Originally posted by Skyfloating
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Yes, you are right, I have not created a thread regarding the tax code.
The average attention span on ATS and Internet-Discussion Boards in general would not make the thread a success imo.
Ha ha ha! I had originally written a pithy reply that explained I was tired of seeing "TLDR" in my threads but then thought I would dance around that
issue instead. I agree, such a thread would die quickly. My hope is that if I just keep being my pedantic self and repeating over and over again in
OPT (Other People Threads) that until people know how it was they became liable to begin with, it is pretty absurd to just hand over the money.
That said, the irony of such a thread would be that anyone who did understand what was being explained would only understand that the tax code cannot
be understood. This was Wesley Snipes greatest mistake in my opinion. His defense should have been the truth, which is that he doesn't understand
the tax code. That the guy who stupidly advised him to correspond with the IRS (Eddie Ray Khan) in the way Snipes did was also convicted only
demonstrates how very little Snipes understood about the tax code.
Had Snipes - from the beginning of his troubles - simply told the truth and declared he did not understand the tax code, and assuming his resistance
to paying the tax in question came from the fact that he understood the law, this defense would have been a much stronger defense. Had he had an
attorney smart enough to understand this that attorney's opening statement to the jury would have been something like this:
"Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, my client has been charged with "conspiring to defraud the United States", "knowingly making a false or fraudulent
claim for payment against the United States" and finally "failure to file federal income tax returns". The simple truth of the matter is this; my
client does not understand the tax code, but that's not the only truth here. The truth is, that judge sitting up there doesn't understand the tax
code any better than Mr. Snipes does. I surely don't understand the tax code, and the prosecution? I guarantee you they do not understand the tax
code any more than any of you on the jury understand the tax code, and let's be honest here, not a single one of you in this jury understand the tax
code. We will prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt that this is true; that no one- absolutely no one - understands the tax code.
"The federal government has brought you here to determine the innocence or guilt of Mr. Snipes. You, the members of the jury are expected to look at
the law and determine whether or not Mr. Snipes knowingly disobeyed that law. Good luck with that. As you will see throughout this trial, the tax
collectors and prosecution, and to some degree the judge, will operate under all kinds of assumptions, but once forced to support their contentions
the best anyone of them can do is point to the very narrow scope of case law, or worse, point to the absurdly tautological game of semantics of the
tax code in a hopeless attempt to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Mr. Snipes is indeed subject to this strange five volume set with millions
of words tax code. The prosecution will dramatically failing in proving anything other than they don't understand the tax code they are using to
prosecute my client, the defendant, Mr. Snipes.
"If Mr. Snipes doesn't understand the tax code, and if I don't understand the tax code, nor the judge, prosecutors and tax collectors understand the
tax code, and finally, if you the jury don't understand the tax code, how can you determine any other fact about Mr Snipes innocence or guilt than he
is not guilty? Who among you would actually convict this man for not understanding the tax code? No, ladies and gentleman of the jury, the federal
government doesn't want you to convict Mr. Snipes for not understanding the tax code, they want you to convict him because he had the audacity of
actually reading the tax code and attempting to understand it.
"No one of demonstrably reasonable intelligence can be held liable or subject to any act of legislation that is impossible to understand, that is the
law, and under the law, the only reasonable verdict here would be to acquit my client, the defendant, Mr. Snipes of all charges."
edit on 25-2-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)