Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 13

[Russell Kanning]

lots of views for this thread ... it won't take long for this one to take over .... we have a lot more watchers on this thread than any other.

Hopefully the thread will last a long time and Ed and Elaine grow old while we watch them duel the IRS. The feds tell Elaine not to be with Ed ... and she does it anyways. Maybe Ed is building that tank on his wishlist, while the feds wait in Concord.

Time to watch "Harry's War" again.

[error]

The latest from you know who:

Tax evaders are ordered to pay
Browns' home could be seized
   
Margot Sanger-Katz
Concord Monitor

A federal judge has signed a preliminary order asking Ed and Elaine Brown to hand over $216,000 to the government as part of a criminal penalty. The order, which will become final at the couple's sentencing in April, could eventually lead to the seizure of property owned by the couple, including the fortified Plainfield home where they are currently holed up in violation of bail conditions.

The order establishes that the Browns used illegally purchased money orders to pay off mortgages on the commercial property that housed Elaine Brown's West Lebanon dental practice and the couple's hilltop home.

The Browns were convicted of conspiring to defraud the federal government, conspiring to disguise large financial transactions and disguising large financial transactions to avoid federal reporting requirements. Elaine Brown, the couple's primary breadwinner, was also convicted of multiple counts of tax evasion and failure to withhold employment taxes from workers at her dental practice. According to Bill Morse, the assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case, the Browns refused to pay more than $625,000 in federal income taxes.

The Browns maintain that they are under no legal obligation to pay income taxes. Ed Brown stopped attending court midway through his criminal trial. He has remained in his home since mid-January and has said that he would rather die than surrender. His wife, who attended the remainder of the trial, joined her husband at the house last week in violation of her bail conditions. According to posts made on Internet message boards, supporters visited the Browns last weekend and brought them weapons and other supplies.

Though the Browns were convicted in January, the discussion about how their back taxes and fines will be paid is just beginning. The IRS has not yet filed liens on the Browns' property and may not do so until the couple is sentenced. The state Department of Revenue has already filed a lien for $274,000 in unpaid state business profits taxes, according to property records. The criminal forfeiture penalty will be imposed on top of these tax judgments.

According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Jean Weld, a lawyer working on the criminal forfeiture portion of the Brown case, the Browns could satisfy the order by paying the government. But because the jury found that the couple had used the money orders to pay portions of their mortgages, the government could seek to seize the properties in the future if the couple had no other means to pay.

"If they pay the $216,000 and they pay the New Hampshire Department of Revenue, at this point, those two properties become free and clear," she said, adding that those circumstances will change once the IRS begins proceedings to collect its back taxes and penalties.

It is unclear what assets the Browns have beyond their real estate holdings. This summer, Ed Brown told the Concord Monitor that he had $500,000 in cash, a claim he has since denied making. During the trial, Elaine Brown testified that the Browns invested all of their income in their real estate and didn't have any savings accounts or retirement funds. She has also said in recent interviews that she is living off her Social Security income. Ed Brown has said in online reports that his attempts to sell items on eBay have been blocked.

According to a filing made by the government in February, prosecutors and a lawyer assisting Elaine Brown are negotiating about the possible sale of one property. Earlier this week, Ed Brown said on an Internet radio program that his wife was speaking with a realtor. Under the terms of the court order, the Browns cannot sell their property without the approval of the court.

But Ed Brown has also offered the commercial property, which has an assessed value of $833,000, as a reward to anyone who can show him the law that makes him or his wife liable for federal income taxes. According to a detailed description of the offer on Brown's MySpace page, entrants should not bother showing him Title 26, the federal tax code, or the 16th Amendment, the constitutional amendment that authorized the passage of an income tax.

The Browns' properties can be seized under a criminal forfeiture law because they were paid for using postal money orders purchased in violation of federal reporting requirements. Law requires that postal customers buying more than $3,000 in money orders give identifying information to postal employees. The Browns were found guilty of making repeated purchases of $2,800 to avoid that requirement, a crime called structuring.

During the trial, a postal employee testified that the Browns would regularly visit his post office together and each buy $2,800 in money orders. The Browns said they used the money orders to pay their mortgages and property taxes and that they kept the transactions small to protect their privacy.

The jury found that the Browns had purchased nearly $216,000 in money orders as part of a conspiracy to structure, and that some of those money orders were used to pay principal on the mortgages of their Plainfield home and Elaine Brown's West Lebanon dental office building

Weld said that the government has no immediate plans to seize or sell the Browns' property, but it might move to do so in the future, especially if there was evidence that the Browns were desecrating the property or otherwise lowering its value.

