digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

SWAT teams, armored vehicle seen near Brown home

cmonitor.com — Neighbors of convicted tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown reported police SWAT teams and at least one armored vehicle converging on a field near their Plainfield home this morning.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • madness69, on 10/11/2007, -34/+55We need to storm the storm troopers !!!!!!!!! Now!!!!!!!!
    • dshPls, on 10/11/2007, -71/+52For anyone who doesn't know who Ed Brown is, he's a loony ***** who decided he didn't have to pay taxes anymore (probably from catching the truther virus,) and now he's chilling on his compound swatting flys off his wifes back.

      He called into the Junkies in the Morning (radio show) back in February where he was exposed as a lunatic and hung up in defeat, I'll have to dig up the audio, absolutely hilarious. For whatever reason truthers have formed a human shield around him, claiming he's actually doing something productive and worthwhile, maybe it's just because they accept all kinds of crazy(they're adopting the Scientology methodology you know, charging members and following aroudn dissenters with videocameras ect.)
    • mrharvey518, on 10/11/2007, -66/+41I still don't get why you people are defending these criminals. If they believe that income tax is unconstitutional, Brown should sue the government. But no, they're threatening police and barricading themselves in their house.

      dshpls, please post that audio of that radio show.
    • dshPls, on 10/11/2007, -53/+19When I get home I'll have to submit it, keep an eye out! Unfortunately it'll probably get buried.
    • oxdeltaxo, on 10/11/2007, -55/+24Taxes do pay for good things like education and the postal system. If someone feels inclined to not wants these services that's their problem.
    • trghpy, on 10/11/2007, -52/+21The way mods are being handed out today...
      People seem to be modding with their cheapness than with their sanity...

      Common, we've been paying income taxes for way over 100 years. Why wait till now to bitch that its un-constitutional? Its a bit late for that argument.

      Maybe the supreme court could call the browns and tell them its constitutional so that can pay up and shut up or else they should be shutted up with extreme predijust.
    • MaynardJK, on 10/11/2007, -69/+39@everyone above me replying to the OP.

      You can call him a lunatic or a criminal as soon as you show us where the constitution allows for income tax (hint: it doesn't). Until then, STFU.
    • dshPls, on 10/11/2007, -19/+35Here is the audio:

      http://digg.com/politics/Ed_Brown_the_tax_evader_OWNED_on_live_radio
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -39/+97@MaynardJK
      The Sixteenth Amendment explicitly allows for an income tax. And, under the Constitution, any amendment to the Constitution is a valid piece of the document. If you don't like the income tax, get the amendment removed.
    • okkk, on 10/11/2007, -51/+0http://digg.com/political_opinion/Dear_Digg_Please_Ban_User_DLHPLS
    • blackolive, on 10/11/2007, -23/+60U.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)

      "Just to clarify, the United States Code IS THE LAW! Congress passes laws which specifically specify new, deleted, or changed sections of the law."

      (posted by NearlyHeadless on a previous forum)

      Quote:
      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"

      (posted by David76 on a previous forum)
    • corevette, on 10/11/2007, -29/+4pics or it didn't happen
    • rm999, on 10/11/2007, -10/+29Can someone please explain what this story is about? I have never heard of Ed and Elaine Brown and wikipedia is not quite useful
    • hiPpymIck, on 10/11/2007, -10/+14@Blackolive
      ..someone knows how to keep good notes ..
    • robdazomba, on 10/11/2007, -20/+31@MaynardJK

      Nothing like being exposed for parrotting anti-tax rhetoric without actually reading the very constitution you claim backs up your views.
    • AlanCayce, on 10/11/2007, -10/+13"SWAT teams, armored vehicle seen near Brown home"

      lol, my first thought was, Bobby Brown?? Come On Man?!?
    • Legato, on 10/11/2007, -15/+10the fifth amendment allows you to not testify against yourself... and filling out income taxes is testifying against yourself...

      makes sense to me!

      (is he being sarcastic?! i can't tell!)
    • Rhino2, on 10/11/2007, -3/+56@rm999

      The story up till now (as I know it, please correct if I get anything wrong):

      The Browns didn't pay taxes [for apox 10 years] - claiming that it [federal income tax] was unconstitutional (right or wrong, just giving you the facts. That is what they claim, obviously there is a disagreement with the government on that point :P )

      They [the IRS/Government] took them to court.
      The Browns where found guilty.
      The Browns where suppose to go back to court for sentencing.

      Elaine Brown moved out and was arrested.

      Ed Brown is held up in his "house" (which some claim is "compound" or "fortress" like. His "house" is self contained (water, power, lots of food, etc) and some claim it has 10 feet thick walls)
      Ed also has some buddies that stay with him.
      It is rumored/suggested that Ed Brown and his friends are "heavily" armed (ie. firearms)

      Since then, there hasn't been any attempts for the Government/IRS to /forcible/ remove him from his house [various government agencies have tried talks with him to get him to come out, but without any success]

      That is where we are now. Some people think that they is going to be a big battle at Ed Browns "house" between him and his buddies and various government enforcement agencies. - hence this story.

      My personal thoughts: If this "goes down" it's going to be big and nasty.
    • jwolcott, on 10/11/2007, -17/+12It's one thing to pay income tax on income you earn as a citizen living within the borders and laws of your country and directly benefiting from the fruits of those taxes.

      It's an entirely different matter when your government forces you to pay taxes when you no longer live in the United States. The US is one of the very, very few countries that taxes its citizens who live abroad. That's gotta hurt.
    • shig, on 10/11/2007, -23/+17All of you defending the "constitutionality" of the income tax law will be thrilled to know that the new amnesty bill being debated (thank God it is actually being debated, for it wasn't intentionally meant to be) absolves all illegal aliens of any liability for "back-taxes". Now you can sip your martini's with a smile while real American patriots, who've payed income taxes for decades, are burned to death in their homes.... I mean compounds, or whatever word makes you villains more comfortable with your complacency.

    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/11/2007, -10/+18> ". . .while real American patriots, who've payed income taxes for decades, are burned to death in their homes.... I mean compounds. . ."

      I hope you're not referring to Ed and Elaine Brown. If you are, then you've been paying as much attention as they have been paying taxes...
    • d3m3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Heres a Fox news video, it shows his house and 'watch tower'

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dITKfUJKkl8&mode=related&search=
    • arcangelgabriel, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4"We need to storm the storm troopers !!!!!!!!! Now!!!!!!!!"

      Yea, good luck with all that there buddy. Call me and let me know how that turns out for ya.
    • cawpin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7@jwolcott - First, you only have to pay income tax to the US government if your main residence for a particular year is in the US. Second, if you normally live and work inside the country, you can work outside of the country for up to 6 months without paying said income taxes. After that, you do have to start paying them.
    • ricksite, on 10/11/2007, -11/+18"The US is one of the very, very few countries that taxes its citizens who live abroad. That's gotta hurt."

      The US will also come rescue your ass should the foreign nation you are hanging out in falls apart. If you don't want to pay taxes when you leave, renounce your citizenship and don't come back.
    • EndersGame, on 10/11/2007, -14/+39Whether the law is on Ed's side or not is debatable and takes extensive knowledge of the law to make a case either way. Honestly that doesn't matter to me, I support him 100% in what he is doing because the IRS is practically a criminal organization, its unconstitutional, and needs to be shut down. Federal spending for the most part is a complete waste, which means federal income tax is a complete waste. Besides, the federal government has too much power anyways, if we take away the power from the federal government and give it back to the states this country wouldn't be so ***** up. Right now there is too much power out there to 'buy', and thats why you see all these politicians with corporate interests, and we end up with things like the military industrial complex. I could go on and on about whats wrong with the Police State, and how much better off this country could be....but at this point its just easier to recommend voting for Ron Paul.
    • popfrogs, on 10/11/2007, -10/+18See the Wikipedia entry for "Waco Siege" to see how this will end.

      Resist and be crushed, that's the rule here in the US.
    • NinjaBoy, on 10/11/2007, -9/+9@Blackolive
      The part in question isn't the amendment. That just give them the RIGHT to SET UP a tax. But where does it outline how much?? Find me that part of the law please. The part the tells me EXACTLY how much I have to pay and what the money is to be used for.
    • chijim70, on 10/11/2007, -5/+30@oxdeltaxo
      Please research before spouting nonsense please. Federal income tax does not pay for ANYTHING local. Local taxes do. Property tax is the main provider of school revenue. Postal service is paid for by postal fees.
      Gas tax and road tolls pays for roads and related services... etc. etc.

      @trqhpy
      We have been paying federal income tax since 1913 (see: ratification of the 16th amendment)... less than 100 years. The Internet and people becoming more informed due to it has helped to grow an EDUCATED populace that is starting to realize the sham that has been portrayed upon them for so long. How could you have fought the fed in court if the first thing they do is take away all of your assets?

      @MaynardjK
      Reread the 16th amendment and learn what all of it means before spouting BS. Learn what apportioned, direct, or indirect tax means and maybe watch Aaron Russo's film "Freedom to Fascism" for an education on the matter. I have a few friends who are lawyers who first answered as you did but once going back to review the matter for themselves now say they are not so sure and now talking with their other lawyer friends about it as an unending water cooler topic via blackberry... long story short... none of them can answer definitively that there is a law stating you must pay the Fed income tax.

      Love how so many are using ***** as their reference regarding this topic. If you read it's links to what tax protesters think it is very incomplete and extremely obviously biased against them.
    • asauterChicago, on 10/11/2007, -13/+4@endersgame

      Although I don't agree with you, I do think we should have income tax to pay for things like school, public transit, healthcare, etc. But, I think as a democracy, if they are going to take 37% of my paycheck, I think I should have a say so in where the funding goes. I don't support the war, I don't think whatever chunk of my paycheck should be going to it. Let the war supporters, well support it. Let me choose where I want my money to go to. You can still tax the same amount, but I want a choice.
    • blackolive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4@chij & ninjaboy

      "Public Law 83-591" explains income tax rates
      http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/comp2/F083-591.html

      It's part of the "Internal Revenue Code"
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26.html
    • EndersGame, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7@ asauterChicago

      Thats sort of my point, you will hold more power over where your taxes are spent if we only have state income tax. Schools, public transit, paved roads, and anything else you would most likely want your taxes to go to are funded through state income and property taxes. Federal taxes are used to line pockets and promote ***** wars. I honestly might feel a little differently about the whole thing if there was an efficient way for the people to decide where federal taxes go to. If 70% of Americans are against the war, we should be able to cut off funding. There would probably be no drug war either if we had more control over what gets spent where.
    • blackolive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Very clear explanation & charts:
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html

    • chijim70, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15BUZZZ you lose blackolive...
      Codes are not laws... tax code as set forth by the IRS means nothing if we begin the argument at the core of the federal laws allowing the IRS to exist... and most if not all tax protesters believe it is an illegal organization. If there is no LAW making us pay federal income tax why would IRS code matter?
    • littlebylittle, on 10/11/2007, -8/+9*** It Seems Like Fed Spooks Are Burying Brown Digg Posts ***

      http://www.digg.com/politics/BREAKING_Ed_Elaine_Brown_EMERGENCY_MESSAGE_2

      Friday, June 8th:

      THE PLACE IS SURROUNDED!!! SOUND THE HORNS! WE ARE UNDER ATTACK! NOW IS THE TIME! ED & ELAINE BROWN NEED YOUR SUPPORT IN NH NOW! THEY HAVE COME WITH DEADLY FORCE! DO NOT JUST SIT THERE AND READ THIS WITHOUT TAKING ACTION! BRING YOUR CAMERAS AND WHATEVER ELSE YOU MAY NEED TO SUPPORT! ALERT THE MASSES! POST FAR AND WIDE
    • blackolive, on 10/11/2007, -9/+12MYTH #1 - The Internal Revenue Code is not law.

      "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, 68A Stat. 3."
      -- http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#law


      MYTH #2 - Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code makes an ordinary citizen liable for the income tax.

      Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code says: “There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table.. ..”

      And: “Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ....”
      -- http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#liable
    • CorpT, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13"But, I think as a democracy, if they are going to take 37% of my paycheck, I think I should have a say so in where the funding goes"

      You do. You can vote for your representative in Congress who votes for the spending bills.
    • dentonez, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2I won't get into legal squabbles with people mostly without any legal training. Nor will get into a philosophical debate on whether we should be paying taxes or how much, but what I do know a great deal about is federal and state funding. For those talking about local taxes... do research. Most of the states take in more money than they pay into federal monies (It actually breaks pretty close to the "Red" states / "Blue" state lines). Without federal taxes half the states would devolve into places of extreme poverty.
    • kuzotz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6@ricksite

      That's not what I saw in July 2006. I saw the US government. Charging its citizens an insane fee. While other countries got their citizens out speedily. The US government made people pay.

      A lot of people had to bitch at the government to convince them to drop that ***** fee. I think it was around 2 to 3 thousand dollars....

      Seriously now. My taxes paid for your ass to be here. My taxes pay for a lot of things, but when ***** hits the fan they're suppose to leave me high and dry.

      I hate Americans like you because you DON'T want to hold this government accountable for anything. Yet you want to give them everything.

      BTW this was in Lebanon.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Look 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 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.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4BTW, Ron Paul is interviewed extensively in the above film link.
    • yournightmare, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"Codes are not laws... "

      --Wrong answer. Some codes are laws (for example, the U.S.C.). I believe you are referring to administrative codes (aka administrative rules, aka legislative rules), which do in fact usually have the force AND effect of law as long as they are not superseded by local, state, or federal law. This has been covered ad nauseum by the courts. If what you said was true, then for example nobody would be able to get arrested when the DEA places a drug in emergency scheduling.

      See: American Mining Congress v. Mine Safety & Health Administration, 302 U.S. App. D.C. 38, 995 F.2d 1106, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

      And: Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U.S. 87, 99, 131 L. Ed. 2d 106, 115 S. Ct. 1232 (1995)

    • prisoner24601, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@ ricksite
      "The US is one of the very, very few countries that taxes its citizens who live abroad. That's gotta hurt."
      "The US will also come rescue your ass should the foreign nation you are hanging out in falls apart."

      And the aircraft carrier that shows up off the coast of Equatorial Kundu (or whatever banana republic you are trapped in) will have been paid by *federal* taxes and is owned by the *United States* not the State of Maine. This nonsense that federal taxes are illegal and people like the Browns saying they will only pay for local or state taxes is just laughable. New Mexico or Georgia will never own a B2 bomber nor can they implement a foreign policy.

      It's all very convenient to try to "drop off the grid" and live a tax-free life by saying you "just don't want to participate in the larger national society" when you are being protected by the most extensive military in the history of the world.

      Freeloading ingrates.
    • Nerys, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"Brown should sue the government. But no, they're threatening police and barricading themselves in their house"

      Except that your either not allowed to sue the government with permission or judges THROW OUT cases with prejiduce and call them frivilous and FINE YOU for TRYING to sue the government without hearing a word you have to say.

      I firmly believe taxes on my income are illegal. I earn NO INCOME ie PROFIT. I trade equal amounts of work for dollars. its an exchange. I gain NOTHING. When I get a bonus or a commission or when I run a business and earn a profit THAT is income that can be taxed constitutionally. This is nothing different than you and me swapping DVD's and the government "taxing" us when we do.

      Also Taxes on income were supposed to be by apportionment. This means the gov declares its budget FIRST and then taxes are divided amongst the states evenly. You may say this is unfair but consider this was when the federal budget was LIMITED and SMALL as it was supposed to be not the gigantic trillions of dollars it is today.

      The problem is that it DOES NOT MATTER if what they are doing is legal or constitutional or not since they have the police military and courts behind them legal or not. Enforcement is everything.

      Taxes are one thing. 30-40% of my ENTIRE INCOME is a whole other story. THAT I have a problem with. WHY do I have to pay taxes on a used car when the taxes were ALREADY PAID on that used car when it was bought?

      Want an EASY way to see why income tax is bogus ? You are taxed when you EARN it and then you are taxed when you spend it ???? wait you get taxed TWICE minimum on every dollar you make ? No its more like 6 or 7 times on EACH dollar you make.

      Fica - medicaid - SS - Federal - State - Local - Sometimes County - and then if you spend it you have sales tax sometimes state AND city. thats 7-9 times EACH dollar you make is taxed. WHERE is the logic in this.

      and yes its EACH dollar because THEY ALL tax on the GROSS not on whats left after each tax is taken. So your being taxed on dollars that are not even YOURS any longer.

      OH and if you SAVE that money you earn interest and THATS TAXED too and the tax goes up faster than the interest rate does so you could end up with LESS money trying to save it than if you just spend the freaking stuff.

      THIS tax by the way is the ONLY constitutionally legitimate tax (and sales tax is legitimate) since its a PROFIT

      You see when you earn interest you put in $10 but get out $11 so you GAIN without exchange. THATS profit THATS supposed to be whats taxed.
    • Nerys, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Blackolive - I agree with you there is NOTHING wrong with that amendment. My problem is its implimentation

      INCOME cannot be derived from or as WAGES as WAGES are not PROFIT but are an expense item to any sort of business.

      The hourly wage I make in exchange for my hours of work is no more an "income" than the dvd I get from you if we decide to trade predator 1 for predator 2

      THATS THE PROBLEM BLACK OLIVE :-)

      WHERE in the constitution does it define an equal exchange with NO GAIN on either side as income ?

      When I buy "item X" for $50 and SELL IT TO YOU for $100 my INCOME was $50 MINUS expenses. (electricity rent gas etc..) IE income is what you get when you have deducted ALL costs and expenses.

      MY HOURS of my LIFE are the most obvious and valuable EXPENSES in existence. When I WORK 1 hours and get paid $15 NO income was earned. Thats called wages. a currency exchange between hours and dollars.

      Show me where in that amendment it says this can be taxed ?
    • subman697, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Why are all of you pretending this has anything to do with tax laws, and Ed Brown fighting the "good fight"???

      Here is what he said last month:

      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..


      Hundreds of comments about him being a true patriot, fighting the man, etc. and HE ISN'T EVEN INTERESTED. He has changed his name, and moved to bible-ville...

      Talk about a bunch of people needing a scapegoat to vent their anger. You guys are all following someone who has LEFT YOU BEHIND!
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1subman

      Who gives a *****? Whether it be mans law or bibles law in his mind is totally irrelevant. That doesn't change anything here.
    • d00ley, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Taxes do pay for good things like education and the postal system. If someone feels inclined to not wants these services that's their problem"

      Actually, federal income taxes don't go to a single government service. As for the services that you mentioned, education is generally funded by land taxes and the postal system funds itself.
  • namelessuno, on 10/11/2007, -33/+20Glad i left the USA!
    • CaptA, on 10/11/2007, -15/+24@namelessuno,

      BRAVO namelessuno! America is a good place to be "from." The world is a treasure trove, to be found and explored ... that is, until nation-states arrive. The State will do whatever is necessary to keep you under its booted foot. That's bankable.

      Beatles drummer Ringo Starr: "Everything the government touches turns to crap."

      "Time spent trying to change something, is "time" BETTER spent looking for something you don't have to change." ~ Capt. A.
    • MacGyver2210, on 10/11/2007, -12/+11Is it can be grammar tiem now plees?
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -9/+10Hey CaptA, what do you think about roughing up "cdnyny"? You know, he's an incompetent typer who spews vile, mindless garbage on these Internets so you and I will get together as mafioso and will shake him down. We declare that he's a nimrod who needs to be watched over his Internet usage so we will shake him down by telling him he must accept our Internet service and our protection from our wise guys.

      Hey, we're protecting him ya know? We're doing him a favor. Services rendered. Now he must pay us our collections or we'll send one of our button men after him ;-) We'll bust up some kneecaps if he misses a payment or refuses to pay. After all, he has "opted" in to our services we're providing him. It is his moral duty to pay us and if he doesn't, why he's an immoral deadbeat cheater thus he deserves whatever violence comes his way.

      Our services are apparently so good that we must apply some intimidation to get him to "opt" in to our services ;-) Some genius marketing of ours huh?

      If he finally causes trouble for us in the end and tries to get away and not pay us, we'll hire some cousins from Italy to go whack him. He's hiding in his home. So our men will go finish the job there.

      Sound good? Good, let's do it. We'll teach him a lesson with our iron fist. Sound familiar? ;-)

      That's right cdnyny, fugggedaboutit you dumb *****. Don't be such a wackadoo.

      Ah, with that in mind, I will now look forward to the grand finale to the Sopranos this Sun. night!

      I just love those parallels between the government and the mafia.

      Now as for Ed Brown, whether it is the strategically smart thing to resist violently at this point is another subject, but regardless, I support his right to defend himself. Much like the jews meeting the brown shirts in the Warsaw ghetto with their firearms, I hope Ed Brown takes as many as those MF..ing brown shirts with him. Just like the good German soldiers those of you like cdnyny are like.
    • szembek, on 10/11/2007, -9/+6Good riddance.
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4lol The feelings mutual prick!
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -11/+11Sorry, but for the people in this thread who are being nasty and violent about Ed Brown and those of us supporting him, I will have no patience and civility with them. I don't mind those openly questioning this without putting down Ed Brown, but those who are being jerks about this issue aren't human beings deserving of my respect. They can go ***** themselves.
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2I'm glad you left too! Now don't come back!
    • szembek, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4People who openly break the law deserve no respect. Ed Brown deserves no respect and will get none from me or any other self respecting citizen.
    • Qeveren, on 10/11/2007, -3/+22The only way to overturn an unjust law is to break it, then challenge it in court, though.
    • CaptA, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7@ JDenigma,
      U saying: "Hey CaptA, what do you think about roughing up "cdnyny"? You know, he's an incompetent typer who spews vile, mindless garbage..."

      Boy-oh-boy JD, it never ceases to amaze -- what people in this world, (America) are like and stand for!

      If I lived in America, was young again, and had your spirited appetite - I'd love to call Carmine & Tony in Chicago! As you and others know through many other diggs I've made on this site, I removed myself to a vastly superior venue, Switzerland precisely for the reasons you have cited in so many, many diggs you yourself have done. I just grew tired of living amongst the gimme-gimmes, wheedlers, and the brain-dead masses, and especially the general American mentality connected with people like GWB, the American political system and the rabid corporate America etc. But also, I see little reason to cheer, no matter who gets to become potus, (Not even the venerable and talented Dr. Ron Paul) the country will continue its graveyard spiral, ending with high probability in an ochlocracy. I do admire your passion! Your Big Picture is accurate and hopefully you'll never ever let "the bastards wear you down."

      OK, OK, OK (Joe Pesci) —I’ll get in touch with Carmine and Tony, asking who in Sicily can come and give you needed “help” in the U.S. ;) And brother, you do need it!

      As always, the best to you Josh.

      Capt. A.
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Thanks for putting up with me there CaptA lol Good post
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I probably should develop your cool headedness and patience. I've got too much pent up anger.
    • CaptA, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3JD,
      U: "I've got too much pent up anger."
      *******
      Anger will KILL you in health and ultimately spirit. Don't get mad; get even! Take your "revenge" as the age-old definition implies: COLD. "Revenge is a plate BEST served cold."

      Enjoy life and make it what YOU want it to be, not the system, not the family, not the church, not anyone!! Your life is the only one you'll ever own. THINK with your brain and ACT. You are too bright and articulate - this I’ve witnessed from what you say and how you act. Yes, you are a "pitbull!" And that's good! You don't take crap from anyone, and that's good too. So, don't let ANGER strip you of all of the wonderful things that exist in life. Carpe Diem. Nary a single shred of your existence — be allowed to rest in the hands of others WITHOUT your permission. (Especially politicians!) I'm rooting for you to stay far away from the nanny-states’ "chains and never under their boot!" It can be done. PLAN — then do it JD!!

      In liberty,

      Capt. A.
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3CaptA

      I actually had to look up a word you used....ochlocracy. Now I know what it means.

      Well, I guess it combination with mob control, it would also be a plutocracy, government of the rich....the corporate elites and bankers that sucker the clueless masses into genuflecting on bended knee.

  • Tylox, on 10/11/2007, -13/+29Let's go people. See you there!
  • ninjaSteak, on 10/11/2007, -10/+62Everyone in the vicinity needs to storm the place with video cameras and record everything.
    • dshPls, on 10/11/2007, -37/+10WTF is that going to do? Do you really want to embarrass Brown more by videotaping him being pulled out, covered in feces crying like a 13yo girl?
    • GawtMilk, on 10/11/2007, -19/+25"Do you really want to embarrass Brown more by videotaping him being pulled out, covered in feces crying like a 13yo girl?"

      ....yes.
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3I'm not so sure of your wording, but, yes.
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5@dshpls

      Thank you for demonstrating what a nasty, violent, worthless piece of trash you are for a human being. If one was to desire poetic justice, then I would be glad to see you one day get your comuppence from the government. Just dig a hole and bury yourself please you mindless plebian.
    • williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9Nah, we just want to see how many JBTs go home in bags just so the government can collect and squander a few thousand dollars.
  • namelessuno, on 10/11/2007, -19/+11updates:
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/
  • blaze4metal, on 10/11/2007, -8/+44For a system so anal about taxes, it sure knows how to spend it wisely!
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14I don't think it wants anyone else getting any ideas.
  • gonegoogling, on 10/11/2007, -12/+14listen live for free right now to the breaking developements here.

    http://www.gcnlive.com/listenlive.htm

    just click the free stream for the player you have installed.
    • namelessuno, on 10/11/2007, -11/+31there are people on that radio program claiming that god is showing them things and speaking to them. i must say that such folks are downright dangerous if not hilarious.

      the religious discussion does much to discredit the ed brown case.

      religion injects confusion into an already confusing situation. religion divides people too.

      ed's position is very strong from a legal standpoint imo.

      if you hear voices or see things then it extremely improbable that it has something to do with that thing you call god.

      give wide berth to those he hear and see things that no one else can....extra wide berth.
    • gonegoogling, on 10/11/2007, -9/+11@ namelessuno
      im sorry. i posted while the Alex Jones show was on. i do not support all of the shows on the gcn network, again, i apologize.
    • WebCester, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3They were just interviewing the guy who says he was shot at and tazed while walking the Brown's dog. The host (I didn't catch a name) actually said this about the agents who are positioned there: "They're all going to get cancer, or die in a car crash. And it won't be us or our children doing it, it will be God. Because that's the way this works."

      WTF.
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3You see what the government is doing to our world here. It's turning people into nasty, hateful human beings who are fighting amongst each other and getting violent with each other, hence what that talk show host said, what people in this thread are saying, and what I said in some of my posts with some of the vile, awful language I used.

      Thank you for supporting all this government everyone. This is what it's doing to the world. People just become more barbaric and nasty towards each other. It turns people against each other. We have the government as our role model. This news and everything in this thread clearly demonstrates how sick our world is right now. When will we all grow up?
  • perish, on 10/11/2007, -7/+32Here's his Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lewis_Brown

    Here's the Borwn's MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/time2makeastand

    "In His Own Words" Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3956130595394471955
    [reply]
  • assmonger, on 10/11/2007, -20/+9Live Radio Show - http://www.nfowars.net:443/stream1.ram
    • thenativeraver, on 10/11/2007, -9/+12I've never seen a better fitting handle.
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5At least he's not into sucking the governments ***** much like yourself.
  • Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -31/+19My thoughts and prayers are for the Brown family and friends. My whatever invisible diety your believe(or none) stay with you all and keep you safe.

    Should the government attack this guy, I hope the other citizens realize what it means and stand beside him. If it happens, know this - War with the government will then be inevitable. The only question will be whether it is you, or your off spring, that will fight it.

    • crazydiode, on 10/11/2007, -20/+7"War with the government".. who's gonna wage it? us the diggers, i presume?
    • szembek, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5You ***** moron. If you don't pay taxes for 7 years you are going to prison. There's nothing that this insane douche or you can do about it.
  • aslave2thegrind, on 10/11/2007, -13/+15The mainstream media still hasn't picked up on this story, but that's because apparently there were no juicy details on this particular occasion other than the roadblocks, use of APC's, and cutting off communications to the Brown compound...no one killed yet so it won't get much attention this time.
    • dshPls, on 10/11/2007, -32/+16Because Ed Brown is irrelevant.
    • dshPls, on 10/11/2007, -24/+9Dude I can control the magnets in space to make buildings collapse, working for the NWO makes me more relevant than you! Think otherwise? I want to see you harness the satanic power of the Bohemian Grove to pop popcorn, fool.

      I better stop, you ACTUALLY believe this crap....
    • rabidg00se, on 10/11/2007, -8/+9Well...he is pretty irrelevant.
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -9/+5@dshpls

      Oh, you mean relevancy as in being popular and accepted? Ah, who cares about being considered relevant and popular in the eyes of dumb *****. The vast majority of the human race is as good as cow dung and I think you safely fit in that mold. Most people like yourself are just unthinking nobodies. Still have a little too much hair on your back dshpls? Still several epochs behind us civilized, enlightened ones? Must be. I don't think we would give a damn what some drooling, mouth breathing idiot like yourself thinks of us.

      Bang bang, chisel chisel....still working on your primitive tools eh? Your mind still needs catching up on the evolutionary ladder? Still stuck in your authoritarian upper paleolithic hunter gatherer days I see. Ah well. We wouldn't pick on you if you just left us alone.

      Who is John Galt?
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      Who is dshpls?

      A nobody
    • johngault, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5@ jdenigma I AM
  • flohoff60, on 10/11/2007, -20/+58Why would anyone condone a raid on a brothers house for the payment of what is called a bill
    Are you people nuts?
    Tanks, police, swat teams, cutting your phone and internet lines? For a bill people, a bill, a bill


    • MacGyver2210, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10Damn, now that's harsh...
    • Trepan, on 10/11/2007, -6/+20"blatantly defying the law"

      Why can't you defy a law you disagree with? Isn't it your duty as an American citizen? Do you think all laws are good and no laws are bad? What if you don't like a law? What if your government doesn't listen to you?
    • thespiff, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7If one guy can show the world that he doesn't have to pay taxes, that might open the floodgates a bit wouldn't you say? Obviously the money he owes is an insignificant fraction of what the government pulls in each year. But laws that are not enforced will not be obeyed.
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -9/+6@cdnyny

      Oh, I'm sure you know more about Paris Hilton than Ed Brown ;-)
    • cawpin, on 10/11/2007, -13/+9"Why can't you defy a law you disagree with?"

      Because, in this case alone, it makes you a ***** retard. The guy is "quoting" the constitution saying it doesn't allow for an income tax when the 16th amendment clearly does just that. The guy is a loony and deserves to go to jail.
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -12/+12@Trepan

      You're right. So much for following examples of those like Rosa Parks. I'm sure most of the idiots in this thread are products of the government education system. They've been brainwashed into believing the taxes are a moral duty tripe and worship the "rule of law" like it is an end in itself.

      For you assholes who are talking all nasty about us and Ed Brown, since you're on your high horse, let me see you show your balls and put your money where your pious mouth is by doing what you're cheering on the government to do. If you feel so high and mighty about your tax morals and shoving this down Ed Browns throat and ours, then go join the SWAT team and do it yourself if you're so big and bad. Either that or go sign up in the military and join the war if you're so big and bad about your huffing and puffing over your enforcement of your laws. Are you a chickenhawk? Let's see you do the dirty work and be violent yourself against your neighbors since that's how you are.
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -12/+7@cawpin

      Speak for yourself you piece of *****
    • mike17032, on 10/11/2007, -12/+5"Why can't you defy a law you disagree with? Isn't it your duty as an American citizen? Do you think all laws are good and no laws are bad? What if you don't like a law? What if your government doesn't listen to you?"

      Because laws are not optional, no matter how ***** crazy you are. You are free to lobby to get them changed, but until then you are required to follow them. If the government doesnt listen to you (because most people disagree with you) then feel free to find another country.

      If you break the law, be prepared for the price. If you resist with force, be prepared to get shot.

      I just hope none of the officals doing their jobs get hurt taking this jackass down.
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8mike17032

      *****! The only laws of intrinsic value that should be respected and followed are those few laws strictly limited to preserving and protecting individual rights. Any law the government creates outside those boundaries should rightfully be fought against within or outside of the system as long as no "innocent" person is hurt. SWAT team members are not innocent the moment they bust down his door. I guess you would also be opposed to jury nullification as a check against the government.

      If any people get hurt, the blood is on the governments hands.

      Considering that you mike also condone this, well I'll just leave it at that ;-)
    • kuzotz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5so they spend more money getting less money?



      Because all that equipment used to arrest this guy was unnecessary..

      Just do no knock and shoot him legally!!!!!!!!1

      yea America is great our police can kill us at will and get away with it because too many of us support them blindly.
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2He ain't my brother. He broke the law. Screw him.

      16th Amendment For Brown's Loss!
    • howyoudoin, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2i agree! why put innocent people (law enforcement) in harms way to collect a debt?
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4spacemonkey,

      I'll bet you're just a youngin' Your government high school must have done quite a job on you with this constant mindless repeating of the law coming out of your mouth. Go on lil one. Keep watching your sports, your MTV, comedy central, cartoon network or whatever drivel you spend time watching and don't read.

      Ever heard of Frederic Bastiat?

      Ever heard of Henry David Thoreau?

      Ah, they're just wacky revolutionaries. Who needs that? A good old government education is just getting you your vocational job training in preparing you for the rat race and the factory workplace so to speak. Go to work like an automaton and never think about anything. Just memorize those test results, become a good robotic test taker. Education isn't supposed to be like a good old classic Western liberal arts where you learn critical thinking skills, logic, philosophy, sciences, history, civics, ideas of liberty, and learn to question everything. Nah, let's just be dum dums that the government schools spit out and know nothing.

      The law! The law! The government is all knowing!
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1JDenigma: *bzzzzzzzzzzzzt* You lose.

      Besides. That doesn't ***** MATTER. This ***** broke the law, broke the 16th amendment, no matter how much you want to slam my education (BS in Comp Sci, graduated in 1995, doing just fine financially, socially, married, with kids) YOU ARE WRONG.
  • fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -14/+10If there truly is no law requiring an income tax, then that should be fixed. However, simply not paying it is not going to get you anywhere, as the government is obviously convinced that there is such a law, and will use force to enforce said law. If you don't like the income tax, get legislation passed to outlaw it, and if your representatives won't do it, try to get someone else elected. That's how (representative) democracy works.
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -17/+10Sorry for replying to myself, but it seems that there actually is a law allowing for an income tax.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
    • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -15/+29it wasn't properly ratified
    • MacGyver2210, on 10/11/2007, -8/+8As dude said, the law wasn't properly entered and ratified in the constitution that I'm aware of, despite several Revenue Service laws that were 'passed' between 1950 and 1990.

      Also, good luck getting politicians to abolish their salaries...that's effectively what eliminating income tax would do for the government. Somehow I can't see a senator without a six-figure salary, though in the original drafting of this country's legislature, I don't think they envisioned that's what would drive the entire legal system.

      That, and Rockets, Airplanes, Computers, Plumbing, or Electricity(well, maybe Franklin).
    • Oldfart2, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11From Wikipedia:
      "Amendment XVI (the Sixteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, authorizing income taxes in their present form, was ratified on February 3, 1913."
      Hmmmmm.
    • Ishiguro, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17Also, it depends on what income is. I trade my time and services for Federal Reserve Notes of equal or lesser value. That is a wash and no real income. If I invest $100 and at the end of the year they give me back $110, then I made $10 of income which may be taxed.

      There are also some people who claim income tax is applicable to Americans out of the country, but I'm not sure about that.

      I also find it interesting that some of you who despise our being in Iraq because we are using force against them, don't seem to mind seeing force being used against Americans.
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6@Ishiguro

      Touche. You're right on there. I disagree with the Iraq war, but I like how you point out their double standards there.
    • williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9@Oldfart

      I'm no expert on this, but the validity of the ratification of the 16th is in question.
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -6/+17@fuzzmeister

      Legal schmegal. Bad laws is a bad law and bad laws should be broken. Sorry, I don't believe in blindly following the "rule of law". It is a final check against government. I support civil disobedience and Ed Brown is engaging in PEACEFUL civil disobedience. He is not the one initiating the violence. He is only resorting to violence in self-defense if they come for him and he has every damn right. It may not be tactically smart at this point, but that's not the issue here.

      Good luck to him and the rest of us at trying to repeal the income tax. The government and the rest of you are preventing us from doing that. Your argument over what process he should take is beside the point. He just doesn't want to pay his taxes much like the founding fathers. The government won't listen to him and leave him alone so he has no choice but to resort to this. Sorry, but all of your arguments are moot.
    • szembek, on 10/11/2007, -9/+6@JDenigma: "the rest of us at trying to repeal the income tax"

      What the ***** are you talking about? Who else is trying to repeal the income tax rate? Do you live in the real world? Or just in online forums? You can't repeal the income tax. Where would the money come from if not from there? Higher taxes of some other kind? What would be the point? If you have a problem with the amount of taxation in the country you should focus your efforts on trimming budgets, not getting rid of income tax. It's written right into the frickin constitution.
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8sembek

      You are utterly hopeless
    • Nerys, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Guy the 16th amendmend does not make us liable for income tax it just makes anyone who IS liable taxable without apportionment. thats all.

      Sadly I think the browns are wrong and they owe taxes. It gets a little complicated when its a non product transaction.

      Here is my take. Taxable income is basically "profit" when you goto to work for McDonalds or Sears or Microsoft your "wages" are not income. Traditionally one is wages and profits you earn on product are income. This has been "distorted" over time to make them as if they are the same thing. Here is why they are not.

      When you are talking INCOME money is "created" where there was NONE before. IE profit. I buy a $50 item and sell it to you for $100 Lets assume my operating expenses are $5 for that item (just to keep the math simple)

      I took in $100 my "income" was $45 - THIS is traditionally legally "income" which off course can be taxed and with the 16th amendment without apportionment. I have NO problem with this.

      A corporation does not pay taxes on $100 they pay taxes on $45 because THATS the PROFIT. all the profit together is the INCOME.

      $45 was CREATED where before it did not exist.

      When I work 10 hours at $15 an hour I get paid $150 ABSOLUTELY NO money was created where there was none before. This was a STRAIGHT UP even exchange. 10 hours of labor = $150 US currency

      NOW if I sold a bonus item in that 10 hours lets say working for an electronics store I sell a cellphone and get $30 bonus. I got $150 in exchange for my 10 hours of labor and a $30 bonus.

      $150 is canceled by 10 hours labor leaving $30 THIS IS INCOME. I PROFITED !!! this $30 is taxable as income by the IRS.

      You say we need this tax money. I say your nuts I say the GOV needs to be SMALLER. it has gotten SO big that they had to find NEW sources of money to steal from.

      They already have another means of taxation its called EXCISE taxes IE sales taxes. but do you want to know why they do not do this ?

      THIS kind of tax is IMMEDIATELY visible to everyone. We will start to QUESTION why do they need this much money (FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE not FOR the Government by the Government)

      a "wage" tax is less visible. it auto deducted from out paychecks (this parts important) so we do not NOTICE it as much on top of that we get REFUNDS !! people do not seem to realize this means the government TOOK TO MUCH and "profited" from your over payment and now by the goodness of there hearts they are giving it back to you ?? what about my INTEREST ??? They charge you 8 - 10 - 12 + % if your late on your taxes !!

      If we simply eliminated employer deductions and forced everyone to manage and pay there own taxes we would have a smaller government in 5 years time as people went ballistic once they realized JUST HOW MUCH MONEY they are paying in taxes and started to demand answers!!!

      Think about that for a while. My problem is not with taxes. we are a nation of 300+ million people. Taxes are NEEDED for it to function. the problem is not taxes its the AMOUNT and the METHODS.
    • szembek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@JDenigma: I am 100% in the right here, and you sir are a moron. There is nobody else on your side anywhere but in these silly little forums.
  • namelessuno, on 10/11/2007, -17/+23fuzzmeister and dshpls work for the IRS.

    You guys must be pretty embarrassed that one of your own, Joe Banister, whooped your butts in court:
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44956

    Oh and I see the jury in the Vernice Kuglin case decided that there was no income tax on her federal express earnings as a pilot:
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94630,00.html

    Don't you guys have someone to bully or have you relegated to lurking around message boards? You guys look like you are working too hard.
    • thenativeraver, on 10/11/2007, -16/+6Correction, we all work for the new world order.

      Betta recognise bitch!
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -16/+13Yeah, anyone who disagrees with you is definitely working for the government, and not to be trusted. Sure.
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5@nameless: I resent this.
      You think that they're stooges of the IRS and NWO, but you leave me out?
      I think I've bloody well attacked you NWO/911 conspiracy nuts enough that you should blow my cover too.
      I demand that you claim that I'm an agent for the NWO and the MMC right this instant, or I shall be forced to take... steps. Yes... steps.
  • namelessuno, on 10/11/2007, -22/+8fuzzmeister spends an inordinate amount of time working the Ron Paul boards. If you disagree with a man defending the constitution then why not Hang out at the Guilliani or Hillary forums?

    You do work for the IRS.....I hear the IRS employees do not like paying taxes either:
    http://www.wtop.com/?nid=428&sid=1034585

    Fuzzy is a tool and a smuck.
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -15/+22I disagree with Ron Paul because I disagree with some basic libertarian views (such as the belief that government is almost always bad). However, I have great respect for the man and his campaign, and I have no problem with people supporting him. I do have something of a personal crusade against "truthers", however, and since "truthers" often support Ron Paul, I debate them in many Ron Paul threads, but I always try to avoid dragging Ron Paul himself into the debate.

      Also, stop being a troll by saying that I work for the IRS. It is simply juvenile to say that anyone who you don't like works for the government and is not to be trusted.
    • Nerys, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"such as the belief that government is almost always bad" This is a bit of a cloudy issue for me as I thought it was pretty clear ALL governments whatever they are if the people do not have total control are inevitably bad.

      Its human nature. we desire "power" when power is plentiful its not a problem but when its limited (currency based society) people tend to want more of it. Some are happy with limited power. Personally I would be totally happy for life with 1.3 million dollars. I would never have to work another day in my life and would be quite happy. I would also be paying about $15-$20k a year in taxes so I would not be a loafer.

      But many people are not satisfied with this. They want more. Sadly enough of us are also willing to hurt others in order to acquire this wealth and power. This is why government is almost always inevitably bad. These people also tend to be smart and "go get em" type people IE they end up IN positions of POWER namely big corporations and politics.

      This is one of the reasons our original society was created with GREAT limitations on both corporations and government.

      We had about as ideal a start as any nation in the history of this planet. Look at our government today. Empirical evidence suggest I am right. All Government "tends" to inevitably be bad. The exception is if the people can maintain a hold on the leash.

      While there is nothing we can do about our currency based society (it is the root of our problems ie limited "power" supply) There is something we can do to retrain the inevitable corruption of governments. the problem is this requires a n on apathetic EDUCATED and independent populace. Sadly this is something we are direly lacking :-(

      the ONLY control for bad government is the people. but the people have to WANT it and in UNISON

      Think about it. If 20% of the US adult population STOPPED paying taxes "until" the government budget and tax system was made FAIR. What would they do ? sue 50 million people ? how many courts do we have in this country ? how many police officers and soldiers do we have ?

      I do not have a problem with taxes. I have a problem with excessive effectively unrepresented taxes - I have a problem with massive government spending without our permission. (Explicit Permission) I have a problem with WAGES being taxed. Wage taxes is theft to me pure and simple. I gain nothing and your taking some of it. Thats like taking money from me just for existing. Tax income ? sure Profit ? SURE Wages ? hell no.

      Punish those that try to HIDE income or profit as wages ? YES nail em to the wall. Tax evaders :-(
  • mmacisso, on 10/11/2007, -10/+11@ Namelsoro....don't knock him for being a spiritual man...regardless of religion he is a man speaking for the Republic....a Republic overtaken by high-end criminals....we live in a policed state far worse than Orwell could have imagined...they will try to tell everyone they were there to serve him a summons....with Swat teams and firetrucks and 11 heavily armored police cruisers....this is an intimidation tactic just like Waco and Ruby Ridge.

    ...so you can sit in your own room with no fear and claim bringing God into the picture confuses the issue...why don't you grow some balls and stand up, put your life on the line for the benefit of the greater good.

    God Bless the Browns
    • thespiff, on 10/11/2007, -9/+5Please tell me what God has to do with governing a civilized society. Your personal faith is a private matter that the American government may not infringe upon. Taxes are what allow the government to function (albiet poorly at times) and maintain civilization. God does confuse the issue for that very reason.

      The point is not that there may or may not be a loophole to avoid paying income taxes. The point is that they are neccesary to maintain the standard of living that we are used to and that the government has a significant hand in providing. If you don't wish to pay taxes, please leave the country.
    • kuzotz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6you do know we are spending money we don't have and our income taxes are just being used to pay off the bill from decades of poor fiscal, and monetary policies from the conservatives in power..
  • 1337diggster, on 10/11/2007, -12/+28The only reason we pay income taxes is so we won't be arrested, raped, or tortured. Just remember, you are not really free, you will always be a slave to the state so keep on paying those income taxes.
    • kuzotz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I don't pay income taxes, but then again I don't work :P
    • CaptA, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3To 1337diggster,
      U state: "The only reason we pay income taxes is so we won't be arrested, raped, or tortured. Just remember, you are not really free, you will always be a slave to the state so keep on paying those income taxes."
      *************
      You have a lucid picture of the State, its coersion, and use of violent force! Now about that part of your sentence, "...you will always be a slave to the state so keep on paying those income taxes."

      Not really 13337diggster! You DO NOT have to remain a slave! Really! Most people either choose to be a slave, lacking self-responsibility and dignity as witnessed by todays government-schooled zombies. Even in America you STILL have a choice to do what so many smart people are doing, LEAVE! Do not tolorate the "slave mentality" of the masses of asses! Is it tough to "live free?" Damn right!! The State will impede you - creating formidible opposition! Can you circumvent these sleazy governments? Yep, you sure can!! You only need self-determination and lust! Lust of personal liberty and freedom. So, I state emphatically: YOU DO NOT AND WILL NOT BE A SLAVE -- if you choose not to be one!

      "Man is free the moment he wants to be." ~ Voltaire

      Regards,

      Capt. A.
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3CaptA,

      In case you come back here and see this, I have to ask you, what it is like for you in Switzerland? I don't know enough about the government of Switzerland to be aware of what you're living under there. I'm sure there are some tradeoffs you accepted in moving there from the U.S. I don't know of there being any truly free place one can go to in the world to escape these controlling governments unless there was some private island one could go to to live.
    • Nerys, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4""Man is free the moment he wants to be." ~ Voltaire"

      Take notice of the choice of words. MAN is free. Quite true. but man is plural. what about "A MAN"

      "a man" can do nothing. when "one man" tells the mobster no I will not pay your protection money what happens? He Dies.

      Wage Taxes are illegal and unconstitutional apportioned or otherwise. (no income is earned only wages) They are wrong. The laws are wrong the COurts are wrong the IRS is wrong. You know what I am going to do about it ? Keep complaining. Keep trying to educate people being careful NOT to tell them to stop paying taxes (since thats ALSO illegal) but you know what I do in the end ?

      I pay my taxes. Because they have a bigger stick than I do. I will make sure when I do pay them they understand I consider this a involuntary payment of protection monies. That I consider it to be illegal. But I will still pay because when the gun is at the back of your head what are you going to do?
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3nerys

      I think we understand all of that. I believe what may be the real point of the Voltaire quotation is that it may be speaking about being free in ones state of mind I'm assuming.
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Of course bottom line, none of us presently in this world are truly free. We're all having to live under some controlling system that is telling us what to do beyond merely protecting our life, liberty, and property. Much like what is being expressed in the quotation, although we may be enslaved we can at least be awake and strive to be free and if nothing else, be free in spirit though that probably doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot when your master is whipping you.

      You can choose to live your life as if you're free and fight for it much like those who stared down the threats from their masters and refused to genuflect before the one they serve. Anne Frank tried to escape and be free so too did the young kids in the story of the "White Rose" in Nazi Germany as they continued to courageously speak the message of liberty right up to their execution. There was the story of William Wallace in the movie Braveheart and that moving, powerful speech of his as well as his scream for freedom during his torturous death. There are those like that who are enslaved, but want to be free and will fight for it in different ways. Then there are those who don't want to be free. Lastly, there are those who want to be free, but foolishly think they are when in reality they are enslaved.

      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
    • CaptA, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4To JDenigma and nerys,

      To JDenigma: Your question about living in Switzerland! Josh, I don't RESIDE in any country. If you reside in a country, you become liable for the imposition of that country's taxes, regulations, bureaucracy as does any citizen of that country, citizen or not. Domicile and residency are two very specific words used by most governments and merit great attention. Now back to the question... I am what would be classified as a PT (Perpetual Traveler, a visitor). Governments despise, detest and take various measures to stifle PT's. Nevertheless, PT's, a somewhat rare group do exist and they "enjoy" the GREATEST liberty and freedom yet available on earth! They answer to no government! If ANY State tries to "put upon" a PT, the PT merely never returns upon exiting! Wealthy PT's bring cash and spending, business and pleasure to countries. YOU DO NOT kill the gift horse! ONLY stupid governments would do that! NOW, I travel amongst five different countries, round robin: Switzerland, Campione d'Italia (An Italian sovereign totally inside Switzerland!), The Principality of Monaco, Italy, and finally Ireland. The visas warrant a three-month stay as a visitor. So, 3-months goes by and you move to the next country. (The places mentioned usually place a 60-day return time limit before coming back.) Josh, it's the life of a vagabond and when you are a "well-heeled" vagabond as most PT's are, it's actually a PLEASURE to "move on" and never let "moss" grow on the stone! Plus when returning to various countries, the staleness is gone and the people love to see you again! Like visitors coming to see you, the old saying about 3-day-old fish is true as well! People are "slaves” to their system the world over!! That's the way it is Josh. This is sad, but also the truth. I stay in "hotels" or rent apartments in great venues, never ever concerned with "eminent domain, selling, and maintenance etc., all of the things that "tie one to a place" with governments ruling over you. Capisce? My age, 70+, a retired naval officer, and airline pilot, gave me excellent experience in which to become a PT. I've traveled and stayed in more than 65-countries and gathered a lifetime of experience that NO college or school could ever teach you! Experience is supplanted by NOTHING! Period. Well, if you want any other info Josh let me know. I'd recommend a starting place by reading Lord William Reese-Mogg and James Dale Davidson's book, "The Sovereign Individual: Mastering the Transition to the Information Age." I should like to think that limited to those individuals who fiercely FAVOR personal freedom an liberty there will always be PTs who will "carry the torch" and never allow States to extinguish the long-time flame of a truly unique group that not only "talked" about being free but also "acted" on the talk! So, have at it! The center of one’s sole must be explored to find the true value of being free. There is no other way.

      To nerys,

      You are conservative and "smart and wise NOT to engage government thugatarians!" They will probably kill you, making an example of you to the rest. But if you LEAVE the jurisdiction (Providing you relish truly living free) and stay clear of anyone threatening you, you do stand great chance of living your life the way YOU want to live it, not as other wish. You are wise NOT to pick fights with the "neighborhood bully!” (Unless you sever the carotid arteries, unlikely—but worthy of dreaming about!) The best to you nerys.

      To both of you: Voltaire issued the ultimate answer I quoted, in man's being free! You can be locked up in jail -- and free in your mind! That being said, I prefer TOTAL freedom to live life the way I wish not the way or wish of States, governments and the "other slaves" who wish that you lived as they do! Tribal mentality is right behind “eating and sex” in its ability to control an individual.

      Capt. A.
      Switzerland, et al.
  • zizzy, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2188 Diggs and still upcoming? WTF?
  • redskyformiles, on 10/11/2007, -10/+23not only was the sixteenth amendment not properly ratified but after it "passed" the supreme court ruled that it did not have the power to create new taxes and that it was unconstitutional. This only applies to the federal government so the states still have the right to tax you out of house and home.
  • NeuterGWbush, on 10/11/2007, -17/+23If the Government really wanted to end this peacefully they

    WOULD JUST SHOW US THE LAW

    REQUIRING SOMEONE TO PAY TAXES ON THEIR LABOR!

    Show us the law ya bunch of crooks...
    • robdazomba, on 10/11/2007, -21/+10Seriously, are you one of those nutcases who claims the 16th Amendment was not "properly ratified" because someone use a semi-colon where a comma should have been in the legal documentation?

      When your argument relies on such a desperate grasp for straws, you should just shut up and sit down and let the grown-ups do the talking.
    • ubuwalker31, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@NeuterGWbush (#7078664)
      “Indeed, as we have repeatedly held, the entire Internal Revenue Code was validly enacted by Congress and is fully enforceable.”
      United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986)

      http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html -- have a look here, it will debunk each one of your finely crafted tax protester arguments.
    • Nerys, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Me personally ? No I have NO problem with the 16th. I do not agree with it but its the law so I accept it. My problem is you should not be taxed JUST for being. Wages are NOT income. NO profit is earned. NOTHING is gained. I exchange X hours for X dollars. its a conversion nothing more a TRADE. They should not be permitted (and in fact are NOT permitted legally as far as I can tell) to tax an exchange of hours for money than they should be able to tax for example you and I trading DVD's

      So you say what happens if I SELL you my DVD Well I paid $20 for the DVD I sell it to you for $10 NO profit. in fact its a loss I should be able to write off that loss if you want to be technical. Just trying to make a point is all.
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3nerys

      So if you were living under a benevolent dictatorship where your king said that you had to give over your wife to him for a night to provide him services, would you still say that you don't like it and don't believe in, but ACCEPT it because it's the LAW?
  • yoadrian, on 10/11/2007, -11/+1So what, i can have armoured cars and SWAT come to my house to if i wanted. hell, i could get the FBI and CIA. i know your reading this Agent Smith. so hop to it. you know what its about.
  • TH3W1R3D, on 10/11/2007, -10/+26Holy *****, tax evaders?! Storm the place and leave no one alive!
  • MrKrinkleDude, on 10/11/2007, -11/+6It's Ed's property. He can nuke it and everyone on it and I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Hopefully he takes out at least 5 or 6 of them before they reach the front door.


    ;-)
    • Preacherman, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1@ MrKrinkleDude

      Oh I get it. It's a hilarious joke. Funny stuff, my man. Funny stuff.

      ;-)
  • oMeSSiaHo, on 10/11/2007, -12/+13If you use public services like roads and the police you should be expected to pay for them. If you decide to not use those services then you shouldnt be expected to pay for them, its really not hard.

    To everyone who wants to abolish taxes, how do you pay for infastructure? I'm not being a smart ass, I seriously wonder how you expect this to work.
    • veritas22, on 10/11/2007, -11/+32Income tax merely pays for the interest that the Federal Reserve (private bank) charges for funding the government - in no way does it fund roads and education.

      I think we need to encourage private corporations to bid on contracts to build roadways - why not create a new market?


    • corvin, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19
      "To everyone who wants to abolish taxes, how do you pay for infastructure? I'm not being a smart ass, I seriously wonder how you expect this to work."

      Income taxes account for only about 1/3 of federal revenue. Which would leave roughly 1.8 trillion a year for government spending, a greater sum than the spending that occurred in the year 2000.

      We could easily cut back spending to the level in 2000.
    • robdazomba, on 10/11/2007, -13/+9> I think we need to encourage private corporations to bid on contracts to
      > build roadways - why not create a new market?

      Right, because putting important and necessary services and infrastructure in private control has worked out so well, hasn't it?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4veritas22, I think they get a trillion dollars through the income tax every year. And if you look at a pie chart of spending the interest is less than a trillion, quite a bit less.
    • silverchrysalis, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13you pay for our roads every time you pump gas, you pay for other infrastructure every time you pay taxes on airline flights, cell phone bills, satellite, etc.

      most of our income tax goes to support a massive [increasingly] fascist military.

      so that they have more money to send an entire swat team to people like the browns.
    • Trepan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Ever hear of a toll road? Also, there's sales tax on gas and that is supposed to pay for roads. Include your license and license plate fees, yearly registration sticker fees etc etc etc..

      The problem is that you cannot simply opt out of anything. The government will not let you. If you don't have kids, you can't opt out of paying for everyone's kids to go to school. It's basically armed robbery, as you are about to see with Ed Brown.

      For those of you who don't know. Ed Brown used to be a homeless man that did NOT use the government welfare system. My thought is he probably couldn't, since he wouldn't have had an address. He eventually got into business for himself and made a nice life for himself. Since the government didn't help him, why should he have to help the government?
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7oMeSSiaHo

      The government makes it about impossible to avoid using those services particularly if one wants to live with modern day conveniences. It's not like we're offered these services in a volunteer manner. You speak of the government as if it's a business. To say that he should pay because he's used those services is a disingenuous argument.

      As for paying for infrastructure, we're simply talking about the income tax here, not all taxes. All taxes would be abolished and would be voluntary if we were talking about anarchy as opposed to say minarchy. That's not what we're discussing though. It's funny, we got along quite fine for quite a while without an income tax. I'm sure I'll get the cliched responses from people about how it's a different world and the Constitution is a living document. Excise taxes and gas taxes would go to things like infrastructure. Income tax would have nothing to do with that.

      Would you give up your favorite government program if it meant never paying income taxes again?
    • pandira, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14The original mandate (the Constitution) required the federal entity to be financed by import duties and excise taxes ( corporate tax on trade). One of the beauties of this type of tax is that it did NOT approach the individual. The Federal government had NO direct jurisdiction over individuals until the fourteenth amendment, which made us all "citizens of the United States". The idea was to tax CORPORATIONS. My, how things have changed. Another benefit to this type of tax system was that money flowing to the federal government was to trickle, demanding that the federal entity remain SMALL. This was the intent of the founders...to keep the federal entity small and extremely limited, confining it's jurisdiction to stated, limited areas. Benson's book "The Law that Never Was" should be required reading for high school. Though the sixteenth amendment grants the right to the federal entity to tax, the Congress never passed a law. The federal income tax is voluntary, by their own admission. All of you folks advocating the Brown's destruction would do well to study the writings of the founders as well as Benson's book. Find the law for yourselves and understand that the tyranny that is being constructed is being done without the need for tax monies, because the federal government can borrow as much money as it wants from the private Federal Reserve Bank. The tax system has become merely a control mechanism for the peons. Notice that corporations now not only pay few if any taxes, but are actually given "tax incentives". This nation has become a Fascist state controlled by corporations and for corporations, the largest and most powerful being the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. THAT'S who we're fighting for in Iraq. He who pays the piper calls the tune. It is not possible for the American people to be taxed enough to pay off the national debt, so now we are going to fight their money (oil) wars, while they tell us we fight and die for freedom. Freedom to pay up or be killed? Like it or not, in a truly free country nobody can be forced to do anything, even pay taxes. The Browns haven't hurt anyone. They should be left alone to pursue their happiness.
    • SiliconBadger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@veritas22: I was waiting--searching--for someone to make this point. The amount of money paid to the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) as payment for interest on the money it prints is exactly equal to the amount of money paid in personal income taxes. So we could have Congress print the money, cut out the middleman, and we could all stop paying income tax and the federal government would have no less money than it does now.

      @robdazomba: First off, Enron FAILED! Don't you get it!? The fact that they went down in flames and people went to jail shows that we can at least do something to crooked private organizations when they do wrong. According to you, it's dangerous to privatize necessary services and infrastructure because Enron might happen. What you do NOT see though, is that the government's finances are in far worse condition than Enron's ever were, but guess what? Since they're the government, there's no one bust THEM! So the theft and corruption and lies just continue, with no one to stop it. If any company ran their finances the way the federal government does, the executives responsible would be locked up for life.

      Now robdazomba, answer this: if it's so bad to have energy provided by private organizations, how ***** horrendous must it be to have a PRIVATE COMPANY controlling ALL of our money!!?? Money is infrastructure for EVERYTHING, and I don't hear you complaining that it's controlled by a private company.
    • pandira, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@siliconbadger....it's much worse than the private Fed controlling all our money....they actually OWN it! It's loaned into existence and is automatically a debt. That is why the law had to be changed from common law to civil law...we cannot "Pay" debt with debt, but must use these commercial instruments called Federal Reserve Notes which are debt themselves. We are in a world of trouble because those that own the money can take it away at any time. If you've ever read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, you might remember that John Galt intended to take away the "motor of the world". Remember, it was a perpetual motion motor...or more to the point, a "machine" that generates power (money) from nothing, yet drives the entire world. The 29 crash was child's play compared to what the bankers are capable of now. If the American people get out of hand, they will not hesitate to take away the money. True independence can be measured by how well you can survive without their "motor of the world". Be prepared.
  • slyzxx, on 10/11/2007, -9/+10Lets all move to dubai NO TAXES in any form or shape no wonder there rich over there.
    • robdazomba, on 10/11/2007, -12/+1I hope you are being ironic.
    • williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8I have my second passport. So do my kids. Your kids will be tax slaves.
    • CaptA, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4To slyzxx,

      The U.A.E is a fascinating and unique place!! They have excellent residency requirements for establishing rights to get a passport, and no taxes to speak of!!! Hahahaha, keep your money where it BELONGS: in your pocket! Neat people too! If ***** Cheney would just stay away!!

      Now, if there is a downside, IT’S hot as hell, the weather is probably delightful for camels though! If only the U.A.E. was sandwiched in between Switzerland and Italy!! Yum!! No HOT weather and ... leave the camels in the desert! Ever have a camel spit on you?? Jeez Louise...
  • veritas22, on 10/11/2007, -13/+17The ignorance in this thread is profound and I suggest some of you look deeper into the 16th Amendment. The IRS created their own policy and their "laws" contradict the reality of what they force upon us as citizens.

    Watch Freedom to Fascism - here's a clip with Ron Paul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=styYIG-fiEc

    • robdazomba, on 10/11/2007, -14/+3What does Ron Paul have to say about the connections between the JFK assassination and 9/11?
    • interiot, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8Ron Paul is libertarian, and sure, he advocates for the abolition of income tax. However, does Ron Paul work within the system, trying to convince others that his ideas are the best route forward, and until then, pays taxes based in the current system? Or does he stick his fingers in his ears, yell "lalala", and pretend that ignoring the system will somehow reform it?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Economy
  • Samzo, on 10/11/2007, -14/+3THERE IS NO LAW THAT REQUIRES INCOME TAX
    Do you believe in gravity? It is about as solid as this fact.
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3Doesn't the 16th amendment allow income tax?

      (Yea I have seen Freedom to Fascism but I can't remember the details of it)
    • Nerys, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3No the 16th amendment allows taxing income (PROFIT) without apportionment. No new tax was created the existing tax was modified. Thats all. Previous to the 16th the SAME tax was in place it just had to be apportioned among the several states. the 16th removed this restriction. It did not change that wages are NOT income.
  • oMeSSiaHo, on 10/11/2007, -9/+10I'm kinda confused. When a big business or wealthy person uses loopholes to avoid paying taxes we are livid but when this guy does it he's a hero? His wife also broke the law by removing her house arrest bracelet.

    If they dont want to pay taxes or see a problem with the current system there are better and mature ways of handling it. Locking yourself in a hole with a "come and get me attitude" is dangerous and doesnt help anyone. They could easily appeal their sentence and take it to the Supreme Court where the issue could be solved legally. Merranda v Arizona is something we all learn in high school and is an example of how the court does rule in favor of the people.

    I've seen no mention of activisim before his arrest so what this looks like to me is some petty rich dude who is desperatly trying to hold on to his money. He has a chance to end this peacfully but he doesnt seem interested in doing that.

    If I am wrong and somebody can prove that I would love to hear it. Again, I'm not trying to be a dick. This is just what the situation looks like to me.
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -11/+6A "loophole" is a way of doing something the legislators probably didn't intend you to do, but without actually breaking any laws. Think "exploits" in games.

      What this kook does, though, is deny that the 16th amendment is real, and deny that there's actually a long line of court decisions which say that it's real, and simply refuses to pay taxes. In other words, it's simply breaking the law and pretending that the fact that you don't like the law means you don't have to obide by it. In game terms, this would be like using a "hack" to get an unfair advantage.
    • williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -7/+7He is a "hero" because, in these times, frustrating the agents of government is a good thing to see. It also illustrates to the people who work fo rthe government that they are being asked to risk their lives to collect dubious debts. Yeah, that's worth dying for, eh?

      Until the government does all and only the things it is constitutionally authorized to do, the more goons that go home in bags, the better.
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13"He has a chance to end this peacfully but he doesnt seem interested in doing that."

      Nope, it is the government that has the chance to end things peacefully ;-)

      The burden is not on him.
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10williamdyer

      I agree. The unwashed idiots here will look at us as if we're the crazies for using this language. It is the irony of ironies that they'll get mad at us for our tone and language, yet are a ok with the actual violence the government will use against Ed. Talk about having things out of proportion.
    • subman697, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Why do you keep calling him Ed? He wants to be called "Edward, a Living Soul in the Body of the Lord, of the House of Israel"

      Also, he has dropped his fight with the government over income taxes, or don't you keep up?

      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.

      So, you are not only cannot get the name of the person you are "supporting" correct, you are supporting a cause that no longer interests him.
    • JDenigma, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Well hello subman. I take it you're probably trying to push my buttons. Ed Edward. You're going to nitpick over the name? You're also stating that I'm supporting a cause that no longer interests him. What are you talking about?
  • spanker, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2huh? hehehehehehehehe,thank my alien lord for kuwait and the rest of the 0% tax free arab gulf states
  • danconia, on 10/11/2007, -9/+29Well the laws regarding income tax are certainly a mess even Albert Einstein said "the hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax" (no joke, look it up).

    Regardless of the legality of the legality of the income tax, you must at least agree that is bears a strange resemblance to slavery and here is why:
    People in the United States get taxed somewhere up to ~35% on the money they make. Quite literally they work their butts off all year long and in the end the government takes a large portion of the money. In essence what they are doing is working the majority of the year for money they can spend and then for the other portion of the time they are slaves. Slavery = working and having the fruits of your labor taken away from you (I think we can all agree on this).

    Yes some of you may say "well they're not being taxed 100% like *real* slavery" but the problem with this is that the difference between 100% and ~30% is just a difference in *degree*. Whether you work as a slave for 365 days a year or 100 days a year you must admit that in both cases it is morally unjust.

    "Well it goes to the government for stuff that all of us use"? Well each individual doesn't use all of it, tons get wasted in the bureaucracy. The ones who have the highest portion of slavery time also tend to be the ones who use the government expenditure the least which is a bit ironic. Of course no one is ever given any option with regard to taxes. They are forced upon us without consent. Lastly the "well some of it comes back to you" idea doesn't erase a parallel to slavery because obviously some of the income made from slave-work back in the day went back to lodging and food (heck even a bit of healthcare because slave owners didn't want their expensive slaves dying), hence a portion of their work still came back to them.

    Say what you want about taxes and slavery but in the end they are not different in *kind*, only in *degree*. With that said, you gotta admit a SWAT team is a little overzealous for a little old man and his family who have done nothing to be considered a physical threat. Welcome to the police state.
    • tsbicca, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Since the only difference between people today and slaves is the amount we are taxed, how come all the slaves didn't quit their jobs at the plantations and move to the north? Take your hyperbole somewhere else. Slavery was far, far worse then working without getting payed.
    • Todamont, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well put, D'Anconia...

      When I build my Brown-style fortress, I will definitely remember to place charges beneath any likely spots where SWAT or military "police" might park... Plus it will have a batcave...
    • danconia, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Since the only difference between people today and slaves is the amount we are taxed, how come all the slaves didn't quit their jobs at the plantations and move to the north? Take your hyperbole somewhere else. Slavery was far, far worse then working without getting payed."

      They didn't quit their jobs and move to the North because the government used tax revenue to create a service that caught slaves who tried to escape and gave them back to their "masters". The service was SUSTAINED BY TAXES. Your point actually helps my argument bud...
    • danconia, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Plus I wasn't saying that being taxed today is *as bad* as slavery during the 1800's... I was making the simple observation that both are immoral.
  • jellygraph, on 10/11/2007, -7/+15Of course you need to pay your taxes... who elses money would Bush use to foot the bill of the war in Iraq? His own? Har har har har
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -3/+19In all seriousness this seems like a very legitimate reason not to pay taxes: some of it will be spent on occupying countries and on "collateral damage."
    • williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6Indeed. Forget demos and riots. The thing that will put fear in the government goons is the inability to collect money. A tax strike would end this ungodly war in a day.
  • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -11/+13I'm sure a lot of people will say "oh what a freak" or something. But he is simply exposing the government for what it really is. It is showing its true colours.
  • ELEM, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20Remember, a compound surely means evil.

    Are we sure its not a shire? A village? or a haven? An estate or even a home?
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -9/+6An estate with 10 feet thick walls, booby-traps, and guarded by mentally unstable men armed with sniper rifles, grenades, and automatic weapons.
  • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -9/+12I bet dictionary writers stop and think twice when they come to "t-a-x." How do you define a politically correct term for theft?
  • oMeSSiaHo, on 10/11/2007, -13/+13"Welcome to the police state."

    While I agree there are some issues with our current system we are so ***** far from a police state you look foolish. If we were a police state you wouldnt be typing that drivel on a message board.

    You mentioned that money gets lost to the bureacuracy and that is a fair complaint. Instead of using his largese to fix that problem he is acting like a child. He obviously has the means to fix a problem but instead he is taking his ball and going home.

    It also seems this guy is worse then Therough on the poser scale. He ran a business that used public water, the customers came to him on public roads and if he had an issue he would call the public police. Why is it fair for him to recive these services for free. When you run a business you are basically entering into a contract, the public helps you and you return the favor. If he really believed his claims he would live a life that didnt require the government or public services.

    There is a problem with the taxes in this country. Saying "***** you, come and get me" is NOT going to fix the problem. It is just going to open a new can or worms and create more problems to deal with.
    • danconia, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11@oMessiaho

      At what point did I ever refer to Ed Brown specifically when talking about taxes? I'm not here to debate this specific case but rather talk about taxes in general.

      As for my "police state" comment, it's up to every individual to decide at what point, or to what degree, the United States becomes a police state. It's not like one minute it's not then the next it is... with that said though I will openly say that when Habeas Corpus is not longer upheld that it certainly is a red flag. Luckily apparently the judicial committee is trying to get it completely reinstated THANK GOD.

      But yes I do give you credit on looking up the specifics behind Mr. Brown's case. It'll be interesting to see how everything goes when it comes up in court.
    • pandira, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6while Browns business used public "services", those services are local and don't fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government. You have no argument there.
  • oMeSSiaHo, on 10/11/2007, -14/+6Sorry, edit time ran out.

    "How do you define a politically correct term for theft?"

    Ed Brown? He took services that he refuses to pay for. That seems like theft to me.
  • michaelliberty, on 10/11/2007, -11/+13Rather than waste tax dollars and point guns and tanks at people, just sit down with the guy and SHOW THE LAW or take him to the SUPREME COURT where he will, like others win.

    The argument (from my understanding) is that the IRS/Government won't SHOW THE LAW that makes income tax legal, and by that I mean they won't SHOW THAT THE 16th AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED or REFUTE the surpreme court rulings saying the government had NO NEW TAX POWER after the 16th amendment.
  • oMeSSiaHo, on 10/11/2007, -12/+8"Rather than waste tax dollars and point guns and tanks at people, just sit down with the guy and SHOW THE LAW or take him to the SUPREME COURT where he will, like others win."

    That is honestly his fault. The government doesnt take cases to the Supreme Court, the people do. That's the whole reason we have it, so people can contest laws. There is an appeals process that you follow to contest laws. Again, this man doesnt feel that he needs to do that. If he would just follow the process this wouldnt even be an issue.

    He seems like an entitled jackass who feels he's better then the rest of America, he is certainly not a hero. There have been many hero's in this county who have changed the laws to better the people. All this guy is gonna do is get himself and other people killed.

    To his supporters, tell me how he is going to make my life better or more free.
  • ChineseRoom, on 10/11/2007, -10/+6I think its time for Ed to give up, *****, SWAT teams and armored vehicles? What the ***** can he do against that? Come on Ed, just give up, we all know you have some serious balls, there's nothing more to prove.
  • silenteulogy, on 10/11/2007, -12/+9The 16th amendment does did not allow for any new tax. There at least 2 maybe 3 Supreme Court rulings stating so. Besides that the 16th wasn't ratified anyway.
  • tbone844, on 10/11/2007, -12/+10Peter Gibbons: I uh, I don't like my job, and, uh, I don't think I'm gonna go anymore.