Crazy New Hampshire couple takes on the Feds

I find this story oddly uplifting, even though I’m not sure what I think of the cause.

I know there is a small nutcase movement out there that argues people should not have to pay taxes to the federal government, but the legal argument for this seems a little thin, and after all it is taxes that pay for those roads in New Hampshire, the schools, and other services Ed and Elaine Brown may or may not value. I found a picture of their house online – it’s a freaking mansion. Elaine Brown works as a dentist, and yet has never paid employment taxes and she and her husband have not paid taxes since 1996. Why should people with a lot less money and no property be funding their right to live, work, and drive freely in New Hampshire? That hardly seems democratic.

Still, I respect their passion and the beliefs, and their willingness to go up against the federal government. As the energy for resisting our continued occupaton of Iraq seems to have waned, I appreciate any effort to take on the federal government, who are doing violent and wasteful things with the money they collect from me in taxes. It feels inspiring.


~ by realsupergirl on January 18, 2007.

61 Responses to “Crazy New Hampshire couple takes on the Feds”

  1. I’ve thought about telling them they can have my taxes when I can have the 1049 federal rights that I’m being denied.

  2. It is tempting.

    I thought about that when we sent the letter in with our taxes explaining why we were “married filing separately” on federal taxes and “married” on state taxes.

    But I get benefits from my citizenship and my residence, even if I am also denied rights by the federal government.

  3. what’s their reasoning for not paying their taxes for ten years? the article doesn’t really say.

  4. my demure Spanish teacher had been in jail for nonpayment of taxes at some point — she was Quaker and it had been part of the pacifism not to pay during some armed overture. i always thought that was really cool.

    there are also people who manage to live on less than $5000/year just to avoid paying taxes so they can avoid that kind of guilt. they do a lot of bicycling, recycling, and gardening… that also seems admirable though i worry it would not be too comfy.

    I don’t know about this case; seems to me that people who “argue there is no law requiring individual income taxes” would not then need to conspire “to evade taxes… disguise large financial transactions and… large transactions.” Sounds like greed wearing a righteous wig.

    And, my tax dollars, which I haven’t figured a way out of paying, are going to salaries of people who could be protecting citizens in real danger but who now have to go staff a standoff at #23 McMansion hill.

  5. I appreciate tax resistance in the context of standing up for one’s principles (especially, say, pacifism). Personally, if I could figure out how much money I owed in federal taxes, and then distribute that exact amount to the 501(c)(3) organizations of my choice, I’d be pretty damn thrilled.

    However, it seems to me that this guy is threatening violence so he can keep a large sum of money to himself. Which could be read as implying that he’s put a dollar value on dead federal agents. Which, in turn, really means that he’s put a dollar value on a human life, and decided that the dollars are more important to him.

    To which I say, yea verily, fuck that noise.

  6. Near as I can tell, because they believe it’s people’s right to not pay federal taxes. Just because. When I went to a wedding at the PEace Abbey in Sherborn, there was a bunch of pamphlets about this.

  7. I don’t respect their passion. There is the school of thought, that those who are wealthy should contribute to the well being of those who are not…. And though I am by no means a socialist…. And I am not paying taxes on the income I earn… So this is slightly hypocritical… I think it is their duty as citizens of a democracy to pay taxes and channel their energy to making the government do with the tax money what they think is justified. They remind me of the people who don’t have kids and vote down the school levy: short sighted, self-absorbed, and greedy. Paying taxes sucks, granted, but living in a society without public education, healthcare, and solid infra structure is far worse.

  8. You advocate wealth redistribution. Have gov’t take from hard working succesful and give to someone with less???
    For anyone else on this thread… There is no law that requires the normal working man and woman of this country to pay an income tax on their labor/wages!!!

    See the documentary by award winning director Aaron Russo @ and learn something about your country that wasn’t taught in HS and isn’t told by the mainstream media.
    Democracy??? UGGHHHG “…And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands…”
    Wonder where this line come from???

    I’m am soo disgusted with the ignorant mindset of a people that refuse to see truth of fact and hang on to and spout off notions of non-fact.

  9. Ed Brown has a blog here….


  10. First, my apology for interrupting your discussion.

    I would urge everyone at this thread to watch Aaron Russo’s
    new feature documentary, “America, Freedom to Fascism.”

    It’s FREE on Google. Best hour and a half you will ever spend.
    Here’s the link:

    The movie contains interviews with at least a dozen attorneys,
    CPAs, and three former IRS agents, including a criminal investigative agent for IRS — all of who quite their jobs after learning about the income tax hoax.

    The film even contains interviews with TWO (2) IRS Commissioners, BOTH of who — on camera — are unable to cite any specific U.S. statute making anyone liable to pay income taxes. One actually wrote the tax code and was General Counsel for IRS.

    YES — we need roads. YES — we need education. YES — we need healthcare.
    BUT — most importantly, we as a People, need to remember that we live in a constitutional republic (not a democracy) — premised upon the protection of Individual Rights — including the Right to a Fair Trial and a tax system that complies with the explicit restrictions of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

    Quite frankly, if you knew what Ed Brown, myself, and countless others now know, you would be shocked. You might even get VERY mad at our government.

    Did you know that Ed Brown’s criminal indictment does NOT state which specific federal statute he violated by “failing to file” an income tax return?

    Did you know that the federal judge denied him his request to present a defense based on the federal OMB/PRA laws, even though the defense is provided for explicitly by federal law? (see 44 USC 3512)
    (You can learn more about this at:

    I would urge everyone to learn about what has driven Ed Brown to defend his land, his family and his Liberty.

    I assure you, he is no “nutcase” and if you do dare to learn even just a little about what is behind his actions, you too, will never view our government the same way ever again.

  11. This post could benefit from some editing.

  12. Thanks for all the links and the info. I’m definitely interested in learning more.

    I meant “nutcase” in the most endearing of ways. Really.

    Out of curiousity, how did you find my blog? Care to identify yourself? What’s your affiliation with the Ed Brown case.

  13. Yeah, I found that link. Thanks.

    What’s your affiliation with Ed Brown? How did you find my blog?

  14. It’s about control!
    Do a simple test. Write the IRS and ask them to show you the law that establishes liability for you to pay federal income taxes. Do what Aaron Russo did in his film From Freedom To Fascism. Just make it more personal unless you are FRIGHTENED to do so. After all, once you find out there is no law, you come to the horrific realization that you are committing PERJURY on your Form 1040 when you SWEAR you owe a tax you don’t owe.
    But of course the Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Lie” may have no meaning or significance to you. It did for me though! We are being played as fools!
    Our Constitution IS NOT A HISTORICAL DOCUMENT, it is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND and it was set up so NO GOVERNMENT CAN RIFLE THROUGH OUR PAPERS OR CAUSE US TO BE WITNESSES AGAINST OURSELF. To perpetrate this illegal fraud, multiple manipulation of words over many years had to occur, all for purposes of obfuscation. They even had to offer a Social Security System to bring people under a Federal Jurisdiction. What you feed is what you control. A graduated income tax(just like we have) is the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto. Communists all say it is OK to lie if necessary since there is no God.
    There are plenty of ways to collect all the taxes they need, LAWFULLY.
    Why is this so hard to understand???

  15. …Dude, you seriously have to tone it down. Who is going to listen to you when you spout off like that and put people down for ‘not knowing the truth’, makes you sound like Tom Cruise when he talks about Psychology and Psychiatrists. Have some internet manners.
    Tax evasion…it takes courage, and it requires stupidity. It is not a stand one will win. It is committing what the government thinks is a crime, and therefore punishable. You can not go around breaking laws and expect the rest of the country to look on it and smile. What we see is that your are BREAKING LAWS. Armed standoffs with the government are not revolutionary. Its ridiculous. We all know who is going to win, and its not the little man. If you want us to understand your ideas that is not the way. If tax evasionists wanted to get somewhere with their anger towards the government they might direct their energies to election reform, end spending on war, promote diplomacy throughout our planet, and yes dear anonymous even GIVE TO THE POOR. Its funny, the way you put it one would think that charity and helping through compassion was wrong. Some might say that you have it wrong. But then you just might think they are blind to the truth, that you know the REAL truth. We all have our own realities and things we’ll see and things we’ll turn a blind eye to.

  16. I agree with you. I’d like to know what the dude below this thinks is hypocritical about your statement.

  17. My reply was to Juliet, with her hypocritcal views.
    the rest of my rant was just to point out that THERE IS NO LAW… TO PAY A FEDERAL TAX ON WAGES.
    there are lawful taxes that we all pay and then there is the federal income tax that is a big fraud that folks particpate in and just assume its the law.
    Then there is that quasi part of government that forces a non-law to be enforced.
    Even Ed and countless others have just said to those coming after them.. “Just show me the law and I’ll write a check today”
    I have asked IRS personel specific questions pertaining to this and they don’t answer. They sidestep to other issues and answer other questions that are totally irrelevant.
    I could go on and on but, it would be better if he reader would check out the movie previously mentioned that was put out by Aaron Russo.
    It’s an eye-opener.
    I have studied this and related historical knowledge for 14 years.

    I’ll just remain anonymous, but there are 2 of us in this thread.
    I came here from a post by supergirl at the Ed Brown blog.

  18. So, I just wanted to chime in that you have it right when you say things like “crazy” and “nutcase” about this. Call me lawful good, if you like, but I don’t have lot of respect for people who break the law and threaten violence if the government, which, by the way, is us (even if it doesn’t feel like that all fo the time) and which is charged with keeping us accountable to live by the rules we set up together as a society (again, it doesn’t always feel that way because there are a lot of us and we don’t always agree and the majority wins until interpreters of bad laws point out how the majority opinion expressed in those bad laws runs contrary to the rights we’ve enumerated for ourselves) says it is going to come hold the lawbreaker accountable.

    Of course, all of this assumes that you posit that there are legitimate laws that allow for income taxes, which these folks don’t. Therefore, there is no basis for agreement, no matter how strong my argument. And there it is.

  19. “I came here from a post by supergirl at the Ed Brown blog.”

    That’s odd, since I’ve never posted over there. But welcome, anyway!

  20. Last time I checked, the 16th amendment to the Constitution gives the federal government the right to collect taxes. So, these folks are breaking the law as set forth in the constitution.

    I may not agree with a lot of what the government is doing right now, but I like the constitution and think that as Americans we should all follow it.

  21. I think it is a right wing nut (left wing nut?). S/He should try moving to a country in which ther is no infrastructure, social order/concern (I am thinking Rwanda or Somolia) and try living where there is no concern for the common good and it’s a dog eat dog world. Or s/he could just take a survey of the quality of life in countries where taxes are paid in some sort of fair and equitable (relatively) way versus those countries where there is no taxation system. Woud you rather live in Holland and pay taxes or some South American dictatorship where you can bribe your way out of taxes.

  22. Last time I checked hypocrite ended with an “e”.
    And by “your” I presume you mean you’re?

    And no, there is no one law mandating the payment of taxes, but there is a series of tax laws (volumes and volumes in fact) passed by the congress mandating the payment the method of payment, for what you pay, the rate of payment, and the loopholes that let you off paying. And yes, it is allowable by the constitution as someone else mentioned.

    Since you sound more right than left, perhaps you remember George W signing into the law tax breaks passed by Congress? Yes, he made those law… with an expiration date.

    So no, some poor IRS agent probably doesn’t have A law to show, but I am sure that if you order it you could get the tax code, in several boxes.

  23. Way to get all controversial!


    There is an argument that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified, so is irrelevant. Since the law is exceedingly anally retentive about small things like those brought up in this argument, it would hold some water except the government does like to have it’s money to keep it in a constant state of war from World War II onwards. (If you have ever read the law itself, you’ll know what I mean about anally retentive)

    The issue is not about all taxes, but income taxes paid to the federal government. Which really have nothing at all to do with schools or roads, which are the responsibility of lesser governments such as the State and County, so that argument is not valid. Nothing has been brought up about them not paying taxes to these levels of government and considering how well everyone in the community speaks of them and the good they do, I find it likely they would pay these taxes and generally be supportive members of the community.

    Not paying for the federal government to waste your money on false wars, taking away your rights and freedoms and attempting to establish a police state does not make America into a third world country with no service. The State takes care of that stuff, there is no federal road paving bureau. Nor should the federal government be involved so closely with local activities to provide all the funding for them.

    Considering the level of waste and corruption existing in the federal government, and the fact that untold billions are being spent to shoot people in some far off corner of the world for the past 60 some-odd years, I personally wouldn’t want to pay taxes to them either.

    Now, before people start jumping on Mr. Brown for being a nutcase out to kill government thugs, one should do a quick review of history and see who burned up those 80 people in Waco. The people in Waco may not have been your nice, normal American citizen, but the victim of their crimes, the federal government (assuming the crimes existed, which is something I won’t get into) decided nonetheless to storm the compound, get into gunfights etc until the building burned down and all the men, woman and children inside died.

    Mr. Brown has not threatened violence, he has stated his intention that he will not lie down to injustice and he will fight to the death to protect the constitution. Saying you will fight to the death if violence is used against you is NOT a threat, even if you are in the wrong (and I do not believe that Ed Brown is wrong). He isn’t forcing the government to go into a shootout, and has in fact offered to give them the money they claim he owes them if they drop the case and all charges against him. That way everyone would “win”.

    Knowing the government, this is unlikely to be the case. The government is more than willing to spend a hundred times the missing taxes in prosecution, the cost of SWAT and FBI standoffs, the price of sending them to prison for however long, etc etc. Considering the time and effort put out into the War on Drugs against people committing victimless crimes, I am not surprised.
    (And if one would like to argue drugs are harmful, so is fast food, yet I don’t see you out trying to get it banned. I’ve got a ton of excellent resources on the entire issue if anyone would like them btw. They are some excellent reading material.)

    I am in full agreement with Mr. Brown, and believe that America needs to take a stand against it’s corrupt government as do many other nations. He has the courage to do so and I admire him greatly for it. I simply cannot offer him any meaningful aid in his case, but I would be down by his side if I could. If this is still going on in a few months, I WILL be down by his side. America was founded when people decided that enough was enough, and that justice would prevail (and it was over taxes too).

    I hope that this serves as a catalyst for system wide change, repeal of the patriot act, admission that the war on Iraq was launched on falsified information, the dissolution of the military-industrial-political complex, the end of the war on drugs and a return of true freedom and common sense to America.

    Thank you for your time 🙂

  25. Oh, just so you know, I’m a separate anonymous. I found a link to this site: and read it, which included a link to this blog post. I am not connected to the case in anyway other than agreement with Ed Brown and a strong admiration for his actions, and a desire to do all I can to help bring change to the world.

    Just so you know who I am and where I am coming from.

  26. If you’re going to argue that an amendment to the constitution is illegal due to typographical errors, which is basically what the argument you refer to says, then by all means feel free to move to a country that does not collect taxes from its citizens.

    Federal funds help pay for food and housing for those who couldn’t otherwise afford it. They help those who are physically or mentally unable to work take care of themselves.

    They help care for citizens who are affected by natural disasters.

    Federal funds support scientists, small business people, and college students who might help us get out of some of the messes we’ve gotten ourselves into.

    Not all of the funds are spent well, but I’m not going to abolish the federal government because of that.

  27. Oh, I don’t think it’s illegal, it’s a very gray area and no court is ever going to rule that it wasn’t passed. I’m just bringing it up. I personally think it’s unjust. There’s a a world of difference.

    If FEMA wants to try and help me, I’ll tell them to piss off. I certainly wouldn’t call that sort of thing “help”. Nor would I call giving money to poor people, half of which are just lazy, able to equal out the patriot act and the injustices performed in the war of terror upon American citizens.

    Essentially the argument I am hearing is that because those funds do SOME good, it’s all justified so we should just be good little citizens and accept Big Government as he is. I’m saying that such tax is unjust (and the fact that some countries are even MORE unjust does not change the fact it’s unjust in the first place) and that we should change it. There are plenty of other options that can be explored that can provide the same benefits you list while not fueling what is essentially a police state in it’s birth. The argument that one should “get out” if one doesn’t like it is like telling everyone to just “get out” if they want to vote for a challenger in an election. After all, I guess the Founding Fathers could have just “gone to another country where Britain didn’t tax them” if they didn’t like how Britain was running the show.

    Do correct me if I’m wrong and state exactly your view on the issue if I have misinterpreted it (likely over such a medium such as this).

    My view is that the law is unjust, and that the government is unjust in it’s enforcement of the law since it enforces it excessively, losing far more money than was “taken” from it and often resorting to deadly force if the other party does not wish to play the game like the government wants. The court case was a joke, and the fact that this has led to people deciding to stand up against the federal government is something that I greatly support and admire them for.

  28. “Prejudice” means, simply, pre-judging. Declaring an opinion or conclusion before having examined the pertinent facts. Now, Supergirl, consider what you wrote: “Crazy couple”? “Small nutcase movement”? Might those be prejudices?

    Granted, as far as I know the movement is small; probably less than 100,000. If memory serves, the first person to spot something was badly wrong with the alleged federal income tax was a Connnecticut woman, Vivian Kellems, back in around 1950. When she took action, the movement was really small; just one. Does that make her wrong?

    We’re “crazy”, perhaps, in the sense that any David who takes on a Goliath is arguably ill-advised – but not in any other sense. We look first at the facts (in this case the published law, Title 26 of the US Code) and then we reason through to some conclusions. Try that, some time. You might start with

    Oh, there seems to be one more prejudice in what you wrote, and a couple of errors. You seem to say that if someone owns a “freaking mansion” he or she is not supposed to be entitled to do what the law permits. Really? So you don’t really believe in equality before the law? – that a skilled dentist who relieves suffering is not entitled to the fruits of her labor? Hmmm. That would make you a Communist. Communism didn’t do so well, did it? – especially not for the poor?

    The two other errors are (a) the US is NOT a democracy and never was; it is a constitutionally limited democratic republic, and that means the majority is NOT allowed to do anything it wants to the minority. Look it up. Then (b) except for the Interstates, the “roads, schools and other services in New Hampshire” are NOT paid for from Federal taxes, but from State and Town taxes. A common misconception by plain folk, but supergirls really ought to get such facts straight before publication.

  29. Did you file as married filing separately? The ruling citing the DOMA says it’s illegal. Still, I’m considering it.

  30. I’m sorry. I stopped reading what you wrote when you said “Nor would I call giving money to poor people, half of which are just lazy”. WHAT? Obviously you’ve not had a rough day in your life to take such an attitude to people who can’t help themselves. Indeed, if you are in such a good position as to have 3 months worth of savings in case something goes wrong, you don’t have kids, and are not tied down so that you might be able to go where you like to find work, then you are in quite a different boat than the rest of us. People who think that all poor people are the same(that they are lazy) haven’t spent much time working with them or listening to them. You have a poor sense of community.

  31. You’re right about prejudice, everyone needs to be careful about that. You’re also right about small movements turning into something big…that is something we can all appreciate. But I think what gets some of us is the words ‘armed standoff’. How is that a good way to proceed? Maybe this should be the real discussion. Why is an armed standoff a respectable way to get something accomplished?

  32. That’s how we filed last year, yes.

    Well, it’s the best option of the options that are out there. I am married, legally, but the federal government doesn’t recognize my marriage. To file as single would be lying on my tax forms. The only other option is to just file as married, as if we were any other couple. Which is what I’d LIKE to do, but I’m not sure what the possible consequences of that are.


    In light of the federal marriage restriction (Defense of Marriage Act or “DOMA”), the federal government will not consider a same-sex couple married for purposes of federal income taxes. As a result, each member of a married same-sex couple must file singly, but should strongly consider designating in some way that the marriage has occurred. Doing so could help to avoid penalties for underpaying taxes and could also prevent others from using the designation of “single” on the tax return to argue or prove that a person is not really married when that issue arises in other legal contexts.
    In order to acknowledge both the discriminatory federal law as well as the truth of your marriage, accountants suggest two options:

    1. Include a cover letter or disclosure form with the tax return. This form allows a taxpayer to highlight issues raised by the return to the IRS. It could include a statement that the taxpayer was married to a person of the same sex (and the marriage certificate could be attached as well), and that the only reason he or she is filing as a single person is because of DOMA.

    2. On the tax return itself, put an asterisk by the “x” in the “single” box, and indicate somewhere on the form that the taxpayer was married to a person of the same-sex, where, and on what date, and that this designation of “single” is for federal income tax purposes only.

    Filing in this way (i.e., either with a disclosure or an asterisk) could be crucial for purposes of proving (or not disproving) the existence of the marriage in the numerous non-tax-related ways tax returns are used (i.e., applying for a mortgage).

  34. Good, I think we’re on the same page.

    Ed Brown’s belief is firstly that there is no law taxing what anyone in the US earns, and that is a factual matter anyone can check. The post to which you replied links to a book where you can do that checking in some depth: “The Great Income Tax Hoax.” Do you know of any such law? – that you can cite, and briefly explain?

    His second belief is that despite that apparent lack of any law that he might have broken, he was put on trial in what amounted to a kangaroo court; the judge ignored his legal Motions and refused to allow him to call witnesses and present his defense the way he wished. I can well believe that, but have no first-hand knowledge. I do know that something like it was done to the author of that book; details are at

    With those two beliefs, he then took the decision to have no further dealings with what he sees as an utterly corrupt judicial system; he has said that if anyone tries to capture and take him to prison, he will die rather than submit. That is how the phrase “armed standoff” arose. It hasn’t taken place yet; it may do, in the next three months. He isn’t threatening anyone – simply stating he will defend himself if someone else invades his home with guns drawn. Like Patrick Henry, his stance is “give me liberty, or give me death.”

    You may recall a comparable case (though not about taxes)in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, some years back. The Feds tricked Randy Weaver into a technical violation of some gun law, then charged him and he refused to show in court. They invaded his land, laid siege to the house, murdered his son and dog and then his wife and baby and then tried to put him, the victim, away in prison. Thanks to a very good pro-bono lawyer he was acquitted and awarded $3m in damages against the government. It remains to be seen whether it has learned its lesson.

    This is, alas, America. Recognize it, and weep. An earlier post in this thread recommended a movie, “America: From Freedom to Fascism.” It’s not perfect, but is VERY much worth an hour and a half of your time.

  35. Thanks…We did everything they suggest, but checked “married filed singly” instead of “single”. I’ll talk with and see how she wants to proceed this year.

    It’s all kinds of fucked up, is what it is.

    I can understand the sort of rage expressed on other parts of this entry, because here I am, paying part of my hard-earned income to the federal government, and they don’t even have the decency to recognize my marriage as just as valid as anyone else’s.

