Cugalabanza Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Oh, Wesley, you arrogant bastard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 What??? No celeb slap on the wrist?? People like this who think the rules don't apply deserve every bit of the punishment they get. Naturally he's smart enough to hire a quality agent to negotiate millions of dollars to act in movies, but too "naive" to hire a reputable tax accountant? you Wesley, you POS. And as a bonus, that's a 3 year guarantee against any more crappy Wesley Snipes movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBud Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Wonder is Chuck Norris will bring a Total Gym to Wes when he is in the pen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Oh, Wesley, you arrogant bastard Hmm... perhaps correct from a legal perspective but I found this quote from the judge a bit disturbing. "One of the main purposes which drives selective prosecution in tax cases is deterrence," the judge said, while denying it had anything to do with his sentence. "In some instances, that means those of celebrity stand greater risk of prosecution. But there's nothing unusual about it, nor is there anything unlawful about it. It's the way the system works."" We bemoan the development when celebrities get by with slaps on the wrist but I think this statement shows the other side of the coin. Neither direction is good. I have nothing for or against Snipes but it is disturbing when justice is meted out mainly to make an example of the person or highten the deterrence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted April 25, 2008 Author Share Posted April 25, 2008 We bemoan the development when celebrities get by with slaps on the wrist but I think this statement shows the other side of the coin. Neither direction is good. I have nothing for or against Snipes but it is disturbing when justice is meted out mainly to make an example of the person or highten the deterrence. Yeah, well, I don't feel too bad about it. Snipes tried to use his celebrity to try to intimidate the IRS. At one point, he warned them of "collateral damage" if they tried to collect money from him. I agree with you in principal, but in this case, considering the man, his position and his unbelievably arrogant refusal to cooperate, I can understand what the judge is saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyemike Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Yeah, well, I don't feel too bad about it. Snipes tried to use his celebrity to try to intimidate the IRS. At one point, he warned them of "collateral damage" if they tried to collect money from him. I guess "Collateral Damage" is a Wesley Snipes film that will never get made, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Hmm... perhaps correct from a legal perspective but I found this quote from the judge a bit disturbing."One of the main purposes which drives selective prosecution in tax cases is deterrence," the judge said, while denying it had anything to do with his sentence. "In some instances, that means those of celebrity stand greater risk of prosecution. But there's nothing unusual about it, nor is there anything unlawful about it. It's the way the system works."" We bemoan the development when celebrities get by with slaps on the wrist but I think this statement shows the other side of the coin. Neither direction is good. I have nothing for or against Snipes but it is disturbing when justice is meted out mainly to make an example of the person or highten the deterrence. I see your point and agree that it's a "thin line" to tread but when looking at it from a management perspective, it makes a hell of a lot of sense financially to send the message to one well known person to keep a whole bunch of sheep in line. In this case, the government spent money wisely. Snipes has paid them at least $15 million to date and I doubt the prosecution cost that much. Compare that to going after a whole buncha Cletus P. Rutherford's for $20-$30K at a loss of prosecution capital per. I'm more disturbed that they're wasting jail space on a non-violent offender. I think it'd have been smarter to give the guy 6000 hours of community service, a long probation, and house arrest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 He'll be out by June Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjeff215 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 I'm more disturbed that they're wasting jail space on a non-violent offender. I think it'd have been smarter to give the guy 6000 hours of community service, a long probation, and house arrest. Though, how bad does house arrest suck when you live in a 15 million dollar home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts