Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 8

[error]

Net Detective is a crappy service, I find people for a living. We run background checks on people all of the time, dont waste your money on Net Detectives, its very expensive and not very accurate.

The good services are not readily available to the general public.

As for locating the judge, the prosecutor, etc., and protesting their evil acts in front of their homes, why do you think these people -- every one -- have unlisted phone numbers, own their homes via LLC, etc.?

[Lloyd Danforth]

The better agencies would be busier and having a limited amount of time would cost more. (Scarcity - basic economics) Loser would pay the costs.

"Loser" being he who cannot afford to pay for the premiun arbitor?  Agreed.

 

New, cheaper guys would step in and provide justice cheaper.  There's no percentage in not being objective.  How hard is paying attention to the evidence and making an objective judgement.

You forget greed, don't you?

Loser is the guy who has no convincing evidence, just like any trial.   How does greed come into it?  The arbitrator gets paid for their time regardless of their decision. Any observer could see if the decision fit the evidence.  The agency's reputation would be ruined if word got out that they we're corupted.

[Rochelle]

*Psst* I dont'know if anyone else has mentioned this, but congrats, Ed: you've made Fark! The article is from the the Concord newspaper and here's hte fark thread about it: Ed Brown Thread

[Rosie the Riveter]

Mike Z. Usually on a message board -- you post a message and wait for a response -- posting 4+ messages is a row can be considered spamming.

[JosephSHaas]

You seem fairly knowledgable about this stuff Foucault.  So, a simple question, where in the federal code(***) can we find the law(***) about owing income taxes?(****)

Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Title 26 of the U.S. Code - Internal Revenue Code

Section 6151 of the code, 26 U.S.C. ? 6151, says:
26 U.S.C. ? 6151

[W]hen a return of tax is required(*) under this title or regulations, the person required(*) to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand(**)
from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).

So according to this section, if you are required(*) to file a tax return, you are required(*) to pay the tax owed(****), to pay it at the time you file your return, and to pay it to the internal revenue officer with whom you file the return.

But who says you?re required(*) to file the return? Turn back to section 6012(a) of the code, 26 U.S.C. ? 6012(a), which provides:

26 U.S.C. ? 6012(a)
Returns with respect to income taxes * * * shall(*) be made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount * * *.

The ?exemption amount? is defined in 26 U.S.C. ? 151(d) as $2000, adjusted for inflation since 1989. You can see the exact amount for the current tax year in the IRS instructions to form 1040. If you have more income than this amount, section 6012 requires you to file a tax return (except that if you?re married, section 6013 gives you the option of filing a joint return with your spouse).

? 6072

And when is your return due(****)? Section 6072 provides the answer: ?[R]eturns made on the basis of the calendar year shall(*) be filed on or before the 15th day of April following the close of the calendar year.? This is the statutory basis for the familiar April 15 tax deadline.

there is even an FAQ on tax protesting on the IRS site...

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html

Thanks Frank, for being the Devil's Advocate here, and so to put the emphasis or highlight on the "require"(*) word, defined as "To demand(**); insist upon." as in "To ask for, leaving no chance for refusal"; the word insisted added to the word demand, as in to "demand vehemently", the word vehement meaning "Forceful" but like I have already said: WHERE is the EN"force"ment clause? There is NONE in the Sixteenth Amendment.  So WHATever avenue or excuse is used in the process, the end result is two-fold in like in that Marbury v. Madison case: go ahead and issue your opinions, now try to enforce them!  and (****)= a tax in it's essential characteristics is NOT a debt.  You owe debts, but not taxes. See this tax does not equal a debt in the N.J. case cited in (Henry Campbell) BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 5th Edition, (c)1979 @ p. 1307.

The FAQ website has listed "A. The Voluntary Nature of the Federal Income Tax System. 1. paragraph #3 "Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to ENFORCE the income tax laws through involuntary collection." 

Such a statute or U.S. Code is UN-lawful or Un-Constitutional, as there is NO enforcement clause in the 16th Amendment. I dare you or anybody else to show me even ONE of these ORDERs from the Secretary of the Treasury.  In one breath they say "Congress gave" him this POWER to enforce, and in the other breath they say there is no need for his DEMAND(**). But see the definition of the word: demand= from the Latin word, entrust, entrust= "to GIVE over to another".  Congress GAVE him this legal bullet to fire, but the constitutional gun they/Congress want him to fire it from does not even exist!  Or in other words Mr. Secretary: bite the bullet! (;-) You can TRY to FORCE another to GIVE you something, but if the other party does NOT want to, and stands his ground, insisting to see the law, the law referred to is that there is NO law of enFORCEment, because as I've said before, there is no such thing as an unconstitional law(***), because the constitution IS the law!  It's an unlawful statute.  The word "insist" is from the Latin of insistere, to stand on.  So withOUT anything for them to stand on as there is no Section 2 enforcement clause, they are merely barking orders like from a quicksand pit, and can bark all they want! You've heard of the expression that their bark is worse than their bite.  Well, with the bars of the Constitiution keeping this quicksand beast where he is, that is where he will remain, unless some oath- breaking judge allows him to escape by elevating the Acts of Congress up to the level of being the equivalent to a Constitutional Amendment, and as such ought to get any and all judges impeached forthwith!

