I am FUMING mad!!!!!!!!!!!!

[~Stella~]

First off, my original statement about the tax fraud, was half kidding, but it turned into a debate.


As for my statement, sure it was a little simplified, but I assure you that it is quite true. ( I did not mean it in reference to prosecuting this specific case, since that would be silly and the IRS wouldn't prosecute you unless of course you did not pay up. Also they would not fine you unless they did have solid proof. ) What I meant was, lawyers use assumptions to discredit witnesses or plaintiff/defendent in front of a jury ( or a judge ). They paint a picture of the type of person they are in order to show the probablity that someones actions are very likely, or to show that someones testimony cannot be trusted due to prior transgressions. It doesn't matter how much time I have spent in a court room. I have a family member that is a lawyer and a county judge ( not that it matters much since this is pretty basic stuff ). If you refute these simple trial basics, you are the silly one.:thumbup:

It's a complicated issue, not nearly as simple as you've stated. Whether an individual has a rap sheet of drug offenses (or assault charges or whatever) a mile long is likely to be guilty of another similar offense is totally different than suggesting that because someone is guilty of certain Craigslist (or was if FB?) transgressions (legal though they may be) is also guilty of illegal conduct. In fact - most naughty acts like that are not even admissible unless they are extremely pertinent to the case - and even then will not be permitted if they are overly prejudicial. For example, a DWI charge from 5 years ago is absolutely not going to be allowed in court to prove you breached your business contract this year, KWIM? It just doesn't work like that.

Suggesting someone has broken a law that they have not broken is considered in some states to be (civil) libel (or slander - depending on the format, obviously) per se (meaning the only defense would be actual proof of the crime). Should your libelous activity be brought up in court the next time you get a speeding ticket? Of course not - that's just goofy. And a big waste of time - which judges tend to get pretty grumpy about.

My point is that there are some very specific reasons to bring prior bad acts in, but to theorize that attorneys can just bring in any old fact, completely unrelated to the case at hand, into the case to prove their point...well, that's the stuff of TV courtrooms. And it makes for good drama, but like so many other things on TV - it just doesn't happen in the real world.

That said, I like your username and I've liked some of your other posts, so I'd be willing to hold hands and sing Kumbaya at this point. It is Valentine's Day and all.

Point taken but as long as a lawyer can illustrate any pattern (lying, cheating, stealing ) thats on record, they can cast doubt on a person. It doesn't have to be a crime they were previously convicted of. If someone lies during sworn testomony, it can cast doubt on everything else that they testify. However, this has been blown way out of proportion and I do not think you understood what I was saying in my original comment. You made the claim that nothing in the OPs comments indicate tax fraud. My point was that there are ways to logically guess at something. I did not mean taking this person to court. I am saying that behavior can dictate probability. I was comparing how one can arrive at that assumption in a similar way that a lawyer thinks or works. If this person has a apparent pattern of underhanded tactics I would also assume that those under handed tactics apply to other aspects of their business. Whether that would end up being right or not, would be a gamble to a degree.

If someone lies during sworn testimony it is like an Easter egg full of chocolaty goodness for the opposing counsel. I drool at the thought of it. And of course it will cast doubt on them - they just committed perjury, for god's sake!

The rest - I can see what you are saying in a theoretical sense, but as a practical matter, things don't happen quite like you seem to think.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

It's a complicated issue, not nearly as simple as you've stated. Whether an individual has a rap sheet of drug offenses (or assault charges or whatever) a mile long is likely to be guilty of another similar offense is totally different than suggesting that because someone is guilty of certain Craigslist (or was if FB?) transgressions (legal though they may be) is also guilty of illegal conduct. In fact - most naughty acts like that are not even admissible unless they are extremely pertinent to the case - and even then will not be permitted if they are overly prejudicial. For example, a DWI charge from 5 years ago is absolutely not going to be allowed in court to prove you breached your business contract this year, KWIM? It just doesn't work like that.

Suggesting someone has broken a law that they have not broken is considered in some states to be (civil) libel (or slander - depending on the format, obviously) per se (meaning the only defense would be actual proof of the crime). Should your libelous activity be brought up in court the next time you get a speeding ticket? Of course not - that's just goofy. And a big waste of time - which judges tend to get pretty grumpy about.

My point is that there are some very specific reasons to bring prior bad acts in, but to theorize that attorneys can just bring in any old fact, completely unrelated to the case at hand, into the case to prove their point...well, that's the stuff of TV courtrooms. And it makes for good drama, but like so many other things on TV - it just doesn't happen in the real world.

That said, I like your username and I've liked some of your other posts, so I'd be willing to hold hands and sing Kumbaya at this point. It is Valentine's Day and all.

Point taken but as long as a lawyer can illustrate any pattern (lying, cheating, stealing ) thats on record, they can cast doubt on a person. It doesn't have to be a crime they were previously convicted of. If someone lies during sworn testomony, it can cast doubt on everything else that they testify. However, this has been blown way out of proportion and I do not think you understood what I was saying in my original comment. You made the claim that nothing in the OPs comments indicate tax fraud. My point was that there are ways to logically guess at something. I did not mean taking this person to court. I am saying that behavior can dictate probability. I was comparing how one can arrive at that assumption in a similar way that a lawyer thinks or works. If this person has a apparent pattern of underhanded tactics I would also assume that those under handed tactics apply to other aspects of their business. Whether that would end up being right or not, would be a gamble to a degree.

If someone lies during sworn testimony it is like an Easter egg full of chocolaty goodness for the opposing counsel. I drool at the thought of it. And of course it will cast doubt on them - they just committed perjury, for god's sake!

The rest - I can see what you are saying in a theoretical sense, but as a practical matter, things don't happen quite like you seem to think.

I think you are confused at what I think. You failed to even grasp my initial comparison, and turned it into a big law debate. Furthermore, you jumped on the perjury example as if thats the only example under the sun. It also does not have to be a sworn testimony. It could be during interviews with law enforcementc different stories given than what is given during testimony. All of this casts doubt, all of this would be admissable in court. ( unless there was some special circumstance for instance where something was coerced ) Anyway, I am done with this debate, its run on way too long.

 

[~Stella~]

Point taken but as long as a lawyer can illustrate any pattern (lying, cheating, stealing ) thats on record, they can cast doubt on a person. It doesn't have to be a crime they were previously convicted of. If someone lies during sworn testomony, it can cast doubt on everything else that they testify. However, this has been blown way out of proportion and I do not think you understood what I was saying in my original comment. You made the claim that nothing in the OPs comments indicate tax fraud. My point was that there are ways to logically guess at something. I did not mean taking this person to court. I am saying that behavior can dictate probability. I was comparing how one can arrive at that assumption in a similar way that a lawyer thinks or works. If this person has a apparent pattern of underhanded tactics I would also assume that those under handed tactics apply to other aspects of their business. Whether that would end up being right or not, would be a gamble to a degree.

If someone lies during sworn testimony it is like an Easter egg full of chocolaty goodness for the opposing counsel. I drool at the thought of it. And of course it will cast doubt on them - they just committed perjury, for god's sake!

The rest - I can see what you are saying in a theoretical sense, but as a practical matter, things don't happen quite like you seem to think.

I think you are confused at what I think. You failed to even grasp my initial comparison, and turned it into a big law debate. Furthermore, you jumped on the perjury example as if thats the only example under the sun. It also does not have to be a sworn testimony. It could be that during interviews with law enforcement. Different stories given than what is given during testimony. All of this casts doubt, all of this would be admissable in court. ( unless there was some special circumstance for instance where something was coerced ) Anyway, I am done with this debate, its run on way too long.

OK. And yes, lying to law enforcement in the current case during the course of a criminal investigation, may be admissible in court. And it probably should be. Still, that's apples and oranges to the original situation which still doesn't make any sense. That is, narking on someone to the IRS for potential tax evasion when the only evidence you have is that they are a jerk.

 

[Rekd]

I'm gonna go ahead and call shenanigans on this thread. :er:

Sabrina has (again) laid out some pretty tasty bait and (again) reeled in just about everyone on TPF.

GG Girl! :lmao:

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Wait! Is Sabrina an Alt of KP007?


I should probably flag her as troll on my ignore list.

 

[Rekd]

The jig is up! (And gone...)

 

[bigtwinky]

Frakin frak.... I need to spend more time here to figure out who the trollers are.

Ah well, at least the thread came out with some good advice and a decent debate

 

[MohaimenK]

hey guys! how's it going? haven't been in here for the past few days. what I miss?? :scratch:

 

[bigtwinky]

shamrocks and shenanigans

 

[KmH]

What I am confused, is it $400 after expenses of before?

For expenses to reduce your income they have to be deductable expenses.

Here is where it gets tricky: If you don't make a profit in at least 3 of the first 5 years you are in business, the IRS will reclassify your business as a hobby, disallow any business deductions you took in that 5 year period, and require you pay back tax on the recalculated income.

Business or Hobby? Answer Has Implications for Deductions

The IRS presumes that an activity is carried on for profit if it makes a profit during at least three of the last five tax years, including the current year...

If an activity is not for profit, losses from that activity may not be used to offset other income.

Something else not yet mentioned is being sure you get a resell tax-exempt certificate so you are not unneccessarily paying in-state sales tax. Your state will likely also expect you to pay Use Tax on whatever you buy by catalog, telephone, online, etc from outside the state.

Nothing hurts a business worse than unexpected tax bills for several hundreds or thousands of dollars.

 

[SabrinaO]

I'm confused, some things you say kind of contradict each other. You say up top you are doing free shoots, but then near the end, you ask if you should lower your prices? Do you mean you will pay people to shoot them?

There are always varying levels of photographers to chose from. You have the bottom feeders, those who offer crap images for cheap, you have the middle of the road people, and you have the high end full time working pros. Prices vary at each level. If you truly want to make a name for yourself, the first thing to do is get yourself out of the bottom feeder level. Let your work speak for itself. It will be harder to build a client base, but if you build a base with good solid images, and not just dirt cheap prices, you are building a longer lasting client relationship. Again, it will take more time. Quick money is doing dirt cheap crap.

The photography market is huge with competition. Digital is so accessible and can produce good results even in automatic. So someone can shoot 600 images and get 10 keepers. I prefer to shoot 60 images and have 60 keepers (not like I do, but I prefer that )

I think that your reaction, while called for, is wrong. You should take the highroad and be professional. If you know what you did was not professional, then why did you do it? Do you expect to charge professional rates and get away with not acting professionally towards clients?

What you posted on your wall is seen by her fan list. All they see is two immature people posting sh!t at each other. If I contacted you for photos, and she contacted me, I'd compare and see the crap you guys are posting and say to hell with both of you, I'll find someone who can at least act professionally. You need to walk the walk. Nothing stops you from sending her a message or what not.

I've found that clients who always want dirt cheap stuff are often the harder ones to work with. And really, the bottom feeders can have them. I was asked to shoot a 14 hour wedding, provide all edited images on a DVD for $400. No thanks. Not even under the excuse of needing more portfolio stuff. I have set a standard for what I want to accomplish and will stick to that.

It is hard to have a consistent client base in any business. Nothing different in photography. Don't expect to get one when you are at the learning and evolving stages. But the one thing I can suggest, for the few you get, make damn sure they get a good service, a professional service, and top notch images so they WILL come back. Engagement or love sessions lead to weddings. Weddings will lead to maternity. Maternity will lead to newborn. Newborn will lead to family pictures. All the while referrals making their way out.

You should check the Facebook help pages for the blocking. I know when I block someone on my personal page, they dont see me, my images or anything I post. As I am the owner of the fan page, I would assume that blocking carries on to the page, but confirm with them.

I guess people get what they pay for.

Thanks you had a lot of good info here... but this?:

Aren't you shooting for free? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Haven't you ever heard of people building their portfolio? I am offering free newborn shoots only.

 

[Croissant Seven]

Cut the brake lines on her car.

Take pictures of the accident, and post them on her FB wall, claiming that she was totally wasted and got arrested for DUI.

Hey, you know...

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Wait! Is Sabrina an Alt of KP007?


I should probably flag her as troll on my ignore list.

how do you know? If thats the case, now I dont feel bad for hijacking the thread with Stella to debate nonsense.

 

[Blitz55]

You need to go to war with this *****.
You need to out market her.
Look, be as pissed as you want but in this economy right now cheep wins out and most people are not artistic enough to tell a good photo from a not so good one as they are just use to snapping shots with their I-Phone.

You need to show people why you're photo's are worth it. Why someone would want to pay a bit more.

I know you don't want to hear it because she is really really lame for doing this but she really sounds like she is putting in a lot of effort to get every customer she can, even if it seems underhanded. At the end of the day, who has the customers and who doesn't? That's what matters. I mean she has already chased one person off.

Take some photos that look almost exactly like some of the ones she has, then take some really nice photos of the same pose or something and educate your clients or potential clients by putting together a piece that shows what makes those photos bad and yours good.

Attack her where she is vulnerable, which is her lack of photographic artistic skill.

Go To The Mattresses. (If you have watched Godfather or at the very least You've Got Mail you will understand)

Good Luck!
Take her down!

 

[timlair]

I shot a boudior seminar a few months ago, it was a paid thing, and taught posing and how to use the lights....
I posted a few pictures on facebook and I had a local boudior/pinup photographer send me nasty mean messages about how she is the ONLY photog in my area allowed to do Pin Up because she did it first!
Ummmmm what? Pin up photography was done before we were born!

I just laughed and let it slide.

But we work with many of the same models and have similar friends and I hear it through the sewing circle that she talks badly about me every chance she gets..... sigh.

This made me laugh hysterically. I want to know someone like this, so I can punch them in the face.