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

[LordBaltimore]

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.

You're rationalizing.  When you've taken a stand of no government at all, you don't get to ignore your own pronouncements when it involves cashing government checks and calling the cops for help every time Fox News shows up. 

[LordBaltimore]

Officials: Browns have enough assets
By KATHRYN MARCHOCKI

New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
Friday, Apr. 27, 2007

Federal and state officials say they are confident the Plainfield couple convicted in an income tax evasion scheme have enough assets to recover the total $564,125 in claims and a judgment against them.

The land owned by anti-tax crusaders Edward L. and Elaine A. Brown in West Lebanon and Plainfield alone is assessed at more than $1.4 million in local tax records.

But a federal prosecutor said the government doesn't have to target the couple's land if other assets are available to pay the $215,890 a judge ordered the Browns to forfeit to the federal government or the $348,235 in tax liens the state placed on their properties for business taxes the state Department of Revenue Administration says is owes them.

"If we found other assets, we could use that to satisfy that judgment," Assistant U.S. Attorney William E. Morse said yesterday of the federal forfeiture order.

"Money judgements can be enforced like any other collection matter and any of the Browns' assets can be used ... If we found other assets, we could use that," explained Morse, who was the lead prosecutor in the tax dodging scheme that resulted in the Browns also being sentenced to 63 months in federal prison Tuesday and ordered to begin paying federal income taxes dating back to 1996.

Whatever course the government takes to enforce the order likely will be complicated by the fact that the Browns remained armed and holed up in their fortress-like Plainfield home where they continue to threaten violence against anyone who tries to arrest them.

Stephen R. Monier, the U.S. Marshal for New Hampshire, said he has no plans to confront the couple and hopes to find a peaceful way to take the couple into custody so they can begin serving their prison terms.

"We will proceed with our forfeiture process at a time that is in the best interests of all aspects of law enforcement," Morse said.

He said his office works closely with Monier on the matter, but would not say how the government plans to proceed or when.

If the couple lacks other assets, Morse said the government would seek to obtain court orders that would enable them to sell either one or both of their properties to recover what they owe.

That would involve first filing a motion for a court order that would allow them to enter the property, make an inventory of its contents and post the properties, Morse said. A separate court order would be needed to put the properties up for sale, he said.

The federal government would be paid before the state could recover its claims, Morse said.

A jury convicted the Browns on Jan. 18 of plotting to hide their income and avoid taxes on Elaine Brown's income of $1.9 million between 1996 and 2003. The scheme involved buying $215,890 in postal money orders in amounts that enabled them to avoid federal income reporting rules.

The couple also has not paid federal income taxes since 1996, saying there is no law that requires them to do so.

A jury found the couple owed $750,000 in income taxes from 1996 through 2003. Morse said this does not include interest and penalties or taxes owed in 2004 or 2005.

[powerchuter]

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

Here is Jeannine's info if anyone would like to give her a call, send her a letter, or pay her a friendly visit...

   
Jeannine Aucoin
(603)428-3339
37 Old Hillsboro Rd
Henniker, NH 03242

enjoy

[penguins4me]

You're rationalizing.  When you've taken a stand of no government at all, you don't get to ignore your own pronouncements when it involves cashing government checks and calling the cops for help every time Fox News shows up. 

Even assuming your facts are in order regarding Elaine, the 'do as I say, not as I do' thing has been an issue since humankind first stood up on two legs. It is not the blackest of evils, and especially in this case where we have a person 1. not in a position to take advantage of the "public trust", 2. paid cash into (or had cash stolen to "pay into") something in return for a kiss and a promise, 3. likely to have whatever assets remain frozen if they aren't already by the same group of iron-fisted thugs who say it is a crime to buy money orders in less than an arbitrary amount (which I personally am "guilty" of, too), 4. is a hardworking and productive person in whatever free market remains, etc.

... being a far cry from:

someone who has sworn an oath to defend God-given, inherent rights, yet 1. breaks into someone's house and steals all their most effective means of self-defense as well as (most often) any stockpile of emergency cash before the victim ever has a chance to prove his/her innocence (which he/she, by law, is presumed to already be), 2. steals 30%+ out of every buck a productive citizen earns, 3. creates and/or enforces laws which make criminals out of orginary peaceable, productive people, 4. bans possession of arbitrary objects which they deem undesirable while overlooking worse examples because those line thier pockets with ca$h, 5. kill or send others to kill peaceable people... need I go on?

Don't blather on about hypocrisy when the actual comparison is absolutely ridiculous.

[penguins4me]

Do they actually get to present more than two arguments in their defense out of forty-two if they appeal? :P

[Kat Kanning]

Here is Jeannine's info if anyone would like to give her a call, send her a letter, or pay her a friendly visit...

   
Jeannine Aucoin
(603)428-3339
37 Old Hillsboro Rd
Henniker, NH 03242

enjoy

Are you threatening this person?

[powerchuter]

Here is Jeannine's info if anyone would like to give her a call, send her a letter, or pay her a friendly visit...

   
Jeannine Aucoin
(603)428-3339
37 Old Hillsboro Rd
Henniker, NH 03242

enjoy

Are you threatening this person?

6 billion inhabitants are hereby put on immediate and indefinite notice...

Aggression against me will result in superior defensive force being applied, at my discretion, until you are unable to ever commit aggression against another again...

"I" am not "threatening" anyone...and you damn well know it...

My notice is to each and every other person on this planet...including you...

And it's not a threat...it's a statement of resolve...

But you already knew that...

Come on Kat!?!...What part of "friendly visit" don't you understand?

FYI...

This information is publically available via the internet and other sources...


Jeannine Aucoin
(603)428-3339
37 Old Hillsboro Rd
Henniker, NH 03242

[LordBaltimore]

Even assuming your facts are in order regarding Elaine, the 'do as I say, not as I do' thing has been an issue since humankind first stood up on two legs.

Guess I'm not a big fan of the "So, everyone does it even though it's wrong" rationalization either.

[cyberdoo78]

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.

I believe the statements of the Browns that 'the government does not exist' are made on the belief that the government is not a living breathing person but a legal fiction. To understand this you would have to learn about legal fictions. As I understand it, legal fictions can only effect other legal fictions and not real living beings. Thats why the government can't do anything to you until a living breathing person makes a complaint or charge against you, such as a LEO or other governmental employee.

Of course some of the other things I read state you are both a person and a fiction, so the government as a fiction can interact with the fictional you and punish your fictional person for crimes the real you commits, and as you have declared you are your fiction, can have that punishment served by you instead of your fictional person.

Having said all that however, I believe that you are not interested in championing the idea of liberty, that being that an individual should be able to do whatever s/he wishes so long as s/he harms no one. What harm is there in not paying money that one doesn't legally owe? Who does it harm? Governments can't be harmed, because they are fictions, same goes for corporations. If you are a fictional person as well as a real person, then you can't be either.

To the issue of Elaine collecting social security, she paid into the system so the system owes her. Even if we are to assume that they want no part of government, they should be able to have their property returned if they cash out.

You make the statement that you are not anarchist, implying that I am not one either, which I could debate that I am and that I am not. In the generalist sense of the word, I do not believe government is required, nor would I make it a requirement either. So in this sense I am an anarchist. I also believe that some government could be useful, the extent of which I'm not sure. I would like to see government protect the governed, but not in a ruler sense as our current government stands. We address all people of government by title and not by name, in effect giving them ruler status. I don't rightly know where I stand. I would rather start over and try without government, and if needed then institute limited government using the basis of our current government as a guide of what not to do.

powerchuter's previous statements have not been threats, attributed to the fact that he uses the word notice. The differences between the two are difficult to understand, however once understood there can be no further misunderstandings. A notice is a legal concept, while it is similar to a threat, and occurs between the issuer and another party. The party of the second part is told what actions party of the first part will do if the party of the second part commits the actions that the party of the first part states. Ergo, the party of the first part is powerchuter, and the party of the second part is the afore mentioned '6 billion inhabitants [of Earth]'. And thus, if the party of the second part commits actions of aggression against the party of the first part, then the party of the first part will respond with 'superior defensive force' and that, at the party of the first parts discretion, continue the afore mentioned 'superior defensive force' until the party of the second part is unable to ever commit aggression against the party of the first part or against the party of the third part, which is made up of members from the party of the second part.

To be a threat, his action of 'superior defensive force' would have to be a punishment or harm on another resulting from an action or inaction if they don't comply with his request, in effect that would make him an aggressor and not, as he is, defender. If he worded his statement that thusly, 'you will not attack me because if you do I will kill you', that would be a threat. However as he formed in the form of a notice, it can not be assumed to be a threat. You don't go, I put you on notice that action X will result in action Y to make a threat. You say, if you do action X I'll do action Y, that is a threat.

Even assuming your facts are in order regarding Elaine, the 'do as I say, not as I do' thing has been an issue since humankind first stood up on two legs.

Guess I'm not a big fan of the "So, everyone does it even though it's wrong" rationalization either.

So then you are for the government as it stands?

I hope I mentioned I love arguing.

[dalebert]

I don't believe in taxes. I pay them for the same reason someone pays protection money to the mob; not because it's right or legitimate but because there is a considerable threat of force if I don't. I'm not actually a fan of the Browns for several reasons involving their logic and their tactics and also for a few not so veiled threats they've made that I think promote a bad stereotype of tax protesters.

However, it's silly to attack them for accepting some of their own SS money back. SS should at least be optional. They should give me all my money back right now plus some reasonable amount of interest. Honestly though, I'd gladly opt out of benefits if I could just get what I paid in back despite what I've already lost from inflation and potential interest. Heck, I'd opt out of benefits and forfeit what I've paid in if I could just stop paying right now, and that includes the chunk they force my employers to pay in order to hire me. It would be far from fair but it would still be a much preferred situation. Having that money to invest would put me in a far better situation for retirement.

But it's ridiculous to say you shouldn't "participate", i.e. accepts the "benefits" when you're not given any choice to "participate" -the part where they take your money from you. When they say "here's a little piddling amount of your own money back" you take it from the thieving fuckers and you don't thank them (or at least thank them with a REALLY sarcastic tone to your voice). The return is already only loosely related to what you pay into it via some formula they've arbitrarily designed. SS is just an additional tax (aimed primarily at the lower and middle class) that keeps going up. The benefit is really just a ruse to make it seem like something else, as if it were a savings account, but it's lost any semblance of being that. They'd just LOVE it if protesters would keep paying into it and not even accept that little fraction of their money back. That's their ideal system! That's throwing yourself on your own sword.

[LordBaltimore]

powerchuter's previous statements have not been threats

Bullshit.  His repeated desire to shoot people has been quite sickening and if he goes violent, his actions will do serious damage to the nhfree participants.

The semantic games are nothing but rationalizations to commit violent acts.

[LordBaltimore]

Here is Jeannine's info if anyone would like to give her a call, send her a letter, or pay her a friendly visit...

   
Jeannine Aucoin
(603)428-3339
37 Old Hillsboro Rd
Henniker, NH 03242

enjoy

Are you threatening this person?

And Ed wonders why more people who disagree with him aren't coming forward.
Harrassing a person simply because she wrote a letter to the editor is sad.

[LordBaltimore]

<< 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.

I tried to dig you up the links where the specific threats were made but Republic Broadcast Network and TruthRadio.com have both removed those radio shows from their archives.  I did find a partial transcript that was published on a different website that is also watching the Brown situation.

EDWARD BROWN: Follow this. Here?s the bottom line to the whole thing. David knows just exactly as we know that once you?ve used the lawful word, you?ve done it the absolute proper way, and they still come at you, they are now attacking the Creator himself or itself. When that happens, you have an obligation. David, what is that obligation?

DAVID CLARENCE: To stand up for the law.

EDWARD BROWN: To kill every one of them. You understand? Because that the words that people don?t want to talk about. When they go against everything, especially when they go against God, now they?re telling you that they absolutely could care less about you. We are here to do nothing but murder you, murder your God, murder your life, murder your planet, this is for us. 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 10 Commandments tell you to do. That?s exactly what all of God?s laws plus the Bill of Rights tells you to do. That?s exactly what the statutory laws of each state tell you to do, even if they wear uniforms. And I?m telling you right now if they go that far and cross that line, do what the law tells you to do. That?s what I finally concluded to.

David agrees and talks for a couple of minutes about Biblical references.

DAVID CLARENCE: What?s the commandment for a disobedient son that will not follow the law? Kill him.

EDWARD BROWN: The ones that are wise enough to back away are the ones you forgive. But the ones that keep on coming, you take care of their seed.

ELAINE BROWN: They leave you no choice.

EDWARD BROWN: What we want to do now is make sure that we identify all those now who help, aid, and abet those enemies both foreign and domestic as to who the real criminals really are. We want to make sure of that.

I can't vouch for the veracity of the transcript but it matches my memory of the show and it's something that Ed has said more than once.

[PowerPenguin]

Let's end the conflict. The bottom line here is: Don't initiate force, but don't put up with those who do either, especially if they have you as their latest target. A firm but polite and pseudorespectful stand against these kinds of people is what is needed. When dealing with bureaucrats or people who act like them, I've found the best solution is to deflect and neutralize their attacks. Marc Stephens is right when he says you can't win with these jerks. What you can do, however, is take them on calmly, respectfully, and firmly. Defuse their anger and channel it onto a productive path. Think of it as rhetorical Judo. You don't want to block the energy, but you want to redirect it in order to make your attacker work for you and against himself.

[SAK]

Talk is great, but you can't always talk your enemies into giving up.  I'm not saying this is what you're suggesting, but I'd just like to make this point.  Ed and Elaine can talk to all of these people til their ears bleed, and Ed & Elaine are blue in the face.  Nothing will happen from it.  They will still come after Ed & Elaine.  I tried talking to people here in Illinois, to show them the law, to get them to respect the law, etc.  Where did it get me?  In court on a felony charge.  Talk is cheap.  At some point, the talk must be backed by action.  Where and when that point is is different for all of us, and is a decision that each of us must make for ourselves.

Ask yourself this: where's your line in the sand?

I think the rational line in the sand for just about everybody was crossed a long time ago.  The NATURAL law and the NATURAL line in the sand was crossed long ago.  What now?