Digg

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

Feds Cut Power, Phone, Internet of Couple Who Won't Report To Prison

truthera.com — Federal authorities have cut phone, power and Internet service at the fortified compound of a couple convicted of tax evasion who have refused to report to prison.

Bury

virtuexru 1 year 155 days ago, made popular 1 year 155 days ago

1136 diggs
digg it

291 Comments
Who Dugg It?

adamberaut, on 10/11/2007, -117/+33"surrender to us" my, how the powers that have always been assert themselves upon us hapless cells.
- whatthefu, on 10/11/2007, -52/+83For some reason I feel embarrassed for both of you. Over the internet.
- Makaras, on 10/11/2007, -53/+8I say Cheney could use the PR bump, perhaps we could inlist him to shoot them both in the face...
- thebaron2, on 10/11/2007, -68/+127Yeah, you guys are totally right - ***** laws... as long as I get away with it, no problem, right?
  
  And taxes make us "slaves for the upper class"? You must be kidding or completely retarded if you think that tax money helps the UPPER class. If you need that explained to you in detail just save all of us some time and jump off of a bridge.
  
  This whole "income tax is illegal" and "every thing's a conspiracy" movement would be a lot more successful if its proponents weren't such God damn idiots that couldn't help but making retarded comments in public. Every post above this - save for whatthefu's - is a perfect demonstration of just how ***** clueless most "activists" tend to be.
  
  I'm not saying that an argument can't be made, but the ones expressed above could be better articulated and supported by my 12 old sister.
- radu79, on 10/11/2007, -27/+17"He said he hoped prison would seem like an agreeable option for the Browns after a summer without air conditioning and possibly a winter without heat."
  
  Umm, I never used air conditoning at home in my life, and I can tollerate it pretty well. The winter without heat sucks, though.
- radu79, on 10/11/2007, -15/+57@cdnyny
  You know, there are other forms of taxations, such as sales tax, real estate tax, gas tax, and so on.
  It just so happens that the local police is not funded from the federal taxes.
- prisoner24601, on 10/11/2007, -45/+47@ cdnyny
  "fine, then don't use ANY services at all. NEVER call the cops if you are in trouble . IF you have a fire, put it out yourself. Don't drive on roads. Nothing."
  
  Of course we'd still need to figure out a way for them to "refund" the feds on the minor conveniences they are still mooching off of by living in this country. You know that whole "national defense" thing, little details like that. Not sure how they could fairly compensate the rest of us for the federal expenditures on those tidbits like aircraft carriers, stealth bombers, etc.
  
  Freeloaders. Of course they are going to jail. People need to grow up. Vote for the "I'll lower your taxes guy" if you want to, but spreading this nonsense that "income taxes are illegal" is both reprehensible and laughable.
- HexeL, on 10/11/2007, -47/+81@thebaron2
  
  Income taxes are not lawful and they most certainly do not benefit the middle class or poor. Allow me to break it down for you.
  
  1. An exchange of Labor for Wages is an even exchange. Hence, there is no profit to be taxed.
  2. The poor and middle class fight the wars for this country. Selective wars (IRAQ) would not be possible without the Government having a direct hand in our pockets through the income tax.
  3. Useless government projects, such as The Bridge to Nowhere, in Alaska, would not be possible if we weren't taxed preemptively.
  4. The majority of Americans are middle or lower income; by taxing us directly our voice in Congress is effectively silenced. 70% of people want out of Iraq, but since Congress already has our money to pay for it, our consent isn't really that big of an issue.
  5. It is unconstitutional. (No, unratified amendments don't count.) If you would like to be taxed by the Federal Government, amend the Constitution.
  
  Instead of being a good servant to your government masters, why don't you yourself show us the law you say this man should obey?
- benjpw, on 10/11/2007, -45/+32I love how these anti-income tax people make it seem that taxation is some new-age government conspiracy (can we link it to 9/11 somehow while we are at it?!) Taxation has been the central nexus of city-states since ancient Sumeria - read a gd history book and quit making martyrs out of two no name, middle class, old white people.
  
  There are people in a lot worse situations then them getting screwed by the government (see: U.S. soldiers, scientists, innocent detainees in the various CIA and miltiary prisons we run, residents of dictators we do business with for socio-political and economic reasons). Divert your passions and privileges into some more meaningful outlets please... you won't end income tax because income tax is inherently integrated into our economic system. If you really don't want to pay go move to Dubai and you can work as a day laborer. I want my police and fire departments as well as a military and NSF funding, Thank you.
- benjpw, on 10/11/2007, -37/+69Also look at this from the article:
  "The Browns, who insist federal income tax laws are invalid, were sentenced to 5½ years in prison in April. They were also ordered to forfeit $215,890 to the government — the amount the government says the Browns purchased in small postal money orders in order to avoid paying income tax on Elaine Brown’s dental practice income of $1.9 million between 1996 and 2003."
  
  1.9 million. They aren't innocent victims being screwed by the rich, THEY ARE THE RICH.
- sardiax, on 10/11/2007, -30/+26"Freeloaders. Of course they are going to jail. People need to grow up. Vote for the "I'll lower your taxes guy" if you want to, but spreading this nonsense that "income taxes are illegal" is both reprehensible and laughable."
  
  Income tax is just purely *****. I mean c'mon, it's not like the government doesn't tax the income wherever you can ***** spend it. How about Income Tax in purely practical terms; because you were born here we get this much % of everything you'll ever make, for life.
- somberwolf, on 10/11/2007, -12/+63Not really against taxes myself, and I'm not defending the tax evaders in the article, but those of you who think all tax protesters need to "grow up" might want to consider this: There was no tax on income prior to the second World War, yet we still managed to have roads, trains, and even fight wars for nearly 150 years before that! We had other forms of taxes, of course, just not one on income. For example, if you drove on the roads you probably used gas and paid taxes each time you fueled-up (and of course you still do). That's called an excise tax.
  
  The income tax system is broken. It costs way too much to enforce and way too much to comply with over and above the revenue gained. There are better alternatives, and now that we are the biggest debtor nation in the world (to the tune of nearly 9 trillion) we had better make some changes. Most libertarian thinkers are not against taxes altogether, just the broken and bloated tax on income. Of course there are some others that just don't want to pay for government altogether.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/11/2007, -15/+52"compound", you mean HOME?
  Dehumanization . . >_>
  
  @cdnyny
  
  The illegal federal income tax does _NOT_ ***** pay for cops firefighters ambulances etc.
  
  It pays for the INTEREST on the national debt (not the debt itself), and goes directly into the pockets of the bankers who own and operate the PRIVATELY owned and (mostly) privately operated federal reserve.
- Cyphase, on 10/11/2007, -6/+36It's *not* a fortified compound people.
- UWake911, on 10/11/2007, -25/+4The fact is the IRS is simply a ZIONIST-TAX. The Zionist Tax bring in money for the controlled US Government to fight wars for Israel.
  
  No where in US law is there provisions for paying income tax, federally. Simply law, and anyone that argues this is most likely a Israeli-cyber-teen, told to do their bit for Israel.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -15/+8It's not about taxes.
  
  They're members of a californian cult which does not recognize the authority of the US government; they only recognize the autority of the Lord.
  
  In their recent dealings with the court they refused to appear, instead sending a letter where they referred to themselves as "judge" and "jury", and they stated that they do not follow the law of man, only the law of the Lord.
  
  Their name isn't Brown, either. They've changed their name to "a Living Soul in the Body of the Lord of the House of Israel". Their internet anti-taxation fans still refer to them as "the Browns" as their new name neither rolls off the tongue nor make them seem very sane.
  
  And speaking of "sane", even their own supporters think they are trying to commit suicide by cop. To become "martyrs" for their cult.
  
  This isn't about the taxes anymore, if it ever was. Except for their supporters from Prisonplanet, who've been bombarding Digg with stories about the alivingsoulinthebodyofthelordofthehouseofisraels for at least two weeks, all the while claiming an attack was imminent. This story, that power and water had been cut, was submitted at least a dozen times this friday.
- jsebrech, on 10/11/2007, -17/+7At all the anti-income-tax people, let me put it in very simple terms:
  1. The government has a number of expenditures. They need money to finance these.
  2. Income tax is a mechanism of getting this money where the more you earn, the more you pay.
  3. Getting rid of the income tax means that government would be forced to raise taxes on goods and services to finance the spending. This would mean those most heavily burdened would be the poor and middle class, because they spend the largest percentage of their income on goods and services.
  
  In short, if you're poor or lower middle class, and you're in favor of getting rid of the income tax, you're in favor of a tax raise for yourself. Only the upper middle class and the rich would benefit under such a system (and the argument is debatable for the upper middle class).
  
  This is probably also why this family is against income tax. With 1.9 million earned they qualify as upper middle class / rich, depending on your standards.
  
  The argument of "they'd be forced to lower spending" doesn't hold water either. First of all because government never lowers spending by that much (historic fact). Secondly because if you lower spending and overall taxation, this doesn't shift the relative burdens between a taxation system in income or on goods/services. It's always more advantageous for lower middle class to have tax on income, at any level of taxation.
- graystar, on 10/11/2007, -9/+40Government collecting taxes is like the mafia collecting protection money. They both use the implicit threat of violence.
- greves, on 10/11/2007, -15/+55What I love about this whole argument in this first post so far is that no one has pointed out the most important facts:
  
  1. An income tax is a direct tax.
  2. An income tax is not apportioned (divided evenly among the people).
  3. Therefore an income tax is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
  
  It's all in Article I folks.
  
  Secondly, the income tax DOES NOT provide the services everyone attributes to it. Everyone seems to think that income tax pays for schools, roads, police/fire, and so on. Those services DO NOT COME FROM INCOME TAX REVENUE. They are paid for by STATE and LOCAL taxes (most notably, property tax). Every single penny of the income tax revenue collected by the federal government goes to pay the INTEREST on the money that the federal government has LOANED from the Federal Reserve Bank, a private banking corporation.
  
  Oh and by the way, just as a little side note, as far as anyone who has ever done any research on the topic knows, there is NO statute requiring anyone to pay an income tax. The law does not even EXIST and therefore it is NOT illegal to not pay it. The IRS Tax Code itself even says that the income tax is "voluntary"!!!!
  
  Read this article by a candidate for governor of California: http://www.smartvoter.org/1998jun/ca/state/vote/rivera_e/paper1.html
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -16/+8The "income tax is unconstitutional" boils down to two main points:
  1) that the 16th amendment, which specifically provides for income tax, was never ratified because the propositions the different states ratified contained very minor differences in punctuation, and because the speaker of the house proclaimed it ratified. However, the supreme court, who's job it is to interprete the constitution (unlike prisonplanet) has concluded that it is ratified.
  
  2) What constitutes "income". Again there are court decisions that wages are income, but even if there weren't the alivingsoulinthebodyofthelordofthehouseofisraels made their money from business, ie the wife (whom Ed wont let anyone talk to) was a dentist prior to becoming a cultist.
  
  So the "income tax is unconstitutional" thing has been shot down, with references and citations, over and over and over and over again in the dozens of submissions about the alivingsoulinthebodyofthelordofthehouseofisraels the prisonplanet crowd have spammed Digg with.
  
  It would appear the prisonplanet crowd are incapable of evaluating evidence. Once they are told what to believe by Alex Jones they can not be budged. Witness the bleating repeat of "show me the law" and "it was never ratified" they'll now respond with, without citing any evidence except a home-made video on YouTube. Unless they simply digg me down without responding at all, of course.
  
  Oh and regarding the compound, which the prisonplanet crowd claim is not fortified: it's got _ten feet_ thick walls, very large underground stockpile of food and water, and also, it is believed, plenty of guns, ammunition, and explosives.
- endustry, on 10/11/2007, -16/+4GRRRR. RAWWRR. F*ck rules! F*ck laws! F*ck the police!
  
  Sigh. Just another day on DIGG.
- corripio, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10@somberwolf
  
  Actually before WWII, it would be tough to find a highway...no income tax meant no infrastructure...I believe roads in your local town were paid for by propery taxes.
- diggduggjoe, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17Income taxes are just wrong. Unfortunately, those with the guns make the rules.
  
  Most taxation should be done on the local level, which allows people to move away when the government runs amok. I am not in a position, nor wish to move from the United States. So, they have me by the proverbial balls.
  
  User fees should be the norm and voluntary payments to programs that you wish to aid. I would be willing to donate to NASA, but not to IRAQ, an undeclared war.
- gcnaddict, on 10/11/2007, -17/+18"1. An income tax is a direct tax.
  2. An income tax is not apportioned (divided evenly among the people).
  3. Therefore an income tax is UNCONSTITUTIONAL."
  
  Oops 16th amendment constitutionalized it. You got your face owned.
  
  And don't spew that ***** about it not being ratified. If you're going to bitch so much, go live in Washington State.
  
  Here's the ratification list:
  1. Alabama (August 10, 1909)
  2. Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
  3. South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
  4. Illinois (March 1, 1910)
  5. Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
  6. Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
  7. Maryland (April 8, 1910)
  8. Georgia (August 3, 1910)
  9. Texas (August 16, 1910)
  10. Ohio (January 19, 1911)
  11. Idaho (January 20, 1911)
  12. Oregon (January 23, 1911)
  13. Washington (January 26, 1911)
  14. Montana (January 27, 1911)
  15. Indiana (January 30, 1911)
  16. California (January 31, 1911)
  17. Nevada (January 31, 1911)
  18. South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
  19. Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
  20. North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
  21. Colorado (February 15, 1911)
  22. North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
  23. Michigan (February 23, 1911)
  24. Iowa (February 24, 1911)
  25. Kansas (March 2, 1911)
  26. Missouri (March 16, 1911)
  27. Maine (March 31, 1911)
  28. Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
  29. Arkansas (April 22, 1911, after having previously rejected the amendment)
  30. Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
  31. New York (July 12, 1911)
  32. Arizona (April 3, 1912)
  33. Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
  34. Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
  35. West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
  36. New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
  
  Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by New Mexico (but see Delaware and Wyoming below). The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two:
  
  37. Delaware (February 3, 1913)
  38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
  39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
  40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
  41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
  42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913, after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911)
- ernkush, on 10/11/2007, -8/+10For all those of you who seem to think that income tax is illegal- have you ever heard of the "necessary and proper clause"?
  
  Article I, Section 8, "Clause" 18:
  
  “ The Congress shall have power …To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. ”
  
  Then their is the commerce clause:
  
  Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
  "The Congress shall have Power ...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
  
  Who do you think has the authority to determine what is "necessary and proper" and what type of commerce to regulate? That's right folks- the federal government. Also, the law that created income tax law is the 16th amendment with 42 states having ratified it as of 1992. This is more than the required 38 states. Tax protestors claim that there were errors in the ratification process. However, are we to say that the 13th and 14th amendment are illegal as well because when it was ratified the Southern states were forcibly controlled by the North?
- NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4This one is kindof border line to me... It's a non-violent crime, and the tax system is ***** up and needs to change.... but they still shouldn't have evaded taxes... punishment of some kind is in order because taxes are supposed to go to help everyone... (Even if they dont).... Although Jail time is also not my preferred punishment in this case...
  
  America misuses taxes... and they don't put them into what they should be... Taxes are used for political wars... instead of to help the people.... Whereas most other countries are actually using taxes to help people, pay for medical... ect... Until the government is willing to use more money to help us, medical is gonna be hard to do... =/ Stupid corrupt politics....
- mikesbaker, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2buried as stupid truther news. and these ***** deny global warming too. seemingly everything ever is a conspiracy to take away your rights
  http://www.truthera.com/2007/06/14/freedom-not-climate-is-at-risk/
- omgbanana, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6@greves
  
  Listen, the meaning of "voluntary" does NOT mean you get the choose. It means you fill out the papers on your own without government oversight and send it in to them. That is what voluntary compliance is. You are aware of the law and filling out the papers on your own free will. It's the honor system. Contrast this to the government simply sending you a bill.
  
  Not only that, but I hear a lot of people talk about this "voluntary". Could someone actually LINK to the tax code on a .gov site and SHOW me where it actually uses that phrasing?
- BESTenemy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2We don't have rights, we have obligations. Like it, dislike it - doesn't matter. If our opinion mattered, there'd be no income tax, yet it's there. All that matters is that we keep on working and paying taxes. Don't like it. Go to jail and think about it. Come out when you're ready to resume your duties.
- krif, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@gcnaddict and others with 16th amendment in mind.
  http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
  Article 5:
  ..Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article..
  Article 1, Section 9, Fourth clause:
  No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
  
  Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16:
  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.
  
  So, you still think you ain't being ***** around?
- Grouser, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@gcnaddict: Good for you. Unlike most of the mindless tax supporters above, you've actually done research and you posted evidence on behalf of you position. Here are some more net resources on this issue:
  
  Neutral: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments
  
  Anti-tax: http://www.theft-by-deception.com/Taxable%20Income.pdf
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023
  
  Pro-tax: http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm
  
  The last link in particular should be of interest.
- prisoner24601, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@ somberwolf
  "those of you who think all tax protesters need to "grow up" might want to consider this"
  
  Jsut for the record, I have no problem with "protesting" taxes or any other issue in America. Protest is (in and of itself) not only acceptable, but a truly American activity when applied to just about any issue of interest to any person.
  
  However, tax *evasion* is not. The Browns are not just tax *protesters.* They are tax *evaders.*
virtuexru, on 10/11/2007, -22/+4true, good point adam@
Sirocco, on 10/11/2007, -14/+51Eventually they'll get tired and then... oops... the place burns to the ground.
- NullzipZero, on 10/11/2007, -30/+29Oh are you talking about when the government murdered 80 people including women, senior citizens and children in 1993?
- JustAnotherBob, on 10/11/2007, -6/+26@tyrannysucks
  
  Now why would they care if we regular citizens outnumber them? They have the guns, and most people seem quite happy allowing our legislators to legislate away our rights to bear arms, that could be used against those abusing power under the guise of authority. Very soon the only people in our country that have guns will be the police. Just remember, the courts have ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect you. Look up Warren v. District of Columbia DC's highest court basically said that it is "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." That is just ONE case ruling, and there are quite a few more when you look closer.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -16/+7The litmus test for idiocy: someone mentions Waco, where the sadistic child molester David Koresh and his deluded and violent followers fought the cops rather than face trial, as somehow being the governments fault.
  The governments failure at Waco wasn't that it attacked, it was that it failed to stop the cult before it had led to the death of so many people.
- jim1977, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1with the stresses involved in a standoff, burnout is inevitable
fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -21/+16Can anyone say "Waco"?

Seriously, if there is a legal case that the income tax is illegitimate, fight it in the courts. Holing up in your house with your guns is just going to make you look like a wacko (pun intended).
- ZWarren69, on 10/11/2007, -10/+15The lower courts uphold a law deemed unconstitutional and the supreme courts refuse to hear the cases.
- AnteChronos, on 10/11/2007, -19/+18@tyrannysucks
  "Waco should have been the turning point to wake this country up. Those people were slaughtered without any representation."
  
  They didn't *want* representation. They were raided for stockpiling illegal weapons and supposed wanton child abuse. Rather than complying, handing over the weapons, and seeking representation in the court system, they killed 4 ATF agents. Afterwards, ehe Branch Davidians had the opportunity, at any time, to end the stalemate and fight the system on its own terms. They refused, and the situation eventually got out of hand. The result was a travesty and a tragedy, but the Branch Davidians were as much to blame as the FBI and ATF.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -16/+9@linkedlist
  Does it make you feel manly to think about killing a police officer? If you truly think that is the way to sort things out, you need help.
- AnteChronos, on 10/11/2007, -15/+10@tyrannysucks
  "Seig Heil! (Isn't that the next thing you big government neocons expect us to start saying?)"
  
  Bwahahaha! Now *that's* funny! Me? A NeoCon? I'm one of the most liberal people I know. Oh, by the way, it looks like you Godwin'ed yourself there.
  
  "[Police] write lots of tickets and generally show up after a crime has occurred to write a report."
  
  Yeah, well, psychic police who can show up *before* the crime are in fairly short supply.
  
  "If a police officer feels they are above the law and wishes to encroach upon the individual rights of a citizen, they should receive the same treatment as any other common criminal."
  
  Agreed. However, the police are not encroaching on anyone's rights in this case. They attempting to take into custody two convicted criminals. The Browns are the ones who should be treated like common criminals, because that's exactly what they are.
- kuzotz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14@AnteChronos
  
  in this story the police aren't encroaching on anyone's rights, but it occurs everyday that the crooked cops do go against the citizen's rights just to get an arrest.. Even to the point of planting drugs to meet a certain quota. And we are slowly giving them more power. I mean they can kill (well for a long time) someone and only get paid suspension. I've known people that this has happened to, and I myself have been harassed by a police. They illegally search my house even when I told them that they don't have permission ,nor do they have my consent. They cuffed me hit me and searched. Since I did nothing illegal they had to find something... SO they see a picture of my 6 year old daughter in her swim suit at the beach. They arrest me for child pornography procession.
  
  If I didn't have the money
  (being upper middle class). I would be marked as a child molester.
  
  15 months of fighting the courts and these cops are still on the streets on the job. The system is broken.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19>Rather than complying, handing over the weapons, and seeking representation in the court system
  
  You really have no idea what happened at Waco do you?
  
  The feds were machine gunning unarmed people (a miracle they were still alive with how much ***** CS gas was pumped in there) as they RAN from the burning building (which the feds set ablaze). There is VIDEO FOOTAGE of this and it was REVIEWED at a ***** SENATE HEARING.
  
  Go ahead and argue with me but if you don't watch Waco: Rules Of Engagement all the way through you aren't even remotely qualified to. >_>
  
  >Bwahahaha! Now *that's* funny! Me? A NeoCon? I'm one of the most liberal people I know.
  Semi-related, the "neo-cons" actually originate from the "far left". Trotskyites and Leo-Straussians. Research.
- UWake911, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Because the Judges have become corrupt and support the IRS-Zionist-Tax.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3The alivingsoulinthebodyofthelordofthehouseofisraels don't recognize the authority of the US government or the US courts. They have in a letter stated that they do not follow the "law of man" only the "law of the lord".
  That's why they're not paying tax OR appear in court to defend themselves.
- strotee, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@linkedlist
  "Why the hell do US citizens have the right to bare arms"
  
  Because we have Gillette razors, sucka !!!!!!!!
- Scorpy2643, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0@Kuzotz - proof or it didn't happen. got a news article to back up your fiction?
- fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@tyrannysucks
  I had meant to reply to your comment where you said that the Brown's should kill as many police officers as possible, which is sick.
KMye, on 10/11/2007, -3/+26I got rid of my TV; has this been on CNN/Fox/MSNBC at all?
tekrat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Original Article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/14/national/main2927061.shtml
AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -16/+38"Federal authorities have cut phone, power and Internet service at the fortified compound"

For the last time... it's not a "compound"! It's just a house that happens to have a guard tower, a storage area containing a year's worth of food and water and a crazy gun-toting tax dodger inside! There's a huge difference!

All we need to end this conflict is for the the head of the NWO, who also happens to be the ghost of Woodrow Wilson, to fly in on his black helicopter and explain the ratification of the 16th amendment to them! Then we can all happily go about the business of building new FEMA concentration camps. I know it's true because Alex Jones says so!
- ZWarren69, on 10/11/2007, -17/+19Alex Jones makes very strong points, though you will discard everything he says simply because you disagree with a few of them.
  
  All the couple asked for is for the feds to produce the proof that they are required to pay taxes. The couple said they are willing to pay if they’re shown the proof. Wouldn’t it be easier if the feds dropped off the documented proof on their doorstep instead of this heavy-handed harassing?
  
  http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Zeitgeist_The_Movie
- jwdarkstar, on 10/11/2007, -16/+11There's actually no record of the 16th amendment ever being ratified. Kinda disturbing when you do the research.
- KMye, on 10/11/2007, -7/+23WP: "Some tax protesters, conspiracy investigators, and others opposed to income taxes cite what they contend is evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment was never "properly ratified." One such argument is that because the legislatures of various states passed resolutions of ratification with different capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas) from the text proposed by Congress, those states' ratifications were invalid. A related argument is that various states illegally violated procedural requirements of their constitutions when passing their ratification resolutions. Another argument made by some tax protesters regards Ohio, one of the states listed as ratifying the amendment. They contend that because Congress did not pass an official proclamation recognizing Ohio's date of admission (1803) to statehood until 1953 (see Ohio Constitution), Ohio was not a state until 1953 (and, therefore, could not have ratified the Sixteenth Amendment)."
  
  Not quite the same as there being no record.
- ZWarren69, on 10/11/2007, -14/+14I don't doubt its ratification, I doubt its legality.
  
  Just show them the law...
- jacobsor, on 10/11/2007, -14/+12All of these various tax protester theories are absolute bunk. I'm not fond of paying my taxes too, but that doesn't make them "illegal."
  
  Each of these arguments has been raised untold times in court for decades, and every single time they have been rejected. Oh yeah, these tax protesters know more about the law then every federal judge on the bench. (The judges are just part of the conspiracy, after all!)
  
  If anyone actually wants to educate themselves on this subject, there is excellent source here that debunks each of these arguments in fairly plain language.
  
  Anti-IRS Theories a/k/a Tax Protestor Junk
  http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/taxprot.htm
  
  The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments
  http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/taxprot2.htm
- mike17032, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4"Alex Jones makes very weak, insane points, though you will discard everything he says as the ***** it is because he is a ***** idiot."
  
  I fixed it for you.
BrainInAJar, on 10/11/2007, -26/+32Good for the government...

If they don't want to pay taxes, they shouldn't benefit from infrastructure. Next step is for them to declare their sovereignty so that we can roll in the tanks and annex them
- HexeL, on 10/11/2007, -13/+22Another government lackey opens his mouth. I have a hard time understanding the subservient nature of people like you and those who dugg your statement.
  
  Our government is By The PEOPLE for the PEOPLE, not Elites for the Elites. The income tax drains the poor man and only annoys the moderately rich. The excessively rich, those who control politicians and the money supply, don't give a ***** either way. The laws are passed in their favor because you have no sway with Congress now that you've allowed them a direct hand in your pocket. THAT is what you and people like you fail to understand.
- vertinox, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9@"If they don't want to pay taxes, they shouldn't benefit from infrastructure."
  
  Federal Taxes do not pay for local infrastructure. State and local taxes usually do.
- mike17032, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3"Our government is By The PEOPLE for the PEOPLE, not Elites for the Elites"
  
  The wacko in the compound is a multi-millionare. Thats pretty damn elite.
- HexeL, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4@mike17032
  
  "The wacko in the compound is a multi-millionare. Thats pretty damn elite."
  
  Hardly. And I won't resent a man who worked hard for what he's got. I resent only those who use what they got to put others down.
SenatorLampoon, on 10/11/2007, -13/+7Here's the funny part. If you're not making a lot of money, you don't pay much in taxes. If you're making a lot of money, there are numerous ways to avoid taxes.

The truth is, taxes get spent by the government and always wind up back in the hands of those who pay them anyway. Think about it. The money churns and a freeway gets built by private companies who pay their employees who buy stuff diggers might make if they had jobs that actually produced something.

This couple has probably been hitting the NO2 a bit more than they should because going to jail for tax evasion is lame as a 3 legged dog. It's something even Tony Soprano didn't do, and he was a very bad boy.
- jwdarkstar, on 10/11/2007, -8/+5Why don't they set up a fair tax system? I don't think there should be tax tiers, it should be a flat tax with NO deductions. Everyone pays the same percentage, no one gets off easy.
- Sirocco, on 10/11/2007, -11/+6Yep. People don't understand that money paid as taxes, even if it isn't spent in a way you'd like, is widely recirculated and keeps the economy going. Taxes suck but they are necessary to keep the big machine known as society churning.
- JustAnotherBob, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17@BrainInAJar
  Actually our highways and roads are funded by the fuel tax we pay for each gallon we buy at the pump.
  Look up the Revenue Act of 1932. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_tax
- kuzotz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12how highways are paid for through tax varies from state to state is it popular to just use a gas tax... Of course states with lower taxes tend to then inact an income tax on its residents..(which is legal citation needed)... IT is still widely unproven that the federal government can impose an income tax on citizens and residents.
- UWake911, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Most of it pays the debt which is being build by wars for Israel.
- mike17032, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2"If you're making a lot of money, there are numerous ways to avoid taxes. "
  
  False. Do 5 minutes of research sometime to see how the "who payed income tax" breaks down by income level. You will quickly find that the rich pay (by FAR) most of the income tax in this country.
- mesogen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Sen. Tampon, it's N2O that's laughing gas. NO2 will kill you.
1337diggster, on 10/11/2007, -9/+11How much do these brown's owe? I think the article said 250k but I've also hard 750k in back taxes. None the less, how much does it cost to fund a whole brigade of army and swat teams? I'm sure when you add up all the little costs asscociated with disturbing the Browns it is far more than they owe in taxes. The government needs to stop disturbing these people and pardon them from their income taxes. So the government doesn't collect a couple hundred thousand who cares!
- BrainInAJar, on 10/11/2007, -14/+9and then people catch wind of it, and they don't pay taxes ( if they're stubborn enough they don't have to pay, right ? ) and before you know it the roads are crumbling to ***** and there's riots in the streets because food can't get to the cities
- fantasticFlan, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3We can't apply the law differently to different people based on economics. If I'm convicted of tax evasion, I can't make it financially not worthwhile to take me away. I live in a house in a city, a couple of police will just come and get me. These folks need the same treatment because all people must (should) be equal under the law.
- HexeL, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11@fantasticflan
  
  Because you are oppressed by an unlawful "law" you want others to be just as oppressed?
  That's like a slave having resented a freed one for not receiving the same awful treatment.
- fantasticFlan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1@HexeL
  No, I want laws to be enforced equally, I was responding to the question of whether it's worthwhile to enforce the law in this case.
- UWake911, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5That's not the point, it's about what is right and wrong, and htthe Government is clearly corrupt.
- phineous, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8I pay taxes, and the roads are still crumbling to *****. This war is the most expensive ever, and the troops still have to buy their own armor. Where does the money really go?
- fantasticFlan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1May be no point now, but I'll try to clarify.
  Unjust laws should not be allowed to stand, but while they do, the government must (should) enforce them equally. Those with means, those who live in compounds do not deserve better justice. Unequal enforcement is a classic, some would say continued, form of oppression. We can't enforce marijuana laws only when Mexicans break them, we can't enforce drunk driving law only when poor people break them...
- HexeL, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0@fantasticflan
  
  "Unjust laws should not be allowed to stand, but while they do, the government must (should) enforce them equally."
  
  Sure, the government has an obligation to apply laws equally, even the unjust ones. But that doesn't mean we have to root for them in the process. Your argument reminds me of the saying, "misery loves company".
  
  And by the way, it's not a goddamn compound, it's a house.
Sp1k3, on 10/11/2007, -14/+6This movie will change your perception of the social order that binds us all: http://digg.com/world_news/Zeitgeist_The_Most_Important_Movie_of_All_Time

It has changed my views, and I was very skeptical at first.
- ZWarren69, on 10/11/2007, -10/+8This really is an amazing film.
  
  http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Zeitgeist_The_Movie
- fantasticjon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Ok. I hope that movie did not change your life. I got about 20 minutes into it, the part where they are talking about the ancient gods. I started check into the facts that they quoted, and they were either major stretches, or were just plain wrong. (For instance, Krishna was not born on December 25th as they claimed, but was born on July 19th) They really hammer home the December 25th thing, even though any theologian will tell you no one really knows what day of the year Jesus was born on.
  
  Anyway, back to point. That movie was not put together that well, and apparently they are willing to stretch the truth or just plain lie to make their point. Looks like a college film class home work assignment. Poor audio quality. (here, we don't have any video to go with this snippet of audio, watch this screen saver instead.) horrible.
- ZWarren69, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1There is no stretch of the truth. There are just as many theologians supporting this "theory," as there is not. You chose to pick out a small detail, when there are many many details that are true. You chose to handpick the "flaws," and call that support that the entire thing is false. No, if you think Jesus is a real person who really walked on water and became a zombie, then YOU are the one stretching the truth!
  
