Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 11

[Kat Kanning]

Demonstration in support of Ed Brown:

Thursday Feb. 15th, noon
Keene IRS office on Main & Marlboro

[Russell Kanning]

When can we expect to see your complainer-free forum come online?

[Russell Kanning]

Why Mr. and Mrs. Kanning allow these trolls to interfere here seems like nonsense.

My fingers are poised above the delete account and "ignore" buttons.

[Rodinia]

http://www.eagletimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=2587

[macthefork]

And aside from bad-mouthing the Kannings, what exactly ARE you doing here?

If you look back at my original posts from several days ago you will see a presentation of the actual constitutional issues regarding the operations of the IRS.  Since then most of you have been in the usual drone of tit for tat with trolls.  The fact that Mr. and Mrs. Kanning allow troll action to interfere with effective intellectualization and communication between the true freedom fighters here, while threatening to remove posters like me, is absolutely ridiculous.  I am left with the impression that all this is just some sort of hobby for these people.  Yes! Sitting in jail for a few days could actually just be part of their hobby (I know someone would ask about their jailtime).  There are many people who have done far worse things as a hobby than sit in jail occasionally.      

[Rodinia]

I do see that some people get bothered by trolls. Why I don't understand. Perhaps they are not mature enough to ignore them. The trolls will go away if they are ignored. This means not feeding them even a crumb.
I don't believe that working around idiots prevents intellectualizing, God knows we all do it everyday! It's a matter of personal discipline.

[macthefork]

The issue is not the trolls alone.  It is that the administrators of this site remove people all the time who are clearly not trolls.  But allow the trolls to stay.  See that is the critical point.  Now why would they do that? Well there are answers to this question and that has been the subject of my most recent posts.

[Rodinia]

Well, I would suggest moving the topic to a new thread.

[eques]

macthefork,

What you are currently discussing is clearly a forum issue and should probably be posted in the board of that name (Forum Issues) instead of commenting about it on this thread.  By not affording the rest of us that common decency, your criticisms are seen as disruptive instead of potentially constructive.

That said, you're also engaging in personal attacks.  While they may feel satisfying, they detract from whatever credibility you might have if you were to avoid them.

[Rodinia]

So, about that link I posted. I don't know if it's old news or not, I read it in today's online eagletimes. It is an article about the judicially sanctioned taking of Mr. Brown's property....

[Kat Kanning]

Thanks for the article, Rodinia.  I hadn't heard that.  Here's the text of it:

Court OKs seizure of tax foe's property

Aaron Aldridge
Contributing Writer

PLAINFIELD - A preliminary order of forfeiture was filed in the U.S. District Court in Concord ordering the seizure of Ed Brown's home and his wife's dental practice in Lebanon.




On Thursday the court authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to seize the properties at 27 Glen Road in West Lebanon and 401 Center Road in Plainfield in accordance with a federal jury ruling.

On Jan. 18, a federal jury in Concord found Brown and his wife, Elaine Brown, guilty of failure to pay income taxes for seven years. During a weeklong trial, the government claimed the Browns failed to report more than $1.9 million in income between 1996 and 2003. The jury determined that the Browns must forfeit more than $215,000 which may be satisfied by the forfeiture of their Plainfield home and/or a professional building they own in West Lebanon.

Brown stopped attending his trial earlier that week and an arrest warrant was issued for him for failure to appear in U.S. District Court in Concord. He remains holed up in his home on the 110-acre property in Plainfield.

The order will become final when both Elaine and Ed Brown are sentenced on April 24 in U.S. District Court in Concord. According to court documents, third parties with interest in the property may file a claim with the court.

Phone calls to the Brown residence were not answered Monday afternoon.

The Browns appealed their tax evasion conviction, but on Jan. 30 the appeal was deemed premature by the court and was not accepted.

During the past few decades, Brown has claimed membership in several groups including the Constitution Rangers of the Continental Congress of 1777, the Constitution Defense Militia and the Un-American Activities Investigations Commission, which he said he founded.

[macthefork]

Ah
Erasing posts
I guess thats a strategy to keep your hobby fun for you.
Kat did it.
Her little hobby has to be fun for her.
May I suggest a mental ward?

[mvpel]

Well, the problem is, mvpel, that no one has been able to show me where "income" is defined.

Statutes rely on dictionary definitions unless otherwise specified in the statute.  That's just common sense, otherwise each law would have to have a 500-page appendix excerpting various parts of the dictionary.  (This, by the way, is what I see as the crux of the same-sex marriage issue). The dictionary definition of "income" is:

"a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor;"

The US Supreme Court said over a hundred years ago that "'All laws should receive a sensible construction. General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence. It will always, therefore, be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to its language which would avoid results of this character. The reason of the law in such cases should prevail over its letter."

I suspect that the US Supreme Court would consider that the federal legislature having drafted thousands upon thousands of pages of Title 26 - only to have them not applicable to the majority of US citizens, even though the majority of US citizens have been complying with them for decades - to be an "absurd consequence," regardless of how oppressive or unjust you consider the income tax to be.

They would argue that the "reason of the law" is to impose a tax on the income of individual Americans, as set forth in 26 USC 1, and that "taxable income" means "gross income" less deductions, and "gross income" means all income from "any source."

And they would undoubtedly point out that Section 861 and 862 are simply intended to allocate and apportion income from domestic versus foreign sources when necessary to determine tax liability on certain kinds of international or apparently-international transactions given that the title of Part N, Subchapter I is "Source Rules and Other General Rules Relating to Foreign Income," and do not constitute a statutory definition of the word "source" as used in 26 USC 61.

Questions of whether the Feds have jurisdiction in New Hampshire, and various other constitutional arcana, are of course germane, but that's a different argument than whether or not Title 26 prima facie imposes a tax on the incomes of most US citizens.

That having been said, I don't care whether there is a law or not.  The tax is immoral and is used to pay for immoral things.  So I don't pay on moral grounds. 

More power to you.  But it's clear that Ed Brown does, in fact, care whether or not there's a law.

[HippyChimp]

Well, the problem is, mvpel, that no one has been able to show me where "income" is defined.

Statutes rely on dictionary definitions unless otherwise specified in the statute.

ORLY?

voluntary
     adj 1: of your own free will or design; not forced or compelled;
     

[mvpel]

Could you please cite a section of Title 26 in which the term "voluntary" appears, preferably one which relates to payment of income taxes?

There's 26 USC 3402(p), for example, allowing the recipient of certain kinds of payments to request that the payer withhold and remit income tax on his or her behalf, instead of the recipient remitting income tax with the 1040 form in April, or the 1040-ES at certain points through the year.