THE BATTLE HAS STARTED - over 90 shots fired
during the night
NOTE; Ed and Elaine still okay at 3
p.m. PDT.
Ed Brown and his wife arrested the evening
of October 4, 2007
without incident.
"Live
Free Or Die!"
Male
64 years old
PLAINFIELD, New Hampshire
United States
Marshals arrest N.H. couple, ending holdout by tax evaders
By Marc Robins, Globe Correspondent |
October 5, 2007A tense five-month standoff ended peacefully last night when US
marshals took custody of convicted tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown
at their Plainfield, N.H., home, authorities announced.
"We had no indication that the Browns intended to voluntary
surrender," US Marshal Stephen Monier said in a statement, "so we
had to move forward with an operation that promised the safest
possible outcome. That day was today."
The arrests occurred without incident about 7:45 p.m., he
said. "High-profile situations like this are always difficult, but
they don't have to be tragic.
"I'm glad no one was injured, and that the community
remained safe throughout the operation," Monier said.
The Browns were turned over to the US Bureau of Prisons last
night and will begin serving their 63-month federal prison term,
Monier said. In June, he said the Browns would eventually be
charged with obstruction of justice for resisting arrest.
The Browns had stopped paying taxes in 1996, mostly on
income generated by Elaine Brown's dental practice.
Ed Brown, 65, and Elaine Brown, 67, were convicted of
federal tax charges on January 18th and sentenced, in absentia,
during an April 24 court hearing.
Since about the time of their conviction, the Browns had
been holed up on their property and had refused to surrender.
"I'm in my house," Ed Brown told the Associated Press by
phone the day before his conviction. "I won't leave it."
During the stay at their home, the Browns kept weapons, got
power from a wind turbine generator and solar panels, and
communicated with the outside through satellite dishes.
Followers and friends who had heard about the case brought
food, water, and supplies.
The Browns garnered much of their support via the internet.
Ed Brown kept a blog that at one point received a million
hits in a month, and Brown supporters kept a MySpace page for the
couple.
Randy Weaver, who infamously resisted arrest at Ruby Ridge
in Idaho in 1992, joined Brown at his compound in June to offer
his support.
However, visits to the Brown household declined after four
men were arrested Sept. 12 for providing guns or other supplies to
the couple.
That, along with other factors, were used in determining the
time of the arrest, Monier said.
Browns Were Duped By "Trojan
Horse" Marshals Posing As Supporters Open door policy allowed officials to walk
in and arrest Ed and Elaine Brown
Steve
Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, Oct 5, 2007
Tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown
were tricked by US Marshals who entered their home
yesterday afternoon
posing as supporters. The Marshals
entered the house at a time when there were no other
supporters present and catching the Browns off guard
were able to arrest them and remove them from the
property.
As we
reported earlier this morning, the
speculation was that the Browns were infiltrated and
tricked before being violently subdued as authorities
refuse to provide any details behind their arrest
beside the fact that they did not peacefully
surrender.
It is still unclear whether any
violence was used to apprehend the Browns, all that is
known is that they are now in federal custody and have
begun serving their 63 month sentence.
Marshals spoke at a press conference
at the federal courthouse in Concord NH today.
WMUR News 9 carried the conference:
U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier has
commented:
"Ultimately, this open-door policy
that they seemed to have which allowed the Browns to
have some supporters bring them supplies, welcome
followers and even host a picnic --this proved to be
their undoing. They invited us in. We escorted them
out."
A small team of marshals pulled off
the ruse, arresting the Browns without incident on the
couple’s front porch, Monier
told local press.
Reports are suggesting that weapons
have been seized at the property including "explosive
devices", and "booby traps" which were placed in the
woods. Monier added that the Browns may face further
charges relating to the weapons.
Monier also added that officials have
encountered no retaliatory action from supporters of
the Browns as yet, but warned that any further
supportive actions at this time could result in
federal charges.
New Hampshire Tax Protesters Say the Bible Will
Decide Their Fate
Browns Will Not Appeal Their Convictions on Tax
Evasion Charges
The Connecticut Valley
Spectator (New Hampshire) reports that Ed and Elaine Brown, tax
protesters from Plainfield, N.H., have said that they do not plan to
appeal their convictions on federal tax evasion charges.
The Browns, who had filed a notice of appeal, say, according to the
Spectator, that they now
have rejected "man's law" and will follow only what the Bible says. Ed Brown,
quoted in the Spectator,
said, "Only God knows the timeframe, and no matter how it ends, it will be good.
It doesn't matter. If they do something to us, they'll make martyrs out of us."
The Browns, who haven't filed a federal
tax return since 1995, are asking the government to show them a law that
requires U.S. citizens to pay income taxes. "They have never done so, and the
reason they have never done so is because no such law exists," said Elaine
Brown.
The Browns appealed their case to the U. S. Supreme Court, but the Supreme court
refused to hear them. During the trial which found the Browns guilty of tax
evasion, the presiding judge, Steven McAuliffe, did not allow the Browns to
argue whether or not the charges against them had a legal basis.
The couple, who have some property in West Lebanon, NH, were tricked into
federal
custody by federal agents and Lebanon police, who claimed that there was
some problem at the property. The Browns have contended that the city should
collect only the amount of money in taxes needed to run the city. According to
the Spectator, Ed claims
that he is not getting a good return on his taxes-only fire protection and
having his road plowed.
Other than the poor return on their taxes, the Browns also object to paying
money so that "public
schools can teach 'communism and homosexuality,' according to the
Spectator.
The Browns know that all they have to do to get rid of their tax problems and to
avoid any possible harm from the government is to pay their taxes, but it's not
that simple, say the Browns. "Nobody would be that stupid to get into this kind
of pressure and anxiety every day," unless they really believed in what they
were doing, said Mr. Brown. They've been sentenced to five years in prison.
"Principle is very expensive," Elaine said, "In many ways, we're finding that
out."
US Marshalls Serve Warrant to Seize Brown's Dental Office
Created: Thursday, 07 Jun 2007,
12:13 PM EDT
PLAINFIELD, N.H. -- Federal authorities indicated today they are not raiding the Plainfield
property of tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown.
The U.S. Marshal's Service says a supporter of the fugitives was detained
near the Browns' home this morning and that they served a federal warrant to
seize Elaine Brown's dental office in Lebanon.
"We are here, in conjunction with authorities, from the Department of the
Treasury, to serve that warrant," the statement said.
"As we have said from the beginning, we will continue to communicate with Ed
and Elaine Brown to convince them to surrender peacefully."
Neighbors had earlier reported that police SWAT teams and at least one
armored vehicle converging on a field near the home Thursday morning.
Susan Williams, who lives a mile or so away from the Browns on Center of
Town Road, said she saw police officers, SWAT team members, a fire truck,
ambulance, helicopter and at least one armored vehicle assembled in a field
across from her driveway.
Another nearby resident, Russell Hoisington, said he saw a caravan of
armored vehicles and many police cars drive past his house on Stage Road
just before 9 a.m.
"There's been a lot of cars heading up that way. Law enforcement types," he
said.
Hoisington's two nephews live near the Browns. He said some time after 9
a.m., state police told his nephews to leave their home, but did not tell
them why.
The Browns answered a telephone call from The Associated Press by saying:
"This is the Lord's House. This is Sister Elaine and Brother Edward."
They said nothing was out of the ordinary at the house.
"It's very quiet. I have no idea. I don't see anything going on," said Ed
Brown, before hanging up.
An Associated Press photographer in a plane over the Browns' property
Thursday morning was told to leave the airspace. On the ground, state police
set up a checkpoint at Stage Road and Route 12a and would not let reporters
pass.
The Browns insist federal income tax laws are invalid and have holed up in
their hilltop home on 110 acres. The home has a watchtower, concrete walls
and the ability to run on wind and solar power and Ed Brown said earlier he
had stockpiled food and supplies.
The Browns were convicted in January of scheming to hide $1.9 million of
income between 1996 and 2003. They also were convicted of using $215,890 in
postal money orders to pay for their residence and for Elaine Brown's dental
office. The money orders were broken into increments just below the
tax-reporting threshold.
U.S. District Judge Steven McAuliffe sentenced them each to 51/4 years in
prison. They skipped the April sentencing hearings, and Ed Brown has said he
and his wife will refuse to surrender to authorities.
The couple has described the court as a "fiction" unworthy of their
attention and returned government mail unopened. The judge who sentenced
them in absentia sent their notice of appeal to the federal appellate court
in Boston.
Exclusive: Federal Assault On Brown Home Was Aborted
Man fired upon and captured tells story of being ordered to lie to
media by FBI and cover up botched raid
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
Friday, June 8, 2007
Danny Riley, the man who was shot at and arrested after he discovered
U.S. Marshals stalking Ed Brown's home, has revealed the amazing truth
behind how he was threatened with 15 years in jail by the FBI unless
he lied to the media to cover-up the fact that yesterday's events were
a planned siege and not merely to serve a warrant as authorities had
claimed.
Riley related in a video blog late yesterday how he had unwittingly
stumbled across U.S. Marshals preparing to raid the Brown property as
he left the house to take Ed Brown's dog for a walk. Riley was
confronted by two men in camouflage who fired two shots at him as he
attempted to run away, but was then tackled by 12 other armed Marshals
who tasered and handcuffed him.
What happened after was carried in our article this morning, but the
whole story exposes how the FBI had planned to orchestrate a violent
raid on the Brown's property, before aborting the siege and attempting
to use Riley, under intimidation that he would be jailed or even
killed, as a go-between to sell the cover-story to the media that the
authorities were merely serving a warrant.
Riley now fears for his life but has shown tremendous courage in
coming forward to lift the lid and expose the lies that the New
Hampshire police told the media in downplaying yesterday's events and
hiding the fact that they were planning a raid.
Riley tells us that after he was arrested and taken to the Lebanon
Police Department, he was told that authorities had been conducting
surveillance of the Brown's home on Wednesday and that they knew the
Brown's owned a 50 caliber rifle because they had observed Riley using
it on the Brown's shooting range, while a squadron of snipers lay in
wait should they have been discovered, aiming guns at Riley as he was
being watched.
Riley was interrogated by two FBI officials who called themselves Phil
and Mark, and was threatened with 15 years imprisonment if he told the
media that the FBI were involved in the aborted raid on the Brown's
property.
Riley was then ordered to lie to the media and tell them that during
his morning walk, he had not seen armed U.S. Marshals but plain
clothed police officers who were merely serving a warrant for the
seizure of the Brown's dental office 10 miles away, and that the
officers had simply tackled and not shot at or tasered him after he
ran. Riley was told that if he didn't lie to the media he was facing
certain prison time or even death.
Danny Riley shows where he was tasered by U.S. Marshals in a video
blog released yesterday.
Riley was then dropped off back at the Brown's home after the media
had been allowed to approach the house. In an act of astounding
courage, Riley ignored the media as they yelled questions at him and
headed straight into the house to tell Ed Brown that the FBI had
ordered him to lie.
Riley then emerged from the house and told the authorities what they
wanted to hear - that he had relayed the cover story to the media.
Riley was then dropped off at a bus station and told by authorities
that if he returned to the scene he would either be imprisoned or killed.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Get access
to hundreds of special video reports, audio interviews, books and
documentary films. Subscribers also get instant access to our hugely
popular forum where you can network with like-minded people, meet up
and get active! Click here to subscribe.
----------------------------------------------------------
Despite the fact that Riley bravely ignored the threats and did not
relay the cover-story, the local media still bought the police's
explanation that they had never planned to raid the house and that,
after erecting roadblocks a mile around, evacuating neighbors, cutting
the Brown's phone and power lines and deploying 6 helicopters along
with a SWAT team and APC's, they were merely serving a warrant for an
empty property 10 miles away.
Danny Riley is risking his life by telling the truth - that New
Hampshire police, led by the FBI, had conducted prior surveillance of
the property and were in place about to launch a violent siege against
Ed and Elaine Brown before Riley's chance encounter with U.S. Marshals
led officials to abort the raid and manufacture a cover-story which
they then tried to intimidate Riley into selling to the local media.
This represents open fraud, deceit and extortion on behalf of New
Hampshire police as well as the FBI and Danny Riley's testimony
demands immediate attention from national as well as local media in
the New Hampshire area.
PLAINFIELD, N.H. -- A Plainfield man who has been holed up in his house after
being convicted of tax evasion said Friday that federal,
state and local agents had come to kill him when they showed
up near his property the day before.
Ed Brown and his wife, Elaine, were convicted in January
of hiding nearly $2 million in income and not paying taxes
on it because they insisted that federal income taxes are
invalid. In April, they skipped their sentencing hearings
and have been holed up in their house since.
Thursday, one of his supporters was taken into custody when
heavily armed police arrived near the 110-acre property.
Danny Riley posted a video online hours after he was
released from custody that said he was shot at, police used
a Taser on him, and he was questioned for hours.
"I was screaming at the top of my lungs, 'Don't shoot me!
I'm unarmed!'" Riley said in the video.
Riley was sent home to New York after his release. He was
staying with the Browns and was walking the family dog when
he came across police, who said they were doing surveillance
around the property.
"All of a sudden, a guy stood up said, 'Freeze!'" Riley
said. "At that point, I turned and ran."
Riley said that a Taser gun left a mark on his chest. He
said that he was shot at, but police said only non-lethal
force was used.
Officers said they were setting up surveillance while the
Browns' commercial property in West Lebanon was seized.
"The U.S. Marshals Office said they would not assault us on
this land," Ed Brown said. "They lied."
Ed Brown said he thought the U.S. marshals were coming to
kill him. The Browns said that they have not broken any
laws, saying they don't believe there is any law requiring
them to pay taxes.
"We've told them all along, show us the law where you pay
taxes," he said. "So if the tax is a problem, there's no
problem. We'll pay it. Show us the law."
Federal officials said they won't take the home by force,
but they maintain regular contact.
Ed Brown said that he knows he's being watched, and he has
even fired warning shots.
"If the dog indicates she sees something in the woods,
I'll pop off a few rounds in the woods," he said.
Ed Brown wouldn't say how many supporters are helping him. A
handful of supporters seen on the compound Friday were
armed.
Federal officials said they could arrest those who help
the couple avoid capture.
The Associated Press
Friday, June 8, 2007; 8:28 PM
PLAINFIELD, N.H. -- A day after heavily armed officers surrounded his
fortified compound, a convicted tax evader said Friday he believes
federal agents planned to raid his home before they were discovered by
one of his supporters.
Federal authorities said they were only
guarding Ed and Elaine Brown's 110-acre spread to protect against
violence while they seized the woman's dental practice in neighboring
Lebanon to help satisfy a federal court judgment.
New Hampshire state police stand watch on Stage Rd. in
Plainfield, NH., Thursday, June 7, 2007. Federal authorities
indicated Thursday they will not raid the home of two
convicted tax evaders but did serve a warrant to seize
property they own in a neighboring town. The warrant was
served in that town and authorities had no contact with the
couple at their fortified compound on a hilltop in rural
Plainfield, U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier. Thursday morning,
neighbors reported armed police and at least one armored
vehicle near Ed and Elaine Brown's 110-acre property. (AP
Photo/Toby Talbot) (Toby Talbot - AP)
"We had no intention of assaulting the house," U.S. Marshal Stephen
Monier said Friday.
A judge had ordered the property forfeited as part of the couple's
sentence for scheming to hide $1.9 million of income between 1996 and
2003.
The Browns insist federal income tax laws are invalid and stopped
attending their trial partway through. They were convicted in January
and have been fugitives since they were sentenced to 5 1/2 years in
prison each at an April hearing they did not attend.
Their home has a watchtower and concrete walls and can run on wind
and solar power. Ed Brown, who has at least one gun, has said he has
stockpiled food and supplies.
Monier said the show of force was because Ed Brown had threatened
violence against anyone trying to seize his property.
But Brown said: "He's lying through his teeth. ... Did I think the
raid was imminent? Yeah. I was notified that they were on their way."
In a video clip posted Thursday on a Web site supporting the
Browns' cause, a man identifying himself as Danny Riley, of Albany,
N.Y., said he spotted a man in camouflage in the woods near the end of
the long driveway while walking the Browns' dog Thursday morning.
"All of a sudden a guy stood right up in front of me with a full
camouflage suit on and yelled, 'Freeze!' At that point I turned around
and ran for my life," Riley said.
Riley, who said he was yelling that he was unarmed, claimed he
heard two shots as he ran. He stopped, and the camouflaged men shocked
and handcuffed him, he said.
They first asked him to try to negotiate the Browns' surrender,
then strip-searched and questioned him for hours at a police station
in Lebanon, he said. They asked about the Browns' compound, the number
of people there and the weapons in the house, he said.
Monier said a man walking a dog had been detained but declined to
identify him because he was not arrested. He said no deadly force was
used.
New Hampshire state police stand watch on Stage Rd. in
Plainfield, NH., Thursday, June 7, 2007. Federal authorities
indicated Thursday they will not raid the home of two convicted
tax evaders but did serve a warrant to seize property they own
in a neighboring town. The warrant was served in that town and
authorities had no contact with the couple at their fortified
compound on a hilltop in rural Plainfield, U.S. Marshal Stephen
Monier. Thursday morning, neighbors reported armed police and at
least one armored vehicle near Ed and Elaine Brown's 110-acre
property. (AP Photo/Toby Talbot)
By Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer |
June 7, 2007
PLAINFIELD, N.H. --Heavily armed officers with an armored vehicle
moved in Thursday on a fortified hilltop compound owned by a
couple convicted of tax evasion, then insisted the show of force
was just a precaution.
Article Tools
Officers detained a man walking a dog at the 110-acre spread
belonging to Ed and Elaine Brown, but the man -- described as a
supporter of the fugitive couple -- was not arrested, and
authorities had no contact Thursday with the Browns, U.S. Marshal
Stephen Monier said.
Deputy U.S. marshals served a property seizure warrant at the
office where Elaine Brown is a dentist in neighboring Lebanon. A
judge had ordered the property forfeited as part of the couple's
sentence for scheming to hide $1.9 million of income between 1996
and 2003.
The Browns insist federal income tax laws are invalid and
stopped attending their trial partway through. They were convicted
in January and have been fugitives since they were sentenced to 5
1/2 years in prison each at an April hearing they did not attend.
Deputy marshals have negotiated daily with the Browns since
January and will continue doing so, Monier said.
"As we have said from the beginning, we will continue to
communicate with Ed and Elaine Brown to convince them to surrender
peacefully," he said.
The Browns' home has a watchtower, concrete walls and the
ability to run on wind and solar power. Ed Brown, who has shown at
least one gun to reporters in the past, has said he has stockpiled
food and supplies and would resist arrest. He has repeatedly
threatened violence against federal officials and said he would
rather die than admit income taxes exist.
"We needed to know where he was. We needed to know where his
supporters were," Monier said, explaining the dramatic law
enforcement presence. "We have no wish to have a violent encounter
with either one of them."
Vehicles leaving a checkpoint early in the afternoon included
an armored Massachusetts SWAT vehicle, an explosive disposal unit,
a communications truck, industrial logging equipment and a New
Hampshire state police cruiser driven by someone with camouflage
face paint.
Elaine Brown answered a telephone call from The Associated
Press about 11 a.m. by saying: "This is the Lord's House. This is
Sister Elaine and Brother Edward."
Ed Brown said nothing was out of the ordinary at the house,
criticized the media, then the couple hung up.
Earlier, he told a supporter that his suspicions were aroused
when one of his visitors had left to walk the dog, but the dog
came back alone. He also said the power had gone out twice
overnight and an airplane had flown over the house, where he said
he was holed up with supporters.
"It could be a test to see our response time, our reaction," he
said, according to a recording the supporter posted online.
Do people deserve to die because
they refuse to pay taxes to a corrupt and criminal
government?
And when armed men, representing
that corrupt and criminal government, show up on
YOUR property, with the intent to capture or kill
you, do you not have the right to defend yourself
and your family? --Those who serve the system, those
willing to KILL nonviolent citizens for refusing to
submit, are little more than mercenaries. They are
hired guns; they become criminals themselves.
There are an estimated 100 million
armed Americans. The criminal elite are terrified of
this fact. There is only so much money you can pay
somebody – only so much that money will buy in the
support of tyranny. The supply of willing servants
dwindles with every ounce of JUSTIFIED lethal
resistance.
And on the other side of the
equation, there is only so much a people will stand
for. Unlike money, the currency that drives them is
not only priceless (worth life itself) but
inexhaustible. It isn’t the image of power; it IS
power. It doesn’t rise out of clever patriotic
rhetoric and manipulation; it exists in pure form in
the hearts and minds of those who simply know right
from wrong.
Those who have betrayed our
country, working in concert with those who’ve sought
its end since its founding, are now fighting for
their lives. Their past, present, and planned
traitorous actions against America can no longer be
covered up. The utterly corrupt system (erected to
protect and reward them) is crumbling at their feet.
Having lost their information monopoly, it has
become increasingly difficult for them to hide their
true intentions; harder for them to find “well
meaning citizens” to blindly accept and support
whatever they demand. As our military men and women,
our police and firefighters and our fellow citizens
discover how these “leaders” have conspired against
us; they will meet the consequences of their
actions. –there will be nobody left to protect them.
Reasonable minds can conclude that
history is about to repeat itself. Those who’ve
seized control of our country do not have the right
to govern us, let alone murder us for
refusing to support them. They’ve built a scam that
generates upwards of $3 Trillion dollars a year in
revenue. The concentration camps they’re building,
the legal “black holes” they’re creating, the nation
destroying agreements they are signing are meant to
protect that scam; all are being put in place to
help them suppress the inevitable rebellion against
them.
We cannot continue to give aid and
comfort to these enemies of our Republic. We can no
longer hold up the Constitution in one hand,
claiming we love our country, while providing the
money to finance its destruction with the other. We
can no longer wave the flag and march around as
“proud Americans” while turning a blind eye to the
egregious actions (at home and abroad) being done in
our name. The gravest threat to our freedom comes
not from a tiny number of loosely organized
"terrorists" who want to kill us; but from the well
organized criminals with motive, means and
opportunity to enslave and oppress us. It is our
duty as Americans to resist.
--In my estimation, we might have
one more chance to restore constitutionally limited
government in America without bloodshed. That hope
rests with the only Presidential candidate who knows
the history (and true intent) of those who brought
us the Federal Reserve System and Income Tax. His
name is Ron Paul. He would immediately begin to
undue what has been intentionally done to our
country. Read
The Creature from Jekyll Island, watch
Freedom to Fascism, and support
Ron Paul. In addition to everything else you can
do, these three steps could make all the difference.
Joe Plummer 6.7.07
Plainfield
Browns: Dog walker saved lives
Supporter claims marshals chased him
By Margot Sanger-Katz
Monitor staff
June 09. 2007 9:01AM
Danny Riley on video talking about his interaction with
goverment officials on or near the Brown compound. His shirt
was off because he was showing the place where he claims a
police Taser burned him.
The day after federal and state officers swarmed near the hilltop home of
tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown, the couple thanked a supporter from
upstate New York, Danny Riley, for saving their lives.
Riley, who posted a video account of his experience on the internet,
said he was walking the Browns' dog early Thursday when he discovered a
large group of U.S marshals hiding in the woods near the Brown's
Plainfield house. The marshals, he said, shot at him and shocked him
with a Taser. If not for that encounter, Ed Brown said yesterday, he and
his wife might be dead.
"If it wasn't for Danny Riley taking that walk yesterday morning with
the dog the way he did," Brown said yesterday on his daily radio show,
Ed Brown Under Siege. "The fact that he did probably saved our lives."
A law enforcement source confirmed yesterday that Riley was the man
marshals detained Thursday after encountering him with a dog near the
Brown property.
U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier said that the officers were near the
fortified concrete home Thursday to watch the Browns and their
supporters while marshals and IRS agents acted on a warrant to seize a
commercial property owned by the couple in West Lebanon. He said his
officers had never intended to arrest the Browns but wanted to monitor
them in case they retaliated in response to the seizure.
On Thursday, Monier described how officers performing surveillance near
the Brown home encountered a supporter leaving the property. Marshals
detained and questioned the man, but they released him without charges
on Thursday afternoon.
Riley's internet video has fueled speculation on various pro-Brown
websites and radio shows that marshals had intended to arrest or kill
the Browns on Thursday, and were stopped only when Riley accidentally
blew their cover.
"Astounding testimony from Danny Riley, the man who was arrested by
U.S. Marshals after walking Ed Brown's dog near his property yesterday
morning, proves that Thursday's events in Plainfield New Hampshire
represent a planned siege that was only aborted after Riley's
disappearance gave the Browns early warning that militarized police and
SWAT teams were descending on their home," says an article on
prisonplanet.com.
Ed Brown told his radio audience that the marshals' actions suggested
that they intended to kill him and his wife.
"If they were willing to shoot an unarmed guest of ours," Brown said,
"then their intention was to come down and kill us."
Though there had been calls Thursday for supporters to visit the
Brown property, Brown said yesterday that he would prefer supporters
stay put. He did request the hand delivery of a high powered ham radio
and a "third-generation, good" thermal imaging scope for a rife.
"They're very expensive, but so what guys," he said. "We're going to
give our lives to you if we have to."
In the video, Riley, shirtless and sitting in front of a bulletin
board, gives a detailed description of his experience. After walking
down the Browns' long, wooded driveway, he came face to face with a man
in camouflage. When Riley asked the man if he was a turkey hunter, he
initially got no reaction.
"Then all of the sudden, the guy stood right up in front of me,"
Riley said. "And with a full camouflage suit on and yelled, 'Freeze.' At
that point I turned around and ran, ran for my life."
On the video, Riley describes hearing bullets whiz by him as he
yelled to the marshals that he was unarmed. Brown said on the radio
yesterday that he also heard gunfire Thursday morning from his house.
But Monier said that marshals never shot at the dog walker.
"Absolutely no lethal force was ever employed towards him or against
him," Monier said.
Once he started running, Riley said that several more marshals
emerged from both sides of the Brown driveway. Realizing he was
surrounded, he held his hands out in attempt to surrender.
Riley said, and the law enforcement source confirmed, that marshals
shocked him with a Taser before handcuffing him and placing him in a
vehicle. Riley said that marshals, whose badges identified them as
"special operations unit," asked him about who was at the house, what
weapons were there and whether the Browns had a bomb.
Then, Riley said, marshals were uncertain of how to use him.
Initially, they asked him to help ask the Browns to surrender and drove
him past armored vehicles, a helicopter and an ambulance. But the
marshals decided against the strategy, he said, and took Riley to the
Lebanon police station instead, where they questioned him for several
more hours.
In the afternoon, Riley was released about a mile from the house, he
said, and instructed to tell the Browns that he was arrested by two
officers involved with the seizure. He said marshals threatened him with
prison time if he assisted the Browns again or told his story to
journalists.
He told the two-officer story to the Browns, he said, but the couple
already knew about his run-in with the marshals because of phone calls
from neighbors and information from reporters.
"They pretty much already knew the deal," Riley said on the video.
Riley said that after he returned to New York, he discovered a
message on his cell phone from another Brown supporter who said he'd
been arrested.
Monier said yesterday that his office had not detained or arrested
anyone but the dog walker.
Ed and Elaine Brown were both convicted of multiple federal felonies
in January. The jury found that the Browns had evaded taxes on $1.9
million in income from Elaine Brown's dental practice and that the
couple had broken large financial transactions into small increments to
avoid federal reporting rules. The couple maintain that there are no
laws that require them to pay federal income taxes and that the court
that convicted them was a "fiction."
Midway through their trial, Ed Brown retreated to the couple's home,
where they have long stockpiled food and can operate without municipal
power or water. A few weeks after their conviction, Elaine Brown, who
had been free on restrictive bail conditions, joined her husband.
Since then, they have remained at home, entertaining a rotating cast
of supporters and making repeated statements that any attempt to arrest
them will end violently. In April, each was sentenced to more than five
years in prison.
Monier, charged with arresting the couple on bench warrants, has
taken a low-key approach to their capture. Though he acknowledged
Thursday that he has sent officers to quietly check in on the couple, he
has not established a visible presence near the house and has limited
his communications to phone calls urging the Browns to surrender. He has
said often that he does not plan to raid the Browns' home.
Thursday's actions, if not an arrest attempt, marked a change in
style. Armored vehicles, SWAT teams and helicopters were sent to
Plainfield, and dozens of state troopers blocked roads near the home.
Monier said it was important to seize the West Lebanon building this
week because of ongoing concerns about its security.
Phone and internet service at the Brown house, which had been
disconnected by marshals on Thursday, were working again for much of
yesterday, allowing the Browns to appear on a number of radio talk shows
and post updates to their MySpace website.By 3 p.m., however, phone
service was again cut off. On a website frequented by supporters, a
poster said that the personal cell phone of Cirino Gonzales, a man who
is living with the Browns, had also been disabled.
------ End of article
By MARGOT SANGER-KATZ
Monitor staff
Ed Brown says feds have no jurisdiction in New Hampshire
PLAINFIELD – "What are they trying
to do, start a war?" Ed Brown said of the police presence near his
Plainfield home yesterday. "What do they think we have in here,
tanks?"
Brown, who maintains there is no law that requires
average American citizens to pay a direct tax on their wages,
spoke to a group of reporters from a second-floor window in his
house after a veritable army of heavily armed police officers and
federal agents left the area around his rural home without ever
making contact with him.
The government detained and questioned a man who discovered
surveillance teams positioned around the house yesterday morning.
As Brown spoke, half a dozen helicopters made wide circles
overhead.
"How does a foreign national army act in a country they are
occupying?" Brown said. "These people are no different than our
troops in Iraq. I feel bad for our troops over there."
Brown, who asserts that the federal government has no
jurisdiction in New Hampshire and no authority to charge him under
a non-existent law, said the activity surrounding his properties
in Plainfield and West Lebanon yesterday was a "Zionist,
Illuminati, Free Mason movement."
"I hope I don't see anybody up there with guns in the woods,
because what am I supposed to do?" he said, citing a New Hampshire
law that allows citizens to defend their property with deadly
force.
Brown, who called his residence "a house of peace," said a
friend took his dog for a walk at 8 a.m. yesterday and never came
back.
"The dog came running back in a panic about 45 minutes later,"
he said.
His friend was taken into custody by federal agents after the
man discovered surveillance activity on the property, according to
U.S. Marshal Steve Monier.
Brown said the agents "kidnapped" his friend and "stole" his
West Lebanon property.
Brown said he had an inkling Wednesday night that federal
agents were planning something when he saw a low-flying police
aircraft pass eastward over his house around 9:30 p.m. By
yesterday afternoon, he said, his house telephone line and
Internet service had been shut off and his cell phone rendered
useless. All this because, as Brown sees it, he's standing up for
his rights.
"I'm you," he said. "I'm just saying I'm not going to take it
anymore ... I'm fighting for your freedoms."
Brown said it's only a matter of time before everyone who
stands up to the U.S. government ends up in his shoes.
"Your time is coming up pretty soon," he said. "If you don't go
along with the Free Masons, they'll attack you too." Brown, who
says he now adheres only to the laws of the creator, sharply
criticized state and local police officers, calling them "candy
a----" who don't think for themselves.
"They really are babies," he said. "They're mindless little ...
They're nothing like the police we had 15 years ago."
Brown declined to say how many supporters were staying with him
and his wife, Dr. Elaine Brown, but he did say a "huge raft" of
20-somethings have passed through his doors over the past few
months. "The sleeping giant is waking up," he said.
Brown said he doesn't care about warrants or court orders,
because he doesn't believe he's a criminal. If he committed a
crime, he said, he would turn himself in.
"This is just paper," he said. "This is fiction. The entire
American government is fiction. We created it, didn't we?" Brown
said he does not plan to surrender to authorities.
"We're a very reciprocal people. You do us good, we're going to
do you good. You do us bad, we're going to do you bad," he said.
"... This whole thing is a joke, but they'll kill me because of
this joke."
YOUR COMMENTS
The voices of
UnionLeader.com readers:
To Carol McCoy: Yes, the
Constitution....The document by which you say is "The law of
America, " states in the 16th ammendment "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." And, this was
ratified by NH on March 7, 1913. So what again was your argument
in defense of these dispicable people? I find it amazing when
people skew the constitution so as to accept the ammendments
they believe in (1st, 2nd, 13th, 14th) and ignore the others
that they deem unacceptable. If you want to change the
Constitution, I suggest you organize and do so politically. And
until it's changed, you should do as "the law of America" says.
- Ben Clemons, Nashua
U.S. Constitution, Article One: Section. 8. The Congress
shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts
and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; It
would follow that The Congress gets to determine what types of
Taxes it collects. The budgets passed by the US Congress and
signed by the President are indeed the laws of the land. As are
the income taxes and tax rates established by these laws. The
route Brown is taking is not the way to fight or to change US
tax law.
- Michael Costolo, Amherst
The United States Code (USC) is a
compilation of the United States Statutes at Large. It is the US
Statutes at Large that are ultimate evidence of the laws
governing the United States. The USC is put together by the
Office of the Law Revision Council of the US House of
Representatives in order to simplify administration of the laws.
The US Statutes at Large are kept in chronological order and
contain all amendments, repeals, etc. This makes the Statutes at
large difficult to reference. The USC is kept in order of
subject matter and changed to reflect the current status of
amendments, repeals etc. Some portions of the USC are fairly
static. These sections are then proposed to become "positive"
laws, meaning that, once approved, the section in the USC will
become the current Statute. For Statutes subject to frequent
revision, the USC section never has time to move through the
process to become "positive". This does not mean "there is no
law making an average worker liable for direct taxes on his
paycheck". There certainly is such a law and if a court is not
willing to accept the USC as prima facie evidence, one only
needs to introduce the United States Statutes at Large, which
are prima facie evidence.
- Terry Gibbons, Windham
The fact that everyone BELIEVES they HAVE to pay Federal
Taxes is their own ignorance. This country is blind and lives in
fear of their own "Government". Open your eyes and do some
research Americans, instead of assuming that you actually do
have to pay them and then post false comments based on your own
"knowledge", just think for one second, What if this were true?
Then you would be enraged and all the Americans who've lost
their homes, jobs, and are in jail all because of something
non-existent. Wouldn't you want your money back? Think about how
much how long you've paid these Federal Taxes and how much you
would be OWED. We are "The People", but we act as if we are
powerless. We are the majority, and the majority rules. Stand
up. WE as Americans need to live outside this so-called "Box"
and read your laws. Watch this FIRST, THEN post your "comments"
Find the truth here: http://www.freedomtofascism.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRs8Pn7TErU&NR=1
Free Speech cannot be taken away.
- Jeff Randall, Manchester
The view that Americans have no legal
obligation to pay their Federal income taxes is absurd. Those
who claim that everyone but them have been duped by the IRS to
think otherwise are simply anarchists who egotistically think
they are above the rule of law. The police should do their jobs
and arrest these lunatics immediately, remanding them to the
jail they so fully deserve.
- Frank Smith, Manshester
In response to Rick Lavallee, Manchester. What part of "there
is no law making an average worker liable for direct taxes on
his paycheck" is so difficult to absorb. Mr. Brown, and millions
of other Americans would and do pay any taxes they are liable
for. The fact is, and anyone can verify the facts for
themselves, instead of just taking the IRS, DOJ, and Federal
judges corrupt word, there is no law-period. The law of America
is the Constitution. All Federal statutes, including Title 26 of
the USC, must adhere to the Constitution. And, it does. Title 26
is not positive law, and as such listed in the Federal Register
as applicable to everyone. Title 26 is "special law", applicable
only to those who choose to volunteer into its jurisdiction.
Before you spout-off about such things, Mr. Lavallee, I suggest
you get your facts straight.
- Carl McCoy, Nashua
All Americans believe in justice, whether
they support the income tax or not. Ed Brown was barred from
presenting evidence at his trial. If his evidence was worthless
or laughable he would have been convicted. But it is not justice
to deny him his chosen defense. I don't know if Ed Brown is
legally correct, but I believe he is morally right. And he is
standing up for what he believes in. By doing so, he helps all
americans.
- Susan Leach, Concord
Ed Brown is right on the law. Others have beat the same
charge in court. some have gone to jail. but only because the
courts DID NOT follow the law. Ed Brown has decided that he will
not comply with an illegal judgment. What do you do in the U.S.
if the court illegally convicts you wants to take you to jail
take your money and property? If the courts are allied against
you what's your recourse? Ed Brown made his decision. George
Washington made a similar decision. I may not agree with all of
Brown's rhetoric but, I think, legally an constitutionally he's
on better ground than the state.
- Elijah West, Mechanicsville, VA
How long is this saga going to go on for?
Apparently, the police are getting antsy and bringing in all
sorts of equipment as a show of potential force. The Brown's
have sworn death before surrender. Let's hope it doesn't come to
that. If you want to live in this country, you have to help pay
your share of the taxes that pay for local, city and state
services: Police, fire protection; town roads, schools etc...
Granted, the federal government can be the biggest, most
disrespectful waster of our money but holing up in your house in
protest is not the answer. If you're unhappy with the taxation,
rally your townspeople and vote for the changes you want to see
implemented. Barricading yourself in your fortified, well
stocked (for now) house is folly. Look at the results of Waco,
TX and the Branch Davidians. A small tractor in front of the
door to the house is positively no match for an armoured
vehicle. To the Brown's: Give up, pay your taxes and your
penalties and seek redress in a calm, civilized manner in a
court of law lest you be on the losing end of an outgunned,
better equipped police assault. Patience is a virtue but not a
limitless one.
- Rick Lavallee, Manchester
Some ready for a shootout All of a sudden, Ed Brown has a lot of friends
His anti-tax stance attracts wide support By Margot Sanger-Katz
Monitor staff January 22. 2007
JENNIFER HAUCK / Valley News
Supporters of Ed Brown light a bonfire last week near his
driveway in Plainfield. Brown has barricaded himself on his
110-acre property and vows to resist attempts to bring him to
court.
Ed Brown parted ways with his wife last week when he decided not to
join her for the conclusion of their federal tax evasion trial. But
after barricading himself in his fortified Plainfield home and refusing
to surrender to authorities, Brown has amassed a new and growing group
of friends who support his decision to stand up to government authority.
Since Brown and his wife were convicted last week, his case has
captured the attention of a variety of fringe groups, including
Gandhi-admiring protesters who have limited their involvement to
building bonfires and waving signs and armed militia members anxious for
confrontation. Some appreciate Brown's stand against the federal income
tax, some his pointed criticism of the federal courts, and others his
willingness to die for his cause. Whatever their reasons, they've all
congregated at the sprawling fortress Brown calls home, turning it into
a libertarian carnival with an uncertain ending.
"Everybody has their own place on that spectrum," said Dave Ridley
of Keene, who has spent several days in Plainfield and positions himself
on the nonviolent end. Ridley said he owns a gun but locks it up at home
before going to Brown's. "Of course, any group of libertarians has a
thousand different opinions."
When news of Brown's decision began circulating on talk radio
shows and militia-oriented blogs earlier this week, journalists at the
Brown homestead outnumbered supporters. As Brown declared that
Plainfield might become another Waco, three strangers huddled in his
heated garage and emphasized that they had no interest in shooting
anyone.
But as word has spread and the weekend freed many from workday
obligations, the number of those camping at the Brown home has swelled.
Estimates were difficult to obtain because supporters were spread
throughout the house, sleeping in shifts. And some, Brown said, were
hidden outside. But several visitors estimated that the number
fluctuated between 15 and 30 this weekend.
That group includes one woman who drove an hour to Plainfield and
brought Brown a bottle of ginger ale, a carload of young libertarians
from Keene and the New York leader of a national anti-tax organization
with thousands of members.
Brown said he's been moved by the number and enthusiasm of the
supporters he's met since deciding to hole up at home.
"This situation is exploding so fast in this nation and
internationally that the Illuminati around the world are becoming very
aware," Brown said, referring to a rumored secret society that he
believes has infiltrated the highest levels of the world's governments.
Brown and his wife, Elaine, were convicted Thursday of 20 felonies
related to the couple's refusal to pay income taxes since 1996. They
will be sentenced in April. Elaine Brown, who is cooperating with
authorities, has been prohibited from returning to the house. On Friday,
the court unsealed a bench warrant for Ed Brown's arrest.
Brown said he's prepared to wait as long as it takes. His home,
with its solar panels and private well, was designed to function "off
the grid." Brown said he has enough food to last several months, and
those provisions are replenished daily as supporters come and go,
bringing snacks and takeout dinners with them.
Despite the threat of looming violence, Brown's kitchen was abuzz
with activity yesterday afternoon. Young children built forts from the
kindling stacked beside his woodstove. Activists shared newsletters on
how to avoid paying property taxes and why it's a bad idea to register
to vote. Men munched on Doritos, and women poured their children glasses
of orange juice. Rob Jacobs of Allenstown prepared to be sworn into the
Constitution Rangers of the Continental Congress of 1777, a group
charged with holding law enforcement officials accountable to the
Constitution.
Over the course of the week, Brown has said repeatedly that he
would rather die than submit to federal jurisdiction and that he's
readying himself for an armed standoff when the marshals come to arrest
him.
But U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier has said his office has no
intention of beginning a violent confrontation. Monier said that his
officers have been communicating regularly with Brown in hopes of
reaching a peaceful resolution.
Several friends and bloggers have been calling for a bloody
conclusion to the situation. William Miller, a friend and fellow
Constitution Ranger, sent an e-mail last weekend demanding the hanging
of the federal judge and prosecutor who worked on Brown's case - and the
martyrdom of Brown himself.
"Ed Brown, my friend and mentor, for patriotic reasons, is now
worth more to me, and to what I stand for, dead, than alive," Miller
wrote.
Brown said that Miller has clarified his position with the
marshals and that he does not personally endorse any violence toward
court officials. But Miller is not the only Brown supporter making
violent proclamations. The Liberty Guard of New America, a militia
group, has also called for the murder of the judge.
Supporters at Brown's home said the only violence they anticipated
was defensive, but several said that they see a shootout as an
inevitability.
"There's been violence throughout our history, and it's sometimes
what it takes to right the wrongs." said Bernie Bastian, a close friend
of Brown who has been at his side since the trial ended. "It's a shame
that men can't right the wrongs without resorting to it."
Other visitors said they were visiting Brown to lend moral support
but did not plan to participate in any gun battle. Tim and Marylisa
Logsdon spent the weekend at the house with their three young children.
Tim Logsdon said he did not feel he was putting his family in any
danger.
"The building is pretty secure," he said. "And the feds have
promised that they won't raid."
Brown said he was ambivalent about the prospect of violence. He'd
prefer a peaceful resolution, he said, but feels that there are few
options available to him.
"I would like to see this whole thing go away," he said. "But
now's the time it's continuing to build."
Ed
Brown: Police, SWAT Team Incident Was "Test" To See
What Response Would Be New Waco averted as authorities
leave after surrounding propertyPaul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, June 7, 2007
A new Waco was narrowly averted as law enforcement,
APC's and SWAT team personnel descended on the home of
Ed Brown, the tax protester who has threatened to use
force to defend himself against authorities.
Ed Brown himself states that the
police are now leaving and that media are being
allowed to approach the house.
According to his blog,
"apparently this was a test by the "authorities" to
see what kind of response would come from the
community......testing to see what might happen if
they move in......."
This was also confirmed
verbally by the Browns during an appearance on the
RBN radio network.
We received early unconfirmed
reports that the Brown house was on fire - although
according to reports, "Federal authorities indicated
Thursday they will not raid the home of two convicted
tax evaders but would serve a warrant."
Fox News reports, "The U.S.
Marshal's Service says a supporter of the fugitives
was detained near the Browns' home this morning and
that they served a federal warrant to seize Elaine
Brown's dental office in Lebanon."
In addition,
it is being reported that authorities
have closed the airspace above Brown's home and that
an AP photographer was ordered to leave after flying
over the property.
Fred Smart, a close friend of the Brown's confirmed
that Brown's phone has been cut and that at around
8:30PM last night a silent surveillance drone with a
bright beaming light encircled the Brown's property as
if conducting reconnaissance.
News reporters have confirmed that police have
surrounded the property and that they were kept away
from the property. Neighbors have been evacuted from
their homes.
Officer Jack McLamb attempted to call the Sheriff's
office in the area but was told that he was out of
town.
Authorities have been telling reporters that they
would not violently engage the Brown family for the
past few months but this now appears to have been a
drill for a potential future scenario in that mold.
"Dozens of heavily armed state police and federal
agents have assembled near the rural Grafton County
home of tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown."
"About 50 state troopers, some armed with
high-powered rifles, along with a vehicle from the
explosives unit gathered this morning in Plainfield, a
small town where Edward and Elaine Brown have holed up
in their home since being convicted of tax evasion and
sentenced to lengthy federal prison terms,"
reports the Plainfield Union Leader.
Aborted
Attempt to Murder the Browns
Saturday, 09 June 2007By Kat Kanning
It appears now after hearing the testimony of Danny
Riley, friend of tax truthers Ed and Elaine Brown,
that the militaristic activities of the Federal
Government on June 7th was an aborted attempt to
murder the Browns. Federal authorities are aware
that Ed Brown has said he will not be taken into
custody alive, yet they still surrounded the
property, bringing in 2 tanks, multiple helicopters
in an attempt to take the Browns into custody. They
did this knowing that it would likely result in the
deaths of the Browns, and likely the deaths of
officers.
What is so damned important that they need to end
people's lives over? Is it really the money? I
don't think so. The Federal Government can print
all the money it desires. I believe it's about
control. The feds can't have people telling them,
"No." It threatens their whole power base, their
control over the voluntary servitude of the masses.
The feds are forced to take action when people
question their authority. Because if we all realize
that they only can do these things to us because of
our acquiesce, their power will disappear. They
can't have that, so the mainstream press must vilify
the Browns, calling their home a fortified compound,
calling them criminals for wanting to keep what
they've earned. The government will continue trying
to kill the Browns to maintain their control over
us, their voluntary slaves.
Browns likely under attack again
Monday, 11 June 2007
It appears
that Ed and Elaine Brown are under attack
for the second time in a week. Ed Brown
reported earlier today that his
electricity and internet are cut off, and
that there were men prowling around in
his woods. His phone is now
disconnected.
Update 9pm:
We found no Federal blockade outside the
Brown's home. We did not approach the
house, because we could not make phone
communication with the occupants.
We did notice one black Federal
government vehicle in the parking lot of
the Residents Inn nearby.
New Brown raid may be imminent, says
govt. watchdog
From NHfree.com
June 11, 2007
Michael Hampton of HomelandStupidity.us
says he believes another Federal raid or
show of force is imminent in Plainfied,
New Hampshire. He also says Washington
agents are now occupying a room at the
Lebanon Residence Inn.
Hampton, a Manchester blogger who
monitors Federal Internet usage, says the
same patterns which preceded their June 7
show of force are recurring now.
"Last week the day before the raid, they
started reading (Ed Brown Internet
discussions) from their laptops and their
Verizon data cards," he says.
"And they read...some of Ed Brown
supporters' Myspace profiles a lot more
frequently...Today they're doing it
again, same pattern...And now they've
switched over to the Verizon data cards,
within the last minute or two, which
means they're on the move. SOMETHING is
imminent. Maybe another dry run, maybe a
raid, I don't know."
He continues:
"At least one of them is operating out of
the Residence Inn, 32 Centerra Parkway,
Lebanon, as of earlier today,"
Hampton can be reached at: (603) 206-4321
I can be reached at: (603) 721-1490
- Dave from NHfree.com
Theft of Elaine Brown's Business Place
Underway
Thursday, 07 June 2007 By Kat
Kanning
Word went out this morning among Ed and
Elaine Brown supporters that the Brown
home was being attacked by ATF agents.
Stephen Monier of the US Marshal's Office
gave a brief press conference near Ed and
Elaine Brown's home this afternoon. The
Marshals were there to assist Department
of Treasury police in the seizure of
Elaine Brown's business place in West
Lebanon, New Hampshire. They were near
the Brown home early this morning, making
sure that Ed and Elaine were home and not
at the place of business. While near the
driveway entrance Marshals were
discovered by one of the Browns'
supporters who was walking the dog. The
supporter was arrested and is being
questioned, but Monier would not or could
not give us his name. The phone was cut
off to the Brown's home to prevent more
supporters from coming to Plainfield.
State Troopers had the road blocked off at
Stage Road near 12A - a considerable distance from the
Brown's home. After the press conference, the road block was
removed and Monier said reporters could go to the Brown's
home, but it wasn't recommended. An Explosives Disposal Unit
was on hand near the Brown's home.
When asked, Monier stated that supporters not at the Brown's
home were not under surveillance. Their actions have been
geared toward keeping Brown supporters from getting too
ramped up. He did not want more supporters showing up and
staying at the Brown's home.
In West Lebanon, the theft of Elaine's business place was
underway. Law enforcement of various stripes had all
driveways blocked off. After snapping some photos from
across the street, one W. Lebanon policeman gave me a mean
look as we were leaving. We went over to Shaw's Market to
deliver some papers and were briefly detained by a W. Lebanon
detective who said that I turned twice without using a turn
signal. I told him I was just being a reporter and gave him
a paper. He let us go after a few minutes. I assume that
was his lame excuse to check out a known Brown supporter.
Fed Informer Infiltrates Brown House
Federal vehicles witnessed in nearby hotel parking lot
Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
UPDATE: 2pm CST - Matt Kazee has now managed to get in
touch with
Elaine Brown who told him that she had received a call
from federal
marshall Gary Dimartino who has admitted that the
authorities are
coming in at some point but "not to kill" the Browns.
Dimartino also denies that the Brown's house guest
Danny Riley was
shot at, despite Riley's own witness testimony. It is
admitted that
Riley was tasered.
Kazee has also revealed that local security hacks have
heard police
scanner radios, on which it has been suggested that two
combat robots
are going to be sent into the property at some point
soon.
All indicators suggest that the authorities are poised
to conduct
another brutal show of force on Income Tax protestor's
Ed and Elaine
Brown's New Hampshire property at any time.
Multiple sources have revealed that the activity that
proceeded the
aborted siege on the Browns last week is being
repeated.
Ed and Elaine Brown joined Alex Jones on air yesterday
and revealed
that once again their telephone and internet have been
cut off, and
that there are men prowling around in the trees close
to his property.
A call to the internet company concerned provided
confirmation that
the service has been suspended. Later the same evening
the Browns'
power was completely cut.
Reports out of New Hampshire have suggested that the
same patterns
which preceded their June 7 show of force are recurring
now. A
Manchester blogger who monitors Federal Internet usage,
says the same
frenzied reading of Ed Brown internet discussions from
federal laptops
and Verizon data cards has once again kicked in.
In addition black Federal government vehicles have been
spotted in the
parking lot of the nearby Lebanon Residence Inn. It is
believed that
federal agents are now occupying a room there.
These suggestions dovetail with Ed Brown's revelations
on the Alex
Jones show yesterday that an informer had entered the
house over the
weekend.
Brown described the supposed federal infiltrator as
immediately
suspicious. He appeared as a hillbilly type who was
uncharacteristically loud, opinionated and
seemingly self obsessed.
He attempted to provocateur the Browns into a
discussion about white
supremacy, espousing racist views which of course the
Browns
categorically do not share and would not be led into
discussing.
Eventually he left the house before then calling the
Browns minutes
before their lines were cut off to tell them he thought
they and the
'Constitution Rangers" were weak.
Ed Brown went on record to suggest he believed the
agent had been sent
to engage in "psychological operations".
Infowars correspondent Matt Kazee is still in the
vicinity of the
Brown property today but lost all contact with the
Browns at around
2.30am this morning.
Kazee has confirmed that the Browns' neighbors have
left the area and
that all cell phone signals including his own are being
jammed.
Kazee also revealed that information he gleaned from
locals suggest
some form of forceful activity is imminent.
Any new developments will be covered in depth here at
PrisonPlanet.
From: WhoWhatWhereWhyWhen@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WhoWhatWhereWhyWhen@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Deon Masker
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 9:28 PM
Subject: [WhoWhatWhereWhyWhen] ED CALLS FOR SUPPORT FROM
SERIOUS PEOPLE ONLY!!!
Subject: [ctrl] ED CALLS FOR SUPPORT FROM SERIOUS PEOPLE
ONLY!!!
ED CALLS FOR SUPPORT FROM SERIOUS PEOPLE ONLY!!! THEY NEED
SERIOUS
PEOPLE WILLING TO FIGHT TO COME TO THEIR AID -- RIGHT
NOW!!! THIS IS
TUESDAY, JUNE 12th -- ED AND ELAINE AND OTHERS NEED YOUR
HELP!!!
--Power out
--Agents in woods
--Neighbors evacuated [this reports are not yet confirmed]
--Communications shut down and jammed
--Feds have said they will shut down roads again
NOW IS THE TIME -- THIS IS LIFE OR DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DON'T
GO UNLESS YOU'LL FIGHT. TAKE A PLANE, TRAIN, OR AUTOMOBILE
IF YOU
NEED TO.
IT IS TIME TO ACT NOW OR NEVER
SHOTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN FIRED AT A FRIEND OF ED AND ELAINE,
AND
POSSIBLY SHOTS HAVE BEEN FIRED AT THE HOME. WHAT ARE WE
GOING TO DO
ABOUT IT???
Ed and Elaine and the rest of us need your help!!!! We need
people to
contact the "authorities" or "officials" as they call
themselves. We
need people to URGE them to resolve this without violence
and without
the THREAT of violence -- simply put, without the use of
ARMED AGENTS!!!
Please call all three of these phone numbers and speak to
someone to
get your message to them.
#1: Sullivan County, NH (Plainfield is located here)
Sheriff Michael
Prozzo -- 603-863-4200
Please call the sheriff's office and urge him to act under
his
authority as the supreme law enforcement official in
Sullivan County.
He is the only elected law enforcement "official" and has
the
authority to tell the feds to back off. But so far he
hasn't done
anything but hide from this whole matter. Urge him to do
something
RIGHT NOW!!!
#2: New Hampshire State Governor John Lynch -- 603-271-2121
Please call Gov. Lynch's office right now! They will likely
try to
skirt the issue and tell you to call the U.S. Marshall's
office.
Don't let them off the hook! Tell them that the GOVERNOR is
supposed
to have the authority over New Hampshire -- not the feds!!!
Ed does
not live on federal land! Ed is not under federal
jurisdiction!
Plainfield isn't on federal land, the county isn't, and the
state
isn't. The feds have no business there. The governor could
act to
stop it and keep the feds out. As with the sheriff, so far
he has
not!!! Call and tell them HE ABSOLUTELY MUST EXERCISE HIS
AUTHORITY
AND STOP THE FEDS.
#3: The U.S. Marshall's office: 603-225-1632
Please call and tell them they have no authority, no
business, and
should immediately stop the violent actions they are taking
against
the Browns. They will likely ask for your name and number
-- that's
what they asked from me -- you can give it to them if you'd
like, or
not if you don't want to -- but don't be scared of these
guys. Get
your message that this should be resolved without the
continued use of
violence and the threat of violence. Tell them we are
watching!
ALL COMMUNICATIONS LINE CUT -- LAND PHONES, CELL PHONES,
INTERNET.
WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT TRYING TO HIDE??? WHY ARE THEY
SUPRESSING FREE
SPEECH, MOVEMENT, AND ASSEMBLY??? WHY DON'T THEY WANT
PEOPLE KNOWING
WHAT'S GOING ON???
Local security hacks have also heard police scanner
radios, on which it has been suggested that two Special
Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection System,
(SWORDS) combat robots (see link below) are going to be
sent into the property at some point soon.
Federal marshals have called Ed and Elaine Brown to
tell them that the authorities are coming in to
their property at some point soon but "do not want
to kill" the Browns.
US Marshall Gary Dimartino, who previously promised
the Browns that federal authorities would not raid
them only for the feds to then conduct an aborted
raid last week, told Elaine Brown that they were
coming in.
Given that the Browns now know the marshals have no
honor and they have flat out lied before, it is
likely that they mean exactly the opposite of
anything they openly say to the Browns.
Local security hacks have also heard police scanner
radios, on which it has been suggested that two
Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection
System, (SWORDS) combat robots (see picture below)
are going to be sent into the property at some point
soon.
In addition Federal vehicles have
been spotted in local hotel parking lots. Yesterday
we
exclusively revealed that the Browns
believed their home had been infiltrated by an
informer.
The Browns remain without power, the
internet and have telephone access fleetingly,
seemingly only when the authorities wish to contact
them.
Ruby Ridge Siege survivor Randy Weaver told the Alex
Jones show yesterday that if he can raise the funds
he will make a stand and travel to stay with the
Browns in New Hampshire.
"I'm really worried for the Browns out there,
personally I would like to be out there and
stand with these people... If they had a bunch
of people, that's what helped save us up at
Ruby Ridge, those of us that survived anyway."
said Weaver.
Weaver also hinted that the legal team
that won him cases in the wrongful
killing of some of his family at Ruby
Ridge are watching the situation with
the Browns carefully to see what
transpires.
Weaver has walked a thousand miles
in the Browns shoes, having his
wife and child killed by federal
authorities in the brutal siege
that took place in 1992.
"As long as they are still
allowing outside people to go
into their place I don't think
they are planning an imminent
dynamic entry. They may be
still trying to get snitches
in there...
But once they block the
roads off and keep people
at least a mile or two
miles away that's when you
know they are going to
come down hard on them."
Weaver continued.
Weaver
offered some
sound advice
for the
Browns:
"Be real
cool,
let them
fire
first,
cos if
they go
in
they'll
be
coming
in hard
and
heavy
real
fast,
and
stand up
and do
what is
right.
But if
it comes
down to
it then
when its
all said
and done
the feds
will
just
claim
that its
their
fault
and
leave it
at that
and get
away
with
it."
Meanwhile
Danny
Riley,
the
man
who
was
shot
and
tasered
on
the
Browns'
property
has
had
his
google
and
youtube
accounts
blocked
so
he
cannot
upload
anymore
videos.
Riley
told
infowars
that
he
was
a
nervous
wreck
and
still
feared
for
his
safety.
He cannot reveal full details of what he is going through but informed us that the authorities are "hanging things over his head" in an attempt to get him to cooperate with them. The feds keep warning him to stop telling people that the FBI is involved in the case.
PLAINFIELD (AP) - U.S. marshals insisted they had
no intentions of storming the
fortress-like home of a husband and
wife convicted of tax evasion who refused to
report to jail. But when SWAT teams, military and
explosives vehicles began marshaling in their
tiny town yesterday, neighbors began to wonder
whether a raid was imminent.
"There's been a lot of cars heading up that way.
Law enforcement types," said Russell Hoisington,
who lives on the road leading to Ed and Elaine
Brown's hilltop retreat,
and whose nephews - neighbors of the Browns -
were rousted from their home by police yesterday
morning.
... fortified home ...
fortress-like home ¨C
complete with cement walls and a watchtower ...
"I love my home. It's my castle.
There's plenty to do here," Brown told Associated
Press by phone yesterday. "It's all set up for me
to stay here forever."
... Morse (US Marshal) said recent improvements to the Browns'
home made it "essentially a fortress."
...
Picture taken in mid-January
Ed and Elaine have a normal wooden front door and unprotected
windows.
Here is what I picture when I think "fortified":
You could just break down Ed Brown's front door if you wanted to.
I am sure the Feds will have no problem inflicting pain on the
Brown household with their weapons and armored vehicles. The
government sure looks like they will be laying seige to the house
sometime in the future. They have blocked off access to the area
in the past week and have been lurking in the woods. I sure hope
the government doesn't come in and burn up their home like they
did the Branch Dividians in Waco, Texas.
Feds say they can
outwait the Browns
By PAT GROSSMITH
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
The federal government is attempting to make
everyday life for convicted tax evaders Ed and
Elaine Brown so uncomfortable they will surrender
and begin serving their 63-month federal prison
sentence.
Stephen Monier, U.S. marshal in New
Hampshire, said yesterday the government has severed
the Browns' telephone service, Internet access and
power to their hilltop home in Plainfield.
He acknowledged, however, that other people are
supplying the Browns with laptop computers,
providing them with Internet access. Ed Brown also
built his home with solar panels and windmills for
power and also has backup generators.
But, Monier said, patience is a virtue and the
federal government is prepared to wait out the
Browns.
"We have no intention of assaulting the house,"
he said again yesterday. "We are committed to end
this peacefully."
He said there are no federal agents in Plainfield
or surveillance teams in camouflage watching the
fortified home at 401 Center of Town Road.
On Tuesday, his office was swamped with callers,
he said - at one point about 200 calls an hour were
being handled - expressing sentiments such as "Don't
kill the Browns," "Leave them alone," and "They
didn't do anything."
The calls, he said, were prompted by an web site
urging people to call his office as well as that of
the Sullivan County sheriff and the governor.
The Browns have been holed up in their home since
last January after their convictions. Ed Brown has
threatened violence if federal agents attempt to
arrest them.
Last Thursday, dozens of heavily armed federal
agents and state troopers, including SWAT teams and
military and explosives vehicles, converged on
Plainfield. Agents had a court order to enter the
West Lebanon building housing Elaine Brown's dental
practice.
That morning, a man walking the Browns' dog
inadvertently came upon a surveillance team of U.S.
federal agents in camouflage in the woods at the end
of the couple's driveway. He was taken into custody,
questioned at length and was released hours later
uncharged.
Ed Brown said he was convinced the federal agents
were going to storm his home that day, but Monier
denies that.
The Browns were convicted of plotting to hide
their income to avoid paying federal income taxes on
Elaine Brown's income of $1.9 million between 1996
and 2003.
They also were convicted of using $215,890 in
postal money orders, cashed in smaller amounts to
avoid tax-reporting levels, to pay for their home
and her dental office.
The Browns were sentenced to 63 months in federal
prison and ordered to forfeit $215,890 to the
federal government
COMMENTS
The
voices of UnionLeader.com readers:
I applaud the Marshalls for
their patience. Mr Brown has threatening the lives
of his men and that of their family. I think the
income tax is a scam as well, but lets vote the
people into office to abolish it, not by
threatening innocent people. In my opinion Mr
Brown just wants to be a martyr.
- Jenn Clifford, Antrim, NH
The Brown's have been convicted of a crime
which doesn't exist in the law. The IRS is exactly
a protection racket; they demand your money, and
if you don't pay, they break your legs. Personal
income taxes are SLAVERY, and, for that reason,
the federal income tax laws do NOT include the
income of ordinary Americans in their definition
of taxable income. "Taxable Income" - look it up!!
- Mike Ford, Bedford, NH
I dont really understand the
argument against paying taxes. My thoughts are
that if you want to live in this country and drive
on our roads and visit our hospitals, you need to
play be the same rules as everyone else. Having
said that though, I am glad the government is
trying to end this non-violently, all Waco did was
make the US government look like idiots. Thanks
for listening to my rant!
- David Robinsin, Nashua, NH
Thank you for covering this story. You should
also consider covering the fact's exposed in Aaron
Russo's film, "From Freedom to Fascism." Doing so
will help expose the IRS for what they really
are...thieves and bandits - totally opposing what
America stands for. Thank you for your time.
Nathan Coleman
- Nathan Coleman, New Orleans, Louisiana
T Lee Buyea - Fla News Service
==================================
( Check Out the 50 Caliber BMG Sniper riffle, This
guy means business !)
Texas Man Joins Browns Against Federal Tyranny
Address:http://www.rense.com/general76/tx.htm
Changed:1:56 PM on Friday,
June 15, 2007
Pass it on to every one and news media -
The Browns are asking for media coverage so they
can get their message out that there is No law
requiring Americans to pay IRS taxes on money
earned from labor.
In a live interview on the Coast to Coast radio
program (on 500+ Radio stations) last night they
said they are willing to die to inform
Americans there is No IRS tax law on earned income
and that they intend to fight to the Death to
prove it !
ederal marshals have seized a
car owned by Elaine Brown, after
the car was involved in a fender
bender in Lebanon, U.S. Marshal
Stephen Monier said. He said that
Lebanon police called him after
arriving at the scene of the
accident. Neither Elaine Brown nor
her husband, Ed Brown, was driving
the car, but Monier said his
office impounded the car.
"It's a vehicle belonging to
a fugitive, and we're
investigating it further," he
said.
The Browns have been
convicted of a series of federal
felonies related to their refusal
to pay federal income taxes but
have evaded arrest for more than
five months. The couple remain
holed up in their concrete home in
Plainfield, warning that any
attempt to arrest them will end
with bloodshed.
Monier and his staff have
not blocked cars from entering and
leaving the property. Supporters
have been running errands for the
couple, bringing them food and
other supplies throughout the
standoff. On Saturday, the couple
hosted a concert, which drew more
than 100 supporters, according to
estimates from those who attended.
The Monitor was barred from
attending the "jamboree," as were
other news media outlets.
On his daily internet radioshow, Ed Brown acknowledged
that the car had been taken while
a friend was out buying him some
eggs. He described the car as the
family's sport utility vehicle and
said it was owned by one of his
wife's trusts.
Brown said that the marshals
had "arrested" the car and taken a
$100 gift certificate that was
inside.
"I need another SUV now," Ed
Brown said. "They just stole one."
Neither Brown nor Monier
said who was driving the car.
But Monier did say that his
office is investigating several
Brown supporters and expects to
charge them with felonies for
aiding and abetting the couple.
Monier has been warning the
couple's supporters that they
might face charges since the
couple was sentenced in April, but
so far, there have been no
arrests.
"We think there are several
individuals who have engaged in a
continuing course of conduct that
rises to the level of committing a
felony offense," Monier said
yesterday.
He also said that he was
planning measures designed to
encourage the couple to surrender,
though he did not say what they
were. In recent weeks, marshals
have cut phone and power to the
house, but in interviews Ed Brown
said those measures have had
little effect. The house is
outfitted with solar panels, and a
wind turbine in the yard also
produces electricity. Supporters
have been bringing mobile phones
to the house, which have allowed
the couple to speak on the radio
and post internet updates.
"I will say we're proceeding
in a purposeful and methodical and
deliberate way," Monier said. "In
the near future there may be
additional future steps that we
may take to move the Browns
along."
By MARGOT SANGER-KATZ
Monitor staff
Plainfield
Brown
says he won't pay, town
will
He now
opts out of local property
taxes
By Mark Davis
Valley News
July 21. 2007 12:25AM
T
hroughout his standoff
with federal authorities,
tax protester Ed Brown has
proudly insisted he had
always paid his local
property taxes. It was
only with the federal
government, he said, that
he had a problem.
Not anymore.
In a brief interview
Tuesday, Brown said he has
no intention of ever
paying his property tax
bill because the town said
it would not provide
emergency services to his
home during a music
festival he held last
weekend.
"The town has
violated the contract,"
Brown said. "They offered
no protection to the land
or us. They'll pay.
They'll pay."
Brown, who with his
wife, Elaine, was
sentenced earlier this
year to five years in
prison for crimes related
to their unwillingness to
pay federal income taxes,
has not paid Plainfield a
$7,055 tax bill due July
1, according to town
records. Brown's 103-acre
hilltop parcel with a
house on Center of Town
Road is assessed at more
than $572,000.
"I don't think anybody
in the town expected he
would," Plainfield Town
Administrator Steve
Halleran said. "There's no
reason a guy who doesn't
own his house and is going
to prison would pay town
taxes."
Though the Browns
have said recently that
they believe in local
taxes, this is not the
first time they stopped
paying Plainfield. From
1999 to 2003, the Browns
refused to pay the school
portion of their property
taxes, until tax liens
threatened the deeds to
their home and business,
according to newspaper
accounts and the
Plainfield tax collector.
In February 2003, Brown
told the Connecticut
Valley Spectator that
their nonpayment was an
act of civil disobedience
against a school system
that was indoctrinating
children in "Communism,
humanism, bigtime,
homosexuality and
cultural-political
engineering," in violation
of the constitution.
Four months later,
the Browns paid their back
taxes in order to avoid a
violent confrontation with
officials, Ed Brown told
the Spectator.
About 10 percent of
Plainfield's 1,200
taxpayers have yet to pay
their first installment,
Halleran said. (The second
payment is due in
December.)
Halleran, citing the
potential threat posed by
the Browns and their
supporters, some of whom
are armed, said town
police and fire personnel
are unlikely to respond to
calls for service there in
the future.
In March, police and
ambulance units responded
to a 911 call from the
home reporting a medical
emergency involving a man
Ed Brown would identify
only as a friend with
cancer. The police also
responded when Ed Brown
asked them to escort a Fox
News crew from the
property in January.
The Browns maintain
that there is no law
requiring anyone pay
federal income tax, and
they were convicted on
charges stemming from the
failure to pay taxes on
about $1.9 million in
income from Elaine Brown's
now-defunct dental
practice.
If the Browns
continue to refuse to pay
town taxes, they will add
on to about $3 million in
fines and back taxes they
already owe to the federal
government.
The town places a
lien on a property if
taxes are not paid after a
year and assesses
penalties of up to 18
percent, Halleran said.
After three years, the
town can take the
property.
Of course, things
would work differently
with the Browns. Their
land will first go to the
federal government,
Halleran said, and the
government will likely
sell it to recoup the back
taxes, interest and fees.
Marshals have already
seized the West Lebanon
commercial property that
housed Elaine Brown's
practice.
Tax bills were sent
to Plainfield residents on
June 1, along with an
envelope in which
residents could mail
checks.
When an employee
Town Hall opened the
envelope from the Browns,
they found, in lieu of a
check, a handwritten
letter and a set of
documents purporting to
establish the Browns as
"stewards" of the
residential property,
owned by the "Lord."
"Nay! Nay! The land
. . . at 401 Center of
Town Road, Plainfield, New
Hampshire, and all that is
in and upon it, including
the Lords bodies, are in
the kingdom of heaven,
belonging to the Lord,
have been claimed by him,
and thus can be claimed by
no man, nor can any man
have beneficial interest
in it," the unsigned
letter reads. "Stand down
and away from the Lords
land and the bodies of the
Lord. So it is written. So
it is done."
By MARK DAVIS
Valley News
RED ALERT - Shots Fired - ED & ELAINE
BROWN Under Attack
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 11:35 PM
Subject: shots fired shots fired red
alert
30 to 40 rounds fired behind
the house noise heard in the woods
every one is at battle stations this
in not a drill I repeat this in not a
drill
danny
——————-
WE HAVE JUST RECEIVED THIS EMAIL
FROM THE BROWN PROPERTY. START POSTING
TO EVERY BLOG AND WEBSITE, START
EMAILING EVERYONE ALIVE AND MOBILIZE
NOW SPREADING THE WORD IMMEDIATELY.
CALL THE MARSHALL OFFICE IN
PLAINFIELD.
Police
state in action. When are we going to get
physical envoledand begin helping those
who are taking a stand against the
criminals in our government? Phil
Everything and everyone seems to be under
attack, I am under attac everyday, can you
believe that, why I wonder. But I hope there
will be a stop for all kinds of ATTACS soon.
A caller on
this radio station stated he called the
police department in Plainfield and
reported there were shots fired on the
Brown’s property and there might be murder
going on. The officer he reached stated he
hadn’t heard anything about it and didn’t
seem interested. The caller asked for the
officer’s name and he was told by the
officer he was not going to give him his
name. This is what the Brown’s are up
against.
> When
are we going to get physical envoledand
begin
> helping those who are taking a stand
against the
> criminals in our government?
Never.
Because all you yanks do is talk. Nothing
has changed and nothing WILL ever change.
Plainly speaking, you’re a nation of
complacent braindead vegetables with the
very government that you people deserve.
This corp. video shows who the real
serial killers and psychotics are: The
Corporations who kill and rape by the
millions worldwide, but the Rothschild
bought lawyer politicians keep the CNN
camera pointed at guys hijacking cars and
driving off in them and then when cnn
copter crashes its the poor little black
kid driving the getaway car that is the
bad guy in the whole world!!!!!!!!!!!!
Watch real carefully Braveheart movie
by Mel Gibson for the clue on how the
lawyers keep us fighting each other
instead of the real menace, the Rothschild
funded World G’mnts!!!!!!!!!!!!
as this
evil darkness we call the goverment
continues to attack good honest people it
brings the needed revolution one step
closer.we must remember we have all the
power and they have none.may god bless us
all.it is time ladies and gentelman to do
what we know needs to be done.
People will take a stand when they have
had enough… apparently, this isn’t enough
for them yet. Unfortunately, when the
storm troopers come banging at your door
it will be too late to take a stand.
If Ed & Elaine die, the militia has vowed
to kill everybody responsible. That means
a lot of people won’t be going home some
night soon.
[…] “Truther”
post about a house under attack in New
Hampshire. Uh huh. 30 to 40 rounds fired
behind the house noise heard in the woods
every one is at battle stations this in
not a drill I repeat this in not a drill
[…]
You
know, if I made enough money to where I’d
owe the IRS as much as they owe, I’d be
happy to pay my taxes. Why? Because I’ve
read the law and it says that you have to
pay taxes on your income. It’s pretty easy
to find. You just have to look.
There are probably many cases out there
where people are being treated unfairly by
the IRS. But this isn’t one of them.
They’re using kid gloves on this couple.
They’re being patient. But they have to
arrest them at some point.
The tax movement does itself no favor
by embracing these people. There are
other, more worthy people out there who
really should be helped. Not millionaire
dentists who are tax cheats.
What about the
case that the lawyer from Shreveport, LA
just won against the fraudulent money
laundering IRS? Why hasn’t the media
reported that to we the people? Because
the media ISN’T what we thought. They’re
not the watchdog for government, they’re
complicit partners with them in all their
scams and schemes committed against we the
people. This has always been, no matter
what they say or do.
The media will
never support any successes against the
Rothschild’s IRS because they are Zionist
controlled as well. The compliant
governments will enforce the will of the
masters against any media person whoever
they are.
Hey Rex
Lacoste,
I would very much like you to show me this
law of which you speak. Last I heard, any
tax on personal income is unlawful. If you
speak about the 16th amendment to the
Constitution, it was never properly
ratified.
[…] chilling.
Worst of all, very early this morning
about 30-40 rounds of gunfire was heard
coming from their property. The police
aren’t doing anything about it and the
only news outlet reporting on it is the
[…]
Rex
Lacoste is a lying sack of shit who should
be hung from a tree, but everyone here
should expect government shills on every
message board. The nazi spies are all over
the internet (and soon your neighborhood)
and we need to show them no mercy.
Now Mr. Lacoste, exactly where did you say
you read the law that justifies an
unapportioned tax on one’s labor? You
didn’t read it because it doesn’t exist.
You can always tell a government stooge by
his lies. I hope to see your head roll
down the street you treasonous piece of
shit.
Rex Lacoste
how much were you paid to make that stupid
post? Do you really think the
disinformation is going to work?
People
like you used to keep the system running.
Now we see you for who you are and we
remember what you have wrought and we are
not happy with it.
Since you are happy to serve this
system you must be a part of it. And I
think you know the tax laws have been
beaten in the courts since they do not
exist. Of course the government is frantic
to keep the revenue coming in for their
projects. That is just too bad it isnt our
problem they got out of control and
assumed powers that are not theirs to
assume. We do not want the war, or much
else they represent, good time to let it
fold and create something new.
So crawl back in the slime coated pit
you come from we are interested any more.
[…] the
Feds made some sort of move yesterday.
Reports of shots being fired. Prior to
that, a report states: Notice: Power,
telephone lines, Internet access,
satellite TV, and […]
[…] RED ALERT
- Shots Fired - ED & ELAINE BROWN Under
Attack « Houston 9|11 Truth RED ALERT -
Shots Fired - ED & ELAINE BROWN Under
Attack « Houston 9|11 Truth […]
The federal, state, and local tax systems in
the United States have been marked by significant
changes over the years in response to changing
circumstances and changes in the role of
government. The types of taxes collected, their
relative proportions, and the magnitudes of the
revenues collected are all far different than
they were 50 or 100 years ago. Some of these
changes are traceable to specific historical
events, such as a war or the passage of
the 16th
Amendment to the Constitution that granted the
Congress the power to levy a tax on personal
income. Other changes were more gradual,
responding to changes in society, in our economy,
and in the roles and responsibilities that
government has taken unto itself.
History and Purpose of the Amendment
The ratification of this Amendment was
the direct consequence of the Court's decision
in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust
Co., 1 whereby the
attempt of Congress the previous year to tax
incomes uniformly throughout the United States
2 was held by a
divided court to be unconstitutional. A tax on
incomes derived from property,
3 the Court
declared, was a ''direct tax'' which Congress
under the terms of Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec.
9, could impose only by the rule of
apportionment according to population, although
scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had
unanimously sustained 4
the collection of a similar tax during the
Civil War, 5 the
only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth
Amendment in which Congress had ventured to
utilize this method of raising revenue.
6
During the interim between the Pollock
decision in 1895 and the ratification of the
Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the Court gave
evidence of a greater awareness of the
dangerous consequences to national solvency
which that holding threatened, and partially
circumvented the threat, either by taking
refuge in redefinitions of ''direct tax'' or,
and more especially, by emphasizing, virtually
to the exclusion of the former, the history of
excise taxation. Thus, in a series of cases,
notably Nicol v. Ames,
7 Knowlton v. Moore,
8 and Patton v.
Brady, 9 the Court
held the following taxes to have been levied
merely upon one of the ''incidents of
ownership'' and hence to be excises: a tax
which involved affixing revenue stamps to
memoranda evidencing the sale of merchandise on
commodity exchanges, an inheritance tax, and a
war revenue tax upon tobacco on which the
hitherto imposed excise tax had already been
paid and which was held by the manufacturer for
resale.
Because of such endeavors the Court
thus found it possible to sustain a
corporate income tax as an excise
''measured by income'' on the privilege
of doing business in corporate form.
10 The
adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment,
however, put an end to speculation
whether the Court, unaided by
constitutional amendment, would persist
along these lines of construction until
it had reversed its holding in the
Pollock case. Indeed, in its initial
appraisal 11
of the Amendment it classified
income taxes as being inherently
''indirect.'' ''[T]he command of the
amendment that all income taxes shall
not be subject to apportionment by a
consideration of the sources from which
the taxed income may be derived,
forbids the application to such taxes
of the rule applied in the Pollock case
by which alone such taxes were removed
from the great class of excises,
duties, and imports subject to the rule
of uniformity and were placed under the
other or direct class.''
]he
Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new
power of taxation but simply prohibited
the previous complete and plenary power
of income taxation possessed by
Congress from the beginning from being
taken out of the category of indirect
taxation to which it inherently
belonged.''
13
[Footnote
3] The Court conceded that taxes on
incomes from ''professions, trades,
employments, or vocations'' levied by
this act were excise taxes and
therefore valid. The entire statute,
however, was voided on the ground that
Congress never intended to permit the
entire ''burden of the tax to be borne
by professions, trades, employments, or
vocations'' after real estate and
personal property had been exempted,
158 U.S. at 635 .
For most of our nation's history, individual
taxpayers rarely had any significant contact with
Federal tax authorities as most of the Federal
government's tax revenues were derived from
imited need for revenue, while each
of the colonater responsibilities and
eeds, which they met with
different types of taxes. For example, the
southern colonies primarily taxed imports and
exports, the middle colonies at times imposed a
property tax and a "head" or poll tax levied on
each adult male, and the New England colonies
raised revenue primarily through general real
estate taxes, excises taxes, and taxes based on
occupation.
England's need for revenues to pay for its
wars against France led it to impose a series of
taxes on the American colonies. In 1765, the
English Parliamt passed the Stamp Act, which
was the first tax imposed directly on the
American colonies, and then Parliament imposed a
tax on tea. Even though colonists were forced to
pay these taxes, they lacked representation in
the English Parliament. This led to the rallying
cry of the American Revolution that "taxation
without representation is tyranny" and
established a persistent wariness regarding
taxation as part of the American culture.
The Post
Revolutionary Era
The Articles of Confederation, adopted in
1781, reflected the American fear of a strong
central government and so retained much of the
political power in the States. The national
government had few responsibilities and no
nationwide tax system, relying on donations from
the States for its revenue. Under the Articles,
was a sovereign entity and could levy
tax as it pleased.
When the Constitution was adopted in 1789, the
Founding Fathers recognized that no government
could function if it relied entirely on other
governments for its resources, thus the Federal
Government was granted the authority to raise
taxes. The Constitution endowed the Congress with
the power to "…lay and collect taxes, duties,
imposts, and excises, pay the Debts and provide
for the common Defense and general Welfare of the
United States." Ever on guard against the power
of the central government to eclipse that of the
states, the collection of the taxes was left as
the responsibility of the State governments.
To pay the debts of the Revolutionary War,
Congress levied excise taxes on distilled
spirits, tobacco and snuff, refined sugar,
carriages, property sold at auctions, and various
legal documents. Even in the early days of the
Republic, however, social purposes influenced
what was taxed. For example, Pennsylvania imposed
an excise tax on liquor sales partly "to restrain
persons in low circumstances from an immoderate
use thereof." Additional support for such a
targeted tax came from property owners, who hoped
thereby to keep their property tax rates low,
providing an early example of the political
tensions often underlying tax policy decisions.
Though social policies sometimes governed the
course of tax policy even in the early days of
the Republic, the nature of these policies did
not extend either to the collection of taxes so
as to equalize incomes and wealth, or for the
purpose of redistributing income or wealth. As
Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the
"general Welfare" clause:
To take from one, because it is thought his own
industry and that of his father has acquired
too much, in order to spare to others who (or
whose fathers) have not exercised equal
industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily
the first principle of association, "to
guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his
industry and the fruits acquired by it."
With the establishment of the new nation, the
citizens of the various colonies now had proper
democratic representation, yet many Americans
still opposed and resisted taxes they deemed
unfair or improper. In 1794, a group of farmers
in southwestern Pennsylvania physically opposed
the tax on whiskey, forcing President Washington
to send Federal troops to suppress the Whiskey
Rebellion, establishing the important precedent
that the Federal government was determined to
enforce its revenue laws. The Whiskey Rebellion
also confirmed, however, that the resistance to
unfair or high taxes that led to the Declaration
of Independence did not evaporate with the
forming of a new, representative government.
During the confrontation with France in the
late 1790's, the Federal Government imposed the
first direct taxes on the owners of houses, land,
slaves, and estates. These taxes are called
direct taxes because they are a recurring tax
paid directly by the taxpayer to the government
based on the value of the item that is the basis
for the tax. The issue of direct taxes as opposed
to indirect taxes played a crucial role in the
evolution of Federal tax policy in the following
years. When Thomas Jefferson was elected
President in 1802, direct taxes were abolished
and for the next 10 years there were no internal
revenue taxes other than excises.
To raise money for the War of 1812, Congress
imposed additional excise taxes, raised certain
customs duties, and raised money by issuing
Treasury notes. In 1817 Congress repealed these
taxes, and for the next 44 years the Federal
Government collected no internal revenue.
Instead, the Government received most of its
revenue from high customs duties and through the
sale of public land.
The Civil War
When the Civil War erupted, the Congress
passed the Revenue Act of 1861, which restored
earlier excises taxes and imposed a tax on
personal incomes. The income tax was levied at 3
percent on all incomes higher than $800 a year.
This tax on personal income was a new direction
for a Federal tax system based mainly on excise
taxes and customs duties. Certain inadequacies of
the income tax were quickly acknowledged by
Congress and thus none was collected until the
following year.
By the spring of 1862 it was clear the war
would not end quickly and with the Union's debt
growing at the rate of $2 million daily it was
equally clear the Federal government would need
additional revenues. On July 1, 1862 the Congress
passed new excise taxes on such items as playing
cards, gunpowder, feathers, telegrams, iron,
leather, pianos, yachts, billiard tables, drugs,
patent medicines, and whiskey. Many legal
documents were also taxed and license fees were
collected for almost all professions and trades.
The 1862 law also made important reforms to
the Federal income tax that presaged important
features of the current tax. For example, a
two-tiered rate structure was enacted, with
taxable incomes up to $10,000 taxed at a 3
percent rate and higher incomes taxed at 5
percent. A standard deduction of $600 was enacted
and a variety of deductions were permitted for
such things as rental housing, repairs, losses,
and other taxes paid. In addition, to assure
timely collection, taxes were "withheld at the
source" by employers.
The need for Federal revenue declined sharply
after the war and most taxes were repealed. By
1868, the main source of Government revenue
derived from liquor and tobacco taxes. The income
tax was abolished in 1872. From 1868 to 1913,
almost 90 percent of all revenue was collected
from the remaining excises.
The 16th Amendment
Under the Constitution, Congress could impose
direct taxes only if they were levied in
proportion to each State's population. Thus, when
a flat rate Federal income tax was enacted in
1894, it was quickly challenged and in 1895 the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional
because it was a direct tax not apportioned
according to the population of each state.
Lacking the revenue from an income tax and
with all other forms of internal taxes facing
stiff resistance, from 1896 until 1910 the
Federal government relied heavily on high tariffs
for its revenues. The War Revenue Act of 1899
sought to raise funds for the Spanish-American
War through the sale of bonds, taxes on
recreational facilities used by workers, and
doubled taxes on beer and tobacco. A tax was even
imposed on chewing gum. The Act expired in 1902,
so that Federal receipts fell from 1.7 percent of
Gross Domestic Product to 1.3 percent.
While the War Revenue Act returned to
traditional revenue sources following the Supreme
Court's 1895 ruling on the income tax, debate on
alternative revenue sources remained lively. The
nation was becoming increasingly aware that high
tariffs and excise taxes were not sound economic
policy and often fell disproportionately on the
less affluent. Proposals to reinstate the income
tax were introduced by Congressmen from
agricultural areas whose constituents feared a
Federal tax on property, especially on land, as a
replacement for the excises.
Eventually, the income tax debate pitted
southern and western Members of Congress
representing more agricultural and rural areas
against the industrial northeast. The debate
resulted in an agreement calling for a tax,
called an excise tax, to be imposed on business
income, and a Constitutional amendment to allow
the Federal government to impose tax on
individuals' lawful incomes without regard to the
population of each State.
By 1913, 36 States had ratified the 16th
Amendment to the Constitution. In October,
Congress passed a new income tax law with rates
beginning at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent
for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000.
Less than 1 percent of the population paid income
tax at the time. Form 1040 was introduced as the
standard tax reporting form and, though changed
in many ways over the years, remains in use
today.
One of the problems with the new income tax
law was how to define "lawful" income. Congress
addressed this problem by amending the law in
1916 by deleting the word "lawful" from the
definition of income. As a result, all income
became subject to tax, even if it was earned by
illegal means. Several years later, the Supreme
Court declared the Fifth Amendment could not be
used by bootleggers and others who earned income
through illegal activities to avoid paying taxes.
Consequently, many who broke various laws
associated with illegal activities and were able
to escape justice for these crimes were
incarcerated on tax evasion charges.
Prior to the enactment of the income tax, most
citizens were able to pursue their private
economic affairs without the direct knowledge of
the government. Individuals earned their wages,
businesses earned their profits, and wealth was
accumulated and dispensed with little or no
interaction with government entities. The income
tax fundamentally changed this relationship,
giving the government the right and the need to
know about all manner of an individual or
business' economic life. Congress recognized the
inherent invasiveness of the income tax into the
taxpayer's personal affairs and so in 1916 it
provided citizens with some degree of protection
by requiring that information from tax returns be
kept confidential.
World War I and the
1920's
The entry of the United States into World War
I greatly increased the need for revenue and
Congress responded by passing the 1916 Revenue
Act. The 1916 Act raised the lowest tax rate from
1 percent to 2 percent and raised the top rate to
15 percent on taxpayers with incomes in excess of
$1.5 million. The 1916 Act also imposed taxes on
estates and excess business profits.
Driven by the war and largely funded by the
new income tax, by 1917 the Federal budget was
almost equal to the total budget for all the
years between 1791 and 1916. Needing still more
tax revenue, the War Revenue Act of 1917 lowered
exemptions and greatly increased tax rates. In
1916, a taxpayer needed $1.5 million in taxable
income to face a 15 percent rate. By 1917 a
taxpayer with only $40,000 faced a 16 percent
rate and the individual with $1.5 million faced a
tax rate of 67 percent.
Another revenue act was passed in 1918, which
hiked tax rates once again, this time raising the
bottom rate to 6 percent and the top rate to 77
percent. These changes increased revenue from
$761 million in 1916 to $3.6 billion in 1918,
which represented about 25 percent of Gross
Domestic Product (GDP). Even in 1918, however,
only 5 percent of the population paid income
taxes and yet the income tax funded one-third of
the cost of the war.
The economy boomed during the 1920s and
increasing revenues from the income tax followed.
This allowed Congress to cut taxes five times,
ultimately returning the bottom tax rate to 1
percent and the top rate down to 25 percent and
reducing the Federal tax burden as a share of GDP
to 13 percent. As tax rates and tax collections
declined, the economy was strengthened further.
In October of 1929 the stock market crash
marked the beginning of the Great Depression. As
the economy shrank, government receipts also
fell. In 1932, the Federal government collected
only $1.9 billion, compared to $6.6 billion in
1920. In the face of rising budget deficits which
reached $2.7 billion in 1931, Congress followed
the prevailing economic wisdom at the time and
passed the Tax Act of 1932 which dramatically
increased tax rates once again. This was followed
by another tax increase in 1936 that further
improved the government's finances while further
weakening the economy. By 1936 the lowest tax
rate had reached 4 percent and the top rate was
up to 79 percent. In 1939, Congress
systematically codified the tax laws so that all
subsequent tax legislation until 1954 amended
this basic code. The combination of a shrunken
economy and the repeated tax increases raised the
Federal government's tax burden to 6.8 percent of
GDP by 1940.
The Social Security
Tax
The state of the economy during the Great
Depression led to passage of the Social Security
Act in 1935. This law provided payments known as
"unemployment compensation" to workers who lost
their jobs. Other sections of the Act gave public
aid to the aged, the needy, the handicapped, and
to certain minors. These programs were financed
by a 2 percent tax, one half of which was
subtracted directly from an employee's paycheck
and one half collected from employers on the
employee's behalf. The tax was levied on the
first $3,000 of the employee's salary or wage.
World War II
Even before the United States entered the
Second World War, increasing defense spending and
the need for monies to support the opponents of
Axis aggression led to the passage in 1940 of two
tax laws that increased individual and corporate
taxes, which were followed by another tax hike in
1941. By the end of the war the nature of the
income tax had been fundamentally altered.
Reductions in exemption levels meant that
taxpayers with taxable incomes of only $500 faced
a bottom tax rate of 23 percent, while taxpayers
with incomes over $1 million faced a top rate of
94 percent. These tax changes increased federal
receipts from $8.7 billion in 1941 to $45.2
billion in 1945. Even with an economy stimulated
by war-time production, federal taxes as a share
of GDP grew from 7.6 percent in 1941 to 20.4
percent in 1945. Beyond the rates and revenues,
however, another aspect about the income tax that
changed was the increase in the number of income
taxpayers from 4 million in 1939 to 43 million in
1945.
Another important feature of the income tax
that changed was the return to income tax
withholding as had been done during the Civil
War. This greatly eased the collection of the tax
for both the taxpayer and the Bureau of Internal
Revenue. However, it also greatly reduced the
taxpayer's awareness of the amount of tax being
collected, i.e. it reduced the transparency of
the tax, which made it easier to raise taxes in
the future.
Developments after
World War II
Tax cuts following the war reduced the Federal
tax burden as a share of GDP from its wartime
high of 20.9 percent in 1944 to 14.4 percent in
1950. However, the Korean War created a need for
additional revenues which, combined with the
extension of Social Security coverage to
self-employed persons, meant that by 1952 the tax
burden had returned to 19.0 percent of GDP.
In 1953 the Bureau of Internal Revenue was
renamed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
following a reorganization of its function. The
new name was chosen to stress the service aspect
of its work. By 1959, the IRS had become the
world's largest accounting, collection, and
forms-processing organization. Computers were
introduced to automate and streamline its work
and to improve service to taxpayers. In 1961,
Congress passed a law requiring individual
taxpayers to use their Social Security number as
a means of tax form identification. By 1967, all
business and personal tax returns were handled by
computer systems, and by the late 1960s, the IRS
had developed a computerized method for selecting
tax returns to be examined. This made the
selection of returns for audit fairer to the
taxpayer and allowed the IRS to focus its audit
resources on those returns most likely to require
an audit.
Throughout the 1950s tax policy was
increasingly seen as a tool for raising revenue
and for changing the incentives in the economy,
but also as a tool for stabilizing macroeconomic
activity. The economy remained subject to
frequent boom and bust cycles and many
policymakers readily accepted the new economic
policy of raising or lowering taxes and spending
to adjust aggregate demand and thereby smooth the
business cycle. Even so, however, the maximum tax
rate in 1954 remained at 87 percent of taxable
income. While the income tax underwent some
manner of revision or amendment almost every year
since the major reorganization of 1954, certain
years marked especially significant changes. For
example, the Tax Reform Act of 1969 reduced
income tax rates for individuals and private
foundations.
Beginning in the late 1960s and continuing
through the 1970s the United States experienced
persistent and rising inflation rates, ultimately
reaching 13.3 percent in 1979. Inflation has a
deleterious effect on many aspects of an economy,
but it also can play havoc with an income tax
system unless appropriate precautions are taken.
Specifically, unless the tax system's parameters,
i.e. its brackets and its fixed exemptions,
deductions, and credits, are indexed for
inflation, a rising price level will steadily
shift taxpayers into ever higher tax brackets by
reducing the value of those exemptions and
deductions.
During this time, the income tax was not
indexed for inflation and so, driven by a rising
inflation, and despite repeated legislated tax
cuts, the tax burden rose from 19.4 percent of
GDP to 20.8 percent of GDP. Combined with high
marginal tax rates, rising inflation, and a heavy
regulatory burden, this high tax burden caused
the economy to under-perform badly, all of which
laid the groundwork for the Reagan tax cut, also
known as the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.
The Reagan Tax Cut
The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which
enjoyed strong bi-partisan support in the
Congress, represented a fundamental shift in the
course of federal income tax policy. Championed
in principle for many years by then-Congressman
Jack Kemp (R-NY) and then-Senator Bill Roth (R-
DE), it featured a 25 percent reduction in
individual tax brackets, phased in over 3 years,
and indexed for inflation thereafter. This
brought the top tax bracket down to 50 percent.
The 1981 Act also featured a dramatic
departure in the treatment of business outlays
for plant and equipment, i.e. capital cost
recovery, or tax depreciation. Heretofore,
capital cost recovery had attempted roughly to
follow a concept known as economic depreciation,
which refers to the decline in the market value
of a producing asset over a specified period of
time. The 1981 Act explicitly displaced the
notion of economic depreciation, instituting
instead the Accelerated Cost Recovery System
which greatly reduced the disincentive facing
business investment and ultimately prepared the
way for the subsequent boom in capital formation.
In addition to accelerated cost recovery, the
1981 Act also instituted a 10 percent Investment
Tax Credit to spur additional capital formation.
Prior to, and in many circles even after the
1981 tax cut, the prevailing view was that tax
policy is most effective in modulating aggregate
demand whenever demand and supply become
mismatched, i.e. whenever the economy went in to
recession or became "over-heated". The 1981 tax
cut represented a new way of looking at tax
policy, though it was in fact a return to a more
traditional, or neoclassical, economic
perspective. The essential idea was that taxes
have their first and primary effect on the
economic incentives facing individuals and
businesses. Thus, the tax rate on the last dollar
earned, i.e. the marginal dollar, is much more
important to economic activity than the tax rate
facing the first dollar earned or than the
average tax rate. By reducing marginal tax rates
it was believed the natural forces of economic
growth would be less restrained. The most
productive individuals would then shift more of
their energies to productive activities rather
than leisure and businesses would take advantage
of many more now profitable opportunities. It was
also thought that reducing marginal tax rates
would significantly expand the tax base as
individuals shifted more of their income and
activities into taxable forms and out of
tax-exempt forms.
The 1981 tax cut actually represented two
departures from previous tax policy philosophies,
one explicit and intended and the second by
implication. The first change was the new focus
on marginal tax rates and incentives as the key
factors in how the tax system affects economic
activity. The second policy departure was the de
facto shift away from income taxation and toward
taxing consumption. Accelerated cost recovery was
one manifestation of this shift on the business
side, but the individual side also saw a
significant shift in the enactment of various
provisions to reduce the multiple taxation of
individual saving. The Individual Retirement
Account, for example, was enacted in 1981.
Simultaneously with the enactment of the tax
cuts in 1981 the Federal Reserve Board, with the
full support of the Reagan Administration,
altered monetary policy so as to bring inflation
under control. The Federal Reserve's actions
brought inflation down faster and further than
was anticipated at the time, and one consequence
was that the economy fell into a deep recession
in 1982. Another consequence of the collapse in
inflation was that federal spending levels, which
had been predicated on a higher level of expected
inflation, were suddenly much higher in
inflation-adjusted terms. The combination of the
tax cuts, the recession, and the one-time
increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending
produced historically high budget deficits which,
in turn, led to a tax increase in 1984 that pared
back some of the tax cuts enacted in 1981,
especially on the business side.
As inflation came down and as more and more of
the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect,
the economic began a strong and sustained pattern
of growth. Though the painful medicine of
disinflation slowed and initially hid the
process, the beneficial effects of marginal rate
cuts and reductions in the disincentives to
invest took hold as promised.
The Evolution of
Social Security and Medicare
The Social Security system remained
essentially unchanged from its enactment until
1956. However, beginning in 1956 Social Security
began an almost steady evolution as more and more
benefits were added, beginning with the addition
of Disability Insurance benefits. In 1958,
benefits were extended to dependents of disabled
workers. In 1967, disability benefits were
extended to widows and widowers. The 1972
amendments provided for automatic cost-of-living
benefits.
In 1965, Congress enacted the Medicare
program, providing for the medical needs of
persons aged 65 or older, regardless of income.
The 1965 Social Security Amendments also created
the Medicaid programs, which provides medical
assistance for persons with low incomes and
resources.
Of course, the expansions of Social Security
and the creation of Medicare and Medicaid
required additional tax revenues, and thus the
basic payroll tax was repeatedly increased over
the years. Between 1949 and 1962 the payroll tax
rate climbed steadily from its initial rate of 2
percent to 6 percent. The expansions in 1965 led
to further rate increases, with the combined
payroll tax rate climbing to 12.3 percent in
1980. Thus, in 31 years the maximum Social
Security tax burden rose from a mere $60 in 1949
to $3,175 in 1980.
