Is the Income Tax legal ? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pai mei · 01-22-2007, 03:12 PM

No it is not, it's just a missinterpretation of the law

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...6&q=income+tax - here is what a IRS agent says, he cannot answer some simple questions. He says "supreme court decisions do not apply to the IRS" ? There are some supreme court cases that show that the income tax does not include wages.The IRS cannot simple show the people the law, because there isn't one

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...3&q=income+tax - here is a very detailed explanation of the Income Tax problem

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...955&q=ed+brown
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245003,00.html
Here is a man who asked the IRS to show him the tax law. He got no answer for 8 years, now his house is surrounded by agents , same as Waco.

The_Jazz · 01-22-2007, 03:21 PM

Blah, blah, blah. Check the 16th Amendment.

Quote:

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.

Maybe it's being used arbitrarily and maybe there are agents that are on power trips or don't understand the law, but make no mistake about the income tax's legality.

I'll conceed that I haven't watched any of the videos, but from what else you've said, I have to strenuously disagree based on the fact that the 16th Amendment does in fact exist and has never been repealed.

Also, I find it difficult to believe that anyone's house would be under seige a la Waco for simple income tax violations. I would guess that there's more to the story than you've posted, although the videos may elaborate on that. I'll try to watch them when I get home.

dksuddeth · 01-22-2007, 04:02 PM

there's been question about that actual validity of the 16th amendment ever being ratified but I am unaware of any actual court case that has ruled against the government using this defense.

dc_dux · 01-22-2007, 04:05 PM

It was that rascally conservative republican president, William Howard Taft, who pushed for the passage and ratification of the 16th amendment.

host · 01-22-2007, 04:47 PM

These mouthy former presidents only serve to feed the conspiracy theorists.....

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson—and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W.W. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States—only on a far bigger and broader basis.[1]

[1]# ↑ President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Col. Edward Mandell House, November 21, 1933, F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), pg. 373.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson,(1916) after signing the Federal Reserve into existence

shakran · 01-22-2007, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Also, I find it difficult to believe that anyone's house would be under seige a la Waco for simple income tax violations.

Precisely. Unless this guy is also raping 12 year old girls and claiming he's married to them, this case is NOTHING like Waco.

Yakk · 01-22-2007, 09:45 PM

The amendment means that they could do it. Wages are income.

Congressional will, that they want an income tax, is pretty clear.

The Supreme Court, if asked today, can easily cite long precident, congressional will, and "the constitution is not a suicide pact" to change any previous rulings.

In essence, even if you can build an arguement that income tax isn't legal, it doesn't really matter. Income tax, as implemented, exists de facto. The government holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and they are willing to use it to enforce income tax. There is far more precident in the courts supporting the ability of the government to tax than opposing it.

At best you could get lucky at trial and convince a jury to let you off (juries can do this!) -- but you have to do it twice, once to get rid of the criminal sanctions, once to get rid of the civil penalties. And the civil case isn't a matter of reasonable doubt, but balance of probabilities. They can and will flood you with far more articulate experts than you could ever imagine, and they can and will take you for every penny if you try it.

So yes, the income tax is legal. Nobody with the power to stop it is willing to stop it.

loquitur · 01-23-2007, 07:14 AM

Every few years some guy claims in court that the income tax is illegal. There are guys who publish books advocating that position, laying out precisely which arguments they think are correct and trying to persuade others to join a movement to "legally" not pay taxes.

Not a single court has bought those arguments. In fact, if you read the opinions in those cases, the tone of the judges comes across as patient exasperation. Most of these hucksters end up being guests of the federal taxpayers.

There is an academic debate about whether the 16th amendment really was necessary. The Supreme Court decision that held income taxes unconstitutional was of questionable soundness for a number of reasons, both logical and historical, but that's neither here nor there, because it was the law and it got overridden through the amendment process -- which, by the way, is the proper way to get rid of Supreme Court decisions about the constitution that you don't like.

I don't like paying taxes any more than anyone else does, but there's no question the income tax is legal.

The_Jazz · 01-23-2007, 07:34 AM

Has there ever been a thread in Tilted Politics where everyone agrees after the OP? Obviously it's an incredibly easy answer, but still it's quite odd.

Yakk · 01-24-2007, 12:44 PM

No, it is even you fool! Not at all odd. @_@

dksuddeth · 01-24-2007, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Precisely. Unless this guy is also raping 12 year old girls and claiming he's married to them, this case is NOTHING like Waco.

extraneous accusations aside, this is exactly like waco. A failure to pay taxes.

The_Jazz · 01-25-2007, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

extraneous accusations aside, this is exactly like waco. A failure to pay taxes.

Prove it. Where's the seige taking place and who does it involve?

flstf · 01-25-2007, 07:59 AM

It seems like the federal income tax debate is part and parcel to the old states rights debates. Just how much power should the federal government have over the individual states. I believe in the early days of our country the thinking was that the federal government should have little taxing power over the states.

Things have changed a great deal over the years. Before the Civil War most statesmen probably thought it was well within a state's rights to just quit the Union. I don't think it is even possible to consider this now.

As I understand it the first income tax was paid by the top 1% or so and most of them were wealthy people in the northeast. Most people probably figured what the hell let's tax those rich northeasterners. Like so many taxes that have been enacted since we take aim at the wealthy and hit ourselves in the process.

Is the income tax legal? Today it probably is but I am not surprised that a growing number of people will protest. The tax code is so huge and complicated with our polititians adding exceptions and favorable clauses for their campaign contributers etc.. that it has morphed into a very unfair system.

MuadDib · 01-25-2007, 10:34 AM

Ironically, I'm posting this while slacking off during my 'Federal Income Tax' class, but it is explicitly Constitutional. As far as how it is used today there might be some question about certain policies, but Congress has given the IRS the administrative authority create binding regulations which are essentially law. All of this is open to judicial review or Congressional alteration, but until that happens they are legal and as far as your basic question goes it the concept as a whole is legal.

dksuddeth · 01-25-2007, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Prove it. Where's the seige taking place and who does it involve?

I'll rephrase, to be more exacting since some people require absolutes.

This is a tax issue. koresh didn't pay taxes on some weapons. Ed Brown didn't pay taxes on income.

there, is that enough proof for you, exactly?

The_Jazz · 01-25-2007, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I'll rephrase, to be more exacting since some people require absolutes.

This is a tax issue. koresh didn't pay taxes on some weapons. Ed Brown didn't pay taxes on income.

there, is that enough proof for you, exactly?

Actually, that's pretty much what I expected. I figured if anyone would know there WAS such a seige going on right now it would be you

The fact that you don't pretty much drives the nail in the coffin on my opinion that the OP is flame-baiting, albeit not very successfully. Thanks for rising to the occassion.

The point's well taken that both Koresh and Brown had similar tax evasion issues, though, although I will point out that Koresh had other laws that he was...ignoring?

dksuddeth · 01-25-2007, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Actually, that's pretty much what I expected. I figured if anyone would know there WAS such a seige going on right now it would be you

The fact that you don't pretty much drives the nail in the coffin on my opinion that the OP is flame-baiting, albeit not very successfully. Thanks for rising to the occassion.

The point's well taken that both Koresh and Brown had similar tax evasion issues, though, although I will point out that Koresh had other laws that he was...ignoring?

/threadjack
If there were indeed 'other laws' that koresh was ignoring, why did ONLY the BATF execute a raid? If the 'other laws' were actually accurate, one would think that we'd have seen the FBI initiate the raid, or at the very least, it would have been a regular police SWAT team, but no. The ATF, which has jurisdiction over federal firearms legislation, made a raid on unpaid taxes for some guns. Without concrete proof that there were other laws being 'ignored', you were the recipient of smoke up the rear orifice.
/endthreadjack

loquitur · 01-26-2007, 05:46 AM

Why are we still hashing over David f--in' Koresh, fercrissakes?

The_Jazz · 01-26-2007, 06:19 AM

DK - my only point was that the Koresh story was more complex than simple income tax evasion. The fact that guns were involved at all goes to prove that point. That's what the OP was all about, including mention of the seige. Nobody was after Koresh because he didn't send in his 1040 and W-2, but you're point's well taken that ATF isn't the IRS.

dc_dux · 01-26-2007, 06:43 AM

From what I have read, this guy, Ed Brown, was convicted of tax evasion. It is he and his supporters who want the attention and are provoking a confrontation with the federal agents.

Quote:

A former militia man convicted of tax evasion prepared for a government siege Friday as his supporters called for more people to show up at his fortress-like home and fight his arrest.

Ed Brown said he was ready for a swarm of federal agents to descend on his property to execute an arrest warrant. His wife and his supporters said they believe a confrontation could turn violent.

U.S. marshals said they have no plans to attack Ed Brown's home in Plainfield or act quickly on a warrant for his arrest.

But Brown said he is prepared for a swarm of federal agents to descend on his property, while some supporters said government aggression could lead to another Waco, Ruby Ridge, or Oklahoma City bombing.

"If Mexico came up on my land and tried to take my land, would I not fight?" Brown said. "The United States is the same exact thing as Mexico in this state. It's a fact of law."

Brown and his wife, Elaine, were convicted Thursday of plotting to conceal their income and avoid paying federal income tax. They argue the tax is illegitimate and no one is required to pay it.
...

The Browns' anti-tax argument has found its niche online, where supporters ranged from militia members to libertarians and anti-tax groups to fringe presidential candidates. Ed Brown is a former militia member.

"It's spreading like wildfire," he said. "Critical mass is probably beginning to pop now worldwide."

Rick Stanley, a Denver-based Web radio host and a militia leader, urged listeners to join Brown at his home.

"We are continuing to ask patriots to surround Ed Brown's property and life with a ring of armed Americans with firearms and video cameras to protect a fellow American. ... This is the line in the sand. This is the flashpoint. This is the time of raised pitchforks."

In a phone interview, Stanley predicted that when government officials show up to arrest Brown, they will encounter massive resistance.

"More and more people are going to be there. I think the American people are really getting tired of the lies of the judiciary and the fraud of the judiciary," Stanley said.

Blogger Mark Yannone asked, "Will Plainfield be another Waco?" The reference to the FBI raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, drew a flurry of responses.

"This could likely turn into another government assassination like Ruby Ridge or Waco if vigilant citizens in the area do not act. ... So if your conscience does not tell you to bring arms and defend this fellow patriot, bring the media, bring yourself, bring a video camera ... so that they may be less inclined to murder this man in cold blood," said a posting at Progressiveblogs.

...

Gene Chapman, a Texas theologian running for the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination in 2008, has offered to negotiate a settlement between Brown and the White House. Neither Brown nor the White House has accepted, he said.

"I don't think Ed is intending to hurt anybody," said Chapman, who believes taxes are a form of slavery and the Bible requires rebellion against slave masters. "I think Ed's a good guy who wants the law to work."

He predicted any raid on Brown would lead to retaliation.

"When you attack these groups that are perceived as innocents, you get Oklahoma City bombings and that kind of response."

U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier said talks continue between Brown and his staff. He said he has no immediate plans to enforce the arrest warrant, issued after Brown violated his bail conditions by failing to appear in court for the end of his trial.

"He wants attention. We're determined to keep this very low-profile," Monier said. "We have the discretion -- how, when and where."

Ed Brown said he has a stock of food and supplies. He also said his home can run on wind and solar generators if authorities cut his electric line.

"I love my home. It's my castle. There's plenty to do here," Brown said by phone Friday. "It's all set up for me to stay here forever."

During a 1994 interview with the Union Leader, Brown told the newspaper he had 18 months of food stored in his basement and a stockpile of weapons and ammunition.

More than 30 guns were removed from his house in May after he was ordered to surrender his weapons, but earlier this week, Brown showed reporters a handgun tucked into his pants.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/0...x.evasion.html

If he wanted to make a political statement (ie. not pay income tax), that was his choice to make, fully understanding the potential consequences. And now he should also be prepared to pay the price when his underlying actions were found to be illegal by a court of law- prison, unless as he said in another interview that he is "prepared to die first" - again, his choice to make.

dksuddeth · 01-26-2007, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

DK - my only point was that the Koresh story was more complex than simple income tax evasion. The fact that guns were involved at all goes to prove that point. That's what the OP was all about, including mention of the seige. Nobody was after Koresh because he didn't send in his 1040 and W-2, but you're point's well taken that ATF isn't the IRS.

actually, up until 2003 (i think), the ATF was in fact a branch of the treasury department. It was just recently moved over to justice.

Deltona Couple · 01-30-2007, 08:33 AM

threadjack again---

If those who were interested actually looked back at the facts, you would find that Koresh was in violation of SEVERAL alcohol, tobacco, AND firearm laws. The ATF was not there to merely serve a warrant on unpaid taxes. They were there because of a LONG ongoing investigation into the selling and purchasing of tobacco and firearms, including fully automatic weapons, and semi-automatic weapons converted to full auto. The fact that he had also not paid his taxes was a side note. The ATF was there to enforce a warrant on SEVERAL charges. Personally I have absolutely no problem with him getting exactly what he deserved considering the abhorrent things he was doing to those that were there, especially the children.

As far as the OP, I am curious, who here actually has a problem with paying taxes, and why? I have no problem paying my taxes. I DO prefer to have it distributed better, but how else is the government supposed to function?

loquitur · 01-30-2007, 09:34 AM

I don't have a problem with the notion of paying taxes - as you say, we need some government and the government has to function. I do have a problem with using taxes to serve other functions, and with the level of taxation.

cajunlady70517 · 02-11-2007, 12:46 PM

People it is time to wake up!! . watch this video when you have time.
There is no law that states you HAVE to pay taxes... this is quoted in this video by congressmen, ex-irs agents, etc... its really worth sitting down to watch.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...30277175242198

MuadDib · 02-11-2007, 01:35 PM

Amendment XVI (the Sixteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, authorizing income taxes in their present form, was ratified on February 3, 1913. The amendment states:

"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."

Dilbert1234567 · 02-11-2007, 02:20 PM

the law is on the books, period, even if it was done through shady means, it is a law on the books, end of story.

Rekna · 02-11-2007, 02:37 PM

The 16th Amendment was ratified by the states. The arguments that it wasn't based on different punctuation and capitalization is silly.

The_Jazz · 02-12-2007, 08:21 AM

I love this thread. With the exception of the "flybys" by a couple of rookies that won't (or can't) back up their points, TFP Politics has finally completely agreed on something. Anyone else have any other questions with self-evident answers for us to point out?

Rekna · 02-12-2007, 08:33 AM

Maybe we need a thread like this every week.

Next week we could have an anon poster claim the world is flat.

shakran · 02-12-2007, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I'll rephrase, to be more exacting since some people require absolutes.

This is a tax issue. koresh didn't pay taxes on some weapons. Ed Brown didn't pay taxes on income.

there, is that enough proof for you, exactly?

I'll be quite blunt. Dksuddeth, you're not that stupid. No one believes you actually think Brown and Koresh are in the exact same boat. Koresh "married" the 12 year old girls in his compound and then had sex with them. Koresh was obviously an extremely distured individual who, incidentally, thought he was Jesus and thought being Jesus gave him the right to rape little kids.

Brown is just a dupe who didn't pay his taxes.

I really shouldn't have to spell this out for you.

The_Dunedan · 02-13-2007, 02:20 AM

Then why was "Koresh thinks he's Jesus and rapes babies!" not brought up until the Feds had been forced to acknowledge that both the "Koresh is stockpiling machineguns!" and "Koresh is cooking meth!" excuses fell apart?

If the issue was Koresh allegedly shtoinking 12-year-olds, then why was this not brought up until the previous two justifications had fallen apart? Furthermore, if child molestation really -was- a problem, why was the Mt. Carmel siege carried out by Federal authorities, who have no jurasdiction in such a case? Lastly, it should be remembered that at the time the legal Age Of Consent in Texas was 14 years, meaning that Koresh's alleged sexual contact was in all likelihood entirely legal.

The Feds went through three sets of excuses for their conduct at Mt. Carmel, two of which turned out to be utter horseshit and the third of which is debateable at best. Koresh and the Branch Davidians were not in posession of any unregistered Class-III Weapons, so no NFA tax was owed. There was no Meth lab in the Mt. Carmel church kitchen. Allegations of child-molestation have never been proven, may have been legal if they -did- occur, and were not Federal jurasdiction to begin with.

Finally, the shoddy coverup of the incident, initiated under Clinton and perpetuated by Bush, has left the Federal account of the Mt. Carmel Massacre so full of holes and lacking in credibility that anything relying upon the "official" version has a -long- way to go in establishing its' bona fides. The Feds have repeatedly been caught hiding or suppressing evidence, such as the pyrotechnic CS grenades which may have started the fateful fire and which were "lost" for a number of years until being recovered during a second Congressional investigation. There's also the matter of the church's front door, which mysteriously disappeared after the fire despite being made of metal and having been photographed in situ in the immidiate aftermath. The door is crucial because it would establish (and the photos bear this out) that BATFE agents fired first, an allegation supported by Davidian testimony and press film of the raid in progress. And of course, there are the BATFE's infamous "FLIR tests" which used the wrong guns, wrong ammunition loaded with the wrong powder, and under the wrong conditions in order to "debunk" the FLIR-camera evidence of Federal forces firing on the Davidians who tried to escape the fire. Further, independant testing which duplicated the weapons, loads, and conditions on the day of the fire, however, has duplicated the FLIR results. This is the biggest problem with the "official" version: the Feds have lied to often and so blatantly about everything -else- that happened at Mt. Carmel: why should I believe them about Koresh thinking he was Jesus and raping 12-year-olds?

[/threadjack]

Deltona Couple · 02-13-2007, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Then why was "Koresh thinks he's Jesus and rapes babies!" not brought up until the Feds had been forced to acknowledge that both the "Koresh is stockpiling machineguns!" and "Koresh is cooking meth!" excuses fell apart?

Are you asking why it wasn't brought up in this thread earlier? If yes, then it wasn't mentioned because the original OP was a discussion on taxation, not child rape.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

If the issue was Koresh allegedly shtoinking 12-year-olds, then why was this not brought up until the previous two justifications had fallen apart? Furthermore, if child molestation really -was- a problem, why was the Mt. Carmel siege carried out by Federal authorities, who have no jurasdiction in such a case? Lastly, it should be remembered that at the time the legal Age Of Consent in Texas was 14 years, meaning that Koresh's alleged sexual contact was in all likelihood entirely legal.

PLEASE tell me you are not trying to justify coercing and RAPING a 12 year old girl in that statement. Also, your information is incorrect. At that time, the age of consent was 17, not 14. The only law regarding consent at 14 was if BOTH parties were under the age of 18...Koresh was WELL above that age. There is just NO excuse for his actions.. PERIOD!

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

the Feds have lied to often and so blatantly about everything -else- that happened at Mt. Carmel: why should I believe them about Koresh thinking he was Jesus and raping 12-year-olds?

Why? because there was evidence and DNA tests to PROVE he was the father of some of the children whos MOTHER was only 12 to 14 years of age? Is DNA enough evidence for you? It is for me.

Sorry, I have absolutely NO care for a person who rapes a child. Every one of them should be put in prison and ass-raped by the biggest, meanest, most drug and disease infested inmate there!

The_Dunedan · 02-13-2007, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Are you asking why it wasn't brought up in this thread earlier? If yes, then it wasn't mentioned because the original OP was a discussion on taxation, not child rape.

No, I was asking why, if the alleged child-rape was a reason for the raid, was it not brough up by the Feds until all of the -previous- justifications had turned out to be horseshit.

Quote:

PLEASE tell me you are not trying to justify coercing and RAPING a 12 year old girl in that statement. Also, your information is incorrect. At that time, the age of consent was 17, not 14. The only law regarding consent at 14 was if BOTH parties were under the age of 18...Koresh was WELL above that age. There is just NO excuse for his actions.. PERIOD!

No. I was stating that, according to the information I have, Koresh's actions were -legal-. I did not say they were -right-. I would like to see your sources regarding the age of the girls in question, and would be especially interested in seeing sources which did not rely upon the potentially prejdiced testimony of Jeannine Bunds and Kiri Jewell, especially since Jewell's testimony was originally raised during a custody dispute, a situation in which angry mothers frequently coach their children to denounce their fathers for sexual abuse. Ask any Lawyer who works divorces, especially messy ones: it happens all the time.

Also:

Quote:

At the time, in Texas, the age of parental consent for a minor to marry was 14, as was the age for consent to sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh

As for the DNA tests: were these conducted by independant labs, or by the Feds? Was a second opinion sought? If the Feds handled the bodies (and the evidence they contained) in the same way they handled other evidence, I wouldn't trust such reports as far as I could throw them. The Federal Gov't engaged in a mammoth "loss of evidence" following the Mt. Carmel Massacre, only a portion of which has since been "found." I certainly would not trust the same people who "lost" those pyrotechnic gas grenades (since "found" just in time to be ignored by Congress) and the bullet-riddled front door to be honest about something like DNA evidence, especially since the FBI's labs have been involved in evidence-fixing related to DNA in the recent past.

Deltona Couple · 02-13-2007, 02:24 PM

I assume since you are using the quote and the link as a defense in your arguement, then I will use it as well....

29]

Quote:

Koresh advocated polygamy for himself, and asserted that he was married to several female residents of the small community.[21][22] Some former members of the cult also alleged that Koresh felt he could claim any of the females in the compound as his.[23][24] Evidently he fathered at least a dozen children by the harem.[25][26] Allegedly, his harem included girls as young as age 14.[27][28] The other adults at the compound were told by Koresh not to tell anyone else about this "because they wouldn't understand." The 1993 U.S. Department of Justice report sets out detailed evidence of historical child sexual and physical abuse. ATF Special Agent David Aguilera had interviewed former Branch Davidian Jeannine Bunds, who claimed that Koresh had fathered "...at least fifteen children with various women and young girls at the compound. Some of the girls who had babies fathered by Howell were as young as 12 years old. She had personally delivered 7 of these children. According to Ms. Bunds, Howell annuls all marriages of couples who join his cult. He then has exclusive sexual access to the women. He also, according to Mrs. Bunds, has regular sexual relations with young girls there. The girls ages are from 11 years old to adulthood.[30] In his book, James Tabor states that Koresh acknowledged on a videotape sent out of the compound during the standoff that he had fathered more than 12 children by several "wives", some of whom were as young as 12 or 13 when they became pregnant.[31] DNA testing of the women and children in the video who died in the subsequent fire confirmed that the children were his.

I lived in Texas at the time this happened, and was stationed at the USMC Reserve unit in Waco during the raid. At that time, I know for a fact that the legal age of consent for marriage, AND sex was 17. This was because a friend of mine had gotten a 16 year old girl pregnant, and he was sucessfully charged with statutory rape in 1992. Even then, my hilighted text shows that your own selected source showed that Koresh was having sex with girls as young as 12...AND getting them pregnant....therfore he was in violation of the law, plain and simple. Regardless of law, ANYONE who thinks it is right to have sex with a 12 year old is a sick SOB who deserves nothing less that prison time! Let Koresh burn in Hell for what he did. He got what he deserved.

The_Dunedan · 02-13-2007, 03:57 PM

Qestions:

1: Was your friend charged under the USC or UCMJ? UCMJ is -much- stricter, as I'm sure you know.

2: If Koresh was having sex with persons underage, why did TX authorities not act on such charges? Why did they, in fact, -refuse- to act on such charges?
2b: If such acts were taking place, and proof could be presented, why did the Feds not bring the local authorities "into the loop" to prosecute an alleged crime which, if committed, was a -local- matter?
2c: If such acts were taking place, why did the Feds not even mention the child-molestation allegations until the BS about the Davidians stockpiling MGs and cooking Meth turned out to be...well...BS?

3: [b]I won't dispute that evidence suggests that Koresh was sexally active with persons underage.[b] I would still like to see independant DNA verification of this. If true, Koresh belonged in prison for life. If true, he also could have been arrested in Waco, where he went jogging every morning. Instead, the BATFE chose to lay siege to a homestead church for nearly two months, pour machinegun fire into the roof in the initial raid, and finally inject the building (full of the kids they were allegedly trying to save) with an internationally-banned blister agent which forms Hydrogen Cyanide when burned. The fact that CS is composed partly of atomised kerosene seems to have somehow escaped the Reno Justice Dep't, wherein someone made the decision to release atomized kerosene into a building which was known to be lighted with lanterns and candles (Since the Feds had turned off the electricity).

4:

Quote:

Regardless of law...He got what he deserved.

This bit is particlarly troubling. Are you seriously suggesting that the Government should have the right to disregard the Constitution, violate jurasdictional rules, and engage in campeigns of terrorism based upon allegations which are, at best, suspect? The united States Of America are supposed to be a nation of Law, in which the Law restrains the Government as much as it does the People. If you're comfortable letting the Gov't ignore its' own codified boundaries, fine. Just don't ever claim Constitutional protection again. Ever. Period. For anything. Because once you've willingly sacrificed one Right for the sake of Whatever, you have lost the right to invoke the rest.

shakran · 02-13-2007, 07:25 PM

so TD, you say that the feds gave the excuse he hadn't paid his taxes on the guns, but it was "horseshit."

So then how does Koresh compare to the actual tax evasion case when Koresh supposedly wasn't guilty of tax evasion and the feds were just making it up.

Furthermore, why did the feds come after him? Just for fun?

The_Dunedan · 02-13-2007, 10:41 PM

The Feds went after Koresh because of an honest paperwork error concerning a Class-III weapon. The BATFE thought that Koresh was in posession of an NFA weapon upon which a $200 tax was owed. The Feds had screwed up some paperwork, lost some forms, and thought Koresh was still in posession of a weapon which he no longer owned.

Where things went bad was when the BATFE decided to turn the entire affair into a publicity stunt. The Clinton DoJ was seriously considering the idea of folding the BATFE into the FBI at the time, and the BATFE brass wanted a high-profile bust in order to justify their continued existance. Worse, the Clinton DoJ in general and the BATFE in particular were/are intensely hostile to gun-ownership. That fact, combined with the hugely over-the-top raid, have caused some people to suggest that the Mt. Carmel Massacre was a "bitch slap" for the militia movement, which at the time was growing rapidly in response to the killings at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. After the huge build-up, all the press coverage, all the bluster, the Feds simply couldn't bring themselves to admit that they'd made a mistake, and their inability to simply admit their error, go home, and conduct a proper investigation ended up killing over 80 people.

