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

[LordBaltimore]

Didnt he threaten to kill innocent people?

He never threatned to protect himself from "innocents".

How is going after the judge or his family a form of self defense?  How about Ed's list of 50 revenge hits, how is revenge killing self defense?

[E-ville]

De fence is simple, some one attacks you you then try to damage them.. war is the same thing as this.. I don't support the browns on this but do support there efforts to defend there property.. but then again the feds did take there commercial property already so I kind of support this there trying to defend what was aready taken from them... If they can hold out for ROn Paul and ROn Paul pardons  them I hope they take these officials out in the vary legal system that prosecuted them for the tax issues in the first place that would be the best sweet revenge.

[coffeeseven]

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.

Ed and Elaine were more than willing to duke it out in court. When the judge told them that they would not be allowed to produce evidence, he (judge) obviously tilted the table in the prosecution's favor. Not willing to take it in the rear like so many sheep today Ed and Elaine did what they had to do. Not what they wanted to do, but what they had to do per their conscience. Ed and Elaine Brown are folks of the 1776 ilk. It's going to take a whole bunch more real men and women of courage to make individual stands so that men like Ron Paul have a greased skid to run on when he gets into office. Does that make any sense?

[Mike Barskey]

If they can hold out for ROn Paul and ROn Paul pardons

You think the Browns would accept a pardon?

I dunno, all evidence points too them looking for a fight.

Are the Browns looking for a fight? I don't think so. But I don't think they'd accept a pardon either. They seem very principled, and accepting a pardon for a crime they didn't commit is likely against their principle (it's not even logical).

[LordBaltimore]

Are the Browns looking for a fight? I don't think so. But I don't think they'd accept a pardon either. They seem very principled, and accepting a pardon for a crime they didn't commit is likely against their principle (it's not even logical).

Huh?  Ed Brown already accepted a pardon for a violent crime (assault and armed robbery) he committed years ago.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Dukakis+granted+pardon+to+Brown&articleId=17623949-78af-47a6-961c-5ec9ae6dd813

[Mike Barskey]

Are the Browns looking for a fight? I don't think so. But I don't think they'd accept a pardon either. They seem very principled, and accepting a pardon for a crime they didn't commit is likely against their principle (it's not even logical).

Huh?  Ed Brown already accepted a pardon for a violent crime (assault and armed robbery) he committed years ago.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Dukakis+granted+pardon+to+Brown&articleId=17623949-78af-47a6-961c-5ec9ae6dd813

I'm not speaking for the Browns, of course, so I could be wrong. But I think my point wasn't clear. The Browns are claiming that their not paying taxes is not a crime. They submit they have not committed a crime, therefor there is nothing to be pardoned of. This is different from Ed Brown accepting a pardon for his 1960 assault and armed robbery charge, because in that case he did commit a crime.

[JosephSHaas]

It's official: my Thu., June 28th '07 "Report of Crime of: Unlawful Simulation of Legal Process" [ R.S.A. Chapter 638:14 http://www.state.nh.us ] against Judge McAuliffe for this Class B Misdemeanor (fine-only conviction possibility), has been given a Case # 40622 today at 12:00 o'clock high noon, by Concord, N.H. Police Officer/ Mr. A. Fanjoy, who is checking it out with Merrimack County Attorney Dan St.Hillaire, and will decide shortly of when to serve him with the papers to appear in Concord District Court.

Yours truly, J.S.H.

P.S. Today is the first day of duty for the new police chief, see the front page story over at http://www.concordmonitor.com

Modification: For the CONCORD MONITOR story about the new C.O.P., Robert Barry, 44, see
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070928/FRONTPAGE/709280396

[Mike Barskey]

OK. My mistake.

[JosephSHaas]

C.I.A. recruits U.S. Marshal, and he becomes a scumbag.

by Tim Weiner for The "New York Times" April 4, 1998, pp. A1+ A9.

http://www.jya.com/cia-hack.htm

[JosephSHaas]

U.S. Deputy Marshal, Frank Wolcott and his "death list"; over at

http://www.legendsofamerica.com/we-lawmenlist-u-z.html

[JosephSHaas]

Marshal Monier is a "SOCIOPATH" according to:

http://makethestand.com/article76.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The ingredients of such a person? see:

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html

-- "They never recognize the rights of others."

