Recently Canada’s National Post said: “Dissent serves a valuable social function: it moderates, brings internal accountability and leads to better decisions because of the value of diversity and the contest of ideas.”
“The dissenter is the one who speaks to the future with a voice pitched to a key that will carry through the years.” and Freedom of Speech is “…the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom” says Benjamin Cardozo.
Melvin Urofsky: ”…the dissent may strengthen the limits of the majority, preventing it from sweeping too broadly — a form of damage control.”
— It cannot be easy to “rule on” on those comments that are “fit to print” and those that cross the highly uncertain fuzzy line into irrelevance or what appears to some to be “unpleasant behaviour” — but all should agree that the “Federal Tax Crimes” blog’s January 22, 2016 policy defining what is appropriate goes too far in a very unhealthy direction.
Jack Townsend at the “Federal Tax Crimes” blog has recently proclaimed a new policy restricting the types of comments permitted to be posted on his site:
“Notice to Readers: Irrelevant and Political or Anti-IRS Comments Will Not Be Approved (1/22/16)
I have in the past routinely approved most irrelevant and political and anti-IRS comments to blog entries.
Today, I received another and my tolerance for such comments has worn thin. I post below the comment that has provoked my reaction.
I remind readers that this is a federal tax crimes blog. It is not a political blog or tax policy blog or any other kind of blog except federal tax crimes. Hence, I will no longer approve comments that are not relevant to the blog entry and that present more political argument or anti-IRS argument than analysis of the law relevant to federal tax crimes issues.
For those of you who want to make political comments or anti-IRS, I recommend that you find another blog which welcomes those comments. For example, you might try the Tax Prof Blog, where Professor Paul Caron posts each day one entry labeled The IRS Scandal, Day xxx (the entry today is The IRS Scandal, Day 988). Each day you will find a posting and, so long as you want to make political or anti IRS comments, he seems more than willing to post such comments on his blog.
Thus, for readers who may be inclined to want to make these comments, please note that henceforth they will not be approved for publication on the Federal Tax Crimes Blog…”
Ah! But that is also true for a whole lot of other professions. Could have been me. I have been offered a position as manager a language school. So us much smaller fish can get caught up in this net too.
You seem to have a lot of knowledge on Japanese law. Not that it actually matters, I just want to know, what does Japanese law say on giving financial data of JN individuals and organizations of all stripes to a foreign government!
That ! At the end of my last post should be a ? . @&)&& typos!
Oh those ¥?&@! They edited my post! They cut off my last sentence, “Since it seems ok to call me a criminal and a tax cheat, I’ll ask you, which set of laws are you breaking, criminals?”
In direct response to me, several posters cal me my statement a “blantant lie”, and called me a criminal and a tax cheat, but my question is not allowed. Their statements were false, mine is not.
Oh well. Par for the course.
While miffed, it is with a laugh I share this with you.
Now I am pi?¥¥¥¥! They pulled the article and comments! It had been in the What’s Hot section since it first appeared Jan. 21. It is not because it has expired as there are plenty that are older still up. I have the article and all comments saved as a PDF if anyone is interested.
So I guess I now HAVE had my posts pulled, the whole article and all comments with them!
From now on I will try to look at the criminal behavior of the IRS only. The crime of allowing the agency to be used as a political took is well documented thru several president’e terms.
Lyndon Johnson regularly sicked his IRS onto anyone who vocally attacked him. Richard Nixon was recorded on the white house tapes as asking the head of the IRS if he could use the IRS to screw his enemies. It is unclear if he did it or not. Bill Clinton asked the IRS to do political audits and Barak Obama has used the IRS to stop several political organization from getting untaxed designations. Their own Inspector described it as political criminality to approve the tax exempt status of Liberals and slow walk to the point of never, if they support Conservative causes.
For this criminal behavior the congressional over site committees have proven that they cannot be trusted to be fair and impartial,because they get contributions for altering the tax code every day they are in session, so the only solution I see is to abolish the IRS as a department of government and void the progressive Marxist income tax and put in its place the FairTax as describer in HR25. The blog is about purely criminal behavior and should be approved and posted.
Update. If you type in the name of the article you can still find it and comments are still active, it’s just that if you don’t know it exists and its name, you aren’t to run across it. The rats!
Well, now I do need to know if it is against Japanese law to provide financial info of Japanese Nationals to foreign governments. Can anyone help with this?
Sorry for the repeated posts but this a running battle I have been in all weekend and I am exhausted. Too many sleepless nights in a row as I ponder what has been posted and what to post.
It amazes my that so many confuse rights with benefits and privileges and contend that we do not have the right to leave our countries and live externally from them. Many just repeat “pay your taxes” or “follow the law” or the same idea in different words.
At least one contends that taxes are dues to club membership and that it is absurd to expect that we would think that we do not need to pay our membership dues to club America simply because we haven’t been to the clubhouse recently. A right knowledgable group of homelanders abroad. (Sarc)
I have found many references to the recent passport provision as violating right, for example at ACA, but I have not yet found an explanation why it is or how it does so. Any guidance here would also be appreciated.
If any would like to chime in I sure could use the reinforcements, especially from those with more experience, knowledge and legal grounding. Goggle “Memo to US citizens: Pay your taxes or you may lose your passport” .
I use the same handle there as here, “Japan T”. Please feel free to correct anything I may have gotten wrong. Not in this to boost my ego, just want to protect my wife and son, I’m toast no matter what, as far as I can tell.
I hope this is the last of my serial posts here. Sorry for taking over the OP’s thread.
Although, *I don’t do Facebook*, another Brocker who has not commented in some time passed this related comment along…
Jack Townsend is a Statist. For him, the law is the law. Even if it means sending Rosa Parks to the back of the bus.
Jack Townsend is a hypocrite who sees no more financial benefit to listen to our cause or arguments.
Never forget …just like with Steve Mopsick….. you can take the man out of the IRS/DOJ but never the IRS/DOJ out of the man.
“Well, now I do need to know if it is against Japanese law to provide financial info of Japanese Nationals to foreign governments”
If there’s an IGA like the one between Canada and the US, then I’d expect that Japanese law requires this violation of privacy. If there isn’t an IGA, I’d expect that privacy law makes it illegal. I don’t know how to find out if an IGA exists or not. The new secrecy law probably makes it illegal to find out the contents of an IGA or even the existence of an IGA.
Whatever the level is of my knowledge of Japanese law mostly comes from reading the Japan Times (the old fashioned version that has physical black shapes layered onto dead trees).
“From now on I will try to look at the criminal behavior of the IRS only.”
I read that some cohorts of Monica Hernandez were arrested in 2015. The Treasury Inspector General reported to Congress in 2012 that Monica Hernandez was arrested in 2011. 26 USC section 7433 gives victims a civil cause of action even when the underlying laws broken by IRS employees are criminal. But good luck getting a court to listen if the victim did something stupid like telling the truth on a tax return or obeying instructions from US government agencies.
A recent article by Robert Wood reports more hard drives erased by the IRS in violation of court orders.
This says that Japan signed a Model 2 IGA on 6-30-2014.
“Jack Townsend is a hypocrite who sees no more financial benefit to listen to our cause or arguments.
Never forget …just like with Steve Mopsick….. you can take the man out of the IRS/DOJ but never the IRS/DOJ out of the man.”
I don’t quite think that’s fair. From what I’ve seen of Steve Mopsick’s postings, he seems to be describing what the law is but doesn’t call it just or proper. I don’t think he’d try to get Obama’s parents prosecuted for their mixed race marrige if they had visited Virginia, like Jack Townsend would do.
I know that Japan has indeed signed an IGA and if I remember from what Foo said a while back it is a version that allows the banks to send the info. My limited understanding of tbe IGAs is that they waive the privacy laws either for the FFIs or government agencies but not for individuals.
My newspaper delevery guy won’t deliver JT to my home. They are not paid the usual contracting fee for non J language papers and many just won’t bother.
Yup. The inconsistencies and favoritisms manifested in crackdown or not on perceived adhominations deincentivize the airborne transmission of small nacreous orbs. In consequence, let Menippeanism flourish — aka the can’t-criticize-what-you-don’t-understand maneuver (nod to Bob).
Would it be impolite to publicly suggest that Jack Townsend change the name of his blog. I think something like “Federal Tax Crimes; except those committed by the IRS”. I mean in a friendly, helpful kind of way. We wouldn’t want him to be caught in a false advertising suit due to any inaccuracies, would we?
Anyone have one of those campaign button making kits? We could send him a “King George III 2016” campaign pin.
That is a GREAT analogy. That should be used more often to explain the situation of expats.
Statists is right. There are a lot of statists out there.
Has anyone else noticed that the condors now seem to be in full flight on social media? One very painful exchange involved a guy who lives in Spain and earns a whopping 12,000 euros a year (around $13,000), so enough to have to file U.S. tax but is no American’s idea of a fat cat. The condor couldn’t get it into her head that this guy is simply not going to be able to afford her services to catch up on his back taxes at $350/year (he didn’t know about CBT and has never filed during 25 years of living in Spain). Do many homelanders have to choose between tax compliance and food?
I wish the collective term for condors was the same as it is for crows.
I guess that Jack wouldn’t approve comments by Nina Olson the IRS Taxpayer Advocate then:
“The report cites the agency’s “future state” plan to use online accounts for the 150 million individual taxpayers and 11 million businesses seeking help and information as its number one “most serious problem for taxpayers” this year. Olson calls this a secret plan that IRS officials have not, and should, release to the public. And she says the public should, but has not, been consulted on its development.
Olson says the plan for online accounts will put taxpayers at a huge disadvantage if they are poor and don’t have access to the Internet, feel uncomfortable discussing sensitive financial matters online or need to resolve issues that are not “cookie cutter” questions that can be resolved by talking to a person (or computer) on line.”
NTA comments quoted from;
‘Secret plan shows the IRS wants to ‘get out of the business of talking with taxpayers,’ advocate says’
By Lisa Rein January 6
The IRS recently revealed that the IRS continues to rely on records corruptly altered by Monica Hernandez and he cohorts. If it weren’t for paper returns, maybe I’d never be able to prove how IRS records differ from the actual returns.
(I still don’t know how to get courts to notice the difference between IRS records and the actual returns.)