Wesley Snipes gets max sentence of 3 years in prison for not filing federal income tax
Posted on April 24th, 2008 by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, 16th Amendment, collectivism, crime, Denzel Washington, freedom, Internal Revenue Service, liberty, New Jersey, police, police state, politics, precious metal, taxes, United States, Wesley Snipes, William Hodges, Woody HarrelsonWesley Snipes was sentenced to 36 months in prison Thursday, the maximum sentence allowed.
Snipes was convicted of three misdemeanor charges for not filing his taxes.
During the sentencing, Snipes did apologize.
“I asked this court to show me mercy and the opportunity to set things right,” Snipes said. “This will never happen again. I am very sorry for my mistakes or my errors.”
He added, “being in the spotlight attracts loving fans, and jackals.”
However, the judge indicated that deterrent was an important factor in tax cases.
“There’s nothing unusual about prosecuting a celebrity,” Judge William Hodges said. “[Snipes] never mentioned the words tax or taxes in his apology.”
Prosecutors, too, sought the maximum sentence to deter others from attempting to avoid tax payments.
“We think it sends a real message,” U.S. Attorney Robert O’Neill said. “Again you have to pay your taxes. If you dispute the taxes you owe, contact the IRS and go through the formal process. To continually just say, ‘I don’t owe taxes, you must show me why I owe taxes,’ it seemed his position was ludicrous.”
Snipes was not forced to surrender immediately. Instead the judge said he can surrender at a later date, somewhere nearer to his New Jersey home.
Snipes’ defense team spent the morning arguing that he should not have to go to prison.
Snipes had appeared confident when he arrived at the federal courthouse Thursday morning.
In the pre-sentencing report, the probation department said that Snipes’ conduct could be construed as trying to obstruct the investigation. The report said that could be grounds to increase Snipes’ jail time.
Snipes had many character witness letters written by friends, including Woody Harrelson and Denzel Washington.
From the beginning I wished he would have argued his case on the basis that taxation is theft and an illegitimate action. His defense was instead that he had come to understand that he wasn’t required to pay. The whole 16th Amendment wasn’t ratified, only corporations and resident aliens are required to pay type arguments are pointless. Time and time again the government court system has ruled those as frivolous. They have the guns so what they judge is what it is… not what the words on paper happen to be. I’m disappointed in his apology. These thugs don’t care that you’ve not harmed anyone… that no real crime has occurred. You aren’t the aggressor, they are. They are in the wrong. God forbid a man should desire to keep the fruits of his labor. That a man wish not to be a slave to the state which by demanding a portion of our income at the threat of violence makes us little more then property of the almighty government. That if they can take 1% they can take 100%… they own it all and let you keep some of it. They claim to own your property, your labor, your life. All this done instituted through violence in order to protect you from violence.
I don’t know what options he has available to him in the legal realm but I think I’d consider taking off to some foreign country which doesn’t have extradition treaties with the USA. That is if he has any money left that he can access. I would have bought a lot of precious metal and stored it overseas before any of this shit occurred.
4 Responses to “Wesley Snipes gets max sentence of 3 years in prison for not filing federal income tax”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
The 16th amendment ratification story has been thrown out in other cases so that would go nowhere. People can try to argue that they did not personally agree to whatever law that they don’t care for, but can’t this country and it’s laws be analogous to some ridiculous club with ridiculous rules. Just like companies or states can compete for people, shouldn’t countries be competing for people as well? Essentially the US government has claims to this country and in effect has a monopoly of force on your property, labor and life. It doesn’t matter if you were born within the borders of this country. You don’t have any rights that aren’t granted to you by this outside power unless you are able to defend it with the same level of effective force as the US government. As that song goes, "the only reason you are alive is because someone else has decided to let you live". Much like the way this land was stolen from the original inhabitants, a true secession means stealing the land from the US government and successfully defending it. Until then there’s just coping with the fact that this is not the land of the free.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:29 am
No it can’t be analogous to a club. A club is voluntarily joined. A person raised in a particular country has no choice. It’s not as if when we reach some arbitrary age our government says: "OK… you have to make a choice. Either you agree to stay here and follow the rules we’ve created or you can leave. Sign on the dotted line please." They lie to you. They tell you that if you pay for a plot of land that it’s yours. Well it’s not. They say your body is yours. It’s not. They lie to people and then give them no voluntary way to back out without having to play their game. Why is it that some ethereal entity call "government" has allodial title to all the land in what is called the USA? Because King George, or the French, or the Mexicans gave it to them? How are you to sustain yourself long enough to leave if you wanted to is they claim ownership of your life and property. What if their rules are that you can’t leave like many authoritarian countries? Sorry but you can keep your social contract. Just because you have the guns doesn’t make you right. Using violence to get your way is neither a legitimate or efficient way of treating a fellow sentient being.
As for competing countries… sure. True competition requires true voluntary action though. As distances lengthen (not just physical but government) the practicality of moving decreases greatly. If, for example, you are born in a land locked government jurisdiction… does that mean that if none of the surrounding areas will let you pass through or over it’s OK for the government in you current location to do as it pleases to you? If you "own" your land why should you be forced to move?
That’s a egoistical way of thinking. That implies that people actively think about you living or dying and decides whether or not to let you live. You are not that important.
And as coping means: To contend with difficulties and act to overcome them… I will continue to fight to overcome tyranny.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Ok forget a club. How about a gated community that your parents voluntarily joined before you were born. But you don’t agree to this community’s oppressive rules, even though most everyone else is fine with it. On top of this you have some physical problem hindering you from leaving the community. What rights are you entitled to while being essentially trapped in this community? As far as allodial title to the land, the government(s) has it because there’s no one to challenge them (yet). Legitimacy or morality towards your fellow man has nothing to do with this. Force can only be dealt with force or at least the perceived threat of force. Trying to bring understanding to government officials about the evils of their ways is futile since their power comes by means of trampling over people’s lives. Solidarity with large masses of like minded individuals interested in freedom gets its potential for change with threat that it represents. When there’s no one left to trample the institution will crumble.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I don’t care what the institution is. It’s wrong and inefficient to aggress against a person who has not aggressed against you. They have no obligation to help you to the boarder of their community but they are in the wrong to harm you in response to not leaving. They let you stay, they can ask you to leave, merely staying their does not warrant say death… especially if you are willing but incapable of doing so. It is a proportional response. It’s in their interest to assist you out of the community. Violence is expensive. Most people don’t perform it directly. It’s simply a lie to claim otherwise. People know that violence generally begets violence. They sanction violence through ignorant consent and abstraction. As the government grows in jurisdiction these inefficient and illegitimate rules affect more people. Why do freedom fighters who otherwise support open boarders fight the NAU? Not because of the integration which will occur at the social level but the government which will be placed on top of what we have now.
Yes it does. The fact people are ignorant and lazy are why they legitimize and ignore the immoral actions taken by government.