Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (15024)	9/25/2002 9:59:17 PM
From: ManyMoose	Respond to of 93284

On second thought, Tax Laws are designed by lawyers and accountants and politicians. So maybe somebody able to take advantage of them by selling Virginia cigarettes in New York where they keep people on permanent welfare is one of those types.

To: ManyMoose who wrote (15024)	9/26/2002 1:29:31 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Entreprenuers? Gangsters? What would you call the people, who as an example move cigarettes from the low tax States, e.g., Virginia, into New York [or Canada] to make a tidy profit by avoiding the taxes levied at the destination? Criminals? Gangsters? What would you think of a company that sent a small group of people into the storage facility of one of their competitors. That competitor had a product that was lower priced than their own product, so they destroyed it. That's one pair of correct answers. Another pair of correct answers is: 1. Patriots 2. Sons of Liberty It all depends on who you are, and most importantly....whether you control the media. bostonteapartyship.com click on Dec 16, 1773

To: ManyMoose who wrote (15024)	9/26/2002 2:37:15 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Speaking of lawyers. I've thought of writing up the hypothetical trial of Samual Adams, et al, before the Crown. Charge being the Illegal destruction of private property Intro: With the trial not going well for Mr. Adams, he's decided to waive his right to remain silent and testify in his own defense. Prosecution: Mr. Adams. You've been charged, along with the co-defendents, of the destruction of the private property of the East India Tea Company at Griffin's Wharf on 16 Dec 1773. Is that correct? Mr. Adams: Yes Prosecution: We've further heard the testimony from various witnesses, including British Admiral Montague, that you and your co-defendants were witnessed committing this act of property destruction. Is that correct? Mr. Adams: Yes Prosecution: You've chosen to appear before the Crown's Court to offer a defense. What is your claim. Mr. Adams: We were not destroying personal property, we were conducting an act of Patriotism. Prosecution: Patriotism! Mr. Adams, is it not true that you and/or your co-defendents are in the business of being a tea importer? Mr. Adams: Wellll....I guess so. Prosecution: Is it not also true that the East India Tea Company was delivering, on three ships, 342 crates of tea, that were that were legally exempted of the Crown's excise tax? Mr. Adams: I've heard that. Prosecution: Is it not also true that this allowed tea to be delivered to you and your fellow colonists at the lowest price ever seen in this colony? Mr. Adams: Some could look at it that way. Prosecution: Mr. Adams! Some could look at it that way. Let me repeat the question and implore the Court to require Mr. Adams to answer the question directly. Is it not also true that this allowed tea to be delivered to you and your fellow colonists at the lowest price ever seen in this colony? The Court: Answer the question, Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams: Yes, that is true. Prosecution: Mr. Adams, is it not true that you and your co-defendents have in storage an amount of tea? Mr. Adams: Yes. Prosecution: Mr. Adams. Is that tea being priced and sold at a higher price than the East India Company has advertised that it intends to sell it's tea. Mr. Adams: Yes. Prosecution: Isn't it reasonable that had the East India Company unloaded those crates of tea that your supplies of tea might go unsold, and you would be faced with bankruptcy? Defense Counsel: Objection. Calls for speclation. Prosecution: Withdrawn....Mr. Adams. I'm having difficulty in seeing your case for Patriotism. You've admittedly destroyed a competitors product that was set at a lower price than yours, the colonists would be receiving a lower priced product. To the best of my knowledge the colonists would like to drink tea at a lower cost to themselves. Could you elaborate? Mr. Adams: Well, it has to do with taxes.... Prosecution: Taxes! Does the jury hear that, taxes! The Crown has allowed the East India Company to deliver tea to the colonists tax free and the defendent claims it's about taxes. Go on, Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams: Well it's not about taxes on the people, it's about taxes on the importers of tea that are here in the colonies.... Prosecution: And that would be you and your co-defendents would it not? Mr. Adams: As a matter of coincidence, yes. Prosecution: ROTFLOL. Defense Counsel: Objection...your honor. Would the prosecution kindly return some decorum to the proceedings? The Court: Would Prosecution Counsel refrain from laughter in this court? If not, you'll be cited with contempt. Prosecution: My deepest apologies, your honor......So, Mr. Adams. I take it your answer is that this tax really isn't about the residents of the colony, but rather it's about the taxes, that personnally come out of your pocket. Mr. Adams: Yes. Prosecution: Feel free to expand on that. Mr. Adams: It's like this...The East India Company lobbied the Crown for a waiver of taxes in order to avoid bankruptcy. It was through their own mismanagement and corruption that was responsible for them tettering on solvency. It's not fair. Prosecution: Mr. Adams, are you privy to the financial statements of the East India Company? Mr. Adams: No. Prosecution: I would like to submit to the Court, this affadavit from the Crown. The affadavit states quite clearly, that in discussions with the East India Company, the company asserted to the Crown that serveral of her ships had been sunk by enemies of the Crown. This has been confirmed by the Admirality. It was on this fact, and this fact only, that the Crown made a rather benevolent decision to waive taxes on the East India Tea Company. Prosecution: Are you aware of this position of the Crown and the East India Tea Company? Mr. Adams: So they said. But the truth is.... Prosecution: Mr. Adams. The Truth is in this affadavit. Defense Counsel: Objection, would the prosecution allow the defendent to complete his testimony. Prosecution: Mr. Adams, pleaaaase continue. Mr. Adams: As I was saying, that was the claim, but all us other tea importers, particularly those with contracts to procure tea from other distributors, knew it was because of mismanagement and corruption. And that just wasn't fair. We were protesting this unfairness of levying taxes. Prosecution: This "protest" is rather an interesting assertion. Mr. Adams. Is it not true that you and your co-defendents were dressed as Indians for this said "protest"? Mr. Adams: Yes. Prosecution: We can even be more specific, can't we? You were dressed specifically as members of the Mohawk tribe? Defense Counsel: Objection. Your honor, relevency. What's the relavency? I fail to see where counsel is taking us. Are we next to discuss the tribal dress of all American Indians. What then the fashions in England and Europe? Can't we move on to something more germane? Prosecution: Your honor, this goes directly to the credibility of the defendents claim. The Court: Be speedy about it. Prosecution: Yes, your honor. Prosection: To repeat...We can even be more specific, can't we? You were dressed specifically as members of the Mohawk tribe? Mr. Adams: Yes Prosecution: So you would have this court believe that the Crown would interpret the destruction of tea by the Mohawk tribe as a protest against unfair taxes? Defense Counsel: Objection. Calls for Speculation. Prosecution: Your honor, this goes directly to the motivation and intentions of the defendent. The very credibility. The Court: Overruled. Mr. Adams: Yes, that was our thought. That the Crown would see this act of Mohawk Indians throwing tea into the Boston Harbor as a protest against unfair taxes. Prosecution: Incredible. Absolutely incredible. Do you take this Court and the jurors for fools? Defense Counsel: OBJECTION Prosecution: Withdrawn. Prosecution: Your honor, I have no further questions for this witness. I think his testimony speaks for itself. The prosecution rests.