It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by Demoncreeper
So, you are Canadian. Why are you lecturing US taxpayers then? What do you care what us crazy Americans think anyway?
You have the bloody Queen of England on your money and you presume to look down your runny nose at us? Pfff!
gtfokk thanks
[edit on 26-8-2010 by Smack]
His "standards" are premised upon fantasy. There are no "threats" made of any offensive physical contact in the issuance of a tax warrant. Moreover, your subjective perception is irrelevant under the "reasonable man" standard of the common law.
Warrants were issued for 7,000 taxpayers, and many of them showed up at the same time, eager to set up payments on overdue state taxes to avoid arrest.
A Tax Warrant authorizes the sheriff to seize PROPERTY to satisfy a tax lien, nothing more. With a warrant, the Sheriff can garnish bank accounts and wages; conduct auctions of real and personal property. He CANNOT take anyone into custody!
If your taxes and penalties go unpaid, the Department issues a tax warrant to the county clerk, notifying the clerk that you owe a tax debt. The clerk gives the warrant to the county sheriff or a collection agency to collect your outstanding tax debt. Methods for collection include placing a lien on your property, selling your property at auction, levying your bank account or garnishing your wages. Read more: Penalty for Not Filing State Taxes in Indiana | eHow.com www.ehow.com...
Indiana has several penalties in place if you fail to file a state tax return. In most circumstances, the penalty is a civil fine. However, failure to file a tax return could result in criminal charges. These penalties are an effort to deter tax payers from not filing or paying annual state taxes. Read more: Penalty for Not Filing State Taxes in Indiana | eHow.com www.ehow.com...
Did none of you realize that there is no such thing as "debtor's prison" in Indiana, or the United States?
Herman Button listened in stunned silence as a judge in Perry County, Ind., threatened him with jail time unless he agreed to pay $25 a month toward an eight-year-old housing debt.
Unemployed and living on a disability check, Button decided to fight back after the January 2009 hearing. He and an attorney from Indiana Legal Services appealed, citing the Indiana Constitution's Bill of Rights, which says "there shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in case of fraud."
To Button's surprise, a state Appeals Court judge agreed. "I'm no lawyer, but I knew we abolished debtors prisons in this country a very long time ago," said Button, 50, who now lives in Hawesville, Ky.
"We have created a de facto debtors prison system in the United States that is largely unconstitutional," said Judith Fox, a law professor at Notre Dame Law School. "In some parts of the country, people are so fearful of arrest they are scrambling to pay money they might not even owe."
In states such as Indiana and Illinois, people are being locked up for not making court-ordered payments. Known as "pay or stay," it can mean days in jail and multiple arrests for the same debt. Some legal experts say the practice is unconstitutional because the arrest is directly linked to the failure to pay a debt.
Yes, "debtors' prisons" were condemned more than a century ago, and it's not a crime to be in debt. But thousands of Americans -- and hundreds of Northwest Indiana residents -- are getting tossed in the clinker after not showing up in court to make bill payment arrangements or to plead their case in front of a judge.
"Nobody is thrown in jail for not paying (their bills)," said Porter Superior Judge David Chidester. "People are jailed because they fail to appear for three consecutive court appearances and they are held in contempt of court for failing to appear."
But I spoke to a dozen or so debtor-defendants who were summoned to court or arrested for not appearing at court hearings, and many told me they never saw a judge during the entire collections process.
"I was told I couldn't talk to a judge, so I eventually left," said Leanna Alexander, 66, of Gary, arrested three years ago for an outstanding bench warrant. "I was treated like a criminal, not a law-abiding citizen."
Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by mnemeth1
I said threats - threats - threats of violence.
Threating to arrest someone for not paying their taxes is a violent threat against their person.
If you don't pay, bad things are physically going to happen to you.
No, you didn't. Read your own title if you are afraid to admit it.
You have NOT YET shown any proof of a threat of arrest or any other "violence."
Your thread is a lie.
Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Originally posted by Lightrule
I don't pay any taxes, I have stated this before.
-Lightrule
Then why are you crying like a baby about taxes??
Hey... I'm Canadian...
Really, think about it. Lets ALL join hands, leap off and sing how paper is the root of all our problems.
You have used your subjectivity as a tax collector, (that would be a person who makes a living by collecting taxes, and is also paid money to collect taxes by taxes, which when it comes to any objective truth regarding the enforcement of tax collection it is arguable you have a deep conflict of interest regarding truth), to attack the O.P.'s standards.
Under common law, a reasonable person will consider these factors before acting; a.) the foreseeable risk of harm of his actions v. the utility of his actions; b.) the extent of the risk so created; c.) the likelihood such risk will actually cause harm to others; and finally, d.) any alternatives of lesser risk, and the costs of those alternatives.
The likelihood that your actions will cause harm to others is far greater than that of the O.P.'s at this point.
The O.P. has apparently weighed his actions a tax collector and alternative lesser risks and chose the latter, you on the other hand clearly choose to remain a tax collector and avoid objective truth in favor of character assassination and bold unsupported claims. Who is the reasonable man between you?
There is no subjectivity in reading a statue.
There is nothing subjective about a FINAL judgment that states that X owes $$$ in overdue taxes on YYY property, located at ZZZZ.
Originally posted by jdub297
Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I think there was also irony in:
This thread was premised on "threats of violence" and "arrests;" not the legitimacy of taxation: "7000 Citizens Violently Threatened By The State of Indiana."
vs.
I deal with final judgments, which are debts. In many states these are capable of being satisfied through garnishment ( a "stern letter" to the bank or fiduciary) or sale.
Do any of you contend that people should be free to walk away from ALL of their legal and financial obligations, or just some that you can pick and choose?
Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne
How do you explain the legality of welfare? People are receiving government benefits but not paying for them. By your own words, this appears unethical.
Welfare is a benefit that you, me, or anyone should have access to if we are in a time of need. It's like ensurance. We should pay for it in case we ever need it.
Welfare is only unethical if the person on welfare doesn't pay taxes at some point in their life. Welfare doesn't last forever.. and not everybody can get it (well so they say). Sooner or later that person on welfare will have to pay taxes, so, why not have that service?
I despise those who abuse it, and I think something should be done about those who are too lazy to at least try to get off of it. But the service is just another benefit that we all should have at our fingertips to make the world a better place.
If you are against welfare, well why don't you do something about it?
Are you claiming these people were ALL given a final judgment that their taxes were owed... Or did the tax collection agency decide to mail out some letters stating if you don't pay us we (or we will get someone who) will arrest you or your property. The latter is most likely the case. Although, I'm not sure.
There is no subjectivity in reading a statue.
The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results.
You, the OP, and others seem to think that the "Rule of Law" stops when it comes to honoring a FINAL judicial determination of rights.
You have bastardized the objective "reasonable man" standard into a subjective analysis based upon false false assumptions.
You have no idea how or by whom I am compensated. I assure you that taxes are not in any way part of my income. Even so, you presume a "conflict of interest" where none exists.
In my career I have been an advocate AGAINST the government longer than I have for any other client, including civil and criminal governmental agencies.
To speak, plead, or argue in favor of.
Read the statutes (as the OP should have before accepting a reporter's conclusions as fact.)
The OP did not quote the article or the reporter; he didn't even cite the reporter as authority, he merely linked a misinformed news story.
The OP applied his own biased and unsupportable interpretations to create a thread titled: "7000 Citizens Violently Threatened ... ." Those are his words and they are without foundation.
Anyone who assumes the role to "report" should verify his sources and their authority. The OP either chose not to, or ignored the truth.
Either way, the thread is a lie.
That is a TORT standard. Filing tax warrants can not ever be construed as a tort.
Again, you misapply and misrepresent facts to suit some agenda other than an objective analysis of the underlying actions that prompted the OP to post a false thread.
My actions will never result in a person's arrest. Your undefined, subjective, use of the term "harm" is so vague as to be meaningless. In the case of taxes, it is relative: harm to the public coffers and the "Rule of Law" supporting civil judgments v. harm to lawfully-taxed assets.
1. Physical or psychological injury or damage.
2. Wrong; evil.
Objective truth? You imply that I am a liar when I point out the false statement of the OP's thread. I have not attacked the OP; I exposed show the falseness of his assertions.
What "bold unsupported claims" have I made?
This thread is premised upon exactly such bold unsupported claims.
Even the OP has devolved to the position of "This is what I read," or "This is what it might lead to;" neither of which serve to justify his false assertions.
deny ignorance
So what are you claiming exactly?
That confiscating money from people is done so without any threats of violence?
That the seizing of private property by the government is a totally peaceful act?
That the threats of tax warrants is a totally civil and peaceful thing with no implied coercion or threats?
Is that what you are arguing?
So 7000 people, some old and handicapped, packed a downtown building on a single day because government politely asked them to pay their taxes?
She should then have every right to sue me in court for every penny she is owed that I fail to pay her in full. If I owe her $75 for a message, then I have to pay Jane Smith the promised $75. If people make a promise to pay someone money, then they should keep their promise... not just part of it, but all of it.
Wage garnishment is a simple parlor trick that disguises the unprovoked violence of the state.