Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Karl Frank Kleinpaste
November 21, 2002 12:23 PM   Subscribe

Karl Frank Kleinpaste is on trial defending himself for tax evasion claiming that he lives in the 'Democratic Republic of Pennsylvania' and is therefore not duty bound to pay federal income tax. Some think that this will not go very well for him while others encourage the masses to do the same.
posted by Raichle (28 comments total)

 
The Tax Protester FAQ refutes dozens of arguments that tax protesters typically make.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:38 PM on November 21, 2002


it will not go well for him. it never goes well for any of them. the government, you see, has a vested interest in it not going well for them. it wouldn't matter if i declared that i lived in the supercalifragilistic terrirtory of quonsar the magnificent, with my own flag, my own motto, my own quonstitution and my own income tax paid to myself. i will pay the feds or i will go to prison. so will he. there is not even a hint of doubt.
posted by quonsar at 12:38 PM on November 21, 2002


This "won't go well for him" because he didn't pay income tax for ten years. It's not even an issue of finding questionable loopholes... he didn't pay taxes. Then in the process of not giving the government the money he owes it, he proceeded to produce fradulent tax information as a means of taking money from somewhere else. It's kind of interesting how someone who claims to not be a U.S. citizen is intent on getting money from U.S. banks.

I'm all for trying to fight what you think is unjust and immoral in our nation's laws, but this guy didn't even try. What, does he also not vote to protest the electoral college? Give me a break. Being a lazy, greedy, possibly insane hypocrite doesn't make you a revolutionary.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:39 PM on November 21, 2002


Okay, except for the lazy, greedy, possibly insane hypocrites who wrote the Declaration of Independence. But you all know what I meant.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:40 PM on November 21, 2002


DC residents have an actual beef on this issue.

District of Columbia citizens have no representation of any kind in the US Senate and only a nonvoting delegate to the US House of Representatives. US citizens who live in Washington, D.C., have no voting representation on the national issues considered by Congress. Furthermore, since Congress also acts as Washington's "state" legislature, local citizens are also denied voting representation in a state legislative body-something that all other Americans enjoy.
posted by gottabefunky at 12:45 PM on November 21, 2002


Yea, but D.C. residents re-elected Marion Barry back in the day and that's just... well, how can we take anything they seriously after that. Plus, they can't even run their own little city with an ounce of efficiency.
posted by Witty at 12:49 PM on November 21, 2002


Might makes Right
posted by blue_beetle at 12:53 PM on November 21, 2002


can't even run their own little city with an ounce of efficiency
if that were the requirement for representation in the federal government, there would be no federal government.
posted by quonsar at 12:53 PM on November 21, 2002


ironically, it's the federal government that inefficiently runs DC
posted by batboy at 1:00 PM on November 21, 2002


Hear hear, quonsar. If we were a normal political entity, we would probably have better governance. I still say we should give the place back to Maryland and let them deal with it. But Maryland doesn't want us.
posted by SealWyf at 1:02 PM on November 21, 2002


i, for one, welcome our new quonsarian overlords.
posted by lescour at 1:05 PM on November 21, 2002


have no representation of any kind in the US Senate

ummm...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:33 PM on November 21, 2002


Thanks, Steve. DC's "shadow" Senator's a fairly recent addition. I was kvetching on an earlier thread that the new Senate website doesn't even mention the position.
posted by SealWyf at 1:36 PM on November 21, 2002


Yes, SealWyf, I remembered your link. I am glad you posted it earlier... I find that subject very interesting...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:41 PM on November 21, 2002


Well, that's weird: I've been paying taxes to quonsar for years now, and I've got no beef at all: great roads, free health care, and government-subsidized calliope music on my birthday.
posted by scody at 1:51 PM on November 21, 2002


He is not wealthy enough not to pay taxes. That is a right reserved for the wealthy only.
posted by Postroad at 2:13 PM on November 21, 2002


Shadow senator...shadow government? Sounds like some political ninja movie.
posted by gottabefunky at 2:29 PM on November 21, 2002


Just remember. If the flag has a fringe, you're in Admiralty Court, and they're not even telling you. In fact, you can't even find the Admiralty offices anywhere -- but that's all part of the plot.
posted by dhartung at 2:39 PM on November 21, 2002


Shadow senator...shadow government? Sounds like some political ninja movie.

Or the United Kingdom... ;)
posted by twine42 at 3:11 PM on November 21, 2002


It's really pretty funny though that the judge is making him ask himself questions. It must be very entertaining to be in the courtroom.
posted by Raichle at 3:12 PM on November 21, 2002


If this guy is locked up, good for Uncle Sam. Or ideally, if his paycheck is severly garnished, good for Uncle Sam. Is it just me or do 'Tax Protesters' seem to have no problem using services partially or fully funded by the federal government. If you don't want to pay taxes, then you should have no access to mail, highways, airlines, railways, social security, water sewer and electric and on and on. All of these programs have been built/subsidized by or are at least partially or completely funded by the Fed. These folks just come off as lazy, cheap and hypocritical. You don't want to pay your income tax- go live in a cave.

In summartion: Tax protesters make the baby jesus cry.
posted by CoolHandPuke at 3:14 PM on November 21, 2002


CoolHandPuke:
I can agree with most of what you said, but what if my tax dollars are being used for something I don't support. Do I have the right to withhold my tax dollars or to insist that they not be used to fund a war that I don't support?

Anyways, she says it better than me.
posted by Raichle at 3:21 PM on November 21, 2002


In summartion: Tax protesters make the baby jesus cry.

Nuh-uh
posted by thirteen at 3:25 PM on November 21, 2002


do i have the right to withhold my tax dollars or to insist that they not be used to fund a war that i don't support?

Raichle: No, you don't. This is why we have a representative government that makes decisions, rather than having daily national votes on everything. That's your shot at dictating policy. Other than that, you sure as hell can't pick and choose which legislation you feel like following.
posted by tirade at 3:52 PM on November 21, 2002


you sure as hell can't pick and choose which legislation ou feel like following.

Actually you can choose. The ultimate responsibility for your actions lays squarely with you. If someone doesn't support a war in spirit but does support it in practice then what does that make them. A hypocrite perhaps?
posted by ex.pr.ni at 6:27 PM on November 21, 2002


Do I have the right to withhold my tax dollars or to insist that they not be used to fund a war that I don't support?

Sure. And the government has the "right" to fine you, or imprison you, if you do withhold your taxes. There probably is not a single person in America that doesn't agree with some of the things their tax dollars pay for, and disagree with others.

Do think through the ramifications of your sentiment. If you had the right to choose what to pay taxes to support, and what not to support, well, so would everyone else. What that would mean, essentially, is that those who paid the largest amount of taxes would have the most significant say in what got funded and what didn't.

And if you do think that's a good idea ... well, say you decide you want to withhold all your money from the military, and give it all to social programs. Good. But that also means an oil executive, or a defense contractor, would have a fully equal right to withhold all taxes from social programs, and put it all into the military.

I'm certain the wealthy - who pay the majority of the taxes in the country - would love the concept you propose. I suspect Michael Moore probably would not.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:24 PM on November 21, 2002


Back over a decade ago, Karl maintained a magnificent software archive on cis.ohio-state.edu. It was available via anonymous uucp. I guess the best I can compare it to is an ibiblio for the pre-Internet age. Not to create any excuses for fraud or tax evasion, but I wouldn't want to villify the guy. He's done some very good stuff.
posted by chipr at 1:44 AM on November 22, 2002


I'm certain the wealthy - who pay the majority of the taxes in the country - would love the concept you propose.

Well, good thing Dubya's fixing THAT problem then.

*rimshot*
posted by Vidiot at 12:38 PM on November 22, 2002


« Older FCC commissioner Michael Copps seeks indecency def...   |   Today is The Great American Sm... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments