Rich Wyatt Arrested for Theft

[Gman]

Again, I wish there were a "like" button on this forum, and I'm going to nag and nag until I get one (just kidding).

The 'like button' revolution!!!

[GilpinGuy]

"I'm certainly no fan of the British Crown, or any earthly crown and I think the British Monarchy, for the most part, far exceeds it's [sic] authority. Having said that, I've had an importation license and tea business. I played by the rules even when I didn't agree with them and it was a pain in the ass at times. But, because I did that, the Red Coats never bothered me. At all. Washington knew the rules and he chose to break them. I don't have any issues with him paying for the choices he made." Long live the king!

-just sayin'

I guess all the FFLs could throw their guns in a the ocean or a lake in protest. I did that, but, tragically, it was accidental.

[Irving]

That which "we" put in place is a far cry from what's in place. In view of principles, the present mafia deserves a swifter ass kicking that any illegitimate "king" ever did.

Further, the very things which "we" now see as "legal" and "constitutional" were held to be illegal and unconstitutional. To skirt that, the "government" simply made a law saying it can do whatever the hell it wants (16th Amendment) and then the "judicial" branch ratified that -- similar to the debacle of Obamacare insofar as exceeding its bounds of rule with no consequence -- in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1; its primary argumentative thrust being the 16th Amendment.

And while the argument of involuntary servitude was "ruled" to be legally frivolous in Porth v. Brodrick, United States Collector of Internal Revenue for the State of Kansas, let's be frank: money is merely a proxy for a man's time and labor -- especially as it concerns the direct taxation of income (which seems to have a creeping scale towards everything as time goes on). Ergo, if a person must pay X% of Y income, they are, without recourse, being forced to effectively work in proxy for the US "government" (and state) some portion of the year -- and not for an effort but simply a blank check being forced by and written to the US "government". For myself, that subtends to about 2 weeks a year. For others, less or more. When other avenues are available but abandoned, this essentially constitutes theft.

Pursuant to the ATF, an agency with no oversight, checks or balances, they essentially act with impunity as if an organizational Cromwell, fabricating rules and enforcing them at the expense of the citizens (if that term can even be used at this point).

Let me put it clearly: the Founding Fathers straight killed the agents of the Crown and riled up an entire fledgling nation for far less.

The defense of "the .gov said so cus the .gov made a rule saying it can say so" is laughingly circular.

Depending on how much I owe, I think I have to work from 1 to 3 months. 2 weeks seems like very little in the context of your argument.

I've decided to learn how to better avoid taxes as my small form of rebellion.

[buffalobo]

Tax evasion is a crime, tax avoidance is an art.

[Fmedges]

Tax evasion is a crime, tax avoidance is an art.

Everybody just has to pay their fair share.

[Singlestack]

Yup, whatever the hell that means. (Yeah, I know, libs think the fair share is whatever they say it is).

[Eric P]

Have no problem paying for defence, veterans care, law enforcement and transportation infrastructure . That's it.

Everything else is wasteful and unneeded. Pay for your own care, food and housing. Combined taxes should be no more than 10% of anyone's income.

Charity can take care of the social safety nets.

[Gman]

State sovereignty has been terribly eroded by the carrot of federal money taken from the workers of those states...but that's a subject for a different thread.

[BushMasterBoy]

Rich Wyatt will be living at the taxpayers expense now. Unless he gets probation. I am assuming all assets will be forfeited. Where will his family live? Do we have to pay for that too?

[Circuits]

I am assuming all assets will be forfeited.

Why would presume something stupid like that?

Proceeds of the criminal activity may be seized, or personal assets attached as part of restitution settlements, or to pay court fees and fines, or to pay attorney's fees, but just being convicted of a crime or crimes does not forfeit all your property to the state. At least not in this country, and at least not yet.

As any tow-truck operator, attorney, contractor or low-life car dealer could tell you, it's easy to shield assets even from judgements. Hell, OJ's kids still have money even though he's in prison and mostly dead-broke.

He probably kept everything behind corporate shells, or in his wife's name, or other such machinations, and only property directly seized from the Gunsmoke location itself, or in his name, personally, will ever be subject to asset forfeiture.