(06-07-2024, 01:53 AM)Ninurta Wrote:In my jurisdiction's, If you have the correct information pertaining to the indictments or misdemeanors for that matter, you can lay that information before a Chamber Magistrate or through a solicitor. Regardless of the advice you can actually prosecute a matter before a Magistrate in the Lower Court.(06-02-2024, 07:35 AM)Bally002 Wrote: Well I hear and have read that the American IRS ? Taxation mob over there, requirement is that anyone receiving, in my words, money or valued goods from any ill gotten source are still required to include that on their IRS return. (Capone??)
So anyone that has perhaps received 'hush' money and allege that in the proceedings against Trump should have also described it to IRS or at the very least be questioned/examined on that fact as to the allegations authenticity.
I may have my facts wrong. Would be pleased if someone can clarify for me. @"Infolurker"#107 @"FlickerOfLight"#259 @"Ninurta"#2 @"Skye"#109 @"Michigan Swamp Buck"#32
Kind regards,
Bally)
Stormy Daniels does have to declare the hush payments as "income", and the IRS will take anywhere from 30% to 70% of them as "tax", depending on the sort of income it is found to be.
They will not delve into the particulars of how she got the money, whether her allegations were true or not, the IRS is only concerned that she report the income and how much of it they're going to take. They only see dollar signs.
I don't know how the Australian justice system works, so you may already be well acquainted with what I'm about to say. If so, please forgive me - I'm not trying to educate you on your own system, I'm just explaining how it works in America.
The first line of legal defense is the police officer himself. Officers can usually decide for themselves whether to levy charges or not, using "officer discretion". They may let you go scot free, or they may try to throw the book at you. Their choice - which is why I say it always pays to be nice to the cops.
Next comes the DA or Prosecuting Attorney. If the cops charge you with something, he will review the charges. Then he will either affirm them and proceed to a prosecution, or he may drop them altogether and decide not to prosecute at all, OR he may decide that the charges are incorrect, and elect to prosecute on charges he brings himself.
Then it's in the court's jurisdiction, and will have to be fought out in court if charges are brought at any earlier stage. You may be found guilty, or not guilty. The matter ends there as far as the question of charges.
So long as Ms. Daniels declares her "income" from the hush money payments and pays her taxes on them, the IRS doesn't care at all how she got the money, only that she reported it and paid her taxes on it. She'd only get in trouble or get grilled if she tried to hide it, which would be pretty dumbassed a thing to do, considering how it was plastered all across the news for a few months. Now if the IRS suspected she had broken any FEDERAL laws, they MIGHT elect to report that to the DoJ for investigation and possible prosecution... or, they might not. "Officer discretion", y'know? But either way the IRS wouldn't dig into it beyond the reporting and collecting of taxes.
I think we can safely say the DoJ is NOT going to prosecute anyone they see as an ally against Trump.
.
What I was getting at in Daniels case was that if this possible in the USA it would garner a lot of attention towards Daniel's allegations. Hence she can plead Not Guilty upon which a court date would be set for a hearing in the Lower Court.
Imagine a 'citizens arrest for perhaps a misdemeanour. The police or DoJ refuses to prosecute. You can action/prosecute that either civilly or through the relevant statute in that jurisdiction.
In the matter with 'Daniels'. If she has not declared her income I understand, like 'Trump' then that is an offence to which in the past Trump has been called out. In the fairness of a correct system then Stormy can at the very least be called out and set to explain, 'when' where' who' what' and why'. Doesn't matter whether she gets convicted . The jurisprudence would alert to the fact that 'Trump' is being unfaily teated.
Just my thoughts,
Kind regards,
bally) To add, I don't care about Trump. I care about fairness as opposed to the opposition. And, I care about Meliena because, I want to ...kissheronthelips. Arrghj!!! There, I've said it.
Cheers