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!"

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, 2007 A 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.


Ed And Elaine Brown's MySpace Page

POSTED: 5:46 pm EDT June 8, 2007

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.

Feds Insist No Raid Planned in NH

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)
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.


On the Net:

Audio clip of Ed Brown: http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com

Audio clip of Danny Riley: http://openyourmindseye.blogspot.com/2007/06/danny-riley-aka-dog-walker-expo

Feds show force to fugitive N.H. couple

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)
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.


On the Net:

Audio clip of Ed Brown: http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com


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
Browns: Dog walker saved lives
Supporter claims marshals chased him

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


Monitor staff

Ed Brown says feds have no jurisdiction in New Hampshire

Union Leader Correspondent

"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."


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

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."

------ End of article


Monitor staff

Related articles:
Anti-tax advocates out in force (January 21, 2007)
Warrant for tax rebel unsealed (January 20, 2007)
Couple convicted in tax case (January 19, 2007)

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.

More live updates at this blog.

VIDEO news report from the scene.

We are encouraging people in the Plainfield area to get down to the area immediately to see what is happening.

More on this story as it develops.....

RELATED: SWAT Teams, Armored Vehicle Seen Near Brown Compound


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.

Read Voluntary Servitude

Read The Greateful Slave

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,"

Direct link to Hampton's posts:

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

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.


Phone numbers to call below.....


From: WhoWhatWhereWhyWhen@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WhoWhatWhereWhyWhen@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Deon Masker
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 9:28 PM

Alberto Del Gambino To: ctrl@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:02 PM



--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




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

#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!



AKA Snake Eyes

Browns Siege: Feds Say They Are Going In

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.

Robo-Soldier Ready for Combat Deployment to Iraq for Urban Warfare/CI Ops

Browns Siege: Feds Say They Are Going In

Randy Weaver may join Browns at their New Hampshire home
Steve Watson,Infowars.net
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
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.

Do Ed and Elaine Brown live in a fortress?

Wednesday, 13 June 2007

According to many the Browns live in a fortress.

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.

Bench warrant issued for N.H. tax resister

... 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."
WMUR 4/24/07

... no plans to lay siege to their hilltop compound ... holed up in their fortress-like Plainfield home

Union Leader 6/7/07

neighbors reported armed police and at least one armored vehicle near Ed and Elaine Brown's fortified compound ...

Monitor 5/25/07

... 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

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.

The Internet is rife with rumors, he said.

Brown felt federal raid was 'imminent'
Police assemble by Browns' home
Federal agents seize Lebanon dental office
Ed Brown says feds have no jurisdiction in New Hampshire

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


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 !

Media emails - to paste in

2020@abc.com (ABC 20/20),                                                    netaudr@abc.com (ABC Good Morning America),
johnstossel@abc.com (ABC John Stossel Reporting),            abc@abcnews.com (ABC News),
niteline@abc.com (ABC Nightline),                                          48hours@cbsnews.com (CBS 48 Hours),
60m@cbsnews.com (CBS 60 min),                                            60II@cbsnews.com (CBS 60 min II),
ftn@cbsnews.com (CBS FACE THE NATION),                     uttm@cbs.com (CBS-UTTM),
jburns@cnsnews.com (CNS),                                                    priestd@washpost.com (Dana Priest Washington
Post), boehlert@salon.com (Eric Boehlert Salon),                   beltway@foxnews.com
(FOX NEWS), tomrose@jpost.co.il (J Post),                            editor@japantoday.com (JAPAN TODAY),
jjohnson@cnsnews.com (Jeff Johnson CNS NEWS),               ckloss@hearst.com (KETV \\\(ABC-7\\\)),
garysadlemyer@hotmail.com (KFAB Radio),                          news@kmtv3.com (KMTV-3 CBS),
mcateerm@washpost.com (Martha McAteer),                        letters@newsday.com (NEWSDAY),
letters@nypost.com (NY POST EDITOR),                              editor@nytimes.com (NY TIMES EDITOR),
pulse@owh.com (Omaha World-Herald),                                  oreilly@foxnews.com (O'Reilly),
observer@guardianunlimited.co.uk (Sunder Katwala Editor UK Observer),
andrew.badenoch@guardian.co.uk (Andrew Badenoch Editor, UK
Obs./Guardian), shiraz.lalani@mirror.co.uk (UK Mirror),
safire@nytimes.com (Wm. Safire),                                            krugman@nytimes.com (Krugman),
cshaw@nypost.com (C Shaw),                                                    nightly@nbc.com (Tom Brokaw),
hannity@foxnews.com (Sean Hannity),                                     rush@eibnet.com (Rush Limbaugh),
news@worldnetdaily.com,                                                          comments@msnbc.com (MSNBC News),
bac@cis.compuserve.com (Ken Hamblin),                                myword@foxnews.com (John Gibson),
Joe@msnbc.com (Joe Scarborough),                                         Hardball@msnbc.com (Hardball),
potent357@aol.com (G. Gordon Liddy),                                    Comments@foxnews.com (Fox News),
Colmes@foxnews.com (Alan Colmes),                                       thisweek@abc.com (This week),
agathright@sfchronicle.com (Alan Gathright SF Chronical),
gaither@globe.com                                                                      netaudr@abc.com,
stossel@abc.com,                                                                        abcsuggestions-l@list2.starwave.com,
niteline@abc.com,                                                                       netaudr@abc.com,
WNN@abc.com,                                                                          weekend@abc.com,
48hours@cbsnews.com,                                                               60II@cbsnews.com,
ftn@cbsnews.com,                                                                       sundays@cbsnews.com,
weekends@cbsnews.com,                                                           jeff.newsstand@cnn.com,
friends@foxnews.com,                                                                comments@foxnews.com,
beltway@foxnews.com,                                                               special@foxnews.com,
theedge@foxnews.com,                                                               foxreport@foxnews.com,
fullnelson@foxnews.com,                                                            Letters@MSNBC.COM,
equaltime@msnbc.com,                                                               feedback@msnbc.com,
hardball@msnbc.com,                                                                  homepage@msnbc.com,
Imus@MSNBC.com,                                                                   Internight@MSNBC.com,
opinion@msnbc.com,                                                                    specialedition@msnbc.com,
TheNews@MSNBC.com,                                                            MTP@NBC.com,
Nightly@NBC.com,                                                                      letters@nypost.com,
POSTLETTERS@NYPOst.com,                                                 editor@nytimes.com,
natweb@nytimes.com,                                                                  webnews@washpost.com,
general@washtimes.com,                                                             netaudr@abc.com

Feds grab Brown car
Tax resisters' vehicle driven by a supporter

July 18. 2007 6:40AM
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 radio show, 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."


Monitor staff

Brown says he won't pay, town will
He now opts out of local property taxes

July 21. 2007 12:25AM
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."


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








Update 12:35AM: There is no recent activity, no further gunshots at this time. Stay Tuned to WTPRN.

Update 3:30AM: There is currently activity on the property.



Update 11:15AM CST: Please keep up to date at wearechange.org, Ed & Elaine’s Blog and Ed & Elaine’s Myspace page the US Marshalls are denying involvement.

Update 12:00PM CST: Back live on WTPRN.

29 Responses to “RED ALERT - Shots Fired - ED & ELAINE BROWN Under Attack”

  1. Shots Fired at Ed and Elaine Brown’s Property - HAPPENING NOW

    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

  2. “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country”

    jack amode - July 29th, 2007 at 6:30 am

  3. 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

    phil tryon - July 29th, 2007 at 7:21 am

  4. Let them know we are watching -

    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


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.

greetings sofia


A Woman - July 29th, 2007 at 9:50 am

  1. […] the attack on Ed Brown’s property has […]

    Ed Brown Fires Shot - July 29th, 2007 at 10:04 am

  2. Thank you Amerika. Thank you from the bottom of mein heart.

    Adolf Hitler - July 29th, 2007 at 10:29 am

  3. 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.

    aerial - July 29th, 2007 at 10:30 am

  4. > 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.

    brainfart - July 29th, 2007 at 10:41 am

  5. Freakin’ g’mnts are all crooked lawyers paid by Rothschild to collect their banking debts USA taxpayers owe the Rothschilds Federal Reserve Bank.

    SWAT just listen to what freakin’ g’mnt lawyer liars tell em to shoot at.

    Watch ‘The Corporation’ video at:


    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!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Joey Davis - July 29th, 2007 at 12:01 pm

  6. 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.

    fredrick heaven - July 29th, 2007 at 12:41 pm

  7. 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.

    dianarn - July 29th, 2007 at 12:58 pm

  8. […] read more | digg story […]

    - July 29th, 2007 at 1:20 pm

  9. […] “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 […]

    START EMAILING EVERYONE ALIVE!!1!1!!!1!!!!!!! « Balance Sheet - July 29th, 2007 at 1:31 pm

  10. 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.

    Rex Lacoste - July 29th, 2007 at 1:31 pm

  11. 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.

    Darin Barrows - July 29th, 2007 at 2:57 pm

  12. Rex Lacoste is a weasle back boot licking coward.

    jake - July 29th, 2007 at 3:28 pm

  13. 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.

    bonanzaman - July 29th, 2007 at 3:29 pm

  14. 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.

    Thomas Jefferson - July 29th, 2007 at 3:33 pm

  15. […] 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 […]

    Grandma and Grandpa: Enemies of the State? « Hedonistic Pleasureseeker - July 29th, 2007 at 3:53 pm

  16. 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.

    Jolly Roger - July 29th, 2007 at 4:29 pm

  17. 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.

    Mfskinner - July 29th, 2007 at 4:38 pm

  18. Who said the police were shooting at them?

    Some Honest Good Sense - July 29th, 2007 at 4:51 pm

  19. hi… nice blog

    emys - July 29th, 2007 at 4:59 pm

  20. […] 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 […]

    Pay The Fekkin Taxes, You Eejits!! « Mike Cane’s Blog - July 29th, 2007 at 5:02 pm

  21. This is a (test)..they are seeing how prepared the situation is @ the browns and are watching the (total) response.

    This has to go viral..(now).

    jake - July 29th, 2007 at 5:24 pm

  22. http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/07/military-plans-to-treat-us-dissidents.html


    jake - July 29th, 2007 at 5:53 pm

  23. […] 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 […]

    RED ALERT - Shots Fired - ED & ELAINE BROWN Under Attack « Houston 9|11 Truth « Holbrook - July 29th, 2007 at 5:56 pm

  24. […]  http://houston911truth.org/2007/07/29/gun-shots-fired-behind-the-ed-and-elaines-house/ […]

    We support the Brown’s They are under attack! « Abbeville County South Carolina League of the South - July 29th, 2007 at 6:42 pm






History of the U.S. Tax System

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 1]   157 U.S. 429 (1895); 158 U.S. 601 (1895).

[Footnote 2] Ch. 349, Sec. 27, 28 Stat. 509, 553.

[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 .

[Footnote 4] Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881).

[Footnote 5] Ch. 173, Sec. 116, 13 Stat. 223, 281 (1864).

[Footnote 6] For an account of the Pollock decision, see supra, pp. 352- 56.

[Footnote 7]   173 U.S. 509 (1899).

[Footnote 8]   178 U.S. 41 (1900).

[Footnote 9]   184 U.S. 608 (1902).

[Footnote 10] Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911).

[Footnote 11] Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 18 -19 (1916).

[Footnote 13] Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916).

Income Subject to Taxation


Colonial Times

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.  

FROM: http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

Income Tax

"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.

FROM: http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

Title 26 of the United States Code

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1 Prev | Next


§ 1. Tax imposed


How Current is This?
(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
(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—
(i) unrecaptured section 1250 gain, and
(ii) 28-percent rate gain, plus
(B) qualified dividend income (as defined in paragraph (11)).
(4) 28-percent rate gain
For purposes of this subsection, the term “28-percent rate gain” means the excess (if any) of—
(A) the sum of—
(i) collectibles gain; and
(ii) section 1202 gain, over
(B) the sum of—
(i) collectibles loss;
(ii) the net short-term capital loss; and
(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) any dividend described in section 404 (k).
(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 Photo: Indymedia.orgLaw 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.

(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

(2) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill+h109-5122

(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.

Photo source: http://sandiego.indymedia.org/images/2005/08/110478.jpg

FROM: http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/




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.


  • 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.


  • 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.

FROM; http://members.tripod.com/~Sidlinger/ml.html

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



Allows the government to take control over all modes of transportation, highways, and seaports.


Allows the government to seize and control the communication media.


Allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.


Allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.


Allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.


Allows the government to take over all health, education, and welfare functions.


Designates the Postmaster General to operate national registration of all persons.


Allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.


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.


Allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.


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. 


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.


Assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.


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

  • Declaration of Martial Law

So how much money goes

FROM: http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm

Bush legalizes martial law -- what Constitution?

On Oct 17, George Bush quietly signed a bill allowing him to declare martial law. The Toward Freedom website
summarizes it:
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.

4. Canada, 1837-1838.8. St Vincent, 1863.

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.)

FROM: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Martial_Law