Tax Protester Ed Brown Being Gassed and Tortured In Prison

reply to post by Scalamander


OK....i see what you are saying and obviously i am fully aware of the consequences which are invitable when one challanges the system. Yet that is only when a few rise and say "WE are sick and tired of this crap!!" and say it with force. Only when a selected bunch rattle the trees will those who make the laws then release the hounds on a succeed in oppression. We cannot count on those few that travel to DC every month or once a week to protest an issue that causes them heartburn. Americans as a whole, the entire working force, every man woman and child has to stand up and fight for liberty, true freedom and especially the TRUTH. It is against our nature to just sit and wait like sheep because the self proclaimed shephards will LEAD US TO THE SLAUGHTER! The government cannot simply snuff all who oppose them because eventually reason, logic and knowledge will prevail and the american people, the human race will reach a pivotal evolutionary peak and will come out on top. We have to band together brothers and sisters....not as democrats, not as republicans or liberals or methodists, jews, catholics or christians, but as humans.

I hate to be the killjoy, but without evidence, how can we say that any of these claims should be given any weight at all? Isn't it at all possible that the Browns are trying to manipulate media coverage of their incarceration and inflame people who, by virtue of their own prejudices, are predisposed to believe that the federal government is willing to gas and torture people in prisons? What makes the Browns more or less virtuous than the government? I firmly believe that there is someone pulling the strings in this story, but I think many of us part company with respect to whom.

Personally, I think the Income Tax is pretty ridiculous. I hardly make enough money to live as it is and I still have to give a good chunk of my paycheck to the government. I've never been on any type of public assistance or social welfare program, even though there've been times when i couldn't afford to feed myself. I just don't see the point in taking money from people who make less than 10 dollars an hour.

However, the most ridiculous part is that everyone in the US complains about the Income Tax yet every paycheck we all pay it. Everyone complains about how unconstitutional it is but we still pay it.

What Americans need to understand is that this is our country, we the people make the rules. if we don't want something to happen then we have the power to stop it. Now, I'm not advocating breaking any laws but in theory, if we didn't want an income tax we should all just stop paying it.

Of course, you will always have the people who will blindly support the government over the people who're the true rulers.

We've given away our power and now we're literally paying for it.

As for the OP, i think Mr. Brown is exaggerating a little, although I do expect he's gotten a little bit of crap from the stunt he pulled.

the browns have not broken the laws. even if they had, it is outrageous that they are being treated like this. it is completely unconstitutional. what about due process? america is already a fascist state and people better wake up and smell the coffee.

income tax IS illegal. fact. lots of literature on the internet on this subject. for those that don't like to read, there is a free documentary put together by aaron russo (professional film prodcuer) who exposed the IRS/Federal Reserve scam quite well. i don't have the exact link right now, but just go to you tube and type in:

aaron russo, freedom to fascism.

also, for more on constitution and the downfall of the US, check out Gore Vidals books and literature (very learned man).

also, check out Jordan Maxwell's work.

very fascinating and essential information for truth seekers.

Originally posted by chutso_ha
the browns have not broken the laws. even if they had, it is outrageous that they are being treated like this. it is completely unconstitutional. what about due process? america is already a fascist state and people better wake up and smell the coffee.

income tax IS illegal. fact.

Not a fact. You're ignoring IRC s. 6151 and the caselaw on the matter.

I'm no big fan of taxes either, but you're not going to change the system by making frivilous arguments; better to vote for someone who is going to lower taxes and replace the system with a flat or fair tax.

[edit on 10/23/2007 by Togetic]

Here is a link to the IRS booklet that discusses the various tax evasion schemes that have been tried in the past.
Frivolous Tax Arguments

It is worth reading. Basically if you try one of the schemes mentioned in this booklet, you will lose in court. They also site the case law that has been established in court. In particular see page 10. This covers wages tips and other compensation recieved for personal services not being considered income. I believe that this is the issue that the Browns were basing their case on.

I don't believe that a person who is choosing not to pay their taxes is being tortured in prison. At best I think this is a wild exageration. But that's just my opinion.

reply to post by chutso_ha


Really?
Care to back that up?
Every news article that I've read shows otherwise. Maybe initially they didn't break the law but they sure did later on. Not showing up/leaving the court house translates to contempt. And people seem to forget that they basically placed homemade land mines around their 110 acre property as well as traps. This shows intent to harm. Yeah, they def. didn't break any laws. There are other ways to go about change that do not border on crazy.

Originally posted by bobafett1972
Maybe initially they didn't break the law but they sure did later on. Not showing up/leaving the court house translates to contempt. And people seem to forget that they basically placed homemade land mines around their 110 acre property as well as traps. This shows intent to harm. Yeah, they def. didn't break any laws. There are other ways to go about change that do not border on crazy.

Break the law? Every Citizen has the right to bear arms. These arms are designed to be able to counter act the US military. So we SHOULD be able to have access to any weapon the military has.

That was the idea of a militia when the constitution was written. Having the means to DEFEND yourself. That includes planting mines and booby-traps because some oppressive regime is coming to take you away.
If I were them, I would have contempt for that court too. They’re acts border on the sane... not the insane. We are living in a crazy world and the Browns meant to defend themselves. No one should be guilty of self defense. No one should be guilty of defending their home.

reply to post by AllSeeingI


Show me exactly were it states one can plant homemade bombs around their property when they know that the law is coming to arrest them. Right to bear arms doesn't include planting bombs to cause harm. Why would anyone in their right mind do this? Who plants bombs in their yard? What happens if a child is walking by and their ball goes in to your yard and they get blown up? This in no way has anything to do with the 2nd amendment.

So based on one of your other current threads, you think we shouldn't be killing anyone. But here, in this instance, it is within the Brown's Constitutional rights to plant bombs and make booby traps when they know that the authorities are coming to arrest them?

I am just glad this went down the way that it did. It could have gone very badly for all of the parties involved. The last thing needed was another Ruby Ridge or Waco.

As for militia's; the Brown's were 2 people fighting with the government, how is that a militia? How does this legitimize their use of bombs?


[edit on 10/23/2007 by bobafett1972]

Originally posted by justyc
if he is a normal prisoner then he has visiting rights yes? can nobody in the town nearest check to see if they can visit him or call him or whatever? who is his lawyer and can someone find out whether he is allowed to visit or if what is being claimed is really true

that phone call was extremely disturbing and needs to be verified somehow. equally disturbing is that lack of interest this story is getting in many places. is this how you want protesters of any sort to be treated? no? then do something now!

You have visitation rights after you have been through your initial processing and classification. If you're in the "hole" (solitary confinement), then you have NO visitation rights.

If these accusations hold true, the entire thing is really wild. Federal Prisons overall are safer and run more professionally than State Pens. MANY prisons these days however are Privately run by Companies. The problem with that of course is, who do the Companies have to answer to?

As for this entire Tax Issue. I completely understand the need for Federal Income Taxes, as this truly provides the necessary money to run such things as our Military, and various other Federal Agencies. However, if there is no actual law on the books stating the Federal Income Taxes as a Code, then there should at the very least be a Bill passed by Congress to make it official and non-debatable.

Originally posted by AllSeeingI

Originally posted by bobafett1972
Maybe initially they didn't break the law but they sure did later on. Not showing up/leaving the court house translates to contempt. And people seem to forget that they basically placed homemade land mines around their 110 acre property as well as traps. This shows intent to harm. Yeah, they def. didn't break any laws. There are other ways to go about change that do not border on crazy.

Break the law? Every Citizen has the right to bear arms. These arms are designed to be able to counter act the US military. So we SHOULD be able to have access to any weapon the military has.

That was the idea of a militia when the constitution was written. Having the means to DEFEND yourself. That includes planting mines and booby-traps because some oppressive regime is coming to take you away.
If I were them, I would have contempt for that court too. They’re acts border on the sane... not the insane. We are living in a crazy world and the Browns meant to defend themselves. No one should be guilty of self defense. No one should be guilty of defending their home.

Should be able to have access to any weapon the Military has? Hey, I am all for the Right to Bear Arms, but that statement is totally illogical. So instead of having somebody pull a drive-by on you with a 9 MM, you would rather have some Adid Militia roll by on the back of a Pick-up with a 50 Cal.?

Yeah, let us all just start planting landmines in our yards, maybe we'll even be extremely lucky and bag us some backpack toting school kids taking a shortcut to the bus stop.

[edit on 10-23-2007 by TheAgentNineteen]

Originally posted by AllSeeingI
We are living in a crazy world and the Browns meant to defend themselves. No one should be guilty of self defense. No one should be guilty of defending their home.

So what happens when a child runs into their yard and gets blown up?

Hmmm. I suppose the child should have stayed on public property then? That darn child tresspassing!!!

The system, failed the browns, when people begin to be convicted of crimes that do not apply and do not exist, freedom has truly been lost,
When their once fellow Americans turn on them, and become part of the very tyranny we all speak of, the only option is resistance.

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.
Tench Coxe

Its amazing those who claim to be American so quickly throw out their very own history of resistance, how quickly they give away liberty, how quickly they side with authority when the only true authority is ones self..

This country was founded upon the spirit of resistance, the resistance of tyranny, and tyranny of the majority,

Some cry for change, few try and make change, and when those few take action, how quickly the many who once supported that action, turn on them.

many will continue to speak up against this tyranny, few will stick around to the bitter end, they like many before them, will turn on the few patriots who are willing and who have said enough, and draw their line in the sand

They will side not against the many they wish to tame, but against the few because its the easier path.

all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[edit on 23-10-2007 by C0le]

reply to post by C0le


How did it fail the Brown's? They broke the law. Yes, I said LAW. More than once I might add. People try time and time again, but it is the LAW to pay taxes. Sure you can go to court and try to say this and that but it is the LAW. And no it isn't my issue, yes I saw your post before you edited it, they also broke the law when they planted homemade bombs on their property. The Brown's weren't a miltia. By threating to kill certain individuals as well as making remarks that I stated in an earlier post on page 2 of this thread.

1. Yes, there is a law that requires Americans to pay income taxes. It is called the "Internal Revenue Code".

2. The Internal Revenue Code is on the Internet and very easy to find if you want to see it. If the IRS will not show it to you, that is because they know that you can see it without their help and are very busy and do not have time to deal with tax protesters repeating the same points that have already been addressed.

3. The 16th Amendment was in fact ratified.

4. The 16th Amendment does not require anyone to pay income taxes. The 16th Amendment allows Congress to impose income taxes and to require payment of them. Congress has done so by passing (and repeatedly amending) the Internal Revenue Code. If Congress had not done so, the 16th Amendment would not have had any effect. It is the Internal Revenue Code, not the 16th Amendment, that requires payment of income taxes. The only significance of the 16th Amendment was to allow Congress to pass the Internal Revenue Code.


[edit on 10/23/2007 by bobafett1972]

reply to post by bobafett1972


TITLE 26, The Internal Revenue Code.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1

§ 1. Tax imposed



This section highlights the related matters along with the tax tables.
We will look at these parts as they most apply to what we would term Average Americans

a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse

under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),

And

c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in

section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as

defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

As shown it states a taxable income is imposed on the above.


So what is taxable income?

As defined in,

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61

Gross income defined:

(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.
(b) Cross references
For items specifically included in gross income, see part II (sec. 71 and following). For items specifically

excluded from gross income, see part III (sec. 101 and following)

In this section, Take note of the IRS double speak, from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

Some will claim the term from whatever source derived means just that, And that the Average American is liable to pay tax on the fruits of there labor, However at this point nowhere is it clearly defined, That the Average American is liable to pay the Income Tax

It should be noted that the term source is not defined in the the code, therefore we cannot assume its meaning beyond that which it states.
So where to now? Well lets take a look at a few other definitions within the code,

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I

PART I—DEFINITION OF GROSS INCOME, ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME, TAXABLE INCOME, ETC.

This section is as follows,

§ 61. Gross income defined
§ 62. Adjusted gross income defined
§ 63. Taxable income defined
§ 64. Ordinary income defined
§ 65. Ordinary loss defined

Section 61, and Section 63 have been covered thus far, lets have a look at Section 62 now,

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 62

§ 62. Adjusted gross income defined

(a) General rule
For purposes of this subtitle, the term “adjusted gross income” means, in the case of an individual, gross

income minus the following deductions:
(1) Trade and business deductions
The deductions allowed by this chapter (other than by part VII of this subchapter) which are attributable to a

trade or business carried on by the taxpayer, if such trade or business does not consist of the performance of

services by the taxpayer as an employee.
(2) Certain trade and business deductions of employees
(A) Reimbursed expenses of employees
The deductions allowed by part VI (section 161 and following) which consist of expenses paid or incurred by the

taxpayer, in connection with the performance by him of services as an employee, under a reimbursement or other

expense allowance arrangement with his employer. The fact that the reimbursement may be provided by a third

party shall not be determinative of whether or not the preceding sentence applies.
(B) Certain expenses of performing artists
The deductions allowed by section 162 which consist of expenses paid or incurred by a qualified performing

artist in connection with the performances by him of services in the performing arts as an employee.
(C) Certain expenses of officials
The deductions allowed by section 162 which consist of expenses paid or incurred with respect to services

performed by an official as an employee of a State or a political subdivision thereof in a position compensated

in whole or in part on a fee basis.

ect ect ect...



Continued....

reply to post by bobafett1972


To reiterate, These are again dealings a Corporation, Business, or Employer, would encounter.


lets have a look at Section 64 now,

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 64

§ 64. Ordinary income defined

For purposes of this subtitle, the term “ordinary income” includes any gain from the sale or exchange of property which is neither a capital asset nor property described in section 1231 (b). Any gain from the sale
or exchange of property which is treated or considered, under other provisions of this subtitle, as “ordinary income” shall be treated as gain from the sale or exchange of property which is neither a capital asset nor property described in section 1231 (b).

Now these dealings could be encountered by the Average American however, These are dealing with gains, Not labor.

Again up to this point, Nothing has clearly stated the Average American is liable to pay an income tax
It has however clearly outlined, the dealings of Corporations, Businesses, and Employers.

Now lets look at another part of the code.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter N > PART I

PART I—SOURCE RULES AND OTHER GENERAL RULES RELATING TO FOREIGN INCOME

§ 861. Income from sources within the United States
§ 862. Income from sources without the United States
§ 863. Special rules for determining source
§ 864. Definitions and special rules
§ 865. Source rules for personal property sales

Lets have a look into Section 861, Income from sources within the United States

note: The following are exerpts from the code, not the full detailed descriptions

(a) Gross income from sources within United States
The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States:
(1) Interest
(2) Dividends
(3) Personal services
(4) Rentals and royalties
(5) Disposition of United States real property interest
(6) Sale or exchange of inventory property

ect ect ect...

Now if you read further into each of these parts they refer to the actions of Corporations, Business dealings and gains, Not The Average Americans labor

Now lets have a look at,

Subtitle C—Employment Taxes

TITLE 26 > Subtitle C > CHAPTER 24 > § 3402


§ 3402. Income tax collected at source

(a) Requirement of withholding
(1) In general
Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the

Secretary. Any tables or procedures prescribed under this paragraph shall—
(A) apply with respect to the amount of wages paid during such periods as the Secretary may prescribe, and
(B) be in such form, and provide for such amounts to be deducted and withheld, as the Secretary determines to

be most appropriate to carry out the purposes of this chapter and to reflect the provisions of chapter 1

applicable to such periods

ect ect ect, this section goes on to list the amounts of wages to be withheld..

So what are wages?

The code defines wages as,

The term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer.

So it would seem the Employer can withhold wages from the employee for the purpose of the income tax, Or so it implies

Note: as stated we are now in Subtitle C, and not in Subtitle A which applies to individuals, Also in Subtitle A as outlined nowhere was it clearly defined the Average American was liable to pay a tax on his labor, What we have concluded from Subtitle A is that it applies to Individuals involved in Corporate, and Business dealings.

Also take note of the following sections beyond that which I listed in Section 3402.

Lets get back to this section, It states that the Employer making a payment of wages, shall deduct upon such wages a tax.

Notice the word play here, shall deduct upon such wages, it implies as stated above, That the employer is to deduct from your wages, But based on the full context of the code, Which Does not apply at least
this far, to the Average American that this part should be read in the context and point of view of the employer not the employee, Hence the source, So we can conclude that this means the employer isn't to withhold or deduct from your wages, but withhold and deduct from his gains, upon such wages.

Remember the definitions previously stated, thus far the income tax applies to the gains made by Corporations, and Businesses, and not the the Average Americans labor...

Also lets take note of TITLE 26 > Subtitle C > CHAPTER 24 > § 3403


§ 3403. Liability for tax

The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be deducted and withheld under

this chapter, and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment.

Albuquerque!

See, I can do it too!

Snorkel!

~~~~

Reading that would confuse most people. Also, talk about overkill.
Tomatoe, whatever. Agree to disagree then. But from down here reads the law to me.

Peace.



[edit on 10/23/2007 by bobafett1972]

Originally posted by C0le
So what is taxable income?

As defined in,

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61

Gross income defined:

(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.
(b) Cross references
For items specifically included in gross income, see part II (sec. 71 and following). For items specifically

excluded from gross income, see part III (sec. 101 and following)

In this section, Take note of the IRS double speak, from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

Some will claim the term from whatever source derived means just that, And that the Average American is liable to pay tax on the fruits of there labor, However at this point nowhere is it clearly defined, That the Average American is liable to pay the Income Tax

You're missing the fact that these statutes are then interpreted by the courts, an essential feature of our system. Therefore if a statute is vague it is of little consequence because the courts will put meat on the bones. The case law, wacky enough, does affirm the breadth of the term. How does the case law affect the argument that you have just made?

You're also omitting IRC sec. 6151, which states "Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return)."

[edit on 10/23/2007 by Togetic]

Originally posted by Togetic

You're missing the fact that these statutes are then interpreted by the courts, an essential feature of our system. Therefore if a statute is vague it is of little consequence because the courts will put meat on the bones. The case law, wacky enough, does affirm the breadth of the term. How does the case law affect the argument that you have just made?

Yes they have,

"SEC. 22. GROSS INCOME.

"(a) GENERAL DEFINITION. - `Gross income' includes gains, profits, "and income" derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever. . . ." (Emphasis added.) 4
....

they could have said,

"(a) GENERAL DEFINITION. - `Gross income' includes gains, profits, salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever. . . ." (Emphasis added.) 4

which would include these things as income, but notice gains and profits were directly included as income, however salaries wages and compensation for services are not.

it states income can be derived from them, but it doesn't state they are income.

You're also omitting IRC sec. 6151, which states "Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return)."

Title 26 doesn't Apply to most Americans. and it most definitely doesn't apply to your labor.

[edit on 23-10-2007 by C0le]

OK so I'll repeat my question,

Why doesn't Ed Brown appeal the ruling and thus aviod a prison sentence for the time being? Is he trying to avoid prison without even bothering to appeal?