Ignorance of the law is an excuse in some cases and other stuff
In almost every case, someone accused of a crime cannot plead ignorance of the law to avoid conviction. One of those rare instances is tax law. If an individual is being charged with a criminal act by having signed a tax return containing false information, they can plead ignorance. The tax code is complex. I'm not concerned about criminality when I do my utmost to ensure my clients know what they are signing. I want them to know and understand what their tax return says. Why we took the deductions and credits we claimed.
You may or may not know that the New York Attorney General, Barbara Underwood has sued the Donald J. Trump Foundation, alleging a "...pattern of persistent illegal conduct, occurring over a decade, that includes extensive political coordination with the Trump presidential campaign..."
The Washington Post's David Farenthold has done a brilliant job of reporting on the Trump Foundation's activities since the campaign began. In a piece written on June 22, 2018 he outlines four instances of where Trump signed tax returns that contained false information. The piece quotes a Chicago based tax attorney, Guinevere Moore. "There's the adage, 'ignorance of the law is no excuse.' That's not true in tax law. In tax law, ignorance is an excuse for criminal violations."
The statements attached to the amended Form 990PF filed by the Trump Foundation claims it was clerical errors and ignorance of the tax code that led to the errors. Here's the problem with that as a defense:
You can't claim that you are ignorant of laws that you previously claimed to know so much about. But this is a pattern for the #LiarInChief. He claims values for his golf courses on his personal financial disclosure forms that are high. Then he turns around and claims their values are much lower when he sues the local property tax collector. In one instance, involving his Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter, FL, he claimed on the disclosure form that it is worth more than $50 million. Then he sued Palm Beach County, claiming their assessed value of $18.4 million for the property is $5 million too high.
I doubt he'll be prosecuted for the offense of filing false foundation tax returns. But he should be.
* * *
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"
Bail is one of the many inequities in our system of justice that favors those fortunate enough to have money. The wealthy can make almost any bail, which the poor cannot even hope to raise the funds required to make bail.
Sometimes, no matter how much money one has, bail won't be granted. Murder charges are usually (but not always) a situation where bail isn't granted. Then there is the case of Paul Manafort, which generated this tweet from the #MoronInChief
Apparently Trump doesn't understand the difference between a jail sentence and having one's bail revoked. Manafort wasn't sentenced to a term behind bars. His bail was revoked by a judge after allegations of witness tampering were made. "This isn't middle school, I can't take your phone" the judge said.
In California, most people use a bail bond agent to bail out of jail. They pay a fee of 10% of the bail amount and pledge collateral equal to the bail amount. When the case is over, the bail bond agent keeps the 10% as a fee. For many, that's simply unaffordable.
There is a bill in the CA State Senate, SB10. It would allow people to post 10% of the bail amount in cash to the court, which they would get back once they'd shown up for all required court appearances. That bill in one form or another has been opposed by the state's bail bond agents for nearly four decades now.
Considering there are more than 3,000 bail bond agents registered with the California Department of Insurance, that opposition is well-funded.
Would passage of this bill cost thousands their livelihoods? Should that matter?
* * *
People have every right to protest. To protest injustice, to protest anything they disagree with. To a point. I didn't have a problem with the protesters who shouted Homeland Secretary Nielsen out of a Mexican restaurant; as long as the owners of the place didn't charge them with trespassing. You can't violate the law to protest by breaking a law.
Now Maxine Waters is calling on everyone to confront members of the Trump administration in public. "For these members of his cabinet who remain and try to defend him they're not goint to be able to go to a restaurant, they're not going to be able to stop at a gas station, they're not going to be able to shop at a department store, the people are going to turn on them, they're going to protest, they're going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they're going to tell the president 'no I can't hang with you, this is wrong this is unconscionable and we can't keep doing this to children."
Is that how far we've fallen? Is such action justified because we don't believe it is right to do to children what the Trump administration is doing in separating them from their families? Do people who disagree with you politically forfeit those unalienable rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence; specifically, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
I have mixed feelings about this. I have no problem with blasting David Bossie for telling another panelist appearing with him on Fox News that he was "...out of his cotton-picking mind." His apology on Twitter rings hollow. I didn't have a problem with people blasting mariachi music outside the residence of New York City attorney Aaron Schlossberg after his recorded racist rant went viral.
But those are specific actions taken by individuals. Is Ms Waters suggesting that such protests be limited to members of the Trump Cabinet and other key members of his staff? Or is anyone who works anywhere in the Trump administration fair game for harassment and refusal of service?
Will businesses start displaying signs that read "Republicans Will Not Be Served" outside their establishments? The use of the phrase "if you voted for Trump, swipe left" on dating app profiles in the Washington, DC area makes sense. We have no obligation to date or be social with people whose political beliefs are in exact opposition to our own.
I know that I'm not going to refuse to serve a client just because of their political beliefs. I don't talk politics with a client, unless they do. Then I try to change the subject. I'm capable of defending my own beliefs, but they aren't important at that time. Serving my client is.
Choosing to serve a client who supports the separation of families at the border is not support for their position or that action. Just as baking a cake for a same-sex couple is not an endorsement of their sexual preference/lifestyle.
* * *
Michael Herbert is a 57 year old English soccer fan who was caught on video making a Nazi salute and singing anti-semetic songs at a bar in Russia during a World Cup match. Now he won't be able to attend a soccer match or go near the stadium where a match is being played for the next five years.
The Football Spectator Act of 1989 allows the justice system in England to impose such bans as part of their effort to curb hooliganism.
Mr. Herbert can be banned from traveling to places where English teams are playing international matches as well.
What do you think of this law?
* * *
As long as we're protesting things, what do we do about a pharmacist in Arizona who refused to give a woman the prescription medication to induce contractions so she could end her pregnancy. Before you go to the "unborn fetuses are alive" place, bear in mind that this woman had suffered a miscarriage. The fetus was deceased. The woman opted for a prescription medication rather than surgical intervention to finish the process.
Walgreen's has a company policy in states where pharmacists have the legal right to refuse to provide a prescription based on their religious beliefs. The pharmacist is supposed to refer the customer to another pharmacist or manager on duty. That wasn't done by this jerk.
Is doing your job and giving someone a drug that their doctor has prescribed a form of implicit support/agreement with what the drug will do? No.
* * *
People wonder why I watch old TV shows over and over again. The Heroes and Icons network is now showing eight hour blocks of programs on weekdays. I am recording all of the episodes of JAG on Wednesdays and Hill Street Blues on Fridays.
Today I got to watch some early work by Lindsay Crouse and Chris Noth on Hill Street Blues episodes. Laurence Fishburne was in one of the episodes with Ms Crouse (who I'm a big fan of, both as a performer and a person). I recently got to watch six episodes of a very young Frances McDormand playing an assistant district attorney who was addicted to cocaine.
A very young Jeffrey Dean Morgan was on an episode of JAG that aired two weeks ago. I don't watch these shows solely for the guest stars but because I enjoy the episodes and programs.
You may or may not know that the New York Attorney General, Barbara Underwood has sued the Donald J. Trump Foundation, alleging a "...pattern of persistent illegal conduct, occurring over a decade, that includes extensive political coordination with the Trump presidential campaign..."
The Washington Post's David Farenthold has done a brilliant job of reporting on the Trump Foundation's activities since the campaign began. In a piece written on June 22, 2018 he outlines four instances of where Trump signed tax returns that contained false information. The piece quotes a Chicago based tax attorney, Guinevere Moore. "There's the adage, 'ignorance of the law is no excuse.' That's not true in tax law. In tax law, ignorance is an excuse for criminal violations."
The statements attached to the amended Form 990PF filed by the Trump Foundation claims it was clerical errors and ignorance of the tax code that led to the errors. Here's the problem with that as a defense:
I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them. #failing@nytimes— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 2, 2016
You can't claim that you are ignorant of laws that you previously claimed to know so much about. But this is a pattern for the #LiarInChief. He claims values for his golf courses on his personal financial disclosure forms that are high. Then he turns around and claims their values are much lower when he sues the local property tax collector. In one instance, involving his Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter, FL, he claimed on the disclosure form that it is worth more than $50 million. Then he sued Palm Beach County, claiming their assessed value of $18.4 million for the property is $5 million too high.
I doubt he'll be prosecuted for the offense of filing false foundation tax returns. But he should be.
* * *
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"
Bail is one of the many inequities in our system of justice that favors those fortunate enough to have money. The wealthy can make almost any bail, which the poor cannot even hope to raise the funds required to make bail.
Sometimes, no matter how much money one has, bail won't be granted. Murder charges are usually (but not always) a situation where bail isn't granted. Then there is the case of Paul Manafort, which generated this tweet from the #MoronInChief
Wow, what a tough sentence for Paul Manafort, who has represented Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and many other top political people and campaigns. Didn’t know Manafort was the head of the Mob. What about Comey and Crooked Hillary and all of the others? Very unfair!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2018
Apparently Trump doesn't understand the difference between a jail sentence and having one's bail revoked. Manafort wasn't sentenced to a term behind bars. His bail was revoked by a judge after allegations of witness tampering were made. "This isn't middle school, I can't take your phone" the judge said.
