Ruby Ridge Redux

www.keenefreepress.com...

www.boston.com...

www.concordmonitor.com.../20070117/REPOSITORY/701170329/1043/48HOURS

Here we go again.

Wow, this could get serious.
Please keep us up to date if you can.

Oh, and you might get more responses if you said more then 'Here we go again'.

Since when is it a citizen's prerogative to decide which laws they can ignore? If one wishes to exercise civil disobedience, that's their right, but to expect that no consequences will result is foolish. To threaten the lives of others is way out of line.

CONCORD, N.H. --A Plainfield man fighting tax evasion charges has barricaded himself in his hilltop home, saying he is prepared for an armed standoff. Meanwhile, his wife is negotiating a plea on her own charges in their tax evasion and fraud case.

www.keenefreepress.com...


you actually believe this person is right? They don't have to go to court to answer these charges?

[edit on 17-1-2007 by elevatedone]

[edit on 17-1-2007 by elevatedone]

The income tax law of 1913 is unConstitutional. Always has been. He is fighting on the basis that it may be the law, but it's an unlawful law and is against the Constitution.

Gun control, and a host of other things are unconstitutional too, but have become law thru precedent. That's why you have to pick judges carefully.

Other people who know the truth near him should go barricade themselves with him to fight the income tax and the recent abuse of the government. The income tax IS ILLEGAL.

can someone show me where it is constitutional to pay income taxes? income tax is a scam. i belive he is definatly in the right on this. give me liberty or give me death was his words and i agree with him 100%. this will no doubt end in someones death and will be swept under the rug and people will continue to pay the government blindly. its sad.

www.irs.gov...=106507,00.html

A. Contention: Federal income taxes constitute a "taking" of property without due process of law, violating the Fifth Amendment.

Some assert that the collection of federal income taxes constitutes a "taking" of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Thus, any attempt by the Internal Revenue Service to collect federal income taxes owed by a taxpayer is unconstitutional.

The Law: The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that a person shall not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 24 (1916), that "it is . . . well settled that [the Fifth Amendment] is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution; in other words, that the Constitution does not conflict with itself by conferring upon the one hand a taxing power, and taking the same power away on the other by limitations of the due process clause." Further, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the summary administrative procedures contained in the Internal Revenue Code against due process challenges, on the basis that a post-collection remedy (e.g., a tax refund suit) exists and is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of constitutional due process. Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 595-97 (1931).

The Internal Revenue Code provides methods to ensure due process to taxpayers:

(1) The "refund method," set forth in section 7422(e) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346(a), where a taxpayer must pay the full amount of the tax and then sue in a federal district court or in the United States Court of Federal Claims for a refund; and
(2) The "deficiency method," set forth in section 6213(a), where a taxpayer may, without paying the contested tax, petition the United States Tax Court to redetermine a tax deficiency asserted by the IRS. Courts have found that both methods provide constitutional due process.

In recent years, Congress passed new laws providing further protection for taxpayers' due process rights in collection matters. In the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, § 3401, 112 Stat. 685, 746, Congress enacted new sections 6320 (pertaining to liens) and 6330 (pertaining to levies) establishing collection due process rights for taxpayers, effective for collection actions after January 19, 1999.

Generally, the IRS must provide taxpayers notice and an opportunity for an administrative appeals hearing upon the filing of a notice of federal tax lien (section 6320) and prior to levy (section 6330).

Taxpayers also have the right to seek judicial review of the IRS's determination in these due process proceedings. I.R.C. § 6330(d). These reviews can extend to the merits of the underlying tax liability, if the taxpayer has not previously received the opportunity for review of the merits, e.g., did not receive a notice of deficiency. I.R.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B). However, the Tax Court has indicated that it will impose sanctions pursuant to section 6673 against taxpayers who seek judicial relief based upon frivolous or groundless positions.



D. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was not properly ratified, thus the federal income tax laws are unconstitutional.

This argument is based on the premise that all federal income tax laws are unconstitutional because the Sixteenth Amendment was not officially ratified, or because the State of Ohio was not properly a state at the time of ratification. This argument has survived over time because proponents mistakenly believe that the courts have refused to address this issue.

The Law: The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. U.S. Const. Amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio, and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment. There were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.


E. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens.

Some assert that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax and thus, U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to federal income tax laws.

The Law: The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid. In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10 th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the court cited Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the "Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation."

GT100FV: So why a lot of court case were won by those opposing the income tax? Watch freedom to fascism. This guy is in the right, hope he doesn't get killed for what he believes in.

I'm no lawyer, and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express, but those points I posted are what this fella has to deal with. I don't like paying taxes either, but I'm not willing to have a shootout to prove my point.

www.archives.gov... harters/constitution_transcript.html
Article. I.
Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

seems to me that as long as congress passed the income tax laws and the president signed them then they are perfectly constitutional with or without amendment 16. On top of which i am pretty sure that states rights overruling federal rights dies with the Confederate States of America So like it or not it is against the law to not pay your taxes. What i think he should do is
what GT100FV brought up as a legitimate way of fighting income taxes

(2) The "deficiency method," set forth in section 6213(a), where a taxpayer may, without paying the contested tax, petition the United States Tax Court to redetermine a tax deficiency asserted by the IRS. Courts have found that both methods provide constitutional due process.

I hope this end without the death toll that Waco had, but we will just have to wait and see.originaly posted by GT100FV

[edit on 1/18/2007 by Belenus]