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.

 

ed brown media conspiracy

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   
is it me, or the text articles and much of the video articles on ed brown do not mention the main thing that should be focused on, the fact that ed brown stated that, if the IRS would provide him with the written law (that doesnt exist) he would be willing to pay the taxes, he would have wrote the check in the court room the day of the trial, in my opinion the law was put into the wrong hands and he is truly a victim (by the court system) and he is standing up for all of us. the point is, the media is not mentioning that there is no law that states tax is manditory, from the research that has been done, it is voluntary, only a sucker would make a statement such as, if I have to pay taxes so does everyone else, but show me where it says that, I been looking for this law for a long time.

so, does anyone agree the media is focused on the wrong thing, seems like they are more worried about calling him names like "tax evader" and giving the impression he is a criminal, the media writers and editors are ganging up like cowards against ed if you ask me.

I recommend searchiong for ed brown in google video and you will see non-bias, uncontrolled, non-major media interviews that are more realistic than a major news channel. also be sure to watch the video freedom to facism for a clearer perspective.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by timedrifter]




posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Its pretty clear that a person is required to pay income tax. Brown is just another tax protestor, its not all that news worthy, and the media shouldnt' be obliged to repeat tax protestor propaganda.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   
if it is so clear, please post a link or something that will convince me, how about a link to the actual law mr. expert, you telling me what you believe does not stand firm ground at this point.

how about this, I have a challenge for you, you find me the laws in writing, at a government website like www.irs.gov , and I will send you some money through paypal or something, $20 bucks. deal?

BTW, did I mention I worked at the IRS for almost three years?

[edit on 6-2-2007 by timedrifter]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
The income tax is in the consitution, for crying out loud.

Tax protestors like to pretend that there is no law for the income tax, when in reality all they want to do is challenge the existence of the law.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Nygdan]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The income tax is in the consitution, for crying out loud.

Tax protestors like to pretend that there is no law for the income tax, when in reality all they want to do is challenge the existence of the law.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Nygdan]



ummm no.

Ed Brown would definelty not be doing this if it were in the constitution.

And yes, this is a huge media cover-up.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The income tax is in the consitution, for crying out loud.

Tax protestors like to pretend that there is no law for the income tax, when in reality all they want to do is challenge the existence of the law.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Nygdan]
again, throw up a link or something, back up your words, so far your "matter of fact tone" that comes through your post means nothing, back up your words! and thanks omega1 for your support in this thread, you are awake indeed.

also, do not label me a "protestor", I can label you a "blocker", "seperatist" and so on, dont try to put me in some catagory, put yourself there.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by timedrifter]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by timedrifter
also, do not label me a "protestor"

Er, I didn't. I'm not here to label other posters, i was talking about tax protestors in general, not you specifically.


omega1
Ed Brown would definelty not be doing this if it were in the constitution.



www.law.cornell.edu...
Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes


JSR

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by timedrifter
how about this, I have a challenge for you, you find me the laws in writing, at a government website like www.irs.gov , and I will send you some money through paypal or something, $20 bucks. deal?


the 16th amendment to constitiution, ratified on feb. 3 1913.

not gov. web site, but here is wiki
en.wikipedia.org...

20$ ?...eh?

-----------edit-------------
doh!! ya beat me.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by JSR]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JSR

the 16th amendment to constitiution, ratified on feb. 3 1913.

not gov. web site, but here is wiki
en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 6-2-2007 by JSR]


This bill was forced upon congress by the likes of rockefeller.

video.google.com... 198&q=freedom+to+fascism&hl=en


JSR

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by omega1

This bill was forced upon congress by the likes of rockefeller.


it was still ratified, and, it is still law.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   
here is installment one:


Caught between a rock and a hard place, the DOJ and IRS decided not to let the Lawrence case proceed because it would reveal one critical and damning fact:
The PRA law protects those that fail to file IRS bootleg Form 1040
The DOJ knew that it stood a significant chance of losing the case, and if that happened, the press and others would quickly spread the word, and leave only fools to ever file a 1040 again. Oscar Stilley’s pleadings and documents made these points quite clear:
IRS Form 1040 violates the federal Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and is therefore a legally invalid form.

Under the Public Protection clause of the PRA, no person can be penalized for failing to file a 1040 if the IRS fails to fully comply with the PRA.

The PRA statutes explicitly provide that a PRA challenge is a complete defense and can be raised in any administrative or judicial proceeding.

The IRS Individual Form 1040 has not and cannot comply with the requirements of the PRA because no existing statute authorizes the IRS to impose or collect the federal income tax from individuals. That lack of bona fide authority makes it impossible for IRS to avoid violating the PRA.

The Oscar Stilley and Robert Lawrence case was not dismissed
because the IRS couldn't add, come on that one is ridiculous! Wouldn't an
organization such as the IRS whose entire "business" is literally in numbers
have some of the best people in the world for working with numbers?! That
one is just common sense.

Aside from that, Robert Lawrence's case was
dismissed "with prejudice" meaning he can never be tried for that "crime"
again. Now why would someone such as the IRS request that type of dismissal just because they messed up his numbers for one year?.. hmm, doesn't make much sense, do you have any other excuses or mistruths you'd like to try? Additionally, any such forms that have NO LAW supporting them cannot be issued an OMB number.. so why does the 1040 have one?

It's having one simply proves the form is invalid and of no force and effect. Wanna see? Check it out - 44 U.S.C. 3500 – 3520.

In Section 3512 of the Act, titled "Public Protection," it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with an agency's collection of information request (such as a 1040 form), if the request does not display a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) *in accordance with the requirements of the Act*, or if the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that he is not required to respond to the collection of information request unless it
displays a valid control number.

We The People Foundation has researched the facts, law and circumstances surrounding this case, and has determined that:
A public trial would have opened a “Pandora’s Box” of legal evidence and government testimony under oath that would establish the IRS 1040 form as both fraudulent and counterfeit.

Oscar Stilley’s PRA defense “checkmated” the DOJ and IRS

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) appears to have been complicit with IRS in deceiving the public and in helping perpetuate the 1040 fraud by promulgating federal regulations that negate the plain language of the PRA laws passed by Congress and by allowing the IRS to continually skirt the explicit requirements of those statutes


LINK -- www.givemeliberty.org...



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
installment two


the 16th amendment would seem to make it a law, but
doing some limited research i can't see where it is punishable
by imprisonment if you refuse to pay...

it's also come into question as to whether or not it was properly
ratified... wikipedia isn't going to side either way...it's up to the
supreme court and congress, and they aren't going to cough up
the evidence...

here is an interesting read (imm. below) put together by irwin schiff who is
serving his third prison term for tax evasion. there are some
interesting points with regard evasion of paying income tax as
being a criminal act punishable by law...

he's specifically looking for, among other things, "penalty
provisions" for failure to pay income taxes...it seems it's
fair to levy some sort of wage tax (if that was ratified correctly)
i guess, but the context is questionable, and the legal ramifications,
if any, for not paying are in question...

LINK paynoincometax.com...

Freedom to Fascism article:

here's what some of the article said the filmmaker's position was:

The film opens by calling the 16th Amendment and its subsequent income tax and the Federal Reserve the product of a “silent coup d’état” in 1913 by “international bankers.” In the style of low-budget television documentaries, photographs appear on screen of J. P. Morgan, Paul Warburg and John D. Rockefeller.

The cornerstone of Mr. Russo’s case is whether any law requires Americans to pay income taxes on wages.

Near the film’s beginning Mr. Russo says, and others appear on screen asserting, that the Internal Revenue Service has refused every request to show any law making Americans liable for an income tax on their wages.

Yet among those thanked in the credits for their help in making the film is Anthony Burke, an I.R.S. spokesman. Mr. Burke said that when Mr. Russo called him asking what law required the payment of income taxes on wages, he sent Mr. Russo a link to documents, including Title 26 of the United States Code, citing the specific sections that require income taxes be paid on wages. Title 26 says on its face that it is law enacted by Congress, but Mr. Russo denied this fact.

“Title 26,” Mr. Russo said in an interview last week, “is not the law, it is I.R.S. regulations and to be a law it has to be passed by Congress.” Mr. Russo added that he had studied the matter closely and was confident that he had the facts.

The film also states repeatedly that people are tricked into paying income taxes because no law makes them liable for taxes. The tax code uses the word impose, whose definition includes the concept of liability, courts have held in published decisions.

The 16th Amendment repealed apportionment, but Mr. Russo says in the film that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified and thus a tax on wages is unconstitutional. This claim has been made in various forms by thousands of tax protesters since 1913, and so far their batting average with the courts is .000.

LINK - www.nytimes.com...



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   
installment three


the first gentleman indicates that a "natural person" (private
person) is not required by law to pay taxes on their income,
but other "persons" as indicated under Section 7343 of
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE are liable.

these "persons" are defined in these subsections as
different from "natural persons". read on...

LINK --www.triallogs.com...

i think it makes sense to keep following these
cases.

the government called schiff's claims "frivolous". and
some people are calling this movement to oppose
tax law a cult movement....

LINK (gov's response to schiff) www.paynoincometax.com...

but i think there may be something to the refutations
going on...




Re: Spreading the word
« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2007, 03:43:22 PM »


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you plead?

What does the law specifically state that I am accused of violating?

I have made a legal determination that you were under a duty according to the law.

My copy of that law says...
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! (Gavel on desk)

You will not discuss the law in my court room!
Reading the law will confuse the jury.

Former USSR?
Red China?
North Korea?
Hussein's Iraq?

Nope.
Nope.
Nope.
And Nope.


The Federal Court House in Concord, New Hampshire
Where Ed and Elaine Brown are
not allowed to defend themselves.


www.synapticsparks.info... 2kb RTF format. (opens with wordpad.) Right click > Save as > run virus scan. Open and print.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


Okay, so Congress can levy taxes. That doesnt mean I have to pay them.
Just because a bum demands a dollar do you have to give it to him?



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   
last installment, and my friend who is a research pro found this stuff for me and I appreciate it, I also appreciate the other responses regardless of whether I agree or not, and there is still not yet an official government site posted here yet, there was a link from a school, wiki and a few others but none directly from the IRS or the treasury, the law school link had a edited version and wiki version is tough to interpret, if anything (my friend) the person who researched this stuff for me deserves the $20.


i dont know if it's authentic yet, but that's what
the poster asserts. here's the link (below) the
poster is Dale Eastman

LINK -- www.triallogs.com...

i think it is trail transcript. there's a lot more
at triallogs...take a look...haahah

i'm heading to bed...i'll catch up with you
tomorrow...

by the way, here is a crazy site with a plethora of
videos and info on this case....CRAZY!!
LINK -- www.questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com...

to me though, there is an issue with the interpretation
of the exact wording of the law.

yes there exists a 16th amendment that talks about
income taxes, but once you get into the quagmire
of the IRS codes and the sections and codes of
the law you begin to see why these people
are raising questions...

it may be up to the judge how far these investigations
will be allowed to proceed, but often when it comes to
challenges of u.s. law, judges can be dense and irascible...
just by the colorful quote i sent you, which i think is
the real deal, you can see what the browns are up
against...

still watching where this whole thing goes...



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


Okay, so Congress can levy taxes. That doesnt mean I have to pay them.
Just because a bum demands a dollar do you have to give it to him?
I agree, it certainly appears these tax laws are riddled and have scam written all over it in my opinion and is not delivered or worded precisely. and that quote from the constitution there, is sentences peiced together from a much larger paragraph. and the quote "and without regard to any census or enumeration" is a phallacy in itself indeed.


Originally posted by JSR

Originally posted by omega1

This bill was forced upon congress by the likes of rockefeller.


it was still ratified, and, it is still law.
it is still tough to interpret and it should not be accepted by US citizens, people need to stand up already, we need to stop letting the government bully us, I thought they work for us, not the other way around.

[edit on 7-2-2007 by timedrifter]


JSR

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   
ok, i see how you play now.
still asking questions, you know the answer to i see.

so tell me, do you pay your taxes?

and a clairification:
is this a question of the right of congress to levi taxes?
or, a question of the right of congress to put you in jail for not paying?



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by JSR
ok, i see how you play now.
still asking questions, you know the answer to i see.

so tell me, do you pay your taxes?

and a clairification:
is this a question of the right of congress to levi taxes?
or, a question of the right of congress to put you in jail for not paying?


I pay my taxes. I prepare them religiosly and meticulously to prevent any loop hole the government might use to attack me. Just like all the shops on the block continue to pay the mob for "protection." Every time one shop owner says no his business is destroyed and hes lucky to escape with his life. It takes the whole block to stand up to the mob. It takes a whole country to stand up to its government. Until then we're all at the mercy of their cops, their guns, their power, their "laws" and our own divisivness. Thats something all gangs, mobs, thugs and governments count on. You say no to their demands and you end up in prison or dead. I pay my taxes out of fear. Plain and simple.


JSR

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
assuming you dont already have a response stuffed in you pocket for these, easily found IRS web sites, here goes.
(i still have not figured out how to work the external source and quotes stuff yet. i apologize)

www.irs.gov...=119100,00.html

www.irs.gov...


JSR

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I pay my taxes out of fear. Plain and simple.


i understand that you pay out of fear, but, that doesnt answer my question under the clairification portion of my post.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join