Tax dodgers taunt police from hilltop compound

[freakazoid]

First things first, 100 grand bars,

Many have said that if you do not like the law then simply change it, and not do what the Browns are doing. How is changing all of those anti-2A laws going? Reform can only go so far, sometimes you have to fight back. Simply sitting back and saying, "Yeah I don't like the tax laws but what are you going to do, the laws the law", isn't going to change it. It only creates an acceptance for the law. The slave examples really work for this. You don't just say that you don't like the law but you must follow it simply because it is the law. You actively resist it.

 

[Soybomb]

Many have said that if you do not like the law then simply change it, and not do what the Browns are doing. How is changing all of those anti-2A laws going?

I'd say we're doing pretty well. Most states have pretty good self defensive laws, the federal assault weapon ban is dead, alot of states have preempted local assault weapon bans, a huge number of states are shall issue. We're most likely in better shape now than we've been in for what at least 30 years? You can't expect to get them all changed over night.

Reform can only go so far, sometimes you have to fight back. Simply sitting back and saying, "Yeah I don't like the tax laws but what are you going to do, the laws the law", isn't going to change it. It only creates an acceptance for the law. The slave examples really work for this.

So is it time to start killing people over gun laws? I'm not saying to sit back and just accept them, I'm saying work within our system to change them. I also fail to see how any analogy to slaves is valid, unless slaves were voting and part of the system of government and not owned property.

 

[freakazoid]

I'd say we're doing pretty well. Most states have pretty good self defensive laws, the federal assault weapon ban is dead, alot of states have preempted local assault weapon bans, a huge number of states are shall issue. We're most likely in better shape now than we've been in for what at least 30 years? You can't expect to get them all changed over night.

Sure some are doing good and others are not. Kansas has recently joined in the concealed carry club. Then of course there are the bans that are in the works. Also, who will become the next president could determine the not so future gun laws in the works.

So is it time to start killing people over gun laws?

When do you think enough becomes enough, and that the only thing left is to scrap the current system and start over?

I also fail to see how any analogy to slaves is valid, unless slaves were voting and part of the system of government and not owned property.

Why do you feel that it is not valid?

 

[Soybomb]

When do you think enough becomes enough, and that the only thing left is to scrap the current system and start over?

Personally its when the system stops working as designed, not when it gives me a result that I personally disagree with.

Why do you feel that it is not valid?

I don't see how people have fairly elected representation and can change and challenge the law are in any way equivelant to people that are treated as property with no say on the law and no ability to challenge it or change it. If we don't like the tax code we can use our votes to change it. To my knowledge slaves didn't get to vote for the rules they lived under.

 

[freakazoid]

Personally its when the system stops working as designed, not when it gives me a result that I personally disagree with.

Compare with how the US was designed with today. Is it still working like it was supposed to?

I don't see how people have fairly elected representation and can change and challenge the law are in any way equivelant to people that are treated as property with no say on the law and no ability to challenge it or change it.

Then why dare there still draconian anti-2A laws? If there are so many gun owners then how come nothing has changed.

I don't see how people have fairly elected representation and can change and challenge the law are in any way equivelant to people that are treated as property with no say on the law and no ability to challenge it or change it. If we don't like the tax code we can use our votes to change it. To my knowledge slaves didn't get to vote for the rules they lived under.

They can vote, just not with a pen.

 

[helpless]

So you just pull your definition of "compound" out of thin air, then?

This is real life, Real people, Real serious. Really not time for word games.

A Compound is Compound, they are in there house.

Common usage is what matters here, ask 10 people to describe the difference between a compound and a house and it should quickly clear up any doubt that the media/feds are trying to scew public opinion of the Browns by calling there home a compound.

Man I am tired, anyone care to help me out on this?

 

[freakazoid]

They are definitely using the word "compound" to make these people look like some kind of crazy terrorist.

 

[Kentak]

They are definitely using the word "compound" to make these people look like some kind of crazy terrorist.

Could be. There is a military connotation to the term that refers to buildings surrounded by a fence, wall, or other fortifications.

But, in all fairness, I've heard the term used to describe any large area containing a large house or several buildings, such as you might find on estates of the wealthy or communal groups. The "Kennedy Compound" comes to mind. And, that is a pretty darn big home the Browns have.

My own belief is that the last thing the government wants is another shootout and more martyrs, a la Ruby Ridge, etc. If it does come to that, it doesn't sound like it will be because the Browns particularly don't want it to end that way. I say build a fence around their property, commute the sentence to house arrest, and seize their assets to pay the taxes. When it's all over, they can make millions selling the book they write while serving their time. But, pay the taxes on the royalties.

K

 

[freakazoid]

But, in all fairness, I've heard the term used to describe any large area containing a large house or several buildings, such as you might find on estates of the wealthy or communal groups.

Have you heard it used for someones home?

And, that is a pretty darn big home the Browns have.

Yes, the house is big. I sure wouldn't mind living in it. Although if I could choose any house it would be in one of those abandoned missile silos we have here in Kansas,

 

[BAT1]

The Browns

They just have a big "two foot thick walled" house. The tax code says that the tax should be uniform across the board. You have a direct tax and an indirect tax being spoke of there. They should of done that from the beginning, now some of the richest people on earth pay no tax. Yes the feds have drawn first blood by beating and tasering someone walking their dog, then they told him to go and lie to the media. He didn't. Oh the govt would love to see thousands of out of state people show up and start fighting, Bingo: insurrection would be all over the news. Martial law. But his sympathizers are too smart for that. And if they bomb or burn them out the movement grows by three times the size it is already. Go and read the first plank of the Communist manifesto. A tax that increases until the state owns it. The media is camped out there and pissing off everyone so they will cry for it to end. Yes he's a brave man for standing up for the truth, now you know what it costs to do so. But stand up people will. The King's High taxes is what made this nation Declare it's Independence and form America. Now we are full circle. Do we have the courage to do it this time?
And every body is looking at Paris Hilton and American Idol, brother.

 

[Soybomb]

Compare with how the US was designed with today. Is it still working like it was supposed to?

Could you point me to where it isn't? Last time I checked I had 3 branches of government, the ability to vote for representation in fair elections, the ability to challenge laws.... Lets take this part that isn't functioning as the constiution dictates to court and get it fixed.

Then why dare there still draconian anti-2A laws? If there are so many gun owners then how come nothing has changed.

Because not enough people have demanded 2nd amendment law reform. We've made significant progress as a country over the last several decades but obviously this isn't a huge issue to most people. We've made significant progress but we even have to watch our own people because we have gun owners that just don't care, or gun owners like zumbo who only care about their interest in guns. In Illinois its a struggle to get gun owners to band together and fight gun control, sometimes I think the number of vocal gun owners here barely outnumbers the number of vocal gun grabbers. In short the reason we still have bad firearms laws is because we haven't convinced enough voters to start to care about the issue enough to get them changed.

They can vote, just not with a pen.

Then you acnkowledge that there is a difference between a free man under a fair system of government and man living under laws that he has no say in or any rights under? We are not slaves just because you can't get enough people to agree that the federal income tax should be abolished.

 

[helpless]

Could you point me to where it isn't? Last time I checked I had 3 branches of government, the ability to vote for representation in fair elections, the ability to challenge laws.... Lets take this part that isn't functioning as the constiution dictates to court and get it fixed.

When was the last time you checked?

and you spelled Constitution incorrectly.

 

[LAK Supply]

Last time I checked I had 3 branches of government, the ability to vote for representation in fair elections, the ability to challenge laws.... Lets take this part that isn't functioning as the constiution dictates to court and get it fixed.

Hmmm.... yeah, it appears to be working. The government controls nearly everything, screws the people, and has insulated itself to the point that the people cannot take any real action without an all-out civil uprising. Just as the Founders imagined I'm sure....

The system quit working a long time ago. It has been perverted and corrupted by selfish politicians over the last 80 years in particular. Our rights are being stripped; creeping incrementalism rules the day. Just because we have 3 branches, a ballot box, and a court system does not mean that ANY of them are functioning as they were intended. There may be a car sitting in your driveway, but if it's tossed a rod through the block and torched everything in front of the firewall in an oil fire it's not much good. Sure, it still has an engine, transmission, body, etc. but it will no longer respond to the will of the owner.


It's time for a rebuild before the necessary wrenches are taken from us.

 

[Lew]

Last time I checked I had 3 branches of government, the ability to vote for representation in fair elections, the ability to challenge laws.

Are there any vacancies in this dream world, because it sounds like a swell place to live.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

"But his sympathizers are too smart for that"


there is more than a lil irony there

 

[helpless]

there is more than a lil irony there

What is your point?

 

[LAK]

Bartholomew Roberts

The IRS isn't a federal department because it is a subsection OF a federal department (The Deparment of Treasury). It is in the Federal Register just like any other federal agency.

The Department of the Treasury has no constitutional authority to tax the private sector income of citizens of any of the States. Inserting an additional "service" within it's structure does not change that.

Congress does write and pass the tax code into law on a regular basis. The current tax code was completely rewritten and passed by Congress in 1986 (thus the whole Internal Revenue Code of 1986 thing). You can look on Thomas now and see literally hundreds of proposals to further amend it. If you are suggesting that Congress does not control the tax code, then you are simply misinformed.

Can Congress, given "representation", under the Cosntitution of the United States pass a law mandating the payment of a tax or tribute to a private corporation? A foreign government?

I do not want to know whether it is "likely" or "unlikely" to do so - simply, do they have the suthority to do so?

Second, any tax case CAN go to federal court. Tax court is simply an administrative court that is there to speed up the process. There is no requirement that you use it. There are dozens of agencies that use administrative courts - Immigration, EPA, FDA, etc. these are very common and all part of Congress's power to establish courts and jurisdiction.

Not true. The IRS will engage you in the tax court right off; you are obliged to appear. Once in the tax court, the tax court is not run under the same rules of jurisprudence, evidence, etc as a regular federal court.

Ad hominems on the person who authored the site aside, perhaps you would like to address the arguments he made and explain why they do not hold up?

I have already addressed several. The main arguement hinges on Congressional authority, "representation" or not, 16th or not, to impose a tax on private sector income on citizens of the States. Of any kind. Neither the outcome of the War between the States, nor the 16th Amendment (ratified or not) change this. So the question remains; just what are the limitations on the taxation of private sector income. Can it be taxed by a foreign government - if Congress "passes a law" saying so? A private corporation?

The answer to this question is the key. For if they can not do so, neither then can they pass a law that levies a tax by the Federal government on private sector income. Because the Constitutional block to all of them are the same; there is no specific language that addresses foreign sovereign enitities in this regards - nor private entities or corporations.

---------------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Torque]

Pay attention!!

"KILL THE KING!!!"

"DON"T TREAD ON ME!!"


.....All WAR Cry's!!!!!!

Ruby Ridge and Waco all over again but whatever, because you know soon there will be another Oklahoma City right behind this!

To bad it has to end in Civil War, but what better way to prove you don't like being oppressed by your KING! And his taxes. LALALA

right?

edit*
I sometimes.... And I mean, sometimes, believe 9/11 was the governments (oops, I ment 'the powers that be') way of paying back for Alfred P. Murrah.

Just a thought.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Quote:
Many have said that if you do not like the law then simply change it, and not do what the Browns are doing. How is changing all of those anti-2A laws going?

I'd say we're doing pretty well. Most states have pretty good self defensive laws, the federal assault weapon ban is dead, alot of states have preempted local assault weapon bans, a huge number of states are shall issue. We're most likely in better shape now than we've been in for what at least 30 years? You can't expect to get them all changed over night.

If I lived in a state near IL that had legal CCW and was going to take a plane
from Chicago to NJ, I guess I'd just better leave my Sig226 and the 15 rd mags
at home, huh?

 

[Thin Black Line]

The Browns broke the law, had a trial, didn't like the outcome, and are now throwing a temper tantrum. If you break the law, you have to pay the consequences. To equate taxation and segregation as equal evils is ridiculous.

Was this a jury trial for the Browns? Even if it was, it still comes back to
the whole issue of appropriate representation for the taxation in the first
place since the income tax we have now far exceeds the 1913 1% tax on
earnings over $62k (adjusted for inflation) and given our system of Roman
patronage it would be hard to say with a straight face that there isn't some
serious graft and conflicts of interests going on.

BTW, since we're approaching that time of year again:

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
....
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let the Facts be submitted to a candid world.
....
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
....
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

I really love the statement "We have Petitioned for Redress in the most
humble terms". Maybe this could be a launching point for more discussion
on THR about political action vs force?

 

[JohnBT]

"I dont care what the dictionary says about a compound. You all know the reasoning for the use of the word instead of the word "home""

Yeah, it's the same reason they've been calling the Kennedy family compound in Hyannis Port a compound for at least 50 years. It is one.

And I don't care that you don't care, so there.

John

P.S. - Nice rant Torque, but inappropriate and juvenile.

 

[Titan6]

TBL- The 1%/62K figures you keep posting may be the reason we have the 16th ammendment but they in no way limis it. People always find it easier to impose a system of rule and regulation when they believe that they will not be effected by it. Income tax was only supposed to effect the rich so many poor states voted for it.

But the ammendment does not say that. Just as Medicare/ medicaid is not socialized medicine, Gun control does not effect non-gun owners and the thousand or so incremental laws that are passed every year only effect a certain group or class of people.

Whatever the stated intent of the ammendment it certainly has evolved and your argument to turn it back to it's original ''intentions'' are likely as futile as an attempt to get the ISCC to be about commerce again.

The only way is to repeal the 16th outright. But we go back to fear that people have.... and realize that will never work. The only way it could go is if people were shown a scheme whereby they could continue getting the same level of service they get now and someone else pays the bills for them.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The Department of the Treasury has no constitutional authority to tax the private sector income of citizens of any of the States.

Yes, it does - both in the original Constitution and the 16th Amendment. You can go to the link I gave you to read more about this. That is why I gave you the link; because having actually read the 477 or whatever obscene number of tax protestor arguments from the link given by Aaron Russo's movie, I really don't have much inclination to argue them individually now - and for some reason tax protestors LOVE to dredge them up one by one and sidestep arguments.

For example... you argued that the IRS was not a federal department. I point out it is an agency of the Department of Treasury. You then switch to the entirely different argument that the IRS cannot levy a tax on private sector income.

Tell me what exactly is private sector income? What type of income is regarded as public sector under that scheme and is that scheme in keeping with how the government traditionally looks at private and public? Better yet, don't tell me. Read the link and if you don't agree then I guess we're done here because I don't find the arguments (which I'm familiar with) that income tax is somehow unconstitutional convincing. My favorite is "The IRS won't show you the law that says you have to pay taxes" - which is totally untrue and is like the never-ending matroshka doll of tax protestor sidestep arguments. You show them the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and they just say "But what is the definition of income." You show them section 61 and they say "But that is gross income, not taxable income." You show them section 63 and they say "But where does it say unicorns must pay income?" and on and on and on.

I think Molon Labe's earlier post described it well - it is exactly the type of word-twisting and sea-lawyering that antis use to convince us that the right of the people really means the right of the states to have militias.

Not true. The IRS will engage you in the tax court right off; you are obliged to appear.

Yes, true. The IRS only engages you in tax court if you choose to go there by not paying the tax. You always have the option of paying the tax and suing for a refund in federal court. In addition to this option, you may also appeal the ruling of the tax court to the Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

[Titan6]

Amen Bart. The law is clear even if the protestors want to argue until the cows come home. If the protestors were seriously commited they would work to repeal the ammendment.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Just as Medicare/ medicaid is not socialized medicine, Gun control does not effect non-gun owners and the thousand or so incremental laws that are passed every year only effect a certain group or class of people.

LOL, don't get me started on M/m since I've worked as a provider in that
system. I'll keep it short with the following: broken system, unfunded mandate,
not meeting it's intended mission which has now resulted in providers not
getting paid by the gov't and now recipients not receiving services. It
has become lose/lose for everyone involved, but taxes are still collected
in the name of M/m.

Whatever the stated intent of the ammendment it certainly has evolved and your argument to turn it back to it's original ''intentions'' are likely as futile as an attempt to get the ISCC to be about commerce again.

LOL, I'm just an idealist who still gets the warm fuzzies when I think about
such things as honor, integrity, and service. I know these are cyclical things
and America has gone from a loose spoke of that wheel right to a flat tire.
The bus is still going, but I'd like to see the driver pull over and everyone help
change the spare. It's either that or we crash into a ditch, go over a cliff
on a wrong turn or hit one of the multiple IEDs ahead on the global daisy
chain on the "new" road the current driver chose to take.

Now I'm not saying that we will have eternal smooth pavement, multiple
air-conditioned rest stops, and disney land at the end of the old road....
but, quite frankly, a lot of us have been shoved to the back of the bus
and told to SU as the blind (by greedy and egocentrism) lead the blind
(by lack of historical knowledge and responsibility). These are typically
people who will argue about what the "N" and the arrow on the map
mean.

If the protestors were seriously commited they would work to repeal the ammendment.

Hence in my previous post:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.... They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.

....
I really love the statement "We have Petitioned for Redress in the most
humble terms". Maybe this could be a launching point for more discussion
on THR about political action vs force?