Luckily for him there is a Republican in the White House. Reno (the only US AG to fire everyone under her when taking office and the only one to ever serve more than one term) would have already murdered him.
[size=24]Tax protester won't budge[/size]
By Mark LaFlamme , Staff Writer
Saturday, January 20, 2007
A day after he was convicted of evading taxes, Ed Brown of Plainfield, N.H., said he has no animosity toward the police who he said forced him to retreat inside his fortresslike home. But Brown also said he is nowhere near ready to surrender and warned that police who uphold unconstitutional laws may force the country into revolt.
[quote="Roger Ek"]The Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified.[/quote]
I don't know the history, but if the ammendment was never ratified how did it become law? Or was the law simply enacted on the basis that it was constitutional without an ammendment?
They wanted the money so they took it...might makes right...it is how government operates
Would it not be simpler just to site the law he wants to see. No one has ever been allowed to see this this law or statute, whatever you choose to call it. They will kill this man in the end. Big brother MUST do so to retain control over the people's pocketbooks and purses. I am behind this man.
I was born and raised in that area. My brother used to live in Plainfield.
About time someone in this country had testicular fortitude.
[size=18]VERY INTERESTING EMAIL[/size]
I just sent this to someone that just got out of federal prison for failing to file. This guy always keeps referring to "their tax laws" that do not have any application to non taxpayerw.
I am now convinced that the win has to come from the "law of the case" that is created prior to moving past arraignment because you will rarely win on the facts of the case. The fellow in NH did not properly address law before the case moved forward past arraignment to the trial of the facts. The jury can only hear facts! What would have happened if he would have gone in and offered a plea of guilty if the government could prove that the revenue laws applied to him when he was NOT a taxpayer?
Anyway, below is the letter I sent out to a guy just out of prison when he is stuck on always going to their laws that thereby shows the court that he is a taxpayer relying on their revenue laws for his relief.
Why do you want to rely on the revenue laws at all? Check out this court case!
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers and not to non taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to anull any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject nor the object of the revenue laws." Stewart v. Chinese Chamber of Commerce, 168 F.2d 709, 712.
The income tax is voluntary because you have made the political election to position yourself for the benefits of U.S. citizenship in lieu of living in the Republic Union of states often referred to as the "United States of America". The Supreme Court has stated that the income tax is predicated on "citizenship". This means U.S. citizenship of the Fourteenth Amendment for those persons subject to the admiralty/maritime jurisdiction thereof. U.S. citizens have made the political election to divorce themselves from the common law as secured for them by the Constitution. "Consent" of the governed, in accordance with the Declaration of Independence, is obtained by our ignorance. If someone joined the National Guard and later got sent to Iraq to get shot at, he cannot complain because he did not know that getting shot at was part of the agreement!
Why not get a discharge from the National Guard so you can lawfully ignore military laws that do not apply to you so you don't get shot at, or why don't you become a non taxpayer as stated in the court case above so you can lawfully ignore the revenue laws that do not apply to you and stop getting shot at?
Why not position yourself in the Republic Union of the several "United States of America" in lieu of voluntarily positioning yourself in the corporate "United States" and being subject to the admiralty/maritime jurisdiction thereof, and then (with your discharge firmly in hand) put all the courts on judicial notice of your political election in the venue and jurisdiction of "United States of America" and NOT in the venue and jurisdiction of the corporate "United States"?
We need to KNOW who we are in this world or we are presumed to have made the political election to be "subject" under the 14th Amendment. Why not break this "presumption" with evidence to rebut and destroy the rebuttable presumption?
"Presumptions may be looked on as the bats of the law, flitting in the twilight, but disappearing in the sunshine of actual facts." Mackowik v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. R. R. Co., 94 SW 256, 262, 196 Mo. 550
I assume you know that the United States is plural in Amendment 13 ("their" jurisdiction) and prior, while the corporte United States is singular thereafter. Which United States are you a citizen in? No government agent can make a political election for you. You make the political election VOLUNTARILY, and the income tax is voluntary based upon your political election to be a "taxpayer" as specifically distinguished from "non-taxpayer" in the court case above.
[quote="Tom C"]I don't think too many people are going to decide to do the same thing based on what this nut is doing.[/quote]
This guy hates taxes, gotta be a nut, huh Tom. :wink:
Mr. Brown is apparently quite deluded. But he still doesn't deserve either appreciation or sympathy.
I seem to remember hearing what a moonbat [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff]Irwin Schiff[/url] was called when he was sentenced for tax evasion just a few years ago.
IMO, technically these guys are right.
It makes a good case for a national sales tax.
At least there is some modicum of 'voluntary'.
Was there conclusive evidence presented on the government's behalf or the iron fist struck down?
[size=18][quote]"The industry and the military are working together to control everything. People don't even know it. Little frogs sitting in boiling water," he said. "The United States of America now is a fascist country."
Assistant US Attorney Bill Morse said Brown and his wife were both looking at "a substantial jail sentence".[/quote][/size]
[size=24]Warrant for tax rebel unsealed[/size]
By MARGOT SANGER-KATZ
The bench warrant for Ed Brown, a Plainfield man who fled his tax evasion trial last week, was unsealed by a federal judge yesterday.
Brown was convicted Thursday of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to disguise large financial transactions and structuring, the act of disguising large financial transactions. Brown stopped attending federal court on Jan. 12, the fourth day of the trial.
[size=18]Hollywood couldn't make up the Brown story [/size]
James Aberg, Sanbornton
I applaud Ed and Elaine Brown. The Browns woke up one morning and decided not to pay their federal income taxes, much as you or I might decide one morning to wear a blue sweater or get the car washed. The government took the couple to court.
Ed Brown, a mild-mannered, educated, upper-middle-class citizen, has locked himself in his house with nothing but a gun and Bill O'Reilly's Culture Warrior and is expecting a shootout with the police (once he wakes from his nap).
[quote="Dennis"][quote="Roger Ek"]The Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified.[/quote]
I don't know the history, but if the ammendment was never ratified how did it become law? Or was the law simply enacted on the basis that it was constitutional without an ammendment?[/quote]
It was first rejected by NH. It was indeed ratified by enough states.
The 16th Amendment, which specifically authorizes the income tax, was proposed on July 12, 1909.
# State Date *
1 Alabama Aug 10, 1909
2 Kentucky Feb 8, 1910
3 South Carolina Feb 19, 1910
4 Illinois Mar 1, 1910
5 Mississippi Mar 7, 1910
6 Oklahoma Mar 10, 1910
7 Maryland Apr 8, 1910
8 Georgia Aug 3, 1910
9 Texas Aug 16, 1910
10 Ohio Jan 19, 1911
11 Idaho Jan 20, 1911
12 Oregon Jan 23, 1911
13 Washington Jan 26, 1911
14 Montana Jan 30, 1911
15 Indiana Jan 30, 1911
16 California Jan 31, 1911
17 Nevada Jan 31, 1911
18 South Dakota Feb 3, 1911
19 Nebraska Feb 9, 1911
20 North Carolina Feb 11, 1911
21 Colorado Feb 15, 1911
22 North Dakota Feb 17, 1911
23 Kansas Feb 18, 1911
24 Michigan Feb 23, 1911
25 Iowa Feb 24, 1911
26 Missouri Mar 16, 1911
[b]27 Maine Mar 31, 1911 [/b]
28 Tennessee Apr 7, 1911
29 Arkansas Apr 22, 1911
30 Wisconsin May 26, 1911
31 New York Jul 12, 1911
32 Arizona Apr 6, 1912
33 Minnesota Jun 11, 1912
34 Louisiana Jun 28, 1912
35 West Virginia Jan 31, 1913
36 New Mexico Feb 3, 1913 * [b]<==== ratified[/b]
37 Massachusetts Mar 4, 1913
[b]38 New Hampshire Mar 7, 1913[/b]
Ratified in 1302 days
[size=18][b]This amendment was specifically rejected by New Hampshire on Mar 2, 1911.[/b][/size] It was also rejected by Arkansas prior to its subsequent ratification, and by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.
I don't wish to drift off the direction of this thread, but merely to put in my "two cents worth."
Back on page one I noticed a claim of some great conspiracy against freedom and a following list of those agencies and groups involved. One listed was F.E.M.A. To carry out a conspiracy of any type takes an elevated degree of intelligence. I do not recall seeing a great amount of intelligence, actually a lack there-of, during the follow-up of hurricane Katrina. Nor have I seen a demo of said intelligence in local F.E.M.A. people in York County. It doesn't seem to me that conspiracy intelligence can come from stupidity. Knowing some of the people involved locally, they're too stupid to be smart enough to be competent. Conspiracy? even if it was, they couldn't keep it a secret.
Regardless of whether or not the 16th Amendment was or was not ratified is at this point arrelevant. All the Amendment does is give the government permission to enforce this tax. There then must be a law (statute) passed to say how this law will work, who it will affect,and how it will be collected. All Ed Brown is doing is asking to see a copy of this law. If a man has to pay a large portion of his wages to an all powerful government, does he not have the right to even see the law (statute)? Why do the feds continually refuse the American people the right to see this written law. Many people have been found not guilty in cases like Mr. Brown's only for the reason the law would or could not be presented in a court of law.The first Amendment gives the people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The Second Admendment gives the people the power to see those rights are redressed. Mr Brown is just using the first and Second Amendment as is supposed to be his right and many of you nanny babies want Mr. Brown killed because he nerve to do what you do not have the nerve to do.
Bud: Mr. Brown was convicted by one of theose juries you love so much. He made his arguments and they didn't buy them.
Our Constitution gives us three boxes to work with, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box. It looks like Mr. Brown is down to his last box.
Has Mr. Brown exhausted his appeal process?
Dan Billings, Three of those jurors now claim they were coerced into a guilty plea. If they had been Fully Informed Jurors, this could not have happened. They have claimed in public that they were coerced into a guilty plea. So much for your FAIR government run jury trials.
Dan, Why does your fair benevolent government just produce the law this man is asking to see. He says he will pay upon seeing this law. Does this law exist? Have you seen it?
Oh good, Dan. Where can the other 297,000,000 of us see it?
[url=http://www.amazon.com/Federal-Income-Tax-Regulations-Selected-2005-2006/... the book.[/url]
[url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26_10_A.html]And its online![/url]
REPEALED ~ I like that idea :lol:
Dan, would you please put this law (statute) on AMGs so the reat of us can read it? If it is so readily available why does the IRS not present this law in court?
Dan Billings, I am not sure I trust you any further than I trust your government. If you have a copy as you say, why not print it on AMGs so we can all see it, or, do you want to keep it secret as your government seems to?
Catch up with past episodes of The Advance Team >>