Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 19

[Ogre]

When I was in NH last week (interviewing for jobs in preparation for moving), I sat down and talked with two Republican Reps.  I brought up Ed Brown.  One had never heard of him and the other was confused until I mentioned "Planfield."  Then he said, "Oh, I keep telling them to just leave the man alone.  Just don't bother him and stay away from him.  I really hope they stay away from him and leave him alone."  The two reps are in the minority, so they seemed to think that they had zero power at all in the legislature this year (being freedom-oriented Republicans in a now-majority Democrat district -- Hudson).  They also seemed to have the view that it's a federal issue and the state really isn't involved.

[LordBaltimore]

Keeping the music under a particular decibel reading could be considerate.  The meters only cost about 40 or 60 Federal Reserve Bucks.

Personally I love the unplugged concerts.

Poker Face is used to doing small concerts, and does a great job of maintaining an appropriate volume.

It wasn't the potential noise levels that upset the neighbors.

[Romak]

How did the Govt set the chains of events in motion? Thats where you all lose me. Ed Brown has been speaking out against the Govt for years now and they haven't bothered him one bit. He was well within his rights to talk all he wanted to, organize whatever he chose to do. He went out and broke the law, and because of him being unprepared for this fight he was tried and convicted. I do agree with everyones contention that the courtroom proceedings were a joke but he had other avenues. It was his choice to not pay his income tax, one would think he would've been more prepared for it. Heck if anything he could've hired a lawyer who specializes in these types of cases, there are plenty of them out there. There are plenty of people in the tax movement that would've led him to the right person to defend him. This all could've been avoided if he just contacted a lawyer said hey this is what I'm going to do, tell me the possible outcomes. Then he could've weighed his options and chosen the proper course of action. Thats what a person who is serious about effecting change does. He didn't care about changing anything, he just didn't want to pay, and thought he would get away with it. He was wrong. Now its just a circus and unfortunately the potential for a lot of people getting hurt including his neighbors exists.

[hook]

How did the Govt set the chains of events in motion? Thats where you all lose me. Ed Brown has been speaking out against the Govt for years now and they haven't bothered him one bit. He was well within his rights to talk all he wanted to, organize whatever he chose to do. He went out and broke the law, and because of him being unprepared for this fight he was tried and convicted. I do agree with everyones contention that the courtroom proceedings were a joke but he had other avenues. It was his choice to not pay his income tax, one would think he would've been more prepared for it. Heck if anything he could've hired a lawyer who specializes in these types of cases, there are plenty of them out there. There are plenty of people in the tax movement that would've led him to the right person to defend him. This all could've been avoided if he just contacted a lawyer said hey this is what I'm going to do, tell me the possible outcomes. Then he could've weighed his options and chosen the proper course of action. Thats what a person who is serious about effecting change does. He didn't care about changing anything, he just didn't want to pay, and thought he would get away with it. He was wrong. Now its just a circus and unfortunately the potential for a lot of people getting hurt including his neighbors exists.

The Government is the antagonist in this situation. The Government sought out the Browns.

The Browns did not "go out and break the law" as you phrase it. The "law" as you refer to it, if it exists, is administrative in nature. The Browns were convicted of not filing required papers or paying required fees. This is quite different from being convicted of a common law, say murder, rape, armed robbery, etc. The conviction took place in what could best be described as a kangaroo court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court, where having the best legal minds/arguments make absolutely no difference.

If change is desired the first step is bringing an issue to the attention of the public. The Browns seem to be doing that.

If people are hurt as a result of the "circus". The circus was created by the Government. At this point the Government has seized the Browns' Lebanon property, which is worth more than the alleged taxes owed. The Government could call it a day at this point and be ahead. If the circus continues the Government is clearly the ringmaster.

Of course there will be some who will trumpet "the law must be followed no matter what". These are the same people who would agree pursuing a fleeing motorist at 100+ mph speeds to enforce a statute regarding maintenance of tail lamps is good policy.

[kola]

do not feed the troll.

kola

[Romak]

I will admit that the one thing the Browns have accomplished is attracting attention to the income tax and its merits. The one good thing that could come out of this is if more people look into our taxes and how we are extremely over taxed and over regulated and what we can do to change this. Your point on them seizing the property of the Browns in Lebanon and it being worth more than they owed is a good one, however there was a chance for the Browns to negogiate with the IRS. They could've gotten their amount owed drastically reduced if they agreed to pay a certain percentage. They do that all the time with people who can afford to pay what they owe. Now I know you'll say they dont want to negotiate and admit guilt to something they feel as though they didnt do wrong, but you brought up their property in Lebanon.

Kola are you really that afraid of debate? I see judging by your Karma Im not the only one in here that finds you extremely immature.

[hook]

I will admit that the one thing the Browns have accomplished is attracting attention to the income tax and its merits. The one good thing that could come out of this is if more people look into our taxes and how we are extremely over taxed and over regulated and what we can do to change this. Your point on them seizing the property of the Browns in Lebanon and it being worth more than they owed is a good one, however there was a chance for the Browns to negogiate with the IRS. They could've gotten their amount owed drastically reduced if they agreed to pay a certain percentage. They do that all the time with people who can afford to pay what they owe. Now I know you'll say they dont want to negotiate and admit guilt to something they feel as though they didnt do wrong, but you brought up their property in Lebanon.

Kola are you really that afraid of debate? I see judging by your Karma Im not the only one in here that finds you extremely immature.

The Browns may have tried to negotiate. The IRS becomes very(more) unresponsive if their authority is questioned.

The current situation could be resolved simply and peacefully, if the Government was willing to do so. McAuliffe could put an end to this with a simple order. It could be something like: "Due to irregularities(pick one) in the criminal trial, the convictions of the Browns are set aside and a directed verdict of not guilty is entered to the indictments. The arrest warrants are ordered withdrawn. The civil forfeiture verdict stands." Judge's orders don't need to make sense, nor are they  held to any accountability.
The Government ends up with more money than if the Browns had paid their taxes. It also saves the cost of incarcerating the Browns.  The Government can claim the Browns have been "penalized", the Browns can claim they faced down the Government. Everyone saves face. Everybody goes home, the news coverage ends, the income tax compliance rate stays the same, no one is hurt and the "circus" ends.

Or the Government could demand its "pound of flesh" with an uncertain outcome.

[Romak]

That would seem fair enough. They keep the property in Lebanon as payment to whats owed, and everything else goes away. ON the surface that seems fair, but what gives the Browns the right to avoid criminal penalties for their convictions. Does that mean a man convicted of using narcotics can claim the same thing, saying he thinks drugs should be legalized and the "war" on drugs is a joke and unconstitutional to boot so he doesn't have to do jail time. Should they negotiate with all convicted criminals on charges that may cross the line into whether they are constitutional? Where does it end? What about gun convictions? We all know gun laws are a hell of a lot more unconstitutional then the income tax could possibly be, heck we have a separate amendment just for that right, but people are convicted for violating unconstitutional gun laws as well. Where does it end?

[error]

When "the law" perverts justice, instead of serving it, then it is wrong to follow the law. Show me the law all day long, it's still wrong.

[hook]

That would seem fair enough. They keep the property in Lebanon as payment to whats owed, and everything else goes away. ON the surface that seems fair, but what gives the Browns the right to avoid criminal penalties for their convictions. Does that mean a man convicted of using narcotics can claim the same thing, saying he thinks drugs should be legalized and the "war" on drugs is a joke and unconstitutional to boot so he doesn't have to do jail time. Should they negotiate with all convicted criminals on charges that may cross the line into whether they are constitutional? Where does it end? What about gun convictions? We all know gun laws are a hell of a lot more unconstitutional then the income tax could possibly be, heck we have a separate amendment just for that right, but people are convicted for violating unconstitutional gun laws as well. Where does it end?

If the convictions are false then the penalties are also false. Without going into too much detail of the trial the first thing that stands out is the tainted jury pool. How do you have a fair trial when the jurors are seated with a preconceived notion about the legality of the income tax. Coupled with the fact the judiciary purposely conceals information from the jurors about their duty to judge the law as well as the facts.

I don't know if the word "fair" can be used here. The Browns are not in a position to negotiate anything other than their surrender. They forfeited their property in Lebanon. That's their penalty. If the situation is to be diffused, leave it at that. If it was a negotiation I don't think the Browns would consider it fair but they might accept it. You had posted what a bad idea the concert and other related activities are. I was pointing out the ball is in the Government's court, so to speak regarding the continuance of the activities.

As to other charges defendants should be allowed to present whatever evidence they feel is appropriate, including the constitutionality of the law, application, fairness, etc. Juries should instructed properly as to their duty to judge the law as well as the facts. Then negotiation with "criminals" would not be necessary.

That would be where it ends.

[LordBaltimore]

How do you have a fair trial when the jurors are seated with a preconceived notion about the legality of the income tax.

The income tax in its current form has been around for almost a hundred years.  I wonder what gave the jurors that silly idea of its legality...

[hook]

How do you have a fair trial when the jurors are seated with a preconceived notion about the legality of the income tax.

The income tax in its current form has been around for almost a hundred years.  I wonder what gave the jurors that silly idea of its legality...

Slavery was around longer, jurors challenged the legality of it.   

[Lloyd Danforth]

How do you have a fair trial when the jurors are seated with a preconceived notion about the legality of the income tax.

The income tax in its current form has been around for almost a hundred years.  I wonder what gave the jurors that silly idea of its legality...

The 'jurors' never got to see any evidence to the contrary. I believe, as they were defending themselves, they should have been able to explain all the different theories  as to why there is no law and  then it would be up to the prosecutor to explain to the jurors where they are wrong.

[Kat Kanning]

I thought they got to see Freedom to Fascism.

[LordBaltimore]

I thought they got to see Freedom to Fascism.

Elaine played the jurors the Larken Rose video.