Shoulda, coulda, woulda -- or no?

You know, I think it is just a shame that Dick puts himslef before the city and the community. Think about all the places that $700,000 could have gone to. Or $130,000 for that matter. I would like to know if we can sue Dick for wasting the tax payers dollars. Further I would like to know why he is still a council member who is allowed to continue participating in running our government when he is suing it and costing us so much money - when we are in a deficit. Get him Out! If we voted for him, we should be able to vote him out.

Governments and large corporations do not officially apologize -- at least that's been my personal experience. That would have meant they were admitting they were wrong -- which certainly they can never be. Yes, it would have been nice if this had gone away for an apology and $130,000.

If Furstenau loses will he have to pay the atty's fees -- possibly some costs, but highly unlikely on the fees. No, us taxpayers in Naperville are on the hook. Thank you City Council/NPD!

Arrogance and stupidity coupled with a lack of common sense pretty much sums up how the majority of our city council members end up today finding themselves caught between the proverbial rock and hard place. Throw in some really, really bad legal advice and it is no wonder they don't sleep well at night.

Oh, if they only had the benefit of hindsight just a few short months ago all of this could have been handled so much differently.

Let's start with the really, really bad decision to attempt to prosecute such a weak case in the first place. What in the world were we thinking? Oh, sure, but was it confidence, arrogance, or just mean spirited politics? Regardless, the really, really bad decision to prosecute was compounded by the fact that the city lost it's case. Yeah, we have heard from the bobble heads on why the case was lost but that doesn't change the fact that it was lost. That is a risk of prosecution going into trail that all good prosecutors understand and is the exact reason why many cases never go to trial or are plea bargained before trial. Once the city and prosecutor made a conscious decision to move forward with the original trial they accepted full responsibility for the risk of potentially losing the trial. And yes, the city did lose. That is a fundamental fact that can not be changed and will have a major bearing on how the next trial plays out.

To add insult to injury this merry bunch of nincompoops could have apologized and moved on, but no they decided they had to take the high moral ground. Like there is any high moral ground in politics, but it is a bit late to point this out to them. Then at each and every opportunity they rebuffed the many offers to settle. Nope, wouldn't even discuss it. I guess it is also too late to tell this merry bunch of nincompoops that compromise, finding common middle ground, is the hallmark of a being a good politician these days.

So here we are. No offers on the table. No willingness to talk, settle, or compromise. The collective majority of the city council feels it is better to squander hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax money rather than loose face and admit mistakes were made. Like anyone or anything is perfect. But they seem to think that for some reason the City of Naperville has to stand for some model of never making a mistake. Do you want to tell them to get a live or should I?

The next trail will be lost as well. Make no mistake about that. The jury is going to hand the city their ass and tell them to pay up. The only logical explanation for the conduct of the city council at this point in time is that they each know there is no way out. They each know they can not settle the lawsuit because the loss of face will cause them to not be re-elected. They each know they can't win the lawsuit and the only possible way out for them is to let it ride and go to a jury. They are banking their hopes on two possibilities. The first is that somehow the jury might find in their favor. Statistically the deck is stacked big time against the city on the facts and merits of the case, but juries can be fickle... so give them a 2-3 % chance from this aspect. But what the city council members are really banking on is that once they jury decides in favor of the plaintiff they can just blame the jury. The bobble heads will all be out in full force saying how they disagree with the findings, blah, blah, blah. At the end of the day this is their only possible way out in an attempt to save face and hope the tax payers will buy it and forget about what happened before the next election.

The Naperville Sun closed the into to this thread, in part, by asking if Furstenau loses his case if he should be responsible for the city's legal fees. There is a second question that should have been asked by the Naperville Sun, but wasn't, and it is this: "If the city loses it's case should the city council members be personally responsible for all of the legal fees and settlement costs considering they deliberately rebuffed all earlier opportunities to settle this lawsuit in a more economical manner? At what point does a city council member violate his or her fiduciary responsibility to the citizens the have sworn to represent?

The city should not pay this guy one cent. If the city pays him then the floodgates will open and everybody will want their payment. Let the fight continue.

I have heard that the city did offer him his asking price, many months and many many thousands of dollars ago. He turned it down, I heard, because it came with a catch - he had to resign.
Does anyone know if this true?
If so, Furstenau has an amazing ability to compartmentalize his brain - on the one hand he is grandstanding about taking a pay cut as councilman - and on the other he is running up a huge bill that the taxpayers are going to have to pay.
Personally I don't understand how he can possibly sit up there voting on budget issues with such a whopping conflict of interest.
Can someone please explain all this!?

I expect my elected officials to act in my interest, not to salve their own egos. They could have, and should have, settled the damn lawsuit before it began.

In the end, over a million taxpayer dollars will be spent and the electorate's opinion of who was right or wrong will not change one bit. The fact that we have a lawsuit instead of a settlement speaks volumes about the character and wisdom of both parties.

Whether or not it was better to settle with DF I don't know. I do suspect, however, that if the city's legal folks were really serious about this case they would have showed up in court. Naperville screwed up and the people who conducted this case should be fired. DF is not without blame either. I told him months ago that his suit is only hurting taxpayers (voters) and he should do the right thing and drop it. Reply? Silence! City officials are usually imune from discipline and only the lawyers benefit from this type of foolishness. Shame on everybody involved!

Of course they should have paid him the money whether Furstenau is right or wrong. The reason they didn't wasn't because of their "principles", (we will find out when the verdict comes if they had any principles to begin with) the reason they didn't was because they continually got bad advice from Margo Ely about how much this lawsuit would cost to defend and what the city's legal position was.

Remember when she said this lawsuit was frivolous and had no merit, and that it would be over so fast it would only cost 200K to defend? Well, I guess the city thought it was worth spending 200K to not give in to furstenau for 130K. Then after the city decided to fight the suit, do you remember when she came back and said it would cost 400k? Do you remember when she came back a while later after that and said it would cost 600k? Do you remember that all along Furstenau's attorney was telling the city and the Sun that Ely had no idea what she was doing and that this lawsuit would cost over $1 million to defend, and everyone chalked that up as an empty threat trying to scare the city into settling? Do you remember all this time, while the city's attorney's are being paid, Furstenau's attorney is doing this for free? He only gets paid if they win. I know I wouldn't be spending 500 hours of my own time unless I was pretty darn sure I was going to win in the end.

So here we are, 1 year into it and the suit is still going strong and it has passed every review by every judge to move forward. I guess it doesn't appear to them to be too frivolous after all. I bet the city would like to go back to the beginning and do it over with better advice.

Do you remember that before Furstenau asked for 130K, all he asked for was an apology and to have the officers involved modestly disciplined? He didn't ask for money.

What I think is amusing is the city's attorney, Sotos, continues to harp on the fact that Furstenau shouldn't be doing this because he is a councilman who fancies himself as a fiscal conservative. Is that all you got, Sotos? Cause if it is... we're screwed? Furstenau doesn't "fancy" himself as a fiscal conservative; it is a reputation he has earned from everyone around him for his actions after 8 years on the council.

I also think it is a joke that Sotos characterizes the order to provide all emails to Furstenau's attorney as a fishing expedition. Does he think we're stupid. It is lawsuit 101 in today's world to ask for and hand over emails in every lawsuit. That's where all the dirt is. What are you trying to hid, Sotos? Other then the fact it will likely be a few emails that seals Furstenau's case?

I guess Furstenau felt he had to stand and fight False Arrest and fight for a persons right to Due Process. The city should have first, apologized and disciplined the officers without spending any money. Then they should have paid the 130K. But they said they had principles. Well, when the verdict comes out, we'll see if it was the city or if it was Furstenau who was truly standing on their principles.

hey Just Watching-

you should realize that it was Rosanova who was grand-standing about taking a pay cut and Furstenau who called Rosanova dramatic when the council makes only 11,000 a year.

No, it isn't true, to my knowledge, that the city formally offered furstenau a settlement that included his resignation. I believe a few council members discussed it and decided better on such a stupid idea. don't you wonder why a few city council members are so hell bent to get ride of the one guy who will stand up and call people to the carpet when they do things that aren't right?

The city should have paid up, first because they and the cops were wrong, and second, because it was an incredibly cheap way out of a bad situation.

It is no wonder that the city faces a deficit when councilmen base decisions on ego instead of what is best for the taxpayers.

Hey I could use some fast cash right about now. I think I will file suite against the city for $50K. Based on the majority of arguments presented here it would be cheaper and in the taxpayer’s best interest to just pay me rather than go to trial. I may even be a good guy and settle for just $25K. Sounds like a plan. Hey, anyone here want to front me the money to file this lawsuit for a cut of the settlement?

I do agree with many of Anonymous' points. So I will try not to be repetitive.

However, it is not Mr. Furstenau's fault that the lawyers the city retained are taking advantage of the City of Naperville. That is the city councils' fault. The city council hired lawyers without locking them into a fixed fee or at least capping them. They pretty much told them since we have a 380 million dollar budget, we have deep pockets and we want you to win this case at ALL COSTS so our pride will not be tainted.

Only a fool pays attorneys 700k soon to be 2 million for a 130k case that could have been settled with only an apology at one point.

Furstenau is not creaming the taxpayers. The lawyers the city retained are creaming the taxpayers. I can assure you Furstenau's lawyer has probably spent less than 10k in time and costs on this case even though he is representing DF on a contingency. At most 25k! He has to do a similar amount of work to prosecute as these outside lawyers need to do to defend.

The lawyers are simply taking advantage of the city's ego. Even if this case went to trial, it would be a one or two day trial. It is a "he said,she said" case and the Judge would decide who he believes and that is the end of it. It should be no big deal to either party whether they win or lose as long as they gave it a good effort...not a perfect effort at ALL COSTS!

This is not the first time the city has decided to take these extreme measures. They also took extreme legal measures against the Napergate Man for a good part of a decade that make the measures taken against DF look pale. The case ended up in Liquor Commission, County Courts, State Courts, Federal Courts, reached many Appellate levels and cost the taxpayers millions.

From what I recall from reading the civil rights case on this blog site a while back, the case only cost the Napergate Man about $78,000 in legal fees a decade ago. (Maybe a 150k in today's equivalent dollars). We know this because he filed to recover his damages and LEGAL COSTS from the city. Apparently, a secret settlement was worked out at some point and no one knows what it is.

The city had a final appeal left to the Supreme Court but they threw in the towel and surrendered after the Appellate Court Battle was lost by unanimous decision. May I add, the towel was only thrown in, after irresponsibly wasting millions of taxpayer dollars when the dollar still had great value against European and Japanese currencies.

No one will nost likely ever know exactly how much was wasted. The city probably insisted for it to make this settlement, that it must remain sealed and confidential till death do us apart. Now, one would think you can go to City Hall and dig up this information. At least the cost to fight this battle if not the SECRET SETTLEMENT.

Guess what happened.....the city claims no records exist or were lost in all the Napergate Man's cases. They just vanished in thin air. The folklore in town is that all the records were buried with former Mayor Samuel C. Macrane when he passed away. His ego had initiated this mess. In my opinion his ego finally wore him down and killed him. Having a big ego is not a good thing!

Let us hope in the DF case the record does not disappear. Let us hope we find out how much this case will truly cost the taxpayer when it is all done and said.

And remember it is not DF who agreed to pay 700k and counting to the lawyers so far. It is the city council! I am assuming Furstenau recused himself voluntarily or was forced to recuse himself on his own case since it is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Furstenau would never agree to waste this kind of taxpayer money on his case whether it is from his side or the city's side. If DF was in charge, he would retain a law firm and cap them at $25k for a case similar to the one he filed. If the lawyers want to drag a simple case like this beyond the 25k cap in legal fees, it would all be out of their pocket. Attorneys would still want to win as most law firms depend on their reputation for referrals. They need to win as clients do not hire law firms that lose to many cases. So they would have the motivation to fight whether they were offered 25k or 2.5 million to fight this possible soft touching of a police officer on the shoulder. Albeit, a little less of a motive when less money is on the table, but for heaven's sake this is not a murder case...it is a TOUCHING, HE SAID SHE SAID case. Let us get real here!

Let us not keep blaming Furstenau for these outrageous legal costs that he can not control and did not bring to the taxpayer. Furtenau brought a lawsuit that he has every right to bring....the city council brought the outrageous legal costs to the TAXPAYER! That is a FACT!

There are still officials in City Hall and on the City Council that know what happened in the Napergate Trials. They know how the whole ordeal backfired. They should be advising their colleagues of the mistakes of the past and the importance of not repeating them. Instead, it appears they all forget about the mistakes of the past since they are a decade old...since they blamed it all on former Mayor Samuel C. MaCrane and buried all the files with him in his coffin.

How easy it is to blame one dead man? How convenient it is to blame one dead man? The one dead man only had one of the 9 votes on the city council. At what point the city council was ruling in the majority to waste all this money on the Napergate Man's numerous cases that were INITIATED by the City and not him. I am sure they did not like his Napergate Ads and thought they can break his bank account, dry up his money and dicontinue the Napergate Ads since the Naperville Sun did not succumb to the pressure applied by city officials, except for a very short while in which 2 Napergate Ads never made it to the presses.

Well, many years later we find out all these battles only cost the Napergate Man under a 100k. He sued the city for only $78,000 in legals fees. That is it! I am sure he sued them for tons of other things on top of the legal fees. But the legal fees were only $78,000 from what I can recall reading. The case was posted on a Napergate Thread on this blog site verbatim. So it is not a blogger's post or guesswork that I am relying on for my information. I am sure Host Ted, recalls! I believe it was Blogger TB who dug up the Federal Cased and posted it for other bloggers to see!

In summary, DF has no responsibility for what the city council members are paying sharkish lawyers who most likely are taking advantage of the deep pockets of the masses of Naperville Taxpayers. DF can only be held responsible for bringing a lawsuit, and that is his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT! Let us keep blame where blame belongs. Let us learn from the long history of Naperville! Let us learn from the Napergate Fiasco! Let us not repeat our mistakes!

Thank You for giving me the floor Host Ted!

Go Furstenau - take 'em to the cleaners! The city can always raise taxes to fund their defense.

WHY THE OVERRESPONSE?

Has Dick paid Shawn Collins (or has Shawn Collins accumulated billing time) equal to $700,000? I doubt it. He would have had to be working 120 hours each week for the last 30 weeks.

What is the City afraid of that they need to take such caution in responding to discovery requests (documents, e-mails)? Maybe Dick has a good case.

By the way, I thought the first year limit was $500,000. So much for spending control.

WHAT IS AT STAKE?

We know that Buchard got his golden parachute even though the financial condition of the City shows he was not managing it for at least two years. He should be sued for the deficits.

What is really at stake? POLICE SALARIES THAT ARE AT LEAST 20% OVER MARKET.

No wonder the police did not like Dick's comments. If they were paid what they are worth, the City could cut taxes.

How to pay for this? Layoff 20% of all police officers. Make the remaining police officers work 20% higher to earn their salary.

ROSANOVA

Do us a favor, take a 20% cut in your teachers salaries that are killing us in 203 taxes. And the pension as well.

Just because Furstenau is a member of the city council doesn't mean he gives up his rights as a citizen. Shame on everyone who has called for him to resign. Furstenau has done an exemplary job as a council member. If anyone should be called upon to resign it should be the cop who arrested him and those in the city administration who supported this lame arrest and prosecution in the first place. These are the people who made really, really bad decisions and who are directly and personally responsible for the city being in the position it finds itself today. Oh, I forgot one of these idiots was our former city manager and he already snuck out of town like the coward he was.

I don't know you personally but voted for you each time you ran, have watched council meetings, and read local papers. I am an 88 year old widow, handicapped, and rapidly going broke. The easiest way to restore your previously good name is to drop teh suit in deference to all us tax payers who can no longer afford such hiigh taxes. Thank you for your previous donatioj of your time.

Today's question is: Should the city have apologized to Furstenau and ponied up the $130,000 a year ago?

YES

Does anyone know how Furstenau started the real estate bubble collapse resulting in falling local and state revenues and the ensuing banking crisis which will probably result in the defacto nationalization of the financial sector with Barny calling the shots? Mr. Wherli?

If the lawsuit results in double digit tax increases, will the Chamber of Commerce throw a party for Dick?

Regardless of who is right or wrong in this case, the main point should be that a council member should do what is right for the taxpayers. NOT HIMSELF!

Drop the lawsuit or resign, Furstenau.

This clearly is a conflict of interest. How long would you remain employed by a company you were suing? Why does he remain? Does he think he is being fiscally responsible? Or is he rubbing it into everyone’s face?

Adding to the city’s financial problems is hardly being fiscally responsible. If you back Furstenau lawsuit and you live in the city you must want to give your hard earned money to him. I know I don’t.

If money is truly not a factor in this lawsuit, as he has stated in the past, and it is a matter of principle. Has he gotten his point across at the expense of the taxpayers? Should he not drop the lawsuit, claim victory by costing the city 5.38 times what he was asking for? Is he that arrogant?

Or

Should he maintain the lawsuit and recluse himself from any further council member activities and show his real reason the lawsuit he filed.

MONEY and GREED

What started this lawsuit, an arrest, which would have jailed anyone else?

True, DF does not give up his rights as a citizen just because he is on the city council. And the cop doesn't turn the other cheek when he is assaulted by DF just because DF is a councilman. DF should not be throwing his weight around under the circumstances in which he did. He should have followed a chain of command-call the watch commanders office and discuss the parking matter with him directly and let him deal with it. But DF did not and instead acted like the little big man asshat that he is. Let the case take its course.

Views from someone in the arena:

(1) To have capitulated to the initial $130K settlement demand, along with an apology from the City, would have been viewed as a sell-out by city staff, who believed they had been subjected to years of abuse by an over-aggressive councilman. Several department heads would probably have followed the lead of the former City Manager and resigned in disgust. The cost to recruit, hire and educate their replacements, and get their departments running smoothly again, would have been substantial, probably a mid-six figure dollar amount. So given the choice between spending $500K to defend the city or $500K to replace senior staffers, the better choice was to incur the $500K to defend the city.

(2) Now that the legal costs have exceeded $700K, continuing to fund the city’s defense has become less justifiable. One year into the lawsuit, City staff, including department heads, now know that the City has done its utmost to defend their actions. So the cost of staff departures should no longer be considered as a reason to incur further defense costs.

(3) In federal lawsuits of this type, about half of the total costs will be incurred in discovery and pre-trial proceedings, and the other half incurred at trial and in post-trial briefing and appeal. The current lawsuit is about half-way through discovery, and has cost about $750K to this point. That means another $750K will be spent to complete discovery (depositions, summary judgment motions, pre-trial motions). A trial in this case will cost another $750K, and post-trial briefing and an appeal another $750K, for a grand total of $3 million to take the case the distance. So at what point will the city council decide that going the distance no longer makes sense, and a palatable settlement should be sought instead? That point will probably come when the City’s legal costs exceed $1 million.

(4) What would a palatable settlement look like? It would probably take a mid-six figure dollar amount to convince the councilman’s lawyer to walk away from the case. Residents will likely support the city council paying a mid-six figure settlement amount to avoid paying multiples of that to take the case though trial and appeal. And with that type of settlement, the councilman will be viewed as being solely responsible for taxpayer money having been misspent on lawyers instead of resident services.

(5) What about the apology? Once each side has sunk about $1 million into their cases, passions will have softened somewhat. A mutual statement of regret will allow each side to claim “victory”.

Thoughts?

Let's all remember that ORIGINALLY he asked for the apology and about $35,000.

Burchard got cocky and nasty, and Fursteneau upped the anty.

Now, we are at $700,000.00. possibly growing to $2,000,000.00, PLUS the $250,000.00 or so we gave to Burchard when he QUIT in a tissy fit over not getting his way.

Fursteneau should push this to the very end.

The cops were wrong ---- the council has been wrong ----the lawyers have been wrong.

Oops! I was referring to Napergate there for a second!

No, wait a minute. It also applies to Fursteneau's problem with the same group of City employees and contractors.

Does anyone else get the trend here?

Neither party can claim altruism in this case. They are both screwing over the taxpayers by their actions and each has had ample opportunity to push away from the table and claim the high road; for the benefit of the taxpayers. Neither side has and it appears that neither side will.

I'm upset and disappointed at all parties involved because none of them have any concern about the taxpayer at this point.

No one is above the law. Period. However, when a cop arrests a city council member his is de facto arresting his own boss. Do that in the corporate world and see what your career aspirations soon become. Not to say that there are not instances when a crime has been violated and those in power should not be held accountable, but this is not the time for wishful thinking or circumstantial evidence. If you arrest your boss you darn well better have an iron clad case or you better be fully prepared to expect some repercussions. Those repercussions are simply holding those accountable who, in the first trial, made some really, really bad decisions to move forward with the prosecution. Unfortunately they gambled and lost and now they must be held accountable for the decisions they made. That is life. And let's not forget that accountability is a two way street. The city was definitely serious when they charged a council member with a felony and prosecuted him and they definitely intended to hold him accountable. If we are compelled to attempt to hold Mr. Fursteanau accountable for his actions then we must be just as compelled to hold every single city employee and council member accountable who played a role in the decision making process to arrest, charge, and prosecute Mr. Furstenau?

City council members are not elected to hold the hands of spineless city department heads. City council members are elected to represent the best interests of voters, citizens, and taxpayers. Mr. Furstenau has it right. He understands his role well and he also understands the we vs them mentality and culture that has been allowed to permeate city hall for too long. If city department heads find Mr. Furstenau too aggressive then none of them better have any career aspiration to work in the private sector as they will truly be in for an eye-opening experience.

Corporate board members sue the corporations they sit on all the time. Most commonly over the value of their shares and board oversight/fiduciary responsibility issues, but there are other examples as well. No one calls for them to resign when they file such law suits. Last year the chief of the Illinois Supreme Court filed a personal lawsuit which ultimately could have been appealed to his level and no one called for him to resign. Fact is that law and live have grown more complicated in recent years and personal rights are not given up just because of other positions that may be held, elected or otherwise. If nothing else we have to respect the fact that Mr. Furstenau had the personal courage to stand up for his own rights.

As far as I am concerned the fact that Mr. Furstenau is also a member of the city council is not relevant nor an issue. First and foremost he is a citizen. He was arrested as a citizen; not as a member of the city council. He was not arrested or charged with anything related to his official duties. The charges were and are personal and we have to respect his rights the same as we would any other citizen or resident of Naperville who believes they were wronged and entitled to redress. Like any citizen Mr. Fursteanau was supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Yet, there were many among us who were quick to personally convict him before he was tried based upon the false and misleading information put out by certain city council members and city employees.

The city had every opportunity to prove their case against Mr. Fursteanau and lost. Now, instead of taking their lumps for prosecuting an obviously weak case they are choosing to drag this mess they created on and on with us taxpayers footing the bill for their mistakes and poor judgement. Fact is, when you lose your case you have to expect some kind of repercussion. That is why a savvy, competent prosecutor doesn't ever take a weak case to trail. They work hard to prevent a loss, an embarrassment to the city, and repercussions like this lawsuit. Let's not be quick to forget that if the city had won their lawsuit Mr. Furstenau would have been convicted, possibly sentenced to some jail time for a felony, possibly paid a fine, most likely would have resigned, and there would not be ground for the current lawsuit. What a drastic turn of events from what some in the city were hoping for and what the prosecution team was actually capable of delivering. This was a flawed, risky lawsuit from the beginning and the city team picked the wrong odds and lost. Now they have to face the music and they must be held accountable for the decisions they made and the action they took.

Every citizen in Naperville has a vested interest in seeing this case go to trial and seeing the City of Naperville lose. Who among us would ever want to find ourselves in Mr. Fursteanau's shoes? Who among us would ever like to be arrested, charged with a felony, prosecuted under the full vengeance of the law, facing some really harsh possible sentences, and potentially have a life long stigma of being a convicted felon? Doesn't wrongful prosecution, selective prosecution, retribution prosecution scare the hell out of the average person? Who among us would ever want to see their life destroyed in front of their eyes by simply finding themselves on the wrong side of the anger and authority held by certain people who fancy themselves power brokers in Naperville? I believe in a free, democratic society. I do not want to live where the authorities are out of control and who are not held accountable for their actions. I do not want to live where the legal system is used in a veiled attempt to bury political rivals.

Sometimes the most important lessons in life are learned the hard way. For many of the other members of the city council and much of the "senior leadership" in city administration some lessons about respect, humility, integrity, and a few other personal character traits are long overdue. Fact is there isn't much any of us citizens can do at this point except sit back and watch this train wreck unfold in front of our eyes. Yes, there really isn't much we can do while the arrogance and ego's that created this mess continue to be rigid, inflexible, and unyielding in their attitude towards finding a compromise or reasonable settlement that will bring closure. The lack of reasonableness is clearly displayed by an attitude who somehow feels they can somehow justify spending $700,000 to date to defend a lawsuit that was only worth $130,000 worst case if they took it to trial quickly and lost. This same lack of reasonableness is also demonstrated by a legal team who at the onset of litigation said this case would cost only a fraction of this amount to defend in it's entirity. By the time the case is actually tried and awarded is there anyone among us who does not fully believe that the city legal costs will be somewhere between $1M and $1.5? Assuming the city will lose I guess we can also expect them to file an appeal and add on additional hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal expenses.

Maybe the rest of the city council and "senior leadership" of the city administration will learn something from this mess that was created by their own actions and choices. Maybe they won't. In the big picture of things I kind of think the $700,000 spent so far is a good investment in cheap tickets to front row seats that once and for all time will expose what has really been going on behind the scenes at city hall for way, way too many years. It is time for all of the voters to know the true nature and character of some council members personalities and the hand they had in the decision making process for the initial arrest and trial and the really, really dirty politics that they were personally involved with. Some people know what has been going on for years. Others will be truly shocked to hear and learn the truth. There are some city council members who are loved by the public and who foster a belief that they have a sterling reputation. I hope these council members realize they are not going to come thru this trial without some serious tarnish and dings in the perceptions previously held by the voters who helped elect them to office. This trial will end up ruining more than one political career.

But in the end the $700,000 and counting will give everyone the opportunity to air some really dirty City of Naperville laundry and allow Naperville voters to finally see a clearer picture of what really goes on in their city hall. Yes, money that will be very well spent. The truth will set you free definitely applies to this lawsuit. Truth we all need to hear.

The biggest question is this... the day after Mr. Furstenau wins his lawsuit... and he will win his lawsuit... how many resignations can we expect will be handed in from city council members, department heads, city lawyers, and other city employees who had a hand in this unfortunate chapter of Naperville history.

cb

if you think the city paying furstenau his 130k would have resulted in a large number of department head employees suddenly resigning their long term jobs and careers and their paychecks to enter a job market with no severance because they may not agree with it, your out of your mind.

anonymous, what makes you think furstenau isn't doing what is right for the taxpayers by holding corrupt city officials and police officers accountable for something that was illegal and against their oath.

furstenau should have never been arrested and neither should a normal citizen for that matter. what you fail to understand, or refuse to admit, is that furstenau and his attorney say they have proof that the cops altered and doctored police reports and documents, ignored eye witness testimony, and withheld evidence from the states attorney that would have cleared furstenau of any wrong doing before an arrest was made. they say he was falsely arrested and can prove the whole thing was a sham. they have already caught the officers involved in several lies and conflicting stories. why don't you wait and see what evidence comes out in court. the city has fought and tried to with hold every bit of routine discovery evidence along the way. the obvious are aware that they need to hid some things.

if, and when all the evidence comes out, and it supports what furstenau has been saying... that cops lied and manipulated reports and altered statements and withheld evidence, ignored eyewitness testimony, and lied to the states attorney in order to arrest him, and it proves he has been right all along, i hope you and everyone else slandering him will come out and apologize to him and begin to blame the npd for this whole fiasco.

if what furstenau says is really true, and he was truly railroaded the way he and his attorney say they can prove he was, then i don't think it is fair for you to ask him to ignore it. it is far more important for him to stand up to it, and very selfish for you to ask him to ignore it. i doubt if it happened to you that you would ignore it. these guys essentially lied and tried to make something up and throw him in prison for 10 years. is that a no-big-deal thing that he should just let go and let cops get away with. if you do, then im glad you're not one of them because we would all be as screw as he was.

and there is no way that you can say, "oh thats not what happened. they didn't do that." fact is, you have no idea what they did or didn't do. wait and see the evidence before you crucify him as being selfish. you may find he is actually being very courageous to stand up to corruption in such powerful places.

I am sorry to say but I feel almost every blogger writing here is missing the crucial and most important point.

THE RIGHTS OF CASE:

1. DF has a right to bring a lawsuit if he feels he was abused in anyway. He has a right to allow the court system to review his allegations.

2. The city of Naperville has every right to defend against this lawsuit if it feels it is frivolous. It has a right to allow the court system to vindicate it of the possible false allegations.

NEITHER OF THESE IS THE ISSUE:

The real issue is the incompetence of City Council in NOT retaining attorneys for affordabel fees. For NOT negotiating affordable fees! For NOT getting estimates! For NOT capping the legals fees! For NOT ADVISING attorneys in advance this is a case that involves a maximum loss of $130k if we lose, so please make sure your fees don't exceed the maximum damages!!! ALL COMMON SENSE!

This is where the City Council failed us miserably...just like in the Napergate Man's case that is buried in former Mayor Samuel MaCrane's coffin in the Naperville Cemetry. For sure, the costs of the Napergate Case to the City of Naperville can not be found anywhere in City Hall, the no. 1 Library in the country, or in our court system.

Thankfully, a city council member is involved and monitoring the cost of his own case to our citizens and making sure it does not dissapper in thin air. DF should be commended for demanding to know the cost and making sure the taxpayers are fully aware. We have a right to know and DF is making sure we know.

Yes, the city council reprimanded him for his calling out certain city officials/staff for being wasteful with taxpayer dollars. He in essence is reprimanding his fellow city council members for being not only wasteful but borderline incompetennce for being suckered by 3 outside legal firms for outrageous sums because no one in the city including "Margo Whatever" can negotiate reasonable fees with attorneys.

To add insult to injury we have our in-house legal department that should have been able to handle the research in this case and handle the discovery on their fixed salaries. Apparently, they have not been able to do that even though expending 590 hours of legal time if I recall correctly.

This case smacks such a resemblance to the Napergate Case that went miserably wrong. At that time instead of using in-house salaried staff, they chose to hire 3 outside law firms. They decided they could not lose at any cost since the son of gun Napergate Man took 44 full page ads and smeared the reputation and credibility of just about everyone in City Hall and the Police Dept. He left the fire department alone just for the record.

The problem with both cases is one word.....EGO! When EGO gets in the way, irrational thought and exuberance takes over for common sense. Trouble looms in the horizon!

The city of Naperville should have given an average attorney 25k to handle this case. He probably would have worked his "ass" off in order to impress city officials hoping he could get future business from the city.

What would be the damages to the City if he lost? At worse, $130k if the judge ruled against him in every motion! Unlikely! The battle would have most probably ended in a draw or hung jury as it is a "he said she said" case. There is a great possibility the presiding judge will dismiss it after discovery as there may be insufficient evidence.

But to spend 3 million dollars in taxpayer money in these hard times on a "he said she said" bullshit case is irresponsible and outrageous of our city council. That is the real point.

None of us writing were at the scene, I presume. We don't know what happened. We have no right to take sides. But we have a right to defend our hard earned dollars from being wasted in this unjustified manner.

Again it is not DF who made the unfortunate decision to spend a potential 3 million dollars or more on his case. It is the CITY COUNCIL! It is their utter incompetence that led them to spend this kind of money. Yes, utter egotistical stupidity!

And why should the City Council care so much if a jury of 12 and finder of facts determines that a police officer lied about DF punching him in the chest that it could be heard 200 yards away. The judge may ask for a voluteer to agree to be punched 200 yards away as hard as possible in the chest from where the jury is located and if the jury can't hear the punch, the star witness of the city of Naperville will be dismissed and the case will be over.

So what if the City of Naperville loses. If the city council did not insert itself in this manner, it would reflect only the actions of one cop on one afternoon in downtown Naperville. That is all it would reflect...that is all it would condemn. The city council would not be condemned. The city of Naperville would not be condemned! The Naperville residents would not be condemned! Only the police officer and probably the police dept. for bringing potential false charges. The police dept. would get a black eye and get over it. They brought false charges against the Napergate Man, got a black eye, got their reputation and credibility back after a dozen years and now they are risking them all over again.....over NOTHING!

An article in the Naperville Sun would expose this cop of possibly having lied, Chief David Dial may suspend him for a few days, and the earth will continue to rotate every 24 hours as it has been doing for 13 billion years since the BIG BANG created by natural forces or God.

NOW I HOPE I HAVE SIMPLIFIED THE CASE:

The 3 million or more in legal fees is not the responsibility of Dick Furstenau. The cost to defend should have been no more than 25k and if DK brought a frivilous case against the taxpayers he would owe each household in Naperville 50 cents. I believe if this was the case, DF is an upstanding man who would reimburse each household the 50 cents it is out. The rest of the money in excess of 25k is frivilous spending and the responsibility of the City Council, City Manager, City Attorney and other City Officials.

In summary I can only hope that this case does not follow the course of the Napergate Case. The way this city council is spending money if this case is appealed to the Supreme Court it will cost 10 million easily.

The city council in the Napergate Case was wasteful but a little more frugal in how many bucks they dished out to the numerous outside legal firms. I doubt they dished out 10 million bucks! At the most I would guess it was only a few million. But that was after the case had been in 4 different court systems and appealed to very high levels in each court system before the City Council finally waved the WHITE FLAG and SURRENDERED!

That my folks are the REAL FACTS!

Thoughts on spending a couple of million so each side can soften their position. I can think of a phrase: What a Disappointment.

A.A.
For a change I agree with most of your position. The area that rings most true is the idea of ego. There is plenty of it on both sides of the fence and with humanity in general. I have no idea of the facts of the case other than want DF has told me and what I have read in the paper.

I can say that when all is said and done victory can be hollow and empty when the public trust is at risk. What a shame this situation was not handled with an out of court settlement, so that we can all direct our energies to more positive activities.

Bottom line. DF's hot-headedness caused him to over-react. He did it. Period. It is a common behavior of his. He can't stop himself even after the incident of the current case. He is a good councilman for the people he serves, but needs to get his behavior in check. The people he aggressively confronts are not seeking the conflict. There are ways to solve issues without being threatening and aggressive. The sad fact is that this situation results in millions of our dollars.

to the core

what do you mean, "he did it, period." were you there. did you witness it. no you didn't. so how do you know he did it. furstenau's so called, "hot headed" reputation, in every instance, goes only so far as to tell people off. never in any of his accused instances did he ever hit anyone, or get physical.

are you aware that every single eye witness the police interviewed, told them that furstenau never touched hull. there were hundreds of people on the street that day and the police couldn't find one person to back hull's version of the story. are you aware that the original police report, which inappropriately wasn't filled out until 5 days later, had the incorrect time and location of the incident. are you aware they were instructed to change the time of day and location of the report to mach furstenau's story. and they said it took 18 days to arrest him because they wanted their investigation to be thorough and flawless and air-tight. what a crock of bull. they needed 18 days to try and get their story straight and still couldn't.

are you aware that when they filed at the states attorney's office for an arrest warrant they left those little tid-bits of info out when they presented their investigation to the states attorney? are you aware that doing so is illegal and a violation of furstenau's civil rights to due process and makes his arrest a false arrest and a violation of his civil rights because they withheld evidence that cleared him.

don't give me this bull crap that you know he did it when you don't know jack-squat. they screwed this guy intentionally and this whole mess it their fault. you may not like the fact that furstenau approached hull and asked him to allow people to move their cars instead of towing them after the police failed to post temporary no parking signs, but the people he was standing up for certainly appreciated it. and in doing so, furstenau didn't do any thing illegal in approaching the officer. period. that is a fact. how do i know? if it was, they would have charged him with that also. they tried to charge him with disturbing the peace and even that didn't stick. so just because you don't like the guy, don't let it cloud your understanding of the facts and what is real and not real.

my prediction is that when all the facts get to court and are shared in public, this whole case will get very ugly for those who are fighting him. many will end up with forced resignations, possible charges, and public humiliation over what is going to be revealed about what they did.

SSSM,

I also agree with most of what Another Anonymous is writing.

Everyone else seems to be really focusing on being the trier of facts instead of allowing the jury to do its job. Have we all suddenly lost confidence in our judicial system?

I feel AA is the only one making sense so far on this topic.

I was around in the Napergate Era and followed the Napergate Man saga and his numerous legal cases like my wife follows the soap operas on network TV every morning.

That case was also about ego of the city council....about a man daring to call the estbalishment out for all their improprieties and incompetences.

The City of Naperville was trying to make him pay dearly for daring to exercise his right to free speech and expression.

Through some freak of nature, he was able to take them on in any court room they wanted, any media outlet they wanted, any forum they wanted, and simply proceeded to shred them in a systmetic manner over a half of a decade.

It is my belief that it is the leadership of Mayor George Pradel after his election to replace former Mayor Sam Macrane, that deserves the credit for stopping the out of control and misguided stampede of the other city council members to continue to endlessly fund the Napergate Trials in complete disregard to the taxpayers.

I would like to see his leadership of a decade ago resurface and also stop the charade against Mr. Furstenau.

If there is a lesson to learn from the Napergate Trials that no matter how much money you have, how much money you are willing to spend, the truth will eventually surface and prevail.

Of course you need to have stamina like the Napergate Man and hang in there until you wear City Hall down which is obviously easier said than done. But the Napergate Man proved it can be done and it was done...and it undoubtedly can be done again!

Anyway, it looks to me that Councilman Richard Furstenau is determined to replicate the stamina of the Napergate Man. My hat goes off to him! Kudos to him!

And shame on our city council members for not controlling legal expenses in ways that Another Anonymous described so eloguently and in such detail in his above 2 posts.

It may be too late to try to save the taxpayers from this wasteful spending on lawyers by our council members. But it is not too late to watch their egos, which is what they are fighting for and what this mess is really all about, burst right in front of the taxpayers' eyes some time in the near future! Let us watch it unravel.

WHY WAS FURSTENAU NOT ARRESTED ON THE SPOT?

Given that the NPD did not hesitate to arrest Birkett's son; why did it take days to charge Furstenau?

Birkett is a viable candidate governor that the NPD needs to work on a daily basis to obtain prosecutions, i.e. a far more powerful figure to the NPD.

In other words, if it was even remotely clear cut, the officer would have slapped the cuffs on Furstenau as soon as Furstenau “hit him". If the NPD pulled over a drunken councilman, he would be arrested on the spot and the car towed.

Something stinks, and unfortunately the courts need to fix this one.

Furstenau is one of the few Councilmen that stands up to staff and is not running for Ms. Popularity with his peers. Could he use some finishing school lessons on how to apply pressure with a smile? Yes.

Should he have been applying the pressure to Burchard instead of allowing Burchard direct him to the staff? Yes?

I one time did support city hall. My faith in ciy hall was shattered after the revelations of the Napergate Trials. They have now been completely shattered after I learned of how wrecklessly city hall is spending money on the Furstenau Trial.

As someone said on another place on this blog site, this AA guy should seriously run for city council....if not apply for the city manager position while it is still vacant. He seems to know more about cutting expenses than all our Staff and Council Members combined. I guess he revealed he comes from corporate america where you have to be mean and lean to survive in this competitive world. It seems he learned that over time.

SADLY AS OTHER BLOGGERS POSTED BEFORE ME NOT A SINGLE LESSON WAS LEARNED FROM THE VERY LONG AND COSLTY NAPERGATE TRAILS AND AS FORMER PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN ONCE SAID, "HERE WE GO AGAIN."

Will I be able to afford my next real estate tax bill? Honestly, I don't know!

THIS WHOLE MESS CAN BE SUMMARIZED IN TWO WORDS.

NAPERGATE AGAIN!

I am totally disgusted and ashamed with the long series of bad decisions made by the police department, the city attorney's office, various department heads, the city manager's office, and the entire city council that resulted in this lawsuit. If this isn't the finest example of an entire city administration attempting to frame one individual though a conspiracy that permeates the entire city hall I don't know what is. When this is trial is finally over I hope the Illinois States Attorney's office launches a conspiracy investigation into this whole sordid mess and tosses those directly and personally responsible in jail.

What is truly a tragedy is that it will cost Naperville taxpayers several million dollars to prove what we have all known since the start... that this arrest was wrong and never should have taken place... and that there isn't a single thing any one of can do to stop this. With two ex-cops sitting, one serving as mayor and the other as acting city manager these two individuals will argue until their last dying breath against logic and reason and blindly support the police department no matter what the outcome or cost to the citizens of Naperville.

The city council obviously does not care what the citizens of Naperville think or want and is only interested in following their own self-serving interest. Payback from voters for these mistakes is our only true recourse and I can't wait to cast my ballot in the next city council election.

I had a chance to read this entire thread last night and just wanted to add I agree with Another Anonymous to a great extent.

He is attacking the real problem: the amount of funds being spent on litigation that are affecting our taxes.

DF has a constitutional right to sue...the city has a constitutional right to defend against the suit.

But the city has a responsibility and obligation to spend the appropriate amounts of money defending each suit.

As AA stated, you don't spend 3 million dollars to defend against a maximum damage of 130k lawsuit. No one does that.

Which one of us would spend 1 million dollars fighting a $10,000 wrongful lien put on our home. None of us would unless we want to lose our home for sure.

We would maybe spend a few thousand to try to get rid of this lien and if we were not successful, try to negotiate it down. If all else fails, we would pay the damn lien. To spend a million dollars fighting a $10,000 lien on say, our million dollar home, means we would certainly end up HOMELESS.

It appears the city thinks it is OK for us to end up HOMELESS when we can no longer afford the real estate taxes on our homes in this almost disastrous economy that has hit all of us in the pocket book already.

We are all hurting. I urge the city council to be rational in its approach of the DF case. No repeat of NAPERGATE! Please!!!

I t is amazing that the City Council jumped forward and started paying out money to external lawyers without running a "risk/return" study.

If they had, there is no way they would have allowed $700,000.00 to date.

The failure to develop such an analysis is negligent and some should step down from the Council, and it should NOT be DF.

Isn't it obvious by now? It isn't the council's money. It's their reputation, plus the chance to make an example of someone who dares challenge them, and it's our money. It doesn't cost them one cent to make their point. There is no risk in their analysis -- they can only win. The taxpayers can only lose.

The election is coming......Please make your feelings known in the polling booth.

Yes, the city council election is coming... yea!!!!!

Let's see what we have so far....

Darlene Senger... running for State Rep. The bad news is she will be useless as a State Rep. The good news is if she is elected at least she will be off the city council. Good riddance. The really bad news is if she doesn't get elected to State Rep. then we have one more Democrat in Springfield and we are stuck with her on city council for two more years.

Krause... the perennial candidate who wouldn't have a clue what a term limit is if it smacked him between the eyes. Always the bridesmaid, never the bride. Time for him to throw in the towel and recognize he has done his time and civic duty. Time for Krause to move on.

Miller... just finishing a lack luster and unremarkable first term. Spends most of his time at city council meetings looking amazed at the discussion going on around him. It would be nice if he actually had an occasional thought to contribute. This rocket never got off the launch pad.

Boyajian... just finishing his second term and has imposed his own term limit on himself. At least this guy has the right idea and nows when to politely step down and move on with his life. Thank you Mr. Boyajian for your service to the community.

Roasanova... hasn't yet announced his intention to run for re-election so we will have to stay tuned.

McElroy... one fresh new face so far. We need to hear more about him and his platform. As of today at least he is a shoe-in to fill the one uncontested seat held by Boyajian though those odds will change as soon one or more additional new candidates file petitions.

If three or more new candidates step up and file petitions it is possible that all four of the seats up for election could rotate to brand new city council members. The two uncertainties at this point are how many additional candidates will file before the deadline and how fed up voters are with the actions taken by the incumbents.

KIMBERLY-

Your idea is even better than mine. Why bother suing the city when all I have to do is file a $10,000 lien with the county. Just let me know what your real estate PIN is and I’ll get the process started. Than all you have to do is “pay the damn lien”. Thanks! I’ll await your reply.

NO! It isn't ego. It isn't arrogance. It isn't stupidity either.

So far the city council has spent over 5 TIMES the settlement amount. We do not know what the actual settlement cost may be at this point, but that would be on top of the legal fees already spent. If the city looses their case AND decides to appeal some have estimated that the total legal fees could end up being somewhere in the $2-3 million range. That is somewhere between 15 and 23 TIMES the original settlement amount plus the settlement cost.