--"Can create, and get caught up in a complex belief about their own powers."

--"The end always justifies the means".

[JosephSHaas]

Plain error of Prosecutor Wm. Morse to supply judge with exculpatory evidence, being the certificate of federal non-filing to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, in the Ed Brown case, is plain error of his duty by Federal Rule 36, and State Rule 3.8.

"Plain error occurs only when the error is clear and obvious* and effects substantial rights" U.S. v. Wolfe, 245 F.3d 257, 261 (3rd Cir. 2001).

*It's obvious by the U.S. Attorney Manual 664, that 1-8-17 "embraces courthouses"! including the Warren B. Rudman Building, in Concord, New Hampshire.

http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2007/061077np.pdf

"Substantial rights are affected if the error was sufficiently prejudicial to affect the outcome of the trial."

The U.S. District Court in Concord, N.H. is withOUT "jurisdiction"! Our state offered them "concurrent jurisdiction" back on June 14, 1883, but that they declined!

JSH

P.S. To view as html, see the link address for "United States Marshal" liar, page 1 #1 over at http://www.google.com

[JosephSHaas]

Open letter to:

Charles E. Burrows
505 Horizon Hills Rd.
Williams, OR 97544

Buckinburro at rvi dot net

Dear Mr. Burrows:

--This is to follow-up my search at Google for "United States Marshal" liar, finding at page #1, #7 there your http://www.rvi.net/~burrows/chapters.html website advertising your $20.00 book entitled: "Differing Opinions: Memories of a United States Marshal" and so I ask: how many #__ bad apples withIN the Service have you encountered, and is there a chapter #__ within your book describing how you got rid of this liar, thief, etc.

--The timing of this inquiry is that of Marshal Monier here exhibiting "SOCIOPATH"ic symptoms that need correcting by maybe the medical profession.  Like the President in the Executive Branch gets an annual physical, maybe it's time that we adopt the Natural Law Party platform #__ in getting down to the scum of the earth at the state levels too: scum in the form of what I've written above, in that of his "belief" system in an over-ride of what is the truth and rights of others, being trampled on by this maniac deviating from his own oath of office.

--Can you help him and us, plus how?  I've seen it first-hand of how far a negotiator can take the diplomatic route before learning that you cannot deal with a sociopath: he is THE menace to society that needs extraction from the system, and that leads to ultimate war as the end result if he is alloed to remain.  The appointing power that put him in place could not care less, as they sit on the sidelines awaiting a massacre to view at a distance.   I'm serious: this Marshal doo-doo crap has got to be gotten out from over there at 55 Pleasant Street before it is too late!  Would you PLEASE help solve this case. 

Thank you, Joe Haas

[KBCraig]

As usual, expect the comments to heavily favor the "Lock 'em up now! They didn't pay their fair share!" point of view. This article at least quotes Elaine accurately, and is perhaps slightly sympathetic.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Elaine+Brown%3a+Tax+evaders+embracing+freedom&articleId=2851e077-cf8c-48c4-a31c-1a6aeb9c1af9

Elaine Brown: Tax evaders embracing freedom

The government calls them fugitives who refuse to surrender peaceably, but convicted tax evader Elaine Brown insists she and her husband are paying the high price freedom demands when the federal government oversteps its powers.

"We have not chosen the easy road," Elaine A. Brown, 66, of Plainfield wrote on the couple's MySpace account yesterday.

"Freedom is not for everyone. ... Freedom is hard, it is work, it is constant vigilance," the former dentist added in her online manifesto, titled "Quest for Freedom."

Brown and her husband, Edward L. Brown, 65, each were sentenced to 63 months in prison April 24 after a jury found them guilty in January of federal tax crimes, including plotting to hide their income and avoid paying taxes on the $1.9 million Elaine Brown earned between 1996 and 2003.

The Browns claim there is no law that requires them to pay federal income taxes and have said they will die defending themselves.

"Ed and I have said 'enough,' and even though we are currently unable to leave our home without risking being unlawfully assaulted by the federalies, we are more free now than we have ever been, as we have boycotted any and all government claims on us," she explained.

The couple remain holed up at their 100-plus acre property, where Elaine Brown said the government has "unlawfully attacked us" by cutting of their electricity, Internet access, satellite television, telephone and mail service.

U.S. Marshal for New Hampshire Stephen R. Monier said he can outwait the Browns and has no plans to engage them in a violent confrontation. He said the couple are known to be armed and have "hazardous conditions" on their property.

Brown criticized what she called a federal government that has overreached its powers and no longer serves the needs of the people. Citing the Declaration of Independence and the state Constitution's right to revolution, she said it's time to "throw out the old and put in the new."

"We are on dangerous ground with an ever increasing central government that infringes on the states' rights and on our God-given rights," she wrote.

The Browns have come under increasing pressure since the Sept. 12 arrests of four alleged supporters. The men were charged with helping the Browns escape arrest by providing the couple with food, materials or weapons. All four are being held without bail pending trials set for November.

Brown also said Sullivan County Sheriff Michael L. Prozzo Jr., Plainfield Police Chief Gordon A. Gillens and local selectmen are "duty bound to protect us" but have refused to come to their aid.

"I include this personal account only to make the point of the dangers of a strong central government," she added.

[JosephSHaas]

As usual, expect the comments to heavily favor the "Lock 'em up now! They didn't pay their fair share!" point of view. This article at least quotes Elaine accurately, and is perhaps slightly sympathetic.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Elaine+Brown%3a+Tax+evaders+embracing+freedom&articleId=2851e077-cf8c-48c4-a31c-1a6aeb9c1af9

Elaine Brown: Tax evaders embracing freedom....

Thanks K.B.C.

--I did just add my 2-cents over there, reading that: "The Consumer Affairs Office for the Postal Service in Boston referred my complaint back to here in N.H. where somebody said on my voice mail that they will be calling again on Monday.  Hopefully for a hearing on this 'unlawful' shutoff of the mail service, to maybe restrict packages of weapons, but shouldn't limit #10 envelopes of papers. The Browns deserve legal help in enforcing their Art. 10 Rights to Revolting against a federal government gone running amok.  I met with Deputy U.S. Marshal Gary DeMartino yesterday and he was against it, as fuses could be in such was his excuse.  Good point, but still out of order.  He has yet to back up what he says with proof of jurisdiction that he doesn't have, and he knows it.  His days are numbered!*  JSH  P.S. See also my criminal complaint No. 40622 against Judge McAuliffe at the Concord P.D. for the RSA Ch. 638:14 crime of 'Unlawful Simulation of Legal Process', being investigated by Officer A. Fanjoy with the help of Merrimack County Attorney Dan St.Hillaire."

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

* Modification.  The U.L. is chicken-shit to print this maybe because of what they "think" I think!  More George Orwellian "Nineteen Eighty Four" double-speak being "afraid" of the "Thought Police"!?  who use BOTH definitions!? A newspaper!? Come on!  You have got to be shitting me! It's happened before: on advise of legal counsel, they refuse to print it, because it might hurt them or me. I told them not to worry about me. The first thought that comes to mind might be definition #2, but see also definition #3-2, over at http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=your+day+are+numbered

2. Indicates you don't have many days left to live, you will die soon.  Often ASSOCIATED WITH A THREAT of some kind. (emphasis ADDed);

3. 1.) I am going to hurt and/or kill you.
---2.) You don't have much time before you get into big trouble.

i.e. what's the cost of a person's liberty? four Art. 10 Revolutionaries against federal aggression are in jail because of asserting this right of aggression to have equal or more force on host property BEFORE the parasites invade! So what?  Re: Jason Gerhard, having the guns sent to 401 Center of Town Road. Isn't that where these rights of self-defense are being asserted!? If the Marshal wants to avoid being blown to smithereens by a .50 caliber bullet, he can Show Ed the Law.  Not only that "liable" part in reference to taxes, but his very 1-8-17 to 123:1 operating papers!  The cost? $2,500/day, per the Veronica Silva case in the N.H. State Board of Claims, mid 1980s front pages of The UNION LEADER, up to the now $50,000 maximum $amount, or more to $250,000 per incident through the Superior Court.