New Hampshire Tax Rebel Siege: Closer to Confrontation?
Brian Doherty | June 8, 2007, 2:00pm
Things sound like they are heating up, in a bad way, for New Hampshire tax rebels Ed and Elaine Brown. They were convicted back in January for not paying income tax--laws that they insist are fictional. They've been holed up in their Plainfield, NH, home ever since. Here's the latest from the Concord Monitor:
U.S. Marshals and local police brought armored cars, SWAT teams and an explosives disposal unit. Planes flew overhead, heavily armed police officers guarded roadblocks, and phone lines were cut. But despite the heavy police presence, marshals said they did not come to the Plainfield home of tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown yesterday to arrest them.
Instead, U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier said police were in the area to do surveillance on Ed Brown and his supporters while an IRS criminal investigation unit seized a building the couple own 10 miles away.
....................
Monier said the marshals and IRS agents were acting on a warrant issued earlier this week, which allowed the treasury department to seize the building that housed Elaine Brown's West Lebanon dental practice. Agents wearing "IRS CID" vests were visible in front of the office complex yesterday, but they would not speak to reporters. Cars and trucks parked in the driveway included license plates from Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey. An officer with a sniper rifle was stationed on a second-story balcony.
Marshals patroling the perimeter of Brown's homestead also detained a family friend who was walking the Browns' dog. Brown continues to insist he will not go quietly:
"I would say to the marshal, and all of those people responsible for any unlawful action, to be very apprehensive and very nervous about conducting any criminal activity against our land or ourselves," Brown said. "We are a very reciprocal people. You do us good, we do you good. You do us bad, we're gonna do you bad. It's that simple."
Previous blogging on this situation. The Browns' own web site. My 2004 reason feature article on people, like the Browns, who believe there is no legal obligation to pay income tax.
toxicroach | June 8, 2007, 3:45pm | #
Whats funny is the tax on these guys is imposed in the first paragraph of the IRS Code.
Sec. 1. Tax imposed
TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter A, PART I, Sec. 1.
STATUTE
(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)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table: If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $36,900 15% of taxable income.
Over $36,900 but not over $5,535, plus 28% of the excess over
$89,150 $36,900.
Over $89,150 but not over $20,165, plus 31% of the excess
$140,000 over $89,150.
Over $140,000 but not $35,928.50, plus 36% of the excess
over $250,000 over $140,000.
Over $250,000 $75,528.50, plus 39.6% of the
excess over $250,000.
There it is guys. It's the law.
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.
Yup. Its not only in the code, its constitutional.
The tax protestors are the legal equivalent of young earth creationists; sorry but its true.
libertreee | June 8, 2007, 6:52pm | #
Taxable income is whatever money/goods you get that is not excluded (like insurance payments), minus your deductions and all that crap. Basically its whats left over once you've gone through the whole tax code. It does not point to some obscure excise tax forms. I've studied the tax code more than most. While hardly an expert, its pretty much beyond doubt that the government 1)has clear constitutional authority to tax and 2) is excercising that power.
Very nice statement of the MSM belief that is so very convenient for the Feds.
It is nice to know that you studied the tax code "more than most".
I have a public access show. My host once said to his CPA at tax time. Hey, you don't work for me, you work for the feds against me.I'm going to fire you.
Guess what? His CPA suddenly turned around and agreed with him! He has studied the code more than most, and had come to the same conclusion.
He even came on the show and said he did not think the tax code said what most lawyers and CPA's seem to think it says. Or conveniently overlook to keep the fees coming in.
When you studied the code more than most, did you also have a chance to study through the freedom of information act the Individual Master Files that the IRS keeps on everyone? Did you in fact know that if they IRS audits a non-filer, they have to insert a computer code that links the non filer to one of the revenue taxable activities on the obscure tax form I mentioned (the form 720). Did you go over delegations of authority, to see what forms the
IRS is allowed to substitute for in the case of non-filers? Did you know that the form 1040 is not listed as a form that the IRS can substitute for, but that obscure form 720 is?
Did you think a trillion dollar fraud would be simply stated in a general statute? Don't you think it takes some research into the Constitution, Supreme Court cases, the statutes and regulations, as well as the administrative procedures of the IRS?
Most people don't care, they are scared, they simply sign under penalty of perjury and are quite happy to get a refund.
But a few people do care, and when they see how the system works, they take action. Some people care enough to go to jail. Some people care enough to hole themselves up in their home with SWAT teams bearing down on them. And some people have gone to trial and have been acquited by juries who see how twisted the IRS really is when it comes to their own administrative procedures.
libertreee | June 8, 2007, 7:30pm | #
1913 the proponents of the 16th amendment which did away with the income tax prohibition did the old promise it was only a tax on the super wealthy.
The Pollock decision that struck down the federal income tax has never been overturned. The Supremes cited it up to the last of the great income tax cases, as late as 1924.
Judge Steven J Fields was one of the greatest Supreme Ct Chief Judges of all time. His court both struck down the income tax and affirmed the 9th amendment right to work. (in different cases, of course).
If you have a right to work, you cannot be taxed on the right. The power to tax is the power to destroy.
What you CAN tax is a privileged occupation. A
priveleged occupation consists of a revenue taxable occupation that is licensed by the FEDS. You do not have a right to work in a priveleged occupation.
The feds also claim geographical jurisdiction over the income of non-resident aliens and the foreign earned income of American Citizens. (The US is the only nation in the world that claims jurisdiction of foreign earned income of its citizens.)
They also claim the right to tax the incomes of their own workers for the privilege of working for the state.
They also can tax the incomes (defined by the Supreme Court as the net tax after deductions) of the profits of corporations. Exactly how far this jurisdiction lies is a matter of dispute by the tax honesty folks.
All of these taxable streams of income are those that the 16th Amendment clarified as in the nature of excise taxes, not direct taxes.
The IRS points to the Supreme Ct case "Brushaber vs Union Pacific" as THE case that affirms the 16th amendment.
But, the IRS treasury order that issued after the case was decided and references the case only states it gives them jurisdiction over "non resident aliens." Perhaps the immigration issue we face today would clear up a little if the American people understood that non resident aliens could be taxed on their income, but citizens are largely exempt from income tax.
A direct tax is a tax on property. The taxing clauses of the constitution still hold that a direct tax has to be apportioned among the states. This is politically difficult and cumbersome. The feds would much rather the sheeple simply assess themselves a tax they simply do not owe because the IRS makes them piss in their pants at night. Betty is correct in that the means used to collect the tax is criminal. That is a large reason why many hate the tax.
Buthey, after all, that is what the "privilege" of being an American, and living in this wonderful country means, doesn't it? The privilege to give up your inalienable rights to keep your wages in order to get some bread and circuses, right? The privilege to send your kids to die in a foreign land for the sake of Halliburton and a promise if he survives of a college education, right?
libertreee | June 8, 2007, 7:41pm | #
t's interesting that this particular lunacy is unique to income taxation...marijuana laws do not.
Because of the erosion of our rights due to the continuing growth of the state. They had to pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol distrubution, right?
By the way, Al Capone was not convicted of income tax evasion based on a general tax on income. He did indeed have a FEDERAL LICENSE to import hard liquor from Canada for municipal purpose only.
Of course, he imported a lot more than he was supposed to under that license, so he was convicted of abusing a federally licensed occupation.
Also by the way, the feds insert codes into the IMF of non filers stating that they have violated international drug treaties and have illegaly dealt in narcotics.
But, you are correct. You have touched on the irony of the situation. No other system of law keeps inserting language that says it is based on "voluntary compliance". No other tax is based on "self asssessment." If you get a property tax bill, do you assess the tax on yourself?
However, the same jurisdictional sleight of hand that appears in the income tax code regarding federal geographical jurisdiction might well apply to other laws as well.
After all, the Constitution only authorizes four federal crimes.
And the feds are only supposed to "own" lands ceded to them by the states for dockyards, arsenals, etc.
The feds are out of control. And the courts, the people are out to lunch.
So that is why some people who see the fraud are willing to risk a lot to try to stand up against it.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
