Tax dodgers taunt police from hilltop compound
- Thread starter Matt King
- Start date
- Status
JohnBT
Member
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
?
how about you get a real lawyer and appeal to the next level of court. if instead of using a poor lawyer you get smart you have a chance to win case on merits. of course if your whole intent is to give yourself a reach around in publlic and go down in a blaze of glory you can try mrs browns technique lets see how it works out in real life
how about you get a real lawyer and appeal to the next level of court. if instead of using a poor lawyer you get smart you have a chance to win case on merits. of course if your whole intent is to give yourself a reach around in publlic and go down in a blaze of glory you can try mrs browns technique lets see how it works out in real life
Last edited by a moderator:
Titan6
member
I think the tax issue is a dead issue. I will towards changing the tax system but I am only one man.
The Browns are another issue. So long as they are in the house saying that they will kill feds they are pending a shoot out with the feds. This will go poorly for both sides.
Would it not be ironic if Randy Weaver were killed by the IRS? That was one part of the government he never had any problems with.
The Browns are another issue. So long as they are in the house saying that they will kill feds they are pending a shoot out with the feds. This will go poorly for both sides.
Would it not be ironic if Randy Weaver were killed by the IRS? That was one part of the government he never had any problems with.
JohnBT
Member
"I do admire the Browns."
I don't. They've backed themselves into a corner with shoddy logic and poor planning.
John
I don't. They've backed themselves into a corner with shoddy logic and poor planning.
John
Geronimo45
Member
That's my point, in case it wasn't clear: when is it morally acceptable to shoot someone on the basis of a bad law? Is it morally right for Ed Brown to shoot cops because he doesn't want to pay his income taxes? The income tax is part of the constitution, and has been in action for close to a hundred years (IIRC). It's been established for a long time, and these folks know it. I don't like it, don't think it should exist - but it does exist. It's recognized as the law of the land, and he knows it.
If he wants to avoid paying taxes, he could either keep on suing, contact his representatives and get them to do something about the law, or flee the country. Lots of ways to avoid the IRS without killing anybody.
JerryM
Member
Quote:
But the law is the law,
Yup. So, too, were slavery and, much more recently, segregation.
I'm not trying to equate the injustices of slavery and segregation to federal tax law. They are obviously not commensurate.
But saying the "law is the law" won't cut it. Never did and never will.End Quote
On the contrary this is a nation of laws which have been passed by duly elected representatives of the people who vote. If one does not vote then he has little to gripe about. If you lose the vote, then you have imposed upon you the desires of others. But you disobey it at your peril.
Now, I realize that each of us has the option of obeying or disobeying the laws. If he decides to disobey, then he suffers the consequences under the law. If we don't like the law, then we seek to change it, although often we have little luck considering those who have the power to change laws.
So anyone who admires the Browns is free to emulate them if he has that type of dedication.
But be prepared to end up in prison, or maybe dead. In any case whatever property one has will be taken by the "Taxman."
Again, I pay my taxes, expect others to do the same, and have little or no sympathy for those who refuse. Heroes? The Browns are thugs in my book.
Jerry
But the law is the law,
Yup. So, too, were slavery and, much more recently, segregation.
I'm not trying to equate the injustices of slavery and segregation to federal tax law. They are obviously not commensurate.
But saying the "law is the law" won't cut it. Never did and never will.End Quote
On the contrary this is a nation of laws which have been passed by duly elected representatives of the people who vote. If one does not vote then he has little to gripe about. If you lose the vote, then you have imposed upon you the desires of others. But you disobey it at your peril.
Now, I realize that each of us has the option of obeying or disobeying the laws. If he decides to disobey, then he suffers the consequences under the law. If we don't like the law, then we seek to change it, although often we have little luck considering those who have the power to change laws.
So anyone who admires the Browns is free to emulate them if he has that type of dedication.
But be prepared to end up in prison, or maybe dead. In any case whatever property one has will be taken by the "Taxman."
Again, I pay my taxes, expect others to do the same, and have little or no sympathy for those who refuse. Heroes? The Browns are thugs in my book.
Jerry
And isn't that why the Browns might be taking such extreme measures? I hope this doesn't turn into a gunfight but why not leave these people alone? I guess you could say I would argue that everybody who commits a crime that doesn't agree should be left alone. That's not what I'm saying. But if the Feds know how this could turn out with casulties on both sides why risk it? If they kill the Browns, then they will only further fuel the anti-government folks. If I understand correctly, the Browns were not even allowed to fully argue their case. That's not fair. Why risk more taxpayer money getting some tax evaders? This is not about the money obviously. I hope both sides can come to some kind of agreement before this REALLY gets out of hand. Like I said earlier, some of you calling for the Browns' deaths are making me wonder about your own sanity. The Browns MAY have a valid point and are willing to DIE for it. How many of you would be ready to do the same? All they are doing is fighting for what they believe in. Whether it is right or wrong is open to interpretation.
Geronimo45
Member
That's why they haven't (as of yet) rushed the place. Law's got to be enforced, even if it's difficult. There's traffic stops that end up with cops being blown away... several per year. Why do they risk hauling people to the side of the road for something as minor as going past the speed limit when they run the risk of getting killed? Make the law, you've got to enforce it - otherwise, people stop obeying the law.
Can't stop enforcing the law because somebody wants to be a jackass about it - which, as far as I've seen, is what the Browns are doing here. Could be wrong, but that's how I see it at the moment.
FeebMaster
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 275
Cel said:
Are you kidding? If they don't go after people who don't pay taxes, who is going to pay them?
Cel said:
Not as much as not killing them will fuel everyone else.
Agreed. Just don't want to see people killed over this.
I'm pretty sure the government is not really 'missing' this money. This is coming down to principle. But I guess people do get killed over the principle of something every day.
Agreed. This will fuel a lot of people. It's just I think it's crazy on both parts to risk lives for this. Maybe the Browns have a point, maybe they don't. They are at least addressing something that they see is unfair, whether right or wrong. I don't think they are wrong for questioning the tax laws. We should all question the laws or seek to find out more about them. I'm just thinking that's it's kinda crazy that someone could lose their father, mother, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, cousin, etc. because of a shootout over taxes. There are a whole lot more pressing issues that the gov should be pursuing. Nobody should potentially have to die over this. If anything, like someone stated in an earlier post, the gov should back off from the Browns property, let things simmer down, and maybe wait to catch them when they are out somewhere doing some shopping or something. This military approach will not work, I don't think, especially with the Browns and their supporters waiting for this scenario to go down.
Why didnt all those slaves just know their place, it was the law of the land that they should be property of white men right? Of course I am being sarcastic here.
All your arguments that a law is a law is bunk. Those of you comparing them to drug dealers need to understand that drugs while the government should not have a say, still have a negative effect on peoples lives. Refusal to pay a tax that they feel is unjust is not hurting anyone but their self.
Apples and Oranges.
Some of you might call them Thugs when many many other will call them Patriots.
Time will tell, if they make a difference for better or worse. Chances are most who disagree with the actions of Ed and Elaine Brown will do so regardless of the outcome and impact they have on our system.
All your arguments that a law is a law is bunk. Those of you comparing them to drug dealers need to understand that drugs while the government should not have a say, still have a negative effect on peoples lives. Refusal to pay a tax that they feel is unjust is not hurting anyone but their self.
Apples and Oranges.
Some of you might call them Thugs when many many other will call them Patriots.
Time will tell, if they make a difference for better or worse. Chances are most who disagree with the actions of Ed and Elaine Brown will do so regardless of the outcome and impact they have on our system.
helpless, those are indeed hard to find.
Time to find a new favorite.
Does anyone here remember when Whatchamacallit candy bars did not have caramel? (Besides me and cassandrasdaddy-- who is apparently old enough to remember the first Snickers bar coming off the assembly line.)
They added caramel-- in a perfect example of trying to fix what was not broken-- and made a product inferior to the original.
As much as I like caramel (and I do like caramel), it doesn't "work" with Whatchamacallits. The original was far better.
As far as the Browns are concerned, the longer this drags out, the more it benefits them. The gov't does not want a prolonged curiosity morphing into a cause celebre with every disgruntled and tax-paying Tom, Dick and Harry in the country.
Time to find a new favorite.
Does anyone here remember when Whatchamacallit candy bars did not have caramel? (Besides me and cassandrasdaddy-- who is apparently old enough to remember the first Snickers bar coming off the assembly line.)
They added caramel-- in a perfect example of trying to fix what was not broken-- and made a product inferior to the original.
As much as I like caramel (and I do like caramel), it doesn't "work" with Whatchamacallits. The original was far better.
As far as the Browns are concerned, the longer this drags out, the more it benefits them. The gov't does not want a prolonged curiosity morphing into a cause celebre with every disgruntled and tax-paying Tom, Dick and Harry in the country.
Titan6
member
Jeff- When you say failure to pay taxes hurts no one than I am unsure what you mean.
I suppose if ten of us went out to dinner after work you would be happy to not pay your share when the check came because you were unhappy with the service? Leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab?
or
Do you men to say that when someone is found guilty of a crime and is ordered to pay fines and go to jail their refusing to do so hurts no one?
In either case I disagree.
I suppose if ten of us went out to dinner after work you would be happy to not pay your share when the check came because you were unhappy with the service? Leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab?
or
Do you men to say that when someone is found guilty of a crime and is ordered to pay fines and go to jail their refusing to do so hurts no one?
In either case I disagree.
Thin Black Line
Member
Titan6, taxation as a tool used for such social control has a very cyclical nature
in its use. Typically we see it rise as a central gov't seeks to control its people
and extend its reach to areas of life it previously had left alone. Such policies
are set by the "planners" and so-called gov't experts that Hayek warned about.
About all I can do at this point is hope for another major awakening in human
consciousness similar to a new Renaissance since people (and systems) seem
to be repeating the same stupid mistakes over again. However, such a change
may require a severe bottle-necking to take place in the gene pool first and
this would need to affect the fish of all sizes. Sounds cruel I know.
Molon Labe
Member
Let's go over a couple misconceptions:
1. A lot of people think the 16th Amendment gave Congress the power to impose taxes. They are wrong. Congress has always (since 1791) had the power to impose taxes.
2. A lot of people think we didn't have a federal income tax before the 16th Amendment was ratified. They are wrong. As an example, we had a federal income tax in 1862, which was 50 years before the 16th Amendment was ratified.
To address the first misconception, lets whip out the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend:
But... there's a bit of a "problem" with the way the Constitution defines income. (At least according to some folks who were living at the turn of the century.) Here's the "problem": Certain taxes on individuals must be apportioned according to their state's population. While other types of taxes are uniform across the nation. As an example of the former, income tax from rental property on an individual living in North Dakota would be a lot less than income tax from rental property on an individual living Ohio.
This did not sit well with the powers-to-be. So they decided to fix this problem by making all federal taxes uniform. This was done in the form of an amendment to the Constitution. The 16th Amendment, to be precise:
O.K., time for a mini-rant.
Do you want to know what pains me?
We get mad - and rightfully so - when the press and anti-gunners twist the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment. We insist that the plain meaning & original intent of the 2nd Amendment is the only way to interpret it. Yet when it comes to taxation, we do the opposite... we ignore Constitution's plain meaning & original intent. We twist its meaning and come up with dubious arguments on how the states received typographical errors on their version of the amendment. Given our opposite approach on the 2nd amendment, I think this is very hypocritical, if not shameful.
I am a supporter and defender of the Constitution. Every word of it. And when I read and study the Constitution, I never resort to twisted logic or creative interpretations in an effort to support an agenda I might have. Taxes? Yea, I hate taxes as much as anyone else. But like it or not, the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to impose taxes, and I will not stoop to the level of anti-gunners by using warped logic and specious arguments to further an agenda. My fervent dedication to the Constitution - every word of it - trumps any and all political agendas I might have.
If you're on the ant-tax bandwagon, can I give you a suggestion? Instead of resorting to specious arguments on how Congress does not have the authority to impose taxes, use your energy to change our tax system. Like implementing the Fair Tax or a Flat Tax.
1. A lot of people think the 16th Amendment gave Congress the power to impose taxes. They are wrong. Congress has always (since 1791) had the power to impose taxes.
2. A lot of people think we didn't have a federal income tax before the 16th Amendment was ratified. They are wrong. As an example, we had a federal income tax in 1862, which was 50 years before the 16th Amendment was ratified.
To address the first misconception, lets whip out the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend:
So there you have it... Congress has the power to impose taxes. (I guess it should also be noted that every court decision agrees with this. But I do not want to bring up the opinions of courts. That's because - when it comes to the Constitution - I don't give a rat's ass about the opinions of courts, even when they're right. I simply go by the plain meanings of the words contained in the Constitution.)
But... there's a bit of a "problem" with the way the Constitution defines income. (At least according to some folks who were living at the turn of the century.) Here's the "problem": Certain taxes on individuals must be apportioned according to their state's population. While other types of taxes are uniform across the nation. As an example of the former, income tax from rental property on an individual living in North Dakota would be a lot less than income tax from rental property on an individual living Ohio.
This did not sit well with the powers-to-be. So they decided to fix this problem by making all federal taxes uniform. This was done in the form of an amendment to the Constitution. The 16th Amendment, to be precise:
O.K., time for a mini-rant.
Do you want to know what pains me?
We get mad - and rightfully so - when the press and anti-gunners twist the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment. We insist that the plain meaning & original intent of the 2nd Amendment is the only way to interpret it. Yet when it comes to taxation, we do the opposite... we ignore Constitution's plain meaning & original intent. We twist its meaning and come up with dubious arguments on how the states received typographical errors on their version of the amendment. Given our opposite approach on the 2nd amendment, I think this is very hypocritical, if not shameful.
I am a supporter and defender of the Constitution. Every word of it. And when I read and study the Constitution, I never resort to twisted logic or creative interpretations in an effort to support an agenda I might have. Taxes? Yea, I hate taxes as much as anyone else. But like it or not, the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to impose taxes, and I will not stoop to the level of anti-gunners by using warped logic and specious arguments to further an agenda. My fervent dedication to the Constitution - every word of it - trumps any and all political agendas I might have.
If you're on the ant-tax bandwagon, can I give you a suggestion? Instead of resorting to specious arguments on how Congress does not have the authority to impose taxes, use your energy to change our tax system. Like implementing the Fair Tax or a Flat Tax.
Titan6
member
Molon- The courts found earlier income taxes unconstitutional which is why the 16th ammendment was passed to make it legal. There is no doubt that it is legal now.
There are a fair number of libertarians here who do not believe in the COTUS. They support the 2d only because it helps their cause not out of any love for the document or the law.
edit: Here is the link to the history of income tax:
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
I find it odd that you do not respect court opinions on the Constitution. You do know that according to the same document they are the deciders right?
There are a fair number of libertarians here who do not believe in the COTUS. They support the 2d only because it helps their cause not out of any love for the document or the law.
edit: Here is the link to the history of income tax:
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
I find it odd that you do not respect court opinions on the Constitution. You do know that according to the same document they are the deciders right?
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Excellent comments, Molom Labe.
I would also like to point out that the Browns are only up against one of many taxes. From what I've read, they have paid every other tax. This discussion needs to be kept on the - and their - problem with the income tax.
Woody
I would also like to point out that the Browns are only up against one of many taxes. From what I've read, they have paid every other tax. This discussion needs to be kept on the - and their - problem with the income tax.
Woody
Thin Black Line
Member
From the IRS:
Anyone care to research the average household income for that time period?
Could it be the vast majority of families paid no federal income tax whatsoever?
BTW:
Americans who forget their history are doomed to pay for it
Assuming the Browns have paid all other taxes (like property), one would have
to wonder why they didn't "play the game" like the system itself has encouraged
Americans to do. They apparently have a good chunk of real estate and a
large house. Why didn't they do an equity withdrawal for the "free cash" or
otherwise play the game long enough to do a reverse mortgage in their
later years? Of course, they would have had nothing to leave to their children
(assuming they have any???), but how is this different than the vast majority
of Americans who will leave no real property to their children in their future.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked