Demosthenes wrote:And furthermore, a not guilty verdict in a criminal case doesn't set a precedent for any future cases. Just because OJ was acquitted, does that mean that murder is now legal?
Again, not a lawyer... but isn't there a thing called "case law?" (Yes, I'm doing research while we chat, LOL.)
I mean, if an aquittal does not affect any other case, why then does the IRS bother listing cases? Why does anyone bother looking up Supreme Court decisions, if the case has no bearing on any other case?
Duke2Earl wrote:I'm sorry this is too complicated for you but it really is quite simple. She was always guilty of failing to pay tax that she legally owed.
Forgive my ignorance, but why then would that not have been at issue in the CRIMINAL case, where issues of whether or not someone did or did not do something legally required are settled? Why use two different courts, and more importantly, why use the CIVIL court to punish for what your own statement indicates would be a CRIMINAL issue??
Again, forgive me, but crime is not ONLY about intent. If it were, "involuntary manslaughter" would not be a criminal charge. Similarly, Kuglin should have been charged for failing to pay taxes in CRIMINAL court if she had broken a law.
See how it doesn't add up for me?
Do you understand the difference between fialure to pay and intentional evasion?
Duke2Earl wrote:I'm sorry this is too complicated for you but it really is quite simple. She was always guilty of failing to pay tax that she legally owed.
Forgive my ignorance, but why then would that not have been at issue in the CRIMINAL case, where issues of whether or not someone did or did not do something legally required are settled? Why use two different courts, and more importantly, why use the CIVIL court to punish for what your own statement indicates would be a CRIMINAL issue??
Again, forgive me, but crime is not ONLY about intent. If it were, "involuntary manslaughter" would not be a criminal charge. Similarly, Kuglin should have been charged for failing to pay taxes in CRIMINAL court if she had broken a law.
See how it doesn't add up for me?
Does the word "willful" appear in the criminal statutes involving involuntary manslaughter?
Nikki wrote:The civil case never went to a stage where a transcript would be available.
She rolled over and admitted that she owed the taxes and agreed to a repayment plan that left her taking home something around minimum wage level PLUS having to pay taxes on her full earnings before the garnishments.
Call it a win if you want, but she's looking at many years of subsistence living off a significant income.
Given that information, it sounds to me like it was a simple case of economics then...
The IRS could bring to bear near-infinite funds to fight her while her own resources were sharply restricted. This situation leads any individual to "roll over" in order to simply survive... principle tends to diminish when your family is starving, don't you agree?
Forgive my ignorance, but why then would that not have been at issue in the CRIMINAL case, where issues of whether or not someone did or did not do something legally required are settled? Why use two different courts, and more importantly, why use the CIVIL court to punish for what your own statement indicates would be a CRIMINAL issue??
Suppose I walk out of a restaurant and pick up your coat from the coat rack by the door. I get prosecuted for theft in criminal court. I get acquitted of theft, because the jury finds that I made an honest mistake-- your coat looks a lot like mine, even though your is newer and more expensive.
Does that mean you can't sue me in civil court to get your coat back?
Nikki wrote:Do you understand the difference between fialure to pay and intentional evasion?
Obviously, I see the difference between them... but not insofar as a CRIME is concerned... if BOTH are CRIMES (it seems that they might be, at least in a cursory examination of the law), then BOTH should have been in CRIMINAL court.
Crimes are dealt with in Criminal Court are they not?
Dr. Caligari wrote:Suppose I walk out of a restaurant and pick up your coat from the coat rack by the door. I get prosecuted for theft in criminal court. I get acquitted of theft, because the jury finds that I made an honest mistake-- your coat looks a lot like mine, even though your is newer and more expensive.
Does that mean you can't sue me in civil court to get your coat back?
Obvious question: Why would I not have gotten my coat back after the criminal case, since it was evidence in that case??
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.
Postby Imalawman »
ShadesOfKnight wrote:
Nikki wrote:Do you understand the difference between fialure to pay and intentional evasion?
Obviously, I see the difference between them... but not insofar as a CRIME is concerned... if BOTH are CRIMES (it seems that they might be, at least in a cursory examination of the law), then BOTH should have been in CRIMINAL court.
Crimes are dealt with in Criminal Court are they not?
You know, you really should do some homework before arguing on here. Your lack of understanding of even basic ideals of law is simply staggering. I'm guessing you're a younger person - maybe 16ish? This fine, but do the work, then come back. Seriously, it would save so much time if you did some research before postulating your TP theories.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
ShadesOfKnight wrote:...
I mean, if an aquittal does not affect any other case, why then does the IRS bother listing cases? Why does anyone bother looking up Supreme Court decisions, if the case has no bearing on any other case?
You're trying to over-simplify the issue. The IRS's listing of cases has nothing to do with any given aquittal.
An acquittal in a criminal case normally does not affect the validity of the law/statute involved. It merely means the prosecutor did not make his or her case convincing beyond reasonable doubt.
Only if a matter of law were to be raised and ruled on would there be a ruling that might be published and then cited - if it survives appeal, of course.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy. The Devil Makes Three
Nikki wrote:The civil case never went to a stage where a transcript would be available.
She rolled over and admitted that she owed the taxes and agreed to a repayment plan that left her taking home something around minimum wage level PLUS having to pay taxes on her full earnings before the garnishments.
Call it a win if you want, but she's looking at many years of subsistence living off a significant income.
Given that information, it sounds to me like it was a simple case of economics then...
