reply to post by TheRedneck
And the headlines the next day will show the arrests made at Western Union and report how many billions of dollars worth of assets have been seized...
and that Western Union will be closed indefinitely.
This is no where near the truth and is just you reifying, nothing more. If you had any evidence to support this wild claim, one could reasonably
assume you would have offered that evidence up, instead you just make a wild claim, nothing more.
If Western Union freezes your money, and were directed to do so by government, there is nothing at all unlawful about simply saying this is the reason
the money has been frozen. Governments can try, or suggest Western Union not divulge the reason, but if that government were to do what you so wildly
claimed they'd have their asses handed to them in a court of law. Dear Lord! Governments seizing assets and closing down a company indefinitely
simply because they told the truth? What world do you live in?
That is the reality of the times we live in.
Oh, I see. This world. Okay. Here's the deal, many like you like to pretend that somehow law was mystically and magically overturned because
suddenly "the world we live in" just got too "dangerous" to actually abide by law anymore, but this is only the times we live in for the poor ignorant
saps who buy into your sycophantic praise of tyranny.
Western Union was not deputized into the super secret spy world of government because "this is the reality of the times we live in" and law was not
overturned. Certainly in the United States, Congress cannot just willy nilly shrug their collective shoulders as smugly as you are doing now and
declare: "Oh well, that law that gave us authority to exist to begin with no longer counts because...well, it is "the reality of the world we live
in". Lord knows Congresspeople attempt to claim this, and perhaps you don't pay much attention to the many acts of legislation and other unlawful
acts the executive branch have engaged in that have been declared unlawful by the Supreme Court.
The law remains the law and your wild ass claim is just your little fantasy of "the reality of the world we live in".
As for the IRS, are you aware that any 'court' proceedings involving the IRS are not handled by the Judicial Branch? They are, by law, tried in an
Executive Branch department called, conveniently, the "Tax Court".
Wesley Snipes was not convicted in a "tax court" and ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Cases are prohibited from being appealed to the Judicial Branch. You cannot sue the IRS before a US district court.
First of all, I don't know why you brought up suing the IRS, because I certainly never did, however, any IRS agent or any other tax collector who acts
unlawfully, acting under color of law, simulating legal process, and generally misapplying the law can not only be sued, but can be also tried for
criminal charges. Your imaginary government official that can act with impunity is non existent, and only the ignorant buy into your claims.
That is the reality of the times we live in.
That's right, sport. Keep repeating the propaganda loud enough and long enough, I'm sure some people will believe it.
During an official investigation, a citizen may be directed to lie. Refusal to lie will result in that citizen being prosecuted for impeding the
investigation. And yes, the charge will stick.
That right there is a lie. Here is the difference between your lie and the "lie" you claim a "citizen" can be directed to tell. You have the right
to lie in this site without fear of repercussion. If an "official" directs someone - a private person - to lie and that private person refuses to do
so the prosecution can attempt to claim obstruction of justice, but it will not stick. In fact, if a prosecutor actually pushes this, and once the
judge wisely dismisses it, that dismissal becomes prima facie evidence as to the prosecutor and whichever "investigator" who made the accusation to
begin with criminality, and the private person falsely accused of obstruction of justice simply because he refused to lie has the lawful authority to
file a verified complaint and have those thugs prosecuted, and no judge can dismiss that!
Again, welcome to the 21st century.
No, you clearly do not agree with me, and I never presented this as "how things should be", I presented facts of law. You, on the other hand, have
resorted to repeated propaganda, as if it were your personal mantra.
Welcome to the law.
edit on 16-5-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)