Update on Ed Brown: The Feds are Moving in for the Loot
From The Boston Channel:
Feds To Court: Seize Tax Evader's Property
Jury Says Couple Must Forfeit Property
"Federal prosecutors are asking a court to seize the property of two convicted tax evaders.
Prosecutors filed papers last week to begin taking the property. A jury last month told Elaine and Ed Brown they must forfeit at least $215,000 in property.
The Browns were convicted last month of failing to pay taxes on almost $2 million in income and engaging in elaborate schemes to hide it. A jury also ordered the couple to turn over their Plainfield home or Elaine Brown's Lebanon dental office.
Ed Brown stopped attending the week-long trial halfway through. Since then, he has been holed up in the couple's fortress-like home.
Elaine Brown, who earned most of the couple's income, attended most of the trial. She remains free on bail and is staying with her son in Worcester, Mass., and is required to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet."
For those of you unfamiliar with Ed Brown's story, see my original blog post on him here.
Comments (60)
I wonder if the jury was aware that they can Nullify any verdict as being unjust. I bet that the prosecutor convinced them that these two were stealing "OUR" collective money.
I really like that fact that trying not to let the Federal Government steal your money by "engaging in elaborate schemes to hide it" is suddenly a crime? There are soo many ways to hide money that there is no way Congress could get all of them in a law.
I really hope, that Mr. Brown goes free when federal agents decide that collecting taxes isn't worth their lives.
Published: February 17, 2007 11:36 AM
I sure don't think Ed Brown is "holed up in his fortresss like mansion" AT ALL !!! Simply put and repeated several times he has said "if they show me the law, I'll PAY the taxes !!! WHAT'S SO HARD ABOUT THAT ? When you get a traffic citation, it has the code section that you broke written on the ticket !!! This is not a case of "if he has the $$$$ or not" it's a case of "does he or do most any of us REALLY BY LAW OWE THAT MONEY" !!!!! And doesn't ANYONE even consider what the judges do or have done to "really stack the deck" in both the IRS' and DOJ's favor in these cases ?? I mean folks, 43 DEFENSE MOTIONS, ALL OF THEM WITHIN THE LAW "AS IT'S WRITTEN, NOT AS IT COMES FROM THE BENCH" AND EVERY D**N ONE DENIED ? A fair trial- I DON'T THINK SO !! "Kangaroo court" ? Without a shadow of a doubt !! It's all over the internet, just Google Irwin Schiff and look at what happened to him in ANOTHER "Kangaroo court" !!! The judges know ONLY TWO WORDS when it comes a defendant in cases like these- IRRELEVANT ! and DENIED !! There's only one way to win EVERYTIME and there's a couple out there doing just that !! 300 + victories and counting so far on "holding a crooked judges feet to the good ol' oath of office fire !!" If you look hard enough, you'll find out who they are, if you don't care "as long as it's not happening to you" then you won't ! God bless Ed Brown !!
Published: February 19, 2007 8:58 PM
Here is the moral question:
Do I have the power to take Ed's money, and house?
Do you have the power to go and take Ed's house away from him?
What about the both of us, if we teamed up. Would we have the power to take Ed's house?
An individual or group of individuals do not have the right or power to take from another.
Since no individual or group of people has that power, they cannot give that power that which they do not have, to any hired group or other individual.
When would it be legal for an individual or group of people to take another persons property?
Under Signed Contract.
That is Law. If you sign a contract, you have to do exactly what it says. That the benefit of law, contract and integrity in our society.
It comes back to the immoral misuse of the IRS, of not actually having a Law they can show or even use. You automatically are forced into contract with the tax return (under penalty of perjury). That is, if you lie about how much you made, not that you violated a code that doesn't exist.
Law was set in place as a code of morality that is easy to see. One who respects, already follows these laws naturally, to keep our society stong and individuals integral and honorable citizens. Compassionate, appreciative, True Respect. True Respect is a love. When you love your fellow man because he is friendly, true friendships are forever. It's the thievery that breaks down own connections and bonds, like a tapeworm making our body and country sick. Sucking all of the nutrition and putting it into their pockets, while their budget explodes and our National debt climbs forever with no thought of what this is. Who can do that?
Are the effects not real? Try playing musical chairs with thousands of families and when the music stops, the effects of inflation and taxation leave people homeless and foodless, and without even their own fruit of their efforts.
No individual nor group of people have the power to take or steal from thy neighbor. None of us have the power to do that and we do not have that power to give someone else, to do that.
Morality
Published: February 19, 2007 11:19 PM
Ed Brown isn't the criminal in this case.
The IRS and the private bankers ( who are mostly from Europe ) that control the Federal Reserve System are the criminals.
Nearly all of our federal income tax money ends up in the pockets of these bankers as interest paid on the national debt.
Ed Brown is a brave, intelligent man who knows that these criminals are stealing his money.
Maybe some day soon we will all have the courage to stand up and put a stop to this extortion.
Published: February 21, 2007 12:22 PM
In case anyone wants to see the law, here it is: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html. Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, entitled "Tax Imposed" makes it pretty clear that you have to pay taxes. Each of the sections say "There is hereby imposed a tax". Ed Brown is just an anarchist.
Published: February 21, 2007 3:18 PM
Tony, You might reconsider after watching this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198
Published: February 21, 2007 3:34 PM
"Ed Brown is just an anarchist."
And what's wrong with that, I'd like to know!?
(Of course it's not true of Ed Brown...)
Published: February 21, 2007 5:49 PM
There may well be arguments as to the legality of the personal income tax, but none have survived interpretation by the courts. In the meantime, the REALITY is if you don't file, IRS will file a SFR for you, and you will be assessed even more tax. The REALITY is that if you don't pay, they WILL sieze your assets and property. The courts have ruled - the interpretation is done.
If we wish to change the tax system in the U.S. then we can only do so by electing representatives to accomplish that by legislation.
Ed Brown is a tax evader. If his political ideology is important enough to him to forfeit his assets and go to jail to try to prove a point, so be it. I think the Federal Tax system is cumbersome and I think the average working man pays too many taxes. But in the mean time I pay mine and vote for change. YMMV
Published: February 22, 2007 2:15 PM
4eyedbuzzard,
If by "tax evader" you mean that Ed Brown is doing something wrong, I couldn't disagree more. For as all taxation is theft, evading is but self-defense.
True, Ed Brown's self-defense may cost him dearly. But insofar as he's willing to sacrifice his life, he's defending much more than his property.
Published: February 22, 2007 2:41 PM
they will take everything
and
ed brown, you will die
just let it go ,ed
Published: February 22, 2007 4:14 PM
Tony> In case anyone wants to see the law, here it is:
You might just as well say "if someone wishes to drive a nail into one's own head..."
Tony> "Tax Imposed" makes it pretty clear that you have to pay taxes.
No, it is only clear that they will try to make you pay, and will be violent in collecting. One does not have to pay if they can avoid the collectors, by whatever method. There is no moral duty to pay taxes. To the extent one cannot figure out how to avoid the collector, then payment may ensue.
Tony> Ed Brown is just an anarchist.
I don't know that he is, but it is a nice compliment to an individual with high convictions and morals, in any case.
Published: February 22, 2007 5:59 PM
>Tony, You might reconsider after watching this >video:
>4312730277175242198">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=->4312730277175242198
Yes, I've seen that video. Pretty much everything in there about taxes is a fabrication or misrepresentation. If you actually read the law yourself, or the full opinions of the court cases they mention rather than the short phrases pulled out of context, it's obvious that federal income taxes are required under U.S. law and the Constituion. If you don't like it, feel free to run for Congress and change the law.
If you really want the details, go here:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
Published: February 22, 2007 11:27 PM
>Tony> In case anyone wants to see the law, here >it is:
>You might just as well say "if someone wishes >to drive a nail into one's own head..."
The point is, Ed Brown has said that he would pay the IRS if someone showed him the law. Well, I just showed the law pretty easily. So, there must be something else going on here.
>Tony> "Tax Imposed" makes it pretty clear that >you have to pay taxes.
>No, it is only clear that they will try to make >you pay, and will be violent in collecting. One >does not have to pay if they can avoid the >collectors, by whatever method. There is no >moral duty to pay taxes. To the extent one >cannot figure out how to avoid the collector, >then payment may ensue.
And here it is. This has nothing to do with the law but what you think is moral. Well, I don't think it's morally wrong to drive through red lights or walk through Times Square naked or sell cocaine to 12-year olds. But I realize that in a civilized society, you have to give up some things in order to promote the greater good.
>Tony> Ed Brown is just an anarchist.
>I don't know that he is, but it is a nice >compliment to an individual with high >convictions and morals, in any case.
If you want to get rid of government, then just say so. But don't complain when your house is being robbed and there are no police to help you and don't pretend that this has anything to do with law.
Published: February 22, 2007 11:49 PM
I applaud Ed Brown. He is a hero. He has grit. He is honest and absolutely correct. Those of you who say "you must pay taxes, it's law" are only parrots. You repeat what you're fed.. It's unlawful to collect taxes on labor. Like another commentor below, taxes are collected by force, to pay only the interest on Federal Reserve Loans to the Treasury. The "FED" is not a gov agency, but a private bank cartel of 12 banks, reorganized in 1913 (Federal Reserve Act). Don't forget it was John Kennedy who drafted Bill #11110 to eliminate the Federal Reserve... ah, now you know why he was assassinated... If you believe the IRS, Feds, Judges, etc.. then you also believe in Santa Claus.
Just know this, personal income tax on labor is illegal. So, please, no comments, take a minute, read the 16th Amendment in detail, or SEE THIS VIDEO AND WAKE UP - SHEEP!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_sZj8dZnJI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hRwkyqycgU&mode=related&search=
Published: February 23, 2007 11:21 AM
Tony> If you want to get rid of government, then just say so. But don't complain when your house is being robbed and there are no police to help you and don't pretend that this has anything to do with law.
What a silly non-sequitur. I won't even bother with the other nonsense. Not wanting a non-consensual government has absolutely nothing to do with purchasing protection for my home or person. You've been brainwashed.
Published: February 25, 2007 12:55 PM
Greg, do you really want to live in a country where everyone has to purchase their own security? With no government, there would be nothing to stop someone with more money from purchasing better security and having you and all your security killed. Doesn't sound like a fun place to live.
ClearSight, maybe you could stop calling names and explain to me what I'm missing about the 16th Amendment. I've read it in detail and it says that Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived. What could be more clear than that? There is no exception for labor.
Published: February 26, 2007 12:59 AM
Tony, this is ridiculous. The government is the criminal gang that alone is immune from the law and unilaterally decides how much money it will get from you and anyone else. It's bigger than any private gang that would have to operate on a profit-loss system. Violence is very costly in such a system, and such a company wouldn't be immune from the law.
This is like looking at anarchy and saying people will be flawed in it. Therefore, we need these huge gangs which alone make law, are immune from the law, and may externalize the costs of violence on everyone else. The same problems with people apply unless you have in mind some beings other than people to run the state.
Published: February 26, 2007 7:48 AM
From the previous post: "...this is ridiculous. The government is the criminal gang that alone is immune from the law...we need these huge gangs which alone make law, are immune from the law, and may externalize the costs of violence on everyone else."
It is ridiculous.
The criminal gang you refer to are the legally elected representatives of The People. They make(made) the law by consent of the governed - we citizens. The duly appointed Courts interpret that law. Interpretation of the law is not a matter of an individual's personal opinion.
The Constitutional power granted by The People to the U.S. Government to enact Laws to tax incomes is found in the 16th Amendment:
Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The Law inacted by Congress to exercise that power is:
USC > TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1. Tax imposed
The Executive Branch Agency that enforces that Law is the U.S. Treasury Department's Internal Revenue Service.
The many tax protester arguments as to Constitutionality have been ruled upon by the Courts. In this particular case, the Browns have been judged guilty of tax evasion for knowingly and willfully failing to both file a return(s) AND pay a legally levied tax. As such they are not in compliance with the Law, are in arrears to, and have committed a crime against The People. Case *insert explicitive of choice* closed.
Published: February 26, 2007 12:03 PM
You've basically iterated what I said, buzzard. You just give the talking points of defenders of the state.
Nowhere did you mention how the Constitution could not be legally binding because there is no exchange in it as a contract, nor is it possible to bind anyone to a contract but its signers; and, the Constitution is inherently criminal for the theft and extortion it calls for.
Nor did you address how taxes are extracted by force and are theft, or how there is any right to secretly vote for someone who will steal people's money and force them to do anything they want.
We're all familiar with the government's talking points and the analytical insights needed to overcome them here.
Published: February 26, 2007 12:19 PM
4eyedbuzzard,
"The criminal gang you refer to are the legally elected representatives of The People. They make(made) the law by consent of the governed - we citizens. The duly appointed Courts interpret that law. Interpretation of the law is not a matter of an individual's personal opinion."
In a word, bullshit. A great many of us "citizens" (read: subjects) did not in any way consent, either to the Constitution or to the "laws" derived from it.
"The many tax protester arguments as to Constitutionality have been ruled upon by the Courts."
Again, bullshit. "The Courts" are just an extension of the gang and hide behind its guns accordingly. They rule not the way a referee does but simply as any group of thugs do who perpetuate themselves not by force of law but simply by force.
That you are a willing slave does not change the fact that you are a slave. But thanks for your efforts to perpetuate the status quo, as it makes life that much easier for the gang.
Published: February 26, 2007 12:26 PM
As Rousseau noted: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."
Should you find the "chains" of this social contract too oppressive, you are certainly free to dissent and to enact change. If you cannot abide by the laws inacted to protect the current degree of individual rights and liberty; to prevent anarchy, civil war, etc; you must revolt and rid yourself of this oppressive system. Go ahead, declare your independence and form your more perfect sovereign. [Just ain't gonna happen.]
Having personally experienced life in the Warsaw Pact and in Southeast Asia, I submit that the oppression you find so intolerable here is a walk in the park by most of humanity's experience. Nobody pities Americans - or their "tax burden". And for good reason. Whether you realize it or not, you enjoy the highest degree of individual liberty, freedom, and opportunity of any citizen on Earth. How many U.S. citizens do you see escaping and risking their lives to move to other countries? You can complain all you want, but you got it easy - maybe too easy.
Civilization has rules. No man is born free. It's philosophical HS now, just as it was in 1762 when Rousseau penned it, when France was already too large to be governed by individual representation en masse. Spare me the "I didn't vote for the Constitution HS." The real world and this life just doesn't work that way.
Liberty and freedom are are not the same thing. The day will come when you and all men will be truly free. The next day we'll bury you.
Published: February 26, 2007 2:31 PM
Buzzard, if you have an argument, state it. What you've said is not an argument. It's a reflection of your attitude and disposition, and what you presume the attitudes and dispositions of libertarians to be.
You keep stating what is and what obstacles are in the way to freedom. This is entirely irrelevant. Whether justice was more or less difficult to acquire makes the imperative to bring about instantly no less necessary.
If you believe in any conception of right or wrong aside from the crap you have to offer on how you don't like the attitude that anarchists hold, then you'd know your whole rant is irrelevant. Libertarianism is not concerned with what is, but with what ought to be.
Pointing to the relative benefits of living in America versus a more socialist country doesn't go to show that crime and socialism aren't bad. It just goes to show that to the extent that we lack socialism we are better off for it. Spare us your short sighted, angry rants. The supporters of states hardly ever seem to be able to contain themselves when their fallacies are brought to light.
Published: February 26, 2007 2:41 PM
"If you want to get rid of government, then just say so. But don't complain when your house is being robbed and there are no police to help you and don't pretend that this has anything to do with law."
"do you really want to live in a country where everyone has to purchase their own security? With no government, there would be nothing to stop someone with more money from purchasing better security and having you and all your security killed. Doesn't sound like a fun place to live."
The belief that a lack of government would result in chaos and lawlessness is absurd. Those who post such amusingly ignorant opinions have obviously never visited (or perhaps were unaware they had visited) places with privately enforced law. Tony, they were very fun places to live indeed. In fact, the weaker the coercive police monopoly was, the greater the freedom.
I have visited communities with zero (or effectively zero) government where I had as many rights as most americans mistakenly believe they have. There you are protected by private security from everyone but yourself. There is, of course, no utopia, and these places are not without their flaws. However, (and brace yourself) visit these places and you will find people with rights that you did not believe possible without (or even with) the State.
What I sadly witness here and abroad are communites of humans with so much untapped potential. So many people continue to fail to achieve their goals for lack of knowledge or wisdom or both.
You prisoners of your own narrow assumptions are not helping them in the least, let alone leading them toward any "greater good."
Published: February 26, 2007 3:23 PM
4eyedbuzzard writes:
"Liberty and freedom are are not the same thing. The day will come when you and all men will be truly free. The next day we'll bury you."
Jim Bradley (JIMB) couldn't have said it better, which is why one wonders why either would post here. After all, what does it matter whether you have the liberty to live your life as you see fit in your miniscule moment here on Earth when eternal bliss awaits?
I'm serious. Why waste time with those who think liberty is essential in this life, no matter what might lie beyond? Or are you trying to save us in some obtuse way?
Published: February 26, 2007 4:06 PM
"I have visited communities with zero (or effectively zero) government where I had as many rights as most americans mistakenly believe they have. There you are protected by private security from everyone but yourself."
Call it whatever you will but a 'private security' force that protects you sounds like a government to me.
While Kevin may have visisted near-utopian communities that thrive without government, there are also many gang infested communities that have virtually no government. I don't think these are happy places to live.