The IRS could bring to bear near-infinite funds to fight her while her own resources were sharply restricted. This situation leads any individual to "roll over" in order to simply survive... principle tends to diminish when your family is starving, don't you agree?
You seem to have inferred that she rolled over because she couldn't afford to defend herself. It is more likely that she rolled over because her attorney told her she couldn't win because she was wrong about the law. As I recall, she didn't actually seem to have a legal theory behind her failure to file.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
Nikki wrote:Do you understand the difference between fialure to pay and intentional evasion?
Obviously, I see the difference between them... but not insofar as a CRIME is concerned... if BOTH are CRIMES (it seems that they might be, at least in a cursory examination of the law), then BOTH should have been in CRIMINAL court.
Crimes are dealt with in Criminal Court are they not?
Instead of blathering here, take a time out and actually read the law. One of the above is a civil violation, punishable by a slap on the wrist, financial penalties, interest, and the requirement to pay the taxes.
The other is a criminal violation, punmishable by imprisonment.
If you disagree with that logic, go whine to your local congress critter. They're the ones who wrote the laws.
CaptainKickback wrote:Cops lost the coat, the other person lost your coat, moths ate it while it was held by party(ies) other than yourself.
There is film footage of the guy taking your coat, but he steps outside as a tanker truck explodes, destroying your coat, but saving him.
Ridiculous? Yes. But it serves to make a point.
It does, but it all falls apart when we bring the example back to the reality:
I steal your money. It looks just like your money, only yours is newer.
The state has the power to simply steal money back from me and give it to you. Nothing can make the money "disappear" or be damaged beyond restoration...
So, why then could this not be resolved wholly in criminal court?
Imalawman wrote:You know, you really should do some homework before arguing on here. Your lack of understanding of even basic ideals of law is simply staggering. I'm guessing you're a younger person - maybe 16ish? This fine, but do the work, then come back. Seriously, it would save so much time if you did some research before postulating your TP theories.
And another assholier-than-thou moment... all within a few hours. It's getting tiresome, and I see now why "TPs" would dismiss you all as easliy and off-handedly as you dismiss them. No one likes dealing with an asshole.
A federal tax lien has been filed against Vernice Kuglin for $188,025.
This is Kuglin's latest tax lien, with others dating all the way back to 1999, according to The Daily News Online, http://www.memphisdailynews.com.
Kuglin had been engaged in a battle with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for more than 10 years. That's when she decided she would no longer pay taxes until the IRS had answered some questions she had, according to court documents.
In the mid-1990s, Kuglin wrote the IRS asking why she had to pay income taxes, but her letters were ignored, she testified during a five-day trial in 2003 in the Clifford Davis Federal Building in Memphis.
Kuglin eventually was acquitted on charges of evading $920,000 in income and filing false Form W-4s from 1996 to 2001. She has since given up her fight against paying taxes, according to a Sept. 10, 2004,Commercial Appeal story.
Apparently Kuglin, who at the time was described as a FedEx pilot, agreed to pay more than $500,000 in back taxes and penalties on six years of income.
Judge Roy Bean wrote:You're trying to over-simplify the issue.
True, I am seeking a simple answer to this issue, which BOTH sides claim is simple.
Only if a matter of law were to be raised and ruled on would there be a ruling that might be published and then cited - if it survives appeal, of course.
Which is what makes the Kuglin item really interesting that the Criminal Courts did not deal with the matter of whether or not there was a law... it seems that it would have been a slamdunk and an end to the whole shebang; no need for civil court.
Imalawman wrote:You know, you really should do some homework before arguing on here. Your lack of understanding of even basic ideals of law is simply staggering. I'm guessing you're a younger person - maybe 16ish? This fine, but do the work, then come back. Seriously, it would save so much time if you did some research before postulating your TP theories.
And another assholier-than-thou moment... all within a few hours. It's getting tiresome, and I see now why "TPs" would dismiss you all as easliy and off-handedly as you dismiss them. No one likes dealing with an asshole.
Suggesting you know something about a subject you have strong opinions on is being an asshole? Who knew?
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
Quixote wrote:You seem to have inferred that she rolled over because she couldn't afford to defend herself.
Actually, it's a reasonable position. The government, if they decide it's important, can bring to bear more resources against any alleged criminal than the criminal can hope to match. Given that this was in civil court where the rules are different, it starts to almost sound logical.
It is more likely that she rolled over because her attorney told her she couldn't win because she was wrong about the law. As I recall, she didn't actually seem to have a legal theory behind her failure to file.
But we have no way to support that conclusion; no offense meant, but thus far there's no transcript and no way to substantiate your recollection. I don't deny that it's fact, only that I can't substantiate it.
Demosthenes wrote:Guess who was in the press this week?
This very story is one of the reasons I concluded that she was arguing the law requiring her to file... It's very hard to keep the stories (hers, Russo's, the media, and the IRS) straight and come to any semblance of hard fact.
Location: The Deep South, so deep I'm almost in Rhode Island.
Postby Randall »
ShadesOfKnight wrote:
CaptainKickback wrote:Cops lost the coat, the other person lost your coat, moths ate it while it was held by party(ies) other than yourself.
There is film footage of the guy taking your coat, but he steps outside as a tanker truck explodes, destroying your coat, but saving him.
Ridiculous? Yes. But it serves to make a point.
It does, but it all falls apart when we bring the example back to the reality:
I steal your money. It looks just like your money, only yours is newer.
The state has the power to simply steal money back from me and give it to you. Nothing can make the money "disappear" or be damaged beyond restoration...
So, why then could this not be resolved wholly in criminal court?
The state does not have the power to steal. Try again.