  36. I can understand the sort of rage expressed on other parts of this entry, because here I am, paying part of my hard-earned income to the federal government, and they don’t even have the decency to recognize my marriage as just as valid as anyone else’s.

    Uh huh.

  37. I disagree on one very important and potentially clouded point. The American people are not the people out trying to throw people in cages for humans for the sake of communistic wealth redistribution. It is the United States of America INC. that is doing these monstrosities. Yes, the major evil corporation. Most people don’t know there is a difference. American people do not have evil in their hearts.

    An ultimate simple principal. If you are a slave, then your master would have 100% ownership of everything you make. If your master chooses to give you 70% of your money to live on, then that is great.

    But the ultimate penalty is epitomized by the fact that if you don’t fill out the alleged 1040 Tax form for the year, they will throw you in a cage for humans for a year. And I thought there was a prohibition against cages for humans and slavery.

  38. Part of agreeing to be a citizen of a country is agreeing to abide by its laws, regardless of whether you agree with them.

    There are plenty of laws I don’t agree with, and I assure you that if I choose to break them, I do so very carefully so that I won’t get caught, because I understand the consequences of my choices.

    Wrestling with the philosophy of taxation is fundamental to being an American – after all, we are the country that came up with the principal of “no taxation without representation”, and said “NO” to paying taxes to a king in a faraway land who we didn’t elect.

    Now, like it or not, if you are a citizen of the U.S. (your IP address is in Virginia) then you are implicitly choosing to obey the laws of the country, which include tax laws as well as a system of imprisonment.

  39. You make an excellent point, though I’d not choose to characterize the bad guys as “America, INC” and the fine article by Kevin van Horn you reference doesn’t either. But whatever it’s best called, yes: there is a difference between the arrogant elite that steals much of our lives on the one hand, and us the individuals living here on the other. I reckon a better name is simply the “State” or the “Government.” Neither entity exists in reality (anyone ever find the government’s address?) but it certainly has all the prisons and most of the guns.

    At the same time, a rather large minority of residents does endorse this evil institution, implicitly (by usually obeying its orders) and even explicitly (by voting for it; how many, 70 million last time around?) – and so in some degree that bloc of individuals, at least, shares the responsibility for the mayhem that government produces. Similarly about 23 million Germans voted in the 1933 elections there (hence explicitly endorsing the principle that SOME government should lead the nation) and 11 million of them – a plurality – chose Hitler as that leader. All the evil his party then wrought for twelve years can be laid at the door of those voters.

  40. …and with that, I pronounce this thread officially dead, under Godwin’s Law.

  41. When, where and how exactly did I or you or anyone else “agree to be a citizen of [this] country”? Can you show me the contract I signed?

    Your argument would be quite good, if you can produce it. However if you cannot, then it collapses like a house of cards.

    The arrogant assumption of the ruling elite, which they slide past us in their carefully-controlled school-monopoly civics classes, is that all who happen to be born here have in some way entered into such an agreement. Not true. Not unless you can produce me a copy with my John Hancock.

    Recommended: a visit to – click on “Spooner’s Works” and hunt for “NO TREASON NO. VI. THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY.” You’ll be astonished to learn that not even the supreme law of the land has any valid, moral or even legal authority because nobody now living ever signed that contract.

    Don’t worry: there is of course a peaceful alternative. But read that first, please.

  42. A nice try, and a convenient alternative to rational debate.

  43. Nice troll, but I’m not biting.

    I was all over the “rational debate” when I was 16 and utterly unchallenged by the public edumakashun system. Now, to quote a favorite TV show, “I’m in the middle of fifteen things, all of them annoying.” Even if I had time to debate this particular topic, it hardly seems worthwhile to try to tell several anonymous people apart, even if some of them have, admirably, mastered the arcane arts of spelling and grammar. ;>

  44. Thank you for posting this. I was tempted to get back into the fray, but I believe I shall sit this one out and instead deal with all the lazy people I work with.

  45. he he he, spelling and grammar.
    ?Es importante, no?

  46. I said half, not all, which means the other half are not. Surely you cannot claim that every single person getting welfare checks is a hardworking individual who just doesn’t quite make enough. Nonetheless I don’t believe in handouts and would shed no tears if I was never given one, nor would I try to get one.

  47. Hmm, it seems I was wrong. There isn’t actually a law that says one has to pay income taxes. Read up on the case of Whitey Harrell. Basically, he went to court, and when the government could not produce a law that plainly said he had to pay income taxes, was found not guilty on all charges.

    You can even find the original case files for him if you so desire (the second link has the information on that).

    So it seems that Ed Brown is in the right in this case, despite the court refusing to hear his evidence and finding him guilty. Interesting… I always figured that perhaps it was a little gray and definitely unjust, but I never knew there was legal precedent for his argument and that is actually 100% correct.

  48. It’s true that there is a fairly good correlation between the existence of societal infrastructure and the existence of taxes; but correlation does not prove causation.

    Think: infrastucture (roads, sewers, schools, medical services etc) require MONEY. That’s the one factor that’s indispensible. Unless someone is motivated to invest money in providing them, they don’t get provided.

    Money to furnish roads and schools (and pretty well everything else) can come in one of two ways: it can be invested voluntarily with the aim of generating a profitable return, or it can be stolen and spent by politicians who want to take credit for providing them in the form of re-election votes. I can think of no third alternative.

    Can infrastructure yield a profit for investors? – oh, yes. Most roads in America, for example, were built with private money for profit prior to around 1800. As with all projects with the investors’ own money at risk, they were built efficiently and only where there was genuine market demand. Investors build where travellers will pay tolls over a long period; politicians build where voters will vote. They have no direct interest in cost-overruns nor in profits; they care only about winning the next election and so have a 4-year horizon. Those are the fundamental reasons for keeping the State out of infrastructure, but some of the adverse consequences of allowing it to run roads are quite well shown in “Roads to Serfdom” at

    Medical services were often initiated by non-State enterprises seeking profit in terms less of money, more of satisfaction – usually, religious satisfaction. Think of the names of hospitals, worldwide, that begin with “Saint…” Before government entered the scene big-time in and since the 1960s, American medical services were both excellent and affordable; after half a century of tax-funded intervention they are still perhaps the best in the world but nobody thinks they are affordable.

    Schools, of course, long pre-dated virtual monopolization by the State; tax-based funding was almost unknown before about 1830 but education was so good that the American Revolutionaries were scholarly as well as brave. At least they could all read, which is more than around 40% of today’s high school “graduates” can do.

    Infrastructure as you say is deplorable in many countries around the world, but none of them (alas) lack a government; what they lack is money. And the reason they lack money is that their governments have so regulated their economies that private, wealth-generating enterprise is choked out, while money redistributed from the developed “West” is stolen on the way in by the political thugs in charge.

    The correlation you noticed came about this way: someone worked hard and saved some and invested it for profit and grew his little business (that alone is what “capitalism” is all about.) Thousands of others in his society did likewise, and whaddayaknow, the whole country became prosperous – and appropriate infrastructure was built along the way. Then the political class got drawn to the wealth like sharks to blood, and taxed it; then it built more infrastructure and took credit for it all.

  49. Supergirl,

    I wonder if you live in the land of the “Matrix”. The first thing you might do is grab a 1040 Instruction booklet from your CPA, or whomever does your taxes, and go to the back of the book take a look at the pie charts in the back and show us where “income taxes” (not just “taxes” in general as you in error or by design lumped all together) pays for your roads.

    Gee I thought it was the excise taxes on gasoline, oil and tire purchases that contributed to our roads. By the way you wrote your little article, either in ignorance or by design it seems you are a collaborator for and of legalized plunder. (Read “The Law” by Frederick Bastiat – free PDF Download-

    “Life, liberty and property do not exist
    because men have made laws. On the contrary,
    it is the fact that life, liberty and property
    existed beforehand that caused men to
    make laws in the first place.”

    This is just one example of your gross error.

    Here is why the Browns are “nutcases” or “crazy” as you infer. They stand up against an avalanche of “legalized plunder” endorsed by either the ignorant or the brain dead in majority who know no difference and by the tyranny of those who design and purposefully support and keep the majority begging and wanting a government to help them; thereby keeping the people feeling as though helpless and dependent on government.

    Let’s see what you know?

    1) Is the income tax a “direct” or “indirect” tax?
    2) What is a direct tax? (Property given or taken directly to satisfy a tax debt)
    3) What is an indirect tax? (Such as “Excise” tax (privilege tax) usually (not always) a tax that can be avoided. You don’t buy Liquor or alcohol the “excise” tax can be avoided. Roads are supported as written above and the tax is more of a “usage” indirect tax as that the roads and highways are the most common form of transportation. However, it has nothing to do with federal “income taxes”.)
    4) Go back to the first question. What do the courts call the federal income tax? (It seems that some call it a direct and some call it indirect.)

    Here is the reality of question 1 and 4. No matter the court opinion in reality (and there is no reality now except what the courts claim it to be) the income tax is treated as an excise or “privileged” tax. In other words your former self-evident right to feed and provide for yourself and yours is now a privilege granted by government and its court. To avoid the tax just don’t work.

    You talk and write about resisting the war in Iraq. Let’s see who is more genuine here? Is it you who just writes or talks about it or the Browns who refuse to fund it by lawfully refusing to pay the legalized plunder that funds this invasion?

    You have no clue in what you write about the Browns. You say you “admire” the Browns. If you should ever meet the Browns why not just slap them hard in their faces and them tell them how you admire the rosy color it adds to their faces.

    The last questions for your consideration.

    5) What are the documents or law that grant flesh and blood people of this land freedom?
    6) What makes flesh and blood people “subject to the law”? (Please read Yick Wo v Hopkins US Supreme Court opinion holding)


  50. Most of what you’ve said here has already been said. While I respect the idea and practice of withholding tax payments in protest of government policies, I disagree fundamentally with the notion that there should be no income tax at all.

    In regards to his quote – “Life, liberty and property do not exist
    because men have made laws. On the contrary, it is the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place” – there is a fundamental logical error. The concept of “property” is, in fact, a legal concept. If there were no laws, or government to make laws, then what we know as property would just be “stuff” and if you leave it behind, it could be mine. The concept that something is yours because you own it, or paid for it, is a legal one at its very root. By the same token, the concept of “income” is a legal one too. Without government or laws, people simple barter and trade for what they need, whether it is goods or services. But if you accept the concept of receiving an “income” from an agency in a country/state, then you implicitly accept the concept of income tax, if that state has decided income taxes are a way to fund the government.

  51. Supergirl,

    You are so far locked into the Matrix and dream created for you that looked over the very words that contradict your illogical errors.

    You failed to answer question 5 and I’ll assume you’ve not read Yick Wo either for question 6. The answer for 5 was contained within the Bastiat quote. Perhaps you should read for the first time the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    Now these documents are hardly perfect as the people who wrote them were not perfect. However, certain concepts revealed or discovered were always “self-evident”. “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” Self-evident is as I am the owner of my body. My body is made to produce labor to survive today and in the future. The color of my hair, eyes, skin; the height of my body and weight; the sound of my voice are mine and no legislation or court opinion granted such to me. Perhaps to you in your thinking these are not self-evident. These are property as well as music or books written. The word “property” only confirms what is self-evident. I’ll take Bastiat’s definition or inference of property over your “legal” definition anytime. He is not a socialist. “Thou shall not steal” as written is in reference to “property” although the word “property” is not used.

    “WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…”

    Here again the obvious escapes you. This document, granting nothing, only confirms and agrees to what is naturally lawful (“Laws of Nature”) given to flesh and blood people by a Creator (Creator is undefined except as “Nature’s God”.)

    Again, you have no clue. Natural Law, Lawful and the self-evident exist before legal when legal is used lawfully. Legal comes about in the form of code and statutes legislated to work out the administration and details of what is lawful. Your facts are illogical and you put the legal cart in front of the lawful horse.

    Now because of the mischief of flesh and blood people, murder and theft may be legalized. While Hitler ruled I promise you he did not break one of his legal statutes or code. He did however violate the self-evident and the lawful.

    You should have read Yick Wo before you sounded off. If you had you would realize that I’m not inferring or supporting anarchy. Don’t worry about it legal minds always miss the self-evident or obvious.

    “When we consider the nature and the theory of our
    institutions of government, the principles upon which they are
    supposed [118 U.S. 370] to rest, and review the history of their
    development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not
    mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and
    arbitrary power.

    (Set apart for emphasis)

    Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to
    law, for it is the author and source of law…

    (Note: Law here means code or statute. In this case Yick Wo and His cousin were denied equal rights and opportunity to run a business that provided for existence and self-support. Big business by discrimination created legal code and statutes that made it illegal for Yick Wo and his cousin to operate similar businesses. They were thrown in jail and it was considered “legal”.)

    {continued in next post}
    Pg 1 of 2

  52. (continued here)

    “But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the
    pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are
    secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the
    monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in
    securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of
    just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the
    Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the
    commonwealth “may be a government of laws, and not of men.”
    For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life,
    or the means of living, or any material right essential to the
    enjoyment of life at the mere will of another seems to be
    intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the
    essence of slavery itself.”

    Answer to 5 is self-evident. There are no documents or law written by the hand of man granting or giving freedom to flesh and blood people.
    Amendment IX
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (Agreement with the self-evident and lawful.)
    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    Answer to 6 is self-evident. As that code and statute in this land is to be created by flesh and blood for the benefit of flesh and blood no one is lawfully subject to the abuses of legal. Period. If the sovereign cannot make war “lawfully” with each other, they cannot create a government or law that will make war with the people or their flesh and blood individual self-evident rights. Period.

    The word “Sovereignty” here is used to show that people, even as individuals, are superior to that which they create and that the people are all equal. Isn’t it interesting that two Chinese Nationals, Yick Wo and his cousin are treated as sovereign?

    Yes it has to be the abuse by legal and your collaboration with “legalized plunder” for any to believe that government has the right to steal. Whomever “grants” is owner and the federal government seems to think it owns all of us now.

    Funny how common dictionaries of the past and today, and numerous Supreme Court decisions disagree with your “legal” interpretation of “income”. For the sake of the argument let us agree that every court and every dictionary agrees with your understanding of the word “income”. In doing so makes it no more lawful to steal. All that is accomplished is the government has the legal right to unlawfully steal and it is illegal for flesh and blood people to lawfully retain there property. By your politics you agree to the legalized plunder.

    Oh, by the way there is a “lawful” way to directly tax your lawful income. However, by legalized plunder that method has been “legally” side-stepped. By the way the so-called “income tax” is “Constitutional”. That is true when lawfully applied to those as is intended and with full disclosure and understanding.

    Bastiat gets it. You have no clue.


  53. FYI,
    It’s not polite to come into other people’s blogspace and go around telling them they “have no clue” because they don’t agree with your opinions and beliefs.

    No one invited you here, and while I am happy to entertain visitors, please refrain from insulting the host.

  54. I guess if you can’t handle the truth then you can just censor it. “A (wo)man hears what (s)he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” You’d make it in corporate media and government disinformation and censorship.

    This is where I found you supergirl.,com_smf/Itemid,31/topic,199.msg564#msg564


    Not subject to legalized plunder

  55. I deleted your post because you were repeating yourself, and you failed to acknowledge or respect the rules of basic net etiquette.

    Your point has been made and heard. That doesn’t mean everyone agrees with you, and repeating yourself does not necessarily change our minds.

  56. I don’t think you got past the summary of our exchange to the new information. You missed the part about how I think the Browns though correct in there cause go to extremes that may not necessarily advance their cause.

    You’re in good company I think. Why last year I had a judge who just ignored a motion like I never submitted it; and government administrators who not only ignored what I wrote they ignored obvious and clear-cut legislative code and directives pointed out to them.

    So what you did is not upsetting. I’m used to it now. Just as you are now you’d make a good IRS agent. You wouldn’t be required to understand the Internal Revenue Code that you would try to enforce, only that you do as you are told. In fact reading the IRC would only confuse your job and conscience. Why at one time I showed an IRS Agent the Internal Revenue Code and she got bugged eyed when I revealed my copy of the IRC. It was like showing a cross to a vampire.

    You embarrassed yourself with my help. You don’t know as much as you think you do about those things discussed here and what you censored. Affidavits not lawfully refuted stand as fact. There are no legal or lawful affidavits in your forum; however you have not refuted my contentions. What is obvious and self-evident cannot be so easily dismissed. When it rains does the rain ask you to agree it is raining? Does it ask the Supreme Court for an opinion? Does it ask for a “democratic” majority vote? No it doesn’t even care. I think it is easy to say you are all wet in denial of the self-evident and obvious.

    While your position on the Iraq war may have merit, your complaints are like those of the slave to the master (You of course being the slave). How is that so, you think? You willingly accept and contribute to the legalized plunder and therefore submit yourself to those (master/masters) that orchestrate it. Isn’t it your present and future tax dollars voluntarily given funding this unlawful war and murders on both sides of the conflict? You are unhappy that your master spends your money for such evil? So, your complaint is not that you are treated as a forced slave, instead that you are not (or those around you) treated fairly as slaves. I guess because you volunteered you think you should be treated better or heard by those that spend your money for murder and theft.

    I don’t think I repeated too much here.


  57. Come on people. I just paid my taxes for the year. We are a family of 6. Ed Brown is a millionaire thanks to his oral surgeon of a wife. How is that fair that he can skip out of his taxes? If his wife supported him why is she living with her son in Mass.? Our taxes pay for our government and everything in it. It essentually pays for the nation we are proud to live in. Not proud? Where are you going to move? go… These people are selffish and act like they are above everyone else in this nation.

  58. First of all I am anothewr who wasa interested in the Ed brown story and a few days ago started doing some research.. I’m not some nutcase looking to skip out on my taxes.. I pay more in taxes than some people make in a year and as of right now I am still paying taxes..

    Here’s what I would advise all to do.. Start looking into this.. Certainly there is a reason why well educated citizens of this country are taking this stance.

    Here’s a few major points that I think have not been brought to light.. 1) this is a very complicated issue 2) I will not believe that the 16th amendment was not ratified correctly and just pushed through our legislative system(Not until I see the info for myself)
    4) I have looked at the court cases and the supreme court decisions and what these tax evaders are claiming is in fact a case of law. There are several examples that you will come across of surpreme court rulings from 1916-1920 whereby the supreme courts decided that the 16th amedment did NOT give congress the authority to impose any new taxes on citizens of the US.
    5)This one is interesting and I just cut and pasted the paragraph from another website

    The crime continued in the halls of Congress and in the White House with the adoption of the Income Tax Act of 1916 (amended in 1917). Although the 1916 Act ended withholding of wages, salaries and compensation and ordered the money that had been withheld from workers to be returned to those workers, and the Treasury Secretary issued Treasury Directive 2635 and saw to it that the money withheld was returned, the 1916 Act failed to define the legal term “income.”

    If you go to a site called you can find a lot of good info there and really the basis for all of this tax evasion stuff..

    On this site you will see actual cases won by the ex IRS guy who was a chief investigator for them until he found out that no laws existed to force Americans to pay taxes.

    You can also read about thier pending supreme court case now and in the end you will see that these are very well educated people who have decided to fight for something they believe in.. There are some very compelling arguments for the bais of thier claims and I have yet to see any response from the IRS pertaining to the law.. Which is the one last intersting point. why not have a public face to face with this guy in Nh or anyone else and just point out the err of thier ways and be done with the entire issue if in fact it is a non issue? Seems a pretty simple thing to so.

    I will say this one last thing, I am 42, have owmned my own businesses and have paid my taxes since I was 16 and spent 4 years in the military defending what I thought was freedom.. I havent completely changed my mind yet but a lot of what is being said makes a lot of sence..

  59. Ok one last piece of info.. here is the link which seems to spell out the resons for not paying taxes or for believeing that the income tax is not legal..

  60. All should pay their lawful obligations. You apparently have identified that you are lawfully obligated for this debt or volunteer to do so anyway. However, you sounding like some grade school child can yell “it’s my playground” all you want. It still isn’t your playground.

    Ed Brown to some extent has identified for himself that he is not obligated. You however, cannot even identify why you do what you do, so instead like a mindless cheerleader you shout, “pay your fair share”. When you say this do you think that perhaps you mean,

    “Pay your fair share of the legalized plunder (which you completely do not understand) because I have to. Now move along with the rest of us slaves.”

    Your words show how much of a hypocrite you are. You throw stones at Ed Brown because he does well by living with his wife. Did they not agree to do this? I think you are jealous and covet his good life and understanding. Yet, you have 6 children that you want the people to support by legalized plunder?! It seems that “thanks to legalized plunder” you do well to keep it coming because your spouse doesn’t make enough to support your family. I am not married to you and have no lawful obligation, except by legalized tyranny, to support you.

    I do support a self-evident right to be stupid and suffering the consequences of stupidity. I personally have suffered much. However, another’s stupidity does not usually constitute a “national emergency or obligation” (The stupidity of elected officials seems to create many emergencies and perceived obligations). Where as I may help the poor and those suffering even “personally stupid calamities” it is my freewill choice to do so, when I do, and not mandated by legalized plunder.

    So another way to look at it is to make others unwillingly pay their “fair share” to support your personal obligations. I bet you hold up the Declaration of Independence as a source of your freedom and even celebrate it on the 4th of July. Your interpretation of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” must mean pursuing another’s “Life, Liberty and Property” for your happiness. Ya think?

    I bet you suffer from cognitive dissonance or a least at one time you did. Those that founded this country were dissatisfied with mother England. They did not want to leave this land. Benjamin Franklin was a loyal supported of the crown until he understood that crown was stealing life from the people. He could no longer bury his head in sand once he understood what was going on. He nor the others left.

    Outside of supporting minimal government, it is really the support of unrestrained unlawful power. You well know that your “fair share” goes to things that you would never pay for yourself. How do you justify this? Here is the difference between those that think like you and myself. You willingly accept the “legalized plunder” in hopes of getting your “fair share” and therefore accept the unacceptable. My property is stolen from me and I am not responsible for what the thief and collaborators steal. It is illegal for me to keep my property and legal for the government to steal my property and therefore my liberty and will even take my life and murder me if I protest too much.

    I have no intentions of moving anywhere, nor does it appear that Ed Brown does either. I am not proud of the lawlessness and the mischief of people and supporters of the fraud in this country to which you stick your head in the sand and wish to ignore as if not there. Eventually you will have to make those that disagree with you completely despondent or murder them to shut them up. “Go…” yourself.
    By the way “legalized plunder” is just a fancy word for stealing. “Collaborator for and of legalized plunder” is just a fancy phrase for “Aiding and Abetting” thieves and “Accessory” to crime.
    Did a thief just call Ed Brown “selfish”?

  61. The previous was by Anon2

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: