Could this become a Waco/Ruby Ridge? Happening RIGHT NOW!

Status
Not open for further replies.
The caveat at the end of the sentence was because Eisner dealt with a similar issue - people claiming that dividends on corporation stock were not taxable as income. The court added that caveat to make it clear that they did consider sale of dividends to be a form of taxable income.

For that matter, doesn't it strike you as strange that in order to make the argument that wages/labor is not taxable, people must resort to two Depression-era cases discussing dividends and stock sales? Why is there no case on point if existing Supreme Court precedent supports that interpretation?
 
this place has unfortunately become a cesspool of people who think it is okay to take up a gun and threaten to use deadly force against anyone or anything you don't agree with.
If it were a mere matter of a disagreement, you'd be absolutely correct, but storming someone's house with a team of armed men after telling him to surrender all of his property or be killed, is not quite a mere disagreement, is it?
of course it is the usual fellows on here who type loudly but in real life probably wouldn't have the cajones to point a gun at an armed police officer. you know who you are.
I hope no one here is foolish enough to fall into your very obvious trap.
 
kludge said:
In the statute the government has redefined "income" to also include "compensation for services". I don't believe that this (item 1) has been ruled on by SCOTUS, but maybe I'm wrong.

In 1926, two engineers who were advising state and local governments on sewage matters made a variety of arguments on why their wages should not be considered income. Their main argument was that they were exempt from taxes because they were providing a service to the states. The Supreme Court had this to say on the subject:

Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell said:
"All of the items of income were received by the taxpayers as compensation for their services as consulting engineers under contracts with states or municipalities, or water or sewage districts created by state statute. In each case the service was rendered in connection with a particular project for water supply or sewage disposal, and the compensation was paid in some instances on an annual basis, in others on a monthly or daily basis, and in still others on the basis of a gross sum for the whole service...

...But we do decide that one who is not an officer or employee of a state, does not establish exemption from federal income tax merely by showing that his income was received as compensation for service rendered under a contract with the state; and when we take the next step necessary to a complete disposition of the question, and inquire into the effect of the particular tax, on the functioning of the state government, we do not find that it impairs in any substantial manner the ability of plaintiffs in error to discharge their obligations to the state or the ability of a state or its subdivisions to procure the services of private individuals to aid them in their undertakings. Cf. Central Pacific Railroad v. California, 162 U. S. 91, 126, 16 S. Ct. 766, 40 L. Ed. 903. We therefore conclude that the tax in No. 183 was properly assessed."

So far, the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Circuits have ruled that wages are income (many of them citing this case). None of those rulings have been overturned by the Supreme Court and presumably, nobody wants to be a test case in the few circuits remaining.
 
If it were a mere matter of a disagreement, you'd be absolutely correct, but storming someone's house with a team of armed men after telling him to surrender all of his property or be killed, is not quite a mere disagreement, is it?

of course it is framed so carefully, including only the details that benefit your side of the discussion. did you conveniently omit:

1. he was convicted in court by a jury of his peers?
2. he barricaded himself in his house and took up arms?
3. he has made overt threats?

i guess you forgot all of those. you also forget that the police aren't there to make him surrender all of his property like you state. they are there to take HIM to jail. they aren't going to take his property anywhere. the IRS might but that isn't the same bunch of people coming to serve the warrant.

the only way that dummy will be killed is if he forces the police to kill him. your statement is totally incorrect. if the cops wanted him dead they'd have killed him by now. burn his house down, shoot him with a sniper, etc.

the "surrender all of your property or be killed" statement is totally incorrect. this man has the ability to end it all by just coming out. no one is forcing him to be killed except himself if his actions dictate that he be shot.

I hope no one here is foolish enough to fall into your very obvious trap.

no trap here, but obviously this statement peaked your interest. got a guilty conscience?
 
For that matter, doesn't it strike you as strange that in order to make the argument that wages/labor is not taxable, people must resort to two Depression-era cases discussing dividends and stock sales?

Miller vs. US justifies the NFA? Strange, isn't it?
 
Ok, OK.

So, here is the deal the way I see it.

Yes, they screwed up. Yes, the IRS sucks.

Pride and stupidity got them.

They are going to lose everything they have, yes. Everything.

So why not make .gov earn their assets?

3. he has made overt threats?
I don't remember reading that part, but I could be wrong.

They are going to prison. Make the feds wait them out, spend lots a money in wages and materials then walk out with the white flag and smile.

They will get three hots and a cot in the slammer. Let .gov take care of them for a few years, write a book, do some talk shows and when they get out, become homeless and let .gov take care of them.

Poetic Justice.
 
Miller vs. US justifies the NFA? Strange, isn't it?

The only connection here is that Miller is a Depression-era case. To use an analogy, if Miller had been convicted of carrying a Bowie knife and then proponents of the collective rights argument tried to argue that the NFA of 1934 was plainly constitutional as a result, you might have a point.

In this case, both of the cases that are offered as support for the idea that wages are not taxable don't deal with wages at all; but corporate dividends and stocks. Further, both cases expressly say things like "and labor" and "all income from whatever source derived" when discussing what is taxable income.

Finally, they concentrate on selective reading of those two cases while ignoring contemporary cases where the Court upheld a tax on wages and compensation.

So does that analogy sound like a good one to you?
 
I'm not even going to try to read through 12 pages of responses.

Just because taxes are unfair, and the governmet goes too far, and they have been wrong before, it doesn't mean they are wrong here. This guy would have found a way to make this happen sooner or later regardless of his tax problems. He's a conspiracy nut who thinks that he's precipitating the new revolution.

I say seige him, and find out just how much food he really has.

It's funny how an ultra-fundamentalist is even more dedicated and principled when it saves him money.
 
A basic proposition of civilization is that the govt must force certain lawless people to follow the low. The force will be only the amount necessary. However, if you are hiding in a house with a meth lab or a large crop of "medical" marijuana, a load of illegal aliens, or failing to surrender to an arrest warrant for a tax charge, you will still be forced to comply. Even if you or a few similarly likeminded kooks think it shouldn't be illegal to traffic in drugs, to smuggle illegal aliens, or to evade taxation. Until there are enough of you to agree to exercise the democratic process for change, the law is the law. Tyranny is rule by the minority; democracy is rule by the majority.

I hope your New Hampshire version of the Waco Wacko's surrender peacefully. If not, legal force will be applied. They are already receiving soft hand treatment, just as the Waco Wacko's did. If it were just a drug house, the SRT would have already ended the situation.
 
hankdatank1362 said:
The only point I am arguing is that the gov. is within their rights to do as they are doing to Mr. Brown. As far as how "necessary and proper" applies to anything else, that is off topic.

Again, the government does not have any rights. In this, as in all cases, those in government are exercising power. Hopefully, it is power granted to them in the Constitution.

hankdatank1362 said:
and the Supreme Court is the highest law of the land. Funny, I couldn't seem to find that last part in the US Constitution either.
Let me help you:
Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court...

The SCOTUS decides what is and what isn't law depending on it's constitutionality. No one is above it's authority. What other government branch or entity has that kind of sweeping power? Bills can be vetoed, vetoes can be overridden, inferior court cases can be appealed, etc.

To add to what "The Real Hawkeye" wrote, another "government entity" with power over the Supreme Court is the Constitution. The title '"Supreme" Court' only denotes it as the top court in the land, not the supreme law of the land.

Bart said:
To me that seems like specious reasoning, the words of the 16th Amendment and its purpose was well known. It was ratified by 2/3 of the state legislatures in a time before the federal government was able to blackmail states with their own tax money and the argument that because there was a comma instead of a semi-colon the whole thing is invalid is a sea-lawyer argument that ignores that the mass of citizens clearly approved of the idea and the text.

I'm sure this is simply a faux pas on your part. If indeed the 16th Amendment has only been ratified by 2/3 of the states, it isn't part of the Constitution at all. It takes 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment for it to become part of the Constitution.

I've searched and searched and cannot find a definition of "income" in the tax code. So far, every time I've found the word "income" in a definition, it has been with a modifier such as "gross", "taxable", "earned", etc. To make things worse, each section I found those definitions in qualified the definitions as " for purposes of (this) section,...". The tax code vis-a-vis income taxes is convoluted, interwoven beyond tangled, and beyond the capabilities of a Cray Supercomputer to accurately and completely prepare a tax return.

Originally Posted by Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 207, 40 Sup. Ct. 189, 193 (64 L. Ed. 521), 9 A. L. R. 1570
'Income may be defined as a gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.'

The gain derived from labor is from a business charging its customers - well - an example: Company pays you $25.00 an hour. The company charges its customers $50.00 per hour for each hour you worked on the company's client's widget. The $25.00 the company made on each hour you worked, minus payroll taxes etc, is the gain. You as an individual broke even. Your labors are only worth $25.00 an hour to the company and that's all you got paid.

Here's a new twist: If my labors are an exchangeable commodity, and I get paid for selling my labors, I should be able to deduct any and all expenses I incur in making my labors an exchangeable commodity. I should be able to deduct the cost of housing myself, feeding myself, transporting myself to and from where I exchange my labors for cash, the costs of entertaining myself to the point I'm well satisfied with my life so as to keep me a marketable commodity, any and all health care I need to remain a healthy marketable commodity, and every cent I save toward maintaining myself for when I'm no longer marketable to defray any expenses to society in my old age. All this is analogous to living off the land and not "earning a living" out there in the big world. If I need to sell firewood or apples to meet my property taxes, to pay a doctor, or what ever, anything I have left over after all the "expenses" have been paid, then I'll pay a tax on that profit I made. But as you can see, living off the land accomplished the same thing as earning a living by other means.

Companies get to deduct each and every expense it incurs(except for half of meals and entertainment) in its quest for profit. So should I. Better still, abolish the income tax and go with a sales tax.

Spreadfire Arms said:
the only way that dummy will be killed is if he forces the police to kill him. your statement is totally incorrect. if the cops wanted him dead they'd have killed him by now. burn his house down, shoot him with a sniper, etc.

It'll be interesting to see who fires the first shot or takes the first aggressive action.... Not that those in government haven't ever fired the first shot...

Woody

If we don't bring back the warmth and light of the Constitution now, it will soon pass beyond the bloodless reach of man's will. B.E.Wood
 
Last edited:
cropcirclewalker wrote:
3. he has made overt threats?

I don't remember reading that part, but I could be wrong.

Fox News

Brown and about 25 supporters said they will defend themselves against capture if necessary.

On Wednesday, Brown told reporters at his home: "If I should be killed or imprisoned, or my wife is killed or imprisoned, or both, those responsible will join us."

********************************************************************

from my original post:

of course it is the usual fellows on here who type loudly but in real life probably wouldn't have the cajones to point a gun at an armed police officer.

where The Real Hawkeye replied:

I hope no one here is foolish enough to fall into your very obvious trap.

and i wrote back:

no trap here, but obviously this statement peaked your interest. got a guilty conscience?

The Real Hawkeye wrote:

Not sure what you mean to imply by this. Perhaps you'd care to clarify.

that statement i wrote "of course it is the usual fellows on here who type loudly but in real life probably wouldn't have the cajones to point a gun at an armed police officer" wasn't directed to anyone specific. however you were the only one who seemed to take offense to this statement. if this statement resembles you, or if you think it was directed towards you, then i ask, "Do you have a guilty conscience?" Meaning, does this statement accurately describe you? maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

basically, does the shoe fit? :)

********************************************************************

and just to prove that Ed Brown isn't playing with a full deck of cards:
A 1994 Interview with Ed Brown

PLAINFIELD - Edward L. Brown, 52, is a consultant in the extermination business by trade. But the menace he is trying to warn people about these days is of the human variety.

Brown is the spokesman for the Constitution Defense Militia, one of numerous ''unorganized'' citizen militia groups forming around the country in response to what they say is a well-orchestrated and far-reaching conspiracy to deprive Americans of their liberty and even lives.
The New Hampshire Libertarian party will hold a special panel analysis on citizen militias at its annual convention in Merrimack on Oct. 15.

Brown can name names of conspirators - Bill Clinton, George Bush, Janet Reno, Mikhail Gorbachev - and of organizations - The Council on Foreign Relations, the United Nations, the Tri-Lateral Commission, the American Bar Association, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the CIA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

He contends the deaths of religious cult members in Switzerland and Canada last week were ''another WACO,'' orchestrated by the CIA. And he believes even the baseball strike was part of a plot to squash anything American.

Brown likens the times we are living in to the years in Europe before World War II. He has 18 months worth of food stored in his basement, and a stockpile of weapons and ammunition. He believes something will trigger a federal takeover of private property, utilities, health facilities and the media, and said the most likely scenario is an economic collapse.

Brown estimated there are five million militia members across the country; in this state, there are 3,000 CDM members, men and women from all walks of life who are ''on standby to lock and load 24 hours a day right now.''

Brown warns there is a second Revolutionary War approaching. But he says this time the citizen patriots have AK-47s.

Brown, who says he is an agnostic, admits it's easy to dismiss him as a nut. He knows that's how the FBI, the Department of Defense and other federal agencies he calls regularly have him pegged.

He contends there are 130 detention centers set up around the country, including one at the former Pease Air Force Base, ready to imprison people like him who resist the government.

Gun control is at the center of the enemies' plan, he explained. He predicts ''blood in the streets'' if the government tries to confiscate guns here.

''There's two freight trains coming down the track full steam ahead. True American citizens like myself will die for my country. We will never release any firearms to the United States.''

An ad in the October 1994 issue of ''Soldier of Fortune magazine'' warns, ''It's Groundhog Day! For those of us living under the shadow of gun control...Hide your weapons WHILE YOU CAN!'' The ''Groundhog,'' an underground storage container big enough for four AR15's, two AK-47s and 2300 rounds of ammunition, costs $94.95.

Brown said the militia is setting up ''Constitutional courts'' in numerous states, including here in New Hampshire, ''for the purpose of taking back America.''

Who will be tried? ''Anybody who commits un-American activity. Anybody who has created insurrection or sedition or conspiracy against the American people.'' And what will the penalty be? ''Whatever the people decide.''

Brown only became involved in the CDM 11 months ago. But ever since he has been unable to enjoy the things he used to, like golfing and fishing.

Brown believes the conspiracy is world-wide; references to a ''New World Order'' set off alarms in militia members. He thinks a confrontation is ''imminent'' and he believes the year 2000 has special significance for ''the bad guys.''

''From now on, as an American citizen under my Constitution, nobody but nobody is going to come into my country and take it down. Nobody's going to destroy that Constitution. And the enemy is within.''

He said the militia has declared New Hampshire a ''free zone,'' neutral territory in which the federal government has no authority. ''All we're looking for is as many people get warned as possible, to protect as many lives as we can before this thing goes down.''

''Freedom is not free. Thomas Jefferson told us every 20 years a little patriot blood must be shed to kill some of the tyrants and keep them in line. We have not done this since the Civil War.''

Brown said he sees no way the conflict will end except in violence. ''Because these people will not quit. The window of oppportunity for them as it approaches is closing because people like me are rising. And the hope is we can open our window more than theirs, so we can swallow them before they swallow us.''

i think this sheds some light on how he thinks.
 
that statement i wrote "of course it is the usual fellows on here who type loudly but in real life probably wouldn't have the cajones to point a gun at an armed police officer" wasn't directed to anyone specific. however you were the only one who seemed to take offense to this statement. if this statement resembles you, or if you think it was directed towards you, then i ask, "Do you have a guilty conscience?" Meaning, does this statement accurately describe you? maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

basically, does the shoe fit?
My purpose was to warn all within "earshot," as it were, that you were clearly attempting to provoke a response like, "Heck, I wouldn't hesitate to point a gun at a police officer if he did X,Y and Z." Such a statement could lead to legal trouble for the individual who made it. As for my feeling guilty, I can't imagine from what. I am authentically confused by your suggestion. Do you mean that I might feel guilty because I don't have, as you say, the "cajuns," to point a gun at some random police officer? Or are you suggesting that I might feel guilty because I would, in your estimation, point a gun at some random police officer? I find the entire reference bizarre, and perhaps indicative of psychiatric issues beyond the scope of this thread.
 
Any resistance to the Powers That Be will have it's Torys and it's Benadict Arnolds. It is to be expected.
I don't expect anything else from fellow Americans.
 
i think this sheds some light on how he thinks.

From those quotes, I'd guess that Mr Brown is a member on THR :)
Then again, he'd probably be scared of the big bad federal gov intercepting his internet packets.

I love how this nutcase doesnt want to follow the rules under our current govt, but he wants to set up his own courts and judge people for doing things he considers Un-American.. What happens when someone decides they dont recognize his authority? Gimme a f'in break. This dude is loony tunes.. plain and simple.
 
And people wonder why the Libertarian party only recieves about 1% of the vote in Federal elections. Maybe it because the vast majority of people who assoicate with the party are extremist like Mr Brown.
 
From those quotes, I'd guess that Mr Brown is a member on THR :)

who knows. but it does certainly shed light on his thought process, which is way off.

The Real Hawkeye wrote:
I am authentically confused by your suggestion. Do you mean that I might feel guilty because I don't have, as you say, the "cajuns," to point a gun at some random police officer? Or are you suggesting that I might feel guilty because I would, in your estimation, point a gun at some random police officer?

actually it is "cajones" lol. but anyway the statement wasn't directed at you, you were the only one who has happened to take issue with it. my point was that there are some people on THR who are keyboard commandos who, if the situation presented itself, wouldn't be so bold as to engage in a gunfight with someone who's probably more trained and more experienced, and maybe even, has been in a gunfight before and survived. meaning, they type alot but act very little, if at all. again it wasn't directed towards you specifically, but again, you are the only one who's taken issue with the statement.

woodcdi wrote:

It'll be interesting to see who fires the first shot or takes the first aggressive action.... Not that those in government haven't ever fired the first shot...

of course, the government serving a lawful warrant will be deemed by the anti government types around here as "aggressive action" and thus the government will ultimately be wrong. "aggressive action" is very subjective around here, especially on THR. :rolleyes:
 
again it wasn't directed towards you specifically, but again, you are the only one who's taken issue with the statement.
So if I comment on something you say, that means what, now? Please be specific. I find this fascinating.
 
I hope your New Hampshire version of the Waco Wacko's surrender peacefully. If not, legal force will be applied. They are already receiving soft hand treatment, just as the Waco Wacko's did. If it were just a drug house, the SRT would have already ended the situation.

At Waco Texas six Davidians died the day of the initial raid, another 76 died on April 19. If that is the soft hand treatment of which you refer I'd sure as hell hate to find out what the hard hand treatment is.
 
At Waco Texas six Davidians died the day of the initial raid, another 76 died on April 19. If that is the soft hand treatment of which you refer I'd sure as hell hate to find out what the hard hand treatment is.

The FBI HRT guys were getting tired of waiting around, so they had to burn them pesky children out.

The bottom line is anyone who does not bow to government power will be crushed. That is why government has those millions of enforcers on the payroll.

It is all about making the next person who might not want to comply just decide to meekly do as he is told.

This is not always a bad thing. Some times it just rubs us the wrong way. I have some sympathy for this guy, but he certainly knew what would happen if he did not pay his taxes. You can make specious arguments about typographical errors in official records 80 years ago, but that does not really change anything, nor will it stop the armored vehicles from rolling on him.
 
TheRealHawkeye:
There is no law requiring the average working American to pay a direct unapportioned income tax.

Then please explain to me what the 16th amendment means when it states
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment
 
The bottom line is anyone who does not bow to government power will be crushed. That is why government has those millions of enforcers on the payroll.

Well yea..that goes without saying. If the gov't had no power to enforce law and order, we'd have.. well.. Mexico.
 
woodcdi:
To add to what "The Real Hawkeye" wrote, another "government entity" with power over the Supreme Court is the Constitution. The title '"Supreme" Court' only denotes it as the top court in the land, not the supreme law of the land.

Ohhhhh, I see what you're saying. I agree one hundred percent with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top