No one in their right mind should be eager and willing to spend somewhere between 15 and 23 times the cost of the settlement. Forget high moral ground. This is not logical, this is not prudent, this is not fiscally responsible.

There is one and only one logical explanation on why the city council is willing to spend such a ridiculous amount of money "defending" such a minor lawsuit. The city is spending this enormous sum simply to hide the real truth of what happened from the people of Naperville. The city is hoping that if they throw enough money and time at this lawsuit that eventually the plaintiff will not be able to afford to keep the suit alive and simply abandon the litigation. Just another classic legal system bully tactic.

Go Dick Go. I support him 100%. The city council should have settled this thing long ago. Dick is 100% in the right on this issue.

I love Bolingbrook..Great mayor,great council,low taxes,no egos. Come on over!

AA (and Kimberly, too) –

Just because DF was willing to settle for $130K doesn’t mean that’s the max loss amount the city faces. Surely that was a negotiated amount and he’ll ask for more. Plus, civil rights lawsuits get very, very expensive. If DF wins, the loss to the city will be much larger.

What’s the old saying…penny wise but pound foolish or something like that? While I think an immediate capitulation would have encouraged further lawsuits against the city, there should have been a negotiated settlement after both sides cooled off a bit. At this point, I don’t see how either side can back down now and claim any kind of victory. It’s truly sad as we are the ones paying for other peoples’ egos.

Does DF have a right to sue? Yes, but his position also means he needs to do what’s best for the city. Can someone please explain to me how draining the city coffers does anything except enriching DF and/or his attorney? If the NPD truly did something wrong, he’s not punishing them. He’s not changing the NPD. He’s punishing us, the taxpayers.

Couldn’t DF have more effectively used his position and public outcry to promote the changes he allegedly seeks? But I guess that would be change without any dollar signs attached, much to the chagrin of his attorney.

T.B.

Sorry T.B., I disagree.

This isn't a routine slip and fall kind of accident and lawsuit where someone is being penny wise and pound foolish. Nor is it a frivolous lawsuit because the court has allowed it to proceed. I do not believe Mr. Furstenau would have proceeded with a frivolous lawsuit anyway. By all accounts he and his attorney are very well prepared to present their side of this case in court. From the Naperville side they have been quiet as church mice, with the exception of horrendous cost they have accumulated to defend this case. Read between the lines. What is costing so much? Legal research. The defense lawyers are spending hundreds of hours researching old case law trying to find some legal precedents that will help them defend their actions and either win the case or get it dismissed. The fact that they have already blown thru $700,000 of legal research speaks volumes for the fact that they are still looking and haven't found the answer to bolster their case. If the city of Naperville had a slam dunk defense they would have pressed for a speedy trial to get this over with as quickly as possible and minimize their legal costs. However, what the city has done has been far from this case. They are clearly in damage control mode and the ship is slowly sinking. Don't expect a 10th inning in this game.

A civil rights lawsuit cuts to the very core of who we are as Americans. If a branch of American government, regardless of the level of the government, is violating the civil rights of citizens then we have every right to know about it. I certainly want to know if the city government my tax dollars are supporting is operating ethically and within the law and if it is not I want something done about it and those responsible held personally accountable.

This lawsuit is worth every penny if civil rights were violated. The alternative of sweeping this under the rug is too dreadful to even contemplate. I also sincerely believe that if anything like this had happened to you or me that we would have been steamrolled by the city of Naperville. The fact that Mr. Furstenau is a city council member and had something like this happen to him speaks volumes about the level of political nastiness that exists within our city government. We should all be thankful that because of Mr. Furstenau's position he was able to gather the media attention that this lawsuit deserves and bring what is and has been going on out of the closet and place it smack in the middle of the table for all of the world to view.

When all the dust is settled on this mess there are going to be a surprised number of Naperville voters who find out who really had the heaviest hands in what happened and why. We are also going to learn that some of the city council members who are viewed as lovable, nice guys really aren't quite so sweet and nice after all.

Don't be so quick to dismiss what may or may not happen after the lawsuit is decided. If civil rights are found to have been violated there are many potential possibilities of what may happen next. Federal judges have broad power and they have taken strong action in the past to demand reform within government organization, placed these government organizations under court monitoring, and even replaced administrators.

If civil rights were violated the city went past the point a long time ago where it could have reasonably taken steps to "police itself". Now the city will be at the mercy of the court if it is found guilty.

Barney and Friends telling lies on camera in 2004 while they run interference for Freddy and Fannie.

Watch them beat up the regulators trying to get ahead of the failure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

TB and Anonymous

TB, while i do agree with you on the principle of your point, i am going to have to agree largely with anonymous on this one. when you say DF should have tried to use his power and position to speak out publicly and find other means of solving this by punishing the npd and not the taxpayers, i agree with you to a degree. after that, your logic goes wrong in 2 ways:

1) DF did try to solve this by punishing the individuals in the police department without involving the taxpayers. he went to the city council in executive session and told them he was falsely arrested and that the police investigation had a number of civil right/due process violations, including altering police reports and ignoring eyewitness testimony, and withholding evidence from the states attorney. he asked that the officers involved be suspended for 30 days (he didn't ask for money). not only did the council say, "no!" but our good city manager Peter T. burchard went so ballistic he had to be taken out of the meeting. remember when peter retired how the Sun wrote about how he had a very close relationship with the npd and the cops all said, "peter B. is really one of us." no wonder he wasn't interested in entertaining such and idea. same with our former npd cop mayor who sits on the council. bottom line is DF had no chance going this route and gettnig a fair, objective review by the council, but he still tried.

2) DF has, on many occasions, spoken out publicly about unethical things he sees at city hall. all it got him in the end was a scathing, chicken-sh-- letter written and released to the papers by peter T. burchard. the entire letter listed several alleged incidents of DF speaking out publicly against people he thought were doing things wrong, taking advantage of taxpayers, or being deficient in their jobs to the point where it hurt taxpayers. peter t. never accused him of doing anything illegal or unethical; only being and overbearing coworker who was hurting moral at city hall by speaking out against them when he saw things that were wrong.

one of the incidents peter b. felt DF needed to be chastised and censured for was DF claiming the city was steering a bid to a contractor who was a high bidder. he didn't have physical proof, but DF spent over 30's years with fortune 500 company directing their world-wide purchasing department. he knows bid steering when he sees it. he called them on it, and they censured him for it. so much for that approach. the funny part to me is they censured him for something i applaud my elected city official for trying to do.

amazing to me the efforts the city has been taking to silence DF since he filed the suit. and one of the main culprits shocked every one when, out of nowhere, he suddenly quit his job and left the state in the middle of the school year . fishy?

while your idea is good in theory, DF had already tested them and got nailed to the cross for doing so. he had no choice but to peruse a legal course of action, and it is his position and power that will draw attention to this whole mess and get somethings changed.

i agree with anonymous that IF the evidence comes out and real corruption is exposed in the highest rankings of the npd and city hall, and that corruption included an attempt to jail an innocent man for 10 years, DF is doing a very important and courageous service to the city that far outweighs the financial cost. furthermore, it would mean he did the right thing, and the npd and city officials who had a hand in it all would be the ones to blame for the cost.

Lets see what comes out and where the chips lie in the end before we decide who is to blame and who is doing the right or wrong thing.

Taxpayer –

Good points, but I’m still not in total agreement.

DF asked the council to suspend the officers involved…did he ever go through the NPD’s own process? Yes, there has been much to-do made about the NPD policing themselves, but all I’ve seen so far is conjecture about the process. This could have been a great test-case to find out whether the process works or doesn’t work.

Also, the police union (FOP) would have fought a council-lead suspension as most likely being against their employment agreement with the city. While the suspension would have been wishful thinking on DF’s part, I think it would have violated the due process of the police contract.

Yes, DF has spoken out on many occasions and it apparently hasn’t gotten him the results he seeks, but how will this lawsuit change anything? No federal judge is going to go poking into the NPD for one isolated incident. They don’t have the time. They only get involved in more wide-ranging issues like the Chicago’s Shakman hiring decree. Unless DF’s case is going to show this wasn’t a one-time vendetta-type incident, there will be no further federal action.

So, again…how will this punish anybody but the taxpayers DF claims to be such a champion for?

T.B.

TB

The city council has the authority to suspend, or fire, anyone they want in the police dept. the entire dept and chief dial report to them. the union could cry all they want about it, but they wouldn't be anything they could do about it.

and don't be so naive enough to say he should have gone through the police department process. that would have been worse then going through the council. furthermore, there is nothing that says he has to go through the npd process. he is one the npd's 9 bosses. bottom line, that wouldn't have worked and everyone knows it. he's alleging the police chief and union pres. were in on the whole thing. how would he expect any help from them? don't be ridiculous.

the way this will change things is all the evidence will all be made public. all the things the npd does not want anyone to hear about will be made public and everyone will find out exactly what went on. emails, about the case, police reports, recording of executive sessions that furstenau was excluded from, dispatch tapes, emails between council members, the manager, npd and union, eye witness testimonies in and out of the department will all be made public. if it all demonstrates they made up charges and tried to throw him in jail, im of the opinion it is worth every penny to get all those guys out of their positions because you or i could be next.

it doesn't matter if the judge orders any investigations. if the evidence shows a very serious act of corruption, the city will have no choice at that time but to fire, punish, remove, resign all the people involved and hold them accountable.

bottom line is all you say will happen is conjecture. all i say will happen is conjecture. i say lets see what actually does before we crucify DF. we may find he has been right all along and it was the city officials who screwed us.

i also find it appalling that all anyone seems to care about is how this benefits or hurts them, the taxpayers. DF is an elected official, so every waking moment should be spent benefiting taxpayers. i thing that is incredibly selfish. considering the fact the npd made up an event, falsely charged him with it, and tried to throw him in prison for 10 years for it, it think DF has a responsibility to himself, as a citizen, to defend himself. just because he is a councilman, it doesn't mean he checked his own civil rights at the door and he should subject himself to such abuse without defending himself. i think its selfish for anyone to say he should check his rights at the door because it doesn't benefit them.

besides, explain to me how removing corrupt people who have been entrusted with the most sacred public power, and have sworn an oath to serve and defend the public with that power, who have intentionally abused that power to try and throw innocent people in jail, isn't a service to every citizen they have jurisdiction over.

in the end, that scenario may be the facts of this case. lets see how it plays out before we nail him to the wall.

Dick, do us all a favor and move back to Utah....and take your bad little temper with you. You should be ashamed of yourself for putting the City of Naperville in this financial mess. If the City of Naperville had surviellance cameras on most sreet corners like the City of Chicago, it would show what type of person you really are...A COP SLAPPER!!!!!

Sorry to disagree Ms. SP,

"IF" isn't admissible in a court of law. It isn't against the law to have a "bad little temper". DF has nothing to be ashamed of except having to live in the same city as you. The City of Naperville is solely and directly responsible for the current mess they find themselves in. Have you forgotten DF was acquitted by a jury of all charges? The city could not and did not prove their case. That is the truth. That is a fact. DF is guilty of nothing. Most especially a court of law has found that if DF is anything, it found that he is not a "cop slapper".

Now here is the disturbing reality. Since the city arrested DF, charged DF with a felony, and lost their case they are guilty of something. The next trial will determine once and for all what it is the city of Naperville is guilty of having done and what, if anything, that guilt is worth as a settlement to DF.

To Anonymous: Get your facts straight pal...1) Big Dick did NOT have a jury trial, he a a stipulated bench trial. 2) Big Dick was NOT charged with a felony, he was charged with a misdemeanor. For the record...Judge Cary Pierce ruled that "their was contact between Big Dick and the officer. In my book, he is a "Cop Slapper", with a bad little temper!!!!

hey sarah palin

youre not as smart as you are hot. this case doesn't need cameras on street corners. there were 300 people on the street waiting for a parade to start when hull claimed DF slapped him, and non of them backed hull's story. everyone the npd interviewed backed DF's story. Then, the npd didn't bother to tell that fact to the states attorney when they went for an arrest warrant. blame the rest of the city council and the bad advice they got from margo ely for the financial mess. and blame the cops for railroading him too.

furthermore, whats with the bigoted tone about moving back to utah about? DF has probably lived in naperville as long as you have been alive. he has lived here over 30 years. keep the bigotry out of the blog. it has no place here or anywhere else.

why don't you move back to where ever the hell it is you came from and learned to be hateful and prejudice and get out it out of naperville.

Taxpayer....AKA Big Dick Furstenau. p.s, Move back to Utah

Hey SP,

Get your own facts straight.

The case was decided in DF's favor and the judge actually said and I quote: "any contact was incidental and non-provoking." "Any" means that there was no legal conclusion or evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" that contact was even actually made between DF and Hull. "Incidental" means that even if some type of contact was made that it was not provoking, that it was not threatening, and that it did not constitute such a level of contact to be construed as misdemeanor battery.

If you choose to disagree with the legal findings of this case, so be it. Just realize that by continuing to call DF names like you have after he was acquitted in a court of law constitutes libel. If you personally disagree with DF I'd think the last thing you would want is to risk having to pay DF any of your own money because you can't control your thoughts and what you write sitting in front of your computer. But then again "a fool and their money are soon parted"...

sarah palin

you are clearly the one that needs to get your facts straight. while DF was ultimately charged with a misdemeanor, the npd initially tried fiercely to charge him with a felony. it took a states attorney strong enough to withstand the onslaught of intimidation from the npd to say no.

second, the judge never ruled that DF made contact. NEVER at any point. either you are flat out lying or your just not that smart. what the judge said was this: and i quote, "it is clear that any contact that MAY HAVE taken place, was INCIDENTAL and NON-THREATENING."

that quote makes it clear that there was no proof that DF touched hull, and the judge was CERTAIN DF didn't hit, punch, or slap anyone.

so you want to rant about DF not being acquitted by a jury? ok. he was acquitted by a judge. end of story. and don't forget, not only was DF charged with battery, but he was also charged with disorderly conduct and that didn't stick either. so it is clear the judge felt that DF never did anything wrong during the whole situation, aside from slapping.

by the way, out of curiosity, which version of the npd's story do you believe is true? the one that says DF shoved hull, the one that says DF slapped hull, the one that says DF punched hull in the chest so hard it stunned him, or the one that the npd went with in the end that said DF touch hull in an offensive manner with the back of his hand? just curious which one you believe is true and which one you believe they were lying about? remember, hull's first version was that DF punched him, and when he was asked why he didn't arrest him on the spot, hull said, "he punched me so hard i was stunned and confused and didn't know what to do". you must be kidding me.

i'll wait for your response about which version you believe.

To Taxpayer & Anonymous, aka the Furstenaus, I have a Moose to butcher, I dont have time for anymore of your Psychobabble...Sarah.

Taxpayer and Anonymous,
Great points setting the facts and bringing up the truth. In the Napergate Fiasco, City Officials also could not keep the facts straight or the truth on track. It was a nightmare for the city.

This is turning out to be Nightmare II for the City of Naperville. And it will be a nightmare of nightmares when we see our latest tax bills reflecting the total cost of this insane case.

I still think the big issue in this case is the wasteful spending of excess money on worthless high powered out-of-house attorneys...just like the Napergate Case...just like Another Anonymous detailed so eloquently. But the waste of taxpayer dollars is much worse than the Napergate Case at the same stage.

At the 6 month point, I doubt they spent more than a hundred or two hundred thousand on the Napergate Case. What made that case cost millions is it dragged for the better part of a decade in so many different court forums!

If this case drags like the Napergate legal mess dragged, expect it to top 10 million! And yes, we the taxpayers will bear the cost again!

hey sarah p. (AKA - margo ely, or peter burchard)

ill take your lack of reasonable response as a concession. you clearly are out of your league when it comes to the facts of this case and your own hatred towards DF is clouding your judgment. you clearly wanted him to be guilty as bad as the npd did when they tried to frame him. nor do you care to stick to facts as you spew out slanderous remarks about him.

good luck with that moose.

ps. my name isn't furstenau, but i am friends with his family.

Whatever happened with the federal lawsuit filed by the female training officer against NPD? Does anyone know? Was it secretly settled any SEALED,like so many other cases filed against NPD. Naperville- your police department is out of control,absolutely no internal investigations functioning. Officer Rink and unknown SUPERIORS, called my house in Boone Cty. Il. and while illegally RECORDING THE CALL,he lied and said he wasn't aware of any recording. Later, admitting the call was being recorded.I asked if he had been drinking and was he at public safety building. Near the end of the "call" he asked if I was going to kill him if he did not resign,my ONLY thought was complaining to IAD for some understanding that I in no way,no form threaten this officer. Three calls to internal affairs were never returned,finally Truemper did call back and to say basically POUND SAND! I hand delivered a heartfelt letter for the CHAPLAIN saying this was illegal and must never happen again. Well at least they stopped calling my home,yes I disconnect the darn phone. Remember when the mayor told WBIG radio that the city needed new comm. equipment? Man,the recording machine was hissing and gurgling even a MORON could tell something was on the line.What's Shawns number over there?help me if you can.

He was treated in accordance with the normal paranoia / conspiracy mindset so at least prior to the presumed �fact� that others rarely leave their cities to come here to shop here if they didn�t work weekends and were not in their infancy. What kills it is consistent with the front of the officer�s instructions and there are nothing like the �police state oppression� posters here want us to believe. *That* is my tie in, that I frequent the same IP Address and voted for Dick Furstenau. That either makes you a liar or me not an establishment person. Which is it?

Mr. Q.,

I am assuming you are looking for Shawn Collin's number.

It is 630.527.1595.

Give him a call!

He is a good civil rights attorney...very good!!!

Can't say we did not help you!!!

Taxpayer –

I’m quite sure the city council has the right to suspend or fire any non-bargaining unit employees of the NPD—you know, the non-unionized members like the Chief. I don’t know for sure, but I’d be extremely surprised if the union members (the everyday cops) didn’t have a due process clause in their contracts. If not, then what the hell do they have a union for anyways?

I think you misunderstand my misgivings that DF didn’t go through the NPD’s own system. I’m not saying DF doesn’t have the right to sue (he does), I was saying that there has been much written about the NPD’s ability to police themselves (including you) and this was DF’s chance to prove whether the system worked. It’s easy to say “that wouldn't have worked and everyone knows it” without any proof to back up the allegation.

DF had his chance to prove you right, but he took a pass. He could have easily gone through the process and sued if there was a cover up. DF had nothing to lose. Hell, if it played out as you allege then it would have done nothing but strengthen his case, right? That doesn’t sound too ridiculous to me, Taxpayer.

I think when this is all said and done there will be no suspensions, no reassignments, and no firings. The only losers in this case will be the taxpayers. I hope I’m wrong on this, but I think we’re going to get the shaft no matter what.

I find it interesting that you’re “appalled” at anyone who criticizes this lawsuit, but you ask us to “see how it plays out before we nail him [DF] to the wall.” I think your acknowledged friendship to DF’s family has made your tolerance one-sided.

T.B.

To Sarah P –

While I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, you brought up an interesting point about DF’s trial.

DF waved his right to a jury trial and he also agreed to the stipulated facts of the case. He could have demanded a jury and also demanded witness testimony in this case, but he chose not to do so.

The stipulated evidence is a curious point to me. By stipulating to the evidence, DF gave up his right to cross examine the cop who made the complaint. Wouldn’t this cross examination have brought out all the alleged inconsistencies in his story? Also, it has been alleged that the NPD ignored hundreds of witnesses. By stipulating to the evidence, DF failed to call any of these witnesses in his own defense.

T.B.

T.B.

The fact of this case clearly show that both the prosecution and the defense agreed to stipulations in this case and which, by the way, are boringly common in a bench trial.

Trying to read something that isn't in the process of agreeing to stipulations is a total waste of time.

Anon --

I know DF had to agree to the stipulations...the question is why did he do so?

This was a missed opportunity for DF's attorney to question the officer under oath (and before the city spent $700K). DF had nothing to lose here and the officer's testimony could have gone a long way towards forcing a settlement in the civil case if he was shown to be evasive or otherwise untrustworthy.

T.B.

TB

A couple of clarifying points.

1) in response to you questions about waiving his right to cross examine hull. hull had refused to testify. the fact that the city's attorney says hull was always going to testify is a lie. the states attorney had continually asked the npd to drop the case because hull would not testify. the npd was the one who asked for the stipulated bench trial so they could proceed with the case going to trial without hull testifying. if they had dropped the case at that point after 18 months of delays and accusations of felony assault, they would have looked stupid. that is why DF's attorney told him that npd asking for a bench trial at that time was clear concession to the fact that they had no case.

furstenau agreed to it because his attorney told him it would be quicker, easier, and he had no chance of losing. either way, it doesn't matter. DF waiving his right to a jury trial has nothing to do with the fact he was framed and should have never been arrested in the first place. DF didn't receive due process because he was given a chance to defend himself, nor did he waive his right to do process when he waived his right to a jury trial. DF's due process was violated by ending up charged with a crime that never happened. the npd's investigation is what will be tried now. if they violated his due process to land an arrest that shouldn't have happened. they will lose.

2) about going through police channels. furstenau did go through police and council channels he asked the council and the police chief at the same time to do something and they both refused and got very upset. dial wasn't going to do anything to pursue DF's allegations and he made it very clear that he wasn't going to get any help or investigation from the npd.

3) the argument about firing an npd employee is pointless. DF didn't ask for anyone to be fired. he asked for a suspension for 30's and an apology. the council CAN suspend who ever they want. the union may cry about it, but there is NOTHING they can do about it

4) the system of police policing themselves has already proven to not work dozens of times in the npd. DF knows this. there is nothing more to prove there. there has been a lot of internal strife at the npd about this very issue. there a number of good, ethical cops at the npd who are discouraged and disappointed with the leadership and their allowance of abuse of power. DF, as a councilman im sure is aware of it. look into it if you don't believe me.

5) my tolerance isn't one sided or clouded. people want to berate him and spew accusations about him and his lawsuit without knowing any of the facts of the case. they say the lawsuit is frivolous or that he did hit the cop and they know it. they don't know jack squat. they didn't see him hit anyone and they don't know what really happened. nor do they know if the lawsuit is frivolous.

all i'm saying, is before we crucify him and judge him for hitting a cop or his lawsuit being frivolous, lets see what the facts are that come out. we may find he was right all along. i think my view is only fair.

