NationStates Jolt Archive

Mr. "Dead or Alive" Ed Brown (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071005/ap_on_re_us/tax_evaders_arrested), the convicted tax evader who holed up in his compound for months was arrested peacefully authorities.

A couple convicted of tax evasion who threatened violence if authorities approached them were arrested peacefully at their rural Plainfield home after holing up at the fortress-like compound for months, U.S. Marshals said.
The big question Thursday night was how authorities managed to take Ed and Elaine Brown into custody without the confrontation they had promised.

U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier, who said repeatedly he would seek a peaceful surrender, planned to explain Friday morning in a news conference at the federal courthouse in Concord.


U.S. marshals posing as supporters carried out the arrests of convicted tax-evaders Ed and Elaine Brown in Plainfield, the head marshal said Friday.

"They invited us in, and we escorted them out," U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier said about the Thursday night arrest.

A small team of marhals pulled off the ruse, arresting the Browns without incident on the front porch of their fortress-like rural home, Monier said.

Mr. "Dead or Alive" Ed Brown (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071005/ap_on_re_us/tax_evaders_arrested), the convicted tax evader who holed up in his compound for months was arrested peacefully authorities.

A couple convicted of tax evasion who threatened violence if authorities approached them were arrested peacefully at their rural Plainfield home after holing up at the fortress-like compound for months, U.S. Marshals said.
The big question Thursday night was how authorities managed to take Ed and Elaine Brown into custody without the confrontation they had promised.

U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier, who said repeatedly he would seek a peaceful surrender, planned to explain Friday morning in a news conference at the federal courthouse in Concord.


U.S. marshals posing as supporters carried out the arrests of convicted tax-evaders Ed and Elaine Brown in Plainfield, the head marshal said Friday.

"They invited us in, and we escorted them out," U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier said about the Thursday night arrest.

A small team of marhals pulled off the ruse, arresting the Browns without incident on the front porch of their fortress-like rural home, Monier said.

At least it ended peacefully :)

This ended as well as it could have, much credit to the US Marshals.

Ed 'Moron' Brown and his idiot wife are in prison where they belong, and no LEOs or dogs were shot.

They shouldn't have threatened with violence. But their argument with the tax thing was completely right. Nobody should really have to pay it. It's not properly ratified.

They shouldn't have threatened with violence. But their argument with the tax thing was completely right. Nobody should really have to pay it. It's not properly ratified.

Then don't pay your taxes.

You will have to think long and hard about why you are wrong when you are in prison.

Land of the "Free" indeed.

They shouldn't have threatened with violence. But their argument with the tax thing was completely right. Nobody should really have to pay it. It's not properly ratified.
Um... pretty sure the Constitution got properly ratified.

Ah, that sucks. People just haven't got the balls required to go out in a blaze of glory anymore; everyone's gone soft since the days of the Branch Davidians.

Um... pretty sure the Constitution got properly ratified.

No, Bellicous does have a point. The original form of the Constitution did not allow Congress to levy taxes; they could only get moneys from tariffs, various charges, and begging the states.

The amendment that allows the current system has some irregularities regarding it's ratification. In particular, one state ratified the amendment, but then WITHDREW their ratification - and if that withdrawal is legal, then that amendment is, in fact, unratified, as it would never have had sufficient state ratifications to be declared passed.

However: The Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that while a state may choose not to ratify, it CANNOT withdraw an already given ratification. As the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution, what they say goes. And it seems to me a sensible ruling.

They shouldn't have threatened with violence. But their argument with the tax thing was completely right. Nobody should really have to pay it. It's not properly ratified.

It was properly ratified, and even if it were not the courts have long held that it was. Pay your taxes and quit whining.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_127.html

They shouldn't have threatened with violence. But their argument with the tax thing was completely right. Nobody should really have to pay it. It's not properly ratified.

oh not this shit again

oh not this shit again

Yes I fear it is this shit again. I thought this argument had been put to rest a million times already?

They shouldn't have threatened with violence. But their argument with the tax thing was completely right. Nobody should really have to pay it. It's not properly ratified.

Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by New Mexico (but see Delaware and Wyoming below). The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two:

37. Delaware (February 3, 1913)
38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
41. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)

Oops, at least three other states after Ohio ratified it.

end.

Then don't pay your taxes.

You will have to think long and hard about why you are wrong when you are in prison.

How is it not wrong for the government to demand payment? They threaten with jail time if you don't give your legally acquired property to them. How many people would a mugger have to victimize before he was a legitimate form of government?

How is it not wrong for the government to demand payment? They threaten with jail time if you don't give your legally acquired property to them. How many people would a mugger have to victimize before he was a legitimate form of government?

If the law says that you have to pay taxes - which it does - then your property, sans tax, is not "legally acquired."

Also, the government doesn't get its legitimacy because it collects taxes from a certain number of people, it collects those taxes because it is legitimate, because the people approve of those taxes. You confuse the cause and effect.

