0 votes

Ron Paul and Civil Disobedience

Here is the video of Ron explaining that anyone who doesn't pay their taxes must do it knowing that they have to bear the consequences and that if you do civil disobedience such as the Browns are doing in challenging the laws, it should be done non-violently.

Remember Ron has no idea who the Browns are, or their history or much else about them except that they're bucking the system and thus far have committed an act of non-violence.

For Katz, the Concord Monitor, AP or any other news outlet to say he is a 'supporter' is patently false.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

A Jury Didn't See the Law - IRS loses "willful failure case"

July 11, 2007 Mr. Tommy K. Cryer, a lawyer from Shreveport, Louisiana was found not guilty by a 12-0 verdict on two separate counts of violating Title 26 Section 7203, willful failure to file federal income tax returns for the "tax-years" 2000 and 2001 respectively, which carried a two-year prison sentence had the government prevailed.

The trial began July 9. 2007 at 8:30 AM at the United States District Court for Western Louisiana located at 300 Fannin Street in Shreveport, Louisiana. Judge Maurice Hicks presided over the trial, Earl Campbell represented the Internal Revenue Service by and through the U.S. Department of Justice and Mr. Larry Becraft represented Mr. Tommy K. Cryer as lead defense counsel, with Mr. George Harp assisting.

Mr. Becraft approached Mr. Cryer and addressed each of the government's efforts to derail Mr. Cryer's beliefs. One after one, the defense closed each open gate espousing the government's contentions and ended the re-direct with Mr. Cryer confidently stating that he swore an oath to defend the rule of law and he had no other option when it came to his beliefs, which are today as they were yesterday and as they will be tomorrow, "There is NO LAW making me liable for the federal income tax."

Counsel delivered closing arguments with the government addressing the jury first and reserving time for rebuttal. The U.S. Attorney stressed his argument that there is a law and the law made Mr. Cryer Liable for the federal income tax system. Asking the jury to rule our willfulness and in due turn, convict Mr. Cryer of breaking the law and seeing to it that Mr. Cryer is found guilty of failing to do his duty of filing federal income taxes.

At 4:33PM the U.S. Marshal summonsed Mr. Becraft and company and announced that the jury had reached a verdict. Approximately at 4:35PM the jury returned to the courtroom and the customary tradition of the passing of the verdict to the judge for entry into the record and reading of it in open court took place.
Unanimously, NOT GUILTY.



Liberty Bell
When I saw Neil Cavuto’s interview with Ron Paul, I strongly felt that something had to be done regarding the bias attitude of the people of Fox News. I wish there was a way to send a message to the advertisers of Fox News and tell them that we will not purchase their products as long as they allow Fox News to show such hatred and disrespect to candidate Dr. Ron Paul. If this could be done by sheer numbers, that is, to embargo all products that are advertised on Fox News, and if there would be a sudden dip in advertising revenues to Fox, then I think the situation would change. Like most lower life entities, the people of Fox News respond to food, and MONEY is their FOOD. Take away their money and they will squirm like a worm on a hook.

Liberty Bell

the income tax issue

Ron should have been more forthright in his support of the Browns.

If he believes that there is no law requiring individual Americans to pay the income tax, then he needs to support those who decide to opt out of the system.

Indeed, if we believe in the rule of law, and the government cannot, or will not, show us the law that requires us to pay the income tax, then we are hypocrits if we disparage or criticize people like the Browns, who have decided to take the government at its word.

Show me the law

If Ron Paul looked at Ed and Elaine Brown closely, and the message they are trying to portray, he can't help but side with them. All the Browns are asking is where is the law which require them to file a form and pay taxes, that's all. If the IRS, or anyboby else, can show them the law that looks credible, they would be happy to pay. That is non-violent. This is the same question that Whitey Herald asked, and this is the same question that I asked. I already answered the question that there is no law convincingly. The only thing that's supposed to be "violent" is they are protecting their home from home invaders (i.e., the government) that can't answer the question.

Here's the law


26 U.S.C. :
"Sections 1, 61, and 63 impose the tax,
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return."

Quick, somebody get the news to the Browns, then they will be "happy to pay"! heh

To All: The Law

I'll make this the "Readers Digest" version.

Before any discussion of the U.S.C. can take place, one must first look to the supreme law of the land - the Constitution. Just as Dr. Paul says, "if it isn't Constitutional, I don't vote for it."

Before the sixteenth amendment there were two types of taxes and only two, direct and indirect. There can be no intelligent conversation about a tax until the actual "subject" of the tax is known. If you can't find an answer in the Code that meets the Constitutional requirement of an unapportioned direct tax on an individual, don't feel bad.

If the Constitutional requirement for the tax cannot be found in the Code, how can anyone be "subject to" or "liable for" any so-called income tax?

The sixteenth amendment is not even part of the argument since it has been shown to be misapplied. The Supreme Court in the Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust states the following; "The sixteenth amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged." Furthermore, an amendment is an "addition" to the existing document. It cannot, nor does it, repeal anything preceeding it in the Constitution. That, I believe, would take a 2/3 majority vote of the Senate.

You might also be interested to know that Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust also pointed out that "Congress never intended to permit the entire burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations."

Edwin Vierra Jr.'s (Harvard Constitutional law professor) publications on the topic are quite helpful . He argues income to be defined as corporate profit as does the Pollock case.



here we go again

I already rebuttaled your answer using the Supreme Court decision, Gould v. Gould. But if you don't believe me, ask Ron Paul himself! In the documentary America: Freedom to Fascism [starting 1:09:06], Aaron Russo asked Paul to show him the law. On the second time, Paul finally admits, "I can't site a law. No, I cannot." The exception to the rule is Ron Paul, but the other 534 members of Congress, "honest politician" is an oxymoron.

here we go again, indeed

"rebuttaled" is not a word. You meant "rebutted." And no, you did not rebut anything, you grossly misapplied a case which was about *alimony*.

Here is the rebuttal to your frivolous Gould claim, along with rebuttals of tons of other meritless tax protester arguments.


"The actual issue in Gould v. Gould was whether alimony is a kind of income subject to tax, and the court held that it was not. (The Internal Revenue Code has since been amended to make it clear that alimony is deductible by the payor and income to the recipient.) But tax protesters trot out this “one size fits all” generality in support of just about any kind of claim, including the claims that wages are not income, or that the Internal Revenue Code must identify the “source” of their income, while I.R.C. section 61(a) is clear that gross income includes all income “from whatever source derived” and that “compensation for services” (such as wages and salaries) is included in gross income, so there is no “case of doubt” to be construed."

As for Ron Paul, he says just what he says - he can't "cite" the law. I can't cite the law that states murder is illegal. That doesn't mean the law doesn't exist. Similarly, the little quote from that movie does not mean he thinks that no such law exists on the books. And furthermore, he is not so stupid that if you were to show him the law, he would go on to claim that it says something other than what it plainly states.

Ron Paul is for repealing the 16th Amendment, which is what gives authority to the federal income tax in the first place, not for spreading ignorance via the internet.

Finally, Aaron Russo owes the government $2 million in back taxes. (New York Times July 31, 2006) He is a misguided tax protester just like the rest, and makes the same frivolous arguments. Just because he made a movie out of it does not change the fact that he is WRONG.

Also from that NY Times article:

"Ms. MacNab, who has testified before Congress, said that at each of the trials prosecutors showed how the accused took out of context sections of the law and court decisions while ignoring other sections, including those shown to them by I.R.S. agents.

''People who are drawn into this movement just refuse to acknowledge facts that show their beliefs have no basis in fact,'' she said. ''Most of them have failed, their business has failed, their marriage has failed, and instead of taking responsibility for it they want to blame the government.'' "

I stand corrected

I stand corrected. I meant to say "rebutted" instead of "rebuttaled" (but you always capitalized the first letter of the first word of every sentence). But in your long statement, you can't answer my question: where is the law...? And yes, Gould is about alimony in specific, but it relates to taxes in general. Besies, "gross income" is irrelevant; sections 1 and 3 impose a tax on your "taxable income", not "gross income". And you can't cite murder to be illegal, murder is a state crime, not federal. Most states allow the death penalty for 1st degree, while a few states won't. But in every state, you will find murder as a felony on the docket (in Oklahoma, Murder in the First Degree is Title 21 OS Section 701.7), but you won't find a law which requires the average American to fill out a return and pay taxes. Nowhere. None. Nada.

Here's the law

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:

It says : "on the taxable income", you need to read all the statutes and all the specialized definitions of terms like, employee, employer, trade or business, etc. You have to go way back, before they changed the wording to make it appear that most people are subject to the tax. Through the years the changes in wording didn't change the actual laws, only the appearance of who they pertain to.

The Law?

You are citing U.S Tax codes. The 16th Amendment was never ratified. The IRS does not have the legal authority anywhere to prescribe and enforce law through it's Tax Code.

'...truth is loved in such a way that those who love some other thing want it to be the truth, and precisely because they do not wish to be deceived, are unwilling to be convinced that they are deceived." --- St. Augustine, Confessions (10:23), 5th c.

Ron Paul KNOWS

This is my take on the whole affair between Ron Paul, The Browns and the Income Tax. Ron Paul ABSOLUTELY knows the TRUTH about the IMMORAL Income Tax and how it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL (that's why he's against it right?). Ron is playing DUMB so that he can't be trapped into a position which makes him demoralized and appear fringe (the Media has already TRIED to do this and failed thus far). The MSM are like sharks circling their prey waiting for Ron Paul to step on a major TABOO (income tax/foreign policy). Remember the Giuliani backlash? The media TRIED in VAIN to turn it into, "Ron Paul Hates America", but they stepped on the wrong side of the board and it slammed them in the face.

I support Ron Paul 100% for 1 reason, because I believe that his principles come from a fervent absolute love for liberty and his ACTIONS (not always his words :) have PROVED this to be true!

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
Thomas Jefferson

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
Thomas Jefferson

Simple Question, Someone Please Answer

Just a question, not criticism. Where will the federal governments money come from if Ron Paul removes the income tax?

Simple question, simple answer.

Where does the federal gov't get all the money? It doesn't. Once all the pork and the ineffective, wasteful depts. are phased out, the private sector can take up the slack, the jobs still need to be done, loss of federal positions = more open market jobs, state jobs and higher pay. For anyone else concerned about this, you could still donate whatever amount you wish to the Treasury or General Fund if you want to help the Federal Government ;)...the current intake of personal income tax now would not even pay the interest on the national debt. Your annual contribution now is not used for any programs that you benefit from.

'...truth is loved in such a way that those who love some other thing want it to be the truth, and precisely because they do not wish to be deceived, are unwilling to be convinced that they are deceived." --- St. Augustine, Confessions (10:23), 5th c.

Government Taxes

1st off, if we cut back government spending to 2000 level (just 7 years ago) We could eliminate the IRS and income tax on personal wages.

The Federal government gets is money from several sources.

Tariffs and excise taxes were how government USE to be funded.

To eliminate the personal income tax will take a lot of work, but downsizing the Federal government back to what it is suppose to be will eliminate the need for the IRS.


The question is where does it go now? The income tax pays the Fed interest to print money out of thin air. The other direct taxes pay for government functions.

Double post sorry

Double post sorry

I called Fox News to

I called Fox News to complain AGAIN about how they treat Congressman Paul.

I'm sick of the MSM and I'll going to start to call them out on the carpet every time I see something like this.

Paul SHOULD support the Browns

Ron Paul is WRONG not to be a supporter of the Browns. To say that you should "know" that you have to "bear the consequences" of breaking the law is TRUE, but that's not a MORAL CLAIM that having to bear the consequences of breaking a law is RIGHT. If a law is unjust, and taxation is necessarily unjust if it involves the threat of violent coercion (which government-enforced taxation absolutely does), then it's morally RIGHT to oppose it. I agree the legal arguments against taxation are pretty silly - but that's besides the point. It's a moral issue and the law is irrelevant as far as it goes.

the stranger's picture

I’m with Jane on this one;

I’m with Jane on this one; well, I don’t know if it’s immoral, but it’s certainly unreasonable.

I feel for the Browns – there is an instructive line in a Henley tune, "Have you noticed that an angry man can only get so far/Until he reconciles the way he thinks things ought to be/With the way things are?"

What is happening to the Brown’s is wrong, in my opinion. So now what? Extraordinary Rendition is wrong too. Look around, this place is a mess, start picking up wherever you want.

Ron Paul is a congressman and a presidential candidate that has publicly stated the IRS should be abolished. There’s no encore for that; unless he lights himself on fire.

Not part of the platform

It's immoral to expect to hang one's agenda on a presidential candidate.

Ron has is own issues and platform and that is what he will stick with.
He is not obliged to make everyone and their situation part of his message or agenda...

Jane Aitken, 35-Year Veteran Teacher
Ron Paul 2008 Consultant
GOP Woman of the Year 2009
Founder NH Tea Party Coalition (NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY FAKE 2009 GROUP)
Founder USPEINetwork @ Yahoo (Nat'l Edu Activism Group)
Board Coalition of NH Taxpayers

Re: Not part of the platform

Er, it's not immoral to "expect" anything since expectations are not moral issues. In any case, I expect all candidates (because of their status as human beings) to act morally, which is their obligation as humans. To that end, I expect all candidates to oppose violent coercion, which is immoral, and which government taxation is. It's true that Ron has his own platform, and I appreciate it for the issues he gets correct. But he is rightly criticized (as are all the candidates), for the many positions which they get WRONG. This is one of those. Ron Paul isn't obligated to make my position his position because it's mine, but because the alternative is STATE AGGRESSION against innocent people, which is wrong. And to the extent that he does not oppose coercive taxation, he is likewise acting immorally.

Other examples of Fox sweetness

This typifies how fake conservatives show their true colors - as with the banning of Ron Paul from the upcoming Iowa forum - when confronted with the truth:

Ron Paul Wins Debate Despite Being Defamed by Pundits:

Ron Paul Attacked by Sean Hannity After 2nd GOP Debate:

Fox News LAMELY Explains Rep.Ron Paul's High Vote Count:

Malkin attacks Paul on 9/11 questions:

John Gibson/Malkin FoxNews Hit Piece Ron Paul:

Ron Paul schools FOX's Neil Cavuto on the economy:



When people ask..

Ron Paul listens politely even if he disagrees. When you ask Rudy something he has you arrested.

Jane Aitken, 35-Year Veteran Teacher
Ron Paul 2008 Consultant
GOP Woman of the Year 2009
Founder NH Tea Party Coalition (NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY FAKE 2009 GROUP)
Founder USPEINetwork @ Yahoo (Nat'l Edu Activism Group)
Board Coalition of NH Taxpayers

Look at this headline from the AP:

Look at this headline from the AP:

"Ron Paul to crash presidential candidate forum"


Article excerpts:

-----Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul will add party crashing to his campaign tactics this weekend.------

----Ed Failor Junior of Iowans for Tax Relief says some candidates weren't invited to keep the event from stretching on too long.

He says Paul also didn't meet the criteria they drew up last winter.-----



Spin doctors

That's a good example of nasty spin by the media. There is no crashing here, Ron has his own room and food rented and paid for by the campaign.

But some will now pick up and run with that title and further spread the lie.

It's not even subtle anymore is it? The Associated Press is not a reliable source, and I hope everyone sees that now.

Jane Aitken, 35-Year Veteran Teacher
Ron Paul 2008 Consultant
GOP Woman of the Year 2009
Founder NH Tea Party Coalition (NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY FAKE 2009 GROUP)
Founder USPEINetwork @ Yahoo (Nat'l Edu Activism Group)
Board Coalition of NH Taxpayers

Ron Paul, Steve Forbes, income tax, flat tax

Steve Forbes, businessman and formerly a candidate for president, wanted to abolish the income tax for a flat tax.

Does this make him a supporter of the Brown's? I think not.


Jane Aitken, 35-Year Veteran Teacher
Ron Paul 2008 Consultant
GOP Woman of the Year 2009
Founder NH Tea Party Coalition (NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY FAKE 2009 GROUP)
Founder USPEINetwork @ Yahoo (Nat'l Edu Activism Group)
Board Coalition of NH Taxpayers

re: flat tax

A flat tax may actually lower taxes on the middle class and still raise more revenue..

Buffett said he makes $46 million a year in income and is only taxed at a 17.7 percent rate on his federal income taxes. By contrast, those who work for him, and make considerably less, pay on average about 32.9 percent in taxes - with the highest rate being 39.7 percent.

Internet Mock Trial

Since many people here believe that the justice system is complicit in the support of an illegitimate income tax, whereas others think the income tax legal, why don't we make something productive out of all this effort and hold an internet mock trial: Those who support the legality of the income tax will prepare a legal memo to the Brown's, stating the legal basis of the government's claim of Federal Income Tax owed. Those who believe the income tax is not legal will then prepare a response to those claims, with each side getting an opportunity to refute once again and make their final case. All documents will be posted to a web site so that the whole world can follow the arguments. Of course, it would be fantastic if we could attract some big name legal minds to contribute.

I think this would be a much more useful exercise than random exchanges of opinion. Though the trial would not have the force of law behind it, it would certainly be educational for the public at large: just as the internet has been the key to circumventing the monopoly of the mainstream media, why not use it to circumvent monopoly of mainstream justice?

The fact is that the vast majority of Americans (ie, those whom we need to convince to elect RP and other supporters of the constitution) are certain that the income tax is legal: “otherwise, why wouldn’t some clever lawyer discover the ruse while trying to get his client off?” And because of this, most people (who are not planning to avoid income taxes) are not going to waste time considering such opinions and they will quickly dismiss those who hold such opinions as being “tinfoil hat” wearers. What is more, recent research shows that Americans consider tax evasion to be second in immorality, after only adultery (http://pewresearch.org/assets/social/pdf/Morality.pdf). Misery loves company...

I think the key to winning mainstream support on the “tax issue” is to emphasize RP’s dedication to radically reduce government spending. Even if the income tax were to be proven illegal, the state would find some other means of extracting large amounts of wealth (such as increased corporate taxes) so long as people accept the need for so much government spending.

One of the arguments that I’ve found compelling is to inform people that if the government’s activities were accounted using the same method that they impose on US companies, the true deficit for FY 2006 was $4.6 TRILLION (http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/article/id=882), which would be an additional tax burden of $15,333 for every man, woman and child in the country per year. Ask people if they can imagine paying that additional money out of their current disposable income. Of course they can’t, but somebody is going to have to pay it, someday (even if through inflated currency). This argument is also useful against those who claim “but don’t we pay lower taxes than Europeans?”

mack trial on http://www.bleap.blogspot.com/

Bob Schulz tried this and called it the truth in taxation hearings. No one For the government showed up. Also, Ron Paul is very aware of the issues here dealing with the Browns and with Bob Schulz. See Below. But sure, go ahead and lets try a new hearing and start the debate. My Blog has plenty of arguments and links from all the big protesters like Schiff, Schulz and the Browns. Those who are not informed can start at givemeliberty.org and

I will create a blog anyone can post to shortly.

Rep. Ron Paul's Statement as Read at Schulz's 7-17 D.C. Press Conference


My office has received hundreds of phone calls, faxes, emails, and

letters supporting Mr. Schulz and Mr. Croteau. I think they are sincere in

their beliefs, even though I strongly disagree with their hunger strike. I

believe we can work with the IRS, the administration, and Congress to get

answers to their questions, and I know that Congressman Bartlett and I are

willing to assist them in their efforts. However, it is imperative that

these gentleman end their fast immediately. No cause is served by their

needless suffering.

The validity of their claims about the tax laws and the 16th Amendment

is uncertain. Yet I support Mr. Schulz's right to petition his government,

to have his petition heard and taken seriously. The IRS should meet with

him, and respond formally to his questions. His First Amendment petition

should not be dismissed simply because his viewpoint is not shared by IRS

officials. Indeed, the right to a formal response is inherent in the

constitutional right to petition the government.

The attention generated by Mr. Schulz and his organization shows that many

Americans are fed up with the tax system. It's an outrage that most tax

professionals, much less typical taxpayers, cannot understand the incredibly

complex tax code. It's an outrage that so many have had their lives

destroyed by the IRS. One thing is clear: The Founding Fathers never

intended a nation where citizens pay nearly half of everything they earn to

government. Congress needs to address the tax mess legislatively, by

drastically simplifying and drastically reducing taxes. My own legislation

would repeal the 16th Amendment and put an end to individual income taxes.

Mr. Schulz and thousands of other Americans have very strong feelings

about our tax system, and it needs to be fixed. Their voices should not be

ignored. Mr. Schulz and his supporters can make their voices heard at the

ballot box, by electing candidates who sincerely believe in changing the tax


Re: Mock Trial

1. Why does the "claim" have to be prepared by IRS? This is a mock trial and the laws are public knowledge - I'm sure that some law professor would take up the challenge and act as the IRS' "champion" by drafting the legal memo (isn't there a Cornell professor who refutes protester arguments on the internet?).

2. Perhaps we could attract more publicity to the trial by getting judge Napolitano (Fox News) to referee the contest. He should be acceptable to both sides, since he's a former Federal judge, as well as a well-known civil libertarian.

3. If this really got going, perhaps we could get the Browns to accept the results of an internet poll at the end of the case if the country rules against the protester argument (even if they loose, the audacity would attract the whole world's attention!). On the other hand, if this attracts enough publicity and the country rules in the Brown's favor, then the Brows will be the least of IRS' problems...

4. This whole effort would be a nice way to give the Browns their public hearing (though not in an official court of law), "litigate" the tax protester arguments in public and possibly resolve the Brown affair without violence.

Neil has to stay on message

Ha ha!

Neil said "I want to stay on message here."

Ya don't say, Neil.

my email to Neil

Careful! Your agenda is showing! You spent the entire interview putting words in Congressman Paul's mouth, misquote after misquote. You know Neil, a real journalist would not go after the target like an attack dog, then way you did. If you had studied the positions of Congressman Paul before you interviewed him, you would know he isn't against taxes, but rather he is against unconstitutional laws, and government behavior. You either did no investigation, which makes you a hack, or you deliberately attempted to smear Dr. Paul in order to discredit him as a presidential candidate. I would wager that it is the latter.

Jim Clark <><
Ron Paul for President!

Jim Clark <><
Ron Paul for President!

re: wasted civil disobedience

What if you believe the laws are unjust? You can have civil disobedience in the face of unjust laws. That's what the whole Civil Rights movement was all about.

re: civil disobedience

If you believe a law is unjust, and refuse to obey it, that is civil disobedience.

If you claim that a law doesn't exist, when it does, that is simply ignorance of the law.

There is also the difference between non-violent and violent refusal to obey an unjust law. The Martin Luther King part of the civil rights movement was non-violent, and I'd argue that it was only due to non-violent resistance that any change happened.

So where do the Browns fall? From my reading to this point, it seems that they are both ignorant, and potentially violent, resisters. While I am sympathetic to the idea of not having a federal income tax, I do not agree either with the legal claims that the Browns are making, nor with a violent resistance.

Those who recognize injustice should be consistent in it's application. Is it "just" to injure or kill a police officer who is simply enforcing an order of a court? Of course not. If you believe the order is unjust, then don't obey, and accept the consequences with a clear conscience. But if you think you are God-like enough to determine life or death for another because they disagree with you about a legal matter, then you have abandoned Justice.

legal claims

I've been trying to follow this case, but haven't had much success finding specifics. have you been able to determine what their legal standpoint is? do you know if they're US Citizens or not? Thanks!

re: legal claims

There's a variety of information here. I have no idea how accurate it all is.



I think you are 100% correct here. However, what if the police officer is enforcing an unjust order? Is he relieved of any accountability for following orders? Are average citizens fair game for military action in the face of victimless crimes?

Subjectively Right, Objectively Wrong...

However, what if the police officer is enforcing an unjust order? Is he relieved of any accountability for following orders? Are average citizens fair game for military action in the face of victimless crimes?

David Friedman actually blogged about just this recently.

Don't waste civil disobedience

Haha! Great interview. Always a pleasure watching these smug anchors slip on their own banana peels. And a pleasure, as usual, watching Dr. Paul start a conversation that is truly worth having.

As for the Browns, if their argument is "there is no law" requiring them to pay income taxes, that is totally false, and their civil disobedience is wasted. The laws are spelled out as clear as can be by law professor Jonathan Siegel here:


and by the IRS here:


The implication for those who make the "there is no law" argument, is that IF they *were* shown the laws, they would happily pay the taxes. Well, the laws exist, and the IRS has shown them to us. Period. So then their civil disobedience has lost all meaning, because their stated reason for it has no merit, and therefore by their own arguments, they should be happy to pay income taxes.

Whether the 16th amendment should be repealed, and the income tax thereby abolished, is a different question. Ron Paul thinks so, and I agree.

Doesn't show the law

This page:

Does not show the law that requires citizens of the US to pay taxes on income from within the United States.

Notice what they highlight:
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:

Then, the page you linked to leaves out some important sections that define who and what is taxed.

The terms must be defined in the law. The term "taxable income" and "taxpayer" must be defined. It is defined (confusingly) in sec. 861. and a couple of other sections.
Taxable income and taxpayer =
1. A resident alien's income from within the US
2. A citizen's income from outside the US
3. A foreigner's income from within the US


This page mentions a video that explains it all.

The Brown's are right. If they are US citizens and their income is from within the US, this income is not taxable.

This is another good website:

The 861 objection

The "861 objection" is specifically addressed in the IRS link I provided earlier:


None of these various arcane legal arguments against the legality of the federal income tax amount to anything whatsoever. They have all been tested in the courts, and rejected.

IRS Code

Liberty Bell
LFOD I have been reading your comments regarding Ed & Elaine Brown. You seem to be very vehement in your support for the INTENTIONAL MIS-APPLICATION of the tax law and tax codes. You try to simplify a set of codes that are, by design, the most verbose, incomprehensible, and misapplied set of laws or codes ever written. To make matters worse, the goons at the IRS do despicable actions against people that so much as even question the tax codes or laws. You use Jonathan Siegel as one of your sources. Siegel debated a person by the name of Larken Rose on a website called www.getonyoursoapbox.com regarding the Federal Income tax and Rose cleaned his clock. Unfortunately, Rose was victimized by the corrupt Federal court system and spent some time in a Federal prison for “willful failure to file”. His real crime is that he stood up for his rights. That sleeze ball Siegel tried to drive home the point that Rose was convicted for "willful failure to file". After listening to that debate I came to the conclusion that Siegel is arrogant, and totally untruthful. So did the majority of the other listeners. (89%) HE NEVER QUOTED THE LAW THAT APPLYS TO THE AVERAGE AMERICAN!!!! Neither do you with your answers to the codes. As far as your statement “tested in court” is concerned, that is the same as if I were to go to a divorce settlement court against my wife and my mother in law would be the judge. I followed most of these court cases, the defendant NEVER gets the right or opportunity to defend themselves. You need to do more research. Here are some websites that can help you. www.originalintent.org, www.constitutionalincome.com, www.nontaxpayer.com and others. There are countless website that can totally and legally refute the current application of the tax code. The current application of the tax code makes us slaves and slavery is against the Constitution. I have to assume that you are either a: tax attorney, tax consultant, CPA, government employee, military, retired military, or work for a corporation/company that receives their money from the Federal Government, otherwise you wouldn’t be so passionate with your support of slavery via IRS.

Liberty Bell

Larken Rose

Larken Rose was convicted on 4 or 5 (I'm not sure) counts of "willful failure to file and pay taxes". It led to a conviction because of a combination of Rose's arrogance, a slanted judge, and lazy jurors. What if the court charge Rose with (just) "failure to file and pay taxes". Rose admits he didn't file or pay since '97. It's a slam dunk case with that charge, and the prosecutor slides by without proving "willfulness". LFOD says it is a crime to stop filing and paying taxes. So why don't it? Answer: because there is no law for the average American to file or pay taxes.


I asked why Prof. Siegel neglected it, not the IRS. The IRS can make any of their jargon look like irrefutable laws to ordinary citizens. That's the problem. Also, what about the cases I cited? Was the IRS just feeling generous on those two occasions?

It's all garbage

Prof. Siegel did not address the section 861 objection or a large list of other meritless notions, because *supposedly* all you people want is to be "shown the law." So he showed it to you.

All those tangled tax protester defenses, which are invariably rejected by the courts, are addressed in various places on the web, including this FAQ, which lists a lot. Why not read it?


The laws exist. I've shown them to you. People who claim they don't exist are deluding themselves and others. It's willful blindness, completely irrational. I find it bizarre that they rely on (misinterpretations of) court cases, and then learn nothing from the fact that these same courts uniformly reject those interpretations as "frivolous" which in legal terms means "your interpretation of the law is COMPLETELY WRONG"

The goverment dismissed the Lawrence case because they made a mistake in calculating the taxes owed, not because of some stupid "PRA defense" and you can read about it in the FAQ in the link above.

The Illinois case was a state case. If the jury wasn't shown the laws for some reason, it wasn't because the laws don't exist, as you have seen with your own eyes that they do. Sounds like that court messed up, but it doesn't mean the laws don't exist, because again, THEY DO.

You can go hunting down one rabbit hole or another in a fruitless quest to find some magical giant loophole in the law, but you won't find anything except a bunch of pseudo-legal GARBAGE that the "tax protester" camp keeps coming up with. Your time would be equally well spent in chasing rainbows in the conviction that there's a pot of gold at the end.

Reset your brain. Educate yourself by reading things outside the tax protester echo chamber, like this:


There is nothing to the "there is no law" fantasy. Nothing. Nada. Zip. As you folks like to say repeatedly. It's a fantasy, and it makes a nice fairy tale for the purpose of scamming people who are duped by it.


Okay LFOD, I'm a psychic from New Orleans and I'm going into a trance right now in an effort to deduce your identity: your real initials are MLF, you are 6'8" tall and your mother cooked liver until it was like shoe leather?


sorry, duplicate post

Siegel et al

Professor Siegel boils down to sections 1, 61, and 63. In the middle of the aforementioned link, Siegel states, "So, between sections 1, 61, and 63, we see that the tax code passed by Congress imposes a tax on your taxable income, which includes all your income, from whatever source derived, less the deductions allowed by the tax laws [emphasis mine]. From looking at the Supreme Court decision in Gould, I add, "...which equals nothing for the average American." Now Gould relates to alimony specificly, but it applies to taxes in general. Else, LFOD puts down all the "tax protestors" including a link degrading "us" (by the way, I am not a "tax protestor", I am a tax questioner, and the best answer to my questions is here), and (s)he said, "The law exist. I've shown them to you." If you referring to Siegel, try again.

For the record...

I went back and checked:

-I have never suggested that there is no law.

-I never said anything about the PRA act.

-I never claimed to be a tax protestor.

-For the most part, I agreed with most of what you said:

"I think the problem is the application of the laws not their existence. That's where the confusion comes in."

I asked questions like this:
"Why are they guilty until proven innocent? Why aren't they allowed to present evidence in their defense? Why do the judges tell juries that the law is what they tell them it is? Why are people like the Browns being assailed by small mercenary armies?"

"I think you are 100% correct here. However, what if the police officer is enforcing an unjust order? Is he relieved of any accountability for following orders? Are average citizens fair game for military action in the face of victimless crimes?"

You really haven't answered my questions. If you reread the blog, you'll find that we're probably in agreement on the main concepts.

You said:
"While I am sympathetic to the idea of not having a federal income tax, I do not agree either with the legal claims that the Browns are making, nor with a violent resistance." (I mostly agree)

"Whether the 16th amendment should be repealed, and the income tax thereby abolished, is a different question. Ron Paul thinks so, and I agree." (I agree)

My contention is that there has been a willful intent to deceive the public since 1913. Greater minds than mine have come to this conclusion. If that's true, then what weight do the actual laws really hold? At what point do reasonable people have the right to question, protest and disobey? Is the killing of citizens and/or seizing of their wealth, property or liberty by federal mercenaries ever justified?

I'm NOT lawyer and cannot expect to win a legal debate with one. I'm questioning on the moral side of the issue (respectfully and calmly, i might add). If you suggest that legal outweighs moral, then we can respectfully disagree. Please, however, don't categorize me as your legal nemesis.

Thank you.