an affirmative act of evasion, the wilful failure to file is included as a lesser charge. You're charged with both.

All of the tax protester arguments do is compound the liability of the protester.

They start out owing the tax like any other American.
They don't file a tax return, thus compounding the problem to "Willful failure to file".
Then in order to avert that charge of willful failure to file, they evade the tax by saying things such as "I have no income"

While it does need to be an active attempt as you say, the active attempt does not have to be a false return. It can be legal things like entry into an independent contractor agreement, if that contract is to conceal income.

But saying things like "I have no income" is a proactive fraudulent action, not merely failure or refusal to supply information.

I'm not talking tax protester arguments here, but about the kind of thing that happened to Martha Stewart.

Hook
08-30-2007, 06:04 PM
You can talk about how to commit a crime all you want. It is the doing of the crime that is punishable. There are very few restrictions on speech and this ain't one of them.

cjhowe
08-30-2007, 07:49 PM
Boy you really dont get it do you? Everybody knows you are not a Ron Paul supporter and are only here to talk about how good things like the federal reserve and income tax are...

Thats fine if you believe that dude, but you are wasting youre time here. Everybody here already knows there is no law requirining anybody to pay a federal income tax just like we all know the federal reserve is ripping off this country and receives the income tax money collected.

Geez..

If there's no law, then we don't need a Ron Paul to abolish the IRS, do we? The fact is there IS a law, the law is inconsistent with the tenants of a a free society, so it needs to go. In addition, the revenues generated through the income tax are much greater than the need of the federal government when it is acting in its proper role. Between the various conspiracy minded people, you can't help but think this is a spoof like fredthompsonforums.com

cjhowe
08-30-2007, 08:07 PM
You can talk about how to commit a crime all you want. It is the doing of the crime that is punishable. There are very few restrictions on speech and this ain't one of them.

Planning and inciting others to imminently commit a crime is also punishable.

Chester Copperpot
08-30-2007, 08:08 PM
If there's no law, then we don't need a Ron Paul to abolish the IRS, do we? The fact is there IS a law, the law is inconsistent with the tenants of a a free society, so it needs to go. In addition, the revenues generated through the income tax are much greater than the need of the federal government when it is acting in its proper role. Between the various conspiracy minded people, you can't help but think this is a spoof like fredthompsonforums.com

We have an IRS that operates unconstitutionally.. Thats a pretty good reason to want a Ron Paul in office as president.

fsk
08-30-2007, 08:21 PM
I thought that the law is whatever the people with the guns say it is?

The people with the guns say the income tax is legal, and therefore it is.

cjhowe
08-30-2007, 08:35 PM
But saying things like "I have no income" is a proactive fraudulent action, not merely failure or refusal to supply information.

Right, we were talking about two different things though. First was that you could be charged with tax evasion without filing a fraudulent return and second why tax evasion doesn't cover encompass willful failure to file


I'm not talking tax protester arguments here, but about the kind of thing that happened to Martha Stewart.

Wasn't Martha Stewart a state income tax issue?

cjhowe
08-30-2007, 08:42 PM
We have an IRS that operates unconstitutionally.. Thats a pretty good reason to want a Ron Paul in office as president.

The claim of the unconstitutionality of the IRS has nothing to do with the income tax, but rather the assertion that due process is violated. Why do you feel that the propaganda has to be true in order to take action? Is it that we're just so used to propaganda, that it's all we know?

We have to believe that "Communists are nothing but a bunch of Godless people" rather than simply understand that a system cannot survive if it does not respect and encourage personal property rights.

Oddball
08-30-2007, 08:42 PM
Wasn't Martha Stewart a state income tax issue?

No, insider trading. But it's an example of how opening one's yap, without competent counsel, can get you in worse trouble than you would've been if you just shut up and deal with the present charge/investigation.

FWIW, I know peeps who've been charged with will failure and evasion. The one who got charged with evasion got in worse trouble because he panicked when the failure to file charge was leveled at him, and gave the investigators the tax protester mau-mau. The other kept his mouth shut and got a decent lawyer.

Guess which one got off cheaper??

cjhowe
08-30-2007, 08:51 PM
No, insider trading. But it's an example of how opening one's yap, without competent counsel, can get you in worse trouble than you would've been if you just shut up and deal with the present charge/investigation.

Shortly before that she had a run-in with the New York State Income tax over whether her East Hampton estate was her primary residence.


FWIW, I know peeps who've been charged with will failure and evasion. The one who got charged with evasion got in worse trouble because he panicked when the failure to file charge was leveled at him, and gave the investigators the tax protester mau-mau. The other kept his mouth shut and got a decent lawyer.

Guess which one got off cheaper??

No doubt. But of even more significance, they owed the tax, didn't they. There was a law.

Oddball
08-30-2007, 09:28 PM
Shortly before that she had a run-in with the New York State Income tax over whether her East Hampton estate was her primary residence. Hadn't heard that.



No doubt. But of even more significance, they owed the tax, didn't they. There was a law.I'm not so sure.

Just for a little personal info, I was in the construction biz, as an independent contractor, for over 15 years and ran into a lot of these types. One of them was a local guy I took on when some projects were too big for me to handle on my own.

One fine evening we were schmoozing in a pizza joint, with his wife in attendance, when this topic came up. He swore up and down that if you don't sign anything, no matter how much they threaten, they can't touch you. Judging from the ghastly white color his missus turned, when he was talking about the hardball IRS tactics they went through, I figured that what he was saying carried some weight.

Now, why the IRS stopped hassling him, I cannot say. He could be right, or the feds didn't think he was worth the continued effort.....I just don't know.

But there's one thing I do know...

The fact that he and the missus were in a non-statutory common law marriage (i.e. no state license) the IRS was powerless to lein or attempt to confiscate their property, which was all in her name.

cjhowe
08-30-2007, 09:56 PM
Hadn't heard that.


I'm not so sure.

Just for a little personal info, I was in the construction biz, as an independent contractor, for over 15 years and ran into a lot of these types. One of them was a local guy I took on when some projects were too big for me to handle on my own.

One fine evening we were schmoozing in a pizza joint, with his wife in attendance, when this topic came up. He swore up and down that if you don't sign anything, no matter how much they threaten, they can't touch you. Judging from the ghastly white color his missus turned, when he was talking about the hardball IRS tactics they went through, I figured that what he was saying carried some weight.

Now, why the IRS stopped hassling him, I cannot say. He could be right, or the feds didn't think he was worth the continued effort.....I just don't know.

But there's one thing I do know...

The fact that he and the missus were in a non-statutory common law marriage (i.e. no state license) the IRS was powerless to lein or attempt to confiscate their property, which was all in her name.

Speaking of the loose lips...it would be best for your friend if you never mentioned his name. What he discussed with you was tax evasion without filing :-)

Oddball
08-30-2007, 10:40 PM
Now who's the one who has their mind made up, despite whatever additional information that may come in??

Chester Copperpot
08-30-2007, 10:46 PM
Now who's the one who has their mind made up, despite whatever additional information that may come in??

Watch out Oddball.. he might be related to the Howe brothers of Revolutionary War fame... I think hes trying to fight this revolution the way they tried to fight the first one in 1776

Oddball
08-30-2007, 11:22 PM
Yeah....well...

A Sherman can give you a very nice.....edge. ;)

jonahtrainer
08-30-2007, 11:34 PM
if they're "instructing others how to engage in illegal activity", could someone please show me the law they're breaking?

This ruling should not stand on 1st Amendment grounds.

What is worse is that there is precedent for the ruling to stand based on Paladin (http://www.bc.edu/cgi-bin/print_hit_bold.cgi/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/updates.html)(book on how to be a Hit Man). However, Paladin was for civil suit damages. This 'tax evasion' case is just plan idiotic.

What is next; Halo and the movie The Shooter?

Kregener
08-30-2007, 11:43 PM
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/Kregener/HEY.jpg
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/Kregener/FINGERPRINTS.jpg
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/Kregener/LOYALTYDAY.jpg
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/Kregener/STOPASKING.jpg

PennCustom4RP
08-31-2007, 12:23 AM
Planning and inciting others to imminently commit a crime is also punishable.

Unless you're LaRaza...right CJ?

cjhowe RP support tally thus far:

pro-choice
pro-FED
pro-IRS
pro-illegal immigration

read all posts from this guy, as said by others previously, he is no RP supporter...don't entertain him

Electric Church
08-31-2007, 01:27 AM
Unless you're LaRaza...right CJ?

cjhowe RP support tally thus far:

pro-choice
pro-FED
pro-IRS
pro-illegal immigration

read all posts from this guy, as said by others previously, he is no RP supporter...don't entertain him


he'll probably come slitherin back under a different username. I'll keep the Raid handy.
:cool:

cjhowe
08-31-2007, 07:11 AM
Unless you're LaRaza...right CJ?

cjhowe RP support tally thus far:

pro-choice
pro-FED
pro-IRS
pro-illegal immigration

read all posts from this guy, as said by others previously, he is no RP supporter...don't entertain him

You are as ignorant as you claim everyone else is. You would rather lump people into categories than be honest about their arguments. Yes, I am pro-choice, but I think we're perfectly capable of dealing with this issue on the local level. I am not pro Fed, but it's not a conspiracy. I am not pro IRS, but there is a law, it's not a conspiracy and the law is bad policy. I am not pro illegal immigration, there is a law and the law is bad policy.

Yes, please read all of the posts by this guy and find out this world isn't a two hour fauxumentary and that xenophobia will only leave you behind, unprepared and disadvantaged in the reality of increasing globalization. This globalization is not the work of conspirators, but rather the work of the free market.

cjhowe
08-31-2007, 07:13 AM
Now who's the one who has their mind made up, despite whatever additional information that may come in??

What you described was a textbook Spies-evasion. Your friend did not file and took steps to hide his income. You provided no additional information to contradict the law.