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

there is already a movement to fix our federal tax code, it's actually a grass roots movment thats taking the country by storm, it's called fairtax.

here are the links

fairtax.org...

fairtax.org...

i suggest everyone read the research papers, this has been researched since 1995, is the most comprehensive tax replacement bill ever presented and over 22 million dollars has been put in for this research by a bi-partisan group. not only does fairtax clear the smoke screen of government taxation on the individual ( we see the same % on every receipt we get, that puts more pressure on politicians not to mess with it or be scorned by the masses). you keep 100% of your earnings, it will solve our medicare and social security crisis by creating a more stable progressive source if income for the government, it will halt outsourcing and bring our industry back, it will lift the poor from the poverty level and these are just samples of the benefits. it is the epitomy of individual liberty. new consumer goods and services dont rise in price, infact fairtax allows natural market forces take action to lower the price of goods simply because of pure competition.

there are plenty of solutions out there, no matter how hard our politicians and their and lobbyiest lovers try to suppress it and attack it with misinformation.

this should also wake up our liberal friends here on ATS as they blindly jump behind democrats. blind to the actual game thats going on, how all the liberals have love affairs with the IRS, and people like the kennedys who store their cash in offshore accounts to avoid the same tax policy they advocate for and enforce ( teddy ).





[edit on 30-1-2007 by ape]

erm... that was weird for a second....

ok so I see a few pages of people debating the legitimacy of income tax... has this guy been Waco'd yet?

any updates on this guy? has he been crucifed yet?

Originally posted by ConfederacyOfUnity
any updates on this guy? has he been crucifed yet?

Nope. They might wait until the buzz has died down, or around tax time to make an example. Or maybe calling the bluff of the IRS they'll bug off.



Art 1 Section 8 Deffinitions

a. Taxes - Charge Apportioned Among the People
b. Duties- Imposts, representitive of all manners

of taxations.
c. duty on imported goods
d. Inland impostion on consumption of goods and

retail sales


A. Subject to the rule of apportionment

(Indirect Taxes)
------------------------------------------


Union Bank vs Hill (1866) 43 Tenn. 325

Direct Taxes - Real Property

Indirect Taxes - Articles of Consumption

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


Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1
"->ALLALL

credit against the |income| tax in the event you

should have a tax liability or income tax."
???????
(withholding)
-----------------------------------------------

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect

Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the

Debts and provide for the common Defence and

general Welfare of the United States; but all

Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform

throughout the United States;
--------------------------------------------------

5th Amendment
"No person shall be compelled in any criminal case

to be a witness against himself."

---------------------------------------------------
Sullivan vs United States
?????????????????????????
---------------------------------------------------
4th Amendment
---------------------------------------------------
Flora v. U.S., 326 US 145.

"Our tax system is based upon voluntary assement

and payment, not upon distraint."
---------------------------------------------------
1040 Instructions
?????????????????
---------------------------------------------------
Tax Revunue Code
6001, 6011, 6012(a)
---------------------------------------------------
6001, Every Person Liable
6011, When Required
6012(1)(a)
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle

A shall by made by . . . every individual having

for the taxable year gross income,”

Sec. 861. Income from sources within the United States


---------------------------------------------------
Code Section 6109
www.fourmilab.ch...
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Section 5702 - Liability for Tax and Method of

Payment
Section 5005 Persons liable for a Tax
(0 on Individual)
---------------------------------------------------
IRC Section 1 - Tax Imposed
(No section for liability on individual)

www.whatistaxed.com...
Individual is an Alien.



*just my notes from tonights research(1 of many), figured I might as well share*


Ed Brown is right, and I've yet to see anyone prove it otherwise. I'm open to an explanation as to why I (just your average Joe) is required to pay. Where is the law as they say. I've read on the IRS myths vs facts sites where to find this law is. And every time I search, it brings me back to the same place.

"There is no law, but we'll #ing destroy you if you don't pay little man."
To the dimwitted, the fact that tyranny is propagated on people is proof it is law.











[edit on 4-2-2007 by Awake and All Seeing]

[edit on 4-2-2007 by Awake and All Seeing]

[edit on 4-2-2007 by Awake and All Seeing]

Awake and All Seeing, save your breath and energy...

(a) General definition

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means
all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to)
the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions,
fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
source

I showed right there, my post on page 13, that the closest the IRC comes to claiming our "labored" hours as "income" to be taxed is defined as a "service". All throughout the IRC, there is no definitive definition of "service", therefore, the Federal Income Tax is BS based on the fact that there is no conclusive definition of "service".

There is not one, single court (state nor federal) that can rule on inconclusive documentation.

Examples to use against the "service" definition:

"People" cannot park in handicapped parking spots. Does that mean handicapped, too?

"People" cannot buy alcohol. Does that "imply" people under 21 cannot buy alcohol?

"People" cannot buy cigarettes. Does that say people under 18 years of age cannot buy cigarettes?

"People" cannot buy weapons. Does that mean people under 18 can't buy handguns? Does that mean people under 16 cannot buy shotguns?


Need I go on?


With the missing definition of "service", all other points of the arguments against the Federal Income Tax law are irrelevant. You can still research those other points, but this would be the easiest way to "let a dead dog lie".

Originally posted by Infoholic
Awake and All Seeing, save your breath and energy...

(a) General definition

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means
all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to)
the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions,
fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
source

I showed right there, my post on page 13, that the closest the IRC comes to claiming our "labored" hours as "income" to be taxed is defined as a "service". All throughout the IRC, there is no definitive definition of "service", therefore, the Federal Income Tax is BS based on the fact that there is no conclusive definition of "service".

There is not one, single court (state nor federal) that can rule on inconclusive documentation.

Examples to use against the "service" definition:

"People" cannot park in handicapped parking spots. Does that mean handicapped, too?

"People" cannot buy alcohol. Does that "imply" people under 21 cannot buy alcohol?

"People" cannot buy cigarettes. Does that say people under 18 years of age cannot buy cigarettes?

"People" cannot buy weapons. Does that mean people under 18 can't buy handguns? Does that mean people under 16 cannot buy shotguns?


Need I go on?


With the missing definition of "service", all other points of the arguments against the Federal Income Tax law are irrelevant. You can still research those other points, but this would be the easiest way to "let a dead dog lie".

Originally posted by Infoholic
With the missing definition of "service", all other points of the arguments against the Federal Income Tax law are irrelevant. You can still research those other points, but this would be the easiest way to "let a dead dog lie".

Well, I am researching everything I possibly can in the event I need to build a futile legal case and out of warped hobby. I also like to form an argument against the legality of the tax in the context people arguing for it will use. Which means playing in their maze game. Someone will cite 6001,6011, 6012 as proof as the law. Without reading it or understanding it. I like to show them why it isn't proof. Or they'll argue the 16th, etc. So, I have to teach myself all of it to argue it effectively.


(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions,
fringe benefits, and similar items;

That is interesting, I'll look into the service definition.


But that's not where it dies. It would just be another part.
If you aren't subject to the tax at all, it doesn't really matter what they define income as does it

this whole thing reminds me of this event.

en.wikipedia.org...

i remember that cuz it took place near where i lived when i was 10. our local sherrif had to roadblock the highway on the ND/SD border (we were the closest town to nd on our highway) and its the same thing all over again in many respects.

i feel bad for ed, but he's fighting a losing battle. i hope it doesnt come down to an exchange of gunfire but a guy with A gun isnt going to beat the odds. it isnt hollywood and you dont have the miracle 3000rnd magazine and you cant take on a whole team of trained LEO's on your own.

i wish him the best but i hope common sense wins out on all sides...the revolution may be nigh, but we have no need of martyrs yet.

If you want to talk about money, then here is an interesting thread that deserves your attention.

www.abovepolitics.com...

They are likely not taxed the same way. They still may actually end up paying more, just because they have more, but in the end, I would bet that taxation is not equatable or evenly distributed.

Think about it this way....how many people are going to take a break from thinking about a topic that has an infinite amount of relevance to their own lives'(even if the result is an understanding that they need to become fluent in legalese) and watch the SuperBowl today?

I don't necassarily applaud Ed at all. If anything, the situation causes me to wonder why he thinks he's right....and maybe that I should take a look at all of the tax code...not just the potential loopholes and 'red flag' points. Information really is power....and all information is usually available. And I would rather be at least aware of the information that other people are telling me I know nothing about (which, oddly enough, I do) then react on an impulsive level to this event.......

Originally posted by Damocles
i feel bad for ed, but he's fighting a losing battle.

To the complacent, uninformed, ignorant, or otherwise clueless about his real case in detail, yep, he is just a tax avoiding scum fighting a futile, losing battle againt the big bad wolf. To the informed, researched, and wary, he will remain an icon as one who dared put their foot down and said "enough." I remain in awe of him, and depressed that I am not in a better position to join him in his fight.

well true american congrats on being able to take a single line, and either through not understanding it or intent, totally disregarding the context and using it as the basis for as offensive a post as you can make and not get a warning. bravo.

now, had you actually understood what i meant...based ya know, on the rest of the post...is that alone, with a single gun, he has no chance. regardless of that, do you actually think that the courts are going to side with him? no, i wish it were different but the bottom line is that while i admire the guy for taking a stand, he's boned. plain and simple.

i said nothing in my post to imply i thought of him as a whackjob, a moron, or anything else.

so if you are going to quote me out of context and then take a shot at me, at least try to do something other than use it as a podium to try to make yourself look like some kind of wannabe patriot revolutionary.

Originally posted by Damocles
well true american congrats on being able to take a single line, and either through not understanding it or intent, totally disregarding the context and using it as the basis for as offensive a post as you can make and not get a warning. bravo.

Ha, if you think that's offensive around here, you're in for a shock.

Actually, while I may have done that in your eyes, it was not intended, at that point, directly against you. It was more of a blanket statement to all.

But considering what you have just said here,

now, had you actually understood what i meant...based ya know, on the rest of the post...is that alone, with a single gun, he has no chance.

maybe you DO qualify under the uninformed!

He is not alone. He has many supporters that have taken up arms inside and as perimeter protection on his property. And he has acquired much more than a single gun. People are continuously bringing him shipments of food, and no doubt weapons. Have you really researched this case, Damocles? Be honest. If not, please check out that link, which will arm you much better with more detail in understanding Ed's plight. His cause is justified, imo.

The guy's ready to start a war against those that issue unbacked money, tax us without limits or legality, and then proceed to take people's lives, property, money, and anything else of value with impunity. I believe our Constitution provided that we as citizens have every damn right at this point to classify this overbloated, corrupt, war mongering and profiteering, wasteful, above-the-law, no morals, arrogant, damn-what-the-world-says dictatorship as an enemy of the Citizens and overthrow this rediculous tyranny.

regardless of that, do you actually think that the courts are going to side with him?

Technically, it should really not be a question of the court siding with anybody. They are SUPPOSED to be the neutral ones, giving each party an equal chance. But no, they did not do that. They only answered 19 of 35 properly executed motions from the defense, and in addition postured it so that the trial judge could simply sustain objections from the prosecution, rendering any attempt at arguing certain defense motions futile. They essentially will deny him due process. And do so arrogantly, and with impunity. Enough already, says Ed, and realizing he was screwed before he ever started, he walked out of the trial.

i said nothing in my post to imply i thought of him as a whackjob, a moron, or anything else.

I never stated you did.

so if you are going to quote me out of context and then take a shot at me, at least try to do something other than use it as a podium to try to make yourself look like some kind of wannabe patriot revolutionary.

I AM a wannabe patriot revolutionary. And damn proud of it. I have no problem sticking up for the document that founded this country, in the face of those that seek to destroy it, or those who simply choose to turn a blind eye to that which will eventually bind their children into slavery. Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists.

well, it is entirely possible im uninformed. and "to be honest" i havnt really researched his current situation and frankly was unaware he had such a strong following inside his perimeter. im a little suprised that if the govt has him boxed in they let people in honestly. but thats beside the point

as to the wannabe revolutionary comment i made, i retract it in its entirety. it was out of line and i apologize. i respect you willing to stand on principle, but i would ask that when you do decide to stand, its for the right reasons. im sure youll know what they are. ive stated in other threads that while i dont enjoy the thought of facign those i served with so proudly for 12 years, when the time comes i will stand with what is right. but honestly, the income tax is NOT my trigger issue. an armed revolt over an issue that theyve been trying to disprove, and failing to do so, for the entire time its been a law to me personally doesnt qualify as a good reason. im not sure i know exactly what issue i WOULD stand against with force, but i have faith ill know it when it happens. (the thread about armed revolt in this country does have some examples, albeit extreme ones)

i respect ed taking his stand, i do...but i have to ask a question. if he was poor would he take a stand with you over your tax issues? dont know the guy so all i can do is wonder.

I am curious if there has been any further news development in this situation. I have not heard or read any further news beyond the 18th,19th of january or around about that repeated the same stories.

Is he still holed up on his land? did the government finally show him the law so he would pay the taxes? This is something that just fell off of the face of the earth. Is there any further information on this story or did it get "snuffed". IS there anything else?

Any information from some local ATS'ers that might shed some light on this story?

Firepoker

Originally posted by Firepoker
... did the government finally show him the law so he would pay the taxes?

He is keeping an online blog.

www.questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com...

Ed Brown has said repeatedly that he will pay all the taxes the government claims he owes if federal authorities will produce the law that requires citizens to pay taxes on labor and wages.

"Show me the law and I'll pay the tax," he said.

www.unionleader.com...

It seems like a perfectly reasonable request.

I suspect that they will murder him instead.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by In nothing we trust]

Elaine returned home on Ash Wed to be with her husband Ed Brown they have decided to be together for the long haul and will not be seperated again. The U.S. Marshalls are not at the door yet, but are expected to, for she disobeyed a direct order not to return home. Let us all hope the best for them and welcome Elaine home. She left her son's home and drove about two and a half hours to her and Ed's home. It was a total suprise to Ed. I just spoke to them on the phone and they are so excited to be back together. I'm not sure if it has been provided (this is a long thread) but let me post the
Ed Brown Blog

There is an audio blog on this site as well. You can send e-mails, letters, and questions to them. It gives a number to call. Use it to support them or to understand further what their mission is. If you think the income tax law is just, call them and let them know that too. They are looking for answers and are willing to answer yours.

I just noticed the blog was posted in the reply before mine...opps. Can't hurt to reiterate the information I guess.

I hope they don't murder these people as the last post suggested. I spoke to them and they certainly aren't out to hurt anyone, just trying to take a stand for a belief and to the government. This government has been unjust for far too long (on all things not just income tax). It's about time someone take a stand for something.

I live in New Hampshire and this has happenned before,about 10 year's ago there was a man that refused to pay his tax's.I forget his name but it resulted in what I remember was 3 State Trooper's that got killed trying to arrest him after several month's of him barracading himself.

I don't think they will do anything to this guy,they are just going to starve him out and make him leave on is own term's.

New Hampshire,Live Free Or Die is our motto.

New Hampshire sounds like my kind of place!

Originally posted by Samblack
New Hampshire,Live Free Or Die is our motto.

A little off topic here, but every time I see this on a license plate, I think about the stereotypical prison inmate stamping these out year after year.
Talk about salt in the wound!