Couple Holed Up in House Over Tax Dispute

[NoodleBoy]

Source: ABC News, from AOL.com

"Do not under any circumstances make any attempt on this land. We will not accept any tomfoolery by any criminal element, be it federal, state or local," said Ed Brown in a press conference from the stoop of his concrete-clad home in Plainfield, N.H. "We either walk out of here free or we die."

Brown and his wife, Elaine, were sentenced in absentia in April to serve 63 months in prison for failing to pay more than $1 million in income tax.

The couple, however, insists that there is no law that requires citizens to pay income tax.

"There is no law. We looked and looked," Brown told the press.

Read more: http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/couple-holed-up-in-house-over-tax/20070618190609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

---

I guess they looked and looked, but forgot to look at, I don't know, the United States Constitution?

amendment 16 says:
"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."

Tax protestors like these people crack me up. So opposed to the concept of civil society, that they'll use government-regulated utilities and government-licensed contractors (who would take government-built roads and bridges) to be build little castles in wildlife areas that probably aren't paved over or cut down because of government environmental protection laws where they can hide from the evil government. I wonder how their food tastes-- hopefully it's good and healthy and labelled properly and uncontaminated, thanks to food, health, and safety regulations passed and enforced by the government.

douchebags.

[ORDagnabbit]

1. There is no law that says income tax is legal...show the law!

www.freedomtofascism.com

[NoodleBoy]

7. Amendment 16 of the United States Constitution (AKA The Supreme Law of the Land) says:

"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."

[happyslug]

8. The laws passed by Congress are presumed to be valid

And that includes the Federal Income Tax law, which was upheld during the US Civil War and was upheld by the Courts after passage of the amendment to the Constitution stating Congress could pass a Income tax. The Court had ruled in 1894 that Income taxes were a violation of the US Constitution, but reversed itself in 1896 when the COurt ruled an Inheritance tax was constitutional for in had been constitutional to pass an inheritance tax during the Civil War (Which in turn depended on the Civil War Income tax being Constitutional). The 1894 ruling on the Income Tax is viewed as a bad ruling by the Court and when a new income tax was passed the Supreme Court ruled it valid and expressly overturned its 1894 decision.

The issue is NOT me showing that the income tax is constitutional, but the issue is on people saying it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to show why the Courts have REFUSED to rule that way except in 1894, and that within two years the COurt was stating it had made a mistake. Thus the argument should be SHOW ME THE LAW THAT SAYS INCOME TAX VIOLATES THE US CONSTITUTION? I know of the 1894 decision, but even the court called that a bad decision, what other evidence do you have showing that an Income Tax violated the US Constitution? Explain the amendment to the Constitution that EXPRESSLY PERMITS ONE?

[NoodleBoy]

10. the 16th amendment expressly permits one, and over-rules any laws made to the contrary

that is, laws which are enacted by statute.

[happyslug]

12. But the Court ruled it need NOT have to be approved to have a valid Income tax

n/t

[NoodleBoy]

13. hm. interesting. didn't know that.

[lonestarnot]

51. Now you DU!

:evilgrin:

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

70. Hopefully this clears some confusion

The Constitution gives the Congress the power to lay and collect taxes to pay the debts of the government and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Congress is only permitted to levy two types of taxes.

1. DIRECT TAXES, which are subject to the rule of apportionment among the states of the Union.

2. INDIRECT TAXES -- imposts, duties and excises, subject to the rule of uniformity.

What category does the Federal Income tax fall under? I'll answer my own question neither. If people want to see how the propaganda machine worked on children and adults in 1943. Go to google video and type in "The spirit of 1943" A cartoon starring Donald Duck. My fellow DU's this is a must see cartoon.

The Supreme Court says that excises are...taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or 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>.)

In 1862, Congress passed 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.

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>.)

The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1916 that the 16th Amendment did not change the U.S. Constitution because of the fact that Article 1, section 2, clause 3, and Article 1, 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. (See Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US, page 16.)

[ORDagnabbit]

14. I'd listen to ex IRS agents.....

http://www.truthusa.org/articles/irs/irs2004.htm

[prolesunited]

27. So, I'm taking it that you don't pay taxes

seeing as how the government has no authority to levy them?

[Kelvin Mace]

67. I wouldn't, since

he's been fired, disbarred and had his CPA license revoked for his shenanigans.

Again, while I am no big fan of tyrannical government, the anti-tax folk are completely off base.

[Virginia Dare]

44. The way I understand it...

these particular individuals were refusing to pay property tax which was designed to fund public schools.

[Kelvin Mace]

66. The jails are full of people who follow such faulty logic

and the cemetery will probably house these idiots.

[DS1]

2. I can't find it, therefore it doesn't exist. You think they hold "God" to the same standard?

[jobycom]

3. So, are they going to shoot themselves, or make us waste tax dollars on bullets

doing it for them?

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

36. Huh? Who is their accuser?

Do you mean they did a criminal act? Who did Ed and Elaine Brown injure, harm, violate or perhaps had intent to cause damage to someone's property?

Maybe they were smoking marijauna in their home? We all know that's against the law.:)

[jobycom]

47. Reading is your friend.

From the article: Brown and his wife, Elaine, were sentenced in absentia in April to serve 63 months in prison for failing to pay more than $1 million in income tax.

I'd qualify that as stealing from everyone who pays income tax. Now they are denying the legality of government and laws passed by the US people, and saying that either those laws let them get away with it, or they will die trying. Well, they can't get away with it, so unless they change their mind, the only question is who exercises option number two. I say make them starve or shoot themselves, don't waste my tax dollars on bullets.

They have the option of facing the consequences of their actions. It's up to them.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kelvin Mace]

69. Wow, have I tuned into Fox News?

Immigrants, illegal or otherwise pay sales taxes, fuel taxes, property taxes (via rent), and quite a number of other taxes like tolls, usage fees, etc. Contrary to popular belief, very few work "off the books", they simply use fake SS numbers, which means the money is still withheld from their paycheck for taxes, but they never get to claim refunds or collect Social Security.

Sorry.

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

74. Now Social Security

Do the Amish pay Social Security? What does this have to do with Federal Income Tax? They use fake SS # isn't that fraud? We better go round them up.

[Kelvin Mace]

80. You are objecting to people committing

fraud by putting money into the SS fund and not drawing it out?

Actually, if the Amish work a job, they pay FICA and all other taxes, just like the rest of us.

You have dodged the rebuttal of your original point. You claimed illegal immigrants don't pay taxes and I have proven to you that they do. Do you withdraw your original assertion now?

[SharonAnn]

83. And the number who ARE paying Social Security, Sales, and Property Taxes Taxes

[jobycom]

94. The number of people who get away with murder does not excuse those who are caught. nt

[Kelvin Mace]

68. Since property taxes pay for public schools

they are stealing from every student in their county.

[Warpy]

4. Libertarians made a lot of sense back in the late 60s

and early 70s when they were concentrating on social issues like personal autonomy and preserving civil rights by ending the drug war. They seem to have been invaded by a bunch of Randorrhoids and extreme right wing fringers in the late 70s and turned their attention to laissez faire economics and a government whose only function was to fund the military.

I'll bet you just about anything that these folks are Libertarians or were until the Libertarians got too liberal for them.

In any case, NH was the Mecca for Massachusetts tax whiners for decades. I am not a bit surprised this fiasco is happening there. I just hope the FBI has learned its lesson and is willing to wait them out.

[endarkenment]

24. The focus of rightwing libertarianism has always been "laissez faire economics".

That is where they start. Social issues are just a follow on to their ideological assumptions. The right libertarians of the 70's were pretty much the same as they are now, they just might have emphasized the anti-WOD stuff more.

[Warpy]

I'm just going by literature

a friend gave me over the years. Their own literature certainly changed in the mid to late 70s, probably because the upper middle class membership had been hit so hard by "bracket creep" increasing their taxes while the runaway inflation of the 70s reduced their buying power.

[LanternWaste]

50. I'd go you one further--

I'd go you one further-- I think they picked up the social issues simply to appeal to a broader base. And to an extent I think it may have worked, as Libertarianism seems to be the trendy, political flavor for the disenfranchised and bored youth.

[Kelvin Mace]

71. Cut off the water, electricity, food, etc

They'll surrender eventually.

[MikeNearMcChord]

81. Yes they are a cause celebe for the libertarians

Go to any libertarian site, and they consider the Browns the martyrs for the cause, they are the Alamo.

[LanternWaste]

5. These two again... sheesh.

These two again... sheesh. I suppose in a country this large, there's bound to be handful of nut-jobs that are bound and determined to start their own, private Armageddon.

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

77. Maybe Cindy and Rosie will join them

Then the Browns will have two more standing up for what is right.:woohoo:

[MethuenProgressive]

6. These two are heros to the NRA and Freepers.

[kestrel91316]

9. IIRC there is a disagreement about whether or not the 16th amendment

was ever completely ratified within the time limits........

Does anybody know if it in fact was or wasn't and where the dispute arises??

[NoodleBoy]

11. there were no time limits attached to the 16th amendment

[kestrel91316]

16. I thought the constitution specified time limits for ratification?

I am too busy and lazy to look this up. Does anybody know, lol?

[NoodleBoy]

17. it doesn't-- time limits for ratification have been a new phenomenon, and may actually be

unconstitutional, as the original guidelines for amending the constitution made no mention of sunsetting.

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

30. Taxes on your wages is slavery. Period.

What is an income tax? A direct or indirect tax? What did the supreme court say about the 16th Amendment? Who pays the interest on the debt? Is the Federal Reserve a government agency?

You really need to watch the film America Freedom To Fascism and Money As Debt.

Happy researching.

:)

[fudge stripe cookays]

40. Alright.

You just start walking everywhere and don't use any of the roads or the bridges, and we've got a deal.

Also, make sure you never need a policeman. And invest in a REALLY good fire fighting system at your house because you can never call the fire department.

There's more, but you get the point. I believe you're on the wrong board. You need to make a sharp right turn.

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

48. Excuse me

I'm on the wrong board for asking questions?

[LanternWaste]

52. Allow me to give you a head-up...

I don't think it was your questions that attracted the ire, but your blanket statement that the income tax is slavery.

Allow me to give you a head-up... You minimize actual slavery when you apply that label to a pet peeve. One's the real deal. The other's an opinion-- regardless of whether you call it a fact or not.

[fudge stripe cookays]

54. You belong in a militia.

Not here, being obtuse about your purpose in posting. I hear Sand Point is lovely this time of year.

[Kelvin Mace]

75. No, you are on the wrong board

if you have the silly belief that our system of taxation (which is still one of the lowest in the world) is "slavery" and "fascism".

[Kelvin Mace]

73. Methinks you are on the wrong board

This kind of stuff is what I usually see at FreeRepublic.com

[kestrel91316]

55. Hm.....wish they had thought of that when seeking to ratify the ERA.

[ORDagnabbit]

15. Not ratified...and how odd that the federal reserve came into existence at the same time

wierd huh. :)

http://political-resources.com/taxes/16thamendment/default.htm

[NoodleBoy]

18. it was not only ratified, but ratified by 6 more states than was required

[ORDagnabbit]

20. cool...show me the proof. n/t

[NoodleBoy]

21. here you go, courtesy of the Government Printing Office, brought to you by SoS Philander Knox and

the first wave of American Progressivism:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/conamt.html

Under the heading Amendment XVI.

[LifeDuringWartime]

Goolge is your friend

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratification_process

Ratification process

In response to these developments, the Sixteenth Amendment was passed by the Sixty-first Congress and submitted to legislatures of the several states on July 12, 1909. The amendment was the crowning feature of a larger trend of legislative action meant to curb the power of the wealthy. The famous Pujo Committee Hearings, which aired the incestuous relationship between banks and corporate interests, were held during ratification, and the Clayton Antitrust Act was enacted shortly thereafter.

On February 25, 1913, the Republican Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that the amendment had been ratified by the necessary three-quarters of the states ensuring the constitutionality of unapportioned federal income taxes.

According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:<8>

1. Alabama (August 10, 1909)
2. Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
3. South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
4. Illinois (March 1, 1910)
5. Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
6. Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
7. Maryland (April 8, 1910)
8. Georgia (August 3, 1910)
9. Texas (August 16, 1910)
10. Ohio (January 19, 1911)
11. Idaho (January 20, 1911)
12. Oregon (January 23, 1911)
13. Washington (January 26, 1911)
14. Montana (January 27, 1911)
15. Indiana (January 30, 1911)
16. California (January 31, 1911)
17. Nevada (January 31, 1911)
18. South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
19. Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
20. North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
21. Colorado (February 15, 1911)
22. North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
23. Michigan (February 23, 1911)
24. Iowa (February 24, 1911)
25. Kansas (March 2, 1911)
26. Missouri (March 16, 1911)
27. Maine (March 31, 1911)
28. Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
29. Arkansas (April 22, 1911, after having previously rejected the amendment)
30. Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
31. New York (July 12, 1911)
32. Arizona (April 3, 1912)
33. Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
34. Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
35. West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
36. New Mexico (February 3, 1913)

Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by New Mexico (but see Delaware and Wyoming below). The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two:

37. Delaware (February 3, 1913)
38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913, after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911)

The following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it:

1. Connecticut
2. Florida, which rejected the amendment after it had already been ratified by three-fourths of the states
3. Rhode Island
4. Utah

The following states never took up the proposed amendment:

1. Pennsylvania
2. Virginia

[sinkingfeeling]

25. Here's what the courts say....

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/1154/16thamendment.html

See, e.g., United States v. Buckner, 830 F.2d 102 (1987). In its opinion in this case, the court noted that several specified beliefs, including the beliefs that the tax laws are unconstitutional and that wages are not income, would not be objectively reasonable.

The opinion stated, 882 F.2d 1263, 1268-1269, n. 2 (CA7 1989), as follows:

"For the record, we note that the following beliefs, which are stock arguments of the tax protester movement, have not been, nor ever will be, considered `objectively reasonable' in this circuit:

"(1) the belief that the sixteenth amendment to the constitution was improperly ratified, and therefore never came into being;

"(2) the belief that the sixteenth amendment is unconstitutional generally;

"(3) the belief that the income tax violates the takings clause of the fifth amendment;

"(4) the belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional; <498 U.S. 192, 199>

"(5) the belief that wages are not income, and therefore are not subject to federal income tax laws;

"(6) the belief that filing a tax return violates the privilege against self-incrimination; and

"(7) the belief that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute cash or income.

Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 239-41 (7th Cir. 1989); Buckner, 830 F.2d at 102; United States v. Dube, 820 F.2d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 1987); Coleman v. Comm., 791 F.2d 68, 70-71 (7th Cir. 1986); Moore, 627 F.2d at 833. We have no doubt that this list will increase with time."


U.S. Supreme Court CHEEK v. UNITED STATES 498 U.S. 192 (1991)




P.S. The Supreme Court wins. Anti-tax activists lose.

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

32. I love to ask you a question.

How much tax are you willing to pay before you say enough? To be more specific what percentage are you willing to give up?

BTW Off topic what ever happened to Mark Rich? Did he ever pay off the 50 million to the IRS?

Okay it was more than one question:P

[sinkingfeeling]

60. 59%

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

64. Thank you for honest answer

Just so we are understanding each other, you did mean 59% Federal Income tax? Because I believe you do know about the other forms of taxation you pay.

[Kelvin Mace]

76. After dedcutions I am paying about a third of my income

seems fair to me, though I would love to see the Pentagon get a lot less.

[harpboy_ak]

84. Go away, you pseudo-anarchist troll...

Methinks it's about time for the moderators to plonk this troll.

"Libertarians: People who want to sink the lifeboat we all live in
because they think their political philosophy will enable them to
walk on water. " --- Alaska State Rep. Mike Doogan

[ellisonz]

88. 100% in the case of Martian invasion or nuclear holocaust.

But no seriously, I believe in progressive taxation, which we are backing away from, and as much as I agree with the spirit of Thoreau, I know better. Frankly, I think we should reduce the Pentagon budget by a good $300 billion before altering taxes anymore. Honest.

[ORDagnabbit]

38. You'll find this again and again the court not allowing real defense....

2. It was proper for the trial court to instruct the jury not to consider Cheek's claim that the tax laws are unconstitutional, since a defendant's views about the tax statutes' validity are irrelevant to the issue of willfulness, and should not be heard by a jury.


Jury's do not get to hear that the tax laws are unconstitutuional. Jury's do not get to hear the question show me the laws. when they do the defendants ARE aquitted time and time again.

seriously just watch www.freedomtofascism.com

[ORDagnabbit]

22. heres some of mine...

http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm

Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.

In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!

In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.

Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.

If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.

The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.

Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.

Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.

When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.

These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn't have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.

Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not have.

The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above).

btw.... ever do any research into the federal reserve?

[NoodleBoy]

23. You know, you can knitpick all you want, but this has all been over before by people alot smarter

than you or I, and has been upheld as ratified and constitutional every time.

And sorry, I'm not in to conspiracy theories, there are enough demons to chase in this world that I don't need to make new ones up.

[Kelvin Mace]

72. Here you go

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_127.html

and more authoritatively here:

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106498,00.html

[Drifter]

19. Fuck'em ...

Shut them down, and take them out.

Cut off their power, water, and access to property that is not theirs.
If they are not interested in paying their fair share then they do not belong off of their property.

If they can eek out a living that does not require them to leave their property, good for them.
When they leave their property they should be arrested and put in jail for life.

Cheers
Drifter

[sinkingfeeling]

26. Ditto. If people do not want to participate in society, they should be denied to use

of all things public. That includes roads, access to public lands, etc.

[Release The Hounds]

29. ... and schools, police protection, fire protection...

[Virginia Dare]

34. Sanitation and water...n/t

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

35. Amazingly strong opinion

I hope you feel the same way about the illegal immigrants that are in this country. I guess you have to define what it means to participate?

[sinkingfeeling]

61. I welcome all people to the country. I hope that all 8 to 12 million who have come here

obtain their citizenship as quickly as possible under the new immigration rules. I haven't met an 'illegal' who hasn't made a contribution to society. And I do believe that you and your friend are on the wrong site.

[Kelvin Mace]

78. You really have a hard on for "illegal immigrants"

don't you?

[atreides1]

28. Thanks for pointing out the Constitution

But it's ironic that a government agency that is being lead by an administration that regards the Constitution as "a piece of paper", wants to use it against the people of this country when they have failed to use it in their defense!!!!

[NoodleBoy]

33. you know, every time I see a Dune reference, anywhere, in any context, I'm tempted to shout

THE SLEEPER HAS AWAKENED!

[Virginia Dare]

31. "There is no law. We looked and looked"....

so the rest of us are just stupid rubes who pay taxes voluntarily....:crazy: Oh, and I bet if a big honking hurricane or tornado came through and wiped out Plainfield, N.H., they'd be first in line for a government handout...:eyes: :mad:

What a couple a loons....:rofl:

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

41. You should laugh louder

Because they did have their power cut off. Type in "Power Cut Off To Brown Property" into google.


:wow:

[Virginia Dare]

43. Yep, I googled it...

Here's what Mr. Brown had to say:

I don't agree with homosexuality being taught in public schools," Brown said. "I don't believe in immunization, medical treatment in public school. We know for a fact all of these things are harmful to the children."

Okay, now I'm laughing louder....:rofl: :spray:

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

45. Look at my one word change in each sentence

Here's what Mr. Brown had to say:

I do agree with homosexuality being taught in public schools," Brown said. "I do believe in immunization, medical treatment in public school. We know for a fact all of these things are wonderful to the children."

Does this make you laugh louder? :applause:

[Virginia Dare]

46. Nope, not in the least....

you're barking up the wrong tree here, and I'm not interested in strawman arguments.

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

49. I guess I'll ask you this

Did you ever file a 1040 form? How did you know that you had to file? Another words did you read the law or did your parents/teachers tell you had to do this? Or maybe it was your employer?:shrug:

[Virginia Dare]

65. As I understand it...

you will pay hefty fines and/or go to jail if you don't file your federal taxes. Your employer will face hefty fines and/or go to jail if they fail to collect federal taxes from you, unless you are exempt. Correct me on that if I'm wrong.

At any rate, public education, as an example is a fundamental democratic principle going back to Thomas Jefferson. Every citizen who is able should contribute to it. And public schools to not "teach" homosexuality, they acknowledge accept it, or at least they should. Schools also require immunizations so that we don't have widespread epidemics of things like polio, which killed and crippled many children in this country up until the mid 20th century.

This guy is a nutcase, plain and simple.

[ima_sinnic]

85. and I'll ask you this: do you drive on public roads? did you go to

a public school? might you have occasion to call the police or fire departments?
have you ever set foot on public land (i.e., state or national parks)--need I go on?

If so-called libertarians had their way, only those who could afford a subscription for police and fire protection could get it. All roads would be toll roads. As in third-world countries, there would be school fees up the wazoo. The citizenry would become even more IGNORANT and DUMBASS than it is now. And forget national or state parks!

They have no concept of "the public good." It's all me-me-me, mine-mine-mine. pathetic.

[Blue_Tires]

37. their persecution-martyr complex is at full throttle

they won't win a waiting game with the police...i forsee a suicide eventually if they continue with their absolutist thinking

[TrogL]

39. It ain't just the tax dispute - its the unholy Freemasons

THEY'RE RUNNING THE COUNTRY.

In all fairness, I should point out that the Masonic hall down the street from me had to close its doors due to lack of attendance and the one remaining hall downtown looks like it's seen better days.

Oh, I get it. They're too busy running the country to bother painting the place and fixing the broken window.

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

79. If you ever been down to DC

Look for a sculpture depicting Albert Pike.

[depakid]

42. "...make it uncomfortable enough for them that they'll give up."

That's about the long and short of it. Sooner or later, they'll come out- no sense in barging in and creating more martyrs.

[pinniped]

56. They don't have to leaver their concrete-clad compund. Send in the Mega Movers!

.

[sneakythomas]

57. Gee, it only took me about 5 seconds on google.

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access


January 3, 2005 and September 26, 2006]



TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

Subtitle A--Income Taxes

CHAPTER 1--NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES

Subchapter A--Determination of Tax Liability

PART I--TAX ON INDIVIDUALS

Sec. 1. Tax imposed


(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:

********************
It goes on forever from there. Looks like a law that requires that I pay an income tax.

[ORDagnabbit]

63. a double dog dare then...

I dare ya to watch the movie and then lets talk.....

www.freedomtofascism.com

[mikeytherat]

58. "We will not accept any tomfoolery..." Tomfoolery? Well, pish-tosh and

la dee daa. I wonder if anyone has ever explored Mr. Brown's opinions on shenanigans or horseplay.

mikey_the_rat

[Socal31]

59. Abolish income tax,

start a nation-wide sales tax. Tax on consumption!

[guitar man]

62. you know

I don't have a huge problem with that plan provided that there is some sort of differentiation on what the tax rate is for different items purchased.

If it is an across the board plan that has the working poor paying the same tax rate on their food as the rich pay on their yachts and private jets, then no, I wouldn't go for that.

[ValiantBlue]

82. I am starting to come around to the idea of

a national sales tax. I consider the income tax illegal and against the spirit of what this nation was built on.

Currently the major problem with the income tax is that not everyone pays (legal/illegal resident). I rarely show a bleeding heart for the super rich but they do pay taxes (although they still work the loop holes).

There are two clear disadvantages with a national sales tax though in my opinion.

The first one is assuming that the super rich will spend. More often than not the super rich tend to be reluctant to spend money ($$$) unless it lets them make more money(->$$$). A greater amount of resources available without an income tax would most likley not increase their (super rich) spending habits. Rather it may have the oppossite effect and reel in their spending habits.

The second disadvantage is the middle class would not see much of a change in cost of living going from an income tax to a national sales tax. One could argue that living costs for a middle class family would increase with a national sales tax. But that could be a result of the fact we live in a material world in the United States. So I suppose it is fair for those to pay more if they want a lot of material things.

The poor may be hurt the most with a national sales tax. But with welfare they end up in better shape than the middle class of America.

But there is one underlying truth...with an income tax or a national sales tax in the end you are better off being poor or rich in America. The middle class seems to be stuck in the mud.

[ima_sinnic]

86. "The poor may be hurt the most with a national sales tax." gee, ya think?

and then you reveal your own loony-tunes misanthropic misperception: "But with welfare they end up in better shape than the middle class of America."

on edit: but under the libertarian/national sales tax scam, "welfare" would be the first thing eliminated--so that would take care of that pesky threat to your self-righteous outrage over someone "getting something for nothing" -- and maybe ending up better than selfish little you! horrors!!! (as if "being on welfare" allows someone to get anywhere near a "middle class lifestyle.")

A so-called flat tax is a monumental scam being huckstered by the King of Misanthropic Me-ism, Neal Boortz. You can bet your last tight-fisted dollar that if Neal Boortz is pushing it, it is for the benefit of no one other than wealthy, mean-spirited, Scrooge McDuck skinflints like himself, and the great majority of hard-working, big-hearted, struggling Americans can go fuck themselves.

[ima_sinnic]

87. the flat tax is a monumental scam being pushed by Neal Boortz

--but I'm sure you couldn't care less if some would end up paying some huge proportion of already unlivable wages in taxes while the wealthy's bottom line would not be dented.

Only the most miserly, selfish, greedy and mean-spirited would think that was a good thing.

[salin]

89. I have read that it would take about 45% or more sales tax rate

to replace the income tax. That number is often down played for the nicer sounding 25% by national sales tax.

Can you imagine what it would do for consumption if everything nearly doubled in price overnight? And imagine what a grinding halt in consumption among the middle and lower classes would have on the economy. Somehow that is never discussed among the "stop taxing me" - tax sales - folks.

[ellisonz]

90. I'd support daily tear-gassing of the yard around their house at 11 AM and 3 PM sharp.

Fuck'em.

[Solo_in_MD]

91. Why is this in LBN? Its been going on for some time now

[dogfacedboy]

92. Can you say Ruby Ridge/Waco?

The freepers gotta love these assholes.

[baldguy]

93. These people are parasites

Conservatives see them as heroes.

[Bushwick Bill]

95. May as well post it here.

I know this movie gets ripped as libertarian fantasia, but there are several IRS agents in here that happen to agree with this couple. The former IRS Commissioner also does not acquit himself very well. Also, some people have apparently beaten the rap on this.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=America+Freedom+to+Fascism&total=668&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Now, holing up in your home like this couple is another story.

[pitohui]

96. must be rich white fucks, otherwise these convicted felons would have already been picked up by LEOs

let me understand this, these fucks are boldly sitting at a known address giving news conferences after being convicted and sentenced to 63 months? where is the police? why aren't they picked up and in prison already? oh that's right, only the little people have to pay taxes