Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 32

[KBCraig]

From all I saw, the Constitutional Rangers are a bunch of pussies.

Most tough-talkers are.

[Fluff and Stuff]

now what?

Continue to work towards freedom.  Remember to not run from the cops or point guns at them.  That's my plan.

[John Edward Mercier]

Which property are you claiming they 'purchased'?

Which Reply #____ are you referring to? ....

Too long a post... my question is which property was 'purchased' by the federal government that would equate to US Con Art 1-8-17?

You mean they didn't buy it but that maybe it was a gift?

I mean which property did they purchase? Are you discussing the Brown's property? Or some other property?

[Kat Kanning]

From all I saw, the Constitutional Rangers are a bunch of pussies.

Most tough-talkers are.

Lauren's got more guts than all of them put together.

[JosephSHaas]

Which property are you claiming they 'purchased'?

Which Reply #____ are you referring to? ....

Too long a post... my question is which property was 'purchased' by the federal government that would equate to US Con Art 1-8-17?

You mean they didn't buy it but that maybe it was a gift?

I mean which property did they purchase? Are you discussing the Brown's property? Or some other property?

Excellent question!  I just looked up the word purchase in the dictionary, my book being: "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973 where @ page 573 it is defined as: for the verb: "To OBTAIN in EXCHANGE for MONEY OR ITS EQUIVALENT, buy." And for the noun: "1. That which is bought...3. A secure hold.' From the OF= Old French of: "to pursue, seek to obtain."

1.) So the next question is: How much did the Feds get ($________) from the sale of the personal property collected of the: (a) vehicles, cars, trucks, etc. plus (b) the gold and silver bullion, etc., that were sold in __________, MAss. and Nashua, N.H. respectfully? and;

2.) In regards to the former, did they pay the $_______ tax to the Commonwealth?  If they say: no, we don't have to pay tax because we are exempt, then to show me the law.  When did the Commonwealth of MAss.achusetss ever grant to the Feds jurisdiction OVER them? The U.S. Constitution requires by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 that BEFORE the Feds can start operations in MAss. they must first seek its "Consent".  When, if ever, was this done?  I mean: did they ever file a "suitable plan of such tract" of land "in the office of the state secretary within one year after such acquisition of title thereto"? as required by Title 1, Chapter 1, Section 7 as indicated on page 161 over at: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm wherein although it does NOT allow federal courts to operate in The Commonwealth as from an ownership status, there might be something to that "signor"s word, as from the word signory as a "Lordship or rule; also, a domain; also a governing body...." (page 1712 of "THE NEW CENTURY DICTIONARY"). But notice how there is no comma between that and the words: "light keeper's dwelling".  Thus until that is explained, I think that The First Circuit Court canNOT be headquartered in MAss. other than as a tenant of the G.S.A./ General Services Administration, but doesn't the MAss.achusetts Constitution prohibit this "General" way of doing things federal to have to be in a "limited" capacity? And so like they say, for this other Art. III, Section 1 "inferior court" of Congress, these officials must "ride the circuit" setting down in each state, and so to appeal any judgment of sentence, if not arrested in the meantime ( see: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Arrest+of+judgment ) to the right "location". 

So what's next? Ed & Elaine plus the court's attorneys for them to meet with the governor in order to formulate or "express in systematic terms" that THE system will word!  The system being the interrelated elements of BOTH N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 and 40USC255 forming the collective entity of these and this "United States" of America, or for us to live in harmony with by an "orderly interaction" that has somehow caused this circuit breaker to break needing such a Motion in Arrest of Judgment to stay or stop the sentence of judgment, after verdict for "legal" cause because of these two state and federal statutes not in harmony with each other.

SAMPLE LETTER from the attorneys in joint meeting to the governor: Dear Your Excellency: It has been brought to our attention that one of your duties you have signed on by RSA Ch. 92:2 to do is "to execute the laws of the state AND OF THE UNITED STATES" (emphasis ADDed) as spelled out in Article 51, Part 2, N.H. Constitution. In particular we refer to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 255 wherein there must be an acceptance to the state's offer by RSA Ch. 123:1 before jurisdictional authority can be exercised, or as stated in Article 12 of the N.H. Bill of Rights: "Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent", referring to the words of Bob Schulz of New York who was so kind as to pay Ed & Elaine Brown a visit on June 20, 2007 at their Plainfield home and met with Joe Haas at their house that day who delivered to you @ 4:29 o'clock p.m. the next day that Article 49 Petition then that you have tabled, and so we now ask that you dust-off and put to good use now by exercising your Article 41 powers as you "may", but don't have to, but is highly recommended that since you did not Art. 12 "protect" or prevent these two plus another four of your inhabitants from having to run this gauntlet that you do so now try to correct this situation AFTER the fact of verdict based upon the federal judge's non-answer to jurisdiction (see document no. ____ of _____ ___, 2009 in this File #2009-CR-30 GZS) but BEFORE the sentence, by our jointly signed Motion to Arrest the Judgment, since: You "may, by appropriate court action or proceeding brought in the name of the state, enforce compliance with any constitutional or legislative mandate, or restrain violation of any constitutional or legislative power, duty, or right, by any officer, department or agency OF THE STATE." (emphasis ADDed).

Thus to prevent having to deal with this indirectly at the Article 28, Part First level with this political subdivision of the state: The Lebanon Police who, after the like Citizen's Arrest of Ed & Elaine, outside their purchased property, or was it, as per the "hold" definition of the word, but was it by "Consent"? by these Deputy U.S. Marshals. Then to try this direct approach first, and if denied then with more force in a Motion to Reconsider AFTER the court action being for that of "Contempt of Court".  A request or claim by Ed & Elaine Brown at that time that you please petition for them to the N.H. General Court by Article 32, Part First as Article 8 instructed to do so exercise your Article 41 powers to restrain, as to check that until the Lebanon P.D. does take-back their "check" of having verified the accuracy of the Feds as having arrested Ed & Elaine with ALL authority both state AND federal, that until this is done, there be a state quarantine of federal revenue sharing back to this City as the end does not justify the means, in that of no more direct federal checks like U.S. Senator Judd Gregg did deliver to the Town of Plainfield to "bully" the Browns, that BEFORE there be any more Federal-local contracts, that the Feds first file the necessary paperwork BEFORE they start dishing out their checks for injustice!

The Bob Schulz wording being, as found over at: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm of: ""In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)." and: "Even the U.S. Attorney KNOWS this by his Manual #664 http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm ", see also for 40USC255= http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575

And if that restraint upon the not sending but receiving of federal funds by this City of Lebanon be not accomplished by a by-pass of the state to this local-fed connection, then to not restrain, but to enforce compliance with the law being that the #__ collectors of both state and federal taxes, by Article 95 descend upon this City so that there be no more sending of $money to withOUT this state as against the law! All federal taxes collected by every employer there to send not to the Feds but our state collector to deal with the feds WHEN they comply with the law! because as they are now technically "outlaws" deserving NONE of this money until they comply with their own law too! Hypocrites! Thieves!! of money and people!  Kidnappers!     - -   JSH

[Kat Kanning]

From all I saw, the Constitutional Rangers are a bunch of pussies.

Wasn't referring to Ed and Elaine, BTW.

[J’raxis 270145]

From all I saw, the Constitutional Rangers are a bunch of pussies.

Most tough-talkers are.

Yup. "Bark is worse than their bite." Threats are substitutes for force—tough talk is a defense mechanism used by people unable to actually use force.

[JosephSHaas]

From pages 3 + 4 of 4 over at Boston dot com after my Comment last night:

User Image     
PresidentDon wrote:
99.99% of you pay voluntary income taxes because you are afraid of being arrested. The 16th Amendment does not cover earned wages. There is a lot of controversy about earned income being taxed. When a decision by the Supreme court said we do not own taxes on earned income, a senior IRS agent said on tape, he didn't care what the Supreme Court said, he was going to collect the taxes. The agent committed purgery when he told the court he did not discuss a situation with the defendent, while videotape showed him taking copius notes. The IRS is not our friend, they lie, and threaten citizens to collect monies not owed, using FEAR to get you to surrender. When are you going to fight back?
7/10/2009 4:51 AM EDT
Recommend
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -    
User Image    
Xaphius wrote:
tepidor-

you need to read their story from their perspective. this wasn't about just not wanting to pay taxes. this was a protest in response to being directly wronged by the government. please do take the time to read their website, and listen to their version of events. it's bad enough they'll likely die in jail - they don't need to also have their story completely mangled, and be turned into monsters who they are not.

please - take the time to listen to ED in his interviews.
7/10/2009 8:01 AM EDT               Recommend
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
   
User Image    
Xaphius wrote:
ps - the colonists were indeed protesting the tax on the precise tea they dumped into the ocean - the issue of representation was among the issues that led them to war, but the teas party itself was a direct response to what they perceived was in injustice, in the form of said tax on said tea.

peace.

(and don't phuq with the IRS)
7/10/2009 8:03 AM EDT
Recommend
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
First Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Last
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

page 4:

User Image     
kutens wrote:
So many morons posting the typical, "I gotta pay mine so they gotta pay theirs" BS. Bad people who fight against tyrannical government, so the gov is good huh? The only way the change it is to vote huh? Man have you folks been dumbed down to total ignoramuses.
So many stupid dumbed down Americans; clueless about taxation without representation and what freedom is all about. Income taxes do not equate to freedom, but to socialist type slavery nothing more, but in this society they get used to pay a private central bank interest on the national debt, nothing more. So sad that the jury was not one of the Brown's peers, but most Americans are not. Although I personally dislike the Browns, their argument on taxation is correct. In a free society you can choose to opt out, but with the federal judges making laws from the bench and stupid jurors following those judges unlawful and illegal instructions, most Americans have no chance at real justice.
The founders were considered terrorists and lawbreakers, but those of you who condemn the Browns, are no better then the redcoats who were killing and persecuting the colonists, who by the way fought against the exact same thing. So sad that this is happening in New Hampshire, the "live free or Die" State... Baaaaah more sheeple to condemn the bad couple for fighting for their rights.. Baaaaahh. The founders have been rolling over for quite a while... thanks to posters like most of you!
7/10/2009 8:17 AM EDT
Recommend
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
   
User Image    
randynaz wrote:
Our government has been behaving more and more like they own us than serve us. The browns where just taking a stand for what they belived. I mean the average american pays over 50 percent of there income to some kind of tax, is that not a form of slavery. The founders would have never tolerated this...
7/10/2009 9:36 AM EDT
Recommend

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a copy and my Reply to Margot's latest report over at:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090710/FRONTPAGE/907100303&template=single

entitled: "A Kangaroo Court and Mushroom Jury deserve a Motion to Arrest."

of: "Re: And the reason for why: " But yesterday, not a single supporter sat in court to hear the verdict. " is?

Come on, get with it Margot! When are you going to report the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth? (;-) You know WHY I was not there because of my asserting my right of NOT to attend an Un- LAWFUL "public trial" by the guarantee for such to me by the 6th + 9th Amendments! Get with it! Tell the sheeple the real reason.

I do thank you though for the quotes in your paragraph #5 here that were also used in the Boston dot com report to where I did post a reply, and summarize here that of  which was not reported over there, and I give you an A+ grade here of: "Today's verdict confirms that no one is above the law," so said "acting U.S. Attorney Michael Gunnison". Who the heck is he? And where did he come from? Did he say: "The Rule of Law", as you report, or "The Rule of the Law "as reported by Boston? As he should know, it's usually said of the prior way, and includes BOTH the major and minor laws of BOTH the state and federal  Constitutions AND the statutes of BOTH the state AND federal.

In this case WHERE be the 40USC255 filing to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 as from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, and WHY no Art. 12 Protection? for Ed & Elaine since there has been no "Consent"!

It's time for these attorneys for them to get cracking on a Motion to Arrest the judgment http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Arrest+of+judgment  of AFTER the verdict but BEFORE the Sentence, and for our governor to endorse by his lack of having protected them for which he was and still is "responsible for" by Article 41, to enforce ALL state AND federal law, and that he can also put into practice what should have come out in Ed's original case to Grafton County Superior Court against the U.S.A. that was unlawfully removed to federal court that started this to begin with, and that is to send the Art. 95 state tax collectors into the City of Lebanon who did "check" as to verify the accuracy of the Feds having arrested the Brown supposedly by this "Rule of Law", but that was not so!

I say enough of this bloated "Uncle Sam" operating outside his "limits" of land so purchased but withOUT our Consent! Time to overturn the tables of these change-masters who are supposed to be our public servants: our creatures from us their creator to whom they owe allegiance, not defiance with militant action with force as their evidence, when we have the evidence of their non-filing, but that this jerk judge refuses to allow into an exhibit # for the jury to weigh. And actually the burden of proof upon him to have to prove jurisdiction! This is WHY he kept the jury in the dark.  A Kangaroo Court and a Mushroom Jury deserve a Motion to Arrest the Judgment.

It is time for his impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate. I did call and write both heads of this Art. III, Sec. 1 "inferior court" of Congress to get its act together, and will storm-troop my Federal Reps office UNTIL he and she, plus the Federal Rep. over in Portland, Maine too, do sign and co-sign this Impeachment paper also against Jeffrey R. Howard, the First Circuit Court judge who allowed these illegal transports to Maine in violation of 18USC3232 and in effect stole tax money from us for these illegal maneuvers.  And "they" call themselves "law enforcement" officers! Disgusting! "

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

From all I saw, the Constitutional Rangers are a bunch of pussies.

Most tough-talkers are.

Lauren's got more guts than all of them put together.

I second that emotion!  She truly understands the fact that the operative part of "Activist" is action (or active as the situation requires...)

[JosephSHaas]

More quotes from the government goons from The "Eagle Times" and of my reply:

at: http://www.eagletimes.com/ET/LocalNews/story/090708-ks-browns

entitled: "Reconstruction by Government Revisors."

of: "Thank you for what has not been reported anywhere else of this "Assistant U.S. Attorney Terry Ollila" who said that: ""Through their trial, they have tried to recast the die" and engage in "revisionist history," Ollila said. To which my reply is: WHO is the real revisionist!? To revise is to alter, is to change, make or become different, modify= to make or become LESS extreme, severe, or strong; to QUALIFY or LIMIT the meaning of. Emphasis ADDed because if it's the latter here, then so be it for what is supposed to be a LIMITed federal government, as in to confine or restrict within the bounds of the constitution! The limits being prescribed by The Rule of Law in that BEFORE the Feds can operate here in this state they must have first accepted out offer of consent.  Did they? No! There is no 40USC255 consent to our RSA 123:1 offer as required by 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution.  Now WHO is the real revisionist!? WHO is trying to recast the die? The die is set in the laws of both the state and federal constitutions, plus both state and federal statutes, and especially our Articles 12 + 10 for protection that if not given when paid for can result in a revolution against such non-performance of duty. A reconstruction by Ed & Elaine?  No, they assert that the laws be upheld.  The real outlaws are these government thieves using George Orwellian "1984" "Doublespeak" to brainwash the jury. To keep them in the dark by refusing to allow this evidence to be marked into an exhibit for them to weight.  A Kangaroo Court and Mushroom jury deserves a Motion to Arrest the Judgment AFTER the verdict and BEFORE the sentence. To have this judge impeached in the meantime, and called in to pay for these illegal travels to his Portland, Maine court in violation of 18USC3232, him in violation of 18USC242."

[JosephSHaas]

There are 39 comments so far over at The "Union" News;

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Ed+and+Elaine+Brown+are+convicted&articleId=133c06de-1078-42ec-9c17-79794312f8ec

Notice how in the "press release" from "the federal prosecutor's office" it is "they" who purposely left out the fact on the two conspiracy charges of officers of the United States under oath in the discharge of their what? Where is the word? LAWFUL duties!

To "commit" a crime (paragraph #2) one must fulfill as a duty or obligation.  It was Ed's right AND duty by Art. 10 to not co-mmit a crime, as two wrongs do not make a right, but to take a lawful stand to see if the feds did accept the first co being our co-nsent. Was this ever fulfilled?, as in accomplished, brought to pass, their 40USC255 papers brought to the N.H. Secretary of State as required by RSA 123:1? No! So who maintains the status quo to protect us from these U.S. Codes never consented to?  The State Police, County Sheriff, and local COP: to serve and protect, by their oaths of office in RSA Ch. 92:2 to Article 84 and Article 12.

So when this "STAFF" writer wrote that the Browns welcomed a parade of anti-government sympathizers (paragraph #7) don't include me in that bunch!  I am FOR the government but AGAINST these bad-apples in the barrel!

Plus see paragraph #9 of "no shots fired" by who? the defendants, because non-lethal shots were fired at Danny Riley, the Dog-Walker. by the feds.

And of a "conspiracy" this is crazy, especially when they did sign that Art. 49 open petition to the governor! And there's that "rule of THE law" again as in the Boston dot com, but not The "Monitor".  So which one was it? with one of two the's?

I've made some notes to the comments being sent to Ed & Elaine of among many being: prepare for what John of Manchester and Mike of Derry have commented to about to now auction off their house and land.  To which I reply in SNL style of: Oh Really?    and so to wait and see what a ricochet this turns out to be! Mark my words.  You have not seen the last of the parties there of and for Ed & Elaine. Both past and future tense for both.         Yours truly, -- Joe

[grolled]

Mark my words.  You have not seen the last of the parties there of and for Ed & Elaine. Both past and future tense for both.         Yours truly, -- Joe

Keep it up Joe. Don't let them take you down.

[Kat Kanning]

http://newhampshirefreepress.com/node/459

Ed and Elaine Brown

By Kat Kanning

Ed and Elaine Brown—I admit to having conflicting views on them. I agreed with their stance on taxes. There is no law requiring the average American to pay taxes on their incomes. I had never agreed with Ed's violent rhetoric. Having watched Ed's testimony in this latest trial where he and Elaine are charged with threatening the government, I am now more sympathetic to his talk of violence in some ways.

Ed described how he watched the government standoff and massacre of the Davidians in Waco. He watched as the government murdered Randy Weaver's wife and child at Ruby Ridge. Ed spoke of his fear of being likewise murdered by the government, and of the need to protect both his wife and himself from such a fate.

I admired Brown's honesty in admitting that he did indeed make pipe bombs and traps in order to protect himself and his family. A lesser man would have attempted to lie his way out of the situation. Unlike the government, Ed Brown did not actually use violent force against any person. No government agent would have even been in danger if they had done the right thing and left the Browns alone over their refusal to pay income taxes which they did not owe.

On the other hand, I think this is a lesson for those among the freedom movement that answering the government's violence with violence does not work. Even though a man absolutely has the right to defend himself, does not make it the correct path to choose.

After Ed's testimony, two Constitution Rangers were called to testify in the Brown's defense. Both said they would plead the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, and were excused. Ed's imagined army of supporters willing to go to war against the government evaporated away. The only person who was there to testify in the Brown's defense was Lauren Canario, who was uninvolved in the violent defense the Browns talked of putting up. For some reason, the defense did not call Lauren.

Violence against the government, even if it is completely justified, as in the Brown's case, is not an effective means against the behemoth state. Support for your cause disappears while the strength of the state grows as a result of the violent opposition. Fear is easily created in the minds of the public, which only makes people more willing to give up their rights and freedoms for the illusion of the state's protection.

Contrast this with acts of civil disobedience. Ed and Elaine's refusal to pay income taxes which they did not owe gained them much support. It was their refusal and their flat-out courage in saying 'no' to a government responsible for Waco and Ruby Ridge and innumerable other atrocities which gained the attention of many Freestaters in the area. Civil disobedience consistently forces government to show "the gun in the room", that is, the threat of deadly violence that is inherent in each and every law. When people finally see "the gun in the room", they are forced to choose – with the government using force against nonviolent dissenters – or with those opposing government oppression. Support for those doing civil disobedience grows with each new act, unlike in Ed's case, when his support abandoned him after he espoused violence.

So Ed and Elaine Brown, I salute your willingness to stand up to some of the worst bad-guys this planet has ever seen. Your courage cannot be denied. If we all had your courage, we would not be living under tyranny now. I am deeply saddened by your continued imprisonment by the bad guys.

[Jim Johnson]

Really great article Kat. 

Permission to post it other places?