Slashdot Mirror


Anonymous Newspaper Commenters Subpoenaed In Tax Case

skuzzlebutt writes "In a federal tax case reported in the Las Vegas Review Journal last week, a local businessman has been paying his employees in gold coins instead of cash or ACH, and has reportedly told them that they can only be taxed on the face value of the coinage — not the much higher market value of the metal. The United States disagreed, and brought him up on 57 counts of income tax evasion, tax fraud and criminal conspiracy. The non-authenticated comments section of the original article brought a lot of supporters out of the woodwork, including a few who thought the jury should be hung (literally, procedurally, or figuratively ... pick one). In response, the prosecution has subpoenaed the names of the anonymous commenters, citing fears of jury safety. Or something. The obvious questions of privacy and protected speech aside, for the folks that support the defendant (the newspaper is fighting the subpoena), this also brings back into the spotlight the troll-empowering nature of pseudo-anonymous, non-authenticated boards. If they want to find you, they will; is anonymous commenting still worth it, or is it just too risky for the board owners?"

61 of 394 comments (clear)

  1. i'll be the first to say.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..what a terrible summary

    1. Re:i'll be the first to say.. by cml4524 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True, but I don't understand why this is such a big deal. You could never mail anonymous letters threatening people without triggering an investigation, why do people think that when they go online they can threaten people and not suffer consequences?

    2. Re:i'll be the first to say.. by GeorgeStone22 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because they can? I mean seriously, how often does someone actually get called out on abuse over the internet. If I go to someones blogspot and tell them I want to kill them. There will be no action taken. It's not worth the effort and it's an empty threat like 99.99999% of threats on the internet. On the internet your average 120lb nerd can be a 300lb UFC fighting bear wrangler.

    3. Re:i'll be the first to say.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Apparently they want the identities of all submitters of comments on that article. Not just the ones who made threats (going from the vague to the hyperbole).

      It's actually a chilling effect. One day you are commenting on a newspaper article (without making threats), the next day your name and address pop up on some prosecutors desk while he is investigating another commenter on the same article.

    4. Re:i'll be the first to say.. by Quothz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      True, but I don't understand why this is such a big deal. You could never mail anonymous letters threatening people without triggering an investigation, why do people think that when they go online they can threaten people and not suffer consequences?

      That was my first thought, as well: The freedom to speak anonymously isn't freedom to make anonymous threats. However, I disagree that anyone was threatening the jury here. There's a huge gap between "they ought to" hurt someone and "I'm going to" hurt someone. If I say that George W. Bush should be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of the country on rails, that's not the same as threatening to assault him.

    5. Re:i'll be the first to say.. by Chlorine+Trifluoride · · Score: 3, Funny

      As a 300lb UFC fighting bear wrangler, I agree with you.

    6. Re:i'll be the first to say.. by jelle · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Automated Clearing House".... Everytime I see that, I hear 'You May Already Have Won'...

      Did the person who came up with that name think banking was like sweepstakes???

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    7. Re:i'll be the first to say.. by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Informative

      Clearing houses pre-date Publisher's Clearing House by decades. In fact, my guess is that this is where PCH got the name. Basically clearing houses were places where banks would exchange all of the checks they received from other banks. Accounts would be settled between banks. As a manual process, it was a royal pain in the ass. In the era of electronic funds transfers and check imagining, this process has become much more automated, reducing float times that some individuals would take advantage of.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    8. Re:i'll be the first to say.. by stonewallred · · Score: 5, Funny

      I find your ideas interesting, and if you include Cheney in your plans, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    9. Re:i'll be the first to say.. by conspirator57 · · Score: 2, Informative

      reducing float times that some individuals would take advantage of,
      and turning them into float times that banks take advantage of.

      There, fixt that for you.

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    10. Re:i'll be the first to say.. by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Funny

      As a beer wrangler.. oops. you said bear wrangler

      For a minute there, I was about to be offended.

    11. Re:i'll be the first to say.. by FrankieBaby1986 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's a huge gap between "they ought to" hurt someone and "I'm going to" hurt someone.

      Wow, do I wish more people realized this. I was suspended in Highschool for this EXACT same thing. I "Threatened" another student who had been picking on me by saying I ought to kick his ass. When I pointed out to the vice principal that the choice of the words "ought to" was intentional because it implied I was not going to, she claimed there was no difference.

      --
      ERROR: SIG NOT FOUND (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?:
  2. Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "No State shall [...] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts [...]"
    --Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution

    Federal Reserve Notes are nothing but counterfeit money.

    1. Re:Constitution by Chlorine+Trifluoride · · Score: 4, Informative

      "The Congress shall have power ... To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;" --Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution

    2. Re:Constitution by KiahZero · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it's stating that states may not MAKE anything but gold and silver coin a tender.

      That means they can't design their own legal tender. It doesn't mean that they can't accept legal tender made by the federal government.

      --
      I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
    3. Re:Constitution by xmundt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Greetings and Salutations.
                Actually, the writers of the American Constitution thought of this. The fact of the matter is that the Constitution is a document which defines what powers the citizens of the USA are willing to allow the government to have. Anything that is NOT mentioned is, explicitly, reserved for the Citizenry. So...as regards the Constitution, yea...if it is not specifically addressed, then it is allowed to the CITIZENS..not the government.
                As for the rest of the tens of thousands of laws that we Americans have allowed ourselves to become burdened with...the same principle applies there too. Unless there is a law that specifically prohibits an act, then, that act is ALLOWED. For example, the original formulations for Coca Cola included a fairly goodly shot of cocaine. At the time, this was not addressed in law, so was perfectly legal. It gave Coke that refreshing zap! Now, as time progressed, certain drugs were prohibited by law...and vanished from Coke.
                However, one worrisome evolution in America is the concept of "freedom zones", where protestors against a politician or event are corralled. It is usually fairly far away from the person or event in question, and, often means that the protestors are "out of sight and out of mind". There are no statutes covering this, and, I suspect any such laws would be overturned by the courts in short order. Now..my question here is this: Although this appears to fall into the area covered by your statement...is this a "good" thing, and is this where American should be going? I think not, and, I hope that others agree. It is this sort of attitude that ends up with a Citizenry cowering in fear under the thumb of a repressive government, and, is the rot that will destroy America in the long run, if it is allowed to continue and grow.
      regards
      dave mundt

      --
      YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
  3. Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anonymous commenting is no longer worth the effort.

    AC OUT!

  4. Threats by JPLemme · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't trust the government to protect my rights, but in this case they may have a point. Threatening people with bodily harm is illegal, and freedom of speech is not a valid defense. If you choose to break the law, then you're giving the cops permission to hunt you down and prosecute you, "anonymous" or not. (Even if the law is a bad one and the cops are thugs controlled by a petty dictator.) (Iran, et al.) Which doesn't mean that I think anonymity is bad; I just think that you should learn a little bit about the law and about search warrants and about technology before you start your life of crime. (True anonymity is necessary to defend freedom, even if it means a thousand Cletuses and Bubbas can use it, too.)

    1. Re:Threats by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't trust the government to protect my rights

      Neither do I.
      Problem is, many people see governments as the source of rights; so it's an uphill struggle right from the start.

    2. Re:Threats by jackb_guppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They do not have point of asking for ALL information of EVERY ONE that posted. This includes Credit Card Numbers, ISP, and Addresses for every poster.

      If they tailored request to those few (I read three) that actually crossed the line into threatening, then it is what you say.

      I believe it is the over reach that is why ACLU and Review are both fighting for anonymity of their posters.

      It is also a pleasure to a media outlet that lives by the 1st Amendment to support their reader 1st Amendment rights. -- Do you hear that NBC, FOX and others that force user give up those rights to respond to articles.

    3. Re:Threats by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      They do not have point of asking for ALL information of EVERY ONE that posted. This includes Credit Card Numbers, ISP, and Addresses for every poster.

      If they tailored request to those few (I read three) that actually crossed the line into threatening, then it is what you say.

      I guess the prosecutors eventually got that exact message, because they have now narrowed the subpoena to just two posters.

      I don't really disagree with your point, but in this case it's just William Cohan once again being a complete tool. He'd go after your grandmother for assault on a public official if she complained about a tax bill. He's been going after Robert Kahre for years, this isn't the first time. This latest round reeks of vindictiveness over having his case completely thrown out the last time he tried it.

      Here's a little more background if you're interested.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    4. Re:Threats by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 2, Informative

      RTFA.

      The feds are going after everyone who posted anonymously, not just anonymous posters who made comments that might be threatening (or might only be juvenile hyperbole).

      A much more targeted subpoena could have been easily drafted, demanding information on only on a list of the anonymous posts that could be construed in some way as threatening. That was not done; the subpoena is not properly focused. The only obvious reason for constructing the subpoena this way is to use it as a threat to silent public discussions that the prosecution does not like.

      In addition, those that did actually RTFA know that the subpoena is demanding data that is technically absurd and would require the newspaper to do the investigative work of law enforcement: in addition to names and IP addresses of all the anonymous posters, the subpoena calls for their street address, age, and gender.

      The subpoena was initiated at least in part by the prosecutor in the tax evasion case, and on its face it looks like an attempt by that prosecutor to use the Grand Jury system to manipulate public expressions that could affect his political aspirations. That is definitely in violation of professional ethics, and almost certainly in violation of the prosecutor's legally binding limitations as an officer of the Court.

      I'm glad to see the ACLU is proactively involving itself in this. And I would hope the Federal Justice Department is taking a look at whether its employee is mishandling his responsibilities. This looks like a Damm mess.

      --
      Will
  5. anonymity is a right by spyrochaete · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I believe that in the (implied, non-existant) Internet charter of rights anonymity is a basic human right. I believe in opt-in, not opt-out. A webmaster has a sacred trust that he will guard his users' IP addresses and only leverage them for internal use, if at all. Besides, that IP address could have been used by the subscriber, a child, a wardriver, a cheapskate nextdoor neighbour, or an entirely different household if the ISP made a mistake in their logs.

    On my blog I allow anonymous comments and I wrote "(optional)" next to the email and WWW fields on the comment submit form. I get TONS more spam because of this, but that's a service I feel is essential to my readers and integral to the fabric of the web.

    If the government fears how people react to facts then maybe they should outlaw news media.

  6. How the judge SHOULD rule by davidwr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The judge should look at each comment individually as well as holistically against other comments apparently by the same commenter.

    If the comments appear to be a credible and actual threat against a juror, as opposed to someone blowing off steam, making non-credible threats, or just blowing off steam, then it's worth a closer look.

    To determine if unauthenticated comments apparently made by the same commenter are made by the same commenter I would order the newspaper to provide a statement saying the comments are very likely from the same computer, very unlikely from the same computer, or there is no way to tell. If the post looks like it's from the same person, and the computer is the same, the court can assume it's the same until someone claims otherwise.

    Now once I have a list of comments that are credible threats, then it's time to go further:
    I would give a special master subpoena power for the IP and login-time information for those posts and subpoena power to the ISPs for the approximate street address of the customer. The court would use this to determine if the seemingly credible threats really were credible. If a threat said "I'm going to walk into your office and shoot you" but the threat came from a town 3 states away, that's likely not credible. Once I've gotten down to the credible threats, then and only I would allow the person's name and address to be subpoenaed. I would also look very favorably on anyone who, upon being contacted by the court or the police, claimed they were joking or blowing off steam. After all, out of every random group of people making credible-sounding threats like these, by far most are harmless.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  7. Why make it traceable? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does anyone know why forum administrators even bother keeping around enough information to reveal the identity of an anonymous poster?

    I mean, I can see keeping around the web server logs for a day or two, to help debug problems. And if you do analytics, keeping the logs around long enough for the analytics software to compute aggregate data.

    But why keep any data longer than that; especially data that's detailed enough to tie an IP# to a posted message?

    1. Re:Why make it traceable? by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...Because most forum admins know next to nothing about computers other than "type this and it sets up a bulletin board!!!"?

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  8. Face Value vs Ore Value by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So on the one hand we take Gold Coins and use the Ore Value, while on the other we take Quarters and use the Face Value.

    So lets say I take my pay check and head off to the bank and when cashing it, get a roll of pennies. Further suppose that one these pennies has some rare quality making it worth $100 to a collector... is that an extra $100 of Income?

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
    1. Re:Face Value vs Ore Value by leonardluen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you sold it to the collector for $100 it indeed would be an additional $99.99 income.

    2. Re:Face Value vs Ore Value by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Certainly in the scenerio where I actualy sell, the onus is on me to report income.

      If I don't sell, however... its just face value, right?

      In this story they go after the employer, regardless of the actions of the employees.

