Talk:Walter Anderson (businessman)

NPOV
Short and to the point - but a little confrontational, no? Grutness|hello? 09:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gross POV in title
Walter Anderson did more than just evade taxes. The title of this article should be changed especially since it is grossly insulting to Mr. Anderson. Among other things, he also funded a space business and was the sponsor for the CATS Prize. -- KarlHallowell (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not actually POV because he's convicted, and this is a matter of public record.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess the question might be whether it's undue weight. Dunno.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't actually like the article name, but he probably is most notable for being the biggest tax evasion case in US legal history.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The title slanders Walt
What is the agenda of the person that is slandering Walt with that title? If a court finds that Walt is NOT a tax evader will this article issue a correction and an apology to Walt? I hope so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.17.118 (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article more carefully. Walter Anderson was convicted of tax evasion, according to the article and its sources. The sources indicate he actually admitted his guilt. The statement beginning with the phrase "If a court finds that Walt is NOT a tax evader" is thus meaningless, as is the incorrect use of the word "slandering." Famspear (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Famspear, you are a lawyer. You tell me. If the government throws someone in a hole for 7 months with rats and insects and does not let the captive defend himself, and the captive confesses to a trumped up charge to save his own life, does that make the captive guilty?

Walt is innocent. It is the government that is corrupt and guilty. This will be proven in time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.59.205.187 (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps YOU, Mr. Lawyer, should read the United States Tax Court records more carefully.

http://www.justiceforwalt.com/Records/090612_order.pdf

THAT source documents the IRS actually admitted THEIR guilt. And their admission was not coerced under inhuman captivity and life threatening conditions; unlike Walt’s admission.

So the IRS admits they were wrong about 3 of the 5 years, but you still cling to the other two years. The facts will come out. Walt will be fully exonerated and those behind all this that railroaded him will be exposed. You will see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.59.205.187 (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * He's still convicted for the remaining two years, and it wouldn't matter that much if he was convicted for the remaining two minutes. Until the time that there's a reliable source that states that he was coerced and that he has been exonerated, I don't think you can really expect the wikipedia to support the theory you've outlined.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

How many Wikipedia articles are about individual people? How many of those people have been convicted of a crime at some point in their life? For all or even most of these people does the title of their Wikipedia article label them by their crime? NO.

Why is Wikipedia treating Walt worse than other individuals in the encyclopedia with convictions? I assume it is because of someone's agenda against Walt, NOT out of proper encyclopedia protocol.

Walt is a Telephone Entrepreneur and a Philanthropist. His encyclopedia title should describe him as such. His tax conviction should be fully explained. If he is exonerated than that also should be fully explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.185.147 (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

At this link Walt speaks in an internet radio interview about his legal case and plans to continue his philanthropic assistance of space development: http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1237 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.185.147 (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear anonymous user: No, I don't need to read the United States Tax Court records "more carefully." Perhaps you should read the record more carefully. You are arguing, essentially, that Walter Anderson is not guilty. Guilt or lack of guilt is not determined in a United States Tax Court proceeding. Guilt or lack of guilt is a criminal matter. In federal tax crime cases, guilty or not guilty verdicts are rendered only in a United States District Court. According to the sources, Anderson was found guilty. You are quite wrong. Famspear (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)