Osobna odgovornost

Discussion board za generalne teme.
Ne toleriraju se spam, off-topic, svadje i sl...

Moderator: ABIZMO

Postby Terrifixion » Mon Jan 14, 2008 0:44

Charon l'Cypher wrote:Nego, people, ja nisam siguran da je zenska bas tako blesava. :| Ako ona dobije ovu tuzbu, to su lijepi novci ($50k se u USA smatra pristojnom godisnjom placom; kod nas je to cca 4-5 prosjecnih godisnjih placa). :D Tuzba JE nebulozna, ali ako prodje... zena definitivno nije blesava! :)

Pa, s obzirom da zena cije dijete pogine u vrticu jer podleti pod kosilicu, i onda roditelji tuze proizvodjaca kosilica i dobiju... Ne bi bilo toliko cudno :)

Charon l'Cypher wrote:Da stvar bude bolja, sudac bi mogao napraviti presedan i dati joj pare... toliko da zapapri svim buducim dilerima. :o Sto ce se desiti s ilegalnim narko-trzistem ako samo 1% junkieja pocne (uspjesno) tuziti dilere? :-k

Procvjetat ce posao hitmanima :lol:

Charon l'Cypher wrote:A bilo je (uspjesnih) tuzbi protiv duhanske industrije zbog nestavljanja upozorenja o stetnosti cigareta na same cigarete... ne vidim da je ovo bitno drugacije. :)

Po tome sto se cigarete ipak legalno prodaju? ;)
"After king dead , lords of greate river , began to fight for her crown.Do you can victory in this war?"

"U davno vrijeme dinosaura, kad još nije bilo HDZ-a i SDP-a..."
User avatar
Terrifixion
Forum member
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:39
Location: Šibenik/Split (isprid kompa)

Postby TakLa » Mon Jan 14, 2008 15:16

oprostite na offtopicu ali nešta mi nije jasno...

Lucifer wrote:No to joj u SADu nebi prošlo. Tamo moraš plaćati porez i na nezakonitu zaradu (uključujući i dilanje droge). Ovi retardi su to odveli tako daleko da to čak imaju i kao rubriku u poreznom formularu. :roll:


income tax?

kolko ja znam nigdje u americkom zakonu ne stoji da uopce moraš placati income tax!

to ne piše nigdje u zakonu ali obicaj je da ga ljudi placaju, ljudi(cak i pravnici) misle da to piše u zakonu i uopce ne provjeravaju...

neki su saznali za to i raspitivali se o tome ali jednostavno toga u zakonu nema. nakon toga su prestali placat porez i niko im nista nije napravio (a ni ne može).
VIJEĆE
User avatar
TakLa
Forum member
 
Posts: 1845
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 16:46
Location: NA JEBENOM VIJEĆU ISUSOVOM

Postby Lucifer » Mon Jan 14, 2008 16:24

16th Amendment.
User avatar
Lucifer
Forum member
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 1:09
Location: mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam

Postby Charon l'Cypher » Mon Jan 14, 2008 16:53

Lucifer wrote:16th Amendment.


Ne bash... on kaze da Kongres moze sam nametati poreze, bez nekih veliki ogranicenja. :) Ne pise da poreze actually treba placati. :shock: :lol:

TakLa... to je info iz Zeitgeista, right? :D

P.S. Meni bas i nije jasno to s "nigdje ne pise da treba placati poreze"... kako su onda upecali Ala Caponea? :-k
User avatar
Charon l'Cypher
Forum mender
 
Posts: 3954
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 1:03
Location: The River Styx