      This is a very complicated subject that begs a lot of questions. Can my bank post a $100 loss for their mistake in giving me a $100 penny? Can they post a $100 win if they hand me a counterfeit $100?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:Face Value vs Ore Value by twostix · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What they're terrified of is people going back to hard currency.

      He's being made an example of, it's that simple.

      It's a loophole that's protected by the US constitution. Gold and Silver are protected as legal currency and the federal government must supply and accept gold and silver tender. The only way around it is to amend the constitution - or scare people enough not to do it.

      If it became popular may also get people asking difficult questions like why a $30 coin is really worth $1000, or more to the point why a $1 federal reserve note can only buy 1% of the value of a $30 dollar coin.

      Such things are best not thought about by the plebs.

    4. Re:Face Value vs Ore Value by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If it became popular may also get people asking difficult questions like why a $30 coin is really worth $1000, or more to the point why a $1 federal reserve note can only buy 1% of the value of a $30 dollar coin.

      Back in the day, American Indian's used a form of currency called Wampum. So, what was it? Valuable metal? Nope. Useful stones? Nope. Anything functional or "intrinsically" valuable at all? Heck no. It was *seashells*, strung like beads and worn around the neck, valuable only because the manufacturer of these trinkets was limited to one small group of Indians, thus introducing artificial scarcity.

      So, either those Indians understood something that those pesky "plebs" don't... or, maybe it's just you that's terribly confused. Believe it or not, currency is worth what people decide it's worth. That's it. After all, neither gold nor silver is terribly intrinsically valuable... we just think it is because, well, that's the tradition (not unlike, say, diamonds). I mean, sure, they make nice conductors, and have useful oxidation properties, but does that really make them worth what the market has priced them at (over $900 an ounce, in the case of gold)? I think not...

      So, whether it's a piece of paper, a coin of some arbitrary metal, or a piece of seashell, it's meaningful as currency only because we, as a group, say it is.

      Now, that said, some would claim that a currency based on some sort of limited resource (be it gold, silver, or <insert favorite thing here>) is a good idea, bringing up the ol' fiat currency boogeyman... 'course, those people don't understand the dangers of a fixed (or very slow growing) money supply in the world of expanding economies: deflation.

    5. Re:Face Value vs Ore Value by db32 · · Score: 2, Informative

      To me the whole thing seems pretty simple. He is paying employees with gold coins and trying to say they can only be taxed at face value. So if I write $5 on a brand new jet that I want to "donate" to a congress person should it only be declared as $5? That is f'ing stupid. These gold coins are not legal U.S. currency, so they should be treated at their value. Your quarter is worth that much because the government said so. In fact, this has been a problem in the past when certain metals in certain coins become more valuable than the face value because people would melt them down and sell it. So the government had to switch metals to make sure the face value is worth more than the materials used.

      What this guy did was unbelievably stupid and uninformed and he deserves to...oh wait...not anonymous...uhm...well he deserves to be punished by the law.

      The scenario you are describing is flawed in that noone tried to pay you based on that special value of the coin. However, if you sold that coin, you can bet any taxes due would be based on the value of the sale not the face value of the penny. However, if someone tried to pay you for a $100 job using a penny valued at $100 and said you only had to pay taxes on the $0.01 they would be stupid, and you would be stupid for believing them. If it became a regular thing you could easily wind up on the hook in a nasty tax evasion scenario...just like this guy did.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    6. Re:Face Value vs Ore Value by Cyner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They don't have to accept gold and silver. That part of the Constitution you refer to is Article I, Section 10 and says that States can't make anything currency except gold and silver (all other money is reserved to the Federal Government, hence the Federal Mints); nothing about what the government has to accept.

      What you're thinking of is that the dollar bill used to be backed by gold. Other nations could at any time they wanted trade money for gold (and vice versa) with the US government. The Smithsonian Agreement ended that however. The US Government no longer trades money for anything other than more money.

      What this guy did was try to pay his employees one amount and report a different amount. For example, he bought gold coins that had a face value of $100 for $500. He then gave the coins to an employee for a week's pay. His expense for that employee was $500; but he reported on the employee's W2 that the employee was paid $100. That's illegal. -- He argued that the face value of the payment method is all that matters. IRS operates on a Cash basis, what he paid for the employee is what he should report (employment taxes aside). This still leaves some room for a discrepancy based on the value of gold when he purchased it to when the employees were paid, any gain would have to be reported on the employee's tax return however.

