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.

 

New Hampshire man, Ed Brown, refuses to pay federal taxes - willing to fight for it.

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Jefferson tells me he didn't go to prison, or die foolishly and the system he helped build is already set up and capable of making changes.

Now if you think storming the capital with pistol is better, go for it. I have yet to see that work, so prove me wrong.


and if the english had caught him what do you think they would have done? As a matter of fact, if any of them were caught by the english, what would have happened? They would have been hanged. Thats what would have happened, for treason.

And the system he helped build has been completely corrupted. The system he made left an open end for government to make new amendments to fill any loopholes that he had not thought of. So that if a loop hole was exploited after they were dead, it could be closed off with a new amendment. This open end to new amendments turned out to be the loophole itself. Greedy men exploited it and destroyed the purpose of this nation.

So what do I say? I say try to the best of our ability to change it back, but if we go ignored and cast aside by our government, boycott. If they come to imprison us for these wrongful illegal charges, then give them hell. This government doesn't represent ME, so why am I paying all these taxes to it?




posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
k lets get something straight everyone, Facts: Income taxes have only been around since the early 1900s, the bill (also for the Federal Reserve)was written up by a group of rich bankers (rockfellers and others), income tax DOES NOT fiance your education, your roads, or improve our daily lives what so ever...instead it pays off our countrys "intrest" to the bankers than loans our country money....thats fact, the IRS is a private corperation and not an actual goverment organization, there are some states including mine(Utah) that do not even acknowledge the 16th amendment as a real law, in the original constiution there is no law stating you have to pay an income tax(yes u pay state and local tax)



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   
1 That the filing of federal income tax returns is voluntary and the filing of federal income tax returns is not required;

* All individuals who file tax returns waive their Fifth Amendment Rights.
* The Government cannot require individuals to waive their Fifth Amendment Rights.
* Therefore, the Government cannot require individuals to file tax returns.

2 That the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never ratified;

3 That income taxes are not used to pay for daily government operations, but to pay the interest on the national debt(which is the bankers who loaned money to the US).



www.anti-irs.com...

Wins against IRS by Bill Conklin


* Walder v. Conklin; U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming.
* Church of World Peace, Inc. v IRS, 715 F.2d 492
* United States v. Church of World Peace, 775 F.2d 265
* United States v Church of World Peace, 878 F2d 1281
* Conklin v. United States, 812 F.2d 1318
* Conklin v. C.I.R., 897 F.2d 1032
* Tavery v. United States, 897 F.2d 1027
* Tavery v. United States, Civ. No. 87-Z-180, USDC Colorado


FOR PEOPLE *******WHO THINK THE LAW IS LEGAL*****: The man above, Bill Conklin, will pay you ****************$50,000**************** if you can find a ***legal law*** that says we have to pay income tax!

[edit on 1/20/2007 by ConfederacyOfUnity]

[edit on 1/20/2007 by ConfederacyOfUnity]



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
WOW ..THIS MAN HAS BALLS....

My support for him from Australia.

I watched the DVD "From freedom to fascism" and my view is based on the Filmmakers research.
No one for the IRS could give Aaron Russo an explanation why "we" have to pay income taxes.
Lets get some answers......and another WACO will not be the answer!!!



ED BROWN FOR PRESIDENT



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Actually, the 16th amendment wasn't ratified, period.

"Bill Benson's findings, published in "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. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted." More...

Furthermore, other posters are correct in that Federal Taxes do not pay for roads, schools, WIC, etc. (that is derived from the State coffers), but rather, goes directly to pay the *interest* on our debt to the Federal Reserve -- a modern-day cabal of robber- barons.

Finally, the 16th amendment was -meant- to tax income that was passively derived, such as monies earned from interest. The laboe part comes in because corporations could consider the peoples' labor as 'income' to producing their profits. That became twisted into taxing the labor of the people:

"The Phil Hart report demonstrates there is absolutely no foundation to the position of the Executive branch (the Treasury Department, the IRS and the Department of Justice) that wages and salaries EQUALS taxable “income” within the meaning of the 16th Amendment, or that an individual’s wages, received in direct exchange for his labor, equals income and is, therefore, taxable under the Sixteenth Amendment."

On the other hand, the report proves beyond a shadow of doubt what “income” means within the meaning of the 16th Amendment -- that a corporation may derive “income” from labor, as that corporation utilizes labor in pursuit of profits, and that such corporate income is taxable. Likewise, a person or a corporation may derive “income” from investments in stocks and bonds or real estate, and that such (passive) income is taxable. See...



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
This government doesn't represent ME, so why am I paying all these taxes to it?


Not getting caught is a matter of luck, so who feels lucky?

I had to work 3 jobs, so that's what I know, Grim. I have no idea how you can convince the courts that wages are not taxable, and I have yet to see it done, so I pay my taxes.

Did you read over this?
Tax protester constitutional arguments

I don't see people going into any sort of revolt or really wanting a change either. They elected a war whore two times, so that should tell ya something. Most folks are overweight, addicted to consumerism, and think debt is wealth...thus we have a fat, greedy, debt-ridden goverment. Doesn't represent me either Grim, but I am a minority voice where few listen.

[edit on 20-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConfederacyOfUnity
FOR PEOPLE *******WHO THINK THE LAW IS LEGAL*****: The man above, Bill Conklin, will pay you ****************$50,000**************** if you can find a ***legal law*** that says we have to pay income tax!


does Article. I section 8 of the constitution count?
U.S. national archives constitution
As to those who would say that federal income tax is illegal because of the fifth amendment the goverment can claim that they are providing the just compensation required for taking personal property for public use by providing things like federal highways, educational grants, military, border protection, courts, federal law inforcement, maintanement of diplomatic relations abroad postal service and many other services. On top of this income taxes help to pay the salaries of politicians and the thosands of other federal employees. and finialy as to wether or not the 16 amendment was ratified it was passed by Congress July 2, 1909 and Ratified February 3, 1913
as can be seen here
U.S. National archives constitutional amendmants11-27

Now I do understand that the United states was founded largely on the bases of tax freedom but since the american revolution it has become increasingly apperant that taxes are nessicary to run a goverment. The constitution was writen largely because under the articles of confederation the only ways the federal goverment could raise money was by borrowing it, printing it or asking the states to give it to them (the states could refuse.) This led to a large national debt and a high inflation rate prompting Shays's Rebellion in Westren Massachusetts in 1786 and 1787.
en.wikipedia.org...'_Rebellion
All of this is why the Federal income tax is legal
Now where can I get my fifty thousand dollars?



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Belenus
All of this is why the Federal income tax is legal
Now where can I get my fifty thousand dollars?


After you spend $1 million on a lawyer trying to prove that in court.

My vote: Can everything and start over. Undo the Fed, address the deficit and most importantly- whittle down this government to its absolute most necessary elements- with all that fat- TRIMMED. Once that is done, it can be realistic to assess what this government, in its new slim form, would really need to charge the people to operate- and you can bet Iraq didn't make the list.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Yea I can see Federal taxes are necessary our US Deficit went from 5 trillion in 2005 to over 9 trillion in 2007.

We sure are paying down that deficit.


Oh and lets see how many politicians that are career politicians have Mulitiple pensions? even if they server for 4 years they get full pension, medical, dental, etc....

Lets see if you serve for 20 plus years in the military you might get something close to what the politicians get......NOT!

Things are out of wack and need to be questioned and fixed.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Regen, I understand where your coming from but let some things echo in your mind the next time you say you are the minority.

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."
Thomas Jefferson

In this nation, being in the minority should not mean being forced against your will to do something you do not believe in. If this country has changed so radically that the majority may strip the minority of their rights for the majorities benefit or personal beliefs, then I dare not call this place The United States of America.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Well considering you have no idea what my philanthropy work includes or that I probably waste and spend less than a person making minimum wage..I say that I displayed nothing of the sort and you spew total fiction.


Fiction, non-fiction, or otherwise; whether you're comletely upfront or disingenuous, it's moot. Your work ethic is hardly in question nor is your financial status in question or frankly much cared about. Im not calling that into question now either; you're the one who touted so loudly about your financial independence and I called you on that...in so much as it has no bearing to this at all. That doesn't make what I said fiction, it simply makes it my perception on your attitude, which as far as I can tell, I'm still free to express.


Originally posted by Regenmacher
Real Americans free themselves!


Which is exactly what the Ed Brown guy is trying to do.


Originally posted by Regenmacher
They do not remain a slaves and complain about freedom, they don't expect others do to it for them,


I didnt see him asking for outside help.


Originally posted by Regenmacher
they don't break laws and cheat like crooks and felons, and they get off their asses and work 3 jobs if they have too. They stay within the bounds of the law in a nation built on laws, they help others and leave more behind than they take.



A law is only effective if the majority Governed by them agree to their voracity and fitness for a purpose. This gentleman has no reason to believe it IS a law, and Im willing to bet that given the proper insight, nor would a vast majority of the population. It's difficult for a population to fight for something they have no reason to believe or any cognizance as to why it is they should. In fact ask a group of 100 American citizens. Ask them what 1 dollar is worth. Im sure they would be surprised to find out their "dollar" is actually worth about 60% of its own value when the total cost of REPAYING to have that dollar manufactured is accounted for. Most especially when you tell them it's being paid to PRIVATE investors.
The Federal Reserve System is a very systematic and clever way of fooling the average citizen into believing that it's a Federal System with FEDERAL oversight. It isn't.

In 1913 this "law" was introduced during a period when Congress was adjourned, and slipped through the cracks which anyone at all who's had dealings at any political level knows, is simply the norm.

Ed Brown is already financially stable so he has little need to work 3 jobs, we cant say that he does or doesnt help others as much as he possibly can no more than I can say that you do or dont and vice versa, and given the nature of how this "law" was brought to fruition in 1913 he DOES believe he's remaining within the bounds of the law...NOR does he explicitly ask for anyones assistance.


Given all THAT, he is a TRUE American by your own definition.



AB1



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
In 1913 this "law" was introduced during a period when Congress was adjourned, and slipped through the cracks which anyone at all who's had dealings at any political level knows, is simply the norm.

If the law you are refering to here is the 16 amendment to the constitution then I am afraid that i cannot see how it could have possibly simply "Slipped through the cracks" as youm put it because as an amendmant to the constitution if was first passed by congress in 1912 and the ratified by three fourths of the states at the time whish is no small matter and would be hard to simply slip past.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I am not up to speed on this point as much as I should be so bear with me, perhaps more knowledgable folk could expound on it. Isn't being forced to work to survive and pay an income tax a form of slavery? Wasn't slavery abolished hence illegal?

here is more info...

Some professional sales training institutes unabashedly teach hypnotic techniques to their sales trainees. It is clear to them that if a buyer is put into a hypnotic trance then it is much easier to sell a product. Because the ethics of using such techniques on the unaware is questionable, some states have laws that give you the right to cancel a contract within 24 or 48 hours of signing. Supposedly, this gives you time to "wake up" from your unconscious state.

So how can you tell if you are in one of these ordinary, unconscious trances? You are in a trance when your attention is limited and there is a certain repetition of thoughts. In an extreme case, your attention is so limited that it feels like "tunnel vision." The repetition of thoughts might be mantras, songs, repeating fantasies, or even the math calculations of balancing your checkbook. That song you can't get out of your head indicates a trance. Concentration, when the mind is focused on a specific problem or thought, is also a form of trance. You could characterize trance cybernetically as an awareness loop, or a circular flow of consciousness.

Repetition of mantras, the whirling of dervishes, the chanting and drumming of shamans, the repetition of TV commercials all induce trance by limiting your attention and overloading your mind with repeated thoughts. The purposes may be different, the results may be different, but in my opinion the difference in trance is mainly of degree.

Once your mind is flying around in a tight loop, at some point you become used to this tight loop. You can also say that you have learned the loop. At that point, you might have the feeling that you can think ordinary thoughts even though another part of your mind is still flying around in this tight loop. The part of you that is the conscious 'you' is the observer of the 'you' that is the automaton flying around in this endless loop. The conscious 'you' is actually in a trance even though you feel perfectly conscious. Here's why.

Normally, you have certain cognitive abilities such as the ability to remember things accurately, the ability to make judgements, you are generally aware of your body if you put your mind to it, you are alert to your surroundings, and you generally are not observing yourself doing things, you are doing them.

These cognitive abilities draw on our energies. When we learn new things, learning means that we can do it more efficiently. That means, we don't need to put all of our energy into maintaining what we have learned. At the same time, doing something by habit does take some cognitive energy, which leaves our conscious mind a bit short. Particular types of loops will absorb greater amounts of our energy, leaving our conscious minds relatively disabled.

When we let our mind go in a loop, and then allow ourselves to step away and observe, the observing part may actually not function at full capacity. That means, your memory might not work so well, you may not be able to make a judgement, you will probably be much more self-observing, you may not be aware of your body, you may not be aware of your surroundings so much because of fixed attention. You might even hallucinate. Some psychologists call this trance logic.

What is interesting is that this dissociated or trance state is often combined with rewards. That is, we are generally encouraged to go into trance even though this state results in a somewhat disabled mental condition.

Whether you are passively watching TV football, or engaging in rational rigorously precise thoughts, or having an emotional jolt of religious fervor, or feeling patriotic passion, or if you are an addict of any kind...



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Belenus
amendmant to the constitution if was first passed by congress in 1912


I mean when it was first passed by Congress.
There were many points of contention with the bill, and it was a long standing courtesy that nothing got acted upon in congress on the week of Christmas, however that's how things proceeded meanwhile some of the most vociferous opposition to it had already left Washington.


This is what I mean, for clarity.


AB1



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
...or if you have the compulsive mindset of a mass murderer you are in a trance. Why? Because all these states encourage a fixed, narrow attention span and they all reward the repetition of an impoverished set of thoughts. Most of the above are pathological trances, that is, over the long term they will produce pathologies.

It is well-known that when you are in a trance your attention can be diverted effectively enough to produce anesthesia sufficient for dental work or some types of surgery. Lamaze natural childbirth breathing techniques uses the resulting narrowed span of attention to help reduce pain. This narrowing of attention, the concentration of the mind on maintaining the breathing patterns, diverts the attention from the physical pain sensations during childbirth with the result that the mother becomes less aware of any uncomfortable sensations. The power of a mind in a trance can do things which it ordinarily cannot do. Giving birth painlessly is only one example.

Trance can also be used to reduce psychological pain such as anxiety, fear, worry, as well as the universal Weltschmerz. Instead of consciously addressing the causes of the pain, trance can successfully divert the attention so that one is aware of neither the pain nor the causes of pain.

Hypnotic trance is only one way to remove pain. Alcohol, drug, religion, work, consumption, and TV trance addictions can also be counted as other ways of removing pain. I believe addictions of all sorts are forms of pathological trance.

Pathological Trance States and Addictions
Addiction can be better understood if we think of it not merely as "substance abuse," or performance addiction, but as a form of an impoverished reality that is maintained by a pathological trance. Limited awareness, tunnel vision, the special characteristic that identifies a dysfunctional, impoverished reality, also identifies a type of pathological trance state that may be also a characteristic of all addictions.

If you really want to get into a pathological trance and stay there, here's a general recipe. First, you must impoverish your reality by removing all distractions and limit your awareness to a single, or at most a very few objects of attention. This narrowing of attention can be helped along by the passions inspired by drugs, trauma, by joining some religious or political movements or by staying at home and watching a lot of television or computer screen. It would be a good idea to get rid of distractions like kids, magazines or books -- especially books that give you options or make you think about other possibilities. Second, you must convince yourself that all options -- other than your chosen perfect ideal, of course -- are "evil" and every attempt that your monkey mind makes to have variety must be crushed and that you must keep your mind "pure" and only allow thoughts about your chosen passion. This mental trick will serve to concentrate your attention firmly on the object.


This is an excerpt from a report by Dennis R. Wier
Director, The Trance Institute, Bruetten, Switzerland



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtr3m3
I am not up to speed on this point as much as I should be so bear with me, perhaps more knowledgable folk could expound on it. Isn't being forced to work to survive and pay an income tax a form of slavery? Wasn't slavery abolished hence illegal?

It's not slavery because you can go to the goverment and say that you are renouncing your citizenship at any time and then move to another country. if we were all slaves that could not happen.


Originally posted by alphabetaone
I mean when it was first passed by Congress.
There were many points of contention with the bill, and it was a long standing courtesy that nothing got acted upon in congress on the week of Christmas, however that's how things proceeded meanwhile some of the most vociferous opposition to it had already left Washington.


This is what I mean, for clarity.


AB1

Ummm... the bill was passed in congress on July 2 which, last time I checked was not christmas week. I was wrong about the year it passed in congress; it was 1909 not 1912 which means that it took over three years to ratify it once agian I do not see how it just slipped through.
U.S. national archives consitution



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Something that might be worth pointing out here:

The U.S. Constitution plus all of its amendments contain less text than is currently in this thread.

So, if you had the time to read this entire thread, then you had the time to read the Entire document (and not just the little bits and pieces you may think are relevant to this specific issue)

Anybody who hasn't taken the time to read the whole thing (it ain't hard, folks) isn't really doing much to Deny Ignorance.

So, who here is willing to take the time to find the parts / laws that define 'income' and 'money'?



[edit on 20-1-2007 by torbjon]



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I listened to the interview. He seems to be very sure of his position, very confident that he is in the right. His basic defense is, "Show me the law, and I'll pay the tax".

He only made one mistake that I heard - he mentioned the word zionist. This brought his credibility down a few notches in my estimation.


Indeed. I believe in his cause but if he goes crazy "omg the neo-cons" and all that BS then I won't support him. He should stick to the laws ... or lack there of



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by torbjon
Something that might be worth pointing out here:

The U.S. Constitution plus all of its amendments contain less text than is currently in this thread.

So, if you had the time to read this entire thread, then you had the time to read the Entire document (and not just the little bits and pieces you may think are relevant to this specific issue)

Anybody who hasn't taken the time to read the whole thing (it ain't hard, folks) isn't really doing much to Deny Ignorance.

So, who here is willing to take the time to find the parts / laws that define 'income' and 'money'?



[edit on 20-1-2007 by torbjon]

Having read the constitution in full on several occasions I can say that it never defines income or money
Merriam-Websters online dictionary gives these definitions:

Main Entry: 1mon·ey
Pronunciation: 'm&-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural moneys or mon·ies /'m&-nEz/
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English moneye, from Anglo-French moneie, from Latin moneta mint, money -- more at MINT
1 : something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment: as a : officially coined or stamped metal currency b : MONEY OF ACCOUNT c : PAPER MONEY
2 a : wealth reckoned in terms of money b : an amount of money c plural : sums of money : FUNDS
3 : a form or denomination of coin or paper money
4 a : the first, second, and third place winners (as in a horse or dog race) -- usually used in the phrases in the money or out of the money b : prize money
5 a : persons or interests possessing or controlling great wealth b : a position of wealth
- for one's money : according to one's preference or opinion
- on the money : exactly right or accurate



Main Entry: in·come
Pronunciation: 'in-"k&m also 'in-k&m or 'i[ng]-k&m
Function: noun
1 : a coming in : ENTRANCE, INFLUX
2 : a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor; also : the amount of such gain received in a period of time

Thats about as official as you're going to get for a definition because last i checked the government didn't have the time to make laws about the definition of every word.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I don't know the specifics of the US income tax, but what I know is that if there was a legal way of not paying the income tax then all the people who do not want to pay (and who wants?) and have money enough to spend on lawyers would have made it in these 90+ years since the 16th amendment was passed.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join