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

[JosephSHaas]

Hello all,

it took 25 yrs for the IRS to wiggle around my parents arguments ....

Twenty-five (25) years!!!!! + !!!!! + !!!!! + !!!!! + !!!!! wow!

What state are you from? Check out to see if the Feds in that state have complied with that state statute #_________ you can find over at http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm thanks to Attorney Larry Becraft, and I hope that when she goes to prison, that it be in Connecticut or a similar state with single-filing, because if the convicting state is a 2-filing state (like the Feds to have to file at the Registry of Deeds "and" the Office of Secretary of State or governor's office, like in New Hampshire, and Mass.achusetts/Florida respectfully, that has NOT been done), that a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus can get your mother out as having been both unlawfully and illegal incarcerated against 1-8-17 U.S. Const., and like RSA Ch. 123:1 for here in New Hampshire.  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm These Feds take on oath to the
United States Constitution, but then shut their eyes and block their ears when PROOF is brought to their face of the federal non-filing!  This deaf and blind monkey crap, looking back, instead of forward, has got to stop!

Good luck, - - Joe

Thanks for the Links Joe,
They lived in Minnesota, ...
slimpickens

As you can read on pages 164, 165 + 166 there, The Minn. States Annotated Section 1.042 - Subdivision 1 in regards to 1-8-17 U.S. Const. reads that "the consent of the state of Minnesota is hereby given...Subd. 2...to United States.  So far as exclusive jurisdiction in, or over any place...subject to the right of the state to cause its civil and criminal process to be executed on the premises...1.043 When jurisdiction vests...shall not vest until the United States has acquired the title to or right of possession...1.046 Evidence of consent...shall be evidenced by the certificate of the governor,".

So your state grants more than what N.H. did for the Feds.  Here in N.H. we only gave them "concurrent jurisdiction"" whereas your state gave them "exclusive" jurisdiction" and "subject to", but that I think means the same thing.  Noting that the Feds must or shall, as in needs to have "exclusive" jurisdiction in order to effect its criminal statutes. See my Reply #__ above (in Archives) for the details about this.

Plus the wording in 1.046 is unique? as the first one of these statutes I've read that says this.  So when jurisdiction is challenged by the defendant in the federal court, jurisdiction must be proven, NOT by the defendant, BUT by the prosecution, and so the U.S. Attorney must ask permission of the governor for such a certificate for the evidence as proof of jurisdiction, and that if he doesn't give it, then there is no evidence and no jurisdiction proven, wow! Sounds to me like the governor can charge the Feds $x amount as like a filing fee for this certificate, so if you're friends with the governor you might have him charge them $_________ as the cost of what you'd have to pay an attorney to defend you, and maybe more, like $__________ extra into some escrow fund, so that if and when you win, as to prove their attachment wrong, as an attachment is a taking, and so in effect them stealing your equity, to charge them sevenfold (again see notes above), then maybe with a pre-arranged deal with the state for helping in this deal, that they get a 10% tax on your winnings? Yeah, go for it! AFTER the fact, as it sounds like the attorney was lousy, in NOT arguing jurisdiction, but in the meantime tell others currently in their jaws who might give you a nice finder's fee to at least make life in prison better for your mother until maybe a release on a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Good luck, - Joe

[Ahmed]

Under federal law, the marshal is required to account for seized property:

Title 26, Section 7322. Delivery of seized personal property to United States marshal

Any forfeitable property which may be seized under the provisions of this title may, at the option of the Secretary, be delivered to the United States marshal of the district, and remain in the care and custody and under the control of such marshal, pending disposal thereof as provided by law.

The Browns, and in particular Elaine, had a number of personal items such as books and dental instruments that should be exempt from seizure.  It would probably be helpful if someone, or group, could interact with the Marshal's office to determine what property remains, and whether it can be released.

Also there's the matter of the dog, which as far as I know is still MIA.  Can you do a habeus corpus for a dog?  Perhaps a complaint to the SPCA or equivalent group would be in order.  Tax issues aside, the federal marshals could get a black eye over their callous treatment of this innocent pet.  Recall that the first thing the marshals did in the Ruby Ridge standoff was to kill the family dog, and the first thing the feds did in Waco was to kill the four dogs that the group owned.  So the prospects for the Brown's dog do not appear promising.

[Sheep Fuzzy Wool]

Another dedication to Ed and Elaine Brown:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ohyQblkQ8fc

[LordBaltimore]

The Browns, and in particular Elaine, had a number of personal items such as books and dental instruments that should be exempt from seizure.  It would probably be helpful if someone, or group, could interact with the Marshal's office to determine what property remains, and whether it can be released.

That's up to the family, not the supporters.

[LordBaltimore]

And speaking of the family, Ed and Elaine have four children who have been conspicuously absent from their stand. One of them kind of sort supported their cause, but not their stand or methods.  He appeared on the local Fox news channel yesterday.

http://www.myfoxboston.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=4592332&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.1.1

[coffeeseven]

Lauren is in jail because NH is a police state and demands "papers" ... not because she has met Ed Brown.

I understand that Russell but even though the Ed and Elaine situation is the most severe before us all, it is not the only or the last. I intend to respectfully request that the LDF be used in a manner consistent with the broad scope of the emergency at hand. Arrested for not showing documentation, in my mind should be covered under that scope.

No one should be forced to be a part, nor should anyone be excluded. We have agreed in principle to a non-violent stance, so this is but one of the planks of a peaceful, proactive stance within the law. Your suggestions are welcomed and needed.

[J’raxis 270145]

Feds seek Brown sympathizers
By SCOTT BROOKS
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
11 hours, 35 minutes ago

Manchester – Federal marshals are combing New Hampshire and other parts of the country for Ed and Elaine Brown sympathizers suspected of plotting violence in retaliation for the Plainfield couple's arrest last week.

In Manchester, marshals have questioned several members of the Free State Project, a group of small-government activists that includes some of the Browns' most ardent supporters. In one interview that was videotaped and posted online, an agent identified one Free Stater, Rob Jacobs, 42, of Manchester, as a potential threat.

"There's been a lot of talk about once Ed and Elaine Brown were arrested, there was going to be this retaliation," the agent told Jacobs' roommate, Sharon "Ivy" Ankrom, during the filmed interview. "When I've asked people, 'Put yourself in my shoes. Who do I need to be concerned about? Who might actually do something violent?' And they all say Rob."

Jacobs denies being part of any plot to exact revenge for the Browns' incarceration. In an interview yesterday, he said he has been in contact with the agent since last Saturday and has agreed to answer questions.

"Their question as to whether I am a threat to anybody is met with a stern answer: No," Jacobs said.

The federal agent's interview at Murphy's Tap Room, a downtown bar frequented by Free Staters, was conducted Friday, one day after U.S. marshals infiltrated the Browns' home and brought the couple into custody.

Ed and Elaine Brown were convicted in January for refusing to pay federal taxes on $1.9 million of income between 1996 and 2003. The two refused to go to prison and spent the ensuing months holed up in their Plainfield compound.

In that time, Ed Brown made repeated threats against any agent who would come for him and said he had a "hit list" containing the names of more than 50 people whose lives would be in danger if something happened to him.

U.S. Marshal Steve Monier, who masterminded the Browns' apprehension last Thursday, said federal agents are reviewing any threats to government officials and are interviewing people throughout the country as part of an ongoing investigation.

"We are continuing to monitor the threat environment," Monier said. "We'll follow those threats where it goes, and we'll take appropriate action."

Monier confirmed the video on Google is authentic. He asked the New Hampshire Union Leader to refrain from publishing the agent's identity because it could prompt more threats.

The 13-minute clip focuses mostly on the agent's face as he tells Ankrom why he wants to talk to Jacobs and asks her to tell him where he is. At one point, the video shows, the agent tells her, "I need to gauge to myself, 'Is Rob a threat to people that we're in charge of protecting?'"

Jacobs said he supports the Browns' cause and has visited their home many times in the past year. He said he has never seen Ed Brown's supposed hit list and said he does not know anyone who might be planning to harm government officials.

Ankrom, 30, a hostess at Murphy's, said she filmed the agent and asked a friend to post the video online because she wanted Jacobs and other people who might be wanted for questioning to know the marshals were looking for them.

Two other members of the Free State Project -- roommates Phillip Allen, 22, and Michael Hampton, 35, of Manchester -- said a marshal came to their door last week to ask questions, including whether they know anyone who has threatened to commit violence because of the Browns. Both said they did not.

"I think taxation is slavery," Allen said yesterday. "But I'm not going to shoot anybody."

Keith Murphy, owner of Murphy's Tap Room and a member of the Free State Project, said many Free Staters who already have come to New Hampshire supported the Browns' crusade against the federal income tax. They were turned off, however, as Ed Brown's rhetoric became increasingly violent and after he told reporters all of the world's problems are the fault of Freemasons and Jews.

"We are 'small L' Libertarians," Murphy said of the Free Staters. "We believe violence is inherently wrong. It's not in our nature."

Four people linked to the Browns were arrested last month and have been held on federal felony charges. None was a member of the Free State Project, Monier said.

Elaine Brown is being held at a minimum-security prison in Danbury, Conn. Her husband still was waiting to be transferred to prison yesterday.

Authorities have said the tax evaders could face more charges.

[CNHT]

Feds seek Brown sympathizers
By SCOTT BROOKS
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
11 hours, 35 minutes ago

Manchester – Federal marshals are combing New Hampshire and other parts of the country for Ed and Elaine Brown sympathizers suspected of plotting violence in retaliation for the Plainfield couple's arrest last week.

In Manchester, marshals have questioned several members of the Free State Project, a group of small-government activists that includes some of the Browns' most ardent supporters. In one interview that was videotaped and posted online, an agent identified one Free Stater, Rob Jacobs, 42, of Manchester, as a potential threat.

"There's been a lot of talk about once Ed and Elaine Brown were arrested, there was going to be this retaliation," the agent told Jacobs' roommate, Sharon "Ivy" Ankrom, during the filmed interview. "When I've asked people, 'Put yourself in my shoes. Who do I need to be concerned about? Who might actually do something violent?' And they all say Rob."

So who has been saying this? One of your own? What a bunch of horse poopie...

Rob is no threat to anyone for cryin' out loud...

[J’raxis 270145]

Feds seek Brown sympathizers
By SCOTT BROOKS
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
11 hours, 35 minutes ago

Manchester – Federal marshals are combing New Hampshire and other parts of the country for Ed and Elaine Brown sympathizers suspected of plotting violence in retaliation for the Plainfield couple's arrest last week.

In Manchester, marshals have questioned several members of the Free State Project, a group of small-government activists that includes some of the Browns' most ardent supporters. In one interview that was videotaped and posted online, an agent identified one Free Stater, Rob Jacobs, 42, of Manchester, as a potential threat.

"There's been a lot of talk about once Ed and Elaine Brown were arrested, there was going to be this retaliation," the agent told Jacobs' roommate, Sharon "Ivy" Ankrom, during the filmed interview. "When I've asked people, 'Put yourself in my shoes. Who do I need to be concerned about? Who might actually do something violent?' And they all say Rob."

So who has been saying this? One of your own? What a bunch of horse poopie...

Rob is no threat to anyone for cryin' out loud...

I would guess the four people they arrested as Ed Brown supporters pointed at Rob, since as far as I know, no freestaters had been interrogated before the Porc Manor raid, and by that point the feds were already saying this stuff about "all" pointing at Rob. Or, they just decided to look at Rob on their own, probably by reading his forum posts, and are lying out their ass about people pointing to him. Remember, they told Ivy one story (caught on video), the Porc Manor residents another, and Keith Murphy a third. They then told him they'd stop harassing customers at the Taproom, then promptly returned to doing so when he went upstairs again. They have zero credibility with pretty much all of us at this point.

[kola]

so..it looks as though the thought-police are hard at work...most wasted tax money.

Dear feds,

Did you swear to an oath?
Do you remember what you swore to?
More importantly, do you understand what it meant?

But yet you have made a decision to enforce issues that are unconstitutional?

This is treason, boys. Do you understand?

Kola

[CNHT]

So who has been saying this? One of your own? What a bunch of horse poopie...

Rob is no threat to anyone for cryin' out loud...

I would guess the four people they arrested as Ed Brown supporters pointed at Rob, since as far as I know, no freestaters had been interrogated before the Porc Manor raid, and by that point the feds were already saying this stuff about "all" pointing at Rob. Or, they just decided to look at Rob on their own, probably by reading his forum posts, and are lying out their ass about people pointing to him. Remember, they told Ivy one story (caught on video), the Porc Manor residents another, and Keith Murphy a third. They then told him they'd stop harassing customers at the Taproom, then promptly returned to doing so when he went upstairs again. They have zero credibility with pretty much all of us at this point.

Talk is cheap and boys will be boys... Bravado isn't reality.

I would trust Rob with my life. And to me he is a 100% non-violent person.

[JosephSHaas]

Under federal law, the marshal is required to account for seized property:

Title 26, Section 7322. Delivery of seized personal property to United States marshal

Any forfeitable property which may be seized under the provisions of this title may, at the option of the Secretary, be delivered to the United States marshal of the district, and remain in the care and custody and under the control of such marshal, pending disposal thereof as provided by law.

The Browns, and in particular Elaine, had a number of personal items such as books and dental instruments that should be exempt from seizure.  It would probably be helpful if someone, or group, could interact with the Marshal's office to determine what property remains, and whether it can be released....

1.) You'd think that the N.H. State Reps would know that a tax is not a debt, (re: the N.J. case in 'Black's Law Dictionary', 5th ed. (c)1979 @ p. 1307) and so require such a determination of IF it really is due and owing BEFORE they put something like this crap on the books: See http://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XLIX/480/480-4.htm for R.S.A. Ch. 480:4 "Exemption. The homestead right is exempt from attachment...except...I. In the collection of taxes...."  Somebody ought to fight this as an unlawful invasion of the Ninth Amendment right to the, what's supposed to be, Common Usage of Words, in RSA Ch. 21:2, see http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/21/21-2.htm

2.) I've yet to hear what their son said to FOX-TV, (re: Richard's reply for the relatives to get involved) but then again, didn't Ed & Elaine turn their place into a church? (*)

Our contract with the corporate State of New Hampshire, with a capital letter "S", is spelled out in Article 3 of the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights, in that "When men enter into a state of society they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void." And since by Art. 12 "Protection and Taxation Reciprocal", so when the governor refuses to assert his Art. 41 power to "enforce compliance with any constitutional or legislative mandate" such as the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm isn't the Article 3 man then entitled to then do what the governor refuses to do? in telling the Feds to obey the law (1-8-17, U.S. Const.) and the legal (RSA 123:1), and if they/the Feds refuse to comply, then for that man to assert his Art. 10 Right to Revolt? since the contract is broken!

3a.) (*) Since the Feds "and" with their "law enforcement"/ "partners" they are really the "outlaws" to the above, in-effect having imprisoned the Browns onto their own land, as they did "keep" them there by force (see my Reply #__ above with this key word), and so I find it insulting that the newspaper/media says that as of last Thursday's arrest they STARTed to serve their time!

3.b.) Everyone, no matter WHERE they are, are entitled to "Religious Freedom" and that is supposed to be guaranteed by Art. 5, and so maybe what all of us should have done, is to have bought a pew over at Ed's church. Yeah! Gary: since you stole the $50.00 that I sent to Ed for "legal help", it's increased in value to sevenfold to that of lawful help, and so I do hereby buy a pew over there!  Ed & Elaine to determine which part of the building I can claim as my share as by right established also by RSA Ch. 511:2,XIV, see http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/511/511-2.htm for Attachable Property and Exemption.  "The debtor's interest in one pew in any meetinghouse in which the debtor or the debtor's family usually worship." So Ed & Elaine to claim their share too in this and more, as listed in this RSA Ch. 511:2. (**)

JSH

(**) Including, RSA Ch. 511:2,VII "The uniform, arms and equipment of every officer and private in the militia." Ed saying I think something, like the organized and un-organized militia, of us being in the latter with rights too! So when you deal with these guns that you/Gary are TRYing to confiscate, BEWARE of this statute! A "crime scene"!?  The criminals are YOU! who are operating OUT-side the law! Go back to Washington state where you belong!  and take your outlaws with you!

[JosephSHaas]

UPDATE:  Dan Riley's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

to: The Strafford County Superior Court, 603: 742-3065 press 350 for Equity.

I just talked with Equity Clerk, Becky at 1:10 p.m. today, who said that the court just received a COPY of Danny's Petition (at __:_ o'clock am/pm), and she's presenting it to the judge to find out what to do: (1) like maybe to return it for to exchange it for the original, or (2) to go forward* with it, or (3)  rule on it without a hearing.

There is no Docket #07-E-____ yet, and that when I call back at say 3:45 p.m. before they close at 4:00 o'clock p.m. Becky said that she will not be there, but that either Stephanie or Lynn can tell me the case #, and any day/time of October ___ @ __:__ o'clock am/pm for a hearing.

I told Becky that I am a friend of Danny's who has gotten OUT OF JAIL on one of these before, as having supplied Danny with a photocopy of McNamara's N.H. CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE book, Ch. 37, with the form on page 73 that is very simple to do by just a fill-in-the-blanks, and attaching the documentation, that Danny said he did, but missed the actual Mittimus, or whatever it's called, that can be amended at the hearing that usually takes place withIN three days* of its receipt, and so the reason for my calls to have time to alert witnesses to be there for Danny to call to the witness stand.

*Wed., Oct. 10 + 3 days = to Sat., Oct. 13th, and so for maybe a hearing as earliest as Mon., October 15th @ 8:00 o'clock a.m. in courtroom #__.

I'll post what either Stephanie or Lynn relays to me later this afternoon by an alert in the time frame here back to a Modification below onto this same Reply for an easy print out.

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

Modification: Stephanie says option #1 activated for original later.

[Kat Kanning]

So who has been saying this? One of your own? What a bunch of horse poopie...

He thought the feds were making this up when I asked about it.  It's hard to believe other freestaters would do that.  Despite my disputes with him, I don't believe he's going to go shoot people.

[coffeeseven]

I intend to respectfully request that the LDF be used in a manner consistent with the broad scope of the emergency at hand.

Approved. We will be working on the details in the next 24 hours. I spoke with Atty. Marc Victor this morning. He is a friend of the cause. Got a call in to another lawyer named McPherson who works with Victor. Brent-Emory..Johnson has agreed to have his name on the list of potentials. I know him personally. He is brilliant. Seriously guys I need more suggestions of names.

SAK got a visit from U.S. Marshals at his house (Rockford, IL) today. He would not identify himself or answer questions. They went away. There is more. He tells me he called Porc411 so you can get the story there.

Got a letter from Danny today. He sounds pretty disgusted. The letter is dated Sept 29. Says he has lost 10 pounds due to fasting. He hopes all he has sacrificed has not been in vain.