| 0 |
Subject: Ruby Ridge. Waco. Plainfield, NH??
Posted by: Tree
- [29082512] Thu, Jun 21, 2007, 10:50
N.H. town hopes for end of standoff
PLAINFIELD, N.H. - To avoid serving prison sentences for tax evasion, Ed Brown and his wife, Elaine, have locked themselves off from the world on their own terms.
From behind the 8-inch concrete walls of their 110-acre hilltop compound, the couple taunt police and SWAT teams and play to reporters and government-haters with references to past standoffs that turned deadly. Residents want the Browns' circus to end before their small Connecticut River town becomes the next Ruby Ridge or Waco.
The Browns raised the specter of the first case, the 1992 shootout at an Idaho property called Ruby Ridge, by holding a news conference Monday with Randy Weaver, whose wife and child were killed there along with a deputy U.S. marshal.
Ed Brown warned authorities they wouldn't take him alive: "We either walk out of here free or we die."
..."The people of Plainfield feel the whole thing has been mismanaged from the get-go," says Stephen Taylor, a Plainfield native who is state agriculture commissioner. "He's got this band of loonies up there right now. There's this constant traffic and helicopters overhead and everything. Goddamn crazies." |
| 1 | Building 7
Sustainer
ID: 171572711
Thu, Jun 21, 2007, 11:27
|
They want the IRS to show them the law that requires them to pay federal income tax. So far the IRS has been unable to do so.
|
| 2 | Perm Dude
ID: 39525218
Thu, Jun 21, 2007, 11:37
|
Ha! Plenty of evidence of that. They want the IRS to waive their hands make Amendment 16 go away.
|
| 3 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Jun 21, 2007, 11:44
|
Numerous judicial rulings have established the legality of Income Tax. Refusing to acknowledge such, is purely self-centered audacity.
|
| 4 | Building 7
Sustainer
ID: 171572711
Thu, Jun 21, 2007, 12:09
|
Actually there is some doubt as to whether the 16th amendment was properly ratified. Some states were too late, one state actually voted the opposite, some states didn't follow the rules. Somebody wrote an entire book about it.
Then, originally it was based on foreign source income, and that was never properly changed. They said they would pay their tax in two days if someone can show them the law.
Tax court remains the only court where you are guilty until proven innocent.
|
| 5 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Jun 21, 2007, 12:11
|
Actually, its one of two charges I maintain the accused is guilty until proven innocent. The other, is a criminal charge of child abuse.
|
| 6 | Perm Dude
ID: 39525218
Thu, Jun 21, 2007, 12:30
|
SCOTUS has indicated, countless times, the validity of the 16th Amendment, which went into effect in 1913. Until the ERA, there never has been a time limit on states passing constitutional amendments, and any arguments saying so are completely bogus.
|
| 7 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Jun 21, 2007, 13:11
|
Aside from which, once the courts have ruled a law as valid or invalid...the question has been "asked and answered". At that point, argument is moot, unless/until its done in front of appellate authority or a rehearing. True?
|
| 8 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Thu, Jun 21, 2007, 13:59
|
So, if they go to arrest these folks, and they start shooting at the police, and then a very intense firefight occurs with casualties...?
I fear this. Sure hope it does not happen.
- walk
|
| 9 | Building 7
Sustainer
ID: 171572711
Thu, Jun 21, 2007, 14:23
|
You would think it would be easier to show them the law than to bring in helicoptors, armed martials, shooting at innocent bystanders, and tasering the guy walking the dog.
|
| 10 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Jun 21, 2007, 14:32
|
The "law" is well established. Or do we also need to show them air in order for them to breathe?
|
| 11 | Perm Dude
ID: 39525218
Thu, Jun 21, 2007, 14:32
|
You would think, yes. But wackos being what they are...
|
| 12 | walk
ID: 75112114
Thu, Jun 21, 2007, 15:12
|
Yeah, I don't understand the strong arm approach, but I also don't understand the folks quoted in the article saying the local law is being too mellow. Maybe just let the mofos eat canned spam for the next year and arrest them when they finally break down and have to go out for some real food.
- walk
|
| 13 | Tree
ID: 29082512
Thu, Jun 21, 2007, 15:27
|
also don't understand the folks quoted in the article saying the local law is being too mellow. Maybe just let the mofos eat canned spam for the next year and arrest them when they finally break down and have to go out for some real food.
well, i think the point is they're being too mellow, because they're allowing visitors and such, who can bring food and other items. cut off those visitors.
as for building 7:
You would think it would be easier to show them the law than to bring in helicoptors, armed martials, shooting at innocent bystanders, and tasering the guy walking the dog.
yea, i think they were shown the law. that's what got them arrested, and, ultimately convicted.
|
| 14 | Building 7
ID: 571192610
Thu, Jun 21, 2007, 19:52
|
You guys are in luck. They're offering $1,000,000 in commercial property if you can show Ed the law. Another guy is throwing in $500,000. Another guy has offered $50,000 for 10 years. All you have to do is show them the law that you're positive exists.
|
| 15 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Jun 21, 2007, 20:00
|
They were convicted...that IS the law.
|
| 16 | Perm Dude
ID: 39525218
Thu, Jun 21, 2007, 20:16
|
Their convictions, and argument. Their argument is nonsense--saying federal tax laws "don't exist." They've been shown the law.
It's worth noting that Mrs. Brown was convicted of not paying her employee's payroll taxes. It is one thing to defraud the government yourself. Another thing to get your employees in trouble as well.
How well those arguments have fared
|
| 17 | Tree
ID: 515482121
Thu, Jun 21, 2007, 22:51
|
they've been shown the law. now they need to be shown a jail cell.
|
| 18 | Building 7
Sustainer
ID: 171572711
Tue, Jul 17, 2007, 09:56
|
Local attorney acquitted on federal income tax charges
...stopped filing income taxes more than 10 years ago
A Shreveport attorney who has challenged the government for years on the legality of filing federal income taxes has been acquitted on charges he failed to file returns.
A federal jury unanimously found Tommy Cryer not guilty this week on two misdemeanor counts of failure to file.
And according to Cryer, the prosecution dismissed two felony charges of tax evasion prior to trial.
"The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes my revenues taxable," Cryer said.
|
| 19 | Perm Dude
ID: 6651178
Tue, Jul 17, 2007, 10:04
|
I love how he inflates the jury's verdict with SCOTUS rulings on other tax matters!
|
| 20 | Perm Dude
ID: 6651178
Tue, Jul 17, 2007, 10:14
|
Just to make my point clearer, we would need to get some more detail as to why the charges were rejected by the jury (lots of cases get bounced by juries for reasons having nothing to do with whether someone is guilty or not). It is also a little odd that only the defense is telling us that the tax evasion charges were dropped. Not a word from the USAG.
|
| 21 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Jul 17, 2007, 10:39
|
yea, it's an interesting verdict, but more info is certainly needed before determining if this is a ground breaking decision or not...
|
| 22 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Jul 17, 2007, 10:41
|
That particular case, appears to have been premised upon a very specific methodology. IOW, how many of us know how to go about setting up such a trust as this person did? How many of us, could administer such a trust in a compliant fashion? How many, could put sufficient monies into the trust, for it to matter?
So unless you are an attorney (or can easily afford the costs of a legalo defense) AND are prepared to accept the costs if your legal team is less succesful in its arguments than this guy was...then you will probably end up paying out more money than the taxes would have cost you in the first place. (Plus the potential of jail time. This took place in criminal court and not civil.)
|
| 23 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919
Tue, Jul 17, 2007, 13:19
|
I don't think anyone can approach tax expert status without spending their whole life engaged in the pursuit and even then you can't find ten people in the IRS who agree on anything. Usually you can't find 2 out of 10 with the same answer.
That said, to the extent that I have studied this specific issue in the past, my sense of it is that income taxes were not legally implimented and the IRS knows it. They may even avoid certain prosecutions to avoid having specific arguments tested in court.
It's all a moot point because the same power elite who rammed it thru, 'constitution be damned' style, have the system rigged and especially the federal courts and there
are absolutely no sane odds to challenging it. If the congress wanted to that would be a different story but that would take a congress which wasn't bought by the power elite and they don't come around very often if ever.
|
| 24 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919
Tue, Jul 17, 2007, 13:32
|
I guess it would also take a congress full of politicians who weren't addicted to spending income tax dollars to buy votes. If that doesn't put this issue in the 'tilting at windmills' category...
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|