Tax Resister Ed Brown in His Own Words

[MKULTRA]

The IRS is totally illegal, for more than one reason. I'm glad this guy is doing what he is doing. I wish there were more out there like him.

I'll see if I an get this to embed, different on every forum.

Ed Brown in His Own Words (wmv) - Google Video

[Diesel66]

except he is completely wrong.

Constitution admendment allows income taxation
Tax codes passed nearly every year give the specific laws of the income tax.

[MKULTRA]

When was the 16th amendment ratified?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

When was the 16th amendment ratified?

1913

And dont respond with that bullshit.

[MKULTRA]

The 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states. Ever. Article V of the U.S. Constitution specifies the ratification process, and requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were 48 States in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of 36 states was required for ratification.

"In February, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment. But he clearly lied

The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.

• The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
• The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
• The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
• The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington."

It was never ratified.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

The 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states. Ever. Article V of the U.S. Constitution specifies the ratification process, and requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were 48 States in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of 36 states was required for ratification.

"In February, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment. But he clearly lied

The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.

• The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
• The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
• The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
• The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington."

It was never ratified.

And you wouldnt be able to provide proof for any of those statements ?

Or a court case where those statements were presented and the tax resister won ?

[lew]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

And you wouldnt be able to provide proof for any of those statements ?

Or a court case where those statements were presented and the tax resister won ?

Can you provide proof that these states did indeed ratify property? Every single response I've seen towards those of us that oppose the 16th Amendment is simply "LOL, we've paid taxes for decades, provide the proof or get over it zomg!"

Well, where is your proof that it was properly ratified?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by lew

Can you provide proof that these states did indeed ratify property? Every single response I've seen towards those of us that oppose the 16th Amendment is simply "LOL, we've paid taxes for decades, provide the proof or get over it zomg!"

Well, where is your proof that it was properly ratified?

the certification
United States v. Thomas

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 — taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems — advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review.

the court cases
Porth v. Brodrick




Even if you think the 16th admendment was not ratified, the govt still has the right to tax income or anything else they desire. If you dont believe that, check out all the income taxes before 1913. The only difference is they would have to be handled like the early direct taxes.

[ballz2wallz]

Google Video

[ballz2wallz]

You know, he's accepting help from militiamen from all over the country. They are flocking to his house. I'm sure you'd be welcome. Show us how glad you really are and join him.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

And you wouldnt be able to provide proof for any of those statements ?

Or a court case where those statements were presented and the tax resister won ?

There are no cases where the tax resister won on the grounds that the IRS or income tax is illegal or unconstitutional.

There are dozens of cases (a few listed in this thread) where tax resisters lost when claiming the IRS or income tax is illegal or unconstitutional.


The burden of proof is on the people who say the IRS or income tax is illegal or unconstitutional.


the tax is legal
FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code

ball is in the other court.

[Pro Street]

I believe it was ratified.

However it was put in place as a temporary measure to pay for the war. It stuck because it's a hell of a lot of money.

we're taxed, but we have representation.

[Kytro]

This is why one should have sunset clauses

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Kytro

This is why one should have sunset clauses

there is no way in hell any Congress, Democratic or Republican, would EVER relinquish income taxes.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

there is no way in hell any Congress, Democratic or Republican, would EVER relinquish income taxes.

Of course not, but if it had been passed with a caveat, this wouldn't be the problem

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Of course not, but if it had been passed with a caveat, this wouldn't be the problem

Yes it would...this is their paycheck so it would be continued over and over and over. You can't put a sunset on a law for the lawmakers. They're the ones who are going to make sure it stays in effect.

[kinggovernor]

this guy is going to get owned hardcore

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

Yes it would...this is their paycheck so it would be continued over and over and over. You can't put a sunset on a law for the lawmakers. They're the ones who are going to make sure it stays in effect.

Income tax should have been authorized for the given conflict only - that is what I was getting at.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Even if you think the 16th admendment was not ratified, the govt still has the right to tax income or anything else they desire. If you dont believe that, check out all the income taxes before 1913. The only difference is they would have to be handled like the early direct taxes.

But there had only been a handful of times that direct taxes were laid, and when they were, the States or the Courts (usually) would work to get them repealed. Income taxes have a very short history in this country prior to 1913.

[lew]

Originally Posted by 7960

There are no cases where the tax resister won on the grounds that the IRS or income tax is illegal or unconstitutional.

There are dozens of cases (a few listed in this thread) where tax resisters lost when claiming the IRS or income tax is illegal or unconstitutional.


The burden of proof is on the people who say the IRS or income tax is illegal or unconstitutional.


the tax is legal
FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code

ball is in the other court.

Why is the burden on the people? The burden is ALWAYS on the state. When someone gets arrested, the burden isn't on them to prove their innocence. It's on the state to prove they're guilty.

If the state says it has some "right" to directly tax on our income, then the burden is on THEM to prove, beyond all doubt, that they can legally and constitutionally tax us. It's not on our shoulders to prove them wrong.