i was trying to have a real debate... you call me a liar. hmmmm... ok well.. i never lied .... i am right about this.. i told you you were on the right track to realizing there is no law that requires the browns to pay federal income tax. but with your little slur you can go fk yourself now. i already covered the 16th amendment.. are you dense? the answer is no on the 16th amendment.
I walked away after watching the first 30 minutes of the video I posted convinced Income taxes are unconstitutional... I'll have to watch it again, the first half of it anyways, the last half borders on crazy-talk, sci-fiction nightmares of the future and crap ... I think rat is right, there is no actual law that calls for Income tax, in the documentary there are a number of former IRS agents interviewed that agree.
you were just a victim of the new age conspiracy theory religion that is so hot in the internet right now. you left to them the reponsability of reasoning things through and looking at the facts. I'm willing to bet it will take years before you get out of this
idiot... i am anti-new age and this has nothing to do with our tax debate. i am still waiting for the law. i know you gave up... must be taxing your brain past its limits... now go watch Barney.
So you're now saying that you weren't lying when you stated that there was no law....... fine. I am ok with the reasoning that you were just wrong about there not being any 'laws' regarding taxation. Now that you stand corrected, you won't be stating that any more now, will you? Your buddy RP seems to think that a tax on indidual income derived from work IS constitutional : http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/ ......Whether a tax cut reduces a single motherâs payroll taxes ...... Seems to me that he endorses a tax rate decrease on payroll taxes - one would therefore presume that he deems payroll taxes, a tax on one's labor, to be legal. And regarding the 16th - the courts seems to disagree with you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any other Federal court has ever ruled that any Federal income tax[66] imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is unconstitutional. and The provisions of the U.S. Constitution authorizing Congress to impose taxes, duties, imposts and excises contain no express exceptions for taxes on wages or labor, or for taxes on income from labor. The courts have consistently rejected arguments that "wages" or "labor" (whether denominated as "labor property" or not) cannot be taxed under the Internal Revenue Code. For example, see:
IRS has that property liened to hell. Wonder what the value is and why they don't just have the marshals go to sale with the people in it. That would defuse it. Let the successful bidder worry about getting them out.
they seized elain brown's dental office. their concern now is throwing them in jail. unlawfully i might add.
I reread the thread, here's what you were referring to regarding the 16th : And the rebuttal : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments One argument that has been raised several times (and always ruled meritless) suggests that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. This argument is based on the fact that the legislatures of various states passed ratifying resolutions in which the quoted text of the Amendment differed from the text proposed by Congress in terms of capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas). The earliest reported court case where this argument was raised appears to be United States v. House,[1] about seventy-two years after the ratification. The best-known proponent of the non-ratification claim is William J. Benson, co-author of the book The Law That Never Was (1985), who testified in the House case to no avail. The Benson contention was comprehensively addressed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Thomas:[2] Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void. Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.[3]) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "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." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders. Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and â taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems â advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.
stick with one question at a time.. you are very confused now. the thread is in relation to the brown's assertion that there is no law that applies to them. that is the argument... stop trying to change what was said.
I believe Ratboy is correct here, on income and the unfederal unreserve. And Ratboy don't waste your time on ZZZzzzzzz and his worthless posts, he won't be satisfied until the Brown's are hanged, drawn and quartered (certainly his perfered method of punishment) for not paying their taxes, all while his democrat party sucks up to Bush and tries to ram through amnesty for illegal aliens with provisions that these "undocumented americans" don't have to pay income taxes . . .