Taxpayer –

I don’t know what you were told, but Ofcr Hull cannot refuse to testify unless he intended to take the 5th. DF could have called Hull as a witness and Hull doesn’t have a choice. They’re called trial subpoenas. I agree DF may have agreed to the stipulations out of expediency, but this whole story about the cop refusing to testify is ludicrous.

The NPD (or the State’s Attorney’s Office) can ask for a bench trial all they want. DF has the right to a jury trial and only DF can waive that right. Either way, I don’t really see any point to the issue of bench vs jury trial in this case. It’s the stipulations I find interesting. I wrote about the bench trial aspect in an attempt to educate SP a bit (if possible).

You’re right in that the trial has no bearing on whether or not DF’s due process rights were violated, but you miss my point that he had a (free) shot at this cop on the stand and took a pass. If DF’s attorney made a fool of the cop under oath and then threatened to sue, this would all be over because the city would have capitulated. DF could have saved us all lots of time and money by getting everyone’s cards on the table immediately.

DF asked Dial to do something…did he file a formal complaint with the NPD which would force them to investigate? This was a missed opportunity to prove you right and show whether or not the system works. Instead, he ran to federal court.

I’m quite sure the union can stop a cop from being suspended by a political body. You may not like it but cops get due process, too, and I’m quite sure it’s spelled out in their contract. Hence the need for DF to file a formal complaint and work within the system and not run to the council because of whom he is.

I agree that the idea of the NPD policing themselves seems dubious, but I don't see any proof being offered to back up your assertions. Once again, DF could have proved you right if he had worked within the system just as any other citizen would do. I see from the latest news DF is trying to look into this issue (like a bull in a China shop), but your word is about as good as SP’s without any proof to back it up. Sorry, but saying it doesn’t make it so. You can’t trash the system without proving it failed you first.

It’s kind of hard to accept that your tolerance is not one-sided when you ask for tolerance for DF and clearly believe only his version of events. It would be more believable if you were more neutral and truly believed that all accusations should stop until all the facts come out in court. That would be true tolerance.

T.B.

T.B.,

The Fifth Amendent excercising your right to remain silent for fear of self-incrimination, only applies to the accused and not the accuser.

DF was accused! He has a right to remain silent. Officer Hull is the accuser. He has no right to remain silent. It would be very odd for a legitimate accuser to want to remain silent.

In the civil trial coming up, neither party has the right to the 5th Amendment. It only applies in criminal cases where the risks include incarceration for life or the death penalty in the most severe cases.

In summary, I just wanted to point out your first sentence is wrong, as an ACCUSER has no right to take the Fifth. Only the ACCUSED!

Remember Officer Hull was not on trial. DF was on trial! Only if the States Attorney brought charges against Officer Hull for example accusing him of falsifying a police report, would he be allowed to exercise the 5th Amendment. To the best of my knowledge no charges were ever brought against Officer Hull.

Another Anon –

Sorry to say you’re wrong, but you are. EVERYONE has the right against self-incrimination. The 5th Amendment does not distinguish between the accused, witnesses, or the accuser.

For instance, you could be called to testify about a bank fraud committed at the bank where you work and you could claim the 5th even though you were not the accused based on a belief that you knowingly did something to aid and abet the crime. The 5th Amendment does not apply only to the accused.

Ofcr Hull still has a 5th Amendment right to not incriminate himself; however, if he were to refuse to take the stand (for instance, if he didn’t want to admit under oath his police report was false) the State would have no case against DF unless there was another witness to say what DF allegedly did to Hull. As I understand the case, the State had but one witness—Hull.

This is why I believe the stipulated State testimony was a tactical error and a missed opportunity for DF.

I don’t know where Anon got his info that Hull was not going to testify, but it is most definitely BS.

T.B.

Another Anonymous, I think you misunderstood T.B.'s point. He was saying that it would be unusual for a prosecution witness to refuse to testify. You are correct that the Fifth Amendment does not allow him the option of refusing to take the stand. He can, however, invoke the Fifth Amendment in refusing to answer individual questions; this applies in both criminal and civil proceedings.

Mr. John Q. Public,

I am obviously not an attorney. I think Officer Hull would have to testify but if a specific question was asked that would incriminate him arose, I believe he could refuse to answer that one specific question...but he would have to testify to all other questions.

On the other hand, DF was not even required to even enter the witness box during his criminal trial. He did not have to answer any questions including about the weather. In his civil trial, he will be required to take the stand. If his own attorney does not call him, the defense attorney can call him as an adverse or hostile witness.

I could be wrong, but I am rather certain that in civil trials everyone has to take the stand. If I recall correctly, OJ Simpson could not remain silent in his civil trial and was CONVICTED! No jail time was involved but he pretty much had to forfeit all his assets except his home in Florida due to Homestead Status and his pension which was off limits!

Maybe a judge would let an accuser refuse answering a question if it would incriminate him in a criminal act. But you would have to answer all questions regarding the civil matter in a civil trial. Most civil cases have nothing to do with criminal matters and I have never heard of anyone invoking the 5th Amendment or excercising his right to remain silent.

As I said I am not an attorney. My information is based on reading newspapers and following the news.

Maybe some attorney could shed some light here and give us 100% accurate information!

I don't doubt what you say, Mr. Public! I am just not 100% sure!!!

********************************************************************

PS. Can you imagine if Officer Hull began invoking his right against self incrimination during the DF trial that never took place. How would that look before a jury? How would that look before a judge? An accuser refusing to testify! If he refuses to answer a question about the accuracy of his police report, you can be assured the Judge would end the trial immediately and rule in favor of DF. Or at least a summary judgment for dismissal upon the prosecution completing their case would be awarded to the defense. It seems like TB is talking about extreme exceptions that rarely take place in our judicial system.

Many police embellish their police reports and can look the judge straight in the eye and swear they are 100% accurate. Most police officers know they will never be prosecuted for lying or embellishing. Our judicial system is very corrupt!

The only way you are going to take a bad cop in the USA down is to take him down with a video recording of his crime. If you don't have a video tape, you are out of luck. If the cop sees you video taping, he will confiscate your video tape as evidence and destroy the tape if it contains incriminating evidence against him. If you ever get such a video tape, your best chance of having a cop convicted is taking the video tape to a news station or newspaper.

Does anyone really believe Rodney King would have had a chance against the word of 10 LA cops if it was not for that video tape....they would have all testified that his beating was all in self defense. That they never hit him once while he was lying down helplessly like a beat up donkey!

JQP –

Thanks for the clarification. You’re right that the 5th Amendment doesn’t prevent someone from testifying, only from having to answer incriminating questions. Obviously, every witness would be asked non-incriminating questions such as their name, etc.

I do, however, think the 5th is less absolute in civil cases than you indicated. For instance, you can take the 5th in a civil SEC deposition but the SEC is then allowed to make an “adverse inference” from your decision to take the 5th. Also, you have no 5th Amendment rights during a civil IRS audit. If the IRS asks for your receipts or other proof of your deductions, you have to comply.

The only place the 5th Amendment is absolute is in a criminal proceeding.

T.B.

AA –

I’m not trying to take an extreme case in my examples, just trying to educate you that the 5th Amendment does not apply only to the accused. Your prior statement that the 5th only applies to the accused is patently false.

But more importantly, what case would ever reach trial if the accuser refused to testify? None. This is why I say that Anon’s statement that Hull was never going to testify is complete BS.

JQP does well to point out that what I have been trying to state—that if Hull took the 5th on a complaint he made, then there’s no evidence for the judge to even consider. The written complaint itself is not evidence without being introduced by the person who wrote it. Without any testimony, there’s no case against DF and the charges would be dismissed.

However, I would like to know your basis for the following statement:

“Many police embellish their police reports and can look the judge straight in the eye and swear they are 100% accurate. Most police officers know they will never be prosecuted for lying or embellishing. Our judicial system is very corrupt!”

T.B

By T.B. on October 15, 2008 8:07 AM
JQP –

Also, you have no 5th Amendment rights during a civil IRS audit. If the IRS asks for your receipts or other proof of your deductions, you have to comply.

==================================================================

T.B.,

You do not have to comply if the IRS asks you for your receipts or proof of deductions. However, if you do not comply, you to take the risk that they may convert your case from a civil case to a criminal case.

Under civil statutes, the burden of proof is on you. They can also only go back 3 years from the date you filed your return. You also do not face imprisonment. Only fines, penalty and interest.

Under criminal statutes, the burden of proof is on them. They can go back 6 years instead of only 3 years from the date you filed your return. You do face imprisonment, fines, penalty and interest. You have an absolute right to the 5th Amendment which forces the IRS to obtain that information from 3rd parties. If unsuccessful, the IRS will drop the case. If successful, the IRS will attempt to indict. As the saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich before these grand juries of mostly 23 government-can-do-no-wrong retirees.

Most CPA's and Lawyers recommend that their clients comply with the IRS during a civil proceeding to avoid it being converted to criminal. You do not have to comply, but the consequences are severe and involve imprisonment, if you choose not to comply and the IRS chooses to go after you criminally.

The IRS will only go after you criminally if you are the worse of the worse. If you owe a lot of money. If you believe the IRS code should not be honored. They go after 1500-2000 taxpayers criminally each year while in excess of a 1,000,000 civily. You are considered to have the worse luck in the world if you are chosen for a criminal investigation as they are truly rare due to their massive expense and time necessary.

But having the criminal ax on your head forces most civilians to comply and produce their records and receipts. But they can't force you to produce them. They can not enter you home. They can not enter your safe deposit box. Those 2 areas are very sacred and not reachable to the IRS in both civil and criminal proceedings.

The bottom line is the IRS needs 3rd party cooperation to indict and convict your criminally. If you have a loose mouth, you will most likely be convicted. If you have tight lips, you will most likely not be convicted.

Even if IRS Special Agents come to your home, you have a right to refuse to speak to them. Most attorneys will advise you not to say a word to them and not to even open the door. They will beat the door very hard with fist pounding to scare you but they will not knock it off its hinges.....but will dent it a bit!

The IRS hates these complex criminal trials. Thus they send the Special Agents to your home hoping you will talk to them and somehow lie. If you lie to the 2 Special Agents that visit you, they will charge you with perjury. That will send you to jail for at least 3-5 years, unless you are Martha Stewart. If you are her, like her or as powerful as her, you will spend 6 months in a minimum correctional facility and 6 months in home confinement. After that you will be released for a 2 or 3 year probationary period.

While you techically don't have absolute 5th Amendment Rights in a civil IRS proceeding, they can not force you to talk. They can not force you to move your jaws. Only you can move them! They can not force you to provide records or receipts. Only you can provide them if you wish to cooperate.

But I would advise anyone to cooperate with the IRS civil auditors as you don't want to deal with the IRS Special Agents as they are vicious. Only 10% of suspects manage to keep their mouths shut when approached by these well trained Criminal Special Agents despite warnings from their attorneys. The other 90% falter miserably and if you are one of them, I would advise to cooperate in the civil matter and put the matter behind you.

Avoid letting it go criminal at all costs! If you don't, and you are guilty, it will COST YOU BIG TIME! If you are innocent by all means fight them as they will never find the 3rd parties and corroborative evidence they need as it should not exist!

I guess these RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT matters are not as black and white as it may seem. It is a very gray area!

To the blogger who answered my call for Shawn's telephone number.630-527-1595 Collins law firm.Thanks. o.k. I could have looked it up myself. Loevy and Loevy,see the website, are great defenders of the Constitution and work diligently to expose POLICE CRIME and CORRUPTION.What has become of the other federal lawsuit against NPD? Does ANYONE KNOW? The point I'm trying to make is that your PD is out of control and the IAD is not functioning. My case is not OPEN,because I could never find a single officer to take my position seriously. Anyone wishing to speak with Ted,in a group,pls. call me @815-242-0019 C.O.N.P.A. We have been observing NPD actions since 2002.{ yes, the phone rings in Rockford as we have said before}10 brave citizens have filed with IAD,much of the police reports will be redacted to the point of excess. The continued stonewalling by your council only points to the depth of the problems at NPD. Your police chief editorized/lobbies to give drivers permits to illegal aliens???? What about that citizens?

AA –

You’re partially right, but also partially wrong. My father retired from the IRS after more than 30 years, so I have some inside knowledge of this matter.

You do have to comply with a civil IRS audit. If you are summonsed to provide records or testimony in a civil matter, you have to comply. If you refuse to comply, one of two things can happen: the matter can be decided against you since the burden of proof is on the side of the taxpayer and not the IRS; or, the IRS can go to court and ask a federal judge for the summons to be enforced. The judge can order your arrest and hold you in contempt until you comply with the IRS.

Criminal IRS cases are not the result of a failure to cooperate, but rather result from evidence of fraud. Simply being uncooperative does not mean you’ve done anything criminal with regard to your taxes. It just means you’re going to lose your case against the IRS for failing to defend yourself.

Sorry to tell you, but your home and safe deposit boxes are available to the criminal side of the IRS through search warrants. With enough probable cause and a judge’s consent, the IRS can and will enter your home, business, car, or safe deposit box to search for cash and evidence of tax and other crimes.

I don’t know where you get your info about IRS Special Agents denting doors, being vicious, or hating complex trials. You have to look no further than the local papers to see the IRS investigates and wins complex cases such as sham trusts. See the Tribune from 10/02 and look for the headline “Chicago Man Gets 18 Years for $60 Million Tax Scam”. I hardly think that was a simple case.

OK…I have to ask…what tax crime were you convicted of? You have a very strong opinion in this matter so I assume you have some kind of experience here.

T.B.

AA –

You also never explained what you were using as the basis for this statement:

“Many police embellish their police reports and can look the judge straight in the eye and swear they are 100% accurate. Most police officers know they will never be prosecuted for lying or embellishing. Our judicial system is very corrupt!”

Together with your opinions of the IRS (Special Agents in particular) it appears you ran into some trouble somewhere.

T.B.

By T.B. on October 16, 2008 2:04 PM
AA –

You also never explained what you were using as the basis for this statement:

“Many police embellish their police reports and can look the judge straight in the eye and swear they are 100% accurate. Most police officers know they will never be prosecuted for lying or embellishing. Our judicial system is very corrupt!”

_________________________________________________________________

T.B.,

My teenage boy got himself a DUI and I had to shop for an attorney for him. While shopping, I found out the best chance to win is to hire a former high ranking Dupage States Attorney.

I interviewed many of them. They know how the police work since they worked closely with the police before becoming defense attornys. Each and every one of them told me it is very common for police officers to embellish their police reports in order to win their DUI case.

For example they will say you rolled thru a stop sign even if you came to a full stop. They will say you did not activate your turn signal even if you did. They will say you were weaving even if you did not. They need to embellish to lay the foundation for the required PROBABLE CAUSE TO STOP you when they don't have it.

The police officer even lied about the town in which he stopped my son in order to have jurisdiction. Yes, my son had a beer and was wrong. But there is no need to pile it on thick and heavy and accuse him of 10 things he did not do, just so he can be nailed to the cross.

According to my son the police report was full of lies. He was accused of doing 10 times what he did. The very good attorney I retained saw right through the lies and distortions and brought them up to the judge as all the contradictions could never bear the detailed facts. The judge found no probable cause and dismissed the case in about 25 minutes.

The judge had no trouble believing a teen age boy over a professional cop who swore never to lie under oath or abuse his badge and position. Yes, he lied with a straight face to the judge even though his lies were blatantly obvious and provable.

I asked my son's former states attorney/defense attorney why nothing is done about these police officers whom lie.

He simply stated that is how the system works and to just be happy I got your son off scott free. He reminded me if they won the false allegations of the police officer could have cost my son and I at least 10,000 dollars in fines, schooling, counseling and attorney fees.

I asked him if he would ever consider suing a cop that lied. He said he would never sue a cop or prosecutor that lies because he has to live with them on a daily basis. He informed me not everyone can afford to go to trial as I was for my son, so he needs to be on their right side to make deals in future cases. Making a deal in a DUI case is much less costly than going to trial as you probably know TB.

My attorney told me, if he ever sued a cop or prosecuter for lying they would never make a good deal with him again. He would be blackmailed by all proseuctors and cops in all his future cases. His clients would suffer as he could not get them the deals that he could get by remaining friendly and cordial with the opposing side!

I don't want to go into all the details but about 5 former states attorneys pretty much told me the same story. Two were only one step beneath Joe Birkett's top position.

It seems like you read a lot and write a lot but have not experienced the real world. At one time I saw my son's attorney wink and nod at the judge. During a short break right before the ruling, he told me the body language of the judge towards him meant we already won.

Yes, it is unfair! But if you have money you can get justice in Dupage County. If you don't have money you can get jail time!

Money talks in Dupage. I am sorry to say you are very naive not to know this at your age with an MBA. Get out there and experience the real world.

Please don't make implied accusations such as asking me what tax crime I was convicted of. I was discussing the case of a neighbor who will remain anonymous. He was innocent and was not convicted of any crime for the record.

What I discussed was factual! Your text book interpretation of how the world works is not reality.

I can assure you it is almost impossible for the IRS to enter your home and safe deposit box. Those are sacred as I said. Judges don't give search warrants to search for documents hidden in a home or safe deposit box.

Your place of business can be raided by the IRS with a judge's order but even that only happens if judges can be convinced of something very drastic such as stolen money being hidden somewhere. But there has to be strong evidence that someone saw the stolen money being hidden.....search warrants are not given based on speculation or hunches!

Remember, in IRS criminal cases one is allowed to not cooperate and remain silent. One is not suppose to provide incriminating evidence about himself or herself. So the procedure is for the IRS to get it from 3rd party sources. As a matter the law requires them to get the documents from 3rd parties such as banks or brokers. Not to get it from the suspect or his home unless he is a fool who agrees to talk and allow the special agents in his home VOLUNTARILY! That is why my neighbor never opened the door based on his attorney's advice. Yes, they were knocking so loud, I could hear it from my home across the street. Yes, they dented the wooden door with their fists. I saw the dent! They were trying to scare and intimidate him with the pounding.

With your Dad having worked for the IRS for 30 years and you being an MBA, I am a little astonished regarding your lack of knowledge and false statements.

Let us not be splitting hairs, TB, like the old Joe. The IRS does not go after small people criminally on complex matters that involve tens of thousands of dollars and sometimes even hundreds of thousands.

If you pull a complex scam involving $60 million dollars, of course the IRS will spend the time and money to get a criminal conviction.
I can assure you they are not going criminally after the waitress who never reported her tips. They may go after, one a year, to make an example and try to scare the other 10 million waitresses who do not fully report their tips. I am surprised with your IRS Dad you don't know the basics of how the IRS operates.

Maybe you ought to sit down and talk to your Dad once in a while instead of trying to dispute everything one says to be the smartalic you are.

It is easy to see why the Napergatians disliked you.

How would you like it if some one asked you what crime you have committed just because you have knowledge of the law from friends, neighbors or reading? I think you need to learn how to mind your manners at some point as you become a grown man!

Good luck, TB! Stop trying to be so argumentative.

Try addressing Host Ted instead of me once in a while!

As the Main Anonymous once said very succinctly, if you don't have anything nice to say about someone, it is best to keep your mouth shut!!!

Let us get back on topic, TB, and stop the attacks! That is what this forum is for! Discussion, not attack!

AA –

Sorry to hear about your son’s trouble. I only surmised and asked about you possibly having a conviction due to your apparent dislike of the IRS, especially the criminal investigators. With such a display of disdain, I thought you surely had to have had some personal experience with the IRS’ Special Agents. I’m sorry you took such offense to that.

I don’t care if the Napergatians don’t like me. Every time I’ve tried to debate them civilly, they go on the attack. You want to be called names? Just challenge there “facts” and allegations.

I find it odd you want me to address my posts to Ted after you address your posts to me...?

I think we’ve been having a fairly good debate back and forth regarding the 5th Amendment which sprung from the DF topic and whether or not Hull could refuse to testify as someone else stated. I’ve never attacked you as you stated. I didn’t call you “naïve” or a “smartalic” like you called me. Saying I was attacking you is an outright lie.

I also haven’t been trying to be argumentative with you, but have simply been trying to challenge some factually incorrect statements you’ve made. Not everything you’ve said is correct, but you seem to have a problem accepting the fact that you’re not always right.

I’ll accept what you said about your experience with DuPage County Court. Its long been known around here that if you get in trouble in this county you hire a local attorney and not one from Chicago, no matter how good the Chicago attorney may be. But I do know some cops and think they are honest and good people.

But your comments about IRS investigations are not all correct. As I can learn from you County experience, you could learn from my knowledge of the IRS.

Judges grant search warrants based on whether or not there is probable cause to find evidence (not just money) at the listed location. They don’t care if the location is a home, business, car, or safe deposit box.

No, the IRS is not going to do a criminal investigation of a waitress for not reporting her tips, but don’t be fooled into thinking that only people who scam millions of dollars get investigated. The IRS will investigate anyone they feel will create exposure to ensure compliance by the masses.

Enjoy your weekend. I look forward to your response which I assume you’ll address to Ted (?).

T.B.

T.B.,

Thanks for being sorry about my son's trouble. That sounds a lot better than asking me what TAX CRIME I was convicted of. You implied I committed a TAX CRIME and wanted to know which crime I committed.

You could have simply asked if I ever ran into trouble with the IRS. Or if I was ever convicted of a TAX CRIME instead of WHICH CRIME I WAS CONVICTED OF. Big difference!

I told you about my Dupage Case just as it happened. Thanks for accepting that I was simply being factual and truthful. Of course there are a lot of good cops who would never do what the majority do in embellishing police reports!

If you were not splitting hairs, you would see we are almost in agreement on the IRS situation. Run it by your Dad. If he was a REVENUE AGENT he may know very little about what a CRIMINAL SPECIAL AGENT does. A SPECIAL AGENT can charge you with perjury if you lie to him. They are very dangerous unless you think going to prison for 1 to 5 years is no big deal.

Let me give you a specific example. This is something I followed closely in the news. The owner of Heavenly Bodies, a sleezy strip joint in Elk Grove, was under massive IRS investigation for skimming cash from his business and hiding it instead of reporting and declaring it for tax purposes.

