Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 22

[JosephSHaas]

New article from Elaine
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=625&Itemid=36

Thanks Kat,

--I've read and re-read this with my notes for comment now:

--In the very first sentence of paragraph #1 of 7 I add that these "four men were" UN-lawfully and illegally "arrested", since the Feds have yet to comply with the law: 1-8-17 to 123:1.  "[T]he assistance of Ed and Elaine Brown" to assert their Art. 10 rights, The Right of Revolution.  That is NOT a crime here in New Hampshire, and back to the sentence #1 again of "arrested by federal marshals" OUTside the state of New Hampshire.  You'd think that at least one judge there would have the knowledge of his oath to that of Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution to inquire, of IF the Feds had complied with N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1.  A very POOR job on the part of WHOever their appointed defense councilors were there in that stage of the proceedings, with only ONE defense councilor I did overhear talk to his client in court that he was going to check this out: and that's: Attorney David Bownes of Laconia for his client Reno Gonzalez from Texas...

...who signed that Art. 49 complaint I presented to him, as described above, just like "John Hancock" with his signature at the bottom of the document, a comment I made for WHERE to sign like John Hancock too, and that he then did! BEFORE the others in that order, I kid you not. John Hancock BTW so angry at the British impounding his sloop, just imagine how angry Ed & Elaine are for not only a ship as a means to conduct business, as John Hancock was transporting liquor, but Elaine having the Feds seize her place of business, to TRY to forfeit later; and now going after them personally in their home.  A Man's Home is is Castle.  But does the Sullivan County Sheriff think so?  Will he check out my claims of federal non-filing and assert some check-and-balance against the Feds?  Why not?  He got Jack McLamb's "Aid & Abet Newsletter" plus delivered to him at his office, but will he talk with me, or anybody about it?  No! He stands on his wrongs...

...These "four" brave* "men" [* = "standing brave", sentence #4 in paragraph #3] are not merely standing still, but it's my hope that they take it ONE STEP BEYOND to that of filing their Petition(s) for Writ of Habeas Corpus "too", three and four. As that old Civil War song is sung of: The TRUTH goes "marching" on...

...and now hints of some Marshal marching?  Sentence #5 in paragraph #5: "Marshal Monier yesterday said that they would be coming after us" Marching under an order that's a lie! "Unlawful simulation of legal process".  Check it out!  Either it's true or not!  Articles 8 + 14 demand that the Concord Police Dept. where I did lodge this complaint against McAuliffe for a Class B fine-only misdemeanor, like they did to me, so vice versa in return, render to me a prompt accounting.  They're still investigating it, and so BEFORE any actions by Monier, he ought to wait until the answer from this and more. 

--And YES, with all capital letters, "We need to get in the faces of these unlawful agents, prosecutors, judges, police, sheriffs, etc." as in to re-proof them by not only more paperwork for them to re-read what they already know, but to TELL it to their face, so that they "hear" it, and if still the dumb asses they want to be, (with "seven abominations in his heart") then so be it that they go deaf and then blind! When I talked with the woman who took the appointment request paper I filled out at Tom Colantuono's office yesterday, I told her that what they are doing is based on a lie, Tom knows it by 664 in his U.S. Attorney Manual that 1-8-17 "embraces courthouses" and so WHAT is he going to do?  Continue on with his lie!  The father of all lies is the devil, and so him evil, and I will not take it any more!  I DEMAND an answer from him immediately and will be in his face alright! until I get an answer in writing on the merits of the application of this 664 to the Brown case.

Yours truly, - Joe H.

P.S. The same goes for the Marshals, to wise up!  And on the defense to remind the N.H. State Police,which Barracks called Troops C + F in Keene and White Mountain respectfully have a copy of that RSA 123:1 certificate of federal non-filing, to get back to the Colonel Frederick Booth to say: either apply that $1.00 bill to the Ed Brown defense fund, or give it back to me! TODAY, not tomorrow, and now!

[scoop]

You can send it to me, scoop.  Or to post an attachment here, from the post form, select 'more options' at the bottom and you should see a way to attach the pdf to your post.

Hopefully, this will work.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[LordBaltimore]

Did Error disappear?

[J’raxis 270145]

Did Error disappear?

From this forum, yes.

[penguins4me]

"These .50 caliber rifles are designed and intended to pierce tanks, airplanes and bullet-proof vests,"

So what?  Are we supposed to pretend we feel armed with only Nerf Whiffle bats?

When was the .50 BMG cartridge designed?

When was the airplane invented? When was kevlar invented?

Yeah, thought so.

[Bill Riley]

Here is some additional detail regarding the Bollinger, Wilson connection:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301715.html

George Wilson was actually replaced by Lee Bollinger on the Washington Post board.  I'm not sure if Wilson played a roll in nominating his replacement.  According to the WP article, Wilson was slated to retire from the WP board of directors at the 5/10/2007 board meeting.

I caution everyone, this doesn't mean there was/is an actual conflict of interest but it does present the appearance of a conflict of interest.

regards,
Bill Riley

[Russell Kanning]

Richardr and I have been trying to show you all the light for months now, its apparently impossible to get through to most of you with common sense. I'll continue following this story because of its potential consequences for our great state, but I'm through trying to get through to most of you *. If you're dumb enough to help this man you get exactly what you deserve. 

* Are you just teasing us?

hahahahaha

[JosephSHaas]

muirhead is losing his head again

Muirhead turns into the wolfman tonight, under the full moon!

http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/m/muirhead.html

[JosephSHaas]

Wow. That sorta makes the reality of it hit home. That you can be sent to jail just for associating with someone wanted by the government.

Who has been sent to jail for simply associating with the Browns?

...So in effect Ed is "in the custody of the U.S. Marshals" now, and the clock is ticking off the days of his sentence, and like for equal rights, to maybe be allowed up there for visiting days on Sundays for church services.

Also called "house arrest", see: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070926/OPINION/709260313 entitled "Don't make the Browns martyrs" by James M. Dodson, Concord Wed., Sept. 26th '07 @ 1:15 AM

J.S.H.

[srqrebel]

Yet another example of Ed Brown using other people for his own personal gain. And now this young man is facing the rest of his life behind bars. If Mr Brown truly cared about these people who were laying their lives on the line for him he would've told him the deal is if you do this you have to stay here with us. I will not allow you to leave my home because I dint want to be responsible for what will happen to you if you're out there on your own. If you're not willing to live here until the end I cant accept any weapons, etc that you bring into my home. He used these people plain and simple. Its typical considering his past. He doesn't care one iota about these four men and the charges their facing. He got what he wanted.

Ed Brown is far from the perfect torch-bearer for the Tax Honesty movement.  He certainly has some bizarre personal beliefs, and wants to engage in self-defeating armed warfare with the federal gov't.  But Ed and Elaine Brown are standing up to the criminal bullies in Washington with far more to lose than most of us, and that gets my deepest respect, no matter what their personal beliefs or idiosyncrasies.

Can you point us to a better Tax Honesty case to rally around?

The claim that if Ed Brown truly cared, he would have demanded that anyone bringing weapons must remain on the property, is beyond ridiculous:  1) Any persons remaining on the Browns' property would be in far greater danger of losing their lives when and if the raid occurs, 2) Detaining individuals against their will goes against everything freedom lovers stand for, and 3) Ed's supporters made decisions and took action of their own free will.  It takes an awful lot of irrationality to imply that Ed Brown is somehow responsible for other individuals acting on their own initiative.

You all seem to forget one thing. The Marshalls, Govt, etc didn't pick this fight with Ed Brown. If they arbitrarily decided to go after him for no reason he would have a lot more of the right people helping him out.

The gov't did indeed pick this fight with Ed Brown.  There may or may not be a law requiring the Browns to pay an income tax; either way, it was the gov't making the first move by demanding unearned money by threat of force.  The fact that they have been doing it for a long time to all of us, not just Ed and Elaine, doesn't change the fact that the gov't made the first move.  Ed Brown did the right thing by saying 'NO' to extortion.  The feds could do the right thing, too, by standing down; instead, they have chosen to follow through with the criminal process that they, not the Browns, initiated.

Doesn't sound like as much fun as hes made it out to be now does it. People need to think ahead before they do things.

When did Ed Brown ever claim that this was going to be fun??!??
And why would you assume that Ed or his supporters are not thinking ahead?  Do you claim to read minds, too???

This isn't a just cause never has been.

What exactly do you call just?  Stealing unearned funds at the point of a gun??
Standing up to injustice is always a just cause.  Futile perhaps (perhaps not), but definitely just.

Richardr and I have been trying to show you all the light for months now, its apparently impossible to get through to most of you with common sense. I'll continue following this story because of its potential consequences for our great state, but I'm through trying to get through to most of you. If you're dumb enough to help this man you get exactly what you deserve.

Romak, perhaps you need to direct some of that light inward, instead of trying to butt heads with people who have a sound rational and moral foundation to stand upon.

I will read your response (if any) to this post, but unless you adopt a more rational stance, I will be compelled to put you on ignore for the sake of expedience.  I suspect most of the other forum participants have already done so.

[Kat Kanning]

Another new article by Elaine:

http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=626&Itemid=36

[JosephSHaas]

Another new article by Elaine:

http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=626&Itemid=36

Thanks again Kat. 

This Robert C. Hart, the author of "Citizen/Slave", I read over at http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/2007/07/bob-hart-author-of-citzen-slave-was-our.html (mis-spelled Citzen, without the second letter "i") "Was Our Guest With Elaine Brown On RBN" / Republican Broadcasting Network on Monday, July 23rd, 2007.

A summary of his $14.00 book (ISBN 0-8059-9878-8) can be found over at Amazon dot com, and is from the http://www.rosedogbookstore.com/ciunamsosp.html to find out if an autographed copy can be bought for: $____ more?

The summary reads that "the American people have been tricked". Like Ed was tricked to be arrested for water that was NOT leaking from the Dental Office building last Winter, as lied to by the Lebanon Police, and this "trick" reported only in the http://www.unionleader.com Hart calls these tricks "stealthy legal illusions" and explains what we can do to create "safe guards" against further corruption, or in other words he says: to put a rudder on the government boat, so it will not "waffle in the uncertain tides of confusion and injustice".

(1) I like his "forcing freedom issues through the court systems" that got me to this idea today, after reading Elaine's comment that "the federal marshals keep all mail that is sent to us". I had sent Ed a #10 envelope right before his mailbox disappeared, as he thought "they" were intercepting the mail, and confirmed by a verbal say-so by the Plainfield Postmistress to me in person last month I think it was in August, in her office, saying to me to complain to NOT the Manchester, N.H. Postal Office, BUT to Boston, withOUT giving me the contact person's name and location plus telephone number: another federal agency, with NO check-and-balance.  So my thought today, after reading this, is to send some more mail to: Ed Brown, 401 Center of Town Road, Plainfield, N.H. 03781 from Laconia, Franklin, and Concord, so that if/and when I do not get delivery as paid for, I can sue the Feds in those state District Courts, "them" using some excuse of of a right they do NOT have, me presenting the evidence by way of certificate of federal non-filing as required by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, to see what the judge rules.

And getting back to Elaine's "Quest for Freedom" I have two other comments:

(2) In regards to her "right by association" in paragraph #5 of 8, please see Reply #____ by ____________ above, and many moths ago where he/she referenced the fact that the President issues an Executive Order (E.O.) to the Secretary of the Treasury, who issues his Treasury Order (T.O.), but that unless that T.O. is published in the CFR: Code of Federal Regulations, it does NOT apply to us in the public-at-large, but only those government employees, as in the Order to pay so much tax when you're in that line of $x amount of dollars earned in that chart, that reads that those "liable" for such have to pay, and so Ed & Elaine always asking WHAT law makes us "liable"? "Show me the Law!" +

(3) "The Right of Revolution" (her paragraph #8) is NOT in Article 15, BUT Art. 10.  Article 15 is appropriate though for that sentence of: "Every subject shall have a right to produce all PROOFS that may be favorable to himself;" (emphasis ADDed, for the word proof, defined as evidence, that is "the data on which a judgment can be based or proof established(*)". The word establish defined as "to cause to be recognized and accepted" and "to prove the truth of".  So when McAuliffe REFUSED to allow the evidence to be marked as an Exhibit, since HE will determine what proof or evidence goes to the jury for THEIR judgment, then that's an interference with Ed & Elaine's Art. 15 right in N.H. and ought to get him impeached! if he doesn't wise up and declare a mis-trial! Since WHEN has this Exhibit word been stuck between the evidence word and the jury!? The "establishment"(*) Ed is looking for is by the very definition of the word FROM the word evidence, and proof before that as supposed to be a guarantee to us in the N.H. Bill of Rights, but that has somehow turned into a privilege, and by usurper-federalies who are the OUTlaws to RSA 123:1.  Instead what "Establishment" we have now is this crooked one: "The Establishment: An exclusive or powerful group in control of society or a field of activity."  It's time to END this Establishment with the capital letter E, and get back to the real definition!

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

pc: Ed Brown by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested.

[EthanAllen]

Someone should inform Elaine that the right of revolution is Article 10 of the Bill of Rights within the NH Constitution not Article 15.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Constitution#Article_10._Right_of_Revolution

[JosephSHaas]

Another new article by Elaine:

http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=626&Itemid=36

... the Plainfield Postmistress... saying to me to complain to NOT the Manchester, N.H. Postal Office, BUT to Boston, withOUT giving me the contact person's name and location plus telephone number: another federal agency, with NO check-and-balance....

But to exhaust all my executive remedies, before some state judge tells me this, I did call the Post Office for the Boston District that covers New Hampshire at 1-617-654-5740, and they said to call 1-800-ASK-USPS (275-8777) where the woman took my verbal complaint to get to her senior officer to get back to me within forty-eight (48) hours, me asking: by phone and/or letter? because what I'd like to get is the Rule Book on HOW to file a written complaint (in duplicate?) and given #___ amount of time to present written evidence! in a public hearing.

The name/address is: United States Postal Service, Consumer Affairs, 25 Dorchester Ave., Room 4009, Boston, MAss.achusetts 02205, Tel. 617: 654-5740, so you can see the run-around from the very beginning here, of TRYing to frustrate you in NOT filing a complaint, unless it is really bothering you, that it IS! of THEFT of the 41-cents postage I did already pay for, plus the envelope and its contents NOT delivered by unlawful and illegal interference  by the U.S. Marshals who TOLD the USPS to shut down their service to the Browns withOUT any evidence to back up their supposed authority to do so, there being NONE of this 1-8-17 to NH RSA Ch. 123:1 authority!

Yours truly, Joe Haas

[VEPR]

Im new here and confused about something. Why is this forum supporting Ed Brown? Didnt he threaten to kill innocent people? At least thats my take on what Ive read. I personally believe that we should elect people who will repeal the income tax not decide to not pay. Thats one of the reasons Im voting for Ron Paul. Someone wish to explain to me how what Mr Brown is doing is the proper thing, because from where Im standing it seems quite a bit overboard. Im more than willing to listen.