      This comment is a personal opinion, it does not constitute legal or tax advice.

      --
      FreeBSD.org - The power to serve
    7. Re:Face Value vs Ore Value by LordActon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What they're terrified of is people going back to hard currency.

      Terrified? Please. I suppose they're also terrified of all those Econ 101 students learning about what money is, what the value of an exchange is, what value is. Oh, no, I forgot: that's the indoctrination that keeps six billion people in the Matrix. Except for a few laser-eyed gold bugs, that is.

      The IRS collects tax on income. Lots of in-kind income is taxable just like cash. It should be, else non-cash income would have a tax advantage, and the whole economy would be encouraged to seek less efficient forms of payment. If you think that's a good idea, talk to my friend who, in Soviet days, got paid in shoes.

      Really, it's too bad your comment can't be scored +1 ignorant. Try learning some economics before having an opinion on it. Or at least have the humility not to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

    8. Re:Face Value vs Ore Value by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gold and Silver are protected as legal currency

      No, they aren't. States are expressly forbidden from making anything else legal tender for debts, but Congress is expressly granted the exclusive power to create money, and to regulate the value of all forms of money.

      and the federal government must supply and accept gold and silver tender.

      Nothing anywhere in the Constitution either requires the government to supply gold or silver coins as money, or to accept it as tender. Arguably, states are permitted to make gold and silver coin legal tender (expressly, Art. I, S. 10 forbids them to make anything else legal tender, and the express exception of gold and silver coin from that prohibition at least strongly implies that they are permitted to make those legal tender), but even if one or more states choose to exercise that right, nothing in the Constitution would bind the federal government to that state action.

      If it became popular may also get people asking difficult questions like why a $30 coin is really worth $1000, or more to the point why a $1 federal reserve note can only buy 1% of the value of a $30 dollar coin.

      You are contradicting yourself. $1 is not 1% of $1000. But, anyhow, Congress authority in Art. I, Sec. 8 to dictate the legal value of money is express; that any non-vacuous exercise of such power necessarily will result in differences between the relative legal values of some forms of money and their relative commodity values is fairly obvious.

  9. YES! by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...is anonymous commenting still worth it, or is it just too risky for the board owners?

    Absolutely!

    Posting AC so they don't find out who I am.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  10. Re:Thought... by juiceboxfan · · Score: 4, Informative

    This means that if my employer pays me in nickels then I also must pay more in income tax to the feds as a nickel is worth more then five cents in pure metal value these days.

    No, you can go to the bank and get nickles for 5 cents each. You can not go to the bank and get $20 gold pieces for $20 each.

    If you were melting down the nickels and selling the bulk metal you would be in violation of more than tax laws.

  11. Face value by kimvette · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Further, the $50 gold coins and the silver dollars Kahre used for payroll are designated by Congress as legal tender, so people are entitled to value them at their stamped denominations, he also contends. Taken at face value, each defendant's annual coin income placed him below the threshold for filing a federal tax return.

    Both the IRS and Kahre are in the wrong here.

    The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value. They have no choice in the matter. The government's isregarding face value of "legal tender for all debts, public and private" is illegal. The government issued that currency (or authorised its issuance) for the face value and require it to be accepted as such so they have no legal choice but to accept it for the value they declared it to be.

    However, if he wants to play the "face value" defense, which is legitimate (he should win that case) what he should be charged with is violating the federal minimum wage laws, not tax evasion.

    What he and his employees engage in is tax avoidance, which is perfectly legal. Tax avoidance is simply following the letter of the law and avoiding the incurring tax liability. Practically every politician engages in avoidance. Things such as claiming one's standard exemption, creating a shell company and having it lease one's vehicle for business purposes, and so forth. If I ever make the kind of money where it makes sense to do so, you bet your ass I would hire a tax lawyer and take advantage of the law to the my benefit. The tax code is needlessly complex for three things: to keep lawyers busy and make them rich, for social engineering (keep citizens in line by making them accept government control), and to benefit politicians who create hard-to-understand loopholes for their own use.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:Face value by kimvette · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It's not whether what Mr. Kahre did was legal under the law," defense attorney Michael Kennedy told the jury in his opening statement. "It's whether he believed what he did was legal," in the absence of explicit instructions by the IRS -- on its Web site, in its publications or in response to written correspondence from Kahre -- on how to value post-1985 gold or silver coins.

