|
Mr. Brown's War and the income tax rebellion
My wife and I discussed the situation brewing in Plainfield, N.H. where Ed and Elaine Brown are bunkered down for a standoff with the Federal Goverment over the issue of income tax evasion.
What say ye of their cause? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7_DgSep-ns |
Quote:
[YT="Government VS Ed and Elaine Brown?"]t7_DgSep-ns[/YT] Seventeen minutes and Fourteen seconds- what does it say? |
I say he is a moron and deserves whatever happens to him.
|
Quote:
Therefore, I pondered: "What do all of my astute friends at AFF think of this?" Have we any sympathizers in the house? Does anyone believe that he might be right about some of this? And even if he is right about some of this, he seems to be going about it all wrong. Anyone else following this story? |
Not following this story, but I am opposed to the current income tax structure.
I do believe it is still listed as voluntary, but apparently that is just in theory. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The Browns are citing God. I suppose that they are some sort of Christian. I thought about writing the Browns and showing them what Jesus taught about paying taxes...maybe they would concede...you think? |
A few years back, I seem to remember a woman in Virginia, I think it was, sueing the government over taxes, and winning.
But, my memory may be faulty. |
Quote:
|
http://www.showedthelaw.blogspot.com/
Ed and Elaine Brown went to court over this. They asked the prosecutor and the judge, anyone, to "show them the law" that says they are liable for income taxes. Nobody "showed them the law". They became convinced that the court proceedings against them were a sham, since nobody was willing (or able) to cite the actual law they were being prosecuted for violating. So they walked out of the proceedings. Warrants for their arrest were issued but they told the US Marshals charged with arresting them that since they were convicted in absentia under a sham proceeding without due process of law, they were "done with the system" and that any attempt to "arrest or detain" them would be met with force used in self defense. On June 7th, an attempt on the property was made by several sniper teams, but was called off due to unexpected media attention. Since then, they have had their power and phone (including cell phones) turned off. However, they have stated they are fully prepared to survive however long it takes. Apparently, they have lots and lots of food and water stored up. They have also had an unending stream of visitors and supporters bringing more supplies. They even have a radio broadcast every day, Monday through Friday, on Republic Broadcasting Network, which is done via cell phones donated to them by visitors and supporters. They have repeatedly stated they do not want violence but will use force to defend their lives and property if necessary. They have also stated they are fully prepared to die. They have repeatedly said they have "made their peace with Jesus Christ" and are ready to die for what they believe in - which is that there is no actual law requiring the average American (including themselves) to pay any "income taxes" to the IRS, that the IRS and the income tax system is a criminal fraud operating under color of law, and that law enforcement agencies that attempt to enforce said "laws" are simply unconstitutional criminal organizations preying on the unknowing and the fearful. They believe their stand is necessary, for they think that it is unAmerican to submit to unConstitutional "government" (in their belief). They have a LARGE base of supporters in the patriot/Constitutionalist movement, and both of them have been active in the Constitutionalist movement for decades. There are many people watching carefully what is going on in Plainfield, New Hampshire. And there are many people who believe the June 7th incident is indicative of the federal governments intention to simply sweep in and kill the Browns a la Ruby Ridge and Waco. (By the way, Randy Weaver, whose son and wife were killed by FBI snipers at Ruby Ridge, is there also, having arrived last week.) Remember, the United States of America came into existence as an independent nation because some folks got tired of paying taxes they felt were unjust, and were unwilling to compromise on the issue... and were also willing to fight and die for their convictions. www.makethestand.com Ed and Elaine's radio broadcast is Monday through Friday at 1:00 pm Central time on Republic Broadcasting Network - http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/...p?cmd=schedule http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/...cmd=listenlive |
Quote:
|
Quote:
"But it ain't fair!" I think Jesus would tell them to get used to that. |
There was a large Baptist church at Indianapolis that would not take out taxes they had a royal battle finally the IRS siezed the building. I thought at the last minute someone would give but nope they carried the pastor out on stretcher. Took their property.
|
Contact your congressman and get him on board to vote for the Fair Tax.
Congressman John Linder of Georgia is the main sponsor. |
Romans 13
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. 8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. 11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. 12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. 13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. 14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. |
better all move to the depth of the jungle in Brazil. My son needs helpers...
|
Quote:
|
I think some of the posters on this thread are missing the point completely. Mr and Mrs Brown are not saying it is not fair to pay taxes. They are not "anti tax". They have no problem paying a tax (as evidenced by the fact they have never complained about paying any lawful tax.)
But that is the key to the whole issue here - is the "income tax" they are accused of not paying an actual, lawful tax? Mr and Mrs Brown have simply asked to be shown the law which makes them liable for the Title 26 "income tax". Nobody, of course, has done so, and therefore they went to court over it. Now, the issue has escalated beyond the legality of the income tax and the IRS' "collection efforts" to the issue of the lawfulness of the court proceedings which found him guilty in absentia. The issue is not, and never has been, whether paying taxes is right or wrong, or fair or not. The issue is and always has been whether the "tax" demanded by the IRS is in fact lawful, and whether or not a court can deprive a citizen of due process protections (such as being able to present evidence and call witnesses, which were denied to the Brown's in their abortive court episode.) |
I am not the man that Ed Brown is and I am not making this stand but so many of these posts completely miss the point.
Render unto Ceaser... yep... but it's not Ceasers. There is no law. All Ed Brown has asked is "show me the law". He has told them in no uncertain terms that if they can show him the law where he owes this tax he will pay it in full. He pays local taxes, he pays state taxes... he pays all taxes where the law can be demonstrated that he owes the tax. So we can all sit here and say he is crazy but it all boils down to the fact that the rest of us would rather pay the ransom than demand we be free from unlawful taxation. There is no law and they cannot show it to him. But that won't stop them from killing him in his own home and taking his property for themselves. |
exactly... People that start throwing the scripture RENDER UNTO CAESAR WHAT IS CAESAR'S yada yada... Have no clue what they are talking about. the ISSUE is not about paying LAWFUL taxes. The current Income Tax is being misapplied and the governement knows it. You as a individual are not liabel for a income tax unless you make a "profit" which is better known as a profits tax. Labor is an exchange of money for services thus not a profit. Whether the 16th ammendment was ratified or not matters little. The Supreme Court when giving it's ruling on the 16th said it gave congress NO KNEW TAXING POWERS! People did not stop nor did the goverment stop going after the taxes. That is the reason for the differences in the IRC in the 50's and now when it comestothe definition of Income. As the Supreme court rendered as corporate profit or profits tax. The IRS Revenue agents has such little power itpathetic yet the break the laws ALL the time. Seizing property without a court order while having nor power by law to do so. As the laws they cite are not for INCOME TAXES but other taxes. When shown to them they ignore it and don't care.
I have fought the IRS for years and TRUST ME THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW! I know many Senators and Congressman and they know the issue at hand but know there is little they can do. Watch the movie on Google or Youtube "Freedom from Facism". Also watch many other Tax ISSUE movies. The thing is both parties are pathetic and don't deal with the real issues. |
Actually Digging4truth the states have no authority either as they use a piggy back system to the Fed on Income Tax. They can't show a law either. Some states don't have a income tax. The provision in State law usually just follow the IRC and Section 26 with usual reference back to the IRC.
|
Quote:
But as far as the Browns go... they live in New Hampshire and there is no state income tax in NH. |
I have fought the IRS for years been through it all with them. They won't provide a law. Never have and never will. It's a total sham and sadly most are ignorant to IF CAESAR HATH NOT SAID I SHALL NOT RENDER! If the law does not make a wage earner pay "income taxes" which is a profits tax. Then I have no tribute to render thus ANYTHING that is forced from me is extortion. Since I a wage earner live on exhchanging service for money thus not a profit. Oh well I could be on this AAAAALLLL day. Later!
|
Quote:
|
No!
|
Quote:
|
Filing TONS of paper work and challenging the current agents to abide by the law which they never do. Setting up a huge CLEAR paper trail of my intents.
2nd they have to find out if I have any income by there standards. Which I don't. I am a little fish in a huge pond. |
Quote:
Plan on launching a home business soon.. wonder what the laws say about.... |
Quote:
|
Chan what do you not understand about "conferred no new taxing powers?"
“The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . . .” — United States Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916) “The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects...” — United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918) |
Quote:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. Notice the following from Artilce I, Section 9: (No capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment). This is the part that the 16th amendment changed. |
Chan is the last person I would get into a debate with about what the letter of the law actually says. lol.
|
Quote:
Basically the same statement but on a religious level rather than political. The Congress is made up of men....errant men... The fact that we went to war in Iraq is sufficient enough evidence that there was reason to do so? You know this isn't a true statement Chan. Quote:
Here are a few court cases where the definition of income was addressed. The first 2 are working up to it but the rest pretty much deal directly with the issue at hand. Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746.(1883) "Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right of any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment... It has been well said that, the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable..." Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931) "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." Edwards v. Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916) "The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income 'derived' from many different sources; one does not 'derive income' by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute." Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930) "The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it... It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services." Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969) "... whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income ... Congress has taxed income not compensation." "There is a clear distinction between `profit' and 'wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment- - - a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor." Emanuel J. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Company 247 US 179 (1918) "Yet it is plain, we think, that by the true intent and meaning of the Act the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income. Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. As was said in Stratton's Independence vs. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415: 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'" Merchant's Loan & Trust Company v. Smietanka 255 US 509 (1921) "It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word 'income' has the same meaning as the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the Act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the Act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, Supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include 'profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets,' there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court.” Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916) "... by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, that is by testing the tax not by what it was -- a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed. " Burnet v. Harmel 287 US 103 (1932) "before the 1921 Act this Court had indicated (see Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, 64L.ed 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570, 40 S. Ct. 189), what it later held, that 'income,' as used in the revenue acts taxing income, adopted since the 16th Amendment, has the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909. Merchants; Loan & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 519, 65 L.ed. 751, 755, 15 A.L.R. 1305, 41 S. Ct. 386; see Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe. 247 U.S. 330, 335, 62 L.ed. 114, 1147, 38 S. Ct. 540." Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, (1937) "Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and, in such connection, gain means profit... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal." Oliver v. Halstead, 196 VA 992; 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955) "There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor." Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21 (1978) "Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two in withholding or similar controversies.” |
Quote:
You said, "The Congress is made up of men....errant men..." Well, so is the Supreme Court (which, by the way, does not have any authority under Article III to "interpret" the Constitution or its amendments). |
Quote:
|
Quote:
(a) General definition Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items; (2) Gross income derived from business; (3) Gains derived from dealings in property; (4) Interest; (5) Rents; (6) Royalties; (7) Dividends; (8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments; (9) Annuities; (10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts; (11) Pensions; (12) Income from discharge of indebtedness; (13) Distributive share of partnership gross income; (14) Income in respect of a decedent; and (15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust. Also... (a) In general Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction). |
Quote:
If income were wages or compensation for labor wouldn't that be on the list and most likely first? The list demonstrates the intent. The incomes listed are business related and do not have to do with compensation for labor. |
It did not define what INCOME was. Notice is is are reference to what "Gross" Income is not Income. You cannot define a Income by saying Gross Income is "INCOME" The term "ALL" is giving reference to what Gross is. The Supreme Court has said the IRC does not define Income. Another thing, Income to be taxed due to all the decisions previosly listed does not mean everything that comes in. It is "profits" based off of capital investment or those off of laborers of a business. Otherwise businesses would pay income on everything thus it is on the "profits." READ THE DECISIONS! Income by the courts has been narrowed down to certain activity and "GAIN." I as a WAGE EARNER do not make PROFIT I lose time of my life and off from my day and thus exchange loss of time and energy for money. Thus it is not a profit. The compensation for services or fees is a direct result of business activities thus create profits.
Notice how the definiton in 61 changed AFTER 1939 The 1939 Code said "gross income includes income, gains, and profits derived from salaries, wages, and compensation for services..." Notice they took salaries and wages out! U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F2d 400, cert denied, 429 U.S. 918, 50 L.Ed.2d 283, 97 S.Ct. 310 (1976) "...the general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code..." |
Quote:
Quote:
As for Supreme Court decisions, they're not amendments to the Constitution and they're not legislation. |
"I agree that the Internal Revenue Code doesn't specifically define what "income" is but we can get a good idea of what it is from what the code says, e.g. "Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived." For the purpose of this discussion, "gross income" is synonymous with "income" in that it's what you or I have before the government gets its grubby hands on it and before we avail ourselves of any of the government-granted "deductions."
Major issue with what you are trying to interpret "into" the section vs define from the section. I may derive "income" from a business transaction but am I taxed on the total transactions or the profits in total from my business dealing? THe courts have decided on what "income" is and it is "profits" or "gain" Again read the decisions and yes it does matter as congress has never given a "legislative" definition that I know of. The courts have decided through variable means why it did defined a certain way. The end result I don't make profits. Seems to be you want ot ignore the Supreme Court because it conflicts with you basis. Also whether it says including (but not limited to)" and the phrase "and similar items." means nothing really and is weak and PURE speculation. Why in the world would they take out the most CLEAR point of what "income" is by definition in relationship to the masses? Especially when it was CLEARLY defined before. To say well it might not but it can "allude" to is simple government trying to keep the issue vague when they know it's not. Why is wages and salaries not listed! The reason BECAUSE IT IS NOT PROFITS or GAINS! Notice the previous wording on that as well. It is an exchange, thus equal! I agree the wording does cause confusion and yes it was done on purpose. The most two basic ways of gaining "alleged" income not defined and taken out hmmmm geee wonder why!!!! Then obscure wording used. the clear meaning of the courts on the decisions is clear "income" is not just ANYTHING brought in! That is the WHOLE point of the previous court decisions. It is profits FROM CAPITAL or LABOR. I as a person who earns wages or salary do not as I have a even exhange. A business most of the time has laborers involved in which cost(having workers to fullfill obligation on behalf of the business vs benefit(the cost of workers being less than services or product rendered) is realized by the company. Thus as you know the company or business makes a "profit" in the end. As I a worker cannot have a profit as I am of equal exchange. "As for Supreme Court decisions, they're not amendments to the Constitution and they're not legislation." You ought to know better than that. They both work hand in hand! Also is the rents, interest, royalties etc... in Section 61 sources or income? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.