Police, SWAT Team Surround Ed Brown's Property

These couple of days - I have come to learn what your constituion is about..

It's really about human nature...
It seems logical...Nice and there should be no other law in your lands.

It sounds like your constitution is not really a law but rather a philosophy.
Must be that philosophy Ron Paul talks about.

Originally posted by Leyla
I got a email alerting me to this. This is unreal he didn't pay his taxes. Oh wow!! Call the swat team. After all our country is going down the tube. After all a law stating that your supposed to pay income tax can't be found anywhere. Go figure. [edit on 6/7/2007 by Leyla]

Laws for tax evasion ensure that people pay their taxes. Just because they don't say "You must pay your taxes," the effect is the same, and the law is constitutional because the Sixteenth Amendment is by definition constitutional. This argument has always been a legal shell game: a sham.

[edit on 6/8/2007 by Togetic]

While it's true that people with lower incomes get much or most of their taxes refunded, they are still essentially giving the government an interest free loan of their money for an entire year. Just think about how much money that is. Why, if you do not owe that money, are you forced to pay it anyway ?

togetic, your logic leaves out a little point or two. One is 'legal ratification'. And the other is simple logic. If you hire a contractor to build a garage onto your house, and he builds himself a mansion, do you still pay him when he sends you the bill?

We hired these people, and when they fail to do the will of the people, then they should have to do without the money they spent. Case in point: The American people want us OUT of Iraq, and our 'Leader' refuses, because he does not feel the need to obey the will of the people.

The Benson contention was comprehensively addressed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Thomas:[2]

Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.

Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.[3]) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "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." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.

Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and — taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems — advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review.

en.wikipedia.org...

I stand corrected on the ratification portion of my statement. Although I am somewhat aghast that when amending something as Important as one of the foundations to our nation, it is not thought needful that a certain amount of exactness is needed.

Thank you.

I salute this fellow!

If 1/1000 of America would do this, the government would have to seriously reconsider conning their citizens out of 1/3 of their paychecks each year. We don't have enough police and military forces in this country to surround 300,000 houses.

1/3 of our paychecks and we can't even get a universal healthcare plan?

Way to go Ed Brown!

Originally posted by Inannamute
While it's true that people with lower incomes get much or most of their taxes refunded...

What type of Filing Form are you using because last time I checked I'm having 1/3rd of my money taken each paycheck and at the end of the year I'm lucky to get 1/10th of that back.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by tyranny22]

Originally posted by NGC2736
togetic, your logic leaves out a little point or two. One is 'legal ratification'.

After reading the post below the one quoted here, I understand the meaning of the statement. There was an argument as to whether the state's ratifications were sufficient. The Secretary of State made a determination that they were. Thirty-eight states voted on this issue, and they knew exactly what they were voting on: there were no material differences in the text and the votes were accepted by the appropriate authorities. You would need to show me that one state did not realize that they the consequence of their vote would be that the Federal government could collect taxes. That is a matter of legislative intent; if you can find me a legislature that did not understand what they were voting on and show dereliction of duty on the part of the secretary, then you would have something.

And the other is simple logic. If you hire a contractor to build a garage onto your house, and he builds himself a mansion, do you still pay him when he sends you the bill?

We hired these people, and when they fail to do the will of the people, then they should have to do without the money they spent. Case in point: The American people want us OUT of Iraq, and our 'Leader' refuses, because he does not feel the need to obey the will of the people.

That analogy makes no sense. There is recourse against the contractor in court. Likewise, there is recourse against the leadership through voting. I don't understand your point here. If we don't like the laws, we should just not follow them?

[edit on 6/8/2007 by Togetic]

[edit on 6/8/2007 by Togetic]

Originally posted by tyranny22

Originally posted by Inannamute
While it's true that people with lower incomes get much or most of their taxes refunded...

What type of Filing Form are you using because last time I checked I'm having 1/3rd of my money taken each paycheck and at the end of the year I'm lucky to get 1/10th of that back.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by tyranny22]

You may be forgetting Social Security and Medicare taxes.

Originally posted by Inannamute
While it's true that people with lower incomes get much or most of their taxes refunded, they are still essentially giving the government an interest free loan of their money for an entire year. Just think about how much money that is. Why, if you do not owe that money, are you forced to pay it anyway ?

You do have the option to take all of your money home and have none of it withheld. Then you could put it into a high-yield savings account and earn 5% on the money and then pay it to the government. Of course, most people can't manage their money and would spend it all and then be unable to pay their taxes when the time came.

On the other hand, getting a bill for $30,000 from the US government every year might motivate people into demanding that the the government change the taxing structure. (Shhhhh... don't tell anyone!)

[edit on 6/8/2007 by Togetic]

togetic, the recourse of the voting method is so flawed that there is no chance of making a meaningful change, and most of us know this. We vote, but with no results other than those foreordained by the rich and mighty.

Congress could have voted to withhold the money to finance the war in Iraq. We too, as a form of protest, have the right, perhaps not the law, but the right, to withhold payment.

When our leadership fails to abide by the will of the people, knowingly ignoring the right of the people to have government obey, then they are the outlaws, and deserve to have funds withheld. This is the basic idea of taxation without representation.

At the first instant that the majority of the people, 51% or more, opposed the war in Iraq, then it was the duty of those who are sworn to serve, to obey the will of the people. When failing in their sworn duty, then it is the God given right, be it lawful by governing bodies or not, to withdraw support for those who act in opposition to America.

Our government is NOT America, we the people are America. We decide. And the will of the people is not open to ratification by the Supreme Court, nor to interpretation by the Congress, nor overruling by the Commander in Chief.

Laws are fine, needful things. But to twist and pervert them to be used contrary to the intent of those who are the true source, is in itself an act of treason.

There are different statutes for different taxes. That is why it is important to read the statutes, to understand them, to know what they say, and learn how the IRS interprets law that needs no interpretation.

The federal income tax as it is applied is unconstitutional because it is being applied as a "direct tax" which must be apportioned among the states in accordance with the census.

The income tax cannot apply to individual citizens directly, because that would be a "direct tax" prohibited by the Constitution. And the income tax does NOT apply to individual citizens directly; it does so indirectly making the tax an excise tax.

The income tax can apply to wages, because that would be a "excise tax" which must be Uniform in accordance with the Constitution. But nowhere in the law are wages specifically included in gross income as defined by 26USC §61A, nor is it clear which wages are and which wages are not, as the term wages is defined to mean several different things in several different sections of the law, for several different taxes.

Wages can be taxed because the receipt of wages is the result of exercising a government granted privilege, or participating in a privileged occupation. Working for a living is not a privileged occupation.

Our labor is our property, and so a tax on labor would be a tax on property and a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution.

The laborer does not receive labor from another source, he is the source. If you picked up a rock and sold it for $5 then you would have income of $5, as you had a cost of $0 for the rock. You can not separate the laborer from the labor. Labor is not something which the laborer picks up, it is of the laborer.

The idea that a person has zero cost in the labor they sell is a flawed idea embraced by the IRS. For a person to have zero cost in the labor they sell, there has to be capital that can accrue and grow. There is no capital involved in selling ones own labor, as the labor is the capital.

The exercise of a fundamental right cannot be taxed and the right to work is a fundamental right reserved to the citizens of the United States by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. However, working for the government is not a fundamental right, nor is working in the USA by a foreigner or a foreign corporation, a fundamental right and both can be taxed - and they are; see 26USC Subtitle A, Chapter 3, §1461.

The power to tax income is not the 16th amendment; it is Article 1, section 8, clause 1.

Congress may have the power to tax all incomes, however, it has NOT done so.

Income cannot be taxed unless the source of the income is first determined because congress has not taxed all income! Determining the source is critical and there are several Federal cases that prove this. Most recent, is US v Murphy.

According to the IRS, every penny you recieve, is income. According to the US Supreme court, the IRS definition of income is irrelevant as they the USSC, have decided what the definition of income is.

The 16th Amendment is ineffective because it does not expressly repeal any provision of Article I Section 8, Clause 1, of the Constitution. True, but not complete. The 16th didn't change Article 1, section 8, clause 1 nor did it change any of the other taxing power limitations. This is why the Supreme court at the time of its adoption, called it the "do nothing amendment".

The 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax - absolutely TRUE.

The 16th Amendment was not properly ratified - maybe, and maybe not, but does it matter, in light of the above 2 paragraphs?

The 16th Amendment does not define the word "income", and thus it is impossible to know what it refers to, without looking at the US Supreme court cases dealing with such matters. This alone, should be grounds to have the law declared void for vagueness.

The income tax cannot unilaterally apply to all people outside of the District of Columbia , the territories of the United States , and the forts and military bases of the United States , because the federal government has extremely limited jurisdiction outside of those "federal areas."

The income tax cannot apply to natural-born "sovereign state citizens" at the time of their birth, because they are not involved in an excise taxable activity. Living as a man or woman, is not a taxable event; however, if that person becomes involved in an activity that is subject to an excise tax, no matter where they are, the tax can apply.

The federal income tax as it its currently administered by the IRS, amounts to a deprivation of property without due process and without just compensation, which is contrary to the 5th Amendment to the constitution, WHEN the administration of the law, is done without checks and balances, and when citizens do not have the right to seek judicial review BEFOR their property (their pay) is taken from them without their consent.

The federal income tax does not apply to all wages, only one that I am aware of and that is the wages as defined in Chapter 2, of Subtitle A.

Withholding of income tax from wages is authorized by Only 1 (one) section of law, found in Title 26. And that is Subtitle A, Chapter 2, self employment tax. There are income taxes (all income taxes are excise taxes) found in Subtitle A, and Employment taxes, another type of excise tax, found in Subtitle C. Withholding for income tax, from subtitle C wages, is not allowed by any statute found in Subtitle C.

There are NO constitutional exemptions for the IRS. This is a fact we must hammer into every congressional representative, every member of the Judiciary.

The collection of income taxes without any court order, After the assessment is challenged and the IRS continues forward without proving liability via statute, is a deprivation of property without due process contrary to the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.

You cannot be required to file THEIR oath as a condition to filing an income tax return because a tax return is a form of testimony and the 5th Amendment guarantees that you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself. In other words you can modify their "under penalties of perjury" clause to protect your rights.

No law can compel you to take an oath, as a condition to being in compliance with the law.

As a matter of Standard Operational Procedures, the IRS subornates perjury.


continued on next page

No one can compel you to commit a felony as a requirement to being in compliance with a law. 26USC 7206 makes it a FELONY crime, for you to file any document that is signed under penalties of perjury that you do not believe to be true to the best of your knowledge. When the IRS rejects your forms, and then imposes a fine on you without charging you with a crime, they are obstructing your right to justice.

The IRS cannot require anyone to file an income tax return because the IRS is not congress, and they have no such authority. It is congress, via the law, that requires people or "persons" to file an income tax return.

Congress can only tax the exercise of "privileges" or the income from "revenue taxable activities" such as the sale of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, or from interstate commerce, directly from us, as excise taxes. They can still impose a direct tax, via apportionment, which the individual states collect, not the IRS.

Under the 1st Amendment, there is a right to withhold taxes from the government until the government has answered a "petition for the redress of grievances." The courts are out on this one. This original text was posted in 2003, right after Bob Shultz filed his petition. And that right to stop paying until the government answers the petition is now in the appeals court.

There are no constitutional exemptions for the IRS. Even the IRS must obey the law, although it does not. It is the lack of accountability, of the IRS, that irritates most people.

The Internal Revenue Code does not define "income." It defines several TYPES of income, but not income itself.

The Internal Revenue Code cannot define "income" because it is a term used in the Constitution and Congress cannot modify the Constitution by statute. Absolutely true, as stated by the US Supreme court.

The Income tax, is one of over 80 taxes imposed via the taxing power, Article 1, section 8, clause 1.

The income tax is a specific tax. While other taxes might be classified as an income tax, they are not 'the income tax" which is imposed by 26USC Subtitle A.

The terms Employee, Employer, and wages have many different definitions, as found in Title 26, and those definitions can change depending on what one of the over 80 different taxes is being discussed at the time.

The term "employee" has no real common law definition.

The term "employer" has no real common law definition and was not used in every day language until after the passage of the 16th amendment.

Wages are not income. No where in the title 26, will you find where it clearly says that wages are income. While a wage may be a type of income, the wage tax is a separate tax than that of the income tax, which different type of excise tax, than that of the wage taxes.

Most people do not receive wages for working for a living, however, the companies we work for, report our pay (equal compensation) as a wage, which is then subject to an excise tax, usually under Subtitle C, chapter 24. They do so out of willful ignorance, because they follow the information put out by the IRS, which according to the Government accounting office, is wrong over 65 percent of the time.

Wages are taxable as they are the result of exercising or participating in an excise taxable event.

There are 4 different wage taxes imposed by Title 26, and not one is connected with any other.

Most of the Internal Revenue Code does not make an ordinary citizen liable for the income tax.

The income tax is voluntary for most people, however it is mandatory for those involved in privileged occupations, or who are exercising a government granted privilege IF congress has imposed an excise tax on those activities - and it has not passed one for every such activity.

You might not be a "person" within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code, depending on your specific status.

The Internal Revenue Code is not a law. Code is not law, its prima facia evidence of existing law.

The tax laws only apply to "taxpayers" and "withholding agents", you are not required to file returns or pay taxes if you are not a "taxpayer" or a "withholding agent".

Social security is totally 100 percent voluntary for natural born Americans. However the current system of fraud, compels most people to participate in the ponzi scam.

Social Security does not have a trust fund.

Social security does not create any contract of any kind.

Full disclosure is never made, when applying for a SS number, via the SSA 5 form.

The IRS uses a form of "Perfected Administrative claim", to justify its claim that you owe income taxes.

The IRS uses misinformation, obtained from 3rd parties, to create their "administrative claim".

That Administrative claim, stands as factual evidence of a debt owing, until such time as it is refuted or rebutted.

The IRS cannot show most Americans what section of law, created the liability for income tax, which the IRS is claiming that the American citizen owes.

For most people, the businesses they work for are the ones who erroneously report the wrong information to the IRS, thus helping the IRS to create a "perfected administrative claim".

Most businesses rely on information from the IRS, even though time after time, the GAO (government accounting office) as reported that the information the IRS gives out is faulty over 70 percent of the time.

In 2003, the GAO reported the IRS failed to follow the law and its own guidelines in over 75 percent of the tax liens it filed against American Citizens and Businesses.

Most Americans are forced to give the government an interest free loan for nearly a year, due to the improper administration of the Tax laws, by the IRS. Such is in reality, several violations of our national charter.

Originally posted by NGC2736
togetic, the recourse of the voting method is so flawed that there is no chance of making a meaningful change, and most of us know this. We vote, but with no results other than those foreordained by the rich and mighty.

I have worked in campaigns and flat out disagree. If you sincerely think that, then there is no recourse and you may be better off finding another country. I'm not trying to be cheeky, but if the system is so broken, what other option is there?

Congress could have voted to withhold the money to finance the war in Iraq. We too, as a form of protest, have the right, perhaps not the law, but the right, to withhold payment.

We do? Why should I not have the right, then, to withhold payment from Medicaid? Or withhold payment from the Department of Education? Walter-Reid hospital? Where exactly does that end, and how does it create a workable system of government?

When our leadership fails to abide by the will of the people, knowingly ignoring the right of the people to have government obey, then they are the outlaws, and deserve to have funds withheld. This is the basic idea of taxation without representation.

Where is representation lacking? Just because one person's personal policy preferences--or even a majority's--are not being implemented does not mean the system is broken, especially when that majority either voted for the representative at the time or they didn't vote at all. And they can go back and vote him or her out. Just look at our representatives now! They're running around trying to secure themselves for re-election by doing what their constituents want them to do.

At the first instant that the majority of the people, 51% or more, opposed the war in Iraq, then it was the duty of those who are sworn to serve, to obey the will of the people. When failing in their sworn duty, then it is the God given right, be it lawful by governing bodies or not, to withdraw support for those who act in opposition to America.

Saying that whatever the majority wants the government should do is a dangerous proposition. Was the government obligated to do the same thing when a majority supported slavery? There are times, as hard as it may be to accept, that the few in the government have the obligation to make decisions contrary to the majority because they believe it correct.

Our government is NOT America, we the people are America. We decide. And the will of the people is not open to ratification by the Supreme Court, nor to interpretation by the Congress, nor overruling by the Commander in Chief.

Laws are fine, needful things. But to twist and pervert them to be used contrary to the intent of those who are the true source, is in itself an act of treason.

That's fine as philosophy, but entirely untenable in practice. How do we measure the intent of the people? How do we put it into practice? Who puts it into practice? You? Me? That's precisely the reason that the founders chose a republican form of government. Maybe it doesn't work like we want it to. Maybe it has flaws. So does everything else, and on the whole I'd say it works pretty well.

Originally posted by airtrax007
The federal income tax as it is applied is unconstitutional because it is being applied as a "direct tax" which must be apportioned among the states in accordance with the census.

If it applies to everyone, then it is by definition apportioned based on the census: if 25% of the people live in California, then 25% of the taxed entities will be in California.

The income tax cannot apply to individual citizens directly, because that would be a "direct tax" prohibited by the Constitution. And the income tax does NOT apply to individual citizens directly; it does so indirectly making the tax an excise tax.

Where is this provision?

The income tax can apply to wages, because that would be a "excise tax" which must be Uniform in accordance with the Constitution. But nowhere in the law are wages specifically included in gross income as defined by 26USC §61A, nor is it clear which wages are and which wages are not, as the term wages is defined to mean several different things in several different sections of the law, for several different taxes.

The very definition of income says all income from whatever source derived. I don't see an argument that would not include it in IRC 61. Further, wages are given in the enumerated list. IRC Sec. 61(a)(1).

Wages can be taxed because the receipt of wages is the result of exercising a government granted privilege, or participating in a privileged occupation. Working for a living is not a privileged occupation.

Our labor is our property, and so a tax on labor would be a tax on property and a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution.

Is there authority for that proposition? I don't agree that labor is property. Property by definition is a bundle of rights given to a person that are superior to some and inferior to others. Property is also alienable. Labor is neither. Furthermore, even if labor is property, it is converted into cash pursuant to a contractual agreement with good consideration and the resulting cash is property. Such cash is a taxable gain; your labor, again assuming that it is property, has a basis of $0 because you paid nothing for it.

The laborer does not receive labor from another source, he is the source. If you picked up a rock and sold it for $5 then you would have income of $5, as you had a cost of $0 for the rock. You can not separate the laborer from the labor. Labor is not something which the laborer picks up, it is of the laborer.

The idea that a person has zero cost in the labor they sell is a flawed idea embraced by the IRS. For a person to have zero cost in the labor they sell, there has to be capital that can accrue and grow. There is no capital involved in selling ones own labor, as the labor is the capital.

Labor is not included in the definition of capital.

The exercise of a fundamental right cannot be taxed and the right to work is a fundamental right reserved to the citizens of the United States by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. However, working for the government is not a fundamental right, nor is working in the USA by a foreigner or a foreign corporation, a fundamental right and both can be taxed - and they are; see 26USC Subtitle A, Chapter 3, §1461.

The power to tax income is not the 16th amendment; it is Article 1, section 8, clause 1.

Congress may have the power to tax all incomes, however, it has NOT done so.

Disagreed, for the reasons above.

Income cannot be taxed unless the source of the income is first determined because congress has not taxed all income! Determining the source is critical and there are several Federal cases that prove this. Most recent, is US v Murphy.

I don't understand. With respect to labor, the source of the income is either contractual or assumed. That argument is playing metaphysics, which the law will not do. It will gloss over ephemeral and unanswerable questions in order to make the system go.

According to the IRS, every penny you recieve, is income. According to the US Supreme court, the IRS definition of income is irrelevant as they the USSC, have decided what the definition of income is.

Actually they have interpreted the amendment, they did not make the decision as to what it was. That misstates the power of the Court.

The 16th Amendment is ineffective because it does not expressly repeal any provision of Article I Section 8, Clause 1, of the Constitution. True, but not complete. The 16th didn't change Article 1, section 8, clause 1 nor did it change any of the other taxing power limitations. This is why the Supreme court at the time of its adoption, called it the "do nothing amendment".

It doesn't have to. The first rule of statutory interpretation is to reasonably interpret the clauses together.

The 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax - absolutely TRUE.

I don't agree. It obviously is true. The rest of this post is very long, but the bottom line is that all of this clouds the issue. People are so desperate to find any reason to not pay taxes (I'm in this too) that they will twist words and history and take things out of context and misinterpret statutes and cases. I'm not defending the tax system, I think it was designed poorly, but that doesn't change its validity. One can create enough technicalities to challenge anything, but in the end we have to deal with reality, and that is the only way to change this or any other system.

Wow, you sure are steadfast in your arguments--i'll leave you with one more comment-------The IRS declares in various documents that the income tax is "voluntary." And in Flora v. U.S. (1960), the Supreme Court announced, "Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment."

I suggest you read this article FULLY --and understand that i do pay taxes and work very hard for what i recieve in return. But if it turns out that we the american public have been dupped all these years into paying these taxes ---guess what there is a clause that clearly states that in the event that this tax is unlawful ---by signing your w-2 form every year you will not recoup your losses from the feds. Why because you voluntary gave this money to the feds..


thank you for your time


oops forgot the site here www.givemeliberty.org...

[edit on 8-6-2007 by airtrax007]

Not a problem. I hope that you don't take anything personally. I'll read everything more fully when I get a chance.

ed brown must be the only person in amerika that hasn't paid taxes and has said as much....it is a pretty intense response to this. i wonder how much we are paying to have the feds sit around all day, to keep a presence near his house, helicopters (how much an hour to run 1 helicopter?) how much overtime are the police pulling in...what a sweet deal for them....(can finaly get that new truck they wanted...) the state will have a better argument for more federaly funded money for their ..police activites...

what will happen..1, kill him
2, arrest and jail

will the govt get any money that they say ed owes them???????? and if they do, will it cover all the expense to arrest him???? i guess this is an example of..hoping..the end justifies the means..or expendature...

the growing police state is will to spend much more money than the will ever get back , in order to make an example of him..to put fear into the citizens so no one will question the irs or the govt because of the possible repercussions.

the irs calls paying taxes a "voluntary compliance"...

all this because the govt, in a court of law (i use that term very losely)
can not and will not show the law, or discuse the law that requires "voluntary compliance"

all this federal expenditure of ALOT of money to get what??? fear and compliance from its citizens....

i think there are a couple of phrases that need to be stricken for the americian national anthem

all this talk of supporting this couple.... I don't see anyone protesting with them?

Without followers a protest is futile.

The IRS will not come for his money..... because they will get it when he dies. Death Tax and more.

You can talk of support, but that is meaningless and does not further a movement, it stagnates and kills the movement.