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

[DMF]

Those who wish to challenge it in court are essentially fighting the same fight as Fincher in Arkansas. He wants to argue the constitutionality of the laws banning firearms possession in relationship to the Second Amendment. The courts refuse to even allow that argument to surface in court. They will only hear statements of fact regarding what he did or did not do. Arguments using the constitution to justify his acts are quashed.

The same essential problem appears to face those who refuse to pay taxes based on their position it is not constitutional. The court in which you appear will not allowe you to use that issue in your defense. As far as they are concerned the issue is settled. You have to pay tax. Your case then revolves around did you or did you not pay your tax as the law requires. Basically a no win case for the tax protester. A defense based on the constitutionality of a law has a poor chance at best at even being heard let alone prevailing in the current court system

The problem with your thesis is that rulings from a federal district court can be appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and then to the US Supreme Court. So the Constitutional argument can be made. However, if the higher courts have already ruled on the issue, there is no real reason to hear the argument again.

The arguments claiming the income tax law doesn't really exist have been proven false, and the arguments claiming the income tax is un-Constitutional has been attempted and rejected by the Courts. One can attempt to make the argument, but should not be surprised if when it eventually is appealed to the Supreme Court that cert is denied.

Again, if you think I'm wrong sack up and stop paying your taxes, but at least be a man about it and call a press conference explaining your reasons, and challenging the government to prove it's case. Just don't be surprised when the Supreme Court denies cert.

I look forward to seeing you on the news, at least twice.

 

[DMF]

"The Ballad of Carl Drega" by Vin Suprynowicz

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=146746&highlight=Drega

 

[rustymaggot]

[quote}They need to leave him alone till he comes out on his own. If he stays in his concrete house for the rest of his life that would be penalty enough.

i agree, let him come out on his own. just dont let buddies bring him food or beer.

little guy will come down for dinner when hes hungry.

 

[07Lway]

You have to pay taxes. Sure paying for things you don't believe in with your taxes sucks. That is the way it works. Maybe one day after you suffer a life threatening illness or injury you might not think so badly about those food stamps (if you can swallow your pride enough to except them).

I think that by having to resort to violence we have already failed miserably with our democratic republic. It is funny to hear people talk about, "If only there were 100 million people like him/her". Well if there were 100 million people who actually practiced their civic duties, then we should never need to bunker ourselves down for that final stand. You need to speak up and try to change what you do not like. Instead of sitting on your ass and awaiting a fate that is preventable. Our system is flawed, but it is still the best REALISTIC government idea humans have been able to come up with.

 

[Gifted]

Since social security, medicare and such are seperate from the income tax, I might could see a challenge to those, save for the fact that I'm sure they have precedent saying they're constitutional. I remember hearing that they first said that only a small number of people would pay the income tax(guess what happened when people forgot that one), and that social security was voluntary(who would have guessed?). I wonder if the court would agree that since wealth redistribution isn't working, and they've lied so much, it should be voided even if it is legal.

I've been told several things about this stuff. I find it interesting that they said it's in a federal court. I've been told that if you can get it out of the IRS's kangaroo courts and into a real one you generally win an argument like this one. Guess they had poor advice. I'd have made sure I had a lawyer long before a trial(going from above, I'd guess there's a few out there that will represent you). Other thing I heard was an alternate form to file("in leiu of form 4", IIRC). The IRS was fine with it, but reported to the credit reporting companies who pretty much destroyed any chance of a loan until they'd been audited and such(they wanted a house, so they ended up messing with it). If indeed people have been aquitted, I'd do some digging and show a lawyer the precedents.

I heard someone say they had been convicted because the jury decided that "if I have to pay, you do too". I wonder what would have happened if they'd been told, "if he doesn't have to pay, neither do you".*dreams on*

Maybe one day after you suffer a life threatening illness or injury you might not think so badly about those food stamps (if you can swallow your pride enough to except them).

LDS church has a wonderful welfare system-I don't plan on messing with food stamps(heck, when we needed them, we couldn't get them, but the Bishop's storehouse was open to us). Charity worked well until Medicare and such came along and started inflating the prices. We're at about the same place-while before you simply couldn't afford that life-saving treatment, now it's not covered, and it's even less afforable.

 

[jeep-2]

If all he has going for him is 8" walls and a few guns, he should have his last rights read as the Government will take him out with 1 shell if they want to.
And everytime the government makes an example of guys like him,Waco, Ruby Ridge, it scares the hell out of another 25 mil people and the Gov knows it. so they'll deal with protesters every few yrs until no one has anything to fight with.
sort of like when we went into Iraq, it was supposed to scare everyone in the region, Lybia got scared and Iran didn't, now we'll be dealing with Iran.

 

[Derby FALs]

In 2004, federal taxes on gasoline yielded $24 billion in revenue. The federal government spent $30 billion on highways in 2004. So those highways are not entirely funded by gasoline taxes.

Pretty dumb to spend more than you stole. I see this as big of a problem.

And Bart( may I call you Bart?),

You really should call him Black Bart in that case.

 

[ceetee]

You really should call him Black Bart in that case...

We already have a "Black Bart". (Bart Noir, that is...)

Sorry for the hi-jack. I, too, feel sorry for this guy's family. I wonder if it's just him, the wife, or are they both equally nutty.

 

[hammer4nc]

cnn.com has posted a little video on this story. It shows the "fortress" (looks like a pretty upscale house, complete with "turrets"). Says he's off the power grid. He's now got his kubota tractor parked across the front door.

According to the video, he's now under a court order to remove his weapons from the property!!! Perhaps some of the internet lawyers who've posted in support of the government in this thread can speak to the legality of that little maneuver??? How about constitutional citations telling us that its not only legal according to the 2nd amendment, but sooooo morally right. Any takers?

The video shows him speaking to reporters , and sympathizers are camping out on his property. I wouldn't expect any action until authorities create a two mile perimeter around the home, so their crimes won't be filmed.

BTW, looks like Russel Kanning is one of the sympathizers...remember his little tax protest in Keene, last year?

 

[Manedwolf]

BTW, looks like Russel Kanning is one of the sympathizers...remember his little tax protest in Keene, last year?

Is that the guy who ran into the IRS offices dressed in overalls with a pitchfork, and caused a collective facepalm from all the working business owners and upscale professionals in NH?

 

[TallPine]

if we all did what the Browns' did, we would be without services that I think we would all agree were essential and part of the federal government's job.

Leave me out of "we"

 

[Wasz]

"Retired exterminator.

Anti-government.

Holed up in his house with guns.

Dale Gribble, anyone?

-Jack"

I think you mean Rusty Shackleford.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

True. Getting paid for your labors is not a financial gain. It is an exchange of your labor's worth for the money's worth. No one gets paid more than their labors are worth, therefore, no gain. It isn't profit. It's simply an exchange.

Woody

Therefore it is not income, and is therefore untaxable by the federal government. Income is net gain. If I own a candy store, my income is only what I have left from my gross gain after I calculate expenses. I only pay income taxes on that gain, because only that gain is my income.

Well, a laborer's income is calculated the same exact way. If he is paid by his salary more than his labor is worth (an impossibility), that excess payment, i.e., over the value of his labor, is his income. His salary, however, is merely breaking even for the labor he gave in exchange for it. Just as a candy store owner would owe no income tax if he failed to realize a profit, so the salaried laborer would owe no income tax because he only breaks even with regard to his salary in exchange for his labor. There is no income, and thus no income tax, unless you realize a profit.

Examples of income are such as capital gains from securities investments, gifts, game show prizes, business profits, lottery winnings, profits made from purchasing and selling items of value which have appreciated over time or which possessed a greater value than what you paid for them. This is all taxable by the federal government because it is income, but just like a candy store owner's gross earnings do not constitute his income when calculating what he owes in federal income tax (only his net earnings count), a pay check is also not income for that purpose, because it is worth exactly what was given in exchange for it, just like if I purchased a rare antique for $500 and then sold it for $500, I realized no taxable gain. Likewise, a laborer, by his salary (which is an even exchange for the value of his labors), makes zero income, and therefore owes zero federal income tax.

 

[Thin Black Line]

If more Americans were like him, we'd still have a free country

If by "free country", you mean "absolute anarchy and choas", then I agree with you 100%.

LOL, a lack of a state/federal income tax would not cause absolute anarchy
and chaos.....somehow Texas has survived, dare I say prospered, without
an income tax.

To worry that the system would collapse without an income tax reflects
successful nanny-state indoctrination.

As far as those of you arguing that the continuous federal income tax has
been Constitutional from its inception, then you forget the history of the
time in which it was passed. You are completely unaware or choose to
ignore that it was passed while telling The People that it would it was a
temporary emergency measure that would only be done for a few years.
There was absolutely no discussion at the time that this would be a
permanent tax lasting generations.

To you also, I would say that believing otherwise violates the spirit of the
time in which the amendment was passed and the shortterm purpose for
which it was intended and reflects successful nanny-state indoctrination.

Take the freakin' red pill and wake up

As far as the guy in this case --he's toast one way or another. At this
point the problem isn't that he hasn't paid "taxes" it's that he has thumbed
his nose at the gov't itself and is prepared to use force to separate himself
from it. Now it doesn't matter how much money was involved.

Case in point: I had a relative who owed $8 (yes, that's EIGHT dollars) in
local tax. Some local official tried to collect it. He said "no." He was
actually summoned to court over $8 (gee, I wonder how much the judge
and the other court workers are paid per hour....). The real problem came
when he did not show up for court......oops, warrant issued. That means
someone can use FORCE to bring you in. That means if your resist them,
then the gloves come off....

Of course, now it's not a tax issue, it's a contempt of the system itself
issue. All started over $8. This is the kind of thing you would have heard
the colonists complaining about the Crown --tea party anyone?

In America today people either complain about the system collapsing without
tax revenues which are in reality nothing more than a form of social engineering
and wealth transfer or people cowering waiting for the JBTs. We have more
taxes placed on us than when the colonists sent the freakin' Declaration
of Independence over to the King!

Oh, well, serfs, back to the King's land you toil

 

[Derby FALs]

We had telephone taxes that helped pay for wars.

For those who file a return for 2006 this Spanish American War tax has finally been repealed and there is a rebate for everyone that has a landline phone service. Line 71 I believe. You get this and even if you owe taxes it will be deducted from the amount you owe.

 

[SamTuckerMTNMAN]

everyone is so serious around here

We all die anyway. I love hearing about crazy loons from the 17 and 1800's that stood up for something, anything, just to rub it in the face of the bully. Who cares, he dies, whatever. At least he went out with a bang, if so. He may be wrong....doesn't concern me, but I dont call him a freako because he's no more of a freako than the armchair RKBA warriors who judge everyone else for standing up for what they believe in. As long as they have enough beer, it may be quite fun until the end. One hell of a party to remember if they live. If he's reaql smart he may take quite a chunk out with him, those arrogant bastards.

Have a sense of humor when fighting overwhelming odds, I say!

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

thexrayboy wrote:
Those who wish to challenge it in court are essentially fighting the same fight as Fincher in Arkansas.

and we all know how successful that trial is turning out to be.

hammer4nc wrote:
According to the video, he's now under a court order to remove his weapons from the property!!! Perhaps some of the internet lawyers who've posted in support of the government in this thread can speak to the legality of that little maneuver??? How about constitutional citations telling us that its not only legal according to the 2nd amendment, but sooooo morally right. Any takers?

that's pretty funny. they actually think he'll obey? not worth the paper it is written on, unless, they plan to charge him with violation of the court order, that is, if he is taken into custody.....alive?

i don't know what this guy is thinking. he's just going to end up killed or in federal prison for like....forever.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I don't know what this guy is thinking. he's just going to end up killed

For some men, slavery is worse than death. I don't know about you, but I can't help admiring someone who prefers death over slavery to the Federal Government.

 

[Eleven Mike]

How about if this off-topic tax talk is locked, and somebody can start another thread when the shooting starts?

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

For some men, slavery is worse than death. I don't know about you, but I can't help admiring someone who prefers death over slavery to the Federal Government.

that makes him sound like he's some sort of folk hero or martyr. he isn't. he is simply someone who makes the pro-2A community look like a bunch of extremist crazies.

his actions as a whole to the American audience do not speak out against the government and taxation. his actions make a statement to mainstream America that he is mentally unstable and is a gun owner. unfortunately mainstream America will correlate his irrational behavior with gun ownership, which is bad for us.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

that makes him sound like he's some sort of folk hero or martyr. he isn't. he is simply someone who makes the pro-2A community look like a bunch of extremist crazies.

his actions as a whole to the American audience do not speak out against the government and taxation. his actions make a statement to mainstream America that he is mentally unstable and is a gun owner. unfortunately mainstream America will correlate his irrational behavior with gun ownership, which is bad for us.

I suspect that the Founding Fathers considered this one of the reasons for prohibiting the Federal Government from disarming the population, i.e., so that every American, when personally confronted with tyranny, would retain the option, at the very least, of taking a stand and saying, "This far and no farther," to Federal enslavement, which enslavement the Founders felt would almost certainly be attempted at some point in the future. Every free man must have the option of finally saying no to tyranny, and having the tools to say it with more than just his voice if pressed. The fact that the majority would condemn that man as a nut was likely also assumed by the Founders, yet ultimately considered irrelevant.

 

[jcoiii]

Yeah, the guy knowingly and willingly evades taxes and gets caught. Then he refuses to pay the fines. Then he refuses to appear in court. Then he holes up and says he's going to shoot anyone who comes for him.

Yep, the big bad government is just trying to harass this guy. Poor little fellow. So I suppose if a government LEO goes to serve him with a warrant, the guy is justified in shooting him? And then the gov't should just let that slide too, right?

So in one sense, yes, this could become another waco/ruby ridge. A guy breaks a law and then shoots the federal agent coming to take him to jail.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

I suspect that the Founding Fathers considered this one of the reasons for prohibiting the Federal Government from disarming the population, i.e., so that every American, when personally confronted with tyranny, would retain the option, at the very least, of taking a stand and saying "This far and no farther," to Federal enslavement, which the Founders felt would almost certainly be attempted at some point in the future. Every free man must have the option of finally saying no to tyranny, and having the tools to say it with more than just his voice if pressed. The fact that the majority would condemn that man as a nut was likely also assumed by the Founders, yet ultimately considered irrelevant.

so taxation without representation is tyrrany, and having to pay taxes [but being convicted for not paying your taxes] with representation is also tyrrany?

i think you're comparing apples to oranges. this isn't federal enslavement or tyrrany, unless you conveniently label anything you don't agree with in regards to the government as tyrranical or enslaving.

this guy was convicted in a court of law by a jury of his peers. this is much different.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Every free man must have the option of finally saying no to tyranny, and having the tools to say it with more than just his voice if pressed.

+1. This "what will we look like to the rest of the serfs if one stands up to
King and says NO" is evidence of serf mentality.

People, if something is wrong, it's wrong. If you know it's wrong, but are more
worried about how you will look if you stand up to it, then all I can say to you
is that you've lost the battle before it has even started. Go ahead and go
back to worrying about how to keep up with the Joneses and how you're
going to finance that 50" plasma screen TV. Yeah, add to that bank debt
on your house, cars, and the very food in your fridge. Welcome to modern
serfdom.

I'm glad my ancestors didn't have that attitude when they threw off the
King's yoke and founded this country. Sadly, they are now rolling in
their graves in anger .....

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If you would, please enumerate those services which you feel are essential and part of the Fed's job. For me, those are in order of importance:

OK, you've shown me the Federal outlays. Cut the current budget by 82.8% and show me how you have funded the jobs you consider critical without resorting to payroll or income taxes.

Those who wish to challenge it in court are essentially fighting the same fight as Fincher in Arkansas. He wants to argue the constitutionality of the laws banning firearms possession in relationship to the Second Amendment. The courts refuse to even allow that argument to surface in court.

That is not true. As DMF pointed out, Fincher will get to make the argument to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. He will not get to make the argument to the jury. If you don't understand that distinction by now, you should re-read that thread.

I find it interesting that they said it's in a federal court. I've been told that if you can get it out of the IRS's kangaroo courts and into a real one you generally win an argument like this one.

Whether the case ends up in Tax Court or Federal District Court is up to the plaintiff, not the IRS. However, whoever told you that you would win with this argument in Federal court is wrong. This argument has been offered dozens of times and has never won once anywhere. The reason Brown couldn't find anyone to take the case is because every lawyer he approached knew what the outcome of this argument would be.

Heck, call up Oscar Stilley (the tax lawyer representing Hollis Fincher) and tell him you have some tax troubles and want to argue that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified and income taxes are unconstitutional. Let me know if he expresses interest in taking your case. My bet is that he declines.