Ed Brown Raid - Tax Evasion

[bobsled]

I don’t know if anybody has been following this story. Ed Brown and his wife, living in NH, have not paid their income tax for some years. They were recently charged for tax evasion. The Browns asked the judge to show them the law stating that they had to pay an income tax. Well, as the IRS and government always does, they didn’t show it and charged them regardless. The Browns are fairly wealthy and have a large compound with a large supply of food and state that they will go down guns ablazing. There was an attempted raid a few days ago where they almost killed their dog walker. I agree that the income tax is illegal, what are your thoughts?

Here is an update:
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=539&Itemid=36

[Captain_Carrot]

In what way is income tax illegal?

Edit: The Master speaks.

[Ravenman]

Not knowing anything other than what you just told me, my thoughts are that he’s a nut, he’s wrong, and he should go to jail. Income tax protesters aren’t going to get a lot of sympathy these boards.

[Lemur866]

Except, there really is a law that you have to pay income tax.

And suppose that there weren’t such a law. As you say, what happens in all these cases is that the IRS and the entire legal system charges them anyway, and pretends that such a law exists. Now, what exactly is the difference between a law that exists, and a law that every court in the country will pretend exists?

If the cops and the IRS and the courts all act as if the law exists, then arguing that the law doesn’t exist won’t work. If there has existed a conspiracy to hoodwink the public into believing that they must pay taxes, why would you expect anything other than a bullet in the back of the head for pointing this out to the american people?

And even if it were shown that there was some defect in the law and we were all just genuinely mistaken, all that would really happen if this became generally believed is that we would quickly pass another law that was exactly the same as what we incorrectly thought was the law.

Arguing that you have no legal obligation to pay income taxes clearly won’t work, because if you claim that the cops will show up at your house and haul you off to jail, just as if you really did have that legal obligation.

[toadspittle]

Well, I disagree with the Browns’ whole premise (listen to Unca’ Cecil on this one), but I have to admit that I’m a little disturbed by the fact that our govt. is very probably going to storm someone’s private residence, guns blazing, to apprehend two nonviolent scofflaws. Murderers and rapists, I see that. But tax protestors? I understand that this is a crime, that these criminals need to be apprehended, and that the police’s options are few, but the Waco-style buildup outside just seems wrong to me.

[bobsled]

@Lemur866

Except, there really is a law that you have to pay income tax.

Care to point it out to me?

The rest of your post about acting as if the law exists is the same as the law actually existing is pretty nonsensical.

[Saint_Cad]

@bobsled

I agree that the income tax is illegal, what are your thoughts?

Just curious about why you think that. I admit that the tax code can seem nebulous and is always interpreted as “Pay more taxes.” by the IRS, but why do you think it’s illegal?

[JohnT]

@bobsled

Care to point it out to me?

16th Amendment: “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.”

[bobsled]

@SaintCad

Just curious about why you think that. I admit that the tax code can seem nebulous and is always interpreted as “Pay more taxes.” by the IRS, but why do you think it’s illegal?

The 1916 Supreme Court decisions were sound because the court recognized the potential inherent conflict created by the passage of the 16th Amendment - i.e. Article 1 demands that direct taxes be apportioned and prohibits direct taxation unless apportioned, while the 16th Amendment lays the income tax as a tax without apportionment. If the income tax is construed to be a direct tax, we have engineered the creation of an inherent contradiction within the Constitution by interpretation not actual language of the document, and thus rendered it worthless as a foundation at law upon which We the People can rely upon for the protection of our Rights and property. (Does it protect you from the takings of the IRS today ?).

http://www.tax-freedom.com/taxtruth.htm

[Frank]

@bobsled

I don’t know if anybody has been following this story. Ed Brown and his wife, living in NH, have not paid their income tax for some years. They were recently charged for tax evasion.

The Browns have, in fact, been convicted and sentenced to jail.

A slightly less heated view of the current situation, from The Boston Globe.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@bobsled

The 1916 Supreme Court decisions were sound because the court recognized the potential inherent conflict created by the passage of the 16th Amendment - i.e. Article 1 demands that direct taxes be apportioned and prohibits direct taxation unless apportioned, while the 16th Amendment lays the income tax as a tax without apportionment. If the income tax is construed to be a direct tax, we have engineered the creation of an inherent contradiction within the Constitution by interpretation not actual language of the document, and thus rendered it worthless as a foundation at law upon which We the People can rely upon for the protection of our Rights and property. (Does it protect you from the takings of the IRS today ?).

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE INCOME TAX

From the tax protestor FAQ

Specifically this: Tax Protester FAQ

Although the meaning of “direct tax” has sometimes been questioned, it was always understood that taxes imposed by Congress could apply to, and be collected from, individual citizens, and that not every tax collected directly from the population was a “direct tax” within the meaning of the Constitution.

One common mistake made by tax protesters is in assuming that the phrase “Capitation, or other direct, Tax” in the Constitution is a reference to any tax that is collected “directly” from the person on whom it is imposed, while “indirect” taxes such as “Duties, Imposts and Excises” are collected on goods during manufacture, or in transit, and the ultimate burden is passed along to someone else (usually the consumer). That is a definition of “direct” and “indirect” that is frequently used by economists, but it is not the meaning of “direct” and “indirect” that has been applied by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Captain_Amazing]

@JohnT

16th Amendment: “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.”

And the specific laws would be large parts of Title 26 of the US Code, also known as the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@toadspittle

Well, I disagree with the Browns’ whole premise (listen to Unca’ Cecil on this one), but I have to admit that I’m a little disturbed by the fact that our govt. is very probably going to storm someone’s private residence, guns blazing, to apprehend two nonviolent scofflaws. Murderers and rapists, I see that. But tax protestors? I understand that this is a crime, that these criminals need to be apprehended, and that the police’s options are few, but the Waco-style buildup outside just seems wrong to me.

Actually, the Browns have been issuing death threats from their property and say they have armed themselves heavily. They also claim to have laid many deathtraps on their property. These are not sweet old people. They are dangerous.

In addtion, the US Marshals have been calling them repeatedly asking them to surrender.

[Captain_Amazing]

@bobsled

The 1916 Supreme Court decisions were sound because the court recognized the potential inherent conflict created by the passage of the 16th Amendment - i.e. Article 1 demands that direct taxes be apportioned and prohibits direct taxation unless apportioned, while the 16th Amendment lays the income tax as a tax without apportionment.

Well, that’s what amendments do. The 16th amendment amended the part of the Constitution that prohibited a direct tax without apportionment.

[jayjay]

@bobsled

The 1916 Supreme Court decisions were sound because the court recognized the potential inherent conflict created by the passage of the 16th Amendment - i.e. Article 1 demands that direct taxes be apportioned and prohibits direct taxation unless apportioned, while the 16th Amendment lays the income tax as a tax without apportionment. If the income tax is construed to be a direct tax, we have engineered the creation of an inherent contradiction within the Constitution by interpretation not actual language of the document, and thus rendered it worthless as a foundation at law upon which We the People can rely upon for the protection of our Rights and property. (Does it protect you from the takings of the IRS today ?).

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE INCOME TAX

Amendments trump Articles. That’s why they’re called “Amendments”.

[Saint_Cad]

@bobsled

The 1916 Supreme Court decisions were sound because the court recognized the potential inherent conflict created by the passage of the 16th Amendment - i.e. Article 1 demands that direct taxes be apportioned and prohibits direct taxation unless apportioned, while the 16th Amendment lays the income tax as a tax without apportionment. If the income tax is construed to be a direct tax, we have engineered the creation of an inherent contradiction within the Constitution by interpretation not actual language of the document, and thus rendered it worthless as a foundation at law upon which We the People can rely upon for the protection of our Rights and property. (Does it protect you from the takings of the IRS today ?).

Ummmmm . . . stupid question here. Isn’t the intention of an amendment to CHANGE part of the Constitution? I mean, the XIth Amendment actually changed the Constitution in regards to Supreme Court jurisdiction so why not the XVIth? If an Amendment doesn’t change the Constitution, then why have it? If it does, then with any contradiction between the amendment and original document (or earlier amendment), deference should be given to the later amendment.

[Cervaise]

The standard argument that the federal income tax is somehow illegal is, at best, profoundly stupid.

Got anything else?

[jayjay]

Let me put it this way. Nobody likes to pay income tax. Nobody. Yet, with the exception of only their own pinched little fraternity, the tax deniers are almost universally seen as loony cranks. Why is this, do you suppose?

[Lemur866]

@bobsled

Care to point it out to me?

The rest of your post about acting as if the law exists is the same as the law actually existing is pretty nonsensical.

No, it makes perfect sense. According to you, the cops, the courts, the IRS, and everyone else will ignore anyone who says that income tax is illegal. They’ll throw you in jail, or shoot you, or confiscate your property anyway.

Since the cops really are going to arrest these tax protestors, and they really are going to jail if they aren’t killed by the cops first. So what difference does it make if the law really says that you don’t have to pay income tax or not? The cops and the courts and the banks and the prison guards don’t care.

The only way it might matter is if, when you point out that there’s no law that you have to pay income tax, the judge believes you and sets you free. If he ignores the law and throws you in jail anyway, and every appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court similarly ignores the law, then it doesn’t matter that the law isn’t written down anywhere, you’re still going to jail exactly as if the law was written down somewhere.

The point is, if a cop is robbing you, it doesn’t do any good to tell the cop that he’s breaking the law. Surely the cop already knows this but doesn’t care. It won’t do you any good to pull out the legal code and show him that robbery is a crime, it will just make him angry. The only way it will help you is if there are non-corrupt cops who will help you arrest the corrupt cop, or if you can rally your friends and neighbors to help you.

In these tax protestor cases, there are no clean cops, every court and every government official in America will pretend to believe that you owe taxes. And just about every citizen in America believes that the government has the power to collect income taxes, and even if you showed them that the government didn’t have that power, their response would be that the government SHOULD have that power, and the law should be changed to allow the government to collect income taxes.

Thing is, exactly what do our government masters gain by keeping income taxes technically illegal? They’ve pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes. Since everyone believes that the government has the power to collect income taxes, wouldn’t it be trivial for them to get that written down into law sometime when people aren’t paying attention?

So your argument that there is no law that you have to pay income tax is an ineffective argument, since even if it were true it wouldn’t matter. A better argument would be to try to convince us that the government SHOULDN’T collect income taxes, since that way, even if there really were a law that you have to pay income taxes, we would try to get the law changed. Stop arguing that the government doesn’t have the power to collect income taxes, since the plain fact of the matter, since people go to jail every day because they didn’t pay income taxes, is that the government DOES have the power to collect income taxes, they do it every day. Whether that power is immoral, tyrannical, contradictory, or unconstitutional is another matter.

[bobsled]

The Federal Reserve is not a government entity, but instead a private bank that print money for the government with interest. That interest is paid off by our income tax. Therefore, the government does not print money even though it has the right to do so.