Now Ed Brown is a different story. I don't believe in Income Taxation. Furthermore, I believe that a lot of the arguements put for by the Tax Protest movement have some weight. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Feds are lying, cheating, thieving, murderous pricks, and LCTMP's cheat. If Mr. Brown seriously thought that his arguements, however factual or well-considered, were going to work...I admire his courage, his optimism, and his tenacity. I have a less-than-stellar opinion, however, of his common sense. If he's been around long enough to pick up the arguements that he's using, he's been around long enough to know that they weren't going to work, if for no other reason than that the Judge could simply instruct the Jury to ignore his entire defense, as is becoming more common. When you try to use Constitutional arguements in an Admiralty Court, you lose.

Deltona Couple · 02-14-2007, 07:27 AM

Answers:

1: He was a friend, NOT a member of the military. He was charged in the state court system. (Yes I know the UCMJ is more strict)

2: You are asking a question which obviously I cannot supply an answer.
I wasn't involved in the investigation, so I have no idea. Perhaps
the feds wanted to have jurisdiction, and if it was a pedophilia case,
then it would be in state court?

3: What was the question here? It appears more of a statement.

4: Why troubling? He died. I am not saying the means in which he died
was correct, I just said he got what he deserved, i.e. death!

shakran · 02-14-2007, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

The Feds went after Koresh because of an honest paperwork error concerning a Class-III weapon. The BATFE thought that Koresh was in posession of an NFA weapon upon which a $200 tax was owed.

Cite sources please, but let's go with what you said anyway.

OK, so the feds show up to your door and say you owe taxes on something you don't even own. Do you A) tell them politely that you don't own it and therefore cannot owe taxes on it, or B) slam the door, hole up in the house with your multiple 12 year old wives, claim you're Jesus, and threaten to kill anyone who gets near? It may or may not have been an honest paperwork mistake, but once Koresh escallated it from a simple tax issue to a raving-lunatic-in-a-fortress issue, then frankly what the hell did he expect? Was WACO a huge bungle? Yeah, obviously, of course it was. Heads rolled, and more heads should have rolled. The government screwed up.

Quote:

The Clinton DoJ was seriously considering the idea of folding the BATFE into the FBI at the time, and the BATFE brass wanted a high-profile bust in order to justify their continued existance.

Let's review some facts. First off Koresh was a known violent nutjob. He took posession of that compound in 1987 by having a crazy, old west-style shootout with it's previous occupant, George Roden. He'd been feuding with Roden for awhile because Koresh was having sex with Roden's 60 year old mom.

In 1992 the local sheriff told the ATF that a huge shipment of explosives was being delivered to the compound. They started interviewing members of the Branch Davidian cult.

That's where they found out about the child molestation. They also discovered he liked to paddle children for almost an hour until they bled, made the adults stand in raw sewage, and when a girl reached age 10 or 11, she was given a star to wear, which signified she was now ready to have sex with Koresh.

In further investigation it was found that the cult had spent around 200 grand on weapons including 300 assault rifles and the ammo to go with them, 200 grenades, 30 pounds of potasium nitrate (explosive ingredient), and hundreds of parts for making machine guns.

It was not the tax issue that the ATF raided the compound on - it was because he was stockpiling machine gun manufacture parts without a license to manufacture machine guns. That's a violation of federal law. Where the ATF screwed up was trying to arrest him in the compound. That was stupid. They should have arrested him when he ran errands in town. Their other mistake was alerting the media that they were going to raid the compound. The media got there before ATF. When you see 8 or 9 TV cameras, a few live trucks, and a sat truck show up outside your house and start taking pictures of your property, you can safely assume something's up. So Koresh and his gang were waiting for the ATF when they arrived. (source for all of this, Ronald Kessler's NYT articles and his book The Bureau, which is a not-very-kind look at the FBI and the agencies that work with it)

So yes, the government screwed up, was even criminally negligent in its execution of the raid, but the plan to arrest Koresh was legally justified and had nothing to do with taxes.

01-22-2007, 03:12 PM	#1 (permalink)
pai mei Insane	Is the Income Tax legal ? No it is not, it's just a missinterpretation of the law http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...6&q=income+tax - here is what a IRS agent says, he cannot answer some simple questions. He says "supreme court decisions do not apply to the IRS" ? There are some supreme court cases that show that the income tax does not include wages.The IRS cannot simple show the people the law, because there isn't one http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...3&q=income+tax - here is a very detailed explanation of the Income Tax problem http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...955&q=ed+brown http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245003,00.html Here is a man who asked the IRS to show him the tax law. He got no answer for 8 years, now his house is surrounded by agents , same as Waco. Last edited by pai mei; 01-22-2007 at 04:27 PM..

01-22-2007, 04:02 PM	#3 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	there's been question about that actual validity of the 16th amendment ever being ratified but I am unaware of any actual court case that has ruled against the government using this defense. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

01-22-2007, 04:05 PM	#4 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	It was that rascally conservative republican president, William Howard Taft, who pushed for the passage and ratification of the 16th amendment. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

01-22-2007, 09:45 PM	#7 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	The amendment means that they could do it. Wages are income. Congressional will, that they want an income tax, is pretty clear. The Supreme Court, if asked today, can easily cite long precident, congressional will, and "the constitution is not a suicide pact" to change any previous rulings. In essence, even if you can build an arguement that income tax isn't legal, it doesn't really matter. Income tax, as implemented, exists de facto. The government holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and they are willing to use it to enforce income tax. There is far more precident in the courts supporting the ability of the government to tax than opposing it. At best you could get lucky at trial and convince a jury to let you off (juries can do this!) -- but you have to do it twice, once to get rid of the criminal sanctions, once to get rid of the civil penalties. And the civil case isn't a matter of reasonable doubt, but balance of probabilities. They can and will flood you with far more articulate experts than you could ever imagine, and they can and will take you for every penny if you try it. So yes, the income tax is legal. Nobody with the power to stop it is willing to stop it. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

01-23-2007, 07:34 AM	#9 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Has there ever been a thread in Tilted Politics where everyone agrees after the OP? Obviously it's an incredibly easy answer, but still it's quite odd. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

01-22-2007, 04:47 PM	#5 (permalink)
host Banned	These mouthy former presidents only serve to feed the conspiracy theorists..... The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson—and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W.W. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States—only on a far bigger and broader basis.[1] [1]# ↑ President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Col. Edward Mandell House, November 21, 1933, F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), pg. 373. "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson,(1916) after signing the Federal Reserve into existence

01-23-2007, 07:14 AM	#8 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Every few years some guy claims in court that the income tax is illegal. There are guys who publish books advocating that position, laying out precisely which arguments they think are correct and trying to persuade others to join a movement to "legally" not pay taxes. Not a single court has bought those arguments. In fact, if you read the opinions in those cases, the tone of the judges comes across as patient exasperation. Most of these hucksters end up being guests of the federal taxpayers. There is an academic debate about whether the 16th amendment really was necessary. The Supreme Court decision that held income taxes unconstitutional was of questionable soundness for a number of reasons, both logical and historical, but that's neither here nor there, because it was the law and it got overridden through the amendment process -- which, by the way, is the proper way to get rid of Supreme Court decisions about the constitution that you don't like. I don't like paying taxes any more than anyone else does, but there's no question the income tax is legal.

01-24-2007, 12:44 PM	#10 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	No, it is even you fool! Not at all odd. @_@ __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

01-25-2007, 07:59 AM	#13 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	It seems like the federal income tax debate is part and parcel to the old states rights debates. Just how much power should the federal government have over the individual states. I believe in the early days of our country the thinking was that the federal government should have little taxing power over the states. Things have changed a great deal over the years. Before the Civil War most statesmen probably thought it was well within a state's rights to just quit the Union. I don't think it is even possible to consider this now. As I understand it the first income tax was paid by the top 1% or so and most of them were wealthy people in the northeast. Most people probably figured what the hell let's tax those rich northeasterners. Like so many taxes that have been enacted since we take aim at the wealthy and hit ourselves in the process. Is the income tax legal? Today it probably is but I am not surprised that a growing number of people will protest. The tax code is so huge and complicated with our polititians adding exceptions and favorable clauses for their campaign contributers etc.. that it has morphed into a very unfair system.

01-25-2007, 10:34 AM	#14 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	Ironically, I'm posting this while slacking off during my 'Federal Income Tax' class, but it is explicitly Constitutional. As far as how it is used today there might be some question about certain policies, but Congress has given the IRS the administrative authority create binding regulations which are essentially law. All of this is open to judicial review or Congressional alteration, but until that happens they are legal and as far as your basic question goes it the concept as a whole is legal. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

01-26-2007, 05:46 AM	#18 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Why are we still hashing over David f--in' Koresh, fercrissakes?

01-26-2007, 06:19 AM	#19 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	DK - my only point was that the Koresh story was more complex than simple income tax evasion. The fact that guns were involved at all goes to prove that point. That's what the OP was all about, including mention of the seige. Nobody was after Koresh because he didn't send in his 1040 and W-2, but you're point's well taken that ATF isn't the IRS. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

01-30-2007, 08:33 AM	#22 (permalink)
Deltona Couple Addict Location: Spring, Texas	threadjack again--- If those who were interested actually looked back at the facts, you would find that Koresh was in violation of SEVERAL alcohol, tobacco, AND firearm laws. The ATF was not there to merely serve a warrant on unpaid taxes. They were there because of a LONG ongoing investigation into the selling and purchasing of tobacco and firearms, including fully automatic weapons, and semi-automatic weapons converted to full auto. The fact that he had also not paid his taxes was a side note. The ATF was there to enforce a warrant on SEVERAL charges. Personally I have absolutely no problem with him getting exactly what he deserved considering the abhorrent things he was doing to those that were there, especially the children. As far as the OP, I am curious, who here actually has a problem with paying taxes, and why? I have no problem paying my taxes. I DO prefer to have it distributed better, but how else is the government supposed to function? __________________ "It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

01-30-2007, 09:34 AM	#23 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I don't have a problem with the notion of paying taxes - as you say, we need some government and the government has to function. I do have a problem with using taxes to serve other functions, and with the level of taxation.

02-11-2007, 12:46 PM	#24 (permalink)
cajunlady70517 Upright	WAKE UP AMERICA!!!! People it is time to wake up!! . watch this video when you have time. There is no law that states you HAVE to pay taxes... this is quoted in this video by congressmen, ex-irs agents, etc... its really worth sitting down to watch. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...30277175242198

02-11-2007, 01:35 PM	#25 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	Amendment XVI (the Sixteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, authorizing income taxes in their present form, was ratified on February 3, 1913. The amendment states: "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." __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

02-11-2007, 02:20 PM	#26 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	the law is on the books, period, even if it was done through shady means, it is a law on the books, end of story. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

02-11-2007, 02:37 PM	#27 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	The 16th Amendment was ratified by the states. The arguments that it wasn't based on different punctuation and capitalization is silly.

02-12-2007, 08:21 AM	#28 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I love this thread. With the exception of the "flybys" by a couple of rookies that won't (or can't) back up their points, TFP Politics has finally completely agreed on something. Anyone else have any other questions with self-evident answers for us to point out? __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

02-12-2007, 08:33 AM	#29 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Maybe we need a thread like this every week. Next week we could have an anon poster claim the world is flat.

02-13-2007, 02:20 AM	#31 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Then why was "Koresh thinks he's Jesus and rapes babies!" not brought up until the Feds had been forced to acknowledge that both the "Koresh is stockpiling machineguns!" and "Koresh is cooking meth!" excuses fell apart? If the issue was Koresh allegedly shtoinking 12-year-olds, then why was this not brought up until the previous two justifications had fallen apart? Furthermore, if child molestation really -was- a problem, why was the Mt. Carmel siege carried out by Federal authorities, who have no jurasdiction in such a case? Lastly, it should be remembered that at the time the legal Age Of Consent in Texas was 14 years, meaning that Koresh's alleged sexual contact was in all likelihood entirely legal. The Feds went through three sets of excuses for their conduct at Mt. Carmel, two of which turned out to be utter horseshit and the third of which is debateable at best. Koresh and the Branch Davidians were not in posession of any unregistered Class-III Weapons, so no NFA tax was owed. There was no Meth lab in the Mt. Carmel church kitchen. Allegations of child-molestation have never been proven, may have been legal if they -did- occur, and were not Federal jurasdiction to begin with. Finally, the shoddy coverup of the incident, initiated under Clinton and perpetuated by Bush, has left the Federal account of the Mt. Carmel Massacre so full of holes and lacking in credibility that anything relying upon the "official" version has a -long- way to go in establishing its' bona fides. The Feds have repeatedly been caught hiding or suppressing evidence, such as the pyrotechnic CS grenades which may have started the fateful fire and which were "lost" for a number of years until being recovered during a second Congressional investigation. There's also the matter of the church's front door, which mysteriously disappeared after the fire despite being made of metal and having been photographed in situ in the immidiate aftermath. The door is crucial because it would establish (and the photos bear this out) that BATFE agents fired first, an allegation supported by Davidian testimony and press film of the raid in progress. And of course, there are the BATFE's infamous "FLIR tests" which used the wrong guns, wrong ammunition loaded with the wrong powder, and under the wrong conditions in order to "debunk" the FLIR-camera evidence of Federal forces firing on the Davidians who tried to escape the fire. Further, independant testing which duplicated the weapons, loads, and conditions on the day of the fire, however, has duplicated the FLIR results. This is the biggest problem with the "official" version: the Feds have lied to often and so blatantly about everything -else- that happened at Mt. Carmel: why should I believe them about Koresh thinking he was Jesus and raping 12-year-olds? [/threadjack]

02-13-2007, 07:25 PM	#36 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	so TD, you say that the feds gave the excuse he hadn't paid his taxes on the guns, but it was "horseshit." So then how does Koresh compare to the actual tax evasion case when Koresh supposedly wasn't guilty of tax evasion and the feds were just making it up. Furthermore, why did the feds come after him? Just for fun?

02-13-2007, 10:41 PM	#37 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	The Feds went after Koresh because of an honest paperwork error concerning a Class-III weapon. The BATFE thought that Koresh was in posession of an NFA weapon upon which a $200 tax was owed. The Feds had screwed up some paperwork, lost some forms, and thought Koresh was still in posession of a weapon which he no longer owned. Where things went bad was when the BATFE decided to turn the entire affair into a publicity stunt. The Clinton DoJ was seriously considering the idea of folding the BATFE into the FBI at the time, and the BATFE brass wanted a high-profile bust in order to justify their continued existance. Worse, the Clinton DoJ in general and the BATFE in particular were/are intensely hostile to gun-ownership. That fact, combined with the hugely over-the-top raid, have caused some people to suggest that the Mt. Carmel Massacre was a "bitch slap" for the militia movement, which at the time was growing rapidly in response to the killings at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. After the huge build-up, all the press coverage, all the bluster, the Feds simply couldn't bring themselves to admit that they'd made a mistake, and their inability to simply admit their error, go home, and conduct a proper investigation ended up killing over 80 people. Now Ed Brown is a different story. I don't believe in Income Taxation. Furthermore, I believe that a lot of the arguements put for by the Tax Protest movement have some weight. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Feds are lying, cheating, thieving, murderous pricks, and LCTMP's cheat. If Mr. Brown seriously thought that his arguements, however factual or well-considered, were going to work...I admire his courage, his optimism, and his tenacity. I have a less-than-stellar opinion, however, of his common sense. If he's been around long enough to pick up the arguements that he's using, he's been around long enough to know that they weren't going to work, if for no other reason than that the Judge could simply instruct the Jury to ignore his entire defense, as is becoming more common. When you try to use Constitutional arguements in an Admiralty Court, you lose.

02-14-2007, 07:27 AM	#38 (permalink)
Deltona Couple Addict Location: Spring, Texas	Answers: 1: He was a friend, NOT a member of the military. He was charged in the state court system. (Yes I know the UCMJ is more strict) 2: You are asking a question which obviously I cannot supply an answer. I wasn't involved in the investigation, so I have no idea. Perhaps the feds wanted to have jurisdiction, and if it was a pedophilia case, then it would be in state court? 3: What was the question here? It appears more of a statement. 4: Why troubling? He died. I am not saying the means in which he died was correct, I just said he got what he deserved, i.e. death! __________________ "It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison