But the jury needs to ask: Does paying tax entitle citizens to a certain level of control in how their government operates? What if I pay a lot of tax and argue that money (my money) should be taken out of social programs for the less fortunate?
First off, Boston Legal is nothing like The Practice. Boston Legal does not take itself nearly as seriously as The Practice.
Second, I'm not sure the jury can draw conclusions or inferences from matters not introduced at trial, so unless the DA's office makes that argument, it's off-limits. I cannot remember if they did or not. Good point though, Nhi.
Third, I believe the point that Alan Shore was trying to make is that with all the freedoms and rights steadily being chipped away from the constitution, his client felt withholding her taxes was her only recourse in protesting her government. In reality, the client was a shopaholic with massive debt who simply couldn't pay her taxes. Here, Shore just pulled that argument out of his ass. While it was truthful, the basis for it was legal hackery.
The verdict, if I remember correctly was in favour of the defendant (Alan Shore's client). In Boston Legal, Alan Shore usually wins. While the show occasionally addresses serious issues, it's a cast of eccentric, off-the-wall character show, disguised as a legal dramedy.
You do raise an interesting point though. If these sort of shenanigans became common practice, it would drastically veer away from "one man, one vote". It would revert to the days of olde where the nobility, in essence, those with money would gain a controlling interest in the direction and leadership of their nation. Some would argue we're already there. For instance, if a group doesn't have a lobbying arm, their interests are inadequately represented in policy making.
However, while I was in Mombasa last year, a group of residents in the Nyali area withheld their property tax because the government hadn't repaired the roads in the area. They collectively pooled said taxes, and repaired the roads themselves. From my recollection, I don't remember there being any repercussions from the government. In this instance it worked to the people's benefit, however if this tactic were overextended to other aspects, I can see a lot of room for abuse.
First thing, you downloaded a couple seasons of The Practice and now you're suddenly an expert? ;-)
On to more serious matters. You and I have talked extensively about justice for the common man and justice for the elite. I think we agree that the two-tiered system already exists. The recent light conviction of two kids from affluent families reflects this. Had they been racing in Scarborough or Jane and Finch, jail time would have been certain.
Interesting that you raise the example of road repair in Mombasa. Apparently, we have and a similar arrangement exists. I had no idea we could do this here.
And in case you were wondering, I deliberately incorporated hyperlinks above because I can. It's strictly bragging now. :-)
Blogger is corrupting my link. Third paragraph reads:
Interesting that you raise the example of road repair in Mombasa. Apparently, we have private roads in Toronto and a similar arrangement exists. I had no idea we could do this here.
So much for bragging when I'm having technical difficulties....
Ack I just finished reading "light conviction of two kids from affluent families" and needless to say I'm feeling nauseous. A man lays dead due to recklessness, and these kids, get, what amounts to a grounding? Yuck! My heart breaks for his family and him.
Pretty links there Nhi... Show-off! I'm still trying to master italics. italics italics italics italics that's all I got oh wait... bold
9 comments:
Was the defendant trying to get out of paying her taxes? Was that her crime?
Tax evasion.
The closing argument is certainly intriguing.
But the jury needs to ask: Does paying tax entitle citizens to a certain level of control in how their government operates? What if I pay a lot of tax and argue that money (my money) should be taken out of social programs for the less fortunate?
Dangerous precedent here. What was the ruling?
First off, Boston Legal is nothing like The Practice. Boston Legal does not take itself nearly as seriously as The Practice.
Second, I'm not sure the jury can draw conclusions or inferences from matters not introduced at trial, so unless the DA's office makes that argument, it's off-limits. I cannot remember if they did or not. Good point though, Nhi.
Third, I believe the point that Alan Shore was trying to make is that with all the freedoms and rights steadily being chipped away from the constitution, his client felt withholding her taxes was her only recourse in protesting her government. In reality, the client was a shopaholic with massive debt who simply couldn't pay her taxes. Here, Shore just pulled that argument out of his ass. While it was truthful, the basis for it was legal hackery.
The verdict, if I remember correctly was in favour of the defendant (Alan Shore's client). In Boston Legal, Alan Shore usually wins. While the show occasionally addresses serious issues, it's a cast of eccentric, off-the-wall character show, disguised as a legal dramedy.
You do raise an interesting point though. If these sort of shenanigans became common practice, it would drastically veer away from "one man, one vote". It would revert to the days of olde where the nobility, in essence, those with money would gain a controlling interest in the direction and leadership of their nation. Some would argue we're already there. For instance, if a group doesn't have a lobbying arm, their interests are inadequately represented in policy making.
However, while I was in Mombasa last year, a group of residents in the Nyali area withheld their property tax because the government hadn't repaired the roads in the area. They collectively pooled said taxes, and repaired the roads themselves. From my recollection, I don't remember there being any repercussions from the government. In this instance it worked to the people's benefit, however if this tactic were overextended to other aspects, I can see a lot of room for abuse.
First thing, you downloaded a couple seasons of The Practice and now you're suddenly an expert? ;-)
On to more serious matters. You and I have talked extensively about justice for the common man and justice for the elite. I think we agree that the two-tiered system already exists. The recent light conviction of two kids from affluent families reflects this. Had they been racing in Scarborough or Jane and Finch, jail time would have been certain.
Interesting that you raise the example of road repair in Mombasa. Apparently, we have and a similar arrangement exists. I had no idea we could do this here.
And in case you were wondering, I deliberately incorporated hyperlinks above because I can. It's strictly bragging now. :-)
Blogger is corrupting my link. Third paragraph reads:
Interesting that you raise the example of road repair in Mombasa. Apparently, we have private roads in Toronto and a similar arrangement exists. I had no idea we could do this here.
So much for bragging when I'm having technical difficulties....
AAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!! I lost my comments again!
touché Nhi... but I do know Boston Legal, so... prrrrtttt!
Ack I just finished reading "light conviction of two kids from affluent families" and needless to say I'm feeling nauseous. A man lays dead due to recklessness, and these kids, get, what amounts to a grounding? Yuck!
My heart breaks for his family and him.
Pretty links there Nhi... Show-off! I'm still trying to master italics.
italics
italics
italics
italics
that's all I got oh wait...
bold
I just caught a re-run of this episode, and Alan Shore actually lost; the sentence: $1000.00 and 30 days suspended.
Post a Comment