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

[varrin]

Y'all,

See the letter below.  Someone who was actually there holding those signs is in a perfect position to issue a response along the lines of "That's exactly what we want."

http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070428/REPOSITORY/704280342

Letter

No pay, no services
Jeannine Aucoin, Henniker
   
For the Monitor
April 28. 2007 8:00AM

To all those who picketed in front of the U.S. District Court on Tuesday protesting the sentencing of the Browns and to those who feel as they do: Your signs read, "Honk if You Hate Taxes."

Well, I'm not too keen on excess taxes, but I will gladly pay them to pay the salaries of the police, firefighters, rescue members, municipal water supply, etc.

Perhaps if these people needed any of these services, they should do without since they feel taxes should not be paid. Let their houses burn, let them have their heart attacks or drown in a river without getting help, let them have a car accident and not be rescued by either the police or ambulance.

If you don't pay, you should not get services.

JEANNINE AUCOIN

[Kat Kanning]

That reminds me, I heard something disturbing during the sentencing hearing.  Elaine applied for social security benefits sometime during their travails with the feds.  I can't recall the exact amount.

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a re-type of my letter to be mailed on Monday to the I.R.S.:

"To:
The United States of America (U.S.A.)
Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.)
80 Daniel Street
Portsmouth, N.H. 03801
603: 430-9598
M-F 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
http://www.irs.gov/localcontacts/article/0,,id=98312,00.html

Dear Freedom of Information Act Officer:

--Would you please send me a photocopy of this incident report of your raid upon Mrs. Elaine Brown's dental office at 27 Glen Road, West Lebanon, N.H. last Fall 2006.

--I've made two verbal requests to your office so far by recording, with no reply by either telephone nor mail, and so put this in writing to you, and say that you please furnish this to me 'without any charge' in accordance with 5 USC 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) since I'd like to post it to the internet for others to read.

--'The" top #1 website in my opinion being: http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=3868.3105 about this: The Ed Brown case.

Yours truly,

- - - - - - - - - -
Joseph S. Haas
P. O. Box 3842
Concord, N.H. 03302
603: 848-6059 (cell phone)"

[penguins4me]

I will gladly pay them to pay the salaries of the police, firefighters, rescue members, municipal water supply, etc.

Perhaps if these people needed any of these services, they should do without since they feel taxes should not be paid. Let their houses burn, let them have their heart attacks or drown in a river without getting help, let them have a car accident and not be rescued by either the police or ambulance.

If you don't pay, you should not get services.

I'm quite certain that several of the services mentioned are already pay-as-you-go.

[scoop]

That reminds me, I heard something disturbing during the sentencing hearing.  Elaine applied for social security benefits sometime during their travails with the feds.  I can't recall the exact amount.

I believe the prosecutor said she is receiving more than $1,200 a month.

[penguins4me]

Not entirely sure why it should be disturbing that Elaine apply for and receive SS monies: after all, didn't she pay into the fund for all her working years except the last few? If so, is she not entitled to get a benefit for which she paid for (even if she was forced to)?

On top of that, it just means we're $1200/mo closer to seeing the whole stinking thing collapse in on itself.

[LordBaltimore]

New Hampshire Views
   
Those who defy courts always have a 'theory' 

The Valley News

April 28. 2007 8:00AM

For years, they have ignored their tax obligations, defied the courts and concocted increasingly bizarre theories to justify their behavior. Now they are holed up in the house, hoping for a miracle.

Yes, New Hampshire's elected officials do have a lot in common with Ed and Elaine Brown of Plainfield. The main difference is that the Browns have now each been sentenced to serve more than five years in prison. No one has yet called the Legislature to account.

The Browns have contended all along that there is no law that requires them to pay federal income taxes, a hypothesis they tested over the past decade while earning an estimated $1.9 million. A U.S. District Court jury decided in January that the Browns had persisted in this risky experiment despite receiving ample notification that the theory was without merit. The result was convictions for conspiring to defraud the federal government and, in Elaine Brown's case, income tax evasion as well.

The Browns failed to appear for sentencing this week, apparently intent on implementing another shaky theory - that the legal system has no jurisdiction over them. For the moment, they remain secluded at their home while U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier waits patiently for them to surrender.

Meanwhile in Concord, members of the New Hampshire House are soon to take up Gov. John Lynch's proposed constitutional amendment on education funding, which has already been approved by the Senate.

The purpose of this amendment is to evade the state's constitutional obligation, as laid out in a series of rulings by the state Supreme Court, to define what constitutes an adequate public education for New Hampshire schoolchildren and to pay for it with statewide taxes that are fair and proportional.

On one level, it's a little hard to figure out why a constitutional amendment is necessary now, since the Legislature and a succession of governors have flatly ignored the court's directives in Brown-like fashion for more than a decade. Perhaps Lynch and legislative leaders fear that the game is almost up, given that last year the Supreme Court indicated that its patience was at last wearing thin and hinted that it might impose a judicial remedy unless the Legislature complied.

The amendment is also necessary to sustain the state's continued evasion of taxes. If an adequate education were defined honestly in New Hampshire and its cost calculated fairly, a broad-based tax certainly would be required to pay for it under the current court order.

Lynch's answer is to enshrine in the New Hampshire Constitution the right of schoolchildren to an inadequate education by obligating the state to pay for only 50 percent of its costs, while presumably shifting the remainder onto the archaic local property tax. The rationale for this is that it would permit the state to "target" more aid to needy communities - a right it already has as long as it fully funds its obligation to provide an adequate education for all.

There's good reason for backers of this bizarre amendment to be concerned about whether it will win approval in the House or, if it does, ratification by the state's voters eventually. It's a tough sell to amend the constitution to permit unequal treatment of school kids.

In its time of trial, perhaps the Legislature should adopt another expedient to which the Browns have already turned. A mysterious bearded holy man from Hawaii who dresses in white is said to have visited them recently and apparently has convinced the couple that all law comes directly from the Bible. Perhaps this is the type of spiritual adviser whom the Legislature will consult while examining its collective conscience.

[SAK]

Cheap pot-shots at the Browns.  Disgusting.

I don't mind Elaine taking HER SS benefits.  The way SS works is you are CREDITED a certain number of credits, depending upon how much you earn.  Once you earn the maximum credits (we can safely presume Elaine did), you don't get any more.  This becomes the amount you get back -- it has a limit.  I'm sure she paid way way way way way way way way way more than she will ever see back.  So who cares -- it's the rightful return of her own money.  Ed and Elaine also don't have a source of income (plain meaning income, not statutory income) any longer.  Too bad she can't get it all back, and right away!

[JosephSHaas]

There is some indication of the blinder mentality of the Marshal in his "MARSHAL'S LETTER" segment of yesterday's CONCORD MONITOR @ page A8 in that you (to the Browns) "have now been sentenced to a period of confinement in the United States Bureau of Prisons" but Margo and others: WHEN* did you get this (pre-?)typed copy? Is this the one I saw in your hands at the top of the steps right after the sentencings? I was a witness to both proceedings and even emphasized this to Gary on my way out of the courtroom: asking him of this "to the custody of the Marshal" whether or not that includes "house arrest"? 

Joe,

The Marshal handed out copies of the letter along with copies of a written statement at a press conference * after the second sentencing hearing. He said that a copy of the letter was being sent to the Browns. It is the one I showed you in the courthouse.

Margo, P L E A S E do NOT tell me what I already know! Was this within #__ seconds of us exiting the courtroom?  ________ As you know, I headed for the Court Clerk's Office on the first floor to get a copy of that STIPULATION, spending several minutes there BEFORE I was heading to the front door, stopping to read the headlines of the newspaper http://www.unionleader.com on the table there when Gary, with you and Bernie on the upper level between the 1st + 2nd floors, yelled something like: OFF LIMITS! that newspaper is for federal employees only, in a joking manner of course. 

The reason for the TIMING is that if it was done-up ahead of time, then it is WRONG, as the judge said: to the custody of the Marshal, and NOT this Bureau of Prison wording is where they automatically send everyone as the EASY way out, leaving OUT not this "house arrest"/ ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING, but ALTERNATIVE HOUSING, as the SENTENCE was to the Marshal for him to decide WHAT and WHERE the victim, in this case victim of the court, Ed is to spend his time for Monier to assert his check-and-balance executive muscles against what he knows is court corruption, or in other words: the SYSTEM getting better from withIN its own diseased body by him/Monier, the Marshal for maybe the court personnel doing something about this situation too, me speaking with former Representative Dick Marple of Hooksett yesterday about this judge not really a judge but Mr. McAuliffe, a federal public official operating under the FEAR factor of: False Expectations Appearing Real, us not having our act together for his antics that should have been offset by somebody there raising their hand, or standing up and saying: EXCEPTION, and him noting such.  I wanted to hear everything said and so didn't chance being thrown out, other than when one of the out-of-state goons on visiting invitations remaining in the dark by the non-raising of hands, did move to me with a stern look when I raised from my seat, and SAID and TO my neighbor: "Oh!, I forgot".    when the announcer told everyone to: EVERYONE NOW STAND FOR THE JUDGE, or "Honorable Court" or somesuch wording, without the MAGIC word: Please.  Or like Steve Martin would have said to the goon IF he tried to alert the judge of this MINOR supposed infraction of his ORDER of NOT to stand up, in the first a.m. hearing, us who did stand up in the continuation of this p.m. hearing in technical contempt for standing up!? and talking? Or was his first order of an either/ "or" situation?  and only applied to the first hearing?

Hey!  Did anybody see a pouch on the pooch for his Police Dog Cards?  I've heard that THEY are the ones to collect as souvenirs, and NOT those COP CARDS from the officers.

As I was driving back to Concord yesterday afternoon I gave Gary a call from my car cell phone, leaving a recording, and him calling me back that one of his "informants" had alerted him to my posting here of the "bullet to the brain to further scramble them like eggs!" (the "them" BTW meaning brain matter in the plural of course), but, like Marple said: of "deprivation of information" is how these antagonists try to start something, by them purposely leaving out of my prefix of: "Let's hope that the evil gets out of you BEFORE your end MIGHT come from a bullet...." (emphasis ADDed), and the post-words of: "I do NOT like scramble-egg public servants" (emphasis IN the original!)

It is THESE type of people that we have got to watch out for on BOTH sides here, so that Gary: do you like fishing or golfing, for WHEN this is all said and done, I think Ed has a fishing pole and/or set of golf clubs that you can have or borrow with an invitation to go fishing or golfing with him. Yeah! Let's go looking for nighcrawlers on the pavement after the rain, instead of to the mines for the lead to be made into bullets.  The spears into plow shears example.

And thanks Gary for providing me with Title 18 U.S. Code Section 922 of Unlawful Acts over at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html for 922(d) in particular for: "It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person-- (1) is UNDER indictment for, or has been convicted in ANY court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice'" (emphasis ADDed, as for the latter, Ed is NOT running away, or fleeing, and for the former, although indicted, the indictment is UNLAWFULLY and ILLEGALLY both ABOVE and OUTSIDE the law, as signed by the Foreman who is an OUTLAW in an OUTLAW Court, so WHY didn't the Marshal emphasis this BEFORE now? relying on the ANY word for "any court" meaning either a legal or illegal one!?  I think this legislative act that says it is THE law as UN-LAWful Acts is not really the law, as THE Constitution is THE law, the U.S. Code or Statutes at Large being written up, but as already explained can ONLY be applied against the citizens withIN the state by AFTER the Feds comply with the law (Art.I,Sec.8,Cl.17, U.S. Const.) to our N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 No wonder these "Common Law Courts" are being set up to off-set these illegal Congressional Courts.  We should have such a Common Law Court trial upon these outlaws and then after sentencing of them, then WHOever and WHATever branch of the federal government, as from the munitions room to find out on their Requisition Order had better not supply the Marshal's office with any ammunition either! but which officers need the ammo to fight the REAL criminals, so what the hell is going on here!? A devious plan to disarm our public servants from the REAL enemies?  When will this bullshit stop?

- - Joe

[LordBaltimore]

It's hypocritical. 

Since there is no trust fund, Elaine's $1,200 income is being funded by taxes currently being withheld from other people's income.  You can't tell people that you've walked away from all government involvement while cashing government checks, and calling the police for assistance every time Fox News shows up. It's all or none.

[cyberdoo78]

richardr,

While I believe your statement has some logical basis. Did Elaine enter in to contract with the US Dept of  Treasury that she would give to it some money in return after a specified amount of time that it would then give that money back on a scheduled basis? Just because you walk away from one part of government doesn't mean you are walking away from all parts of the government.

There are a few useful parts of government, not many, but a few.

[LordBaltimore]

Just because you walk away from one part of government doesn't mean you are walking away from all parts of the government.

I'm not an anarchist, so I agree with you.  But that isn't the stand Ed and Elaine are taking.  They want *no* government, period, in any way.  It's why Ed keeps repeating that the government doesn't exist.

That is why these acts are hypocritical.

[penguins4me]

Since there is no trust fund, Elaine's $1,200 income is being funded by taxes currently being withheld from other people's income.

How is it Elaine's fault that the gov't screws up everything it touches? I wouldn't call any part of the gov't useful at this point - SS is a craptastic "investment".

[JosephSHaas]

Militia meeting @ 4:00 p.m.

[SAK]

It may sound hypocritical, but at the same time she's already PAID the money long ago.  It is, after all, the REDISTRIBUTION of wealth.  Her payments long ago went to other people.  Now, after finding out the TRUE nature of the program and the TRUTH about the law, she wants her money back.  I suppose she could write a letter and ask for it back -- but you know how far that would go.  Instead she's doing the only thing she can to get it back.