They went before a Judge to obtain a search warrant for his home and business with almost identical strong evidence. The Judge gave them a search warrant for the business but not the home. They found 12 million dollars under the floor of his office at Heavenly Bodies. They confiscated all 12 million dollars. They could not enter his home. The Judge ruled against that!

Anyone who keeps 12 million dollars in his business where hundreds of employees are running in and out each day(including prostitues, sluts and pimps), most likely keeps tons of money hidden in his home and probably in safe deposit boxes. That is almost a no brainer! But they could never enter his home or safe deposit box. The standards are very different and much higher for your home and safe deposit box.

I did not say that it was impossible for the IRS to enter your home...almost impossible is what I said and I stand by that. My neighber spoke to many top notch criminal defense attorneys who were formerly IRS lawyers. They know what they are talking about.

It was his attorneys who told him, it would take someone watching him rob a bank and taking the money to his home or safe deposit to get a search warrant for his HOME or SAFE DEPOSIT BOX. If he robbed the bank and no one saw him take the money to his home, a Judge would not issue a warrant to search his home. Someone credible had to have seen him. Are there other exceptions? I am sure there are. You are taking the exceptions and trying to nip at my credibility for being absolutely honest and that is what I don't appreciate.

Yes, I called you a few choice words since you assumed I was and called me a CRIMINAL. You did not ask me if I committed a CRIME, you asked me which CRIME I COMMITTED.

Anyone can see you started this confrontation. I obviously love to debate. But like the Napergatians who you dislike, I will not let you twist, slice and dice my words to hurt my credibility.

I believe honesty and credibility are very important. People who lie get nowhere. People who tell tales get nowhere. I have blogged a lot here in recent months. I feel this is a good blog site from which we can all learn. I certainly learned a lot. I hope I taught some people a few things too.

Just because you Dad is a former IRS agent does not mean he knows the entire IRS CODE. He will be the first to tell you how complex it is. He will be the first to tell you about how it can be interpreted differently!

If everything was black and white, there would not be civil and criminal IRS defense attorneys fighting the IRS over millions of cases...many times winning!

And even though I said the IRS is unlikely to chase down a 19 year old girl for skimming her tips, they will go after a couple a year as a deterrent to other waitresses. So we agreed but you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing.

I was not writing much during the time the Napergatians were writing. But I read a lot during the last month they were here. I noticed you did the same thing to them as you are attempting to do to me. It is ridiculous! The old Joe use to be like you! He successfully changed his stripes. Hopefully you will one day change your strips and make point without attacking like a PIT BULL!

Apparently the Old Joe and the Napergatians all burned out being on this site. I am almost all burned out too, even though I enjoyed my ride on Ted's Threads. I am a little shocked in the decline of bloggers from a year ago. Do you know what may have caused this, TB? I am clueless!

I will say the one reason I remain here is I enjoy the Main Anonymous very much. He makes his points without attacking anyone. He is an excellent and articulate writer. He stands up for himself when attacked.

Anyway TB, I don't think you are a bad guy. You need to choose your words more carefully. You need to ask your questions without being accusatory. I went out of my way to answer all your questions despite your unfriendly and uncalled for accusatory tone.

I will say that the IRS is nowhere as bad or corrupt as the Dupage County Court system. That place is a racket! And as you said you need an attorney who works that courthouse to succeed.

I have used out of county attorneys there and failed. When I use in county and especially former states attorney, I almost always succeed.

So it is about who you know and how much money you can afford to give him or her. Very sad! But this is our society!!! It is as corrupt as the stock market!!! Unethical professionals everywhere! I don't know why most people even bother going to churches, mosques, and synagoues. Those places can't get you to Heaven if you are a bad guy or bad girl assuming there is a HEAVEN! That is another subject for another day!

I would one day like to see Host Ted post a thread about whether religion is man made for those who need crutches to help them get through this difficult life and face death. It is easy to face death if you think you are going to Heaven. It is much more difficult if you think you will decay to dirt one day and trees will grow from your bodily nutriets.

Have a good weekend TB! Have a good weekend Host Ted! And a good weekend to everyone else on this blog site!

AA –

I’m not talking only about exceptions for searches of homes and I’m not nit-picking. I’m just saying the judiciary holds no special protection for homes as you seem to imply. Is it harder to get probable cause to search a home? Yes, but that's because the public is welcome to enter a business at almost any time. The more people there, the more oportunities to get a witness for probable cause.

Just Google “’IRS’ and ‘search warrant’ and ‘home’” and you will get plenty of examples of IRS searches of homes, most notably Sen. Stevens of Alaska.

Unlike TV, search warrants aren’t done to find just anything. The government has to show a judge why they have probable cause to believe specific evidence is in a specific location. You can’t just go to a judge and say “this guy is bad and we think he keeps stuff at home”.

Just for your info, my dad was both a Revenue Agent and a Special Agent (not at the same time, obviously) so I understand the differences between the two and also the differences between a civil and criminal investigation. You may think I’m naïve about these things and need to get out more, but you really have no idea what you’re talking about so you can stop talking down to me on the subject.

Most criminal tax laws are, in fact, fairly black and white. The IRS brags that it has a 90% conviction rate for their criminal cases.

To tell you the truth, I don’t hate the Napergatians as you stated. I may not trust them, but I don't hate them. I didn’t know who they were almost a year ago but I noticed that many of their theories posted on these threads were based on bad assumptions without any real factual support. And for merely questioning these assumptions I was attacked. And when I didn’t back down I was attacked again. I find it sad, actually.

Funny you should talk about a religious thread and faith. God love the Napergatians for their zeal and idealism, but if they can't come up with facts to support their allegations they're no different than a church.

T.B.

By T.B. on October 17, 2008 10:51 PM
AA –

I’m not talking only about exceptions for searches of homes and I’m not nit-picking. I’m just saying the judiciary holds no special protection for homes as you seem to imply. Is it harder to get probable cause to search a home? Yes,............!

--------------------------------------------------------------------
T.B.

You are talking only about exceptions for searches of homes and you are nit-picking either consciously or subconsciously.

In your own words you admit it is harder to get probable cause to searh a home! That is what I have been trying to say and thus you agree with me while saying you disagree and I am wrong.

You have the same systematic disease of the old Joe who would fight the Napergatians day and night with his slicing and dicing until they realized they were wasting their time debating on this blog site.

I am not talking down to you. You seem to have an inferior complex towards someone who you perceive may have more knowledge than yourself.

Just because your Dad was a Revenue Agent and/or Special Agent with the IRS, does not mean he knows all the IRS laws and codes. He does not! He is not expected to. The IRS have well paid lawyers that interpret those laws in court while fighting criminal defense attorneys. Judges listen for weeks and sometimes months before they make rulings on cases. It is never as black and white as you think!

Criminal investigations by the IRS do not result in 90% conviction rates. Many investigations are halted. Some are dismissed! In a third of investigations there is not even an indictment.

If someone is finally indicted, there is a very high chance that the accused will plead to a deal or be convicted. More likely plead to a deal of sorts. In some particular years it has reached 90%. In some years it was over 75%. But it is only this high after indictment and not based on criminal investigations started. Big difference, TB!!!

Your naivety really comes out when you state the IRS laws are black and white. They are far from black and white. Any tax attorney, IRS attorney, Tax Court Administrative Judge, or US Judge will tell you the IRS code is very gray. I think most twenty year olders know that the IRS laws are nothing but gray.

In the case of my friend it started as civil in the 90s, went to criminal in the 00s and returned back to civil in the late 00s. The IRS is yet to get a dollar out of him and it has been over a decade. The lawyers are currently battling the issue of statute of limitations since it is a very old case. Attorneys from both sides had their hair turn gray in the last decade while you state there is no gray and everything is black and white. Common get real, TB!

Your hair will probably go from jet black to pearl white and never turn gray. You are a very unusal human being T.B.! Don't tell me your hair is brown or blonde for argumentative purposes. I am just trying to make a point to a very simple minded individual who sees no gray! And don't tell me the British spell gray as grey. I already know that. I am just trying to show you how ridiculous people like you and the old Joe can be on this blog site with all this silly nitpicking.

Let us face it 300 Napergatians could not all have possibly been wrong about you. I concur fully with them. You are convicted, TB!

Hey AA -

Just a thought, but maybe this is all a missunderstanding.

Is your stance that there is some higher burden for searches of homes or that judges don't like to grant searches of homes; or are you trying to say it's just more difficult for thr cops or IRS to get probable cause to search a home?

If you're saying homes are somehow more protected than other places, I strongly disagree. If you're arguing the it is more difficult to get probable cause to search a home, I agree.

Have a good weekend.

T.B.

Another Anonymous wrote:

"Let us face it 300 Napergatians could not all have possibly been wrong about you. I concur fully with them. You are convicted, TB!"

AA, while I did come to agree with the Napergatians that the NPD was unnecessarily heavy-handed in the way it handled the NGM's July, 2006 arrest, I still had my disagreements with their methods of argumentation. One Napergatian would state an opinion, two more would agree, and then the rest would treat it as established fact. There is security in numbers, but 300 people agreeing on a matter of speculation does not change the fact that it is still speculation.

If you're saying homes are somehow more protected than other places, I strongly disagree. If you're arguing the it is more difficult to get probable cause to search a home, I agree.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

T.B.,

You are a work of artful contradicition.

If it is more difficult to get probable cause to search a home, it would follow that homes are somehow more protected than other places.

You have gotten to the point of arguing with your OWNSELF!

It has become obvious to me why the Napergatians all finally turned on you. You made them turn on you!

As I said in my earlier post, I concur with the Napergatians and find you guilty as charged!

No one is saying you have to agree with them, but please try to agree with YOURSELF. That appears to be the problem in your case!

Have a good Sunday, TB!

==================================================================

Host Ted,

I believe an experienced editor like yourself can follow the logic in our argument. TB seems to be very stubborn. If you could resolve this argument between us, I would be most appreciative in order that we can move on to another topic. Thanks!!! And have a nice Sunday!!!

Mr. John Q. Public,

I agree with you that the Napergatians seemed to all agree with each other about the arrest and mishandling of their leader. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. It seems like you even agree.

If you study my exchange with TB you will understand why it was hard for them to argue with the likes of TB, the old Joe, Ken and a few others.

It just seems like they argue for the sake of arguing.

In the latest exchange I had with TB, it seems like he was tripping over himself arguing with his own conclusions. Disagreeing with himself after agreeing with himself. Agreeing with himself after disagreeing with himself.

I honestly never experienced anything like this before.

I don't think the Napergatians needed to be right at all costs. They did not seem to have egos. I don't think it is that unusual for people with the same agenda to agree with each other.

It seems like the minorithy group of 5 at the time felt a need to be right at all costs. It seems like they wanted to argue with the Napergatians to antagonize them more than to make points.

It reminded me of when McCain could not counter Obama effectively, he called him a friend of terrorists who harbored them and even hung around with one. Obviously, it did not work and has backfired on McCain as we have seen in the polls.

In the end SOME members of this group of 5, decided to label the Napergatians as cultists as a way to counter them since they could not counter their agenda. It did not seem like it worked and gained the Napergatians more support.

However, unfortunately I feel the Napergatians chose to leave this blog site rather than engage in senseless arguments day and night like the one I am having with TB on this thread. At this point if I told him the sun rises in the east, he would simply say I have east and west mixed up and it rises in the west.

It seems like a certain segment of bloggers get highs from arguing. They never really express their opinions about a subject. They get a kick out of attacking other peoples opinions whether they agree or disagree. Unfortunately, I feel TB is one of those types that will argue with his wife till death do them apart. It seems like a personality trait that he can not control. I wish him the best of luck!

Take a moment if you will, Mr. John Q. Public and review our exchange carefully and you will see what I mean. I think he felt because his father is an IRS Agent he was automatically knowledgeable and had to be right on all matters involving the IRS Code and Laws. He could not imagine that someone may know a little more than him. He was very close minded and felt he had to be right. That he knew more than criminal IRS defense attorneys. Can you imagine that he felt the IRS code was black and white! Give me a break!!!

AA –

First of all, your 10/18 post at 2:23 pm was not yet published when I sent Ted my 8:33 pm post the same day. Please don’t think my post was a response to yours, it was actually an attempt to see if our opinions were closer than appeared and perhaps we were at a stalemate due to a misunderstanding. I reached out in good faith to see if we could amicably resolve this—shame on me I guess.

The IRS’ 90% conviction rate is for cases in which the IRS recommends prosecution. Obviously, there will be cases which are discontinued for various reasons, but the cases that go forward are usually very solid. Your criminal IRS defense attorney contacts can verify this for you.

Despite what you may think, the IRS' criminal tax laws are very black and white. The civil statutes may differ, but I specifically stated “criminal tax laws”. The most common criminal statutes charged include failure to file a return (whether you filed or not is not a gray area), knowingly filing a return which is materially false (knowingly = not gray), and tax evasion (going out of your way to evade taxes is not a gray area).

Civil tax laws can be a very gray area, but for this reason you will not find technical matters decided in a criminal case. If the interpretation of the specific tax code in question is open to debate, you won’t get a criminal conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

You claim I’m naïve about IRS matters and tax laws, but your basis for this statement is a failure of reading comprehension on your part.

This all started with your false assertion that the 5th Amendment only applied to the accused. Then you falsely stated that non-compliance with an IRS audit will lead to a criminal case. Frankly, your track record here isn’t very good. You’re trying to take a small amount of IRS knowledge and convince people you know all there is to know about the IRS. You don’t.

You say I’m the one who’s closed minded, but you fail to acknowledge that I conceded the County issue to you based on your son’s experiences. You, on the other hand, are blindly failing to concede any issues at all—even when you’re wrong.

Look in the mirror, AA, and open your mind a little. You’re falling into the typical Napergatian pattern of attacking someone when you can’t win the argument on the facts. You can do better.

T.B.

AA --

Just one more thought. You say I like to argue just to argue, but that's far from the truth. Check out the DF thread and you'll see what a good discourse looks like (even between you and I) when you keep an open mind and don't call the other person naive for daring to say you're not always right.

T.B.

The IRS’ 90% conviction rate is for cases in which the IRS recommends prosecution, says TB!

------------------------------------------------------------------

The below quote is from one criminal tax law firm(NOLO) that disputes what you are saying. Soon I will dig up information for you from the official IRS web site to show you the 90% conviction rate is not from the point the IRS recommends.....possibly from the point the US Attorney indicts. That is much more realistic!

Just for your information the IRS does not even prosecute criminal cases. They are handed over to the US Attorney for prosecution. He determines which cases to bring forward. And I am certain he does not bring forward 90% of the cases let alone obtain a 90% conviction rate.

In order for the IRS to get a case to the US ATTORNEY in Chicago, they have to first get it by their IRS CHICAGO FIELD OFFICE in downtown. Secondly, they have to get it pass the Department of Justice, Tax Division, at the Bicentennial Building in Washington D.C. And then fnally a very busy US Attorney who is very selective in which cases he takes as he prosecutes all kinds of cases besides IRS cases. He does not give IRS cases priority over murder, corruption, kidnapping and whatever other cases he may have on his or her desk.

The gray area that you are foolishly ignoring in these criminal cases is CRIMINAL INTENT. This is a gray area and very hard to prove. It is very hard to get into anyones mind to determine if that person had CRIMINAL INTENT when allegedly committing the infraction. Fraud cases are divided between civil and criminal depending on the evaluation of CRIMINAL INTENT in a person's mind. A very GRAY AREA!!!

What constitues "material" is also a gray area depending on many different facors. It is not black and white as you allege.

Also a huge gray exists between tax fraud and tax evasion. Even the IRS has a very difficult time determining which cases to put in what category. I am shocked that a man who claims he is an MBA claims the IRS code and tax matters are all black and white. What school did you attend that taught you this misinformation?

As the bloggers can see you know very little about IRS criminal cases even though your father is a former IRS agent. Expertise in complicated fields is not passed down genetically from father to son as you would like us to believe. It is acquired through knowledge obtained in the real world.

Just because you concede I am right about Dupage County, it does not mean I have to return the favor and concede you are right about the IRS when you are ABSOLUTELY wrong.

Give me some time and I will provide the actual statistics from the IRS showing you that you are wrong!

Again you are very naive, TB! The IRS likes to exxagerate its conviction rates to instill fear in the US Taxpayer. It is a deterrent effect that they like to "put out there" as it is impossible to audit 200,000,000 tax returns, millions of which are fraudulent.

Finally, there is no Napergatian style of attacking you. It is your contradiction of yourself and lack of knowledge that brings one to question what you are saying.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

» How likely am I to get charged with criminal tax fraud?

How likely am I to get charged with criminal tax fraud?

Not very. Fewer than 2% of us are ever investigated for tax fraud. And if you are, the likelihood of a civil fine or criminal charge is under 20%. The unofficial minimum amount of taxes owed before the IRS will file criminal fraud charges is over $70,000, in cases involving at least three years of fraud. To some extent, whether you are charged depends on your line of work. Most of those prosecuted for tax fraud work in organized crime or are public figures. For more information, see Negligence Versus Tax Fraud: How Can the IRS Tell the Difference?

Back to top

Three Fiscal Years Trends in Investigations - Criminal Investigation (CI)

How to Interpret Criminal Investigation Data
Since actions on a specific investigation may cross fiscal years, the data shown in cases initiated may not always represent the same universe of cases shown in other actions within the same fiscal year.

FY 2007
FY 2006
FY 2005

Prosecutions Recommended
4211
3907
4269

Information/Indictment
2837
2720
2859


Total Convictions
2155
2019
2151

Total Sentenced*
2123
2020
2095

Percent to Prison
81.2%
82%
83%

*Sentence includes confinement to federal prison, halfway house, home detention, or some combination thereof.

A fiscal year runs from October 1 through September 30.
Data Source: Criminal Investigation Management Information System

====================================================================

T.B.,

The above is from the IRS Criminal Investigation Management System.

You can see the IRS has about a 75% conviction rate from indictment/information. Not sure what "information" means.
You can compute that from the numbers above rather easily.

If you eyeball the conviction rate from PROSECUTIONS RECOMMENDED, you get a little over 50%.

I simply think your memory fails you at times and you begin to believe your failed memory. That seems to be what happened with your battle with the Napergatians.

I was basing my arguments on memory. I was sure of my memory. It appears according to the IRS that my memory is a little better than yours....at least for now!!!

So there is no need to apologize to you or agree with you when you are wrong. There is a need to correct you!

I just think you need to do a little research before you write.

An over 90% conviction rate from recommendation just seemed awfully high since the IRS has to go thru a regional field office, the Department of Justice in Washington, and a US Attorney for a case to be approved for prosecution. Those are a lot of hoops. The US Government is not known to rubber stamp cases. They review them and judge them before they pass them up the ladder step by step.

Prosecuting a taxpayer criminally is a serious matter. I commend the IRS for taking it seriously and putting it through so many reviews by different levels of government.

It seems if a taxpayer is CONVICTED, he has a better than 80% chance of being sentenced to jail as opposed to a half way house or home confinement according to the above data.

But from "prosecution recommendation" it is a little over 50% to conviction and not over 90% as you incorrectly indicated.

I don't expect to get anywhere with you, TB, but I hope Host Ted and Mr. John Q. Public can see my point of your senseless arguing for the sake of arguing with no data or information to back your arguments.

It seems like you feel if you repeat yourself over and over again, you can make your propaganda fact and and have it stand. It does not work that way if someone wants to review your work and challenge you!

Maybe the Napergatians did repeat themselves. But at least they stood the test of time and to the best of my knowledge no one was able to dispute their facts....not even you TB!!!

You are failing the test of time, TB! You can do better by arguing less unless you have undisputable rebuttal!

AA –

The 90% conviction rate I cited was a quote from Eileen Mayer, Chief of IRS Criminal Investigation. I don’t know what criteria she was using but have no reason to doubt her. I also have no reason to doubt your stats. It just goes to show that you can manipulate numbers any way you want and in this case perhaps she was referring to cases which go to trial. Who knows?

An information, for your education, is used in place of an indictment but only when the defendant waves his right to be indicted by a grand jury. In essence, an information is a sure indication that the defendant took a plea.

I never said the IRS prosecutes their cases, just that they recommend prosecution to DOJ. You’re very right in the process the IRS criminal cases go through, but I draw a different conclusion from this set of facts. You seem to think that going through the Field Office review and DOJ-Tax Division review in DC before getting to the US Attorney’s Office is a daunting task. I’d prefer to think that after all that review the cases that get to the US Attorney’s Office are thoroughly vetted and consequently are very solid cases.

Plus, you assume the US Attorney has no idea these cases are coming and he has to prioritize accordingly, when in reality many (but not all) of these cases are worked through the grand jury with an Assistant US Attorney so the US Attorney’s Office is well aware of the cases and are just waiting for the final concurrence from DOJ-Tax in DC. DC almost always concurs with a case in which the US Attorney’s Office has already expressed an interest in prosecuting.

Hey, nice job throwing in the name of the actual building in DC where DOJ-Tax is located…that would have kept me up all night.

You think intent is near impossible to prove? Ask William S. Cover what he thinks about the subject. This fine Naperville resident just got 13 years for tax fraud (The Sun, 10/18/08).

“Material” is a gray area? Anyone can see whether something is material or not simply based on the additional tax due cause by the item (whether it was something left off a tax return or something added). If you leave $50K off your return or add $25K to your itemized deductions, that’s material and will be shown in the bottom line.

I think you’re over-thinking taxes. Because most people (or even you perhaps) don’t understand the tax system, they seem to think it’s impossibly complex and complicated. In reality, the criminal side of the IRS takes a complex set of financial transactions and converts them to simple concepts that can be easily explained to a jury.

I brought up the county example not to state that you should then concede on this IRS matter, but merely to point out that my opinions are flexible if someone brings forward contrary information I find credible. I’m not close-minded as you state and I’m not arguing just for the sake of arguing. I happen to have a different opinion than you regarding the IRS and these situations we’ve been discussing.

Obviously, our experiences and points of view differ. Is one 100% correct and the other 100% wrong? I don’t know, but probably not. You say that IRS knowledge is not passed down genetically. You’re right, but I could also say that having a neighbor with IRS trouble doesn’t make you an expert, either. Besides, I never said that the only extent of my knowledge, contact, or experience with the IRS was through my father and his coworkers. Just as I doubt your only source of IRS info and experience is through your neighbor.

