| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| rubylith |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 2:41:29 PM
This is it everybody. This is it.
Police, SWAT Team Surround Ed Brown's Property
New Waco could be unfolding
new Waco could be underway as reports come in of law enforcement, APC's and SWAT team personnel descending on the home of Ed Brown, the tax protester who has threatened to use force to defend himself against authorities.
We have now received unconfirmed reports that the Brown house is on fire - although according to reports, Plainfield – "Federal authorities indicated Thursday they will not raid the home of two convicted tax evaders but would serve a warrant."
According to a phone call from an individual within the house, shots were fired after around 50 men dressed all in black had surrounded the house, but this is unconfirmed as yet.
Fox News reports, "The U.S. Marshal's Service says a supporter of the fugitives was detained near the Browns' home this morning and that they served a federal warrant to seize Elaine Brown's dental office in Lebanon."
In addition, it is being reported that authorities have closed the airspace above Brown's home and that an AP photographer was ordered to leave after flying over the property.
Fred Smart, a close friend of the Brown's confirmed that Brown's phone has been cut and that at around 8:30PM last night a silent surveillance drone with a bright beaming light encircled the Brown's property as if conducting reconnaissance.
News reporters have confirmed that police have surrounded the property and that they were kept away from the property. Neighbors have been evacuted from their homes.
Officer Jack McLamb attempted to call the Sheriff's office in the area but was told that he was out of town.
Authorities have been telling reporters that they would not violently engage the Brown family for the past few months but this now appears to be the case.
"Dozens of heavily armed state police and federal agents have assembled near the rural Grafton County home of tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown."
"About 50 state troopers, some armed with high-powered rifles, along with a vehicle from the explosives unit gathered this morning in Plainfield, a small town where Edward and Elaine Brown have holed up in their home since being convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to lengthy federal prison terms," reports the Plainfield Union Leader.
|
| 72 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 5:45:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rubylith
No it was to you, but Dan is always welcome. There will be video next week. I am really excited, actually my nerves are shot. Alot of preperation for 9/11/07.
www.wearechange.org/91107
i'd like to go, but i'm just not in a situation where i can go. anyway, raise hell (peacefully) and if you see people try to start a riot, call them out on it....oh and don't get hurt! |
| rubylith |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 11:30:40 AM
Sure thing... dave@davecahill.com but I get so much spam send it to dcmedia2@hotmail.com as well. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 8:13:59 PM
whoa whoa. is this more of your gypsy voodoo jazz stuff? you leave me out of it.
incidently, could i have your email address, ruby? it's possible i'll be able to do an article on you and your music. i do arts and entertainment for my college paper, and i reckon i'll get the ok from the editor for the article. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 10:07:35 AM
No it was to you, but Dan is always welcome. There will be video next week. I am really excited, actually my nerves are shot. Alot of preperation for 9/11/07.
www.wearechange.org/91107 |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 03:05:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rubylith
Haha
I'm emailing you soon bro. Can you come to NYC next weekend??
sorry man, NYC is well over 1400 miles away from where i live, and right now i can hardly afford the gas it takes to get around town. so i pretty much just stick to talking about/protesting this stuff on the internet.
unless you're talking to dan p. in which case, just pretend the above paragraph doesn't exist. what above paragraph? exactly!  |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 02:52:34 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
5- was he forced to take them. they actually gave him the meds against his will? or did he just take whatever drugs they gave him?
according to benson he was forced to take them. like anyone, he could be lying, but personally, i doubt it:
quote:
Benson was on prescribed medication for encephalitis. That medication was confiscated, and "four guards and three nurses entered my cell and forcibly injected me with different medication
quote:
1, 2, 4- extensive! thank you very much for digging that up. a little vague in parts, maybe, and i didn't see anything about taxechussets, but that's some very interesting information. i'll definitely start looking at the constitutions for those states and maybe have to revise my stance here.
sure thing. good luck in your search. i don't know if every piece of information you'd need is on the internet though; trying to find out what each state's constitution was in 1913 will be tough. from what i understood from the article, benson had to travel to every state capital and do research there, but i might be misinterpreting what the article said:
quote:
That research took him to the archives in the state capitals of each of the 48 states that were part of the United States in 1913, when the 16th Amendment was passed by the Congress.
either way, good luck  |
| rubylith |
Posted - 09/03/2007 : 03:28:55 AM
Haha
I'm emailing you soon bro. Can you come to NYC next weekend?? |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/03/2007 : 02:59:29 AM
5- was he forced to take them. they actually gave him the meds against his will? or did he just take whatever drugs they gave him?
3- then you like things that fail. hahaha.
6- i believe we don't need to cover this topic further.
1, 2, 4- extensive! thank you very much for digging that up. a little vague in parts, maybe, and i didn't see anything about taxechussets, but that's some very interesting information. i'll definitely start looking at the constitutions for those states and maybe have to revise my stance here.
|
| pants_happy |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 4:35:33 PM
quote:
1. so those two states did pass it?
2. how were their constitutions violated?
3. you know it's 10 points off every day that it's late, right? minnesota fails. as usual.
4. what changes?
5. proof that the government intentionally gave him the wrong meds to hurt him? wasn't some sort of mistake? those happen.
6. that and ass rape.
edit: the bolding is all fucked up but i don't know how to fix it.
1,2,4:
quote:
Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.
The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.
Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.
In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!
In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.
Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.
If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.
The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.
Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.
Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.
When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.
These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn't have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.
Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not have.
The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above).
http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm
3- but i happen to like minnesota 
5- take away his meds and forcefully give him different ones. i'd hardly call that unintentional or a mistake.
6- agreed  |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 12:33:32 PM
quote:
WASHINGTON -- Evidence strongly suggests that the 16th Amendment, which establishes the income tax, was not approved properly as required by the Constitution and was fraudulently ratified.
"If this evidence is true, the income tax is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," says Robert L. Schulz.
Schulz is head of We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., a New York state-based organization that hosted a symposium in Washington last week on the topic, "Are the Income and Social Security Taxes Legal?" The foundation twice sent registered letters to President Clinton, Senate President Pro Tempore Trent Lott, and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, as well as the Internal Revenue Service, asking them to send representatives to the symposium who could explain the government's case for the legality of the income tax. They received no response, much less a speaker, but part of the conference was covered by C-SPAN and that resulted in hundreds of friendly responses from viewers.
A key speaker at the symposium was William J. Benson, author of a two-volume investigative report on the ratification of the 16th Amendment entitled "The Law That Never Was."
Benson was a special agent with the Illinois Department of Revenue for 10 years. He was fired after uncovering evidence of corruption in the agency. It took more than six years to get his case into a federal court, but the jury awarded him "a large amount," he says, for violations of his First Amendment rights.
What followed his victory is an even more amazing story. Benson delved into the history of the federal income tax -- the granddaddy of the state income taxes -- and became suspicious. He noted irregularities in the ratification of the 16th Amendment and pressed on in his research.
That research took him to the archives in the state capitals of each of the 48 states that were part of the United States in 1913, when the 16th Amendment was passed by the Congress. The Constitution requires ratification of amendments by three-fourths of the states, and Benson's meticulous research says this was never properly done. Secretary of State Philander Knox declared the amendment ratified on the basis of a report from his solicitor, but that report was "fraudulent," says Benson.
In each state archive, Benson uncovered the records of that state's consideration of the proposed amendment. To present a legally acceptable case "you must have documents that are notarized and certified," he explains. "Otherwise they're considered hearsay in court."
All total, Benson collected 17,000 documents, all properly notarized and certified by officials of the states. And what they reveal is shocking.
The ratification required by at least 36 states -- three-fourths of the 48 states then in existence -- has to be identical to the amendment passed by Congress. Benson cites federal documents affirming that for state approval to be acceptable, neither words nor punctuation can be changed. And the states may not violate their own state constitutions in ratifying the amendment.
Of the 48 states, here's the story:
Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment.
Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitutions to empower the federal government to tax.
Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded vote count, and only 1. later declared it passed without a recorded vote after the amendment was declared ratified by Knox.
2. Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Washington violated their state constitutions in their ratification procedures.
3. Minnesota did not send any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed one, as required.
4. And Oklahoma, Georgia and Illinois made unacceptable changes in wording. (Some of the above states also made such changes, in addition to their other unacceptable procedures.)
Take 48 states, deduct these 21, and you have proper ratification by only 27 states -- far less than the required 36.
Benson's story doesn't end with the compilation and publication of his research. As expected, his evidence that our present system of government is based on a fraud did not get a friendly reception in Washington. Benson says a senatorial aide attempted to bribe him. Suppress all copies of your books, he was told, and "you will live in comfort for the rest of your life."
Benson didn't cooperate, and he landed in prison on income tax charges.
"Going to prison was not easy," he told the symposium, "but because I had written volume one and was speaking about it, the government was determined to put me in prison."
And that wasn't all. Benson was on prescribed medication for encephalitis. That medication was confiscated, and 5. "four guards and three nurses entered my cell and forcibly injected me with different medication." As a result, he spent nearly two years in prison in a wheelchair.
"I now have to use a cane and walker, and often a wheelchair," Benson said, "all because of the federal government."
An appellate court reversed Benson's conviction, and he was free after 15 months and five days. But, ignoring prohibitions of double jeopardy, the Feds clamped him in prison again. And took away his medication again.
This time he was in jail only 22 days. His wife had appealed to Congress, and after a congressional inquiry the prison authorities stopped his overmedication and returned him to his original prescribed medication. The judge who had jailed him was furious when presented with evidence that the government's actions were unlawful, and ordered him released.
The latest chapter in Benson's saga is the counterattack.
"As soon as I get back to Illinois I'm suing them -- every one of them," Benson told WorldNetDaily -- and he started listing them: four U.S. attorneys, a first assistant U.S. attorney, and assistant U.S. attorney. All except the judge, that is. "I could sue the judge -- no question -- but I'm not going to do that," Benson added.
"[b]6. Fear is the worst thing you face," said Benson of his prison experiences. And now it's time for the prosecutors who were his persecutors to be afraid.
1. so those two states did pass it?
2. how were their constitutions violated?
3. you know it's 10 points off every day that it's late, right? minnesota fails. as usual.
4. what changes?
5. proof that the government intentionally gave him the wrong meds to hurt him? wasn't some sort of mistake? those happen.
6. that and ass rape.
edit: the bolding is all fucked up but i don't know how to fix it. |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 6:04:57 PM
ah that's where it went. no problem, Fluffy. i probably should've put it here in the first place. thanks.
*edit- i see that sometime ago rubylith posted a link to the video i described. can you tell i skipped reading this thread before posting my own? 
that said, it's still well worth the time it takes to watch the documentary...or watch it again if you've seen it before. there is a lot of confusion in this thread about whether or not the 16th amendment was ratified, whether taxes must be apportioned or not (which, if the 16th wasn't ratified, then indeed taxes must be apportioned) and what the actual meaning of the word "income" was, as it was used at the time.
i'm not an expert on taxes, but when the IRS itself can't show the law requiring people to pay a tax on their income, and when former IRS agent after former IRS agent say that such a law doesn't exist, and in turn refuse to pay taxes themselves, i tend to believe the agents. when several people, including former IRS agents, are charged with failing to pay taxes, and are cleared of the charges because the prosecutors literally can't show the law that requires them to pay, that speaks volumes.
the documentary shows how time and again, both defendant and jury alike requested said law requiring people to pay the Income Tax, as showing such a law would conclusively determine the legality of avoiding paying taxes. however, their requests were always either denied or ignored. so if there was such a law, why didn't the prosecutors show the law in their cases against Gaylon "Whitey" Harrell or former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent Joe Banister, among others? so how in the world could they be acquitted when everyone "knows" its the law to pay the Income Tax?
since the defendants in the above cases didn't argue whether or not they had actually paid their taxes, but instead built their defense around the notion that such a tax has no legal basis and therefore their actions were perfectly legal, there are two possibilities regarding those cases and more:
1) the prosecutors, the government, and the IRS do indeed know the law that requires people to pay the Income Tax, but for one reason or another refused to show the law in those cases, and let the defendants go scott free, or
2) the law simply does not exist, thus it can't be shown.
This brings to mind an article I read about Bill Benson, an individual who worked as a special agent with the Illinois Department of Revenue for 10 years:
quote:
By David Franke
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
July 9, 1999
WASHINGTON -- Evidence strongly suggests that the 16th Amendment, which establishes the income tax, was not approved properly as required by the Constitution and was fraudulently ratified.
"If this evidence is true, the income tax is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," says Robert L. Schulz.
Schulz is head of We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., a New York state-based organization that hosted a symposium in Washington last week on the topic, "Are the Income and Social Security Taxes Legal?" The foundation twice sent registered letters to President Clinton, Senate President Pro Tempore Trent Lott, and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, as well as the Internal Revenue Service, asking them to send representatives to the symposium who could explain the government's case for the legality of the income tax. They received no response, much less a speaker, but part of the conference was covered by C-SPAN and that resulted in hundreds of friendly responses from viewers.
A key speaker at the symposium was William J. Benson, author of a two-volume investigative report on the ratification of the 16th Amendment entitled "The Law That Never Was."
Benson was a special agent with the Illinois Department of Revenue for 10 years. He was fired after uncovering evidence of corruption in the agency. It took more than six years to get his case into a federal court, but the jury awarded him "a large amount," he says, for violations of his First Amendment rights.
What followed his victory is an even more amazing story. Benson delved into the history of the federal income tax -- the granddaddy of the state income taxes -- and became suspicious. He noted irregularities in the ratification of the 16th Amendment and pressed on in his research.
That research took him to the archives in the state capitals of each of the 48 states that were part of the United States in 1913, when the 16th Amendment was passed by the Congress. The Constitution requires ratification of amendments by three-fourths of the states, and Benson's meticulous research says this was never properly done. Secretary of State Philander Knox declared the amendment ratified on the basis of a report from his solicitor, but that report was "fraudulent," says Benson.
In each state archive, Benson uncovered the records of that state's consideration of the proposed amendment. To present a legally acceptable case "you must have documents that are notarized and certified," he explains. "Otherwise they're considered hearsay in court."
All total, Benson collected 17,000 documents, all properly notarized and certified by officials of the states. And what they reveal is shocking.
The ratification required by at least 36 states -- three-fourths of the 48 states then in existence -- has to be identical to the amendment passed by Congress. Benson cites federal documents affirming that for state approval to be acceptable, neither words nor punctuation can be changed. And the states may not violate their own state constitutions in ratifying the amendment.
Of the 48 states, here's the story:
Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment.
Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitutions to empower the federal government to tax.
Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded vote count, and only later declared it passed without a recorded vote after the amendment was declared ratified by Knox.
Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Washington violated their state constitutions in their ratification procedures.
Minnesota did not send any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed one, as required.
And Oklahoma, Georgia and Illinois made unacceptable changes in wording. (Some of the above states also made such changes, in addition to their other unacceptable procedures.)
Take 48 states, deduct these 21, and you have proper ratification by only 27 states -- far less than the required 36.
Benson's story doesn't end with the compilation and publication of his research. As expected, his evidence that our present system of government is based on a fraud did not get a friendly reception in Washington. Benson says a senatorial aide attempted to bribe him. Suppress all copies of your books, he was told, and "you will live in comfort for the rest of your life."
Benson didn't cooperate, and he landed in prison on income tax charges.
"Going to prison was not easy," he told the symposium, "but because I had written volume one and was speaking about it, the government was determined to put me in prison."
And that wasn't all. Benson was on prescribed medication for encephalitis. That medication was confiscated, and "four guards and three nurses entered my cell and forcibly injected me with different medication." As a result, he spent nearly two years in prison in a wheelchair.
"I now have to use a cane and walker, and often a wheelchair," Benson said, "all because of the federal government."
An appellate court reversed Benson's conviction, and he was free after 15 months and five days. But, ignoring prohibitions of double jeopardy, the Feds clamped him in prison again. And took away his medication again.
This time he was in jail only 22 days. His wife had appealed to Congress, and after a congressional inquiry the prison authorities stopped his overmedication and returned him to his original prescribed medication. The judge who had jailed him was furious when presented with evidence that the government's actions were unlawful, and ordered him released.
The latest chapter in Benson's saga is the counterattack.
"As soon as I get back to Illinois I'm suing them -- every one of them," Benson told WorldNetDaily -- and he started listing them: four U.S. attorneys, a first assistant U.S. attorney, and assistant U.S. attorney. All except the judge, that is. "I could sue the judge -- no question -- but I'm not going to do that," Benson added.
"Fear is the worst thing you face," said Benson of his prison experiences. And now it's time for the prosecutors who were his persecutors to be afraid.
|
| Fluffy |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 2:18:41 PM
hey pants_happy, I hope you don't mind that I moved your post into this thread since it seems to fall right in line with the discussion here. I didn't feel there was need for a new thread.
Posted by pants_happy - 08/30/2007 : 02:48:08 AM
quote:
The film linked below, made by the late Aaron Russo, explores the Income Tax, the Federal Reserve, and the bankers behind both. It shows why we must pay a tax on our labor, something which is expressly prohibited by the Constitution. If you have ever wondered what the big deal regarding the Income Tax is, why people such as Irwin Schiff, Ed and Elaine Brown, and countless others are willing to risk life and limb to oppose it, then wonder no more. Through interviews, documents, and laws, Russo shows why every American should count themselves among the 'countless others' opposed to the Income Tax, and why this documentary may very well be the most important film you'll ever watch.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
|
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 2:18:54 PM
Ya, I've been impressed as well with Kucinich and Paul so far especially when talking about the Fed.
I'm around 400 pages into the book now and it's enlightening to say the least. It should be a must read for anyone considering serious study in political or economic fields. Thanks for sharing Fluffy! |
| rubylith |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 1:18:51 PM
Hooray for Kucinich and Ron Paul!
|
| Fluffy |
Posted - 08/20/2007 : 11:50:26 AM
Hey Zachmozach, here is the latest email from AMI & Stephen Zarlenga:
Dear Friends of the American Monetary Institute,
As our banking system sinks into its most recent debacle, once again
demonstrating what should be described as its "criminal" nature (in
quotes because these financiers use their control over our money system to "legalize" their nefarious activities); we again observe why our nation's money system would be much better off under societal
(governmental) control rather than the present private control.
Even the descriptive term "sub prime borrowers" mislabels the problem - blaming the borrowers instead of the bank/hedge fund lenders. What should we call them? How about "Sub human." Pushing borrowers into variable rate mortgages, at a time when borrowers should have gotten fixed rate mortgages at historically low interest rates!
Our 2007 AMI Monetary Reform Conference at Roosevelt University,
September 27-30th will discuss this anti-social nature of the present
money and banking system foisted on us by what should be treated as a
criminal gang, instead of being respected as the wealthiest in our
midst. How the wealth was obtained matters! Whether it's the result of real production and thought and work, or the result of usurious theft, does matter! Whether the control of society is in the hands of producing, thinking and working, moral people, or in the hands of unscrupulous thieves does matter! Just look at today's world.
To jog your memory, because the corporate media won't, here's some bank background, from memory:
May, 2005 Citibank and Merrill Lynch pay $1.25 billion to settle a
lawsuit brought against them by the Enron Pension fund, which alleged
fraud in assisting Enron in its pillage and theft of the pension fund's assets, in Enron's almost unbelievable series of frauds against American states and citizens.
Mid 90's BCCI Banking scandal
Early 1990s Savings and Loan Crisis develops out of Reagan's removal of government regulations on them.
Early 1980's prime interest rates rise to 20% area, partly to get Reagan elected, and new bank legislation passed.
Early and mid 1970s banking scandal bailouts involving Franklin
National, Banco Ambrosiano, Continental Illinois.
1930s The Great Depression, leading into WW 2, caused by moronic
banking. (see The Lost Science of Money book, Chapter 20)
And I'm sure I've missed a number of debacles above. Friends the history of banking control over our money system, is a history of fraud, villainy and stupidity. Yet when we and others propose reforms, we face demands for complete unrealistic perfection in our proposals or we are attacked as being "dangerous" to the system. Well I would certainly hope that we are dangerous to this particular system, which is now harming humanity, and has always harmed humanity! The progress made in some specific areas has been in spite of this banking/money system, not because of it.
But friends there is also some good news:
Presidential candidates in both the Republican and Democratic nomination for President race, are identifying the problem - which is the first step in its solution.
Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul has actually stood up against the power of the Federal Reserve System, and challenged their very existence. While the AMI may not share his particular vision of how to solve the problem, nonetheless we congratulate his courage and
determination in taking this first step - to challenge their private
control over the American Monetary and banking system. Congressman Paul is also a strong advocate of ending the Iraq war, and realizes that to end warfare, one must remove the monetary system incentive to start unnecessary wars, which exist in our present money system.
And just this morning in the Democratic Presidential debate we saw a
remarkable answer to a debate question given by Cleveland Congressman
Dennis Kucinich who is seeking the Democratic Nomination for President. Here is the excerpt:
STEPHANOPOULOS: We're running toward the end of the 90 minutes... We
saw, on Friday, the Federal Reserve lowered the discount rate for banks. Should they lower rates for everyone else, yes or no?
KUCINICH: The answer is no. The Fed is actually looking at bailing out the creditors. And what we're looking at is a continuation of the
problem and a postponement of the day of reckoning.
We need to have a government take strong action where we'll loan money to those who are in trouble. But we need to do that in exchange for having the power, the money-lending power that the banks have right now, come back to the government; government spends money into circulation; and then government can maintain control over the economy.
KUCINICH: Unless we take this action, we're looking at a situation of
the collapse of our economy, and we're looking at a situation where
these hedge funds will try to get a bail-out while millions of Americans lose their homes. Save the American homeowners.
(APPLAUSE)
End of excerpt, taken from ABC's Transcript of the debate.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich has taken an important step here, and should be congratulated for bringing up this crucial issue in a nationally televised forum.
You see friends, whatever reforms you are striving for, whether its
health care, or a cleaner environment, or greater justice in the
criminal justice system or a more fair minimum wage, or writing off
unjust loans extended to 3rd world nations, or an end to the gross
stupidity of nonsense WARS for profit; the only way any of those goals can be achieved in a lasting, permanent way, is to have monetary reform.
The reason is simply that whoever controls the money system ultimately controls the society. You all know this - instinctively - if not from experience. This has always been the dominant issue in American Politics - though often unrecognized. Please see my presentation at the Green Party's National Convention, linked at our website.
This money issue could become the major issue, especially if people had a way to easily understand what is involved financially. Thats why the AMI has worked on something called the Monetary Transparency Act, which makes it easy to understand how much power and money is being drained out of our society to support the controllers of our present insane banking and monetary system. You can see the act described at our website at http://www.monetary.org
Also please look there at our 2007 conference schedule taking shape there at http://www.monetary.org/2007schedule.html
There is still time (6 weeks) to sign up to attend the conference -
special discounts for Students & activists. By the way both Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul have been invited as speakers.
Warm regards,
Stephen Zarlenga
Ami |
| rubylith |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 1:45:27 PM
I am performing at Ed & Elaine's house again September 8th if anyone wants to come! |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 1:23:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fluffy
Hey Zachmozach, in direct response to your last post I thought I would finally share this info since it seems like someone is actually interested in learning more about it. Wanted to mention it sooner but didn't know if anyone would pay attention. LOL TR and myself were introduced to Stephen A. Zarlenga by Dennis Kucinich. When we played in Cincinati, Dennis brought Stephen to dinner with us and Stephen presented TR with a copy of his book, "The Lost Science of Money". After TR read the book he was blown away and he passed it off to me to read and BOY! what an eye-opening book. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to understand a little better how the monetary system ACTUALLY works(or doesn't hehe) and how we got in the state we are currently in and offers great alternatives to getting out of this situation.
So I'm about a hundred or so pages in and I'm loving it so far. Very in depth and interesting. I like the ideas formulated about the fall of rome due to monetary policies such as minting gold coins where the silver to gold ratio is much higher in the west than it was in the east. It all makes sense and his origins of money has been very enlightening. I should finish it sometime in the next few weeks or earlier. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 07/25/2007 : 11:54:15 AM
haha ok. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 07/25/2007 : 07:07:27 AM
Wouldn't you? |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 11:52:32 PM
Fluffy thanks for the recommendation. I think my political science teacher may have used a quote from that book in his own, but I've have to take a look. He really detailed well in his book and classes the monetary policy and evolution (or should I say devolution) of the policies.
I also have read William Greider's book Secrets of the Temple. It's a hard read to be honest but well worth it. I really like that Henry Ford quote "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." |
| dan p. |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 9:31:38 PM
i would like to see what you originally posted. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 4:48:23 PM
EDIT: There goes my steam. |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 12:11:40 AM
Well, to be correct, it was Tolkien who said that, because he wrote it. The character Gandalf the Grey/Olórin/Mithrandir/Greyhame/Stormcrow/Incánus/Tharkûn/ect. said it, but Tolkien put the words in his mouth.
I just kind of thought I'd use this post to look up some Tolkien stuff . . . sorry for taking up your serious time and debate. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 07/23/2007 : 2:21:26 PM
Fuckin' Gandolf.
All hail personal resposibilty!
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 07/23/2007 : 1:50:49 PM
ah, i seem to have misinterpreted that. i apologize.
i agree with the sentiment in your last post. you do what you feel you have to, you know? and you do the best you can. i believe it was gandalf the grey who once said "we have to do the best we can with the time given us." oh, gandalf. you're so wise.
i never tried to make changes on a grand scale like you do, and i never aimed to. i find, how ever (or if) it ends, i can bear that with tremendous fortitude. i don't see how i owe strangers anything, nor do i see how they owe me anything. i don't expect them to help me. i suppose i guess i just can't relate to the desire to make changes for some greater good on a large scale on issues that don't really concern me or people i care about. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 07/23/2007 : 11:34:49 AM
Hey Dan, I did not mean the coward comment as a personal one towards you at all, I hope you know that. I just meant anyone who doesn't care about things that in my opinion matter.
I am just pissed off at what is happening to this country I love so much, and I look around at people I care about and they aren't doing anything about it. I mean NOTHING.
Now I have people attacking me because they saw me on the wearechange video, e-mailing me death threats.
This whole thing is disheartening and it makes me embarassed to be "American". Maybe we deserve what we are headed for.
I am just going to focus on my music, my family, my friends and my beautiful farm, and when the come down comes down, I know that I tried, atleast a little bit.
Everyone else who didn't even try, will just have to live, or die with that, and learn from it in their next life.
Fluffy, I heard a lot of good things about Stephen, I will have to buy the book.
|
| Fluffy |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 4:03:35 PM
Hey Zachmozach, in direct response to your last post I thought I would finally share this info since it seems like someone is actually interested in learning more about it. Wanted to mention it sooner but didn't know if anyone would pay attention. LOL TR and myself were introduced to Stephen A. Zarlenga by Dennis Kucinich. When we played in Cincinati, Dennis brought Stephen to dinner with us and Stephen presented TR with a copy of his book, "The Lost Science of Money". After TR read the book he was blown away and he passed it off to me to read and BOY! what an eye-opening book. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to understand a little better how the monetary system ACTUALLY works(or doesn't hehe) and how we got in the state we are currently in and offers great alternatives to getting out of this situation.
http://www.monetary.org/lostscienceofmoney.html
Dennis was a huge fan of Stephen's and was hoping to use what he learned to help reform our failing financial system. If you truly want to read one of the most in-depth attempts at explaining it all check out the book. The book is not as overwhelming as it sounds and is well written and easily understandable to even a dolt like me. Check it out! Dennis is even featured on their homepage:
http://www.monetary.org/
In Stephen's latest email from his email list he mentioned that he spoke at the Green Party National Convention in Reading Pennsylvania, on July 12th. The title of the talk was "GREENING THE DOLLAR - Reclaiming Democratic values Through Monetary Reform".
http://www.monetary.org/greenpartytalk.html
I think you will also find that quite informative given the topics discussed in your last post. Hope this helps. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 3:16:32 PM
I've talked about how to change things before and my ideas on the subject. People are always wondering what to do to create change. When I look at the things Ghandi did to try to create change a lot of it was education and non-cooperation besides the fact that he literally was like the slogan the change he wanted to see.
I'm all for completely changing the monetary system and abolishing the world bank and completely changing fiscal policy. So look at our best options for making this happen.
One we are not organized enough to stop paying taxes and the government will just take them. In fact most people don't have the option to not pay taxes because the government will take them through garnishment or what have you.
So two we logically need to organize and educate people on the monetary system. I personally have heard the guy who made the freedom to fascism interviewed on a local cable show here in portland. I was not impressed just as I was not impressed by the movie. In a couple hours someone could very easily communicate to people the basics of our monetary and fiscal policies and the problems coming from them.
What I would like to see is real scholarly work being done by individuals which I admit is damn hard and thus not likely to succeed. I do all I can bare to educate myself on stuff like this, and I try to help others gain this knowledge. It has been my personal experience that once people start getting info on stuff that they know they can't ignore because sooner or later it will not be ignoring them, they start actively pursuing more knowledge and changing. Some people not much and others get way into it.
Of course I don't believe in the democratic processes as they exist now and feel like we are doomed and hold very little hope for the future as our government becomes more and more fascist ideologically. It's sad to me that the only thing that can actually save our government is our democratic process. However that doesn't mean I stop doing what I do, but that I try to just get people around me interested. I'm not going to be happy with any government though so it's a tough one. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 3:18:36 PM
i'm surprised that you've decided to call me a coward. let's get one thing straight right now. you don't get to call me a coward. ok? you know very little about who i am, and my fortitude or whatever is not up for debate, least of all by you simply because i'm not active in your causes or your scene (and it is a scene.) shouting down politicians who speak in public and handing out pamphlets does not grant you the right to make any sort of judgment call about me vis-a-vis cowardice. i'm going to assume that you called me a coward because you were caught up in the heat of what you were saying.
your problem, aside from grandoise and epic slogans and turns of phrases (turn of phrases? turns of phrase?) is that you see all of these problems in simple black and white. you see your stance and the people who believe as you do, and then you simply strawman and stereotype everyone who disagrees. it works great, though. the people you hate do it, too. your worldview allows for active, intelligent people who are against the things your against and for the things you are for, and for lazy mindless fat american slobs who believe whatever they're told. it doesn't allow for the possibility of someone who is reasonably smart to disagree with you. i suppose such an allowance would cause you quite a bit of cognitive dissonance. that's probably why you ignore every single point anyone has against the things you post.
but the world doesn't exist that way. the world isn't the good guys (you) vs. the bad guys (them) with everyone else being too stupid and lazy to do anything. the reason i don't do what you do and believe as you believe has nothing to do with stupidity or cowardice. aside from the fact that the 9/11 conspiracy theory hasn't proven government involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, is that i just don't care. it's not important to me outside of debate. what i care about is myself, the people i love, and the things and ideas that are important to me. is it for them that i have fought and will fight. everyone and everything else be damned. let me elaborate. if the government kills, say, you, for some reason, rest assured i, along with the others you know will do something, would fight one way or another. you as a person fall within the scope of my concern. i've held converse with you, and honest to god we will meet a tr show eventually. you're not a bad person. that's what matters to me. but if they kill this ed brown guy? fuck 'em. let other people, the people who know and care about him, fight his fight. he doesn't mean anything to me.
you fight your fight, man. you do what's right by you, and i wish you the best. but it isn't my fight or my concern, and not fighting with you says nothing about me. never think it. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 03:47:49 AM
If our government kills him, like they killed so many others, a thousand will take his place.
If I was killed by my government, I know a hundred friends that would fight back...peacfully, violently, organized and disorganized. They would fucking flip...and that's just me. Ed Brown has many supporters all over the world. They kill him, they just expose to the whole world further that our government is made up of criminal, shitholes world bent on killing and world domination.
It's puring fuel to this fire. We will not be silenced.
Our government carried out 9/11, they carried out the warsssssssss, they destroyed our constitution, ripping it to shreds, they rigged our elections with technology and corporate donors, they murdered our hopeful, PEACEFUL saviors, they taxed us to the bone, they dumbed down the masses with the media and fluff, they injected our children with mecury filled vaccines, they polluted our air and water supply, they genetically engineered the fucking food we eat.
If that doesn't make you want to stand your ground, fight to the death, and cause a real change, not behind a computer, but at the front lines...If that doesn't make you want to do something, whatever it is, whether is be not funding the war you oppose already, or breaking the power monopoly of the media distributing the propaganda you're fed, then I call you a coward.
It's time to stop these sadistic criminals.
We cut the head of this beast off by destroying the funds from the PRIVATE BANK the Federal Reserve...and most importantly...
9/11 TRUTH ENDS WARS, period.
And there is no way in hell any of these wars we all oppose will cease without throwing these disgusting, EVIL, scumbags in jail for alone their crimes of 9/11...that is proven WITHOUT A CREDIBLE DOUBT, that our government was involved with the FINANCING, PLANNING AND EXECUTING of that awful day.
Otherwise we could just blog about it, live in our bubble, and NOT HAVE KIDS in the future.
it's time to take a stand, and I stand with Mr. Brown.
Death Before Dishonor.
Or maybe I'm wrong...maybe it's all ok.
Do you have a better idea?
Cause I don't.
The time of talking shit is over. We mean action, and we fucking mean it now. Atleast for one more generation until they get power hunger and fuck it up...like all the rest. Atleast I know I knew, I tired, and above all I hoped.
Are humans just incapable of getting along? Is war inevitable? Are we cursed with this dark shadow following us? Or is there a way to make this work, for the people and BY THE PEOPLE?
Are we design for failure?
It sure seams like it.
Oh...I'll take a Wopper with Cheese, sorry I gotta get back watch some 24 dvds and Seinfeld re-runs, think about which pro war democat or republicrat I'll vote for, get intoxicated on legal(Merk good for you...) and illegal(CIA((crack))... bad for you) drugs, complain to everyone the world hates us, by organic cheese to make myself feel good about myself, claim to care about the environment and want the GOVERNMENT to tax me, put a microchip in my kids and not goto a single town council meeting.
Hmmm I think I'd rather take a stand.
I'd rather die fighting...then watch my whole world collapse because everyone is too stupid, senile, drugged up, apathetic, and brainwashed to do anything about it.
"The people shouldn't be afraid of its government, the government should be afraid of its people."
If that's the case so be it.
Bring it on. I have decided to fight back.
The only question now is...will you, when will you and how will you?
Goodnight...and goodluck.
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 6:51:36 PM
well dave, that's one school of thought. the way i see it, basically when you work, what you're doing is selling your labor; your time and your effort. labor is a good, a ware, not a god given anything. the price for this labor is your earnings, whatever those may be. in that light, it's reasonable to tax it, because it's just another good. that's all labor is when you work for someone else: nothing holy, nothing god given. just another good being sold.
also, death before honor is bullshit. it's self-centered and selfish. ok, let's say you refuse to pay your taxes and threaten the government with violence if they try to take it. then let's say they kill you for threatening them and then take your tax money. how much good is your fucking honor now that you're dead? will your honor be there to comfort your loved ones? will your honor be of any use to you, no that you've ceased to exist? will your honor keep fighting for your cause? the answer is no, no, no. your honor won't even make you taste better to the worms. honor in death is a fool's prize, because the dead have no use for honor, nor do those who survive him. how about living for something instead of dying for something? i would go by the maxim "honor in life, and try like hell not to die for as long as possible."
also, school teach whatever the source of their money tells them to teach. he who pays the piper calls the tune. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 6:02:15 PM
I guess I should say or maybe I shouldn't say that I don't really pay taxes myself, but when my money comes from various sources from playing gigs and I'm a student, that's kind of the way it goes. Now if I had a steady job, I wouldn't pay my taxes the government would take them. If you want to resist paying taxes then go ahead I say. Just don't claim the government can't lock you up or whatever for it. However I still feel the best possibility to get the government back on track on this or any matter is through education. I'm no fan of democracy or even government, but you have to use that to make things better. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 7:17:56 PM
HAHAHAHA I'm so sorry! hahahaha
Fluffy, you are the epitome of cool!!! |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 4:29:24 PM
quote:
no more wasting time on mindless fluff
I take particular offense to this phrase, I can't help it if I am mindless. The rest sounds good to me. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 1:26:34 PM
IRS is a private corporation much like the Federal Reserve is a private bank.
The definition of Income as defined by the supreme court is NOT income from our labor, but rather things like interest and profit. You CANNOT tax a persons labor because it is a God given right that we may work to support ourselves.
Would you want to serve 5 years in a federal jail?
I'd fight to the death too.
And he is making believe wake up and realize that our government needs to be stopped. RIGHT NOW.
no more wasting time on mindless fluff, it's time to take action, stand up and do what's right at defending this country. i want to have a family some day. We must do something to stop this war. not sit around waiting for someone else to fix it.
i don't know about you, but I am done funding this war.
Semper Fi
Live Free or Die
Death Before Dishonor.
Also this is a good explanation by a guy running for office.
The point that I am making here is that the term income tax as is stated in the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Code, is misrepresented. The Supreme Court ruled in an 1895 case that the income tax contained in the Tariff act of 1894 was unconstitutional because it was a direct tax and not apportioned. The 16th Amendment simply added the protection of making the income tax forever an excise tax that would not have to be apportioned. According to the court, the Amendment was to take the income tax out of consideration as a direct tax in keeping with our Constitution.
The sales tax is on the privilege of selling at retail, and not on the income. Legally, the name of the tax means nothing. What is the subject of the tax? That's the test. The retail sales tax is a legal income tax. It is an excise tax paid by the seller for the privilege of selling at retail. Could other businesses and professions be taxed this way, and pass it on to the end user? Yes, governments have always been able to impose excise taxes. The trouble being, that if the tax were too high the People would stop buying the things that were taxed. The income tax got around that problem but it was struck down as unconstitutional. The IRS and Franchise Tax Board now intimidate, extort and bully the People to pay a tax they don't owe.
In a free country with our Constitution, there can be no direct taxation of income. The American People are the most honest, patriotic and caring People in the world. They are not tax cheats. They are good People and in their hearts they know they don't owe this tax but they don't know why.
The evil of the State Franchise Tax Board and IRS comes from arrogance of little men who will not search for truth. The evil of the public schools and our entire education system is that it teaches answers instead of teaching people to think, to question the status quo, and to challenge government indoctrination. The schools teach that the income tax is a tax on income and you better pay it. We, like most of the IRS agents have gone to public schools and learned those obvious answers that just aren't so. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 12:27:28 PM
as much as i like violence, i'll have to agree and say that in this instance, it's not going to do any good. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 07:17:07 AM
It'd be nice if the bulk of our tax dollars weren't going to blowing people up, but holing yourself up in a compound with weapons seems ridiculous to me. The money they spent on all the crazy stuff there to 'protect' themselves is 1) Never, EVER, gonna protect them from the biggest military in the world and 2) Would have been better spent on local grass roots campaigning to raise awareness about how much is being spent killing people. I dunno, I just think the whole Thundercats Lair is self-serving and not a real solution to anything. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 07/17/2007 : 1:42:39 PM
yeah that video was awful. also, everything zach said.
i just don't get it. it's all so straight forward. i don't like paying taxes, either. who does? you don't see anyone filing their taxes with a huge smile on their face. and yeah, this system has flaws. but the tax isn't illegal. it just sucks, is all. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 07/17/2007 : 12:59:11 PM
Amendment XVI.
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
(Note: Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution was modified by
the 16th Amendment.)
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.
That's the law. Where's my $50,000?
As far as the amendment not allowing the government to levy new taxes, that is very true. The language it did change was that they didn't need apportionment. The constitution already gave congress powers to lay and collect taxes. This film actually misquoted the constitution about apportionment and even the part they misquoted was changed in the 16th amendment while the film didn't state that that was in the original constitution and didn't say it was amended.
Sadly that movie just reminded me of the approach of the current administration in dealing with Iraq's WMD's. If you don't have any weapons just show us you don't, but you have to prove to us you don't. However it's very obvious the government can lay and collect taxes...
SECTION. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide
for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United
States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among
the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform
Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the
United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign
Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
I don't know what to tell someone who upon seeing that can say there is no law which allows the government to collect income tax. The whole film all people do is bitch about how the government needs to show them the law.
The issue is not in whether such laws exist but whether such laws are just in enforcement and design. I of course dislike our tax system and don't like the way our monetary policy is handled. If you read William Greider's book secrets of the temple you'll probably be sufficiently pissed about what's happening. However that doesn't mean the government doesn't have authority to have an income tax. They do have the power to tax. Clearly!
This topic brings up a lot of other related topics and issues, but for now I think it suffices to say that the law is right there. Read it. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 07/16/2007 : 1:48:58 PM
http://www.wtprn.com/Brown_Concert.html FOR ARTICLE...
WATCH SOME OF ME HERE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bkk00_NPdI
Whoops caps...all well...this shit is crazy.
And...this is pretty cool...
Local attorney acquitted
on federal income tax charges
Cryer stopped filing income taxes more than 10 years ago
Loresha Wilson | Shreveport Times | July 13, 2007
A Shreveport attorney who has challenged the government for years on the legality of filing federal income taxes has been acquitted on charges he failed to file returns.
A federal jury unanimously found Tommy Cryer not guilty this week on two misdemeanor counts of failure to file.
And according to Cryer, the prosecution dismissed two felony charges of tax evasion prior to trial.
Attempts by The Times on Thursday to reach U.S. Attorney Donald Washington or Bill Flanagan, first assistant U.S. attorney, were not successful. Calls made to the two were not immediately returned.
"The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes my revenues taxable," Cryer said. "The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose an income tax on anything but the profits and gains. When you work for someone you give your service and labor in exchange for money, so everything you make is not profit or gain. You put something into it."
Cryer was indicted last year on two counts of tax evasion. The indictment alleged he evaded payment of $73,000 in income tax to the Internal Revenue Service during 2000 and 2001.
Cryer created a trust listing himself as the trustee, and received payments of dividends, interest and stock income to that trust, according to the indictment. He also was accused of concealing his receipt of the sources of income from the IRS by failing to file a tax return on behalf of that trust.
"I determined that my personal earnings were not 100 percent profits, some were income," Cryer said. "I refuse to file, I refuse to pay unless they can show me I have a lawful reason to pay."
"What I earned was my own personal labor. I am giving something in exchange. I'm giving my property and I don't belong to anyone else."
Cryer says he stopped filing returns more than 10 years ago after he investigated claims that income tax was a sham. He contends the law doesn't actually tax personal earning. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 07/16/2007 : 11:56:49 AM
it's totally no problem, man. i'll check out the video. thanks. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 07/16/2007 : 10:35:50 AM
I know I am really sorry, I have been busy just got home yesteday and was fired up. I will provide more information when I get a chance.
I recently saw this movie and it puts it all in a nice package and it is a good one to wacth.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+fascism&total=916&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Sorry if I came off as snide. I will provide information soon and we can have a nice debate. Please bare with me! |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 11:57:02 PM
I again concur with dan. I don't see any info really supports what you say. If there is support, show us. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 8:19:51 PM
look, i already posted the amendment. it 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."
actually, as you can tell from the above, which is the amendment in question, it's the exact opposite of what you think. the constitution tells us, in all explicitness, it doesn't demand apportionment. your assertion that it does seems to be 100% false. i don't know where you came by it. is there something i'm overlooking? secondly, the amendment is all the law that is necessary as far as having to pay a tax is concerned. if the government has the right to levy a specific tax, that it must be paid is implied. otherwise, why bother with the amendment? however, i agree that really ought to be a law regarding it besides a vague statement in the constitution.
how about instead of just repeating the same 3 things, which you back up with not a bit of support or evidence whatsoever, you actually take part in a debate. it pains me, because it's not like you're aren't capable of reasoned debate. you are, and everyone here knows it. it's just frustrating when you refuse to address the arguments put forth in a meaningful way. what you need to do here is show us the relevent parts of the history of the amendment. show us when it was put in the constitution without being voted on, or show us why its ratification is invalid. just, you know, give us something here. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 06:52:31 AM
Are you kidding me?
One, the Federal Income Tax is unapportioned. The Constitution DEMANDS an apportioned out tax if there is to be one.
Two, there is NO LAW. They have offered a million dollars to show them the law.
Three, it was never even ratified by congress.
WE DO NOT HAVE TO PAY THE INCOME TAX.
Anyway, the show was the most amazing time ever.
First we hit up McCain's speech and ruined him. Video soon.
Homeland Security swarmed overhead in an unmarked helicopter (we searched the # on the plane, traced back to Homeland Security) for 8 hours.
I haven't slept in days I will write more about it.
|
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 03:22:53 AM
I still don't see the point of this. What they are saying makes no sense. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 07/13/2007 : 5:54:05 PM
Just wanted to let everyone know I will be traveling to New Hampshire tonight to perform at a benefit for Ed and Elaine Brown who are protesting our criminal government by refusing to pay their unconstitutional federal income tax.
I will be traveling with members of We Are Change (www.wearechange.org).
Wish me luck, make sure to watch the news and see what transpires! |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 12:58:17 AM
I second that ditto.
Can we ratify that? |
| tericee |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 04:33:24 AM
Ditto Dan |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 8:34:02 PM
"Citizens cannot 'voluntarily' file a federal income tax return without surrendering their 5th amendment right not to bear witness against themselves."
that doesn't make any sense. here's what the 5th amendment says:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
what does that have to do with taxes? i bolded that part because the protection against having to bear witness against himself has only to do criminal cases, not filing a tax return. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 8:28:21 PM
the assertion that the 16th amendment was never ratified is false, and based largely on syntax discrepancies between the ratification resolutions of various states and congress's document. apparently that's supposed to make the ratification for those states, and all the others, invalid. i don't understand it, but i'm not an expert on the topic. but as far as i know, courts have thrown this out.
your notion that to stop paying taxes is the only way to stop "the bloodthristy killers" is, and i try so hard to be too blunt, retarded for a number of very good reasons. firstly, the government, as zach points out, is that they'll just come take it from you, thereby rendering your choice not to give them money completely meaningless. you'll also go to jail, and i've heard bad things about that place. secondly, you're assertion that not paying taxes will stop the evil government from doing what they do best (bombing shit.) assuming they don't just take your money (they will) you'd also be stopping them from doing a ton of other shit, too. you see, not every dime you give the government goes to war. i'd be willing to bet the people who don't want to pay their taxes would start bitching about the government not doing their job on other things that require money, which is everything pretty much.
can't we just assume you're opposed to government on principle, and no matter what government does, you're not going to like it? |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 4:37:45 PM
Or we could have an entirely new government in six years by a peaceful regime change also known as elections. The government is just going to take taxes no matter what but we are allowed to elect people. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 2:09:44 PM
Everyone stop paying taxes would be the only peaceful way of standing up and refusing to pay these bloodthirsty killers. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 1:55:52 PM
So then my argument is basically that if it's legal for you to not pay income tax because there is no law, then that is fine. However it is legal for them to take your money, because they can seize your life, liberty, and property with due process of law. Almost no one pays income tax. Let's be honest. The government takes it. There is no way to say that it is illegal until you overturn the practice with a court ruling or sue to have it stopped. That's why I personally don't like government, but it's what we have to live with.
There's a general rule, that basically states that if a government practices something routinely then it is legal, unless you can enforce a contradictory law or dispute validity that the government recognizes i.e. courts recognize. I think it would be great if everyone just stopped paying their taxes, but the government isn't going to stop taking them. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 1:37:09 PM
The 16th Amendment was not ratified! The Income Tax is therefore illegal.
The 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was illegally proclaimed to be ratified in 1913. Research from both state and national archives document conclusively that the amendment did not even come close to being legally approved by the required number of states.
Filing a federal income tax return is, in fact, voluntary, because there is no statute or regulation that requires the majority of US citizens to fiLE AND PAY INCome taxes, or to have taxes withheld from the money they earn.
Citizens cannot "voluntarily" file a federal income tax return without surrendering their 5th amendment right not to bear witness against themselves.
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 12:53:40 PM
that's a good point about precedence, zach. let's suppose that brown takes a case to a high level court. and let's say the court completely ignores the 16th amendment and sides with brown. what kind of precedence does that set? |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 12:30:41 PM
What I don't get is that if he doesn't want to pay his tax and all that's fine, but he has to realize that the government is going to take it and probably send him to jail. He wouldn't be the first guy around to go to jail because he refused to pay taxes. To say there is no law for taxation is kind of ridiculous though. If you really look at law you will see that the laws of the land are heavily biased. Like how the laws prohibit both rich and poor people from stealing a TV or sleeping under an overpass. Not only that but law is set as much by precedence as anything else. If they have been collecting income tax for all these years then that in and of itself makes it legal.
Just some unsolicited advice to anyone. Don't ever think you can take on with force the US government unless you have a nuclear weapon. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 12:39:22 AM
yeah, but you have to admit that things like paris hilton's. . whatever, get an inordinate amount of press.
i suppose that if i had to do that story, like if my boss made me cover it, i'd make the angle less about paris hilton and more about leniency in the law towards high profile individuals. |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 12:27:53 AM
I'd like to say that the newspaper I read (the Wisconsin State Journal) doesn't focus on crap like Paris Hilton. It mentioned her once, in a small article, in the daybreak section, that carries Issac Asimov's super quiz and the funnies. 90% of what's in the paper is what's happening in the city with it's people (wither it's about naming a school, or a local man who was caught dealing prescription drugs to a girl that killed herself with a overdose. . . who I knew in high school and am not surprised by what he did), the US government with either about what bills are being talked about, and the struggles of bush versus everyone with a brain bigger than a jelly bean, and international incidents. Not all papers are pampered with hollywood trash and stupid gossip shit. Face the facts that some news is still true out there in the papers. Not all of it is a conspiracy plot. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/11/2007 : 12:15:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by the 16th amendment of the us constitution
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
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/11/2007 : 12:08:08 PM
so here's what i got from this:
ed brown says "i won't pay my income tax because there's no law which explicitly says 'you must pay an income tax,' and i'll use force to defend myself from the authorities." the authorities decided to show mr. brown why using force against them would be a terrible idea, because they have more people, more money, more resources and more guns, whereas mr. brown likely has a whole bunch of nothing at all.
the moral is clear. don't talk a big game about using force against anyone that has access to a swat team unless you're a) a jedi or b) a huge fan of dying. mr. brown thought it'd be badass to talk about defending himself with force, and then he was called out on his bullshit.
as far as the no income tax thing goes, i suggest taking a look at the constitution. it's pretty much right there. and give tericee her million dollars. unless that talk was as empty as the whole "defending myself" thing. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 06/11/2007 : 11:40:50 AM
Ditto Teri. |
| tericee |
Posted - 06/11/2007 : 09:57:31 AM
Allow me to play Devil's Advocate... 
Tax codes in the United States have been revised many times, but the foundation of the law lies in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which authorized Congress to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." When the Civil War erupted, Congress passed the first income tax. Just two decades later, the Supreme Court struck down the tax, but Congress responded by ratifying the 16th Amendment in 1913, which tax experts say gives the government absolute authority to collect the tax.
Dan Evans, a Philadelphia lawyer and tax expert, said the argument that there is no lawful income tax law is "historical nonsense." The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the petitions of tax protesters, and no constitutional challenge has ever made it past the federal district court level, Evans said.
"The Constitution is as clear as clear can be that Congress has the ability to tax income," Evans said. "The Supreme Court is clear, but the Browns just don't feel like paying their income taxes."
|
| rubylith |
Posted - 06/11/2007 : 08:22:02 AM
Just search for "Ed Brown" in Google news...The mainstream media has way important news to give to you, like Paris Hilton and such.
This isn't that important so you have to actively find it...according to the mainstream media. |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 06/11/2007 : 01:14:27 AM
I still have no fucking clue what this is about. I also have never heard anything about these people, or what's happening. I live in a liberal city, and if something with swat teams and crap was happening, I think I would have noticed it by now. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 06/09/2007 : 04:14:33 AM
haha There is actually no law that requires Americans to pay an unapportioned fedeal income tax. Ed Brown actually offers a $1,000,000 reqard for anyone that can show him the law. |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 9:23:41 PM
what illegal federal income tax? |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 5:39:43 PM
illegal federal income tax? this isn't some crazy libertarian bullshit, is it?
"the gub'ment's stealin' m'teefs!" |
| rubylith |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 09:16:10 AM
Marshals Fired Rounds At Ed Brown's Dog Walker Before Planned Siege
Testimony proves that yesterday's events were not just preparation for a siege - it was a siege, dog walker's disappearance gave Browns early warning and operation was aborted
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, June 8, 2007
Astounding testimony from Danny Riley, the man who was arrested by U.S. Marshals after walking Ed Brown's dog near his property yesterday morning, proves that Thursday's events in Plainfield New Hampshire represent a planned siege that was only aborted after Riley's disappearance gave the Browns early warning that militarized police and SWAT teams were descending on their home.
In the video blog, Riley also reveals that U.S. Marshals attempted to kill him as he ran by firing two sniper rounds that whizzed past his head as he attempted to escape, before eventually being Tasered on his shoulder and arrested.
Watch the video below.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3083052001159394679&hl=en
Riley describes how he grabbed a coffee and left the Brown house at around 8am before walking to the end of his long driveway and seeing a man in camouflage in the woods.
After yelling to ask what the man was doing, another man in camouflage popped up in front of Riley and yelled "freeze" after which Riley turned and ran.
"At that point, a round went down range right by my head - I heard it whiz by me - I was screaming at the top of my lungs - don't shoot me, don't shoot me I'm unarmed," says Riley in the video.
After another round was fired, six men on each side of the driveway popped up in full camouflage and ordered Riley down to the ground. Riley submitted and held his arms out to be cuffed but was still hit by a Taser shock to his shoulder and 50,000 volts shot through his body.
Riley then saw the badges the individuals were wearing and they read 'U.S. Marshals Special Operations Unit'.
Riley was then interrogated on who was in the house, how many guns they had and if there were any bombs. This was clearly a preparation for a planned raid that was scheduled to take place that morning and to think authorities would erect roadblocks a mile around, evacuate neighbors, cut the Brown's phone and power lines and deploy 6 helicopters along with a SWAT team and APC's just to serve warrant as they claim is deluded and naive.
Authorities then tried to convince Riley to act as a negotiator to flush the Browns out of their property, telling him, "You're our Bo Gritz, referring to the former United States Army Special Forces officer who mediated between Randy Weaver and federal authorities during the Ruby Ridge standoff in 1992, which ended in the assassination of Weaver's son and wife.
We reported yesterday that shots had been fired near the property and Riley's testimony is conformation of this. His statement also completely contradicts how his arrest was downplayed by authorities during a press conference yesterday. Watch the video below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK8UZU_2GmE
During further questioning, after Riley was strip searched at the local police department, he was again asked about individuals who were in the house, the layout of the house and who in particular had left the house that morning in a mini-van. Riley told the officials that the man was called Bruce and he had left to get groceries. Riley later learned that Bruce, or Brian as it later emerged his name was, was arrested, stating, "I guess they're arresting all the supporters now, they don't want more people bringing supporters I guess because he got arrested too."
Riley was ordered not to talk to the press, threatened with 40 years jail time if he returned to the Brown's property, released and was about to be put back on a bus to his home in Albany, New York, before officials changed their minds and sent Riley back to the Brown property to tell the Browns that they were being served a seizure warrant. This is clearly where the plan to raid the house was aborted and the warrant cover-story enacted.
Riley finally returned to his home but was told by authorities that he's "not out of the woods yet."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjJpQTSh-z0
Riley's testimony paints a clear picture of the fact that U.S. Marshals, having conducted surveillance the night before on Brown's home, had surrounded the house early that morning and were preparing to raid the property. The fortuitous act of Riley walking the dog and spotting the Marshals, before the dog ran back to the house without him, gave the Browns the early warning that later led the officials to abort the planned siege.
It also reminds us that the larcenous criminals who are targeting the Browns for their simple request to be shown the law that requires them to pay income tax will not rest until the Browns are forcibly removed from their home and yesterday's events unfortunately seem to be only a prelude of what is to come.
|
| rubylith |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 08:49:53 AM
Regulary Americans who refuse to pay their illegal federal income tax. They are standing up. |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 10:26:21 PM
. . . I'm a bit lost, who the fuck are these Brown people? |
| rubylith |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 3:01:40 PM
http://infowars.net/articles/june2007/070607Ed_Brown.htm
Lawman: Brown Siege May Be Psy Op
Reveals Sheriff has left town
Urges non violence as information continues to filter through
UPDATE: 1.55PM CST - The latest from Ed Brown's online blog: "apparently this was a test by the "authorities" to see what kind of response would come from the community......testing to see what might happen if they move in......."
Alex Jones was joined on air today in an emergency broadcast by highly decorated lawman and military veteran Jack McLamb to discuss the ongoing siege at tax protestor Ed Brown's home in New Hampshire.
Mclamb urged a controlled non violent response:
"What I think it is, they are looking for an event to push us in to a violent confrontation so they can suspend the first amendment and we cannot reach any more people. This may be the event to push towards that war.
We're winning and if they can push us now into starting a war, we lose and they win. If they can't push us into starting a violent revolution at the moment then they lose." Stated McLamb.
News reporters have confirmed that police have surrounded the Brown property and that the press was kept away from the property. Neighbors have been evacuated from their homes.
"Dozens of heavily armed state police and federal agents have assembled near the rural Grafton County home of tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown." reports the Plainfield Union Leader.
McLamb continued "If I were in that position I know that if they came in and killed me, we would win in the freedom movement. They want to push us into martial law and end our growth of waking people up. This could be the way they are trying to shut us down.
I pray that the people will not go there en mass because they know everyone has been praying for Ed Brown and his family and this is being used to push people into violent confrontation.
I am a warrior, I would like to go clean house and take our country back but I know their plan and I don't want to be a part of their plan to initiate the shut down of the wonderful wake up that is going on in America today. If they kill this family we will have more people with us next week than they can even imagine.
McLamb also confirmed that after calling the Sheriff's office in the area he was told that the Sheriff Michael Prozzo had left town today. The secretary at the office stated to McLamb that she was going to leave the phone off the hook because she "wouldn't get any work done".
The Sheriff would be in charge of any operation against Brown so it is more than convenient that he has skipped town.
Jack McLamb urged listeners to call the Sheriff's office on 603-863-4200 and demand information as to what is transpiring.
McLamb warned "This could be is a psy op, it is not over until we fire our guns and there is no more first amendment and that is exactly what they want."
|
|
|
