Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 11

[Russell Kanning]

Wednesday, February 14, 2007
The Creators of This Blog Have REMOVED OUR SUPPORT FROM ED BROWN
We just got off the phone with Ed Brown. He claims we are no longer supporting him which is false on it's face. There are individuals inside Ed's home who have been spreading lies about Jim, the creator or EdBrown.org, and now these lies have been attached to the people who have been supporting Ed & Elaine at this blog.

As a result, we are respectfully withdrawing our support from Ed and Elaine Brown. Aaron Russo will NOT be appearing on the Republic Broadcasting Network show today. We will NOT be supporting Ed & Elaine in distributing thousands of copies of Aaron's movie throughout New Hampshire. Ed seems to be on a destructive course and there's nothing we can do to stop this.

posted by AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM at 12:43 PM 20 comments

[Russell Kanning]

Ed claims they don't support him ..... so then they stop supporting him.

"the young and the restless" .... or The Old and the Paranoid?

Days of Ed Brown's lives?
All my Ed Brown supporters?

[Kat Kanning]

This will give the gossip-columnist Margot something to write about in the Monitor.

[coffeeseven]

Ed claims they don't support him ..... so then they stop supporting him.

"the young and the restless" .... or The Old and the Paranoid?

Days of Ed Brown's lives?
All my Ed Brown supporters?

As our stomachs turn

[Dave Ridley]

bad news:

quest for fair trial blog has withdrawn support for ed.   fred smart from aftf (an organizer of the blog) called me and verified this to be the case.

see http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/

not sure where edbrown.org stands

[Dreepa]

There are individuals inside Ed's home who have been spreading lies ...........

I think that they mean 'peace.'

[macthefork]

Because of the subjective nature of intent the important determination of the intent regarding Elaine's bank transactions was correctly left to the jury (see jury instructions).  The jury played a powerful role on this point.  This is the place where the jury should have correctly decided that they could not beyond a reasonable doubt determine that Elaines intent was to evade anything (never mind taxes).  Some people (including me) would do these transactions to maintain financial privacy.  The ridiculous determination of criminal intent that this jury came to regarding the bank transactions is crucial to all the other charges.  For this reason alone the jury members (sheeple) need to be seen as culpable. 

[macthefork]

Just to provide context to my last post.

In reading the jury instructions from Ed and Elaines trial it is clear that an affirmative action is needed to be proven in order to convict on EVASION.  Not filing a 1040 (nonaffrimative) is not grounds for conviction on EVASION.  The government had to find actions (as opposed to nonactions) that were INTENDED to evade taxes.  Because of the subjective nature of INTENT the evaluation of intent regarding the bank transactions was left to the jury.  It is simply a miscarriage of justice that the jury somehow determined beyond a reasonable doubt that Elaine's bank transactions were specifically intended to avoid taxes.  I do my banking the same way because I simply do not want the government (or anyone) to be privy to my financial matters.  These transactions were perfectly legal.  The jury did not have any way to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt what Elaines intentions were.  Her testimony I am sure did not include any type of an admission to this intent.  So all the jury could do was speculate.  Speculation cannot lead one beyond reasonable doubt.   

[macthefork]

Check out this quote from the jury instructions:

D.  Definitions:

     Affirmative Act

     A person may not be convicted of attempting to evade or defeat the assessment or payment of federal income tax
     on the basis of a willful omission alone, such as the mere failure to file a Form 1040 or the mere failure to pay the
     tax due; he or she must have also undertaken an affirmative act of evasion. <end quote>

Folks this is HUGH!!!

Elaine was convicted on EVASION because THE JURY TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO READ HER MIND relative to the intent of her affirmative actions.  If one looks near the top of the jury instructions one reads this:

     
     The jury must never find a defendant guilty based on mere suspicion, conjecture, or guess.  Likewise, the jury must never find
     a defendant guilty because it thinks he or she might be guilty or that he or she is probably guilty. <end quote>


How on Earth, short of an admission from Elaine, could the jury determine without suspicion, conjecture, or guessing, what her intent essentially was regarding the legal bank transactions?

Did Elaine testify that she did her banking transactions this way to evade paying taxes?
There are many plausible reasons why one would structure bank transactions this way that do not amount to attempting to evade.
If there weren't the action in and of itself would be illegal I'm sure.
How about the intent to keep ones financial actions as private as possible.

[coffeeseven]

bad news:

...fred smart from aftf (an organizer of the blog) called me and verified this to be the case.

I'm surprised. I thought Fred Smart was a stand up kinda guy. I would have thought he would have had the class to use the "DadaOrwell card" (Okay you don't support me, but I still support you)

I don't know what the aftf is but I know Fred is with Rick Stanley's group which is supposed to come at a moment's notice carrying when one of their own is in trouble. He's also a regional mucktymuck with We The People. I've met with him twice and I really like him. I hope he changes his mind. I also hope I'm not wrong about him. My gut tells me he's on the up-and-up. Very surprised that he would pull his support for something so...................playground.

[macthefork]

What a joke!

The jury instructions declare rather pompously (yet predictably)  that philosophical or deeply held beliefs about the constitutional legality of the laws in question shall always be seen as BAD FAITH (as opposed to many GOOD FAITH accomodations).  That is BULLSHIT!!

Keep in mind that when slavery was practiced many who wanted to help the black slaves would harbor them.  That was against the law.
Would you consider that BAD FAITH?  Please!
See this is ultimately an example of how those who want to protect the governments interest will fashion and interpret the law in unreasonable ways if that is what is needed to protect the interests of the powers that be.

[error]

People still live under this mistaken impression that if a court says it, then it must be okay.

[macthefork]

From my reading of the court documents in Ed and Elaines case there was not a single individual charge for any year of:

FAILING TO FILE A FORM 1040

the issue of not filing forms was meaninglessly woven into the separate and distinct charge of Evasion.
But an EVASION conviction (according to the jury instructions) requires at least one AFFIRMATIVE act.
Not filing forms (non action) is not an AFFIRMATIVE act.

It is extremely telling in my opinion that they were not charged with individual counts of failing to file.  You know why?
Because the mandate to file alone is the most constitutionally vulnerable mandate for two reasons.
1) Failing to file is a NON ACTION.
2) Forcing one to file amounts to forcing speech and association.

It is interesting that Ed and Elaines indictment is mostly about INTENT and CONSPIRACY.
Keep in mind that planning to go to a movie is a CONSPIRACY.

Also CONSPIRACY is a cute way for the government to charge somebody with:

1. A second crime for the same act
2. A crime they never commited
3. Charge a husband and a wife twice each in a tax case.  The fact that the law in a tax case allows a husband and a wife to be considered two people for the sake of bringing conspiracy charges is contradictive to the judicial tenet that no wife or husband shall be forced to testify against the other.  It is simply a miscarriage of justice to conclude that a husband and wife amount to two distinct legal entities in conspiracy charge relative to simple tax enforcement.

[error]

From my reading of the court documents in Ed and Elaines case there was not a charge of simply:

FAILING TO FILE A FORM 1040

anyone think differently?

Such a thing is written on their goddamned piece of paper, but it's virtually unenforceable since the Cheek case (I think that's the one). That's why they come up with all these OTHER charges.

[macthefork]

From my reading of the court documents in Ed and Elaines case there was not a charge of simply:

FAILING TO FILE A FORM 1040

anyone think differently?

Such a thing is written on their goddamned piece of paper, but it's virtually unenforceable since the Cheek case (I think that's the one). That's why they come up with all these OTHER charges.

Well said I have to look at that case.

Yes the great thing about being able to see these court documents is to see exactly how the government (and the court) structure the case.  This is part of the heroics of Ed and Elaine.  The fact that the government and the courts legal MO is being put on display for all to see via the internet is gold for all activists.

I do think that Ed and Elaine chose some complicated ways (as opposed to simple ways) to advance and defend their freedom.  It is in their complex maneuverings that the government seems to have seen its opportunity to convict.  The lesson here is never do anything to avoid enslavement but do everything to remain free.