Paranoia runs deep in the Ed Brown case

[grammarian44]

I have no words to adequately describe how ridiculous that is. I mean, honestly...."scrimping and saving to pay income tax...." We're still talking about Ed and Elaine right? The millionaires??

If anyone is a millionaire, it's Elaine. Well, at least she earned her money. Ed is just a sponge.

[gezco]

I have no words to adequately describe how ridiculous that is. I mean, honestly...."scrimping and saving to pay income tax...." We're still talking about Ed and Elaine right? The millionaires??

If anyone is a millionaire, it's Elaine. Well, at least she earned her money. Ed is just a sponge.

I think they have a combined net worth of about $0.00. I've read the liability is about $3,00,000. The dental office was worth around 800,000, so I'm thinking the home might cover the rest. It looks like Ed & Elaine will be living in a van down by the river when they get out of prison.

[Nikki]

A van by the river? Hell, no.

They'll go on the TP lecture circuit and get speakers' fees plus free bbq dinners.

[The Observer]

A van by the river? Hell, no.

They'll go on the TP lecture circuit and get speakers' fees plus free bbq dinners.

No, Clarkson and Gene will grab the BBQ dinners before Ed and Elaine get a crack at them.

[ElfNinosMom]

Here's a reason for them to actually be paranoid:

Dress-up cop killer caught: Captured at mom’s after taunting letter to Herald
By Michele Mcphee
Boston Herald Police Bureau Chief
Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - Updated: 04:20 AM EST

Fugitive cross-dressing cop killer Thomas Shay taunted investigators searching for him in a letter to the Herald received yesterday just hours after federal marshals tracked him down at his mother’s Quincy home and hauled him away in handcuffs.

“Guess what guys, today I spent the day with my bonoculars (sic) watching the U.S. marshals who are looking for me, Ha Ha!” read Shay’s letter to the paper.

But the joke was on the 35-year-old fugitive as he shuffled into federal court yesterday in socks, a polo shirt and scruffy facial hair, ending a massive, yearlong manhunt for a man who served just 10 years for the murder of a BPD bomb squad officer.

“He has been cross-dressing to avoid capture,” U.S. Marshal Jeffrey Bohn said yesterday. “His mother and sister said he was not there, but we found him sleeping in a second-floor bedroom.”

The envelope addressed to the Herald containing the handwritten, two-page letter had a return address of a Residence Inn and was postmarked from Portsmouth, N.H. “The police are upset about the sentence I got,” Shay’s mocking missive said. “The government can’t find the most notorious gangster Whitey Bulger, so let’s go after the fag, the cross dresser Thomas Shay. That will make us some headlines.”

Shay was convicted of conspiracy in connection with the bomb blast that killed decorated Boston police investigator Jeremiah Hurley, a father of four, and maimed his partner, Frank Foley, in 1991.

Shay had been wanted for nearly a year for violating the terms of the suspended sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to assaulting another city police officer in 2005.

That charge came when Shay ripped off the badge of a Northeastern University detective who was part of a sting to capture a man who was posing as a physical therapist and giving inappropriate massages to students there, according to a BPD report.

After he was released on a suspended sentence that allowed him to remain a free man, Shay also allegedly dealt illegal prescription drugs to minors in Spencer, prompting probation officers to issue an arrest warrant Aug. 1 for violating the conditions of his release.

Shay, an unemployed drifter with a history of prostitution arrests, has been in trouble numerous times since he finished his sentence in connection with Hurley’s murder.

Within weeks of his release, Shay fled the halfway house and ran out of state, but federal Judge Rya Zobel allowed him to remain free after his attorneys said he was diagnosed with the rare disorder “pseudologia fantastica,” which causes him to tell tall tales.

Some of those fabrications, marshals believe, appeared in his letter to the Herald, during which he claimed he was hiding out with New Hampshire tax evader Ed Brown, who has been holed up in a Plainville compound.

“I am up here with the Brown’s, giving my support to a noble cause,” Shay wrote.

He also claimed to be hanging out with Randy Weaver, whose wife and son, along with a U.S. marshal, were killed during a standoff at Ruby Ridge in Texas in 1992. Last month, Weaver visited the Browns at their compound to offer his support.

“Randy lent me some voice listening equipment so I got to hear what you (marshals) were saying, planning,” Shay wrote.

I have a feeling this guy is not atypical of the sorts of people who are attracted to the Browns' cause.

It might also explain Ed's overly affectionate nature toward other men.

[.]

pseudologia fantastica

Worthy of Van Pelt. Too bad he never showed at Ed's place, it would have added a great jolt of flavor to the mix.

[TMoore]

Hallo my friends!

So, let me begin by stating that I have deleted that blog entry this morning and a friend sent me the link to this site a few minutes ago.

Yes, I'm Tyler. "Mr. ußer-supreme-commander-of-resistance-forces".

I'm actually here to apologize. That entry was horribly written by me, and the obvious click the 'My Other Residency' link, view top friends, bam you have 'hotel foxtrot' didn't occur to me.

No, to be honest. I don't know what on earth happened that day, and it could have been coincidence or who knows what. Either way, the post was a bad idea and written in a manner that did nothing but paint me as a nut, when if you actually knew me, you'd find I'm a much more level headed guy than a lot out there. I don't think 9-11 was an inside job, I don't think all exhaust trails are "chemtrails", black helicopters are actually a deep green and belong to the National Guard, not the NWO, etc.

All my entry did was give you guys fodder and ammunition, and if there was a real situation, now the bad guys know how I think. Not the brightest thing I've done in a while. And, FYI: I'm afraid my military experience is limited to.. Say.. Nothing? I don't see myself as a good spy, tact commander, etc. I'm just a blogger.

I use Zulu a lot in daily life. I'm the assistant manager of an airport, so everything is in Zulu. I'm into astronomy, same deal. I think you'll see that a lot in my previous post, in using Zulu time (or at least identifying local time).

I do believe a better post would have been:

"Eh, excuse me, big-guys-in-the-District? Do you need something from us? Because following my friends around sort of gets on my nerves. We don't really have anything that you'd want. Trust me."

And leave the encryption to the veiled threat (yet completely unenforceable threat) at the end, not to easily recognizable names of friends.

Agreed?

Now concerning the C&P of my blog entry: As the owner intellectually of that work, I am hereby requesting it be destroyed within 72 hours.

[Demosthenes]

Greeting Tyler. Welcome to Quatloos.

No need to apologize for your story, we at least got a laugh out it.

And loving Astronomy is a very good thing indeed.

Still supporting Ed Brown?

[Demosthenes]

And since you asked so nicely, I have no problem with removing your blog entry from this thread.

BTW, while you're here, the poster here would be quite happy to "Show you the law"... Ed was shown it in the court filings but he prefers to ignore that detail.

[TMoore]

Wow. Thank you, I'm use to going to sites like this an asked if I'm still ----in' my mother. Thank you for the welcome and glad I could provide a laugh, though comedy is not my field of study.

Actually. About the law. I wouldn't mind seeing one, however, heh. I'm an anarchist, so laws and the such.. Eh, don't really interest me? :p They interest me enough to know that when you step outside them these self-appointed "heroes" in blue come and take you away. Or tazer you, shoot you, or force you to pay vast sums of protection money to avoid the aforementioned consequences. Personally, I find direct taxation on labour immoral, even if its 'legal'. Though if you can prove it, I wouldn't mind backing away from the claim that there isn't a law. My own studies have yet to locate it, but perhaps you will do better. Thank you as well for removing the entry, it was a bad idea and I sort of figured that out 5 seconds after posting. I just didn't figure it out enough to remove it before 9am this morning.

Now, do I support Ed Brown? Allow me to put it this way: In a way, he's doing the right thing in standing up to the system, however he's gone into far left field and I can't seem to keep track of him. His religious banter, his talk of 'fictions' (I don't quite get it, but I'm not a person? O.o Right, Ed.), the Queen of England ruling the world (she was behind 9/11 as well, you know), all that sort of put me off on the wrong track with him.

Don't get me wrong, if you meet him he seems like he could be a nice guy, just.. Delusional. Elaine was very sweet and at times, I wish it was just her in there making the stand without Ed's rants. If you noticed during the press conference she was up there doing a better job than Tony Snow, and Ed kept flying off the the side with off the wall things. So, support the cause (taxation as theft and the State as the enemy)? Yes. Support all of Ed's beliefs? No.

I do think we are headed for change in this country, but that may not be a good thing, so...

(FYI, if you've got Title 26 up your sleeve, please show me the part where it says that 'I' have to pay. )

[TMoore]

I guess I got to do this in five minutes, because then I have to run to a meeting.
Wow! An anrchist! How quaint. How romantic. How anachronistic. How sad.

I know. The state will always be with us, but we can push it down as much as possible right?

You want to use violence to destroy any form of government, eh? What would you replace it with? Or have you thought that far ahead?

Actually, I'm a market anarchist, so that answers you last two questions. And as for your first, no. I'd rather not. Violence is really a violation of my beliefs, as it would be placing force and fraud upon others. Only violence that is justified is defensive. Of course, then in the concept of war, all violence is usually defensive. But, I digress. I can elaborate if you'd like me too.

If you are such a foe of the "ebil gummint" and all it stands for, would you do the rest of us a big favor and please stop using any and all government supported or sponsored services.

I have very well considered this. And, as I become more, and more self-reliant, I plan too. Unfortunately, the roads are still owned by the state and most businesses get hand-outs. So, really, it is impossible to do so completely. See, you have to understand. Anarchism is a political theory and philosophy, as well as a way of life. However, sometimes you have to balance what you desire for what is. Sort of like taxes, since we're on that subject. Taxes are immoral, equate slavery and pay for immoral acts. But its protection money. You pay, you live. So you pay and walk on. If a chance comes to gain something better (a candidate, a revolution, etc) you jump on it and seize the opportunity.

Now, after this year, I'm no longer renewing any of my federal aid forms and will attend school off private scholarships. So, there. One small step for me away from the system. I never plan to accept an SS check (granted I live that long, or the system is still there), as I have my own retirement savings already begun (in sound money market accounts). I try to use as little as possible from the government. I really could do without them, but they are there and I'll oppose them when they encroach and ignore them the rest of the time.

Ideals are great, but you have to live in the real world. No matter how ----ed up it is.

[Famspear]

Show me the law?

In Holywell Corp. v. Smith, the United States Supreme Court (in a unanimous case) stated the legal significance of 26 USC 6151:

The Internal Revenue Code ties the duty to pay federal income taxes to the duty to make an income tax return. See 26 U.S.C. 6151(a) ('when a return of a tax is required . . . the person required to make such return shall . . . pay such tax'). 503 U.S. 47 (1992) (statutory citation, parenthetical phrase, ellipses, and quoted language in the original).

Regarding civil monetary penalties for failure to timely pay taxes, 26 USC 6651(a)(2) states (in part):

-----"In case of failure—

-----"[ . . . ]

-----"(2) to pay the amount shown on tax on any return specified in paragraph (1) on or before the date prescribed for payment of such tax (determined with regard to any extension of time for payment), unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, there shall be added to the amount shown as tax on such return 0.5 percent of the amount of such tax if the failure is for not more than 1 month, with an additional 0.5 percent for each additional month or fraction thereof during which such failure continues, not exceeding 25 percent in the aggregate [ . . . ]"

Regarding Federal income tax returns for single (unmarried) individuals, 26 USC 6012 provides (in part):

-----"Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: [ . . . ]

-----"(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual—

-----"(i) who is not married (determined by applying section 7703), is not a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)), is not a head of a household (as defined in section 2 (b)), and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual [ . . . ]"

Further provisions of section 6012 refer to tax return filings for other individual taxpayers (e.g., married persons filing joint returns, surviving spouses, heads of household, married persons filing separate returns) as well as for other entities such as corporations, estates, and trusts. See also 26 USC 6011.

Civil monetary penalties for failure to timely file tax returns (denominated as "additions" to tax) are mentioned at 26 USC 6651(a)(1). Under 26 USC 6061, with specified, limited exceptions, "any return [ . . .] required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall be signed ''in accordance with forms or regulations prescribed by the Secretary''" (emphasis added). The Treasury Regulations indicate that the individual's Federal income tax return must be filed on "Form 1040," "Form 1040A," etc. See 26 C.F.R. sec. 1.6012-1(a)(6).

Criminal penalties for willful failure to timely file tax returns or pay taxes are mentioned at 26 USC 7203:

-----"Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution [ . . . ]"

Under 26 USC 7206:

-----"Any person who—

-----"(1) Declaration under penalties of perjury

-----"Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter; or

-----"(2) Aid or assistance

-----"Willfully aids or assists in, or procures, counsels, or advises the preparation or presentation under, or in connection with any matter arising under, the internal revenue laws, of a return, affidavit, claim, or other document, which is fraudulent or is false as to any material matter, whether or not such falsity or fraud is with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or required to present such return, affidavit, claim, or document; or [ . . . ]

-----"(A) Concealment of property

-----"Conceals from any officer or employee of the United States any property belonging to the estate of a taxpayer or other person liable in respect of the tax, or

-----"(B) Withholding, falsifying, and destroying rec­ords

-----"Receives, withholds, destroys, mutilates, or falsifies any book, document, or record, or makes any false statement, relating to the estate or financial condition of the taxpayer or other person liable in respect of the tax;

-----"shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

See also 26 USC 7207 and 18 USC 1001.

The Federal tax evasion tracks the language of statutory provisions such as Code section 1 (the imposition statute for the individual income tax), with both statutes using the word "imposed". To "impose" means "to lay as a burden, tax, duty or charge"; Black's Law Dictionary, p. 680 (5th ed. 1979); "to establish or apply as compulsory; levy; impose a tax"; American Heritage Dictionary, p. 646 (2d Coll. Ed. 1985):

-----"Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution." 26 USC 7201.

See 26 USC sections 1, 61, 62, 63. In fact, see the entire Internal Revenue Code. A link to the entire Code is found on the IRS web site. And citations to some of the Code provisions are found in the IRS instructions for Form 1040. Ed Brown says no one has shown him the law. I guess that means he's never looked at the IRS instructions, right? No, what tax protesters mean is that they contend the law doesn't really mean what it says. Show me where "I" have to pay. That sort of nonsense.

Ed had his day in court. He decided not to attend. Too bad. That was his choice. One way or another, he is facing the consequences.

[silversopp]

Anarchy can sound really good. We constantly see examples of government oppression and incompetence, regardless of whether it's a Republic, Democracy, Monarchy, Dictatorship, Theocracy, etc. So the conclusion some arrive at is that we can eliminate the oppression and inefficiencies by simply removing government. Thus anarchy.

The problems of anarchy arises as soon as one person does something to another who believes his rights have been violated. What happens next is the creation of a government, albeit very small and basic.

The victim, if he's physically powerful enough, can use force on his attacker. This establishes a very limited and narrow law. If someone performs action X on person Y, Z will result.

The victim, if he's weak, may hire some physically powerful men to protect him. A very simple and limited government is created.

The victim, if he's weak and poor, may pool his money with his neighbors to hire men to protect them. The neighbors would then develop a system to instruct the protectors on what actions to respond to. This becomes a slightly larger, more complex government.

Anarchy will always fail and a government will emerge because there will always be disputes over what exactly our rights are, and there will always be people who ignore those rights.

A government definitely infringes on our rights. The question is whether or not one would have more freedom with a government then without one. Pure anarchy, where there are no rules and no laws, results in very little freedom except for the very powerful. A tyrannical government, where there are laws and rules for everything, results in very little freedom except for the very powerful rulers. There exists a point between those two extremes that maximizes freedom for everyone. Our current system is the result of 800-900 years of trial of error trying to pinpoint that exact spot. We certainly aren't there yet.

Keep in mind that no matter what system is devised, the powerful and wealthy will always enjoy more freedom. It's important to focus on the overall amount of freedom everyone enjoys. It's also important to remember that there is no system, not even anarchy, that will be perfect.

I believe it was Washington or Jefferson who said that "government is a necessary evil." I agree with that statement. Government is bad, but we need it, because the alternative is even worse.

[Demosthenes]

FYI, if you've got Title 26 up your sleeve, please show me the part where it says that 'I' have to pay.

Why not start with Section 1?

§ 1. Tax imposed

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual ... a tax determined in accordance with the following table

[Quixote]

Personally, I find direct taxation on labour immoral, even if its 'legal'. Though if you can prove it, I wouldn't mind backing away from the claim that there isn't a law. My own studies have yet to locate it, but perhaps you will do better.

I assume you are referring to a federal direct tax on labor. (Labour? Are you Canadian?) You couldn't find one because there isn't one. A tax on labor worthy of the name would be an administrative nightmare. Auditing Schedule H, Labor Expended in Connection with Personal Hygeine, would be embarrassing for all concerned.

The feds do tax income derived from labor, and all other sources not excluded in Subtitle A of the IRC. The tax is imposed by IRC §1 That it applies to income from labor is clear from IRC §61.

[TMoore]

Did I really say money markets? O.o Oh, sheesh where is my head today?

Mutual Funds! Mutual Funds! Gah!! Someone please shoot me. I was sitting there thinking about a discussion my boss and I had about different avenues of investing (he insist on Certificates of Depreciation for some reason. I get as much out of my savings accounts, and have my money available within 48 hours, than he does in CDs and its tied up for three or more years).

No, I hold some individual stocks and then mutual funds. I've actually gotten pretty good at the single stocks, and mutual funds are great as you really can't loose (unless western civilization crashes). I just sold off my stock in a recent IPO and managed a 38% increase in three months. I'm not anti-money at all... Well, okay. I don't like the idea of fiat currency, but if its all you've got... Don't really have a choice. A lot of the more radicals tell me I should invest in gold and silver, which. Eh, I don't know. I might. I had better returns though on investing (in a business class, no real money this time) in a Venezuelan gold mining corporation. I think I got a return of nearly 60% in a couple of months of class.

I type before i think sometimes, please forgive me. I'm borderline ADD and my thoughts never seem to make it to the screen correctly.

Once again: Did I really say money market? Tell me I didn't, please!


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:09 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Personally, I find direct taxation on labour immoral, even if its 'legal'. Though if you can prove it, I wouldn't mind backing away from the claim that there isn't a law. My own studies have yet to locate it, but perhaps you will do better.


I assume you are referring to a federal direct tax on labor. (Labour? Are you Canadian?) You couldn't find one because there isn't one. A tax on labor worthy of the name would be an administrative nightmare. Auditing Schedule H, Labor Expended in Connection with Personal Hygeine, would be embarrassing for all concerned.

The feds do tax income derived from labor, and all other sources not excluded in Subtitle A of the IRC. The tax is imposed by IRC §1 That it applies to income from labor is clear from IRC §61.

Proper spelling is labour. Stupid Americans. =P Actually, I've always spelled words like I'm English and never really noticed it until a teacher (who hated it) went nuts on me. Eh, I don't care. Labor, labour. Color, colour. Center, centre.

Anyways.

A tax on the income derived from labour, is a tax on your work itself. It implies that you are owned (up to 35%) by the state and they have first dibs on what you make. The state waste and uses these stolen funds to pay for wars, torture and corporate hand outs. Employ thousands of unneeded positions that would be handled by the market if the state would just get out of the way.

Now, I'm sure everyone is wondering... Do I pay my (Federal Income) taxes? The answer: Yes. However, I also have enough deductions that this year, I didn't owe them a dime. Of course, I pay all other taxes, some of which I don't have a problem with. I actually think aviation and road fuel taxes are a good idea, and about the only thing I don't mind government handling (transportation). I'm sure billions are lost in the bureaucracy, however in general, it's worked well (unlike 99% of the rest of the State). After the revolution, I shall attempt to spare the DOT officials from destruction (if we could just move them into a competitive market place, just to sharpen them a bit).

Why not start with Section 1?

Quote:
§ 1. Tax imposed

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual ... a tax determined in accordance with the following table

And what is the definition of "taxable income"?

On a side note. Okay, say the Income tax is perfectly legal, and negating my opinions on morality: Would our founding father's of this nation be happy with the IRS? Or would Thomas Jefferson be locating a U-Haul truck and fertilizer*?

*Not suggesting th is is the best solution, but knowing Jefferson...


I believe it was Washington or Jefferson who said that "government is a necessary evil." I agree with that statement. Government is bad, but we need it, because the alternative is even worse.

That would be a paraphrase, but defiantly what Jefferson was getting at. And, pure anarchy without anything wouldn't be anarchy, it would be dictatorship as you said. The smaller the government the better, and as for Federal, all I need them to do is maintain a people's army FOR DEFENSE only. This isn't true old-fashion anarcho-syndicalism, this is more of a Jeffersonian Individualist system, which is what I support. It often is refered to as Market Anarchy, or Anarcho-Capitalism (not to be mistaken for Ayn Rand-style Objectivism or Social Darwinism). The market takes care of 99% of everything. Government is there only to protect rights and direct defense, which seeing Blackwater's record and "gettin' 'r done" (<<-- remember, I never said that) could be dealt with through a join effort of corporate and representative-style democracy (aka, a Republic). This, of course is very, very close to Libertarianism. So close, lower-case the 'L' and that is what it is. So, that's my view.

Now, before this turns into a long, long drawn out debate (which I will get tied up in, but really don't have the time for) I'm going to be heading out after the next set of post. Nice meeting you all. I'm not going to try to convince you of anything, I just hope you survive the coming storm and at least have the guts to stand up to the tyrannical regime in Washington when they start coming for people (like me). It is coming, a lot sooner than I would have thought possible. But, it's happened before. Just either wake up, or stay a sleep and hope you open your eyes in the morning.

Peace & resistance,

Tyler

[TMoore]

Predictions:

1. He secretly watches Mad Money, but doesn't tell his friends.

Actually. Sometimes...

2. In 10-15 years he will be watching/reading reports of white kids from America causing a riot at that year's G9 meeting and he will think, "Dirty hippies! They need to get jobs."

Eh.. Heh. Unfortunately, I might say something like that. Only because the G8 (who's going to make it nine?) protesters are anti-capitalist.

3. In 25 years he will be on a website similar to this and will think, "Geez, 25 years and 'TPs' have only gotten dumber and crazier. I need to pay my quarterlies......"

Well, I don't think I'll ever say that. Except for the last part. Sorry, my house plans don't call for Kevlar in the walls, so I don't think I'll ever try to pull a Brown and stop paying.

4. In 50 years he will be retired, owner of two homes, 2 cars a truckload of money and when some 18-year old whippersnapper calls him a "slave to the system" he will quietly laugh.....and then make a mental note to crush the guy and his family. Hey, even retirees need a hobby.

Say it ain't so! I may have to keep your post somewhere in the deep recesses of my hard drive just as a reminder.

[silversopp]

Regarding what "The Founders" would think of the income tax, that would depend on who you asked. There seems to be a flawed assumption that "The Founders" were of one mind. They disagreed with each other on nearly every point, and the resulting government was a compromise.

I am glad to hear that you're not really an anarchist. I actually agree with you to the extent that the federal government should be responsibile for the armed forces and little else. The rest of government functions could be more efficiently divided up between the private sector and the state/local governments. I'm a big fan of having local control, because it is so much easier to kick out bad politicians on the local level compared to the federal level (except in the city of Detroit).

[agent86x]

Why not start with Section 1?

Quote:
§ 1. Tax imposed

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual ... a tax determined in accordance with the following table

And what is the definition of "taxable income"?

TITLE 26 § 63. Taxable income defined

(a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

On a side note. Okay, say the Income tax is perfectly legal, and negating my opinions on morality: Would our founding father's of this nation be happy with the IRS? Or would Thomas Jefferson be locating a U-Haul truck and fertilizer*?

*Not suggesting th is is the best solution, but knowing Jefferson...

You know Jefferson? That's quite a trick since he's been dead for 180 years. It's always a treat when tax evaders and other anti government folk think that they can channel the founding fathers. Actually, Jefferson would probably be much more horrified about people like you.

But you might want to consider that Washington sent federal troops to enforce the whiskey tax imposed by Congress during his presidency. Then you might want to try to understand that the "founding fathers" never said that they were against taxes, just taxes without representation.

[Demosthenes]

Main News; National Desk

The Nation; COLUMN ONE; Evading death and taxes; A couple have been holed up for months, refusing to pay the IRS or go to prison. They say it's a battle for freedom, and it could end in bloodshed.

Erika Hayasaki
Times Staff Writer
2176 words
20 July 2007
Los Angeles Times
Home Edition
A-1


Plainfield, N.H.
SHE sits on the lookout in a lawn chair on their front porch, her forehead glossy with sweat, Bible next to her left foot, wind chimes clinking at her back. Her husband of 24 years is by her side, German shepherd at his knee, handgun tucked beneath the belt on his jeans.

High in these humid hills, Ed and Elaine Brown have been holed up in their home for six months, refusing to serve a five-year prison sentence for tax evasion. They all but dared law officials to come and get them. This, they say, is a fight they're ready to die for.

"Show me the law!" says Ed, a trim 64-year-old with a silver mustache, whose forehead crinkles when he gets heated. The Browns stopped paying income taxes in 1996. They say the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions support their claims that ordinary labor cannot be taxed. But a judge ruled against them in January, convicting the Browns of conspiring to evade paying taxes on $1.9 million in income from Elaine's dentistry practice.

Now, the Browns say they're in a battle for freedom, and it just might end in bloodshed right here, in a towering turreted house with 8-inch-thick concrete walls and an American flag fluttering over the double-car garage. They have garnered national support, with blogs devoted to news about the standoff and supporters regularly showing up on the couple's doorstep with groceries.

Government and law officials have cut off power, Internet, house phone, cellphone, television and mail service to the couple's 110-acre compound. But their house is equipped with solar panels, a watchtower, a satellite dish and a stockpile of food.

"We are self-sustained like a ship," Ed says. "We don't need power from the shore to run the ship."
FBI agents are trying to avoid a deadly shootout reminiscent of Waco, Texas, or Ruby Ridge, Idaho. They have tried negotiating, waiting, begging.

"We are proceeding carefully to make sure no one gets hurt," says U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier, the lead officer handling the siege. "We are aware that there are guns in there."

Monier says the couple broke the law and should turn themselves in peacefully. "They have been tried and convicted and sentenced."

But the Browns aren't budging.

"You remember that little gentleman in China, Tiananmen Square?" Ed says, peering through his sunglasses. "He was the same as we are. You can scare me, you can kill me, but you can't intimidate me."

"We're fighting for you, your country," adds Elaine, 66, a calm woman with short, wavy dark hair. "This isn't just taxes."

"There's no more America," Ed says. "It's already gone."
"I'll die fighting, rather than live in slavery," Elaine says. "I'll tell you that."
--
THE mountain air outside the Browns' home is hot and thick with flies. On the shaded front porch overlooking a small duck pond, a visitor in a straw hat -- who drove his pickup truck for two days from Texas to meet the Browns -- eats grapes out of a paper bag and flips through an issue of Shotgun News magazine. He introduces himself as Doug. His last name is Tibbetts, he says, "like that guy who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima."

Another guest, who refuses to give his name and makes it a point to tell everyone he is armed, drove here from Massachusetts. He talks about illegal immigration and government corruption in a slow deep drip of a voice that seems to irritate Ed, who frequently cuts him off.

The government, Ed says, is at a point of "communism in its purist form."
Elaine nods.
"It's not communism though," says the Massachusetts man. "It's totalitarianism."
"It's Marxism," interjects Tibbetts, 60.
"No, no, no, guys, guys, don't give me that," says Ed, raising his voice. "I've done 15 years of research here."
Since the standoff began, the Browns' home has turned into a commune for anti-government activists. Admirers from across the country make their way to the secluded home on Center of Town Road in Plainfield, population 2,200, in a state where license plates carry the motto "Live Free or Die."

To get to the Browns' house, travelers ascend along a jagged gravel and dirt road, stopping at a silver sign nailed to a tree trunk on the couple's property, which warns: "If not friendly, Go, Go Away!" Unable to telephone the Browns and notify them of their arrival, some visitors proceed slowly down the long driveway or attach small flags to their trucks to show that they've come in peace.

The guests often come bearing gifts: hamburger buns, ginger ale, cellphones with prepaid minutes, gun ammunition. Someone gave the Browns their German shepherd, named Zoey. The visitors pitch tents in the Browns' yard or sleep inside the house. Some bring laptops from which they manage the Browns' blog and MySpace page, both created by volunteers.

Shaun Kranish, 21, of Rockford, Ill., read about the Browns online earlier this year. In March, he drove to New Hampshire and spent a few nights at their home talking about politics and freedom. A gun rights advocate, he started a website, MaketheStand.com, devoted to the couple's battle. He has solicited rechargeable flashlights and candles for the Browns and helped promote concerts supporting them.

People back the Browns, he says, because they are standing against everything that is wrong with government.
"It's about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," Kranish says. "It's about the truth about the 9/11 attacks.... They're saying, 'We're not going to be a part of it; we're not going to fund it.' "

There are 250,000 to 500,000 people in the United States who are tax protesters, says JJ MacNab, a financial analyst who has written a book on the issue and testified before Congress on behalf of law enforcement.

Some, she says, are elderly, uneducated or disenfranchised people who buy into tax evasion scams. Others are disgruntled -- sometimes dangerous -- citizens who believe the wording of tax laws does not make them liable to pay.

"The tax laws are almost 100 years old, and no one has ever won," she says. "Thousands and thousands of people have challenged them. It's a constant flow of the same tired arguments over and over."

MacNab says the Internet has connected Iraq war veterans, college students, minorities and women to the tax protest movement, which was once associated mostly with white supremacists and militia groups that held meetings at local diners.

Supporters have hailed the Browns as heroes, akin to Gandhi and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., which has made law enforcement officials cautious about turning them into martyrs.

"There are lots of people that want it to be over," says Stephen Halleran, Plainfield's town administrator. "They feel Ed and Elaine need to play by the same rules as the rest of us."

Halleran says the Browns have always had strong beliefs, but they haven't been considered dangerous until now.
Residents are anxious, he says, because of the steady stream of out-of-towners -- white supremacists, anarchists and other activists -- roaming through Plainfield and showing up at community meetings. Neighbors with children worry about what could happen if the standoff ends in gunfire.

MacNab, who has studied tax protesters since 1997, says some supporters of the Browns have compiled a list of enemies -- including judges and journalists -- and their families. People have warned that if the couple die, retaliatory killings will follow.

MacNab has little faith the Browns will turn themselves in without a fight.
"I think there's going to be death and violence," she says. "I don't see it happening another way."
--
THE way the Browns see it, they skirted a bloodbath on June 7.
That was the day their compound was surrounded by armed officers, armored vehicles, state police cruisers, trucks and roadblocks. Law officials say the showing of force was intended for surveillance of the compound while its agents seized Elaine's dental practice a town away. A houseguest of the Browns noticed the convoy while walking Zoey.

The Browns believe that a confrontation between the houseguest and law enforcement helped them avert an attack.
"Whenever we go into the vicinity, we go in a manner to ensure the community is protected and the officers are protected," says Monier, the marshal. He added that law enforcement conducted surveillance on the Brown compound "from time to time."

Elaine doesn't buy it: "We know they were on their way in to kill us that day."
Two weeks later, Randy Weaver, whose wife and child were killed in Ruby Ridge 15 years ago, held a news conference at the Browns' home, in which he vowed to stand with them.

"What makes people willing to put their lives on the line?" said Weaver, holding up a picture of his late son for reporters. "They'll take so much B.S. from the so-called government, the de facto government, that they just say, Back off. This is just what has happened right here."

It was the Ruby Ridge siege, along with his brewing anger over paying taxes, that inspired Ed to rebel.
In 1992, U.S. marshals converged on Weaver's remote mountain cabin to arrest him on a federal weapons trafficking charge. A marshal shot and killed Weaver's teenage son. In another gun battle a marshal was killed. The next day, an FBI sharpshooter shot Weaver, then fatally shot his wife, Vicki, as she was holding the couple's baby girl.

A year later, Branch Davidian leader David Koresh and his followers were engaged in a 51-day standoff with federal agents surrounding their compound in Waco, Texas.

Ed watched it all on television.
Federal agents were trying to carry out search and arrest warrants against Koresh because of reports that his group was stockpiling illegal weapons. In a shootout, four agents were killed and 20 others injured. The siege ended with a raging fire. When it was over, 82 Branch Davidian members were dead.

"I was calling him the Waco wacko at the time," says Ed, "and I said, 'Wait a minute, they're planning to go in and kill these people.' You can't do that. Now they lost me. Now I was angry."

The events at Ruby Ridge and Waco energized conspiracy theorists and anti-government activists, including the bomber of the Oklahoma City federal building, Timothy J. McVeigh.

Ed focused his fury on the Internal Revenue Service.
"It affected so many people," he says. "The IRS is the most brutal, ruthless organization out of all there is."
--
INSIDE their home, Elaine boils hot dogs over a gas stove. Sunlight shines through windows offering the only light. The dim kitchen is cooler than outside. The shelves are lined with plastic containers of dry beans, bottles of hot sauce, bags of potato chips, a can of Folgers coffee, a watermelon. A bouquet of pink and blue daisies sits on the table, near a copy of the local newspaper featuring an article about the Browns.

There is a rumble in the driveway. Zoey begins to bark.
Everyone runs to the front window.
"Check the side door!" Ed yells to Elaine.
It's just a visitor with a flag on his truck. He stopped by to tell the Browns that he, too, has stopped paying taxes.
"You must understand," says Ed, sitting in his rocking chair, "this is personal for each and every one of us."
He brings up how law officials have bullied him and harassed his wife. He becomes flustered when he recalls his wife being handcuffed when she was arrested for tax evasion.

"This is American, what he's talking," Tibbetts says. "This is what made America. Not sitting back and getting abused. Standing up for what's right. Standing up for what God gave you."

Elaine offers Tibbetts another hot dog.
"There's two freight trains going just like this toward each other," Ed says. "So you better take a side, buddy, because when they hit, it's going to be hellacious.

"And," he says, "it all could start right here."