Tax evaders standoff

[jimmyseymour]

Well we talked about this turning into another waco before and things are getting serious now.

A new Waco was narrowly averted as law enforcement, APC's and SWAT team personnel descended on the home of Ed Brown, the tax protester who has threatened to use force to defend himself against authorities.
Ed Brown himself states that the police are now leaving and that media are being allowed to approach the house.
According to his blog, "apparently this was a test by the "authorities" to see what kind of response would come from the community......testing to see what might happen if they move in......."
This was also confirmed verbally by the Browns during an appearance on the RBN radio network.
We received early unconfirmed reports that the Brown house was on fire - although according to reports, "Federal authorities indicated Thursday they will not raid the home of two convicted tax evaders but would serve a warrant."
Fox News reports, "The U.S. Marshal's Service says a supporter of the fugitives was detained near the Browns' home this morning and that they served a federal warrant to seize Elaine Brown's dental office in Lebanon."
In addition, it is being reported that authorities have closed the airspace above Brown's home and that an AP photographer was ordered to leave after flying over the property.
Fred Smart, a close friend of the Brown's confirmed that Brown's phone has been cut and that at around 8:30PM last night a silent surveillance drone with a bright beaming light encircled the Brown's property as if conducting reconnaissance.
News reporters have confirmed that police have surrounded the property and that they were kept away from the property. Neighbors have been evacuted from their homes.
Officer Jack McLamb attempted to call the Sheriff's office in the area but was told that he was out of town.
Authorities have been telling reporters that they would not violently engage the Brown family for the past few months but this now appears to have been a drill for a potential future scenario in that mold.
"Dozens of heavily armed state police and federal agents have assembled near the rural Grafton County home of tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown."
"About 50 state troopers, some armed with high-powered rifles, along with a vehicle from the explosives unit gathered this morning in Plainfield, a small town where Edward and Elaine Brown have holed up in their home since being convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to lengthy federal prison terms," reports the Plainfield Union Leader.
More live updates at this blog.
VIDEO news report from the scene.
We are encouraging people in the Plainfield area to get down to the area immediately to see what is happening.
More on this story as it develops.....

heres some links to some videos

http://www.wmur.com/video/13461249/index.html

I cant get the press conference video to play the only that will play is the one saying they havn't been told anything.

[xman]

In Canada, one doesn't technically have to pay personal income taxes. They can come after you if you don't file, but not for failing to pay.

X

[jimmyseymour]

I wonder if there trying to end this before the republican debates in new hampshire. Ron Paul is one the people they quoted, and shows on public record, and states on a film, that it is against the law for the IRS to collect income tax on us citizens since 1930 when the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional. I wonder how much ammo this would give ron paul if the stand off is still going on when the republican debates hit there. It's funny you have a member of congress saying what the irs is doing is illegal and no one listens to him and the courts saying they don't care what the law says, and that lower courts now can ignore what the supreme court has said and it's considered gospel.

[jimmyseymour]

heres a link to the fellow arrested while walking the guys dog. Apparently what the police reported and what actually happened are two different stories. Imagine that.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...59394679&hl=en

[rickw]

I wonder if there trying to end this before the republican debates in new hampshire. Ron Paul is one the people they quoted, and shows on public record, and states on a film, that it is against the law for the IRS to collect income tax on us citizens since 1930 when the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional. I wonder how much ammo this would give ron paul if the stand off is still going on when the republican debates hit there. It's funny you have a member of congress saying what the irs is doing is illegal and no one listens to him and the courts saying they don't care what the law says, and that lower courts now can ignore what the supreme court has said and it's considered gospel.

Could you provide more information please. I am aware of some cases, early in the 20th century that found direct taxation unconstitutional. This was rectified with the radification of the 16th Amendment in 1913.

Rick

[jimmyseymour]

I'll try. I know ron paul has said it publicly in the movie freedom to facism by arron russo. I have seen it around but it will take me some time to find it again.

[jimmyseymour]

Well all the sites I went to that had that information are down or now you have to pay for them. Personally I'm not paying for them. I got a letter in the mail from one that made red flags pop up saying that for just 6000 dollars they could get my last three years of taxes returned but I had to pay 6000 up front and immediatly to get it. I didn't and will never pay this guy this kind of money. Here is a link to the IRS official who quit over this. His is a pay site as well but you can find other places from his website and get some more information. Here you go.

http://www.freedomabovefortune.com/

[jimmyseymour]

Could you provide more information please. I am aware of some cases, early in the 20th century that found direct taxation unconstitutional. This was rectified with the radification of the 16th Amendment in 1913.

Rick

Sorry for taking so long to find some information. It's getting harder to find this stuff. Here's a good link.

http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta11001.htm

We will pay $10,000.00 to any person who can prove the following statements of fact to be false !!

We have conclusive legal proof that the following facts are correct. That is why we can say - American citizens and permanent resident aliens, living and working within the States of the Union ARE NOT SUBJECT to the filing of an IRS Form 1040 and ARE NOT LIABLE for the payment of a tax on domestic "income" !
FOR YEARS the IRS has ruled the American people in a manner equal only to the Soviet KGB. FEAR and BLUFF and deception have been the IRS's major weapons. Americans have been lead to believe that they "owe" an income tax on their earnings; that it is their "patriotic duty to pay it", and that there is no alternative to the IRS's abuse. Nothing could be further from the TRUTH.
FEAR can only prevail when victims are ignorant of the facts. The Bible teaches us that God's people perish for lack of knowledge. Therefore, consider the following:
1) Our Founding Fathers created a constitutional REPUBLIC as our form of government. The Constitution gives the federal/national government LIMITED powers. All powers not delegated to the United States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the People. The Union was created to be the servant of the People! The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. (Article VI, Clause 2)
2) The Constitution gives the Congress the power to lay and collect taxes to pay the debts of the government, provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, subject to the following rules, pertaining to the only two classifications of taxes permitted by the Constitution: Direct Taxes, which are subject to the rule of apportionment (to the states for collection), and Indirect Taxes - imposts, duties and excises, subject to the rule of uniformity.
3) The government is NOT ALLOWED, by either one of the two classifications, TO TAX DIRECTLY citizens or permanent resident aliens of the United States, in the United States. The intent of the founders was to keep the government the servant of the People, and to prevent it from becoming the master. (Article I, Section2, Clause 3)
4) The census is taken every ten years to determine the number of representatives to be allotted to each state and the amount of a direct tax that may be apportioned to each state determined by the percentage its number of representatives bears to the total membership in the House of Representatives. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4)
5) It was established in the Constitutional convention of 1787 that the Supreme Court of the United States would have the power of "judicial review", i.e., the power to declare laws passed by the United States Congress to be null and void if such a law or laws were in violation of the Constitution, to be determined from the original intent as found in Madison's Notes recorded during the Convention, the Federalist Papers, and the ratifying conventions found in Elliott's Debates.
6) Due to the characteristics of the second classification of taxation authorized in the Constitution, the Supreme Court called it an Indirect Tax, and it is divided into three distinct categories of taxes: IMPOSTS, DUTIES and EXCISES. These taxes were intended to provide for the operating expense of the government of the United States.
7) Duties and Imposts are taxes laid by the government on things imported into the country from abroad, and are paid at the ports of entry.
8) The Supreme Court says that "EXCISES are:... taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale and consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges" (See Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 US 107 (1911))
9) In 1862, Congress pased an Act (law) to create an "Income Duty" to help pay for the war between the states. A duty is an indirect tax which the federal government cannot impose on citizens or residents of a state having sources of income within a State of the Union.
10) Congress passed an Act in 1894 to impose a tax on the incomes of citizens and resident aliens of the United States. The constitutionality of the Act was challenged in 1895 and the Supreme Court said the law was UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT WAS A DIRECT TAX THAT WAS NOT APPORTIONED as the Constitution required. (See Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co., 157 US 429 (1895))
11) In 1909 Congress passed the 16th Amendment to the Constitution that was allegedly ratified by 3/4 of the states; it is known as the "Income Tax Amendment".
12) Some officials within the IRS, along with professors, politicians, teachers and some judges have said, and are saying, that the 16th Amendment changed the Constitution to allow a direct tax without apportionment.
13) The above persons are NOT EMPOWERED to interpret the meaning of the United States Constitution! As stated above (Fact 5), this power is granted by the Constitution to the Supreme Court, but is limited to original intent. The supreme Court is NOT EMPOWERED to function as a "social engineer", to amend or alter the Constitution as they have been doing. A change or "amendment" can only be lawfully done according to the provisions of Article V of that document.
14) The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1916 that the 16th Amendment DID NOT change the Constitution because of the fact that Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, were not repealed or altered; the U.S. Constitution cannot conflict with itself. The Court also said that the 16th Amendment MERELY PREVENTED THE INCOME DUTY FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE CATEGORY OF INDIRECT TAXATION. (Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. CO. 240 US 1 (pg. 16) (1916))
15) After the Supreme Court decision, the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued Treasury Decision 2313, ([Order] dated March 21, 1916; Vol 18 January-December, 1916, page 53). It states in part:"....it is hereby held that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the Act of October 3, 1913."
16) In another Supreme Court decision in 1916, the Court, in CLEAR LANGUAGE, settled the application of the 16th amendment: by the previous ruling (Brushaber) it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment CONFERRED NO NEW POWER OF TAXATION but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary (full) power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged....(Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 249 US 112 (1916))
17) The United States Constitution gives the national government the exclusive authority to handle foreign affairs. Congress has the power to pass laws concerning the direct or indirect taxation of foreigners doing business in the Unites States of America. It has possessed this power from the beginning, needing no amendment (change) to the U.S. Constitution to authorize the exercise of it.
18) The DIRECT classification of taxation was intended for use when unforesen expenses or emergencies arise. Congress, needing funds to meet the emergency, can borrow money on the credit of the United States (Article I, Section 8 Clause 2). The founding fathers intended that the budget of the United States be balanced and a deficit be paid off quickly and in an orderly fashion, through a DIRECT tax. The tax bill is given to the Senate of the Union. The bill is "apportioned" by the number of representatives of each State in Congress; therefore, each State is billed its apportioned share of the Direct tax equal to the number of votes its Representatives could employ to pass the tax. How the states raise the money to pay the bill is not a federal concern. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3)
19) In the Brushaber and Stanton cases, the Supreme Court said the 16th Amendment did not change income taxes to another classification. So, if the income tax is an indirect excise, then how is it applied and collected ? According to the Supreme Court: "Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale and consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such tax involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable......it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods."
QUESTION: If all RIGHTS come from God (citizens of the States retained all RIGHTS except those surrendered as enumerated in the Constitution) and PRIVILEGES are granted by government after application for privilege is made by the Citizen,, then what is the privilege that the income tax is pplied against ?
ANSWER: As established in the Constitution, the federal government cannot directly tax a citizen living within the States of the Union. Citizens possess RIGHTS; these RIGHTS cannot be converted to privileges by the government. The only individuals who would not have these rights and be liable to regulation by government are NONRESIDENT ALIENS doing business and working within the United States or receiving domestic source profits from investment instruments in America, AND United States citizens working in a foreign country and taxable under TREATIES between the two governments.
20) WITHHOLDING AGENTS withhold income taxes. The only section in the Internal Revenue Code that defines this authority is section 7701(a)(16).
21) Withholding of money for income tax purposes, according to section 7701(a)(16), is only authorized under sections 1441 - Nonresident aliens, 1442 - Foreign Corporations, 1443 - Foreign Tax Exempt Organizations, and 1461- Withholding Agents' Liability for Withheld Tax.
22) Internal Revenue Manual Chapter 1100, Organization and Staffing, section 1132.75 states: "TheCriminal Investigative Division enforces the criminal statutes applicable to income, estate, gift, employment, and excise tax laws involving United States citizens RESIDING IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES and nonresident aliens subject to Federal income tax filing requirements..."(empphasis added)
23) The implementation of IRS Tresury Regulation 26 CFR 1.1441-5 is explained in Publication 515 on page 2: "If an individual gives you a written statement, in duplicate, stating that he or she is a citizen or resident of the United States, and you do not know otherwise, you may accept this statement and are relieved of the duty of withholding tax."
24) The ONLY way a U.S. citizen or permanent resident alien , living and working in a State of the Union can have taxes deducted from their pay, is by voluntarily making an application (Form SS-5) to obtain a social security number, and then entering that number on an IRS Form W-4 - Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate, and signing it to permit witholding of "Employment Taxes". That is why the IRS pressures children to apply for social security numbers at an early age, and why citizens are pressured to "get used" to using the number, and employers are pressured to obtain the voluntary execution of a Form W-4 immediately from all those being hired. However, no federal law or regulation REQUIRES workers to have a social security number, or to sign a W-4 to qualify for, obtain, or retain a job..
25) Karl Marx wrote in his Communist Manifesto, ten planks needed to create a communist state. The second plank is:" A HEAVY PROGRESSIVE OR GRADUATED INCOME TAX"
26) The attorney who successfully challenged the Income Tax Act of 1894, Joseph H. Choate, recognized the communist hand in the shadows. He told the United States Supreme Court: "The Act of Congress which we are impugning (challenging as false) before you is communistic in its purposes and tendencies, and is defended here upon principles as communistic, socialistic - what shall I call them - populistic as ever have been addressed to any political assembly in the world."
27) The Supreme Court agreed; and Justice Field wrote the Court's opinion, concluding with these prophetic words: "Here I close my opinion. I could not say less in view of questions of such gravity that go down to the very foundations of the government. If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an Act of Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end? The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war growing in intensity and bitternes."
28) Internal Revenue Code Section 6654(e)(2)(C) states: ....no liability....if the individual was a citizen or resident alien of the United States throughout the preceding taxable year.
The IRS contends the success of the self-assessment system depends upon VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE -- EVIDENTLY SO !
Save-A-Patriot Fellowship P.O. Box 91 Westminster, MD. 21158 Tel. (410) 857-4441 Fax (410) 857-5249

I'm not sure how to get it. But I would love to have the supreme courts decision in these cases certified so I could carry them around and show everyone I meet.

[rickw]

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.


12) Some officials within the IRS, along with professors, politicians, teachers and some judges have said, and are saying, that the 16th Amendment changed the Constitution to allow a direct tax without apportionment.

13) The above persons are NOT EMPOWERED to interpret the meaning of the United States Constitution! As stated above (Fact 5), this power is granted by the Constitution to the Supreme Court, but is limited to original intent. The supreme Court is NOT EMPOWERED to function as a "social engineer", to amend or alter the Constitution as they have been doing. A change or "amendment" can only be lawfully done according to the provisions of Article V of that document.


Quite true. However, the amendment has never been challenged. Why would you even try to challenge the simple, direct wording of the amendment. Until such time as the court rules otherwise, it is law.

14) The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1916 that the 16th Amendment DID NOT change the Constitution because of the fact that Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, were not repealed or altered; the U.S. Constitution cannot conflict with itself. The Court also said that the 16th Amendment MERELY PREVENTED THE INCOME DUTY FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE CATEGORY OF INDIRECT TAXATION. (Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. CO. 240 US 1 (pg. 16) (1916))

True again. The constitution was not changed. However, it was altered with respect to direct taxation.

Rick