      Rephrased, what Kennedy is saying is this: "It's not whether it's legal or not, it's whether we want to fuck the taxpayer or not."

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    2. Re:Face value by Greger47 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value. They have no choice in the matter. The government's isregarding face value of "legal tender for all debts, public and private" is illegal. The government issued that currency (or authorised its issuance) for the face value and require it to be accepted as such so they have no legal choice but to accept it for the value they declared it to be.

      If I pay someone with a $20 bill and a lump of gold and then try to make the case that the employee only made $20, the IRS would come down on me like a ton of bricks and I would be laughed out of court.

      In this case the goverment was stupid enough to stamp a $20 sign on a lump of gold, but that still doesn't change the fact that the employee receives a lot more wealth from me than $20 when taking the coin.

    3. Re:Face value by twostix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No if you're paid with $20 in government currency then as far as the government is concerned you received $20 in wealth.

      Otherwise it works the other way too and this $100 dollar paper note is only "worth" 1 cent and should be taxed as such.

      Oh that's right, for some insane reason people always come down on the side of the government.

      Perhaps you should ask *why* the government is stamping $30 on legal tender that actually costs 1000 $1 federal reserve notes (and counting). These gold coins are not "special" collectors items, they are cold hard cash minted by the hundreds of thousands and hold enormous amounts of wealth.

  12. Snail mail threat == Clear and present danger. by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sending someone a snail mail death threat implies you know who they are and where they live. Going to the trouble of a physical cut and paste from magazines implies you are willing to expend time and effort on your threat.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Snail mail threat == Clear and present danger. by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's deeper then that. It's that we have to protect the people we force to do the dirty work for us against any reasonable threat. We have long recognized the necessity of investigating any threat to see if it was some blowhard letting steam out or someone capable of committing harm. It doesn't help that the names and addresses of Jurors are generally publicly availible too.

      It might be a different story if it was an all volunteer process but it isn't. If you register to vote, you are automatically placed into the jury pool and you can't get out of service easily. I generally claim I support jury nullification and don't have to sit on a trial, but others don't pull stunts like that so they are stuck with the jury duty as a result of expecting to have a voice in their community, state, and country with the right to vote.

  13. Who were these authors? by sycodon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And should they have been prosecuted? They formented a war ya know.

    Publius, Pacificus, Cattalus, Horatius and Philo Camillus, Silence Dogood, Alice Addertongue, Fanny Mournful, Obadiah Plainman, Busy Body, Populus, An American, A Son of Liberty ,"Vindex the Avenger".

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  14. Unlawful governance by twostix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Reportedly told them that they can only be taxed on the face value of the coinage -- not the much higher market value of the metal"

    The money paid is 100% legal United States Currency, minted by the United States Government itself.

    The US constitution specifically states that gold an silver are legal tender.

    What's the problem? It's not his problem that the US government has destroyed the value of money so that "old" but perfectly legal currency is now worth 1000 times more than it's equivalent "new" money...IF the government doesn't like it they need to change the law and outlaw the gold coins that they mint as legal tender.

    Otherwise he's being prosecuted for something that "feels" illegal, which is a deadly slippery slope to go down.

    1. Re:Unlawful governance by brusk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, he's clearly paying his employees based on the market value of the coins, not the face value.

      Imagine I paid my employees with one dollar bills signed by Jesus, Buddha, and Abe Lincoln. Clearly these would fetch a high price on the autograph market, significantly above $1 (yeah, I know, you're not supposed to mutilate currency). I think the IRS would be perfectly justified in treating these as having a worth above their face value, since any reasonable person would recognize that they are not just an ordinary dollar bill.

      He's being prosecuted not for paying his employees in gold, which is perfectly fine (if dumb), but for lying about its value, which is against the law.

      --
      .sig withheld by request
    2. Re:Unlawful governance by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Informative

      IF the government doesn't like it they need to change the law and outlaw the gold coins that they mint as legal tender.

      Actually, they needed to not change the law. For a while, this would, indeed, be illegal, as private ownership of gold bullion was illegal. They not only changed the law, they started making gold coins again.

      And, indeed. I don't care what the IRS says. If the government prints $10 on a coin, and issues it, WRT the government it's worth ten dollars, period. If the government doesn't like that, it can stop issuing such coins.

      Incidentally, before anyone tries to lump me it with 'the government should not issue paper money' people, I think those people are crazy. However, there's a valid point that if the government is issuing something as money, it has to treat it as money.

      Incidentally, this guy probably committed a bunch of crimes. Not only is he in violation of min wage laws, but I bet his bookkeeping would be interesting, too. It's either lying and showing people were paid in full, or it's showing min wage violations. And it's showing some purchase by the company of expensive gold coins that just vanished.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  15. The tax dodge itself seems spurious by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, they can avoid income tax on 99% of their income by being paid in $1000 worth of coins with a total face value of $10. That makes sense.

    Surely then, should they choose to sell these they'll pay income tax on any profit they make. If they use them as legal tender, they'll only be able to use the face value. I suppose they might be able to haggle the price of a large purchase down a little but for everyday spending it seems the savings are small.

    1. Re:The tax dodge itself seems spurious by Faerunner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not even sure most places will accept gold coins as legal tender; not that they're not legal, but the cashiers and managers have rarely seen one and will become suspicious if someone tries to pay for their loaf of bread with a couple of Sacajawea dollars, let alone higher denomination coins. (I know; I've tried.) I imagine having an entire company's worth of employees come into your store and attempt to buy snacks with $20 gold coins would be enough to warrant a call to the authorities by a nervous manager.

      That being the case it would stand to reason that the person would attempt to sell the coins or trade them for paper dollars at the bank. It does not stand to reason that having been told they don't need to pay income tax on the coins, they would file their taxes that year and tell the IRS about any extra money they made off the transfer, at least assuming they're smart enough to figure out why the IRS doesn't need to know.

  16. How anonymous is slashdot? by mdmkolbe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If the logs aren't there, the subpoena doesn't hurt anything. So I ask what sort of logs does slashdot keep that could conceivably be used to track down an AC? Be imaginative in your answers (e.g. someone could try matching the HTTP access logs against the time the comment was posted(*)). Think like a smart technical cop who really wants to figure this out.

    (*) There are probably too many accesses in a single minute to determine that reliably, but it may give you a candidate list that you could then correlate with other data. Like I said, be imaginative.

  17. You forgot a few things to be anonymous by davidwr · · Score: 5, Informative

    * Don't touch the envelope or paper without wearing several layers of surgical gloves.
    * Don't use a printer that leaves any identifying marks. Most modern color printers are traceable and most older typewriters are as well.
    * Don't lick the stamp or envelope!
    * Don't drop it in any drop-box that has a security camera anywhere nearby.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:You forgot a few things to be anonymous by DriedClexler · · Score: 4, Funny

      * Don't touch the envelope or paper without wearing several layers of surgical gloves.
      * Don't use a printer that leaves any identifying marks. Most modern color printers are traceable and most older typewriters are as well.
      * Don't lick the stamp or envelope!
      * Don't drop it in any drop-box that has a security camera anywhere nearby

      They'll still find you from the return address...

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
  18. IRS is right on this one by davidwr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What this guy did was essentially barter gold bullion that happened to be in coin form for labor.

    Even if the US government is required to trade a $20 bill for your $20 gold piece, that does not establish the value of the gold piece for tax purposes.

    Even a $20 bill can be worth more than $20 if it's a collector's item, such as one that's in an uncut block, one that's old and still in original condition, one that's very old, or one that's been autographed by hand by the Treasurer of the United States or Secretary of the Treasury whose signature appears on the bill.

    If I pay my employees in collector-value currency, you bet the IRS will consider it a barter-for-labor arrangement and tax accordingly.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  19. RTFA first by freedom_india · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The money is printed by the Federal Reserve and NOT by the Federal Government. Sheesh, don't you know the difference?
    It is legal tender for all debts.
    The IRS is NOT prosecuting him for paying in Gold. The IRS doesn't care how you pay someone. Gold, Silver, mud, iron, hell in Nevada even Sex.
    What it cares about is its value in USD.
    In this case this guy paid in Gold, whose real value is more than what its face value states.
    RTFA and research before you open your pie hole.

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  20. Re:Hypocritical? by vlm · · Score: 4, Informative

    Quarters, unlike gold coins, are legal tender.

    Blatantly, outright, not even close, missed by a mile, false. 10 seconds on wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gold_Eagle

    Refers you to the US mint government webpage:

    http://www.usmint.gov/downloads/mint_programs/am_eagles/AmerEagleGold.pdf

    Here's a direct quote from the first page of this US MINT government issued document:

    "They're also legal tender"

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  21. Re:Free Speech by HikingStick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Free speech means the freedom to say _anything_.

    They may be free to say anything, but they must be willing to accept the consequences of what they say in many cases.

    Courts have long held (arising out of common law) that some forms of speech are not protected. We have long (even since the time of the framers) had limits on speach: libel and slander. We also have laws that treat threats not as free speech, but as a form of assault (differentiated from striking someone: "battery"--the treatment of "assault" and "battery" will vary depending on the jurisdiction where you reside).

    A free people should always be free to express divergent opinions, but there are limits when what is said or written becomes a direct assault on another.

    --
    I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
  22. I'll bite on this by phorm · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since I previously worked in a company that's primary business was in running (and selling advertising on) web-forums, I suppose I'd be as qualified as anyone to answer this:

    a) The default behaviour of the software is to record IP addresses. It's not like most companies are building their own, they're using something like vBulletin, IPB, or possibly PHPBB. I'm not even sure if this is a feature that could be disabled without a plugin/hack

    b) Basic security is tied to IP. Just as does slashdot, so do other forums get their share of trolls. You actually don't see it a lot here, but penis-enlargement, pr0n, scams and spam are also fairly common. The IP address is your only semi-reliable link to a real person, in which case you can block certain IP's or netblocks that become an issue, track down users with multiple accounts. I do say semi-reliably as IPs can be routed through proxies etc, but many boards actually have RBL's for known proxies

    c) Advertising, which for many boards is the chief (or only) source of revenue, often ties to IP address. Most programs collect statistics by IP, and also other fun stuff like geo-targetting, rotation (so you don't see the same ad a gazillion times in a row), etc

    d) User related to locality can be fairly well-determined by IP. If you've got issues where all your users in the Eastern US connect slowly/poorly, or possibly where you have many users in Western Europe but they have a shit connection, then it may lead you to consider adding services (local server, cache, or whatever) in those areas.

    e) The last thing I can think of off the top of my head is statistics, which are also very important to many web-boards to see where they're growing and where they need improvement.

    And yes, these work fairly well for 95% of the John-Doe users. Most people, even those who consider themselves clever, don't make much use of proxies or other such things to post secretly on boards, which allows the wheat to be filtered from the chaff fairly well based on IP. Until a better method comes along, it's probably the best way.

    p.s. Don't use my own board as an example of something spam-proof. It's using different software than I used at work, gets very little time dedicated to it, and the spam-collection is actually something of interest while I try to come up with fun methods of dealing with the spammers.

  23. What is with the Slashdot support for crime? by scruffy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am surprised at the number of Slashdotters who support tax evasion and violent threats.

  24. There's a difference... by sean.peters · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's a difference between anonymous threats to random posters on the internet, and anonymous threats directed at jurors in a criminal trial. Obviously, threats to jurors have the possibility of subverting the criminal justice system... which is a pretty big deal. I think the owners of the board ought to cough up the names.

  25. Tenth Amendment by Icegryphon · · Score: 2, Informative

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
    nor prohibited by it to the States,
    are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    Just thought the Federal Government should be reminded.

  26. Re:Per TFA... by honkycat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The employer is required to pay taxes on the amount he pays his employees. As long as the employees properly accounted for the extra income they obtained by selling their currency above its face value, they would not be violating the law (except perhaps for conspiracy or the like if they were more involved in the employer's scheme). The employer, however, clearly knew of the excess value beyond the face value and that needs to be reported.

    It's not that hard, or uncommon, to force reasonable values on exchanges like this. In Massachusetts (and probably other states), when you buy a used car, your sales tax responsibility is based on the blue book value for a car of that age and condition, not the actual selling price. This prevents tax dodging by under-reporting the sale price and using some other transaction or gift to hide the actual price. Even beyond minimum wage, it would not be hard (nor unreasonable) to compare the value of the exchange with the going rate for the service in question. If it's way out of whack then asking why is quite sensible. In this case, it's absolutely clear that the intention is to hide wages, and that violates the law.