SWAT Teams, Armored Vehicle Seen Near Brown Compound
PLAINFIELD, N.H. -- Neighbors of convicted tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown reported police SWAT teams and at least one armored vehicle converging on a field near the home Thursday morning.
Authorities did not confirm they were moving in to arrest the fugitives, but local police, the governor's office and the U.S. Attorney's office referred calls to the U.S. Marshal's service, which has been negotiating daily with the Browns since their federal tax evasion conviction in January.
Read article here.
Via Ed Brown Google News.
Authorities did not confirm they were moving in to arrest the fugitives, but local police, the governor's office and the U.S. Attorney's office referred calls to the U.S. Marshal's service, which has been negotiating daily with the Browns since their federal tax evasion conviction in January.
Read article here.
Via Ed Brown Google News.
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
1:21 PM
15 Comments:
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
The report is that the Brown home is on fire, ala WACO. Is this true?
I pray not.
Pray people, there are reports that the house is now on fire.
PRAY FOR THEM
The Federals have so fraked up now. The best thing they could do was just sit back and let them be, but now. The Empire marches on...
Strength and solidarity to our comrades the Browns and all those with them!
http://www.wmur.com/video/13461073/index.html LIVE
Ham frequencies in NY are being jammed
Everyone has to pay their fair share. If these two morons think they are above the law, above all their "supporters", then they deserve every penalty given to them. If they fail to surrender, the gov't will likely take their lives, and rightfully so.
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
fucking weird - local repeaters are mostly either oscillation or gibberish in a combo of spanish/russian - wtf?
"Everyone has to pay their fair share."
Where is the Federal Law that says that? And, what are we paying for?
Where in the constitution does it provide for nation building, premptive strikes against nations not threatening us, etc.
What a sentence so full of absolute ignorance of what federal law actually says.
In a fair civil trial against tax protestor/ Fed-Ex pilot Kuglin, the government did not prove a law exists that says Kuglin or Brown must pay.
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=111&contentid=909
"IRS Loses Tax Case Against FedEx Pilot
by SHIRLEY DOWNING
A federal jury Friday found FedEx pilot Vernice Kuglin not guilty of evading income taxes on $920,000.
The question of tax payment was unresolved at the end of the five-day trial.
"I think it is safe to assume the IRS will attempt civil collection, but she is not guilty of tax evasion," said defense attorney Robert Bernhoft of Milwaukee.
"I feel justified," a grinning Kuglin said after the verdict was returned at mid--afternoon. She stood outside the federal building, chatting with supporters and jurors."
http://www.unitedstatesgovernment.net/irsvskuglin.htm
"For those not already aware, FedEx Pilot Vernice Kuglin began studying the IRS Code some years ago, and was simply unable to find anywhere in the code that she was required to pay federal income taxes.
And here’s the most remarkable part: Back in 1995, Kuglin wrote letters in good faith to the IRS, asking them to show her where the Tax Code requires individual citizens to pay federal income taxes. Incredibly, the IRS never answered a single one of her letters!
As she studied the facts, laws and related documents more, Kuglin became convinced that, regardless of the IRS’ failure to respond one way or the other, she was exempt from paying federal income taxes. So, Kuglin filled out W-4 forms showing 99 exemptions, and turned them in to her employer. Doing that meant Kuglin got to take home almost all of her paycheck each payday, instead of what was left after the feds ravaged it.
The IRS went after Kuglin for six counts of tax evasion on $920,000.00 income, and for filing “false” W-4 forms, charges that could have put the 58 year-old Kuglin in federal prison for up to 30 years and cost her 1.5 million in fines.
Apparently, things didn’t go quite the slam-dunk way federal prosecutor Joe Murphy thought they would. My money says the IRS wishes they had never gone after Kuglin at all. In fact, after the jury returned not guilty verdicts on all counts, Murphy is reported to have demanded that the judge order Kuglin to file her forms, pay her taxes and “obey the law”. The judge reportedly replied, “Sir, I don’t work for the IRS.”
Now pinch yourself and review this astonishing turn of events: A highly trained and educated federal prosecutor in Memphis was unable to convince 12 American citizens that Vernice Kuglin was required to pay federal income taxes. He was clearly unable to produce a single section of the Tax Code to that end, and the jury was unanimous in clearing Kuglin of all charges against her. If the foregoing was not so, Kuglin would have been convicted.
Jurors tend not to be very sympathetic with tax scofflaws, since each one of them is also a taxpayer and they understandably feel resentment towards anyone not paying “their fair share”. So in order for this federal jury to completely vindicate Kuglin, the government’s failure to prove their case against her had to have been clear and unequivocal!
I haven’t read the trial transcript yet, but I must assume the federal prosecutor at least tried to twist some vague and ambiguous section of the Tax Code to make it look like it applied to Kuglin. I don’t know that, but I’ll bet he tried. What else could he use to prosecute her with?
Thanks to the IRS’ arrogance and stupidity, and Kuglin’s refusal to plead to lesser charges, Kuglin accomplished what Bob Schultz and the other “tax protesters” had been denied all along: To force the IRS into a public debate and to answer the question of whether or not the Tax Code requires an individual to pay personal income taxes. Kuglin and her two attorneys, Larry Becraft and Robert Bernhoft, have unequivocally forced the IRS to show its hand, and 12 judges hearing that debate ruled the answer to be “NO”. "
So, why didn't the government prove Kuglin had to "pay her fair share"?
Hmmmmm?
Inquiring minds want to know.
More on Ms. Kuglin's case :
http://www.nmcservices.net/irsconspiracy.html
"Our friends at IRS said she had lied, and charged her with six felony counts of tax evasion on $920,000 of income, enough to put Miss Kuglin away for as long as 30 years. She is 58 now, so in effect she faced a life sentence, and could have had to pay $1.5 million in fines. It is important to note that our friends at IRS prepare these cases very carefully. They don’t take one into court unless they know they will win. In a case like this, involving serious money, they do everything they can to incite the jurors’ envy. They constantly refer to the defendant’s "fair share."
On August 8, 2003, in Memphis, despite all this, the jury acquitted Miss Kuglin of all charges. They said IRS had not proved the lady was required to pay the tax. After the verdict, frustrated prosecutor Joe Murphy asked the judge to order Miss Kuglin to pay it. The judge replied, "Sir, I don’t work for IRS." By then Murphy may have been too mentally taxed to remember that, after the verdict, there was no legal basis for the judge to issue such an order, even if he does work for IRS.
Notice that there are many taxes in the Internal Revenue Code. Our friends at IRS have no trouble citing the Code section - the law - that requires a "taxpayer" to pay each one. Except the income tax. With regard to the income tax alone, they are tongue-tied. Why? Wouldn’t they quash the controversy and kamikaze pilots like Miss Kuglin, simply by stating the Code section that applies?
Yes, they would; they don’t ‘cause there ain’t. There is no such section. That doesn’t mean the income tax is illegal or unconstitutional. It doesn’t mean there is no such tax. There is, and the people it applies to need to pay it, but it applies to very few people, like most of the taxes in the Internal Revenue Code.
What the law requires you to do every year - and our friends at IRS say so themselves - is determine whether you are one of those people. You alone know that, because you alone know what you did last year. Did you make and sell liquor last year? Then you must pay the liquor tax. If you made and sold no liquor, forget it. You don’t owe the tax.
To conceal that fact, litigious prevaricators (lawyers) with advanced degrees in obfuscation have deliberately written the income tax into the Code in as confusing a manner as possible, to make it incomprehensible to the normal mind; and our dear friends at IRS use the uncertainty that confusion engenders to intimidate and literally to threaten Americans into voluntarily paying a tax the law does not require them to pay.
What does the law say? There are two kinds of federal taxes, only two: direct and indirect. There is no third kind of federal tax. The law - the Constitution - says that all federal taxes must be one or the other. In Brushaber v. Union Pacific (240 US 1), in 1915, the US Supreme Court ruled that the income tax is legal (constitutional), but that it is an indirect tax.
Indeed, in Stanton v. Baltic Mining (240 US 103), just a year later, the same judges said the same thing and added that their previous ruling, in Brushaber, created "no new power of taxation." In other words, Brushaber limited the federal government’s power to tax rather than expand it; limited it by forcefully explaining where that power could not reach. Nothing had changed since the Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional in 1894, in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust (158 US 601).
The trouble with the tax today is that our friends at IRS are administering it illegally as a direct tax, which the Supreme Court forbade. That is the secret they don’t want you to know. Because I am trying to inform, not obfuscate, I am happy to add that this explanation is necessarily quite simplified, maybe even oversimplified, because of space - but it is true."
Amendment XVI
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.
Amendment XVI
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.
You obviously haven't read any law before, eh 16th Amendment guy?
Body of the Constitution says Congress shall not have the power to lay direct taxes unless they are apportioned to the population.
All of the Case law regarding the 16th Amendment ONLY support taxes on corporate activity, and define wages as fair trade of labor for money.
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
Girls always ask me why I fuck so much
I say What's wrong, baby doll, with a quick nut?
'Cause you're the one, and you shouldn't be mad
I won't tell your mama if you don't tell your dad
I know he'll be disgusted when he sees your pussy busted
Won't your mama be so mad if she knew I got that ass?
I'm a freak in heat, a dog without warning
My appetite is sex, 'cause me so horny
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home