Monday, June 18, 2007

Tax Evaders Say They Won't Surrender


Blogger Paul Kyler said...

Ed you are now an actual hero and not just a potential one. The way you spoke of legal versus lawful was spoken with such distinction and smarts. You and Elaine had more impcat for the American people today than one could have ever bet on a few months ago.
Thank you Mr. Weaver and I am so sorry as a fellow American that your loved ones were killed by our sick government.

Paul Kyler

1:13 AM  
Blogger Scott C. Haley said...

This could be ended peacefully if the Govt representatives would do ONE SIMPLE THING--

Just show Ed & Elaine (and all of us) specifically where in USC Title 26---NOT in CFR Title 26, which was written by the IRS, and is a regulation, not a statute---the average American INDIVIDUAL is liable for a tax on his/her income.

That's ALL the Govt has to do...why won't they? [Could it be because the cited law IS Constitutional precisely because nowhere does it levy such a tax?]

Come on, Govt...pony up. Just show me the LAW (not the regulation).

2:19 AM  
Blogger christin m p in massachusetts said...

It pleased me to hear the reporter repeat Ed Brown's response about getting back to nature and saving a lot on utility bills, as I believe there is no better way to "cut the monetary legs out from under" the Fraudulent Reserve Bank of New York, than to cut way back on buying products and services from any of their corporations. The less profit we feed them, and the more self-sufficient we all become, the less control they have over us.

7:48 AM  
Blogger Scott C. Haley said...

Christin is right---

Boycott the Corporatocracy whenever is their lifeblood---our money.

8:15 AM  
Blogger PayYourDamnTaxesAlready said...

First of all, please read this:

16th amendment to the US Constitution:

"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."


Let's say you're right and federal income taxes are not supported by law because it is only in CFR and nor USC - not sure if that's true, but let's say you're right.

What if that technicality were fixed, you would love paying your federal income tax, right?

No you wouldn't. The technicality argument simply provides you some quasi-legal cover while you gripe about having to pay taxes. Please.

The real waste of the whole situation is all of the time of law enforcement dealing with nutcases like this.

8:54 AM  
Blogger Scott C. Haley said...

To payyourdamn...

It's obvious that you're new to this whole area of research.

1. It's not a "technicality". A regulation, to be valid, MUST be based on a statute. To correct the situation, CONGRESS (not the IRS) must change USC Title 26. Ask yourself why they haven't.

2. A number of Supreme Court rulings (shortly after the 16th Amendment allegedly was ratified), none of which have been reversed, concluded that the word "incomes" in the Amendment meant---"GAIN FROM CORPORATE ACTIVITY", and that the Amendment "CONFERRED NO NEW TAXING POWERS" upon the Govt.

Doyle v. Mitchell Bros., 1918.

Now...please go and do your homework.


9:16 AM  
Blogger christin m p in massachusetts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10:09 AM  
Blogger christin m p in massachusetts said...

So pydta,

Since you SAY you consider the Brown family to be "nutcases" because they believe that the Federal Reserve Act with its accompanying tax on labor is nothing more than a pyramid scam, I'm wondering -- Are you also willing to say you consider brilliant film maker Aaron Russo and Texas congressman and popular presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul to be "nutcases" as well? And what about Congressman and Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Banking and Currency -- the late Wright Patman?

If you really believe what you say and aren't just being paid to do so, I'd like to know what you think about the fact that the Federal Reserve Act was passed on DECEMBER 23RD -- AT FOUR O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING when only THREE senators had remained in D.C. to vote on it. (I can't decide which makes me more suspicious about that vote -- the calendar date or the hour of the morning it took place.) The dissenting senators had all -- as anticipated by Rockefeller and crew -- already returned home to their families for the holidays (like any normal, decent people would do).

If you SAY you think it was only a coincidence that all three of those senators (who just happened to be the only ones in favor of the Federal Reserve Act) just happened to stay behind at Christmastime AND all just happened to get up at (or stay up till) that hour of the morning to vote on it -- then I'll KNOW you're being paid for this.

But if you are naive enough to actually BELIEVE what you say, I suggest you read the book The Creature from Jekyll Island -- A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin.

10:34 AM  
Blogger PayYourDamnTaxesAlready said...

1) Supreme court rulings:

Doyle v. Mitchell:
"This was an action to recover from the Collector additional taxes assessed against the respondent under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909 (chapter 6, 36 Stat. 11, 112, 38), and paid under protest."

Sorry guys, looks like this is enforcing the "Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909" as opposed to a sweeping redefinition of personal income tax. Have you noticed that only tax resistors seem to come up with this convoluted re-interpretation?

2) "then I'll KNOW you're being paid for this."

Wow. Paranoid much? You just outed your psychosis.

3) Don't know Russo and Patman and don't care. Yeah, Ron Paul is a little nutty. I would definitely classify him as a full-on nutcase if he stopping paying federal taxes and bunkered himself in his house refusing to come out.

4) "The dissenting senators had all already returned home to their families for the holidays"

So why didn't the dissenting senators repeal the law when they came back from break??? Common sense, people!

Also, you're completely wrong about the vote:
The House passed it Dec 22nd, 1913: 298 yeas, 60 nays, 76 no votes.
The Senate passed it Dec 23rd, 1913: 42 yeas, 25 nays, 27 no votes.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your beliefs.

5) "shortly after the 16th Amendment allegedly was ratified"

Oh lord. You're not going to get anyone to believe the 16th amendment wasn't ratified. Why was the following amendment the 17th?

Again, the bottom line is you people don't LIKE to pay your taxes and have invented these ridiculous legal interpretations which are not supported by Supreme Court precedence.

This quite literally is like arguing with a crazy person. I'm done after this one. Please folks, get some therapy or something. You're not healthy.

4:15 PM  
Blogger Scott C. Haley said...

To payyourdamn...AGAIN---

The purpose of the 16th Amendment was to correct a glitch in the CORPORATE TAX STATUTE OF 1909. That's why the Doyle case applies.

I used the word "allegedly" because some folks believe that the Amendment never was ratified. If you would bother to research it, you would see why. Nevertheless, to me personally it is a non-issue.

Several ex-IRS Agents have researched the issue of the supposed liability of the average American wage-earner. They all have concluded that there is no statutorily authorized tax on the average American's income. See for just one example. Joe Bannister's website contains his Report to his superiors regarding his two-year investigation (on his own time, while still with the IRS) into the matter.

But then, I guess we are to believe that your expertise is greater than that of former IRS Agents.

Good night, and good luck.

11:03 PM  
Blogger DaisyNavidson said...

Good riddance to payyourd... It's pretty obvious he has never actually had to work for a living, so of course he doesn't mind that the rest of us have to financially support other useless, lazy people like him.

4:41 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home