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: 


Dear Editor:

  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 income

(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.

(a) Individual citizen or resident--(1) In general. Except as provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, an income tax return must be filed by every individual for each taxable year beginning before January 1, 1973, during which he receives $600 or more of gross income, and for each taxable year beginning
  after December 31, 1972, during which he receives $750 or more of gross income, if such individual is:
(i) A citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or

(ii) A resident of the United States even though not a citizen
thereof, or
(iii) An alien bona fide resident of Puerto Rico during the entire
taxable year.

(Bold emphasis added)

   The real question is, "Are the Brown's citizens of the United States?"   In HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. v. EVATT, TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO the judge stated:

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 [672] 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.

(Bold emphasis added)

   Where 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;".

Jerry Vandagriff


Dear Jerry:

    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 dictionary defines:

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 from it.

   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 Puerto Rico…”

    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, you cited 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 over. 

    The I.R.S. is not granted authority to operate in the several states 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 are.

   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.  

David Deschesne,

Editor/Publisher, Fort Fairfield Journal





“I was asked by the CIA to assassinate Cambodian Prince Sihanouk.” 

- LTC Dan "Dangerous Dan" Marvin, U.S. Army Special Forces Retired.

Learn more


You Must See this Documentary DVD  before you pay another penny in 

Income Tax

AMERICA:  From Freedom to Fascism

An Aaron Russo Production






Share if You Care

Helping the Central Aroostook Humane Society reach their goals.


Hit Counter