You’re free to disagree with me, but don’t assume you’re 100% correct and call me naïve or close-mined. It only makes you look like a fool.

T.B.

By T.B. on October 20, 2008 10:21 AM
AA –

The IRS’ 90% conviction rate is for cases in which the IRS recommends prosecution. Obviously, there will be cases which are discontinued for various reasons, but the cases that go forward are usually very solid. Your criminal IRS defense attorney contacts can verify this for you.

====================================================================

TB,

Now that your statement proved to be seriously wrong, you blame it on a quote by someone else. "The 90% conviction rate I cited was a quote from Eileen Mayer, Chief of IRS Criminal Investigation."

Apparently you took credit for her quote until it was proven to be a great exaggeration. At that point you gave her credit. But when you thought it was right you simply plagiarized her statement without giving her credit. Shame on you TB! You learned nothing from the Naperville Central Principal. You have to give credit when quoting.

Eileen Mayer was simply exaggerating to deter tax cheats. What she did is common practice. Whether it is ethical or not, I do not know. But if people don't check on government, they achieve their deterrent effect without losing their credibility. Most people do not check on government. I did!

Basically, instead of admitting you were wrong with your initial statement you suddenly confess to PLAGIARISM and indicate it was your source that was wrong. Well, you obviously knew who your source was, so why not give her creidt initially....not when you need to be exonerated from a false statement she made that you took credit for!

I am glad you don't work for Host Ted! He would have said, TB, you are FIRED!!!

“Material” is a gray area? Anyone can see whether something is material or not simply based on the additional tax due cause by the item (whether it was something left off a tax return or something added). If you leave $50K off your return or add $25K to your itemized deductions, that’s material and will be shown in the bottom line.

====================================================================

TB,

Material is a very gray area. $50,000 may be material in one case and not material in another case. If someone makes 5,000,000, this amount would be 1% and would not be considered material.

If someone makes 150,000, this amount would be material as it would be 33%.

Material is not a black and white number such as 50k as you describe. Material is a relevent number.

While I am no expert on IRS matters, my understanding is material in many cases but not all cases is when someone successfully skims or underreports 25% of his or her income. There are many exceptions to this rule! Again GRAY AREAS!

Even after this is determined, the IRS has to diagnose and analyse CRIMINAL INTENT, to decide if they want to proceed civilly or criminally.

Since there are very few Special Agents in the United States on a relative basis, many CRIMINAL INTENT CASES of FRAUD are handled by the civil division which is much larger than the criminal division.

The IRS is loaded with gray areas.

I am really shocked that an MBA graduate like yourself thinks IRS LAWS and CODES are all black and white. If that was true there would be no need for IRS LAWYERS or CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS. It would all be black and white and the judge would just slam his gavel case after case, and cases would last one day instead of years.

Common, TB, stop being so stubborn and smell the coffee once in a while. Have a cup of coffee with your Dad once in a while and allow him to do the talking while you do the listening. I trust your Dad agrees with most of what I am saying. Ask him and come back and tell us the TRUTH! Come back and try to be FACTUAL for a change!!!

You seem to think that going through the Field Office review and DOJ-Tax Division review in DC before getting to the US Attorney’s Office is a daunting task.

===================================================================

TB,
It IS a daunting task and process. One third of the cases the IRS recommends for prosecution, are dropped by the Field Office and DOJ-Tax Division in Washingon DC.

The remaining two thirds make it the US Attorney office. Out of those that proceed to information/indictment stage the US ATTORNEY is able to get a 75% conviction rate with over 80% going to the slammer. Thanks for educating me on "information" as I was not familiar with that term. Just wanted to quote the IRS as accurate as possible to maintain my credibility. Something you need to work on!

In summary, TB, your INITIAL statement indicated wrongfully that 90% of the cases the IRS recommends for prosecution result in CONVICTION. That is what I disputed. You jumped on me as someone who did not know what I was talking about. Well, the IRS data shows that they convict about 50% from the point of "prosecution recommendation."

Yes, by the time these cases reach the US Attorney they are vetted out pretty well. Thus he is able to obtain a 75% conviction rate. The Field Office and DOJ are not simply rubber stamping as you would want us to beleive. They are microsoping and vetting!

If the process was so black and white and the IRS Agents could easily get it right, than why did the FO and DOJ disagree with them on 33% of the cases and not let them proceed any further? Hint, something called GRAY!

I don't think it is a daunting task. I know it is a daunting task. The numbers indicate it is a daunting task since one third of the cases are dropped before they even reach the US Attorney. Review the data again!

I love how you continue to slice and dice to prove you are right when you are wrong. Just like the OLD JOE!

Again anyone who reviews our exchange knows the Napergatians read you right. It is understandable why they chose to leave this site rather than debate a handful of city supporters who only see BLACK and WHITE. Maybe you ought to shop at that BLACK and WHITE clothing store in the PROMENADE BUILDING in downtown Naperville since you seem to think the world is pretty much black and white!

No hard feelings, TB, but most of what you posted proved to be wrong and in some cases at least partially wrong. Again, ask you Dad! I am confident he knows!

It is time you owned up to your MISTAKES and PLAGIARISM!

Be a man and OWN UP instead of dancing in circles to prove you are right when you are wrong! Let us end the debate and agree you were WRONG!!! It is not a CRIME TO BE WRONG!

I am not alleging you committed FRAUD. I am just saying your memory failed you and you made some mistakes except of course for the PLAGIARISM!!! On that one you are GUILTY as CHARGED! Consider yourself lucky that you are anonymous as the rest of us are!

If the Napergate Man did not check his facts in his days as you don't, they would have hung him to dry. He did not have the fortune to be anonymous as you and I have. We could always start over again. I think you may need to start over again at this time to with a new name to restore and resume your CREDIBILITY!

How about picking the name BW for BLACK and WHITE. That would suit you perfectly. Just pretend TB never existed! TB is DONE for now!

Have a nice evening, BW!!! It suits you PERFECTLY!!

A.A., here is the definition of plagiarism:

pla·gia·rism
–noun
1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

TB used only the percentage he saw used for conviction rate, and never claimed he arrived at that percentage by himself. Any reasonable person would realize he got the percentage figure from somewhere and didn't need to quote a source until you questioned it.

You, on the other hand, have posted whole reams of information without sourcing it. Is all that information your original work?

It comes down to the fact that you both have sources for your numbers. Resorting to the usual napergate cult tactic of name calling and character bashing does not help make your cause.

AA --

You claim that you're right and I'm wrong. Fine. I could argue all day about how wrong you are and I would only be "argumentative". I guess I'm not supposed topoint out the flaws in your posts and just accept them at face value?

As for plagiarism, who's work am I supposed to have stolen? This is a new one on me (and, evidently, Ken).

Lastly, oh great IRS expert...please let us in on how you obtained this great knowledge. Is it all from your neighbor? From reading and posting too much? Or did you do as you suggested to me and get out in the real world? Let us in on the source of your vast knowledge...we'd all love to hear it.

T.B.

Ken,

You may be right about what constitutes plagiarism. I am not sure. It also can be a gray area at times. Let us give TB the benefit of the doubt!

But he knew where he got that 90% rate and did not attribute credit until after it was revealed the IRS Chief was exaggerating to create a deterrent effect in society. Of course her attempt at deterrence works unless one wants to call her out!

As far as my data, it came straight from the IRS. My calculations are based on IRS data that I posted by copying and pasting. You can do your own computations. All you need is a 5 dollar calculator....the same cost as a foot long SUBWAY these days!

I think TB was sincere in his arguments. The only problem I have with him is when the data proved his information wrong, he just blamed his source whom he initially never gave credit to. I don't question that his source said what she said. I believe him.

The other issue I have with TB is he believes the IRS code is very black and white. Do you believe it is black and white, too, Ken?

Why you need to bring in the Napergate Organization every time you or a city supporter loses an argument is beyond me. It seems like when you can't debate, you simply blame Napergatian tactics.

The name calling always originates from TB. I usually write about the topic(not to any particular person) and TB responds to my writings calling me a fool, absolutely wrong and/or whatever. I just respond with facts and show who the real fool is.

This all has nothing to do with NAPERGATE, Ken!

I guess you had your own problems with the Napergatians and you simply could not get over it. If I recall correctly, they also questioned your credibility! Your problem is with them, not with me!

Mr. Black and White,

I am well educated. I know how to read. I know how to write. I know how to comprehend!

My great source of knowledge is reading the IRS web site. Yes, it is thousands of pages long, but I have read a few hundred pages in an attempt to help my neighbor deal with his case and keep his legal expenses down. Every little bit of research he and I have done, has saved him 425 dollars an hour. That is what his main attorney charges him. The secondary attorney charges 250 dollars an hour.

My neighbor has great Handyman skills and helps me with projects around my home such as climbing up my trees and trimming them for me. Something I am unable to do for myself, so I am happy to return the favor to him in research which I enjoy. He also helped me seal coat my driveway the other day. A very nice man who I believe is innocent of all the allegations by the IRS against him. The fact they have not been able to get a penny out of him in 9 years indicates the IRS does not have a case but is trying to recoop its losses from the long investigation by continuing to throw mud at him. But in my opinion and the opinion of his attorneys, the statute of limitations finally ran out on the IRS and they are just blowing hot air at this point hoping he will settle for something so they can go to the higher ups and say we got something from this guy. I am positive my neighbor will never give them a penny and they will eventually withdraw from battling him for a second decade.

It has become an EGO case for the IRS. Similar to the Furstenau case becoming an EGO case for the City of Naperville. These EGO cases are so costly for taxpayers, unfortunately. Govennments hate to lose and will use every last penny of taxpayer money in an attempt to win. Out of control government exists at all levels! That is why we need CHANGE and most politicians are running with the slogan of CHANGE. I hope we see some CHANGE but I am not optimistic!

If you know how to read, write and comprehend you can keep your attorney fees down. I also did a lot of research for my son in his DUI case. But I would not dare try to represent him in court. I know the system is corrupt and I needed a connected attorney to exonerate him in the "PROBABLE CAUSE" phase of the proceedings.

I am sure my neighbor also knows the court system is corrupt and he is also dealing with a connected attorney who was a former IRS attorney/US Attorney and is buddy buddy with those formerly prosecuting and now persecuting. Without high powered and connected attorneys, it is hard to win any case in any courtroom, Mr. Black and White.

I suppose you are too young TB to remember the Greylord Fiasco. I believe in those cases they threw almost 15 to 20 Cook County Judges in jail camps in Wisconsin and Minnesota. I believe they were taking bribes and blatantly fixing cases...even murder cases....unbelievable!!!

Once the Feds investigate Dupage, I believe 15 to 20 Dupage Judges will be shown the way to the slammer. The wink and nodding going on in Dupage Courts is sickening.

What you read in books and reality are 2 different things. You have to have some street smarts to succeed in this tough world. I am sure if you sat down with your IRS Dad, he will tell you how rough it was being an IRS civil and/or special agent. He will tell you about all the ordeals he had fighting taxpayers. He would be the first to tell you nothing is as black and white as it initially seems or appears. I am surprised you won't concede here. Since Ken has stepped up to defend you, I guess he also feels it is all black and white out there, too!

I also read a few dozen pages in the IRS code to analyze what you are saying.

Everything I read disputes what you are saying. You ignore my responses since you know I am right. I mean you foolishly define "material" as $50,000 dollars. You just simply make things up hoping bloggers will believe you. Most IRS definitions of material are 25% or GREATER and make much more sense than your foundationless speculations. "MATERIAL" can not be defind without factoring in "RELEVANCE." Just ask you Dad, Mr. Black and White, if you hate reading.

I was just kidding around with you on the plagiarism charge. But I did think you should have cited your source when you believed it was accuarate as opposed to citing it after you realized it is not accurate. You remind me of politicians who like to pass the puck!

Public officials like to exaggerate. Both McCain and Obama love to exaggerate and tell us about all the impossible things they will do for our economy....yeah sure!

The IRS is not the only one that exaggerates. I rememeber in the Napergate Man's daughter's case the Chief of the Tollway said they go after toll violaters on second and third offenses. In reality Blogger Diana stated thru her friend that it is usually at least 4 and more likely 5. A lowly anonymous employee at the Toll Authority had no reason to lie about such a petty matter. She had nothing to gain or lose! Most probably she was being honest!

What these public officials do is not outright lying? They are not pathological liars. It is simply exaggerating to accomplish the DETERRENT EFFECT! It just seems people like you and Ken are too small minded and naive to comprehend what officials are up to sometimes.

Maybe you both ought to have a cup of coffee with TB's Dad. Somehow, I feel TB's Dad knows what is going on! As far as Mr. Black an White he just dances in circles just like the OLD JOE!!!

I guess someone had to fill the big shoes of the OLD JOE!!! Mr. Black and White stepped up to the plate!!!

A.A., the only reason why the napergate "organization" is in play is because you keep bringing it up to bash TB, and now me. The only problem the napergatians had with my credibility was that they could not shake it. I, on the other hand, had no problems exposing their lies. I exposed Diana's lies about the tollway, and later pointed out articles in the Chicago Tribune that also proved her wrong. The problem with you, AA, is that you glorify an "orginization" that had few facts, just opinions that they claimed were facts. I don't wish to start up the old napergatian cult argument, and in fact restrained from doing so, even after you brought up my name. However, there is only so much misrepresentation I can tolerate, and your obviously serious attacks claiming plagiarism coupled with the misrepresentation of the napergatians was just too much.

By the way, even if I had total faith in the judicial system, how could you call that small minded? It would be naive to have such faith, but would take an open mind to see all the corruption that has happened over the years and yet still believe in a fair legal system.

Ken,
I did not bring up the Napergatge issue until TB accused me of being like the Napergatians because I would not concede to him while he was wrong. Our debate on this thread proves that he was wrong. Instead of apologizing and moving forward, he accused me of employing Napergagtian Style Tactics whatever that may be.

In your case, I rarely recall a post from you without referring to the Napergate Cult. You are simply obsessed with them. You are dying to drink their Kool-Aid except I don't think they serve Kool-Aid in that organization so you may have to visit the old Jonestown Cult for your portion.

Blogger Diana from what I could recall was extremely credible and did tons of research.

Show me where you exposed Diana's lies. The lady never lied. You did not even know what a Naperville Police Officer made while she posted the exact amount from the Naperville Police Web Site. Now you call her a liar because she is no longer blogging with us...

Recently a police officer's wife validated her salaries regarding New York City Police. The towns in California that paid their police more than Naperville both filed for bankruptcy. It was on ABC NEWS one night after Diana mentioned it.

Show me how you exposed her lies about the Tollway Authority. I recall she was posting facts obtained direct from her friend at the Toll Authority. Isn't she the one that dug up the 4 violations by the Napergate Man's daughter and posted them for all of us to see? How much more factual did you want her to be? She provided the time, date, toll gate, color of car, make of car, etc. etc. etc.

What Chicago Tribune article shows Blogger Diana lied? I can't believe Ken that at your age you fabricate stories. Diana never lied. She was one of the most factual bloggers on this blog site. I don't think she was even a Napergatian but you guys made her a Napergatian.

I am not sure how many of those 300 bloggers fighting you, TB and the OLD JOE were Napergatians. Many were! Some were not! You labeled them all Napergatians and then some....

It seems like your definition of a Napergatian is anyone who disagrees with you. There just may be tens of thousands of Napergatians in Naperville if that is your simplified definition!

Ken, word to the wise: "never get in a farting contest with a skunk"! Those of us who follow these threads know the circuitous arguments given by our Napergate friends. For A.A. to state that She / He never brought up Napergate and only respond to attacks is laughable at best. Any argument presented by this group (Napergatians) almost always includes a threat that the "Napergate Man" just may start running ads again, and watch out if he gets involved in politics again...

Now that I've thrown in my 2 cents we'll probably see others (or at least other names used) claiming that poor A.A. is being attacked and ganged up on. And of course if it follows their script it will include a comment that 300, 500, or 5,000 Napergatians (I lose track) will come to his rescue.

I've begun doing what Councilman Bob said he does and simply skip over comments made by them.

Ken,

Just to point out the obvious...

Nearly everyone who you disagree with you label as a Napergatian. If only life could be that simple.

When refering to the Napergatian's you almost always use the word ilk or cult. Please recognize that there are those who believe you deliberately choose such words in an attempt to inflame others.

Mocking, insulting, and generally being condescending to other posters does not increase your own credibility or increase the value of your own argument. To some, if not many, it actually causes the opposite effect. I know you will argue that you are trying to "defend" yourself and that others are "attacking" you. A wise person knows when their point is made and simply take the high ground.

You are no better, no worse than anyone else when it comes to having your fair share of opinion.

You are no better, no worse than anyone else when it comes to quoting sources.

Instead of constantly making argumentative personal attacks try learning to be tolerant of other peoples views. None of us are always right about everything, least of all you. Try increasing your daily dose of humble pie. It will help make you a better person.

AA, if you want to see the lies exposed, go back and read the threads. It is funny that you tout Diana as a truthful when she based her "truths" on information illegally obtained by a friend at the tollway authority. Her, and her criminal friend, main lie was that it took 4 or 5 violations to get action taken against a driver. Since I received a notice for three violations, I knew she was lying. I also offered to show this proof to her at any time and any place of her choosing. Since she was lying, she naturally declined. I also pointed out at the time that the Tribune had stories that discredited her.

AA, I can't believe that someone like you, who has already acknowledged that the court system is corrupt is so naive as to believe a basically anonymous poster on a blog site.

Accusing me of fabricating stories without proof to back up your claims pretty much falls under the definition of libel. Since it is just the internet, and I only use my first name, I don't really care. I just want to point out your lack of moral character.

By the way, I have had plenty of discussions on this thread without mentioning the napergate cult, unlike you. Like I said before, I don't really want to rehash the whole thing, but that does not mean I will let you post lies and libel me without responding.

Ken,

There is no evidence that Diana lied.

But you provided evidence that you committed 3 crimes by not paying your tolls.

Now that you have admitted you are a law breaker, do you expect me to believe anything you say.

Again in your last post you mention the "word" again while saying you don't mention it.

It seems like you can not control yourself at the toll booths or on Ted Threads! Get some help, Ken!

Pepe,

TB and I were engaged in a debate about IRS codes and laws. It had nothing to do with Napergate.

It was a good debate. Unfortunatley, I was able to show that TB was basically misinformed on IRS codes and laws despite having a Dad who formerly worked for the IRS.

After he realized he was losing the debate based on facts and reality, he claimed I was using Napergatian tactics by not willing to accept his erroneous version of reality.

I think that is the basic problem we are having on this thread. Whenever establishment folks are proved wrong, they blame it on a Napergate Conspiracy.

Yes, I have mentioned Napergate on other threads when appropriate. I see nothing wrong with wanting the Napergate Man to be involved in local elections again. He was once involved and made a big difference. Others and I will continue to call for his return and my hope is he will return.

He has funds and organizational skills, both of which are needed to win an election. Most Napergatians don't have the funds to take on the establishment who has very deep pockets. It is really that simple!

AA wrote:
"I did not bring up the Napergatge issue until TB accused me of being like the Napergatians because I would not concede to him while he was wrong."

Actually, AA, you were the first to bring up Napergate and the Napergatians on this thread.

AA, once again you are leaning towards libel. I never admitted that I was a lawbreaker, because I am not. If you would bother to do some of the research you constantly claim you do and read the napergate threads like I recommended, you would know the truth.

Just to set you straight before you make more wild accusations, after I got the notice of violation, I checked my Ipass account, saw one toll was registered paid, and the other two weren't. I then called the number provided by the tollway, and in 15 minutes had the violations removed from my record. You see, AA, when you don't break the law like the napergate man's daughter did, you have no problem clearing up false violations.

Like I said, it may be a good idea to read the threads concerned before you make yourself look more foolish.

If you are questioning character, why should I believe a man who says he used a connected lawyer to get his son out of a DUI? That really doesn't make you look like a paragon of virtue.

OK, AA –

Let’s go through your crap one by one. You've been wrong often on this thread.

On 10/14 @ 1:24 pm you said “an ACCUSER has no right to take the Fifth. Only the ACCUSED!” This is completely false.

On 10/16 @ 2:21 am you said “if you do not comply [with an IRS audit], you to take the risk that they may convert your case from a civil case to a criminal case”. This is false.

You also said “They [the IRS] can not enter you home. They can not enter your safe deposit box. Those 2 areas are very sacred and not reachable to the IRS in both civil and criminal proceedings”. You went on to say on 10/16 @ 8:31 pm that “I can assure you it is almost impossible for the IRS to enter your home and safe deposit box. Those are sacred as I said. Judges don't give search warrants to search for documents hidden in a home or safe deposit box.” This, too, is false, though you back-peddled on this a bit. What you failed to understand is that being harder to get probable cause does not equate to some special protection. It merely means most tax crimes are committed in businesses, not homes and thus homes are not routinely searched in tax crimes. Your statements also appear to be clear that you weren’t talking about probable cause but some higher standard for homes as they “are sacred”.

You also said “The IRS hates these complex criminal trials”. This is so false I don’t know where to start. Not only does the IRS seek complex tax cases, but they are often brought in on other cases by the US Attorney’s Office because the IRS’ Special Agents have the knowledge and skills to work financial cases which is lacking in agencies such as DEA, ATF, and the Postal Inspection Service. IRS Special Agents are sought for these complex cases and are even hired by ATF, DEA, Postal, and the US Attorney’s Office after they retire to assist them with their financial analysis.

You went on to say “If you lie to the 2 Special Agents that visit you, they will charge you with perjury. That will send you to jail for at least 3-5 years.” Actually, what they would charge you with is commonly called “false statements” and is Title 18 USC 1001. The penalty is imprisonment of not more than 5 years. I guess on this point, you were partially right (both as to the statute and penalty).

Hmmm…you said ”IRS Special Agents as they are vicious”? I know many of them and they prefer tenacious. But at least you didn’t call them “Jack-Booted Thugs”. They'll be happy to hear this.

I believe 10/16 @ 8:31 pm was the first Napergatian reference and it was by you, not me. Maybe I missed it in my re-read, but it appears you were the first to bring them up. This is at odds with your statement to Ken on 10/23 @ 1:46 am that “I [that would be you] did not bring up the Napergatge issue until TB accused me of being like the Napergatians.” I could be wrong…find the post and I’ll apologize.

On 10/17 @ 4:28 pm you told me that if my dad “was a REVENUE AGENT he may know very little about what a CRIMINAL SPECIAL AGENT does.” This is a peculiar statement for someone who claims their knowledge of the IRS comes only from reading their web site (“I am well educated. I know how to read” and “My great source of knowledge is reading the IRS web site” posted by AA on 10/22 @ 8:33 pm) and from one neighbor! That makes you an expert?!? Hardly.

On 10/20 @ 1:57 pm you wrote that “The gray area that you are foolishly ignoring in these criminal cases is CRIMINAL INTENT. This is a gray area and very hard to prove.” In this post, you also stated “Also a huge gray exists between tax fraud and tax evasion. Even the IRS has a very difficult time determining which cases to put in what category.” On what do you base this…the IRS web site?!? You gained inside knowledge of their struggle based solely on their web site?

Intent is not as hard to prove as you think. A second set of books, a request made to a tax preparer to do something improper, and other items are all intent items. Items if intent can come from former employees or spouses. Intent in a tax case is much like motive in a murder case, but I hardly think anyone would think murder was a gray area. As I stated earlier, failure to file is not gray. Tax evasion (going out of your way to find a way to evade taxes) is not gray. On this you are again wrong.

Civil statutes are gray, not criminal ones. The biggest problem I have with your statements about “gray areas” is that just because some tax laws are gray does not mean they are ALL gray. The criminal tax statutes are not gray as you think. That is a statement made of ignorance of the tax laws. You can generalize all you want, but until you get educated on the subject you’ll be wrong.

On 10/21 @ 8:44 pm you said that I “took credit for her [Eileen Mayer’s] quote until it was proven to be a great exaggeration”. I did not take credit for the quote. I attributed it to the IRS all along. What I said was “The IRS brags that it has a 90% conviction rate” (10/17 @10:51 pm). They do brag about this. Your stats are nice. They certainly challenge what the IRS has to say.

I don’t know how this could possibly be plagiarism unless you have some alternate definition of the word. I quoted one part of the IRS and you quoted another.

On 10/22 @ 5:05 pm you said “The name calling always originates from TB.” You must not have been following these threads very closely for the last year or so.

Lastly, on 10/22 @ 8:33 pm you seemed to indicate that all the courts are corrupt, but you forget that criminal tax cases are handled in federal court and not in Cook or DuPage Counties. If you think the federal courts are corrupt, too, I think you should contact Pat Fitzgerald at the US Attorney’s Office (312-353-5300).

I’m not trying to be argumentative, AA, just pointing out where you’re wrong even though you think you never are.

T.B.

John Q.,

This thread has evolved from one topic to another topic. It no longer is about the Furstenau legal fees like it once was. It may as well be many threads in one.

When AA mentioned the Napergate Man first as you correctly stated, he mentioned it in the context of the legal fees and hoped the Furstenau case would not become another Napergate Case with runaway legal fees. Perfectly appropriate in my opinion. Nothing to do with TB or attacking anyone. Yes, he did mention the Napergate situaton first but in a positive way while it was about another topic.

Later this thread evolved to an understanding of IRS legal code and law between AA and TB and a few others that jumped in. It seemed like it was a pretty good debate but as it evolved it seemed like AA was able to skin and rip TB and his arguments apart pretty badly. He was clearly winning the debate and TB cowardly accused him of using Napergatian style tactics. That is where I feel the use of the word was used inappropriately.

Anybody who reads that exchange could see that TB was no match for AA on the topic of IRS laws and codes. I am a recent NIU accounting graduate studying for my CPA exam using the Becker Review Course. That is as far as my expertise goes. It seems what I have been taught and learned so far in school and in my review course agrees very much with AA.

Of course the IRS 'laws' are gray. Of course 'material' is a percentage as opposed to a fixed number. Of course it is about 'relevence.' Of course 'criminal intent' is not so clear. Of course 'fraud' can be classified as civil or criminal depending on interpretation of the laws and the judgment of the IRS agents. Of course 'statute of limitations' can make the best case the IRS can put forward obsolete by the time they put it forward!

No point in summarizing the argument that ensued. It is all posted for those who want to review it.

It just seems to me TB was a sore loser in the debate and started throwing mud at AA. At some point he realized he was simply no match for AA and migrated to another thread.

TB was debating with arrogance and used his IRS dad as a crutch in his exchange. He wanted bloggers to believe he was right since his Dad worked for the IRS rather than challenging AA's well thought out positions and articulate opinions of interpretation. It all backfired on him as any blogger can see. He should have left his Dad out of the picture. It seems like TB is in need of a slice or two of humble pie.

That is how I see it!

But, yes, you are right Mr. Public that AA mentioned the Napergate Man first when the thread was about another topic. I am sure we all forgot what this thread was initially about including AA. It just seems like these threads take off in many different directions.

I don't know if that is good or bad. Maybe bloggers just get burned out of the initial topic and migrate to other topics.

But I did find the TB-AA debate very educational and sometimes exciting. I thought AA explained IRS laws better than my CPA review course. Fortunately, I will not have to study as hard for the IRS portion of my CPA test as I got a good doze of it right here on this blog site.

Back to crash studying for my CPA exam! It was fun chipping in a bit.

Louis III on October 24, 2008 4:30 AM
I thought AA explained IRS laws better than my CPA review course. Fortunately,

_________________________________________________________

Louis, Congratulations on your graduation and good luck with your CPA exam. As a graduate of NIU myself and someone with 20+ years of practical business experience I would caution you to stick to your books when studying for this test, I would not rely on AA's interpretation and understanding. I believe AA admitted that he only read 200-300 pages online, while the entire code consists of thousands of pages. I'm not singling AA out here, as JQP and TB have also given interpretations as well.

This is an anonymous blog site where anyone is able to give their opinion and usually do. Opinions are given as fact, and stories can become slightly twisted to win an argument. take it all in, but please don't form an opinion based on what people write on this site.

Louis III –

Just FYI for your next study break, but I believe AA’s first reference to Napergate was on 10/16 @ 8:31 pm and was “It is easy to see why the Napergatians disliked you”. I fail to see how this was appropriate as you stated.

Yes, my father worked for the IRS for many years, but I also stated that this connection was not my only contact, experience, or insight into the IRS. I know many current IRS Special Agents. I can assure you that they are a vast source of knowledge which cannot be gained by simply reading the IRS web sight.

AA has more knowledge about the IRS than most people, but he’s trying to take a little knowledge and stretch it into some kind of expertise. AA’s generalities about gray areas with regard to the tax laws are over-blown in the context of criminal cases (and I did specify criminal cases as that was what we’ve been discussing).

Contrary to what AA is trying to purport (and he’s getting called on his lies by Ken and JQP), I did not bring up the Napergate crap because I felt like I was losing anything. I didn’t bring it up at all—he did. However, I did state that he started using attacks against me when his arguments started heading South. As his posts go on from one day to another, you’ll notice there’s less substance and more name-calling.

Good luck on the CPA exam. If you’re really interested in AA’s alleged IRS knowledge, I posted a long one last night detailing each point in which he’s been wrong.

And BTW, if you’re really interested in what a Special Agent does I’m told they’re hiring and I can put you in touch with a recruiter.

T.B.

TB,
I am not trying to give you a hard time. I agreed with you that AA mentioned the Napergate Man 1st and spotted that mention in the first 10 posts somewhere on this thread.

BTW, I am new to town and don't know anything about the NGM except for what I read here. I wish the Sun would tell us newcomers who this person is so we don't have to rely on possible misinformation on this blog site. It seems like quite a few blogers have given this person some kind of iconic status.

I did read your latest long blog TB. You just seem like someone who is trying too hard to discredit AA and be right at all costs. It almost seems like your ego requires or demands that you be right.

In my opinion both the criminal and civil statues are very gray. You seem to have conceded that the civil statutes are. Why would there be IRS Criminal Trials if everything was so black and white in criminal cases? Why do some criminal trials last months if it is all black and white? Why are almost 50% of the cases that the IRS recommends for prosecution eventually dropped or dismissed by the IRS or US Attorney if everything is so black and white in these criminal cases? Think about that TB! Your arguments seem to defy common sense and logic.

And your statement that the IRS likes complex trials is utterly inaccurate. No prosecuting attorney likes a complex trial. They try to avoid them at all costs by making plea deals for much less than the total charges. The agencies also hate long and complex trials. They are not only difficult for both sides but extremely costly. One thing I learned in business law is that over 95% of cases in all courtrooms are settled through plea negotiations and never go to trial. Some sources even have the number as high as 99%. Actual trials are rare and a very small percentage of the total cases. TV is not a true portrayal of the real world.

Let us not forget that this thread was initially about the Furstenau trial. I believe it has cost the city over 700k or some crazy number and it has not even started. It is about a simple touch or push or punch. Not sure as I have not followed it that closely. Can you imagine what a complex IRS trial would cost that involves 3 years of complex paperwork and hidden intents? I can't!

One last note or comment. If you read your exchange with AA very carefully, you will notice that you are slowly backpedaling to his positions. Maybe you don't realize you are gradually agreeing with him while claiming he is wrong!

Just my 2 cents worth.

Back to the books!

TB,
I am not trying to give you a hard time. I agreed with you that AA mentioned the Napergate Man 1st and spotted that mention in the first 10 posts somewhere on this thread.

BTW, I am new to town and don't know anything about the NGM except for what I read here. I wish the Sun would tell us newcomers who this person is so we don't have to rely on possible misinformation on this blog site. It seems like quite a few blogers have given this person some kind of iconic status.

I did read your latest long blog TB. You just seem like someone who is trying too hard to discredit AA and be right at all costs. It almost seems like your ego requires or demands that you be right.

In my opinion both the criminal and civil statues are very gray. You seem to have conceded that the civil statutes are. Why would there be IRS Criminal Trials if everything was so black and white in criminal cases? Why do some criminal trials last months if it is all black and white? Why are almost 50% of the cases that the IRS recommends for prosecution eventually dropped or dismissed by the IRS or US Attorney if everything is so black and white in these criminal cases? Think about that TB! Your arguments seem to defy common sense and logic.

And your statement that the IRS likes complex trials is utterly inaccurate. No prosecuting attorney likes a complex trial. They try to avoid them at all costs by making plea deals for much less than the total charges. The agencies also hate long and complex trials. They are not only difficult for both sides but extremely costly. One thing I learned in business law is that over 95% of cases in all courtrooms are settled through plea negotiations and never go to trial. Some sources even have the number as high as 99%. Actual trials are rare and a very small percentage of the total cases. TV is not a true portrayal of the real world.

Let us not forget that this thread was initially about the Furstenau trial. I believe it has cost the city over 700k or some crazy number and it has not even started. It is about a simple touch or push or punch. Not sure as I have not followed it that closely. Can you imagine what a complex IRS trial would cost that involves 3 years of complex paperwork and hidden intents? I can't!

One last note or comment. If you read your exchange with AA very carefully, you will notice that you are slowly backpedaling to his positions. Maybe you don't realize you are gradually agreeing with him while claiming he is wrong!

Just my 2 cents worth.

Back to the books!

TB,

One more thing....

While I agree AA was the first to mention something like "no wonder the Napergatians dislike you," I feel the whole exchange between you and him went south in the prior post before that, When you asked him, "what tax crime he committed."

I think it was your uncalled for accusation that brought on all this hostility. That I will concede was in black and white!

You need to choose your words more carefully if you want to avoid this kind of unnecessary confrontation with any future blogger!

Louis III --

For which I apologized...something you will never see a Napergatian do.

T.B.

Louis III –

Sorry, I responded to your last post, but not the first one.

Just FYI...I don’t have to be right at all costs, but you could be right that I’m trying too hard with AA on this thread. If you read other threads, you will see that I am more than happy to concede points and change my view as others bring in knowledge I lack.

But in this case, I think AA is taking a grain of knowledge and making himself out to be some sort of expert in the field. I don’t think you can learn enough from reading the web to know the ins and outs of the IRS. I have real-world experience in this area and access to people with a vastly more knowledge than I.

I didn’t say the IRS likes complex trials, but that they are brought on-board complex cases. No attorneys like complex trails? How many prosecutors do you know? Even if they did’t work complex trials, we would never have a Family Secrets trial or Conrad Black trial because they were just too complex.

You need look no further than the Sun last week (or was it this week) for a Naperville resident convicted in a very complex tax case. The IRS doesn’t hate complex cases as AA stated. They work some very mundane cases, to be sure, but also very complex financial investigations. Why else are retired IRS Special Agents being hired by virtually every other agency around (except the FBI)?

Yes, I conceded that some civil statutes are gray, but this does not mean that criminal ones are, too. General confusion about our tax laws does not mean they are all gray. If they all tax laws were gray, we'd never collect a dime. The reason criminal statutes are not gray is simple—if a jury thought that the law could just be interpreted another way by any average Joe then they would never, ever convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt.

Making a false statement on a tax return or tax evasion are not gray areas and these are the two felony charges you see most in tax cases. Showing someone intentionally left something off a return (or put something on to their benefit) is not gray. It is black and white. Tax evasion is even less gray because to charge that you have to show an affirmative act of evasion—a double set of books, off-shore accounts, nominee names/corporations, or perhaps taped conversations. These are not gray areas.

I fail to see how you think I am “slowly backpedaling to his [AA's] positions”. I think I have held my ground all along, which is why AA says I am “argumentative”. I just refuse to cave to his false assumptions and conclusions.

Need more background about the NGM? Look into the Sun's archived threads from last…February (maybe even further back). Look for posts by a woman named Ameena. She did do a good job of digging up the old Napergate newspaper ads and summarizing what happened in the Napergate era, even if I disagreed with her analysis of how the NGM may relate to present day.

T.B.

Louis III,

Thanks for doing the research. I did not have time to go back and read the entire blog site.

But yes I do recall that TB accused me of committing a tax crime and wondering which one it was.

And yes after he made that comment I did say "no wonder the Napergatians don't like you" as he was pulling the same nonsense on them. I feel my comment was justified and an appropriate response to a derogatory accusation.

Bloggers have to understand TB is doing what he does to annoy others and he possibly can not control himself.

I stand by all my comments on this thread.

I feel very strongly about all the IRS positions and opinions I articulated. I don't feel a need to defend them anymore when they are obviously true for anyone who can read and comprehend.

It is senseless to argue with a guy who wants to split hairs every inch of the way and then gradually agree with you while alleging to disagree with you. Never seen anyone quite like him! There is little doubt in my mind that TB has some loose bearings upstairs! I wish him nothing but the best in his remaining years with us on this planet.

Mr. TB,

I have worked for a CPA firm in Downers Grove for nearly 2 decades.

There are a handful of arrogant and cocky IRS Civil Revenue and Criminal Agents who actually think the IRS code is black and white.

There are also a handful of arrogant and cocky Civil and Criminal IRS defense attorneys who think the IRS code is black and white.

At my CPA firm, we do consider a sales tax for the State of Illinois of say 7%(every suburb seems to be different these days) as pretty black and white.

However most of the Certified Public Accountants in my CPA Firm consider the IRS code confusing and complex to say the least. Gray can be an understatement at times.

If the IRS code was black and white, either for civil or criminal, none of us would be employed. There would be no need for CPAs, Accountants, Civil IRS Defense Attorneys, or Criminal IRS Defense Attorneys.

The USA IRS code is one of the most complex and confusing codes in the world. It is loaded with loopholes and exceptions put in by special interest groups who have pressured the US Congress over the decades.

We assist both civil and criminal attorneys representing those accused or charged by the IRS. They are really almost always very complex cases. The IRS code leaves a lot to interpretation. Half the office home deductions are disallowed and the other half are approved just to give you one example. If it was so black and white the IRS would have it their way each and every time.

Criminal IRS law is so complex that most CPA's and civil attorneys won't even get near it without a very experienced criminal attorney leading the case. There are only about 5-10 criminal defense IRS attorneys in the State of Illinois who are truly qualified to handle these extremely complex cases. Harvey Silets was considered the best in the State before he passed away last year. He commanded $575 per hour for his services. I can assure you his clients are not willing to pay that huge sum for him to interpret black and white codes and laws. They would interpret the code themselves if it was so easy and use their general attorney for the trial if it was so clear. I believe the top 2 IRS criminal defense attorneys in the state now are Theodore A. Sinars Esq. and Robert E. McKenzie Esq. I believe they charge upwards of 400 dollars an hour to interpret these criminal IRS cases and the applicable laws surrounding them, that survive the IRS vetting process which eliminates half of them.

As AA stated, about half of the criminal cases recommended for prosecution are dismissed by the Field Division, Department of Justice or the US Attorney before they ever make it to trial. If it was so black and white, why is the IRS dismissing so many criminal cases their own agents bring forward. Obviously, the IRS itself feels there are many gray areas that they have to be vetted out before they can process @ proceed.

It seems like most of your information is coming from your IRS father. He could be one of those agents who believes the IRS Code is black and white. If he does, he is in the extreme minority. I can assure you that 99.5% of the citizens and professionals in the USA believe both the criminal and civil IRS codes are extremely complicated, confusing and gray. Most CPAs including myself have lost most of our hair trying to interpret them. The bald accountant or CPA is not a myth. It is a reality that can be seen anywhere you go. While genetics is a factor, we have more bald professionals than any other field that I know. Just look around! Of course, it could simply be an unexplained conincidence.

Very few tax filers can file their returns without the assistance of a TURBO TAX style program, accountant, CPA or Tax Attorney these days. If it was so black and white out there, most taxpayers would not need assistance.

I feel strongly that the criminal code is even more gray than the civil code. At least it is nice that you agree that the civil code is gray!

Finally, I feel if you and AA can tone done the personal attacks we could have a very constructive debate on an important topic that concerns every taxpayer and nontaxpayer in the country.

Mr. or Ms. Downers Grove CPA:

In your two decades of service, can I ask how many times you were actually involved in a criminal case?

While you think there are only a handful of agents who think criminal tax law is black or white, what are your personal opinions about Title 26 USC 7201, Title 26 USC 7203, and Title 26 USC 7206(1) & 7206(2)? Are these black and white statutes or not?

What do you use as a reference for saying my father’s, or any other agents’ opinion, is in the minority for thinking criminal cases are black and white. As I stated, failure to file is clearly black and white; filing a return you know to be false is very back and white; and tax evasion is clearly black and white. What other statutes might be talking about and how many agents have you been in contact with? The IRS code in its entirety may be “confusing and complex” as you state, but that does not mean that criminal tax statutes are as confusing as the civil ones.

You like to say that if the IRS code were black and white, none of you would be employed; but I’d counter that if the code were as gray as you seem to state the government would never collect a dime. Don’t you also have a minor a conflict here? If most people knew they could follow the 1040 instructions or just use TurboTax, you or your friends would be out of a job, right?

Wait, almost all of your cases are very complex cases? But I thought AA, the thread’s IRS expert, said the IRS hates complex trials? Are you saying AA may be wrong? Because if all your cases are complex, aren’t most of your trials complex, too?

As for the leading criminal defense attorneys, don’t forget Ed Gensen. You can’t list the top criminal defense attorneys in Chicago for tax cases and overlook Eddie. And what about Stone? He should be in there, too. What's his first name...?

While you may attribute your hair loss to taxes, as opposed to genetics (sorry, pal), please explain to me how one of your clients accurately reporting their income or expenses is not black or white? What would you tell a client who only wanted to report all his non-cash income? What would you tell a client who said he skimmed most of his cash receipts and didn’t want to report it?

We’re not talking about whether a capital gain belongs in this period or that, or whether or not Bouleware applies to a corporate distribution; we’re talking about hidden and unreported income. How is that not black and white?!? That is the heart of the criminal statutes.

Just wondering.

T.B.

T.B.,

You seem to be angry and hostile in your blogging when one has a differing viewpoint that may be right. You also seems to me to be very stubborn. Stubborness does not make you right or give you might.

Regarding your statement to DG CPA,

"Wait, almost all of your cases are very complex cases? But I thought AA, the thread’s IRS expert, said the IRS hates complex trials? Are you saying AA may be wrong? Because if all your cases are complex, aren’t most of your trials complex, too?"

You are making an argument here where there is no argument. While most IRS trials are complex and the IRS is willing to go forward on occassion, it could follow that the IRS also hates complex trials. They are costly and it is not the best return of invested time and money for the IRS. Of course, the IRS prefers a plea or a settlement from a violater as it is a much better retun on investment for them. I don't think the DG CPA was saying AA is wrong. You are simply trying to put words in his mouth to create a nonsensical argument.

Further you state. "As I stated, failure to file is clearly black and white;"

From what I read here and from chats with my tax attorney, failure to file is not a black and white issue. If it is within a 3 year period of the date due, the IRS actually has a choice of whether it wants to bring charges under civil or criminal statues. Their very gray code allows them to pursue them either way. If someone fails to file and it is between 3 to 6 years, they have to pursue him criminally as the civil statute of limitations expires in 3 years.
Further if I recall correctly, after 6 years, the IRS only has a choice of pursuing a non-filer civily. They can not pursue a non-filer criminally 6 years from the date the return should have been filed without any extensions.

If a return was filed but false, it is also another big gray area. They can also come at you civily or criminally the first 3 years that the return was filed. But here, the 3 year date starts from the day you filed which includes extensions. Thus the IRS has more time if you filed a false return as opposed not filing at all. If you filed very late and past all extensions, they can pursue you civily for 3 years from when you filed no matter when you filed.

If you filed a false return they can extend the time to 6 years from when you filed, if they come after you criminally. They have no choice but to come after you criminally if they missed their 3 year civil deadline.

The gray areas in the IRS code allow them to decide if they want to come after you civily or criminally for a false return in the first 3 years from when the return was filed. And material is not defined as a fixed amount as you stated. My tax attorney told me something similar to what AA stated that material is relevant to what your total income or expenses are. Material relevance is one of the factors they use to determine if they will purse you civily or criminally. There are other factors such as length of time you have been filing false returns. One year ususally means they will come after you civily. 3 or 4 years of false returns with material relevance and they are likely to after you criminally. And I believe there are numerous other factors that determine which way they will go that are not known to civilians. Many of the gray tactics they use are probably not even spelled out in the IRS code. Only the most renowned criminal attorneys understand their gray tactics. The IRS at times can be very secretive in the tactics they employ for good reason. They want to be gray. If they were black and white, most criminals would know how to avoid an investigation by the IRS by choosing the loopholes they don't investigate heavily.

If you work for McDonalds or GE and your only source of income is your salary, your situation may be black and white. The reason the IRS is able to collect so easily and so much is most income is W-2 income that is pretty much black and white. The companies tell the IRS what they paid their employees. I don't think the bloggers here are talking about these cases of a McDonald's employee making his 7.5 dollars per hour and reporting it. That obviously is black and white as can be.

Most taxpayers have complex returns by the time they hit 30 years of age. You should know that T.B.! I think you know what everyone is talking about on this thread. I agree with those who stated you are just trying to be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

Taxpayer –

Just because most people think of the tax code as being very complex does not mean that defrauding the government is a gray area. Remember that in the cases pursued criminally, the taxpayer went out of their way to do something to defraud the government.

In making their decision whether to pursue a case civilly or criminally, the IRS looks at many aspects such as the severity of the case. It’s the decision-making beaurocracy and the process that is gray, not the tax laws.

I would respectfully disagree that most people have complex tax returns by age 30. That just seems like a statement from someone who is intimidated by the tax system.

I think any college educated person (maybe even just high school educated) can follow the 1040 directions and complete a return with schedules A and B (those would be your itemized deductions and interest income). This same person can also correctly make an IRA contribution. The complex returns come into play if you own your own business or rental property—these are the people who need help.

In reality, Turbo Tax and other tax software does a fine job. I think the majority of taxpayers (not all) could use a $45 program and not have to pay some tax professional $150 or more. And whatever you do, never get the rapid refunds. The fees you pay to get your money two weeks early amount to juice loan type of interest rates.

T.B.

You are so silly TB! You are acting like a bully in the 3rd grade trying to get your way!

If the IRS civil or criminal code is black and white, I suppose you can also argue that the earth is flat and everyone who believes it is round is flat-out wrong.

Along with DG CPA you guys are naming 500 dollar an hour attorneys who are used to interpret these criminal statutes and then you want us to believe these attorneys are making all this money to interpret simple black and white statutes. Makes no sense what you are saying TB.

Most Americans own common stock. There is nothing easy about computing my capital gains and losses after stock splits and reverse stock splits.

Do you use LIFO or FIFO to compute your capital gains? Do you keep track of specific lots and sell those lots? What about if you only sell part of a lot that you bought in full? What about short term vs long term? What about stock held for less than 30 days that are bought back before 30 days? Can you realize the gain or the loss if you only held for 30 days and bought it back?

What about qualified dividend and non-qualified dividends? What are those, TB? I have no clue.

Try to interpret the alternative minimum tax....my CPA can't explain it anymore. He just uses a computer programs he trusts. If I told my CPA the alternative minimum tax was black and white, he would laugh at me. I have no clue what it is, my CPA can't explain it, but I pay it according to a software program that I hope is right.

I agree with the bloggers that said you are gradually backpedaling into the position of the majority while pretending you were right while knowing you were wrong.

I don't think the games you play on this blog site enhance your credibility...it just makes people dislike you whether they are Napergatian or non-Napergatian!

I don't think it is wise to play your game of words on this blog site. It just takes away your credibility.

Along with DG CPA you guys are naming 500 dollar an hour attorneys who are used to interpret these criminal statutes and then you want us to believe these attorneys are making all this money to interpret simple black and white statutes. Makes no sense what you are saying TB.

Most Americans own common stock. There is nothing easy about computing my capital gains and losses after stock splits and reverse stock splits.

Do you use LIFO or FIFO to compute your capital gains? Do you keep track of specific lots and sell those lots? What about if you only sell part of a lot that you bought in full? What about short term vs long term? What about stock held for less than 30 days that are bought back before 30 days? Can you realize the gain or the loss if you only held for 30 days and bought it back?

What about qualified dividend and non-qualified dividends? What are those, TB? I have no clue.

Try to interpret the alternative minimum tax....my CPA can't explain it anymore. He just uses a computer programs he trusts. If I told my CPA the alternative minimum tax was black and white, he would laugh at me. I have no clue what it is, my CPA can't explain it, but I pay it according to a software program that I hope is right.

I agree with the bloggers that said you are gradually backpedaling into the position of the majority while pretending you were right while knowing you were wrong.

I don't think the games you play on this blog site enhance your credibility...it just makes people dislike you whether they are Napergatian or non-Napergatian!

I don't think it is wise to play your game of words on this blog site. It just takes away your credibility.

Seems to me, Michelle, that you are joining the group of bullies trying to make TB submit to their will. TB has been pretty polite, especially when it comes to people who put words in his mouth. You do it yourself when you say imply he said that the IRS civil or criminal code is black and white. He said certain aspects of it are, not all of it. It seems to me that all that disagree with TB seem to have to comment on him, instead of the discussion.

Ken,
TB brought his own fortune onto himself. He looks like a fool with all his backpedaling in an attmept to finally agree with AA while pretending to disagree. Only another fool like yourself is willing to come to his defense!

All Another Anonymous said was that the IRS code was gray. That is a very true and obvious statement. TB has been on a split hair egotistical mission to dispute what AA said. For what purpose!

Specialized Criminal IRS Attorneys would not be paid in excess of 500 dollars an hour to interpret the IRS criminal code if it was simply black and white. TB even knows a few of them by name. He never explained how they can command such a high hourly rate interpreting black and white that any ordinary citizen could interprtet. His arguments defy logic!

If TB has to try this hard to be right when he is wrong, he obviously does not know what he is talking about!

He is the one who puts words in bloggers' mouths.

He is the one who accused AA of being a tax criminal for expressing his thoughts and knowledge in a productive debate.

All AA said, is he understands why Napergatians dislike TB after he accused him of being a tax criminal. He made a gentle response to TB after TB made a serious allegation against him! TB libeled him. So who is to blame here, Ken!

What is it that you don't comprehend, Mr. Comprehension?

Try to respond just once without using the Napergate Cult term if you are capable. Show you have a wider vocabularty!

Actually, Kimberly, if you read my post directly above yours, the term that so completely describes you and your ilk does not appear in it at all.

If you had comprehended what I wrote, you would note that I just pointed out that TB never said all aspects of the IRS are gray, some are black and white. Maybe putting it a different way will allow some comprehension to seep into your brain.

By the way, learn the definition of libel. Asking a question does not fall under libel. TB never made a serious allegation, he asked what appeared to me to be a tongue in cheek question.

As I stated much earlier in this thread, I have no interest in going back into battle with the few napergatians left here after my past victories over them. But if you want to start up again, I will not sit idly by as you all resort to your old tactics of attacking and bullying a poster instead of actually debating.

Ken,
Your comprehension is seriously lacking.

TB asked him what tax crime he committed...not if he committed a tax crime...BIG DIFFERENCE!

TB backtracked into his positon that the IRS code is gray after he was exposed to be the ignorant person he is!

If TB had initially said some parts of the IRS Code are black and white, there would have never been a debate...that is not what he initally said.

Good job trying to distort reality to help your buddy out!

By T.B. on October 20, 2008 10:21 AM
AA –

Despite what you may think, the IRS' criminal tax laws are very black and white.

TB

____________________________________________________________________

Hey Kenny Boy,

Your reading and comprehension have always been lacking. Above is a direct quote from your buddy. Not only did he say the criminal tax laws are black and white, but VERY black and white.

Here is what you said,

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"If you had comprehended what I wrote, you would note that I just pointed out that TB never said all aspects of the IRS are gray, some are black and white. Maybe putting it a different way will allow some comprehension to seep into your brain."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

You are twisting, slicing and dicing TBs words to vindicate him. Let us face reality. AA ripped into him pretty well and exposed his ignorance. TB was no match for AA! He should have just surrendered, apologized and moved on instead of making a fool of himself.

I never met anyone in my life who said or thought the IRS code be it civil or criminal is black and white....let alone VERY black and white.

Any you want to blame TB's distortions and credibility on the Napergatians.

And you did not chase us off of Ted's Threads or win any debate against us. We just decided that debating a rotten tree trunk with a hole in the middle is fruitless.

Kimberly, once again you have not read and comprehended what I said. Once again, you have resorted to the usual napergate cult tactic of name calling and attacking the poster. It's not third grade any more, and you and your group can't bully people like it is. Have you ever considered trying to grow up?

Michelle and Kimberly –

Please re-read my posts. You will see that I have always said (and still maintain) that the criminal IRS statutes are black and white. I agreed that the civil statutes can be interpreted several ways or contain too many exceptions for those issues to be brought in a criminal case. But the issue at hand was criminal tax cases.

Taxpayer was saying that (within three years) the IRS can go after someone civilly or criminally and thus the laws were gray. I simply stated that the IRS’ decision on which way to proceed may be a gray area (subjective may be a better word), but the criminal statutes are black and white. I likened it to being able to choose two separate routes on a map. Both get you to the same place but the routes aren’t gray, just your decision on which route you want to take.

Michelle, you bring up some very good examples of complicated returns, but I would simply state that most people by age 30 (as Taxpayer and I were discussing) do not encounter these problems. I simply do not think most people own and sell stock by this age, nor do I think they earn enough to worry about the Alternative Minimum Tax (which Turbo Tax can correctly compute for them if they do).

And Kimberly, my comments about AA and tax crimes could have been worded better and I did apologize. His zeal and apparent hatred (he called IRS Special Agents “vicious”) lead me to believe he had a personal bad experience with them. Shame on me.

All I can say to those who think the entire IRS code is gray is that you obviously don’t understand the criminal code and probably have never had any real-world experience with it. Misconceptions, assumptions, and a failure to understand a topic does not make it “gray”.

T.B.

Ken,

I provided a direct quote verbatim copied and pasted from your buddy TB to show you are flat-out wrong.

Rather than responding directly, you resort to your Napergate Cult hallucinatory attacks.

I think you need to grow up and respond to a direct quote and attempt to defend your indefensible position. I guess TB left you to fend for yourself after he realized he was over his head on the IRS debate.

Maybe you can not read or comprehend as has been pointed out by so many on this blog site. Most were not even Napergatians who have blasted your kool-aid tactics.

You should have gone on that Jonestown Trip. You would have fit in perfectly without that group!

Kimberly, I did respond to that direct quote...twice. Now TB has responded. Unfortunately, I think both of us could respond endlessly to it, and your lack of reading comprehension would block you from understanding simple English.

Nice of you to show your usual cult lack of class by wishing me dead. I, on the other hand, just wish you understanding. While your wish will one day come true just because we all die, I fear my wish for you never will come true.

Kimberly on October 29, 2008 11:03 AM
You should have gone on that Jonestown Trip. You would have fit in perfectly without (sic) that group!

________________________________________________

Kimberly, are you really trying to make a joke of Jonestown? In light of your recent comment to Ken about responding directly, can you please let us know what you meant by your comment that Ken should "Have gone on that Jonestown trip".? You are very fond of parsing everyone's words, perhaps you can explain yours.

TB,

Can you explain why if the IRS criminal code is black and white, IRS criminal attorneys command between 400 to 600 dollars an hour to interpret it? If you are right, it seems like we live in a foolish society that lets attorneys take advantage of us? You seem to know of one of these high priced criminal IRS attorneys and have respect for him.

AA never said he hated the IRS. He said they treated his neighbor viciously. He gave an example of dents being put in his neighbor's door from knocking so hard. He could hear the knocking from across the street. I would call that vicious "knocking." If they want to talk to you bad enough, they will pursue you viciously! I am sure they are instructed to be vicious in their pursuit. Part of their duties is to put FEAR in the society at large so that taxpayers will pay up the taxes they owe. It has a deterrent effect and something the IRS wants. The IRS does not want their agents to be known as softies or patsies. They accomplished their goals when AA came on here and stated what happened to his neighbor. They want stories like his neighbors to be told. They want the public at large to know they are vicious and tenacious. They want taxpayers to know they will pursue you for a decade if they have to. That is how the system works. I don't know why you are arguing with the truth, TB!

If you think the IRS criminal code is so simple, just review the sentencing guidelines on the internet. They are so subjective with so many exceptions, it is hard for me to believe that someone could call them black and white.

The IRS criminal agents can do a cash analysis on you and discover you deposited more cash in the bank than you declared. They will accuse you of understating your income and will recommend prosecution.

Later they could find out.

1. You inherited that cash from your great grandmother who hid it in pipes in the home or your Uncle Charley who hid it in his pillow.

2. Your great grandfather sold a home overseas in a 3rd world country and sent you your gift(in lieu of future inheritance) in cash through some traveling relatives.

3. It could be they forgot to factor in the effects of depreciation which generates cash flow.

There are many scenarios that make the IRS criminal code gray. The code and the work, the tenacious IRS Special Agents do is anything but black and white.

If it is so black and white why are the agents bringing forward cases of which 50% are eventually dismissed as being brought in error? If the IRS special agents who are suppose to be experts in understanding the black and white code bring 2000 wrongful cases out of 4000 annually, how can you truly expect civilians to consider the IRS criminal code black and white?

I think you are dancing around the core issues just to prove yourself right. As your Dad, if the IRS criminal code is black and white. I bet he will tell you it is very gray, very subjective and very complicated. Maybe he can convince you that you are wrong since none of the bloggers can convince you.

James,

The Jonestown trip talk is just a joke because Ken keeps referring to the Napergatians as a Cult!

Sorry, it went over your head, James.

Glad I could be of help!

While I am kidding in my references to Jonestown, Ken is serious in his references of calling the Napergatians a cult for doing nothing more than seeking less government waste followed by less taxes.

Have a nice evening, James....that is my explanation.

Try to get Ken to explain why he calls us Napergatians cultists. Good luck!!!

Kimberly on October 29, 2008 9:34 PM

Ok Kimberly I get it! Your group gets called a cult by some so you fight back the way you do - finding humor in Jonestown. No wonder neither side is making much of a case on this thread!! Good luck with your arguments.

Well, Kimberly, I have explained it many times, but I will be happy to do so again.

I refer to napergatians as cult members when they use their tactic of name calling and personal attacks against people that dare to disagree with them. I believe their leader would be ashamed of the tactics that some members use. He fought with facts, not character assassination. If the any napergatian debates without the name calling, etc., they don't get the cult designation. If Kimberly could debate instead of name call, there would have been no cult references.

Kimberly,

IRS criminal defense attorneys are paid well because their clients want to stay out of jail. It’s as simple as that. You want a good defense? You have to pay for it and pay dearly. I don’t know where you got the $400-600 an hour figure from…can you provide a source?

While you’re right that AA never said he hated the IRS, he did not say they treated his neighbor viciously, as you stated. He said the agents themselves were vicious (“…you don't want to deal with the IRS Special Agents as they are vicious” 10/16 @ 2:21 am). I mistook his passionate phrasing for some kind of hatred or other strong feelings.

I think you’re right when you say the IRS agents are tenacious, but you’re theory that the IRS wants their agents to “put FEAR in the society at large” is an exaggeration. This type of hysterics is what led to the Senate hearings in 1998 and ultimately the Restructuring and Reform Act of the same year. The IRS wants tax cheats to fear them, but the preferred method is through publicity associated with their cases via the press and not intimidation of the public through the threat of force.

Just FYI, but the federal sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory and are now “advisory” after a Supreme Court ruling in the past couple of years. Also, the sentencing guidelines are not part of the IRS criminal code. However, if you do want to look to the guidelines I would suggest you find table 2T4.1 which gives the offense level based on the tax loss caused by the crime. This level would then be enhanced by things such as using “sophisticated means”, or reduced by things such as “acceptance of responsibility” (such as pleading guilty). Knock yourself out.

If you really want to review the actual IRS criminal code, go to uscode.house.gov and search by the three most common criminal IRS statutes--all are in Title 26 of the US Code and are sections 7201, 7203, and 7206. Here you’ll find the actual statutes used and the elements of the offense which have to be proved. You’ll see that the people charged under these statutes are not people who made some sort of error on their returns, but people who went out of their way not to pay taxes.

As to your cash analysis example, it’s interesting but incomplete. Why would the IRS be doing a “cash analysis” of your account unless there was an allegation of fraud? Second, don’t you think the IRS would look into possible non-income sources of the cash before they recommended prosecution? You seem to assume the IRS would go part-way and then stop.

What you fail to recognize is that simply finding the money in your account is not by itself evidence of income. The IRS has to prove the source of the cash and that the source was income before they can bring a case. Finding the money in your account is just evidence that you received the money from the identified income source.

And item #3 doesn’t make sense to me: “3. It could be they forgot to factor in the effects of depreciation which generates cash flow.” I fail to see how depreciation creates cash flow. Please explain.

I don’t know what your source was for stating that “50% [of the IRS cases] are eventually dismissed as being brought in error”. Assuming AA’s numbers were correct, the IRS recommended prosecution in more than 12,000 cases for the years 2005-2007. Of those, 68% were indicted (or had an information filed) and 75% of those cases (the indicted/information cases) then ended in convictions.

Plus I think it’s a mistake to believe that every case recommended and not prosecuted was “brought in error”. While acknowledging that there are cases recommended which probably should not have been, there are many reasons why good cases are not prosecuted. Those reason range from lack or resources on behalf of the US Attorney’s Office, the unavailability of witnesses, to the health and age of the taxpayer. Putting a sick granny on trial is deemed to have a low jury appeal and thus probably won’t be prosecuted even if she’s a huge tax cheat. The US Attorney’s Office will decline the case and tell the IRS to handle the matter civilly.

I hope this helps, Kimberly.

T.B.

TB,

If you own real estate that earns 100,000 in rental income after expenses but is allowed to depreciate 50k against building assets, your return will show earned income of only 50k but cash deposited of 100k into an owners account.

This can trigger a red flag and an audit even though all the cash exceeding reported income is legitimate.

That is how depreciation generates cash flow. This is well known in accounting and financial circles.

It appears Kimberly may work for an accounting or financial firm to have all the knowledge she has.

By the way TB, I also feel the IRS criminal code is complex and gray as gray can be.

To the lay person the sentencing guidelines are considered part of the criminal code. From what you are saying they made them very subjective or more gray a couple of years ago.

Little doubt in my mind that the IRS wants society to fear it as Kimberly outlined. It makes sense. Fear brings honesty and better collection rates.

I believe to some extent you are beginning to argue with your own facts as others have said. I would just let it go, TB! Move on from this subject. Don't be so stubborn!

It looked like AA made his points and disappeared. He believed in his points. You must not believe in your points to continue defending them in this tenacious manner!

TB,

The above exchange is a perfect example of where you feel you have to be right even when you are clearly wrong.

I have never heard of anyone refer to the IRS Civil or Criminal Codes as black and white except for you.

It seems because your DAD is an IRS agent you think you know it all and must be right.

I beg to differ with your opinion!

Stop being so hard headed and claiming the Napergatians must always be right.

The Napergatians are usually right because they research before they speak.

You seem to put your foot in your mouth and than try to get it out before you can speak! By that time your mouth stinks!

TB,

The above exchange is a perfect example of where you feel you have to be right even when you are clearly wrong.

I have never heard of anyone refer to the IRS Civil or Criminal Codes as black and white except for you.

It seems because your DAD is an IRS agent you think you know it all and must be right.

I beg to differ with your opinion!

Stop being so hard headed and claiming the Napergatians must always be right.

The Napergatians are usually right because they research before they speak.

You seem to put your foot in your mouth and than try to get it out before you can speak! By that time your mouth stinks!

Anon –

Your depreciation example doesn’t hold water. You said that “If you own real estate that earns 100,000 in rental income after expenses but is allowed to depreciate 50k against building assets, your return will show earned income of only 50k but cash deposited of 100k into an owners account.

This can trigger a red flag and an audit even though all the cash exceeding reported income is legitimate.”

On a real tax return, you would report the entire amount of gross receipts ($100K plus other expenses in your example) and the $50K in depreciation would be another deduction from income. All of this is explained right on your tax return and there are no red flags because the IRS would compare your deposits to your total gross income, not to your net income as your example states.

You also seem to assume the IRS knows what your deposits are before any kind of audit or investigation. This is rarely the case. In fact, in an administrative audit or criminal investigation (that is, one not done through the use of a grand jury), the IRS has to notify you within three days of seeking your bank information and has to allow an additional ten days for you to try and (legally) prevent the bank from turning over your records.

You’re free to believe that the IRS criminal code is a gray area. Just as I’m free to believe that the criminal code is black and white. But I have to ask, did you bother to look up the code sections I gave to Kimberly?

I like the statement that to the lay person the sentencing guidelines are part of the criminal code. Is this another way of saying Kimberly didn’t really know what she was talking about but she gets a pass because she agrees with you? If I used the guidelines to say the criminal tax code was black and white you’d blast me for comparing apples and oranges, wouldn’t you?

You can think that AA “made his points and disappeared” and this shows he really believed in his points. Great, but there were plenty of areas where he was wrong, whether he believed in them or not--starting with his statements regarding the 5th Amendment and going through his failure to know the definition of plagiarism. He took a little bit of IRS knowledge and tried to stretch it into some blanket expertise. It was a nice try.

Somehow I doubt that if I just “disappeared” like AA you would be saying it was because I “believed” in my points. One thing I learned about writing with the Napergatians is that as soon as you don’t post something, someone like Marilyn will come out and accuse you of “hiding”. I’d rather be called argumentative than called a coward.

T.B.

Ms. John Q Public –

Patricia, what’s with the name? If you were married to John Q. Public I would understand you being Mrs. John Q. Public, but I don’t think Ms. Manners would approve of putting “Ms.” in front of a man’s name, would she? Plus, to tell you the truth, you’re so opposite of John Q. Public that I think you’re doing him a disservice by using an alias so close to his own. Just my two cents….

If I am “clearly wrong” as you stated, please point out to me exactly where I am wrong. First, read my response to Anon on this topic. You’ll see that his example doesn’t make sense from an accounting or tax perspective.

You’re free to “beg to differ” with my opinion regarding the IRS criminal code. I find it odd that all those who don’t believe as I do are free to differ, but I’m “hard headed” for refusing to believe as you do? Do you see the hypocrisy?

Also, did you do any research on the topic like a good Napergatian? Did you form your opinion after researching the code sections I gave Kimberly and Downers Grove CPA? Or do you just think the entire tax code is gray because you don’t have any personal experience with it and don’t really understand it well?

You’re right that I said my Dad was an IRS agent for many years; however, you conveniently ignore the fact that I also said that was not my sole experience or contact with the IRS.

T.B.