  And btw, this is an unfinished film! He chose to release it early to get the message out.
ZWarren69, on 10/11/2007, -8/+25The roads are not funded by Income Tax, sorry. Please inform yourself of what that tax actually pays for, before you start saying the world will fall apart.
- mike17032, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Also false. States get a lot of money in federal grants to upkeep interstate highways.
- DebbilsAdvocate, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4mike
  
  That's not because the states need help. If the states needed more money for roads they could raise their own taxes. What the feds do is extortion: take the money in the form of massive federal taxes, then blackmail the states into doing their bidding if they want the money back. Want highway money? It's 55mph speed limit or nothing. Legal alcohol limit of .08 or no money. It's a mafia tactic.
jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -6/+14if we abolished the individual income tax tomorrow, we would still have the same revenue as the government did in 2000 (indivdual income tax makes up approx 1/3 of government revenue). God forbid we go back to the dark dark years of government spending in the year 2000.
- nestafett, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1ummm, you do know that the population has changed since then and more people=more services, right?
  also we are kind of fighting a war right now (as much as I disagree with it, its happening, and it does cost money)
- nycmac247, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4@ nestafett
  
  untrue. the income tax only pays for the interest on the national debt
  
  http://www.federalbudget.com/
  
  also - still hard for me to agree that their should be a tax on labor; isn't that like the indentured servitude of sharecropping? Shouldn't we just tax things that are _not_ labor related, or is selling stock and speculating on currency considered "work"?
- s73v3r, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1To everyone who says that Income Taxes only pay for the interest on the National Debt:
  
  Whether or not this is true, is it really a bad thing for the government to be appeasing its creditors and paying its debts? Regardless of how you actually feel about the war, its pretty safe to say that it has caused the country's reputation to go into the *****. Just image how the country would look if we stopped paying our debts. If we got rid of the income tax, the money to pay back the debt would have to come from somewhere. Although that might not be a bad thing, cause then hopefully it would mean better budgets for the government.
DestroyFascism, on 10/11/2007, -5/+14show them the law...
maehem, on 10/11/2007, -4/+56What kind of bastards would cut off someone's internet?
- UWake911, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Do they have jurisdiction to cut power and other facilities when you consider they are provided by private companies?
Sedjet, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23But how will they visit Digg?!
adndgamer, on 10/11/2007, -14/+15The Federal Income tax is an illegal tax.

That is all there is to it. There are no laws supporting it, and it is unconstitutional.

For those who say that it's for "the common good" or that it goes to pay for schools, roads, etc -- you are incorrect. Property tax is used to fund the local schools. Tax on gasoline is used to help pay for roads. It goes on and on.

Your income tax goes to pay for NOTHING but interest on money the government owes. I'm happy to see people standing up for their rights, and not paying this illegal taxes.
- AnteChronos, on 10/11/2007, -13/+11@adndgamer
  "The Federal Income tax . . . is unconstitutional."
  
  Well, except for that pesky 16th ammendment:
  "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."
  
  So I guess the constitution is unconstitutional now?
- nestafett, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10@cdny
  the ones I know against it arent left wing nuts, they're right wing nuts. typically the right wing is against taxes and a larger govt (although the latter is not the case lately) and lefties are for more services, which require more money, paid for by taxes
- kobewan0824, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4like the other guy said, its in the 16th ammendment. the governement has the right to tax your income. and when ur gas taxes and property taxes arent enough, and ur state taxes arent enough, where does extra money come from? the governent and its federal taxes. do any of u actually have a job and bills to pay?
- Beto0707, on 10/11/2007, -6/+16The Browns paid their property tax and all their local taxes. There is no state income tax or sales tax in New Hampshire. The only taxes they did NOT pay were Federal income taxes.
  
  I pay my federal extortion fee every year, but they decided to stand up to the bullies. Good for them!
- AnteChronos, on 10/11/2007, -12/+6@beto0707
  "I pay my federal extortion fee every year, but they decided to stand up to the bullies. Good for them!"
  
  Yeah, the government are a bunch of bullies! Let's all not pay our taxes! The resulting economic collapse of the country and following anarchy will be awesome! Yeeehaaaaw!
- kuzotz, on 10/11/2007, -5/+14I've seen piles of evidence proving that the amendment has never been ratified. Thus making it illegal, but I've never seen anyone tell me or even attempt at explaining to me on how it is legal to have a federal income tax.. Please tell me the bill/law, and some sort of proof. It is way to easy to say someone is wrong and then call them crazy or a conspiracy theorist when they take the time you don't to atleast do some research.
  
  BTW Income taxes aren't used to support our infrastructure its used to pay off our national debt. IT isn't a large fraction of what we pay to support what we have. We have property taxes, sales taxes, toll taxes, gas taxes, and many other ways states tax us and many way the government tax us. An income tax has no real effect on us besides taking away money and funding idiotic ***** like improving defense tech instead of the education system, and funding more private prisons.
- AnteChronos, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@kuzotz
  "I've seen piles of evidence proving that the amendment has never been ratified. Thus making it illegal, but I've never seen anyone tell me or even attempt at explaining to me on how it is legal to have a federal income tax.. Please tell me the bill/law, and some sort of proof."
  
  Court precedence. The 16th amendment removed the requirement that any income tax be apportioned among the states according to population. The actual legal ability to tax citizens at the federal level existed and was exercised *before* the ratification (legitimate or not) of the 16th amendment.
  
  "BTW Income taxes aren't used to support our infrastructure its used to pay off our national debt."
  
  Among a huge number of other things, such as military funding, disaster relief, etc. Most people are not aware of what the national debt even is. A huge chuck is actually money owed *TO* the American people, in the form of interest-earning government bonds and such.
- mesogen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Antechronos,
  
  Defense is payed through corporate excise taxes and more debt. And how large of a chunk of the national debt is owed to americans? I'd wager that the vast majority of it is owed to China, Japan, Europe, and the Saudis.
- Sovereigndk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0>>That is all there is to it. There are no laws supporting it, and it is unconstitutional.
  
  Nice idea, but not completely true.
  Some people do have INCOME that could be taxable. The laws are written, but the private IRS doesn't play by the law, and they apply INCOME tax laws to everyone. What most WORKERs do not understand is that they are not EMPLOYEE's, thus, they do not earn a WAGE. Most worker work for private companies, not an EMPLOYER.
  
  Next time the private co you work for demands you complete a W-4, say not thanks, I'm tired of volunteering, and don't be sending false information on a W-2 to the IRS that I earned wages. Thanks
  
  I am not an employee, I do not work for an employer, I do not earn wages, and income I have is far less than the minimum which would require me to file.
  
  Oh, is form 1040 legal?
Bhima, on 10/11/2007, -14/+7Jesus this is lame as *****. Not only this whack job Brown & his wife but also this crowd of wannabe revolutionaries milling around Digg.

This has been ongoing for *days*... first it was the "Assault on Compound" then is was the "Standoff" then it was "Heating Up".

and now "the phones and power have been cut".

***** this is sorry... all that's going on is that enforcement is going to collect this fool to take him to jail. He had his day in court and he lost.
There are laws mandating his payment of taxes and all of his ridiculous machinations do not undo these laws.
danboarder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12But they still update their myspace profile - their new blog post is here:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=152568743&blogID=276926654&MyToken=44ecc180-01f6-40f4-9d4c-ddf379d47961
- interiot, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10It's not too difficult to get a ham license that lets you communicate hundreds of miles... with the amount of money he's spent on his house, it wouldn't surprise me if he took the time to set up a decent antenna at the place. Even if he doesn't have full internet access over it, he could be relaying reports to someone else who posts updates on the internet.
- amoirae, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3And using two coconuts and chemicals he made from indiginous plants, he and the Professor also made a sattelite radio.
philvell, on 10/11/2007, -17/+1if so many americans here dislike their own government so much, maybe they should start seeking alternative places of residence.

i hear palestinian taxes aren't real high at the moment, and i'm sure a plane ticket there would be pretty cheap as well.
- nestafett, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18nonononononononononononono.
  I disagree with this couple but am soooooooooooooooooooo tired of the if you hate it so much just leave argument.
  I was raised to think that the thing thats great about here is if you disagree with something you change it.
  But you and people who make that argument all those "America haters" should have moved away, like mlk jr. and the civil rights folks? or like Susan B. Anthony? maybe Thomas Jefferson should have just moved to England and quit his whining?
- pathy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+23You don't have to like your government to like your country.
- nycmac247, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@ philvell
  
  Since you don't like the citizens of the US maybe _you_ should leave?
  
  I don't see how all-or-nothing thinking is really making an argument or furthering discourse... sounds more like an abusive parent.
  
  ... or an Old Testament god?
kobewan0824, on 10/11/2007, -10/+0u guys are ***** nuts. not legal? what is this *****? so where do all that money fro katrina victims come from? the FEMA money that those ***** abused? ur federal taxes assholes. Dont pay them, but dont expect any help when something bad happens and u need help. and besides that, it says the wife owed $200,000 out of her $1.9 million salary. what a cheap *****. thats peanuts. they are asking for a little over 10%, the same amount i pay. whats the big ***** deal? and no u dont have to like ur government, but obviously somebody did if he got reelected. use ur vote next year, change things, although hilary and obama dont have a chance in hell. so i guess ur *****
- HexeL, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9@kobewan0824
  
  "Dont pay them, but dont expect any help when something bad happens and u need help."
  
  So I shouldn't expect the kind of help that didn't come when Katrina hit? What a loss.
  
  But you're right, our tax dollars do help fund FEMA. Now go and do some research on "Rex 84" and see what those tax dollars were gonna buy us. Happy reading.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16All FEMA did was come in and take people's guns.
odinfire, on 10/11/2007, -3/+19You know double taxation is against the constitution and they do it to us all the time. Truthfully, we shouldnt be paying income tax at all. They tax us on our income, then we get taxed on our purchases by each individual state. Its crap.
- amoirae, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Not every state has sales tax.
adndgamer, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19On the 16th amendment:

From http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/19990709_xcdfr_is_income.htm

The ratification required by at least 36 states -- three-fourths of the 48 states then in existence -- has to be identical to the amendment passed by Congress. Benson cites federal documents affirming that for state approval to be acceptable, neither words nor punctuation can be changed. And the states may not violate their own state constitutions in ratifying the amendment.

Of the 48 states, here's the story:

* Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment.
* Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitutions to empower the federal government to tax.
* Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded vote count, and only later declared it passed without a recorded vote after the amendment was declared ratified by Knox.
* Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Washington violated their state constitutions in their ratification procedures.
* Minnesota did not send any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed one, as required.
* And Oklahoma, Georgia and Illinois made unacceptable changes in wording. (Some of the above states also made such changes, in addition to their other unacceptable procedures.)

Take 48 states, deduct these 21, and you have proper ratification by only 27 states -- far less than the required 36.
- ethernet76, on 10/11/2007, -8/+8Why don't anti-tax advocates ever mention that congress implemented an income tax prior to the 16th amendment?
- AnteChronos, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7I see that ethernet76 is being dugg down for making an entirely accurate comment. Federal income tax was established *before* the 16th amendment ever came up. The amendment simply removed the requirement that any income tax be apportioned among the states according to population. So people who think that nullifying the 16th amendment will somehow get rid of the federal income tax are greatly mistaken.
  
  It's understandable to want to not have to pay taxes -- hell, I'd love to not have to pay taxes, even though I know that there would be large-scale economic repercussions -- but there's an entire body of legal precedent out there supporting the federal income tax, and it's not going away, barring a massive overhaul of the entire government.
- yosome, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratification_process
  
  According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:[8]
  
  1. Alabama (August 10, 1909)
  2. Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
  3. South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
  4. Illinois (March 1, 1910)
  5. Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
  6. Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
  7. Maryland (April 8, 1910)
  8. Georgia (August 3, 1910)
  9. Texas (August 16, 1910)
  10. Ohio (January 19, 1911)
  11. Idaho (January 20, 1911)
  12. Oregon (January 23, 1911)
  13. Washington (January 26, 1911)
  14. Montana (January 27, 1911)
  15. Indiana (January 30, 1911)
  16. California (January 31, 1911)
  17. Nevada (January 31, 1911)
  18. South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
  19. Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
  20. North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
  21. Colorado (February 15, 1911)
  22. North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
  23. Michigan (February 23, 1911)
  24. Iowa (February 24, 1911)
  25. Kansas (March 2, 1911)
  26. Missouri (March 16, 1911)
  27. Maine (March 31, 1911)
  28. Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
  29. Arkansas (April 22, 1911, after having previously rejected the amendment)
  30. Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
  31. New York (July 12, 1911)
  32. Arizona (April 3, 1912)
  33. Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
  34. Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
  35. West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
  36. New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
  
  Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by New Mexico (but see Delaware and Wyoming below). The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two:
  
  37. Delaware (February 3, 1913)
  38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
  39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
  40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
  41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
  42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913, after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911)
  
  The following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it:
  
  1. Connecticut
  2. Florida, which rejected the amendment after it had already been ratified by three-fourths of the states
  3. Rhode Island
  4. Utah
  
  The following states never took up the proposed amendment:
  
  1. Pennsylvania
  2. Virginia
- HexeL, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4@AnteChronos
  
  "I see that ethernet76 is being dugg down for making an entirely accurate comment. Federal income tax was established *before* the 16th amendment ever came up. "
  
  So because Congress violated the Constitution before it enacted an unratified amendment, this somehow makes the law valid?
  
  Your system of logic is infallibly stupid.
- AnteChronos, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3@HexeL
  "So because Congress violated the Constitution before it enacted an unratified amendment, this somehow makes the law valid?"
  
  The 16th amendment has piss all to do with the discussion is all I'm saying. It's a red herring. The courts found that collecting income tax was not a violation of the constitution BEFORE the 16th amendment was ever conceived. That's what the judicial system is designed for, and it did its job.
- HexeL, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1@AnteChronos
  
  I'll make it simple for you. Direct me to those pre-16th Amendment court decisions and I won't bury you.
- AnteChronos, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@HexeL
  "Direct me to those pre-16th Amendment court decisions and I won't bury you."
  
  1881:Springer v. United States -- the court upheld the 1864 income tax. There were some later tax laws that were overturned, as those modified taxes were considered a tax on property rather than income, which is why the 16th amendment was drafted; It was designed for clarification, not for establishing taxation in the first place.
- HexeL, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0@AnteChronos
  
  I read the judgment. I better understand where you're coming from, but consider this. That case took place during the American Civil War. The Union needed that money big time. No Court of the time in its right mind was gonna say anything different.
  
  The conflict is not that Congress took taxes, but that it took taxes contrary to how the Constitution ordained they should do so, thus making their actions unconstitutional regardless of whether or nor they were penalized for doing so.
kobewan0824, on 10/11/2007, -14/+1and why would i believe a site like this? its a liberal web site run by liberal assholes.
- nycmac247, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@ kobewan0824
  
  Can you please write an argument instead of calling names. I'm interested to hear both sides - several sides - of this argument and when you call names, without specifics, it makes it difficult to understand what you're trying to convey.
enclave2, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6I'm confused. Why has this been news so many times. Why are people supporting the brown's so much? I'm not arguing for or against anything, I really don't know the story. I mean, I read the story, but I don't see why this is a issue people are fighting about. What makes these people revolutionaries and not just tax evaders?
- elsJake, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3the second comment above you states why.
Shandooga, on 10/11/2007, -6/+14The IRS is illegal and so is the Federal Reserve. So much of this country's history, policies and culture is based on lies and deception that the US is just begging to be invaded by unicorn-riding leprechauns who will abduct and anal-probe us all.
- kobewan0824, on 10/11/2007, -15/+1are u not from america? what the ***** man? whats with all the america bashing here? u people are outnumbered. ur all young little pussies. u people have no spine. always standing up for the assholes. what about us decent americans who pay our taxes? these people are upper class. they have no right to complain. they should have moved somewhere else if they dont like paying taxes. everyone else does, so they should to.
- elsJake, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6if everyone jumped off a bridge...
- GhostCow, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3and "u" can't type
- nycmac247, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7@ kobewan0824
  
  I don't understand your argument. It seems like you're saying that the Browns should pay tax since that's the way its always been done, which could be used in any situation where change is necessary and yet tradition stands against that change. Would you be willing to consider that real taxation should be on gains from investment or other non-labor situations only? That way you're argument against the upper class would still stick but people who are just working to make it by could live a much better life. Surely most people would agree that such things as playing the stock market and speculating on currency or flipping houses is not actually "work" ...
- mesogen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2kobewan,
  
  Your statement sounds like the american colonists loyal to the English crown before the revolution.
snowshoeless, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14This is all happening about 5 miles from my house. The local press has been covering it the entire time, front page news, etc. Did you know that about a month or 2 ago, EMTs were called to the house to provide medical treatment to Elaine? I think their argument as to why they could use town services was that they paid their local taxes and therefore could draw on town services. I can't find a local link because my local paper doesn't have a real website (vnews.com)

This is going to be huge, let me tell you. Whatever you believe, this is worth following. I live in a rural Vermont town, and this morning I saw 6-8 US Army soldiers at our local market, which was really weird. Are they getting ready? Who knows?
- ethernet76, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1A lot of local revenue for services trickle down through the system. Property taxes usually don't cover the entire bill for local government.
- UWake911, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7What's the address of the Browns house, so that people can go and camp there! We need a Nationwide rally to stop the Zionist-Tax.
- nycmac247, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@ uwake911
  
  Please don't muddy the waters; zionism _is_ ***** stupid (just as the entire british oil creation of the middle east after WWI was) but it has very little to nothing to do with this thread.
- Grouser, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2For those who were asking, the Brown's website is http://www.myspace.com/time2makeastand
  
  His address is given there as:
  401 Center of Town Road
  Plainfield, New Hampshire 03781
  
  The house is located at 43° 33′ 13″ N, 72° 18′ 43″ W
  
  http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.553611,-72.311944&spn=0.01,0.01&t=h&q=43.553611,-72.311944
nealpolitan, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2@ everyone

lighten up, Francis...
- BoneScotch, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2dugg up for Stripes reference
- nycmac247, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1@ nealpolitan
  
  A round of applause for our "Big Toe"
  
  hahaha thanks
suave1, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2http://tinyurl.com/yqng3d
edebolt, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2what a bunch of me me me selfishness. You don't want to pay taxes? You can move to Hong Kong. Unfortunately a small apartment will set you back a few million dollars.

How about all those progressive European countries like Norway and Holland, France, UK who like to say how advanced the are? Guess what they have taxes too and its only twice the % as the States. The fact is the US has fairly low tax rates and compared to a lot of countries there are good services which we all take advantage of.

Its easy to pay no taxes.. Just don't earn any money... Problem solved.
FallenOmen, on 10/11/2007, -7/+15I really hope that every 16yr old snot here on digg knows theres no law in which you have to pay TAXES !! Whats even funnier is you buy into all this ***** Fed hype.

So because this couple refuses to go to prison the Feds cut off there means of survival ? And no i don't mean the internet or phone..i mean power as in being able to have running water hot or cold !! heat or cool in the summer. Food preparation storing and basically all they above. Where do the feds get off doing this

Whats next run a tank into their home A LA WACKO TEXAS and kill people over stupid govt ***** ? To fill the pockets of a crooked Govt !!
- uhohpancho, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3How about the 16th Amendment? Or is that not a law?
- mike17032, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1"I really hope that every 16yr old snot here on digg knows theres no law in which you have to pay TAXES !! "
  
  Wanna bet?
uhohpancho, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2hey, mannn, you can't like..tax income

pass the bong
FallenOmen, on 10/11/2007, -7/+11IRS is illegal and so is the Federal Reserve

Hit the nail right on the head

Crooked govt run by a crooked President

Good to see the real Country of the Free is actually my Country -CANADA !!!!!!!!!!!
- uhohpancho, on 10/11/2007, -13/+7You're really stupid for:
  
  1) Posting this again
  2) Claiming that the IRS is illegal
  3) Questioning the good the Federal Reserve has done for America
  4) Claiming that Canada is free: you're part of the ***** Commonwealth. How's that whole queen-on-your-money thing doing?
- FallenOmen, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2@uhohpancho
  
  What the ***** do you mean again this is the first few times i posted in this digg....even if it wasn't which it is who are you to say when , where , and what the ***** i can post at any given time .........YOUR NOBODY A PEEON thats who ....like all of us opinions are like ass holes everybody has one , doesn't make it right or wrong ..they are just opinions - hence the definition ass hole !
  
  I have every right to express my views on here as much as you do .....so for arguments sake Go ***** yourself for being incorrect jerk for making assumptions and not for having an opinion yourself M'Kay !
- GhostCow, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1@uhohpancho
  
  You only seem to be right about #4, but I dugg you up anyway, because that was a damn good point.
jrayfitz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14Do the research! The income tax pays the interest on the National Debt. The military spending matches the income from Corporate taxes. (constitutional.) Fed Government "Borrows" the money for fiscal expenditures (welfare, healthcare, education, diaster relief, the alphabet agencies, ect ect ect.) from the federal reserve. (Neither Federal, nor a reserve) Funny how the income tax was passed (so they say) at about the same time congress turned over its constitutional right to print the nations money. Now it is in the hands of Private banks, a majority of them foreign. They print the stuff out of thin air and charge us interest on it. WHAT A SCAM!
Remember your history! The first hundred years of this republic were spent fighting against the Bank. It came it went. In 1913 it came again and hasn't left since.
So please, don't mouth the fairy tales that you have been told as God's honest truth. You don't know what you're talking about
You have all been dummied down and honestly believe black is white, up is down, and good is evil. Do the research and get pissed off. Our country was GREAT! We were the envy of the world! Now we are third world surfs who think we are free. None of us even knows what freedom is.
As Pete Townsend once penned "We're the slaves of the phony leaders"
- uhohpancho, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1We spent the first 150 years of this country battling some of the worst economic recessions in history.
  
  Or was that not the gold standard's fault?
FallenOmen, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13I never thought i would say this about Wiki but read this you all may learn something

Federal Income Taxes are an Illegal confiscation of property

In 1894 Congress passed a law allowing the Federal Government to collect income taxes, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Congress then passed a constitutional amendment allowing the government to collect income taxes, but the amendment was not properly ratified by the states.

Investigations into the ratification of the income tax amendment have found numerous problems which invalidate the legality of this amendment. Some of the errors made in ratifying the 16th Amendment were as simple as spelling and punctuation errors. Other errors were more serious errors in procedure, but when you are editing one of the most important documents in human history, extreme care should be taken.

Do not forget that the constitution is the legal and philosophical foundation of the United States of America. With the constitution at its foundation, in less than 200 years the US went from nothing, to the undisputed leader of the world. Countries around the world saw the magic of the US constitution and restructured their political foundations to mirror the philosophy of individual freedom featured in the constitution.

Some may argue that the errors made during the ratification process are not really important and are just nit-picking complaints about the onerous rules of ratification. But if the people truly willed the amendment to be adopted, then following all rules should not be too difficult.

The constitution does not set any time limit for amendment ratification. If this amendment is truly meant to be, then those states can correct their errors today. Failure to correct those errors will only be further evidence that Federal Income taxes are an illegal confiscation of property by the Federal government against the people of the United States of America.

I do not recommend anyone not pay taxes because despite this convincing argument, courts have not been too friendly to any "I don't have to pay taxes" arguments. Although I believe the above essay to be true, I pay my income taxes on time and in full.

http://www.wcool.com/mo96/0326.html

I loved this article but the guy pays his TAXES out of FEAR not cause he thinks it's right !!! WOw some Govt you guys have !!
- uhohpancho, on 10/11/2007, -9/+0Honestly, look at the source you've just cited. Tell me, what about it is credible?
- FallenOmen, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6@uhohpancho
  
  The site where it came from wasn't the focus or the point ass clown !!
  
  It was the mans actual words !!! taht was the point
  
  Funny you mention that cause you and most of you would site a bathroom wall as a source as long as you could put it on Digg !!
  
  Give me a break it was the words not the location......by your logic the whole INTERNET is unfounded as a source as it's just a pyramid effect of information
- wstrucke, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5So.... amendments do not have to be passed by congress, right? Isn't there a clause that allows a majority of citizens to propose and amend the Constitution? Why don't we just do that?
iradik, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2It's not right what the government is doing to the Brown's. If you didn't pay your electric bill or credit card bill, wouldn't you be shocked if Capital One came rolling in with armed men and robots to come take their money? That's the same with the government. What gives the IRS the right to roll in with guns to collect money? I thought there were no such thing as Debtor's Prison in the US, but that's just not true when it comes to taxes.

The IRS should have the right to collect the money which is owed to them according to the law, but I think it's unjust for the government to take people to jail by force for not paying their taxes in a free society.
- uhohpancho, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2No, they should be able to take them to jail considering that it is a federal offense and it's part of our social contract (the US Constitution).
Ghoztt, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13Why is the Browns house constantly being called a "compound" -? Sounds like NEWSPEAK to me.

Who in their right mind walks around calling two story houses compounds? www.infowars.com/articles/ps/plainfield_feds_corner_browns_marshals_cut_phones_power_net.htm

And yes, Income tax has no law backing it up. I don't need to have a hideously bloated government taking care of me and I don't need my country running Empires over-seas. Any able-bodied MAN that can't stand on his own two feet and needs someone else or some government to take care of him and his community is a simpleton who is too lazy to take responsibility for his own environment.
- FallenOmen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Cause thats what the govt pigs feed to the media to make it sound more sinister and make the family seem evil and brooding as if they are bad people and are un-American and against the Govt....perfect defense for the govt when the eventually no doubt go in and kill them and say it was a mistake as usual !! Or the familys fault for not paying......this will no doubt be blown out of proportion and be all over the Western world soon enough no doubt used a s a distraction for when the US invades and Bombs Iran before Bush leaves the Dirty Office !!
  
  God the US sucks for their ***** laws and they way they treat their citizens !!...................What took than to be a great NAtion in such a short period of time they quickened even faster in becoming the most hated in the world even through the eyes of their own people !!
- UWake911, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Here here, Ghoztt.
FallenOmen, on 10/11/2007, -8/+7Income Tax is illegal. Therefore the collection of it is also illegal

The federal government didn't always have the power to tax individuals directly. It could tax the states, but it had to be done proportional to their population. The idea of taxing citizens directly wasn't legal.

A LAW created less than 100yrs ago the so called "16th amendment to the Constitution" apparently Taxes legal .........What a ***** FARCE !!!!!!!!
- uhohpancho, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3You realize you're saying the Constitution is unconstitutional, right? You realize that you're Canadian and you pay some of the largest income taxes in the world, right?
  
  Learn before you speak about 'liberty', dude.
- FallenOmen, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6@uhohpancho
  
  A- I'm not your DUDE !!
  
  B- I have Duel Citizenship
  
  C-Take your own advice you know nothing of Canada or Canadian politics or it's Govt....i for one do i use to work for said sectors of Govt and am continually fighting for less or no taxes !!
- UWake911, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1It's a ZIONIST-TAX that they can't afford to allow to stop. The controlled Government will carry out a Waco if needs be to win the situation.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2@fallenomen:; Haha, I didn't recognize your new sockpuppet at first. So did your original account, Calgary911, get cancelled by Digg, or did you just feel your stories and comments weren't getting enough diggs so you needed MORE sockpuppets?
- endersadvocate, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5duel citizenship?
  
  en guard!
- bduddy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Apparently people either can't or won't read. Here it is, "in the Constitution" as you all like to say:
  
  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.
  
  There. Happy?
- FallenOmen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@Junkyarddawg
  
  What the ***** are you spewing on about sock puppets ?
  
  And i live in Nova Scotia ass lick !!
  
  Sorry i used to be Xian Frost for over 3yrs here on the digg forums beofre my account got hauled !! I have since moved to a new loaction ad switched providers but i still live in Nova Scotia..............Sorry i'm not your little friend you trying to dubbed me in your witch hunt
  
  better luck next time ass clown !!
- Grouser, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@bduddy: "Without apportionment" means no graduated income tax. That's what the 16th amendment was about.
  
  The Brown's argument is about something else--they say there is no specific law that imposes the tax. The sections of the code that they were convicted under are just penalty clauses.
  
  Someone should do a comic book version so I can understand these arguments. It make my head hurt.
UWake911, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Corruption at its best. The Marshal should refuse to do the arrest.
UWake911, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5The Browns need to release the address and allow anyone to turn up to rally behind the issue. Make it a massive TV story. A story the controlled media has to conver.

Americans need to fight the IRS bakcmail, as it's being used to finance US attacks on other Nations, for Israel. Actually the IRS is infested with Zionists and they keep the network going to force Americans to pay a Zionist-Tax.

Aaron Russo, even proved this when he addressed ex Jewish managers.
- unreg, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2What the you want to publish?
  
  "Rich people refuse to pay their taxes? Rich people feel they are above the law? Pretending federal taxes are unconstitutional doesn't hold water?"
  
  That will go over well we everyone who's fulfilled their obligation of paying taxes.
  
  These two ass munches tried an end run with regards to paying their taxes and got caught. If they truly believed the whole unconstitutional angle, why did they try and hide the money via postal orders?
- UWake911, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Unreg, what planet are you on. The law is the law. The Fed-Zionist-Tax is either in the Acts and or Constitution, or it is not.
  
  The fact is it is not, so why are you supporting it? Are you Anti-American?
- unreg, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Fed-Zionist-Tax
  
  You lost the argument right there. It's stupid mouth breathing dribble statements like that which invalidate any argument.
  
  Aren't the jews suppose to be a clever little group. Wouldn't they have seen fit to make sure the whole legality of the taxation was air tight, seeing as, to use another moonbat stereotyping, they're all lawyers?
  
  If you clowns are so sure of the unconstitutionality of the federal tax, take it up with the Supreme Court.
travelon77, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Anyone who thinks that taxation + earmarking isn't to some degree those in the government taking money out of the taxpayer's pocket and putting it into their friend's pockets, is fooling themselves. Its not what you know, it's who you know. And the best contracts to get in business are government contracts. Don't be stupid. Those in government aren't. They know how to play the game a lot better then the average citizen. But they don't want you to know anything about how Federal Taxation is unconstitutional.
adndgamer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6http://www.wcool.com/mo96/ratify.html

Alleged defects in the ratification of the Income Tax Amendment.
- UWake911, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1It's amazing why people would vote you down! Obviously we have the Zionist-teen-cyberarmy here.
UWake911, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3It's unbelievable how dumb some Diggs are. Like there is NO Federal Tax laws! So what is so hard to understand that you don't pay it. Laws are what guide you in society.
kinseyincanada, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4i wonder if anyone on here who is so against income tax doesn't pay thier income taxes, i can bet that all of you pay yours so if your soo in support of this guy, go and join him, you have the right to bear arms then go get a gun and join him, stop trolling on digg and posting comments and thinking your some sort of rebel after watching some low budget documentary on google video.
- unreg, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0Mom won't let them out after dark.
- UWake911, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4It's time they did stop if they haven't already.
DougPenn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7WHY am I taxed when I earn my money (income tax), then taxed again when I spend it (sales tax) ?
UWake911, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1AnteChronos, we have the Zionist-cyber-teen-army in here. Else it's Illegals and others that dont understand what made or makes America great.

Ask yourself who benefits most form the fed-tax? Answer, Israel and those in the PRIVATE BANK of The Federal-Reserve, which is known to have selective Jewish share holders. This is a enslavement of the US people. They are the blood bank. They are the goyim cattle mentioned in the Zionist/Pharisee doctines of the Talmud.
LucidHawk, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Damn congress should just make a real law and be done with it.
Then we should ALL elect Ron Paul so he can do his best to eradicate the Federal Reserve and Income Tax.
The US government is too ****ing fat. All you ***** Communists who want government to diaper you and keep up trillions of documents worth of secrecy; can move to China.. or go ahead elect one of these tippy toe coward Dems or Neo Cons. screw the nation more.. great.. just great..
cannman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Well said (kinseyincanada);
The people that are saying that we should f*** the laws should take a good long look at places that avoid laws or make laws that suit them and their so-called ''Religious doctrines''. Life is too short; treasure the small mercies and joys. Pay your taxes if you owe them; but never think that you are totally free. No man is an island.
In a last note; to all the people who are making the comments; I hope you have actually had a job and have paid your taxes; if not; go out and play and come back when you have grown up. Respect for others is a wonderful thing
oMeSSiaHo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Digg is amazing! The last time this guy was posted how there we better solutions to fixing the tax problem and he was just being greedy and got dugg down. Now his supporters are getting dugg down!

This is actually quite interesting. I wonder if it is the time demographic (different users) or if people dont want to go against the thread. Interesting...
CaviMike, on 10/11/2007, -7/+0Save Ferris!
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
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.

Feds Cut Power, Phone, Internet of Couple Who Won't Report To Prison

Login or register to add a comment