What would you like to know?
Thread: Anyone following this?
I saw it last night, not really following it, but have taken it under advisement and I will check it pretty much daily.
I do not know the parties involved or have even a semi-accurate idea of what happened. While I do tend to be curious, since this person has gotten themselves into an issue with the law however proper or improper it might be, the less it is talked about, the better their odds of a positive outcome.
There is a rumor I talk a lot so I tend to shy away from participation in such threads simply because I honestly believe the parties involved should not be discussing it at all.
If anyone is not comfortable sending money, I can respect that, I only hope that if I get in a bind, I can expect the same.
I guess all I am saying is....we are all in it together, or we fight our own fight. I for one will do my best to be there for each of you that wish to fight for our RIGHT...whether it be here or across the country.
You said following it, not contributing to it.
I have not done so yet, I might do so in the future.
I am still trying to figure out why they have not set up a fund for it instead of direct mail to the firm. I do not like that part, it is unusual, not saying it ain't legit, just not the normal path one takes.
Statistically, less than 5% will donate a dime. Lots of folks talk about it, but very few actually do it.
If in fact something similar is not done and her case becomes some what expensive and donations do wind up rolling in and amount to a large sum, a sizable tax burden could be left over at the end. Typically when a legal defense fund is set up, it is set up in such a manner to prevent this through such a thing as an irrevocable charitable trust which is pretty bound up by law and a board, not a single person distributes it. Reporting is fairly reasonable and banks are pretty used to such things.
There may be even more paths to follow, others with more benefit to the recipient. Checks directly to pay the law firm are going to be clearly defined as taxable income and subject to as much as 39% taxation, not the best use of the donated funds IMHO.
As is evident from a few other post, I can be a bit abrasive, especially when frustrated, if such came through in these postings, disregard it as there was no intent.
I really do care a lot about such issues being handled correctly and an irrevocable charitable trust may well not be the best way to handle the situation, but something that protects the person charged from a tax burden in the end is quite important. While we may not like how gun owners are often treated by the government, it pales in comparison to how the IRS can treat anyone.
If it is suspected the whole total will be 5k or under, it very well might be an issue, but seeing them get a 4k tax bill in April next year because they were not protected from it properly IMHO is a waste of money.
I knew Wisconsin was no place for 2A people and this further confirms it. You are braver than I am to stay in such a jackboot infested state. Good luck.
Last edited by zekester; 07-22-2010 at 06:46 AM.
So nice of the prosecutors not to cite her... as if they had any choice...
Last edited by peterarthur; 07-22-2010 at 10:15 AM.