In the I.R.S. case #M.83-50-D against me in U.S. District Court, Concord, N.H. like I said in Reply #__ at page #___ above, I got the I.R.S. agent on the witness stand and asked him for this document from the Treasury Secretary that starts the process, and he could NOT produce it.  Case: dismissed!

Yours truly, -- Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P. O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone).

[Russell Kanning]

Here are the first few workups from the sign guys in MI:
http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/tiki-browse_image.php?imageId=2588

[mraaron]

   That "Fed Not Welcome" would make a nice avatar.

[Russell Kanning]

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070123/REPOSITORY/701230376/1029/OPINION03

I

find it disturbing that Elaine and Ed Brown have many supporters. The Browns have enjoyed a decade of free federal services while you and I have paid our taxes.

Would the voters of this country prefer a national sales tax instead of an income tax? I would prefer it, but only if achieved by legal means.

The Browns had to lose. Consider what the implications were if they did not. Every private citizen could claim he or she, too, was not required to pay federal income taxes. As much as I believe tax dollars are wasted by Congress, a great deal of collected revenue is put to good and essential use.

Ed Brown has abandoned his country and has gone outside the law to pursue his political agenda. Based on a radio talk show interview (Howie Carr), I also think there is a more sinister side to his agenda.

Al Capone also failed to pay federal income taxes. Does that make him a hero?

RICHARD KRAJEWSKI

Sutton

[Raineyrocks]

Every private citizen could claim he or she, too, was not required to pay federal income taxes.

Oh wow, imagine that!  That's exactly what every "private citizen" should do considering we are not required to anyway.  What a moron!

[FrankChodorov]

Thanks Frank, for being the Devil's Advocate here, and so to put the emphasis or highlight on the "require"

I am not playing devil's advocate...I think the income tax is immoral but not illegal based on the definition of "require".

"Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to ENFORCE the income tax laws through involuntary collection."

Such a statute or U.S. Code is UN-lawful or Un-Constitutional, as there is NO enforcement clause in the 16th Amendment. I dare you or anybody else to show me even ONE of these ORDERs from the Secretary of the Treasury.

is this your argument or the crux of Ed's?

I got the I.R.S. agent on the witness stand and asked him for this document from the Treasury Secretary that starts the process, and he could NOT produce it.  Case: dismissed!

so why didn't Ed make this argument?

[FrankChodorov]

to Mr. Haas:

As a general rule, a statute does not require regulations to be valid, and the fact that there are no regulations under a particular section of the Internal Revenue Code is completely irrelevant.

    "Donald Langert argues that he does not owe federal individual income taxes because the Internal Revenue Service has failed to identify any agency regulation which entitles the IRS to impose a tax upon him. Plaintiff argues that the statutes which comprise the Internal Revenue Code do not, in and of themselves, authorize the IRS to take any action; the IRS may only "implement" these statutes through the regulations contained in Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    "The Court finds Plaintiffs "implementing regulation" argument without merit; it fundamentally misconstrues those provisions of the Internal Revenue Code which relate to the powers and duties of the Secretary of the Treasury, 26 U.S.C. section 7801(a), and the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, 26 U.S.C. section 7802(a). Pursuant to Section 7805(a) of the Code, the Commissioner has broad authority to "prescribe all NEEDFUL rules and regulations for the enforcement of [the Code], including all rules and regulations as may be NECESSARY by reason of any alteration of law in relation to internal revenue." 26 U.S.C. section 7805(a) (emphasis added); see also Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Engle 464 U.S. 206, 226-27, 104 S. Ct. 597, 604 (1984). Section 7805(a) is a general grant of authority by Congress to the Commissioner to promulgate -- as necessary -- "interpretive regulations" stating the agency's views of what the existing Code provisions already require. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 41 F.3d 130, 135 & n. 20 (3th Cir. 1994). Section 7805(a) does not require the promulgation of regulations as a prerequisite to the enforcement of each and every provision of the Code. The Commissioner's power to promulgate regulations pursuant to section 7805(a)

        . . . " is not the power to make law," but only the power "to carry into effect the will of Congress as expressed by the statute." In case where "the provisions of the

Code Select Expand

are unambiguous, and its directions specific, there is no power to amend it by regulation."

    "Lovett's Estate v. United States, 621 F.2d 1130, 1135 (Ct. Cl. 1980) (citations omitted). Thus, if the Congressional mandate of a Code provision is sufficiently clear, an interpretative regulation is not necessary. Russell v. United States, 95-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragraph 50,029, at 87,122 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 23, 1994)."
    Langert v. United States, KTC 1995-398, Case No. 3-94-1464 (D.Minn. 1995), (footnotes omitted).

[penguins4me]

Frank,
It has come to my understanding that, since the 16th Amendment granted the fed.gov no new powers, then all "income" not pertaining to business (gains, not wages) is governed by the Interstate Commerce clause.

As long as the citizen in question doesn't cross state lines to engage in trading his time for a wage, then under what authority does the fed.gov lay claim to an individual's property?

[JosephSHaas]

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070123/REPOSITORY/701230376/1029/OPINION03

I find it disturbing that Elaine and Ed Brown have many supporters.

The Browns had to lose. Consider what the implications

Ed Brown has abandoned his country and has gone outside* the law

RICHARD KRAJEWSKI

Sutton

Richard, If you are reading this here:

(1) * The "outlaws" are our own government officials who have gone OUTside the law: the law of the Constitution to ENFORCE something that does NOT exist, as there is NO enforcement clause in the Sixteenth Amendment. Check it out: there are Section 2's in the surrounding Amendments, but NONE for this 16th Amendment.  Martin J. "Red" Beckman in his lectures and books gives the illustration of the government monster(*) behind the bars: the bars of the Constitution.  They can write up all the statutes and regulations they want, but how far can they implement them?  ONLY so far as to where the bars are in their cage.  OUTside the bars they have NO jurisdiction.  If you go INTO their cage to do battle with them, you play by their rules.  For me I look for their invitation by the Secretary of the Treasury as an RSVP - denied!

(2) You write that "The Browns had to lose".  But lose what? only the battle, but not the war. See my Reply #__ above at page #___ in that they were found guilty by the jury, but have yet to be "convicted". There is still the Federal Rule 32 sentencing in which the probation officer shall consider additional evidence to be presented there too to the judge. 

Yours truly, Joe Haas, a "supporter" of "Elaine and Ed Brown" of course!

P.S.

(a) The "enforcement" word in the case below from Frank, is the power of  "the beast" to bite.  Yes, it has teeth, and the power or enforcement of the chomp, but if you do NOT enter THEIR sphere of WHERE they have this power, then they canNOT do any damage.  If somebody wants to waive his rights as guaranteed by the Constitution to do battle with the beast on his own turf, that is his decision, and whatever happens to him is his own fault should he lose.

(b) Now for the WHY Ed did not ask to see their R.S.V.P. Secretary of the Treasury invitation papers, I don't know, but think that maybe he WILL if and when they are the UN-invited guests on his turf.  I ran for Sheriff of Grafton County, New Hampshire  back in the 1990s getting 1/5, 1/4, then 1/3rd of the vote (20%, then 25%, then 30%) and was planning for another election two years thereafter for 1/2 = 50% + 1 to win the Republic Primary (as no Democrat had ever won in Grafton County), but that I moved to another county: Merrimack County, and am now a resident of Belknap County who works in Merrimack County. The point being, that my slogan was that: "A Man's Home is his Castle".  Check this out on the internet for the source of this slogan, very colorful indeed with the example of the man with the hole in his roof, that if he wants the sun "and rain" to fall into his house, that is his decision, and the "king" has no business in such a case.

[FrankChodorov]

if you do NOT enter THEIR sphere of WHERE they have this power, then they canNOT do any damage.

are you then making the claim that the federal government has no jurisdiction in NH because the income tax only applies to federal territories (Guam, DC, Puerto Rico, etc) because of the interpretation of the word "includes" as Ed seems to be making?

[maineiac]

Thanks Frank, for being the Devil's Advocate here, and so to put the emphasis or highlight on the "require"

I am not playing devil's advocate...I think the income tax is immoral but not illegal based on the definition of "require".

"Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to ENFORCE the income tax laws through involuntary collection."

Such a statute or U.S. Code is UN-lawful or Un-Constitutional, as there is NO enforcement clause in the 16th Amendment. I dare you or anybody else to show me even ONE of these ORDERs from the Secretary of the Treasury.

is this your argument or the crux of Ed's?

I got the I.R.S. agent on the witness stand and asked him for this document from the Treasury Secretary that starts the process, and he could NOT produce it.  Case: dismissed!

so why didn't Ed make this argument?

Frank,

You missed it!

The crux of these types of legal claims revolves around the definitions of "income" and "taxpayer" within Title 26, not the defnition of "require."

Back to the books!

(not that any claim is viable in a corrupted courtroom setting! )