Honestly,I haven't filed tax returns in about a decade.On top of that,we all know that the Hollywood types get preferential treatment...and that the type of treatment that Wesley is alleging that he has suffered through is most definitely the kind of treatment that is more likely to befall a Black star in Hollywood than ANY OTHER.
I for one am not putting stock in either side of the story until I'm personally aware of facts instead of rumors.But based on history? Man,we have 400 years of this type of behaviour--right up to this very second--to keep in perspective.I would lean toward Snipes just because the system that we all operate under has shown that it would lean ON people like Snipes even if he's innocent,and LEAN ON HIM HARDER if he's guilty.Because he's Black.
Wesley Snipes' attorneys moved to DISMISS the tax charges.Here's a summary:
"Wesley Snipes Moves to Dismiss Tax Charges
Attorneys for Wesley Snipes filed a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment of tax charges, arguing selective prosecution. Prof Paul Caron at TaxProf Blog has links to the indictment and motion to dismiss, and also explains the history of this case. (See also the story on Yahoo News).
The Motion to Dismiss (see Smoking Gun) starts with a claim that the section 371 conspiracy charge "fails to allege the essential elements" of the statute. This is followed by a claim that the court does not have jurisdiction. The Motion concludes with claims of selective prosecution.
Selective prosecution is a difficult argument to make as it requires that the defendant prove not only that similarly situated individuals were not prosecuted, but that this prosecution was "intentional or purposeful" and that it was due to an "arbitrary classification." See LaFave, Israel, & King, Criminal Procedure 2d s 13.4. The problem facing defense counsel is that he or she can't prove the "intentional or purposeful" prong without obtaining discovery, and many courts will not give them discovery upon a mere allegation of prosecutorial selectivity. The Supreme Court provides an allowance for discovery, but a certain base level of proof is needed to reach that level. (See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996).
(esp)"
Sounds like vampiric lawyers are pissed at our gallant DAYWALKER...
