Tax protesters in NH?

[bobsponge]

I was wondering if anyone had a link to a blog or up-to-date information on the NH dentist and his wife who had barricaded themselves in their home as part of a tax protest?

Thanks for anything if you have it.

[hunterrose]

Check this.

[bobsponge]

Check this.

Thanks. Sad, what is happening. Thought failing to file is only considered a misdemeanor. Why would federal marshals be after him for misdemeanors?

[Groovenstein]

Nice gesture perhaps, but, based on what I've seen and read, for the totally wrong reason. From that linked article: "The Browns contend the law does not require them to pay federal income tax . . . ." I also saw a report on Fox News where this was the only cited reason. That position is ridiculous. None of the coverage I have seen mentions anything from these people about taxes being immoral. If they have said that, I wish they'd stick with it and ignore this ludicrous "the law doesn't make you pay taxes" silliness.

[aequalsa]

Nice gesture perhaps, but, based on what I've seen and read, for the totally wrong reason. From that linked article: "The Browns contend the law does not require them to pay federal income tax . . . ." I also saw a report on Fox News where this was the only cited reason. That position is ridiculous. None of the coverage I have seen mentions anything from these people about taxes being immoral. If they have said that, I wish they'd stick with it and ignore this ludicrous "the law doesn't make you pay taxes" silliness.

That is a very good point. They present the argument as if a very specific law granting the government ownership of 50% of everything you produce would end their disagreement. So it would be ok if it was more constitutional? Goofballs. I sympathize with them and pity them for thinking they can negotiate with armed robbers.

[gags]

Unfortunately, what these people are doing is akin to self-sacrifice.

[Qwertz]

One of the reasons we have so many lawyers in this country is because our legal system is not one which is at all comprehensible. Under the American positivist legal system, the courts expect arguments to be made within the preexisting legal structure. It doesn't really matter if you have a sound, rational, moral argument - if it's not supported by preexisting law, it's not a valid argument. Normal, rational people with sane senses of justice can't make the common-sense arguments (i.e. taxes are immoral) because the system doesn't care. They have to hire lawyers to make the positivist arguments (i.e. taxes are illegal). Doing so requires a great deal of research, and vast libraries filled with the circular, self-referential, obfuscatory ramblings of rationalist, pompous 'intellectuals,' all of which almost entirely boils down to "well, this situation is like one old case, but unlike another old case, so we're going to rule this way."

This is the scourge of the doctrine of stare decisis, which refuses to discriminate between reason and rationalism.

Trapped in this positivist attitude for centuries, British and American law has apparently forgotten that it's supposed to be resolving real-world problems. It has forgotten that the law needs to be connected to reality.

I wonder: the Constitution posits itself as the supreme law of the land. If Congress and the States amended it to repeal the law of gravitation, would the universe follow suit? Would the courts hold falling objects in contempt?

The upshot is that a moral argument against taxes will not achieve anything for the individual who makes it. We have centuries of deafness to reason to undo in the law. If an individual wants to avoid paying taxes, he'll have to play the law's game and make arguments on the law's terms.

Unfortunately for him, the law writes the rules. It may be completely true that there is no law requiring citizens to pay income taxes. The tax law is so complex and Draconian that there are likely only a handful of people alive who could say for sure. But that doesn't even matter, because the rules have already been written. Even if the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified; even if there is no law requiring citizens to pay income tax, the rulemakers (i.e. the courts) have already said "we won't listen; it is our power to declare what the law is; we need not be limited by the actual text of the statutes."

The only way for an American, in his lifetime, to avoid paying taxes and remain out of jail is to become a zero. He must make no taxable income, participate in no taxable transactions, and die penniless. The robbers hold the guns. The option truly is "your money, or your life." Mr. Brown's attempt to defy the robbers will end in his death by actual imprisonment and metaphorical exsanguination.

If you don't want to die, you must pay your taxes while fighting to change the law. But the law refuses to change, and certainly won't do so within my lifetime. I'm sure it would change faster if everyone chose to throw themselves on the robbers' knives rather than pay; the law could not ignore the resultant ocean of blood and death. But death is of no use to those who die.

Until there is a way to escape the robbers and to withdraw from their world, the situation will only become worse.

