Angler #1

Make it A Crime Against the Environment

Rate this topic

37 posts in this topic

Posted (edited) · Report post

21 mins ago, Ditch Jigger said:

"I cannot ask you about your immigration status, but I must advise you that if you are not a citizen of the US, this guilty plea/admission to sufficient facts may result in your deportation from the US, denial of admission to the US, and denial of naturalized citizenship." 

 

Heard it a thousand times if I heard it once. Every plea or CWOF in every courtroom, from every judge in the Commonwealth, in both District and Superior Courts. 

 

Judges of the Trial Court of the Commonwealth are bound by the laws enacted by the General Court of the Commonwealth and signed by the governor. Including the one prohibiting them from asking defendants about their immigration status as part of the plea colloquy, which is MGL ch. 278 sec. 29D. Take it up with Beacon Hill if you want that to change. 

I don't want to change anything. I thought the law covered asking witnesses about immigration status not defendants. Is the defendants immigration status not known (to the judge and prosecutor) upon being arrested during the booking process? Your the lawyer not me just asking a question . 

 

I'm just saying why would they have to ask wouldn't they already know?

Edited by alpha baiter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 mins ago, alpha baiter said:

I read giggys comment and he gave a solution. He said enforce the laws on the books and make the fines hurt enough to discourage future bad behavior. You don't agree that's fine but he gave a solution.  Yours is more money. Bourne PD had a 4.4 million dollar budget last year and this year are getting a new 14 million dollar police station, so nearly 20 million spent in 2020  The IRS has a 11.5 BILLION dollar budget. How much do you propose increasing their budgets to fix our problems? 

For every $1 increase in the IRS budget the increased revenue is over $5. So by starving the IRS we lose revenue and allow cheats to get away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 mins ago, PaulS said:

For every $1 increase in the IRS budget the increased revenue is over $5. So by starving the IRS we lose revenue and allow cheats to get away.

We don't allow cheats to get away. The wealthiest of "cheats" have lobyists paying politicians to carve them out loopholes in the tax code. And that's why the tax code is so thick it could dam the cape cod canal. Simplify the ridiculous tax code and the IRS could focus on enforcement instead of analysing these absurdly complex filings they probably don't fully understand themselves at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 we do let them get away because we don't spend enough money to catch them. We know if we spent more on enforcement we would catch more people. So it's not the fact that there's loopholes it's that the IRS is not auditing enough returns and the reason we're not auditing enough returns is we don't have enough $ and employees.  You've ignored the fact that for every dollar we increase the budget of the IRS we get back $5 in taxes.

Edited by PaulS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PaulS said:

 we do let them get away because we don't spend enough money to catch them. We know if we spent more on enforcement we would catch more people. So it's not the fact that there's loopholes it's that we are not auditing enough returns and the reason we're not auditing enough returns is we don't have enough $ and employees.

we will just go round and round looking at two sides of the same coin. The tax code is absurdly complex. Simplify it and irs agents have more time cracking down on cheats. Tough to audit more returns when you need 30 irs lawyers and three months going over a single Corp return. Anyway we hijacked the thread a bit so I'll end my part here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason the IRS comparison is relevant is that it's 'productivity to budget' relationship is very obvious. It's harder to pin down the relationship of law enforcement budgets to fish stocks. But you know it's there.

 

I didn't see giggys post as saying "don't pass laws you're not willing to enforce", but if that's what he was saying I fully agree. the cops in my city have basically stopped giving traffic violations, it's a sh*tshow. No one likes ticket quotas but the opposite is a disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, gellfex said:

It's fascinating how Americans expect law enforcement to do their jobs without giving them the resources to do so, or even allowing them to keep the fines they levy. We starve the IRS and then wonder why tax cheating is epidemic. We starve the SEC and wonder why Wall Street is a rigged casino. A big part of the problem is anti-government ideology like @giggyfish. But they don't present an alternative. There's no "engineering solution" like speed bumps when cops won't give speeding tickets.

 

17 hours ago, PaulS said:

For every $1 increase in the IRS budget the increased revenue is over $5. So by starving the IRS we lose revenue and allow cheats to get away.

Thank you both for showing why Massachusetts is the liberal cluster fuq we have today. 

 

In past threads i have I suggested a small license increase to fund more enforcement of the laws that are already on the books. What I don’t want is to give more money to a state that doesn’t give me a return value for my increased taxes. I would like to see crack downs on the folks who abuse the system without harassing those that do it right

I am not anti tax but to say the government is under funded is ridiculous and false, they are just allocating funds to the wrong places. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, giggyfish said:

 

Thank you both for showing why Massachusetts is the liberal cluster fuq we have today. 

 

Quit your crying and take it to the political forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, alpha baiter said:

I don't want to change anything. I thought the law covered asking witnesses about immigration status not defendants. Is the defendants immigration status not known (to the judge and prosecutor) upon being arrested during the booking process? Your the lawyer not me just asking a question . 

 

I'm just saying why would they have to ask wouldn't they already know?

It's proper for a judge to ask in limited circumstances. One if it's necessary to determine a defendant's identity. That usually isn't an issue because a judge has a defendant's CORI from the probation department. Unless there's an outstanding ICE detainer listed, a CORI has no information about immigration status on it. If the police ask as part of the booking process, the judge usually doesn't have a booking sheet in front of him or her. 

 

Sometimes an ADA will raise the fact that a defendant isn't a citizen during a bail hearing, but in the case of someone walking in off the street to answer a fisheries violation, no ADA is going to request bail.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 mins ago, giggyfish said:

Sorry I disagree with you is this where you get all huffy and call me a racist?

LOL - No but I do get a kick out of how some people can't control their emotions and need to bring politics into a fishing forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, giggyfish said:

Sorry I disagree with you is this where you get all huffy and call me a racist?

It does sound like you're about to say Medicaid is why we can't protect fish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, alpha baiter said:

we will just go round and round looking at two sides of the same coin. The tax code is absurdly complex. Simplify it and irs agents have more time cracking down on cheats. Tough to audit more returns when you need 30 irs lawyers and three months going over a single Corp return. Anyway we hijacked the thread a bit so I'll end my part here. 

I can't argue about the tax code ... you are correct. However, you can't simplify in a vacuum. How much revenue does the tax "system" generate? I'm guessing BILLIONS ... think about all the tax attorneys, CPAs and Tax Filers (the guys/gals at the H&R Blocks of the world). What happens if we simplify, and 90% of the public can start doing their own returns? My guess is a dramatic effect on the economy. Where would all the displaced people work?

 

It is really stupid that society has reached this point ... but I fear that pulling on that string would unravel most of the sweater. Just sayin ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure changing the terminology to a "crime against the environment" will gain much traction.  It's redundant. After all, isn't it the Enviromental Police who enforce the enviromental laws? IMO it's fairly self explanatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2019 at 6:21 PM, bob_G said:

I'm not sure changing the terminology to a "crime against the environment" will gain much traction.  It's redundant. After all, isn't it the Enviromental Police who enforce the enviromental laws? IMO it's fairly self explanatory.

Bob that is not the case at all Glad to see that you think it is self explanatory, to have all fin laws declared by the legislative body a crime against the environment to help provide more importance to the laws that govern all fin fish now. The environmental police have discretionary  powers that allows them a wide latitude on how the address each infraction before them . Just as the court system also has. By having the legislation become part of the law that makes all environmental infractions a crime against the environment, it changes the degree of importance to another level of how it may be adjudicated in the court system to the same levels as some crimes against humanity are prosecuted. You knew that I am sure, :howdy: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.