New Hampshire Underground

You have my word.

Gonna drink the kool-aid?

Cause if that's not your plan, I think you're heading for a quick confrontation with the forum owner.  I have a sneaky feeling that she's not in the mood for such talk today.  ;D

Ill take one for the team.

It's your life, but I ask that you not do something that the rest of us will have to waste time explaining that we didn't endorse you doing it.

Just making sure there are witnesses. You will find out if the goverment cares about 1 person.

Well, what we need is a lot of armed people on Ed's property, prepared to defend him.  I don't know if Ed has something setup or not -- I certainly would like to think so.

When they surround Ed and Elaine, we surround them.  It's simple.  The violent criminals and their security forces can then lay down their arms and no one has to get hurt.  If you want to put your energy and your courage to good use, get this going.  Get people to start open carrying EVERYWHERE.  We need to open carry, and we need to not let the corporate security forces disarm us.  If you're attacked, then defend yourself.

If you can do this, without going off like a loose cannon, then you will help us.  We don't need acts of violence, we need resolve and strength.  We can only win with TRUTH and LOVE.  It sounds corny, but it's how it works.

The TRUTH, the simple, universal truth, understood by all races, religions, creeds, cultures, and languages.  The TRUTH is plain and simple, straight from the HEART, our spirits.  The truth is that we are HERE, NOW.  We are what we are.  We are living, breathing, flesh and blood, sentient, natural men and women.  We are all born equal, PERIOD.  No other man or woman, group of men or women, or legal fictions created by men or women can tell you what to do, or what not to do.

You have the right to freedom, period.  You cannot be governed legitimately unless it is by consent.  It cannot be the consent of your mothers, fathers, great-grandfathers, or anyone else.  It has to be your consent.  If you've entered unknowingly into a contract with government, then the contract is null and void, it never was a real contract.  This is the case with Ed and Elaine.  They are not under attack by their own government, let's get that straight right now.  They are under attack by criminal strangers.  They are under attack by thieves in the night, dressed in black, with camouflage-painted faces, body armor, and heavy weaponry.

That is the simple truth.  Ed and Elaine are man and woman.  They are son and daughter of "God" or "Creator" if there is such a thing.  I'm agnostic, although I lean towards believing there is :)  Anyways, anything other than this TRUTH is simply BS.  Knowledge and facts are not TRUTH (even if they are accurate).  Truth transcends all intellect and understanding.  It comes from much deeper down.  It's immediately recognized for what it is.

Do we stand in TRUTH beside our brother and sister, Ed and Elaine?  Or do we give into the "matrix" that has been created around us, to control us.  Do we come together in truth, or separate ourselves with beliefs -- false understandings that divide us.  Truth and love is all that is needed.  Look to nature if you want to be natural.  Only domesticated animals put up with the BS that we put up with.  We are more than sheep -- well, at least I am.  Some people are not.  Animals run or fight back, period.  There is no compromise, there is no surrender, there is no compliance.

These violent criminals and thieves that are set to attack Ed and Elaine are predators.  Predators understand only one thing -- strength.  If a predator encounters prey that is too strong, the predator will go elsewhere.  The predator will not attack if it assess the strength of its intended prey as being too strong.  Ed and Elaine need us to be strong with them, and to provide them with the extra strength.  We just need a serious SHOW of strength.  Will we have it?

Is anyone willing to camp out and Ed and Elaine's (assuming that's OK with them).  Will anyone be willing to openly carry firearms in Plainfield and areas around there?  Will anyone carry firearms on Ed's property?  If we allow Ed and Elaine to fall, we may never see others like them rise.

Edit:  I read your reply after I posted.  Please don't refer to yourself as a "person" unless you believe yourself to be a corporation under corporate law (maritime admiralty law) and liable to all of these corporate policies, and under the jurisdiction of these maritime courts.  Laws are written for "persons," and courts are for "persons."  Living, breathing, flesh and blood, natural, sentient men and women are not under any of this BS.

It is time for everyone to hear the truth and wake up to what he or she really is.  We are beautiful creations, heart and soul, mind and body.  We are nothing less.  We are not slaves with whom to be dealt in force.

Good point SAK, Please tell your local media that the goverment is aware of my death if they kill ed brown.

Well, I was really hoping that the S would hit the fan later, rather than right friggin' now,

but we need to start looking at this from ALL angles.

First, we need data.  How many govt. types were/are there and WHO are they?
Do they have legitimate jusridictional duties, or are they just along for the inter-agency hijinks?
Do Ed and Elaine have means of communication?  If not, we need to establish some ASAP.
Land lines, cell phones, radio, cable, satellite, modulated laser - whatever it takes.
What is the terrain like?  Do we have aerial photographs and topographical maps?
Can we get municipal maps with details like electric water and gas lines?
Do the Brown have a reliable water supply?

A 1-mile radius area has a perimeter of roughly 6 miles.  That means it's POROUS.

Read my other thread.

The only just objective in response to State incursions is organize better than we have, and this provacative event, and the confusion that followed, clearly shows that we are not well enough organized in terms of communication to face down this threat. While the sentiment, I assume, is genuine, it is not rational, and you will no one any good should you martyr yourself alone in a patriotic fervor in the event Ed Brown is murdered.

In my humble opinion, we have already suffered the deaths of far too many sacrificial lambs, and I do not wish to see Edward nor Elaine Brown's name added to the list of murdered in the name of American fascism, and certainly not with an adequate response prepared should such an event occur. If you so seek to die, then before you die, make certain your death counts for good, and does not aid the State, and the true powers behind the State, in their ultimate goals.

Our goal at this point in time is not to say our final prayers, but to purchase as much time through dissuasion of aggression as possible to continue to spread information on the fascistic corporatism in these United States, deprogram individuals of the belief in the myth of free market american capitalism. We need time to continue propegating the truth of the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service. In addition to this, it is imperative that we improve and and continue to decentralize our tactical communications network, but such discussions are not for public discussion.

This is not to say that you should shelve your protection, just don't go looking for, or even hoping for, a fight at this point in time. Moreover, it does these people here no good for you to make such claims publically. I guarantee you, it will come far sooner than you truly wish for it to.

Someone please tell me when he dies. I cant watch the coverage with what is at stake.

Quote from: Jay Mick on June 07, 2007, 11:07 PM NHFT
Someone please tell me when he dies. I cant watch the coverage with what is at stake.

You're very brave my friend, wish I had the cajones you have. Someone applaud this man, his Karma should be thru the roof.

I will feel pretty good going out like this.

Are you going to bring anyone with you?

No of course not.

I mean, are you going to bring as many people with you as possible?

Huh?  Are you?

I don't believe in suicide.  I think it's as unnatural as it gets.

If you want to protest this, then start a serious hunger strike.  Eat nothing, and drink lots and lots of water.  Take it easy physically on your body, and make sure you get news coverage that you're doing it.

I can not and do not support you in any way if you seek only to kill yourself in suicide.  If you wish to do such a thing, then do it, but don't associate yourself with good people like Ed and Elaine.  They would not support it either, and would have nothing to do with you (with the exception of perhaps trying to dissuade you and talk some sense into you).

If you're trying to show courage, or better yet if you really do have such courage, then put it to good use.  If you kill yourself, it will only hurt us all and make Ed and Elaine look bad.  Why not do everything you can to make sure nothing happens to Ed and Elaine?  If you change your mind about your course of action, I'd be happy to help.  If you intent on committing suicide, then I can have nothing more to do with you or this discussion.  Make the right decision, for a lot is at stake.

Nope only myspace....We can find out if the goverment cares about the life of one innocent person.

Hey - Jay Mick is obvioulsy under tremendous pressure.  His brain may explode under the tremendous pressure at any moment.

So, you're right.  He shouldn't associate with the Browns in case some filthy fed whacks him or something and his brain takes out everything within a mile radius.  That would be terrible and make the Browns look bad, what, with all the nice landscaping and scenery they've worked so hard all of their lives to legitimately earn.

Right?

Please don't kill yourself. Of course the government doesn't care about you. The government has enough blood on their hands already; one more drop of blood is insignificant in their eyes, but to God you are precious.

I would recommend a general strike:  See how many of us we can get to stop spending money and try to bring down their economy if they do this bad thing.

Great, another attention-starved kid creating an anonymous forum account to get off on promising self-immolation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation) or whatnot.  I can certainly relate to it on emotional level, but on a rational level this is a very degrading thing to do, and it degrades the rest of the forum as well.  So, nothing to see here folks!  Move along!

Yes, we are all angry about the state of the nation in general and the Ed Brown situation in particular, each of us in our own way.  Yes, some of us may take constructive action in response.  We all think for ourselves, we all decide our own level of commitment.  This is not a support group, nor is it a place for a pissing contest of baseless radical claims!

Killing yourself probably won't do any good, but standing in front of the line of tanks just might.

How much money can we make THEM spend to do this thing, if they're going to do it.  Wars are economic.  Reagan out-spent Russia and won the cold war.  When you run out of gas and food and water and bullets....

Also, the more of We the People's money they spend, the harder it is to justify.

Quote from: Bald Eagle on June 07, 2007, 11:33 PM NHFT
I mean, are you going to bring as many people with you as possible?

Huh?  Are you?

W/o getting too deep here, I must admit that if I made a commitment like this there would be some statists comin with. And because I'm a God-fearing person, suicide won't get ya where ya want to be in the end. I originally thought ya the man was gonna go down (possibly) with Brown.

Quote from: Jay Mick on June 07, 2007, 09:00 PM NHFT
Ill take one for the team.

Please, let my wife (http://verycontrary.wordpress.com/2007/05/31/i-really-think-im-on-to-something-here-or-im-full-of-shit-you-decide/) know if you need first aid. She's a pro at this.

Great headline potential, eh?

"Cult follower of Ed Brown makes suicide pact."

Quote from: error on June 07, 2007, 11:45 PM NHFT
Killing yourself probably won't do any good, but standing in front of the line of tanks just might.

See my avatar. Now that's what I call ballsy.

Quote from: richardr on June 08, 2007, 11:01 AM NHFT
Great headline potential, eh?

"Cult follower of Ed Brown makes suicide pact."

Exactly. If you're determined to die with them, go and help the Browns.

But please, folks, let's not go crazy about this. Violent revolution will not work - witness Somalia.

At least he's DOING something!

You mean he's doing something other than whining?  ::)

Quote from: Braddogg on June 08, 2007, 11:48 AM NHFT
At least he's DOING something!

Too bad it's not something constructive.

Quote from: Rebel on June 07, 2007, 11:14 PM NHFT

Quote from: Jay Mick on June 07, 2007, 11:07 PM NHFT
Someone please tell me when he dies. I cant watch the coverage with what is at stake.

You're very brave my friend, wish I had the cajones you have. Someone applaud this man, his Karma should be thru the roof.

I just gave him -1. ;D
This is an unecessary waste of a life. He's much better off going to Plainfield, defending the Browns from the gov't with force, as I'm sure many others intend to. If he wants to die, he should at least make himself useful.

Seriously, Jay, no life is worth taking. Suicide is bad, and the headline richardr posted will make the libertarian movement look bad.

Quote from: Kat Kanning on June 08, 2007, 01:13 PM NHFT
You mean he's doing something other than whining?  ::)

Yeah, it seems that he's just being an attention addict.
Why are his posts so short? Why won't he go into detail? Maybe he's a fraud, but really we don't know. Suicide is something you should never joke about.

Quote from: AlexLibman on June 07, 2007, 11:45 PM NHFT
Great, another attention-starved kid creating an anonymous forum account to get off on promising self-immolation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation) or whatnot.  I can certainly relate to it on emotional level, but on a rational level this is a very degrading thing to do, and it degrades the rest of the forum as well.  So, nothing to see here folks!  Move along!

Yes, we are all angry about the state of the nation in general and the Ed Brown situation in particular, each of us in our own way.  Yes, some of us may take constructive action in response.  We all think for ourselves, we all decide our own level of commitment.  This is not a support group, nor is it a place for a pissing contest of baseless radical claims!

agreed.

Quote from: Kat Kanning on June 08, 2007, 01:13 PM NHFT
You mean he's doing something other than whining?  ::)

Hey, I'm not whining.  I support a person's right to commit suicide.  I mean, not my cup of tea, but he's certainly doing more than I am, unless talking about the issue with others now counts as doing :)

Quote from: Jay Mick on June 07, 2007, 11:35 PM NHFT
Nope only myspace....We can find out if the goverment cares about the life of one innocent person.

In they kill Ed Brown then have you considered dying in the figurative sense? I would imagine that considering one's self as already dead (or at least dead to the idea of giving a sh!t) that it would be very freeing, and then you could do ALL sorts of stuff that you might not have been able to do before when clinging to life tightly.

Here's my thought on the issue. Doing yourself in as a protest would just eliminate one more freedom lover from the face of the planet. All you've done is saved the Fed's a bullet or two.

Now, I'm not advocating this, however, I think some guys in Iraq have a better plan when they decide to end their life. Militarily that is.

The best option is to stay alive, or go down defending the Browns. No idea where you are, but if you can get to the Brown's, Reno can help you out in defense, I assure you.

Quote from: Caleb on June 07, 2007, 11:40 PM NHFT
Please don't kill yourself. Of course the government doesn't care about you. The government has enough blood on their hands already; one more drop of blood is insignificant in their eyes, but to God you are precious.

I would recommend a general strike:  See how many of us we can get to stop spending money and try to bring down their economy if they do this bad thing.

Wait! Don't do that! Or at least inform me before so I can pull my stocks out of the market before hand... :p

Quote from: error on June 07, 2007, 11:45 PM NHFT
Killing yourself probably won't do any good, but standing in front of the line of tanks just might.

Or Crown Vics' or Dodge Chargers, etc.

Actually, that would be awesome to blockade the roads with human shields. I wish I was in New Hampshire. :( I'd block the entrance to the house with my Buick and dare them to trespass.

If your truly willing to die for the Browns go there and assist the Browns.. the feds are not going to care if you kill your self after they kill the browns.  All they care about is there $500,000 or whatever it is that the brown supposedly owe.

However the stupid thing is all the effort there putting into this "case", most likely cost more that what the Browns supposedly own them..  Jumping over dollars to save cents.. the feds aren't to brilliant..  but then again it's the lies that screwed them, because they can't prove there is a legal law so they must uphold the facade to keep the system of lies and fear mongering going otherwise there out of a job.

They basically painted them selfs into a corner. There screwed, they have to make a move or there just saying that the Browns are correct and that would be disastrous to the entire house of cards they have built. ITs the cause and effect , karma , ying and yang or whatever you call it.

If you tell some one a lie long enough most people will think it's a fact... it's vary simple it's called brain washing.. but eventually something will break and cause the downfall of it.

Something doesn't exist if 90% of the people think it does.. Nothing exists until it exists.

E-ville

Quote from: E-ville on June 09, 2007, 11:11 PM NHFT
If your truly willing to die for the Browns go there and assist the Browns.. the feds are not going to care if you kill your self after they kill the browns.  All they care about is there $500,000 or whatever it is that the brown supposedly owe.

It's not even about the money. Before it's all said and done, far more than what the Browns "owe" will have been expended by their kidnapping and/or murder.

As many others have already stated, it's all about power.

Quote from: penguins4me on June 09, 2007, 11:28 PM NHFT
It's not even about the money. Before it's all said and done, far more than what the Browns "owe" will have been expended by their kidnapping and/or murder.

Maybe, but the true cost is from the inaction that leads to massive revolt.

Quote from: MobileDigit on June 10, 2007, 03:52 AM NHFTMaybe, but the true cost is from the inaction that leads to massive revolt.

Quote from: penguins4meAs many others have already stated, it's all about power.

What's with your karma, penguins4me?

maybe i'm missing something but i don't see any reason to ridicule jay mick...maybe he's sincere maybe he's not.   Hopefully we'll never have to find out.

I believe you have every right to kill yourself but it would be a horrible waste. As a suicide, you'll be barely a blip on the radar screen, quickly forgotten. You obviously believe in liberty with a passion and we need more people like that ALIVE. If you feel passionate enough to die for liberty, think of what good you can do living your life for liberty. If you're willing to sacrifice so much, then their threats have no power against you. You would be a lot more visible as a living activist like the Kannings than as a dead activist that people will talk about for a few days and then forget.

Quote from: Kat Kanning on June 10, 2007, 05:36 AM NHFT
What's with your karma, penguins4me?

It's negative. Not something I worry about. Stems in part from the fact that truth hurts, and people don't like being shown that their pet fallacies are what they are. Not that I'm always right, but I can sometimes manage to emulate a broken clock in that regard. Plus, I'm snarky.

Or it could be that I smell funny? O.o

Jay Mick could be helping keep Ed alive.

Quote from: Anti NWO Militia on June 11, 2007, 04:07 AM NHFT
Jay Mick could be helping keep Ed alive.

That assumes that the government gives a damn about individuals - in which case, none of us would be here.

Jay Mick and Anti NWO Militia are the same nut bag.
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9179.msg159762#msg159762

Oh yeah, same IP address.

Save your drama for your mama...

Seriously, please don't pollute this board with this 'death' stuff, as we are a culture of LIFE here in NH...

And hey, find a better name OK?

Yours is so cliche, it's to be suspect...

Quote from: SAK on June 07, 2007, 10:39 PM NHFT
Well, what we need is a lot of armed people on Ed's property, prepared to defend him.  I don't know if Ed has something setup or not -- I certainly would like to think so.

You can't be serious? To suggest such a thing is pure stupidity and asking for trouble. I certainly hope no one else here espouses this view?

Last I heard from Ed, he didn't want more armed supporters, but was willing to entertain the idea of people with video cameras.

Quote from: error on June 11, 2007, 01:45 PM NHFT
Last I heard from Ed, he didn't want more armed supporters, but was willing to entertain the idea of people with video cameras.

Ed has never asked for any armed supporters..this guy is not for real. Kat check his IP. I bet it's from the DOJ.

Slip back into you mode of Slavery. They knew if they gave the situation time then the heart of the revolution would die.

Quote from: CNHT on June 11, 2007, 02:13 PM NHFT

Quote from: error on June 11, 2007, 01:45 PM NHFT
Last I heard from Ed, he didn't want more armed supporters, but was willing to entertain the idea of people with video cameras.

Ed has never asked for any armed supporters..this guy is not for real. Kat check his IP. I bet it's from the DOJ.

If you mean SAK, then, no, he's definitely not from DoJ. As for "Jay Mick"/"Anti NWO Militia", I don't know. They are generally more subtle than that.  ;)

Quote from: Anti NWO Militia on June 11, 2007, 02:23 PM NHFT
Slip back into you mode of Slavery. They knew if they gave the situation time then the heart of the revolution would die.

That's interesting. Why not get on the backs of those pushing the phony Vermont Secessionist movement that was exposed here recently?
People who follow something too easily can get swept up in the wrong things.

Getting yourself killed or arrested is not going to 'end slavery' for you or for anyone.

Quote from: CNHT on June 11, 2007, 01:38 PM NHFT
You can't be serious? To suggest such a thing is pure stupidity and asking for trouble. I certainly hope no one else here espouses this view?

Quite a few posters do.  That's why I've been jumping up and down making a fool or myself, waiving my arms, and yelling "no" all while getting my karma kicked for the last three months.

Quote from: CNHT on June 11, 2007, 02:13 PM NHFT
Ed has never asked for any armed supporters..

Yes he has.  He called it his armed wall of support.

What Ed has called for more recently, however, is for supporters to stay away from the property when the raid occurs so that they'll be able to kill the judge, the prosecutor, the IRS agent, and the US Attorney who prosecuted his case. According to Ed, their families are to be targeted as well.

Really? Even more reason to stay away from him and his house. Geesh.

And what's worse is it's all being donewhile evoking Ron Paul's name.

Quote from: richardr on June 11, 2007, 04:36 PM NHFT
And what's worse is it's all being donewhile evoking Ron Paul's name.

Anyone wanting to get involved with the Brown's does so at their own risk.

Anyone trying to connect it with the RP campaign has to know that media would use that in a negative way.

Thus it can only be looked upon as an effort to drag the campaign into the gutter.

Those people are selfish opportunists and are not true supporters.

Quote from: CNHT on June 11, 2007, 04:58 PM NHFT
Those people are selfish opportunists and are not true supporters.

I agree.  But Ed's blog has become a kind of Ron Paul online machine.  Up until this recent raid thing (or whatever it was) the Ed and Elaine blog was all Ron Paul, all the time, and the supporters have been pasting the Ed and Elaine / Ron Paul mixed message far and wide online.

I wish Dr. Paul would clarify his lack of involvement.  He really doesn't need the violent factor or the Queen Elizabeth is a reptilian Illuminati fiend factor.  The 911 Truthers are bad enough.

There's no clarification necessary.

The official stance on the Browns situation and thousands of others who go to jail for nonpayment of taxes simply this --- they need to pay their taxes.
And that's straight from the campaign.

While Ron's position on getting rid of the IRS is clear, some think this translates into support for breaking the law, and it does NOT.

What blog are you talking about?

Quote from: CNHT on June 11, 2007, 05:50 PM NHFT
There's no clarification necessary.

The official stance on the Browns situation and thousands of others who go to jail for nonpayment of taxes simply this --- they need to pay their taxes.
And that's straight from the campaign.

The official stance isn't clear at all as a result of Dr. Paul's involvement in the Aaron Russo movie which states quite emphatically that nobody has to pay taxes.

QuoteWhat blog are you talking about?

The main Ed and Elaine blog is called QuestForFairTrialinConcordNH:

http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/search?q=ron+paul

Quote from: richardr on June 11, 2007, 03:15 PM NHFT

Quote from: CNHT on June 11, 2007, 02:13 PM NHFT
Ed has never asked for any armed supporters..

Yes he has.  He called it his armed wall of support.

What Ed has called for more recently, however, is for supporters to stay away from the property when the raid occurs so that they'll be able to kill the judge, the prosecutor, the IRS agent, and the US Attorney who prosecuted his case. According to Ed, their families are to be targeted as well.

I've listened to every word out of Ed and Elaine's mouths in recent weeks and nowhere do either of them say this. I know which statements you're alluding to and this is a big stretch to say they're somehow calling for violence. Anyone in doubt can listen to the recent interviews for themselves.

Well I have never in the last 20 years heard them say anything like that so I hope it's not true.

And it's not that I don't hate the IRS like the rest of you do, but if someone chooses to do this, they sort of have an idea what the consequences will be.

It's wrong to be asking people to do things like quit their jobs with the IRS or otherwise prove themselves with more drastic things.

I find it more fun to get corrupt officials fired or to quit their jobs by exposing their corruption and letting it happen naturally, as we have done so many times that you never hear about. I can tell you it isn't done by silent demonstrations over at the IRS!

This situation is about alot more then the IRS....ALOT MORE!

Quote from: Anti NWO Militia on June 11, 2007, 06:32 PM NHFT
This situation is about alot more then the IRS....ALOT MORE!

Could be but it is wrong to try to get publicity for your cause by trying to latch onto someone who is running for president like that guy with the website wanted to do.

Quote from: richardr on June 11, 2007, 03:15 PM NHFT

Quote from: CNHT on June 11, 2007, 02:13 PM NHFT
Ed has never asked for any armed supporters..

Yes he has.  He called it his armed wall of support.

What Ed has called for more recently, however, is for supporters to stay away from the property when the raid occurs so that they'll be able to kill the judge, the prosecutor, the IRS agent, and the US Attorney who prosecuted his case. According to Ed, their families are to be targeted as well.

I have never seen where Ed says this. If so, this is a moral outrage, and anyone who would think of going along with this program is morally bankrupt.

Can you show me where Ed has called for this?

Thanks Caleb. I have not really been following the Brown's situation that much so I could not say I could prove they did not say this, but was hoping others could step up and provide proof that this is an outrageous extrapolation of the facts by some.

Quote from: lawofattraction on June 11, 2007, 06:54 PM NHFT

Quote from: CNHT on June 11, 2007, 06:20 PM NHFTIt's wrong to be asking people to do things like quit their jobs with the IRS

What's wrong with that?

Because they are innocent people just trying to make a living and to put the burden on them for the whole boondoggle of the IRS to somehow 'prove themselves' to me is just as immoral and ridiculous.

It's like saying a certain person is the 'only one who can save the Browns' to prove himself. Please gimme a break.

QuoteBecause they are innocent people just trying to make a living and to put the burden on them for the whole boondoggle of the IRS to somehow 'prove themselves' to me is just as immoral and ridiculous.

Yes, they are just trying to earn a living, and yes they are a misguided part of the system, but they are the most essential part of the system. It isn't possible for a few tyrants to enslave the rest of us without the cooperation of "useful idiots". They are *not* innocent though; they are the ones who actually do the grunt work which destroys people's lives. That's why it is important to show them the reality of what they are doing, and ask them to quit their jobs.

We will never rid ourselves of those who have a lust for power. The goal is, hopefully, to get the rest of humanity to refuse to cooperate. That's why Thoreau said the revolution would finally be won when there was nobody willing to be a soldier or a bureaucrat.

Quote from: Caleb on June 11, 2007, 07:19 PM NHFT

QuoteBecause they are innocent people just trying to make a living and to put the burden on them for the whole boondoggle of the IRS to somehow 'prove themselves' to me is just as immoral and ridiculous.

Yes, they are just trying to earn a living, and yes they are a misguided part of the system, but they are the most essential part of the system. It isn't possible for a few tyrants to enslave the rest of us without the cooperation of "useful idiots". They are *not* innocent though; they are the ones who actually do the grunt work which destroys people's lives. That's why it is important to show them the reality of what they are doing, and ask them to quit their jobs.

We will never rid ourselves of those who have a lust for power. The goal is, hopefully, to get the rest of humanity to refuse to cooperate. That's why Thoreau said the revolution would finally be won when there was nobody willing to be a soldier or a bureaucrat.

So what do you suggest they do, go on welfare?

You people really are something. What hope does a free society have when the very people who are supposively their biggest supporters cant even get along. Its like any other blog Ive ready or on line chat discussion Ive read all they do is argue when they are apparently on the same team. Look its pretty simple, we all know the income tax is immoral and illegal, but why not vote the right people into office to abolish it? You cant just stop paying. That makes you look ridiculous. Believe me Ive considered it knowing that Id have 30K or so more a year to spend on my children, but until its obvious to me that its legal to do so I will continue to pay with a heavy heart. Im voting Ron Paul because he wants to abolish it. If he gets into office we have a chance to make a difference. This deal with Ed Brown is insane on both ends. The Feds are dumb enough to raid him and make a martyr out of him, and Ed is dumb enough to threaten their lives and those of their families. Dont know about you but if someone threatened to kill my children and wife Id be pretty interested in seeing their demise as well. We all know the Federal Govt oversteps their bounds quite often especially with Clinton in office, but the fact remains he is a convicted Felon. What gives him the right to not serve his time when others convicted of Felonies serve their time. He should've prepared better for his court battle(no lawyer option was insane). I support his cause but dont support him killing anyone in the process. What good will that do for those who want to remain free?

I have posted several examples of Ed's threats of violence on the big Ed Brown thread.  Here's an example from the Republic Broadcast Network (Ed's daily one hour radio show).  You can contact them for a copy of the archive recording.

The guest for the day was a detax guru from Pennsylvania named David Clarence.

QuoteEDWARD BROWN: Follow this. Here's the bottom line to the whole thing. David knows just exactly as we know that once you've used the lawful word, you've done it the absolute proper way, and they still come at you, they are now attacking the Creator himself or itself. When that happens, you have an obligation. David, what is that obligation?

DAVID CLARENCE: To stand up for the law.

EDWARD BROWN: To kill every one of them. You understand? Because that the words that people don't want to talk about. When they go against everything, especially when they go against God, now they're telling you that they absolutely could care less about you. We are here to do nothing but murder you, murder your God, murder your life, murder your planet, this is for us. These people are the most incarnate people you're ever going to meet, if they are even people. You kill them. That is exactly what the 10 Commandments tell you to do. That's exactly what all of God's laws plus the Bill of Rights tells you to do. That's exactly what the statutory laws of each state tell you to do, even if they wear uniforms. And I'm telling you right now if they go that far and cross that line, do what the law tells you to do. That's what I finally concluded to.

David agrees for a couple of minutes, citing vaious Bible verses.

QuoteDAVID CLARENCE: What's the commandment for a disobedient son that will not follow the law? Kill him.

EDWARD BROWN: The ones that are wise enough to back away are the ones you forgive. But the ones that keep on coming, you take care of their seed.

ELAINE BROWN: They leave you no choice.

EDWARD BROWN: What we want to do now is make sure that we identify all those now who help, aid, and abet those enemies both foreign and domestic as to who the real criminals really are. We want to make sure of that. 

Quote from: Romak on June 11, 2007, 07:52 PM NHFT
You people really are something. What hope does a free society have when the very people who are supposively their biggest supporters cant even get along. Its like any other blog Ive ready or on line chat discussion Ive read all they do is argue when they are apparently on the same team. Look its pretty simple, we all know the income tax is immoral and illegal, but why not vote the right people into office to abolish it? You cant just stop paying. That makes you look ridiculous.

That's right. Having the chance to put someone in office who might actually care about these things is too good an opportunity to ruin by using his candidacy to make a martyr out of him by demanding he stand up for people who knew the consequences.

I noticed in the debates that once Ron started talking about getting rid of the IRS so did some of the others. If you remember, Steve Forbes made it the cornerstone of his campaign. That's where you need to converge your energies, not vowing to go get killed for the cause of the Browns. They can only help themselves now.

Quote from: CNHT on June 11, 2007, 08:11 PM NHFT
That's right. Having the chance to put someone in office who might actually care about these things is too good an opportunity to ruin by using his candidacy to make a martyr out of him by demanding he stand up for people who knew the consequences.

What she said.

A Concord Monitor article on Ed's threats

QuotePlainfield

Ed Brown denies making threats 
Recorded statements speak to the contrary 

By Margot Sanger-Katz
Monitor staff


April 27. 2007 8:00AM

In a response to recent communications from the U.S. Marshal, Ed Brown has posted a letter on the internet saying that he has "never threatened anyone in (his) life" but warning that if the marshals take action against him, he will "use equal or greater force as the law dictates."

The Plainfield man, who was sentenced to more than five years in prison this week for conspiring to evade payment of his wife's taxes and concealing large financial transactions, remains holed up in his fortified hilltop home, despite bench warrants that call for the arrest of both himself and his wife, Elaine.

U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier issued a statement and released a letter that he had sent to the Browns after their sentencing hearings Tuesday, which the Browns did not attend. The letter told the couple that warrants for their arrest "are not going away" and asked them to surrender peacefully to authorities.

Since abandoning his federal trial and retreating to his home in January, Brown has repeatedly said that any attempts to arrest him would result in a violent confrontation. He has also gone further. On a daily internet radio show and in videos posted online, Brown has directly named investigators, prosecutors and the judge in his case, suggesting that they could be killed if anything happens to him. At other times, he has said their actions to date already justify retaliation.

"I wouldn't want to be this U.S. attorney. I wouldn't want to be this judge or these other people. This James John or anybody else that decides to come down here. Their names are already out there," Brown said in a video posted to the internet in early February, naming the lead IRS investigator on his tax case. "They are just as vulnerable as I am. And if they're so foolish and stupid to think that they're not, hey, doom on them."

The February video was not the only time when Brown mentioned targets by name. He has repeatedly stated the names of the judge in his case, the U.S. attorney for New Hampshire and the assistant U.S. attorney who brought charges against him and his wife. In one video, he urges his audience repeatedly to remember the name of the assistant prosecutor, "William E. Morse," which he repeats several times.
"Just remember him, boys. Remember who he is," Brown says, near the end of the recording.

In a radio interview in late March, Brown indicated that the unwillingness of federal authorities to see his righteousness made it his moral responsibility to kill them.

"Once you've used the lawful word, you've done it the absolute proper way, and they still come at you, they are now attacking the Creator himself or itself," he said to a fellow guest. "You kill them. That is exactly what the Ten Commandments tell you to do."

But in his recent letter, he disputed the marshal's contention that he had threatened violence or public safety, saying the marshal had fabricated "alleged threats against federal personnel."

"I Edward Lewis family Brown, have never threatened anyone in my life," the letter reads. "It is unlawful to threaten, however, I have warned everyone and anyone that has ever threatened me."

The letter was posted Wednesday night on Brown's MySpace page, myspace.com/time2makeastand. A former military contractor named Cirino Gonzales has been updating the page since he arrived at the Browns' house from Texas last week. In his posting of the letter, Gonzales described it as a direct transcription of Brown's words. In a brief phone interview yesterday, Brown refused to confirm that the letter was his, saying only, "do not call me any more."

Monier said that he did not wish to respond to Brown's letter but emphasized that his position has not changed.

"There are warrants for his arrest. He's got to turn himself in," he said.

As for Brown's contention that there have been no threats: "His previous statements have been well-documented," Monier said.

By MARGOT SANGER-KATZ

And the following appeared in a side article to the above story:

QuoteBrowns on the record 

By MARGOT SANGER-KATZ
Monitor staff

April 27. 2007 8:00AM

In a letter posted on his website Wednesday, Ed Brown said that he has "never threatened anyone." Here are some statements that Brown and his wife, Elaine, have made in recent months in newspaper interviews, radio broadcasts and videos posted on the internet.

Ed Brown: "You attack my property, it's going to get really violent. I don't care who it is."

Concord Monitor, Jan. 16

Ed Brown: "This is the beginning of one very huge movement. I'm not quite sure you understand the ramifications of what's going on right now. This is massive. This is international. We are fed up with the Zionist Illuminati. That's what this is all about. Loud and clear. Zionist Illuminati. Lawyers, whatever they are, okay, it's going to stop. And if the judge is a member of that, I know that McAuliffe is, I know that U.S. Attorney Colantuono is, they'd better stop. This is a warning. You can do whatever you want to me. My job is to get the message out, and I'm getting the message out, and I'm warning you guys - not you guys (show hosts), them - to cease and desist their unlawful activity in this country and every other country because once this thing starts, we're going to seek them out and hunt them down. And we're going to bring them to justice. So anybody wishes to join them, you go right ahead and join them. But I promise you, long after I'm gone, they're going to seek out every one of you and your bloodline."

Constitution for the Defense radio show, Truth Radio, Feb. 2.

Ed Brown: "These people need to be strung up, they are so criminal."

Ed Brown: "A lot of people would love the opportunity to rip out their hearts and shove them back down their throats."

Ed Brown Video Blog, Feb. 4

Ed Brown: "I just want everyone to remember one final and parting shot. I want everyone to really remember the name William E. Morse, the assistant U.S. attorney. He is evil beyond evil."

Ed Brown Video Blog, March 2.

Elaine Brown: "You've got to use force." Ed Brown: "How?" Elaine Brown: "To the death."

Elaine Brown: "We don't know how this will end. But there are only two ways we are coming out of here. Either as a free man and as a free woman or in body bags. That has not changed, and that's the stand that everyone must take. Because if we come out in body bags, there's going to be a few more, too. That's not a threat. That's just noticing them that this is the stand that we will take. We have not changed our minds."

Ed Brown Under Siege radio show, Republic Broadcasting Network, March 20

Ed Brown: "These people are the most incarnate people you're ever going to meet, if they are even people. You kill them. That is exactly what the Ten Commandments tell you to do.

"That's exactly what all of God's laws plus the Bill of Rights tells you to do."

Ed Brown Under Siege radio show, March 26

"You people really are something. What hope does a free society have when the very people who are supposively their biggest supporters cant even get along. Its like any other blog Ive ready or on line chat discussion Ive read all they do is argue when they are apparently on the same team."

It's a free society BECAUSE we're free to bicker amongst ourselves.  We're not told by some central FSP leader what the best thing to think and do is. 
:worship:
It's how free people work things out in the real world.  Or maybe you've never sat in on a group meeting at a multi-billion dollar corporation.  It's the SAME EXACT BS ... only with coffee donuts and really really yummy berry linzer tortes. 

"Look its pretty simple, we all know the income tax is immoral and illegal, but why not vote the right people into office to abolish it? You cant just stop paying. That makes you look ridiculous. Believe me Ive considered it knowing that Id have 30K or so more a year to spend on my children, but until its obvious to me that its legal to do so I will continue to pay with a heavy heart."

Right.  We're just supposed to be obediently little nigger slaves and sit at the back of the bus when we're told by our masters.  Except that Rosa Parks thought more of herself than that and ... just said NO and _just stopped obeying_.  I'll bet she looked like a ridiculous little colored girl.  Sooner or later it's just got to stop, and the brave/foolish/you-decide people need to be free to grapple with the situation as they see fit.


"Im voting Ron Paul because he wants to abolish it. If he gets into office we have a chance to make a difference. This deal with Ed Brown is insane on both ends. The Feds are dumb enough to raid him and make a martyr out of him, and Ed is dumb enough to threaten their lives and those of their families. Dont know about you but if someone threatened to kill my children and wife Id be pretty interested in seeing their demise as well. "

No, he's already stated many times and still maintains that he will pay the tax IF THEY SHOW HIM THE LAW.  He hasn't threated anyone with the initiation of violence, he has only promised to use deadly force in self defense and in the protection of his wife's life and his legitimately earned and owned private property.

"We all know the Federal Govt oversteps their bounds quite often especially with Clinton in office, but the fact remains he is a convicted Felon. What gives him the right to not serve his time when others convicted of Felonies serve their time. He should've prepared better for his court battle(no lawyer option was insane). I support his cause but dont support him killing anyone in the process. What good will that do for those who want to remain free?"

Because he hasn't disobeyed any LAW that anyone knows about.  What LAW did he break?  If you can't PROVE that he broke a specific law - and we need to know what law that is and what it says - then he's not really a felon.  Lawyers are only in it for their own gain.  They paid for the time they work - not for who wins or loses.  They need to perpetuate the lie for their own benefit and will sell you to the thugs by screwing you over in a heartbeat.  Is Ed "insane?" Well, he's got his own take on things, but so do a lot of other people.  He just chose not to fight by their rules - as recommended by many students of war throughout history - Hell, he chose to not even show up for the gangfight where he'd be outnumbered and outgunned anyway.

Ed's doing what Ed wants to do.  Everybody else just needs to decide for themselves what is right for them, and when.  And a lot of us are still in the middle of working out exactly what that is, and sometimes thinking out loud or bouncing thoughts off each other.  Just give people some space.

Quote from: Bald Eagle on June 11, 2007, 08:21 PM NHFT
Ed's doing what Ed wants to do.  Everybody else just needs to decide for themselves what is right for them, and when.  And a lot of us are still in the middle of working out exactly what that is, and sometimes thinking out loud or bouncing thoughts off each other.  Just give people some space.

That's right. I don't see myself getting involved as we've known this was in the making for years.

I don't see anything I could do that would help. And I just hope no one I care about gets hurt.

Quote from: richardr on June 11, 2007, 08:18 PM NHFT
In a response to recent communications from the U.S. Marshal, Ed Brown has posted a letter on the internet saying that he has "never threatened anyone in (his) life" but warning that if the marshals take action against him, he will "use equal or greater force as the law dictates." 

That's true. The Browns are not violent people at all. And have been model citizens as far as I know.
But it sounds like he is saying he will 'defend' himself if he is attacked. I guess if he was going to get himself into this situation he did not do it for nothing.

Quote from: CNHT on June 11, 2007, 08:29 PM NHFT
The Browns are not violent people at all. And have been model citizens as far as I know.

You mean other than the time Ed spent in prison for beating a guy with a pipe while robbing him? It resulted in a dishonorable discharge from the military and was only removed from his record when the Massachusetts governor granted him a pardon.

Ed's been threatening people with violence for decades. Just read the NH newstories about him from the mid 1990s, or the press stories from a couple of years ago when he refused to pay property taxes and said he'd do physical harm if anyone tried to collect them.  He threatened a stand off then, and then paid the taxes at the last minute to avoid the situation.

Seriously, you have to choose your battles in life.  Aligning yourself, your movement, and a candidate like Ron Paul with a guy who thinks he's got an inside line to the Queen of England and who has a hit list for his followers to kill in the event of his arrest or death, is just stupid.

Quote from: richardr on June 11, 2007, 08:41 PM NHFT
Seriously, you have to choose your battles in life.  Aligning yourself, your movement, and a candidate like Ron Paul with a guy who thinks he's got an inside line to the Queen of England and who has a hit list for his followers to kill in the event of his arrest or death, is just stupid.

Yep. As I've said, I'd rather have the Browns win than the Feds, but I sure as hell am not going to go there to help out some crazy people, and it is blindingly retarded to suggest Ron Paul should get involved.

Quote from: richardr on June 11, 2007, 08:41 PM NHFT

Quote from: CNHT on June 11, 2007, 08:29 PM NHFT
The Browns are not violent people at all. And have been model citizens as far as I know.

You mean other than the time Ed spent in prison for beating a guy with a pipe while robbing him? It resulted in a dishonorable discharge from the military and was only removed from his record when the Massachusetts governor granted him a pardon.

Ed's been threatening people with violence for decades. Just read the NH newstories about him from the mid 1990s, or the press stories from a couple of years ago when he refused to pay property taxes and said he'd do physical harm if anyone tried to collect them.  He threatened a stand off then, and then paid the taxes at the last minute to avoid the situation.

Seriously, you have to choose your battles in life.  Aligning yourself, your movement, and a candidate like Ron Paul with a guy who thinks he's got an inside line to the Queen of England and who has a hit list for his followers to kill in the event of his arrest or death, is just stupid.

How old was he when he did that? I never heard of that before. I just know that he's lived there and refused to pay his taxes for at least a good 20 years.
His wife is a dentist for crying out loud.

We all wish the IRS would just go away and leave us ALL alone, but, Yix is right...the campaign should not have to waste time on people who want to draw the candidate into their 'cause' It's just selfish and bad for the rest of us who are donating all our time and energy.

Ed Brown is going to do what he wants to do. I still haven't seen anything where he is calling for militia activism or the death of anyone's family. He *did* predict that bad things might happen, but I don't interpret that as a threat so much as it is an acknowledgment of reality.  I might say the same thing:  If Ed and Elaine are killed, it is possible that some of their supporters might do very evil things. I don't agree with that, I'm certainly not calling for that, and if it happens I will denounce it with all my might. But I'm not stupid enough to pretend that there aren't violent people around. That's a fact of life, unfortunately.  That's what we're working to try to fix.

I don't agree with Ed on some things. I would have done things differently myself. But we need to get some perspective. Ed Brown hasn't harmed anyone. The federal government *has* harmed people. By the hundreds of millions. Once that perspective is gained, it puts a new light on things. What's going on in Plainfield is, quite frankly, a case of a big gigantic bully, a domestic terrorist organization, picking on an elderly man and woman because the terrorist organization didn't get its "cut" of the elderly couple's earnings.

For the life of me, I don't have a clue what Ron Paul has to do with any of this. Hopefully, on the outside chance that Paul is elected President, he will use his powers to pardon the Browns and any and all tax resisters. That is, if the Browns haven't been murdered by the domestic terrorists yet.

Quote from: Caleb on June 11, 2007, 10:05 PM NHFT
Ed Brown is going to do what he wants to do. I still haven't seen anything where he is calling for militia activism or the death of anyone's family. He *did* predict that bad things might happen, but I don't interpret that as a threat so much as it is an acknowledgment of reality.  I might say the same thing:  If Ed and Elaine are killed, it is possible that some of their supporters might do very evil things. I don't agree with that, I'm certainly not calling for that, and if it happens I will denounce it with all my might. But I'm not stupid enough to pretend that there aren't violent people around. That's a fact of life, unfortunately.  That's what we're working to try to fix.

I don't agree with Ed on some things. I would have done things differently myself. But we need to get some perspective. Ed Brown hasn't harmed anyone. The federal government *has* harmed people. By the hundreds of millions. Once that perspective is gained, it puts a new light on things. What's going on in Plainfield is, quite frankly, a case of a big gigantic bully, a domestic terrorist organization, picking on an elderly man and woman because the terrorist organization didn't get its "cut" of the elderly couple's earnings.

For the life of me, I don't have a clue what Ron Paul has to do with any of this. Hopefully, on the outside chance that Paul is elected President, he will use his powers to pardon the Browns and any and all tax resisters. That is, if the Browns haven't been murdered by the domestic terrorists yet.

Yes. And also yeah, Ron Paul doesn't have or need to have anything to do with the Browns. Both are fighting the IRS from very different angles and using different tools.

CNHT wrote:

<< I don't see anything I could do that would help. >>

Here's a list of roughly 25 things you could do to help.  I"ve done about 15 of them.

http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=2613.msg140635#msg140635

Well if you mean these 6 things:

1) Go to calendar.nhfree.com and see what types of flash events have been scheduled to occur in response to the raid. Attend them or promote them if you can.

What is a 'flash' event?

2) Head to your nearest Federal facility with a sign of some type.

I don't believe that will do a darn thing to help the Browns, sorry Dave. (But it would sure make me look like a nut)

3) Write a letter to the editor of a nearby paper expressing your concern. In New Hampshire The Concord Monitor, Keene Free Press and the Union Leader seem to print most of the pro liberty letters they receive, and you can be from anywhere in the state. The Keene Sentinel seems to be pretty good about printing our letters if written from the Keene area. Keep them under 200 words in all cases if possible, especially with the Union Leader.

I think it's a given that most people think they should be left alone, which is why they are being left alone. The gov't if it attacks, won't survive the court of public opinion.

4) Join some political web forums and voice there your support for Ed and Elaine. I've included a list of good forums below. Better to join now and be ready than to join after the event.

That will surely brand you permanently as a nutcase. Repeat, we all think they should be left alone. But they have been doing this for YEARS. As a newcomer I know you don't understand how this works, but there are just some things we don't think we should waste our time on. The fact they are being paid any attention to now during an election cycle is suspect and your further attention to them just helps the opposition to smear us.

5) Call relevant officials to express your concern. I've included a list below.

Then we can alert all of them who we are? No thanks.

6) Maybe go to Ed Brown's house? Haven't really given this much thought. Certainly I hope more folks will go there beforehand as a deterrent. His address: 401 Center of Town Road Plainfield, New Hampshire 03781

This is not going to deter anything. They chose to break the law and they shouldn't expect innocent people to get hurt on their behalf.
Just my advice. Everyone will do what they wish. But I think frankly you could be pointing your energies in a more productive direction.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000862----000-.html

§ 862. Income from sources without the United States

(a) Gross income from sources without United States
The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources without the United States:
(1) interest other than that derived from sources within the United States as provided in section 861 (a)(1);
(2) dividends other than those derived from sources within the United States as provided in section 861 (a)(2);
(3) compensation for labor or personal services performed without the United States;
(4) rentals or royalties from property located without the United States or from any interest in such property, including rentals or royalties for the use of or for the privilege of using without the United States patents, copyrights, secret processes and formulas, good will, trade-marks, trade brands, franchises, and other like properties;
(5) gains, profits, and income from the sale or exchange of real property located without the United States;
(6) gains, profits, and income derived from the purchase of inventory property (within the meaning of section 865 (i)(1)) within the United States and its sale or exchange without the United States;
(7) underwriting income other than that derived from sources within the United States as provided in section 861 (a)(7); and
(8) gains, profits, and income from the disposition of a United States real property interest (as defined in section 897 (c)) when the real property is located in the Virgin Islands.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000865----000-.html

§ 865. Source rules for personal property sales

(a) General rule
Except as otherwise provided in this section, income from the sale of personal property—
(1) by a United States resident shall be sourced in the United States, or
(2) by a nonresident shall be sourced outside the United States.


(g)  United States resident; nonresident
For purposes of this section—
(1) In general
Except as otherwise provided in this subsection—
(A) United States resident
The term "United States resident" means—
(i) any individual who—
(I) is a United States citizen or a resident alien and does not have a tax home (as defined in section 911 (d)(3)) in a foreign country, or
(II) is a nonresident alien and has a tax home (as so defined) in the United States, and
(ii) any corporation, trust, or estate which is a United States person (as defined in section 7701 (a)(30)).
(B) Nonresident
The term "nonresident" means any person other than a United States resident.[/b]


Maybe the law does exist and it's just that they can't show it to us because their house of cards will all fall down.

Is it possible the Browns just didn't do their homework?

John

Quote from: JohninRI on June 12, 2007, 06:42 AM NHFT
Is it possible the Browns just didn't do their homework?

Nope, it's just that the judges won't allow the law to be read in their courtrooms.

Seriously.

If you have the right status you won't end up in their courtroom!

I'll tell you guys a story, take it as you may. About 8 years ago I moved to NH from NYC looking for a place that was more freedom oriented(not too hard to find being from NYC). My family was always big into guns as was I so I was also looking for a pro gun state as well. NH fit that mold and it still does. I looked into a lot of the big pro gun groups in the area and Ed Browns name kept coming up. So I decided to meet this fellow. I went up to his house which was in Lebanon at the time. From the get go he seemed like a man who starved for attention and like to pretend that he had this whole network of people throughout the country who would start a revolution as soon as he decided to release them. Almost every guy we walked by when we went downtown to check out his meeting room he would nod at and then tell me "Ya hes one of my men as well". I knew right off the bat he was full of himself. This deal with the tax issue is playing right into his dreams. Its the best possible situation for him. He gets all the attention and if he dies he feels as though he succeeds into starting his "revolution". He wants to be a martyr plain and simple. If you ask me he is doing more harm than good for those who want to remain free and want to be left alone. Believe me I am one of them. The job of US Marshalls is to bring to justice those who skip out on their sentence. I think they are showing tremendous resolve in letting them stay in their homes for as long as they have. I also think they should continue to wait him out, he will leave eventually. Im also opposed to the income tax, but we are working to get things changed. We didnt just decide one day not to pay after paying for the past 15 years of my life. How old is Ed Brown 63? well that means he paid for a good portion of his live as well. I went by his house to interview him back in April to get a feel of the situation and see if what I felt back then was how I feel now, and it was the same. He isnt a knight in shining armor, and to be honest he isnt a good individual to be speaking for me or any of my other fellow Patriots. If they decide to ban guns in the future and order us to turn them in than we've got a war on our hands, and we have the men to fight that war, but this situation isnt that. This is going to end bad for the Browns and its going to make a lot of our hard work getting law abiding Politicians elected go by the wayside.

Quote from: JohninRI on June 12, 2007, 07:56 AM NHFT
If you have the right status you won't end up in their courtroom!

Bullets and chains don't care what your "status" is.

Quote from: Romak on June 12, 2007, 08:04 AM NHFT
I'll tell you guys a story, take it as you may. About 8 years ago I moved to NH from NYC looking for a place that was more freedom oriented(not too hard to find being from NYC). My family was always big into guns as was I so I was also looking for a pro gun state as well. NH fit that mold and it still does. I looked into a lot of the big pro gun groups in the area and Ed Browns name kept coming up. So I decided to meet this fellow. I went up to his house which was in Lebanon at the time. From the get go he seemed like a man who starved for attention and like to pretend that he had this whole network of people throughout the country who would start a revolution as soon as he decided to release them. Almost every guy we walked by when we went downtown to check out his meeting room he would nod at and then tell me "Ya hes one of my men as well". I knew right off the bat he was full of himself. This deal with the tax issue is playing right into his dreams. Its the best possible situation for him. He gets all the attention and if he dies he feels as though he succeeds into starting his "revolution". He wants to be a martyr plain and simple. If you ask me he is doing more harm than good for those who want to remain free and want to be left alone. Believe me I am one of them. The job of US Marshalls is to bring to justice those who skip out on their sentence. I think they are showing tremendous resolve in letting them stay in their homes for as long as they have. I also think they should continue to wait him out, he will leave eventually. Im also opposed to the income tax, but we are working to get things changed. We didnt just decide one day not to pay after paying for the past 15 years of my life. How old is Ed Brown 63? well that means he paid for a good portion of his live as well. I went by his house to interview him back in April to get a feel of the situation and see if what I felt back then was how I feel now, and it was the same. He isnt a knight in shining armor, and to be honest he isnt a good individual to be speaking for me or any of my other fellow Patriots. If they decide to ban guns in the future and order us to turn them in than we've got a war on our hands, and we have the men to fight that war, but this situation isnt that. This is going to end bad for the Browns and its going to make a lot of our hard work getting law abiding Politicians elected go by the wayside.

I've never said he was a knight in shining armor, only that I don't want the feds to kill him.

Quote from: JohninRI on June 12, 2007, 06:42 AM NHFT
Is it possible the Browns just didn't do their homework?
John

The law was shown to the Browns during the trial and multiple times after.  They have chosen to ignore it.

Quote from: Crocuta on June 12, 2007, 07:48 AM NHFT
Nope, it's just that the judges won't allow the law to be read in their courtrooms.

Seriously.

To time to argue the law is before the jury trial begins.  Ed should have hired an attorney who knew how to fight and what the rules of the court were.  It's like performing your own brain surgery because you read about the technique on the internet.

Because, you know, juries shouldn't be allowed (http://www.fija.org/) to weigh questions such as whether the law exists, or should exist.

QuoteFrom the get go he seemed like a man who starved for attention and like to pretend that he had this whole network of people throughout the country who would start a revolution as soon as he decided to release them.

When I first heard of his criminal trial in the news, I decided to research his background to see if I would support him or not.  This was an article I found on him from 1994.  It matches your description.

QuoteDefense Militia Builds NH Base
SHAWNE K. WICKHAM
New Hampshire Sunday News
Oct. 9, 1994

PLAINFIELD - Edward L. Brown, 52, is a consultant in the extermination business by trade. But the menace he is trying to warn people about these days is of the human variety.

Brown is the spokesman for the Constitution Defense Militia, one of numerous ''unorganized'' citizen militia groups forming around the country in response to what they say is a well-orchestrated and far-reaching conspiracy to deprive Americans of their liberty and even lives.

The New Hampshire Libertarian party will hold a special panel analysis on citizen militias at its annual convention in Merrimack on Oct. 15.

Brown can name names of conspirators - Bill Clinton, George Bush, Janet Reno, Mikhail Gorbachev - and of organizations - The Council on Foreign Relations, the United Nations, the Tri-Lateral Commission, the American Bar Association, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the CIA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

He contends the deaths of religious cult members in Switzerland and Canada last week were ''another WACO,'' orchestrated by the CIA. And he believes even the baseball strike was part of a plot to squash anything American.

Brown likens the times we are living in to the years in Europe before World War II. He has 18 months worth of food stored in his basement, and a stockpile of weapons and ammunition. He believes something will trigger a federal takeover of private property, utilities, health facilities and the media, and said the most likely scenario is an economic collapse.

Brown estimated there are five million militia members across the country; in this state, there are 3,000 CDM members, men and women from all walks of life who are ''on standby to lock and load 24 hours a day right now.''

Brown warns there is a second Revolutionary War approaching. But he says this time the citizen patriots have AK-47s.

Brown, who says he is an agnostic, admits it's easy to dismiss him as a nut. He knows that's how the FBI, the Department of Defense and other federal agencies he calls regularly have him pegged.

He contends there are 130 detention centers set up around the country, including one at the former Pease Air Force Base, ready to imprison people like him who resist the government.

Gun control is at the center of the enemies' plan, he explained. He predicts ''blood in the streets'' if the government tries to confiscate guns here.

''There's two freight trains coming down the track full steam ahead. True American citizens like myself will die for my country. We will never release any firearms to the United States.''

An ad in the October 1994 issue of ''Soldier of Fortune magazine'' warns, ''It's Groundhog Day! For those of us living under the shadow of gun control...Hide your weapons WHILE YOU CAN!'' The ''Groundhog,'' an underground storage container big enough for four AR15's, two AK-47s and 2300 rounds of ammunition, costs $94.95.

Brown said the militia is setting up ''Constitutional courts'' in numerous states, including here in New Hampshire, ''for the purpose of taking back America.''

Who will be tried? ''Anybody who commits un-American activity. Anybody who has created insurrection or sedition or conspiracy against the American people.'' And what will the penalty be? ''Whatever the people decide.''

Brown only became involved in the CDM 11 months ago. But ever since he has been unable to enjoy the things he used to, like golfing and fishing.

Brown believes the conspiracy is world-wide; references to a ''New World Order'' set off alarms in militia members. He thinks a confrontation is ''imminent'' and he believes the year 2000 has special significance for ''the bad guys.''

''From now on, as an American citizen under my Constitution, nobody but nobody is going to come into my country and take it down. Nobody's going to destroy that Constitution. And the enemy is within.''

He said the militia has declared New Hampshire a ''free zone,'' neutral territory in which the federal government has no authority. ''All we're looking for is as many people get warned as possible, to protect as many lives as we can before this thing goes down.''

''Freedom is not free. Thomas Jefferson told us every 20 years a little patriot blood must be shed to kill some of the tyrants and keep them in line. We have not done this since the Civil War.''

Brown said he sees no way the conflict will end except in violence. ''Because these people will not quit. The window of oppportunity for them as it approaches is closing because people like me are rising. And the hope is we can open our window more than theirs, so we can swallow them before they swallow us.''

I've been watching the Brown case like a hawk since January.  For the most part, it's the same kind of fascination you get from watching a train wreck.  What I've found most interesting is the threats of violence not only from Ed, but from several supporters on this and other forums.  

And while I think its a shame that people like Dada and the free staters are willing to set themselves back considerably by embracing the kook factor with open arms, it's been with sheer horror that I've been watching Ron Paul's name and reputation get dragged into this train wreck.  

Looking at his statements I don't think he explicitly threatened the feds families, but to be honest I can't tell whether that was the intention of the remarks or not.
If Ed wants to stay on his property and resist anyone who comes to arrest him, I don't have anything bad to say about that. It's his life, his property, and the people who go in to get him have free will and know the risk. If that was his intention I could say I support him, but some of these remarks trouble me.
I think he has made allusions to having people take out the judge and prosecutor. I know that the US Marshals families are getting police escorts if they live in the state. I'm not sure he meant to threaten them,  but when he got on about destroying their "seed", that's how I took it. It could be a spin job, but I've heard him and his supporters say similar things and they make me rather uncomfortable. I don't think he's stable, and if he has made any of these statements he crossed the line.

Assasinating judges or targeting people's wives and children is an abhorrent and fits the truest definition of terrorism. You do not threaten innocent people.

Personally this all has me backing away from Ed, and unless he clarifies his position publically, he's getting no more kind words from me. He called for armed supporters, and I was OK with that. If he was going to arm himself and use force only if men with guns to come and get him that was OK with me. If he wanted to muster a militia on the commons at Lebanon, I wouldn't be happy, but I couldn't say he wouldn't have some moral justification, but when you start talking about killing unarmed people to terrorize their peers into changing their ways, that is unacceptable.
In fact I would be inclined to phone the sheriff to see if he might want to deputize me so that I could give some help in apprehending such a person.

I'm not 100% clear on Ed's position, but until he makes himself clear that he isn't calling for children to be murdered and civilians to be targeted with assination I would suggest that people put some distance between him and themselves.

It's not Ed I worry about actually doing anything, but I think some of his really militant supporters could do something really dumb. Like what McVeigh did in answer to Waco.

First off I dont believe for a second that Mcveigh was alone in OKC. Same as 9/11 in my opinion, the feds knew it was going down and let it happen because they actually benefitted from it. Men in power seeking more power will do some pretty amazing things, and both OKC and 9/11 has given them more power than they could possibly imagine. That being said I completely agree with that take on Ed Brown. His actions have basically threatened family members of US Marshalls, thats why Im amazed they are showing the patience that they are. If it was me like I said dont know if I could hold back someone saying my wife and kids may die if he dies. He crossed the line. Not saying they should kill him, that would have horrible consiquences across the board. Personally I would hate to be the Marshall in charge of this one. But since he has yet to actually harm anyone else I can not support them going in with guns blazing, think it would be a huge mistake. Again their job is to aprehend fugitives and in this case Ed and his wife are fugitives no matter what you may think of the law. Its not like they banned guns and hes holding out, that would be a direct contradiction of the Constitution and I would probably be there with him right now, but this case is different. I agree with all of those who said he should've thought this out better and planned better in terms of consulting with a lawyer and saying look this is what I want to do, do I stand a chance in hell? I personally am working towards electing people who want to seriously reduce or abolish income taxes all together, thats the legal way to change things. And thats where I stand.

Quote from: error on June 12, 2007, 09:10 AM NHFT
Because, you know, juries shouldn't be allowed (http://www.fija.org/) to weigh questions such as whether the law exists, or should exist.

You can disagree with the Supreme Court until the cows come home.  It doesn't change the Supreme Court's  decisions or the fact that there are rules that the District Courts follow.

Bucking the system is a noble cause, but there are consequences for civil disobedience.  

For example, Russell drives without a license because he thinks such licensing laws are stupid.  He doesn't deny that the licensing laws exist.  He breaks them openly and accepts the consequences.  That's a powerful statement.

Ed wants the benefits of civil disobediance (keeping his $1.8 million without losing a third to taxes) without any consequences (criminal charges and losing his building to the IRS).  There's no powerful statement there at all.
The American public will label him a tax cheat, not a hero, because his act of civil disobedience just happened to coincide with the fattening of pocket book (luxury hilltop home in this case).  

If federal employees die while trying to arrest him, he will be labeled a cop killer in addition to being a tax cheat.  If supporters hunt down judges and prosecutors after Ed's arrest or death, he and the supporters will be labeled as revenge killers and murderers.  

If you think I'm wrong, go look up the recent murder trial of former New Hampshire native Steven Bixby. He got the death penalty for killing two cops who tried to evict him in an emminent domain case in South Carolina.  Neither the jury nor the public was impressed by Bixby citing the NH Constitution in his defense or his "live free or die" refrain.

There are no winning scenarios to the Ed Brown situation.  Only varying degrees of public relations fire balls and a number of local supporters fanning the flames.

I also find the situation fundamentally sad.  I think Ed (and lately Elaine) have been grasping at any straws they can (the Body of the Lord guru Sonny, the David Clarence "notary is the highest public official in the land, the Illuminati crap, etc) trying to find a way out of their situation and trying to make this tragedy about something bigger than not paying income taxes.  Ed has threatened an armed standoff before - over property taxes a couple of years ago - and backed off when it came time to take the stand.  But he's a really proud man who gets off on attention, and the presence of press and supporters has made it impossible for him to back down now.  As a result, his prison sentence has jumped from roughly two years to four, and he believes that the show of support he's received from locals means that millions of people are finally willing to engage in a violent revolution in the name of Ed Brown, and his ego finds that prospect irresistable.

Well respectfully I don't give a damn about PR, but I do care what Ed Brown's intentions are. It would make a fundemental difference in how I view this situation.

I do think that Ed's theories are unhelpful, but he has a right to his opinions.

Quote from: JohninRI on June 12, 2007, 06:42 AM NHFT
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000862----000-.html

§ 862. Income from sources without the United States

(a) Gross income from sources without United States
The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources without the United States:
(1) interest other than that derived from sources within the United States as provided in section 861 (a)(1);
(2) dividends other than those derived from sources within the United States as provided in section 861 (a)(2);
(3) compensation for labor or personal services performed without the United States;
(4) rentals or royalties from property located without the United States or from any interest in such property, including rentals or royalties for the use of or for the privilege of using without the United States patents, copyrights, secret processes and formulas, good will, trade-marks, trade brands, franchises, and other like properties;
(5) gains, profits, and income from the sale or exchange of real property located without the United States;
(6) gains, profits, and income derived from the purchase of inventory property (within the meaning of section 865 (i)(1)) within the United States and its sale or exchange without the United States;
(7) underwriting income other than that derived from sources within the United States as provided in section 861 (a)(7); and
(8) gains, profits, and income from the disposition of a United States real property interest (as defined in section 897 (c)) when the real property is located in the Virgin Islands.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000865----000-.html

§ 865. Source rules for personal property sales

(a) General rule
Except as otherwise provided in this section, income from the sale of personal property—
(1) by a United States resident shall be sourced in the United States, or
(2) by a nonresident shall be sourced outside the United States.


(g)  United States resident; nonresident
For purposes of this section—
(1) In general
Except as otherwise provided in this subsection—
(A) United States resident
The term "United States resident" means—
(i) any individual who—
(I) is a United States citizen or a resident alien and does not have a tax home (as defined in section 911 (d)(3)) in a foreign country, or
(II) is a nonresident alien and has a tax home (as so defined) in the United States, and
(ii) any corporation, trust, or estate which is a United States person (as defined in section 7701 (a)(30)).
(B) Nonresident
The term "nonresident" means any person other than a United States resident.[/b]


Maybe the law does exist and it's just that they can't show it to us because their house of cards will all fall down.

Is it possible the Browns just didn't do their homework?

John

You do more homework. The law as it's written and as you quote applies only to "United States persons," not to Americans, and you MUST learn the law's own definitions for terms like "U.S. Citizen," and "U.S. person," i.e., residents of the District of Columbia or one of their federal territories or those who claim to be citizens of the federal government through use of their products like the ss number. The Feds have for the past 200 years tried to inch their jurisdiction onto us. For the federal income tax their enforcing their own laws incorrectly. There is a federal income tax, but it doesn't apply to Americans, only to U.S. persons. You can't discuss legal matters without using the language as it's defined in the law, which is way different than common usage. Also the term "income" and "wages" are way way different than what they are commonly understood to mean. Here's a good place to start - takes about 20 minutes http://www.originalintent.org/edu/fedincometax.php

Quote from: citizen_142002 on June 12, 2007, 10:19 AM NHFT
I do think that Ed's theories are unhelpful, but he has a right to his opinions.

It's especially unhelpful that his theories are constantly shifting. His is not a battle borne out of bedrock principles.

But as Kat said, I still don't want to see him killed over it, no matter what his legal theory du jour happens to be.

Kevin

I'm not really concerned with his weird theories or the religion thing. It was some of the comments that were pushing the envelope with regard to using violence on people beyond those 'coming to get him'.
I was listening to the broadcast live when the first incident was taking place and someone calling in support of Ed mentioned that these feds "have families" and maybe they won't think this is worth their lives. I think at that point Ed's phone had died so there was no way to hear his response, but the host didn't say one word to admonish the caller. It makes me wonder when Ed's contacts are people who are fine and dandy with that kind of talk.
I'd really like to do some more digging though and not rush to judgement.

What's the status of things up there? I heard the power has been cut and they might be posturing for another raid.

NO ONE thinks the Browns should be killed or incarcerated over this. They are being used as an example, during an election cycle. They did the same thing when Buchanan ran, and will use it to discredit anyone who is against the IRS, etc. by linking them with 'kooks'. It is predictable and it is purposeful and intended to get people off message. To wit, the Browns have been doing this for YEARS, so how come the feds have just decided to go after them NOW? Think about it!

People should be even MORE indignant when they see how the law is enforced for SOME but will not be enforced for ALL...which is somehow being ignored.

Bush Amnesty to Pardon Illegal Alien Child Molesters, Gang Members & Tax Evaders

"The Feds can use guns, tanks, planes and drones against a peaceful, self-sustaining elderly couple who simply want to be left alone but they can't manage to protect the borders and are getting ready to grant tax amnesty to millions of illegal aliens."

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/bush-amnesty-to-pardon-illegal-alien-child-molesters-gang-members-tax-evaders/

EEEK!  Brown people and scary headlines!  Run for your lives!

QuoteNO ONE thinks the Browns should be killed or incarcerated over this. They are being used as an example, during an election cycle. They did the same thing when Buchanan ran, and will use it to discredit anyone who is against the IRS, etc. by linking them with 'kooks'. It is predictable and it is purposeful and intended to get people off message. To wit, the Browns have been doing this for YEARS, so how come the feds have just decided to go after them NOW? Think about it!

I think that's a bit far fetched.  The DOJ chooses about two hundred tax protesters to prosecute every year.  Nothing different in election years.  Schiff, for example was prosecuted after being out of prison and openly selling detax packages for 14 years as well.  The IRS and DOJ are just painfully (ridiculously) slow.

In fact, the Browns were originally scheduled for trial a year ago (July 6, 2006), and the trial was only delayed to this year because Ed and Elaine requested multiple extensions of time to prepare.

2006 was also an election year for NH. Not farfetched at all. You just said he did this before a couple  years ago...but I cannot find the post which made its way to my email. Maybe you are still editing it.

This is not the first time for this...it's happened before.

I don't ascribe any motives to Ed, I just think they don't want to pay their taxes, like the rest of us.

Quote from: richardr on June 12, 2007, 09:20 AM NHFT
I've been watching the Brown case like a hawk since January.  For the most part, it's the same kind of fascination you get from watching a train wreck.  What I've found most interesting is the threats of violence not only from Ed, but from several supporters on this and other forums.  

Sometimes it can bring out the worst, as it did in past years...which supports my theory that somehow the issue comes up conveniently when there is something bigger going on, like a presidential election!

Quote from: richardr on June 12, 2007, 09:20 AM NHFT
And while I think its a shame that people like Dada and the free staters are willing to set themselves back considerably by embracing the kook factor with open arms, it's been with sheer horror that I've been watching Ron Paul's name and reputation get dragged into this train wreck.  

I agree. Ron is for doing something about the IRS but so are many others in the mainstream like Huckabee who finally had the courage to mention it in the second debate thanks to Ron and people like Steve Forbes who made it the centerpiece of his presidential campaign platform. But in order to discredit Ron, they will try to link  him with tax evaders. It may not resonate with us, who realise what the government is doing, which is namely the fact that one of the biggest link with tax evaders is our own president BUSH, who would allow milions to have tax amnesty while not stopping what is going on with the Browns. (Sorry if Brock and others who are mired in petty political correctness can't see through this or the bigger question as to why this is being allowed to happen.)

Quote from: Brock on June 12, 2007, 03:16 PM NHFT
EEEK!  Brown people and scary headlines!  Run for your lives!

:laughing1:

Quote from: wholetthedogin? on June 12, 2007, 05:23 PM NHFT
RP's name was only suggested by one person---even he would commit political suicide to side with the Browns.

Well all it takes is ONE for them to pick up on it. Granite Grok just interviewed the Grannies and made no mention of the 'other' stuff that was painted on their RV, yet he disses them on the website for just that.

QuoteYou do more homework. The law as it's written and as you quote applies only to "United States persons," not to Americans, and you MUST learn the law's own definitions for terms like "U.S. Citizen," and "U.S. person," i.e., residents of the District of Columbia or one of their federal territories or those who claim to be citizens of the federal government through use of their products like the ss number. The Feds have for the past 200 years tried to inch their jurisdiction onto us. For the federal income tax their enforcing their own laws incorrectly. There is a federal income tax, but it doesn't apply to Americans, only to U.S. persons. You can't discuss legal matters without using the language as it's defined in the law, which is way different than common usage. Also the term "income" and "wages" are way way different than what they are commonly understood to mean. Here's a good place to start - takes about 20 minutes http://www.originalintent.org/edu/fedincometax.php

Thank you for your concern Henry.  I must have missed something.  What I think it means is that residents, nonresident aliens, corporations, estates and trusts must pay the tax but no matter where in the world a NONRESIDENT performs work for wages or sells any of his or her personal property it is to be considered having taken place outside of IRS jurisdiction.  Doesn't that seem to be saying somewhat the same thing that you are saying but in their own tax code? 

John

Quote from: JohninRI on June 12, 2007, 06:16 PM NHFT

QuoteYou do more homework. The law as it's written and as you quote applies only to "United States persons," not to Americans, and you MUST learn the law's own definitions for terms like "U.S. Citizen," and "U.S. person," i.e., residents of the District of Columbia or one of their federal territories or those who claim to be citizens of the federal government through use of their products like the ss number. The Feds have for the past 200 years tried to inch their jurisdiction onto us. For the federal income tax their enforcing their own laws incorrectly. There is a federal income tax, but it doesn't apply to Americans, only to U.S. persons. You can't discuss legal matters without using the language as it's defined in the law, which is way different than common usage. Also the term "income" and "wages" are way way different than what they are commonly understood to mean. Here's a good place to start - takes about 20 minutes http://www.originalintent.org/edu/fedincometax.php

Thank you for your concern Henry.  I must have missed something.  What I think it means is that residents, nonresident aliens, corporations, estates and trusts must pay the tax but no matter where in the world a NONRESIDENT performs work for wages or sells any of his or her personal property it is to be considered having taken place outside of IRS jurisdiction.  Doesn't that seem to be saying somewhat the same thing that you are saying but in their own tax code? 

John

I think most of us would fall into the nonresident alien category. Here, check this out as an example of how their shenanigans work. Here's part of the code where they define the word "state."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007701----000-.html

The term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.


Seems like "state" would mean to include all 50 plus D.C., right? No, the word "include" in a legal sense restricts the definition of "state" to only mean D.C.

Here's the definition of "include" from Black's Law Dictionary 4th ed.- To confine within, hold as in an inclosure, take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve. inclose. To surround; to encompass; to bound; fence; or hem in, on all sides.

Their definition of "state" means only the District of Columbia. Just randomly look through the code and know that the word "state" = D.C. It changes lots of things. I ain't no lawyer or nothin', but it seems obvious that the deceit and evil is hard coded into the actual language itself. It's just all illegitimate, no matter what grade of marble their buildings are made out of or how many guns they have.

Henry,

You can be a nonresident alien if you wish but me, I'm a plain old NONRESIDENT.

John

    The original "Internal Revenue Act" categorized  People and corporations into four categories; residents;  resident aliens;  nonresident aliens;  and nonresidents.The term "resident," (Not before but ever since the 14th Amendment was enacted.),  as you learned in Part 1. of this work,  is a naturalized 14th Amendment "citizen of the United States" and that person was  made such through birth or naturalization.  The term "resident alien" means a citizen from another country which has not yet been naturalized by the United States Federal Government, but is a "resident"  in somepart of the country.   A "nonresident alien" is a citizen from another Country who has made no intentions of naturalizing into this Country,  but none the less,  is doing some sort of business within the United States of America or one of its territorial possessions.  Each of these three classes of People are taxed within the original Code of 1913 in Sections 1 and 2.

1913 Tax Code


    "TITLE I. –  INCOME TAX.

     Part I. – On Individuals.

             Sec. 1. (a) That there shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid annually upon the entire net income received in the preceeding calendar year from all sources by every individual, a citizen or resident of the United States, a tax of two per centum upon such income; and a like tax shall be levied, assessed,  collected, and paid annually upon the entire net income received in the preceeding calendar year from all sources within the United States by every individual, a nonresident alien, ...
             (b)  In addition to the income tax imposed by subsection (a) of this section (herein referred to as the normal tax) there shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid upon the total net income of every individual, or, in the case of a nonresident alien, the totel net income received from all sources within the United States, an additional income tax (herein referred to as the additional tax) of one per cent per annum upon the amount by which such total net income exceeds $20,000 ..."

    The first section imposes a tax on every citizen or resident of the United States and a like tax on nonresident aliens who derive income from within the United States.  The second section imposes an "additional income tax" on "every individual" who was subject to the tax in the first section and has an income derived from within the United States in excess of $20,000.

    So what about the "nonresident," does this term exist  in the Code, and is this tax imposed on him in these two sections?  The term does exist and the only time it appears to me that the nonresident is taxed within the Code is after the death of the nonresident, when his property becomes an "estate" and this is true to this very day.  The current Section 2100,  Subchapter B,  of the Internal Revenue Code is entitled, "Estates of Nonresidents Not Citizens." It states;

        " A tax is hereby imposed upon the estate of every decedent nonresident not a citizen of  the United States."    Section 2100, (a)

    This is the only place in the current Code where the "nonresident" class is taxed!

    When a natural born State Citizen, who is not already a 14th Amendment "citizen of the United States" dies, he loses his natural status and becomes an entity created by the United States  Federal Government; an "estate."  Any taxable portion of this estate after this Nonresident's death is legally taxed in accordance with the Code.

Too confusing for me.

I am just not wanting to merge our Constitutional Republic, which we hope to restore, with a socialist government that has no such constitution and wants to tax us 'evenly'.

Allowing some people to NOT pay yet trying to incarcerate others for not paying is just indicative of what their intentions are -- Marxism, worldwide.

Take from those who produce to even the score with those who don't.

QuoteToo confusing for me.

I am just not wanting to merge our Constitutional Republic, which we hope to restore, with a socialist government that has no such constitution and wants to tax us 'evenly'.

Allowing some people to NOT pay yet trying to incarcerate others for not paying is just indicative of what their intentions are -- Marxism, worldwide.

Take from those who produce to even the score with those who don't.

I didn't set up the system.  I just studied it.  The 16th Amendment didn't change the apportionment requirement and any other direct tax on Natural State Citizens will still be unconstitutional without the 14th Amendment changing the People's status from NONRESIDENT to RESIDENT.  Even if that tax is more just than the present system.

The only tax I will ever accept without apportionment is an excise tax..

http://templecon.org/TTW/ttw.html

John

This woman has an interesting take on the IRS>


http://www.devvy.com/notax.html

CNHT - I'm slow...I just realized what your acronym is and found the site. Still reading...

JohninRI - That's interesting about losing state citizenship or natural status after death. Death and taxes... Its endlessly nuanced and complex for a reason.

QuoteJohninRI - That's interesting about losing state citizenship or natural status after death. Death and taxes... Its endlessly nuanced and complex for a reason.

Henry,  that's only one way of losing the status.  The most common way is to make yourself eligible for Federal benefits by applying for a SS#.

If you have a SS# you no longer can access your State or Federal Bills of Rights.  Al you have are regulated privileges under the 14th Amendment. 

John

Quote from: Henry on June 12, 2007, 08:14 PM NHFT
CNHT - I'm slow...I just realized what your acronym is and found the site. Still reading...

JohninRI - That's interesting about losing state citizenship or natural status after death. Death and taxes... Its endlessly nuanced and complex for a reason.

I just think the title of this thread is rather depressing. There is no need for a person to give up their life for something someone else chose to do.
I am hoping it's just a troll, or plant or whatever.

QuoteI just think the title of this thread is rather depressing. There is no need for a person to give up their life for something someone else chose to do.
I am hoping it's just a troll, or plant or whatever.

I couldn't agree with you more.  That's the reason I felt compelled to shed some light on the income tax.  If any of these people are truly serious they need to know the truth.

John

Quote from: JohninRI on June 12, 2007, 08:23 PM NHFT

QuoteJohninRI - That's interesting about losing state citizenship or natural status after death. Death and taxes... Its endlessly nuanced and complex for a reason.

Henry,  that's only one way of losing the status.  The most common way is to make yourself eligible for Federal benefits by applying for a SS#.

If you have a SS# you no longer can access your State or Federal Bills of Rights.  Al you have are regulated privileges under the 14th Amendment. 

John

Yes, but the thing is these contracts are joined into unknowingly, and so are fraudulent (signing as a "U.S Citizen" on the Selective Service forms for example, when under 18 no less!). I imagine even Mr. Kanning had and used a number earlier in his life before learning the score, though unless I'm corrected I doubt he uses it now. The practice I see firsthand where I live is that the number is assigned at birth, regardless if requested, and a number of vaccinations are forced on the baby under thread of confiscating the baby. That's my sister-in-law's story, and she's not even aware that that's a bad thing. That sort of thing literally gives me nightmares. That's why when I have a kid in the next few years if my wife approves we're going to give birth in the home, and I'm going to draw up a private non-state-issued "birth certificate" notarized, witnessed, and all of that. When he or she's an adult they can decide if they want to join the machine or not.

Quotees, but the thing is these contracts are joined into unknowingly, and so are fraudulent (signing as a "U.S Citizen" on the Selective Service forms for example, when under 18 no less!). I imagine even Mr. Kanning had and used a number earlier in his life before learning the score, though unless I'm corrected I doubt he uses it now. The practice I see firsthand where I live is that the number is assigned at birth, regardless if requested, and a number of vaccinations are forced on the baby under thread of confiscating the baby. That's my sister-in-law's story, and she's not even aware that that's a bad thing. That sort of thing literally gives me nightmares. That's why when I have a kid in the next few years if my wife approves we're going to give birth in the home, and I'm going to draw up a private non-state-issued "birth certificate" notarized, witnessed, and all of that. When he or she's an adult they can decide if they want to join the machine or not.

Henry,  you don't have to go that far.  Even iff they issue it, you and your child don't have to use it.  And when your child reaches the age of majority, he or she must declare a revocation of any adhesions which were done in their name by you their parents.

This is what we have done and this is the pre-brief which is now into the Rhode Island Supreme Court.  Incidentally, the Attorney General has asked for an additional month to answer.  This makes it impossible to decide the case until the next session.

My son is 26 years old and when he turned 18 he filed a Rescission and Revocation with the Rhode Island Secretary of State of all the contracts which we as his parents may have entered him into prior to his reaching the age of majority.  Mind you that there were none.  But since that time he has never entered into a contract with any government entity.  To make a long story short, he was stopped a second time for driving without a license and is now going to the Rhode Island Supreme Court and soon to the Federal Court of Appeals and hopefully to the United States Supreme Court.  Below is his preliminary brief filed by his Lawyer, Robert Healey Jr., one of the coolest people I know.

This is a very complicated issue and if successful will mean that the United States of America and every other government entity will have to adopt two separate rules of law, one for the 14th Amendment "citizens of the United States" which reside in every one of the 50 united States of America, and another for sovereign state Citizens in full possession of all their constitutionally guaranteed Rights.

My sons lawyer is very excited because not many people in this country have my son's pure status.  For this case to fail, the United States Supreme Court will have to declare the Constitution for the United States of America dead.

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND            SUPREME COURT
PROVIDENCE, Sc.


STATE

   V.                     C.A.#: SU-07-0135

Grant Garvin

         RULE 12 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
         ISSUES PRESENTED TO THE COURT

ISSUE 1:
Does  the United States Constitution mandate a person waive his or her constitutionally guaranteed rights retained under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the United States Constitution in order to receive a governmental privilege through its Fourteenth Amendment?

ISSUE 2:
If a State Citizen of Rhode Island fails to either actually or indirectly ratify the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, does any Fourteenth Amendment analysis apply to that Citizen given the Citizen's Ninth and Tenth Amendment's rights?


         STATEMENT OF THE CASE
   This case presents a rare if not unique issue to the Court for analysis.  It questions both the application of Constitutional rights and the application of Fourteenth Amendment judicial analysis.  While it may appear as though it is a Rube Goldberg construct, the Court need remember that Goldberg creations, while often difficult to follow, were functional and reached the objective, albeit indirectly.
   The Defendant, Grant Garvin, was charged with the operation of a motor vehicle in East Providence, Rhode Island, not having first obtained a drivers license.  The Defendant does not deny driving on the highway; however, the Defendant claims that the jurisdiction over his right to personal travel is beyond the Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction of the court.
   Although the current court rules have abolished "special appearances" to challenge jurisdiction, the Defendant clearly indicated to the Court that it was his intent to present himself by way of "special appearance" to contest jurisdiction.  The trial judge, with the strong arm of a potential contempt citation and an indication that the current court rules were clearly to apply thus preserving his "special appearance" status, held a trial.
   At trial the Defendant offered no defense other than to argue that the law is inapplicable in that a Ninth and Tenth Amendment Citizen is not bound by the Fourteenth Amendment unless he or she waives into it.  The Defendant asserts that he has not.
   The Defendant reasons as follows.  He is a natural born state Citizen in the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.  He has never made any direct or indirect manifestation that he has waived his Ninth or Tenth Amendment rights retained by him.  Having his Ninth and Tenth Amendment's rights in tact, for the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to him, he would either 1) personally ratify the Amendment, thereby waiving his Ninth and Tenth Amendment's protections or 2) tacitly approve of it through actions that would be consistent with ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.
   The Defendant has done neither.  In fact, within 3 days of  his 18th birthday, he filed with the Secretary of State of Rhode Island a document, A Notice of Declaration and Reservation of Rights (Defendant's Exhibit D at the Superior Court trial) clarifying his relationship to the State and Federal governments.  As this court and others have  frequently held, contracts entered into by or on behalf of a minor are void-able when timely done after attaining the age of majority.  That document filed with the Secretary of State of Rhode Island is a complete rescinding of any actions (although none had been taken) that may have been conceived of as a contract with the United States government which would have shown a tacit ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.
   Not having made any contract with the government of the United States, either to acquire a Social Security number, to initiate a tax compact between him and the United States government, or to seek any other federal benefit or privilege, the Defendant has not had any contractual dealings with the United States government which could be construed under law to have rendered him to have "tacitly" ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.  As the record shows, his behavior, in filing a declaration with the Rhode Island Secretary of State, indicates a clear intent to retain his Ninth and Tenth Amendment status.
   It has been clear that the Rhode Island courts and the State of Rhode Island consider driving to be a "privilege" which is executed and interpreted through the Fourteenth Amendment for most of its residents.  But how can a Fourteenth Amendment "privilege" stop a person fully endowed with his Ninth and Tenth Amendment's constitutionally guaranteed right to travel?
   If, in fact, one does not waive his innate rights under the United States Constitution, then how can the State wrest away such rights to afford a "privilege"?  Since a person's right to travel is a constitutional guarantee, it can only be regulated by the state under a privilege system via the Fourteenth Amendment or by the common law standard of least restrictive application.
   Rhode Island, as a State in the Union, has a different standing in relation to the federal government than an individual Citizen of the State of Rhode Island.  The Tenth Amendment clearly provides that powers not granted the federal government, nor retained by the states, remain in the people.  The Ninth Amendment states that constitutionally enumerated rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.    At the time of the signing of the Constitution and approval of the Bill of Rights, an individual was endowed with a right to travel the highways of the nation, unhampered lest the travel was for commercial gain.
   Whether or not Rhode Island has adopted the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant to this discussion.  While a State can waive its rights and subject itself to the Fourteenth Amendment, it cannot do so on behalf of its Citizens where the Citizens have vested constitutionally guaranteed rights.  If that were so a State could waive the Bill of Rights whenever it is "inconvenient" for some State action.   Unlike an individual who has not ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, the State is bound by Fourteenth Amendment constitutional analysis, quite obviously, having waived its the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments constitutional protections.  The Defendant here has done no such thing.
   
Most Citizens of Rhode Island would be similarly situated as the Defendant is; however, most Citizens personally contract with the federal government to obtain a social security number and thereby tacitly ratify the federal government's authority under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Most fail to rescind and void contracts at age of majority, and so that contractual relationship, most likely formed for parents to obtain a tax bonus when the Citizen was an un-emancipated minor child, is a binding legal obligation on the newly minted adult who has failed to void such contracts.  In this case, the Defendant never had a Social Security contract with the federal government.
   If the Defendant has retained and duly exercised his Ninth and Tenth Amendment's rights, then the Defendant cannot be held to the legal obligations of the Fourteenth Amendment in that they cannot be applied to him.

   Since Rhode Island holds driving a "privilege", using a Fourteenth Amendment analysis, how does this impact on the Defendant who is under a constitutionally based right to travel?

   Thus, the issue before the Court is:  Can the Rhode Island "privilege" to drive be conditioned on a Citizen's waiver of his or her existing constitutional rights?
   In order for a Rhode Island Citizen to receive a license to operate, he or she must list a Social Security number.  In order to obtain a Social Security number, one must contract with the United States government, and, in doing so, tacitly waive any Ninth and Tenth Amendment's retention of rights the Defendant may have vis-à-vis the Fourteenth Amendment.
   Must one relinquish to the State a duly retained right in order to obtain a privilege when the person has a constitutional right to act as such without the privilege?
   If rights retained by the people under the Constitution's Ninth and Tenth Amendments are true and valid, then they cannot be deemed waived without consent, either direct  or tacit.
   Therefore, with his full panoply of constitutionally guaranteed rights in tact, including his un-enumerated Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights which would allow for the constitutionally guaranteed right to travel, the Defendant respectfully submits that the courts have no jurisdiction over him as to matters that are based on a Fourteenth Amendment privilege to operate a vehicle and travel on the highways, that is, as long as the Citizen is not driving on the highway for commercial gain.   Any state action to otherwise limit this Defendant's right to travel requires analysis under common law and not the Fourteenth Amendment analysis typically afforded such matters.
   In so concluding, the Defendant could not obtain a Rhode Island Operator's license without a Social Security number.  To obtain a Social Security number, the Defendant would be coerced by the State to waive rights retained by him under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.  Thus, the Defendant cannot be held to have violated a "privilege" that he has neither sought nor acknowledged as valid.  Without the Fourteenth Amendment attaching to this Defendant, the court is without jurisdiction.

   To aid in this analysis, the Defendant adds two pages: Addendum A and Addendum B.

               Respectfully submitted,



               _______________________________
               Robert J. Healey, Jr. – RI BAR # 3065
               665 Metacom Avenue
               Warren, RI  02885-2346
               (401) 245-0306
               (401) 247-1908 (fax)
               roberthealey@msn.com






         CERITIFICATION OF MAILING

I, the undersigned, mailed a true copy of the above to THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, 150 Benefit Street, Providence, RI 02903 on this the 21st day of May, 2007, by First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid.


                 
                  _______________________________



Addendum B

RELEVANT AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment XIV
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the .

 I don't participate in SS, never have. I've never contributed to it in my professional working years, that I know of.

QuoteI don't participate in SS, never have. I've never contributed to it in my professional working years, that I know of.

CNHT,

That is a very interesting statement!

John

Quote from: JohninRI on June 12, 2007, 09:44 PM NHFT

QuoteI don't participate in SS, never have. I've never contributed to it in my professional working years, that I know of.

CNHT,

That is a very interesting statement!

John

Which means I can't collect it either.. LOL  I figure in my lifetime I've paid enough taxes to support 3 other families but will never get any of that back.
My husband DID pay in for 45 years, and will also never see a penny of that...  :(

QuoteWhich means I can't collect it either.. LOL  I figure in my lifetime I've paid enough taxes to support 3 other families but will never get any of that back.
My husband DID pay in for 45 years, and will also never see a penny of that...  Sad

To make the contract legal you don't have to get any benefits;  it only matters that you are eligible to apply for them.  The SS# makes you eligible for them.  Oddly enough, without one, you can't pay taxes.  Try filing a return without a number.

Quote from: JohninRI on June 12, 2007, 10:16 PM NHFT

QuoteWhich means I can't collect it either.. LOL  I figure in my lifetime I've paid enough taxes to support 3 other families but will never get any of that back.
My husband DID pay in for 45 years, and will also never see a penny of that...  Sad

To make the contract legal you don't have to get any benefits;  it only matters that you are eligible to apply for them.  The SS# makes you eligible for them.  Oddly enough, without one, you can't pay taxes.  Try filing a return without a number.

Return? What's that?

Seriously, I can't apply for SS because I did not ever PAY IN. It's that simple.

Good for you!  It.s all a waste anyway.  The Federal Reserve Act guaranteed a bankrupt America the moment it was passed.

It was nice talking with you CNHT and Henry, but it's past my bedtime.  Good night.

John

HI ALL!

Newbie here from IOWA
with you all and recording it all

LOVE from IOWA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

'They' Really don't want Maximus to get 'Pissed off' at them.........


We shall 'Bury You'.......... 8)

JohninRI,

That's awesome!  Good luck with your son's case.  Keep us posted.  That's a very interesting and logical way to attack the Catch-22 the feds have created. 

Do your blood washing elsewhere, Maximus.

Quote from: CNHT on June 12, 2007, 10:22 PM NHFTSeriously, I can't apply for SS because I did not ever PAY IN. It's that simple.

Tell that to all the illegals that fully expect to collect the handouts while never paying in and the politicians that gladly look for ways to fork over our money to the people who never paid in.

Quote from: lildog on June 13, 2007, 09:51 AM NHFT

Quote from: CNHT on June 12, 2007, 10:22 PM NHFTSeriously, I can't apply for SS because I did not ever PAY IN. It's that simple.

Tell that to all the illegals that fully expect to collect the handouts while never paying in and the politicians that gladly look for ways to fork over our money to the people who never paid in.

I heard that illegal immigrants are the ones keeping social security solvent -- the ones who work with fake documentation contribute their 7.5% (and their employer another 7.5%) and will never be able to take out of that system.

SS was supposed to be for retirement. 7.5% each in and then take it out when you retire.
Then it got perverted and was 'good for all sorts of things'..

Now, if you go and put 7.5% of your income into some investments, you'll probably have a nice fat retirement account by the time you're of retirement age.

If you go and allow 7.5% (it's 13%, but who's counting) of your income to be taken by the government, you'll probably not get back enough to live on by the time you're of retirement age.

Quote from: Braddogg on June 13, 2007, 11:30 AM NHFT

Quote from: lildog on June 13, 2007, 09:51 AM NHFT

Quote from: CNHT on June 12, 2007, 10:22 PM NHFTSeriously, I can't apply for SS because I did not ever PAY IN. It's that simple.

Tell that to all the illegals that fully expect to collect the handouts while never paying in and the politicians that gladly look for ways to fork over our money to the people who never paid in.

I heard that illegal immigrants are the ones keeping social security solvent -- the ones who work with fake documentation contribute their 7.5% (and their employer another 7.5%) and will never be able to take out of that system.

Actually they are better off. If they participate in SS they may never get their money back. However, the reality is they make up for it in taking other services like emergency room care and schools.

QuoteActually they are better off. If they participate in SS they may never get their money back. However, the reality is they make up for it in taking other services like emergency room care and schools.

Unfortunately, this is very true.  I really don't care who is in this country, but when people come here who aren't U.S. citizens and get access to tax dollars, that really bothers me.  I realize we're all in NH to change things for the better, but I guess to me it's a matter of priorities.

Someone had said awhile back "why begrudge someone else their liberties?"  Because there are so many problems I am worried first about this state, second about this country and then our neighboring countries can come later (ALL POLITICS ARE LOCAL).  As long as we are being unfairly taxed (which has a different meaning to everyone) then we should not be spending money on non-U.S. citizens.  Nor would it be fair to say "ok, you can come here and pay no taxes".  Dammit, that's what I want for myself, and I was born here!  Seniority, folks...

What if the FSP is very close to succeeding but Quebec says "we don't like what NH is doing.  Let's send 20,000 Socialists down there to change things for the 'better'?"  How ironic would it be to come close to a Free State, then have the whole shebang fail because non-U.S. citizens came here to change things?  And it seems like a sizable chunk of FSP membership would be ok with that happening.
:-[

Any source that says this demographic of people takes more than they contribute?  Any source other than the CIS study that underestimated contributions by over 45%?

Quote from: Brock on June 13, 2007, 06:13 PM NHFT
Any source that says this demographic of people takes more than they contribute?  Any source other than the CIS study that underestimated contributions by over 45%?

The closing of 141 tells the story quite well. I probably could find it again if I looked hard enough. The number given was $20K per person, per year in benefits...related to health, food stamps and schooling. The contributions don't make up for it but were factored in. It makes sense if you think about the fact that chances are good the jobs they have at first are not ones that include health benefits...and some are seasonal.

Quote from: Quantrill on June 13, 2007, 05:46 PM NHFT

QuoteActually they are better off. If they participate in SS they may never get their money back. However, the reality is they make up for it in taking other services like emergency room care and schools.

What if the FSP is very close to succeeding but Quebec says "we don't like what NH is doing.  Let's send 20,000 Socialists down there to change things for the 'better'?"  How ironic would it be to come close to a Free State, then have the whole shebang fail because non-U.S. citizens came here to change things?  And it seems like a sizable chunk of FSP membership would be ok with that happening.
:-[

I've found this too with members and also many libertarians in general. I think many just don't realize that the big money, mainstream media, Cheney and all the rest are trying as hard as they can to keep the borders as wide open as possible. Even the military is actively lobbying congress to pass amnesty, including tax amnesty, for the illegal immigrants. I don't understand why so many libertarian types like myself are fully on board with the Bush, the neocons, the state, and the banks on this matter. Their motives are not good, and it's NOT in order to promote an open and free society.

This issue personally affects me to a considerable degree, and while I'd like for my loved ones to be "legal" all of a sudden I'm not interested in removing everyone's freedom by fully diluting what Bill of Rights culture still remains here. Naturalization has value, and that process should be improved, but the public conversation is so one-dimensional that it won't happen.

Quote from: CNHT on June 13, 2007, 04:45 PM NHFT

Quote from: Braddogg on June 13, 2007, 11:30 AM NHFT

Quote from: lildog on June 13, 2007, 09:51 AM NHFT

Quote from: CNHT on June 12, 2007, 10:22 PM NHFTSeriously, I can't apply for SS because I did not ever PAY IN. It's that simple.

Tell that to all the illegals that fully expect to collect the handouts while never paying in and the politicians that gladly look for ways to fork over our money to the people who never paid in.

I heard that illegal immigrants are the ones keeping social security solvent -- the ones who work with fake documentation contribute their 7.5% (and their employer another 7.5%) and will never be able to take out of that system.

Actually they are better off. If they participate in SS they may never get their money back. However, the reality is they make up for it in taking other services like emergency room care and schools.

If they pay rent, they pay property tax, which, in NH, covers schools . . . .  Now, it's true that it's not the total cost of sending a kid to school, which is shared by all the taxpayers regardless of whether or not they have kids in the school system, but that's an argument against the current system of socialized schooling, not against illegal immigration, because anyone who has kids in public school falls into the same category.  As for the emergency room care, you're right, hospitals shouldn't be forced to treat those unable to pay.  A hospital should feel free to laugh -- and laugh heartily -- in the face of anyone without insurance or a big savings account (I'm not being sarcastic, just humorously exaggerated).  That law should be changed (for everyone).

The really sad thing about it is that it's frequently cheaper (http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/20/hospitals-not-taking-free-money-for-illegal-immigrants/) for hospitals to treat illegal immigrants who are unable to pay for free than to get reimbursed by the federal government for it. Yes, the government program is THAT BAD.

Quote from: error on June 13, 2007, 10:23 PM NHFT
The really sad thing about it is that it's frequently cheaper (http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/20/hospitals-not-taking-free-money-for-illegal-immigrants/) for hospitals to treat illegal immigrants who are unable to pay for free than to get reimbursed by the federal government for it. Yes, the government program is THAT BAD.

Hah!  I'm shocked -- SHOCKED -- that the government would put out an unfunded mandate ;)

Oh, the mandate's funded, sort of. It's primarily that the cost of doing the paperwork frequently exceeds the amount of money the hospital would get back.

Quote from: CNHT on June 13, 2007, 06:32 PM NHFT

Quote from: Brock on June 13, 2007, 06:13 PM NHFT
Any source that says this demographic of people takes more than they contribute?  Any source other than the CIS study that underestimated contributions by over 45%?

The closing of 141 tells the story quite well. I probably could find it again if I looked hard enough. The number given was $20K per person, per year in benefits...related to health, food stamps and schooling. The contributions don't make up for it but were factored in. It makes sense if you think about the fact that chances are good the jobs they have at first are not ones that include health benefits...and some are seasonal.

Would you, please?  All references I can find to 141 dealing with immigration are page numbers.

Dallas hospital cares for illegal immigrants
But it's U.S. taxpayers who are footing the multi-million-dollar bill
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14172601/

Hospitals Feeling Strain From Illegal Immigrants
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/10/heallth.illegal.ap/

Hospitals Feeling Strain From Illegal Immigrants
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=950DE6DB133CF936A1575BC0A9649C8B63

Mexico Promotes Free U.S. Healthcare For Illegal Immigrants
http://www.corruptionchronicles.com/illegal_immigration/


May 31, 2007

Mexico Promotes Free U.S. Healthcare For Illegal Immigrants

Mexico's government operates programs in about a dozen American cities that refers its nationals--living in the U.S. illegally--to publicly funded health centers where they can get free medical care without being turned over to immigration authorities.

The program is called Ventanillas de Salud (Health Windows) in Spanish and its mission is to help illegal immigrants find U.S. hospitals, clinics and other government programs where they can get free services without being deported for violating federal immigration laws.

Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Diego and Indiana are among the cities where Mexican consulates operate the health referral system which annually costs U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars. In Los Angeles County alone, illegal immigrants cost taxpayers nearly $440 million in health services annually and a whopping $1.1 billion statewide.

The Mexican consul in Los Angeles proudly announced that nearly 300,000 Mexicans in the area have benefited from his government's health referral program, which he says actually saves the county money by encouraging immigrants to seek preventive care rather than waiting for more expensive emergency treatment.

The Southern California operation promises to assess "consulate clients" for eligibility to government-funded health insurance and other primary care services and offers free legal assistance to those who are denied coverage. Its goal is to improve access to health services for immigrants of Mexican origin by formalizing a health education, medical home referral and insurance enrollment program.

In Chicago, the Mexican consul's Spanish-language web site heavily promotes the Illinois Department of Health's low-cost prescription medicine program for illegal aliens and various free medical services throughout the state. It encourages all Mexicans in the area to pursue the valuable U.S. government-financed services for their entire family.

The Indiana-based program boasts that it serves thousands of "Mexican nationals" living in that state as well as Ohio, Kentucky and southern Illinois. Mexican officials claim that its highly successful pro-health program sends out a clear message to other Mexican consulates throughout the country and the world.

Although these programs facilitate people to remain in the country illegally, Mexico is working hard to expand them to all 47 U.S. consulates to better serve its nationals. In the meantime, U.S. taxpayers will keep picking up the exorbitant tab of medically treating the millions who live in the country illegally.


The Effect of Illegal Immigration on the US Healthcare System
http://www.jhu.edu/hurj/issue7/focus-draoua.html

Hospitals on the Brink
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/06/border_hospitals.html

I cannot find the specific article that stated 141 hospitals along the border have closed for bankruptcy I have found individual counts for each border state which would add up, such as 38 in Arizona and 60 in California alone.

Just do a Google search -- I gotta run! But you will see that we don't turn anyone away, and it's being advertised in Mexico that we give this free health care. If the ones who are coming here now on their own are breaking the backs of the hospitals what will happen when we holler "allie allie ossenfree"?

A closed hospital helps no one!
And this just shores up the argument for socialized medicine.

Get rid of free health care.

Ah, now I see what you meant by 141.  I thought you were referencing the title of a report.   :)

Yes, from everything I've seen, hospitals are losing money partly due to undocumented migrants not paying hospital bills.  This is hardly surprising, though, when they are by law excluded from participating in the financial and credit system.  Since they are understandably reticent to provide an address that could lead La Migre to them, their only payment option is cash.  If they don't have $4,000 on them when they get injured or fall ill, well...

The $20,000 figure you referenced above comes from a Heritage Foundation report (http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/SR14es.cfm) (not CIS as I stated above).  It is the average net entitlement that the family of an unskilled migrant (naturalized and not) from Mexico and Latin America received from the federal government in 2004.   The report states that these families receive three times the benefits they pay in.  But there's a problem.

The Heritage Foundation underestimated the contributions by over 45%.  How much over, I can't tell, but because of the way it's underestimated I'd lay money it's a lot higher than 50%.  But, I'll go with "over 45%" because 45% is the number the Heritage Foundation used in their calculations.

OK, so the entitlements received from the feds are still 50% higher than the contributions.  But, at the state level (Texas (http://www.cpa.state.tx.us/specialrpt/undocumented/7conclusion.html), at least), the Comptroller estimates taxes paid less entitlements are a net gain.  A net gain at the state and local level of $795 million in 2004.  While hospitals suffered a $1.3 billion loss in that same year, in 2005 undocumented migrants contributed $17.7 billion to the gross state product.

I'm not willing to stand on any of the data that is currently available.  There are assumptions about assumptions and the sources contain too many biases.  I urge you to hold some skepticism, also, of the palaver you hear from Dobbs, Gingrich, Gilchrest, Boortz, et al.  They most definitely have not run the numbers.

Quote from: Brock on June 14, 2007, 07:11 PM NHFT
Ah, now I see what you meant by 141.  I thought you were referencing the title of a report.   :)

Sorry I realized that after...I was trying to talk on radio and type at the same time.
Yes 141 hospitals going out of business is enough evidence for me.
Then it doesn't matter if you have health care insurance, if there is no hospital to go to.
And the fact that they advertise that we are so nice here we will treat you free.

Quote from: error on June 14, 2007, 04:37 PM NHFT
Get rid of free health care.

That is the obvious solution, and the one suggested by Ron Paul, for that matter.

Quote from: YixilTesiphon on June 14, 2007, 10:27 PM NHFT

Quote from: error on June 14, 2007, 04:37 PM NHFT
Get rid of free health care.

That is the obvious solution, and the one suggested by Ron Paul, for that matter.

Yeah well we all agree with that but we have many people pushing for the opposite -- socialized medicine and growing government and bringing in more people who need that just speeds up the merging of the countries, the institution of the health care (since you need a certain amount of people to support the system) and finally, the RFID method that would have to go wtih the health care program.

The socialists can't wait, they love big government and they will live high off the hog of it while you support the rest of the masses.

Quote from: YixilTesiphon on June 14, 2007, 10:27 PM NHFT

Quote from: error on June 14, 2007, 04:37 PM NHFT
Get rid of free health care.

That is the obvious solution, and the one suggested by Ron Paul, for that matter.

More accurately stated, the "obvious solution" is to get rid of "free (to the user, but paid by taxpayers) health care". Ron Paul is absolutely supportive of charitable health care, and has provided a good deal of it in his medical practice.

Kevin

I hope you all know you just lost your most die hard revolutionary to the dark side. I know none of you will believe me, but I am a elite talent that you did not respect. The revolution was my profession and I was a master of drawling attention by use of propaganda.

Quote from: Jay Mick on June 17, 2007, 12:52 PM NHFT
I hope you all know you just lost your most die hard revolutionary to the dark side. I know none of you will believe me, but I am a elite talent that you did not respect. The revolution was my profession and I was a master of drawling attention by use of propaganda.

One last smite for good measure . . . .

Respect is earned, not handed to someone because they logged on to a forum.

Quote from: Jay Mick on June 17, 2007, 12:52 PM NHFTThe revolution was my profession and I was a master of drawling attention by use of propaganda.

maybe we have different goals .... since we have different means

what is the dark side in this case?

I think this Jay Mick kid is a bit wacked out upstairs. Too much Matrix and public High School it seems.

Or I could be using faux personalities as a way to get a read on a certain situation. I could be creating specific identities, because I predetermined which personally would give me the best read on a precise person or situation. I could be completely indifferent to any insult, because such responses were a expected response of my own psychological controlled experiment on a subject. I could be freedom fighter professionally and study the best ways to bring a positive response to the revolutions cause. Or maybe your right and I just like to be insulted by large groups of people.

Quote from: Jay Mick on June 17, 2007, 12:52 PM NHFT
I am a elite l33t talent

There, that's better.  ::)

Quote from: Jay Mick on June 07, 2007, 11:35 PM NHFT
Nope only myspace....

LOL MySpace? I guess that tells it all...

Quote from: richardr on June 08, 2007, 01:24 PM NHFT

Quote from: Braddogg on June 08, 2007, 11:48 AM NHFT
At least he's DOING something!

Too bad it's not something constructive.

Egging someone on to do anything like this is completely irresponsible...shame on that.

Quote from: Jay Mick on June 17, 2007, 02:27 PM NHFT
Or I could be using faux personalities as a way to get a read on a certain situation. I could be creating specific identities, because I predetermined which personally would give me the best read on a precise person or situation. I could be completely indifferent to any insult, because such responses were a expected response of my own psychological controlled experiment on a subject. I could be freedom fighter professionally and study the best ways to bring a positive response to the revolutions cause. Or maybe your right and I just like to be insulted by large groups of people.

Or you could just be a fed trying to discover if anyone here is prone to violence by promoting it then seeing who goes along with you....  ::)

Quote from: Jay Mick on June 17, 2007, 02:27 PM NHFT
I could be freedom fighter professionally and study the best ways to bring a positive response to the revolutions cause.

I don't think that promoting violence, even against yourself, is going to get you very far with pacifists who don't even vote because they think it's 'force'.

Quote from: GraniteForge on June 17, 2007, 03:33 PM NHFTThat reminds me of something that I have wondered a lot about:  When did Ed Brown become non-violent, or at least temperate enough that non-violent folks are standing behind him?   I first met him about 10 years ago, in the heyday of the militia movement, and he was a "shoot the bastards now" sort of firebrand. 

I don't think he was ever an aggressor, just 'if you don't leave me alone I will...whatever'.

There was a point in another election (what a coincidence) where something happened and he became the center of controversy as did anyone who owned a gun.
I really took offense to the fact that people who simply owned guns were being characterized as 'militia' or violent types.

I just wonder why they picked THIS year to arrest him for non payment when he's been doing this for over 20 years...stinks of something familiar.

Quote from: CNHT on June 17, 2007, 03:18 PM NHFT
Egging someone on to do anything like this is completely irresponsible...shame on that.

Yep.  The kid is screwed up.

Quote from: GraniteForge on June 17, 2007, 03:03 PM NHFT
You should probably be out honing your professional freedom fighter skills.  Why not watch "The Dogs of War" a couple more times today, then search Wikipedia for pictures of machine guns you can use as wallpaper.  There!  Your skills just doubled.

ROFLMAO!
;D

Jay Mick is currently retired, according to his MySpace page:

Quote
Tuesday, June 12, 2007     

Officially Retire from Revolution

I see that things need to get much worse before they can get better and believe me they will. Someone come get me when that happens, till then I AM OUT.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=151343448&blogID=275417810&MyToken=ec039abb-1c25-43f4-ad3d-f1f78fe2c2da

If you're in Baltimore, it's gotta be crabcakes at G&M.

http://www.gandmcrabcakes.com/