http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3083052001159394679&hl=en

Federal Assault On Brown Home Was Aborted
Man fired upon and captured tells story of being ordered to lie to media by FBI and cover up botched raid

Danny Riley, the man who was shot at and arrested after he discovered U.S. Marshals stalking Ed Brown's home, has revealed the amazing truth behind how he was threatened with 15 years in jail by the FBI unless he lied to the media to cover-up the fact that yesterday's events were a planned siege and not merely to serve a warrant as authorities had claimed.
Riley related in a video blog late yesterday how he had unwittingly stumbled across U.S. Marshals preparing to raid the Brown property as he left the house to take Ed Brown's dog for a walk. Riley was confronted by two men in camouflage who fired two shots at him as he attempted to run away, but was then tackled by 12 other armed Marshals who tasered and handcuffed him.

What happened after was carried in our article this morning , but the whole story exposes how the FBI had planned to orchestrate a violent raid on the Brown's property, before aborting the siege and attempting to use Riley, under intimidation that he would be jailed or even killed, as a go-between to sell the cover-story to the media that the authorities were merely serving a warrant.

Riley now fears for his life but has shown tremendous courage in coming forward to lift the lid and expose the lies that the New Hampshire police told the media in downplaying yesterday's events and hiding the fact that they were planning a raid.

Riley tells us that after he was arrested and taken to the Lebanon Police Department, he was told that authorities had been conducting surveillance of the Brown's home on Wednesday and that they knew the Brown's owned a 50 caliber rifle because they had observed Riley using it on the Brown's shooting range, while a squadron of snipers lay in wait should they have been discovered, aiming guns at Riley as he was being watched.

Riley was interrogated by two FBI officials who called themselves Phil and Mark, and was threatened with 15 years imprisonment if he told the media that the FBI were involved in the aborted raid on the Brown's property.

Riley was then ordered to lie to the media and tell them that during his morning walk, he had not seen armed U.S. Marshals but plain clothed police officers who were merely serving a warrant for the seizure of the Brown's dental office 10 miles away, and that the officers had simply tackled and not shot at or tasered him after he ran. Riley was told that if he didn't lie to the media he was facing certain prison time or even death.


Danny Riley shows where he was tasered by U.S. Marshals in a video blog released yesterday.
Riley was then dropped off back at the Brown's home after the media had been allowed to approach the house. In an act of astounding courage, Riley ignored the media as they yelled questions at him and headed straight into the house to tell Ed Brown that the FBI had ordered him to lie.

Riley then emerged from the house and told the authorities what they wanted to hear - that he had relayed the cover story to the media. Riley was then dropped off at a bus station and told by authorities that if he returned to the scene he would either be imprisoned or killed.

Despite the fact that Riley bravely ignored the threats and did not relay the cover-story, the local media still bought the police's explanation that they had never planned to raid the house and that, after erecting roadblocks a mile around, evacuating neighbors, cutting the Brown's phone and power lines and deploying 6 helicopters along with a SWAT team and APC's, they were merely serving a warrant for an empty property 10 miles away.

Danny Riley is risking his life by telling the truth - that New Hampshire police, led by the FBI, had conducted prior surveillance of the property and were in place about to launch a violent siege against Ed and Elaine Brown before Riley's chance encounter with U.S. Marshals led officials to abort the raid and manufacture a cover-story which they then tried to intimidate Riley into selling to the local media.

This represents open fraud, deceit and extortion on behalf of New Hampshire police as well as the FBI and Danny Riley's testimony demands immediate attention from national as well as local media in the New Hampshire area.

Infowars (http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/plainfield_fed_assault_on_brown_home_was_aborted.h tm)


Marshals Fired Rounds At Ed Brown's Dog Walker Before Planned Siege (http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/plainfield_marshals_fired_rounds_at_ed_browns_dog_ walker.htm)

Danny Riley, the man who was shot at and arrested after he discovered U.S. Marshals stalking Ed Brown's home


Uhm... who is this Ed Brown?


Eri

He's a tax protestor that said "show me the law that says I have to pay taxes and I will pay it". They took him to court, no one showed him the law and he still lost. So instead of going to his sentencing he holed himself and his wife up in their house and have been there for a couple months now.

The FBI basicaly want to Waco them.

He's a tax protestor that said "show me the law that says I have to pay taxes and I will pay it.That is the most retarded thing I've ever heard. The law is the Internal Revenue Code (http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/contents.html), right there for any libertarian to read.So instead of going to his sentencing he holed himself and his wife up in their house and have been there for a couple months now.The FBI was just reeling in a fugitive. So what? They had the right to raid the property, so I fail to see why they'd go to the alleged great lengths to hide it.

The only reason I can think why the police would want to hide it would be if this guy wanted to have a massive publicity stunt. Perhaps a publicity stunt like claiming KGB style secret police were enforcing tyranny in his back yard maybe?

I'm not about to debate it. This is not about wether of not you agree with the tax protestor. It's about the actions of the FBI.

It's about the actions of the FBI.What do you expect them to do, let the criminal go free simply because he's being a pain? They have every right to break into the house and arrest him, and I see no reason why they'd wish to hide their attempt.

Read the ****ing article. Maybe the bolded portions weren't enough for you.

Joseph R. Banister says that the 16th Amendment was never ratified properly and that by the definition found here (http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-N-I.html)(section 861 specificaly), your personal labour is not taxable as it does not fall into the category of "Income from sources within the United States"

In the top section of this (http://www.freedomabovefortune.com/lockout/Facts_Answer_Affirmative_Defenses_043003.pdf) PDF you can see his credentials

Freedom Above Fortune (http://www.freedomabovefortune.com/default.htm)was founded by Joseph R. (Joe) Banister, a former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent who learned of serious constitutional questions relating to the federal income tax and the federal banking and monetary systems. Mr. Banister’s expertise in the fields of accounting, finance, taxation, and law enforcement enabled him to not only understand these issues but realize that he could play a role in bringing the issues into the public arena for analysis and debate.
Now, Aidon has gone over and over all this crap before. Wether or not you agree, people on both sides of the debate feel they are correct with obvious biases on each side. I could not care less, as I'm stuck paying Canadian taxes until I figure out how Gerry Hart (http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/tax.htm) got out of it.

Now that we've established the grounds on which the protestor is resisting prosecution and arrest we can look at the FBI trying to cover up what they really wanted to do by threatening, tasering, and shooting at the guy who was walking Ed Brown's dog.

Joseph R. Banister says that the 16th Amendment was never ratified properlyJoseph R. Banister doesn't run this country, and isn't the guy with the guns.

His opinions don't count.

Read the ****ing article. Maybe the bolded portions weren't enough for you.I don't understand why they would attempt to cover up a siege attempt, when that is exactly what they were supposed to be doing.

Well I think that Swiftfox has been able to do what I have never been able to do.

Make Tudamorf simply and clearly admit that taxes are force.

taxes are force.Has there ever been any suggestion that they aren't? It's not as if they're voluntary.

Sounds very similar to Ruby Ridge more than Waco. Complete with dog.

Looking up other versions of the story I find... this. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/080607plannedsiege.htm)

Honestly it did go wrong, but seriously... was he told to lie to the media or just to not disclose facts on a raid that could of still be in the works?

There is alot of coverage and so far every website ive gone to has a different story, from rational to absurd... depending on what kind of nutjobs they are tailored to.

Obviously this was a botched job... but the impression I get is he just wants his 15 minutes of spotlight now.

Sounds very similar to Ruby Ridge more than Waco. Complete with dog.

Ever research Ruby Ridge? It's similar but not the same thing I think.

The dude in RR, Randy Weaver, was a racist, white supremacist, whose wife and children all believed the same racist things, and yet, had somehow instituted a version of the Jewish Levitical laws, complete with menustral tent.

(I can't begin to comprehend how they could be racist, hanging out with KKK, yet subscribe to a Jewish holy book, lovingly written, transcribed and defended by Jewish authors. Logic fails to explain why.)

All that aside, the FBI really, really, really wanted to get Mr. Weaver as an informant to investigate the Aryan nation. As we know, informants work best under pressure, coercion and blackmail, so the FBI had to get "something" on him to twist his arm. So they had two undercovers approach the dude to get two sawed off shotguns (which isn't that substantial if you ask me, but they're the F.B.I., so they must know more than me, right?)

When they attempted to use this as pressure, Randy Weaver wasn't having any of it, so they tried to bring him in for the gun charges.

This tax evasion case is different, in that I don't think the FBI wants to use this guy as an informant. They just want him to pay his taxes, like a good little member of the State. They most certainly can't have people challenging our tax system. There are bridges in Alaska that need to be connected to nowhere every day. Ask Sen. Ted Stevens! (fyi, it's still getting built, I think)

In any event, both times the government is expending a disproportionate amount of time and effort on cases that should require far less. I guess it's grandstanding and politics to a certain degree, but I still can't figure out how this or Ruby Ridge is a win for the FBI. Each case like this that comes out makes them look progressively more like the stereotypical mob thugs the conspiracy theorists want you to believe.

They should concentrate large efforts on priority cases, and less on tax evasion and making sure that shotgun barrels are not 1 inch less than 18". If these are priority cases to the FBI, then we should close the FBI down, since all the really important cases must have already been solved.

(I can't begin to comprehend how they could be racist, hanging out with KKK, yet subscribe to a Jewish holy book, lovingly written, transcribed and defended by Jewish authors. Logic fails to explain why.)Tradition. You Christians have had almost 2,000 years of practice doing just that.

Tradition. You Christians have had almost 2,000 years of practice doing just that.
Troll.

Any Christian zealot who "can't begin to comprehend" why Christians hate Jews, although they adopted the Jewish mythological text (more or less), is just begging for a restatement of the obvious.

Any Christian zealot who "can't begin to comprehend" why Christians hate Jews, although they adopted the Jewish mythological text (more or less), is just begging for a restatement of the obvious.

Assuming you're not trolling for a second, I'll attempt to explain.

Christians don't hate Jews. Some racists who happen to be labeled Christians, either by the media or themselves, hate Jews. But that label is wrong. They might be a splinter sect like Jim Jones, David Koresh, or Fred Phelps, but they can't logically claim to be a Christian and claim that racism is ok. Since every bit of the Old and New Testament was written by Jews and the early church was made up of almost all Jews at the beginning, there is not one bit of the New Testament found that allows for humans being racist against Jews.

In fact, the Bible has nothing in it but love and concern for the Jewish people, including the New Testament. Paul, who wrote 60% of the New Testament, was willing to trade his own salvation if it could ensure that the Jews, his own people, were saved.

So, no, there is no logical reason for anyone who is a Christian to read the Bible, wanting to learn from it, and come away with the impression that the Jews were to even be looked down upon, much less hated.

Don't think I haven't heard the oft-quoted "Let his blood be on us and our children" excuse before, if that's what you're angling at. It doesn't fly at all. 3 cascading reasons why not:

1)Jesus forgave them of killing Him while He was being nailed to the cross.
2) If that somehow is missed by the budding racist, the people who said that are long dead. Their children are long dead. Their great-great grandchildren are long dead. And the strictest of the Old Testament declarations would only extend any sin to the 4th generation.
3) Even if that as well, is somehow missed by the racist, just to drive the nail in the coffin of racists everywhere, God is the one who punishes sins like that, not man. Stys, eyes, splinters, brother's eyes, casting the first stone, that sort of thing.

So there is no way that the racist has any Biblical ground to stand on to claim he's somehow a good Christian while being racist.

Christians don't hate Jews. Some racists who happen to be labeled Christians, either by the media or themselves, hate Jews. But that label is wrong. They might be a splinter sect like Jim Jones, David Koresh, or Fred Phelps, but they can't logically claim to be a Christian and claim that racism is ok. Since every bit of the Old and New Testament was written by Jews and the early church was made up of almost all Jews at the beginning, there is not one bit of the New Testament found that allows for humans being racist against Jews.Yes, in the beginning, the Christians (who were really just a Jewish sect back then) and Jews were fairly chummy and a lot like one another, and the mythological texts written early on reflect that.

But post-Constantine, that all changed, as the Romans adopted a sect of Christianity that was hostile to the Jews, and they took steps to differentiate themselves from the Jews and to oppress them. And that sect, of course, was the seed for modern Christianity.

It's not just about the book, but the history and politics that followed it.

Some relevant reading: http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=797.

I don't think Tumadorf would do well on the section of the IQ test where: "Some XXXX are YYYY, and all YYYY are ZZZZ, therefor all XXXX must be ZZZZ.

TRUE
FALSE
NEITHER

Is there something about the history of your religion that you contest, Swiftfox? Or, like Gunny, do you simply don your rose-colored glasses and pretend it never existed?

With your line of thinking the holocaust only killed jews, or the 6 million non Jews didn't count. I'm not saying that Christians have not more than their fair share of crimes against them, but not all christians hate jews, nor would they condone the actions of history.

For example, Jehovah's Witnesses, a christian sect if you will, refuse millitary service on the grounds that killing another is wrong. Or as with the Torah and Muslims, killing even an unarmed soldier is wrong.

(Forgive all the edits, I've been drinking)

I'm not saying that Christians have not more than thair fair share of crime against them, but not all christians hate jews, nor would they condone the actions of history.I didn't say they all would. I said Christians have a long tradition of hating Jews, because the seed of your modern religion which Constantine planted in the Roman Empire is based on a sect of Christianity that hated Jews.

Given this well-established history, when Gunny comes along and "can't begin to comprehend" why Christians hate Jews, I have to conclude he's either (a) totally ignorant of his religion's history, and/or (b) deliberately trying to cover it up and reinvent Christianity as a peaceful and loving religion.

Christendom was hating and killing Jews for almost two millenia before the Holocaust occured...

The biggest problem I see with your arguments Gunny is things like

but they can't logically claim to be a Christian and claim that racism is ok

You are defining your version of Christianity (which is probably a pretty moderate good one) as the "logical" one, ignoring other peoples versions of christianity and saying that they got it all wrong.

While there are definately better ways to interpret Christian texsts, short of God coming back back and actually saying whos interpretation is more valid, you can't really say that someone can't claim to be a christian, and think/not think X.

I'm glad that christianity has modernized, but looking back at history, it hard or next to impossible to dismiss the notion that racism, slavery, etc is compatible with Christian (or for that matter Judaism... Christians just have a better (worse?) track record on it)

You are defining your version of Christianity (which is probably a pretty moderate good one) as the "logical" one, ignoring other peoples versions of christianity and saying that they got it all wrong.

While there are definately better ways to interpret Christian texsts, short of God coming back back and actually saying whos interpretation is more valid, you can't really say that someone can't claim to be a christian, and think/not think X.

I'm glad that christianity has modernized, but looking back at history, it hard or next to impossible to dismiss the notion that racism, slavery, etc is compatible with Christian (or for that matter Judaism... Christians just have a better (worse?) track record on it)

Let me rephrase. . .again.

Biblical Christianity, that is the faith that arises from reading the New Testament and Old Testament unless otherwise contraindictated by the New Testament.

Biblical Christianity has no support of racism.

Are there organizations and individuals that have taken a wrong turn, while still claiming to "be doin' God's work?" Sure. Every racist agenda tries to clothe itself in the respectable trappings of society whenever it can, including the prominent religions of the day.

But Biblical Christianity, doing just a straightforward reading of the Bible does not teach anyone to be racist towards anyone else. It does not teach that certain groups are not to be tolerated. It welcomes everyone equally.

The question of whether or not to allow Gentiles to become Christians was debated back and forth between Peter, Paul, James and the rest of the disciples until God settled the issue by giving the Gentiles the Holy Spirit, the same as He did with the Jewish believers. After that the Jewish believers said "How can anyone keep them from joining the church, when God has already shown He accepts them?"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/21/tax.evaders.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

He'd rather die than pay his taxes? What a nutjob.

They should invade his libertarian hideout, and sell it to pay for the cost of the invasion which he is forcing on the taxpayers.

He said he'd pay if they just showed him the law. For whatever reason they didn't or couldn't, I don't know. He even brought his cheque book ready to pay up. If there is not a law and the IRS by forces takes what they deem is theirs then the police in this instance are mercenaries.

If they can't show the law saying he needs to pay his taxes, then how, lawfuly, can you enforce it.

He said he'd pay if they just showed him the law. For whatever reason they didn't or couldn't,As I told you, that is retarded. The Internal Revenue Code is plain for all to see, and the criminal section was listed on his criminal complaint.

Unless every government official involved was unconscious, they "showed him the law," many times over.

I hope all of his assets are sold to repay the taxpayers for his shenanigans.

Then I must conclude that every government official involved was unconscious.

He said he'd pay if they just showed him the law. For whatever reason they didn't or couldn't, I don't know. He even brought his cheque book ready to pay up. If there is not a law and the IRS by forces takes what they deem is theirs then the police in this instance are mercenaries.

If they can't show the law saying he needs to pay his taxes, then how, lawfuly, can you enforce it.

His argument doesnt hold water with me. If your going to deem something illegal then you dont do everything possible to evade it, you fight it from the start.

He is a tax evader who finally got caught, and with nothing more to lose decided to form a army of ppl who dont like to pay taxes (come on who does?)

I MAY have given him some credit had he actually been a true believer in his fight and not just a petty criminal who got caught cheating and resorted to plan b.

pay for the cost of the invasion which he is forcing on the taxpayers.

He is not forcing anything.

The government has the force, and is using it.

What a Bizarro sentence.

I wish he were closer. I would personally take them lead, powder, beans and rice. And primers.

The US government is going to murder him, just like they did the Weaver lady and baby.

And the people at Waco.

Your tax dollars at work.

He is not forcing anything.Of course he is. He's forcing us to work for him without him contributing his share. He's making us his slaves, expecting us to fulfill our part of the social contract without requiring him to fulfill his.

If he doesn't want to abide by the social contract, fine; but then, we need not abide by it either with respect to him, and we can kill him and take his stuff so long as we have the might, without the government intervening, or even with the government's assistance. (There will still have been unjust enrichment to him, because he has benefited from the social contract for decades, but there's little we'll be able to do about it.)

You libertarian nutjobs are a bunch of hypocrites, wanting the benefits that flow from taxes but never wanting to pay your share.Your tax dollars at work.Emphasis on your, not his. He should be forced to pay for the cost of bringing him in, since he not only broke the social contract, but broke his deal with the court to appear for sentencing. A crook, at least twice over. Power of contract, isn't that your mantra?

Of course he is. He's forcing us to work for him without him contributing his share. He's making us his slaves, expecting us to fulfill our part of the social contract without requiring him to fulfill his.

You have done nothing for him.. You are not working for him, what a silly notion. Well other than you using your force, through the government, to take what he has produced.

Society has done nothing for him, that he could not do on his or her own.

They are self sufficient without your Socialism, it appears.

You libertarian nutjobs are a bunch of hypocrites, wanting the benefits that flow from taxes but never wanting to pay your share.

What benefits?

I personally have received education from the system, but far far less in value that what I have paid into it. I acknowledge you got me on that one. If I were allowed to keep my earnings and spend it on school, for myself, I could easily have afforded a doctorate from Stanford, Cal, or Harvard. But I got a degree from a community college instead.

And taxes are an temporary abrogation of the Social Contract. Not intrinsic of it.

What a silly notion.

You have done nothing for him.. You are not working for him, what a silly notion.Without us, his property rights would be meaningless. Anyone would be able to kill him, or take his stuff, at any time, so long as they had the might. We could block all the roads he used to buy his guns. We could shut off his food, water, and electricity.

Without the social contract, there wouldn't even be anything to argue about, because the cops could go in and kill him, if they had the firepower. The social contract is what protects him.

He likely owes his very existence to the social contract, the contract that is held in place by taxes.Society has done nothing for him, that he could not do on his or her own.ROFL. Food, water, health care, guns, property, electricity, roads, and so on. You name it, he owes it to society. Without the society created by taxes, he would have never been able to acquire those things.

And taxes are an temporary abrogation of the Social Contract. Not intrinsic of it.What are you talking about? Taxes, collective bargaining, are the essence of the social contract.

ROFL. Food, water, health care, guns, property, electricity, roads, and so on. You name it, he owes it to society. Without the society created by taxes, he would have never been able to acquire those things.
That is idiotic.

Basic mercantilism provides for that, at the very least.

Basic, hell less than, 1% of earnings, could provide enough coverage to keep people from taking your stuff from you.

And here you have the government doing exactly what it is designed to protect against, actually threatening. Theft, which has already occurred(thus not threatened), and murder.

People acquired things long before the very first tax was ever invented. Acquiring and earning does not require government assistance, it is the opposite. Especially in this case.

He and she owe it to themselves, and their families. Not to society.

It is now society which is trying to rape them of their earnings and lives.

His road is a dirt road, for fcks sake. He made it himself, or rather his father in law made it, and gave it to his daughter(who married an exterminator).

They were not in the court which adjudicated upon them, they had no representative lawyers present. A judge just ruled against them.

I wish them all the luck.

For some Bush's version of Janet Reno will eventually drive a flame throwing tank into their home, and set them on fire, and kill them. Murdering them in your version of some Socialist Dystopian vision where might equals right.

Food, water, health care, guns...you don't think that these were available before an Income Tax. You are out of your mind.

What benefits?The right to own your home.

Protection from those who will harm you (both other people, and other countries).

Utilities: water, sewage, electricity, internet access.

Roads.

Courts to uphold your contracts.

Education.

Basic services even if/when you can't pay for them.

Your job.

The list is virtually endless, but you are no doubt unaware of that because you take so many of these things for granted. However, without taxes, we'd have anarchy, a bunch of loose tribal communities constantly at war with primitive weapons and never achieving much more than bare survival.

Perhaps you'd like to point out an alternative, an evolved society that got there without any form of taxation.

The right to own your home.

Protection from those who will harm you (both other people, and other countries).

Utilities: water, sewage, electricity, internet access.

Roads.

Courts to uphold your contracts.

Education.

Basic services even if/when you can't pay for them.

Your job.

The list is virtually endless, but you are no doubt unaware of that because you take so many of these things for granted. However, without taxes, we'd have anarchy, a bunch of loose tribal communities constantly at war with primitive weapons and never achieving much more than bare survival.

Perhaps you'd like to point out an alternative, an evolved society that got there without any form of taxation.

All of those things, except Internet Access, were available to everyone before 1913. This is an idiotic line of discussion.


Retarded!

Um, how about 1800, early America. They were an evolved society. Did not have computers and internet access, but they had all the other things that you say that the Income Tax affords us.

All of those things, except Internet Access, were available to everyone before 1913.And taxes have been around since long before 1913. They were well-established at the beginning of recorded history, independently developed in parallel in major civilizations around the world.Um, how about 1800, early America.No taxation without representation, ring a bell?

Yup, and he is only protesting Income Taxes, isn't he.

Use taxes, I'm sure he has no problems with. I don't.

Hell, they had toll roads even before 1776, before the very first tax protesters dressed up like Indians and spilled a bunch of tea in Boston Harbor.

Um, like Ben Franklin.

No taxation without representation, ring a bell?

Ya, where was his representation in court.

Um,

Um,

No where, perhaps.

That alone would be a violation of the Constitution. But, /shrug, tax law does not follow the Constitution, does it. Don't have to.

And taxes have been around since long before 1913. They were well-established at the beginning of recorded history, independently developed in parallel in major civilizations around the world.

Ya, most taxes were developed with the idea, pre 1776, that "if yous don't pay us, we will break yous legs and rape yous wife".

If you support Goodfellas and the Sopranos running your present day Tax Code,,,good for ya.


Fugettiboutit.

That is idiotic.

Basic mercantilism provides for that, at the very least.

Basic, hell less than, 1% of earnings, could provide enough coverage to keep people from taking your stuff from you.If taxes were limited to 1% of income, we'd probably be speaking Russian, or possibly German, right about now.

Defense budgets were enormous back then, and as much as you gripe about income tax rates now, the top federal rate was 94% during WWII, 91% throughout the 50s and early 60s, and over 70% throughout the 70s.

Yup, and he is only protesting Income Taxes, isn't he.So now you're only protesting the form of the tax? Ok, Fyyr. We'll just set up food, water, internet, electricity, road, and gun taxes, and collect the same money from you that we would have otherwise collected with an income tax.

Would you be happy then?

Ya, where was his representation in court.Are you saying, he wasn't given the right to appear, subpoena evidence on his behalf, hire an attorney to represent him (or have one appointed if he can't afford an attorney), and so on?

Somehow, I doubt that. He was just a nutjob who didn't show up and thought he could get away with crime by locking himself in his room and saying "nyah, nyah, I'm not coming out, you can't catch me!"

I wish he were closer. I would personally take them lead, powder, beans and rice. And primers.You'd face years in federal prison just to help this nutjob? You're crazier than I ever imagined.

We'll just set up food,
I pay for my food directly.

water,
Same, and I know where to find water, and get it inspite of government interference.

internet,
While the original Internet was government sponsored. 99 percent of it now is commercial

electricity,
I buy electricity.

road,
What kind of roads? The streets in front of you house were build by developers who passed the cost to the homeowners. Freeways and bridges are built with bonds and tolls.

gun taxes
Never needed a single tax to build a gun I own or want to own. Guns have been made without taxes for hundreds of years. Go out to San Jose, the Winchester Mystery house, that whole place was built without income taxes being imposed.


, and collect the same money from you that we would have otherwise collected with an income tax.
None of those things are distributed to from the Income Tax anyhow.


Would you be happy then?
You are essentially saying that stuff never happened before, nothing got made, nothing got sold or bought before the Income Tax.

You need better examples, fella.


Boom, all of a sudden 1913 rolls around, and everything was invented because of it. What a ludicrous notion.

Everything before 1913,,,,Dark Ages and feudalism.
Boom, 1913, Income Tax,,,and Internet was invented.

You'd face years in federal prison just to help this nutjob? You're crazier than I ever imagined.
Ya, I would.

I would walk on private property, to deliver those things to this guy, his wife(who's the real breadwinner), and his supporters.

Any day of the week. Well provided he does not live 3500 miles from me, that would be along walk.

Your government does not have the authority to stop me.

(or have one appointed if he can't afford an attorney),

You DON'T have that right in Tax Court. Do ya?


Tax Court is special, it has special rules. Bill of Rights don't apply there.

You are guilty, until you prove yourself innocent. With your own money, that you spend on your tax lawyers.

I pay for my food directly.Subsidized, and made possible, by society and taxes.Same, and I know where to find water, and get it inspite of government interference.And what if there were a row of men with guns who wouldn't let you?I buy electricity.Subsidized, and made possible, by society and taxes.What kind of roads?Public roads, you know, the way you get to work, and the way all your goods (which you ridiculously claim you buy without the aid of society) get to your local store.You are essentially saying that stuff never happened before, nothing got made, nothing got sold or bought before the Income Tax.I said tax, not income tax.

This 1913 line is in your head; taxes have existed throughout recorded history.

If you don't like the income tax, we can impose it another way. It makes no difference, you're still going to have to pay it. Would you prefer that?

Ya, I would.

I would walk on private property, to deliver those things to this guy, his wife(who's the real breadwinner), and his supporters.

Any day of the week. Well provided he does not live 3500 miles from me, that would be along walk.

Your government does not have the authority to stop me.Of course it does. He's a fugitive, and you'd be aiding him. They could put you away for a long time, just for that.

You DON'T have that right in Tax Court. Do ya?If he's being charged with a crime, he's in federal criminal court, not tax court. Tax dodging is a federal criminal offense.

And yes, although these aren't administrative (tax court) proceedings, you do have the right to counsel in such proceedings, just not court-appointed counsel. The Bill of Rights most certainly DOES apply, and due process guarantees you that right.

Subsidized, and made possible, by society and taxes.
Food was not available until Income Taxes? You gotta be ****ting me.

And what if there were a row of men with guns who wouldn't let you?
I would drill a hole in the my ground and pump it out. Novel concept, people have only been doing it for thousands of years.

Subsidized, and made possible, by society and taxes.
This dude has his own electricity. I had my own too. Solar panels on my house, until I sold it. This guy has his own electricity, he don't need your taxed version. Just because you want to force him to buy it, don't mean that it is necessary.

Public roads, you know, the way you get to work, and the way all your goods (which you ridiculously claim you buy without the aid of society) get to your local store.
Almost all are paid for with use tax. If you think the Income Tax pays for them, you are kidding yourself.

I said tax, not income tax.
We are talking about Income Tax aren't we.

This 1913 line is in your head; taxes have existed throughout recorded history.
Well, Income Tax is the tax that he is fighting. I interject that makes this point topical to our discussion.

If you don't like the income tax, we can impose it another way.
Pay as you go tax. Use tax. No problems. You get what you pay for.

It makes no difference, you're still going to have to pay it.
There is a difference.

Would you prefer that?
Yes. I have no problem with making people pay for what they get. I have no problem with ME paying for what I get.

But that is the real point, isn't. People paying much more taxes than what they get from them. Taking people's labor from them, is akin to slavery, pure and simple. Of course the slavery is percentage wise. If the government only takes 40% in taxes, that means you are only a slave 40% of the time. Much more easier to digest than to actually be in shackles all of the time.

Food was not available until Income Taxes? You gotta be ****ting me.Taxes, not income taxes. (Although the food you get in the store is made possible today by income taxes.)I would drill a hole in the my ground and pump it out. Novel concept, people have only been doing it for thousands of years.And what if there were a row of men with guns preventing you from drilling that hole?

By the way, would you build the drill, with parts you make yourself?This dude has his own electricity. I had my own too. Solar panels on my house, until I sold it.Did he/you make those panels by his/yourself, with raw materials?We are talking about Income Tax aren't we.Maybe you are. I'm not, I'm talking about taxes, without specific reference to the form of the tax.Yes. I have no problem with making people pay for what they get. I have no problem with ME paying for what I get.But you don't pay for what you get. Because it's impractical to send the government a check each week for your pro rata share of military protection, and so on. So you'd pay $500 to drive on a road, to pay for the military. Would your prefer that, Fyyr?People paying much more taxes than what they get from them.Then you're not complaining about taxes per se, just the quantity of taxes or the way they're spent.

Those are valid complaints, I have them too, as does everyone.

That is why we have a democratic process, where we can vote people out who take too much of our money, or spend it too foolishly. However, we cannot do an end run around that process, and the social contract, by refusing to pay taxes simply because we're not in complete personal agreement with the way our representatives operate.Taking people's labor from them, is akin to slavery, pure and simple.Any form of social contract involves giving up something -- slavery, if you will. To borrow a line, it is the price we pay for a civilized society.

If you want to live without this slavery, you're welcome to live on your own, disconnected from society. Just be prepared to defend yourself against any and all intruders, and to produce your own water, food, and goods using materials you can get by yourself, and protect by yourself. And your arsenal better be enormous, because any military could conquer you at any time, if they want your land, your life, or your goods.

Freedom is slavery.

That is why we have a democratic process, where we can vote people out who take too much of our money, or spend it too foolishly.

Or we protest the very process of it.

Which is what Ed and Elaine Brown are doing.


Commendable action. And should be supported.

Protest, non violent action, civil disobedience, even when threatened with force, imprisonment, and death, is exactly what this whole deal is about.

Benny, Tommy, and Jimmy would have been proud of these folks.

Freedom is slavery.

Yes it is, in your Orwellian Dystopian vision, it is.

Or we protest the very process of it.Sure you can. Just be prepared to face the consequences, and don't expect the rest of us to come rushing to your aid when you screw us over.Yes it is, in your Orwellian Dystopian vision, it is.It's true in yours, too. That's why you're a good American with a job, house, car, etc., and not hiding out in the wilderness.

Complete freedom sucks. That is why we (and you) have created, and voluntarily choose to live in, structured societies where we give up some of that freedom in exchange for not having to watch our back every moment, defend against attackers, and fight for food and water.

Lots of animals do this, from insects to apes, because it's just plain better.

Or we protest the very process of it.

Which is what Ed and Elaine Brown are doing.


Commendable action. And should be supported.

Protest, non violent action, civil disobedience, even when threatened with force, imprisonment, and death, is exactly what this whole deal is about.

Benny, Tommy, and Jimmy would have been proud of these folks.

This is the very heart of my problem with this issue. They are criminals who got caught and are now trying to play martyrs. They did everything in thier power to bypass the income tax process, not protest it, just avoid it, and when they got caught, THEN they begain to protest.

They are criminals not patriots. They only care about themselves and thier cause as far as it will help them, not the greater good.

Have you seen the pictures of their house?

They have been preparing for this protest for quite some time.

And how else would YOU propose to protest a tax, than by not paying it?

Perhaps dressing up like Indians and pouring tea in the harbor?

Of course those protesters back then(you know the one's who started the revolt and this country) did not pay either.

Pissed off the government troops, just like the Brown's and their supporters are doing today.

Toku, I don't know what you are really saying, that they are protesting it the wrong way? Um, not paying a tax, and then making a big public stink about it, is the BEST way to protest.

They are criminals who got caught and are now trying to play martyrs. They did everything in thier power to bypass the income tax process, not protest it, just avoid it, and when they got caught, THEN they begain to protest.


No, they tried to settle it in court. They do not believe the trial was fair, in that they only needed to show him the law requiring him to pay and he says he would have paid them on the spot. The next step in progression was protest.

They really aren't a threat to anyone ,so long as they stay in their home, and no one tries to come in and get them .. basicaly they are confined. Seem much like rich mans prison to me. Just tell them their sentence will be served at home, if they leave then, they can be nabbed and taken to prison. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a penalty for serving it at home, perhaps .8 of a day credit for every day spent at home and Paris's 2 day credit for every day spent in the clink. Nobody dies this way, and the goverment can have a technical win. Well... at least until next years tax season.

And how else would YOU propose to protest a tax, than by not paying it?Peaceful rallies. Voter education. Lobbying. Political and commercial pressure.

Of course, that presupposes you're not some lone nutjob and that a significant portion of society agrees with you, which is certainly not the case here.

One man protests suck. I bet that tea party wouldn't have been too successful either, if it were just one guy dumping out a handful of tea.

They really aren't a threat to anyone ,so long as they stay in their home, and no one tries to come in and get them .. basicaly they are confined. Seem much like rich mans prison to me.Now they're libertarian Paris Hiltons, eh?

I'll tell you what, Swiftfox. If I were in charge, I would agree to drop all the charges and waive all their taxes, if we also get to abrogate our part of the social contract. I'd even let them keep their concrete bunkers, guns, and solar panels, even though that's cheating.

They could live there and try to defend themselves against the entire world in true libertarian fashion. And at the end of it all, they will wish they had just paid their taxes.

A significant portion of society agrees that there are ghosts, devils, and invisible spirits, and who worship a zombie.


Popularity of something does not denote accuracy, not in this country. Quite the opposite, if you ask me.

Popularity of something does not denote accuracy, not in this country. Quite the opposite, if you ask me.The majority keeps this country running, and therefore the majority gets to decide how it is financed.

Unless you start a revolution and install yourself as dictator, your opinion isn't going to count any more than anyone else's, even though you think it's more accurate.

If you want your opinion to be the law, you're going to have to convince lots of people that your way is better than their way. If you just try to break the law, and do an end run around democracy, we will put you in prison, and smoke you out of your libertarian hideout if necessary.

Laws can change when a single person protests an injustice, even one which is mandated by the majority.



Just ask some black chick on a bus about that from the 50s. She did not even mean to, either. She was just tired, and her legs hurt.

If you just try to break the law, and do an end run around democracy, we will put you in prison, and smoke you out of your libertarian hideout if necessary.

Yup, just have a sniper there to pop my baby's head from 500 yards.

Or drive a flamethrowing tank through my front door and burn down my house with me and my family in it.



Nice vision for your country you got there, Tuda.

Laws can change when a single person protests an injustice, even one which is mandated by the majority.

Just ask some black chick on a bus about that from the 50s. She did not even mean to, either. She was just tired, and her legs hurt.And had no significant portion of the population agreed with her, what do you think would have happened?Yup, just have a sniper there to pop my baby's head from 500 yards.

Or drive a flamethrowing tank through my front door and burn down my house with me and my family in it.

Nice vision for your country you got there, Tuda.You can be removed in a non-lethal manner. Now, if you respond with lethal force and raise the stakes, then yes, you're going to get hurt.

My question is: Why didn't the courts just crack open the US Codes of Law, and point out:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html

Let me quote the first few paragraphs
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is. . . . The tax is:


Not over $36,900 . . . . 15% of taxable income.
Over $36,900 but not over $89,150 . . . . $5,535, plus 28% of the excess over $36,900.
Over $89,150 but not over $140,000 . . . . $20,165, plus 31% of the excess over $89,150.
Over $140,000 but not over $250,000 . . . . . $35,928.50, plus 36% of the excess over $140,000.
Over $250,000 . . . . . $75,528.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.


(b) Heads of households
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2 (b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is:. . . . . The tax is:


Not over $29,600 . . . . . 15% of taxable income.
Over $29,600 but not over $76,400. . . . $4,440, plus 28% of the excess over $29,600.
Over $76,400 but not over $127,500 . . . . $17,544, plus 31% of the excess over $76,400.
Over $127,500 but not over $250,000 . . . . . $33,385, plus 36% of the excess over $127,500.
Over $250,000 . . . . . $77,485, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.


(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is. . . . . The tax is:


Not over $22,100 . . . .15% of taxable income.
Over $22,100 but not over $53,500 . . . . . $3,315, plus 28% of the excess over $22,100.
Over $53,500 but not over $115,000 . . . . . $12,107, plus 31% of the excess over $53,500.
Over $115,000 but not over $250,000 . . . . . $31,172, plus 36% of the excess over $115,000.
Over $250,000 . . . . . $79,772, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.



