Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 14

[powerchuter]

Early on there was much vitriol in the rhetoric coming from the house. Much of it was not Ed. The benefit of the wait for something to happen has allowed Ed and everyone else to calm down and totally assess their situation. They believe they are in the right, as do I, and surrendering means abandoning their principles. When you live by your principles and your honor often there are few choices one can make and still hold to their honor and their principles.

Believing oneself to be a free and sovereign individual comes with risk in that the "government" believes otherwise and that Ed and Elaine have decided not to participate in the IRS sharecropper program. This is something they cannot allow and will take all steps to make sure others don't catch on to Ed's message. Surrender in this instance will scare others into picking up the sharecropper's yoke and go back to providing the beast with the very best of their labors. Placed in their position, what would you do?

I fully support Ed and Elaine Brown!
I am a free and sovereign individual!
Rights are individual and parallel in groups...
Rights can never "accumulate" to "create" some supposed greater "authority" or "jurisdiction"...

Never Give Up!
Never Surrender!
Live Free Until You Die!

Semper Fidelis!

[Dreepa]

Today's CM article:
Ed Brown denies making threats
Recorded statements speak to the contrary
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070427/REPOSITORY/704270362

[lildog]

I'm going to make a prediction...

Those supporting the Browns will be picked up one by one and arrested.  This will thin down the support Ed has.

The feds will also give Ed time to feel comfortable like he's getting away with something before making any moves.

Once his supporters have either moved on with their lives or been arrested one by one Ed will eventually start making trips outside his house.

It may not be his first trip out but sooner or later on one of his trips they will move in and arrest him.  Depending on how the arrest is done I could see Ed being shot dead.  I would guess they would take his wife separately.

If they do take him alive they'll charge him with additional crimes putting him in prison for the rest of his life.

[error]

I'm going to make a prediction...

Those supporting the Browns will be picked up one by one and arrested.  This will thin down the support Ed has.

There are far more Ed Brown supporters than U.S. Marshals. The problem is that not nearly all of them are in Plainfield.

[Dave Ridley]

<< He's made several references to his guys "outside the perimeter" hunting down and killing the judge and other involved in the trial.  He's even said that their families will be killed.  >>

Could you provide an original source on that part about families?  This is the first I've heard of that.

[LordBaltimore]

Today's CM article:
Ed Brown denies making threats
Recorded statements speak to the contrary
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070427/REPOSITORY/704270362

There's a second story in the Monitor as well.

Browns 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

[lildog]

I'm going to make a prediction...

Those supporting the Browns will be picked up one by one and arrested.  This will thin down the support Ed has.

There are far more Ed Brown supporters than U.S. Marshals. The problem is that not nearly all of them are in Plainfield.

There are different levels of supporters though.

Someone sitting home saying I support Ed isn't a concern here.  Neither is someone writing to the papers or standing out somewhere holding signs saying "show Ed the law".

No, the supporters I'm talking are those bringing him supplies and those camping in the woods saying they'll defend him.

And the feds wouldn't need to out number them if they pick them off while they make supply runs or situations where they are alone.

[LordBaltimore]

Does anyone know what happened to Anthony?

[Dreepa]

Also there was this LTE today:
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070427/REPOSITORY/704270364/1029/OPINION03

[Dave Ridley]

Does anyone have an audio copy of ed saying this stuff about bloodlines?   That would be an evil thing to say, assuming he really said it, and I would like to know for sure whether he did or not.  That means hearing it from the horse's mouth.

[ninetales1234]

The Browns, who attended neither hearing and were sentenced to 63 months in prison in absentia, were remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal Service, which said it continues to speak with the couple regularly in an effort to resolve the matter peacefully.

"We encourage them to do the right thing. The right thing is to surrender," said Stephen R. Monier, U.S. Marshal for New Hampshire.

Anything they can say to make themselves sound good.

Morse also said Elaine Brown caused more than $1,000 damage to her electronic ankle bracelet when she made it "permanently inoperable," which is a felony offense.

Good for her! Stick it to the man!!

[penguins4me]

And then of course, the judge holds the jury hostage. Even in this civil case, the judge droned on about how "I will judge the law, and you will judge the facts. I cannot judge the facts, and you cannot judge the law." He did that at the trial opening, and every single time he addressed the jury, and then went on about it for half an hour when he gave jury instructions.

For a civil action, this may well be true. For a criminal trial, it's absolutely not true.

error, I was waiting for KBCraig to ask you to clarify, but he has not yet done so. I've read several criminal case transcripts, and many actually do have the judge explicitly telling the jury that he/she will judge the law, and that the jury must only judge the facts. That statement is usually reiterated multiple times using different phrasing. Here is a link to one example from US vs Fincher (click the Adobe Acrobat link from that page, titled 'Judge Hendren's Jury Instructions').

The PDF is imaged-based, but here's a choice quote (one of many):

It is your duty to find from the evidence what the facts are. You will then apply the law, as I give it to you, to those facts. You must follow my instructions on the law, even if you thought the law was different or should be different.

That was juicy, so here's another:

If all of these essential elements have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant, then you must find the defendant guilty

Seems that in this criminal trial, the judge absolutely did tell the jury that they were not allowed to render a verdict based upon their judgement of the law in question.

[LordBaltimore]

Seems that in this criminal trial, the judge absolutely did tell the jury that they were not allowed to render a verdict based upon their judgement of the law in question.

That's how the Supreme Court ruled in 1895 in Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 and it's never been overturned.

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a re-type of my e-mail letter of 10:11 o'clock AM this morning from JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com to cis at sec.state.ma.us

"To: The Secretary of the Commonwealth
Citizen Information Service
One Ashburton Place, Room 1611
Boston, MA 02108-1512
Tel. (617) 727-7030
Toll Free: 1-800-392-6090
Fax: (617) 742-4528
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/seccon.htm

Dear Secretary William Francis Galvin:

--What's going on here?  Or should I say: what is NOT going on here?

--According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution the Legislation passed by Congress 'may' be exercised in YOUR state but ONLY therefrom those 'needful building's when 'purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State.'

--In your 'The General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Tercentenary Edition, 1932, title 1, chapter 1, section' 7 The Legislature in 18__? consented that: 'The United States shall have jurisdiction over any tract of land within the commonwealth acquired by it in fee for the following purposes:...(including) post office...provided, that a suitable plan of such tract has been or shall be filed in the office of the state secretary within one year after such acquisition of title thereto.'

--Would you please sell to me (by credit card to your land-line telephone number, paypal, or for me to send you a check?) a copy of this 'plan' and the date stamp thereon.

--#__ years ago I remember visiting your Capitol City of Boston, finding that the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit was renting(?) space from the Post Office(?) IN the Post Office building there, but in 199__ moved to 1 Courthouse Way, down by the wharf and called their building there: The John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse.  And so I ask you too, would you please also send me a copy of the Legislative papers, if any, for this building too, because there ought to be another SECTION #__ (?) for the GENERAL since ADDed to SECTION 7 to IN-clude 'other needful Buildings' as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution (Art.I, Sec.8, Cl.17) since SECTION 7 is limited to ONLY those ten (10) listed purposes, and I don't see courthouses there; or some SPECIFIC Legislation.

--See what I've found at the internet for both: (1) http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (for MASSACHUSETTS at page 29 of 80 at the 90% print-out) and; (2) http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm for the U.S. Attorney Manual (USAM) Section 664 for 'Territorial Jurisdiction' wherein by the James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 141 (1937) case the phrase 'other needful building's 'embraces courthouses'.

--This past Wednesday, April 25th I did mail a letter to Dan Toomey, the Records Manager for the First Circuit Court in Boston, Zip Code: 02210, Tel. 617: 748-9057 after he called me back of me asking for his court's 'operating papers' or proof of filing with the state, as maybe in a receipt they have that you might have lost or misplaced the originals?

--The timing of this is for a 'prompt' reply by you please BEFORE next Friday, May 4th, the word prompt in Article XI of your Massachusetts Constitution http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm and defined as: without delay, delay= postpone, post= after, pone= (corn)meal, and so technically when you get this Monday morning as the next official business day, then please by noontime of AFTER breakfast but BEFORE lunch, or AT LEAST by 4:00 p.m. when you close (?) BEFORE supper or dinner-time, but that I'll be kind and give you until 12:00 o'clock high noon Fri., May 4th. 

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

pc: to Dan Toomey, if only I had his e-mail address, if any."

[LordBaltimore]

Does anyone have an audio copy of ed saying this stuff about bloodlines?   That would be an evil thing to say, assuming he really said it, and I would like to know for sure whether he did or not.  That means hearing it from the horse's mouth.

The Concord Monitor told me where and when to look.  I'll get you one of the links. I've listened to about half of the radio shows (mostly the ones early on) and Ed's talk about killing people who didn't come to arrest him was pretty common.