Published: February 26, 2007 4:24 PM
"Call it whatever you will but a 'private security' force that protects you sounds like a government to me."
Yes, it is called self-government.
"there are also many gang infested communities that have virtually no government"
There are also many gang infested communities in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
"I don't think these are happy places to live."
Truly.
Published: February 26, 2007 4:31 PM
Tony> Yes, it is called self-government.
No, it is not.
Tony> There are also many gang infested communities in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Well okay, but that point works exactly against you.
Published: February 26, 2007 8:26 PM
cancel the above
Published: February 26, 2007 8:27 PM
David White writes: "Why waste time with those who think liberty is essential in this life"
I happen to think liberty is essential in life. I also think that the rule of law and enforcement is ultimately the only thing that keeps your liberty from impinging upon and/or reducing mine. Absolute liberty and freedom are great subjects for philosophers, but put 300 million people on a finite piece of land and resources and there must be limits set to ensure what degree of individual liberty is sustainable and fair. Given the long term nature of collective enterprise for the common good, spanning many generations of humans, we are indeed born under a degree of bondage to a governmental status-quo. It's not unique to this or any other government, tribe, or family - and the common concept dates to before recorded history. Freedom is an idealistic myth. I kinda hate seeing otherwise reasonable people touting Ed as some kind of hero instead of the criminal he is.
Angelo writes: "Buzzard, if you have an argument, state it...The supporters of states hardly ever seem to be able to contain themselves when their fallacies are brought to light."
I did. You just didn't like it. As to it being an opinion, of course it is - just like your opinion that the government is a criminal gang. As to fallacies, there is no fallacy regarding Ed Brown being a criminal. By definition, he's been so judged by the Courts. My opinion and yours are not legal determinations as to the constitutionality of USC Title 26 - only the Court has that power. The current law is quite clear. But as you know, the supporters of criminals hardly ever seem to be able to contain themselves when their fallacies are brought to light.
Published: February 26, 2007 8:44 PM
That wasn't an argument. That was merely a statement that amounted to "I'm angry at you for being unappreciative of your freedoms."
The problem with your definition of Brown as a criminal is that you're inserting many judgements of value without openly stating them. What should be a crime? Assuming what is the court's ruling just? How does that court have any authority?
You discuss rule of law as if anarchy is the absence of it. Yet, history has shown us private law as superior to government legislation. Government legislation is criminal abrogation of just law. Just law would outlaw the state. Yet you say we need a monopoly in law making because people are bad, the stronger would dominate the weaker (as opposed to what a state does?), when anarchy merely minimizes the consequences of bad decisions and allows the most support for the good decisions people make.
Systematically magnifying and escalating the amount of violence and economic miscalculation in a society by creating a state does not constitute a reduction in crime or malinvestment (at the very least, in law enforcement).
Go ahead, pretend I didn't say that, since acknowledging such a view means poking fatal conceits in your position.
Published: February 26, 2007 8:52 PM
You stated: "That wasn't an argument. That was merely a statement that amounted to 'I'm angry at you for being unappreciative of your freedoms.'"
Mea Culpa, I apologize.
As to what "should" be a crime is again merely opinion, but when that opinion is that of the majority in an established democratic society, and in this case when the behavior is otherwise not protected by individual rights, then the majority may in this state's instance enact rules that pronounce such behavior is a crime. That same majority establishes the court's authority. Ed can opt out of this existing social contract - but he must leave to do so. There is no right to liberty or anything else that cannot be abridged by "due process".
You stated: "You discuss rule of law as if anarchy is the absence of it."
The common definition of anarchy is exactly that, but further definitions I found would include "a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society."
To a very large degree this nation is a "voluntary association of individuals". It just doesn't make the news because it's boring. Most of us aren't Ed Browns or Erwin Schiffs. Just because we do not agree with Libertarian or anarchist or tax-protester views, and voluntarily comply with the existing laws on filing and paying of taxes doesn't mean we are stupid sheep. Rather, we choose to obey the law for the common good. We find it better than the available realizable alternatives. And as far as stupid sheep being led to slaughter, it seems the followers of sheppards such as Schiff et al are the ones locked up in the pens.
You wrote: "Yet, history has shown us private law as superior to government legislation."
Where and when?
You wrote: "Go ahead, pretend I didn't say that, since acknowledging such a view means poking fatal conceits in your position."
I don't pretend. Remember I'm a pragmatist. No perfect system or contract exists. There are numerous "conceits" or problems inherent in all political stuctures. As these systems are refined, remedys are enacted to "plug the holes." And of course, new ones constantly arise. But anarchy cannot endure, as the purely voluntary and more specifically the resulting unenforceable contract will not survive the need of the individual. At some point, he will justify his need/behavior as above the need of the group. As more do so, the result is, well, anarchy. And the response of the group is ultimately to form a political structure to enforce the contract, leading of course to the disease known as civilized society.
Published: February 26, 2007 10:44 PM
Somehow, I have been sucked into watching this story like a bad reality show. I find Ed Brown and his wife to be like a couple of kids that after being told the sky is blue, replying nuht-uh. I find most of his followers and supporters to be of the same calibur. Please, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean its not true or that it isn't for the better good. I've seen his myspace and youtube propaganda, and he attacks bush. How is that relavent to a case that is over 10 years old? The motto "freedom isn't free" is true, you pay your taxes for it =D. Okay, you don't like it... Go somewhere else. I'll pay my taxes every year, fly my old glory, eat hot dogs on July 4th, and won't have to worry about feds coming to my door. I seen where supporters of Brown would call that life being equivalent to a sheep or a slave to the state. Well, those taxes I pay make the state work for me in my perspective, so I think it's money well spent... Ed Brown won't win, he'll lose and in 50 years he won't be close to remembered. His fight is one done in vain, and he is essentially a fool.
Published: March 7, 2007 11:08 PM
The fact of the matter is this. We are simply seeing history repeat its self. No democracy has lasted more than 200 years roughly. Everything else is simply banter and wishful thinking. Wake up to what is around you.
Our founding fathers would kick all of our buts if they were here.
If you choose to eat your hotdogs on the day our founding fathers stood up for this country it is fine, that is your choice but think twice when you criticize the people who are awake to what is happening and want to change it . Before the british parliament has control once again, oops too late, they already print our money for us and charge our government (you and I) interest for counterfeit money that they print on request. I say go ahead and ignore the deterioration of your own sovereignty.
Check that money in your wallet and your pocket. I dare you to find anything else than copper coated with nickel and paper with cheap ink. Where is your money value? Take that promissory note to your BANK and try to get its value in gold as it is the notes promise, its exact exchange for gold. Remember we are on a gold based currency not paper and copper.
When was the last time any of us read The Declaration of Independence and grade school does not count? Are we truly an American or a complacent and dependent human? We first have to defend this document before any of the other constitutional rights mean anything.
Shame on anyone who points fingers at their fellow man for standing up for his independence when courts fail to uphold the constitution we so desperately claim to love. I ask, where is your love for this country?
Published: March 9, 2007 11:50 AM
And one more thing, do not tell me to go live some where else just because I am staning up for what my founding fathers stood for. It is perhaps you that should live somewhere else if you wont help keep Liberty.
Published: March 9, 2007 12:00 PM
you can sit behind your computer and write what you want. But the fact is that the tax in question is as stated in the code,(voluntary) the fact is that Mr.Brown, and others have not been allowed,by the judges, to show the evidence they have. Now there is a reason for that. I wonder if any one is wise enough to understand why not. You can argue your point alll you want. But the facts still remain. And they are in the Constitution. What I fail to understand is why the IRS would say a person owes 3 million (as in a case I personally know) then sell the property they own , put them out of work,the family on the street,for the 100 thousand they will get. where will the other 2,900,000 come from? seems stupid to me. OH wait that guy who eats hot dogs on the 4th will pay it!
Published: March 10, 2007 11:02 AM
Couple things I'd like to point out:
The United States is founded as a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy. A constitutional republic is ruled by constitutional law. A democracy is ruled by the 51% of the people trying to take away the rights of the other 49%. Please research this.
The 16th amendment was never ratified. The president who signed this into law was not a citizen of the United States as Ohio have not legally joined the Union until after the law was illegally passed. Because Congress did not pass an official proclamation recognizing Ohio's date of admission (1803) to statehood until 1953 (see Ohio Constitution), Ohio was not a state until 1953 (and, therefore, could not have ratified the Sixteenth Amendment)
The US Constitution grants the federal government the authority to lay only two classes of taxation - direct and indirect.
Direct and indirect taxes are subject to Constitutional regulations concerning their mode of operation.
Direct taxes are subject to apportionment - even after the 16th Amendment.
Indirect taxes are subject to the rule of uniformity.
No direct tax on private earnings exists in this country - the disagreement of the federal courts notwithstanding.
The federal judicial circuits are split as to whether the 16th Amendment merely confirmed the government's excise taxing power concerning shareholder profits from corporate investment, or whether the Amendment created a new "special" form of direct tax that does not require apportionment.
In the Brushaber case, the US Supreme Court stated that any tax act under the authority of the 16th Amendment must properly be considered an excise, and is thus not subject to apportionment.
The definition of income used in the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 must be used in the income tax acts of Congress (passed under the authority of the 16th Amendment).
The definition of income used in the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 is the same definition that must be used when interpreting the 16th Amendment.
The 16th Amendment only pertains to "income" in the form of dividends, patronage dividends, and interest from corporate investment.
The 16th Amendment tax is upon the privilege (to shareholders) of operating a business as an artificial entity.
The 16th Amendment tax is not upon "income"; the income is only the yardstick used to determine the value of the privilege, and hence the amount of tax to be paid.
If you have no 16th Amendment income, you have no liability for a tax imposed under the authority of the 16th Amendment.
Other legitimate types of federal and state taxation do exist beyond the tax imposed under the authority of the 16th Amendment. They are all excise taxes.
Capital investment funds, even when invested in a corporation, are not subject to taxation except by a direct tax subject to apportionment.
A tax on your private earnings still needs to be apportioned to be constitutional.
If you wish to conduct only your private affairs, do not trespass into areas that give rise to the presumption of federal or state authority for taxation and/or regulatory authority.
In most statutes, "business" means the activities of a legislatively created entity such as a corporation, partnership, statutory trust, etc., and does not embrace the your private affairs, which includes your livelihood.
Giving out a SSN or TIN (when lawfully required) creates a powerful presumption of federal and state taxing authority over your earnings.
Signing any federal or state tax forms (including a Form W-4, creates a powerful presumption of federal and state taxing authority over your earnings.
The Gross Income argument is legally accurate, but is not intended to take the place, and does not take the place, of a constitutional argument.
If you choose to engage in an excise taxable activity, you must pay the tax.
If you choose to engage in an excise taxable activity, you are expected (by the government as well as your fellow citizens) to practice voluntary compliance.
An indirect tax can be effectively converted into a direct tax by improper enforcement by the Executive Branch. In that event, the US Supreme Court has said that it is its duty to declare the former excise tax to be a direct tax absent apportionment, and thus unconstitutional.
Published: March 13, 2007 3:00 PM
Well said Benja S. Sariwatta
Published: March 14, 2007 2:56 PM
"Just because we do not agree with Libertarian or anarchist or tax-protester views, and voluntarily comply with the existing laws on filing and paying of taxes doesn't mean we are stupid sheep. Rather, we choose to obey the law for the common good. We find it better than the available realizable alternatives."
Please! All it takes to control the narrow-minded are two words, patriotic and unpatriotic.
Upon hearing those words, the sheep will obey nearly any command, including self-destruction and murder.
Published: March 14, 2007 3:25 PM
What common good is served by supporting an unconstitutional banking system and enriching the bloated pockets of the international bankers(federal reserve system)? Don't call me unamerican or weird for not going along with the fraud that has been perpetuated on the majority of us who have been brainwashed by the government indoctrination system( public education ). I forget which plank of the communist manifesto covers government controlled education.
If we don't wake up soon, the day will soon arrive when the implanted chip you carry will control "everything" you do. So much for security and following "their" unconstitutional rules,codes and policies.
Published: March 16, 2007 2:01 PM
I have personally met Ed Brown at his home in NH and conducted a 2 day interview for my college paper. Most of the things we talked about I knew but he confirmed, such as the Biosphere program where the UN controls Yellowstone and 40 other of our national parks. Listen people this is larger than taxes and parks and eating hot dogs. Ed does not care if you agree with him in my point of view. Those of us who know our history understand why Ed is doing what he is doing.
Let me put it in quite general terms, the time has come to decide what road you would like to take. The loyalists during the first American Revolution held the same beliefs. England is good to us lets not stir anything up lets just give them what they want. Ok and then what happens when they need more and more and then they take your guns away(for your safety). And draft your son to fight in a war for money and oil.
Sure eat your hot dogs but understand when the shots start ringing out from the rooftops you will be given no quarters among those who fight for freedom. We are not free. Sure we may be more free than some Asian country but who cares. Freedom is not relative it is absolute. Are you saying that so long as we are more free than the most oppressive countries then we should shut up and put up.
No sir. I may be young but I see what Ed is doing. He is simply a tool for us to gauge who believe in freedom and those who will follow Fox News and Daddy Gov't. Watch around you as people take sides. Some as I see here take sides without looking at the facts. It is sad but understandable. Once you reach a certain age it seems you are unable to imagine you may have been wrong for so long.
One last thing. If you think the Gov't is your savior check out 9/11 again. No not the news briefs but what actually happened. The hole in the Pentagon, the towers falling at free fall speed, the foreknowledge of Bldg.7 coming down. Loose Change on google video is an excellent resource.
LIVE FREE OR DIE
Published: March 16, 2007 7:28 PM
well said JM.
Published: March 18, 2007 10:25 AM
every one keeps saying (income) "Congress has the right to tax (income)" But has any one looked at what the IRS code itself has as the definition of income? plainly says "gains" labor is not a income from gains it is a trade. and the constitution does prohibit the direct taxing of the people. Besides if you pay attention noo income tax is used to provide any service for "us" -we the ppl
Published: April 11, 2007 7:04 AM
Thanks for the website Tony. It seems the only response the lower courts have to tax protestors is "frivilous." Well, the rule of law is not frivilous, although some of the contentions are frivilous. When everything becomes collectively "frivilous" it tells me there is an agenda to suppress any dialogue or investigation. I have read the amendment and the IRS does not have the right to collect tax on anything. Period. The amendment clearly authorizes only the congress with the laying and collection of any taxes that are lawful. The department of the Treasury has no authority to do either. Also all bills regarding taxation must specifically originate in congress. I mention this part because it re-inforces the clear intention of the framers to have this enormous power of taxation held only by democratically elected officials whose asses can be collectively fired every 4 or 6 years. When you start dealing with beaurocracies, you have effectively nullified the consent of the governed by rendering the election process utterly ineffective.
Shame on the supreme court for not upholding its original unconstitutional decision by having 2 amendments in conflict with each other. Be that as it may "Bureau of Internal Revenue" was established in 1862 about 50 years before the 16th amendment was added and yet the amendment does not mention the Treasury department or Bureau of Internal Revenue.
It is also worthy to note in 1895 the tax described in amendment 16 was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court, yet it appeared mysteriously in 1913. The amendment is either unconstitutional, or doesn't mean what the IRS says it does as I am unaware of a different supreme court ruling. I would love to have someone show me the new ruling of the supreme court affirming the constitutionality of the amendment.
Published: April 14, 2007 12:05 AM
Let me get this straight ..they made an estimated 2 million, own the large house and the commercial property and dont feel they need to contribute to the system ?? I dont like taxes nor do I believe socialism works, but there is a price to live in our society. Can you imagine all the liberals screaming if there were no funds for social security, medicare, fema, NCLB, etc etc etc... PAY UP Ed !
Published: April 25, 2007 8:42 AM
All of you geniuses that claim Title 26 is not the law(for whatever reason http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf ) better reread Marbury. The law is what nine old jurists in Washington says it is - the rest is just conversation.
Ed Brown isn't some sort of righteous Patriot - he's just a common tax evader. Just another tee-shirt for the lunatic fringe.
Published: April 25, 2007 11:44 AM
It's rather amusing how the libertarians come off as lunatic fringe bomb throwers in this thread. One of the key mistakes they make is failing to invoke free trade. Free CONSENSUAL trade.
1.) Free consensual trade is *proven* to by defintion increase the wealth of all parties to trade, by definition of the only reason trade occuring is that which is received is valued more than that which is given away in exchange.
Expanding free trade through by definition cutting violent taxation *only* leads to increased material wealth for society as a whole. Taxation by definition *causes* poverty, in exactly the same way as a Hobbesian war of all against all causes poverty, in exactly the same way as any robbery whatsoever causes poverty.
2.) Apply your opponents arguments to sex. You can clearly see they are arguing for and attempting to justify rape.
I've learned this from repeatedly silencing socialists with superior argument in enemy territory. All other tangential argumentative tacts against taxation libertarians take are a waste of time, and not nearly as convincing.
That's why libertarian opponents are scoring points in this thread rather than digging themselves into deeper and deeper absurdity. So remember to steer the argument into free trade, where economic knowledge is *proved*, rather than be sidetracked into arguing the validity of moral justifications for the State.
But a lunatic fringe t-shirt movement could work too:
"No Rape without Representation!"
Published: April 25, 2007 3:34 PM
Ed said when you can prove that I'm liable for income taxes then I'll pay them. He is right. No were in the IRS code of law or US code #26 is there a law that states that a person is liable for taxes unless that person has foreigners working for him. Then and only then is he liable for the foreigners taxes. Tax code gives you methods to pay but not once does it state that a citizen is liable to pay income tax. I guess that's why they call it a "voluntary" system.
To the other person that "claims" we own income tax because we get stuff. What a load of bull! State and local government pay for most of the stuff we use. Most of what is sent to the feds disappears into a big black hole or what we call the elites back pockets.
Founding fathers would be ashamed of us for allow the fascist to take our government and make us slaves to them. They feared direct taxes and knew what would happen if feds were allowed to use in such a way as they have. The feds used communist tactics to bring about income tax by class envy and we ate it up like fools!!!!!!!!!
You people who mock the Browns should be ashamed! They are fighting OUR battle while we cower in fear of the feds when it should be the feds that cower at our feet!
Published: May 7, 2007 11:08 PM
Those of you who choose to behave like sheep and surrender, you are half the reason why these evil bastards are getting away with this evil. Federal Reserve is the Bank Cartel (Not a Gov Agency). For you, no honest explanation is good enough.
Those of us who fully realize and understand what "personal income tax" is, how this began, and why the IRS refuses to answer honestly - we need no explanation.
We are living in a society dominated by the banking industry, who are the puppet-masters over us;; along with Big Pharma, Oil, Food, etc.. they own us and we are so blind that we can see the evil right smack in front of our eyes!
I promise you all this fact: Soon, within several years, the senate will be voting on the new North American Union, where by force, our "selected" officials (congress) will enforce this new Union onto the U.S., Canada and Mexico.. We will have totally lost our freedom - it will be gone for good. If you don't believe this, it's only because you do not understand what's going on behind closed doors.. You had better start paying attention and fight back, or this country, your freedom and rights will be history.
For those who want to learn more, how and where this began please read:
1) http://www.fdrs.org/jeckyll_island.html
2) Fight for your health - by Byron Richards.
there is more, so much more that once you've learned what I know, you will totally despise all Politicians, Lobbyists, Pharma, every president except for JFK and Lincoln. They were murdered because they were trying to break up the bank cartel and secret societies. View this site. http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/jfkeo.html
The worst are the Rockefeller families, Kissinger, JP Morgan, Bush family.. they are evil and the catalysts for corruption and the downfall of our country.
My friends, albeit we be optimists, but I am afraid hard times are coming. Our country has gone to hell, but you don't have to.
Published: May 8, 2007 6:35 PM
if you call the cops and tell them a terrorist is coming to your house to cut off your head, the cops will suit up and surround city hall. they wont come to your protection until your head is on the floor...dont be fooled by dan evans(shill). they afford you no protection.get your own gun.
Published: May 16, 2007 6:45 AM
With the exception of few sane individuals who have defended our current way of life, I seriously question the mental state of everyone posting comments. You're all crazy. Stop blaming the government for all things bad in your life and move on...you have all poured WAY too much time into research that is both pointless and unintelligent. I came to this blog looking for intelligent remarks, but all I see (with minor exception) are the rantings of mad men. Go to Waco, or Nebraska or where ever 'free' men roam start a cult. You are clearly not ready to mingle with society.
Published: June 7, 2007 12:14 PM
Tony, you are simply a brainwashed drone who is incapable of thinking for himself. Taxation is theft period. Now if want to argue that armed robbery is OK as long as you agree with what the robber will do with the money, that is another subject entirely.
As far as your straw man argument about you thinking it is OK to run red lights and sell coke to school children, well, there you are infringing on other people's rights and you do not have a leg to stand on. Your comments on this subject show you to be shallow, not very bright and that you are willing to bow down and lick the hand that feeds you. You have no grasp on the history of this country, taxation, freedom, liberty, responsibility, in short, you are no more than around the 8th grade level in your thinking. You are an fine example of how this country lost its way.
As for you fools who think you can change anything by voting, look where that has got us.
The government, I would expect nothing less from you and your jack booted thugs. You may like your chains and enjoy being a slave, but most of us do not. According to you, you are sane if you agree with invading countries, not being able to own property, giving your master 50% of your earnings, being required to jump through multiple government hoops to do just about anything more than breathe, oh yea, that's real freedom there boy.
Published: June 7, 2007 4:39 PM
4eyed, your ignorance is really showing through loud and clear, as is your public school education. Your premise is flawed from the beginning and all of your nonsense flows from there. Elected leaders made the laws with the consent of the governed. Really? How can you say that when elections draw less than 50% of the people? The winning candidate get maybe 50 - 60% of 50%, which is 25% of the people at best. Factor in that even the people that voted for the winning candidate do not agree with most of the policies the candidate favors, they most likely voted for him/her because they felt this person was the lesser of two evils and you can hardly call that a mandate or claim anything is done with the consent of the governed.That argumetn is straight out of a 4th grade civics book.
Published: June 7, 2007 4:52 PM
Vote Ron Paul 2008 and say goodbye to the income tax and hello to freedom!
Published: June 7, 2007 10:44 PM
www.losthorizons.com
There is a law. Does it apply to YOU ???
What is the difference between a word and a term ???
Take "income". Look it up in the dictonary to find its meaning. Then look it up in the IRS Codes and find out its meaning there.
This is law. Every thing must be defined in the law if its meaning is different then in the dictonary. A word defined specifically in law is no longer a word it becomes a term.
Read Pete Hendricksons book, Cracking the Code
oh, here is the law. Nobody here really knew where or what the law is...
There IS "A Law", And This Is How It Works
There is a tax imposed on "income" received in excess of the current exemption amount, as measured by the dollar value involved.
There is also a law saying that anyone who has met the foregoing qualification must file an accurate and honest return-- with any appropriate accompanying forms or instruments-- reflecting this fact (and anyone who has been erroneously alleged to have met that qualification must rebut that allegation on an honest and accurate return-- with any appropriate accompanying forms or instruments-- or have it presumed true by default).
Part of the process involved in executing an accurate and honest return includes self-assessment (thus possibly creating a liability) and remittance of the resulting amount of tax (if any).
It's that simple.
See the following portions of The Revenue Act of 1938 (the last enactment concerning the tax prior to the codification under the IRC of 1939), for example. The rates, and various other aspects of the tax, have periodically been modified by individual enactments ever since. The product of the various enactments and modifications of the following are currently reflected in Sections 1, 61, 63, 6001, 6011(a), 6012(a) and 6065 of the IRC of 1986:
AN ACT
To provide revenue, equalize taxation, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act, divided into titles and sections according to the following Table or Contents, may be cited as the "Revenue Act of 1938":
SEC. 11. NORMAL TAX ON INDIVIDUALS.
There shall be levied, collected, and paid for each taxable year upon the net income of every individual a normal tax of 4 per centum of the amount of the net income in excess of the credits against net income provided in section 25.
SEC. 12. SURTAX ON INDIVIDUALS.
(a) DEFINITION OF "SURTAX NET INCOME".—As used in this section the term "surtax net income" means the amount of the net income in excess of the credits against net income provided in section 25 (b).
(b) RATES OF SURTAX.—There shall be levied, collected, and paid for each taxable year upon the surtax net income of every individual a surtax as follows: (a steeply graduated incremental tax rate table follows, up to a top marginal rate of 75%)
SEC. 21. NET INCOME.
"Net income" means the gross income computed under section 22, less the deductions allowed by section 23. For definition of "adjusted net income", see section 13 (a); for definition of "special class net income", see section 14 (a).
SEC. 22. GROSS INCOME.
(a) GENERAL DEFINITION.—"Gross income" includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service, of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever. In the case of Presidents of the United States and judges of courts of the United States taking office after June 6, 1932, the compensation received as such shall be included in gross income; and all Acts taxing the compensation of such Presidents and judges are hereby amended accordingly.
SEC. 51. INDIVIDUAL RETURNS.
(a) REQUIREMENT.—The following individuals shall each make under oath a return stating specifically the items of his gross income and the deductions and credits allowed under this title and such other information for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this title as the Commissioner with the approval of the Secretary may by regulations prescribe—
(1) Every individual who is single or who is married but not living with husband or wife, if—
(A) Having a net income for the taxable year of $1,000 or over; or
(B) Having a gross income for the taxable year of $5,000 or over, regardless of the amount of the net income.
(Etc., etc., covering the usual categories familiar to all...)
SEC. 903. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACT.
Except as otherwise provided, this Act shall take effect upon its enactment.
[Received by the President, May 16, 1938.]
[NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.—The foregoing act having been presented to the President of the United States for his approval, and not having been returned by him to the House of Congress in which it originated within the time prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, has become a law without his approval.]
***
(Now, don't panic. You DO remember what "income" means, don't you?)
“The 'Government' is an abstraction, and its possession of property largely constructive. Actual possession and custody of Government property nearly always are in someone who is not himself the Government but acts in its behalf and for its purposes. He may be an officer, an agent, or a contractor. His personal advantages from the relationship by way of salary, profit, or beneficial personal use of the property may be taxed...”
United States Supreme Court, United States v. County of Allegheny, 322 US 174 (1944)
"An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an excise tax...The legislature may declare as 'privileged' and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as a 'privilege' and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right."
Simms v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (1925)
Been a "non-filer" due to misunderstandings about whether there is "a law"?
www.losthorizons.com
Published: June 8, 2007 12:11 PM
Ed and Elaine Brown avoided having their property stormed by State Police, US Marshal's and FBI.
Foiled by one of his guests walking the dog when he spotted them in the woods.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/june2007/080607Ed_Brown.htm
Published: June 8, 2007 5:37 PM
The Federal Reserve System is a money-for-nothing scam, and the IRS is the collection agency.
If you don't know this, you don't know anything.
The bottom-line is Federal"income" taxes are applied to the debt incurred by interest(and face-value) from the use of "Federal Reserve Notes", which are "created" out of nothing. The purpose of the taxes are not to run the "government" or provide "essential services".
"We the People, by The People" has been co-opted by the global financial elite, using deception, subversion and blackmail. We didn't vote for it, corrupt and ignorant or cowardly politicians and judges along with the BOUGHT-AND-PAID-FOR-MEDIA(liars and creators of virtual-reality) have been the tools used to advance the goal of a global tyranny ruled by a supposed master-race that views the rest of us as cattle or "human-resources" to be controlled and exploited(slaves).
Some of the comments here show how successful the Collectivist brainwash has been, Pragmatism is the ultimate con-artists philosophy("something is true, only if it is useful"). Might makes right, the ends justify the means, sacrifice individuals for the "greater good" of the whole--
Published: June 16, 2007 7:42 AM
I think I can speak for most of the population when I thank Ed Brown and his disillusioned wife for saving the tax payers (us) money with their self-incarceration. While they sit and think that they are staying out of prison, and beating the system, the rest of us in NH seem to be laughing at them.
Published: June 19, 2007 10:06 AM
It's done. The Browns are in the slammer. About time. Sounds as though they may tack on a few years for obstruction as well.
We all showed you the law Ed. You chose to believe you were above it. Good ridance.
Published: October 5, 2007 7:58 PM
problem is ... when the law breaks the law...then there is no law... I can't wait to " vent ".
Published: March 25, 2008 1:09 AM
I cannot believe some of these posts, especially from the dope who said that Ed violated the law. The fact is that the tax laws, just like the creation of the FED were illusions. These laws were not ratified EVER. The other problem is that no one has asked the Judges making these decisions if they or their court or their county or state ever received any financial benefit from guilty verdicts on tax protestors etc. I am fairly certain that in the case of criminal defendants, the court will receive a portion of the fine or seizures thereof. What kind of justice is that?
Published: May 10, 2008 4:34 PM