My Corner of the Web
Updated: 22 July 2007
Update 3 (CASE CLOSED):
Ok, for the sake of completeness, I finished ferreting out the logic behind these arguments. In the video "Theft by Deception", Larken Rose attempts to use the Tax Code Regulations (executive branch implementation of law) to contradict the Tax Code Statutes (law). The key part of the video is 29:28 minutes into it. That is where Rose lays out his argument that Regulation 1.861-8 uses the term "specific sources" of income and when he leads us to the section on specific sources he does not find domestic income. The problem with his argument is that "specific sources" is not equivalent to the term of art "sources within or without the United States" or the term of art "whatever source derived". In other words, the 861 tax dodge is basing its argument on equating "specific sources" with the list of "sources within the United States" specific in the statute. You cannot do that. A term of art is distinct unto itself as the video previously shows in its careful deciphering of the tax code (and terms) that leads us to section 861. You must be consistent in your use of terms. If you disagree with this analysis, contact me via the link in the navigation pane on the left (via the "contactify" web form).
Update 2:
Seems that this is just another case playing out against the frivolous section 861 argument. I have been occasionally checking in on this and occasionally researching it. The 861 argument was laid out by Larken Rose in a video called "Theft by Deception". The interesting point about this is that you should not look at the video in isolation without knowing that Larken Rose was convicted and is in prison. This is why Google desperately needs a "current" ranking in order to understand the timeline of events when currency is crucial to understanding the whole picture. I hope that not many people are led astray by that "Theft by Deception" video. I will continue studying the semantics of the argument because I think that part is fascinating -- semantics and the law is a crucial topic that affects real peoples lives every day. The semantics of law must be clear and obviously they are not. This is a very important issue. However, back to Ed Brown and these tax protestors. My bottom line here is that these people are attempting to come up with reason and logic to back up their own self-interest of not wanting to pay taxes. Not wanting to pay taxes is not a defensible legal argument. Sorry folks but Ed Brown is a nut. Case closed.
Update 1:
Getting close to the time of Ed and Elaine's sentencing (April 24). Much of Ed's case hinges on the notion of no governing law for income taxes. Ed even has a site called "showedthelaw.com". I briefly looked at the 16th Amendment to the constitution that 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."
So, now you are into the issue of what does this amendment "mean". In other words, what is income, etc.
Here is the other side of the argument from a lawyer and the IRS:
- A FAQ from a law professor on income taxes.
- An IRS FAQ on the issue.
- A very detailed Tax Protester FAQ.
Personally, the 16th amendment sounds pretty clear-cut to me. While I also don't like paying taxes, I will do so unless the 16th amendment is repealed.
Original post (11 Feb. 2007):
Today I saw a story on reddit that was fascinating and troubling. Boy, isn't the power of the internet amazing?! I think we are entering a new era of transparency never before seen on the planet.
There is a standoff going on up in New Hampshire between Ed Brown and Federal officials over the paying of income tax.
I don't have enough evidence or research on the issue yet to determine who is right but I do believe everyone should take some time to look at the evidence (or lack of evidence) being presented on these important constitutional issues. Here are some links:
- Ed Brown's fan site. Chronicles his case and barricade in New Hampshire.
- Income Tax documentary. See this free documentary on google video. I watched most of it and came away with interesting questions and deep concerns. I will probably buy the DVD. Vote with your dollars!
There are some fascinating Youtube videos (thank God for Youtube!) on a case in Texas where the jurors ruled the defendant "not guilty" because the IRS could not produce which law requires the filing of income taxes.
Definitely worth the American people and our elected legislators getting to the bottom of this. Is the income tax unconstitutional (note: this does not mean the government cannot tax - but unapportioned taxes are unconstitutional)? Is the federal reserve a private company? If the federal reserve is a private company, who owns it? How much money does the federal reserve make? Who audits the federal reserve?
Since most evil revolves around money - if the federal reserve is a private company - it should be audited and its existence as a private company should be questioned and debated in congress.
Let's dig into this one ... (case closed ... see updates above for the conclusion).