Why would our Government surround the home of the 50+ year old Brown's in NH with tanks and snipers?

Question

Why doesn't our Government have to show proof of the law that forces us to pay Federal Tax?

The Brown's were taken to court and found guilty of tax evasion. When the Brown's asked the Government to produce the law that demands that we American's pay Taxes, they could not produce it.

They could not produce it because the 16th Amendment was never officially ratified and was never made into a law.

SO THERE IS NO LAW!

But when you decide not to pay a forcefull tax to the Fed's, they show up at your house with contracted Government mercinaries, tanks, snipers, helecopters. They cut your power, your phones and cell phones.

So, let me get this right.

There is no Tax law, but they can kill you anyhow?

Can someone show me the actual law? The Brown's are offering $1,000,000 in real estate to anyone that can produce the actual Tax law! We are all slaves in our own Country and must now obey the Federal masters!

Didn't we leave England and form America because of taxation?

Answer 1

The 16th amendment was ratified. Bill Benson, author of "The Law that Never Was" supposedly did "research" for his book. Unfortunately for him and others who get duped by his false arguments, the courts have found his research to be lacking. In fact, he made several erroneous conclusions because he misinterpreted several state laws and constitutions.

The Seventh Circuit Court had this to say in United States v. Thomas,

Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "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." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.

Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same test, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L. Ed. 294, 12 S. Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L. Ed. 505, 42 S. Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457 (7th Cir. 1986), slip op. 10-12 & n.6, we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review.


The 16th amendment clarifies the power of Congress to lay an income tax without apportionment. Title 26 of the U.S. Code is the law covering the income tax in more detail. Specifically, TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter A, PART I, § 1.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html

Since I have explained in full detail the law covering the tax law, when will the real estate be transferred to me? BTW, I'm fully prepared to pay the taxes on the transaction, as long as the rest of the transaction is performed legally.

Edit: LOL, Mattapan, I gave you a thumbs up for that. :)

Answer 2

We are witnessing our police state in action! This whole incident is set up to cause a major incident like Waco or Ruby Ridge so they can declare martial law and start the final take over of this country. Along with others tax protesters would be rounded up as dangerous terrorists and put in the FEMA concentration camps. This would be only the start! The Browns were denied their right to a fair trial by the IRS and this is where this final thing started. The Browns refused to participate in a kangaroo court that is not following the constitution! So the government’s response is to try killing them with force so over the top it is unbelievable! They backed off probably due to no one shooting at them so they didn’t get their major incident this time but it aint over yet! We need to back off from violence with this one and flood our congress with real protests about this government action. This is the only action that will work to our benefit! To comment about one of the answers; if the 16th amendment has been properly ratified or not is a moot point as a Supreme Court decision stated it gives the government no new taxing power including direct income tax!

Answer 3

This has been asked and answered many many times. The link below has detailed discussion, if your interested. The short answer is Title 26 of the US code authorizes the collection of taxes. The 16th amendment was ratified, and it made clear income taxes were not a direct tax and thus clearly legal. Look at the link. There are many good cites and references. If you don't want anyone to pay income tax, how do you purpose to run this country? Got a better idea, run for congress.

Answer 4

Take a look at TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I of the US Code. It clearly imposes the tax IN LAW.

Answer 5

"We" didn't leave because of taxation, we left because of taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Of course this is a democracy, everyone votes (or should) and is represented by their elected politicians locally.

In any case, although the specific statutes imposing an income tax may be generally unknown to persons other than tax lawyers, certified public accountants, enrolled agents and other tax specialists, such statutes exist. Internal Revenue Code sections 1 (26 U.S.C. § 1) (relating to individuals, estates and trusts) and 11 (26 U.S.C. § 11) (relating to corporations) are examples of statutes that expressly impose an income tax on "taxable income" (with section 1(a), for example, expressly using the phrase "[t]here is hereby imposed on the taxable income of [ . . . ]" and section 11 stating: "A tax is hereby imposed for each taxable year on the taxable income of every corporation."). The term "taxable income" is in turn defined in section 63 (26 U.S.C. § 63) with reference to "gross income" which in turn is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 61.

Answer 6

You are mistaken. They are not being surrounded by tanks and sniper because they are tax protestors. No one in New Hampshire cares about that. The Browns are avowed Yankee fans and that is how all Yankee fans are treated in New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and the northern half of Connecticut.