Elaine Brown's son interview

[Dezcad]

You can see his interview here .

[LPC]

The son claims that his mother had been asking the IRS for the law that required them to file income tax returns "for years."

Anyone know if there was any evidence of this introduced at trial? Records of that kind of correspondence are what kept Vernice Kuglin out of jail, and I'm wondering if (a) Elaine Brown didn't have records, (b) she didn't have the brains to introduce them into evidence, or (c) she lied to her son about asking the IRS.

I suspect the correct answer is (c), but that's just me.

[Lambkin]

The son claims that his mother had been asking the IRS for the law that required them to file income tax returns "for years."

Anyone know if there was any evidence of this introduced at trial? Records of that kind of correspondence are what kept Vernice Kuglin out of jail, and I'm wondering if (a) Elaine Brown didn't have records, (b) she didn't have the brains to introduce them into evidence, or (c) she lied to her son about asking the IRS.

I suspect the correct answer is (c), but that's just me.

Or maybe it was like Ed said, "show me the law, but not that law"

[Famspear]

Lambkin wrote:

Or maybe it was like Ed said, "show me the law, but not that law"

THAT is a great line! Did Edward Brown actually say that? Even if he didn't, that line pretty much encapsulates the tax protesters' dishonesty about their "show me the law argument".

[webhick]

Lambkin wrote:

Or maybe it was like Ed said, "show me the law, but not that law"

THAT is a great line! Did Edward Brown actually say that? Even if he didn't, that line pretty much encapsulates the tax protesters' dishonesty about their "show me the law argument".

I believe Ed stated in a radio show: "Show me the law but you can’t use the 16th Amendment or Title 26."

Can't find the original post. Looks like it was purged.

[Famspear]

At the expense of being a bore, here is an excerpt from something I and others contributed to Wikipedia a while back:

Some tax protesters argue that the Internal Revenue Service refuses to disclose the laws that impose the legal obligation to file Federal income tax returns or pay Federal income taxes -- and conclude that there must be no law imposing Federal income taxes.

The official Internal Revenue Service web site contains references to specific code sections and case law, http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html including 26 USC 6011 (duty to file returns in general); 26 USC 6012 (duty to file income tax returns in particular); and 26 USC 6151 (duty to pay tax at time return is required to be filed) [link omitted]

The year 2006 instruction book for Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, on page 80, contains references to 26 USC 6001 (relating to record keeping); 26 USC 6011 (general filing requirement); 26 USC 6012(a) (specific income tax return filing requirement); and 26 USC 6109 (duty to supply identification numbers). The IRS web site includes a section on tax protester arguments with citations to statutes (including the 26 USC 6151 duty to pay the tax) and court decisions and a 64-page downloadable PDF version of the data, entitled ''The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments'' http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html and a page with a link to the entire Internal Revenue Code as published by the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. [link omitted]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protes ... _arguments

I guess a lot of protesters never make it to page 80 of the Form 1040 instruction book. Of course, even when they do, they use the "Ed Brown" copout: "show me the law, but not that law."

[ASITStands]

Lambkin wrote:

Or maybe it was like Ed said, "show me the law, but not that law"

THAT is a great line! Did Edward Brown actually say that? Even if he didn't, that line pretty much encapsulates the tax protesters' dishonesty about their "show me the law argument".

I believe Ed stated in a radio show: "Show me the law but you can’t use the 16th Amendment or Title 26."

Can't find the original post. Looks like it was purged.

Casey Lee Cobb discussed it yesterday on 'Show Ed the Law,' "here."

The actual broadcast is in the upper right-hand corner.

And, yes, he said, "Show me the law, but you can't use the 16th Amendment or Title 26."

[Scoop]

The son claims that his mother had been asking the IRS for the law that required them to file income tax returns "for years."

Anyone know if there was any evidence of this introduced at trial? Records of that kind of correspondence are what kept Vernice Kuglin out of jail, and I'm wondering if (a) Elaine Brown didn't have records, (b) she didn't have the brains to introduce them into evidence, or (c) she lied to her son about asking the IRS.

I suspect the correct answer is (c), but that's just me.

No. This is actually true, according to testimony and letters produced at the trial. Elaine started writing the IRS a year before she stopped filing, and continued to send letters for a few of the years she was convicted of evading taxes. Ultimately, she did stop corresponding.

Here are two stories from the trial with some detail on Elaine's relationship with the IRS:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs ... /701100361
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs ... /701180357

[Famspear]

ASITStands wrote:

Casey Lee Cobb discussed it yesterday on 'Show Ed the Law,' "here."

The actual broadcast is in the upper right-hand corner.

And, yes, he said, "Show me the law, but you can't use the 16th Amendment or Title 26."

The irony of Ed's statement is great. I can actually show Ed the law without showing him either the Amendment or "Title 26."

All I need (for Ed and Elaine's income tax situation) is to show him Article I of the Constitution and, of course, THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 AS AMENDED, by referring to every enactment published in the United States Statutes at Large since August 16, 1954 (the date of enactment of the 1954 Code). I don't need to look at the "Internal Revenue Code" as published as "Title 26 of the United States Code."

The technicalities of conclusive "positive law" as published in the Statutes at Large and the prima facie effect of "non-positive law" as published in Title 26 aside, what also seems to escape the tax protesters is that many if not most legal scholars don't use ANY official version of the statutes in daily law practice or research, but instead use privately-published versions by West, Lexis, CCH, and so on.

I don't care if the text of a statute is written on the back of a restaurant menu. If it's an accurate, verbatim reprint of the statute as enacted by Congress, then the tax protesters (and all of us) are bound by it.

If the tax protesters only knew how stupid they are.

[ASITStands]

The irony of Ed's statement is great. I can actually show Ed the law without showing him either the Amendment or "Title 26."

<snip>

I don't care if the text of a statute is written on the back of a restaurant menu. If it's an accurate, verbatim reprint of the statute as enacted by Congress, then the tax protesters (and all of us) are bound by it.

If the tax protesters only knew how stupid they are.

Agreed. I usually start by showing them how the 1939 IRC was enacted as Statute at Large, then take them through the 1954 and 1986 versions, after which I explain the difference between "code" and "statute," which is slight, as you suggest.

Boy! That's a run-on sentence, but it pretty accurately portrays the facts. You could actually get a fairly good idea just by looking at the Notes of the Cornell online version. It clearly traces the statutes and public laws.

"If the tax protesters only knew how stupid they are." How true, but if you can ever get one to look at it seriously, you can at least create some doubt in their minds. Or, at least, that's what I try to do. Wish I were more successful.

Dan's FAQ has been a big help in identifying relevant case law.

[.]

create some doubt in their minds

A serious TP is usually impervious to reason, regardless of chapter and verse cited. Nobody knows that better than Dan.

But, it's possible that s/he or a lurker might ultimately reconsider. Which is why I sometimes bother to argue with them elsewhere.

It's always fun to shoot ducks in a barrel, especially if the ducks don't realize what's happening.

[LPC]

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs ... /701180357

Interesting quote from the above article:

In his cross examination of Elaine Brown, [AUSA] Morse confronted many of Brown's statements with documents. Since she said she had studied the federal tax code, he asked her to read passages describing how married couples must file returns according to a certain fee schedule, how compensation for services was taxable and how individuals must file a tax return.

"Were you aware of that provision when you testified that you weren't aware of any provisions requiring you to pay income tax?" he asked after pointing to each section. Each time, she answered yes.

So she *WAS* shown the law during her trial.

Interesting.

[.]

Perhaps AUSA Morse can collect Ed's "show me the law" prize.

[Demosthenes]

So she *WAS* shown the law during her trial.

Interesting.

She was also shown the law in court filings prior to the trial.

[Lambkin]

Lambkin wrote:

Or maybe it was like Ed said, "show me the law, but not that law"

THAT is a great line! Did Edward Brown actually say that? Even if he didn't, that line pretty much encapsulates the tax protesters' dishonesty about their "show me the law argument".

He stated it more baldly than I have heard before, but it's a pretty standard version of the tax denier's "Goalpost Mobility Doctrine" which is rephrased daily on Quatloos with the hope of a different outcome each time.

[Scoop]

So she *WAS* shown the law during her trial.

Interesting.

Yes, and she indicated repeatedly that she was familiar with the relevant portions.

[webhick]

So she *WAS* shown the law during her trial.

Interesting.

Yes, and she indicated repeatedly that she was familiar with the relevant portions.

You mean familiar as in "pretended to read them while Ed told her what to think", or familiar as in "may or may not be her baby's daddy"?