The latest salvo in the War on Wealth is being readied for deployment, and it's a doozy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30557517/
When it comes to trampling the Constitution, it seems Obama is determined not to be outdone by the alcoholic dullard who previously held squatter's rights to the Oval Orifice.
We've already seen his administration effectively abrogate contract law this week by making Perella Weinberg cry uncle in the Chrysler negotiations (although the details of that sordid tale are admittedly sketchy). But they were obviously just warming up for this travesty.
Obama is about to propose a change to the law of the land that will shift the burden of proof in tax cases from the accuser to the accused:
Obama also planned to ask Congress to crack down on tax havens and implement a major shift in the way courts view guilt. Under Obama’s proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don’t cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts.
Let's put this in perspective. Let's say you've done reasonably well in life so far, well enough to own a vacation condo or bungalow on an island in the Bahamas. Since you have to work to pay for said slice of paradise, you are only there a couple months out of the year. The easiest way to keep up with utility bills, etc. is to set up an auto-draft at a local bank, like a gym membership. If you are fortunate enough to be in that situation, you are now a criminal until you can prove otherwise.
Of course, this proposal hasn't made it through Congress yet, but we have no reason to hope those cretins will do anything to stop this runaway train. They're too afraid of Obama's approval rating and of receiving the vulcan death grip from Rahm Emmanuel, a malignant troll of a White House fixer as malevolent as any since Gordon Liddy.
I can take comfort in one aspect of this tragedy, however. It seems Obama has the same low opinion of his various Attorneys General that I have. Their collective inability to garner a conviction in any but the most obvious financial cases involving guilty pleas has persuaded the Big Cheese to re-write the rule book so they can approach the plate with a corked bat. Maybe he was thinking of them when he made that crack about the Special Olympics on Leno.
Does anyone else cringe when they read this guy's posts?
Its a good topic to discuss but the diction here is just unbelievable. I haven't heard from affluenza lately, so thats good. How do we get this guy to stop?
Weren't you the asshole who complained about affluenza every fucking day? Didn't Patrick tell you to STFU or man up and do these things yourself, and if you did a good job he would actually pay you?? Dude if you don't want to read his post you don't have to, but to insult him for giving us some news and his opinion on it is just being a dick.
When you see I authored the post, just skip it.
Now go back to your farm animal porn and treat yourself to some rough masturbation.
No, but I cringe when I read your comments.
Absolutely Not. His shit is usually worth reading.
The guy who wrote this article doesn't know much about tax law, because as it stands today in Tax court you are guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent. It is the only court where the burden of proof falls on the defendant so there is nothing new here.
For the purposes of tax court as it relates to fraud with the intent to evade taxes, the burden of proof is on the respondent (Title XIV, Rule 142(b)).
However, the article clearly states "guilt" and not "liability". I take that to mean that the upcoming proposal is aiming to shift the burden of proof in criminal court cases involving tax evasion from the accuser to the accused. I could be wrong, though.
Liability generally refers to civil claims where the parties are identified as Petitioner and Respondent (my several divorces, for example). Guilt refers to criminal claims where the parties are identified as Plaintiff and Defendant, and the burden of proof is solely on the accuser (for now, evidently).
Not that it is terribly important, but the parties in criminal court are designated prosecution and defense. Plaintiff and defendant are used in civil court. Petitioner and respondent are used in certain proceedings (i.e. divorce) and sometimes interchangeably with appellant and appellee to identify the parties on appeal.
Voluptatem aspernatur necessitatibus voluptates id dolores. Blanditiis eligendi fuga nulla placeat veniam et. Nulla magni laboriosam ut minima possimus placeat hic. Veritatis iure aspernatur sunt expedita unde cupiditate recusandae.
Explicabo commodi quod velit voluptas consequatur. Molestiae et reiciendis sit quidem incidunt possimus. Nisi cupiditate quia cum dolorem quam quo sed. Fugit quia id beatae cupiditate ab officiis. Consequuntur in dolor omnis sunt.
Sint soluta assumenda cum et quo totam enim. Recusandae quibusdam libero et sed. Quam voluptas ipsum quo amet. Sed quas nisi tempore vel. Sapiente sint molestiae nam aut voluptas qui nemo ipsum. Et rerum illum qui dolore.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...