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

[Kat Kanning]

I was told my interview with Fox25 was aired. 

[error]

I was told my interview with Fox25 was aired. 

I saw you briefly here.

[error]

Hey, look who's on the front page of the Union Leader!
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Couple+facing+jail+for+tax+evasion&articleId=171667b0-9425-46c5-8f2b-ca55727a5505

This photo appears on the front page of the print newspaper.

[Dreepa]

Picture of Kat and Lauren in the Concord Monitor today:
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070425/REPOSITORY/704250341

[Raineyrocks]

I had to miss yesterday, sorry, I was hoping to make it.    I just got a job cleaning timeshares and they called me to work yesterday, I worked up to 6p.m.

[lildog]

Great pictures Kat but what did that yellow sign say?

They were each given 5 1/4 years with 3 years probation.

[Lex]

Great pictures Kat but what did that yellow sign say?

Fed Bullies: Leave the Browns alone.

[LordBaltimore]

If and when this thing turns violent, the backlash from the press and public against supporters / free staters is going to get ugly.  You can already hear echoes of how the press will react. 

[d_goddard]

If and when this thing turns violent

You clearly have not been paying attention.
Nonviolence and zero aggression is the mantra repeated on this board over and over and over

[Kat Kanning]

were among a handful of supporters

They say in the article that there were 15 supporters.  Since when is 15 'a handful'?

[LordBaltimore]

If and when this thing turns violent

You clearly have not been paying attention.
Nonviolence and zero aggression is the mantra repeated on this board over and over and over

Actually, you're the one who hasn't been paying attention if you think zero aggression is a universally held belief on this forum. 

And I'm not the one you have to worry about.  The press and public are.  And there are far too many references to violence on this forum when it comes to Ed Brown's situation for the average reporter to ignore. 

[JosephSHaas]

The article I did about today.
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=499&Itemid=36

Thanks Kat, for your "sentenced...not present" the key word or phrase being: 'In absentia" as over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_absentia_%28law%29 where I've just left my comment in the "Talk" section there of: "WHAT 'state laws provide for automatic retrial of fugitives who are arrested after being convicted in absentia'? and does that IN-clude New Hampshire, as the latest case for 'Ed Brown' that you can check out at Google."

The way to go to post there, IF anybody here knows the answer to my question and wants to file there is to press the "preview" button if you'd like and then the "Save Page" as the "Show changes" does not "show" up on the page, only to your computer screen for the time you're viewing it, so luckily I did a print-out and so re-type here, and maybe better to KISS (Keep it simple stupid) over at wiki to get the details over here:

"Would the person who wrote that last sentence before the highlighted word: 'Examples' please contact me, or detail what was written that: 'Some state laws provide for automatic retrial of fugitives who are arrested after being convicted in absentia.'  I'd like to read what those #__ other state statutes say, and put one on the books here in New Hampshire by my local State Representative to the General Court, and BEFORE: the Feds finally comply with our N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 (to maybe amend with such a check-and-balance against future corruption) as there are NO records on file with our N.H. Secretary of State as evidenced by the certificate from such that I have from them on 11 Jan. 2007 that I did give a copy to the prosecutor, Bill Morse in the IRS v. Ed Brown case #1:06-cr-00071-SM at the U.S. District Court: a $102 million complex that I'm also trying to have the City of Concord Tax Collector send a property tax bill of about $2 million to too, by RSA Ch. 123:2 as not tax exempt when taken in context with section :1 and per the definition of the United States is in N.H. RSA Ch. 21:4 of Washington, D.C. and the territories, but NOT this enclave as NOT registered as required by Art. I,Sec.8,Cl.17, U.S. Constitution in that they need the 'Consent' of the State Legislature BEFORE they can operate here!  See http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm for this state-by-state list, but no state list for IF or NOT whether the Feds have complied in those states.  See also for the latest case of being 'convicted in absentia' of Ed Brown over at http://www.vnews.com/04252007/3945568.htm I've taken my complaint against the prosecutor to the PCC (Professional Conduct Committee) for NOT providing this exculpatory evidence by Federal Rule 16 and State Rule 3.8 of NO Federal papers on file with the state as he/the prosecutor 'shall' have provided to the judge +/or the defendant(s), but who never did after I gave him my copy, but all this PCC is is a protection racket for attorneys (consisting of 5 attorneys and 4 non-lawyers, compare: to Maine with MORE laymen) to find out if this means for political hacks of the President, meaning the U.S. Attorney +/or the bureaucrats too as in the forfeiture proceedings being conducted now too withOUT jurisdictional authority, the Astronaut widower Judge Stephen J. McAuliffe AFTER my documentation of such into the file on 4/23/07, said yesterday 4/24/07 from the bench that the defendants cannot blame the court! for what? KNOWING that some federal agent didn't do his/her job by filing, and so the subset of the set OK to operate!?  Yours truly, JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com , P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603:848-6059 (cell phone).  Daring the U.S. Marshal also OUT-OF-ORDER to charge me with aiding the defendants with their appeal to Boston for the First Circuit within ten (10) days, really needing some outside help here from any and everybody who has some information and HOW to compile it to be effective down there, maybe MAss. already in compliance with Art.I,Sec.8,Cl.17 and so them to tell their lower courts that they had better legitimize their act! and before any N.H. Article 10 Revolution occurs, when the ends of government are so perverted as corrupt to the rules of the game NOT being followed by both the letter and spirit of the law."

Also: IF Ed decides NOT to further participate in this federal court arena (of both of these Legislative courts), then maybe two (2) days before the 10-day deadline of Fri., May 4th, and so on Full Moon day, Wed., May 2nd, the day after "May Day", I can send a copy of this print-out to the First Circuit alerting them in the GENERAL, rather than this SPECIFIC case, and so to help out numerous others like Steve Swan, still incarcerated on his IRS battle, now like a P.O.W. but the war still raging on, it needed to be ended soon and in this manner, of when Ed gets his new trial by N.H. RSA Ch. ______ as yet another safeguard against the Feds that we the creator state government have as our creatures, he can argue that Executive Order stuff that I've learned here that the Treasury Order under that is NOT "registered" either, and in that case, with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and so only applicable against government servants withIN their own sphere, the "Black-Robed Mafia" for the IRS, as in the Martin J. "Red" Beckman book, TRYing to get us in the public to pay for their wrongs!?  This court crap has got to stop! And notice that "register" word again.  Who has to file what, where and when judge!? Wake up! Our state motto ought to go from: Live Free, or Die!, to Wise up, or die!

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone)

pc: The First Curcuit Court of Appeals, Boston, MAss. (maybe, later).
and: The Sullivan County Commissioners @ their Tuesday, May 1st Public Hearing on this subject. [see my Reply #___ above].

footnote #1: In regards to this state superiority over the Feds, I was thoroughly disgusted with what I heard in court yesterday and found out that afternoon in document 168 from the files of The "STIPULATION" signed by Robert J. Rabuck, N.H. Bar No. 2087 [yet another attorney to take to the PCC (;-)] that he as another Assistant U.S. Attorney, 53 Pleasant Street, Concord, NH 03301 (603) 225-1552 e-mail rob.rabuck at usdoj.gov AND Glenn A. Perlow, Assistant Attorney General, N.H. Bar No. 13085, Civil Bureau, 33 Capitol Street, Concord, N.H. 03301-6397, (603) 271-3650 glenn.perlow at doj.nh.gov given some power document(s) _____________________ + _________________ respectfully (but UNDER Art.I,Sec.8,Cl.17 U.S. Const., + NH RSA Ch. 123:1) with authority to enter into such a "STIPULATION" both for: "The State of New Hampshire and the United States agree that the United States is in first position...and the State of New Hampshire's tax lien is in second position." 

footnote #2: I know about this "race notice" as he who files first has priority, but ONLY when they are equals!  The Feds are NOT our equals, and WHO gave this authority to The Attorney General's Office?  The State of New Hampshire, Department of Revenue Administration, has a Collection Division, and they get their legal advice to ACT from the A.G.'s office, and so to find out WHO signed this delegation of such to them!? The answer to try to get from Patricia Cassidy, Tax Compliance Officer (for her jurisdiction being the town and city of both: Plainfield and West Lebanon), 45 Chanell Dr., P.O. Box 454, Concord, N.H. 03301, who I did call at 271-1346 to the receptionist who patched me through [to McGarret (;-) http://www.mjq.net/fiveo/ ] her extension #___ where I left a voice recording yesterday afternoon there at about 4:20 p.m. and then at 4:25 p.m. to her cell phone 603: 419-9746 as on her business card, to likewise try the other # on the card: 271-3701 later and with a drop-off of this print-out so as to start the 5-day notice by RSA Ch. 91-A of my right to know to obtain a copy of these delegation papers, as whoever signed them I think has violated their RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office by elevating the Feds above what the RSA Ch. 123:1 statute prescribes in that they may have equal criminal and civil process, but only AFTER they have complied with the law! And so although Ed might have lost this battle in the criminal part of the federal government arena, I will NOT allow same to be done to him in the civil part, as my property taxes go to pay for my state public servants to serve us in a lawful and legal manner, and so as in my current case #2006-0935 of my case against the Town of Boscawen at the N.H. Supreme Court trying to get a judge there of the five to likewise in the state case against me, apply equal force upon the Revenue Commissioner, G. Philip Blatsos [ gblatsos@rev.state.nh.us ] to file an Amicus Curiae/ Friend of the Court Brief too, and under the "unclean hands doctrine" of that he cannot enter the court until AFTER he reprimands this double-agent of his agreeing with the Feds! to thus boomerang or backfire from the civil to the criminal, and in its wake reversal when like the tide goes out, exposing this official corruption at both the state and federal levels, needing some home rule to teach them a lesson that the servant is NEVER over the master unless by consent, and by Art. 12, taxation and protection are reciprocal, but not in a racket of extortion against them themselves! in which case they are the thugs deserving death! so as not to foist their wrongs on others!!

[Kat Kanning]

Feh, well at least my mockingbird thing got in there somewhere.

http://www.vnews.com/04252007/3945568.htm

Browns Get 5 Years for Tax Evasion
Couple Did Not Attend Hearing in Federal Court
By Peter Jamison
Valley News Staff Writer

Concord -- A federal judge sentenced Plainfield tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown to five years each in prison yesterday and ordered the couple to hand over fines and unpaid taxes that may total close to $1 million.

But the Browns -- unlike most convicted felons -- will apparently remain at liberty in their spacious home on Center of Town Road, unless they suddenly decide to turn themselves in, U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier said after the sentencing hearing.

During a press conference at the federal courthouse in Concord, Monier said the Browns' sentencing would not change the watch-and-wait strategy his office adopted in January when Ed Brown skipped out on the couple's trial. He said the marshals would continue urging the Browns to turn themselves in over the phone.

?In this case, we think patience is a virtue,? Monier said.

Ed and Elaine Brown did not attend their sentencing. They are currently holed up in their house in violation of bench warrants for their arrest.

Speaking in greater detail than he previously has about his strategy in dealing with the fugitive couple, Monier said he has not dispatched any officers to Plainfield and that local and state police were not conducting extra surveillance of the Browns' property.

?They've said all along, ?We're not leaving,' and we believe them,? Monier said.

He warned that those who offer ?assistance, aid or comfort? to the couple, particularly in the form of weapons or ammunition, could face charges themselves, since the Browns are now convicted felons.

But he also said that no law enforcement officers would be in Plainfield to stop the Browns' supporters from bringing them supplies.

?Once we're there, we'd be there forever. You folks all show up, the camera crews would be there, and it would look very much like a standoff. You have to ask yourselves: What's the point??

Judge Steven McAuliffe ordered that the Browns each serve the maximum prison terms permitted under their sentencing guidelines, 63 months. He also said they must pay $216,000 in fines stemming from purchases of money orders, which were used to avoid reporting financial transactions.

Additionally, the Browns will have to file tax returns for the years 1996 through 2003 and work out a plan with the IRS to pay back taxes. Prosecutors say the Browns' schemes to avoid paying taxes cost the government about $750,000 in revenue. The pre-sentence investigation report set the tax loss between $400,000 and $1 million, according to the government's sentencing memorandum.

Once the Browns are freed, they will still be subject to probation for three years, McAuliffe ordered.

The Browns have 10 days to file an appeal.

Ed Brown declined to comment to the Valley News yesterday on the couple's sentences. In an interview last week, Brown said, ?We're not talking to anybody. The news doesn?t exist. The government doesn?t exist. All of you don't exist.?

After his sentencing yesterday, Brown told The Associated Press that he was following God's law. ?The world belongs to the creator. It doesn't belong to man. It doesn?t belong to the United States government. It doesn?t belong to me. It doesn't belong to you,? he said.

Friends say that Ed and Elaine Brown -- who have signed court filings this month with the suffix, ?a Living Soul, in the Body of the Lord, of the House of Israel? -- have recently come under the influence of a bearded religious figure from Hawaii who refers to himself as ?the Body of the Lord.? They say the man, who dresses in white and flew from Hawaii to visit the couple, teaches that all law comes from the Bible.

The Browns' sentencing yesterday marks the latest -- but not the last -- turn in the couple's steadfast, and at times surreal, stand against the authority of the federal government.

Throughout their trial and afterwards, Ed Brown, a 64-year-old retired hairdresser and exterminator, and Elaine Brown, a 66-year-old dentist who once ran a prosperous practice in West Lebanon, argued that there is no law requiring them to pay federal income taxes. Prosecutors said the Browns did not pay taxes on $1.9 million in income over the past decade.

They have offered an array of theories in support of that view, from the assertion that the Sixteenth Amendment, which authorized the income tax, was never properly ratified, to the idea that only those living on military bases or in the District of Columbia are U.S. citizens subject to tax laws.

McAuliffe limited the extent to which the Browns could argue such theories during their trial, and he instructed the jury not to question the validity of the federal income tax as they reached their verdict.

While outside legal experts said the judge was liberal in allowing some of the couple's evidence into court -- for instance, Elaine Brown was permitted to show a video, Theft by Deception, which seeks to prove that the wages of American citizens working within the U.S. cannot be taxed -- the Browns complained that they weren't given leeway to adequately explain their views.

A handful of the Browns' supporters who gathered outside the federal courthouse in Concord yesterday continued to decry the judge's management of the trial.

?They took his pants away in the court,? said friend Bernie Bastian. ?They said, ?You're going to stand there without any pants on. We're not going to let you present any witnesses or evidence in your favor.??

?To do something to Ed and Elaine Brown, who haven't done anything, that would be like killing a mockingbird,? said Lauren Canario, who has supported the Browns throughout their trial.

McAuliffe actually declined to use his authority to extend the Browns' sentences beyond the recommended guidelines, despite urgings to that effect yesterday from Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Morse.

Morse had said the couple's disregard for the court and criminal activity while fugitives -- including the destruction of the ankle bracelet that was used to monitor Elaine Brown's whereabouts -- warranted extra prison time.

?The defendants have thumbed their noses at the law. They've acted as if they're above the law,? Morse said.

McAuliffe rejected that reasoning, saying that the Browns' flouting of court proceedings and deeds since their convictions were already accounted for in the guidelines set by the pre-sentencing investigation.

[JosephSHaas]

P.S.

Here's the address for:

The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit
John Joseph Moakley
U.S. Courthouse
1 Courthouse Way
Boston, MAss.achusetts 02210
617: 748-9057

I did just call there and got a recording, so at their http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov I found their contact page for the Records Room at (617) 748-9567 where I called talking to some woman asking for whether or not they have their Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 "operating papers" as from the U.S. Constitution, and me citing the http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm verbally that I said was stupid for me to SAY when I could WRITE it out, as I know YOU didn't write it down, asking for their e-mail address with none of public record, and so she suggested I leave a message for his boss, Dan Toomey, the Records Manager, who did ask for it in "detail" and so I gave it to him to get back to me by telephone +/or by regular mail, since he doesn't do e-mail? 

I told him of Ed's case and the deadline of 10 days from yesterday to get any paperwork FROM New Hampshire TO down there, but first want to see whether it will be more waste of time to yet another court without jurisdictional paperwork on file with that state agent: ________________________- of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  Hopefully they are in lawful compliance with both the U.S. Constitution and legally too by their state statute #_____ and so can tell the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire that they are operating illegally, and so rule that the bench warrant and sentence against the Browns are wrong, and so to do what they have to do, is comply with the law! in the meantime the law-enforcement Marshal has no back-up giving him authority either, and any death by fire upon his subordinates will be upon his head if he "escalates" this case! Currently he is taking the patience approach, but what: sitting on his ass!? letting me do all this work FOR him!? Is he investigating this?  I doubt it! All I get is silence by my Federal Rep. Carol Shea-Porter from her Office Manager Scott in Manchester that her Legislative Courts can do no wrong!  To that I say: bullshit! You either wise up or impeach these bastards! In fact the judges ought to ask YOU: Carol Shea-Porter WHY your Congressional officer has not fulfilled his/her duty?  I think the judge ought to have a claim upon a part of YOUR salary for letting this crap continue!

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone). http://www.state.nh.us

[scoop]

Hi everyone,

I'm working on a story for tomorrow's paper about reactions to the Brown's sentencing yesterday and the Marshal's statement. If anyone would like to chat about their impressions (or their plans to start delivering Jolly Ranchers), please feel free to give me a call or shoot me an email.