-Q

[aequalsa]

One of the reasons we have so many lawyers in this country is because our legal system is not one which is at all comprehensible.

I agree with your analysis of the legal system here completely, but suggest that Mr. Brown is hell and gone past the point of legality being an issue. In his one man rebellion against the encroachments of his freedom, he would do better for his cause to use his soon to be painfully bought 15 minutes of fame to defend the morality of his position rather then it's legality. At least, that would be my interest at the point he is at.

[mweiss]

Check this.

Oh dear... every time I see one of these situations, it really upsets me. Especially knowing that I could be in this situation in the next month or so. It's too bad he's using the sort of "legal" arguments that got Irwin Schiff put away for 43 years last year.

Qwertz has it exactly right. The courts will rule based on accepted law, not on morality. So everything is a "kangaroo court" and the conscientious objector cannot get a fair trial. But then, this nation's tax system would collapse overnight if the courts ever let a tax protestor prevail.

[BaseballGenius]

Would it be productive if instead of only one family protesting current taxation, hundreds or thousands of people protested? That wouldnt influence the gov't at all, would it? It could at least grant the protestors great publicity to showoff their ideas on taxation though. I could imagine the media making quite a big deal out of it.

[mweiss]

Would it be productive if instead of only one family protesting current taxation, hundreds or thousands of people protested? That wouldnt influence the gov't at all, would it? It could at least grant the protestors great publicity to showoff their ideas on taxation though. I could imagine the media making quite a big deal out of it.

The real number of income tax protestors in the US is about 11,000, total. Not the millions that the conspiracy folks claim. There are plenty of prison cells to house the current lot of tax protestors. In order for a tax protest to be effective, it would take probably 30-40 million taxpayers withholding their returns in an organized fashion--but it would only hurt them, since most are eager to file and get a refund and this would delay the refund.

People would have to first get employers to stop withholding taxes from their paychecks. Then they could do the protest more effectively.

However, the vast majority of people won't protest because they believe in taxation as the only way to support the nation. They are Altruists and especially in the Bible Belt, are firm believers in supporting the country through their taxes.

The situation is hopeless, approached in this manner.

The only positive effective option is to campaign heavily for the Fair Tax and the elimination of the IRS.

Get your band of merry men to organize and mount a write-in effort targeting key legislators.

[aequalsa]

People would have to first get employers to stop withholding taxes from their paychecks. Then they could do the protest more effectively.

Actually, that is all it would take. For private industry to not withhold taxes.

[mweiss]

Actually, that is all it would take. For private industry to not withhold taxes.

True, but they won't.

The lambs willingly prostrate themselves before the shears.

More on this:

http://nhindymedia.org/newswire/display/3993/index.php

Looks like a classic Irwin Schiff argument from 10 years ago.

Claims prepared for the coming raid:

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/mi...990001?cid=2194

...another Waco to come?

Interesting video on this blog page:

http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/

More videos and new clips on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...p;search=Search

Edited February 5, 2007 by mweiss

[mweiss]

Alex Jones interview with Ed Brown on Youtube:

Search on "Alex Jones - Ed Brown interview part 1 of 4" and so on.

The abuse by the feds of this guy's rights is amazing and discussed in part 2. I'm listening now. Of course you have to filter the trashy talk by Mr. Jones and pick out the facts selectively but it's interesting.

[aequalsa]

True, but they won't.

The lambs willingly prostrate themselves before the shears.

Being cowards might be part of it, but I thing the most important thing is that they often have a vested interest in things as they are. Government contracts, or contracts with companies that produce for the government. Last I read, upwards of 40% of the GDP is stolen by the government. Makes it hard to avoid them for a lot of industries, even if they were morally inclined to do so.

[softwareNerd]

Being cowards might be part of it, but I thing the most important thing is that they often have a vested interest in things as they are.

Even more important is that they agree with the government's position, in general terms. In all such discussions, it's important to remember that the government is not made up of guys from another planet, but are voted in by democratic processes and are people with views that are not at wide variance with the views of the governed. Many businessmen who complain that taxes are too high will also say that the government ought to provide most of the services it does, just cutting some pork, becoming more efficient, etc. Most businessmen will tell you that taxes are the right and moral way to pay for government services, regardless of the debate of what the level of taxes ought to be.

[aequalsa]

Even more important is that they agree with the government's position, in general terms. In all such discussions, it's important to remember that the government is not made up of guys from another planet, but are voted in by democratic processes and are people with views that are not at wide variance with the views of the governed. Many businessmen who complain that taxes are too high will also say that the government ought to provide most of the services it does, just cutting some pork, becoming more efficient, etc. Most businessmen will tell you that taxes are the right and moral way to pay for government services, regardless of the debate of what the level of taxes ought to be.

You're right, which brings us back to the accepted philosophy of our culture, being the ultimate key to the whole problem.

[Qwertz]

Re-reading my last post, it looks like I was in a bitter, bitter mood when I wrote it.

One one side, we have the government saying "your money, or your life." On the other we have the bulk of the American people saying, at best, "how else can we fund government but by taxes," and at worst "it's your civic duty to give of yourself for your fellow countrymen." There is no positive course of action available to the individual. The best solution is to pay the taxes. You won't be able to expose the threat for what it is, because the audience (the American people) already think taxes should be paid. Or at least that you should pay your taxes, because they have to.

But even if, through rational persuasion, a substantial minority could be convinced that taxation is evil, what could they do? Even if 30 million people refused to file tax returns, what power would they have? They'd still be facing the moral opprobrium of the rest of the country, and the government would simply create new procedural legislation to deal with the large number of criminals - to make it easier to convict them and seize their property.

Short of holing oneself up in one's home and declaring oneself a sovereign state (dooming oneself to failure and looking silly to boot), how can "tax protesting" be done effectively?

What about writing "under duress" above the signature on a tax return? If enough people did it, and if it were played out in the media, such a campaign could help win over some of those who are merely complacent about taxation. The IRS wouldn't care about the "under duress" part, but they probably would care about the bad press, and try to do something. Maybe they'd make an argument that writing "under duress" effectively invalidates the signature and treat the return as unfiled, but I think they'd have to go to court over it because a mere statement to the effect of "I signed under duress" isn't sufficient to get a contract thrown out. Furthermore, a court presented even with evidence of duress would probably not actually find it. Either way, it's bad press for the IRS - either they have to accept documents signed with the phrase "under duress," or a court finds that tax returns are signed under duress.

The more I think about it, the more I like it. It's not likely to be very effective in the short-term, but it certainly is a lot safer than micronational secession.

You're right, which brings us back to the accepted philosophy of our culture, being the ultimate key to the whole problem.

Is there a way to bring about a philosophical revolution within my lifetime? What tactics are justifiable? Are we stuck with using reasoned discourse alone? Can we use the press to manipulate the emotions of those who won't be swayed by reason, simply to increase our numbers? What about armed rebellion? It worked for the Founders. When the accepted philosophy of the culture of England became intolerable, they left, hoping distance would improve their lot. When it didn't, a small but intellectually powerful minority of those in the colonies instituted a revolution, and the rest went along for the ride.

We are in the historically unique position of having nowhere to go to get away.

-Q

[DavidOdden]

Either way, it's bad press for the IRS - either they have to accept documents signed with the phrase "under duress," or a court finds that tax returns are signed under duress.

Maybe your bitter, bitter mood is contagious. I don't think it would make the least difference. "Press" only matters if the pres actually pays attention, so the questions is, what could one possibly do to draw attention to the fundamental injustice of taxation? As you say, if enough people did, if it were played out in the media. Why would any individual do so (draw attention to themselves), and why would the media care?

I don't think the IRS can possibly interpret such a protest as invalidating a signature (it doesn't) and they cannot act as though a person who filed their taxes did not (which would be a violation of the law on the taxpayer's part). The IRS would simply ignore the note, cash the check, and whadaya got to show for your efforts? Nothing. If you could manage to independently mobilize 30 million taxpayers to do something dramatic, like burn copies of their 1040 return in every city in the US, at the same time, then that might get the attention of the press (if someone organizes it).

Is there a way to bring about a philosophical revolution within my lifetime?

No, I don't think so, not if you mean something more than "an improvement". However, a major disaster could change things very quickly. For example, 9/11 did cause a major change in people's thinking, within the course of hours, at least about tolerating certain kinds of evil behavior. But I think that rather than working towards a sweeping goal, Galt's Gulch everywhere, I would suggest just working towards changing one thing. For me, it's epistemology; maybe you can work against stare decisis and for statutory law.

We are in the historically unique position of having nowhere to go to get away.

On Earth, at least...

[mweiss]

Two common tax protest methods are to sign the returns and the checks to the IRS "without prejudice" or, "under duress".

Doing so will only just about garantee one result: that the party signing in the afore-mentioned manner will be systematically audited every year for the next ten years.

Messing with the IRS in this fashion is akin to poking a very short stick into a hornet's nest. DON'T DO IT.

An interesting anonymous posting appeared in the blog of Mr. Brown's this morning:

http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogsp...sive-video.html

New video interview appeared there today too.

I was speaking with a friend of mine and he feels that the feds aren't going to raid, but that Mr. Brown will have created his own self-imposed arrest, and he'll rot there until eventually all his supporters lose interest and leave.

[aequalsa]

Re-reading my last post, it looks like I was in a bitter, bitter mood when I wrote it.

...

Is there a way to bring about a philosophical revolution within my lifetime? What tactics are justifiable? Are we stuck with using reasoned discourse alone? Can we use the press to manipulate the emotions of those who won't be swayed by reason, simply to increase our numbers? What about armed rebellion? It worked for the Founders. When the accepted philosophy of the culture of England became intolerable, they left, hoping distance would improve their lot. When it didn't, a small but intellectually powerful minority of those in the colonies instituted a revolution, and the rest went along for the ride.

We are in the historically unique position of having nowhere to go to get away.

-Q

Well...really, everyone ought to be bitter about it. No harm in that. It's not like they are long time friends who said something by accident to hurt our feelings. They have been stealing half of everything we produce(half of our lives) for the better part of 3 generations. Bitter is sort of the baseline emotion deserved.

I don't think a philosophical revolution is likely in our lifetime. It has to start with education, but, oh wait, they also own the schools. So until something ends that(ARI's book project is certainly a step in the right direction) stranglehold on the brainwashing of youth, I would expect "good" citizens to continue being produced.

Ironically, I think the biggest hope for change would be implosion and economic collapse. Social Security, Medicare, medicaid, and soon to be socialized medicine(if they get their way) ought to help toward this end. I have never successfully convinced myself to do it, but it always occurs to me at the polls that I should vote for the worst canidate and most expensive programs. It's my way, I guess, when something uncomfortable needs be done, I prefer to jump in and get it over with right away so it doesn't haunt me. I ought to send that guy with the ? suit who does the "get free money from the government" commercials a letter of thanks.

[Qwertz]

So we can't have a philosophical revolution until the government stops controlling education. But the government isn't going to stop controlling education until there's a philosophical revolution.

I wonder how long it will be before we're all arrested for plotting to bring about the economic collapse of the US Government.

Hmmm... Maybe one could convert all one's assets to gold, buy oneself a fancy, well-equipped yacht and go live in 'international waters.' If one keeps moving about on the high seas, one might just make oneself sufficiently hard to find.

-Q

[softwareNerd]

There was an earlier thread, related to the topic of whether one can be optimistic or pessimistic about the future. Mimpy raised a related question in another thread too.

[DavidOdden]

So we can't have a philosophical revolution until the government stops controlling education. But the government isn't going to stop controlling education until there's a philosophical revolution.

This is where I think the equation fails. The government may "control" education in some sense, but most of the content of what is taught is the consequence of decisions by teachers, as to what they will teach. In higher education, there is negligible governmental influence over content, and at the level of state control of public education, there are no official positions, and only minor (but noisy) incursions into how much god will be taught. None of that gets at the fundamental philosophy that is instilled by teachers. Governments don't even know that there are philosophies. Start by demanding a better product in your higher education.

[bobsponge]

Hmmm... Maybe one could convert all one's assets to gold, buy oneself a fancy, well-equipped yacht and go live in 'international waters.' If one keeps moving about on the high seas, one might just make oneself sufficiently hard to find.

Already doing it