Wesley Snipes takes the 5th in his civil case

[Demosthenes]

http://www.wavenewspapers.com/news/43951577.html

Excerpts:

LA Wave Newspaper LA
Wesley Snipes pleads fifth, won’t answer more lawsuit questions

Actor Wesley Snipes has declined to answer more questions stemming from a talent agency’s lawsuit alleging he owes more than $1.4 million in commissions, saying his responses could incriminate him in a federal tax probe.

In court papers filed Friday, UTA attorneys say Snipes showed up to resume his deposition on April 10, but his lawyers told him not to talk.

“Unfortunately … [Snipes’] counsel advised [UTA’s] counsel that Snipes and his … companies are under an additional investigation by the Internal Revenue Service and Snipes would be asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and would not answer any questions at his deposition,’’ the UTA lawyers stated.

UTA lawyer Bryan J. Freedman said Tuesday he was skeptical, given that the assertion regarding the new IRS investigation came after Snipes had been been ordered by a judge to answer the additional questions.

[Weston White]

What is the big deal, he was instructed by his own attorneys not to answer the questions. Geez, Quatloosians make up you minds, either seek the advise of counsel or don't and figure it out on your own! If your attorneys tell you not to answer, you best believe your best bet is to... NOT ANSWER! And that article has to do with unpaid commissions not taxes! Gee, no wonder you left all that out, it makes it appear so much more interesting for those non-reader types.

[Nikki]

It is surprising that Snipes' legal team does not recognize that, in civil proceedings, the use of one's 5th Amendment rights has the opposite effect than what was intended.

The plaintiffs (the people suing Snipes) have made specific allegations of facts which support their case.

By refusing to be deposed, Snipes has allowed these unrebutted allegations to stand as facts.

Snipes has seriously weakened his defense in the civil case while doing absolutely nothing to protect himself in the alleged IRS investigation into himself and his companies.

Since Snipes has already been convicted (subject to fruitless appeals) of crimes for which he will probably be imprisoned, it is highly likely that any additional IRS investigation is running strictly on the civil side -- an investigation into exactly how much money he and his companies actually owe.

If that is the case, the IRS will have immediate access to all information the plaintiff possesses via a third-party subpoena. And, as stated above, Snipes reliance on the 5th amendment will simply strengthen the IRS' argument that the plaintiff's records are accurate.

[LPC]

The plaintiffs (the people suing Snipes) have made specific allegations of facts which support their case.

By refusing to be deposed, Snipes has allowed these unrebutted allegations to stand as facts.

I think it's a little more complicated than that.

Snipes has probably denied the allegations in the complaint already, so now the plaintiffs need to come up with some evidence to support the allegations in their complaint. The suit is for commissions, so I assume that the central issue is whether Snipes owes additional commissions on income that he received, and the amount of the income is in dispute. The plaintiffs are therefore trying to get evidence of Snipes's income from Snipes.

The major difference between a criminal prosecution and a civil suit is that in a civil suit the assertion of a 5th Amendment privilege allows the other side to draw an adverse inference. (In a criminal case, the jury is not allowed to draw any inferences from the defendant's lack of testimony.) But what does an adverse inference mean in this case?

As I said, the plaintiffs have probably alleged that Snipes received additional income, and the assertion of the 5th Amendment for fear of tax prosecution would allow an inference that the allegation is correct. But how much more income? The adverse inference does not allow the court to just make up a number, so the plaintiffs are still going to have to come up with some evidence allowing the trier of fact to make some kind of reasonable determination of the income Snipes received.

So I see continuing problems for the plaintiffs as they try to reconstruct Snipes's income.

And if I were the plaintiffs, I think I would want the IRS to hurry up its investigation, and I might even ask the court to delay proceedings until the IRS either completes its criminal investigation and possible prosecution (so that the 5th Amendment would no longer apply) or completes its tax deficiency procedure (which the plaintiffs might be able to learn about from Snipes even if the IRS will not disclose it).

[Weston White]

It is surprising that Snipes' legal team does not recognize that, in civil proceedings, the use of one's 5th Amendment rights has the opposite effect than what was intended.

The plaintiffs (the people suing Snipes) have made specific allegations of facts which support their case.

By refusing to be deposed, Snipes has allowed these unrebutted allegations to stand as facts.

Snipes has seriously weakened his defense in the civil case while doing absolutely nothing to protect himself in the alleged IRS investigation into himself and his companies.

Since Snipes has already been convicted (subject to fruitless appeals) of crimes for which he will probably be imprisoned, it is highly likely that any additional IRS investigation is running strictly on the civil side -- an investigation into exactly how much money he and his companies actually owe.

If that is the case, the IRS will have immediate access to all information the plaintiff possesses via a third-party subpoena. And, as stated above, Snipes reliance on the 5th amendment will simply strengthen the IRS' argument that the plaintiff's records are accurate.

Yea and it does not really matter how accurate the records are so far as Snipes is concerned, being that he is alleging they contract with through another party and not he himself. Therefore it is not him that owes them their dues it is the other party and that being the case why does Snipes need to say anything about the contract one way or the other, it is not relevant to his circumstance. Sort of like trying to get the wrong criminal to describe the chain of events.