See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: MEDIA WANTS WACO-STYLE MASSACRE
Source:
American Free Press
URL Source: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/waco-style_massacre.html
Published: Feb 5, 2007
Author: Mark Anderson
Post Date: 2007-02-05 16:16:02 by intotheabyss
Keywords: None
Views: 544
Comments: 41
New Hampshire Patriot Not What Mainstream Wants You to Believe The circumstances surrounding the Browns, a New Hampshire couple convicted of federal income tax evasion, could turn on a dime. Recently AFP interviewed Ed Brown, a Plainfield home owner who grew up in the Roxbury slums of Boston. He and Mrs. Brown, who is a dentist, are self-made people who worked hard for their lot in life, only to see it swept away by a government that takes in gargantuan sums of money via taxes on the domestic populace to pay enormous interest on the national debt (which cannot be repaid), much of which is due to America‚s endless military conflicts. When AFP contacted Brown recently, he was living everyday life as best he can at the house he built on their 110 acres. His wife, who he said is in a state of arrest wearing an electronic ankle bracelet—is staying with a son in a neighboring state. “The dental business died a week ago Tuesday,” Brown told AFP. “My wife’s a prisoner—like she’s a flight risk!” The two are supposed to be sentenced April 24, having each been convicted Jan. 18 in federal court in Concord for not paying income taxes since 1996. The government claims the Browns owe some $625,000. “Everybody should say, ‘show me the law and I’ll pay the tax,’ ” Brown told AFP. That is what he told federal authorities who can’t seem to produce a copy of a law requiring payment of the federal income tax. Filmmaker Aaron Russo’s America: From Freedom to Fascism documentary interviews a number of former IRS agents and other authoritative people who say that the powers that be, when asked to provide a copy of the law, such as an enabling statute, that requires U.S. workers to pay federal income tax on their wages, come up empty-handed. Russo concluded that if the federal income tax applies to anyone or anything, it applies to corporate capital gains, not the incomes of individuals, and that the IRS doesn’t even define income. The proverbial “tax man” came down on the Browns just as they had considered selling their home and acreage so they could live in a warmer climate. Notably, their property is across the road from 500 acres owned by Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer. But making the best of the winter weather, individuals and families with children have been over to Brown’s place lately for sledding and skating—before and since the tax trouble began. Life still seems more or less normal, though Brown suspects that federal agents may eventually storm the house and arrest him, perhaps after the publicity on his and his wife’s plight calms down. As of Jan. 25, he said the publicity was still significant, with TV news crews continuing to pay attention. He also told AFP that while he has always paid the 54 other kinds of taxes levied on Americans—with property taxes hitting $14,000 a year on their home and $18,000 a year on their office building for the former dental business—he won’t budge on the federal income tax. For one thing, as already noted, no one can produce a copy of the law that requires payment of an unapportioned tax on the labor of Americans. Moreover, there are due-process issues whereby U.S. District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe apparently disallowed the Browns from bringing forth any evidence or witnesses they needed for defending themselves in court. Also, the issue of federal jurisdiction, or the lack thereof, comes into play, Brown pointed out. Addressing some conventional media reports that characterized his home as a virtual fortress, or “compound” with a “lookout tower,” Brown replied, “It’s a deck, for crying out loud—an octagon-shaped compass deck.” Just below the elevated deck on the large, well-built house—which has solar-power capability and was off the grid from 1990 to 2003—is a reading room. “We’re very mainstream, middle-class people,” said Brown, who noted that media reports suggesting he’s “holed up” in his house are off base. Some areas of the house have been boarded up to keep out blowing snow, so he is not “barricading” himself in the house, he explained. The Union Leader seems also to have played the “antigovernment” card, even though many American patriots make a careful distinction by saying they are anti-corruption of government, not anti-government. Notably, the Associated Press article in The Union Leader couldn’t resist the highly charged word “compound,” which conceivably could create a bunker mentality in the minds of readers and may quell public outrage if federal agents ever decide to forcibly enter Brown’s home to arrest him. As the article claimed: “A jury decided that the Browns plotted to hide their income and avoid taxes on Elaine Brown’s income of $1.9 million between 1996 and 2003. Over 10 years, they also used $215,890 of postal money orders broken into increments just below the reporting threshold to pay for their hilltop compound and for Elaine Brown’s dental offices.” U.S. marshals said on a couple occasions they had no plans to forcibly enter Brown’s property and arrest him, though national media sources quoted marshals as saying that they “have to decide how to seize the Browns’ assets, possibly including their home.” Citing a new twist in this case, a recent issue of The Boston Globe noted that federal agents “seized more than 30 weapons from the Brown house in May.” Brown commented by telling AFP, “They stole $15,000 worth of my guns and turned them over to a gun shop.” Brown was still at home on Jan. 25, preferring only to comment off the record about the situation.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: intotheabyss (#0)
I have posted this a number of time here in 4um, in one large post and at various times in response to posts such as this. I do not recognize your name, so I assume that you are a new comer to 4um, so once again I will post the relavant info, which amounts to the income tax being a contract: it is and does not have to be covered in a law. Social Security Enabling Act of 1935 The Social Security Act of 1935 (See Section 8; Income Tax) http://www.nationalc enter.org/SocialSecurityAct.html (You will note, I assume, that the above site is an official site.) TITLE VIII- TAXES WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages … DEDUCTIBILITY FROM INCOME TAX SEC. 803. For the purposes of the income tax imposed by Title I of the Revenue Act of 1934 or by any Act of Congress in substitution therefor, the tax imposed by section 801 shall not be allowed as a deduction to the taxpayer in computing his net income for the year in which such tax is deducted from his wages. COLLECTION AND PAYMENT OF TAXES SEC. 807. (a) The taxes imposed by this title shall be collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury and shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States as internal- revenue collections. … Did you not sign a contract when you asked for and received a Social Security number, issued by the federal government? Perhaps you should consider this before you become involved in any tax protest movement. And perhaps as you begin to think things through, you should understand that the Income Tax is a contractual matter; Now, if this is not clear enough, go here; http://www.ssa.gov/history/35acv iii.html SEC. 811. When used in this title- (a) The term wages means all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include that part of the remuneration which, after remuneration equal to $3,000 has been paid to an individual by an employer with respect to employment during any calendar year, is paid to such individual by such employer with respect to employment during such calendar year. (b) The term employment means any service, of whatever nature, performed within the United States by an employee for his employer, except- (1) Agricultural labor; (2) Domestic service in a private home; (3) Casual labor not in the course of the employer s trade or business; (4) Service performed by an individual who has attained the age of sixty-five; and etc. So, have you ever termed yourself an employee? Curious minds want to know.
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
ssa.gov sets a lovely cookie: ForeseeLoyalty_MID*
Did anyone else notice the two Superbowl coaches were formerly defensive coordinators? Geesh..
Brown commented by telling AFP, “They stole $15,000 worth of my guns and turned them over to a gun shop.” All wars are fought for money. Irrelevant. I never voted for it or legislated it and it sucks, and as people we have no power to repeal it. Therefore it is an illegal contract since I did not willingly enter into it. And since we have NO control on how the money is spent, mostly on blood and foreigners, the taxman will get nothing this year.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell Thanks for posting from AFP.
"We are Americans. This is our country. He, who would take it from us, by force or by stealth, is our enemy. And it is our purpose -- nay, it is our duty, to our children and to their children and to our yet unborn posterity -- to use all feasible means to destroy him." Dr. Revilo P. Oliver
I think there is a fed in that house. That is the last word you will ever hear from me on the subject of Ed Brown, so please don't ask.
when CNN did a report on this, they referred to his home as a COMPOUND.
How do you figure?! Do you have THE number? Do you use it? (Uh, I do not.) Have you used it continuously for how-many-years? Every time you use the number, you vote for it in the only way that matters, and that is by validation. And if you do not understand this, and are not willing to change this, then your turn will also come. And, as it should. Even in the Bible we are taught to fulfill our contracts. OR DO NOT ENTER INTO THEM, for to do so is to lie, and you will be punished for that!
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
do you have young children for which you MUST have insurance as part of your job to pay THEIR medical bills? do you live in a tent with your small children as i will be doing when my corporation fires me and i have no income? i guess i could just do myself in and give my ex her way and be out ofthe picture altogether..i cant afford my bills now as it is...so perhaps it won't matter anyway soon, especially the way i feel rightnow. God is not going to punish me for being a part of a system from which i can not afford to escape. he's got better things to do..he is a God of love not retribution and hate. that "god" is not my god and if the bible says he's as you describe than i guess i'm no longer a christian
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell He does not bring retribution: WE DO! By our actions. Just as WE buy insurance, which is an admiralty contract. Just as WE put our children into THEIR schools, and then wonder where we went wrong when the children turn against us. Just as WE accept THEIR medical system, rather than accepting PERSONEL responsibility for OUR actions in eating and living. Just as WE do by entering into numerous contracts with THEM which OBLIGATE us and OUR CHILDREN to THEM! Just as WE accept their form of food, which is poisen, slow poisen, yes, but poisen nonetheless, rather than learning what, how and when to eat properly. AND, perhaps most important of all, JUST AS WE THEN TEACH OUR CHILDREN TO DO THE SAME AS WE DID!!!! There are altenatives. They do not come to you; you have to search them out. And you begin by learning about health and nutrition. You begin by stopping the stupidity, such as drinking soda pop and eating pork and such filth. You begin by searching out other forms of work, and begin retraining yourself, and do not tell me it can not be done, cause I did it! AND YOU BEGIN BY WORKING TOWARDS THE FUTURE, AND STOP LIVING FOR THIS MOMENT!!
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
no, He's not.
Eze 34:27 And the tree of the field shall yield her fruit, and the earth shall yield her increase, and they shall be safe in their land, and shall know that I [am] the LORD, when I have broken the bands of their yoke, and delivered them out of the hand of those that served themselves of them. Eze 34:28 And they shall no more be a prey to the heathen, neither shall the beast of the land [ http://www.hisholychurch.n et/sermon/mark2.html ] devour them; but they shall dwell safely, and none shall make [them] afraid.... http://www.bluelett erbible.org/kjv/Eze/Eze034.html#27 He was talking about us, of course, and not them that hate Him AND US....John 10. i guess i could just do myself in and give my ex her way and be out ofthe picture altogether..i cant afford my bills now as it is...so perhaps it won't matter anyway soon, especially the way i feel rightnow. God is not going to punish me for being a part of a system from which i can not afford to escape. he's got better things to do..he is a God of love not retribution and hate. that "god" is not my god and if the bible says he's as you describe than i guess i'm no longer a christian I'm inclined to agree with you. He CHASTIZES those He loves; retribution is reserved for His [and our] enemies. http://www.bluelett erbible.org/kjv/Eze/Eze039.html#10 You hang in there, IndieTX....these are difficult times....but we have to trust that help is on the way. God loves you. We are his people, and they never were. These times have been long ordained...to teach the lesson of I Samuel 8. II Samuel 7:10 is being worked on for us. http://www.bluelett erbible.org/kjv/Eze/Eze039.html#28 Psalm 91 for you and yours.
Should've stashed them in a length of PVC sewer pipe buried underground at his property. The heavily armed police state would've had one hell of time finding 'em then.
Why? Speaking of laws...where is the law that allows "them" to steal our private property?
While some jewspapers are reporting on the story as always the Jew tube is in their usual diversion and distraction mode. No exclusive hour-long one-on-one interviews with either Ed or Elaine Brown. Jew media entertainment combine propaganda, psy-ops and perception management by omission.
Heck if I know. But I do know the heavily armed police state uses its huge weapons cache, supplied for at considerable expense to taxpayers, to enforce their color of laws. Force of arms makes law, not ink on paper.
No question.
Well, if she was convicted of a felony (which apparently she was) federal law says she can't have any firearms. If the firearms are in their collectively owned home, her joint possession of them would be illegal. Can the feds seize them on this basis? Probably. I suspect our complicit police state congress has passed some law or another making this okay.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Great names for what main stream media really is. :)
The firearms were seized upon indictment.
We are using the new constitution. Guilty until proven innocent is what it says I think. When a jury of your peers deems you innocent then your property will possibly be returned and I stress the word possibly
Thanks, but I still have a problem with people's personal property being seized for any reason. If Mr. Brown needs to liquidate his personal property to pay a fine after conviction, that's one thing...otherwise; I don't see justification for taking his guns. That's just me.
Amen!
Well, the theft of her guns by the feds was probably approved by a federal magistrate. Not saying it ain't theft at all, but that's one of the hazards of living in a police state. They steal your guns.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Ah, but you must not be familiar with the Reich's seizure and forfeiture laws. Your property won't be returned unless you pay an attorney to fight for it, and you will likely pay more in fees than the property is worth. Example, the $15,000 worth of guns in this case. No lawyer is gonna go into Federal court for less than a $10,000.00 retainer, and you ain't gonna get attorney's fees suing the gummint. Which is why the gummint routinely seizes the property of poor folks.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
After sentencing, they would be disqualified from possessing firearms. The firearms were probably seized for asset forfeiture, in a civil proceeding. The government doesn't wait for assets to be dissipated while prosecuting a criminal tax evasion case. Reporters can't be expected to get all the details.
Social Security Enabling Act of 1935 The Social Security Act of 1935 (See Section 8; Income Tax) http://www.nationalc http://enter.org/SocialSecurityAct.html In FLEMMING V. NESTOR, 363 U.S. 603 (1960), the Supremes ruled that the Social Security program was not a contract, and that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right. The payment of taxes, Social Security and otherwise, does not entitle anyone to any benefits. There is no honor among thieves.
Yeah?! Indict this!
Thank you SO much for that! Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast [some] of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell That's probably right, upon further consideration. Although say not "seized". Stolen is more honest. By the way, welcome to the Police State.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Ignorantia juris non excusat. Unfortunately, the thieves in Washington have the upper hand in any legal arguments regarding the obligation to file tax returns or pay taxes. The requirement to pay taxes is set forth in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes a tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts as determined by the tables set forth in that section. (Section 11 imposes a tax on the taxable income of corporations.) Furthermore, the obligation to pay tax is also described in section 6151, which requires taxpayers to submit payment with their tax returns. Failure to pay taxes could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties. In discussing section 6151, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that "when a tax return is required to be filed, the person so required 'shall' pay such taxes to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at the fixed time and place. The sections of the Internal Revenue Code imposed a duty on Drefke to file tax returns and pay the . . . tax, a duty which he chose to ignore." United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8 th Cir. 1983). The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in Internal Revenue Code §§ 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a). It is not true, as is sometimes claimed, that "income" is not defined in the law. For federal income tax purposes, "gross income" means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61. Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be income under section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded. In Reese v. United States, 24 F.3d 228, 231 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the court stated, "an abiding principle of federal tax law is that, absent an enumerated exception, gross income means all income from whatever source derived.
"Stolen" is correct. Asset Forfeiture, in general, is legalized theft. What else could you expect from a legal tradition rooted in the deodand, which even Blackstone called "superstition inherited from the blind days of feudalism."
My friend, they were correct! Social Security NEVER WAS and can not be a contract to INSURE benefits! If you read the enabling act, you will find that Social Security IS an income tax, and nothing else! The benefits are, more or less, nothing but welfare! And this is the same world wide; same system, same world wide tax, and that is exactly what the Social Security tax was intended to be. THE world wide taxing system. There will come a time when this is revealed, and that is when THEY come out and admit that they can not continue to make the benefits available because altogether too many people are ENTITLED. And there ain't nobody entitled to Social Security. I figured this out when I was in my 20s! And I quit participating.
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
They do not have to use a ''new'' Constitution; the same ol same ol will do just fine; see, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 to understand.
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
No they don't... There are many deceptions that have worked themselves into our modern age that are vistages of a bygone era. These include the following: The word 'Income' has been redefined. At the time that our tax law was passed, it meant 'profit,' the proceeds of a corporation after deducting expenses. Now that definition has come to include 'wages,' the proceeds of a single individual selling his labor. We know this to be true by reviewing the congressional record of conversations on the floor preceding the vote. The 16th Amendment was never truly ratified. It was forced fed to an unsuspecting public in an era when morse code was the main means of communications. This is the Amendment our modern day legal system says justifies the income tax. Even accepting the 16th as legal, many court cases have declared that this amendment bestows no new taxing power, which renders the current Income Tax unconstitutional! Our current lawmakers are vaguely aware that the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional. When pressed, they admit in closed circles that the Income Tax is voluntary, thus it is legal! And I don't volunteer.
I'm sorry but you are delusional. "Innocent until proven guilty" is pretty straight forward But for those of you who have trouble let me enlighten you. First, to be proven guilty you have to have a trial. until that happens (remember-innocent until proven guilty) you are innocent Being innocent under the US constitution grants you guarantees to Life, Liberty and Property. You cannot take someone’s property if they have not been found guilty. Taking ones guns prior to a trial is blatantly unconstitutional. And the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Until they have a constitutional convention rescinding of modifying: "You are innocent until proven guilty" clause then what you suggest is illogical at best.
These are interesting ideas. intotheabyss: The word 'Income' has been redefined. At the time that our tax law was passed, it meant 'profit,' the proceeds of a corporation after deducting expenses. Now that definition has come to include 'wages,' the proceeds of a single individual selling his labor. We know this to be true by reviewing the congressional record of conversations on the floor preceding the vote. voice of sanity: Please cite the Congressional record pages to which you refer. In addition, if by "our tax law" you mean the Sixteenth Amendment, the text of that amendment reads: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The definition of the term "incomes" is thus of importance. There is, however, no good argument for the proposition that at the time of ratification of that amendment, the term "incomes" did not include wages or salaries or compensation for labor. You will need to cite dictionaries of the time to prove this thesis. The O.E.D. belies this thesis, as does the text of the 1862 income tax law, which levied a tax "upon the annual gains, profits of income of every person residing in the United States, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever." intotheabyss: The 16th Amendment was never truly ratified. It was forced fed to an unsuspecting public in an era when morse code was the main means of communications. This is the Amendment our modern day legal system says justifies the income tax. voice of reason: 36 states ratified it. Although there is some controversy about Kentucky's ratification, it has never been challenged. Perhaps a lawsuit filed in Kentucky, or a bill intoduced into the Kentucky state legislature, to have the ratfication declared illegal, null, and void, would make us all happy. intotheabyss: Even accepting the 16th as legal, many court cases have declared that this amendment bestows no new taxing power, which renders the current Income Tax unconstitutional! voice of reason: That argument seems to have arisen from an understandable misconstruction of the poorly written Supreme Court opinion in STANTON v. BALTIC MINING COMPANY., 36 S. Ct. 278, 240 U.S. 103 (1916), where the court ruled that the 16th Amendment "conferred no new power of taxation...." Some argue that, since the income tax law of 1894 was not legal before the 16th Amendment, and since the Supreme Court, in Stanton, later said that the 16th Amendment conferred no new power, ergo income is still not subject to taxation. However, the entire relevant portion of the above quote was as follows: "[T]he provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, that is by testing the tax not by what it was -- a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed." Stanton, supra, 240 U.S. 112, 113. The Stanton court held, in other words, that congress has always possessed broad powers to tax income and the 16th Amendment simply corrected the court's error of classifying taxes on income derived from property as "direct taxes" subject to apportionment. intotheabyss: Our current lawmakers are vaguely aware that the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional. When pressed, they admit in closed circles that the Income Tax is voluntary, thus it is legal! voice of sanity: By "voluntary," the IRS seems to mean "self-assessed." The obligation to file and pay taxes is not, however, in any sense, voluntary. It is mandatory.
Just curious, do you think the Federal Reserve is a private bank?
The twelve federal reserve banks are owned by member banks, all commercial institutions.
#2. To: richard9151 (#1)
#3. To: intotheabyss (#0)
“lookout tower,” Brown replied, “It’s a deck, for crying out loud—an octagon-shaped compass deck.”
#4. To: intotheabyss, lodwick, IndieTX, innieway, noone222 (#0)
Citing a new twist in this case, a recent issue of The Boston Globe noted that federal agents “seized more than 30 weapons from the Brown house in May.”
~Socrates
#5. To: richard9151 (#1)
which amounts to the income tax being a contract: it is and does not have to be covered in a law.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#6. To: intotheabyss (#0)
#7. To: intotheabyss, Jethro Tull (#0)
Support Ed Brown!
#8. To: Zipporah (#3)
#9. To: IndieTX (#5)
I never voted for it or legislated it and it sucks, and as people we have no power to repeal it.
#10. To: richard9151, all, christine, innieway, ferret mike, jethro tull, zipporah (#9)
(Edited)
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#11. To: IndieTX (#10)
he is a God of love not retribution and hate.
#12. To: IndieTX (#10)
God is not going to punish me for being a part of a system from which i can not afford to escape.
#13. To: IndieTX (#10)
#14. To: intotheabyss (#0)
Brown commented by telling AFP, “They stole $15,000 worth of my guns and turned them over to a gun shop.”
#15. To: Splitends (#14)
Brown commented by telling AFP, “They stole $15,000 worth of my guns and turned them over to a gun shop.”
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#16. To: intotheabyss (#0)
#17. To: who knows what evil (#15)
Why? Speaking of laws...where is the law that allows "them" to steal our private property?
#18. To: Splitends (#17)
Force of arms makes law, not ink on paper.
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#19. To: who knows what evil, aristeides, leveller, any lawyers out there... (#15)
#20. To: Splitends (#16)
While some jewspapers are reporting on the story as always the Jew tube is in their usual diversion and distraction mode.
#21. To: bluedogtxn (#19)
Well, if she was convicted of a felony (which apparently she was) federal law says she can't have any firearms. If the firearms are in their collectively owned home, her joint possession of them would be illegal. Can the feds seize them on this basis?
#22. To: SmokinOPs, bluedogtxn (#21)
The firearms were seized upon indictment.
#23. To: SmokinOPs (#21)
The firearms were seized upon indictment.
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#24. To: who knows what evil (#23)
Thanks, but I still have a problem with people's personal property being seized for any reason.
#25. To: SmokinOPs (#21)
The firearms were seized upon indictment.
#26. To: intotheabyss (#22)
When a jury of your peers deems you innocent then your property will possibly be returned and I stress the word possibly
#27. To: bluedogtxn (#19)
Well, if she was convicted of a felony (which apparently she was) federal law says she can't have any firearms. If the firearms are in their collectively owned home, her joint possession of them would be illegal. Can the feds seize them on this basis?
#28. To: richard9151 (#1)
once again I will post the relavant info, which amounts to the income tax being a contract: it is and does not have to be covered in a law.
#29. To: SmokinOPs (#21)
The firearms were seized upon indictment.
#30. To: intotheabyss (#20)
Great names for what main stream media really is
#31. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, REDPANTHER (#13)
(Edited)
You hang in there, IndieTX....these are difficult times....but we have to trust that help is on the way. God loves you. We are his people, and they never were.
--Rev 2:10
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#32. To: leveller (#27)
The firearms were probably seized for asset forfeiture, in a civil proceeding.
#33. To: intotheabyss (#0)
“Everybody should say, ‘show me the law and I’ll pay the tax,’ ” Brown told AFP. That is what he told federal authorities who can’t seem to produce a copy of a law requiring payment of the federal income tax.
#34. To: bluedogtxn (#32)
Although say not "seized". Stolen is more honest.
#35. To: leveller (#28)
the Supremes ruled that the Social Security program was not a contract, and that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.
#36. To: intotheabyss (#22)
We are using the new constitution
#37. To: leveller (#33)
Unfortunately, the thieves in Washington have the upper hand in any legal arguments regarding the obligation to file tax returns or pay taxes.
#38. To: richard9151, christine (#36)
They do not have to use a ''new'' Constitution; the same ol same ol will do just fine; see, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 to understand.
#39. To: intotheabyss (#37)
#40. To: leveller (#39)
#41. To: intotheabyss (#40)
the Federal Reserve is a private bank
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest