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

[JosephSHaas]

...

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.
....
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P-L-E-A-S-E!  Let's not do like the Feds did to mix up the process. The house has been "seized" (past tense), now moving toward a "forfeiture".  And under a TAX!?  Here I go again:

"You have got to be shitting me!?"

Read "Black's Law Dictionary", and from memory for the Fifth (5th) Edition, (c)1979,  page 1307 for the word: tax; A tax, in its essential characteristics, is NOT a debt.  One owes debts, but not taxes.  Taxes are like the polliwog (or tadpole) turning into an adult frog.  And re: -pole, see also: the old word for tax collector, as "catchpoll".  They've got to catch you first. Not this: you have to "volunteer" bullshit! That's "Three Stooges" mentality of like just because everybody else steps backwards (both figuratively and physically), that you have automatically stepped forward, when you didn't even move!?

Here's a little bit from the State Archives, on Fruit Street in Concord, N.H. about this Elegit stuff: From House Bill #1356 of 1996, presented by Roland E. Hemon, R.I.P. from Dover who was the ONLY State Rep in decades with guts to file a Bill of Impeachment BEFORE the David Brock, Supreme Court Chief Impeachment.

"1. WHEREAS: 'equity has always existed as a part of the common law in New Hampshire' Eckstein v. Downing, Vol. 64 N.H. REPORTS 248-260 (Merrimack County, Dec.ember 1886) @ page 259; and;

2. WHEREAS: according to the Morsell case, 91 US 357 (1875), 23 LAW ED. @ p. 437" 'Judgments by the common law were not liens upon real estate.  The lien arose from the power to issue a writ of elegit.' +

3. WHEREAS: the process of Elegit* (Henry Campbell BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 5th edition (c)1979 @ p. 467) is: 'He has chosen' as in the Plaintiff has chosen to be called a 'tenant by elegit' to hold a moiety or half (fifty percent, 50%, 1/2) of the freehold land, till out of the rents thereof the debt be levied or until the defendant's interest be expired, and;"

No wonder the Feds set the term of imprisonment for less than seven years.  They want them to get out in 5.5 years and go homeless! when the truth is in Public Law 97-280, 96 Statute 1211 of The Year of the Bible for 1983 & Beyond, in that by Deuteronomy 15:1 "At the end of every seventh year thou shalt make a release" (see also Nehemiah 10:31).  So year 5.5 to 7 = 1.5 year of being homeless!?  No way!  The lien of: $___________ against the Browns can only attack the fruits as in if and when the Dental Office is auctioned off to WHOever, they merely take a quitclaim deed, not a Warranty Deed.  And to what percentage of the property?  Answer: as a temporary landlord of the whole, but only allowing, after their what? 10% management fee, for expenses, to give 50% of the net profits therefrom to the Feds until the "debt" be paid, and this tax not yet declared a debt, as the Feds have skipped over this process! Shame on you Feds!

A Notice of Lien is NOT a lien, and against the I.R.S. here by our beefed-up statute, thanks to Andrew Tempelman and his "Common Law Court" tactics that they were aiming at, but the Fed goons getting the ricochet alright!  The filing of any lien without a court order for debt, is RSA Ch. _______ Tampering with Public Records, and State Rep. Lars Christiansen of Hudson meeting former State Trooper-turned retired State Rep. now too, Dick Marple of Hooksett, to "go after" these Registrars of Deeds in all ten (10) counties, in putting them into that culpable mental state so as NOT to avoid any criminality on any then-after such I.R.S. Notice of Liens filed AS liens, but more importantly for the civil, to do away with these bogus IRS liens, and even start maybe some class-action suit against the Feds because read the definition of an Attachment: an attachment is a TAKING!  What did the Feds take, or steal? The equity or borrowing power of that $dollar amount they did wrongfully attach! x 7 for punitive damages per Proverbs 6:30-31 and Public Law 97-280 again. 

Yours truly, JSH

* re: #3 above: This Elegit process "found by researching the McInnes v. McKay case 127 Maine 110, 141 A 699-703 (1928) in Snladach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View et al, p. 348-9, from the Miller Newspapers, Inc. v. Keene case, 546 F.Supp. 831-837 (D N.H. 1982) @ p. 836, footnote #4, cited as recently as in page 2 of the 5-page Temporary ORDER of James D. O'Neill,III, Presiding Justice dated May 4, 1994 in Shedd v. Haas, Grafton County Superior Court Docket #94-E-035/ Document #8 of 29 items so far recorded."

P.S. See also RSA Ch. 480:1 for The Homestead Right of $100,000 per person, and so Ed & Elaine both to at least: $200,000. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XLIX/480/480-1.htm that used to be: $30,000, then $50,000, and now $100,000.

note: my Reply is between the - - - - - -, sorry, but I'm not that computer savy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[CNHT]

Everyone must speak for and be responsible for themselves. If they don't want to be seen as violent then they mustn't talk in a manner that makes people think they might be.

What I am worried about is, the IRS seemed to have wanted to go after people who were just TALKING about this issue at all. I'm sure that is not acceptable.
Was there anyone here that was threatened or intimidated who had only discussed it?

If you've lived in NH as long as I have, then you know a lot of people like the Browns and you know that the Browns have not paid their taxes for years.
So it's not such a shocking thing. I'm sure there are thousands of people across the country who are not paying.

But, I just wonder why they JUST NOW decided to drag them to court and not 10 or 15 years ago?

And the arrest being when it was, also fishy.

It's being used as a political football by some.

And it's aggravating especially when you think that REPUBLICANS (who are supposed to be fiscal conservatives and advocates of small government) are advocating tax amnesty for some, while arresting others.

I think it just proves all the more that a system that takes your money by force is not a good one.

It's mind boggling.

[yamnuska]

Just ignore the government, I encourage people to socially ostracize it and those who work for it. "What's that Dogbert? You work for the government? Well then, sorry, my chid will no longer play with your child. We don't want our little Jimmy playing with the son of a criminal." Imagine a federal agent moving to a town and the townsfolk refusing to do business with them, refusing to talk to them, refusing to acknowledge their existence, that would be very uncomfortable, very upsetting. Ignorance is bliss. By paying attention to government you legitimize it.

[error]

Careful, CNHT, or you could be next. Nobody knows when or if these feds are going to stop harassing peaceful people and start going after the violent ones.

[JosephSHaas]

... Imagine a federal agent moving to a town and the townsfolk refusing to do business with them, refusing to talk to them, refusing to acknowledge their existence, that would be very uncomfortable, very upsetting. Ignorance is bliss. By paying attention to government you legitimize it.

Yamnuska, When you ignore the baboon that escaped from the zoo, does that mean that you are safe?  Of course not.  The same goes with these "Wild One's", i.e. the bad apples in the barrel.  We do not ignore the bad apples, but pluck them out! Not that I'm advocating that the "assassination squad" take care of the judge and prosecutor, but that like I said to the Marshals: their days are numbered too.  Not in the loss of their life, but to make them pay for their misdeeds.  Just imagine a judgment for Ed & Elaine having to be paid from out of the elegit/ half of the salaries of: Tom Colantuono, William Morse, Stephen McAuliffe, and Marshal Monier; say $100,000/year each on average x 4 = $400,000 divided by 2 = $200,000/yr. then the Browns will be millionaires in five (5) years.  Plus bonuses too from all four Congressmen (2 Senators + 2 Representatives) = millionaires in half the time.  These political goons to face the music as they say; http://www.thefreedictionary.com/face+the+music "To accept the unpleasant consequences, especially of their own actions." or in the public servant cases, for this latter group, their in-actions, as public non-servants!

Plus WHO is this JJ MacNab? who is some tax evasion expert who is writing a book about the tax protest movement.  "The Governor & J.J."?  Does she really think that the "violence MAY increase over the next few days as supporters vent their anger about the arrests"? (emphasis ADDed for the "may" word, so you can guess what type of book she'll have, MAYBE it will be a best-seller, MAYBE it won't.  Maybe it will cost you an hour's worth of your wages, maybe it'll cost you two. Maybe this, maybe that.  Come on, can't Margot get any more than a "maybe" out of her?  Fence-sitter over lukewarm water.

See Margot's "Browns fell for disguised marshals" ..."on their porch" over at http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071006/FRONTPAGE/710060394 and who is this Deputy Marshal who called a Free State Project member to say: "We are not going to tolerate it." It being the violence, as by the "assassination squads".  "This is your get out of jail card.  The next time we call, you're going to come with us."

If anybody does any physical "capture the flag" here, or as by to take a prisoner in this latest battle in the war on taxes and gov't corruption, then let it not be to take their life, but if you really have to do something, to direct their path to the Office of Secretary of State. Point out to them the error of their ways.  They have gone astray and need to be put back on the right path. And through the gauntlet, of course!  Tell them to march on over to Bill Gardner's office, and if you have to, don't get out your gun to "make 'em dance" like in those old TV westerns: but there is a way*  to get them over to the State House for the final federal filing. Signed in their own blood would be nice.  The way* being for the governor to do his duty by his Art. 41 powers to enforce all legislative mandates by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Const., and if he won't do his job, then impeach the bastard!  Do not wait until the next election. Get your state Rep. to file a House Bill of Impeachment by Art. 17 for a trial in the Senate by Art. 38. 

Give your Legislator a call, then follow it up with a letter, then make a personal appearance on the doorstep of their house: like find out when the time is they usually go to work, and be there in their face at the end of their driveway on public property if they decide to post it or tell you to KEEP OUT.  They work for you, and have already been pre-paid, so if there is any physical confrontation it's for services non delivered but already pre-paid, and so with the right to take-back what you think you deserve of this $100.00 so far for 2007, and give them a receipt.  Like maybe to grab their wallet, deduct a $20 bill and change for some 7th Amendment action in alignment with the RSA Ch. 627:8 right to use FORCE to regain YOUR property! The word "your" of course they'll think as theirs, and they'll probably TRY to charge you with assault or robbery, but not when you do it with a receipt showing no criminal intent!  Just more Art. 10 Revolutionary tactics taken ONE STEP BEYOND the 401 Center of Town Road turf.

Yours truly, JSH

P.S. If caught or killed, the secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions.  Good luck Jim. 

note:  Seriously now: WHO is that State Rep. for Plainfield that is the law professor over in Vermont?  Do you want to target him as the first to give a greeting card to, in person? He has talked to me on the telephone before, but when it gets down to brass tacks, he's a wimp when it comes to a check-and-balance.  We've either got to convince him to do what's right, or get him to generate some negative ions of guilt so that his structure is in need of a vacation, to take a medical leave of absence, so that there can be a special election for when he dies or is so incapacitated that he ought to give back the $200 and let somebody else take his seat.  And speaking of which: why not also center in on that other State Rep. in the Dover area who is down with cancer?  Maybe he'd like to stop and smell the roses before he checks out of this world, and so can pass the baton over to a candidate we can support: one that will have a campaign promise to Impeach Lynch!

footnote #2.  I've done this drop-off of papers before with a State Rep. during the day to his house, with (guard)dog present, nice doggie,  and then called him at supper time to see if he got my papers OK to read that he did, but that went nowhere fast, needing a return visit, that I never did. With one more person a day added to the drop-off, like a fill-in-the-blank House Bill of Impeachment, and at or just after breakfast, that would give him all day to think that we would be there to greet him on his return home too! to be reminded. 

[Sheep Fuzzy Wool]

Dedicated to Elaine and Ed Brown and all those being harrassed by the Fuzz.
Note the handcuffs on the hands playing the guitar.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PyGTTtx6NZY

[Sheep Fuzzy Wool]

Reading the http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=630&Itemid=36

Now this does have me wondering.

Every word meaning must be read differently than thought.
I will puke if they killed or hurt the Brown's. This could explain the guilty conscience-type of random questioning the local town folks, disguised as safety measures.  They probably think the Brown's had some kind of secret beeper button that informs whomever because they all went to spy school and watched James Bond.
Maybe they are waiting to hold proof of the Brown's being alive or dead till after someone out of Washington decides if they want to invade Iran this next couple of weeks and then everyone will be so distracted to not notice what happened to the Brown's.

In the America I once knew, people were allowed to know if people were safe and have proof shown to them. Even Charlie Manson, Jeffrey Dalmer or however one spells their names...Mark Chapman...everyone knew they were safe, being kept. 
How come the media is not demanding to see the Brown's?
This is a senior citizen couple who did not wish to play the monopoly game and they are said to be arrested and no one knows if they are alive.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arrested
ar·rest  (-rst)
v. ar·rest·ed, ar·rest·ing, ar·rests
v.tr.
1. To stop; check: a brake that automatically arrests motion; arrested the growth of the tumor.
2. To seize and hold under the authority of law.
3. To capture and hold briefly (the attention, for example); engage.
v.intr.
To undergo cardiac arrest: The patient arrested en route to the hospital.
n.
1.
a. The act of detaining in legal custody: the arrest of a criminal suspect.
b. The state of being so detained: a criminal under arrest.
2. A device for stopping motion, especially of a moving part.
3. The act of stopping or the condition of being stopped.
[Middle English aresten, from Old French arester, from Vulgar Latin *arrestre : Latin ad-, ad- + Latin restre, to stand still (re-, re- + stre, to stand; see st- in Indo-European roots).]

[JosephSHaas]

Reading the http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=630&Itemid=36

Now this does have me wondering.
....

Didn't Monier say that once they had arrived at their destination, that the PRESS would be informed to relay to us? It was a PRESS CONFERENCE, and only the Media Big Whigs can ask questions.  Compare when Fred Bramante of "Daddy's Junky Music" was running for Governor of New Hampshire, he allowed questions from the public over at the L.O.B.  Not Monier.  He doesn't want to be asked the tough questions like: Ver are yer papers Stephen? The RSA Ch. 123:1 ones that are supposed to be on file over at the Secretary of States Office per your oath to 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution.  And you highlight the transfer papers from Plainfield to what? "The Outer Limits", as you somehow lost them into some "Black Hole" going through Brookhaven, New York, or maybe "The Bermuda Triangle"? An "Encounter with the Unexplained", or maybe "One Step Beyond". The Lord of Hosts is in charge and deals with parasites in a variety of ways.

As of 11:44 p.m. tonight the BOP still report at their website for Ed as Reg. # 03923-049 and Elaine #03924-049 as "Not in BOP custody".  So I guess KBC is right, that they're in some local lockup, or maybe under guard at some hospital? Maybe that Cold Research Lab in Hanover on Rte. 10, as when you're IN the system you're THEIR property, and they can do experiments on you! You're a human guinea pig.

Or maybe when they got #__ miles down the road some trigger devise went off and exploded the van as #__ feet away from the control tower, to make sure that is was really: "Live Free or Die". They take a lickin, and keep on tickin!

JSH

[Coconut]

Or maybe when they got #__ miles down the road some trigger devise went off and exploded the van as #__ feet away from the control tower, to make sure that is was really: "Live Free or Die". They take a lickin, and keep on tickin!

JSH

That's a bit over the top. I would be sure that they would frisk/search both captives before leaving since they are known to be armed. It would be impossible to keep the word of an exploding van from the media or people in the area.

[KBCraig]

Didn't Monier say that once they had arrived at their destination, that the PRESS would be informed to relay to us? It was a PRESS CONFERENCE, and only the Media Big Whigs can ask questions.

Once they get to their destination, it's public information, available to anyone who checks the "inmate locator" I posted above. There's also a phone number for the national locator service, but I don't have it handy, and it's apparently not on the public website.

[JosephSHaas]

Yeah Margot, rub it in; kick the dog, kick 'em while they're down, just great!

re: your "Experts: More charges likely for Browns" 12:05 AM

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071007/FRONTPAGE/710070323

At least you quoted that JJ MacNab as the doomsayer: "'I don't realistically think they are going to see each other again except in the next trial' said JJ MacNab, a tax evasion expert who has been FOLLOWING the Brown case for a book on the tax protest movement."  (emphasis ADDed, because to follow, is to "tread on the heels of".) In other words: a brown-noser to the powers that be corrupt!  The antonyn of the word defined as PRIORITY: as in the word presage, see prediction.  For one that "follows" to try to see ahead is but the ass that it follows. JJ sees to the side and is warped away from the truth. Crooked.

Who are these other "wachers" or The Watchers with a capital letter W? as in the ones that "descended onto the peak of Mount Hermon" 1 Enoch 6:1 - 7:1 over at http://www.mt.net/~watcher/  You wrote that "Ed and Elaine Brown...will likely face a raft (a great number* or amount; "range") of new charges and see many of their key (major) supporters prosecuted, said experts who have watched the case."

And Margot, I see you too like to predict the future with that "will" word in paragraph #9 of 13, that you used 7 times in this story, writing that: "Four of the Browns' supporters arrested in September WILL also be tried soon." (emphasis ADDed, that is IF they lose their Petitions for an Habeas Corpus, that I find unlikely, since, as they say: liars figure, but figures* don't lie.)

JSH

P.S. (1) You mention Monier as first saying "will likely face" new charges, as in the word "may", but then get rid of the word "likely" to that of "will face", so which one is it? +

(2) Obstruction of Justice? Here I go again: You have got to be shitting me! to obstruct is to impede, as that other word you use too, but that the impede word means to entangle, and so what!? The State-Federal relations MUST be twisted together in the 1-8-17 and 123:1 combination*.  Thus any retarding or delay is on the part of the Feds, a delay of over a full century of the 1900s!, to obstruct with the synonym: check, and in the Article 10 check and balance by the Right of Revolution, the right to use evidence by way of the certificate of non-filing against the Feds who use mere force as evidence, thus them being the militants from the word militate, and are the real obstructors of justice to be offset by the Law and/or Rules of Aggression with not "illegal" weapons, but lawful weapons to fight back the corruptors! And criminal threatening to commit a crime of what: to kill the enemy in a time of war. Again I say: You have got to be shitting me! Plus "possession of explosives".  Say what? You expect them to use pea-shooters against guns that shoot real bullets. Again for the third time: You have got to be shitting me! Say good-night Gracie.

[error]

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/10/07/marshals-investigate-potential-threats-to-the-nation/

[Free Mexican-Not Stamped]

Yes.  A jury of 12 found them guilty on all counts.

richardr, But of course you know that during the trial, the Browns were told by the judge that they would not be allowed to "tell it to the jury." And when the Browns realized that the judge would not allow them to read statutes or the constitution to the jury or explain these to the jury, they saw that they were like cornered rats with only 2 choices:

1. Sit through a show trial where they would effectively have their mouths duct-taped Bobby Seale-style before being processed in the American gulag and probably given the full diesel treatment like congressman George Hanson, et. al. and probably having their minds scrambled and tortured like Jose Padilla.

or

2. Hole up and wait to be Waco-ed

I can't say that I blame them for choosing option #2.  It seems less painful in the long run.

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.

Puleeeeze!  If you work for the government, then spare me the condescending impudence.  If you are one of the government's subjects, then spare me the sniveling boot-licking cowardice.

From Lysander Spooner's Trial by Jury (1852)

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm

For more than six hundred years --- that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 --- there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty" --- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government --- they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.

But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.

That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object.

"The trial by jury," then, is a "trial by the country" ---that is by the people as distinguished from a trial by the government.

It was anciently called "trial per pais" that is, "trial by the country." And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused "has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are."

The object of this trial "by the country," or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or "the country," judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government; if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?

Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other --- or at least no more accurate --- definition of a despotism than this.

On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom.

To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken, (or must be, to make them lawful jurors,) from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government. This is done to prevent the government's constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government's packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes....

Given that the government would rather torture people such as congressman George Hanson than allow the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, I find your little quip that defendant's can always appeal to the government to judge for themselves their power over the people to be insulting and sickening.

I wonder if you or Monier know or care at what point during the history of Monier's 216 year old illegal standing army that the people's 800 year old right since Magna Carta to judge of their own liberties vis-a-vis the government began to be stolen from them, and supplanted by a government that judges for itself its power over the people.  (Hint: Don't skip the footnotes in Spooner's Trial by Jury).

[smartbandwidth]

You folks in NH are beacons of hope and faith for mankind!

Keep up the great work!!

http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/2007/10/old-controlled-systems-are-giving-way.html

Peace and God Bless,

Fred = Peace in Swedish

[smartbandwidth]

Freedom is a conversation that will never, ever, end.....

It's about exiting the Wizard's Castle - and carrying the Wizard on your/our shoulders if need be - to a place in the green grass with the sun shining overhead where there's flowers and trees and bees buzzing in the light wind with music, song and kids playing and laughing.  We are all called to lay down and sit upon gather round a giant picnic blanket that becomes filled to overflowing with all kinds of fresh fruit, bread, wine and cheese.  This is what "The Free State" - physically and spiritually manifesting - is all about. 

Peace and God Bless,

Fred
fredsmart.ws