In California, most people use a bail bond agent to bail out of jail. They pay a fee of 10% of the bail amount and pledge collateral equal to the bail amount. When the case is over, the bail bond agent keeps the 10% as a fee. For many, that's simply unaffordable.
There is a bill in the CA State Senate, SB10. It would allow people to post 10% of the bail amount in cash to the court, which they would get back once they'd shown up for all required court appearances. That bill in one form or another has been opposed by the state's bail bond agents for nearly four decades now.
Considering there are more than 3,000 bail bond agents registered with the California Department of Insurance, that opposition is well-funded.
Would passage of this bill cost thousands their livelihoods? Should that matter?
* * *
People have every right to protest. To protest injustice, to protest anything they disagree with. To a point. I didn't have a problem with the protesters who shouted Homeland Secretary Nielsen out of a Mexican restaurant; as long as the owners of the place didn't charge them with trespassing. You can't violate the law to protest by breaking a law.
Now Maxine Waters is calling on everyone to confront members of the Trump administration in public. "For these members of his cabinet who remain and try to defend him they're not goint to be able to go to a restaurant, they're not going to be able to stop at a gas station, they're not going to be able to shop at a department store, the people are going to turn on them, they're going to protest, they're going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they're going to tell the president 'no I can't hang with you, this is wrong this is unconscionable and we can't keep doing this to children."
Is that how far we've fallen? Is such action justified because we don't believe it is right to do to children what the Trump administration is doing in separating them from their families? Do people who disagree with you politically forfeit those unalienable rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence; specifically, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
I have mixed feelings about this. I have no problem with blasting David Bossie for telling another panelist appearing with him on Fox News that he was "...out of his cotton-picking mind." His apology on Twitter rings hollow. I didn't have a problem with people blasting mariachi music outside the residence of New York City attorney Aaron Schlossberg after his recorded racist rant went viral.
But those are specific actions taken by individuals. Is Ms Waters suggesting that such protests be limited to members of the Trump Cabinet and other key members of his staff? Or is anyone who works anywhere in the Trump administration fair game for harassment and refusal of service?
Will businesses start displaying signs that read "Republicans Will Not Be Served" outside their establishments? The use of the phrase "if you voted for Trump, swipe left" on dating app profiles in the Washington, DC area makes sense. We have no obligation to date or be social with people whose political beliefs are in exact opposition to our own.
I know that I'm not going to refuse to serve a client just because of their political beliefs. I don't talk politics with a client, unless they do. Then I try to change the subject. I'm capable of defending my own beliefs, but they aren't important at that time. Serving my client is.
Choosing to serve a client who supports the separation of families at the border is not support for their position or that action. Just as baking a cake for a same-sex couple is not an endorsement of their sexual preference/lifestyle.
* * *
Michael Herbert is a 57 year old English soccer fan who was caught on video making a Nazi salute and singing anti-semetic songs at a bar in Russia during a World Cup match. Now he won't be able to attend a soccer match or go near the stadium where a match is being played for the next five years.
The Football Spectator Act of 1989 allows the justice system in England to impose such bans as part of their effort to curb hooliganism.
Mr. Herbert can be banned from traveling to places where English teams are playing international matches as well.
What do you think of this law?
* * *
As long as we're protesting things, what do we do about a pharmacist in Arizona who refused to give a woman the prescription medication to induce contractions so she could end her pregnancy. Before you go to the "unborn fetuses are alive" place, bear in mind that this woman had suffered a miscarriage. The fetus was deceased. The woman opted for a prescription medication rather than surgical intervention to finish the process.
Walgreen's has a company policy in states where pharmacists have the legal right to refuse to provide a prescription based on their religious beliefs. The pharmacist is supposed to refer the customer to another pharmacist or manager on duty. That wasn't done by this jerk.
Is doing your job and giving someone a drug that their doctor has prescribed a form of implicit support/agreement with what the drug will do? No.
* * *
People wonder why I watch old TV shows over and over again. The Heroes and Icons network is now showing eight hour blocks of programs on weekdays. I am recording all of the episodes of JAG on Wednesdays and Hill Street Blues on Fridays.
Today I got to watch some early work by Lindsay Crouse and Chris Noth on Hill Street Blues episodes. Laurence Fishburne was in one of the episodes with Ms Crouse (who I'm a big fan of, both as a performer and a person). I recently got to watch six episodes of a very young Frances McDormand playing an assistant district attorney who was addicted to cocaine.
A very young Jeffrey Dean Morgan was on an episode of JAG that aired two weeks ago. I don't watch these shows solely for the guest stars but because I enjoy the episodes and programs.
posted by me at 7:45 PM
<< Home