[Still Thinking]

I know, so even more important that they should not be allowed to persecute, er, prosecute him based on a law that is internally contradictory. The standards for criminal prosecution are normally HIGHER than civil, burden of proof and so on. Also, the government should be held to a HIGHER standard than a civil litigant. They’re the government. They should have to pick one interpretation publicly and stick with it, not which ever one produces the results they like in this particular case. That’s the same as having no law at all and they just prosecute you cause they can. Now I’ll admit that issues like this are supposed to be handled on appeal, but aside from that, this is my opinion and I’m sticking to it.

[thefrankbaum]

I don't disagree with you conceptually, but I've seen enough, especially in tax cases, to know that the government isn't bound by mere logic. Further, they can argue that their interpretation policy *is* the higher of the two amounts, as such an approach is keeping with the "spirit" of the law, etc.

Personally, I hope this guys beats the snot out of the IRS, since I do think the "legal tender" argument puts the IRS in a box, but we shall see.