Will Tax Protestor Standoff Lead To Another Ruby Ridge?

[Lurker]

Yes, that is obvious. But it is not what you claimed. You made a claim, and there is nothing to show your claim is valid, in any way.

Actually, I was not the one making the original claim that you responded to. Butr the tax code link does talk about taxable income and what your tax is. I think it is obviosu that when they say (paraphrasing) "this is your tax" that this means you owe this money.

 

[Thunder]

Back to the original topic, I was in a nutcase chat room last night, and several of the guys there said that they do possess guns, and if anything goes down with the Browns, they will respond violently.

 

[Alt+F4]

Back to the original topic, I was in a nutcase chat room last night, and several of the guys there said that they do possess guns, and if anything goes down with the Browns, they will respond violently.

The plan seems to be to wait them out.

U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier is gambling that, with patience, the Browns can be brought to justice without risking their lives or those of anyone else.

The danger presented by tax protesters who threaten violence is very real, but apprehending them is not worth the potential loss of life of law enforcement officers or innocent citizens. As frustrating - and costly - as it's become, Monier is doing the right thing by waiting them out.

Linky: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/.../REPOSITORY/704290343&SearchID=73283965752276

 

[Dr. Lao]

Back to the original topic, I was in a nutcase chat room last night, and several of the guys there said that they do possess guns, and if anything goes down with the Browns, they will respond violently.

I wouldn't worry, internet warriors tend to be nutless wonders, all talk no action.

 

[BPSCG]

Lord love a duck, when did this become the "Watch My CFLarsen Impressions!" thread?

Hmmm... a search of that page finds no such words.

"you have to pay", no results.

"have to pay", no results.

"to pay", one result, in link at bottom, not in code. Same for "pay".

"have", one result, if the parent does not have the same taxable year as the child, Section (g) (3) (c)

So, just by looking at the document you linked to, you are incorrect, and the phrase does not appear at all. Not even close.

I couldn't find any phrasing that states you have to pay. If you did, please quote it, and the location.

Clearly, you don't understand the meaning of the phrase, "words to the effect." It means "something meaning pretty much the same as what I wrote." Pardon me for not realizing you don't understand common idiomatic English.

And you have yet to put up. Do you have a cite or not?

I've put it up three times now (including here). And here, robinson, is what I wrote earlier: Note the bolding:

The actual words to the effect that "if you are an individual and your income is under x, you have to pay..." are here.

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of - (1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and (2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table:...

Okay, I'll parse it out for you, since it's a long sentence with a 29-word-long noun in the middle of it, and I realize some people have trouble understanding any sentence that doesn't begin with the words, "Paris Hilton..."

The 29-word long noun is contained in the words, "...every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a))..."

If you're married and filing jointly with your spouse, that means you can substitute the word "you" for that entire 29 words. So you can interpret that sentence to read, "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of you, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:... " or, in less stilted language, "There is hereby imposed on your taxable income, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:..."

If you are looking at that and are getting ready to write, "Aha! It doesn't say I actually have to pay tax!" don't waste the keystrokes; I permanently put CFL on my "Do Not Reply" list when I got fed up with his similar antics.

ETA: Right-wing nutcase BPSCG and left-wing puke Lurker in approximately 99% agreement on this entire thread. Take note of the date because you will not soon see that again.

 

[qayak]

So if he was just protesting income tax it would have made him a hero?

If you see income tax protestors as heroes then I guess he would have been . . . to you!

 

[Dr Adequate]

Art Vandelay's a tax protestor?

* does the happy dance *

 

[WildCat]

No, I'm one of the guys who thinks that one of the guys who claims that the laws don't exist is encountered, it should be rather simple to quote the laws, rather than simply responding with personal abuse, and while those who say "ignorance is no defense" have a point to a certain extent, when someone contacts the government and explicitly asks for an enumeration of the laws regulating their behavior, and the government absolutely refuses to do so, that person no longer has a civic duty to follow the alleged laws.

Do you have evidence that this has happened?

I don't know what the question is asking. Do ihave evidencewhathas happened?

All clear now Art?

 

[robinson]

So you can interpret that sentence to read, "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of you, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:... " or, in less stilted language, "There is hereby imposed on your taxable income, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:..."

This page does a better job of making the point:
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/861det.htm

Section 1 is the section that actually imposes the income tax. It’s very simply written. If you are unmarried (as Andy appears to be), the relevant provision is § 1(c), which states:
26 U.S.C. § 1
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . who is not a married individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

"There is hereby imposed on..". Interesting.

 

[a_unique_person]

"I guess we've got a lot of paranoia among our Freemason police," Brown said from his window. "Big boys with bigger toys. That's all that amounts to.

The Freemasons, eh.

 

[a_unique_person]

one supporter, Cirino Gonzalez, a former military contractor who moved from Texas to live with the Browns several weeks ago, reported last week that he had purchased a .50-caliber rifle, a weapon frequently used by military snipers with rounds a half-inch in diameter. Elaine Brown told listeners yesterday that Gonzalez was still at the house. "I get sad knowing not everyone has one," Gonzalez wrote on his MySpace page. "Then I think about everyone . . . that is not even close to being ready."

I'm not ready, but I get the feeling I'm going to live a lot longer than Gonzalez.

 

[richardm]

I'm not ready, but I get the feeling I'm going to live a lot longer than Gonzalez.

Ranb will be knocking on his door right about now to wrestle the .50 cal off him before he can make it even more unpopular with legislators

 

[gnome]

So was helping slaves escape rebellion?

I'm sure the government would have seen it that way... but there has been a shift... the Underground Railroad was performed largely without violence as I recall--an excellent example of civil disobedience. And... one that had a definite impact...both in freeing actual slaves and in our way of thinking. Who today is not moved by these stories?

Not necessarily. The law only recognizes "imminent" self defnese, so a chronic threat would not be a defense.

I guess it would depend what is meant by "stalking"... but I don't see this analogy going anywhere. Is there yet a point to be made exploring it?

I tohough we were discussing whether it was rebellion, not whether it was CD.

You asked if it would be civil disobedience.

If I think that a child molestor got off too lightly, so I attack him, is that not civil disobedience on the basis that the victim engaged in violence?

This is what I was responding to... but again I'm wondering if either of us is approaching a point. Are my responses helping to clarify my position? Do you find it consistent?

 

[Schneibster]

Art Vandelay's a tax protestor?

* does the happy dance *

Oh, my goodness. Suppose they'll cut off his access to the 'Net?

We won't discuss Bubba.

Yet.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The plan seems to be to wait them out.



Linky: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/.../REPOSITORY/704290343&SearchID=73283965752276

Is there much risk to innocent civilians? Or are they classifying people who attack police because they are arresting a convicted felon as innocent?

 

[shemp]

Power Cut Off To Brown Property

I woulda thunk they'd have done that a long time ago.

 

[Ranb]

Ranb will be knocking on his door right about now to wrestle the .50 cal off him before he can make it even more unpopular with legislators

Nay nay moose breath. Enough has already been done. The VPC will no doubt be adding this to their "50 cal rifles used by criminals" list soon. It will not matter if the rifle was ever fired.

Ranb

 

[MIKILLINI]

Lord love a duck, when did this become the "Watch My CFLarsen Impressions!" thread?
Clearly, you don't understand the meaning of the phrase, "words to the effect." It means "something meaning pretty much the same as what I wrote." Pardon me for not realizing you don't understand common idiomatic English.

I've put it up three times now (including here). And here, robinson, is what I wrote earlier: Note the bolding:

The actual words to the effect that "if you are an individual and your income is under x, you have to pay..." are here.
Okay, I'll parse it out for you, since it's a long sentence with a 29-word-long noun in the middle of it, and I realize some people have trouble understanding any sentence that doesn't begin with the words, "Paris Hilton..."

The 29-word long noun is contained in the words, "...every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a))..."

If you're married and filing jointly with your spouse, that means you can substitute the word "you" for that entire 29 words. So you can interpret that sentence to read, "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of you, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:... " or, in less stilted language, "There is hereby imposed on your taxable income, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:..."

If you are looking at that and are getting ready to write, "Aha! It doesn't say I actually have to pay tax!" don't waste the keystrokes; I permanently put CFL on my "Do Not Reply" list when I got fed up with his similar antics.

ETA: Right-wing nutcase BPSCG and left-wing puke Lurker in approximately 99% agreement on this entire thread. Take note of the date because you will not soon see that again.

Thats the whole key with the tax code BP " Words to the effect" I understand them completely, which is why I have done our taxes for the past 25 years.
I had a good laugh from the tax booklet Illinois used to put out before electronic filing eliminated the need for them. There was an introduction from the state commissioner; It was the very first sentence, in fact; it said " Thank you for your voluntary contribution". Words to the effect.

 

[RandFan]

The problem is what is terrorism

9/11
Bombing the king David hotel
Attacking troops in a non conventional fashion(say in Iraq now or in France during WWII)
General bombing of cities to destroy infrastructure
ALF
Boston Tea Party

If the ALF counts as terrorism why not the Boston Tea Party?

If the road side bombs targeting our troops in Iraq are terrorism was the French Resistance?

If the act is targeted to civilians with the intent of instilling terror then it is terrorism.

9/11 Yes
Attacking troops in a non conventional fashion(say in Iraq now or in France during WWII) No.
General bombing of cities to destroy infrastructure Yes/No/Depends
ALF Yes, of course.
Boston Tea Party No, of course not.

The intent of ALF is to instill terror in the general populace. The inetent of the Boston Tea party was not.

 

[RandFan]

Absolutely correct.

Cool, we've got a point of agreement.

After all, weren't the collonists just trying to avoid paying their taxes?

You are repeating a popular myth. No, this is not correct.

"No taxation without representation" was a slogan in the period 1763-1775 that summarized a primary grievance of the American colonists in the Thirteen colonies. The colonists complained that taxes were imposed by Parliament without the consent of the colonists, which violated the traditional rights of Englishmen dating back from the Magna Carta. The point was that the colonies had no representation in Parliament.