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: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by JSR
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...


For every example the IRS has of won cases there are losts cases.

www.save-a-patriot.org...
www.freedomsite.net...
www.freedomsite.net...
www.freedomsite.net...

Personally I dont know what motivates you to have to justify anyones wages being taken by any entity. If you do it out of some grand love for the government and all the great things it does than great. Whatever makes you happy. Perhaps you should voluntarilly submit more. It might make you even happier.

But there are plenty of examples on either side for "legal" precendent for an obligation to pay and a right not to pay. For myself, Id rather not pay. Id rather opt out of the federal system all together but unless I want to be killed or go to jail that isnt an option. Since Lincoln forcibly occupied the Confederate states with federal military force its been clear to me that the origional states signed into an agreement not unlike a kid getting "jumped" into a gang. Im upset by this. Im upset that any entity claims to speak for me, to represent me and then draw money from my wages. Hell, if we simply ended the smoke and mirrors of withoulding Id be satisfied. But that wont work. Once people are forced to write over that big check every April youd see alot more Ed Browns out there.




posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 11:15 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?
well I just want to let other citizens contribute, maybe let them figure out the answers themselves, you know, LOL.

yes I have paid my taxes for at least ten years in a row, I would say I paid out at least over $100K and got back a small fraction of it in returns, I expect a nice return this year but it will subside its effect quite quickly.

the real question to me is, should this type of government organization even continue to exist?



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
JSR, what is your opinion on taxes in general? do you think we should not question this, also, do you think the government is doing a godd job of being the big bully?

more research:


this 16th amendment is a hairy topic..not to mention
exactly "who" has to pay and "what" they have
to pay...

here's another site -- www.thelawthatneverwas.com...


The Premise
The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification.
here' smore on this gentleman's battle:


the facts, or course, are unassailable. as one example, the facts propounded by benson unequivocally show that oklahoma intentionally amended what the united states congress has proposed and voted to ratify the oklahoma version rather than the congressional version. every legal scholar, in every legal treatise, indeed even the solicitor of the united states, has declared such action to be outside the power of the legislature of the various states. such action does not constitute ratification.

the government is wholly unable to refute the underlying facts propounded by benson. instead, the government willfully asserts frivolous legal theories contumacious of the law of this case and asks this court to sanction the wholesale denial of benson’s right to due process. the government’s conduct contravenes traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

at the commencement of this case, benson relied upon numerous court cases to argue that he issue of the ratification of the 16th amendment is “beyond review”. benson further aruged that because the issue was “beyond review,”that he was saddled with an unrebuttable presumption of ratification which, according to the united states supreme court, violates the due process clause of the united states constitution. in order not to deny benson due process, the case muse be dismissed...

LINKE – www.thelawthatneverwas.com...


IN SHORT AN INSUFFICIENT NUMBER OF STATES RATIFIED THE
PROPOSED 16TH AMENDMENT TO TO ALLOW IT TO BECOME
A PART OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IN 1913.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISPUTE THIS,
BUT HAS ONLY REFUSED TO ANSWER THESE ASSERTIONS
BY CALLING THEM "FRIVOLOUS". SOMETHIGN SMELLS HERE....

came from the second paragraph here:

www.thelawthatneverwas.com...

i prefer to support the arguments against the 16th amendment
and income tax law...

it seems that the individuals arguing this stuff are better
prepared than the courts who are hearing their cases...



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by JSR
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...


For every example the IRS has of won cases there are losts cases.

www.save-a-patriot.org...
www.freedomsite.net...
www.freedomsite.net...
www.freedomsite.net...

Personally I dont know what motivates you to have to justify anyones wages being taken by any entity. If you do it out of some grand love for the government and all the great things it does than great. Whatever makes you happy. Perhaps you should voluntarilly submit more. It might make you even happier.

But there are plenty of examples on either side for "legal" precendent for an obligation to pay and a right not to pay. For myself, Id rather not pay. Id rather opt out of the federal system all together but unless I want to be killed or go to jail that isnt an option. Since Lincoln forcibly occupied the Confederate states with federal military force its been clear to me that the origional states signed into an agreement not unlike a kid getting "jumped" into a gang. Im upset by this. Im upset that any entity claims to speak for me, to represent me and then draw money from my wages. Hell, if we simply ended the smoke and mirrors of withoulding Id be satisfied. But that wont work. Once people are forced to write over that big check every April youd see alot more Ed Browns out there.


I just wanted to say your research rocks as well my friend, rock on thisguyrighthere!!


JSR

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Personally I dont know what motivates you to have to justify anyones wages being taken by any entity. If you do it out of some grand love for the government and all the great things it does than great. Whatever makes you happy. Perhaps you should voluntarilly submit more. It might make you even happier.


i can tell for you this is a huge deal. its not for me. i dont fear my government, nor do i think it is opressive.
and i certinly dont have a grand love for my government, at the same time, i dont hate it either.

i was simply tring to answer to the OP the subject of tax law.
the law is there. is it right? i dont know. but, it is there.

im not trying to justify anything.


JSR

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by timedrifter
JSR, what is your opinion on taxes in general? do you think we should not question this, also, do you think the government is doing a godd job of being the big bully?


now you ARE drifting.
i have provided the IRS government site. are you now saying it is false.

my opinion on taxes in general? i dont like to give my money away to anybody. but, i dont like to see all the programs go unfunded either. lots of poor people benifit from the taxes i provide.

i think we should question the managment of our taxes, and the rules of collection. i support a flat income tax.

"being the big bully" eh? i suppose when it comes to taxes, the government feels it has a right, by law, to make you pay.

how do you feel about those people "ken lay" and the like, who knowingly evade paying taxes, and short the government millions of dollars that are needed within poor school districts. districts whos kids will not eat without a school provided lunch. or food stamps.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by omega1
This bill was forced upon congress by the likes of rockefeller.

Hardly matters, people are claiming that there is no law for income tax, there are plenty. Arguing that the laws are invalid is a completely different topic.


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

Are you suggesting that the 16th ammendement doesn't exist? What does it matter if the links are from a law school, they're not inventing text, the information is accurate.


have scam written all over it in my opinion and is not delivered or worded precisely.

Are you seriously suggesting that the 16th ammendment has nothing to do with paying income tax, that it was only intended to say that the government can levy, but not collect, an income tax?



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

Why else would anyone pay taxes, or obey any laws?

I dont know what motivates you to have to justify anyones wages being taken by any entity.

It was stated that you aren't required to pay taxes, and that there's no law for an income tax. That was plainly false. People can protest their taxes, but its a sheer falsehood to say that there is no law for it.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by JSR

Originally posted by timedrifter
JSR, what is your opinion on taxes in general? do you think we should not question this, also, do you think the government is doing a godd job of being the big bully?


now you ARE drifting.
i have provided the IRS government site. are you now saying it is false.

my opinion on taxes in general? i dont like to give my money away to anybody. but, i dont like to see all the programs go unfunded either. lots of poor people benifit from the taxes i provide.

i think we should question the managment of our taxes, and the rules of collection. i support a flat income tax.

"being the big bully" eh? i suppose when it comes to taxes, the government feels it has a right, by law, to make you pay.

how do you feel about those people "ken lay" and the like, who knowingly evade paying taxes, and short the government millions of dollars that are needed within poor school districts. districts whos kids will not eat without a school provided lunch. or food stamps.
yes you did provide the IRS site, I been there, trust me. but it does not cite the law, does not provide a link to the actual law per say. but I do appreciate that you posted the link regardless, thank you.

I agree I do not mind paying my taxes for certain causes such as for the benefit of poor people, but how do I know it gets there and really helps them, how do we know these funds are appropriated correctly? what is the priority list at the treasury I wonder.

I worked for enron as well so I know what it feels like to watch rich guys get away with that crap while the little guy suffers, not just when it comes to taxes, as well as when I shared innovation for power plant cooling system, they took it and ran with it and dumped the little guy indeed.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
If the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never ratified by a majority of the sovereign States, then why has it taken so long for people to realize this? (could it be because they had no computers or online info back then???)

Even if the 16th Amendment was ratified, that would nullify Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution ??? I think Bush has done a good job of this as well lol.... ????



[edit on 7-2-2007 by XPhiles]

[edit on 7-2-2007 by XPhiles]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 01:33 AM
link   
The simply fact is that the ammendment was ratified and that you are required to pay income tax. You can't say 'show me the law', and then say 'well, not the 16th ammendment'. THe 16th ammendment settles it, you have to pay income tax. A person can legitimately argue that we shouldn't have ratified the 16th ammendment, but you can't say that there is no income tax law.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The simply fact is that the ammendment was ratified and that you are required to pay income tax. You can't say 'show me the law', and then say 'well, not the 16th ammendment'. THe 16th ammendment settles it, you have to pay income tax. A person can legitimately argue that we shouldn't have ratified the 16th ammendment, but you can't say that there is no income tax law.
nygdan, you failed to read (research) and understand that one of the arguments being made here is that the 16th amendment was NOT PROPERLY RATIFIED. it was done when most of congress was on holiday vacation.

nygdan, you say it was. at this point, i'll say it wasn't.

if it was not properly ratified IT IS NOT A LAW.

does anyone need to graduate harvard law to understand this
simple fact?



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
some more interesting info:



if anyone wants to see a continuing legal rebuttal
played out in the court system over income tax in a way
that is thoroughly detailed and accurately cited,
they should read these 12 pages and decide for
themselves as to whether or not there is a "law"
(not a proposed law, or a not properly ratified
amendment) that states "natural, individual
persons" must pay income tax on their wages to
the IRS, and further if they do not pay this tax on their
personal earned wages to the IRS that they be charged
with the "crime" of breaking a this income tax law and
what punishment is imposed upon those suspected
of breaking this nonexistent law.

the fact is that this law has not been provided in
these court cases, but instead the courts, the IRS
and the government refuse to even address the
issue by using unfair legal manuevering, calling
lawsuits of this ilk "frivolous" and simply illegally
fining and incarcerating the defendants in these cases
without due process.

this is not fair and it is illegal. to simply provide
the law would remove doubt and set precedent,
but this has not been done.

read on...

paynoincometax.com...

the above comes from Irwin Schiff's continued
battle with the U.S. government and the Supreme
Court over the illegality of the imposed income
tax, the forced forfeiture of due process, and the
lack of justification of engaging in court proceedings
against an individual for breaking an income tax law
that doesn't exist.

here is irwin's website:

www.paynoincometax.com...


[edit on 8-2-2007 by timedrifter]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a very important index appears in the Form 1040 instruction booklet. The indexes for these publications do make reference to citizens, but only for those living abroad; see indexes of the Form 1040 instruction booklets for 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.

examination of the various revenue acts adopted after the Revenue Acts of 1916 and 1917 reveals an absence of statutory provisions regarding the domestic income of American citizens domiciled at home. But in addition to this lack of such provision[s] in the statutes, the above also demonstrates that even professionals who publish this type of material constantly and have been doing so for decades do not find such provisions either. What is the reason for this deficiency? Is it § 25 of the 1916 Act?

It must also be noted that frequently the IRS itself as well as various public officials make statements descriptive of the federal income tax system: "our tax system is based upon voluntary compliance." The term "voluntary" in reference to taxation means that if a party pays without objection a tax which he does not owe, he cannot recover it. See Treasury Decision 3445.

The only IRS office which can lawfully maintain records regarding a federal income tax criminal investigation is the office of the "Assistant Commissioner (International)", whose investigative jurisdiction extends only to "non-residents, whether citizens or aliens."



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Most Americans believe that today, the tax scheme of the 1913 act is still in effect, but the truth of the matter is that it is not.
In fact, the present tax scheme is the exact opposite of the 1913 tax scheme, created by the 1916 act amended by the Act of 1917.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   
hey thanks alot airtrax, this tax conspiracy is so deep, to me a major problem is too many people are still living in fear of the government, and I just do not understand it because I thought they are supposed to work for us, not themselves and I also think people just do not talk about it enough, they always want to change the subject.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by timedrifter

Originally posted by Nygdan
The simply fact is that the ammendment was ratified and that you are required to pay income tax. You can't say 'show me the law', and then say 'well, not the 16th ammendment'. THe 16th ammendment settles it, you have to pay income tax. A person can legitimately argue that we shouldn't have ratified the 16th ammendment, but you can't say that there is no income tax law.
nygdan, you failed to read (research) and understand that one of the arguments being made here is that the 16th amendment was NOT PROPERLY RATIFIED.

No, you are wrong. I understood already that the claim was that the ammendment was pushed illegally on some states, and that some states have no record of ever voting on the ammendment, etc etc.

Thats besides the point. The claim being made here was 'there is no law that says you owe income tax'. Thats bogus, and I said it was a bogus claim and that the people making it, like ed brown, knew that there was a law and really wanted to say that the law is invalid in their opinion.


if it was not properly ratified IT IS NOT A LAW.
does anyone need to graduate harvard law to understand this
simple fact?

I find it utterly ironic that you are saying I am being obtuse, when you are the one saying 'there is no law for this'. Any reasonable person would take that to mean that there is no law, not 'i feel that the law wasn't properly vetted and processed.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by timedrifter

Originally posted by Nygdan
The simply fact is that the ammendment was ratified and that you are required to pay income tax. You can't say 'show me the law', and then say 'well, not the 16th ammendment'. THe 16th ammendment settles it, you have to pay income tax. A person can legitimately argue that we shouldn't have ratified the 16th ammendment, but you can't say that there is no income tax law.
nygdan, you failed to read (research) and understand that one of the arguments being made here is that the 16th amendment was NOT PROPERLY RATIFIED.

No, you are wrong. I understood already that the claim was that the ammendment was pushed illegally on some states, and that some states have no record of ever voting on the ammendment, etc etc.

Thats besides the point. The claim being made here was 'there is no law that says you owe income tax'. Thats bogus, and I said it was a bogus claim and that the people making it, like ed brown, knew that there was a law and really wanted to say that the law is invalid in their opinion.


if it was not properly ratified IT IS NOT A LAW.
does anyone need to graduate harvard law to understand this
simple fact?

I find it utterly ironic that you are saying I am being obtuse, when you are the one saying 'there is no law for this'. Any reasonable person would take that to mean that there is no law, not 'i feel that the law wasn't properly vetted and processed.
yes I see what you mean and your right as far as how I came accross, I guess there seems to be a law, but these laws are very unclear and maybe even can be considered incomplete and very open to misinterpretation. would you agree with that?



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   
You would have to search the state constitutions to find if they have any writing on the subject. My guess is that they also have amendment to their constitution as well.


The IRS does a @$%@#% poor job of collecting our taxes. They are machines without the ability to judge different situations. How many old people that originally owed $500 lost their houses, because after penalty's they now owed $300,000.00, and the person just found out because the IRS made a mistake or something.

[edit on 9-2-2007 by Royal76]



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Royal76
You would have to search the state constitutions to find if they have any writing on the subject. My guess is that they also have amendment to their constitution as well.


The IRS does a @$%@#% poor job of collecting our taxes. They are machines without the ability to judge different situations. How many old people that originally owed $500 lost their houses, because after penalty's they now owed $300,000.00, and the person just found out because the IRS made a mistake or something.

[edit on 9-2-2007 by Royal76]
well tax and money suck, its nothing but a control tool to me at this point, that is my real opinion at this junction. people want money for the reasons scarface describes, then everybody wants to be scarface, no one tries to figure out a better way, they just blindlly follow it, we need innovation for our trade and barter system, I think money failed when it comes to making people happy, all it does now is bring misery for rich and poor and maintains seperation and status quo.

[edit on 9-2-2007 by timedrifter]



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   
political-resources.com...
www.givemeliberty.org...
www.geocities.com...
www.apfn.net...
republicofdixie.com...
www.apfn.org...
www.uhuh.com...
www.worldnetdaily.com...

I grow tired of posting this stuff. People truly see what they want to see. I'm not an American, but it is my understanding that the US Constitution is the highest law in the land. No law shall contradict the constitution and any amendments made must follow strict procedure and guidelines.

By all appearance and investigations, the 16th amendment was never properly ratified and thus is unconstitutional. It does not apply. It is illegal. The Federal governemnt owes YOU money and Ed Brown is a patriot the like of which has rarely been seen since the days of the American Revolution. Isn't freedom from tyranny of government one of the reasons America was born?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join