Postby Sunburn » Mon Jan 14, 2008 17:12

1. Contention: The filing of a tax return is voluntary.

Some assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because
the filing of a tax return is voluntary. Proponents point to the fact that the
IRS itself tells taxpayers in the Form 1040 instruction book that the tax
system is voluntary. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Flora v.
United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960), is often quoted for the
proposition that "[o]ur system of taxation is based upon voluntary
assessment and payment, not upon distraint."
The Law: The word “voluntary,” as used in Flora and in IRS publications,
refers to our system of allowing taxpayers initially to determine the correct
amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the
government determine tax for them from the outset. The requirement to
file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in
sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg.
§ 1.6011-1(a).
Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount
of gross income is obligated to file a return. Failure to file a tax return
could subject the non-complying individual to criminal penalties, including
fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties. In United States v.
Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986), the court clearly states,
“although Treasury regulations establish voluntary compliance as the
general method of income tax collection, Congress gave the Secretary of
the Treasury the power to enforce the income tax laws through involuntary
collection . . . . The IRS’ efforts to obtain compliance with the tax laws are
entirely proper.” The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2007-20, 2007-14 I.R.B.
863, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous
argument.
In August 2005, the Justice Department announced that Royal Lamarr
Hardy was sentenced to a 156-month prison term for, among other things,
selling a tax evasion scheme called the “Reliance Defense” that incorrectly
asserted the income tax laws were voluntary (i.e., the laws imposed no
legal obligation to pay tax or file a return). Hardy was also ordered to pay
costs of prosecution in the amount of $59,267.88, and restitution to the
IRS for $197,555. See 2005 TNT 169-12 (Aug. 31, 2005).
In August 2007, a federal court in New York permanently barred Robert L.
Schulz of Queensbury, N.Y., and his organizations, We the People
Congress and We the People Foundation, from promoting a tax scheme
that helped employers and employees improperly stop tax withholding
from wages on the false premise that federal income taxation is voluntary.
The court concluded that the First Amendment did not protect the two
organizations that operate the website, or their founder, because the site
incited criminal conduct. The court also ordered that the web site that sold
the materials stating that individuals can legally stop paying taxes be shut.
See http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv07214.htm, and
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv07595.htm.




2. Contention: Payment of tax is voluntary.
In a similar vein, some argue that they are not required to pay federal
taxes because the payment of federal taxes is voluntary. Proponents of
this position argue that our system of taxation is based upon voluntary
assessment and payment. They frequently claim that there is no provision
in the Internal Revenue Code or any other federal statute that requires
them to pay or makes them liable for income taxes, and they demand that
the IRS show them the law that imposes tax on their income. The stance
that is taken is that until the IRS can prove to these taxpayers’ satisfaction,
which is effectively impossible because they never will be satisfied, the
existence and applicability of the income tax laws, they will not report or
pay income taxes. These taxpayers reflexively dismiss any attempt by the
IRS to identify the laws, thereby continuing the cycle. The IRS has issued
Revenue Ruling 2007-20, 2007-14 I.R.B. 863, discussing this frivolous
position at length and warning taxpayers of the consequences of asserting
it.
The Law: The requirement to pay taxes is not voluntary and is clearly set
forth in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes a tax on
the taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts as determined by the
tables set forth in that section. (Section 11 imposes a tax on the taxable
income of corporations.)
Furthermore, the obligation to pay tax is described in section 6151, which
requires taxpayers to submit payment with their tax returns. Failure to pay
taxes could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties,
including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties.
In discussing section 6151, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that
“when a tax return is required to be filed, the person so required ‘shall’ pay
such taxes to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at
the fixed time and place. The sections of the Internal Revenue Code
imposed a duty on Drefke to file tax returns and pay the . . . tax, a duty
which he chose to ignore.” United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981
(8th Cir. 1983).
In United States v. Kuglin, No. 03-20111 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2003),
Vernice B. Kuglin faced criminal charges for falsifying Forms W-4 and
failing to pay taxes on $920,000 of income between 1996 and 2001, but
was acquitted by a federal jury. Kuglin argued that she attempted to
determine whether the income was taxable but the Service did not
respond to her letters. Government officials issued press releases making
it clear that the outcome in Kuglin should be treated as an “aberration” and
noting that persons acquitted of criminal tax violations are not relieved of
their obligation to pay taxes due. See 2003 TNT 155-12 (Aug. 11, 2003);
2003 TNT 155-13 (Aug. 11, 2003); 2003 TNT 158-2 (Aug. 14, 2003).
The defendant in United States v. Brunet, No. 03-00057 (M.D. Tenn.
March 12, 2004), argued he could not find any information that would lead
him to conclude the Internal Revenue Code made him liable to file income
tax returns or pay taxes. In stark contrast to Kuglin, the jury returned
guilty verdicts against Brunet on four counts of tax evasion and the court
sentenced him to serve 27 months in prison. See 2004 TNT 51-33 (March
12, 2004).
There have been no civil cases where the Service’s lack of response to a
taxpayer’s inquiry has relieved the taxpayer of the duty to pay tax due
under the law. Courts have in rare instances waived civil penalties
because they have found that a taxpayer relied on a Service misstatement
or wrongful misleading silence with respect to a factual matter. Such an
estoppel argument does not, however, apply to a legal matter such as
whether there is legal authority to collect taxes. See, e.g., McKay v.
Commissioner, 102 T.C. 465 (1994), rev’d as to other issues, 84 F.3d 433
(5th Cir. 1996). Kuglin’s case, discussed above, did not prove to be the
exception. Despite her acquittal of criminal charges, on September 12,
2004, Kuglin entered a settlement with the IRS in the Tax Court in which
she agreed to pay more than half a million dollars in back taxes and
penalties. Kuglin v. Commissioner, Docket No. 21743-03; see 2004 TNT
177-6 (Sept. 13, 2004).
In August 2004, an appellate court affirmed a federal district court
preliminary injunction barring Irwin Schiff, Cynthia Neun, and Lawrence N.
Cohen from selling a tax scheme that fraudulently claimed that payment of
federal income tax is voluntary. United States v. Schiff, 379 F.3d 621 (9th
Cir. 2004); see http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv04551.htm. Also, in October
2005, the trio was convicted by a Las Vegas jury for various criminal
charges relating to the federal income tax laws. See 2005 TNT 205-4
(Oct. 25, 2005). Schiff received a sentence of more than 12 years in
prison and was ordered to pay more than $4.2 million in restitution to the
IRS; Neun received a sentence of nearly 6 years and was ordered to pay
$1.1 million in restitution to the IRS; and, Cohen received a sentence of
nearly 3 years and was ordered to pay $480,000 in restitution to the IRS.
See http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/Februa ... _098.html; 2006
TNT 38-67 (Feb. 24, 2006); 2006 TNT 24-62 (Feb. 3, 2006).
Earlier this year, a dentist, Dr. Elaine Brown, and her husband, Ed Brown,
were prosecuted in a federal district court in New Hampshire of conspiracy
to defraud the federal government and, as to Dr. Brown, income tax
evasion, among other charges. These taxpayers claimed that they were
not subject to taxation and that the IRS never responded to their demands
for a legal explanation. In an opening statement to the jury, Ed Brown
proclaimed, “We will once and for all show beyond the shadow of a doubt .
. . that the federal income tax system is a fraud.” They failed to do so,
however, as the jury convicted the Browns on all charges. See
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/usaopress/2007 ... Browns.pdf. After
being sentenced in April, they refused to surrender themselves to
authorities and were arrested at their home on October 4, 2007, to begin
serving their prison terms.

Sa http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf
Primjetiti onaj irs.gov odnosno oznaku da je stranica Internal Revenue Servicea pod kontrolom vlade.
Zbogom prijatelju
1986-2011
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici
User avatar
Sunburn
Nadasve zli odgajatelj u vrtiću
 
Posts: 3311
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 19:27
Location: Rijeka

Postby Sunburn » Mon Jan 14, 2008 18:04

Charon l'Cypher wrote:
Lucifer wrote:16th Amendment.


Ne bash... on kaze da Kongres moze sam nametati poreze, bez nekih veliki ogranicenja. :) Ne pise da poreze actually treba placati. :shock: :lol:

TakLa... to je info iz Zeitgeista, right? :D

P.S. Meni bas i nije jasno to s "nigdje ne pise da treba placati poreze"... kako su onda upecali Ala Caponea? :-k


Sad sam tek pogledao 16 amandman. Kako ne pise? "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes..."

Da, ne moras ga placat, ali onda ti IRS dojde na vrata i papi lovu s kamatama.
Zbogom prijatelju
1986-2011
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici
User avatar
Sunburn
Nadasve zli odgajatelj u vrtiću
 
Posts: 3311
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 19:27
Location: Rijeka

Postby Charon l'Cypher » Mon Jan 14, 2008 18:07

Kongers, AFAIK, donosi zakone... dakle - po meni - 16. amandman kaze da Kongres ima pravo dati zakone koji ce nametnuti poreze, no onda je tek na Kongresu da te zakone i donese (tj. 16 amandman ne kaze da se porezi trebaju placati, nego da to "trebanje" odredjuje Kongres). :)

A mozda i grijesim... ako moze Lucifer, sto ne bih i ja mogao? ;)
User avatar
Charon l'Cypher
Forum mender
 
Posts: 3954
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 1:03
Location: The River Styx

Postby Sunburn » Mon Jan 14, 2008 18:10

Pa ako sam ja dobro shvatio caka je u vomo "collect". Kongres je to delegirao na IRS koji ima svoje procedure i zakone. Primjeti da ocito nije tocno ono sta Takla kaze da ti ne mogu nista jer sam ti gore jasno naveo slucajeve u kojima su ljudi zavrsili u zatvoru zbog utaje poreza. A i ti si izbacio jedan koji je jaci od svih ostalih. Da nema zakona koji zabranjuje utaju poreza zar stvarno mislis da Caponeovi odvjetnici to ne bi vidjeli? Covjek im je bjezao godinama i morali su ga upecat na porez a i to jedva. Da to ne stoji u zakonu ne bi ga nikad spremili iza resetaka.

Ali mozda i ja grijesim, nisam pravnik niti sam detaljno proucavao americki pravni sustav. To je zavrzlama samo takva.
Zbogom prijatelju
1986-2011
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici
User avatar
Sunburn
Nadasve zli odgajatelj u vrtiću
 
Posts: 3311
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 19:27
Location: Rijeka

Postby Lucifer » Mon Jan 14, 2008 19:33

Charon l'Cypher wrote:Kongers, AFAIK, donosi zakone... dakle - po meni - 16. amandman kaze da Kongres ima pravo dati zakone koji ce nametnuti poreze, no onda je tek na Kongresu da te zakone i donese (tj. 16 amandman ne kaze da se porezi trebaju placati, nego da to "trebanje" odredjuje Kongres). :)

A mozda i grijesim... ako moze Lucifer, sto ne bih i ja mogao? ;)

Stvar je u tome što onaj tip koji je promovirao cijelu spiku u Zeitgeistu tvrdi da je 16. amandman protuustavan jer ga nije dovoljan broj država ratificiralo, te da su zbog toga svi donešeni zakoni protuustavni. Nije, dakle, problem u tome što "nema zakona", nego što su isti "protuustavni".

Što je presmješno, kada se vidi da se većina njegovih argumenata svodi na to da su postojale tipografske greške između raznih ratifikacija, te da su zbog toga te ratifikacije nevažeće. :roll:
User avatar
Lucifer
Forum member
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 1:09
Location: mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam

Postby Panurg » Mon Jan 14, 2008 19:40

Sunburn wrote:1. Contention: The filing of a tax return is voluntary.

Some assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because
the filing of a tax return is voluntary. Proponents point to the fact that the
IRS itself tells taxpayers in the Form 1040 instruction book that the tax
system is voluntary. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Flora v.
United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960), is often quoted for the
proposition that "[o]ur system of taxation is based upon voluntary
assessment and payment, not upon distraint."
The Law: The word “voluntary,” as used in Flora and in IRS publications,
refers to our system of allowing taxpayers initially to determine the correct
amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the
government determine tax for them from the outset. The requirement to
file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in
sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg.
§ 1.6011-1(a).
Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount
of gross income is obligated to file a return. Failure to file a tax return
could subject the non-complying individual to criminal penalties, including
fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties. In United States v.
Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986), the court clearly states,
“although Treasury regulations establish voluntary compliance as the
general method of income tax collection, Congress gave the Secretary of
the Treasury the power to enforce the income tax laws through involuntary
collection . . . . The IRS’ efforts to obtain compliance with the tax laws are
entirely proper.” The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2007-20, 2007-14 I.R.B.
863, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous
argument.
In August 2005, the Justice Department announced that Royal Lamarr
Hardy was sentenced to a 156-month prison term for, among other things,
selling a tax evasion scheme called the “Reliance Defense” that incorrectly
asserted the income tax laws were voluntary (i.e., the laws imposed no
legal obligation to pay tax or file a return). Hardy was also ordered to pay
costs of prosecution in the amount of $59,267.88, and restitution to the
IRS for $197,555. See 2005 TNT 169-12 (Aug. 31, 2005).
In August 2007, a federal court in New York permanently barred Robert L.
Schulz of Queensbury, N.Y., and his organizations, We the People
Congress and We the People Foundation, from promoting a tax scheme
that helped employers and employees improperly stop tax withholding
from wages on the false premise that federal income taxation is voluntary.
The court concluded that the First Amendment did not protect the two
organizations that operate the website, or their founder, because the site
incited criminal conduct. The court also ordered that the web site that sold
the materials stating that individuals can legally stop paying taxes be shut.
See http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv07214.htm, and
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv07595.htm.




2. Contention: Payment of tax is voluntary.
In a similar vein, some argue that they are not required to pay federal
taxes because the payment of federal taxes is voluntary. Proponents of
this position argue that our system of taxation is based upon voluntary
assessment and payment. They frequently claim that there is no provision
in the Internal Revenue Code or any other federal statute that requires
them to pay or makes them liable for income taxes, and they demand that
the IRS show them the law that imposes tax on their income. The stance
that is taken is that until the IRS can prove to these taxpayers’ satisfaction,
which is effectively impossible because they never will be satisfied, the
existence and applicability of the income tax laws, they will not report or
pay income taxes. These taxpayers reflexively dismiss any attempt by the
IRS to identify the laws, thereby continuing the cycle. The IRS has issued
Revenue Ruling 2007-20, 2007-14 I.R.B. 863, discussing this frivolous
position at length and warning taxpayers of the consequences of asserting
it.
The Law: The requirement to pay taxes is not voluntary and is clearly set
forth in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes a tax on
the taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts as determined by the
tables set forth in that section. (Section 11 imposes a tax on the taxable
income of corporations.)
Furthermore, the obligation to pay tax is described in section 6151, which
requires taxpayers to submit payment with their tax returns. Failure to pay
taxes could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties,
including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties.
In discussing section 6151, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that
“when a tax return is required to be filed, the person so required ‘shall’ pay
such taxes to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at
the fixed time and place. The sections of the Internal Revenue Code
imposed a duty on Drefke to file tax returns and pay the . . . tax, a duty
which he chose to ignore.” United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981
(8th Cir. 1983).
In United States v. Kuglin, No. 03-20111 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2003),
Vernice B. Kuglin faced criminal charges for falsifying Forms W-4 and
failing to pay taxes on $920,000 of income between 1996 and 2001, but
was acquitted by a federal jury. Kuglin argued that she attempted to
determine whether the income was taxable but the Service did not
respond to her letters. Government officials issued press releases making
it clear that the outcome in Kuglin should be treated as an “aberration” and
noting that persons acquitted of criminal tax violations are not relieved of
their obligation to pay taxes due. See 2003 TNT 155-12 (Aug. 11, 2003);
2003 TNT 155-13 (Aug. 11, 2003); 2003 TNT 158-2 (Aug. 14, 2003).
The defendant in United States v. Brunet, No. 03-00057 (M.D. Tenn.
March 12, 2004), argued he could not find any information that would lead
him to conclude the Internal Revenue Code made him liable to file income
tax returns or pay taxes. In stark contrast to Kuglin, the jury returned
guilty verdicts against Brunet on four counts of tax evasion and the court
sentenced him to serve 27 months in prison. See 2004 TNT 51-33 (March
12, 2004).
There have been no civil cases where the Service’s lack of response to a
taxpayer’s inquiry has relieved the taxpayer of the duty to pay tax due
under the law. Courts have in rare instances waived civil penalties
because they have found that a taxpayer relied on a Service misstatement
or wrongful misleading silence with respect to a factual matter. Such an
estoppel argument does not, however, apply to a legal matter such as
whether there is legal authority to collect taxes. See, e.g., McKay v.
Commissioner, 102 T.C. 465 (1994), rev’d as to other issues, 84 F.3d 433
(5th Cir. 1996). Kuglin’s case, discussed above, did not prove to be the
exception. Despite her acquittal of criminal charges, on September 12,
2004, Kuglin entered a settlement with the IRS in the Tax Court in which
she agreed to pay more than half a million dollars in back taxes and
penalties. Kuglin v. Commissioner, Docket No. 21743-03; see 2004 TNT
177-6 (Sept. 13, 2004).
In August 2004, an appellate court affirmed a federal district court
preliminary injunction barring Irwin Schiff, Cynthia Neun, and Lawrence N.
Cohen from selling a tax scheme that fraudulently claimed that payment of
federal income tax is voluntary. United States v. Schiff, 379 F.3d 621 (9th
Cir. 2004); see http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv04551.htm. Also, in October
2005, the trio was convicted by a Las Vegas jury for various criminal
charges relating to the federal income tax laws. See 2005 TNT 205-4
(Oct. 25, 2005). Schiff received a sentence of more than 12 years in
prison and was ordered to pay more than $4.2 million in restitution to the
IRS; Neun received a sentence of nearly 6 years and was ordered to pay
$1.1 million in restitution to the IRS; and, Cohen received a sentence of
nearly 3 years and was ordered to pay $480,000 in restitution to the IRS.
See http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/Februa ... _098.html; 2006
TNT 38-67 (Feb. 24, 2006); 2006 TNT 24-62 (Feb. 3, 2006).
Earlier this year, a dentist, Dr. Elaine Brown, and her husband, Ed Brown,
were prosecuted in a federal district court in New Hampshire of conspiracy
to defraud the federal government and, as to Dr. Brown, income tax
evasion, among other charges. These taxpayers claimed that they were
not subject to taxation and that the IRS never responded to their demands
for a legal explanation. In an opening statement to the jury, Ed Brown
proclaimed, “We will once and for all show beyond the shadow of a doubt .
. . that the federal income tax system is a fraud.” They failed to do so,
however, as the jury convicted the Browns on all charges. See
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/usaopress/2007 ... Browns.pdf. After
being sentenced in April, they refused to surrender themselves to
authorities and were arrested at their home on October 4, 2007, to begin
serving their prison terms.

Sa http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf
Primjetiti onaj irs.gov odnosno oznaku da je stranica Internal Revenue Servicea pod kontrolom vlade.


isusek, pa to je kao da mi zid govori!!
Daj pliz, znam da je offtopic, ali daj sažmi to sve, a onda potkrijepi linkom. kome se ovo da čitati?!
Zamisli da u knjizi R.Dawkinsa nakon svake tvrdnje doslovno citira stotine stranice neke knjige. Ne, navede izvor.
Mkay?

OT: mislim da jedan dio odgovornosti je na dileru, ali iznimno minoran.
Liefde Vrijheid Vriendschap Leven
User avatar
Panurg
<font color=orange>normalan
 
Posts: 2441
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 19:40
Location: Senftenberg

Postby Sunburn » Mon Jan 14, 2008 19:52

A kako da ti sazmem? :lol:

Gle, to je ispis iz objave IRSa o tim pricama o proizvoljnom i neobaveznom placanju poreza. U njemu se jasno kaze da to nije istina i potkrijepljeno ti je dokazima. Vise od toga ti ja ne mogu sazet. A i izgleda poduze jer je prekopirano iz pdf filea pa je rezano prerano umjesto da tekst ide do ruba ekrana. U biti izgleda vece nego sta je.

MOD mode: I ubuduce pliz nemoj quotat cijeli takav ogroman post radi dvolinijskog odgovora, napravi nesto ovakvo:
Sunburn wrote:1. Contention: The filing of a tax return is voluntary.

Some assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because...

<cut>

Jednostavno je puno preglednije a opet svi kuze sta si mislio.
Zbogom prijatelju
1986-2011
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici
User avatar
Sunburn
Nadasve zli odgajatelj u vrtiću
 
Posts: 3311
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 19:27
Location: Rijeka

Postby Panurg » Mon Jan 14, 2008 19:53

Sunburn wrote:A kako da ti sazmem? :lol:

Gle, to je ispis iz objave IRSa o tim pricama o proizvoljnom i neobaveznom placanju poreza. U njemu se jasno kaze da to nije istina i potkrijepljeno ti je dokazima. Vise od toga ti ja ne mogu sazet. A i izgleda poduze jer je prekopirano iz pdf filea pa je rezano prerano umjesto da tekst ide do ruba ekrana. U biti izgleda vece nego sta je.

MOD mode: I ubuduce pliz nemoj quotat cijeli takav ogroman post radi dvolinijskog odgovora, napravi nesto ovakvo:
Sunburn wrote:1. Contention: The filing of a tax return is voluntary.

Some assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because...

<cut>

Jednostavno je puno preglednije a opet svi kuze sta si mislio.


eto, vidiš da je lagano za sažeti.
Liefde Vrijheid Vriendschap Leven
User avatar
Panurg
<font color=orange>normalan
 
Posts: 2441
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 19:40
Location: Senftenberg

Re: Osobna odgovornost

Postby pumpkin » Sat Jan 24, 2009 19:01

[quote="Sunburn"]
Dakle, meni apsolutno nije jasno par stvari:
1.) Postoji netko ko je tako intelektualno zakinut ko ta cura
2.) Postoji takav gad kao sto je odvjetnik koji je voljan to napravit
3.) Postoji takva retardacija u zakonu da je to uspjelo proc ko slucaj
quote]

A ti si mislio da je ljudski rod pametan? Svi vide da ništa ne funkcionira..jer stoji na staklenim nogama..Sudstvo i zakoni su posebno retardirani sustavi. Ne bi vjerovao šta sve kod nih prolazi kao utemeljena tužba.. Ponekad mi se čini da je totalitarizam jedini funkcionalni sistem..pa se ti *ebi.. barem znaš da nemaš nikakva prava, a ovako misliš da možeš šta hoćeš, demokracija bla bla..pa vidi kakve se gluposti događaju... Al ima jedna pozitivna stvar u ovoj priči..ta cura navodno neće moć imat dijecu..tako da je ljudski rod pošteđen širenja ovakvih retardiranih gena...
User avatar
pumpkin
Forum member
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 19:04

Postby Picajzla » Fri Feb 20, 2009 13:44

Mirza wrote:
Turin Turambar wrote:
Mirza wrote:
Turin Turambar wrote:Kako je lijepo glumit hladnokrvnog bešćutnog cinika i smijat se tuđoj nesreći. Sigurno je osjećaj jako dobar.
Samo, izrugujući se tuđem jadu ne vidite koliko ste sami jadni.

Čekaj malo... šališ se? :lol:
Pa ljudi se smiju nekom ko je toliko zakinut u mozgu da dilera želi tužiti :lol:
Ae se zamisli u toj situaciji.... i prije svega, samim uzimanjem droge moraš biti svjestan posljedica.
I da... osjećaj je jebeno dobar smijat se nekom idiotu koji napravi takav potez, ali tu ne mislim na pretrpljenu bol, nego je sebe sada samo etiketirala kod svojih bližnjih kao narkomana! A vjerojatno nikad prije nije uzela ništa...

Ne odnosi se to samo na ovaj slučaj, nego općenito na stav Charona, Sunburna i ostalih - "ko jebe budale, sami su si krivi"...
Ali ako se od toga osjećate bolje...samo dajte.

Dobro, takav stav nemam ni ja... ne kažem da su sada narkomani scum of the earth, ja sam se samo smijao ovom podvigu... tužiti dilera!


jesu,scum of the earth su.ja sam čito "smrtopise" od nekog spliće,i veli da je razgovaro sa brdom tih budala,i svaki je bio bogatunko koji nije znao šta će od para i onda se počeo pucat,pokro oca i materu,prodo sve iz kuće,počeo krast,pljačkat,kurvat se,i na kraju odapne.manje drogaša znači:manje para mafiji,manje kriminala,manje side.da je bar crkla.
end of story.
AntiVegetarijanskaAkcija

VIJEĆE

Oksimoron:
Mršave gotičarke

Proud to be a CROAT!!!
User avatar
Picajzla
Bijo u Belgiji
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2004 11:34
Location: Koljem živine za AVA-u

Postby Mormy » Fri Feb 20, 2009 16:35

Picajzla wrote:jesu,scum of the earth su.ja sam čito "smrtopise" od nekog spliće,i veli da je razgovaro sa brdom tih budala,i svaki je bio bogatunko koji nije znao šta će od para i onda se počeo pucat,pokro oca i materu,prodo sve iz kuće,počeo krast,pljačkat,kurvat se,i na kraju odapne.manje drogaša znači:manje para mafiji,manje kriminala,manje side.da je bar crkla.
end of story.


da, samo je po nasim pametnim i divnim ljudima

narkoman ... svako ko zapali joint
a ako si narkoman onda si sasvim sigurno lopov, a mozda i potencijalni ubojica i silovatelj... te ako zapalis joint slijedeci korak je igla!!!

i naravno svi ljudi koji duvaju su granicno funkcionalni (ili nefunkcionalni) clanovi drustva.

a onda opet na alkohol se gleda kao ... pa to je normalno svi piju... cek cek, normalno je da dijete od 16 godina pije vani do jutra, tuce se i radi sranja... ali nedaj boze da zapali joint i smije se i zajebava... :lol: 3 godine zatvor odmah!!!!

imo, treba dopustiti svakome da se truje s cim hoce... dok sa tim ponasanjem ne ugrozava drugu osobu. kada to ponasanje pocne ugrozavati okolinu, to treba sankcionirati.

uostalom, pola stvari koje unosite u organizam pod normalno je 5x puta stetnije od nekih droga (heroin, bomboni (i tu ne mislim na mdma nego na ostale sastojke), speed itd ne racunam jer su turbo stetne) a masa njih ima puno manje nuspojave za zdravlje nego hmmm... recimo antibiotici (mislim da kolega Sunburn moze tu rec koliko dobro djeluju antibiotici na organizam pogotovo u kombi s alkoholom).

a uostalom, 90% tu vas kurca nema pojma o drogi i sam serete bzvz :) jer da znate pogledali bi kaj pijete kada vas copi prehlada, kada nemrete spavat, i tak... :) jer ono, diazepam, efedrin, zolpidem i jos 300 ostalih su totalno bezopasne supstance i ok su zato kaj ih vam je doktor prepisao :lol:
Go away, or I will replace you with a small shell script
User avatar
Mormy
codemonkey
 
Posts: 6429
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 18:49
Location: Internet

Previous

Return to Knjiznica

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest