New Hampshire Tax Rebel Siege: Closer to Confrontation?

Things sound like they are heating up, in a bad way, for New Hampshire tax rebels Ed and Elaine Brown. They were convicted back in January for not paying income tax--laws that they insist are fictional. They've been holed up in their Plainfield, NH, home ever since. Here's the latest from the Concord Monitor:

U.S. Marshals and local police brought armored cars, SWAT teams and an explosives disposal unit. Planes flew overhead, heavily armed police officers guarded roadblocks, and phone lines were cut. But despite the heavy police presence, marshals said they did not come to the Plainfield home of tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown yesterday to arrest them.

Instead, U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier said police were in the area to do surveillance on Ed Brown and his supporters while an IRS criminal investigation unit seized a building the couple own 10 miles away.

………………..

Monier said the marshals and IRS agents were acting on a warrant issued earlier this week, which allowed the treasury department to seize the building that housed Elaine Brown's West Lebanon dental practice. Agents wearing "IRS CID" vests were visible in front of the office complex yesterday, but they would not speak to reporters. Cars and trucks parked in the driveway included license plates from Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey. An officer with a sniper rifle was stationed on a second-story balcony.

Marshals patroling the perimeter of Brown's homestead also detained a family friend who was walking the Browns' dog. Brown continues to insist he will not go quietly:

"I would say to the marshal, and all of those people responsible for any unlawful action, to be very apprehensive and very nervous about conducting any criminal activity against our land or ourselves," Brown said. "We are a very reciprocal people. You do us good, we do you good. You do us bad, we're gonna do you bad. It's that simple."

Previous blogging on this situation. The Browns' own web site. My 2004 reason feature article on people, like the Browns, who believe there is no legal obligation to pay income tax.

Comments

[mitch]

"Siege" is hard to spell.

[Warren]

Yeah, I'm all for a tax revolt. But pretending that something which will get you convicted in a court of law and sentenced to prison isn't a crime, that's just a little too squirrelly for me to follow.

[Dan T.]

This makes me wish I had gone to Dr. Brown for dental treatment and refused to pay the bill, citing my obligation to do so as "fictional".

[ed]

Paging Janet Reno.

[tarran]

I wish him luck, but the guy is dead meat; nothing will get you killed faster than publicly refusing to pay a gang the protection money they decide you "owe".

[Bubba Zanetti]

I hope this guy has multiple concealed cameras everywhere on his property and can collect the video...see the Waco documentary for all the aerial footage of what the authorities actually did vs. what they say happened.

[crimethink]

Bubba,

That's useless. The govt will simply claim that the footage was doctored, most likely by those same eeeeevil, omnipotent libertarians who hacked the online polls for Ron Paul.

[libertreee]

Yea, its the Federal Mafia all right. Just ask
Irwin Schiff.

We the People (http://www.givemeliberty.org/) has a video of the IRS Commissioner
ducking the question of exactly what law requires
anyone (at least a Citizen who earns his money in the 50 States and without a federaly licensed occupation) to pay income taxes. All he can say is that "he" always pays his "taxes" because of all the wonderful benefits the Feds bestow on us.

Waco or Wacko, this man has guts...

[stubby]

I'm with Warren. I sympathize with people who want to fight the IRS, I truly do. But as a law librarian with a CPA sister in law and an IRS agent mother in law, I know and believe that there is actually a legal obligation, under current US law, to pay income tax. (Until a few months ago, I worked for a long-lived law firm that dissolved under the weight and expense of defending itself against the IRS and the DOJ.) Even if the law were truly written in such a way that the obligation to pay taxes is not specifically enumerated, the power of the IRS and the DOJ make the point meaningless.

What I don't understand is why some people choose to make these doomed and dangerous stands. Do this couple truly believe they might prevail? Are they suicidal? Is one of them forcing the other to continue the confrontation? For all the valid reasons one might have to forceably resist the government, I don't understand tax protest. Protection of your family, practice of your religion, protection of your property, maybe. But over taxes? When you are certain to lose and maybe die? It mystifies me.

Of course, I don't understand why the government doesn't just leave them the hell alone until they are forced, by boredom or hunger or some other need, to leave the house. The government always seems to have to escalate the situation needlessly - but then that's the nature of government, anywhere and everywhere.

[Warren]

tarran,
What the fuck are you talking about. You can't collect from dead men. Failing to pay protection will get, your property vandalized possibly burned up, and maybe even your legs broke. But it's not likely to get you killed, unless you're trying to convince others not to pay either... Oh right.

[just sayin]

Issuing quotes like that is how the Ruby Ridge family got themselves shot. Threatening federal agents is a life-shortening practice.

[Pro Libertate]

mitch,

Agreed. I find Belagerung easier to manage.

[grizzly]

stubby said:

For all the valid reasons one might have to forceably resist the government, I don't understand tax protest. Protection of your family, practice of your religion, protection of your property, maybe. But over taxes? When you are certain to lose and maybe die? It mystifies me.

I fail to see the difference between protection of property and resistance to taxes. At least as it comes to government seizure of such. Does it matter if the gov steals the fruit of your labor in cash or in property form? What's the diff?

[Warren]

What I don't understand is why some people choose to make these doomed and dangerous stands.

I might understand it if I knew the people making them understood how doomed and dangerous they are. I'm afraid they actually believe what they're saying.

I don't understand why the government doesn't just leave them the hell alone until they are forced ... to leave the house.

This is well understood. Maintaining a siege is a very expensive proposition. The longer it goes on the greater the chance of failure.

[Will Allen]

Well, before we lump this guy in with the Ruby Ridge people, keep in mind that in that instance, the Feds had a convict harass the guy for weeks, until he finally shortened some shotgun barrels to just shut the guy up, and then the Feds issued an arrest warrant.

[Robert]

"Does it matter if the gov steals the fruit of your labor in cash or in property form? What's the diff?"

The diff is that cash is fungible, while other forms of property may have sentimental value. You can always get more money, but a chatchka might be one of a kind.

[MikeP]

There are two points of interest here.

First, to make a principled stand by raising issue with a law and saying that it doesn't mean what it is generally understood by everyone to mean is rather pointless. Even if a court were to decide in your favor against the general understanding, the law would be fixed in the next session of Congress to comply with the general understanding. The larger battle for the imagined greater cause will not be won with this technique, and you will simply look loopy for trying.

Second, anyone who believes that the government's actual power is not, at its foundation, the government's ability to kill people without societal reprobation should watch this incident carefully.

[Ken Shultz]

"Yeah, I'm all for a tax revolt. But pretending that something which will get you convicted in a court of law and sentenced to prison isn't a crime, that's just a little too squirrelly for me to follow."

Isn't this kinda the way we made it to the Revolution?

...it was the "crazies" and the Loyal Nine that went over the edge first. ...when it got serious, the grown ups took over, yeah, but it took a bunch of "kooks" to get us there.

[Tim]

I think the Brown's are very brave to do this. I am sure they are well aware that their lives are at risk, but they are unwilling to yield to the abject moral wrongness of the IRS.

IRS agents are a rung below Al Qaeda in being pro-America. If a conflict occurs, I hope several IRS parasites go down before they get Ed Brown.

[Randolph Carter]

Yeah, I watched that Aaron Russo movie (America Freedom to Fascism) where he talks to a bunch of IRS people and they all endlessly dodge the questions. Also interesting was the jury nullification case where the judge told the defendant that "The Constitution does not apply here!"

HOWEVER, I'm not convinced. It is screwed up, but what the IRS people said (and what seems to be true) is that their authority is their enforcement wing. Strange, confusing stuff.

[Randolph Carter]

Also, I think that although "Trading Places" was a rockin' movie, Russo's propaganda film had more chop-editing than a Michael Moore movie.

[libertreee]

I know and believe that there is actually a legal obligation, under current US law, to pay income tax.-Stubby

Know and believe? Which one is it? If you know, then you don't have to equivocate, and say you believe.
Get your mother in law to sit down with Joe Bannister, formerly the IRS CID head agent for Northern California, and maybe hash this thing out.

There are other IRS agents who quit as well, knowing there really is NO law.

BTW, there is no single income tax. There are individual taxes levied as excises on the income of federally privileged occupations. Just visit the IRS Code of Regulations, (and remember, only regulations, not broadly worded statutes, carry legal obligations.)

You will see that under those broadly worded statutes, the regs only say, : "See the regulations relating to the particular tax"

So, from this, you can deduce almost right away that there is no general income tax, only particular income taxes levied as excises on certain privileged occupations.

[steveintheknow]

If I were the Brown's....

I would calmly inform the good police-menz that I was only doin' a little research for the NBER on the "End of a Gun" theory.

Then I would kindly ask them to sign a waiver.

[Ron]

How brave are you, Tim?

[Brandybuck]

"--laws that they insist are fictional."

That law is quite real. It's Title 26 of the US Code. It ain't fictional, its genuine congressional legislation. Next time you need tax advice, consult with a tax lawyer, not Aaron Russo.

[Alan Vanneman]

Tax resisters are pathetic. Until libertarianism can outgrow its fascination with sort of infantile behavior, it will remain a marginal movement.

[Ron]

Ken Schultz: The Revolution succeeded in Boston because there was simply insufficient governmental force to preserve order there in the face of a very active and militant minority. When Parliament and the King attempted to restore order by using the Intolerable Acts and a large military force, the rest of the colonies realized that the same thing could happen to them, perhaps with less provocation, and that was when shots started getting fired. Contrast that with Shay's rebellion, which did not trigger widespread revolt, partly because it was against a state government as opposed to a national one, but mainly because there wasn't a substantial enough chunk of the public that identified with their cause.

[tarran]

It really does not matter what the law says, only what the men with guns say. Listen, let's say that this guy had gone to court, and a judge had agreed with him and ruled that he had no obligation to pay the income tax. Don't you realize that within 48 hours the Congress would be holding debate on a law to close the "loophole"?

Yes, the income tax is a plague that is destroying this country. I even read an indictment of the IRS in a 1950's Readers Digest written by a former head of the organization - who claimed that the income tax should be abolished, so even IRS agents know this.

However, we live in a land of men, not laws. People are used to having the government decide what laws are permitted to it, and what laws are not. The written law is so convoluted and vaguely written that it is no longer comprehendable and thus like illiterate peasants we must trust a priestly class to tell us what is permitted and what isn't. And the priestly class benefits from the power of draconian laws that invade every nook and cranny of society. So long as the judges claim that the law means everyone must pay the tax, the tax will be "lawful" regardless of how its written.

[toxicroach]

Whats funny is the tax on these guys is imposed in the first paragraph of the IRS Code.

Sec. 1. Tax imposed
TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter A, PART I, Sec. 1.
STATUTE

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -

(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table: If taxable income is: The tax is:

Not over $36,900 15% of taxable income.
Over $36,900 but not over $5,535, plus 28% of the excess over
$89,150 $36,900.
Over $89,150 but not over $20,165, plus 31% of the excess
$140,000 over $89,150.
Over $140,000 but not $35,928.50, plus 36% of the excess
over $250,000 over $140,000.
Over $250,000 $75,528.50, plus 39.6% of the
excess over $250,000.

There it is guys. It's the law.

Amendment XVI

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.

Yup. Its not only in the code, its constitutional.

The tax protestors are the legal equivalent of young earth creationists; sorry but its true.

[miche]

Tax resisters are pathetic.

Why? Because the government can kill them? If you were in a store and got the wrong change back, you would demand the situation be righted. If you were sold a lemon car, you would demand the situation be righted.

This Brown stand-off is similar. They seem to know the potential outcome and are willing to pay that price to see their situation righted.

I think standing up for yourself is commendable, not pathetic.

[Ironchef]

"If a thousand people would not pay their taxes this year, that would not be so violent and bloody as it would be to pay the taxes and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood."

Thoreau said about taxes during the Mexican-American war.

[de stijl]

Thoreau said about taxes during the Mexican-American war.

Never trust The Physicist!

[Dan T.]

Come on, people. The Browns voluntarily live in the United States and enjoy all that our society has to offer. Then when they are asked to pay their fair share, just like the rest of us, they refuse.

These people are common criminals, wanting something for nothing. You could make the case that by not paying taxes, they are stealing from the rest of us who do.

Stop romanticizing these selfish and childish freeloaders.

[Scott]

Even if you choose to ignore Title 26 and claim that no law exists, the federal courts have consistently disagreed. There are plenty of federal court decisions in which every possible tax resistance angle has been decided in favor of the government. At this point, with the laws and court cases in place, there is no debate among rational people that the feds have the legal authority to impose an income tax. If the Browns wish to go out in a blaze of glory, so be it, I only hope that no innocent bystanders or government employees that are just doing their jobs are injured as a result.

I have a lot of experience with the tax resistance movement and actually used to work with a firm that helped to defend them in court. I have personally seen very wealthy individuals lose everything because of their insane insistence that the law was on their side. I have had to break the news to their family members that they will see nothing but the inside of a federal prison simply due to their stubborn refusal to pay a tax debt, debts that sometimes could have been settled for a few thousand dollars before things got out of hand.

[Brian Courts]

Thoreau said about taxes during the Mexican-American war.

I had no idea he was so damn old! Getting a PhD in physics at his age is even more impressive. 🙂

[steveintheknow]

The tax protestors are the legal equivalent of young earth creationists; sorry but its true.

I don't know. I think a more accurate analogy would be "eco-terrorists", or "abortion clinic bombers". But that's just me.

[bill]

Toxicroach,

"Neither slavery nor INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Amendment 13 to the Constitution of the United States.

This makes forced taxation unconstitutional.

[de stijl]

bill,

Wesley Snipes wants you to give him a call.

[NotThatDavid]

I'm not even going to bother arguing "taxation is slavery," and just point out that later amendments trump earlier ones. Income tax is 16, abolition is 13. Tax wins.

[MikeP]

bill,

As NotThatDavid notes, you stopped your reading three amendments too early...

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.

Dan T.,

I never agreed to the government's taxing of me, nor did I ask for most all of the things it pretends it does for me. I pay my taxes simply because it is cheaper than not paying my taxes.

[bill]

Last time I read it the 16th doesn't repeal the 13th. Also, individual taxation isn't slavery, it's involuntary servitude. The products of my labor are being taken from me by use of force and against my will.

[libertreee]

At this point, with the laws and court cases in place, there is no debate among rational people that the feds have the legal authority to impose an income tax. If the Browns wish to go out in a blaze of glory, so be it, I only hope that no innocent bystanders or government employees that are just doing their jobs are injured as a result.

The issue has never reached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court cases from app 1913 to 1924 are still the law of the land that defined the Income tax as much more limited than collected today.

I agree the federal courts suck. When I started studying this issue in the 1980's we actually thought that federal judges were honest. They are not.

If they were honest, these people would not have been pushed to do what they are doing.
The tree of liberty has to be watered with the blood of patriots.

You may think they are nuts, and maybe you have to be a little nuts to do what they are doing.

Or maybe they just have to have a little more principle than most folks.

[libertreee]

taxable income of

Note the statute says "taxable income".

Now go the Code of Federal Regulations and you will see that it refers you to the "particular tax".

The "particular taxes" for the most part are listed on IRS form 720, the Federal Excise Tax form.

The are federally licensed occupations, such as
selling foreign insurance or foreign bonds.

[Pro Libertate]

To the extent that the federal government is acting with Constitutional authority in most of its actions--it arguably isn't--the income tax seems no worse than anything else it's doing. Especially given the proper step of amending the Constitution to permit it.

Now, is it moral to tax the populace to the degree our government does? That's another issue, and thus we enter just law territory.

[toxicroach]

Taxable income is whatever money/goods you get that is not excluded (like insurance payments), minus your deductions and all that crap. Basically its whats left over once you've gone through the whole tax code. It does not point to some obscure excise tax forms. I've studied the tax code more than most. While hardly an expert, its pretty much beyond doubt that the government 1)has clear constitutional authority to tax and 2) is excercising that power.

Whatever you may think of the tax code, it is not illegal. Nor its it involuntary servitude or slavery, since that involves ownership of persons rather than a tax.

Not going to convince anyone I guess, but the statement that there is no legal requirement to pay taxes is frankly bullcrap and I thought I'd point to some actual text to prove it.

[Bostonian, loves tea, playing]

Tax resisters are pathetic. Until libertarianism can outgrow its fascination with sort of infantile behavior, it will remain a marginal movement.

Maybe you should read some American history, late 1700s.

[Lord Dan T.]

Come on, people. The rebels voluntarily live within our American colonies and enjoy all that our society has to offer, including the protection of the King, the British Empire, and His Majesty's soldiers and navy. Then when they are asked to pay their fair share, just like the rest of us -- and in truth, their burden is lighter than that borne by many an Englishman --they refuse.

These people are common criminals, wanting something for nothing. You could make the case that by not paying taxes, they are stealing from the rest of us who do.

Stop romanticizing these selfish and childish freeloaders.

[Michael Hampton]

The guy who was detained while walking the dog says he was shot at twice and Tasered by camouflage-clad people who failed to identify themselves as police.

Much more here: http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9113.0

[Becky]

Ok--it is just nutty to say the income tax is illegal (though many of the IRS methods are). However, it is correct to note that it is a scam which has created the atrocity that is the federal government --a monster that is in every aspect of our lives, spending a million dollars an hour on Iraq, and wasting a comparable amount on Bridges to Nowhere and everything else.

There was a good reason it was specificlaly prohibited by the constituion as originally enacted. In 1913 the proponents of the 16th amendment which did away with the income tax prohibition did the old promise it was only a tax on the super wealthy.

It is too bad we are all lemmings--if we were not such cowards the Republic would be something like what the founders envisioned.

I hope this does not turn into a Waco and ends peacefully.

But I do understand where the Browns are coming from.

~Becky

[Ken Shultz]

I don't see the legality of the income tax as the central question here.

To me it's more like discriminatory laws in the South back in the '50s. ...I don't care if they were legal, discriminatory laws were wrong and they had to go.

...whether the income tax is legal is beside the point.

[Paul]

Yeah, you can nit-pick about the constitutionality of federal "withholding" and all that, but (although joe thought I was being funny in a previous thread) since the governent's job is to make money, you can't mess with the money train. There's a lot of stuff you can get away with in life, but one thing you can't get away with is messing with the government's money [pause for irony].

[libertreee]

Taxable income is whatever money/goods you get that is not excluded (like insurance payments), minus your deductions and all that crap. Basically its whats left over once you've gone through the whole tax code. It does not point to some obscure excise tax forms. I've studied the tax code more than most. While hardly an expert, its pretty much beyond doubt that the government 1)has clear constitutional authority to tax and 2) is excercising that power.

Very nice statement of the MSM belief that is so very convenient for the Feds.

It is nice to know that you studied the tax code "more than most".

I have a public access show. My host once said to his CPA at tax time. Hey, you don't work for me, you work for the feds against me.I'm going to fire you.

Guess what? His CPA suddenly turned around and agreed with him! He has studied the code more than most, and had come to the same conclusion.
He even came on the show and said he did not think the tax code said what most lawyers and CPA's seem to think it says. Or conveniently overlook to keep the fees coming in.

When you studied the code more than most, did you also have a chance to study through the freedom of information act the Individual Master Files that the IRS keeps on everyone? Did you in fact know that if they IRS audits a non-filer, they have to insert a computer code that links the non filer to one of the revenue taxable activities on the obscure tax form I mentioned (the form 720). Did you go over delegations of authority, to see what forms the
IRS is allowed to substitute for in the case of non-filers? Did you know that the form 1040 is not listed as a form that the IRS can substitute for, but that obscure form 720 is?

Did you think a trillion dollar fraud would be simply stated in a general statute? Don't you think it takes some research into the Constitution, Supreme Court cases, the statutes and regulations, as well as the administrative procedures of the IRS?

Most people don't care, they are scared, they simply sign under penalty of perjury and are quite happy to get a refund.

But a few people do care, and when they see how the system works, they take action. Some people care enough to go to jail. Some people care enough to hole themselves up in their home with SWAT teams bearing down on them. And some people have gone to trial and have been acquited by juries who see how twisted the IRS really is when it comes to their own administrative procedures.

[MikeP]

So the argument that one doesn't have to pay one's taxes comes from evidence of the incompetence of the IRS in writing its own rules on how to collect a couple trillion dollars from hundreds of millions of people and corporations given the reams of social engineering Congress calls a tax code?

Okay.

[Nathan]

So, the tax wackos think you don't have to pay taxes. What does "have to" mean, if it doesn't mean that the government will impose penalties, prison, and ultimately death on those who don't obey?

It's interesting that this particular lunacy is unique to income taxation. Lots of people want to legalize pot, but I haven't heard anyone argue that marijuana is actually already legal, and that the so-called laws against it are just a giant hoax.

[libertreee]

1913 the proponents of the 16th amendment which did away with the income tax prohibition did the old promise it was only a tax on the super wealthy.

The Pollock decision that struck down the federal income tax has never been overturned. The Supremes cited it up to the last of the great income tax cases, as late as 1924.

Judge Steven J Fields was one of the greatest Supreme Ct Chief Judges of all time. His court both struck down the income tax and affirmed the 9th amendment right to work. (in different cases, of course).

If you have a right to work, you cannot be taxed on the right. The power to tax is the power to destroy.

What you CAN tax is a privileged occupation. A
priveleged occupation consists of a revenue taxable occupation that is licensed by the FEDS. You do not have a right to work in a priveleged occupation.

The feds also claim geographical jurisdiction over the income of non-resident aliens and the foreign earned income of American Citizens. (The US is the only nation in the world that claims jurisdiction of foreign earned income of its citizens.)

They also claim the right to tax the incomes of their own workers for the privilege of working for the state.

They also can tax the incomes (defined by the Supreme Court as the net tax after deductions) of the profits of corporations. Exactly how far this jurisdiction lies is a matter of dispute by the tax honesty folks.

All of these taxable streams of income are those that the 16th Amendment clarified as in the nature of excise taxes, not direct taxes.

The IRS points to the Supreme Ct case "Brushaber vs Union Pacific" as THE case that affirms the 16th amendment.

But, the IRS treasury order that issued after the case was decided and references the case only states it gives them jurisdiction over "non resident aliens." Perhaps the immigration issue we face today would clear up a little if the American people understood that non resident aliens could be taxed on their income, but citizens are largely exempt from income tax.

A direct tax is a tax on property. The taxing clauses of the constitution still hold that a direct tax has to be apportioned among the states. This is politically difficult and cumbersome. The feds would much rather the sheeple simply assess themselves a tax they simply do not owe because the IRS makes them piss in their pants at night. Betty is correct in that the means used to collect the tax is criminal. That is a large reason why many hate the tax.

Buthey, after all, that is what the "privilege" of being an American, and living in this wonderful country means, doesn't it? The privilege to give up your inalienable rights to keep your wages in order to get some bread and circuses, right? The privilege to send your kids to die in a foreign land for the sake of Halliburton and a promise if he survives of a college education, right?

[Ken Shultz]

"Lots of people want to legalize pot, but I haven't heard anyone argue that marijuana is actually already legal, and that the so-called laws against it are just a giant hoax."

There might be a case for that.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

----The Ninth Amendment

[libertreee]

t's interesting that this particular lunacy is unique to income taxation...marijuana laws do not.

Because of the erosion of our rights due to the continuing growth of the state. They had to pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol distrubution, right?

By the way, Al Capone was not convicted of income tax evasion based on a general tax on income. He did indeed have a FEDERAL LICENSE to import hard liquor from Canada for municipal purpose only.

Of course, he imported a lot more than he was supposed to under that license, so he was convicted of abusing a federally licensed occupation.

Also by the way, the feds insert codes into the IMF of non filers stating that they have violated international drug treaties and have illegaly dealt in narcotics.

But, you are correct. You have touched on the irony of the situation. No other system of law keeps inserting language that says it is based on "voluntary compliance". No other tax is based on "self asssessment." If you get a property tax bill, do you assess the tax on yourself?

However, the same jurisdictional sleight of hand that appears in the income tax code regarding federal geographical jurisdiction might well apply to other laws as well.

After all, the Constitution only authorizes four federal crimes.

And the feds are only supposed to "own" lands ceded to them by the states for dockyards, arsenals, etc.

The feds are out of control. And the courts, the people are out to lunch.

So that is why some people who see the fraud are willing to risk a lot to try to stand up against it.

[libertreee]

"municipal purpose" sorry. Make that medicinal purposes only.

[stubby]

(and remember, only regulations, not broadly worded statutes, carry legal obligations.)

???

[MikeP]

Yes, stubby, that caught my eye too. Silly me, thinking it was exactly the opposite.

[stubby]

Sometimes tax protesters remind me of the more dedicated and demented conspiracy theorists. They decide to believe "facts" which are in fact completely divorced from reality, and then they treat you like you're the one to be pitied.

[bill]

toxicroach,

You are completely wrong.

"While laboring to benefit another occurs in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor."

[Brandybuck]

You can argue that the law is wrong, that it is immoral, that it is unjustified. But you cannot argue that it is fictional.

The abolitionists didn't argue that slavery was illegal. Instead they argued that it was immoral. There's a universe of difference here, but it's one the tax conspiracists cannot seem to understand. Civil disobedience gains its moral strength by refusing to obey an unjust law, not by pretending it doesn't exist. The Browns aren't making a moral stand, because they have not made any moral claims.

[libertreee]

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/MISC/Cryer/CRYER--MotiontoDismiss.pdf

The above referenced link is to a legal brief recently written by an attorney in Shreveport LA
who says he researched it entirely on his own, whithout reference to Irwin Shiff's books or any of the past tax honesty movement figures.

It is 100 pages long. If anyone on this list wants to pursue this complicated issue further, I would suggest reading this excellent brief.

[commentor]

The 16th amendment was not properly and truly ratified by the necessary number of states. Google it or better yet go and do the research yourself.

[jh]

The bottom line here? The gang of armed thugs -- oops, I meant to say "the illustrious gentlemen with the IRS" -- have the guns, and they intend to make an example of these folks so the other 300 million toe the line. That's why they're using what might in other contexts be considered excessive force. Those snipers, helicopters, etc. cost way more than the actual tax amount they're trying to collect -- but way less than what they'd lose if these folks got away with it and other people were emboldened by their example.

I can admire their reckless courage -- and the fine attempt to illustrate the Men With Guns Will Eventually Show Up doctrine -- while still wanting to keep way out of the line of fire. Don't get into a bar fight unless you know how to win.

P.S. Not a peep about this in the local papers.

[toxicroach]

Yeah, unfree labor.

Until the government, you knows, makes everyone serve 10 years building roads or some crap, taxing income is not involuntary servitude. It's a tax. Taxes suck. But they are neither slavery nor does it involve involuntary servitude by any definition of the term that isn't being grossly distorted for rhetorical effect.

[toxicroach]

And you can tell how weird this conversation is by the fact that I'm the moderate pro-government guy in the conversation.

[joe]

Pay your taxes like everyone else, you parasite.

[miche]

Until the government, you knows, makes everyone serve 10 years building roads or some crap, taxing income is not involuntary servitude. It's a tax. Taxes suck. But they are neither slavery nor does it involve involuntary servitude by any definition of the term that isn't being grossly distorted for rhetorical effect.

Did you look at:libertreee | June 8, 2007, 9:44pm | #

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/MISC/Cryer/CRYER--MotiontoDismiss.pdf

It's long but worth the time investment. It is one of the few things I've seen that takes the argument beyond "the 16th wasn't ratified" argument.

The motion actually takes on the definitions of direct/indirect taxes and income. It cites much constitutional and Supreme Court support.

/you shouldn't need an MBS in BS to understand the law

[Rob]

I can only hope that this ends peacefully, and that the ones who will enact the siege policy are not planning a sheep dipping campaign, or a plan to use other unsavory devices in violation of the Posse Commitatus Act (if miltary elements are brought in).

Furthermore, the crime is that of "failure to report income", not that of an inability to pay. Whether or not the income tax law is valid is a matter of legislation, and there is certainly a case to be made ON PAPER. In this case, even if the Brown's are sincere, I do not see a positive outcome to this particular matter, as the mainstream press will only parrot the authors of the siege.

[Cameron, CPA]

Obligation to pay for government "services"? Why can't I sign a waiver renouncing my ability to benefit from any purported "services" and then go about my merry way. Gee, I don't think I could plan well enough for retirement. After all, it would be tough to best the 2% government return on my 'social security' taxes.

Then again maybe I couldn't get on in life without the 'protection' of a bloated police force, who prevent, um...um..., well I'm sure they prevent some sort of crime, like speeding or smoking in a restaurant. Then again, they don't really prevent anything do they? All things considered, I'll rely on my 12-gauge shotgun when things get dicey.

I suppose this list could go on and on, much like the thievery of the all-hailed government, but I can't really expect the unenlightened lemmings in the general populace to comprehend how much better their lives would be without taxes (and by extension a massive government).

Those posters who referred to the noble Browns as freeloaders (or another equivalent synonym), might be wise to recognize who the true leeches are in society. Down with the State!

[JT_Lancer]

Taxation is theft, no matter how you rationalize it, no matter how noble the intent.

Unlike the private sector, where consumer and producer VOLUNTARILY decide to exchange cash for goods and services, the government mandates the citizenry to pay for 'goods' and 'services' that the citizen may not want or need.

You can rationalize the 'need' and 'benefit' of taxes for the 'good of society', but it is undeniable that taxation - the INVOLUNTARY extraction of private property from those who earn it - is theft.

[Tagore Smith]

Dan T trolls:

"Come on, people. The Browns voluntarily live in the United States and enjoy all that our society has to offer. Then when they are asked to pay their fair share, just like the rest of us, they refuse."

You don't understand the tax code very well. If the Browns chose to leave the country and enjoy none of those benefits, the IRS would still insist on taxing the income they made in their new home (though they would be allowed to write off whatever taxes they paid there). Even if they chose to give up their US citizenship the IRS would still require them to pay income tax for 10 years.

If these benefits were actually desirable in proportion to the tax that upper bracket tax payers pay, the IRS would not have to to tax people who choose not to receive them.

[Mr Revolution]

United Statesians were not regularly coerced into paying regular federal income tax until 1913 or thereabouts. How did this republic survive over 135 years without direct extortion from its charges-ourselves, no less? (This question is a rhetorical one, of course.)

Believers in the U.S. Constitution need to band together and stand up for it (or shut up and stand off). This man is laudable, from what very little I know of the situation. What he (and I) need is about 2 million more constitutionalists to commit to standing up for our constitutional rights on, say, tax-day 2010. Together, we can achieve greatness. Separately, we manifest Divide & Conquer every day for our adversaries. The states can attend to their citizenries and vice versa just fine if left to their own devices (see pre-1913 U.S.).