FORT FAIRFIELD JOURNAL
Real. Educational. News.
Fort Fairfield Journal About Us Contact Us Advertising Rates Subscribe Distribution Bible Reference Our Library
Photography Service Model Representation
Rebuttal to FFJ Ed Brown Article
Ed and Elaine Brown enjoy the 2007 Freedom Concert hosted by the Power Hour's Dave VonKleist at their New Hampshire home.
Click photo to enlarge
Click on picture for full resolution copy. All photos copyright ©2007 David Deschesne, Fort Fairfield Journal. Permission to republish or reprint is granted only with full attribution. News media outlets who wish to select from more available pictures of this event may email: firstname.lastname@example.org
You stated in a recent article
entitled, Freedom Concert Held
at Brown’s New Hampshire Home Amidst IRS Standoff, “Because they have
found there is no law requiring the filing of a 1040 income tax form”
This is incorrect.
There is indeed a law and implementing regulation that requires the filing
of a "return" and it's found at 26USC 6012(a) and it's
implementing regulation 26CFR 6012.1.
§ 6012. Persons required to make returns of
(a) General rule
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall
be made by the following:
(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income
which equals or exceeds the exemption amount...
Sec. 1.6012-1 Individuals required to make
returns of income.
(Bold emphasis added)
The real question is,
"Are the Brown's citizens of the United States?" In
ALLISON CO. v. EVATT, TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO the
The term "United States" may be used in
any one of several sense. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying
the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations.
It may designate the territory over which
the sovereignty to the United States  extends, or it may be the collective name of the states
which are united by and under the Constitution.
And in general the guaranties of the
Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive
and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions,
extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power
over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guaranties applicable.
everyone goes wrong, and I do mean everyone, is that they presume the income
tax is predicated on Article 1, section 8, clause 1. The income tax is
derived from Article 4, Section 3, clause 2, "The Congress shall
have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations
respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States;".
Thank you for attempting to
rebut the information in my Ed Brown story.
Your cite above applies to a citizen, individual or resident of the "United
States." I agree, if you are a citizen,
individual or resident of the
United States, then income tax applies to you. However, notwithstanding your
one court cite, the U.S. Congress defined "United States" for the
purpose of the Internal Revenue Code as follows:
26 USC Ch 21 §3121 (e)
State: The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
United States: The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense
includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and
American Samoa. An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered,
for the purposes of this section, as a citizen of the United States.
The key word above
to focus on is the word, “includes." The Thorndike Barnhart
include: 1. To put, hold, or enclose within limits. 2. To contain; comprise.
3. To put in a total, a class, or the like. 4. To shut up; confine
The term “includes” is actually an
exclusionary word. For example, when I say, “My key ring includes my
keys.” I am excluding any of your keys
When the government
says in the above US Code citation, “The
term “State” includes…” they are
defining what is to be considered as a State and the list of entities
following the word “includes” are the only entities that can be used in
that definition of State. By taking a word
that society has been taught to think means something other than it really
means, the lawyers who wrote the Code, while being very clear in strict
definition of the words, were using legalese to distract and confuse most
Americans who read it.
When the Congress
wants the term ‘State’ to also mean all of the other 50 independent
states, the wording will read something like this:
“The term “State” includes the several states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
The semantical deception used
in the Internal Revenue Code is
in the term “United States” as a singular entity (not
plural - states
as used in modern vernacular) which, for the purpose of income tax, contains
and comprises only those geographical locations enumerated in 26 USC, not the several - or 50 -
states as we commonly know them. This is the "art" of legalese
and Congress is very good at it.
As for the “all
territory or other property”
clause in Article IV of US Constitution,
in defense of the Income Tax laws, it is
properly enumerated in the cite I just
gave from 26 USC. The States in our
United States are not "territory
or other property" of the United
States government, since their land wasn't collectively ceded to it.
The only land within a state ceded to the federal government is that
which is used for naval dock yards, air bases, army posts and other federal
buildings. Those are the only
places the Constitution allows the Federal government legislative authority
I.R.S. is not granted authority to operate in “the
either by 26 USC or the Article 4 clause you cite - only territories
and other property - as 26 USC and Article
4 of the Constitution correctly indicates. Maine, for example is not a “territory
or other property”
of the United States government, but American Samoa, Guam and Puerto Rico
Also, since the 16th amendment
wasn't properly ratified this whole discussion is moot in light of the fact
that the tax itself is illegitimate (hence unconstitutional) from its
genesis. But, even if it (16th) were passed, the Internal Revenue Code’s
description of “United States” negates your argument and
court-rendered definition. Judges,
contrary to their own belief, cannot write new laws and
descriptions, they can only read and apply what Congress has already
enacted. That's all the Browns are asking them to do - to apply the law
properly, to follow the rules.
The concurrence of a thousand judges' opinions
will never change a lie into the truth.
Helping the Central Aroostook Humane Society reach their goals.