Despite the increased payroll tax burden, the
benefit expansions Congress enacted in previous
years led the Social Security program to an acute
funding crises in the early 1980s. Eventually,
Congress legislated some minor programmatic
changes in Social Security benefits, along with
an increase in the payroll tax rate to 15.3
percent by 1990. Between 1980 and 1990, the
maximum Social Security payroll tax burden more
than doubled to $7,849.
The Tax Reform Act of
1986
Following the enactment of the 1981, 1982, and
1984 tax changes there was a growing sense that
the income tax was in need of a more fundamental
overhaul. The economic boom following the 1982
recession convinced many political leaders of
both parties that lower marginal tax rates were
essential to a strong economy, while the constant
changing of the law instilled in policy makers an
appreciation for the complexity of the tax
system. Further, the debates during this period
led to a general understanding of the distortions
imposed on the economy, and the lost jobs and
wages, arising from the many peculiarities in the
definition of the tax base. A new and broadly
held philosophy of tax policy developed that the
income tax would be greatly improved by repealing
these various special provisions and lowering tax
rates further. Thus, in his 1984 State of the
Union speech President Reagan called for a
sweeping reform of the income tax so it would
have a broader base and lower rates and would be
fairer, simpler, and more consistent with
economic efficiency.
The culmination of this effort was the Tax
Reform Act of 1986, which brought the top
statutory tax rate down from 50 percent to 28
percent while the corporate tax rate was reduced
from 50 percent to 35 percent. The number of tax
brackets was reduced and the personal exemption
and standard deduction amounts were increased and
indexed for inflation, thereby relieving millions
of taxpayers of any Federal income tax burden.
However, the Act also created new personal and
corporate Alternative Minimum Taxes, which proved
to be overly complicated, unnecessary, and
economically harmful.
The 1986 Tax Reform Act was roughly revenue
neutral, that is, it was not intended to raise or
lower taxes, but it shifted some of the tax
burden from individuals to businesses. Much of
the increase in the tax on business was the
result of an increase in the tax on business
capital formation. It achieved some
simplifications for individuals through the
elimination of such things as income averaging,
the deduction for consumer interest, and the
deduction for state and local sales taxes. But in
many respects the Act greatly added to the
complexity of business taxation, especially in
the area of international taxation. Some of the
over-reaching provisions of the Act also led to a
downturn in the real estate markets which played
a significant role in the subsequent collapse of
the Savings and Loan industry.
Seen in a broader picture, the 1986 tax act
represented the penultimate installment of an
extraordinary process of tax rate reductions.
Over the 22 year period from 1964 to 1986 the top
individual tax rate was reduced from 91 to 28
percent. However, because upper-income taxpayers
increasingly chose to receive their income in
taxable form, and because of the broadening of
the tax base, the progressivity of the tax system
actually rose during this period.
The 1986 tax act also represented a temporary
reversal in the evolution of the tax system.
Though called an income tax, the Federal tax
system had for many years actually been a hybrid
income and consumption tax, with the balance
shifting toward or away from a consumption tax
with many of the major tax acts. The 1986 tax act
shifted the balance once again toward the income
tax. Of greatest importance in this regard was
the return to references to economic depreciation
in the formulation of the capital cost recovery
system and the significant new restrictions on
the use of Individual Retirement Accounts.
Between 1986 and 1990 the Federal tax burden
rose as a share of GDP from 17.5 to 18 percent.
Despite this increase in the overall tax burden,
persistent budget deficits due to even higher
levels of government spending created near
constant pressure to increase taxes. Thus, in
1990 the Congress enacted a significant tax
increase featuring an increase in the top tax
rate to 31 percent. Shortly after his election,
President Clinton insisted on and the Congress
enacted a second major tax increase in 1993 in
which the top tax rate was raised to 36 percent
and a 10 percent surcharge was added, leaving the
effective top tax rate at 39.6 percent. Clearly,
the trend toward lower marginal tax rates had
been reversed, but, as it turns out, only
temporarily.
The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 made
additional changes to the tax code providing a
modest tax cut. The centerpiece of the 1997 Act
was a significant new tax benefit to certain
families with children through the Per Child Tax
credit. The truly significant feature of this tax
relief, however, was that the credit was
refundable for many lower-income families. That
is, in many cases the family paid a "negative"
income tax, or received a credit in excess of
their pre-credit tax liability. Though the tax
system had provided for individual tax credits
before, such as the Earned Income Tax credit, the
Per Child Tax credit began a new trend in federal
tax policy. Previously tax relief was generally
given in the form of lower tax rates or increased
deductions or exemptions. The 1997 Act really
launched the modern proliferation of individual
tax credits and especially refundable credits
that are in essence spending programs operating
through the tax system.
The years immediately following the 1993 tax
increase also saw another trend continue, which
was to once again shift the balance of the hybrid
income tax-consumption tax toward the consumption
tax. The movement in this case was entirely on
the individual side in the form of a
proliferation of tax vehicles to promote
purpose-specific saving. For example, Medical
Savings Accounts were enacted to facilitate
saving for medical expenses. An Education IRA and
the Section 529 Qualified Tuition Program was
enacted to help taxpayers pay for future
education expenses. In addition, a new form of
saving vehicle was enacted, called the Roth IRA,
which differed from other retirement savings
vehicles like the traditional IRA and
employer-based 401(k) plans in that contributions
were made in after-tax dollars and distributions
were tax free.
Despite the higher tax rates, other economic
fundamentals such as low inflation and low
interest rates, an improved international picture
with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the
advent of a qualitatively and quantitatively new
information technologies led to a strong economic
performance throughout the 1990s. This, in turn,
led to an extraordinary increase in the aggregate
tax burden, with Federal taxes as a share of GDP
reaching a postwar high of 20.8 percent in 2000.
The Bush Tax Cut
By 2001, the total tax take had produced a
projected unified budget surplus of $281 billion,
with a cumulative 10 year projected surplus of
$5.6 trillion. Much of this surplus reflected a
rising tax burden as a share of GDP due to the
interaction of rising real incomes and a
progressive tax rate structure. Consequently,
under President George W. Bush's leadership the
Congress halted the projected future increases in
the tax burden by passing the Economic Growth and
Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2001. The
centerpiece of the 2001 tax cut was to regain
some of the ground lost in the 1990s in terms of
lower marginal tax rates. Though the rate
reductions are to be phased in over many years,
ultimately the top tax rate will fall from 39.6
percent to 33 percent.
The 2001 tax cut represented a resumption of a
number of other trends in tax policy. For
example, it expanded the Per Child Tax credit
from $500 to $1000 per child. It also increased
the Dependent Child Tax credit. The 2001 tax cut
also continued the move toward a consumption tax
by expanding a variety of savings incentives.
Another feature of the 2001 tax cut that is
particularly noteworthy is that it put the
estate, gift, and generation-skipping taxes on
course for eventual repeal, which is also another
step toward a consumption tax. One novel feature
of the 2001 tax cut compared to most large tax
bills is that it was almost devoid of business
tax provisions.
The 2001 tax cut will provide additional
strength to the economy in the coming years as
more and more of its provisions are phased in,
and indeed one argument for its enactment had
always been as a form of insurance against an
economic downturn. However, unbeknownst to the
Bush Administration and the Congress, the economy
was already in a downturn as the Act was being
debated. Thankfully, the downturn was brief and
shallow, but it is already clear that the tax
cuts that were enacted and went into effect in
2001 played a significant role in supporting the
economy, shortening the duration of the downturn,
and preparing the economy for a robust recovery.
One lesson from the economic slowdown was the
danger of ever taking a strong economy for
granted. The strong growth of the 1990s led to
talk of a "new" economy that many assumed was
virtually recession proof. The popularity of this
assumption was easy to understand when one
considers that there had only been one very mild
recession in the previous 18 years.
Taking this lesson to heart, and despite the
increasing benefits of the 2001 tax cut and the
early signs of a recovery, President Bush called
for and the Congress eventually enacted an
economic stimulus bill. The bill included an
extension of unemployment benefits to assist
those workers and families under financial stress
due to the downturn. The bill also included a
provision to providing a temporary but
significant acceleration of depreciation
allowances for business investment, thereby
assuring that the recovery and expansion will be
strong and balanced. Interestingly, the
depreciation provision also means that the
Federal tax on business has resumed its evolution
toward a consumption tax, once again paralleling
the trend in individual taxation.
"There's just
no law requiring you to pay federal income taxes."
The most basic myth of tax
protestors is that there is simply no law mandating the
payment of income taxes. Frequently one can observe
anti-tax types to say something like, “if only someone
would
show me the law that says that I have to file a tax
return and pay taxes, I’d be happy to do it.” I have a
strong suspicion that people who say that are not
serious, but I’m going to take them at their word. Here
are the laws that (a) impose an income tax on you, (b)
require you to file an income tax return, and (c)
require you to pay taxes:
§ 1
The federal tax laws are
contained in Title 26 of the United States Code, which
is the compilation of
laws passed by the Congress (“Title” basically
means “Volume” when applied to the U.S. Code as a
whole, so Title 26 is what might more casually be
called Volume 26). The most important statutory
provision with regard to income taxes is section
one of the tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 1. This is the
section that actually imposes the income tax. It’s very
simply written. If you are unmarried, the relevant
provision is § 1(c), which states:
26 U.S.C. § 1
There is hereby
imposed on the taxable income of every
individual . . . who is not a married individual
a tax determined in accordance with the
following table:
followed by a table specifying
the tax rates on various income amounts. If you are
married, you are covered by the similar provision at §
1(a). There are also a couple of other possible filing
statuses covered elsewhere in § 1 (such as “head of
household”), but the basic point is that section 1
imposes an income tax.
§
61 and § 63
Section 1, it will be observed,
imposes the tax on your “taxable income.” How do you
know what that is? Section 63 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. §
63, defines “taxable income” to mean “gross income
minus the deductions allowed” by chapter 1 of the Code,
so now we need to know what “gross income” is. So we
turn to section 61 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 61, which
provides the critical definition:
26 U.S.C. § 61
[G]ross income means all
income from whatever source derived, including (but
not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees,
commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
. . .
There are 15 items in the full
list (I’ve only quoted the first seven), but the key
part of the definition is that gross income means “all
income from whatever source derived.”
So, between sections 1, 61, and
63, we see that the tax code passed by Congress imposes
a tax on your taxable income, which includes all your
income, from whatever source derived, less the
deductions allowed by the tax laws. So the tax laws
do impose a tax on you.
Now, how do you know that you have to file a tax return
and actually pay the tax?
§
6012 and § 6151
Section 6151 of the code, 26
U.S.C. § 6151, says:
26 U.S.C. § 6151
[W]hen a return of tax is
required under this title or regulations, the
person required to make such return shall, without
assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary,
pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with
whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at
the time and place fixed for filing the return
(determined without regard to any extension of time
for filing the return).
So according to this section,
if you are required to file a tax return, you are
required to pay the tax owed, to pay it at the time you
file your return, and to pay it to the internal revenue
officer with whom you file the return.
But who says you’re required to
file the return? Turn back to section 6012(a) of the
code, 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a), which provides:
26 U.S.C. § 6012(a)
Returns with respect to
income taxes * * * shall be made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year
gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption
amount * * *.
The “exemption amount” is defined
in 26 U.S.C. § 151(d) as $2000, adjusted for inflation
since 1989. You can see the exact amount for the
current tax year in the IRS instructions to form 1040.
If you have more income than this amount, section 6012
requires you to file a tax return (except that if
you’re married, section 6013 gives you the option of
filing a joint return with your spouse).
So there it is:
Sections 1, 61, and 63 impose
the tax,
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return
if you have income of more than the exemption amount,
and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at
the time and place fixed for the filing of your return.
§
6072
And when is your return due?
Section 6072 provides the answer: “[R]eturns made on
the basis of the calendar year shall be filed on or
before the 15th day of April following the close of the
calendar year.” This is the statutory basis for the
familiar April 15 tax deadline.
Of course, there’s a lot more to
know if you want to achieve a full understanding of the
tax system. For example, other statutes besides the
ones quoted above create the extensive system of tax
“withholding,” whereby you actually pay your taxes on
your wages in advance, each time you receive a
paycheck, so that on the day your return is due the
government usually ends up owing you a refund. If you
have substantial amounts of unearned income, there are
also other statutes that require you to pay estimated
taxes each quarter. And, needless to say, there are
innumerable, complex statutes that more specifically
define how much income tax you owe. But you only need
to look at a few, relatively simple statutes to see
that the duty to pay income tax is mandatory. You can
look up the above statutes yourself in any law library
(just ask the librarian to help you find Title 26 of
the United States Code.) These statutes demonstrate
that the claim that there is no law requiring anyone to
file income tax returns or pay income tax is
complete nonsense.
(a)Married
individuals filing joint returns
and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the
taxable income of—
(1)every
married individual (as defined in
section
7703) who makes a single
return jointly with his spouse
under section
6013, and
(2)every
surviving spouse (as defined in
section
2
(a)),
a tax determined in
accordance with the following
table:
If taxable income is:
The tax is:
Not over $36,900
15% of taxable income.
Over $36,900 but not
over $89,150
$5,535, plus 28% of
the excess over $36,900.
Over $89,150 but not
over $140,000
$20,165, plus 31% of
the excess over $89,150.
Over $140,000 but not
over $250,000
$35,928.50, plus 36%
of the excess over $140,000.
Over $250,000
$75,528.50, plus 39.6%
of the excess over $250,000.
(b)Heads of
households
There is hereby imposed on the
taxable income of every head of a
household (as defined in section
2
(b)) a tax determined in
accordance with the following
table:
If taxable income is:
The tax is:
Not over $29,600
15% of taxable income.
Over $29,600 but not
over $76,400
$4,440, plus 28% of the
excess over $29,600.
Over $76,400 but not
over $127,500
$17,544, plus 31% of the
excess over $76,400.
Over $127,500 but not
over $250,000
$33,385, plus 36% of the
excess over $127,500.
Over $250,000
$77,485, plus 39.6% of
the excess over $250,000.
(c)
Unmarried individuals (other than
surviving spouses and heads of
households)
There is hereby imposed on the
taxable income of every
individual (other than a
surviving spouse as defined in
section
2
(a) or the head of a
household as defined in section
2
(b)) who is not a married
individual (as defined in section
7703) a tax determined in
accordance with the following
table:
If taxable income is:
The tax is:
Not over $22,100
15% of taxable income.
Over $22,100 but not
over $53,500
$3,315, plus 28% of the
excess over $22,100.
Over $53,500 but not
over $115,000
$12,107, plus 31% of the
excess over $53,500.
Over $115,000 but not
over $250,000
$31,172, plus 36% of the
excess over $115,000.
Over $250,000
$79,772, plus 39.6% of
the excess over $250,000.
(d)Married
individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the
taxable income of every married
individual (as defined in section
7703) who does not make a
single return jointly with his
spouse under section
6013, a tax determined in
accordance with the following
table:
If taxable income is:
The tax is:
Not over $18,450
15% of taxable income.
Over $18,450 but not
over $44,575
$2,767.50, plus 28% of
the excess over $18,450.
Over $44,575 but not
over $70,000
$10,082.50, plus 31% of
the excess over $44,575.
Over $70,000 but not
over $125,000
$17,964.25, plus 36% of
the excess over $70,000.
Over $125,000
$37,764.25, plus 39.6%
of the excess over $125,000.
(e)Estates
and trusts
There is hereby imposed on the
taxable income of—
(1)every
estate, and
(2)every
trust,
taxable under this
subsection a tax determined in
accordance with the following
table:
If taxable income is:
The tax is:
Not over $1,500
15% of taxable income.
Over $1,500 but not
over $3,500
$225, plus 28% of the
excess over $1,500.
Over $3,500 but not
over $5,500
$785, plus 31% of the
excess over $3,500.
Over $5,500 but not
over $7,500
$1,405, plus 36% of
the excess over $5,500.
Over $7,500
$2,125, plus 39.6% of
the excess over $7,500.
(f)Phaseout
of marriage penalty in 15-percent
bracket; adjustments in tax tables
so that inflation will not result
in tax increases
(1)In
general
Not later than December 15
of 1993, and each subsequent
calendar year, the Secretary
shall prescribe tables which
shall apply in lieu of the
tables contained in subsections
(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e)
with respect to taxable years
beginning in the succeeding
calendar year.
(2)Method
of prescribing tables
The table which under
paragraph (1) is to apply in
lieu of the table contained in
subsection (a), (b), (c), (d),
or (e), as the case may be,
with respect to taxable years
beginning in any calendar year
shall be prescribed—
(A)except as
provided in paragraph (8), by
increasing the minimum and
maximum dollar amounts for each
rate bracket for which a tax is
imposed under such table by the
cost-of-living adjustment for
such calendar year,
(B)by not
changing the rate applicable to
any rate bracket as adjusted
under subparagraph (A), and
(C)by
adjusting the amounts setting
forth the tax to the extent
necessary to reflect the
adjustments in the rate
brackets.
(3)
Cost-of-living adjustment
For purposes of paragraph
(2), the cost-of-living
adjustment for any calendar
year is the percentage (if any)
by which—
(A)the CPI
for the preceding calendar
year, exceeds
(B)the CPI
for the calendar year 1992.
(4)CPI
for any calendar year
For purposes of paragraph
(3), the CPI for any calendar
year is the average of the
Consumer Price Index as of the
close of the 12-month period
ending on August 31 of such
calendar year.
(5)
Consumer Price Index
For purposes of paragraph
(4), the term “Consumer Price
Index” means the last Consumer
Price Index for all-urban
consumers published by the
Department of Labor. For
purposes of the preceding
sentence, the revision of the
Consumer Price Index which is
most consistent with the
Consumer Price Index for
calendar year 1986 shall be
used.
(6)
Rounding
(A)In
general
If any increase determined
under paragraph (2)(A),
section
63
(c)(4), section
68(b)(2) or section
151
(d)(4) is not a multiple
of $50, such increase shall
be rounded to the next lowest
multiple of $50.
(B)
Table for married individuals
filing separately
In the case of a married
individual filing a separate
return, subparagraph (A)
(other than with respect to
sections
63
(c)(4) and
151
(d)(4)(A)) shall be
applied by substituting “$25”
for “$50” each place it
appears.
(7)
Special rule for certain brackets
(A)
Calendar year 1994
In prescribing the tables
under paragraph (1) which
apply with respect to taxable
years beginning in calendar
year 1994, the Secretary
shall make no adjustment to
the dollar amounts at which
the 36 percent rate bracket
begins or at which the 39.6
percent rate begins under any
table contained in subsection
(a), (b), (c), (d), or (e).
(B)
Later calendar years
In prescribing tables
under paragraph (1) which
apply with respect to taxable
years beginning in a calendar
year after 1994, the
cost-of-living adjustment
used in making adjustments to
the dollar amounts referred
to in subparagraph (A) shall
be determined under paragraph
(3) by substituting “1993”
for “1992”.
(8)
Elimination of marriage penalty
in 15-percent bracket
With respect to taxable
years beginning after December
31, 2003, in prescribing the
tables under paragraph (1)—
(A)the
maximum taxable income in the
15-percent rate bracket in the
table contained in subsection
(a) (and the minimum taxable
income in the next higher
taxable income bracket in such
table) shall be 200 percent of
the maximum taxable income in
the 15-percent rate bracket in
the table contained in
subsection (c) (after any other
adjustment under this
subsection), and
(B)the
comparable taxable income
amounts in the table contained
in subsection (d) shall be 1/2
of the amounts determined under
subparagraph (A).
(g)Certain
unearned income of minor children
taxed as if parent’s income
(1)In
general
In the case of any child to
whom this subsection applies,
the tax imposed by this section
shall be equal to the greater
of—
(A)the tax
imposed by this section without
regard to this subsection, or
(B)the sum
of—
(i)the tax
which would be imposed by
this section if the taxable
income of such child for the
taxable year were reduced by
the net unearned income of
such child, plus
(ii)such
child’s share of the
allocable parental tax.
(2)Child
to whom subsection applies
This subsection shall apply
to any child for any taxable
year if—
(A)such
child has not attained age 14
before the close of the taxable
year, and
(B)either
parent of such child is alive
at the close of the taxable
year.
(3)
Allocable parental tax
For purposes of this
subsection—
(A)In
general
The term “allocable
parental tax” means the
excess of—
(i)the tax
which would be imposed by
this section on the parent’s
taxable income if such income
included the net unearned
income of all children of the
parent to whom this
subsection applies, over
(ii)the tax
imposed by this section on
the parent without regard to
this subsection.
For purposes of clause (i),
net unearned income of all
children of the parent shall
not be taken into account in
computing any exclusion,
deduction, or credit of the
parent.
(B)
Child’s share
A child’s share of any
allocable parental tax of a
parent shall be equal to an
amount which bears the same
ratio to the total allocable
parental tax as the child’s
net unearned income bears to
the aggregate net unearned
income of all children of
such parent to whom this
subsection applies.
(C)
Special rule where parent has
different taxable year
Except as provided in
regulations, if the parent
does not have the same
taxable year as the child,
the allocable parental tax
shall be determined on the
basis of the taxable year of
the parent ending in the
child’s taxable year.
(4)Net
unearned income
For purposes of this
subsection—
(A)In
general
The term “net unearned
income” means the excess of—
(i)the
portion of the adjusted gross
income for the taxable year
which is not attributable to
earned income (as defined in
section
911
(d)(2)), over
(ii)the sum
of—
(I)the
amount in effect for the
taxable year under section
63
(c)(5)(A) (relating to
limitation on standard
deduction in the case of
certain dependents), plus
(II)the
greater of the amount
described in subclause (I)
or, if the child itemizes
his deductions for the
taxable year, the amount of
the itemized deductions
allowed by this chapter for
the taxable year which are
directly connected with the
production of the portion
of adjusted gross income
referred to in clause (i).
(B)
Limitation based on taxable
income
The amount of the net
unearned income for any
taxable year shall not exceed
the individual’s taxable
income for such taxable year.
(5)
Special rules for determining
parent to whom subsection applies
For purposes of this
subsection, the parent whose
taxable income shall be taken
into account shall be—
(A)in the
case of parents who are not
married (within the meaning of
section
7703), the custodial parent
(within the meaning of section
152(e)) of the child, and
(B)in the
case of married individuals
filing separately, the
individual with the greater
taxable income.
(6)
Providing of parent’s TIN
The parent of any child to
whom this subsection applies
for any taxable year shall
provide the TIN of such parent
to such child and such child
shall include such TIN on the
child’s return of tax imposed
by this section for such
taxable year.
(7)
Election to claim certain
unearned income of child on
parent’s return
(A)In
general
If—
(i)any
child to whom this subsection
applies has gross income for
the taxable year only from
interest and dividends
(including Alaska Permanent
Fund dividends),
(ii)such
gross income is more than the
amount described in paragraph
(4)(A)(ii)(I) and less than
10 times the amount so
described,
(iii)no
estimated tax payments for
such year are made in the
name and TIN of such child,
and no amount has been
deducted and withheld under
section
3406, and
(iv)the
parent of such child (as
determined under paragraph
(5)) elects the application
of subparagraph (B),
such child shall be
treated (other than for
purposes of this paragraph)
as having no gross income for
such year and shall not be
required to file a return
under section
6012.
(B)
Income included on parent’s
return
In the case of a parent
making the election under
this paragraph—
(i)the
gross income of each child to
whom such election applies
(to the extent the gross
income of such child exceeds
twice the amount described in
paragraph (4)(A)(ii)(I))
shall be included in such
parent’s gross income for the
taxable year,
(ii)the tax
imposed by this section for
such year with respect to
such parent shall be the
amount equal to the sum of—
(I)the
amount determined under
this section after the
application of clause (i),
plus
(II)for
each such child, 10 percent
of the lesser of the amount
described in paragraph (4)(A)(ii)(I)
or the excess of the gross
income of such child over
the amount so described,
and
(iii)any
interest which is an item of
tax preference under section
57(a)(5) of the child shall
be treated as an item of tax
preference of such parent
(and not of such child).
(C)
Regulations
The Secretary shall
prescribe such regulations as
may be necessary or
appropriate to carry out the
purposes of this paragraph.
(h)Maximum
capital gains rate
(1)In
general
If a taxpayer has a net
capital gain for any taxable
year, the tax imposed by this
section for such taxable year
shall not exceed the sum of—
(A)a tax
computed at the rates and in
the same manner as if this
subsection had not been enacted
on the greater of—
(i)taxable
income reduced by the net
capital gain; or
(ii)the
lesser of—
(I)the
amount of taxable income
taxed at a rate below 25
percent; or
(II)
taxable income reduced by
the adjusted net capital
gain;
(B)5 percent
(0 percent in the case of
taxable years beginning after
2007) of so much of the
adjusted net capital gain (or,
if less, taxable income) as
does not exceed the excess (if
any) of—
(i)the
amount of taxable income
which would (without regard
to this paragraph) be taxed
at a rate below 25 percent,
over
(ii)the
taxable income reduced by the
adjusted net capital gain;
(C)15
percent of the adjusted net
capital gain (or, if less,
taxable income) in excess of
the amount on which a tax is
determined under subparagraph
(B);
(D)25
percent of the excess (if any)
of—
(i)the
unrecaptured section
1250 gain (or, if less,
the net capital gain
(determined without regard to
paragraph (11))), over
(ii)the
excess (if any) of—
(I)the
sum of the amount on which
tax is determined under
subparagraph (A) plus the
net capital gain, over
(II)
taxable income; and
(E)28
percent of the amount of
taxable income in excess of the
sum of the amounts on which tax
is determined under the
preceding subparagraphs of this
paragraph.
(2)Net
capital gain taken into account
as investment income
For purposes of this
subsection, the net capital
gain for any taxable year shall
be reduced (but not below zero)
by the amount which the
taxpayer takes into account as
investment income under section
163
(d)(4)(B)(iii).
(3)
Adjusted net capital gain
For purposes of this
subsection, the term “adjusted
net capital gain” means the sum
of—
(A)net
capital gain (determined
without regard to paragraph
(11)) reduced (but not below
zero) by the sum of—
(iii)the
amount of long-term capital
loss carried under section
1212
(b)(1)(B) to the taxable
year.
(5)
Collectibles gain and loss
For purposes of this
subsection—
(A)In
general
The terms “collectibles
gain” and “collectibles loss”
mean gain or loss
(respectively) from the sale
or exchange of a collectible
(as defined in section
408
(m) without regard to
paragraph (3) thereof) which
is a capital asset held for
more than 1 year but only to
the extent such gain is taken
into account in computing
gross income and such loss is
taken into account in
computing taxable income.
(B)
Partnerships, etc.
For purposes of
subparagraph (A), any gain
from the sale of an interest
in a partnership, S
corporation, or trust which
is attributable to unrealized
appreciation in the value of
collectibles shall be treated
as gain from the sale or
exchange of a collectible.
Rules similar to the rules of
section
751 shall apply for
purposes of the preceding
sentence.
(6)
Unrecaptured section 1250 gain
For purposes of this
subsection—
(A)In
general
The term “unrecaptured
section
1250 gain” means the
excess (if any) of—
(i)the
amount of long-term capital
gain (not otherwise treated
as ordinary income) which
would be treated as ordinary
income if section
1250
(b)(1) included all
depreciation and the
applicable percentage under
section
1250
(a) were 100 percent,
over
(ii)the
excess (if any) of—
(I)the
amount described in
paragraph (4)(B); over
(II)the
amount described in
paragraph (4)(A).
(B)
Limitation with respect to
section 1231 property
The amount described in
subparagraph (A)(i) from
sales, exchanges, and
conversions described in
section
1231
(a)(3)(A) for any taxable
year shall not exceed the net
section
1231 gain (as defined in
section
1231
(c)(3)) for such year.
(7)
Section 1202 gain
For purposes of this
subsection, the term “section
1202 gain” means the excess
of—
(A)the gain
which would be excluded from
gross income under section
1202 but for the percentage
limitation in section
1202
(a), over
(B)the gain
excluded from gross income
under section
1202.
(8)
Coordination with recapture of
net ordinary losses under section
1231
If any amount is treated as
ordinary income under section
1231
(c), such amount shall be
allocated among the separate
categories of net section
1231 gain (as defined in
section
1231
(c)(3)) in such manner as
the Secretary may by forms or
regulations prescribe.
(9)
Regulations
The Secretary may prescribe
such regulations as are
appropriate (including
regulations requiring
reporting) to apply this
subsection in the case of sales
and exchanges by pass-thru
entities and of interests in
such entities.
(10)
Pass-thru entity defined
For purposes of this
subsection, the term “pass-thru
entity” means—
(A)a
regulated investment company;
(B)a real
estate investment trust;
(C)an S
corporation;
(D)a
partnership;
(E)an estate
or trust;
(F)a common
trust fund; and
(G)a
qualified electing fund (as
defined in section
1295).
(11)
Dividends taxed as net capital
gain
(A)In
general
For purposes of this
subsection, the term “net
capital gain” means net
capital gain (determined
without regard to this
paragraph) increased by
qualified dividend income.
(B)
Qualified dividend income
For purposes of this
paragraph—
(i)In
general The term “qualified
dividend income” means
dividends received during the
taxable year from—
(I)
domestic corporations, and
(II)
qualified foreign
corporations.
(ii)Certain
dividends excluded Such term
shall not include—
(I)any
dividend from a corporation
which for the taxable year
of the corporation in which
the distribution is made,
or the preceding taxable
year, is a corporation
exempt from tax under
section
501 or
521,
(II)any
amount allowed as a
deduction under section
591 (relating to
deduction for dividends
paid by mutual savings
banks, etc.), and
(iii)
Coordination with section
246
(c) Such term shall not
include any dividend on any
share of stock—
(I)with
respect to which the
holding period requirements
of section
246
(c) are not met
(determined by substituting
in section
246
(c) “60 days” for “45
days” each place it appears
and by substituting
“121-day period” for
“91-day period”), or
(II)to
the extent that the
taxpayer is under an
obligation (whether
pursuant to a short sale or
otherwise) to make related
payments with respect to
positions in substantially
similar or related
property.
(C)
Qualified foreign corporations
(i)In
general Except as otherwise
provided in this paragraph,
the term “qualified foreign
corporation” means any
foreign corporation if—
(I)such
corporation is incorporated
in a possession of the
United States, or
(II)such
corporation is eligible for
benefits of a comprehensive
income tax treaty with the
United States which the
Secretary determines is
satisfactory for purposes
of this paragraph and which
includes an exchange of
information program.
(ii)
Dividends on stock readily
tradable on United States
securities market A foreign
corporation not otherwise
treated as a qualified
foreign corporation under
clause (i) shall be so
treated with respect to any
dividend paid by such
corporation if the stock with
respect to which such
dividend is paid is readily
tradable on an established
securities market in the
United States.
(iii)
Exclusion of dividends of
certain foreign corporations
Such term shall not include
any foreign corporation which
for the taxable year of the
corporation in which the
dividend was paid, or the
preceding taxable year, is a
passive foreign investment
company (as defined in
section
1297).
(iv)
Coordination with foreign tax
credit limitation Rules
similar to the rules of
section
904
(b)(2)(B) shall apply
with respect to the dividend
rate differential under this
paragraph.
(D)
Special rules
(i)Amounts
taken into account as
investment income Qualified
dividend income shall not
include any amount which the
taxpayer takes into account
as investment income under
section
163
(d)(4)(B).
(ii)
Extraordinary dividends If a
taxpayer to whom this section
applies receives, with
respect to any share of
stock, qualified dividend
income from 1 or more
dividends which are
extraordinary dividends
(within the meaning of
section
1059
(c)), any loss on the
sale or exchange of such
share shall, to the extent of
such dividends, be treated as
long-term capital loss.
(iii)
Treatment of dividends from
regulated investment
companies and real estate
investment trusts A dividend
received from a regulated
investment company or a real
estate investment trust shall
be subject to the limitations
prescribed in sections
854 and
857.
(i)Rate
reductions after 2000
(1)
10-percent rate bracket
(A)In
general
In the case of taxable
years beginning after
December 31, 2000—
(i)the
rate of tax under subsections
(a), (b), (c), and (d) on
taxable income not over the
initial bracket amount shall
be 10 percent, and
(ii)the 15
percent rate of tax shall
apply only to taxable income
over the initial bracket
amount but not over the
maximum dollar amount for the
15-percent rate bracket.
(B)
Initial bracket amount
For purposes of this
paragraph, the initial
bracket amount is—
(i)$14,000
in the case of subsection
(a),
(ii)$10,000
in the case of subsection
(b), and
(iii)1/2 the
amount applicable under
clause (i) (after adjustment,
if any, under subparagraph
(C)) in the case of
subsections (c) and (d).
(C)
Inflation adjustment
In prescribing the tables
under subsection (f) which
apply with respect to taxable
years beginning in calendar
years after 2003—
(i)the
cost-of-living adjustment
shall be determined under
subsection (f)(3) by
substituting “2002” for
“1992” in subparagraph (B)
thereof, and
(ii)the
adjustments under clause (i)
shall not apply to the amount
referred to in subparagraph (B)(iii).
If any amount after
adjustment under the
preceding sentence is not a
multiple of $50, such amount
shall be rounded to the next
lowest multiple of $50.
(D)
Coordination with acceleration
of 10 percent rate bracket
benefit for 2001
This paragraph shall not
apply to any taxable year to
which section
6428 applies.
(2)
Reductions in rates after June
30, 2001
In the case of taxable years
beginning in a calendar year
after 2000, the corresponding
percentage specified for such
calendar year in the following
table shall be substituted for
the otherwise applicable tax
rate in the tables under
subsections (a), (b), (c), (d),
and (e).
In the case of taxable
years beginning during
calendar year:
The corresponding
percentages shall be
substituted for the following
percentages:
28%
31%
36%
39.6%
2001
27.5%
30.5%
35.5%
39.1%
2002
27.0%
30.0%
35.0%
38.6%
2003 and thereafter
25.0%
28.0%
33.0%
35.0%
(3)
Adjustment of tables
The Secretary shall adjust
the tables prescribed under
subsection (f) to carry out
this subsection.
LII has no control over and does
not endorse any external Internet site
that contains links to or references
LII.
Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
Written by Frank
Morales
Thursday, 26 October 2006
In a stealth
maneuver, President Bush has signed into law
a provision which, according to Senator
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually
encourage the President to declare federal
martial law (1). It does so by revising the
Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits
the President's ability to deploy troops
within the United States. The Insurrection
Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically,
along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18
U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict
prohibitions on military involvement in
domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked
swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo
those prohibitions.
Public
Law
109-364, or the "John Warner Defense
Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2),
which was signed by the commander in chief on
October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office
ceremony, allows the President to declare a
"public emergency" and station troops
anywhere in America and take control of
state-based National Guard units without the
consent of the governor or local authorities,
in order to "suppress public disorder."
President Bush seized this unprecedented
power on the very same day that he signed the
equally odious Military Commissions Act of
2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one
another. One allows for torture and detention
abroad, while the other seeks to enforce
acquiescence at home, preparing to order the
military onto the streets of America.
Remember, the term for putting an area under
military law enforcement control is precise;
the term is "martial law."
Section 1076 of the massive Authorization
Act, which grants the Pentagon another
$500-plus-billion for its ill-advised
adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed
Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section
333, "Major public emergencies; interference
with State and Federal law" states that "the
President may employ the armed forces,
including the National Guard in Federal
service, to restore public order and enforce
the laws of the United States when, as a
result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or
other serious public health emergency,
terrorist attack or incident, or other
condition in any State or possession of the
United States, the President determines that
domestic violence has occurred to such an
extent that the constituted authorities of
the State or possession are incapable of
("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public
order, "in order to suppress, in any State,
any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful
combination, or conspiracy."
For the current President, "enforcement of
the laws to restore public order" means to
commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the
objections of local governmental, military
and local police entities; ship them off to
another state; conscript them in a law
enforcement mode; and set them loose against
"disorderly" citizenry - protesters,
possibly, or those who object to forced
vaccinations and quarantines in the event of
a bio-terror event.
The law also facilitates militarized police
round-ups and detention of protesters, so
called "illegal aliens," "potential
terrorists" and other "undesirables" for
detention in facilities already contracted
for and under construction by Halliburton.
That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up
"immigration emergency" and the frenzied
militarization of the southern border,
detention camps are being constructed right
under our noses, camps designed for anyone
who resists the foreign and domestic agenda
of the Bush administration.
An article on "recent contract awards" in a
recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal
of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security
International" reported that "global
engineering and technical services powerhouse
KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in
January 2006 that its Government and
Infrastructure division was awarded an
Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)
contract to support U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the
event of an emergency." "With a maximum total
value of $385 million over a five year term,"
the report notes, "the contract is to be
executed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers," "for establishing temporary
detention and processing capabilities to
augment existing ICE Detention and Removal
Operations (DRO) - in the event of an
emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S.,
or to support the rapid development of new
programs." The report points out that "KBR is
the engineering and construction subsidiary
of Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to
authorizing another $532.8 billion for the
Pentagon, including a $70-billion
"supplemental provision" which covers the
cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the
new law, signed by the president in a private
White House ceremony, further collapses the
historic divide between the police and the
military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly
consolidating police state in America, all
accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial
pretensions of global domination, sold to an
"emergency managed" and seemingly willfully
gullible public as a "global war on
terrorism."
Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal
of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an
ominous assault on American democratic
tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act,
which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and
under circumstances expressly authorized by
the Constitution or Act of Congress,
willfully uses any part of the Army or Air
Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to
execute the laws shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than two years,
or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute
that outlaws military operations directed
against the American people under the cover
of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been
the best protection we've had against the
power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous
and reckless executive, an executive intent
on using force to enforce its will.
Unfortunately, this past week, the president
dealt posse comitatus, along with American
democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently,
it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the
damage wrought by this horrendous act, part
and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train
of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this
authoritarian administration.
Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature
of this act, there has been no outcry in the
American media, and little reaction from our
elected officials in Congress. On September
19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy
(D-Vermont) noted that 2007's Defense
Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed
provision to allow the President more control
over the National Guard [adopting] changes to
the Insurrection Act, which will make it
easier for this or any future President to
use the military to restore domestic order
WITHOUT the consent of the nation's
governors."
Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we
certainly do not need to make it easier for
Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking
the Insurrection Act and using the military
for law enforcement activities goes against
some of the central tenets of our democracy.
One can easily envision governors and mayors
in charge of an emergency having to
constantly look over their shoulders while
someone who has never visited their
communities gives the orders."
A few weeks later, on the 29th of September,
Leahy entered into the Congressional Record
that he had "grave reservations about certain
provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense
Authorization Bill Conference Report," the
language of which, he said, "subverts solid,
longstanding posse comitatus statutes that
limit the military's involvement in law
enforcement, thereby making it easier for the
President to declare martial law." This had
been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider
with little study," while "other
congressional committees with jurisdiction
over these matters had no chance to comment,
let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."
In a telling bit of understatement, the
Senator from Vermont noted that "the
implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus)
Act are enormous". "There is good reason," he
said, "for the constructive friction in
existing law when it comes to martial law
declarations. Using the military for law
enforcement goes against one of the founding
tenets of our democracy. We fail our
Constitution, neglecting the rights of the
States, when we make it easier for the
President to declare martial law and trample
on local and state sovereignty."
Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since
hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this
outcome was likely, I have wondered how
Congress could have gotten to this point. It
seems the changes to the Insurrection Act
have survived the Conference because the
Pentagon and the White House want it."
The historic and ominous re-writing of the
Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of
night, which gives Bush the legal authority
to declare martial law, is now an
accomplished fact.
The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an
even more direct role in martial law
operations. Title XIV of the new law,
entitled, "Homeland Defense Technology
Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes
"the Secretary of Defense to create a
Homeland Defense Technology Transfer
Consortium to improve the effectiveness of
the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for
identifying and deploying relevant DOD
technology to federal, State, and local first
responders."
In other words, the law facilitates the
"transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd
control" technology and other weaponry
designed to suppress dissent from the
Pentagon to local militarized police units.
The new law builds on and further codifies
earlier "technology transfer" agreements,
specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department
memorandum of agreement achieved back during
the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)
It has become clear in recent months that a
critical mass of the American people have
seen through the lies of the Bush
administration; with the president's polls at
an historic low, growing resistance to the
war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take
back the Congress in mid-term elections, the
Bush administration is on the ropes. And so
it is particularly worrying that President
Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in
effect, declare himself dictator.
Source:
(1)
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html
and
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html
See also, Congressional Research Service
Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal
Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal
Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative
Attorney, August 14, 2006
(3) Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland
Security International, "Recent Contract
Awards", Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See
also, Peter Dale Scott, "Homeland Security
Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," New
American Media, January 31, 2006.
(4) "Technology Transfer from defense:
Concealed Weapons Detection", National
Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August,
1995, pp.42-43.
The following guide will help you plan,
prepare, and get ready in the event that martial law
threatens you safety and well being. It is divided into two
parts. The first part describes the framework for martial law
and the second part the actions to take in preparing or the
actual declaration of martial law.
INTERESTING FACTS
Martial law is defined as: military rule or
authority imposed on a civilian population when the civil
authorities cannot maintain law and order, as in a time of
war or during an emergency.
Hitler turned Germany into a Nazi
dictatorship through executive orders.
Executive Order 10995: All communications
media are to be seized by the Federal Government. Radio,
TV, newspapers, CB, Ham, telephones, and the internet will
be under federal control. Hence, the First Amendment will
be suspended indefinitely.
Executive Order 10997: All electrical
power, fuels, and all minerals well be seized by the
federal government.
Executive Order 10998: All food resources,
farms and farm equipment will be seized by the government.
You will not be allowed to hoard food since this is
regulated.
Executive Order 10999: All modes of
transportation will go into government control. Any vehicle
can be seized.
Executive Order 11000: All civilians can be
used for work under federal supervision.
Executive Order 11490: Establishes
presidential control over all US citizens, businesses, and
churches in time of "emergency."
Executive Order 12919: Directs various
Cabinet officials to be constantly ready to take over
virtually all aspects of the US economy during a State of
National Emergency at the direction of the president.
Executive Order 13010: Directs FEMA to take
control over all government agencies in time of emergency.
FEMA is under control of executive branch of the
government.
Executive Order 12656: "ASSIGNMENT OF
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS RESPONSIBILITIES", "A national
emergency is any occurrence, including natural disaster,
military attack, technological emergency, or other
emergency that seriously degrades or seriously threatens
the national security of the United States. Policy for
national security emergency preparedness shall be
established by the President." This order includes federal
takeover of all local law enforcement agencies, wage and
price controls, prohibits you from moving assets in or out
of the United States, creates a draft, controls all travel
in and out of the United States, and much more.
Martial law can be declared due to natural
disasters, Y2k Crisis, Stock Market crash, no electricity,
riots, biological attack, .... anything leading to the
breakdown of law and order.
SURVIVING MARTIAL LAW
Prepare before any declaration of martial
law by becoming self reliant. You may become subject to a
bureaucratic system and be prepared to stay one step ahead
of it which is easy to do if you are prepared and in a
position to be self reliant. You may also face mob rule,
chaos, panic, or a complete breakdown in law and order.
Surival situations may be easier to handle in rural areas
than urban.
Avoid areas of marital law. Can be imposed
due to natural disasters or man caused events. Important to
have a retreat or place in a rural area away from populated
areas.
Create alliances with like minded neighbors
or community members that share your views. Team work and
numbers may help your situation.
Become transparent in the sense that you do
not draw attention to yourself or your family. For
instance, do not tell people that you are storing food just
store food. Be prepared to render assistance to neighbors
if need be. You never know when you will need them.
Remain calm! Do not panic.
Avoid areas of civil unrest if possible. If
caught in
civil unrest take appropriate action.
Get informed and stay informed. Understand
martial law can be a temporary crisis or an extended one.
In extreme cases the shape of a whole nation can change.
Declaration of martial law means your
rights are suspended and it is government by decree. Your
constitutional rights may no longer apply. This could mean
a state of National Emergency.
People can be arrested and imprisoned
indefinitely without charges.
Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly
can be suspended, and censorship of the media imposed.
Gun ownership will also come under severe
attack during marital law. We could see house to house
searches by the military or National Guard looking for guns
and seizing any they find along with stored food.
Take a stand on issues and make a choice
that fits your beliefs and the situation. Do you believe as
Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty or give me death?" Realize
you may have some hard choices to make. Understand you may
have to sacrifice your principles on trivial matters or
take a hard stand. Always remember that you may have to
come back and fight another day.
A series of Executive Orders
(EO) was used to create FEMA. It does not matter whether an
EO is Constitutional or not, it becomes a law simply by being
published in the Federal Registry. These orders go around
Congress.
List of
Executive Orders
Executive Order Number
Meaning
10900
Allows the government
to take control over all modes of transportation,
highways, and seaports.
10995
Allows the government
to seize and control the communication media.
10997
Allows the government
to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels,
and minerals.
10998
Allows the government
to take over all food resources and farms.
11000
Allows the government
to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government
supervision.
11001
Allows the government
to take over all health, education, and welfare
functions.
11002
Designates the
Postmaster General to operate national registration of
all persons.
11003
Allows the government
to take over all airports and aircraft, including
commercial aircraft.
11004
Allows the Housing
and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new
housing with public funds, designate areas to be
abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
11005
Allows the government
to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public
storage facilities.
11051
Specifies the
responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and
gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into
effect in times of increased international tensions and
economic or financial crisis.
11310
Grants authority to
the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in
Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to
establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control
all aliens, to operate penal and correctional
institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
11049
Assigns emergency
preparedness function to federal departments and
agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders
issued over a fifteen year period.
11921
Allows the Federal
Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to
establish control over the mechanisms of production and
distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit
and flow of money in the U.S.A. financial institution in
any undefined national emergency. It also provides that
when a state of emergency is declared by the President,
Congress cannot review the action for six months.
President Regan signed
Presidential Director Number 54 in April of 1984 that allowed
FEMA to activate a secret national readiness exercise. This
exercise was given the code name REX 84. The purpose of the
exercise was to test FEMA's ability to assume military
authority. REX 84 was so highly guarded that special metal
doors were installed on the fifth floor of the FEMA building
in Washington, D.C. The only people that were allowed to
enter the premises were ones who had a red Christian cross on
their shirt. The exercise required the following.....
Suspension of the
Constitution of the United States
Turning control of the
government over to FEMA
Appointment of military
commanders to run state and local governments
For the current President, "enforcement of the
laws to restore public order" means to commandeer
guardsmen from any state, over the objections of
local governmental, military and local police
entities; ship them off to another state; conscript
them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose
against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters,
possibly, or those who object to forced
vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a
bio-terror event.
The law also facilitates militarized police
round-ups and detention of protesters, so called
"illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other
"undesirables" for detention in facilities already
contracted for and under construction by
Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a
trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied
militarization of the southern border, detention
camps are being constructed right under our noses,
camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign
and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.
It's easy to get scabbed over about the Bush White
House's assault on the Bill of Rights, but every now
and again, they rip loose with an attack so
egregious, it rips the scab right off. Between the
right-to-torture bill and this one, it's clear that
Bush intends to bring back the pork-politics glory of
the Cold War by reinventing the Soviet Union on
American soil.
The elections are coming up in a matter of
weeks. Vote America. Throw the traitors out. Install
some leaders who love the Constitution more than the
raging hard-on they get from settling political
disagreements by imprisoning their opponents.
Link (Thanks to everyone who suggested this
link)
MARTIAL LAW. " Martial law" is an
unfortunate term and in a sense a misnomer.
It describes a suspension of ordinary law,
rendered necessary by circumstances of war or
rebellion. The confusion arose from the fact
that the marshal's court administered
military law before the introduction of
articles of war, which were in their turn
merged in the Army Act. But martial law is
not a law in the proper sense of the term. It
is the exercise of the will of the military
commander, who takes upon himself the
responsibility of suspending ordinary law in
order to ensure the safety of the state. It
is declared, by a
proclamation issued by the executive,
that ordinary law is inadequate to cope with
the circumstances, and provides exceptional
means of
arrest and punishment of persons who
resist the government or aid the enemy. But
such a proclamation, while invariably issued
in order to give publicity to the suspension
of ordinary law, does not invest the step
with the force of law. It is simply military
authority exercised in accordance with the
laws and usages of war, and is limited by
military necessity. Yet in reality it is part
of
common law which justifies acts done by
necessity for the defence of the
commonwealth when there is war. H. W.
Halleck in his work on
International Law (i. 544), says,
"Martial law originates either in the
prerogative of the
crown, as in Great
Britain, or from the exigency of the
occasion, as in other states: it is one of
the rights of
sovereignty, and is essential to the
existence of a state, as is the right to
declare or to carry on war." This opinion,
however, must be read, as regards the
British Empire, with the passage in the
Petition of Right which is reproduced in
the
preamble of each annual Army Act, and
asserts the illegality of martial law in time
of peace in the following terms: - "No man
shall be fore-judged or subjected in time of
peace to any kind of punishment within this
realm by martial law." Therefore, whilst
martial law is declared illegal in time of
peace, it is indirectly declared lawful in
time of war and intestinal commotion when the
courts are closed, or when there is no time
for their cumbrous action. C. M. Clode, in
Military Forces of the Crown, argues that
the words of the Petition of Right and of the
Military Act since the reign of Anne are
plain in this respect "that. .. the crown
possesses the right of issuing commissions in
war and rebellion." But he rightly adds that
the military commander may permit the usual
courts to continue their jurisdiction upon
such subjects as he thinks proper.
Legislative enactments have also sanctioned
this special jurisdiction at various times,
notably in 179 8, 1 799, 1801, and in 1803.
These enactments lay down that exceptional
powers may be exercised "whether the ordinary
courts shall or shall not be open." As an
invariable rule an act of
indemnity has been passed on the
withdrawal of martial law, but only to
protect any person in charge of the execution
of martial law who has exceeded his powers in
good faith.
There has been much discussion as to
whether, in districts where martial law has
not been proclaimed, a person can be sent for
trial from such district into a district
where martial law was in operation. It is
argued that if the ordinary courts were open
and at work in the non-proclaimed district
recourse should be had to them. The
Privy Council in 1902 (re Marais)
refused leave to appeal where the Supreme
Court of
Cape Colony had declined to issue a
writ of
Habeas Corpus in these circumstances. Mr
Justice
Blackburn in his charge in R. v.
Eyre says, "I have come to the
conclusion that, looking at what martial law
was, the bringing of a person into the
proclaimed district to be tried might, in a
proper case, be justified." The learned
judge admits that there should be a power
of summary trial, observing all the
substantials of justice, in order to
stamp out an insurrection by speedy
trial.
Whilst martial law is the will of the
commanders, and is only limited by the
customs of war and the discretion of those
who administer it, still, as far as
practicable, the procedure of military law is
followed, and a military court is held on the
same lines as a
court-martial. Charges are simply framed
without technicalities. The prisoner is
present, the evidence of
prosecution and prisoner is taken on
oath, the proceedings are recorded, and the
sentence of the court must be confirmed
according to the rules of the Army Act.
Sentences of death and penal
servitude must be referred to
headquarters for
confirmation. In the South African War
(1899-1902) these limits of procedure were
observed, and when possible will always be.
Entering more into detail, the term
martial law has been employed in several
senses: - (I) As applied to the military
forces of the crown, apart from the military
law under the old
Mutiny Acts, and the present annual Army
Acts. (2) As applied to the enemy. (3)
Law. As applied to rebels. (4) As applied
to civilian subjects who are not in
rebellion, but in a district where the
ordinary course of civil life cannot be
maintained owing to war or rebellion.
1. In regard to the military forces of
the crown, the superseding of justice as
administered under the Army Act could only
occur in a time of great need; e.g.
mutiny of five or six regiments in the field,
with no time to take the opinion of any
executive authority. The officer in command
would then be bound to take measures for the
purpose of suppressing such mutiny, even to
putting soldiers to death if necessary. It
would be a case where necessity forced
immediate action.
2. Martial law as applied to the enemy
or the population of the enemy's country, is
in the words of the duke of
Wellington, "the will of the general of
the army, though it must be administered in
accordance with the customs of war." 3, 4.
But it is as affecting the subjects of the
crown in rebellion that the subject of
martial law really obtains its chief
importance; and it is in this sense that the
term is generally used; i.e. the
suspension of ordinary law and the temporary
government of the country, or parts of it, or
all of it, by military tribunals. It has
often been laid down that martial law in this
sense is unknown to the law of
England. A. V. Dicey, for instance,
restricts martial law to only another
expression for "the common right of the crown
and its servants to repel force by force, in
the case of invasion, insurrection, or
riot, or generally of any violent
resistance." But more than this is understood
by the term martial law.
When the proposition was laid down that
martial law in this sense is unknown to the
law of England, it is to be remembered that
fortunately in England there never had been a
state at all similar to that prevailing in
Cape
Colony in 1900-1902, and it may perhaps
be questioned whether the statement would
have been made with such certainty if similar
events had been present to the writers'
minds.
In the charge delivered by Mr Justice
Blackburn in the
Jamaica case the law as affecting the
general question of martial law is well set
out.
"By the laws of this country," said Mr
Justice Blackburn, "beginning at
Magna Carta and getting more and more
established, down to the time of the
Revolution, when it was finally and
completely established, the general rule was
that a subject was not to be tried or
punished except by due course of law; all
crimes are to be determined by juries subject
to the guidance of the judge; that is the
general rule, and is established law. But
from the earliest times there was this also
which was the law, and is the law still, that
when there was a foreign invasion or an
insurrection, it was the duty of every good
subject, in obedience to the officers and
magistrates, to resist the rebels,. .. in
such a case as that of insurrection
prevailing so far that the courts of law
cannot sit, there must really be anarchy
unless there is some power to keep the people
in order,. before that principle the crown
claimed the prerogative to exercise summary
proceedings by martial law. in time of war
when this disturbance was going on, over
others than the army. And further than that,
the crown made this further claim against the
insurgents, that whilst it existed, pending
the insurrection and for a short time
afterwards, the crown had. .. the power to
proclaim martial law in the sense of using
summary proceedings, to punish the insurgents
and to check and stop the spread of the
rebellion by summary proceedings against the
insurgents, so as. .. to stamp out the
rebellion. Now no doubt the extent to which
the crown had power to do that has never been
yet decided. Our law has been declared from
time to time and has always been a practical
science, that is, the judges have decided so
much as was necessary for the particular
case, and that has become part of the law.
But it never has come to be decided what this
precise power is." So far as the
United Kingdom is concerned the need has
never arisen. It has always been found
possible to employ the ordinary courts
directly the rebels have been defeated in the
field and have been made prisoners or
surrendered. "Fortunately in England only
three occasions have arisen since the
Revolution when the authority of the civil
power was for a time, and then only
partially, suspended," 1715, 1745 and 1780.
Clode, Military Forces, ii. 163, says:
"Upon the
threat of invasion followed by rebellion
in 1715, the first action of the government
was to issue a proclamation authorizing all
officers, civil and military, by force of
arms (if necessary) to suppress the
rebellion." This, therefore, would only seem
to fall within the limited sense in which
Dicey understands martial law to be legal,
"the right of the crown and its servants to
repel force by force." There was no attempt
to bring persons before courts-martial who
ought to be tried by the common law, and all
the extraordinary acts of the crown were
sanctioned by parliament. After the rebellion
had been suppressed two statutes were passed,
one for indemnity and the other for
pardon. Before the revolution Of 1745
similar action was adopted, a proclamation
charging civil magistrates to do their utmost
to prevent and suppress all riots, and acts
of parliament suspending Habeas Corpus,
providing for speedy trials; and of
indemnity. In the
Gordon Riots of 1780 a very similar
course was pursued, and nothing was done
which would not fall within Dicey's
limitation. No prisoners were tried by
martial law.
In
Ireland the ordinary law was suspended
in1798-1801and in 1803. In 1798 an
order in Council was issued to all
general officers commanding H.M. forces to
punish all persons acting in, aiding, or in
any way assisting the rebellion, according to
martial law, either by death or
otherwise, as to them should seem expedient
for the suppression and punishment of all
rebels; but the order was communicated to the
Irish houses of parliament, who expressed
their approval by addresses to the
viceroy. It was during the operation of
this order that Wolfe Tone's case arose.
Tone, a subject of the king, was captured on
board a French man-of-war, and condemned to
death by a court-martial. Curran, his
counsel, applied to the
king's bench at
Dublin for a Habeas Corpus, on the
grounds that only, when war was raging could
courts-martial be endured, not while the
court of king's
bench sat. The court granted his
application; but no ultimate decision was
ever given, as Tone died before it could be
arrived at.
In 1799 application was made to
parliament for express sanction to martial
law. The preamble of the act declared that
"The Rebellion still continues. .. and
stopped the ordinary course of justice and of
the common law; and that many persons. .. who
had been taken by H.M. forces. .. have
availed themselves of such partial
restoration of the ordinary course of the
common law to evade the punishment of their
crimes, whereby it had become necessary for
parliament to interfere." The act declared
that martial law should prevail and be put in
force whether the ordinary courts were or
were not open, &c. And nothing in the act
could be held to take away, abridge or
eliminate the acknowledged prerogative of
war, for the public safety to resort to the
exercise of martial law against open enemies
or traitors, &c.
After the suppression of the rebellion
an act of indemnity was passed in 1801.
In 1803 a similar act was passed by the
parliament of the United Kingdom as it was
after the Act of Union. In introducing it Mr
Pitt stated: "The bill is not one to enable
the government in Ireland to declare martial
law in districts where insurrection exists,
for that is a power which His
Majesty already possesses - the object
will be to enable the lord-lieutenant, when
any persons shall be taken in rebellion, to
order them to be tried immediately by a
courtmartial." During the 19th century
martial law was proclaimed by the British
government in the following places: I.
Barbados, 1805-1816.6.
Cephalonia, 1848.
2.
Demerara, 1823.7. Cape of Good Hope,
1834; 3. Jamaica, 1831-1832; 1865.1849-1851.
5.
Ceylon, 1817 and 1848.9.
South Africa, 1899-1901. The proclamation
was always based on the grounds of necessity,
and where any local body of a representative
character existed it would seem that its
assent was given, and an act of indemnity
obtained after the suppression of the
rebellion. ONO. S.)
"Live
Free Or Die!"
Law
109-364, or the "John Warner Defense
Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2),
which was signed by the commander in chief on
October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office
ceremony, allows the President to declare a
"public emergency" and station troops
anywhere in America and take control of
state-based National Guard units without the
consent of the governor or local authorities,
in order to "suppress public disorder."
shots fired, people at "battle stations", listen live via podcast. follow link. hope no one dies tonight.
www.buzzflash.net - July 29th, 2007 at 4:38 am
jack amode - July 29th, 2007 at 6:30 am
phil tryon - July 29th, 2007 at 7:21 am
603-643-2222 plainsfield police dept.
603-863-4200 sullivan co sheriff
603-225-1632 US Marshalls - Fugitive Investigations
imgstacke - July 29th, 2007 at 9:03 am