digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Federal Marshals Laying Siege To Ed Brown's Property Fire On Houseguest

infowars.com — Danny Riley had sniper rounds whizzing past his head while walking the Browns' dog, and was needlessly tasered after dropping to his knees & surrendering...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • HighSeaRocks, on 10/11/2007, -12/+71Oh yeah that will help get the Browns to pay. :rollseyes in disgust:

    50+ Feds vs 2 homeowners. That's your new freedom in America!
    • jrayfitz, on 10/11/2007, -9/+29Sorry, I accidently voted you down. I meant to vote you up. I agree with you and am really sorry for my mistake.
    • neiltc13, on 10/11/2007, -34/+4This is NOT "World News" - the name of that topic implies news which has a bearing on people living around the world. Clearly, this news is of a domestic, US nature and doesn't really have any impact on ANYONE except those involved. I've maked it as wrong topic.

      Digg really needs to add some sort of way to show what countries news is relevant to as this is not of importance to most of the world's population.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/11/2007, -11/+22Look I don't really know what to make of all this.

      But, if we're going to look at ALL the facts, we should include this:

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

      I posted it here and it was promptly buried:

      Every American Should Watch This Film - Ron Paul Interviewed Extensively!
      http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Every_American_Should_Watch_This_Film_Ron_Paul_Interviewed_Extensively
      “Absolutely amazing film.”

      I don't know what to make of this Brown guy either, BUT:

      I DO think that Waco like incidents where the Feds move in to kill people should be monitored by the public.

      Oh, and I also posted this for more info:

      Aaron Russo, Produced Films "Trading Places" & "The Rose," Is A Patriot!
      http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Aaron_Russo_Produced_Films_Trading_Places_The_Rose_Is_A_Patriot
      “Russo managed Bette Midler from 1972 to 1979 and The Manhattan Transfer. He produced the films The Rose and Trading Places. He was the first person to book Led Zeppelin in a United States venue. His latest film is America: Freedom to Fascism, is critical of The Federal Reserve System and the IRS and features Ron Paul. Posts get buried fast on Digg”
    • PATSCRU, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5little by little, thanks for the extra ron paul spam.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/11/2007, -9/+8@PATSCRU

      You know, I got highly irritated with Ron Paul spam a long time ago as well.

      Then I saw this film.

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

      It changed my mind.

      I don't intend to be obnoxious like some RP Diggers.

      Today is Ron Paul day for me because of this film.

      The film relates to the Brown case too.
    • Anrkist, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7297 diggs in 9 hours? is this on the front page? nope.. must be spam.
    • deadowl, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Weird that this isn't on the front page. It really should be. I can't believe such a thing is going down less than two hours away from my house.
  • antineocon, on 10/11/2007, -6/+39You know I was wondering where that law was too. I don't think it is constitutional to tax our labor.
    • blackolive, on 10/11/2007, -27/+11U.S. Constitution - Amendment XVI - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913

      "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."

      (Herkimer56 posted this on a previous forum.)


      "The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591. The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the 'Internal Revenue Code of 1986' as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514. "
      http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#law

      (posted by Jacobsor on a previous forum)
    • whorsiejmd, on 10/11/2007, -3/+33Our wages for our labor are not income. Wages are a transfer, income is corporate gain.
    • Heloderma, on 10/11/2007, -9/+31To: Black Olive and others.

      It is Unconstitutional to have a direct, un-apportioned tax on our labor. Income is defined as gains from Corporate activity and NOT receiving money in exchange for your labor. The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE Bank. We Borrow money from them and pay them interest for it, eventhough Congress has the power to issue money on its own. (Hmmm... (Why is that?? Could it be because our politicians have sold us out in 1913? Noo!)

      Please watch these great documentaries that sum it up quite well. You owe it to yourselves to get informed as to why there is going to be a Revolution coming.
      Watch these for FREE on Google Video:
      -- America: Freedom to Fascism -- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+fascism
      -- The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America
      http://video.google.com/url?docid=-515319560256183936&esrc=sr2&ev=v&q=money+masters&vidurl=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-515319560256183936%26q%3Dmoney%2Bmasters&usg=AL29H23ierLCe0mT5wqFxKKdnwQHyFb2Pg

    • BravoLima, on 10/11/2007, -9/+15____________________________________________________________________________________

      @blackolive
      This infamous "Amendment" was never lawfully ratified by the requisite number of States; it would be
      overturned in any case in a Lawful Constitutional Common Law Court, and supported by a Lawful
      Supreme Court that wasn't operating under unlawful & unconstitutional Martial Law Powers in an
      International Bankster-owned Federal Reserve Bank that is operating a for-profit Puerto Rican-registry
      Corporation masquerading as the United States Government(Shadow Government).

      Ron Paul in '08! Before it's too late!

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      :^|

      ...
    • blackolive, on 10/11/2007, -21/+13First off - we liberals have been ranting about the federal reserve for far longer than Ron Paul was popular. It's *our issue* so don't try to inform us about it. You guys stole it from us.


      Second - it's a MYTH that the 16th amendment wasn't ratified correctly:

      "Congress decided that the Secretary of State should certify what amendments have been ratified. Congress proposed the 16th Amendment on July 12, 1909, and, on February 3, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox certified that it had been ratified."
      -- http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ratification

      This link has some of the supreme court's rulings on the issue.


      MYTH #2 - "Wages are not income."

      Consider these statements by the United States Supreme Court:

      C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945).

      “Wages usually are income ....”

      “[T]he earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital ... are commonly dealt with as income in legislation.”

      Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913).

    • blackolive, on 10/11/2007, -17/+12MYTH #3 - It is Unconstitutional to have a direct, un-apportioned tax on our labor.

      QUOTE: (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#individual )
      [The tax protestor's] definition of “direct” and “indirect” is frequently used by economists, but it is not the meaning of “direct” and “indirect” that has been applied by the U.S. Supreme Court.

      In Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), the Supreme Court was unanimous in its opinion that Congress could impose a tax on a citizen of Virginia for carriages held for personal use and that the tax was an excise or duty and not “direct.” Of the four justices who heard the case, two (William Paterson and James Wilson) were members of the Constitutional Convention that drafted the Constitution, and presumably knew what it meant.
    • blackolive, on 10/11/2007, -18/+14Nice job conservatives! Vote me down instead of replying & debating.
    • Nis81, on 10/11/2007, -14/+16So if income isn't defined as money in exchange for my labor does this mean I can redefine other words as well?
      - We don't ingest food. Ingestion is when food magically appears in your belly.
      - We don't inject vaccines. Injection is when vaccines magically appear in your bloodstream.
      - We don't inter bodies in the ground. Internment is when bodies are magically put into the ground.

      Give me a break with the whole, "income isn't that!" argument. The Supreme Court has said it is so and that's that. Even if you don't agree with it you weren't the body given sole authorization by the US Constitution to determine constitutionality.

      Blackolive has got it right.
    • whorsiejmd, on 10/11/2007, -8/+12@Blackolive

      Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 1916:
      The provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation.

      (There are many other cases, if you want me to cite them all, with the same conclusion).

      Eisner v. Macomber, 1920:
      "[Income] turns on gains or profits that are made from some activity"
      Constitutional Law professor Dr. Edwin Vieira

      Coppage v. Kansas, 1914
      "Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property."

      Doyle v. Mitchell, 1918:
      [Profit deals with] the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activity.

      How in the world can someone construe wages as profit? They are an EXCHANGE for your time. Besides, the legal Federal income tax provides for federal activity such as wars, whereas a lot of the Federal income tax from our wages goes unaccounted for.

      The bottom line is this: Why isn't there civil discourse between the Federal government and those who challenge the Federal income tax? Why don't they explain the law to Ed Brown and many others instead of violently approaching them like mobsters? Why do so many IRS agents want to see the law and are now suspicious? Why do judges refuse to show the law when dealing with juries in Federal Income tax cases where the defendant has not paid the taxes? Why is there so much smoke and mirrors?

      BTW, I did not digg down your later comments. I have responded as you requested.
    • blackolive, on 10/11/2007, -15/+8
      United States v. Zuger, 602 F. Supp. 889, 891-92 (D. Conn. 1984) held that "the failure of Congress to enact a title as such and in such form into positive law . . . in no way impugns the validity, effect, enforceability or constitutionality of the laws as contained and set forth in the title"

      (thanks to David76)

      There's more info on Zuger v US here: http://www.quatloos.com/Schiff-US.htm

      QUOTE:
      In Zuger v. United States, 834 F.2d 1009, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1987), we imposed a sanction on the appellant for filing a frivolous appeal in a tax case, and we issued the following warning: "[W]e shall likewise impose sanctions in any future 'tax protester' case in which the appeal is frivolous and an unwarranted burden on the court and the Government."

      (quatloos.com is a Financial & Tax Fraud Non-Profit Corporation.)

    • blackolive, on 10/11/2007, -14/+9And yet again you repeat the "wages aren't income" myth: You quoted "Law professor Dr. Edwin Vieira" - I quoted the supreme court.

      http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#wagesincome

      Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930).

      “[The tax code] is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected.”


      Lukhard v. Reed, 481 U.S. 368, 375 (1987)

      “The definition of gross income under the Internal Revenue Code sweeps broadly. Section 61(a), 26 U.S.C. 61(a), provides that ‘gross income means all income from whatever source derived,’ subject only to the exclusions specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Code. As this Court has recognized, Congress intended, through 61(a) and its statutory precursors, to exert ‘the full measure of its taxing power,’ and to bring within the definition of income any ‘accessio[n] to wealth.’
    • blackolive, on 10/11/2007, -14/+9The point of the Zuger thing was this: Saying a law gives "no new power" doesn't mean there aren't other laws that give that power. It's a simple dishonest argument to imply that.
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -11/+16For all of you that say that the 16th amendment was never ratified: give it up. Your argument consists solely on differences of punctuation, capitalization, and spelling in the various ratification documents. Argue against income tax all you want, but this particular point is borderline ridiculous.
    • whorsiejmd, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4@Blackolive

      You quote some supreme court cases that are muddled in their terminology and I quote cases that are explicit and clear as the light of day. Also, Edwin Vieira's quote is his reading of the Supreme Court, so your belittling of him is fruitless. Do you think you are smarter than an Ivy league law professor? I don't think that I am. Even if I did have an issue with his reasoning (because I know referring to his status can be the fallacy of an appeal to an authority), I would like to see him debate another professional. However, no one will do such a thing, which only further raises suspicions.

      In Zuger v. United States, the issue is with frivolous tax protesters. What I am arguing for are those who protest the Federal income tax specifically, which is not frivolous being that there are Supreme Court cases to back them up, as well as the constitution.

      As for Lukhard v. Reed, 481 U.S. 368, 375 (1987), "gross income means all income from whatever source derived," is explicitly talking about income, and not equal exchanges. This does not get to the root of the matter, which is whether wages are in fact income or a transfer.

      Unfortunately for Lucas v. Earl, the Tax Code is not explicit in paying the Federal income tax on wages, so it obviously is not broad enough to cover wages. Also, again, "any economic or financial benefit" overlooks the root of the matter, which is whether or not wages are a benefit/income or a transfer. This overlooks the argument of whether or not wages are a profit (or benefit, which is more similar in terminology to income rather than transfer). However, the Supreme Court cases I previously cites are explicit on the matter of what income is and what wages are.

      You also cannot explain the suspicious circumstances surrounding the context of the tax protesters, which will always keep people distrustful of those who defend the Federal Income tax. You also cannot explain the millions that go missing that are gained from the unconstitutional Federal income tax on wages..
    • blackolive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4You're saying "Wages are not income." Consider these statements by the United States Supreme Court:

      “Wages usually are income ....”

      Central Illinois Public Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21, 25 (1978).
      -- http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#wagesincome


      “[The tax code] is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected.”

      C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945).
      -- http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#wagesincome


      “The definition of gross income under the Internal Revenue Code sweeps broadly. Section 61(a), 26 U.S.C. 61(a), provides that ‘gross income means all income from whatever source derived,’ subject only to the exclusions specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Code. "

      United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 233 (1992)
      -- http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#wagesincome
    • whorsiejmd, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@Blackolive

      All you did was repeat yourself. You didn't respond to my criticisms of those cases and how you are applying them. You're also a hypocrite because you dugg me down after bitching about how others do it to you without responding.
  • BravoLima, on 10/11/2007, -10/+25____________________________________________________________________________________

    New Hampshire Federalized State Police want to be the first casualties in the War of Constitutional
    Restoration, as we displace the Corporate Shadow Government that has been masquerading as the
    lawful Constitutional government of these united States of America since 1913! First they arrested an
    accredited reporter for asking GHOULIANI a question, now Federalized State Police from 3 states are
    preparing to assault Ed Brown for NOT paying Income Taxes required by a Law that NEVER EXISTED!
    ____________________________________________________________________________________
    Dr. Ron Paul in '08! Before it's too late!
    LIBERTY or DEATH! (Preferably theirs!)
    :^|

    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -31/+6Reported to abuse@digg.com for suggesting that police officers should be murdered. I'll accept a lot of BS from nutcases like you, but not this.
    • Herostratus, on 10/11/2007, -5/+15Its not murder when its war. Its scoring kills.
    • subman697, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5did I just read about 4 posts that basically said "taxes bad, murder good"?

      That's some quality thinkin there boys...
    • M4tt3r, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Or you can see it as "give us money, or we'll kill you."

      But to each their own.
    • subman697, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3"Or you can see it as "give us money, or we'll kill you."

      Who did they kill? Ah yes, nobody. Hyperbole is a wonderful thing.
    • M4tt3r, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Who did they murder? Ah yes, nobody.

      I can do that same *****.
  • romankandle, on 10/11/2007, -7/+14Brown vs. the Board of Murder Inc.
    • BravoLima, on 10/11/2007, -6/+14@Junkyarddawg
      Fighting to protect your Life, Liberty, Family, & Property is both Lawful & Expected of all of us in a
      Free Constitutional Republic of united Sovereign States and their Citizens. Murder is entirely different
      from Lawful Constitutional Resistance to Tyranny in a Free State by State Citizens. Stating my
      opinion of the probable outcome of these events now in motion is NOT advocating Murder of Officials!
      Take a deep breath & get over your pre-programmed hysteria, grow a spine, & get in line to resist
      your oppressors! LIBERTY or DEATH!
      :^| thanks4theReplyOpportunity_romankandle
      ...
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -16/+5@BravoLima: So you're saying that you were just *****? That you didn't actually mean that you wanted "Edward, a Living Soul in the Body of the Lord, of the House of Israel" a.k.a. Ed Brown, to murder New Hampshire cops as they come to arrest him for having broken US law? That you approve of revolution and cop-killing only in general terms, as long as it doesn't mean you risk getting your Digg account suspended?

      Well, that at least answers the question if you guys are for real or if you're just armchair revolutionaries in your parents basements.
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -13/+8Oh, and there is no such thing as a lawful armed revolution you nitwit.
      If you as a private individual start killing people "I was only instigating a revolution" won't go far as a defence. You'll be tried for murder.
    • dshPls, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Alex Jone's bastard child, is that you? Sucks having Rosie for a mom!
    • subman697, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2"Brown vs. the Board of Murder Inc."

      Did I miss the report of his death, or are you actually hoping for it, so you can whine some more?

      Some quotes from your wonderful libertarian role model:

      "I could care less what he does," Brown said of McAuliffe. "I can't talk to a fiction. You're a fiction, too."

      "The world belongs to the creator. It doesn't belong to man. It doesn't belong to the United States government. It doesn't belong to me. It doesn't belong to you," said Brown, 64.

      On Monday, Ed Brown said his 66-year-old wife, who earned most of the couple's income, wouldn't be at her sentencing.

      "I speak for her. You speak to the head. You don't speak to the woman. That's the way it was until the last decade or so," he said

      The Browns reportedly signed their filings with the court using new names: "Edward, a Living Soul in the Body of the Lord, of the House of Israel," and "Elaine, a Living Soul in the Body of the Lord, of the House of Israel." The Monitor also reported: "The Browns changed their names in late March after converting to a non denominational form of Christianity they learned from a man named Sonny.

      On May 18, Ed and Elaine Brown are reported as stating they do not intend to appeal their convictions on federal tax evasion charges. They said they have abandoned "man's law" and now follow only the rules and laws put forth in the Bible.


      Yep, quite the open minded, stable libertarian there. Women don't speak, there are no laws of man, and you are a fiction.
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@tyrannyretard: That's right. Had they lost, they'd have been hung, and you can bet your ass they knew that. You on the other hand seem to have deluded yourself into believing you have some sort of legal right to start killing people just because you call it a revolution? Do you even know what a revolution *is*, retard?

      If you had the balls to try to start a revolution today, you'd be captured and tried as a criminal. I'd just love to see you claim in the court - like Timothy "Retard" McVeigh did - that you should be acquitted because you were a revolutionary defending against the government. But luckily for the innocents who might get in your way, you have even less balls than you have brains.

      Oh, and congratulations on the logical somersault you pulled there. Yeah, because I'm opposed to the murder of US police officers you retards advocate, I'm obviously a neocon and in favor of the Iraq war. Reeeeeeetard!
  • jrayfitz, on 10/11/2007, -6/+19I am deeply touched by the depth of conviction of these patriots. I have recognized in the Browns the same Spirit that dwells in many of us. This battle in not just between patriots and the government, it is between Our God and the Enemy who is the devil. I know most of you are aware that our government is that THING that is spoken about in the Revelation. Seven headed dragon will not win. Brother and Sisters let us stand in the strength of the Lord. If the shots start flying, so be it.
    If by chance hot war does not come, we have to stay vigilent and get Dr. Paul into office Period. One way or the other things are not going to remain the same.
    • HighSeaRocks, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4NP, I've done that to others in the past. Clicking to quickly...lol!
    • g30ff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3jrayfitz,
      That has got to be, without a doubt, the single most ***** insane thing that I have ever heard anyone say. I don't say that lightly either--I've got a degree in psychology and I've opened my door to, and for a few weeks lived with, a person with schizoaffective disorder in the midst of a total break with reality. I've heard some pretty kooky things in my day but your post pretty much takes the cake. I think the most alarming aspect is that it was coherent, to the point, and more or less devoid of the errors that are typical of people in the throes of delusion. I don't know what else to say... good job?
    • subman697, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2And, as I type, he has 14 Diggs.

      That should tell you all you need to know about the IQ points in this thread.
    • munciefour, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0There is something that people are not aware of concerning the NWO. The NWO and its "leader" cannot come to FULL power until the Christians are evacuated from this world. God is "holding" them back by allowing the believers to remain here. In other words, NO RAPTURE, NO NWO! God will personally deal with the Illuminati and others when they come to power. The good news is that people DO NOT have to be part of that world dictatorship.
  • totalbs, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16Wake up everyone! They tell us we still have a Republic, they tell us we're not slaves, they go through the motions just so we won't revolt. Doesn't reality matter? It's time to snap out of our societal coma. We have to have the desire to break out of our hypnotic trance if we will be free.
    • BravoLima, on 10/11/2007, -7/+8____________________________________________________________________________________

      @junkyarddawg
      If you allowed a REPLY link, it would be easier to respond to your nonsense; thanks @totalbs.
      1) I support Ed Brown; I think he is doing what We the People should have done about 94 years ago.
      Where do you come up with this quote that I never said about "Ed, A Living Soul..." stuff?!?Ed doesn't
      want to hurt ANYONE; he wants to be left alone by a Criminal Corporate Enterprise that has been
      pretending to be the Lawful Government of the Republic for 94 years.
      SEARCH: 1913 Federal Reserve Act, Bank of England, Black Nobility, Committee of 300, Roundtable,
      Lucis Trust, Bank of International Settlements, Bilderberg, House of Windsor, House of Orange,
      Espionage Act of 1917, War Powers Act of 1933, National Security Act of 1947, 2006 Military Commissions Act Section 802, US Code Title 50 Chapter 32 Subsection1520a Paragraph B (Cornell),
      REAL ID Act, REX '84, PDD 25, PDD 51, Controlled Eugenics, Continuity of Government, American
      Common Law, 1215 Magna Carta, Levitical Law, Allodial Titles, Fee Simple, Shetar mortgage, Land
      Patents, Moloch, Horus, Bohemian Club, Order of the Deathshead, Prescott Bush War Crimes,
      Bush Crime Family, Zapata Oil, Operation Vampire Killer, Gen. Smedley Butler & the American Coup,
      Goddess Columbia, St. John Hunt & JFK Assassins, Babylonian Brotherhood, Vril & Thule Societies
      ... do some homework!
      2) It is the Duty & Responsibility of ALL Citizens of our Republic of these united Sovereign States
      to "Support & Defend the Constitution against all enemies, Foreign & Domestic"; what do you
      think the Founders meant by "Domestic enemies", you neophyte Globalist shill...twit? Does your
      Mom know what you're doing down in the basement?
      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      Ron Paul in '08! Before it's too late!
      LIBERTY or DEATH! (Yes, we mean it!)
      :^|
      ...
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2If I allowed a reply link?!

      NO, I will NOT allow a reply link!
  • shootdashit, on 10/11/2007, -2/+28i've always been against guns but government has changed my mind.
  • jwspr, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9I have an interesting quote here: Scott Rendelman, who is an enrolled agent licensed to practice before the IRS at the time of this quotes original print, had this to say: "You are not subject to the income tax because the code does not specify that you are liable. With respect to your own income you cannot be liable because the result would be an unapportioned direct tax. Not being subject to the tax you are not a 'taxpayer'; you do not have a 'taxable year'; no item of gross income is includable."
    (The codes do not state "whom" is liable. Making the Federal Income tax a direct tax. Other tax codes have sections stating what or whom has liability for that tax. Such as tobacco and alcohol products.) This quote was used from the site page: http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/fedtax-l/msg02571.html
    • NSResponder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The problem with legal arguments like this is that whether or not they are correct, the IRS certainly has a *power* to take your money, or your life if you resist, as long as the local cops and the FBI and other government employees with guns believe they do.

      -jcr
  • assmonger, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Live Radio Talk Show (Its the one of the only shows covering the story): http://www.nfowars.net:443/stream1.ram
    • BravoLima, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1
      @junkyardpuppydog
      A very nice 5000+ square foot family home on a picturesque property is NOT a "Compound" you
      ignorant wretch! That's just NEWSPEAK to make sheeple accept their murders as just & good!
      If Danny hadn't walked the dog Thursday morning, the Browns would've been murdered, Waco
      style, and burned up inside their house to support the usual cover story. Random chance or
      divine intervention? I don't know, but it's Synchronicity at the very least.
  • tekmonkey, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Two sniper shots missed? Shouldn't the Marshals be better shots than that?

    In all seriousness, that's a serious problem if the Marshal fired upon him before proclaiming they were there and were law enforcement.
    • BravoLima, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5
      @tekmonkey
      These people in Special Operations Units are carefully selected because they WILL shoot unarmed
      Americans who are no imminent threat in the back if ordered to do so by "Higher Authority"! They've
      done much worse without any provocation on many occasions. Never assume the Police are here
      to protect YOU; they aren't, they protect the Banksters who hold the note on the U.S., Inc. DEBT
      that THEY created, through misuse of the Commerce Clause & 1913 Federal Reserve Act & 1933
      War Powers Act (which is actually declaration of perpetual Martial Law/Military Occupation).
      LIBERTY or DEATH!
    • Marc39, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Let me preface my comment by saying a have sympathy for the Browns and do NOT approve of the Feds tactics but I do question the "thruthiness" of the video blogger.

      Snipers wouldn't shoot warning shoots at his head. They would hit his torso if he was running and really wanted to hit him. And warning shots fired at him when he said there were officers down range with him? (remember he says 3 officers on each side of road when he finally stopped).

      Also, he states that 2 shots when by his head AND he saw "a couple leaves got hit". I'll assume he means leaves on the ground. That doesn't make sense either since the shots were going by his head and would not be hitting the ground for quite some distance. And if they were leaves on a tree, he wouldn't notice them being hit. The bullet would cut right through the hanging leaves and not even move.

      He is obviously a trusted friend of the Browns to be walking their dog and is trying to make the Feds look bad. Why lie when they look bad enough already and embellishing a story just hurts the Browns cause.
    • subman697, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"These people in Special Operations Units are carefully selected because they WILL shoot unarmed
      Americans who are no imminent threat in the back if ordered to do so by "Higher Authority"! "

      And yet this highly trained sniper MISSED an easy, close target TWICE. Not only that, the bullets both "whizzed past" his head AND knocked up leaves on the ground in front of him! They must be magic bullets!

      Dude, CATCH A CLUE.

      Oh, and those whining about the guy being tasered: The owner of the house has said repeatedly he is armed, and ready to kill anyone. The police were right to be extremely cautious to protect their own lives.
  • vizitor, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10I am sickened by the actions of the U.S. government against American citizens. The Browns have broken no law and even if they had, the federal assault on them and their guests is horrific and totally un-American. Those criminals involved are the ones who who should be punished.

    Danny Riley ought to be able to sue for millions against those would-be murderers.

    God save our nation and God bless the Browns, their supporters and Ron Paul.



    • NSResponder, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Will you PLEASE leave Ron Paul out of this? When tax protestors and 9/11 truthers cheer for him, it does not help the cause.

      -jcr

  • AARomanov, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Some one please start the wikinews and/or wikipedia article. This needs to be in public attention.
  • tsoldrin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7First they came for the Browns.... then they'll come for the Joneses... then they'll come for you!
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -14/+4First I believe they came for the sadistic paedophile David Koresh. Then for the nazi-christian illegal armsdealers at Ruby Ridge. And they haven't really come for the tax-evading "a Living Soul in the Body of the Lord, of the House of Israel" yet.

      No, wait - they actually came for the Joneses first, and too late - the murderous drug addict Jim and his followers had already committed suicide to avoid being prosecuted for murder.
    • MachoGrande, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Actually Junk, Jones was only guilty of murder after he sent the truck to the airport. I wasn't like they came down because he was a murderer already. What you wrote just seemed kind of misleading.

      About everything else, you're nailing it on the head.

      ARM

      CHAIR
    • munciefour, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I agree. The Browns are a test case .
  • NaciremaDream, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9The reason most income tax arguments fail (16th wasn't ratified, Income is not wages, its not directly apportioned) is because people fail to realize how their "Money" (i.e. Federal Reserve Notes) is not actual Constitutional 'Lawful Money' .... and therefore not protected by the protections of apportionment stated in the Federal Constitution.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000411----000-.html

    Read TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XII > § 411
    titled "Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption"
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ......The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    note: REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY ON DEMAND !!!!!!!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the United States Code, Federal Reserve Notes are not LAWFUL MONEY. If they were then you would not have to REDEEM them for LAWFUL MONEY if you wished to do so.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lawful money consists of Legal Tender consistent with the United States Federal Constitution. United States Notes are issued by the Federal Government Treasury (started w/ Abraham Lincoln's greenbacks). US Notes therefore are protected by the Federal Constitution and can only be directly taxed through Apportionment. Gold and Silver Notes or Certificates are also obviously "Lawful Money', those who read the Constitution are very familiar with this.

    HOWEVER ..... Since this is America, they can not force upon you a total FIAT MONEY SYSTEM because that would be entirely Un-Constitutional.

    The next obvious question is "But I thought there was only one form of Currency available in this Country??" ..... This is the trick in the trade.... The answer to this question can be found at guess which place ??

    The Treasury.gov website. FAQ Section on Legal Tender!
    http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.html

    The Second FAQ - "What are United States Notes and how are they different from Fed.Reserve Notes?" --- United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971. ---

    What just happend ?? That FAQ says Federal Reserve Notes serve the purposes of USNotes, so USnotes were not printed anymore..... that means, though, that Constitutional money still exists, just in the form of Fed.Reserve Notes...

    What they heck does that all mean??? Sounds like some attorney, banker mumbo jumbo eh?

    What it means is...They have to get you to Voluntarily endorse the Private Fiat Tender System (Federal Reserve Notes) and they do this very easily. On the back of your paychecks is the "Endorsement" of the Private Credit of the Federal Reserve.

    We were not taught that we could also voluntarily redeem our paychecks for lawful money, therefore retaining our protections of the USConstitution.

    By placing certain varbiage on the paycheck you can redeem you paychecks properly for lawful money and not be usurped of your political affiliation by accepting a private foreign currency. Title 12 of the USCode specifically states this, it can not be argued.

    However, i did forget alot of information which I did not have available at this time, and I am not a lawyer, or attorney and this is not to be contrued as legal advice in any way.

    All Rights Reserved.
  • fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3If you feel very strongly about income tax, then support a libertarian candidate that will reduce or eliminate income tax. However, holing up in your home and waiting for the Feds to come isn't going to get you anywhere, if anything, it will just extend your sentence for tax evasion. It doesn't matter if you believe that the law is just or not, it is the _law_, and you can and will be prosecuted for violating the law. If you don't like the law, get it repealed, but until then, you have to deal with it.

    Also, for those saying things such as "Disgusting cowardly useless cops US marshalls. I wish they all died." (calgary911truth), I respond with a movie quote:

    "Dr. Richard Kimble: I didn't kill my wife.
    Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard: I don't care. " - The Fugitive

    It is the job of law enforcement officers to enforce the law and follow orders, if you want to blame someone, blame their leaders and the politicians that make the laws. Don't kill the messenger.
    • 1013, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4You mean I should abide by the law like the illegal aliens in this country who don't have to abide by the law. I say amnesty for Ed Brown.

      Also, I've read the law and I'm convinced it does not apply to me. When I asked the IRS to respond to my concerns, they refused. Why can't they just answer our questions?
    • littlebylittle, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3(Video) Disturbed - Land of Confusion
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFR9eYrOfas
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@1013
      When did I ever say that illegal immigrants don't have to abide by the law?

      Also, I would suspect the reason that the IRS didn't reply to you is that they just do not have the manpower to answer all such requests that they receive. However, they should definitely include a reference to the relevant laws on the tax materials.
  • ZWarren69, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7This is ***** wild!
  • polyGone, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q
  • tynos, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4The Browns are entirely justified. They are correct. There is no, repeat no, law anywhere requiring US citizens to file a federal income tax return. The IRS operates illegally in the US.

    Every American should read

    31 questions and answers about the IRS

    http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

    Alex Jones' interview with former IRS agent Joe Banister

    http://www.infowars.com/video/interviews/banister_wmbb.htm

    The IRS admits there is no law requiring you to file a federal income tax return

    http://www.thepowerhour.com/news3/IRS%20response%20Letter.pdf

    Watch America: Freedom to Fascism and see for yourself the former IRS chief admitting there is no law requiring you to file a federal income tax return.

    http://video.google.com/url?docid=-1656880303867390173&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=America:+Freedom+to+Fascism&vidurl=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-1656880303867390173%26q%3DAmerica%253A%2BFreedom%2Bto%2BFascism&usg=AL29H21BX3JtkmQqY_rQR1uoB6iKiPzJMQ

  • Keach, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I will be surprised as hell if this is allowed to go front page. There's a lot of "discontent" here.
  • Phantom404, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3The whole labor/wages vs. income is a rather cumbering and sometimes misleading view to the justification for the income tax. If you choose that route in arguing against the tax then I recommend you go to Google Video and watch "Theft by Deception - Deciphering the Federal Income Tax", here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023 . To be frank though I can't even paraphrase the content much because I haven't seen it in quite a while, but it's a good watch, as the creator of the video uses nothing but the Constitution, a legal dictionary and the Internal Revenue Code itself to break down how "a perfectly Constitutional tax (a tax on income derived from certain types of international and foreign commerce) [is] misread to give the impression that the income of all Americans is subject to the tax." (From the video's comment)

    However, there's a much larger bit of evidence that shows the illegitimacy and outright unconstitutionality of the income tax. For this I recommend you read Bill Conklin's essay "Why No One is Required to File Tax Returns...". It's a good read, and something I can summarize. Basically, as Americans we have the Fifth Amendment, and one line being the focal point of the issue is: "[No person ... ] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." What that means is that you have a right not to engage in any activity against your will that can incriminate you. One key point the author goes into is the definition of "compel", meaning to force, coerce, etc. So how the income tax works is as follows: every year by April 15th, you are *compelled* to file a 1040, and failure to do so or inputting any false or incorrect information will put you in jail under penalty of perjury. And at the same time, anyone in the Internal Revenue Service and the Code itself will tell you the process of filing is explicitly voluntary (in their own words, they phrase it as "voluntary compliance"). Thus, one can only conclude the following: (1) By filing a compelled testimony in the form of a 1040 that you earn X dollars in fiscal year Y and signing it, you are directly waiving your Fifth Amendment rights to not be a witness against yourself in a tax fraud case, or (2) that a 1040 is by no means compelled and completely voluntary and therefore the IRS has no business prosecuting anyone for refusing to or incorrectly filing or not signing said form. Game, set and match.

    To actually comment about the topic, you gotta love the police brutality. "After another round was fired, six men on each side of the driveway popped up in full camouflage and ordered Riley down to the ground. Riley submitted and held his arms out to be cuffed but was still hit by a Taser shock to his shoulder and 50,000 volts shot through his body." Good job there, officers! Because you can never be sure about someone who's already submitted! This is why I find it hard to respect cops, since most of them are good guys and only worry about following orders and such.
    • Phantom404, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Haha, I left something out.

      For the first conlusion, after I mention that you're waiving your Fifth Amendment rights of protection against self-incrimination, the actual *conclusion* is that you are then authorized under the Bill of Rights the freedom not to file a 1040.

      The second conclusion remains as-is; that since the form is in fact "voluntary" to file, the IRS has no business harrassing you and prosecuting you for one or for the correct info.

      This is probably the best argument to use against filing for the Federal Income Tax because there are only two conclusions, and both refute the need to file. Check it out for yourself.
  • happylinuxguy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2This innocent guy heard bullets whizzing past his head!!!?? We need an investigation into this.
  • IQis87, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2http://www.wmur.com/news/13470893/detail.html

    says nothing about sniper shots.

    These guys are just a bunch of nut jobs.
    • Phantom404, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"Danny Riley [...] said he was shot at, police used a Taser on him, and he was questioned for hours."
      (from your link)

      Well even there it says he was shot at, and the sniper term could just mean he didn't know where the fire was coming from or who was doing the shooting. Either way, it's obviously a little more important acknowledging that he was actually shot at rather than scrutinizing the wording he uses, eh?
  • tearor, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1We have been bastardizing the Constitution since it was written, and even our fearless leader has proclaimed it to be "just a piece of paper".
    The problem is, it has been going on for so long, there is no way out, short of a military coup. Any attempt to crash our government will lead to so much death and destruction, followed by famine despair,,, blah,blah,blah
    Here,, Why You Can't Overthrow the Government
    http://tinyurl.com/2cw2q8
  • starguy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Someone explain the basis of property tax to me, because I just don't get it. So if I own something, where in the world is any basis that I have to pay tax on just plain ownership of something? Like, if I own a TV, have to pay a yearly tax on it? Or a comptuer? Or a pair of shoes? Or my my end table? Or my dishes? Or my clothes? Or my house? Or my land? Its rather absurd. And a double standard applied. Churches don't have to pay property tax. Yet the Vatican is one of the richest organizations in the world and the catholic church has properties in just about every city of the world. There should be no property tax for anybody.
    • Phantom404, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@ starguy:

      Actually, that argument about the church and taxes proves that there is no actual separation of church and state. Why? Because if there truly was such a thing then a church would not be getting tax exemptions to begin with, let alone applying to a "federal" agency for such. Even thought the Federal Reserve and IRS aren't federal [cough, privately owned], they are still goverment agencies [owned by the state, I mean, every bully needs to have pugs and pitbulls to attack you].

      There's no basis for a property tax because -- the way I see it anways -- you already pay a sales tax for it when you purchased it. Even when you mean property as in land, I still don't see how you can tax a person on something they own and is theirs. I know you said already but it's the sad reality.

      @ bearcliner:

      I don't think right word is circumventing because it implies taking note that the Constitution is there and making sure to sneakily steer completely clear of it before moving on. They pretty much ran over the Constitution with all of this, and sneakily or not, the American people just became too dumb and brainwashed to notice.
  • WakeUpToFreedom, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0While I don't agree with they are doing to the man, he is kind of weird.

    Here he is in an interview
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/080607Interview.htm
  • tynos, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6"The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591. The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the 'Internal Revenue Code of 1986' as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514. "
    http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#law

    Not according to US District Court Judge James C. Fox 2003:

    "If you examine the 16th amendment carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment...that actually the ratification never really properly occurred"

    United States Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916):

    "The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . . ."

    United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)

    “The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects...”


    On C-SPAN Joe Banister told the entire listening audience that the IRS was a fraud, and that the 16th Amendment had not been ratified. He oughta know. Joe banister was in the enforcement division of the IRS. Joe Banister says there is no law requiring US citizens to file an income tax return.
    He sent a letter his supervisors, and asked them to respond to three allegations:

    1. That the filing of federal income tax returns is voluntary and the filing of federal income tax returns is not required;

    2. That the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never ratified;

    3. That income taxes are not used to pay for daily government operations, but to pay the interest on the national debt.

    Rather than answer, his supperiors accepted his resignation.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17023

    On July 7 2000 the "We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education"
    www.givemeliberty.org
    took out a full page ad in USA Today
    http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/usatoday.htm
    informing citizens about the illegality of the IRS, your 5th Amendment rights, non-raticfication of the 16th amendment etc. In that ad text was Bill Conklin's $50,000 reward to anyone who could:
    1) show how to file a federal income tax return without waiving one's 5th amendment rights, and
    2) identify what statute in the Internal Revenue Code makes a typical worker liable to pay an income tax.
    No one took the money. No IRS agent(s) No judge(s). No laywer(s) (Belli and Cohen tried). No constitutional scholar(s). No Congressman. No one.

    When judges allow defendants to present their cases properly, juries acquit tax resisters.

    Watch America: Freedom To Fascism http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=america+freedom+to+fascism&hl=enand
    see ex-IRS agents themselves asking where the law is.
    Watch IRS commissioner Mark Everson admit there is no law requiring US citizens to file a 1040.
  • tynos, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3The definition of 'Income' in the Constitution is given in the EISNER v. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189 (1920) Supreme Court case as "corporate profit or corporate gain."

    and

    DOYLE v. MITCHELL BROS. CO., 247 U.S. 179 (1918) -

    "The idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activity."
  • Phantom404, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Question:

    I pulled this from Doyle v. Mitchell but it also appears in Eisner v. Macomber:
    "As was said in Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136: 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'"
    What does this mean?

    What I hate about these court rulings is that whoever writes them has really bad reading comprehension and writing skills. Simply put, most times you find where they try to define or explain "income", the word "income" is in the definition, rendering it useless. Anyways, try to grab a law dictionary and see how this works. What I don't understand is how you manage a gain from labor, since labor in itself payed by a wage is merely an exchange or trade?
  • chshkt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Disgusting!!!
  • finalchance, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2#
    dshpls by dshpls 8 hours ago Block/Report this User
    [comment buried, show commenthide comment] + 1 digg bury this digg this
    Alex Jone's bastard child, is that you? Sucks having Rosie for a mom!
    dshpls,
    Better to know who your father is than to wonder who your father/ sperm donor was. BTW if Alex is his father how does that classify him as a bastard, moron. You should be sooo lucky to have one such as Alex Jones as a father, Junior.
  • finalchance, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2It has become very apparent in the last 5 years to me that those who can see clearly CAN!
    Those who cannot see clearly DO NOT WANT TO!
    I'm done trying to convince a bunch of so-called Americans that the American People have been and are presently under assault by the NWO and et,al. If you do not know who you are and what you are as defined in the U.S. Constitution how can you offer up any argument's on this or most other constitutional topics (secular point of view)? If you want to be a "subject to the CROWN, so be it. However you have already lost as freemen are free. Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.
  • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Anyone else amazed at how many kooks have found their way to Digg through Ron Paul (PBUH!) ?
  • Phantom404, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1A lot of burying down comments randomly, I see.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.