Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8246 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
In Defense of Ed and Elaine Brown
Quote:
Paper Number One
Copyright 2007 Glenn David.
What kind of a creature is man that he may be tortured, tormented, and killed in a scheme to exploit his labor?
The question must be asked because that's what income taxes do, they terrorize, torment, and kill people in a benighted scheme to exploit human labor. The question must be asked with urgency because the feds are about to kill Ed and Elaine Brown in their effort to exploit the Brown's labor.
Consider the following analogy. In my home state of Maine, where logging is a major industry, a few people still use horses to work in the woods. When a logger uses a horse to twitch timber from the forest out to a wood yard, he's exploiting the horse's labor, there wouldn't be anything wrong with that - a horse is that kind of creature. However, if the horse displeased the logger in some way, and if the logger deliberately killed the horse while exploiting its labor - if he beat it to death with a whip - that would be a crime. In Maine it would be aggravated cruelty to animals, a felony. But if the feds kill Ed and Elaine Brown in their effort to exploit the Brown's labor, there will be no crime - none whatsoever.
It might not work so well for those that are more established in the the age ranges but at least we can do our part in making income that they might not get from us unless someones really out to get you in my opinion.
I think they find loopholes like this all the time in government. Nothing is there by chance. Though there might not be a law they will screw you with a contract or a clause. Thats what a corporate run government does unfortunately.
State and federal authorities have converged on the home of a New Hampshire couple involved in a tax standoff.
People are being kept several miles away from the Center of Town Road in Plainfield, where Ed and Elaine Brown live. Neighbors, including some who have been evacuated, reported police SWAT teams, a helicopter and at least one armored vehicle converged on a field near the home Thursday morning.
Authorities have not said if they were moving in to arrest the fugitives
The Browns have been barricaded inside their home for several months, after being convicted of tax evasion. They did not even attend their sentencing hearing, in which they were sentenced to five years in prison. The couple has not paid their taxes in more than a decade and owe nearly a quarter of a million dollars in back taxes.
Elaine Brown once had her own dentist office in Lebanon.
Ed Brown says he is armed and has promised a Waco like ending, saying he will not be taken alive.
By Philip Elliott
Associated Press
June 07, 2007 2:22 PM
PLAINFIELD, N.H. — Federal authorities indicated Thursday they will not raid the home of two convicted tax evaders but did serve a warrant to seize property they own in a neighboring town.
The warrant was served in that town and authorities had no contact with the couple at their fortified compound on a hilltop in rural Plainfield, U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier said.
Thursday morning, neighbors reported armed police and at least one armored vehicle near Ed and Elaine Brown's 110-acre property. Reporters were kept away from the scene and a plane carrying an Associated Press photographer was ordered out of the airspace.
"We are here ... to serve that warrant," Monier said.
"As we have said from the beginning, we will continue to communicate with Ed and Elaine Brown to convince them to surrender peacefully."
Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:02 pm
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8246 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
Walking Dog
Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:02 am
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8246 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
Interview With Edward Brown On June 7, 2007
Alternate Source:
Quote:
An interview with Ed Brown, a Plainsfield resident convicted of tax evasion who refuses to surrender to authorities.
NH SEN. JUDD GREGG
393 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2904
Phone: (202) 224-3324
Fax: (202) 224-4952
-OR-
Main District Office:
125 N. Main St.
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 225-7115
Fax: (603) 224-0198
It would be a legitimate question to ask why a UK resident such as myself would engage with the issue of Ed and Elaine Brown.
After all, they don’t live in the UK; they’re not people normally in the public eye; their situation is not relevant to UK affairs.
I cannot comment upon the legal niceties of the Browns’ situation - my knowledge of U.S. law and its Constitution is inadequate.
But (in my understanding) what we have here is an accusation of failure to pay certain taxes, and a request to see the specific legal requirements for paying said taxes. The request is unfulfilled and so the payment is withheld.
It is a matter of public record that the Browns are fully prepared to pay such taxes, today, now, if they can simply be shown the law that requires them to so do.
Forget the legal niceties. So far, to me, it seems fairly clear cut.
So why, I ask myself, hasn’t the appropriate “law” been shown to them? And why, rather than showing them the appropriate law, is it seen fit to despatch multiple armed servants of the federal administration?
Presumably the relevant “law” is encoded in document form - so how many people does it take to deliver a document? Or, even more simply, does the United States of America not have a postal service?
The Browns argue quite persuasively that no such legal requirement exists.
From the albeit cursory researches that I have performed it would appear that the United States federal administration cannot legally (i.e., in conformity with the U.S. Constitution) levy an “unapportioned income tax”.
I’ve watched videos of interviews with the Browns. I cannot say I entirely agree with them on everything, but that’s completely beside the point.
What does impress me is their determination not to compromise on what is really a very fundamental principle - how can any of us observe the Rule of Law if we don’t know what the law is, and if those claiming to invoke such a law cannot “produce the proof” as it were?
A little personal history here: for most of my life (and I am now in my middle years) I have tended to be something of a rebel. Going against the system; challenging authority; questioning “givens”. But, for the most part, this has been done in little ways, in small things. And indeed that was all that was necessary, for I’ve lived in a society where the demands have not been too onerous, where the encroachments upon my personal freedoms and privacy have not been overly aggressive.
So my response has been proportionate.
But times are changing; here in the UK the concept of the “State” has become much more prevalent and its interference (or potential for interference) in my personal life much more noticeable. And so my “activism” has escalated accordingly - adhering to the principle of “proportionate response”.
“Proportionate response” is something I can relate to, and understand. But in the Browns’ case what I see (according to all the reports I’ve read) is an entirely DISPROPORTIONATE response on the part of the federal administration.
That the Browns should be prepared to meet that accordingly elevates them to my mind, and regardless of any other issue, to the status of heroes. Unqualified. Unreservedly. Heroes!
For they’re prepared to confront without compromise the full weight of a far superior force without flinching. I cannot be anything other than inspired by their courage and fortitude.
However, my admiration for the Browns does not blind me to the obscenity of what is occurring.
Here we have a not-so-young couple being laid seige to by a veritable army of mindless thugs (for such they must be, else they would begin to question their own orders and the morality of what they’re about) equipped with all manner of weaponry and technology. OVER A TAX ISSUE!!!
If the situation weren’t so dire I would find it utterly unbelievable. Surely such a thing simply cannot occur in a civilised society.
And here we have the crux of the matter. For it has become clear to me (from its international “adventures” and relations) that the United States of America under the Bush regime has become a rogue entity, intent upon world domination and totally disregarding any form of Rule of Law and indeed any form of morality.
That this rogue entity should now bring its modus operandi to bear upon its own citizens and residents should come as no surprise, and the Browns affair is simply one more in a progression of increasingly fascist manifestations.
Nor can I see an easy or peaceful resolution to the matter. The federal administration cannot back down (indeed, dare not back down) for to do so would be to send a signal to all “genuine” criminals that the “State” can be successfuly challenged providing one has sufficient determination. Such a course would simply open the floodgates to all manner of serious organised crime.
Neither can the federal administration reverse the findings so far and declare the Browns innocent of wrongdoing. For to do so would be to open up an entirely different set of floodgates - an unmistakeable signal to all U.S. residents to challenge and defy this fictitious law that supposedly requires them to surrender a portion of their hard-earned income to the State.
(Imagine the repercussions: not only would vast numbers of people suddenly stop paying this illegal tax - theft in other words - but would also have a very strong case to demand recompense for all past payments levied!)
Nor can the federal administration simply “pardon” the Browns. That would be tantamount to saying “Ok, you’re guilty, but we’re gonna let you off”. If my asessment of the Browns is anything approaching the reality I cannot imagine them accepting such a situation for they would thereby implicity be acknowledging their guilt.
On the Browns’ side, from everything I’ve seen so far I simply cannot see them backing down. The courage it must have taken to reach this point is unimaginable. Just in doing so they’ve proved their mettle.
A rock and a hard place indeed. And in that I’m fearful - for this assessment can only lead to one, bloody, conclusion.
And so the real question is, what of the American people? Are they prepared to stand by and see their rogue government massacre yet more innocent people (for surely the Browns’ guilt has not been proven by virtue of the fact that the relevant law has still not been shown)?
Or are they, finally, going to decide that this is the time to take a stand?
I am desperately concerned about the outcome of this situation. A concern that is deepened by virtue of the fact that NONE of the mainstream media appear in the least interested in covering this situation - a situation that may have started as a relatively insignificant legal wrangle but has now escalated into something highlighting the fundamental flaw at the very heart of not just the American but most Western “governments” - that the people have become subservient to the “State”.
And here is my secondary reason for being engaged with this issue - my very great fear (substantiated by our own minority-mandated government’s cretinous support of the Bush regine over the past few years) that what’s occurring in America now may well be the precursor to what will become standard practise in Britain in just a few years’ time.
So the Browns’ situation should, and has, become an affair that engages the interests of ordinary folk worldwide, for it is yet another manifestation of the ubiquitous battle between the individual and the State.
Individuals are REAL. The State is an artificial construct. Whose side are you on?
So why, I ask myself, hasn’t the appropriate “law” been shown to them? And why, rather than showing them the appropriate law, is it seen fit to despatch multiple armed servants of the federal administration?
The "We the People Foundation" is asking the same question. The government (DOJ, IRS) has refused to respond properly to the question. The only response they give is that their are answering their questions with "enforcement actions".
During this press conference, a senior IRS official by the name of Terry Lemons made the following proclamation in response to a question by David Cay Johnston of the NY Times: Why won't the IRS answer the questions set forth in the petitions from We the People Foundation?
According to Johnston, Lemons said the government is answering our Petitions through "enforcement actions."
The government will now answer legitimate petitions for redress of grievance under the First Amendment through the use of brute force because that’s exactly what the IRS’ "enforcement actions" amount to every day of the week.
This statement by Mr. Lemons is chilling and should be the clarion call to every American out there who values freedom and believes that our rights, so articulately defined in the Bill of Rights, cannot be nullified or taken away by Mr. Lemons or any government official.
The right to petition the government has a long and detailed history. Every American should know the history of this precious right because on September 16, 2003, the IRS laid down the gauntlet to the American people and simply decided to nullify part of the First Amendment. The IRS has made the clear threat that if any American dares question their unlawful activities, the IRS will respond with "enforcement."
Isn't our servant government being so nice to the sovereigns who created it? We should be disciplining it like the misbehaving child it is.
The Browns are daring the government to martyr them in front of the whole world, or reveal the truth. If the government martyrs them, all who are watching will know the nature of the beast. I think the government would prefer to protect the illusion of their benevolence, since it allows them to trick more people that way. If the government lawfully, properly responds to the simple question, the answer will immediately be used against the government,and they know it. The house of cards will begin tumbling. So the Browns have them stuck in an unpleasant situation on the chess board. Neither move lets the government win gracefully. I am sure the government is considering other options at this time...if they could secretly use one of their "non-lethal weapons" to change the Browns' minds, it would appear to the viewers that the Browns gave up on their own. They just have to figure out how to get away with it.
Nearly 15 years after he lost his wife and son in a confrontation with federal marshals, Randy Weaver stood at the home of a Plainfield couple anticipating their own standoff and offered his assistance yesterday.
Weaver, who became an icon after his involvement in the 1992 Ruby Ridge shootout in Idaho, arrived in Plainfield this weekend to support Ed and Elaine Brown and lend his skills as a mediator with federal officials.
"I'm praying for a miracle that common sense will prevail," he said.
The Browns were each convicted of several tax-related felonies in January and have been holed up in their castle-like home for nearly five months. Each was sentenced to more than five years in federal prison, but the couple have resisted capture so far, threatening that any attempt to arrest them will end violently.
Weaver, whose own experience illustrates the potential dangers of the Browns' stand, held up a photograph of his late wife, Vicki, as he told of the confrontation that led to the death of his family members and a highly decorated deputy U.S. marshal. At the time, Weaver was wanted for failing to appear at a court hearing over a gun charge.
Yesterday, at a lengthy and sometimes contentious press conference, Weaver said he was hopeful for a peaceful resolution for the Browns but prepared for a different ending. He said he was prepared to stand by the couple's side, whatever the outcome.
"I ain't afraid of dying no more," he said. "I'm curious about what the next life is like. And I'm an atheist."
The Browns, who have long maintained that no law compels them to pay federal income taxes, used their soapbox yesterday to repeat their legal theories and chastise the news media for their acquiescence to government authority.
Elaine Brown introduced Weaver as a "hero," someone who stood up to the federal government and revealed its brutish nature. But even as she expressed her outrage about the violence that destroyed Weaver's family, Brown reiterated the couple's determination to resist the federal marshals to the end.
"If they come in here, we're dead," Elaine Brown said. "We will not be arrested. We will not agree to go into their prison for a noncrime."
Weaver, clad in tattered jeans and a T-shirt from a Waco, Texas, Harley-Davidson dealership, was the main draw for yesterday's press conference, which attracted both local and national news media. But he was not the only participant. He was introduced by the Browns and two sympathetic radio hosts from Texas, who picked Weaver up near his Arkansas home Friday to drive him the 2,000-odd miles to Plainfield.
"This might as well have been 15 years ago with Randy Weaver," said John Stadtmiller, a radio host and former activist in a Michigan-based militia group. "Different issues but the same mind-set."
Reporters entering the property yesterday were stopped by a bearded Brown supporter and asked to identify themselves before approaching the house. But the supporter wasn't looking for possible undercover agents. He said he was ensuring that Fox News would not be allowed to attend the conference.
Weaver, the Browns and their entourage sat on the house's front porch. As each participant spoke, he or she stood at a podium decorated with the insignia of the Constitution Rangers of the Continental Congress of 1776, a national anti-government group that Ed Brown once led.
In an interview after the conference, Weaver described himself as a reluctant hero.
"I don't like that word," he said, explaining that he preferred thinking of himself as a victim or a survivor. "I don't like doing stuff like this, but this is what I have to do."
Weaver said he sympathized with the anger the Browns feel toward the marshals. Before his family's deadly encounter with agents, he already felt distrustful of and betrayed by federal agents, he said. But unlike the Browns, Weaver said he had never hoped for a bloody ending to his own case.
"I didn't want it. I didn't ask for it," he said. "And I'd rather have my family back. But the marshals started this."
Ten days after the Ruby Ridge shootings, Weaver surrendered to marshals. He said he did not have regrets about that decision, which he credits with saving the lives of his remaining family members. Weaver was acquitted of illegal gun charges and of any involvement in the marshal's death, but he served a 16-month prison sentence for failing to appear in court.
Since his trial, Weaver has stayed mostly out of the public eye. For the past 10 years, he has lived quietly in Iowa and Arkansas, raising his three daughters and refraining from political commentary.
But his case remains a favorite symbol of those in the "patriot" movement, who believe the federal government is eager to tread on individual rights. In the 1990s, militia leaders frequently invoked Ruby Ridge in support of their views that citizens must arm themselves. Ed Brown has described Ruby Ridge as critical to his own realization that the government was up to no good.
Weaver was contacted several weeks ago by a radio host, who recommended that Weaver consider helping the Browns. Weaver initially demurred, saying he couldn't afford the trip.
But when a group of supporters offered to drive him - Weaver refused to submit to airline security measures - he agreed to come to Plainfield.
His drivers departed from Plainfield yesterday, and Weaver said he intends to stay in town for the foreseeable future. In the press conference, he estimated that might be as long as 15 years, but he later said he would need to return home in time for his youngest daughter, Elisheba, to return to high school in the fall.
At the time of his trial, Weaver spoke openly about white separatist views, but when asked about them yesterday, he accused a reporter of "race-baiting."
Yesterday, Ed Brown distanced himself from Weaver's white separatist past, although he frequently inveighs against Freemasons and what he calls the Zionist Illuminati.
"I love all mankind," he said, after offering to house, and wash the feet of, a black reporter.
U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier has repeated for months that his office plans to use negotiation to persuade the Browns to surrender. In a written statement yesterday, he said he does not intend to raid the Browns' home.
But a large buildup of police forces near their home earlier this month was evidence, Ed Brown said, that Monier has been dishonest.
"They were going to kill us," Brown said.
Armored vehicles, SWAT teams and an explosives-disposal truck were seen near the Brown home June 7. Monier explained that the police presence was necessary to ensure security for the seizure of a commercial building owned by the Browns in West Lebanon. Daniel Riley, a Brown supporter from Albany, N.Y., was detained by marshals after he encountered them while walking the couple's dog that day near their home.
In recent weeks, marshals have disconnected the Browns' electrical and phone lines and have had several cellular phones disabled.
"We don't need to make them comfortable," Monier said last week.
Yesterday, the Browns said those measures were causing them little discomfort.
The house has its own well and can generate power from a windmill and solar panels.
If winter comes and they are still without power, "I have 103 acres of woods," Ed Brown said.
------ End of article
By MARGOT SANGER-KATZ
Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:32 pm
imamonstertruck VIP
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 532 Location: Louisville KY
Danny Reilly Interviewd by WTPRN
Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:30 pm
imamonstertruck VIP
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 532 Location: Louisville KY
Free Ed and Elaine Brown!
Quote:
Posted: June 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Every now and again, I hear people being interviewed who believe federal income taxes are constitutionally invalid, and, as a result, they refuse to pay them. My first thought is usually "have fun in prison," but recent statements and proposals from some of our politicians have led me to believe that this is a cause worth fighting for.
Enter Ed and Elaine Brown, New Hampshire residents who don't believe in paying income taxes. As a result, the Browns have been sentenced to five-and-a-half years in prison and ordered to pay more than $200,000 after being convicted of tax evasion and are now holed up in their home, complete with solar and wind power. So far, Al Gore has offered no defense of the carbon offset to his mansions and heated pools.
Federal authorities now have their property surrounded, and the standoff could last indefinitely – ending much sooner if the Clintons are elected and put Janet Reno back in the Attorney General's office.
CBS News reports that federal authorities have "cut phone, power and Internet service at the fortified compound" of the couple.
The terms "fortified compound" and "tax evasion" usually seem to go hand-in-hand in stories such as these. "Fortified compound" is a term applied by the government for psychological reasons that is repeated by the media out of psychiatric reflex.
The government has trillions of dollars, tanks and armies of heavily armed individuals at their disposal. Our politicians have access to around the clock protection and bunkers that can withstand a direct nuclear strike. Not only that, but try running into any mainstream media building in New York or Los Angeles without being tackled by armed guards and tasered until your nose gives off a 75-watt glow.
But a married couple who lives in a six-bedroom colonial that might have an extra bolt on the door are the ones who the government and media says have a "fortified compound."
The government and media parrot terms such as "fortress-like home" to imply paranoia, which implies mental illness, which implies there's a good reason for the government to move in and save the "fortified compound" dwellers from themselves and the rest of us.
What's gone wrong?
Taxes weren't always such a treacherous undertaking. For a long time, this country was run on very limited funds. Up until the early 1800s, the government was run purely on internal sales taxes and revenue from a gigantic powdered wig closeout sale. Then, in 1817, the government got rid of internal taxes and functioned completely on tariffs on imported goods.
Can you imagine running the bloated monster of a federal government we have today solely on the 4 percent we'd get from taxes imposed on imports of running shoes and plastic novelty poop?
We were created with the ability to create. All this is evidenced in the brilliance of many of our finest moments, from medicine to art to science – but that all came to an end with the adoption of the 16th Amendment in 1913. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations.
At that point, all the creative energy that would have gone into curing disease, designing grand buildings, creating art and music and exploring the farthest reaches of the universe now goes into trying to figure out a way to write off our lawnmower as a dependent or simply to hide out in a "fortified compound" in New Hampshire waiting for the tear gas to come flying through the window.
Here's what is really irksome about Ed and Elaine Brown's situation. They are legal American citizens surrounded by their own government. In the meantime, many members of Congress, along with President Bush, are pushing to legalize 12 million "undocumented workers" (the artist formerly known as "illegal aliens") while forgiving them any back taxes owed, along with any IRS fines.
Ed and Elaine Brown should renounce their citizenship, declare themselves "undocumented workers" and then push for the passage of an immigration "reform" bill. Their tax problem would be solved, and they'd be free. Maybe we should all do this.
Until American citizens are afforded at least the same rights and privileges that our politicians seek for illegal aliens, the government must free Ed and Elaine Brown!
Now if you don't mind, I have to run along and repair the screen door on my "fortified compound."
