Ed Brown & All of US

[Goweigus]

Ed Brown and his wife have been fighting the war against the "Federal" Income tax for 10 years now, though conflicts have only come up over the last several months.

Check this site out tell me what you guys think.
http://www.edbrown.org/wordpress/

especially of the video "Theft by Deception"
which is found at the top of the video category in here
http://edbrown.org/wordpress/?cat=4

it is an hour and 27min, but bear with it, it will change you! It covers every counter the anyone could put up to the argument over wether or not Income Tax must be paid by most americans!

If anything at least watch that and tell me what you think of it.

and sry for reposting this sorta, but the thread was deleted? no one said why or where it was moved to?

 

[Sander]

Ed Brown and his wife have been fighting the war against the "Federal" Income tax for 10 years now, though conflicts have only come up over the last several months.

Check this site out tell me what you guys think.
http://www.edbrown.org/wordpress/

especially of the video "Theft by Deception"
which is found at the top of the video category in here
http://edbrown.org/wordpress/?cat=4

it is an hour and 27min, but bear with it, it will change you! It covers every counter the anyone could put up to the argument over wether or not Income Tax must be paid by most americans!

If anything at least watch that and tell me what you think of it.

I think that that narrator has the worst narrating voice I've ever heard.
Also, I've watched it for 20 minutes now, and he *still* hasn't made a single point. All he keeps doing is saying 'remember the definitions' every three seconds. Which is pretty damned infuriating.

Also: this video is completely irrelevant because of the following fact:
- You don't pay your taxes means that you *go to jail*.

Think about why there is no judicial precedent where someone won a case like this against the IRS. Think about why the Browns offered to settle and pay back taxes (but the IRS didn't accept that).

and sry for reposting this sorta, but the thread was deleted? no one said why or where it was moved to?

It was moved to the vats. You know, that place where we move pretty much everything.

Goddamnit, man, could you just look around for *once*?

 

[Goweigus]

and no thats not true there have been court cases where the IRS DID lose

there is an example of one on the video page where a member of the jury talks about how the Judge denied their requests for SIMPLE proof of the law which to this day the IRS has never shown anyone.
its in the video category called "There is no Law" and "There is no law continued"
its just one of the few but key examples

and ya but u do kinda gotta watch the whole thing hes trying to tackle it from the perspective of critics at first, then he goes to show how wrong it is.

i dont think they really settled, they just said theyd be perfectly willing to pay their taxes and comply with everything but only IF the IRS showed them the law that says they have to pay taxes. And most americans dont unless they both have domesitc income from withing the 50 united states, or have income that comes out of foreign countries or US possessions such as Puerto rico.

 

[Sander]

and no thats not true there have been court cases where the IRS DID lose

Not on this subject, Goweigus.

there is an example of one on the video page where a member of the jury talks about how the Judge denied their requests for SIMPLE proof of the law which to this day the IRS has never shown anyone.

The IRS doesn't need to show anyone. That's not their duty in any way. If a judge says that lawfully, you have to pay taxes and that those taxes apply to you even though you're not being paid from outside the USA, then that's how it is. Legal precedent and all.

and ya but u do kinda gotta watch the whole thing hes trying to tackle it from the perspective of critics at first, then he goes to show how wrong it is.

I managed it for half an hour and just barely restrained myself from smashing my computer.


Again: the Browns have already been convicted of tax fraud and evasion. Their sentence will be determined in April, and could be up to fifteen years for Ed and 85 for Elaine.
How's that for 'OMG they're right.'
Here's a fun filled fact: they are not.

 

[Goweigus]

well if the courts and judges and IRS didnt have to show the law...
why dont they?
its as simple as giving the jury the number of the law, then they can look it up, and its all settled and good

but there are cases in which the jury gets the "offender" off innocent becuase no one can show that they did anything wrong accourding to the law.

And in america your supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and since no one can prove these people guilty accourding to the law, then they should and sometimes do get off as innocent.

what happens is the IRS is challenged to show some evidence, all they show is the Consequence of breaking the law, but they dont and CANT show the law to which it applies,

the video goes into how there are codes and procedures and such and the only evidence the IRS shows is incomplete according to law itself because it never is attached to the requiremnt that most americans pay income tax

trust me, watch the video, and watch the court case on those sections.


"legal precedent and all"
that video goes through all the laws and codesand procedures, and books, and everything, and shows that most americans dont have to pay income tax EVEN with the 16ammendment which the Supreme Court has ruled that it gives the government no New power to tax incomes

really jsut trust me, that video covers everything, it just takes some time to explain each part so that their can be no doubt or argument based in reality

 

[Sander]

*sigh*
No, it doesn't. That movie is so shittily made and explained that it is completely ridiculous.

Here, go read this.
Oh geez, it's the definition of gross income. You know, the one the movie *failed to mention throughout the entire half-hour I watched*.

Furthermore:

well if the courts and judges and IRS didnt have to show the law...
why dont they?
its as simple as giving the jury the number of the law, then they can look it up, and its all settled and good

They are under no obligation to do so. Really. They don't need to show the actual statutes, they need to show that people broke them.
And apparently, *they did*.


Anyway, the part of the video I did watch was not only boring, it was also fallacious. It focused on throwing one definition behind another, failing to note that those definitions are often, if not always, only valid within the context of the article in which it was written. This especially goes for the 'source of income' bit, where they continued to whine that 'source' is defined in a completely different place in a context referring to a very narrow point of view.

Lastly, here's some more: *judges determine the law*. You can prance around all you want, that is a fact. If the courts rule one thing, then that is established as legal precedent and hence law, unless a higher court or the senate *later* overrules that.

Fact: Elaine and Ed Brown used that retarded argument and got convicted.
Consequence: Regardless of its previous legal status, *the argument is now completely invalid*.

 

[Goweigus]

but see you gotta watch the whole thing because it covers all of this.

"Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items"

but what people dont realize is that over the years they have taken out links and referenances, but the definitions can still be found elsewhere that directly involve all these. Such as "from whatever source derived" that source has a specific "legalize" definition which back in the day was reference at the bottom of that. But over the last 50 years they've taken out the references.

Theres also other parts that have been moved around so the average citizen dosent spend the time to go too deep and discover what little proof is still there.

Its like if you were looking in a thesaurus to find a simile for monster (and the definition). So right you go in and you look up monster, but low and behold it gives a broad definition, leaves out the citation for what the specific legalize definition pertaining to that specific piece is, and the simile list is removed. You have to go through almost the entire thesaurus in order to find that simile for monster if you dont know them, but they are still there because they cant be taken out. But they can take out and move around references to it. Ex: if you did find another word that meant the same thing as monster (say creature for sake of argument)then below it it would have the reference back to the original monster and the specific page on which it was found! See they can only remove and move reverences on one part, but once you find the reference it almost always points back to where the original link was located.

Video explains this better than i....


seriously if i can just get you to watch the entire movie....

oh and it is also little known that in most cases the jury has every right to overide what the judge says, and there are still cases in which the people win and not the IRS. I think its only about 10% of cases though cause most of the time people screw up and actually do break a real law. random EX: just popped into my head not sure h ow well it fits though. K well in some states back in the day you were sentanced to death for killing a person. That was well established and was a law. But what if people only went on the consequence that says "person"? What if they killed a toy person or a clay one or a dieing one? What if it was in a video game? What is person even definced as? (black people werent always considered people for example) They first must find the law and what specifically it says and what Horse is defined as in legalize pertaining to this law. The problem with INcome tax is when people see that it says "The gov. has right to charge income Tax, and other stuff, they dont go deeper and find out what it all really means. And with courts and the IRS they only go by the consequence and not the law it applies to. So by the logic of the IRS i could kill sa whole family in Fallout and go to jail because i killed people! But they didnt cite the law that might be specific to saying that its real people, or indians or whatever

 

[Sander]

but see you gotta watch the whole thing because it covers all of this.

Oh, for fuck's sake.
Can you read? If so, how'd you miss this:

Lastly, here's some more: *judges determine the law*. You can prance around all you want, that is a fact. If the courts rule one thing, then that is established as legal precedent and hence law, unless a higher court or the senate *later* overrules that.

Fact: Elaine and Ed Brown used that retarded argument and got convicted.
Consequence: Regardless of its previous legal status, *the argument is now completely invalid*.

"Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items"

but what people dont realize is that over the years they have taken out links and referenances, but the definitions can still be found elsewhere that directly involve all these. Such as "from whatever source derived" that source has a specific "legalize" definition which back in the day was reference at the bottom of that. But over the last 50 years they've taken out the references.

That is *irrelevant*. The law changes, yes. This doesn't matter. At all.

Theres also other parts that have been moved around so the average citizen dosent spend the time to go too deep and discover what little proof is still there.

You don't seriously believe that, do you?
Congress doesn't spend time moving around statutes and such in the law. Yeesh.

Its like if you were looking in a thesaurus to find a simile for monster (and the definition). So right you go in and you look up monster, but low and behold it gives a broad definition, leaves out the citation for what the specific legalize definition pertaining to that specific piece is, and the simile list is removed. You have to go through almost the entire thesaurus in order to find that simile for monster if you dont know them, but they are still there because they cant be taken out. But they can take out and move around references to it. Ex: if you did find another word that meant the same thing as monster (say creature for sake of argument)then below it it would have the reference back to the original monster and the specific page on which it was found! See they can only remove and move reverences on one part, but once you find the reference it almost always points back to where the original link was located.

Video explains this better than i....

No, the video doesn't explain it. The video prances around the subject.
Here's a fact: not everything needs to be defined within the law. Only *ambiguous* items need to be defined. See, gross income was defined in the article I linked you. So, unless an article includes a specific *local* definition of 'gross income', *that's the definition*.
And everywhere in the movie, they took one article and then lifted the definition from *another article* and applied to that article.
*That's not how it works*.

seriously if i can just get you to watch the entire movie....

I am not going to watch that piece of shit ever again.

 

[Goweigus]

notice how it says

"General Definition"

why doesnt it get into specifics?

and if income tax is soo true why dosent the IRS just show the law and settle all disputes once and for all?

is dosent prance around in just goes through everything rather slowly so he cant be blamed for not thuroghly going into or covering anything
how can you say it dosent cover if you have only watched 1/3 of it?

"And everywhere in the movie, they took one article and then lifted the definition from *another article* and applied to that article.
*That's not how it works*. "

why not? if the definition of a word in legalize SPECIFICALLY applies to any given part of the law, how does it not apply and work? Thats alot of what this is all about is that there are definitions in legalize (cant be argued) to words in other parts of the law, the only problem is most people dont realize this and just take the broad and unspecific definitions instead of digging and finding out what they really mean. But yes this is difficult because most of the references have been moved and removed the last 50years, but in the end you can still do it!

 

[Sander]

notice how it says

"General Definition"

why doesnt it get into specifics?

WHat are you, blind?
It specifically lists 15 examples of sources of income for clarity.
It also doesn't need to get into specifics. There is nothing ambiguous about it whatsoever.
Again: not everything needs to be re-defined for the law.

and if income tax is soo true why dosent the IRS just show the law and settle all disputes once and for all?

Have you looked at the IRS website? They cite *selected* tax laws.
Do you know why they cite selected laws? Because otherwise they might as well just point to the *entire section*. Which is useless.

Also, *yet again* there is no obligation for anyone whatsoever to show anything from the law. Anyone willing can just look at the law itself.

is dosent prance around in just goes through everything rather slowly so he cant be blamed for not thuroghly going into or covering anything

Then why are you ignoring half my arguments including the following:

Lastly, here's some more: *judges determine the law*. You can prance around all you want, that is a fact. If the courts rule one thing, then that is established as legal precedent and hence law, unless a higher court or the senate *later* overrules that.

Fact: Elaine and Ed Brown used that retarded argument and got convicted.
Consequence: Regardless of its previous legal status, *the argument is now completely invalid*.

 

[Wooz]

and sry for reposting this sorta, but the thread was deleted? no one said why or where it was moved to?

Yeah, it was vatted.

If you don't bother to type properly, I don't care to have your threads on the board, it's that simple.

 

[Goweigus]

but thats exactly what this whole thing is about! the guy spent years researching this and "Anyone willing to look at the law itself"

exactly what he did, but he went deeper and as deep as you can go. I understand your mode of thinking man i really do, i was just like you, but i cant really look the stuff up myself, so i watched this guy do it and it totally changed my perspective.

parts of the video even talk about how people will look into themselves, do exactly what you do and think " well thats it, its gotta be true"

but there are always very light and subtle hints that can take you deeper if you really get into it, and he did! Soo much of it is about how they take out references and citations, but if you manage to find the citation and reference itself it still points back to where it was originally linked too!

but oh well, has anyone seen this whole thing and want to comment on it? or watched the video of the jury member that won the case against the IRS?

"Lastly, here's some more: *judges determine the law*. You can prance around all you want, that is a fact. If the courts rule one thing, then that is established as legal precedent and hence law, unless a higher court or the senate *later* overrules that."

the Supreme court has ruled numerous times that even the 16th ammendment dosent give the Government the right to charge income tax, or any new taxing power

peopel just need to watch the whole thing and it covers it all

 

[Sander]

but thats exactly what this whole thing is about! the guy spent years researching this and "Anyone willing to look at the law itself"

exactly what he did, but he went deeper and as deep as you can go. I understand your mode of thinking man i really do, i was just like you, but i cant really look the stuff up myself, so i watched this guy do it and it totally changed my perspective.

No, you saw one side of the argument. I just gave you the other one, but you're actually ignoring the arguments.

Compare to Bowling for Columbine.

the Supreme court has ruled numerous times that even the 16th ammendment dosent give the Government the right to charge income tax, or any new taxing power

No, they haven't. See here.
At least be intelligent enough to research *both* sides of an argument.

Also, that has *nothing* to do with either the arguments used by the Browns in court or the 'definitions' argument you've been proponing constantly so far.

 

[Goweigus]

another thing is on a 1040 you actually volunteer to do it

no where on the 1040 or in its instruction manual does it say you have to include domestic income as "taxable income" or income at all.

BUT it does specifically include income generating in Foreign countries... why would it do that?

its in the law not to assume that anything is law unless Specifically said so, and that any doubt should go in regard to the citizen. So since the 1040 dosent tell me to include domestic income, shouldnt taht mean i dont have to include it cause it dosent specifically say so?

and im not ignoring anything anyone says, im just saying i know i know it is covered if only you watch the whole movie

and quick question just for clarification, did u watch the "Theft by decption" video yet? the 2 i think are less than 20minutes.

 

[Sander]

another thing is on a 1040 you actually volunteer to do it

no where on the 1040 or in its instruction manual does it say you have to include domestic income as "taxable income" or income at all.

Oh god, you're firing off all of the dumbass arguments now, aren't you?
IT ISN'T VOLUNTARY YOU DUMBFUCK! IT IS STIPULATED IN THE LAW AND BY LEGAL PRECEDENT IN COURTS THAT IT IS OBLIGATORY.
'Voluntary' in this context means that you have to file yourself, not that you are free to do as you please.

BUT it does specifically include income generating in Foreign countries... why would it do that?

Because that *is* ambiguous. That's why it needs to be defined. International law is a tricky subjet.

its in the law not to assume that anything is law unless Specifically said so, and that any doubt should go in regard to the citizen. So since the 1040 dosent tell me to include domestic income, shouldnt taht mean i dont have to include it cause it dosent specifically say so?

...
It says to include all income, and actually refers to several legal articles.

and im not ignoring anything anyone says, im just saying i know i know it is covered if only you watch the whole movie

Oh really, then why did you just come up with more fallacious arguments instead of coming up with arguments to counter *mine*.

 

[Goweigus]

because i cant remember word for word evidence for evidence of the movie

that is why i try to get you to watch the whole thing because it does within the whole movie explain everything you have thrown at me so far.

 

[Sander]

because i cant remember word for word evidence for evidence of the movie

So, in other words, you do not actually understand the evidence. Otherwise you would've been able to repeat it and its logic.

 

[Goweigus]

no i understand it, i just cant remember everything exactly
i've just been giving pieces of the pie, so to speak

i've been trying to get people to watch the whole thing then discuss what they think of it and similar cases with this new video having been seen

and how can you if you havent seen it eh?

 

[Sander]

no i understand it, i just cant remember everything exactly
i've just been giving pieces of the pie, so to speak

i've been trying to get people to watch the whole thing then discuss what they think of it and similar cases with this new video having been seen

The video is 5 years old.

And how do you expect to be able to 'argue' anything with anyone if you can't even remember the arguments?

and how can you if you havent seen it eh?

I've seen everything up to the point where they get into the 'why would they do this', where it gets even more retarded.
So yes, I *do* know the arguments. I've also looked into other *written* arguments as well. (Why do people not use text to convey this?)

 

[Goweigus]

how far into the movie was that part? 1/2? i remember it being about half way in...