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

[WeedWhacker]

There is an old proverb in business that if a company doesn't re-invent itself every 100 years or so, it's doomed to failure. And by re-invent I mean change. I think the same thing could be said about government. If it's static, as some seem to want by advocating returning to 1775, it's not going to work.

Government is not a private company. Private companies do not KILL YOU if you question their authority. The sole legitimate reason for gov't to exist is to protect my God-given rights, and by "protect" I mean hold the threat of punishment over those who violate them after the fact. When the gov't itself fails to do its job, that's not a "change", that's time for it to go. For reference, see the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, and many other Founders.

 

[hankdatank1362]

cropcirclewalker said

The constitution allows for congress to do 18 things...

That's why the "Necessary and Proper" clause was passed. To grant the government the power to do all the things that the forefathers could not posibly forsee being necessary.

The Constitution makes no mention of any Federal police agency, but try telling the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Homeland Security, ATF, and just about any of the alphabet-soup agencies that their very existence is unconstitutional.

I'm only two weeks into this semester of constitutional law, and already see that most of the points you "taxes are a crime" crowd make are complete nonsense.

If you want to do a little research into what you so vehemently argue, try this site.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#amendments

 

[Glockfan.45]

Well this ones drifting. We seem to have gotten on the topic of eugenics somehow . Try to keep it on track I dont want to see this one locked.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

The Constitution makes no mention of any Federal police agency, but try telling the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Homeland Security, ATF, and just about any of the alphabet-soup agencies that their very existence is unconstitutional.

I will type r.e.a.l slow.

Those alphabet agencies are extra constitutional.

"Necessary and proper"?

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I know it doesn't matter because .gov ignores the constitution anyway, but please do not try to make it worse that it already is. Necessary and Proper is one of the 18 things.

 

[hankdatank1362]

From Barron's Law Dictionary:

The phrase is not limited to such measures as are absolutely necessary, but includes all appropriate means that are conducive to the end to be accomplished, and which in the judgment of Congress, will most advantageously effect it. 110 U.S. 421, 440. The clause is not a grant of power but a declaration that Congress possesses all the means necessary to carry out its specifically granted powers. 361 U.S. 234.

So the government is well within it's legal rights to carry out it's duty to lay and collect income taxes (as granted to them by the 16th amendment) by whatever means that it sees fit. This is the argument I'm making.

Uncle Sam 1, Ed Brown 0.

This was the original topic, if anyone remembers after 10 pages. Damn L&P

 

[Johnny_Yuma]

I am a federal LEO

and I often work with IRS CI special agents. This following bit from Sniper X
is an all-to-common misconception:

Did they actually not pay tax at all, or did they evade taxation by lying on their returns? I curious because usually neither lead to a prison centence now as the IRS is trying to better their rep and usually hands out fines now and even has programs for those who have tax problems....

While they do have programs for those with tax problems, they still go after what they term "willful failure to file returns or pay tax." In legal lingo, this means you meant to do it and it wasn't just unfortunate circumstances or an oversight. Failure to file or pay, if I recall, is a misdemeanor. Tax evasion is a felony. I was in court a few months back waiting on one of my cases to get sentenced when a guy was tagged on a failure to file. He got 12-and-12, or 12 months confinement (in a prison, not a half-way house) and 12 months supervised release. Ouch.

Somebody made the statement, it's not like Brown is a dangerous felon, he is a tax evader. OK, THIS guy is dangerous. He IS a felon and he has holed up in his fortified home declaring his intentions to do battle. The underlying offense become irrelevant when somebody does this.

My hope is that his defenders grow weary of the siege after a few weeks of not getting paid and having to eat MREs. Taking our the solar panels and windmills will speed things up. With level heads prevailing on both sides, and some luck, this one may be resolved without incident.

JY

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

That's why the "Necessary and Proper" clause was passed. To grant the government the power to do all the things that the forefathers could not posibly forsee being necessary.

The Necessary and Proper clause is quite clear in its meaning if you read it in context. It merely states that Congress has the power to make laws which are necessary and proper for exercising the powers carefully listed in section eight and elsewhere. So, by the Necessary and Proper clause, for example, Congress is empowered to pass laws establishing uniform rules of naturalization, as stated a few lines back. It delegates no other legislative powers than to make laws consistent with powers delegated. You should ask the law school you are attending for your money back.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

talk is cheap again

"It will only work if everyone does therefore it is futile for me to do it.

Think of it in world population alone."

someone has to show the way. raise the cause above talk. i guess they are still looking for someone to lead

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I'm only two weeks into this semester of constitutional law, and already see that most of the points you "taxes are a crime" crowd make are complete nonsense.

That's funny, because when I went to law school I was immediately struck by the obvious unconstitutionality of the way the Federal Government operated. I staid after class to debate my Con Law professor because what he was teaching us was so obviously contrary to the plain meaning and original intent of the Constitution. In the end, he was forced to admit that I was right, i.e., that the law he was teaching was a huge house of cards, but he taught it only because it all comes from Supreme Court decisions, 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.

 

[hankdatank1362]

Congress has the power to make laws which are necessary and proper for exercising the powers carefully listed in section eight and elsewhere.

It delegates no other legislative powers than to make laws consistent with powers delegated.

You mean, like the power to lay and collect taxes?

And they choose to exercise that power in Ed Brown's front lawn!!!!

Of course you know that the "necessary and proper" clause is also known as the "elastic" clause, among other titles, due to it's broad interpretation and execution. When applied through the right viewpoint, it's scope of power is nearly limitless. Do I agree with that? No, but that's how it is.

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.

You should ask the law school you are attending for your money back.

Not law school, just law classes. Going for Bachelor's in Criminal Justice. Right now, constitutional law is the only halfway intersting class. Criminology is a bunch of BS theories, and correctional systems is pretty boring.

 

[hankdatank1362]

obvious unconstitutionality of the way the Federal Government operated.

As a whole, or are you talking anything other than their power to lay and collect taxes... b/c anything else is off topic. Hell, even this debate is too much of a thread drift.

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.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

You mean, like the power to lay and collect taxes?

And they choose to exercise that power in Ed Brown's front lawn!!!!

The power to which you refer does not extend to direct taxes on personal income absent apportionment, so does not apply to this discussion.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

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?

I can read you like a book. I was sitting here waiting till you responded in exactly this way. Possessing judicial power does not make one the highest law in the land. People are not laws, as in the age of kings. No, laws are something other than people, and no one is above the law. That's what it means to live under the rule of law. So, no, the men in black are not the law, and cannot therefore be the highest law of the land.

Additionally, Congress (our and our State's elected representatives) are above the US Supreme Court, and can limit their appellate jurisdiction as they see fit. I guess you didn't get to that in law class yet.

 

[thexrayboy]

My hope is that his defenders grow weary of the siege after a few weeks of not getting paid and having to eat MREs. Taking our the solar panels and windmills will speed things up. With level heads prevailing on both sides, and some luck, this one may be resolved without incident.

What a scary rationalization. This guy has holed up in his house and says he's not coming out. He's not actually threatening anyone with preemptive violence as far as I can tell, he's just saying I'm not coming out. The government is outside waiting. Talk about "taking out the solar panels and windmills" is actually a reference to violence, a physical assault on this mans property. To date he has shown no actual evidence of violent intent, merely a refusal to obey a judicial order.

If LEO decides to up the ante by destroying his property in an effort to elicit compliance they are the ones instigating violence. I saw the videos from Waco where the tanks were punching holes in the walls of building all the while loudspeakers were blaring out that the violence being done by the tanks was "not an assault". That is hypocrisy in the first degree and I sure as hell hope we don't see the same thing here.

If the Marshalls or the FBI want to park outside his house for months or even years till he gives up that's one thing. But violent acts to precipitate a change in the status quo are unforgiveable. No body here and I mean NO BODY, not even a federal officer has the right to advocate any type of action on either side of this that is not purely defensive. Wait him out. Do not provoke him into responding to violent acts so that he can be taken down violently while using his defense as an excuse to kill or injure.

Officers who advocate this are displaying blood lust. IF level heads do actually prevail no action will be taken against his utilities. Only an impatient hot head eager for action would advocate preemptive action.

 

[Gifted]

For anyone who doubts it actually exists, do some reading here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...les/a/toc.html

Title 26, Subtitle A, has it all. I'll admit it's long, boring, and a little complicated, but it's all in there. Title 26 most certainly create an income tax, as allowed for by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.

Now the criminal offenses and penalties are in a separate portion of Title 26, and short and uncomplicated. So the tax protest scam artists point to the short and uncomplicated penalties, and try to tell people that the actual law requiring the tax doesn't exist. Knowing many won't bother to actually look up and read the other portions of Title 26.

Just a curious thought. Say I don't pay up, and get charged. How would you do it? Probably say that I have taxable income according to title 26, subtitle A, part 1(or the applicable section under part 3), section 1c, I owe XX amount according to same. This says I'm liable for paying taxes. Since I'm not paying, you'd then charge me under title 26, subtitle f, chapter 75, subchapter a, part 1, section 7201.

Is this right? Just wondering. I think I layed out how it would work, and I thought I'd get any corrections, and see how people that say there's no law would work around that.

 

[ilbob]

U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier said Wednesday he had no plans for an immediate confrontation and did not want to escalate the situation.

Good for him.

But after some period of time if this guy is still holed up, those higher up to the top of the fed power heap will decide to go after this old geezer, just to encourage the rest of us to continue paying.

I feel sorry for the guy, but he had to know that not paying his federal income taxes would eventually result in guys with guns coming for him. The guys with guns do not care one whit why he did not pay. All they care about is their paycheck is threatened if they don't take out the old geezer, so they will go do him, which will tend to encourage the rest of us to pay up.

 

[Glockfan.45]

Thats right Bob like I said before tax time is around the corner and of this man an example will be made. Anybody from his area have any updayes on the story?

 

[30 cal slob]

well, let's hope this all ends without anything more than hot air being exchanged.

sounds like the u.s. marshalls have learned a bit from waco and ruby ridge. i predict a waiting game. easy to get bored and isolated on 100 acres, even if you have all the fixins.

wonder if the poor bloke has good ties with local law enforcement (as David Koresh did). maybe the local chief (who's probably rolling his eyes or laughing his a$$ off right now) can gently talk some sense into the guy.

part of me is rooting for him, but the other part of me which pays taxes thinks he should own up.

 

[Glockfan.45]

The part of me thats rooting for him is likely the sentimental side that cheers for the little guy. I rather enjoy seeing somebody stand up and tell big brother to go **** in their hats. Other than that I will confess its hard to fully justify his course of action without all the details. If what I think happend is the case then more power to him. If I am wrong then he picked a stupid battle to fight. Time will tell.

 

[ilbob]

sounds like the u.s. marshalls have learned a bit from waco and ruby ridge. i predict a waiting game. easy to get bored and isolated on 100 acres, even if you have all the fixins.

Keep in mind that their primary job is to keep the rest of us in line. They will do what their bosses decide. The bosses will not let it go on very long because it would encourage others to do the same thing. If enough people chose not to pay taxes, it would not be very good for the government, so at some point they will need to make an example of him.

Look at it this way. They claim they do not have the resources to go after actual violent criminals, but you can bet your bottom dollar they can find 100 fed cops and some armored vehicles to take out a non-violent feeble old man.

 

[ilbob]

I hope none of our State and local cops get hurt.

One would suspect that no state and local cops are involved, being as it is a federal case and all.

 

[ilbob]

Im not talking about paying taxes.. Im more referring to people acting like they arent subject to anything. What if a cop pulls me over and gives me a ticket? Do I become a hero because I decide not to recognize this "JBTs" authority to cite me? What happens when the cops show up to arrest me for not appearing in court.. do I get to bitch and moan about the founding fathers and tyranny? If I grab my rifle and make a stand, do I become a matyr or just another nutcase that ends up hurting the RKBA for everyone else?

In case you have not figured it out, these kind of cases are not really about right or wrong, legal or illegal, constitutional or not. Those issues are decided in other venues.

This is now about brute force, and the feds have more of it so eventually they will "win". That is just the way it is.

 

[ilbob]

Everyone must pay their fair share to the government. If you don't, they'll kill you for it.

Seeing as how this guy is of no threat to anybody at the moment how do you justify sending in a SWAT team after him? Make no mistake about it this guy is going down one way or another. As it is right now hes one man trapped in his house with limited supplies. If they play the waiting game long enough he will come out, starve, or off himself. They will not do that though. If he refuses to surrender they will go in with guns and grenades. Do you know why they will do that? To send a message to everyone watching. The message is if you step up you will be stepped on.

That is the way the system works. Do you have a better solution to the problem of collecting taxes? There has to be some penalty for not paying or nobody would pay.

The damned shame in this is that "innocent" agents may be killed along with Mr. Brown and his supporters who are there with him.

They are not exactly innocents. They knew the risks when they took the job and the paycheck that goes with it. If they don't like the risk, there are plenty of other jobs out there.

Personally, I like staying alive, so I pay my taxes

That is basically the choice - pay or die.

The guy is not a viable threat to anyone, is he?

Only to government. They just cannot allow non-payment of taxes, or the whole house of cards collapses.

i do think it is a valid question. how many people who shake their fist at the government about paying taxes are actually doing something about it, besides sitting in their chairs in front of a computer screen and typing about it?

We collectively have the power to change it, but we all suck at the teat of Uncle Sam, and are unwilling to give that up.

The government has no right to take this man's stuff (or his wife's) without their express consent.

Government has no rights at all. Only people have rights. Government has powers, and one of those powers is to go after people who do not pay their taxes. That is very, very basic to all governments. One might argue that it is the only really necessary power of government.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

That is the way the system works. Do you have a better solution to the problem of collecting taxes? There has to be some penalty for not paying or nobody would pay.

I don't think anyone here is objecting to the various lawful taxes at the disposal of the Federal Government. We are only objecting to the unlawful and unconstitutional taxes, i.e., the taxes on the earnings of working Americans. There is no law requiring the average working American to pay a direct unapportioned income tax. This is why they had to make it a voluntary tax to get around the Supreme Court decisions which forbade the Federal Government from making such a tax mandatory. It's only legal if voluntary, i.e., you can pay if you like, but you are not obligated to do so, and no penalty for not doing so is lawful or Constitutional.

Most people pay income tax simply because if they don't their property will be seized. Seizing property, however, is a punishment, and the Constitution guarantees that we will not be punished for violating a law until after we have had due process, i.e., a trial and been convicted of a violation of law. In order to convict someone of violating a law, the defendant has a right to see the law which he is being accused of violating. Invariably, in these cases, the prosecution will refuse to do this, and this is the only case in which the government will refuse to show the law under which you are being charged. The reason is that standing Supreme Court decisions have ruled that the 16th Amendment confers no new taxing power on the United State Federal Government, so apportionment is still required for direct taxes, thus Federal Income tax has no basis in law, and is legally unenforceable.

PS: That said, I pay my taxes for fear of the consequences, not because there is a law which requires me to do so.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I don't think anyone here is objecting to the various lawful taxes at the disposal of the Federal Government. We are only objecting to the unlawful and unconstitutional taxes, i.e., the taxes on the earnings of working Americans. There is no law requiring the average working American to pay a direct unapportioned income tax. This is why they had to make it a voluntary tax to get around the Supreme Court decisions which forbade the Federal Government from making such a tax mandatory. It's only legal if voluntary, i.e., you can pay if you like, but you are not obligated to do so, and no penalty for not doing so is lawful or Constitutional.

This is the argument that tax protestors like Mr. Brown make on a routine basis to the IRS. People who make this argument always lose in court. It has never been upheld (not once) at any level of the legal system since the 16th Amendment was passed in 1913. It relies on the Pollack decision that predates the 16th Amendment and a belief that the 16th Amendment was improperly ratified and therefore does not exist.

The argument that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified is based on the belief that because the various state legislatures at the time passed resolutions of ratification with different capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas) from the text proposed by Congress, those states' ratifications were invalid.

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.

Some tax protestors also rely on selective reading of the Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad decision to justify their reluctance to do their civic duty. Although I assume TRH isn't one of them since one of the findings of the Brushaber case was that a tax on wages is an indirect tax (excise) that is not subject to the rule of apportionment and TRH apparently labors under the delusion that wages are not taxable.