[Dave Ridley]

Peace wrote:

<< It would be to her very best interest to stop now! >>

That could be taken as a threat.  You get negative karma.  If I had said something like that I'd take it back and apologize.

[Russell Kanning]

Isn't that "in her best interest as a journalist"?

[error]

I wouldn't hire her as a journalist. Then again, I'm not hiring, and I'm not starting a newspaper.

[YixilTesiphon]

I also interpreted his comment as meaning in her best interest as a journalist, which I think is more a statement on how liars tend to be caught eventually than a threat.

Do the Browns have a killdozer on their wishlist? That would surprise the federales.

[YixilTesiphon]

Edit: Apparently he's trying to make me look stupid by removing his posts on this page. Or maybe a mod has just decided to stop the madness. Regardless, he at one point had posts bookending this one.

[penguins4me]

The order establishes that the Browns used illegally purchased money orders [...]

Illegally purchased money orders? How is such a thing possible? Oh, they mean "purchased individual money orders in amounts of around $8,000 which happens to be a lesser amount than the arbitrary $10,000 limit which compells certain financial institutions to report such transactions to the big nanny gov't, oh and which is a 'federal crime' to 'evade' by conducting transactions in smaller amounts than the limit which could possibly include any item valued at more than $10,000 and paid off over time"...

... of course, that doesn't flow quite as smoothy...

[YixilTesiphon]

If the press actually explained in what bizarre ways people had violated laws, nobody would read the paper. Which ought to serve as a hint.

[error]

Ed and Elaine Brown were convicted of buying eight $700 money orders, four at a time, when the federal government wanted them to buy all eight at once. The former is illegal, they say, and the latter is perfectly okay.

The structuring thing is utterly absurd, and anyone who reports it as anything other than absurd is doing the public a grave disservice.

[penguins4me]

Ed and Elaine Brown were convicted of buying eight $700 money orders, four at a time, when the federal government wanted them to buy all eight at once.

Holy crap! Would you mind linking to or posting a source for that?

I don't do business with any banks local to me and as such I am forced to use money orders when a personal check is not acceptable - and since the upper limit on many money orders is something around $500-700 individually, *I* have purchased lots of money orders in amounts approaching the measily $5,600 sum the Browns are accused of committing a "crime" with. (I doubt the feds would appreciate what I bought with said money orders, either, heh heh.) If this is true, where some of the charges brought against the Browns is over a singular matter of buying a total of $5,600 worth of money orders over a span of time, then this is even more of an outrage than already apparent!

Not that I don't find it believable, but I'd like to research the issue myself so I can have hard evidence to present to the unbelievers. ;)

-edit
The Concord Monitor has the only online story I could find with some details regarding that - I wasn't previously aware that the USPS had a threshold of $3,000 for the reporting requirements. So, yes, it appears that the "crime" involved instances of purchasing $2,800 in money orders at a go, instead of $5,600... and that even though these were used to pay the mortgage, etc. (and not to launder money from drugs or organized crime/terrorists as the given reason for passing such laws), they still get charged with a federal crime for it. Wonderful.
Side note: these laws apply only when buying money orders from the USPS? Might someone have the US Code reference? I've recently purchased lots of money orders in excess of $3,000 (from places other than the USPS) and was never so much as asked for my first name.

[error]

Ed and Elaine Brown were convicted of buying eight $700 money orders, four at a time, when the federal government wanted them to buy all eight at once.

Holy crap! Would you mind linking to or posting a source for that?

Oh, just every newspaper article that's come out about the trial.

[KBCraig]

Ed and Elaine Brown were convicted of buying eight $700 money orders, four at a time, when the federal government wanted them to buy all eight at once. The former is illegal, they say, and the latter is perfectly okay.

The latter is perfectly okay, unless it's done to avoid the former, which they call "structuring".

This is what happens when you try to obey their rules literally, but skirt their other rules.

In or out. No in-between.

Kevin

[coffeeseven]

I think it would be a good idea to flood the state with Citizen's Rule Books. For those that keep copies let's get ads in newspapers and magazines. Unless all charges are dropped, jury nullification is the only hope.

I'm kind of surprised that there's any discussion of one of the posters making what could be taken as a threat. This discussion is about two people who could possibly be killed because a judge will not let them present evidence to prove their innocence. We should focus on the topic at hand and try to help in any way we can, at a moment's notice and not let the petty concerns rule us.

Also - Why do I get the impression that the reporter that is writing these stories for the Concord Tattler is hoping for a negative outcome?

[Russell Kanning]

Also - Why do I get the impression that the reporter that is writing these stories for the Concord Tattler is hoping for a negative outcome?

I think she wants a positive outcome. She wants the government to win. She wants the Browns to bow down to their masters. She wants us to be happy about it.