Friday, February 23, 2007

PA Pundits Covers Ed Brown



$1,000,000 if you can show Ed Brown the law

Ed Brown is offering a $1,000,000 compensation (commercial property) to the first person to show him the law requiring him to pay federal income tax.

Read more here.

27 Comments:

Blogger Joey Smith said...

Of course, there is no $1,000,000 sitting in a bank anywhere. Instead, Ed and Elaine have pledged their home and office building -- both of which are about to be lost to the IRS anyhow.

Totally illusory/sham challenge.

Of course, "the law" is at 26 U.S.C. sec. 1 and the following statutes.

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html#_Toc153765504

The Law: The requirement to pay taxes is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes a tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts as determined by the tables set forth in that section. (Section 11 imposes a tax on the taxable income of corporations.)

Furthermore, the obligation to pay tax is described in section 6151, which requires taxpayers to submit payment with their tax returns. Failure to pay taxes could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties.

In discussing section 6151, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that “when a tax return is required to be filed, the person so required ‘shall’ pay such taxes to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at the fixed time and place. The sections of the Internal Revenue Code imposed a duty on Drefke to file tax returns and pay the . . . tax, a duty which he chose to ignore.” United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983).

In United States v. Kuglin, No. 03-20111 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2003), Vernice B. Kuglin faced criminal charges for falsifying Forms W-4 and failing to pay taxes on $920,000 of income between 1996 and 2001, but was acquitted by a federal jury. According to newspaper accounts of the trial, jurors found persuasive the defendant’s argument that she attempted to obtain an explanation of the Service’s authority to collect taxes from her but her correspondence went unanswered. Government officials issued press releases making it clear that the outcome in Kuglin should be treated as an “aberration” and noting that persons acquitted of criminal tax violations are not relieved of their obligation to pay taxes due. See 2003 TNT 155-12 (Aug. 11, 2003); 2003 TNT 155-13 (Aug. 11, 2003); 2003 TNT 158-2 (Aug. 14, 2003).

The defendant in United States v. Brunet, No. 03-00057 (M.D. Tenn. March 12, 2004), argued he could not find any information that would lead him to conclude the Internal Revenue Code made him liable to file income tax returns or pay taxes. In stark contrast to Kuglin, the jury returned guilty verdicts against Brunet on four counts of tax evasion and the court sentenced him to serve 27 months in prison. See 2004 TNT 51-33 (March 12, 2004).

There have been no civil cases where the Service’s lack of response to a taxpayer’s inquiry has relieved the taxpayer of the duty to pay tax due under the law. Courts have in rare instances waived civil penalties because they have found that a taxpayer relied on a Service misstatement or wrongful misleading silence with respect to a factual matter. Such an estoppel argument does not, however, apply to a legal matter such as whether there is legal authority to collect taxes. See, e.g., McKay v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 465 (1994), rev’d as to other issues, 84 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 1996). Kuglin’s case, discussed above, did not prove to be the exception. Despite her acquittal of criminal charges, on September 12, 2004, Kuglin entered a settlement with the IRS in the Tax Court in which she agreed to pay more than half a million dollars in back taxes and penalties. Kuglin v. Commissioner, Docket No. 21743-03; see 2004 TNT 177-6 (Sept. 13, 2004).

In August 2004, an appellate court affirmed a federal district court preliminary injunction barring Irwin Schiff, Cynthia Neun, and Lawrence N. Cohen from selling a tax scheme that fraudulently claimed that payment of federal income tax is voluntary. United States v. Schiff, 379 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2004); see http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv04551.htm. Also, in October 2005, the trio was convicted by a Las Vegas jury for various criminal charges relating to the federal income tax laws. See 2005 TNT 205-4 (Oct. 25, 2005). Schiff received a sentence of more than 12 years in prison and was ordered to pay more than $4.2 million in restitution to the IRS; Neun received a sentence of nearly 6 years and was ordered to pay $1.1 million in restitution to the IRS; and, Cohen received a sentence of nearly 3 years and was ordered to pay $480,000 in restitution to the IRS. See http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/February/06_tax_098.html; 2006 TNT 38-67 (Feb. 24, 2006); 2006 TNT 24-62 (Feb. 3, 2006).

Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Bressler, 772 F.2d 287, 291 (7th Cir. 1985) – the court upheld Bressler’s conviction for tax evasion, noting, “[he] has refused to file income tax returns and pay the amounts due not because he misunderstands the law, but because he disagrees with it . . . . [O]ne who refuses to file income tax returns and pay the tax owing is subject to prosecution, even though the tax protester believes the laws requiring the filing of income tax returns and the payment of income tax are unconstitutional.”

Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988) – the court rejected Wilcox’s argument that payment of taxes is voluntary for American citizens, stating that “paying taxes is not voluntary” and imposing a $1,500 penalty against Wilcox for raising frivolous claims.

Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 833 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1238 (1991) – the court rejected Schiff’s arguments as meritless and upheld imposition of the civil fraud penalty, stating “[t]he frivolous nature of this appeal is perhaps best illustrated by our conclusion that Schiff is precisely the sort of taxpayer upon whom a fraud penalty for failure to pay income taxes should be imposed.”

United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) – the court stated that “[taxpayers’] claim that payment of federal income tax is voluntary clearly lacks substance” and imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,500 “for bringing this frivolous appeal based on discredited, tax-protester arguments.”

Packard v. United States, 7 F. Supp. 2d 143, 145 (D. Conn. 1998) – the court dismissed Packard’s refund suit for recovery of penalties for failure to pay income tax and failure to pay estimated taxes where the taxpayer contested the obligation to pay taxes on religious grounds, noting that “the ability of the Government to function could be impaired if persons could refuse to pay taxes because they disagreed with the Government’s use of tax revenues.”

Horowitz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-91, 91 T.C.M. (CCH) 1120 – the court imposed sanctions in the amount of $10,000 in rejecting the taxpayer’s arguments, including the frivolous claim that he could find no statute or regulation making him liable for an income tax.

Bonaccorso v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-278, 90 T.C.M. (CCH) 554 (2005) – the taxpayer filed zero returns based on the argument that he found no Code section that made him liable for any income tax. The court held that the taxpayer’s argument was frivolous citing to section 1 (imposes an income tax), section 63 (defines taxable income as gross income minus deductions), and section 61 (defines gross income). The court also imposed a $10,000 sanction against the taxpayer under section 6673 for making frivolous arguments.

5:03 PM  
Blogger CRAIG said...

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

§ 1. Tax imposed

(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)),

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > § 7703
§ 7703. Determination of marital status
(a) General rule
For purposes of part V of subchapter B of chapter 1 and those provisions of this title which refer to this subsection—
(1) the determination of whether an individual is married shall be made as of the close of his taxable year; except that if his spouse dies during his taxable year such determination shall be made as of the time of such death; and
(2) an individual legally separated from his spouse under a decree of divorce or of separate maintenance shall not be considered as married.

No corresponding parts in CFR

There are no CFR parts for which 26 USC 7703 provides authority.
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 61 > Subchapter A > PART II > Subpart B > § 6013

§ 6013. Joint returns of income tax by husband and wife

(a) Joint returns
A husband and wife may make a single return jointly of income taxes under subtitle A, even though one of the spouses has neither gross income nor deductions, except as provided below:

No corresponding parts in CFR

There are no CFR parts for which 26 USC 6013 provides authority.
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.

What was that you said about 26 U.S.C. sec. 1 joey?

5:47 PM  
Blogger KOSMIC said...

Nice cut and paste job Joey. You are a fool who believes in smoke and mirrors. Those who have been at this awhile know how full of it you are. The tax code is 150,000 pages because that is how many pages it takes to confuse the common folk like you. Soon We will have the rules for showing us the law in order to win the prize. By then the feds may have custody of all Eds property but they will have to kill him to take the house. The rest of us are ready to take out those who would dare kill this patriot. In the mean time I suggest you get your facts straight. Why you think Sec. 1 is worded the way it is. To keep people like you from reading further. OH ya I forgot, you just cut and paste, no doubt from evans again.

6:14 PM  
Blogger Joey Smith said...

No, that is from the IRS's website.

No serious legal or constitutional scholar disagrees, nor does any court disagree.

But I'm sure that you sheeple know otherwise, since you are SUCH successful people (roll eyes).

6:18 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

People required to do Anything Joey has posted here, relies on the stipulation that your Income is Taxable under Law in the First Place.

Joey of Coarse makes no attempt at all, to show Who's Income is in Fact Taxable under The Law to begin with.

Check Joey... You don't have many pieces left on the Table... Want to concede now? And spare yourself further Humiliation?

6:21 PM  
Blogger KOSMIC said...

None of this matters to me anyways because any fucking government (LIKE YOU) who thinks they are going to take a piece of my labor can go to hell, I don't care how well the law is covered. We wrote laws to stop this shit long ago, we now need to apply them to government.



Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245 - Federally Protected Activities

6:24 PM  
Blogger here2daygonetomorrow said...

I submit from this point on that no one even gives little joey the satisfaction of a reply to his ramblings. It evidently just feeds his need to feel self important. That's just the way it is when you're 15 years old. This will be my last reply to little joey. I hope the rest will follow suit. Let little joey post to his hearts content, but without acknowledgement that he even exists. (We would love to hear you being interviewed even though you would probably need consent from your mommy first) Bye little joey...

6:26 PM  
Blogger Joey Smith said...

Send me the $1,000,000.

Oh, yeah, I forgot for a moment -- there is no $1,000,000 that's just another of Ed's and Elaine's lies.

For federal income tax purposes, “gross income” means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61. Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be income under section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded. In Reese v. United States, 24 F.3d 228, 231 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the court stated, “an abiding principle of federal tax law is that, absent an enumerated exception, gross income means all income from whatever source derived.”

Section 1341 and the cases interpreting it require taxpayers to return funds previously reported as income before they can claim a deduction under claim of right. To have the right to a deduction, the taxpayer should appear to have an unrestricted right to the income in question. See Dominion Resources, Inc. v. United States, 219 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2000). It is a frivolous argument to claim a section 1341 deduction when there has been no repayment by the taxpayer of an amount previously reported as income. The Internal Revenue Service issued Revenue Ruling 2004-29, 2004-1 C.B. 627, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument.

The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. U.S. Const. amend. XVI. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax. For a further discussion of the constitutionality of the federal income tax laws, see section I.D. of this outline.

All compensation for personal services, no matter what the form of payment, must be included in gross income. This includes salary or wages paid in cash, as well as the value of property and other economic benefits received because of services performed, or to be performed in the future. Furthermore, criminal and civil penalties have been imposed against individuals relying upon this frivolous argument.

In November 2004, a federal district court in Ohio barred Michael A. Allamby from preparing federal tax returns and representing taxpayers before the IRS. Mr. Allamby erroneously interpreted the instructions to certain federal tax forms as requiring individuals to report their wages as income only if they invested the wages to earn income. See http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv04733.htm; see also 2004 TNT 215-24 (Nov. 4, 2004). Also, in May 2005, a federal district court in Louisiana permanently barred Richard A. Fuselier and Richard J. Ortt and their organization, Compensation Consultants, from preparing tax returns and promoting tax schemes, such as the “not for profit” scheme, which was based on the premise that wages cannot be taxed. See http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/March/05_tax_085.htm; see also 2005 TNT 94-16 (May 16, 2005).

In January 2005, a federal district court in California permanently enjoined Joseph O. Saladino, founder of an organization known as the Freedom and Privacy Committee, from promoting two schemes: the “claim of right” program and the “corporation sole” scheme (discussed below in this outline). See http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv05005.htm; see also 2005 TNT 15-22 (Jan. 24, 2005). Also, in January 2005, a federal district court in North Carolina permanently barred Frank D. Perkinson from selling the “claim of right” program and the “corporation sole” scheme. See http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/January/05_tax_005.htm; see also 2005 TNT 5-16 (Jan. 6, 2005).

In June 2006, Richard M. Blackstock was convicted on thirty-two counts of assisting in the preparation of fraudulent returns based on his involvement in filing various returns claiming deductions for wages, salaries and other compensation under the frivolous “claim of right” theory. See http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/usaopress/2006/txdv06Blackstock_USAO_OK.wpd; see also 2006 TNT129-31 (Jun. 23, 2006).

Relevant Case Law:
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955) – referring to the statute’s words “income derived from any source whatever,” the Supreme Court stated, “this language was used by Congress to exert in this field ‘the full measure of its taxing power.’ . . . And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted.”

Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77 (1977) – the Supreme Court found that payments are considered income where the payments are undeniably accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which a taxpayer has complete dominion.

Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) – the Supreme Court reversed and remanded Cheek’s conviction of willfully failing to file federal income tax returns and willfully attempting to evade income taxes solely on the basis of erroneous jury instructions. The Court noted, however, that Cheek’s argument, that he should be acquitted because he believed in good faith that the income tax law is unconstitutional, “is unsound, not because Cheek’s constitutional arguments are not objectively reasonable or frivolous, which they surely are, but because the [law regarding willfulness in criminal cases] does not support such a position.” Id. (emphasis added). On remand, Cheek was convicted on all counts and sentenced to jail for a year and a day. Cheek v. United States, 3 F.3d 1057 (7th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1112 (1994).

United States v. Becker, 965 F.2d 383, 389 (7th Cir. 1992) – the court found defendant’s contention that wages are not income to be “ridiculous.”

United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500 (7th Cir. 1991) – in 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) – the 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) – the court rejected as “meritless” the taxpayer’s contention that the “exchange of services for money is a zero-sum transaction . . . .”

Stelly v. Commissioner, 761 F. 2d 1113 (5th Cir. 1985) – the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Tax Court’s holding against the taxpayer’s argument that taxing wage and salary income is a violation of the constitution because compensation for labor is an exchange, not gain. The Fifth Circuit also fined the taxpayer for bringing a frivolous appeal.

United States v. White, 769 F. 2d 511 (8th Cir. 1985) – the court issued a permanent injunction to prevent the promotion of the argument that there is no tax imposed on an exchange of property (labor) in an equal exchange for property (wages).

United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (8th Cir. 1983) – the court upheld conviction and fines imposed for willfully failing to file tax returns, stating that the taxpayer’s contention that wages and salaries are not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment is “totally lacking in merit.”

United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981) – the court affirmed Romero’s conviction for willfully failing to file tax returns, finding, in part, that “[t]he trial judge properly instructed the jury on the meaning of [‘income’ and ‘person’]. Romero’s proclaimed belief that he was not a ‘person’ and that the wages he earned as a carpenter were not ‘income’ is fatuous as well as obviously incorrect.”

Abdo v. United States, 234 F. Supp. 2d 553 (M.D. N.C. 2002), aff’d, 2003-1 U.S.T.C. (CCH) ¶ 50,483 (4th Cir. 2003) – the tax preparer prepared returns based on the argument that labor is an exchange for wages and not taxable. The court cited Connor, supra, when finding that the tax preparer misstated the law.

McCoy v. United States, 88 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7116, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18986 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2001) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that wages received were not income and described this position as meritless.

Sumter v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 517, 523 (2004) – the court found the taxpayer’s “claim of right” argument as “devoid of any merit” and that section 1341 only applies to situations in which the claimant is compelled to return the taxed item because of a mistaken presumption that the right held was unrestricted and, thus, the item was previously reported, erroneously, as taxable income. Section 1341 was inapplicable to Ms. Sumter, because she had a continuing, unrestricted claim of right to her salary income and had not been compelled to repay that income in a later tax year.

Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 413 (1984) – the court rejected the argument that wages are not income, sustained the failure to file penalty, and awarded damages of $5,000 for pursuing a position that was “frivolous and groundless . . . and maintained primarily for delay.”

Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730 (1978), aff’d, 614 F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1980) – the court said the entire amount received from the sale of one’s services constitutes income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.

Cullinane v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-2, 77 T.C.M. (CCH) 1192, 1193 (1999) – noting that “[c]ourts have consistently held that compensation for services rendered constitutes taxable income and that taxpayers have no tax basis in their labor,” the court found Cullinane liable for the failure to file penalty, stating that “[his] argument that he is not required to pay tax on compensation for services does not constitute reasonable cause.”

Wheelis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-102, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1543-45 (2002) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s frivolous argument that his wages were not taxable based on his belief that “[p]roperty (money) exchanged for property (labor not subject to tax)” is not subject to income taxation. The court stated that such claims have been “consistently and thoroughly rejected” by the courts and imposed a penalty against Wheelis in the amount of $10,000 for making frivolous arguments.

Carskadon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-237, 86 T.C.M. (CCH) 234, 236 – the court rejected the taxpayer’s frivolous argument that “wages are not taxable because the Code, which states what is taxable, does not specifically state that ‘time reimbursement transactions,’ a term of art coined by [taxpayers], are taxable.” The court imposed a $2,000 penalty against the taxpayers for raising “only frivolous arguments which can be characterized as tax protester rhetoric.”

6:30 PM  
Blogger TruePatriot said...

joey smith is X>1 of the following:

a coercion monger
a masochistic sheep
a socialist
a communist
a fascist
a by product of MTV
a government lackie

7:10 PM  
Blogger AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM said...

come on joey! why are you hiding from our offer to interview with ed and elaine brown on republic broadcasting network? we all want to get to know you! let's have a cup of starbucks coffee together by the fireside. we want the entire world to learn the truth about who you really are!!

7:18 PM  
Blogger AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM said...

D. O'Joey?

7:20 PM  
Blogger Joey Smith said...

Put the $1,000,000 in a bank first, and then I'll do the phone interview from my new condo in Miami that I will purchase with the money.

Oh, I forgot, the Browns can't actually put up $1,000,000 in a bank because their home and office building is subject to liens and forfeiture . . .

7:31 PM  
Blogger My Own God said...

This reminds me of trying to discuss religion.

Whether you owe the tax or not is irrelevant when jail is involved.

You know Ed wont make one bit of difference in the big picture.
He and his wife will be dead or in jail.

When the smoke clears all you tax protesters will flock to the next masochist or Guru but wont do anything to help change the system except bitch.

I used to be like you and I wish I never heard of any of it.

If you really wanted to change the tax system you would go through the proper channels.

7:33 PM  
Blogger TruePatriot said...

The Grace Comission, which was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986, found that after 100% of the Federal Income Tax dollars are spent, "NOT ONE nickel goes towards the services that the taxpayers would expect."

He was referring to the revenue from the Federal Income Tax. The reason for this is that ALL of the $$$ collected from Income Tax, in fact, goes towards paying the National Debt, which is derived from the interest paid on the $$$, which the government borrows from the Federal Reserve... which IS A PRIVATE ENTITY!!!

How sinister is that?!? What sort of government official(s) would grant the power to create FIAT money, out of thin air, to a PRIVATE bank, which is controlled by PRIVATE individuals?

I'll tell you what sort of government officials would do such a diabolical thing... TREASONIST GLOBALISTS such as every president from the time of Woodrow Wilson, with the EXCEPTION of J.F.K... & we all know what happened to him!!!

Are you going to deny that too, joey smith??? Oh yeah sure... it was Lee Harvey Oswald & his "magic bullet."

Har har har!!!

7:39 PM  
Blogger CRAIG said...

Ok joey, here goes

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

§ 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:

CFR parts for which 26 USC 61 provides authority

This is a list of parts within the Code of Federal Regulations for which this US Code section provides rulemaking authority. It is taken from the Parallel Table of Authorities provided by NARA at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/parallel/parallel_table.html. It is not guaranteed to be accurate or up-to-date, though we do refresh the database weekly. More limitations on accuracy are described at the NARA site.

26 CFR 1
7 CFR 3

§ 1. Tax imposed

(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

There are no CFR parts for which 26 USC 7703 provides authority.

There are no CFR parts for which 26 USC 6013 provides authority.

Just one big circle isn't it joey?

I don't just make this stuff up ypu know, this is right from Cornell Law School.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html

7:42 PM  
Blogger TruePatriot said...

To the writer, who goes by 'my own God,' you've lost the will to live & shame on you for assuming everyone else has, too!

Gauge your own courage, or lack thereof. This country was not founded on the capitulation & cowardness to tyranny. And as for the "proper channels," of which you write, they are no longer viable!

Had you been better-informed, you'd know that the Browns DID try to utilize the "proper channels" & were railroaded in a Kangaroo court. Or do you suggest we "vote" these malfeasant officials & polititans out of office? If so, accept the fact that your vote does NOT count anymore!

Look @ Bush in `04? Are you going to deny that he lost? Yet he still resides in the White House. The state-run media does NOT even allow those, who are maltreated, to have their plight heard. Perfect example is the Browns. WHY is it that one only hears negativity about the Browns on TV? Do you HONESTLY think these poor citizens are having a fair shake @ justice?!?

I rest my case...

7:50 PM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

Kosmic, don't forget these:

United States Code - Title 42 -
The Public Health and Welfare
Chapter 21 - Civil Rights

Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

Section 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights (1) Preventing officer from performing duties
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to
prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from
accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence
under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or
to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave
any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are
required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or
property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his
office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to
injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede
him in the discharge of his official duties;
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to
deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in
any court of the United States from attending such court, or from
testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and
truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or
property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to
influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or
petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his
person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or
indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having
been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose
of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner,
the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to
deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure
him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to
enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal
protection of the laws;
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go
in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the
purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or
class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal
privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of
preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or
Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State
or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more
persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any
citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support
or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election
of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or
Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or
to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such
support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this
section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be
done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy,
whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived
of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the
United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action
for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or
deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
Section 1986. Action for neglect to prevent Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs
conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title,
are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in
preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to
do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party
injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by
such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could
have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on
the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect
or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the
death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect,
the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action
therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for
the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if
there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the
deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall
be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause
of action has accrued.
Section 1987. Prosecution of violation of certain laws The United States attorneys, marshals, and deputy marshals, the
United States magistrate judges appointed by the district and
territorial courts, with power to arrest, imprison, or bail
offenders, and every other officer who is especially empowered by
the President, are authorized and required, at the expense of the
United States, to institute prosecutions against all persons
violating any of the provisions of section 1990 of this title or of
sections 5506 to 5516 and 5518 to 5532 of the Revised Statutes, and
to cause such persons to be arrested, and imprisoned or bailed, for
trial before the court of the United States or the territorial
court having cognizance of the offense.

Section 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights (a) Applicability of statutory and common law
The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the
district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the
Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United
States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be
exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United
States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into
effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object,
or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable
remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as
modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State
wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal
cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the
Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to
and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the
cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of
punishment on the party found guilty.
(b) Attorney's fees
In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections
1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of
Public Law 92-318 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act of 1993 [42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.], the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C.
2000cc et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42
U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or section 13981 of this title, the court,
in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the
United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs,
except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an
act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity such
officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including
attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such
officer's jurisdiction.
(c) Expert fees
In awarding an attorney's fee under subsection (b) of this
section in any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of
section 1981 or 1981a of this title, the court, in its discretion,
may include expert fees as part of the attorney's fee.

8:49 PM  
Blogger Ryan Mann said...

Joey Smith, when are you going to do an interview? Alternatively, I'm sure King George could use your services in Iraq.

9:12 PM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

Brute force cannot control the INFORMED, but is hardly even needed to control the DECEIVED.

“Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything — you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.” [Robert Heinlein]

“Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don’t allow our enemies to have guns; why should we allow them to have ideas?” [Joseph Stalin]

9:27 PM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

Joey (IRS/DOJ employee) wrote, in part:

"...Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax..."

Of course the tax laws are constitutional. They apply to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, pharmaceuticals, corporations, nonresident aliens, American citizens earning income from abroad or interstate commerce, and a number of other categories, but primarily deal with things the Congress has the power to regulate, such as foreign commerce. No one in modern day claims the laws are not constitutional, only that they don't apply to most of us. What IS MOST CERTAINLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL is the way the tax code is ILLEGALLY ADMINISTERED.

9:46 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

FredMarshall1937 said...

Brute force cannot control the INFORMED, but is hardly even needed to control the DECEIVED.

Couldn't have said it better Myself Fred. Such words are a Powerful Weapon of TRUTH my Friend.

Amazing how a simple quote of TRUTH by a Great Man or Woman can survive Decades or Centuries... and still Ring True.

9:48 PM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

Joey posted, in part:

"...Relevant Case Law:
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955) – referring to the statute’s words “income derived from any source whatever,” the Supreme Court stated, “this language was used by Congress to exert in this field ‘the full measure of its taxing power.’ . . . And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all GAINS except those specifically exempted.”..."

The key word, Joey, is GAINS. If I repair your roof for you and you pay me $100, I don't GAIN anything. I have EXCHANGED my labor for your $100. If you insist upon classifying my newly-acquired $100 as a GAIN, then we must also classify your repaired roof as a GAIN and value it at $100 and tax YOU on your repaired roof. Does that make any logical sense?

9:54 PM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

TruePatriot said...
"The Grace Comission, which was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986,"

Reagan appointed the commission in 1982 and it issued its report in 1984.

10:02 PM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

One final point regarding all the court cases DOJ Joey cites:

Never forget the POWER the IRS wields over judges (and prosecutors and members of juries).

10:04 PM  
Blogger My Own God said...

TruePatriot said...
“To the writer, who goes by 'my own God,' you've lost the will to live & shame on you for assuming everyone else has, too!”

You mistake “lost the will to live” with pragmatism.
I have one simple question for you TruePatriot.
Are you willing to die with the Brown’s or are you like the rest of these tax protesters and talk sh*t on a computer?

10:47 PM  
Blogger TruePatriot said...

To the writer, who goes by, "my own God":

To be direct & answer your question, no, I'm not willing to die for/with the Browns. HOWEVER, I AM willing to fight! I intend on going to visit the Browns & make a brazen show of support... even if it equates to an inconvenience.

Why do you see only extreme options? I see it wise to have a positive attitude & be willing to put up the fight, of a lifetime, for the rights we simply deserve.

Here's another way to unveil the evils of any "income tax" & hopefully this will put the gravity of the matter into better perspective.

If any entity possesses the ability to tax the toil of ones brow, by whatever means & at ANY rate, than it is a degree of slavery! Here's the simple proof...

Would you not agree that one MUST work to survive? I'm not referring to the exceptions, such as those with $$$ from a lotto or an inheritance, etc. Considering this simple fact, you are being FORCED to work for free!!! Perhaps you're not working 100% for free, but don't forget that in the beginning of the income tax, it was a mere 2% & look @ the situation now! Much of the Canadian population is forced to give 1/2 of their earnings from labor to the government!!!

Here's it's already @ an average of around 30% & that's just okay with you?!? I offer my apology for the brash words in my last message

I read the comments, of those who side against the Browns' plight & they often ask of government dissenters, "If it's sooo bad in this country, why does everyone want to move here?" Well, do the research & discover the truth! Unless you're coming from a 3rd world country, like MEXICO, the overall global immigration #'s are waaaay down.

If it wasn't for my 14 & 16 year old children, I'd sell everything, pack up & move to another country, as I've 2 other citizenships. HOWEVER, why not try to change the tide of tyranny here... for us & for the future generations???

2:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

joey smith said,

Why would anybody listen to me as I'm now living in bell view?


The retirement home for FED employees

8:21 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

 

SITEMETER