Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 23

[Kat Kanning]

I just finished viewing Monier's press conference. A few thoughts come to mind.

1. Monier twice made reference to Ed and Elaine being tried by "a jury of their peers". I did not know that the guilty verdict was arrived at by a jury. Is that true?

They had a jury who was instructed to ignore the Brown's evidence as to the legality of the income tax as it's currently being applied.

[srqrebel]

2. In my opinion - This is indeed a peaceful movement. Anyone on this forum posting threats or ad hominem attacks should be considered counterproductive to peaceful goals.

I share this opinion totally. +1 for effectively articulating a common position among the folks on this forum.

Speaking for myself only, I am not opposed to an in-kind response to tyranny for the purpose of self-defense and justice in principle; but I am 100% opposed to violent resistance to the State on practical grounds.  Such actions and threats by freedom seekers can only serve to 1) turn the tide of public opinion (sheeple) against us, 2) ruin any prospects for peaceful dialogue and resolution, and 3) most importantly: It is the fastest and surest route to defeat.  Violence is the one thing the federal gov't does best.  The technology gap alone ensures them victory in any violent confrontation.  David had a hundred times better chance against Goliath than we do against the highly armed and dangerous federal mafiosi by any violent means.

There are non-violent means available to us that gets them out of their element and shaking in their oh-so-macho commando boots.  It's time to start utilizing those means to the fullest.

[Raineyrocks]

I looked on the calendar to see if any Ed & Elaine demonstrations are going on today and didn't see any, if somebody could let me know if any are planned and when & where I'd appreciate it. PM me if you want.   I need to know pretty soon since it'll probably take me longer to get there than some people.  Thanks!

[LordBaltimore]

1. Monier twice made reference to Ed and Elaine being tried by "a jury of their peers". I did not know that the guilty verdict was arrived at by a jury. Is that true?

Yes.  A jury of 12 found them guilty on all counts.  If Ed and Elaine disagreed with how the trial was presented to the jury, they could have appealed to the next higher court.  They didn't.

2. In my opinion - This is indeed a peaceful movement. Anyone on this forum posting threats or ad hominem attacks should be considered counterproductive to peaceful goals.

And yet, several people on this very thread have posted explicit threats involving this case.  Rob Jacobs (Powerchuter) was the most obvious one with his repeated "kill the bastards" and his "pull, point, and press...and repeat as necessary" talk.

3. Would it not have been easier just to show Ed and Elaine the Law so they could write a check and be done with it? "Show me the law" is apparently the litigative equivalent to the cherry bomb thrown in the toilet.

Ed was shown the law in court filings prior to the trial beginning.

4. The last question in the press conference tried to touch on whether or not the federal government has the authority to seize a primary residence for tax compensation. Does this mean the IRS will not seize the property?

The IRS will be able to seize the house. Elaine's total tax bill was more than $2,000,000.

I asked him if that was not the jury's job to decide based on all of the facts. He got pretty defensive about the question. Looks like we have hold of the tip of a melting iceberg.

A defendent's opinion on what the law says isn't a fact, it's an opinion.  Legal issues are hammered out before the jury trial begins in motions filed in court, leaving only facts of the case for the jury to decide. 

The only key issue for the jury to decide in this case was whether or not Elaine and Ed were willful in their actions.  The judge said that they could introduce any evidence that led them to believe that their income wasn't taxable.  That's why Elaine was allowed to show Larken Rose's video to the jury.  When the jury went to the back room to deliberate , their job was to determine where the Browns' belief that income isn't taxable was a good faith belief, or were they just trying to cheat on their taxes.  The jury in this case decided that their beliefs weren't sincere, which isn't suprising considering the lengths the Browns went to to hide their income (they set up multiple trusts and asked one of Elaine's employees to be the front person so the income couldn't be traced back to Elaine, got more than a hundred money orders just below the reporting limit, and so on.)

In comparison, in the Tommy Cryer case down in Louisiana, Cryer was able to show his jurors that he truly believed that his income wasn't taxable.  The jury found his belief to be sincere and therefore found him not guilty.  Even though he was found not guilty, he still owes the taxes for those years.

Without a political solution (voting pro-tax lawmakers out of office) the iceberg is thriving.

[KBCraig]

Elaine's total tax bill was more than $2,000,000.

No, it was ~$2 million in income on which she didn't pay taxes. The total tax liability was ~$960,000. And that was after they tacked on the penalties and interest.

The government is losing money on the whole operation. Trying the Browns, arresting them and incarcerating them, is simply "Pour encourager les autres".

[LordBaltimore]

No, it was ~$2 million in income on which she didn't pay taxes. The total tax liability was ~$960,000. And that was after they tacked on the penalties and interest.

From the Concord Monitor:

Elaine Brown was found guilty of evading federal income taxes on the nearly $1.9 million she earned as a dentist between 1996 and 2003. At trial, prosecutors estimated that her unpaid taxes were about $625,000 for those years. But with interest and penalties, that number has jumped to close to $2 million, according to a federal tax lien filed against her property.

Brown was also found guilty of failing to withhold employment taxes for the workers at her practice. A separate federal lien shows that liability for those taxes has risen to $194,000.

In addition to the federal tax liens, the Browns also face a state tax lien for business profit taxes that Elaine Brown did not pay in 2002 and 2003. That lien, which was filed earlier this year, comes to $343,000.

The judge in the couple's criminal case also found that the couple must forfeit $215,000, because the money was tied to criminal acts in their conviction. The judge's order permits the government to seize the Browns' real estate to satisfy that judgment.

The total for all these comes to roughly $3 million and the business building was valued at $800,000 to $900,000.  Although it may be valued at less if potential buyers are scared away by Elaine's stupid stunt of asking supporters to spray paint religious and hate graffiti on the building.

[(V)]

And yet, several people on this very thread have posted explicit threats involving this case.  Rob Jacobs (Powerchuter) was the most obvious one with his repeated "kill the bastards" and his "pull, point, and press...and repeat as necessary" talk.

And he earned the honor of being one of the few people removed from this forum.

The Feds attempt to quell dissent is evident by their attempt to go after Dave Ridley, who has never made any threat of violence. Also, typified by the Fed "muscle" who told Phil, "we know what you have been doing for the last 12 months". What Phil (the Buddhist) and 95% of the others on this forum have been doing, is legitimate dissent.

[coffeeseven]

The government is losing money on the whole operation. Trying the Browns, arresting them and incarcerating them, is simply "Pour encourager les autres".

I doubt that anyone in government cares for the cost. It's not like it's their money that they have to take out of their personal accounts. We paid for thugs. We got thugs. A bloody infestation of thugs actually.

They say fashion rotates. Apparently so does indentured servitude.

[LordBaltimore]

And yet, several people on this very thread have posted explicit threats involving this case.  Rob Jacobs (Powerchuter) was the most obvious one with his repeated "kill the bastards" and his "pull, point, and press...and repeat as necessary" talk.

And he earned the honor of being one of the few people removed from this forum.

He was finally removed after he posted a graphic gang rape description of the moderator's daughter, a young girl who reads this forum.

[(V)]

And yet, several people on this very thread have posted explicit threats involving this case.  Rob Jacobs (Powerchuter) was the most obvious one with his repeated "kill the bastards" and his "pull, point, and press...and repeat as necessary" talk.

And he earned the honor of being one of the few people removed from this forum.

He was finally removed after he posted a graphic gang rape description of the moderator's daughter, a young girl who reads this forum.

And the reason he did that is because many had challenged his repeated attempts to incite people.

Richard and the Feds are attempting to paint everyone here with the same brush, my point is we have responded to the "shoot the bastards" faction. If anyone doubts our committment to nonviolent noncompliance look to the banner on the homepage.

[JosephSHaas]

I just finished viewing Monier's press conference. A few thoughts come to mind.

1. Monier twice made reference to Ed and Elaine being tried by "a jury of their peers". I did not know that the guilty verdict was arrived at by a jury. Is that true?

They had a jury who was instructed to ignore the Brown's evidence as to the legality of the income tax as it's currently being applied.

Plus: (1) the judge said that any more evidence Ed wanted to present to the jury as an exhibit had to be cleared or sifted through him first.  He verbally asked for the court RSA Ch. 123:1"cede"ing papers but did a lousy job explaining this, by NOT saying like not the magic words, but the magic numbers to the "combination of freedom" in 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution too, plus did not even present the certificate of federal non-filing signed by an officer of the Secretary of State to even get to first base with the judge: he threw his hands up, and left, never to return to that court; but that I did present, DURING trial, the documentation of my Jan. 11, 2007 copy to the prosecution (office and prosecutor) that and who had a duty to bring it to the attention of the judge "and" defendant(s), by both Federal Rule 36 + State Rule 3.8, but that they/he never did: they/he are in contempt-of-court, and Ed & Elaine ought to file charges against them/him for a mistrial! I'm still trying to find out from what state: ___________ this Wm. Morse, prosecutor is from to file charges against him there, since our own in-state PCC: Professional Conduct Committee REFUSED to apply the "Respondent Superior" factor to his boss: Thomas P. Colantuono, the U.S. Attorney, and licensed attorney with the N.H. Bar Association. 

Also (2) the judge said, and as I have in the transcript excerpt, that he told the jury that all the tax laws have been declare constitutional, that they were not and are not, as the very fact of that section (5) for rents was won by me as a landlord and proven in this very same court by me against the I.R.S. back in USA v. Haas case #M.83-50-D for then Chief Shane Devine, since deceased.  Thus the jury was tampered with to that degree and so in effect a lie IF the judge knew it, but anyway knows it now, or will know, and so another factor for to declare a mistrial.

So to mail this posting with the documentation of such to Ed & Elaine to use as a legal bullet back to the court, when I get their address of: ____________ for where exactly they are within the Bureau of Prisons: a supposed "correctional" facility too? in what state? (I plugged  Ed's name into the location box above last night, but it went to a message that there is no Edward Lewis Brown in their system, so to try today and report back here) (*) and did that state comply with their statute as posted by Attorney Larry Beecraft over at: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm If so, then we've finally found one state that has complied with the law and the legal, to tell the other state(s) to wise up!, otherwise to alert the governor of that state, as the CEO, Chief Executive Officer, to see to it that the Feds comply with their statute for "Consent" thus proving that BEFORE that "point in time", they had NO jurisdiction, and so what? To say retrospectively that it's O.K.?  Maybe there alright, but certainly NOT here in New Hampshire as we have an Article 23 right in the N.H. Constitution AGAINST such retrospectivity! See http://www.state.nh.us "[Retrospective Laws Prohibited.] Retrospective laws are highly injurious, oppressive, and unjust.  No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offenses."

When the admitting officer: _________ looks at the paperwork from the N.H. Marshal, is there the PROOF of Federal compliance with Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 U.S. Const. attached thereto?  If not, then there ought to be, and to make sure that such a Rule #__ is added to their operating procedures either in-house, or out-house as by the Congressmen really doing a shitty job of correction in the first tier BEFORE the capture, and now to deal with this NOW, or else! Or else what? they might ask.  Or else boot them out of office as NOT in compliance with their oath to comply with the Constitution and SUPREME Law of the land, somehow over-ridden by a federal constabulary running amok, both in the Executive and Judicial Branches: the former being the U.S. Marshals in their amuck status of NOT being "In a murderous frenzy" BUT "in a fit of wildness", the word wild defined as: "Lacking discipline, restraint, or control". The Feds are OUT-OF-CONTROL(**) of the state! You might say the Feds are "top dog" though, right? WRONG! We, the people are the boss over our public servants at the state level and THEN the national, because control is defined as the "Power to regulate, direct, or dominate." Weren't the Feds directed to report to our Office of Secretary of State FIRST, and BEFORE they went out on like a scavenger hunt directed by the judge from his bench warrant? to round-up Ed & Elaine Brown. The word dominate is from dominion and when capitalized to Dominion, is an order of angels, as messengers from God Almighty.  May the Lord of Hosts do what He knows needs to be done and after this request of mine that these federalies be taught a lesson in respect. 

Remember that game of "Simon says"?  Well in this case it's the s-word again, but with a twist: The State of New Hampshire said and did write back on June 14, 1883 (past tense) for the Feds to file, and I say and write now, with my local Reps to co-sign as their successors-in-interest, that the Feds (in the current tense) read and understand this by a verbal class or course I will be teaching them in their office next week, +/or that Danny will teach them with the help of Judge _________ that they (future tense), comply with the law! The amuck word is from the Malay word amok, meaning a "furious attack".  And so last Thursday night's attack against Ed & Elaine Brown can be defined as furious: "Extremely angry; raging; fierce: from the Latin word furia, FURY: meaning not only: 1. Violent anger, that the Feds will say was NOT the case, BUT see definition #2: "Uncontrolled(**) action; turbulence." From the Latin word fugere, to rage ("3. To spread or prevail unchecked" from the Latin word rabere, to rave: "1. To speak or utter wildly, irrationally, or incoherently. 2. To roar; rage." See also ravage: "To destroy or despoil...2. Grievous damage" from the word ravir, to ravish: "1. To seize and carry away by force. 2. To rape. 3. To enrapture." meaning to move to delight, but delight who? Who got "Great pleasure; joy"? The townspeople according to Stephen Taylor, the Dept. of Agriculture Commissioner in the newspapers, whose son is a Plainfield Selectman, getting "relief", but pleasure of what? that the Brown's vocal platform to expose the corruption in government is gone? Yes, from their hilltop retreat, but now even withIN their prison cells. In fact the message of federal non-compliance to 1-8-17 is spreading even more now that they are withiN the belly of the beast, to give it an indigestion that will make it "explode"!

Again I write: that the Feds are OUT-OF-CONTROL!(**) turbulence defined as "1. Violently agitated or disturbed; stormy" and "2. Causing unrest or disturbance; unruly: turbulent troops." From the Latin word confusion: meaning "1. The act of confusing or state of being confused. 2. Disorder; jumble." And confuse: "1.To perplex or bewilder. 2. To assemble without order or sense." You got that one right! A Dis-Order at both the state and local level!  Come on Feds: get with the program! Plus read about the real Dis in the encyclopedia with a capital letter D; a very bad character indeed! Yes, Ed & Elaine were confounded, as with the mix of truth and lies, in that the Marshals were for 2nd Amendment gun exercises over at the Browns, but limited to only their exercises of guns turned onto Ed & Elaine. "To mistake one thing for another." And jumble meaning: "1. To move, mix, or mingle in a confused, DISORDERed(***) manner.  2. To confuse." (emphasis ADDed).

(***) See the definition of "Disorderly Conduct" of "blocking public ways" over at http://www.answers.com/topic/disorderly-conduct?cat=biz-fin and N.H. RSA Ch. 644:2 over at http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/644/644-2.htm (continued in Reply #___ below, to write in a few minutes.) ___

Yours truly, - Joe

P.S. Kat: yes, you're correct that those are the four addresses to write to Danny, Bob, Jason + Reno.

(*) _________________

note: Richard, "the next higher court" the Browns could have appealed to is in the same rotten boat: that First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston was at the John McCormack Federal Building & U.S. Post Office that might have filed the papers with the state as per the MAss. statute for such over at Beecraft's list (above) , but after checking to see if the Joseph Moakley building where the court is now located down by the wharf, was recorded, the answer is: no! So to request that another outsider court tell a fellow court outsider to get with it INside the law, that is an absurdity! Both Jason and Reno have the paperwork on this and so will hopefully put this issue to the judge in Salem, MAss. for Essex County when they file their Petition(s) for an Habeas Corpus too.

[LordBaltimore]

Richard and the Feds are attempting to paint everyone here with the same brush, my point is we have responded to the "shoot the bastards" faction. If anyone doubts our committment to nonviolent noncompliance look to the banner on the homepage.

I in no way believe that most of the people who post here are violent.  I think it's pretty obvious they aren't.

But some are (despite your attempt to paint everyone here with the same pacifist brush), and the non-violent ones are trying to protect those who have expressed a desire for violence when they should be shunning and denouncing it.

[(V)]

I never used the term pacifist. The majority of folks here are following the nonviolent route, some are pacifists many are not.

[JosephSHaas]

Just FYI, for those of you wanting to track where the Browns are located:

http://bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp

Elaine's register number is 03924-049
Ed's is 03923-049

They will probably be in contract jails for a month or so until the Marshals actually deliver them to their destination.

Here's the website I did just refer to.  Thanks K.B.C. Going there right after I type this.

(1) As a follow-up to my Reply above for http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/644/644-2.htm for N.H. RSA Ch. 664 of "Disorderly Conduct", see section II.(c) "Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic on any public street..." as the Feds did with their roadblock on the Concert Day, but with the IV(a) exception for "Whenever a peace officer has probable cause to believe that a serious threat to the public health or safety is created by...ongoing criminal activity that poses a risk of bodily injury, or other disaster, the officer may close the area where the threat exists and the adjacent area necessary to control the threat or to prevent its spread, for the duration of the threat, until related law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical service operations are complete, by means of ropes, markers*, uniformed emergency service personnel, or any other reasonable means, to any person not authorized by a peace officer or emergency services personnel to enter or remain within the closed area."

So WHO was the "peace officer"? ________ and did he file a written "probable cause" somewhere? ______ (yes, or no) saying maybe that although the first Brown Concert went OK withOUT incident, that because of the added "booby traps", that maybe somebody wandering off into the woods might get hurt? Clearly they/ the law-enforcement part of the community think that Ed & Elaine were engaged in "criminal activity", was that of federal and/or state crimes? and if the former: then WHERE are the NH RSA 123:1 filing papers from 1-8-17 U.S. Const., and if the latter, then what about the Art. 10 Right of Revolution?  Aren't the Browns allowed the right to use equal or greater force in the "Law or Rules of Aggression" to offset a federal gov't gone running amok!? The statute reads beyond the mere handing out of their interpretation of the court order, that could be offset with our handing out a copy of the N.H. Constitution booklet with Article 10 highlighted.  Either way, their roadblock with yellow cone markers going half-way out into the road, the uniformed officers taking over the other half, for a full blockage, is not complete "until related law enforcement, fire AND emergency medical service operations are complete" (emphasis ADDed), and so I do ask again: WHO was the "peace officer"?; and WHO is his "related law enforcement" of: ____________?  Who-WHO? I think this was a Federal take-over withOUT the local police involved, and so without the local COPs, nor the County Sheriff NOR the State Police there, NOR the Fire Dept. NOR the EMI (Emergency Medical Unit), then the Feds ARE guilty of Dis-Orderly Conduct, and since nobody Section VI "request"ed them to leave, then instead of a misdemeanor, it's only a violation.

BUT: See also Section IV(b) AWAY from the necessity of having "related law enforcement" etc. in that "Peace officers [in the plural], __________ + ___________ may close the immediate area surrounding any emergency field command post activated for the purpose of abating any threat enumerated in this paragraph to any unauthorized persons, whether or not the field command post is located near the source of the treat."  - - So does anybody know if there's a federal statute, or in-house Rule #__ dealing with what has to be done in order before a "field command post"(*) can be activated?  ANSWER: if the Feds; then compliance with N.H. R.S.A. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. of course!  And so anybody turned away by the Feds on that day, ought to present their red warning notice into evidence against the Feds in some class-action civil lawsuit, as the Feds having violated their First Amendment rights to association, and especially to associate with an Art. 10 revolutionary.  The Feds being the militators (from the word: militate) with force used as their evidence, when Ed & Elaine had the REAL evidence in that gold-sealed certificate of non-compliance by the Feds to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 that they probably have already found by now, and are saying: holy shit! we've got to get rid of this evidence, or them saying to make sure Officer ___________, who is in charge of indexing the items collected, does NOT put this down on the list!

(2) My details of that "Writ of Elegit" process, to follow...

Yours truly, JSH

P.S. Attention: The Bureau of Prisons:  You KNOW that you exist by Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution "for the Erection of Forts" defined as "A fortified place, esp. a permanent post."(*)  And post defined as "A military base where troops are stationed".  So your place of: ___________________ where Ed is now, a "fortified" place alright, as per the first part of the fortify definition, of: "To strengthen and secure (a position) with military defenses." but does the end justify the means? No!  In the United States we're supposed to have both procedural* and substantive due process of law rights.  You have the substance alright as constitutional, but what about the substance of the conveyor* of Ed to you?  He came from the Marshal's Office in the Warren B. Rudman "courthouse" in Concord, N.H. at 53 Pleasant Street, but that that building is NOT in compliance with the law!  See http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm for 664 Territorial Jurisdiction in the U.S. Attorney's Manual in that 1-8-17 "embraces courthouses", of which the U.S. Marshal has his office on the 2nd floor between the Court Clerk's office and some courtrooms on the first floor, and more courtrooms on the second floor, plus a passageway leading to the James C. Cleveland Building, at 55 Pleasant Street, connecting it to here, with the U.S. Attorney's Office on the 4th of five (5) floors there. Or as some people say: five "stories" as on the sheets that ought to be displaced therefrom or to, by ladders, indicating their piracy of this part of the Constitution! Maybe to run up the Skull & Crossbones on the flagpole? as the REAL nature of the beasts within! The "Law of the Flag" being made a mockery by these liars and thieves! In the meantime David Ridley: keep up the good work with those sidewalk banners. Your timing last time down at the Essex County Jail was perfect!

[Pat K]

Richard and the Feds are attempting to paint everyone here with the same brush, my point is we have responded to the "shoot the bastards" faction. If anyone doubts our committment to nonviolent noncompliance look to the banner on the homepage.

I in no way believe that most of the people who post here are violent.  I think it's pretty obvious they aren't.

But some are (despite your attempt to paint everyone here with the same pacifist brush), and the non-violent ones are trying to protect those who have expressed a desire for violence when they should be shunning and denouncing it.

O-K no problem, I here by shun and denounce you richardr as
an apologist and hand licker of the state and all its violence.