Miscellaneous News

Original Poster
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 35553
Post news 'n' shit.

Lauryn Hill: I didn't file taxes because I was 'underground'

[quote]
Lauryn Hill is publicly addressing the charges that have been brought against her, in which she's accused of failing to file her income tax returns for three straight years.

The Grammy-winning singer and rapper explained Friday via her Tumblr account that she didn't file because she had gone ?underground? to protect herself and her family.


The mother of six is facing three counts of misdemeanor failure to file income tax returns from 2005 to 2007, during which she's said to have earned more than $1.6 million, according to a statement from U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman.

Hill says in her Tumblr statement that her intention "has always been to get this situation rectified,? the 37-year-old New Jersey native wrote about her tax situation. She explained that she ?left a more mainstream and public life, in order to wean both myself, and my family, away from a lifestyle that required distortion and compromise as a means for maintaining it.?

?When I was working consistently without being affected by the interferences mentioned above, I filed and paid my taxes,? the former Fugees star wrote. ?This only stopped when it was necessary to withdraw from society, in order to guarantee the safety and well-being of myself and my family.?

To that end, "I have remained what others would consider underground? for the past "several years," Hill further explained of her lengthy absence from the spotlight.

"I did not deliberately abandon my fans, nor did I deliberately abandon any responsibilities, but I did however put my safety, health and freedom and the freedom, safety and health of my family first over all other material concerns! I also embraced my right to resist a system intentionally opposing my right to whole and integral survival," she continued.

"I conveyed all of this when questioned as to why I did not file taxes during this time period. Obviously, the danger I faced was not accepted as reasonable grounds for deferring my tax payments, as authorities, who despite being told all of this, still chose to pursue action against me, as opposed to finding an alternative solution."

While this issue is being sorted out, Hill's returning to "what I should be doing, the way it should be done."

The singer-actress is expected to appear before a federal magistrate on June 29. She faces a maximum penalty of one year in prison as well as a $100,000 fine for each of the three charges.[/quote]

She funny.
Jun 12, 2012 6:56 AM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 35553
Sheriff: Father kills man sexually abusing his daughter

[quote](CNN) -- A Texas father caught a man sexually assaulting his 4-year-old daughter and punched him in the head repeatedly, killing him, authorities said.
The father was casually acquainted with the alleged abuser, said Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon.
Neither has been publicly identified.
The girl was left inside the family's house during the social gathering, while other members of her family were tending to horses, the sheriff said.
The alleged abuser was known for his horse-grooming abilities, Harmon said.
The father returned to the house, caught the man in the act, and stopped him by striking him in the head several times, Harmon said.
The man was pronounced dead on the scene, while the daughter was taken to a local hospital in Victoria, Texas, for examinations before being released.

The incident took place Saturday.
Harmon described the girl as "OK besides the obvious mental trauma."
Asked whether they would press charges against the father, the sheriff responded, "You have a right to defend your daughter. He acted in defense of his third person. Once the investigation is completed we will submit it to the district attorney who then submits it to the grand jury, who will decide if they will indict him."
Harmon described the dad as "very remorseful," adding that he didn't know the man was going to die.
Authorities were withholding the deceased man's name while they notified next of kin. Officials did not know immediately if he has a prior criminal history.
Lavaca County Precinct Judge Alene Lyons, who is coordinating information in the case including autopsy results, said Monday
that a preliminary autopsy report indicated the victim "died from blunt-force head and neck injuries."
"It will take six weeks to get the full report back because they also did a toxicology report," Lyons said.[/quote]

I am uncomfortable with how resolutely the opening sentence establishes the guilt of the dead dude. Maybe the guys had a disagreement and fought and the dad made up the abuse story. Maybe the dad saw something he wrongly interpreted as abuse. (Like an innocent game of nude leapfrog.)
Jun 12, 2012 7:06 AM
0 0
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 10921
wirthling;19995728
She funny.

She paranoid.

She'll probably get sent down the day Wesley Snipes is released.
Jun 12, 2012 7:07 AM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 35553
a.k.a. The thread where wirthling saves you from having to visit CNN.com yourself
Jun 12, 2012 7:10 AM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 35553
Commerce secretary takes medical leave following weekend accidents

[quote]Washington (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of Commerce John Bryson, under investigation for possible felony hit-and-run after allegedly causing two weekend car accidents in California, will take a medical leave of absence "as he undergoes tests and evaluations," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday night.
A Commerce Department spokeswoman said earlier Monday that Bryson, 68, had suffered a seizure when the two accidents occurred Saturday.
Police said Bryson was found unconscious at the wheel of his car on after the two accidents.[/quote]

Way to go, Barack Hussein Obama.
Jun 12, 2012 7:19 AM
0 0
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 26790
No, bill "Wesley Snipe'd" already! And hasn't that woman been a bit touched for years now?
Jun 12, 2012 7:20 AM
0 0
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 10921
Jun 12, 2012 7:30 AM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 35553
billtheburger;19995761Dumb-fuck couple leave child in British pub


I bet the Daily Mirror is sad that they couldn't use an even bigger font.

Jun 12, 2012 7:39 AM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 9738
Hill's reasons for not filing her taxes are an amazing amount of double-speak crappola that said nothing.

"I also embraced my right to resist a system intentionally opposing my right to whole and integral survival."

Whatever. Have fun in prison. Guess Hill truly was Mis-educated.
Jun 12, 2012 7:40 AM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 35553
Also in miscellaneous news, has the mod approval thing gone away? I haven't seen it for a while now.
Jun 12, 2012 7:41 AM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 35553
Jun 12, 2012 7:52 AM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 35553
Jun 12, 2012 7:58 AM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 35553
Jun 12, 2012 8:04 AM
0 0
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 10921
wirthling;19995775I bet the Daily Mirror is sad that they couldn't use an even bigger font.


They need to make sure the subliminal gets across:
Jun 12, 2012 8:16 AM
0 0
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 5625
I kinda liked this one from this morning:

[QUOTE]Police officers in Indiana are upset over a new law allowing residents to use deadly force against public servants, including law enforcement officers, who unlawfully enter their homes. It was signed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels in March.

The first of its kind in the United States, the law was adopted after the state Supreme Court went too far in one of its rulings last year, according to supporters. The case in question involved a man who assaulted an officer during a domestic violence call. The court ruled that there was ?no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.?[/QUOTE]

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Indiana_First_State_to_Allow_Citizens_to_Shoot_Law_Enforcement_Officers_120611


I just think that the court saying that a citizen has 'no right to reasonably resist' an illegal entry by police (otherwise known as breaking and entering) is silly. If a cop is breaking the law, he's a criminal.
Jun 12, 2012 8:28 AM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 20342
SpasticNed;19995839I kinda liked this one from this morning:



http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Indiana_First_State_to_Allow_Citizens_to_Shoot_Law_Enforcement_Officers_120611


I just think that the court saying that a citizen has 'no right to reasonably resist' an illegal entry by police (otherwise known as breaking and entering) is silly. If a cop is breaking the law, he's a criminal.
There's been a ton of cases of police entering a home illegally (sometimes without obviously being police) and shooting dogs or otherwise causing what's become their standard havoc. If the residents do anything to resist in the confusion, they get hit with a battery of charges that cause them to either spend a lot of time in jail, pay hefty fines, or lose their children or property. The Supreme Court not that long ago ruled against the claim that people have a right to resist the police's unlawful entry. So Indiana passed this law. It'll probably go down in flames the first time a high profile case breaks against the police.
Jun 12, 2012 8:49 AM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 35553
Jun 12, 2012 9:01 AM
0 0
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 5625
Esoteric Allusion;19995872There's been a ton of cases of police entering a home illegally (sometimes without obviously being police) and shooting dogs or otherwise causing what's become their standard havoc. If the residents do anything to resist in the confusion, they get hit with a battery of charges that cause them to either spend a lot of time in jail, pay hefty fines, or lose their children or property. The Supreme Court not that long ago ruled against the claim that people have a right to resist the police's unlawful entry. So Indiana passed this law. It'll probably go down in flames the first time a high profile case breaks against the police.


So you think it will be overturned?

I'm just baffled that the courts ruled that a citizen cannot reasonably resist an illegal intrusion by officers in the first place. I wonder if it's due to the fact that they're not really willing to prosecute officers for such transgressions in the first place.

I have a lot of interest in those cases, such as the mayor that was raided and had his dogs shot a few years ago:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003299.html

The entire policy behind shooting dogs is ridiculous. The officers performing these raids are wearing combat armor designed to resist stabbing instruments and bullets, so virtually all dogs present no actual danger other than as a distraction.

edit: I just started perusing through your link - that's quite disturbing, and more cases than I thought.
Jun 12, 2012 9:20 AM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 20342
SpasticNed;19995929

edit: I just started perusing through your link - that's quite disturbing, and more cases than I thought.
I've read literally hundreds of such stories. And if you follow the details of many of those stories, you can tell that shooting dogs as a matter of course has become standard operating procedure at many departments. The SWAT raid stories are ghastly, but the really disturbing stories involve how commonplace it is for officers to shoot dogs when they are simply going through yards to get somewhere, responding to people who called them to a house to make a report, etc. It's clear they feel entitled to kill dogs at will regardless of actual threat.
Jun 12, 2012 9:31 AM
0 0
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 29387
Jun 12, 2012 9:44 AM
0 0