The Browns and Taxes.

[eques]

Thanks, Frank, for implicitly correcting my post. 

So that leaves us with the moral argument, which is slightly stronger than what I was saying in the first place.

Fine by me. 

Let the edjamacation begin!

[erisian]

Like it or not, the U.S. Constitution empowers the Congress to levy any tax it wants for the "general welfare."

That may be true, but they must also enact laws to levy specific taxes.
The "there is no law" argument is unaffected by the constitutionality of the tax.
No one can be guilty of violating a law which does not exist.

But I still like the moral argument better, too.

[SAK]

David Champion sums up the law the best here (http://www.originalintent.org/edu/thelaw.php):

At this juncture we would like to warn the uninitiated reader that politicians, lawyers, government employees and officers, and judges, do not really care what the law says. Read that sentence again and then burn it into your memory; it will save you a lot of angry days and sleepless nights.

There is a vast difference between what the law says and "how the system works". Here is something else for you to burn into your memory - the system has been hijacked from The People and it now functions for four primary purposes:

   1. Government control of persons and property.
   2. The receipt of revenue, either by lawful action or extortionate conduct.
   3. The protection of the system that provides for points 1 and 2.
   4. The protection of persons who facilitate points 1, 2, and 3.

If you are one of the uninitiated, the statement made above may seem somewhat reactionary to you. However, all one need do to learn that these statements are true is to stand your ground when the government accosts you and they are legally in the wrong. If you are a person of integrity and good faith, you will expect your government to sit down with you, read the law, and cease their unlawful actions against you. What you will not be prepared for is the attack that will be made upon you by your government in retaliation for your audacity! On the other hand, if your government is not accosting you, but you notice that it is acting in a manner that is contrary to the written law, if you bring that fact to the government's attention, the government will fall completely silent and never respond (with anything substantive) to your comments, observations, or requests for correction.

    "The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it."
    -- John Jay, Castilian Days II, 1872

The government generally uses the law as an offensive tool to compel the population to comply with its edicts. In most cases the government could care less whether it is acting lawfully, or whether it is even applying the law to the intended persons or property. The government only cares that there is a superficial appearance of legality. Americans can use the law as either an offensive tool or a defensive tool depending on the circumstance and your preference.

[CNHT]

I don't know.  He believes 9/11 was done by the US government though.  I wasn't thinking of the Browns really, for this sign, even though it's a thread about them.

He explains it here:

http://freedomisforeverybody.blogspot.com/2007/01/ed-brown-irs-standoff-exclusive-video.html

[erisian]

Direct link to page with downloadable video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3956130595394471955

[lordmetroid]

http://www.digg.com/videos/people/Ed_Brown_IRS_Standoff_Exclusive_Video

[SAK]

He's right about 9/11


I talked to Ed today and he said he REALLY needs more people out there.  There's no telling when the Feds could go in to "defuse" (neutralize) the situation.  It could be in a few days.  If I weren't 1,000 miles away, I'd be there with him.  I'm going to try to make it there this week.

I don't like painting with such a broad brush, but if you are one of the people who still think it's "too early" to stand up, that is, things haven't gotten bad enough in this country yet to make such a stand, then I believe when you feel that time has finally come, it will be far too late.

It's time NOW to stand with Ed -- literally.

[Quantrill]

If the feds come in, wouldn't it be at 3am?  How many protesters would be out there then?

[SAK]

I guess he needs as many people as he can get -- take turns doing shifts or whatever.  Whatever it takes, as long as we don't use the "you can't win against the government" argument.  I've heard that enough with gun rights.  People say that armed civilians could never overpower the military, and that this is a reason we don't "need" guns. 

[FrankChodorov]

Like it or not, the U.S. Constitution empowers the Congress to levy any tax it wants for the "general welfare."

That may be true, but they must also enact laws to levy specific taxes.
The "there is no law" argument is unaffected by the constitutionality of the tax.
No one can be guilty of violating a law which does not exist.

But I still like the moral argument better, too.

The federal tax laws are contained in Title 26 of the United States Code, which is the compilation of laws passed by the Congress (?Title? basically means ?Volume? when applied to the U.S. Code as a whole, so Title 26 is what might more casually be called Volume 26).

The most important statutory provision with regard to income taxes is section one of the tax code, 26 U.S.C. ? 1. This is the section that actually imposes the income tax. It?s very simply written. If you are unmarried, the relevant provision is ? 1(c), which states:

26 U.S.C. ? 1
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . who is not a married individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

[Russell Kanning]

but don't you think it would significantly help their cause (certainly amongst the left) if they refused out of moral principles of what the money is being spent on (like you and Russell always mention when speaking to the press) rather than procedural (I am not legally required to as the feds have no jurisdiction, etc)??

But that is not what they believe .... so we will never know.

[Dave Ridley]

If the feds come in, wouldn't it be at 3am?  How many protesters would be out there then?

that's why we need people there at night, especially on weekdays,
who ed feels he can trust. 

also i would prefer it if someone would lock this thread and dircect its discussion to the main ed brown thread.

[FrankChodorov]

but don't you think it would significantly help their cause (certainly amongst the left) if they refused out of moral principles of what the money is being spent on (like you and Russell always mention when speaking to the press) rather than procedural (I am not legally required to as the feds have no jurisdiction, etc)??

But that is not what they believe .... so we will never know.

if this goes down in an ugly way, you tax resisters will be thrown under the bus by the media too...

why don't the non-violent, non-cooperative, civil dis-obedience folks try and actively negotiate a settlement between the two parties?

[SAK]

Here's a book for those uncertain about the tax code:

http://www.losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm


Yes, there IS a tax imposed on the taxable income.  There is a lot of "income" that is not taxable.  Most importantly, however, is the fact that the money you receive for compensation for labor is NOT income.

There are countless court rulings handed down from federal courts and the supreme court that say this very thing.  Income is NOT everything that comes in.  Income is gain from certain and VERY limited privileged acts.  The income tax is an excise tax on a privilege.  Exchanging your labor for other forms of property is not a privilege by any means -- it is a right.  You have the right to do this without having to give a portion of it to anyone else.

Imagine the government forcing you to work in its factory, and not paying you for it 2 out of the 8 hours you work there.  This is the "income tax" as people know it.

Another easy way to tell that the tax is on a privileged act and that paying it is voluntary -- you have to sign a document UNDER PENALTY OF PURGERY.  Anyone recall the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution?  "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

It would be difficult to make every American testify against themselves on paper due to this Amendment.  The tax is quite real, but applying it to compensation for labor for Americans is quite a hoax.  I've never had income, and I'd be very surprised if anyone here has either.  I'm not finished with the book yet myself, but there's question as to the jurisdiction of the federal government and the tax in title 26 also.  Those jurisdictional matters come into play perhaps even more than the meaning of "income" itself.

[FrankChodorov]

hey, good luck making those arguments in court...