It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Update on Ed Brown's stand for freedom

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 06:57 AM
link   
www.boston.com...

"Show me the law and I'll pay the taxes"- Ed Brown




posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
you go ed!!
you know if he lived in a 'normal' house they would have got him along time ago. stay strong ed and don't trust what the cops say about not coming after you...........

a couple links for those who want to read..
DOJ dismisses felony tax prosecution with prejudice after PRA defense raised

section 861...the law they hope you never readhard evidence that form 1040 has NO legal basis in law..IRS withdraw criminal allegation

joseph banister acquitted
all the links i searched for this story have been removed and copies are only available from bloggers...interesting

all this make one question the legality and honesty of the govt...once again.....



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 01:56 AM
link   

www.boston.com...
A jury decided the Browns plotted to hide their income and avoid taxes on Elaine Brown's income of $1.9 million between 1996 and 2003. Over 10 years, they also used $215,890 of postal money orders broken into increments just below the reporting threshold to pay for their hilltop compound and for Elaine Brown's dental offices.

A jury also found she didn't pay adequate taxes for her practice's employees, leading to a total of 17 felony convictions.

"I just hope this (verdict) sends a message to those who would rely on frivolous tax theories," Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Morse said afterward.

This guy is no hero, he's a scammer.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Give me liberty or give me death!

I suspect Ed will get death, before liberty.




Ed Brown stands barricaded in the doorway of his home, saying he is prepared for an armed standoff as he fights tax evasion charges in Plainfield, N.H., Wednesday, Jan. 17, 2007. His wife, Elaine Brown is negotiating a plea on her own charges in their tax evasion and fraud case. The Browns haven't paid federal income taxes since 1996 because they don't think the law requires them to pay.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   
this guy is asking for policy change so he doesn't have to fork over $750K

he's no hero
he's a wack job
there is a constitutional amendment that provides the federal government with the power to tax
duh



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
there is a constitutional amendment that provides the federal government with the power to tax


Show me how many votes that ammendment received in congress to pass.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Show me how many votes that ammendment received in congress to pass.


at least 2/3rds of each house of congress
just like all constitutional amendments...

actually, that whole "you need 2/3rds to pass an amendment in each house" thing is in the constitution as well


[edit on 1/19/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Show me how many votes that ammendment received in congress to pass.


at least 2/3rds of each house of congress
just like all constitutional amendments...

actually, that whole "you need 2/3rds to pass an amendment in each house" thing is in the constitution as well


[edit on 1/19/07 by madnessinmysoul]


Right

So a link to that source would be nice



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Right

So a link to that source would be nice


you're kidding, right?

IT WOULDN'T PASS IF IT DIDN'T HAVE AT LEAST 2/3RDS of each house


do i have to pull out the part of the constitution that says it requires 2/3rds of each house?

will i really have to pull out the voting record for it?



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
well, i can't find the voting records, but i found that it was ratified by 42 states



The amendment was ratified by 42 states in all: Alabama on August 10, 1909, Kentucky on February 8, 1910, South Carolina on February 19, Illinois on March 1, Mississippi on March 7, Oklahoma on March 10, Maryland on April 8, Georgia on August 3, Texas on August 16, Ohio on January 19, 1911, Idaho on January 20, Oregon on January 23, Washington on January 26, Indiana and Montana on January 30, California and Nevada on January 31, South Dakota on February 3, Nebraska on February 9, North Carolina on February 11, Colorado on February 15, North Dakota on February 17, Kansas on February 18, Michigan on February 23, Iowa on February 24, Missouri on March 16, Maine on March 31, Tennessee on April 7, Arkansas on April 22, Wisconsin on May 26, New York on July 12, Arizona on April 6, 1912, Minnesota on June 11, Louisiana on June 28, West Virginia on January 31, 1913, New Mexico on February 3 (the 36th state to ratify), Delaware and Wyoming on February 3, New Jersey on February 4, Vermont on February 19, Massachusetts on March 4, and New Hampshire on March 7. Arizona and New Hampshire ratified after an earlier rejection. Ratification was rejected by Rhode Island on April 29, 1910, Utah on March 9, 1911 Connecticut on June 28, 1911, and Florida on May 31, 1913. Virginia and Pennsylvania failed to complete action on the amendment.


here's my source
it even has credible citation



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
So a link to that source would be nice




Wikipedia will provide answers to most common knowledge questions:

en.wikipedia.org...


Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Amendment XVI (the Sixteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, authorizing income taxes in their present form, was ratified on February 3, 1913.

Unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution
A two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress —assuming the presence of a quorum — may approve/propose an amendment. All of the ratified and unratified amendments have been proposed by this method.


[edit on 20-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 10:05 AM
link   
so
has anybody tried to show this guy a copy of the 16th amendment?

alright, sarcasm aside
this guy seems to be either really attached to his money of more than a bit detached from reality



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe that the constitution requires a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate...or....a majority vote in the House and Senate and 2/3 of the states would have to ratify in order to make an amendment to the constitution.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Thanks for including Yoda, Regenmacher. I love a well placed image, especially starwars related. (yes, i'm a complete dweeb).

To amend the constitution you generally need 2/3s of the house and senate, then 3/4 of the state legislatures.

Alternatively, an amending convention can be called by 2/3s of the legislatures and separate delegations of 3/4 of the states may ratify on behalf of the legislatures.

You can mix and match these... for instance, amending convention and ratify by legislatures.

An amending convention has never been successfully called since Philadelphia. Ratification was delegated once, because legislators didn't want to stand up and be counted on the moral issue of repealing prohibition.


It is sometimes claimed that insubstantial textual variations in the ratified texts returned by the legislatures to congress void the ratification of the 16th, but this has always been dismissed since no difference of substance was created by the misspellings, altered dictions, and various punctuations and capitalizations applied.

Bottom line, this gentleman is wrong when it comes to the law. I would glady entertain the argument that perhaps the law should change (to a certain reasonable degree), because people are quite burdened. Until the law changes however, he's wrong.

The law says that the government is going to give us certain things and that we are going to help pay for them. He partook of those things and did not pay. He welched on a deal that we are all party to. He left you and me and all of us flat. That's not heroic in my eyes. It would be heroic for him to start a campaign to help us all get together and make the deal that we share more workable for us all. That would show civic virtue. This guy was content to look out for number one. That is not characteristic of the heroic myth at all.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
]IT WOULDN'T PASS IF IT DIDN'T HAVE AT LEAST 2/3RDS of each house


do i have to pull out the part of the constitution that says it requires 2/3rds of each house?

will i really have to pull out the voting record for it?


The 16th amendment is not legal.

Looks to me like only 20 of the 48 states, at that time, actually legally ratified the amendment. That's only a 2/5ths minority.


"The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913.

...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.

www.givemeliberty.org...



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   
You've been lied to, In Nothing We Trust. Benson twisted the facts to sell a book, plain and simple.

www.givemeliberty.org...

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!



www.quatloos.com...

At the time, it was not required for the governor to transmit the amendment to the state senate, only to recommend ratification. Kentucky initially rejected the phrasing "of income" but eventually ratified it, with only sentence structure but not meaning differing from the official text.

Furthermore, since in DECADES, not one of the states counted as having ratified EVER disputed that it had ratified the amendment, the enrolled bill rule applies. The standard form has been recognized by the states over a long history without dispute from the states.

The courts have ruled on this book's argument, as a tax protestor attempted to use it in his defense. Their decision explains everything quite clearly.
Link



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
why is it that there is no end to the number of conspiracies surrounding the 16th amendment?
it's perfectly legal
enough senators voted for it
enough members of the house of representatives voted for it
enough states ratified it
and
it helped build the infrastructure of this country



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join