Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 20

[J’raxis 270145]

I think it's funny that people called the government-operated 911, expecting help from the government, when they thought government agents were firing shots at them

9-1-1 goes to local police departments; the agents after the Browns are feds. Local and state governments don't always coöperate with the federal government (although in this case they mostly have).

[Russell Kanning]

I think it's funny that people called the government-operated 911, expecting help from the government, when they thought government agents were firing shots at them

I am not sure that happened.

[KBCraig]

Yup, I got the idea people were calling to find out what was going on and who was involved. Nobody expected the local police or sheriff to ride to the rescue.

[LordBaltimore]

Yup, I got the idea people were calling to find out what was going on and who was involved. Nobody expected the local police or sheriff to ride to the rescue.

A large number were calling to demand that the local police protect the Browns from the Feds.  Now they're all running around in circles and threatening to sue the Plainfield police for "dereliction of duty" for not riding to the Brown's protection.

Just listen to the video here and you'll hear the kinds of calls that were made.

http://showedthelaw.blogspot.com/2007/08/police-stand-down-from-responding-to.html

I love the guy from Texas who said he complained to the Plainfield police that his tax dollars pay for police protection and that the Plainfield policemen are therefore his public servants who have to do whatever it is he wants.  He didn't seem to understand that Texas and Plainfield are not the same place and that none of his "tax dollars" are being used to pay for New Hampshire police.

[LordBaltimore]

I think it's funny that people called the government-operated 911, expecting help from the government, when they thought government agents were firing shots at them

And now they're threatening to sue government agents in government courts for not protecting them from other governments (who probably weren't even there), when it was a government court that labeled the Browns as convicted felons and issued their arrest warrants.

Tax deniers are unclear on the concept of civil disobedience.  They want to protest the laws, but just don't get that there are consequences.  If you don't want to pay taxes to fund government, you don't get to use the government to solve your problems.

[J’raxis 270145]

I think it's funny that people called the government-operated 911, expecting help from the government, when they thought government agents were firing shots at them

And now they're threatening to sue government agents in government courts for not protecting them from other governments (who probably weren't even there), when it was a government court that labeled the Browns as convicted felons and issued their arrest warrants.

There's not necessarily a conflict here. The courts in which tax laws are enforced are special "tax courts"; the ordinary civil courts are where you would file a lawsuit. One can easily agree with the legitimacy of the ordinary court system while rejecting the IRS and their special courts as being illegitimate (perhaps because the IRS has special courts to begin with).

Tax deniers are unclear on the concept of civil disobedience.  They want to protest the laws, but just don't get that there are consequences.  If you don't want to pay taxes to fund government, you don't get to use the government to solve your problems.

As has been stated before, Ed and Elaine have been paying their state and local taxes, which are what would be used to fund the civil courts. (They've actually stopped paying even these taxes now... because the local government refuses to provide services to them.)


P.S.: Are you taking up hay farming when you get to New Hampshire?

[LordBaltimore]

There's not necessarily a conflict here. The courts in which tax laws are enforced are special "tax courts"; the ordinary civil courts are where you would file a lawsuit. One can easily agree with the legitimacy of the ordinary court system while rejecting the IRS and their special courts as being illegitimate (perhaps because the IRS has special courts to begin with).

The Browns have never been to Tax Court.  If they had been sincere in their "Show me the Law" stance they would have gone to Tax Court more than ten years ago.  Instead, they were tried and found guilty in District court, the same place where you file civil charges againt federal employees.

As has been stated before, Ed and Elaine have been paying their state and local taxes, which are what would be used to fund the civil courts. (They've actually stopped paying even these taxes now... because the local government refuses to provide services to them.)

They just stopped paying property taxes this year, but they haven't paid state level taxes for a long time.  That's why there is a $340,000 state tax lien on the home.  Apparently, New Hampshire has a fairly hefty business tax, and Elaine hasn't paid it in years. 

[armlaw]

The Browns have never been to Tax Court.  If they had been sincere in their "Show me the Law" stance they would have gone to Tax Court more than ten years ago.  Instead, they were tried and found guilty in District court, the same place where you file civil charges against federal employees.

No, The court in Concord is a "United States District Court". This is an administrative Tribunal, created by congress pursuant to 1-8-9 and 4-3-2 of the constitution. It has ONLY the jurisdiction that congress, by act, delegates to it. See citation 541 F. 2d 159, Headnotes [1] & [2] . It is clear this unoverturned case is "stare decisis", as Article 4, Section 1 provides for the "judicial proceedings" of said case to prevail.  Also 170 F.2d 183 defines specifically what a "court of the United States" is, and it is NOT a "United States District Court". A true Article III court is defined by the supreme court in Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201, (1938) as a "district court of the United States" and again in 2003 in Nguyen v. U.S. Only the latter, Article III court has "criminal jurisdiction as delegated by Title 18, Section 3231, where original jurisdiction for all crimes against the United States is delegated to Article III "district courts of the United States", and NOT to Article 4-3-2 Commercial Administrative Tribunals such as the "United States District Court" in Concord. It is stated in 23 F. 658, U.S. v. Rogers, "Jurisdiction is never presumed in a criminal proceeding, but must always be proved, and is never waived by the defendant. Jurisdiction to try embraces jurisdiction of the person, of the place, and of the subject-matter, and there must be a concurrence of all these to give the right to try."   I have not read nor confirmed the employment status of Mr. McAuliffe, however if he is a mere employee of the corporate government and is appointed as a Magistrate for a period of 10 years and must be reappointed then, as an employee he will have Income Tax, Social Security, and Medicare deducted from his compensation as an employee and be subject to potential coercion from other corporate employees.  Whereas an Article III Judge is appointed for LIFE and DOES NOT have any part of his compensation "diminished" as such "diminishment" is prohibited by Article III of the constitution. He is immune from any coercion.  Accordingly, it would appear that if Mr. McAuliffe is shown to be a mere "Magistrate" of a commercial tribunal, and not an Article III constitutional Judge then it would appear that he ignored Title 18, Section 3231, abandoned his office and participated in a conspiracy to deny "due process" to the parties allegedly convicted. Some one needs to make an investigation of the real facts of this matter and file criminal charges against all conspirators found to be working together to commit what now appears to be fraud and trespass, as well as criminal conversion of the property in West Lebanon.

[LordBaltimore]

The Browns have never been to Tax Court.  If they had been sincere in their "Show me the Law" stance they would have gone to Tax Court more than ten years ago.  Instead, they were tried and found guilty in District court, the same place where you file civil charges against federal employees.

No, The court in Concord is a "United States District Court". This is an administrative Tribunal, created by congress pursuant to 1-8-9 and 4-3-2 of the constitution. It has ONLY the jurisdiction that congress, by act, delegates to it. See citation 541 F. 2d 159, Headnotes [1] & [2] . It is clear this unoverturned case is "stare decisis", as Article 4, Section 1 provides for the "judicial proceedings" of said case to prevail.  Also 170 F.2d 183 defines specifically what a "court of the United States" is, and it is NOT a "United States District Court". A true Article III court is defined by the supreme court in Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201, (1938) as a "district court of the United States" and again in 2003 in Nguyen v. U.S. Only the latter, Article III court has "criminal jurisdiction as delegated by Title 18, Section 3231, where original jurisdiction for all crimes against the United States is delegated to Article III "district courts of the United States", and NOT to Article 4-3-2 Commercial Administrative Tribunals such as the "United States District Court" in Concord. It is stated in 23 F. 658, U.S. v. Rogers, "Jurisdiction is never presumed in a criminal proceeding, but must always be proved, and is never waived by the defendant. Jurisdiction to try embraces jurisdiction of the person, of the place, and of the subject-matter, and there must be a concurrence of all these to give the right to try."   I have not read nor confirmed the employment status of Mr. McAuliffe, however if he is a mere employee of the corporate government and is appointed as a Magistrate for a period of 10 years and must be reappointed then, as an employee he will have Income Tax, Social Security, and Medicare deducted from his compensation as an employee and be subject to potential coercion from other corporate employees.  Whereas an Article III Judge is appointed for LIFE and DOES NOT have any part of his compensation "diminished" as such "diminishment" is prohibited by Article III of the constitution. He is immune from any coercion.  Accordingly, it would appear that if Mr. McAuliffe is shown to be a mere "Magistrate" of a commercial tribunal, and not an Article III constitutional Judge then it would appear that he ignored Title 18, Section 3231, abandoned his office and participated in a conspiracy to deny "due process" to the parties allegedly convicted. Some one needs to make an investigation of the real facts of this matter and file criminal charges against all conspirators found to be working together to commit what now appears to be fraud and trespass, as well as criminal conversion of the property in West Lebanon.

[KBCraig]

Dick, your contributions would be more easily read if you would leave the quoted text properly quoted.

I fixed it for you. Richardr's, too.

[penguins4me]

I love the guy from Texas who said he complained to the Plainfield police that his tax dollars pay for police protection and that the Plainfield policemen are therefore his public servants who have to do whatever it is he wants.  He didn't seem to understand that Texas and Plainfield are not the same place and that none of his "tax dollars" are being used to pay for New Hampshire police.

I hope you never take a trip to Texas, get yourself robbed or murdered, since you haven't paid the Texas investigators any money to bring your attacker to justice...

... because police are not going to protect you. They are not liable nor responsible for your well-being. They may, however, clean up after the fact.

In regards to the Browns, local authorities, specifically the Sheriff, has the power to tell foreign LEOs to get the heck out of his jurisdiction. Too bad he won't.

[Kat Kanning]

[guy]

Is their watchtower really boarded-up?

[Russell Kanning]

not anymore ... it is not completed, but they use it now .... that picture also has an extra door in it.

I like the picture though.

[Dave Ridley]

not anymore ... it is not completed, but they use it now .... that picture also has an extra door in it.

I like the picture though.

maybe washington will try to storm the door that isn't there