ed and elaine brown arrested by lies

infowars.com...

The entire thing is a lie, if the federal government which is based in lies and coverups cannot produce definitive proof that there is a law beyond the mere force of will by these frustrating people I will sadly call marshalls. Then its in my vision that someone at the top is trying to get america to war with itself. I believe the kings tyranny is here, and these marshalls are not american, but tyrants. And any judge that tries the browns, is a traitor to the constitution. I hope God makes them pay with their souls in hell. Godbless the browns. Hail the constitution and curses on the marshalls, and modern leadership of this great country stolen by very evil thieves.

Since its all I have, I grit my teeth at the modern justice system, and its incompetence and deliberate ignorance out of greed..we all hate you very very very very much.
[edit on 5-10-2007 by mastermind77]

[edit on 5-10-2007 by mastermind77]

The constitution mostly does not say what the government can and can’t do. It says what the People are entitled to. And nowhere does it mention freedom from taxation. Furthermore, the Sixteenth Amendment very specifically does allow federal income tax.

And guess what, tax evasion is very much against the law.

The offices of U.S. Marshals and Deputy Marshals were created by the first Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789, the same legislation that established the federal judicial system. In a letter to Edmund Randolph, the first Attorney General of the United States, President George Washington wrote,

Impressed with a conviction that the due administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good Government, I have considered the first arrangement of the Judicial department as essential to the happiness of our Country, and to the stability of its political system; hence the selection of the fittest characters to expound the law, and dispense justice, has been an invariable object of my anxious concern.

How can the USMS be tyrants of kings if they were created by our very Founding Fathers? I bet you dident know that almost every existing federal law enforcement agency traces its history back to the 1790s and early 1800s.

Tax evasion has ALWAYS been a crime. The first law enforcement officer killed in the line of duty after we became an independent nation was a Westchester County NY sheriff's deputy named Isaac Smith who was shot while trying to arrest a British loyalist who was refusing to pay his taxes in 1792.

[edit on 6-10-2007 by ChrisF231]

The constitution DOES NOT allow for DIRECT TAXES which the INCOME TAX IS A DIRECT TAX. It states clearly taxation will be from tariffs and corporate exchanges and trade, not from the paychecks, the property or car registrations, or.. should i go on. sure tax evasion is not respected today because everyone has been transformed by the society they have delusioned themselves in. money is a corruptor of the human spirit, I will work tirelessly to show humanity how it is a false standard of existence and that there are better ways to live. Its out of greed, manipulation and control, or ignorance that a person excuses the genocidal madness money causes people to enter. So check your facts friends. ANd maybe go look up a phrase known as "the moral directive" something people in this materialistic hell needs to learn.

Originally posted by mastermind77
The constitution DOES NOT allow for DIRECT TAXES which the INCOME TAX IS A DIRECT TAX.

Not true. See the Sixteenth Amendment.

It states clearly taxation will be from tariffs and corporate exchanges and trade, not from the paychecks, the property or car registrations, or.. should i go on.

You're incorrect. See IRC Sec. 61; IRC Sec. 6151; Reese v. United States, 24 F.3d 228, 231 (Fed. Cir. 1994); United States v. Becker, 965 F.2d 383, 389 (7th Cir. 1992) (finding defendant’s contention that wages are not income to be “ridiculous"); United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500 (7th Cir. 1991) (rejecting defendant’s argument that the revenue laws of the United States do not impose a tax on income; the court recognized the “Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on all income”); United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-44 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1029 (1990) (court stated that “[e]very court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income.”); Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71, 72 (5th Cir. 1981) (court rejected as “meritless” the taxpayer’s contention that the “exchange of services for money is a zero-sum transaction...").

sure tax evasion is not respected today because everyone has been transformed by the society they have delusioned themselves in. money is a corruptor of the human spirit, I will work tirelessly to show humanity how it is a false standard of existence and that there are better ways to live. Its out of greed, manipulation and control, or ignorance that a person excuses the genocidal madness money causes people to enter. So check your facts friends. ANd maybe go look up a phrase known as "the moral directive" something people in this materialistic hell needs to learn.

I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiments here, but your conclusions are wrong. If you think the tax system is wrong, and again, I don't disagree, there are better ways to go about lowering taxes rather than spreading falsehoods.

Originally posted by NRen2k5
The constitution mostly does not say what the government can and can’t do. It says what the People are entitled to. And nowhere does it mention freedom from taxation. Furthermore, the Sixteenth Amendment very specifically does allow federal income tax.

And guess what, tax evasion is very much against the law.

A couple points:

1) The Constitution and Bill of Rights does not address the people. Period. It was written for the Government, to tell them what they are allowed to do (Constitution) and what they can not touch (Bill of Rights).

Aside from some small matters, if it's not in the Constitution, it's not allowed.

2) It's been fairly well documented that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the requirements of the Constitution, therefore does not apply.

Additionally, it was ruled upon by the Supreme court around 8 times, and from what I recall, those rulings dictated that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new powers of taxation than the Constitution gave it to begin with.

This is true when you consider that your labor and payment for such is not considered income since it is an even trade (meaning no net gain).

I believe it was designed to cover things like "corporate gains" (which means if you played the stock market and made money, etc) and other such things.



[edit on 29-10-2007 by KrazyJethro]

One more thing, technically, I think the Income tax is actually considered to be an excise tax.

If anyone can explain that nonsense to me, well, my hat's off to you.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Aside from some small matters, if it's not in the Constitution, it's not allowed.

2) It's been fairly well documented that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the requirements of the Constitution, therefore does not apply.

That is incorrect. See the following rulings.

Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) – the court stated, “We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company . . . and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure.” The court imposed sanctions on them for having advanced a “patently frivolous” position.

United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) – stating that “the Secretary of State’s certification under authority of Congress that the sixteenth amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the courts,” the court upheld Stahl’s conviction for failure to file returns and for making a false statement.

Additionally, it was ruled upon by the Supreme court around 8 times, and from what I recall, those rulings dictated that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new powers of taxation than the Constitution gave it to begin with.

This is also incorrect; the Supreme Court has upheld various tax laws passed after the Sixteenth Amendment.

This is true when you consider that your labor and payment for such is not considered income since it is an even trade (meaning no net gain).

This is incorrect. See the cases in my previous post.

[edit on 10/29/2007 by Togetic]

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
One more thing, technically, I think the Income tax is actually considered to be an excise tax.

If anyone can explain that nonsense to me, well, my hat's off to you.

The income tax is not an excise tax.

Sawukaytis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-156, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1886, 1888 (2002) – the court imposed a $12,500 penalty against the taxpayer for arguing the income tax is an excise tax and that he did not engage in excise taxable activities. The court found the taxpayer’s “position, based on stale and meritless contentions, is manifestly frivolous and groundless.”

Originally posted by Togetic

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
One more thing, technically, I think the Income tax is actually considered to be an excise tax.

If anyone can explain that nonsense to me, well, my hat's off to you.

The income tax is not an excise tax.

Sawukaytis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-156, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1886, 1888 (2002) – the court imposed a $12,500 penalty against the taxpayer for arguing the income tax is an excise tax and that he did not engage in excise taxable activities. The court found the taxpayer’s “position, based on stale and meritless contentions, is manifestly frivolous and groundless.”

Many argue that the income tax is a direct tax on labor and is subject to apportionment.

Sawukaytis v. Commissioner is not the same because this is not a case that questions the direct tax on income. This case argues the tax on the gain that is withdrawn from a retirement account. Gains are taxable by code.