When you get older and go to college, you will take classes about different ideas people have had over the years to account of the relationship between government and the governed. Then you'll probably understand better.

If the politicians we elect had the bollocks to uphold the Tenth Amendment and say *NO* to all of the superfulous socialst garp that the Fed has seen fit to involve itself in, we could return to the days when a personal federal income tax was not neccessary for the Fed to do what it is Constitutionally mandated to do.

This country managed just fine without stealing from its people for a good long time.

We have had nothing but deficit spending since.

How is it not wrong for the government to demand payment?

Because we are a democracy.

If the politicians we elect had the bollocks to uphold the Tenth Amendment and say *NO* to all of the superfulous socialst garp that the Fed has seen fit to involve itself in, we could return to the days when a personal federal income tax was not neccessary for the Fed to do what it is Constitutionally mandated to do.

This country managed just fine without stealing from its people for a good long time.

We have had nothing but deficit spending since.

Actually, we had a balanced budget for a long period after the Fed was allowed to tax.

It wasn't until the New Deal that major deficit spending occurred.

The Federal Government needs the power to tax in order to do all the things we currently expect it to do. And a lot of that stuff is services the states either wouldn't or couldn't do.

But I am in favour of a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Actually, we had a balanced budget for a long period after the Fed was allowed to tax.

Ok, so I exaggerated a bit, but not much. It certainly didn't take long.



It wasn't until the New Deal that major deficit spending occurred.


Needless Socialist policies.


The Federal Government needs the power to tax in order to do all the things we currently expect it to do. And a lot of that stuff is services the states either wouldn't or couldn't do.


Because they ignore the Tenth Amendment. When States began expecting the Fed to do things for them, they began the process of ceding their soverign, Constitutionally guaranteed rights, which is how we ended up with such nonsense as California dictating Florida law, for example.

That Amendment was inserted for a very serious, specific reason. The power of the Fed was to be EXTREMELY limited by design, as were its obligations.

The States can, and should be allowed/EXPECTED to stand on their own, as per the original design, else you might as well just chuck the entire founding document set.


But I am in favour of a Balanced Budget Amendment.

So am I. Enforce the Tenth Amendment and we will all have a nice, balanced Federal budget, and a heck of a smaller tax burden.

The Federal Government was never intended to be in the cradle-to-grave citizen support business, which is pecisely where it is currently headed.

"When the Government gives you everything, it can also take away everything."

They need to fix up that house of their's..

The States can, and should be allowed/EXPECTED to stand on their own, as per the original design, else you might as well just chuck the entire founding document set.

We tried that. They committed armed treason. If you can't play nice you don't get to play at all.

Ok, so I exaggerated a bit, but not much. It certainly didn't take long.




Needless Socialist policies.



Because they ignore the Tenth Amendment. When States began expecting the Fed to do things for them, they began the process of ceding their soverign, Constitutionally guaranteed rights, which is how we ended up with such nonsense as California dictating Florida law, for example.

That Amendment was inserted for a very serious, specific reason. The power of the Fed was to be EXTREMELY limited by design, as were its obligations.

The States can, and should be allowed/EXPECTED to stand on their own, as per the original design, else you might as well just chuck the entire founding document set.



So am I. Enforce the Tenth Amendment and we will all have a nice, balanced Federal budget, and a heck of a smaller tax burden.

The Federal Government was never intended to be in the cradle-to-grave citizen support business, which is pecisely where it is currently headed.

"When the Government gives you everything, it can also take away everything."

By and large, I agree with you. I wouldn't characterize the New Deal as 'Needless', though. People were dying; that's not hype, it's fact, people were starving to death because they couldn't get work and the charities and welfare systems of the various states (which ranged from good to non-existent) were totally overloaded.

The New Deal reforms themselves were a mixed bag, some good, some very poor, some outright unconstitutional (and struck down as such by the USSC). But we got a reasonably good return on the investment - our industrial power remained high, our workforce intact, and we got some rather nice infrastructure development.

I would say Needful Socialist Policies.

they used to have this video embedded in their OLD myspace page,
but it appears their myspace account has been deleted or they quit.
IT also appears as though the new one linked from wiki might be a hack,
i.e. not really their page.
?



This is the vid i posted in another thread that is about
us not having to pay income taxes.
Only corporations have to pay income taxes,
because the tax is only on profits.
Money we get from work is an exchange of labor for money.
We see no extra gain.
Some other guy got off with a jury trial not having
to pay income tax.

titled
"America: Freedom to Fascism"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=america+fascism&total=1784&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

they dropped it out of the federal courts
because they couldn't get him and thought it would be easier at the state level. illinois for this guy.
but the illinois law said, anyone who has to pay a federal income tax has to file a state income tax.
since the court could not provide the jury with the text for the actual written federal law that requires people to pay an income tax, the jury figured the guy did not have to pay the illinois income tax.
the jurors even came to realize they did not have to pay tax either.