Done. and Done.

Next case please.

And had no significant portion of the population agreed with her, what do you think would have happened?

And had no one seen it, or heard about it, they would have lynched her.

Buncha white sheets, horses, and torches. And a rope.


If this couple, these protesters, can convince enough people to question the Constitutionality of the 16th Amendment, the Constitutionality of the IRS. You will see this type of behavior more and more(which is exactly why they are spending millions to appropriate a fraction of that in tax), repeated(even when they are killed).

But most Americans are sheep. And don't care as long as they have their grass to eat.

§ 1. Tax imposed

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses

Where is the law that says you have to file? I think from what I heard him saying this was his argument. If you file, then you have voluteered to accept the imposition. Who along the line told you, you had to file? Where is that law?
No law compels a work eligible man or woman to submit a form W-4 or W-9(or their equivalent) nor disclose an SSN as a condition of being hired or keeping one's job. With the exception of an order from a court of competent jurisdiction issued by a duly qualified judge, no amounts can be lawfully taken from one's pay (for taxes, fees or other charges) without the worker's explicit, knowing, voluntary, written consent.

The filing of a withholding agreement (W-4 or W-9) is voluntary [26 CFR 31.3402 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=26&PART=31&SECTION=3402(p)-1&YEAR=1999&TYPE=TEXT)(p)-1(b)].


Beyond that I found this page (http://www.voluntarytax.info/Taxes_on_labor.htm)

Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2nd 1378, 9th Cir., (1981)

"Persons dealing with government are charged with knowing government
statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government
agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation"


Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093, 9th
Cir., (1981)

"All persons in the United States are chargeable with knowledge of the
Statutes-at-Large.. It is well established that anyone who deals with
the government assumes the risk that the agent acting in the
government's behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority"


Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238

"The revenue laws are a code or a system in regulation of tax
assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to
non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are
prescribed for non-taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of
their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress
does not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject nor the
object of the revenue laws."


(a) General definition (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000061----000-.html)
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.


U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F2d 400, cert denied, 429 U.S. 918, 50 L.Ed.2d
283, 97 S.Ct. 310 (1976)

"income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code


"Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation." Conner v US 303 F
Supp. 1187 (1969) "There is a clear distinction between `profit' and
wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages)
cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word
`profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or
investment- - - a different thing altogether from the mere
compensation for labor."


1883: Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746.

Defines labor as property, and the most sacred kind of property.
"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of
Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which
is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not
inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their
prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their
highest enjoyment...It has been well said that, THE PROPERTY WHICH
EVERY MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF
ALL OTHER PROPERTY SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE..."


Oliver v Halsted, 86 SE Rep. 2nd 85e9 (1955).". . .reasonable
compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit."
Lauderdale Cemetery Assoc. V Mathews, 345 PA 239; 47 A 2d 277, 280
(1946)

and this one (http://www.preferredservices.org/NonconsentualTaking.html)

If this couple, these protesters, can convince enough people to question the Constitutionality of the 16th Amendment,So now the Constitution itself is unconstitutional? Libertarian idiocy at its finest.

Where is the law that says you have to file?Internal Revenue Code section 6151 (http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-F-62-A-6151.html).

Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).


This doesn't show you are required. What are the requirements?

This doesn't show you are required. What is the definition of requirement?Internal Revenue Code section 6012 (http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-F-61-A-II-B-6012.html). No, it's not when you volunteer (duh). Honestly Swiftfox, your hero here is a loon, he has zero basis for his claims.

a) General rule
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1)
(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 just showed you in multiple court cases that wages for labour cannot be considered income. Here it is again if you missed it.

(a) General definition (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000061----000-.html)
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.


U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F2d 400, cert denied, 429 U.S. 918, 50 L.Ed.2d
283, 97 S.Ct. 310 (1976)

"income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code


"Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation." Conner v US 303 F
Supp. 1187 (1969) "There is a clear distinction between `profit' and
wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages)
cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word
`profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or
investment- - - a different thing altogether from the mere
compensation for labor."


1883: Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746.

Defines labor as property, and the most sacred kind of property.
"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of
Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which
is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not
inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their
prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their
highest enjoyment...It has been well said that, THE PROPERTY WHICH
EVERY MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF
ALL OTHER PROPERTY SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE..."


Oliver v Halsted, 86 SE Rep. 2nd 85e9 (1955).". . .reasonable
compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit."
Lauderdale Cemetery Assoc. V Mathews, 345 PA 239; 47 A 2d 277, 280
(1946)


He's not my hero. If the law isn't written clearly enough that most people can clearly understand it then how can any person be expected to adhere to that law. I disagree with "ignorance of the law isn't an excuse". Since those days there have been thousands of laws passed and not even judges and lawyers can keep up with them all.

I just showed you in multiple court cases that wages for labour cannot be considered income.No, you didn't. Not one of your cases say that, and every federal appellate court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, has squarely stated the obvious fact that income includes wages.

Perhaps you should read your cases them instead of relying on the insane spins your whacko libertarian conspiracy theory sites put on them.

Not this again...

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#voluntary
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#corporations

I refuse to, yet again, post the relevant information regarding the affirmative constitutionality of income taxes levied by the government.

Go read it again.

Yes, the government can levy income taxes. Yes, we have to pay them. Yes, we have to file a return.

Death and Taxes...death and taxes.

LOL, I admire your restraint.