Ed Brown Raid - Tax Evasion

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
I say pen 'em up with federal marshals, National Guard and/or Reservists, and wait 'em out. Maybe they’ll die of old age in their posh compound, but they’ll die alone and without sympathy or support.
[/QUOTE]

Why bother to pen them up? Just keep an eye on them and the second they are far enough away from their compound and no danger to bystanders, arrest them. Pick them of individually if necessary. A holed-up psycho far from the population is no threat to anybody but him or herself. Ruby Ridge and Waco both could have been avoided if it wasn’t for the cowboy/Rambo mentality of the Fed shooters and their handlers.

102

[QUOTE=Common Tater]
THAT is what the tin-foil hat crowd maintains. And, they are probably correct to some degree - it sounds pretty hinky when you read what happened.
[/QUOTE]

No it was NOT hinky. Are you refering to the contention that Ohio wasn’t a state until 1953? Or the contention that a few of the bills ratified by the various state houses had slightly different punctuation, and therefore those states did not ratify the 16th Amendment?

Really, the punctuation thing is just silly. What exactly do you think those states that ratified the amendment but included an semicolon instead of a comma thought they were doing? Secretly invalidating the amendment? Or did they intend to ratify the amendment?

Of course they intended to ratify the amendment. The amendment was ratified.

Now, this says nothing at all about whether ratifying the amendment was WISE, or whether ratifying the amendment turned the country into a prison camp owned by the financiers. But if you don’t pay income taxes, every such argument has universally been rejected by the courts. As you say, if you’re so smart why are you in jail?

See here for a pretty good summary:

Jeez, I’m in a wikipedia frenzy in this thread. My only defense is that some people here don’t seem to have even a basic familiarity with the facts, and pointing them to wikipedia articles is a lot easier than writing such an article myself.

103

[QUOTE=bobsled]
You can try and simplify, and I will complicate. I will show that words can be interpreted any way the interpreter wants to interpret them. I don’t think income will ever be defined to my satisifaction, and I would interpret the word ’several’ to mean less than 10, so only ten states per year are subject to the income tax. See, I’m just like the last two Presidents, I let words mean whatever I want them to mean. Go ahead, try and define sexual relations, I dare you!
[/QUOTE]

Except, if you try to do this in court, the judge will send you to jail instead of agreeing with you.

See, in our country a judge’s job is to interpret what the words written in those fancy law books mean. The other side’s law-talking guy will try to convince the judge the words mean one thing, and your law-talking guy will try to convince the judge the words mean another. And then the judge decides for themselves, maybe after looking up what other fancy law-talking guys of the past have said. It doesn’t matter if you can’t understand what the legal definition of “income” is, what matters is that the judge will decide, and send you to prison if your mistake was egregious enough.

104

[QUOTE=bobsled]
You can try and simplify, and I will complicate. I will show that words can be interpreted any way the interpreter wants to interpret them.
[/QUOTE]

Not to be too blunt, but who cares what your interpretation is? The court is empowered to interpret the words, and they have. Your interpretation is simply not of interest, unless you can convince a judge. Until you do that it’s just meaningless.

105

[QUOTE=bobsled]
You can try and simplify, and I will complicate. I will show that words can be interpreted any way the interpreter wants to interpret them.
[/QUOTE]

That might be an appropriate and acceptable way to argue on libertarian or tax-protest blogs, but it ain’t gonna fly here, nor in any court of law, nor anywhere that matters.

106

[QUOTE=silenus]
Why bother to pen them up? Just keep an eye on them and the second they are far enough away from their compound and no danger to bystanders, arrest them. Pick them of individually if necessary. A holed-up psycho far from the population is no threat to anybody but him or herself. Ruby Ridge and Waco both could have been avoided if it wasn’t for the cowboy/Rambo mentality of the Fed shooters and their handlers.
[/QUOTE]
Well, yeah. As for the first part of your post, that’s assuming they ever decide to leave. They apparently are settled in for the long haul, and seem to think they can live in relative ease without interference or help from the outside world. It would be expensive, but not too difficult, to beseige them completely. I just don’t think coming out is on their list of options. As for the second part, we agree whole-heartedly, and it would be really, really good to see our federal law enforcement agencies use some patience for a change. Leave the hot-blooded young guys at home, post a few old farts on the county roads and park a satellite over the compound. If they come out, they come out, but I don’t think they’ll ever come out.

107

[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
I agree – we don’t need another Waco or Ruby Ridge, and one would hope that the federal agencies had learned the hard lessons of those places.
[/QUOTE]

I would hope the tax protestors, gun nuts, militiamen and religious whackos had learned the hard lessons of those places.

Hope, but not expect.

108

bobsled: please read the First Amendment and ask yourself, may the President issue a decree which recognizes Methodist Christianity as America’s state religion, and then issue an Executive Order that provides that Methodist ministers must give prayers at the beginning of every workday in every Executive Department? After all, the First Amendment simply says that “Congress shall make no law…” Obviously, the President isn’t the Congress, and Executive Orders are not law.

But that reading is absurd because it would otherwise undermine exactly what the First Amendment is intending say, which is clear from a plain reading of it. One can nitpick the verbiage to no end, but the point remains that the reason the First Amendment exists is to protect free speech and the free exercise of religion.

Similarly, I’m sure you know exactly why the 16th Amendment exists: to allow an income tax. A plain reading of it shows that it allows an income tax. If one could obfuscate the plain reading and intent of the amendment through selectively altering the definitions of words (which are clear enough when read in context), then not only is the 16th Amendment meaningless, then the 1st Amendment can be read out of existence, and so on and so on until the whole damned Constitution is meaningless. (If only Congress has the power to coin money, then the Franklin Mint is an illegal organization because it produces coins, too!)

How you can say that “enumeration” might not mean what is appears to mean, and yet insist on an extremely literal interpretation of the Art I Sec 8 powers seems to show a highly selective approach to reading the Constitution: read some powers extremely literally when it suits you, and other provisions as meaningless babble without the force of law when that suits you, too.

That might be the way you feel about things, but why should anyone take those views seriously? This approach to reading the Constitution sets up an intellectual game of “heads I win, tails you lose.”

109

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
No it was NOT hinky. Are you refering to the contention that Ohio wasn’t a state until 1953? Or the contention that a few of the bills ratified by the various state houses had slightly different punctuation, and therefore those states did not ratify the 16th Amendment?

[/QUOTE]

No. That does sound stupid. Who said that?? I should point out the claims sound hinky to me, (not that it matters one iota 100 years later) and given the other chicanry throughout the years sounds pretty much par for the course.

I guess this particular source :

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp

Bill Benson - he has his bona fides - he is in jail! Or was anyway. Maybe he is selling a book? And, it should be pointed out that I am in no way asserting that anyone shouldn’t pay their taxes, we already have too many folks riding in the wagon instead of helping pull. But here’s his claim:
"The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.

The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.

The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.

The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.

The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.

When his year long project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited every state capitol and knew that not a single state had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. 33 states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, a power the states do not possess.

Since 36 states were needed for ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only 2 states which successfully ratified."

110

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I would hope the tax protestors, gun nuts, militiamen and religious whackos had learned the hard lessons of those places.

Hope, but not expect.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t expect it either. Just a bunch of weak kneed “revolutionaries” who expect the Feds to fall back at the phrase “I refuse to accept the authority of the Admiralty Flag.” It’s like the superstitious of years gone by who thought the proper magic words could control the elements.

Everything goes fine until they shoot a federal officer, and then they complain when the Feds shoot back instead of calling “Ollee ollee oxen free.” Say all the bad things you want about the SLA, those guys expected to go down in a hail of bullets. The cops fired thousands of rounds into that house in LA, and nobody shed a tear. Shoot some woman in the face at Ruby Ridge they’ve got you nominated for Eichmann.

A piece of advice for those involved. If you’re planning a revolution, leave the wife and kids at home.

111

[QUOTE=Common Tater]
No. That does sound stupid. Who said that?? I should point out the claims sound hinky to me, (not that it matters one iota 100 years later) and given the other chicanry throughout the years sounds pretty much par for the course.

I guess this particular source :

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp

Bill Benson - he has his bona fides - he is in jail! Or was anyway. Maybe he is selling a book? And, it should be pointed out that I am in no way asserting that anyone shouldn’t pay their taxes, we already have too many folks riding in the wagon instead of helping pull. But here’s his claim:
"The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.

The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.

The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.

The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.

The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.

When his year long project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited every state capitol and knew that not a single state had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. 33 states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, a power the states do not possess.

Since 36 states were needed for ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only 2 states which successfully ratified."
[/QUOTE]

112

[QUOTE=Common Tater]
N

I guess this particular source :

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp

Bill Benson - he has his bona fides - he is in jail! Or was anyway. … But here’s his claim:
Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only 2 states which successfully ratified."
[/QUOTE]

From the same Idiot legal arguments site I linked to earlier:
Sixteenth Amendment not adopted: mentioning “The Law that Never Was” by Benson & Beckman: US v. Wm.J. Benson (7th Cir 1991) 941 F2d 598 [one of the authors of Law/Never] amended on other grounds 957 F2d 301; [ Benson convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to four years of prison followed by five years probation. US v. Benson (7th Cir 1995) 67 F3d 641 reh.den 74 F3d 152; it appears he violated the terms of his parole. Benson v. US (ND IL 1997) 969 F.Supp 1129]; M.D. Miller v. US (7th Cir 1988) 868 F2d 236; (“The validity of that process [adopting the 16th Amendment] and if the resulting constitutional amendment are no longer open questions.”) US v. Sitka (2d Cir 1988) 845 F2d 43 at 47 cert.den 488 US 827; US v. Thomas (7th Cir 1986) 788 F2d 1250 cert.den 479 US 853 (the leading case; held that the Sec of State’s 1913 proclamation of the adoption of the 16th Amendment is conclusive and “is now beyond review”); US v. House (WD Mich 1985) 617 F.Supp 237 aff’d (6th Cir 1986) 787 F2d 593(t)(used Benson as a witness, and thoroughly discussed his book); US v. Wojtas (ND IL 1985) 611 F.Supp 118; US v. Sato (ND IL 1989) 704 F.Supp 816 (the Constitutional provision that Congress will have exclusive authority over DC only means that no state govt has authority over DC but it does not limit Congress’s authority to make laws, including tax laws, only to DC); O.L. Brown v. CIR (2/9/97) TC Memo 1987-78 (judge declined to buy a copy); Spoelman v. Hummel (WD Mich unpub 5/26/89); US v. Stahl (9th Cir 1986) 792 F2d 1438 cert.den 479 US 1036; Spoelman v. Hummel (WD Mich unpub 5/26/89); {Note: The argument in “The Law That Never Was” by Benson & Beckman is a 1913 legal memo worked up for the Sec. of State by the Solicitor of the State Dept regarding the ratifications received from state legislatures for the proposed 16th amendment, noticing that several of these notifications contained tiny typos in reprinting the text of the proposed amendment. The Solicitor advised that, as a state could not amend or change the proposed text but only vote for or against ratification, and that the proposed amendment was available to members of all the legislatures in a number of published copies - most without any typos, and it is not known whether these typos existed in the copies seen by the members of the legislatures before they voted (no state govt ever complained that its vote on ratification would have gone different without the typos), and certainly the ratifications of previous and undoubted amendments also had similar flaws, that the notification of favorable ratifying votes is binding on the Sec of State, etc., it is presumed that all the votes were taken on the correct and proper text and therefore the ratifications are all valid and sufficient to adopt the amendment. The Sec. of State agreed. Contrary to the claims made by Benson & Beckman, there is no evidence that any ratification of any amendment was ever invalidated because of some typo in repeating the proposed amendment, and in fact there is a distinct shortage of precedents for invalidating an Act of Congress because of a comparable typo distinguishing the bills adopted by the House and the Senate. The book was dealt with in detail in US v. Thomas (7th Cir 1986) 788 F2d 1250 cert.den 479 US 853, and one of the co-authors tried to revive the rejected argument simply because he had written that book in US v. Benson (7th Cir 1991) 941 F2d 598, both times the court held that the validity of the adoption of the 16th Amendment was “beyond review”.}

It goes on. Let me repeat this "…therefore the ratifications are all valid and sufficient to adopt the amendment. "
http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss6.asp#sixteenth

113

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
That might be an appropriate and acceptable way to argue on libertarian or tax-protest blogs, but it ain’t gonna fly here, nor in any court of law, nor anywhere that matters.
[/QUOTE]

Two words: Jury Nullification. And by thy peers thou shall be vindicated.
Ron Paul already has announced a plan to eliminate the income tax. Reduce spending to 2001 levels, bring home all troops from all countries, abolish the income tax, and we can put away the red ink for good.

114

Income tax is stealing. If I have an agreement to work for a company for $10 an hour and I work 10 hours, if I take home anything less than $100, that means I’ve been robbed. Doesn’t matter if it was John Doe or the Feds, my property has been taken from me.

115

[QUOTE=bobsled]
Income tax is stealing.
[/QUOTE]

Stealing is defined as taking something illegally. Income tax is legal. Therefore, income tax isn’t stealing.

It may be unwise or unjust, but it ain’t stealing. Your objection are moral/ethical, not legal.

116

[QUOTE=bobsled]
Two words: Jury Nullification. And by thy peers thou shall be vindicated.
[/QUOTE]

If you think a jury is going to acquit you for refusing to pay income tax, you’re going to be very disappointed. Judging from the responses in this thread*, you’ll be convicted in about two minutes.
*-ten bucks says he claims we’re not his peers

117

[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
*-ten bucks says he claims we’re not his peers
[/QUOTE]
Will you be paying off with those so-called “bank notes” or real money-gold and silver? :wink:

118

[QUOTE=bobsled]
Income tax is stealing. If I have an agreement to work for a company for $10 an hour and I work 10 hours, if I take home anything less than $100, that means I’ve been robbed. Doesn’t matter if it was John Doe or the Feds, my property has been taken from me.
[/QUOTE]

This is what I don’t get about tax protesters. You go to work on a road paid for by income tax. You went to school that was most likely subsidized with federal tax dollars. You live in a country that is protected by a military that is funded by income tax. You take advantage of the numerous benefits that only exist because of a government that is funded by income tax. Do you suggest that all the things the government provides will magically appear absent being funded by us?

Sure you may not like some of the things that get funded but that is a different argument.

119

[QUOTE=bobsled]
I will show that words can be interpreted any way the interpreter wants to interpret them.
[/QUOTE]
Tulip, seventeen flamingos ameliorate the delicious pickaxe. Bandaged cigarettes despicably organize my fluid, accept engraved citrus kindergarten eyebrow indirect sandwich. Scarlet quarterbacks aren’t infinite fishhook. Reproduce the gestalt and unbutton your testicle ink, arachnid. Karate.

120

[QUOTE=Cervaise]
… unbutton your testicle ink…
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I think there’s only one way to interpret that, you sicko.