Update on Ed Brown IRS case...

[hammer4nc]

http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=1429

Here's a 30 minute video, highlighting Ed Brown in his own words. It gives some perspective on the situation. The interviewer is some lawyer from Vermont, who has his own agenda; beyond that, listening to Mr. Brown's narrative might give members insight into the situation, his house, etc.

*Seems like Waco/Davidian incident was the genesis for Brown's activism. Thank the ATF.

*The "structuring" charge involved him merely paying off his home mortgage. Officials acted when the payments stopped; because the mortgage was paid off. This is money laundering?

*Details about Brown's arrest, and strip-search etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments: Only time will tell if Brown's cause will gain traction, or become just another bloody anecdote in modern culture. Part of the scenario includes volunteers camping out at Brown's property. While this could be the evidence of popular support, it could also be his undoing.

Undoubtedly, .gov has sent undercover agents to mingle with this group (pretty standard MO, collecting intel). Other methods include instigating actions that would discredit the cause, and gaining Brown's trust to permit a takedown. Likely scenario, IMO.

This thread was started to update the popular thread related to this incident in New Hampshire, which was closed after some members took the low road. Please refrain from insults to keep this thread from being locked. Thank-you! Mods, recognizing this could be an emotional topic, how about just deleting the offending posts rather than locking the whole topic? Just a suggestion...

This incident has implications for gunowners (not to mention gun-owning taxpayers ) Maybe Mr. Brown will see fit to join the conversation himself?

 

[tellner]

It pretty much confirms what I thought. He decided a long time ago that laws didn't apply to him unless he wanted them to. He learned a bunch of pseudo-legalistic twaddle to justify what he wanted to hear. He just "had faith" that reality would change to accommodate his wishful thinking. And then he refused to accept that his actions would have consequences.

Sheesh. What an idiot.

 

[Manedwolf]

If there is an armed standoff, I fear for NH's gun laws, or, more accurately, fear for the continuance of the current lack thereof. :banghead:

 

[BAT1]

Interesting

Tellner, were you talking about Ed or the current administration, sounds like it applies to the White house. What a bunch of idiots, they don't even know how far this will go, and it may be a turning point in our history. Hundreds of people are en route as I speak. Ed does not seem unreasonable, the founding fathers threw the tea in the sea, remember?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The bottom line is that those in government are trying to prevent dissent. That is not in the job description of our government employees and representatives. Those job descriptions are in the Constitution for the United States of America. Their job descriptions are lined out quite clearly as to what they are supposed to do and are forbidden to do. If they would adhere to the Constitution, dissent would never be necessary. It is their moral and ethical duty to see that dissent never becomes necessary.

It is no different for revolution. It isn't the duty of those in government to prevent it. It is their duty to see that revolution never becomes necessary. To add teeth to that end, we the people retain our arms for when those in government fail, or endeavor to usurp or delete our rights, privileges, and freedoms and force the prospects of revolution upon us.

There are those in government who lack the ethics and/or morals required to govern in the manner consistent with the Constitution, and it is because of these people we must remain forever armed. It is only fear of the force of those arms that will keep them in line with the Constitution. They must know we will use those arms, too. Otherwise, there will be no fear.

Anyone wonder why all those in government who espouse the nanny state and push for larger and ever larger government want to disarm us? For your answer, reread the preceding three paragraphs.

Woody

"It is up to We the People to decide if and when we shall revolt. It is not up to those in government to prevent it. It is up to those in government to see that revolution never becomes necessary." B.E.Wood

 

[jcoiii]

The bottom line is that those in government are trying to prevent dissent.

Wrong. The bottom line is those in the government are trying to enforce the law.

 

[mbt2001]

hmmm

What is wrong with the guy having his opinion. As BAT1 said, this country was founded on riots and standoffs.

The government does not have this empiral right to issue commands that we (the serfs) follow with no question. We have the right to our opinion and the GOVERNMENT HAS THE DUTY TO RESPECT OUR OPINION. These days, we are represented by no one. The elected reps are not responsive to our voice, nor are they enforcing the laws of the land across the board.

Selective enforcement reserved for those who dissent.

This is said before I started watching the interview...

I would just like some common sense to be shown here... The guy didn't pay his taxes, lets work something out with him and hear what he has to say, lord knows there are plenty of folks out there who hate the current tax system.

 

[SamTuckerMTNMAN]

Undoubtedly, .gov has sent undercover agents to mingle with this group (pretty standard MO, collecting intel). Other methods include instigating actions that would discredit the cause, and gaining Brown's trust to permit a takedown. Likely scenario, IMO.

very discerning, and very true. I once took a class called Revolution and Social Change (good gosh how ever did I survive). Actually it was a turning point for me in starting to be MORE conservative and support the .gov because of all the lunatics in the group However, you are correct, every single successful national or regional movement has always, on all sides, by everyone interested, been infiltrated, divided from within, or misdirected, or opened for attack (usually the misdirection and division work best). Always. It is strategy. It is tactical. It is the reason many grassroots org's fail to reach potential effectiveness. Too bad we don't seem to be able to do the same to drug kingpins and trans border crime organizations:banghead:

ST

ps - ok ok I take that back, maybe we are....i dunno. back to taxes....topic.....guns......

 

[cropcirclewalker]

That infiltration thing is a two edged sword.

Without FBI funding, half of the militias would have to go out of business.

KKK would be history.

That's the two edged sword.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Wrong. The bottom line is those in the government are trying to enforce the law.

I disagree that those in government are only enforcing the law in this instance. The incident after the Browns stopped buying Postal Money Orders is all the proof needed to show their intent to harass the Browns. There never was any evidence they were dealing in drugs or money laundering as was claimed. If there was any common sense or logic exercised, those doing the supposed investigation would have done their "raid" while the money was still flowing. The Brown's business and home would have been staked out to gather evidence, and finding none, no honest judge would have issued a warrant.


At best it was a bogus warrant, but the truth is most likely it was for an excuse to harass them. All that was necessary would have been to check with the bank where the money was going. The Browns didn't hide any income, either. There never was any evidence the Browns were engaged in any illegal activity to make their money. Checking Mrs. Brown's computer was a fishing expedition.

Do any of you here see the similarity to the tactics Bloomberg is using against gun dealers and his apparent immunity from the laws he is breaking, and the harassment of the Browns carried out with impunity by those government employees?

There was a time when honest government officials would have stepped in and halted this form of harassment. It appears now that all are in favor of quashing the dissent.

This proves that the income tax is a piece of foodoo. Collection is a problem regardless of whether those who owe the tax are honest or not! As I stated in another thread, the government should institute a tax it can take as opposed to one left up to the good or bad character of those taxed.

The national sales tax is such a tax the government can just take. There would be no need to file. It would be much harder to evade. It would be equal across the board. The more you make and spend, the more tax you will pay, but the rate of taxation will be equal for everyone.



Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

 

[hammer4nc]

A couple of topics re: IRS and civil rights.

1. Debtors prisons. The IRS routinely vacuums people's bank accounts (arguably theft), and apparently used this tactic against the Browns. IRS also routinely confiscates and auctions assets to satisfies tax liens. They have the power to destroy one's economic viability, why is this not sufficient?

History tells us that debtors prisons were abolished in the USA in the 1830's. Yet, via trumped-up charges ("money laundering", "structuring", "fraud", "felony failure to file", etc.) debtors prisons have effectively been re-instituted. (Sidenote, the practice has also been revived for child-support enforcement, but thats a topic for another thread )

After the IRS drained their bank accounts, it appears the Browns stopped using banks, and their cash business allowed them to survive.

2. Involuntary servitude. One aspect of the IRS code requires employers to act as unpaid tax collectors for their employees taxes! One famous case a few years back (Indianapolis Baptist Temple) had the IRS confiscate church property over unpaid employee taxes. (Churches, as such, are tax exempt). In that case, the employees offered to pay this debt directly, but that wasn't good enough for the IRS. IRS actually refused direct payment for the debt owed by the employees, which would have satisfied the $$ obligation. Instead, just to get their pound of flesh, IRS preferred to confiscate church property. Subjugation, not tax collection, appears to be a not-so-hidden agenda. The best excuse for that situation, from tax gurus, was "its just a cost of doing business", which completely sidesteps the issue of mandatory involuntary servitude (aka slavery). I believe one of the charges against the Browns involved failure to remit employee taxes.

It has been reported that the Browns have been active in some militia, or tax honesty movements. Its hard to escape the conclusion that the worst enforcement practices IRS inflicts on people, are reserved for those who are vocal in their dissent. = political retaliation. First amendment implications, anyone?

 

[Zedicus]

woodcdi & hammer4nc, Great Posts.

Far to few realize (and many don't want to realize) that things are as the both of you posted.

I listened to a Talk Radio interview with Ed Brown today and a great multitude of details that were completely omitted by the mainstream media were revealed during that interview.

The Browns did try to work with the IRS, but the IRS would have none of it, they were obviously bent on "Making an Example" of the Browns.

As with the majority of income tax protesters the Browns put the money that the IRS would have normally scalped them for into a special bank account when they ceased to file Income Tax Returns until such a time that the IRS would produce the actual law that Requires US Citizens to pay a Tax on their Labor, if/when the IRS produced the law they would pay up.

"The IRS instead of pulling out a chair, is pulling out a club - Joe Banister Former IRS Agent"

It is much the same as when a Tenant has a dispute with a landlord and has a 3rd party hold the rent money until the grievance of the Tennant is resolved, then the Landlord is payed the rent due.

Here is a illustration of what is happening using the above example.

Say that the Landlord above instead of dealing with the matter in a civilized peacefull manner, instead reacted by viciously Harassing the Tenant and or Blowing the Tenant's head off.

The IRS has been Frequently Proven to do much the same.
(Much the same as what the BATFE gets up to)

Now what do you think should be done with the landlord mentioned above?

 

[JohnBT]

"The Browns have also demanded documents from the government, including personal information about the members of the grand jury, which Judge Steven McAuliffe declined to give them." - Concord newspaper

The word crackpot comes to mind. His approach to the trial was all wrong. What's the old saw, a man who represents himself has a fool for a client.

John

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

The word crackpot comes to mind. His approach to the trial was all wrong. What's the old saw, a man who represents himself has a fool for a client.

Wrong. The bottom line is those in the government are trying to enforce the law.

It pretty much confirms what I thought. He decided a long time ago that laws didn't apply to him unless he wanted them to. He learned a bunch of pseudo-legalistic twaddle to justify what he wanted to hear. He just "had faith" that reality would change to accommodate his wishful thinking. And then he refused to accept that his actions would have consequences.

Sheesh. What an idiot.

+1 for JohnBT, jcoiii, and tellner.

now im just waiting for the usual board trolls to come out with the personal attacks instead of discussing the issue. that is an absolutely foreign thing to some people. don't attack the poster, discuss the issue.

JohnBT, jcoiii, and tellner, just wait until some people accuse you of sucking the "teat" of the government like they do to me, of course, all without proof.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Wrong. The bottom line is those in the government are trying to enforce the law.

Interesting how people will dig in their heels when it comes to enforcing
tax laws. I suppose everyone here will be fine when the next wave of
restrictive gun laws come into play in the future.

After all, when they're passed by the FedGov, they're law and everyone
without exception must follow them....because they always comply with the
Spirit of the Constitution.

2010 Organized Militia Enhancement Act passed and amended with a
signing statement by President Hillary Clinton requiring all legally held
civilian small arms to be placed in State Guard (Unorganized Militia) Safe
Storage Facilities. Civilians will will be issued their small arms for training
purposes on a yearly basis beginning in 2020 after the Federal Government
has determined such times and places for training with each of the state
governors. For legal purposes civilians retain ownership of their small arms.

2012 Civilian Defense Corps Augmentation Act passed and amended with
a signing statement by President Hillary Clinton requiring civilians who
wish to participate in State Guard Small Arms Training program in 2020 to
to have been former volunteers in the Global War on Terror in Iraq. All
civilians wishing to participate in 2020 have an eight year window in which
to volunteer for such service. After 2020 new participants in the SGSAT
program will have such entrance requirements as to be determined by
the Commander in Chief --under her wartime authority.

1. Debtors prisons.
....
2. Involuntary servitude.

Slightly more modern terms for the old concept of Serfdom. Now we just
have our debtors prisons and involuntary servitude in the open and without
visible chains.

 

[rmurfster]

The Constitution grants power to Congress to "lay and collect taxes ..." (Article I, Section 8). It doesn't outline what a "fair" tax is, only that the Congress has the right to lay it and collect it.

We have no right under the Constitution to refuse to obey a law which is Constitutional. We may protest it (the 1st Amendment) until we're blue in the face , but we may not refuse to pay it.

Since the Constitution doesn't specify what a fair tax is, then it is up to our Representatives to define to what extent we are taxed. If they aren't representing us correctly, vote them out.

This has no similarities to our right to bear arms being infringed. The 2nd Amendment is clear and if Congress or any other entity tries to restrict this "basic right", then you have the right to refuse it ("That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" - The Declaration of Independence.

I too hate the current tax system and like most of you, want it overhauled and/or eliminated.

Unfortunately, the majority of Americans don't see it that way.

Speak out and use our Constitutional means to get it changed.

Any other in means in this matter is unconstitutional and undermines our cause if we should ever need to revolt in matters of true Constitutional importance.

 

[hammer4nc]

The age of streaming video and blogs...

Using the google "blog" search engine, one can see a host of commentary (for and against) now being posted on the internet. Ed appears to be using the internet, and talk radio to get his message out; this is something new! Given these new media, not unreasonable to expect any future "raids" to be simulcast on youtube (warning, raid teams ). How might this play out in the future? Will SWAT teams now hire an IT member to shut down/jam communications prior to doing a raid? Will "conspiracy" charges be levied against bloggers? Given the potential power of these media, I'd not be surprised to see some new laws to attempt to muzzle the alternative message from getting out. (I.e, what was that law related to a 90-day election blackout?)

Here's one blog that is being updated on a regular basis: http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/

Spreadfire, respectfully, please note the request in red at the start of the thread, and edit your post accordingly? Leave your personal beefs and namecalling out of this thread, please. However, if you have anything thoughtful and substantive to back up your opinions, have at it!

 

[Thin Black Line]

How might this play out in the future? Will SWAT teams now hire an IT member to shut down/jam communications prior to doing a raid? Will "conspiracy" charges be levied against bloggers? Given the potential power of these media, I'd not be surprised to see some new laws to attempt to muzzle the alternative message from getting out.

How about this:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0120film-fbi0120.html

NEW YORK - An effort by the FBI and U.S. prosecutors to remove from the Web a short fictional film about a military takeover of New York City may have violated the First Amendment, a federal appeals court said Friday.

But the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower court was correct to toss out a lawsuit brought against an FBI agent and a prosecutor by a Web hosting service operator and Michael Zieper, who wrote and produced the film.

The appeals court said in a written opinion that the FBI agent, Joseph Metzinger, and the assistant U.S. attorney, Lisa Korologos, were immune from the lawsuit because it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer in their position that they were doing anything wrong.

I saw this on the internet back around that time. I still fail to see how it
was it was such a threat. Although cheesie, it was entertaining at the time
given the whole Y2K-crash worries.

BTW, is that video anywhere on the net anymore?

In any case, if this is how a fictional movie is treated, imagine a real-life
situation.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The Constitution grants power to Congress to "lay and collect taxes ..." (Article I, Section 8). It doesn't outline what a "fair" tax is, only that the Congress has the right to lay it and collect it.

The Constitution does not go on to outline what an "income" is, either. If you wish to be literal, the power of Congress in the Sixteenth Amendment is to lay and collect taxes on "incomes". What if a person structures their life so that he or she only has one source of "income"?

Woody

 

[BAT1]

Remember history?

When the British came to confiscate the colonist's firearms the Colonists fought back and won. I don't see any difference in that and what's happening to the Browns, Through different means this time, [USPS, IRS] except the people aren't standing up this time. It tells how far we've gotten away from the truth. The corporate media is not going to report on this until he's dead. Talk radio and the "unpurified" internet is the real source of truth these days. He should of used western union. When we got a home equity loan, and paid off the plastic, we were questioned too. All of your taxes go to the unfederal reserve, and when you don't cower look out. The sheriff should have looked into it, and told the feds to take a hike.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

Please refrain from insults to keep this thread from being locked.

Spreadfire, respectfully, please note the request in red at the start of the thread, and edit your post accordingly? Leave your personal beefs and namecalling out of this thread, please.

i dont see anyone being singled out in my quote:

now im just waiting for the usual board trolls to come out with the personal attacks instead of discussing the issue. that is an absolutely foreign thing to some people. don't attack the poster, discuss the issue.

JohnBT, jcoiii, and tellner, just wait until some people accuse you of sucking the "teat" of the government like they do to me, of course, all without proof.

sorry, i dont see a need to edit anything. if it happens then you can only blame those who do it, not me for foreshadowing the chain of events that occur in many L&P discussion threads.

im staying out of this thread as far as my own opinions since i can only be labelled an "anti" or stealing tax money, or sucking the government's "teat", or being in cahoots with the government or some other asinine comment.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Tax Resistance Spreading Like Wildfire

uh oh....the lawlessness is spreading --it has even gone to the White House.
Apparently, there are federal employess holed up in the heavily fortified and
heavily armed household who are not paying their taxes:

http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=428&sid=1034585

Seventy-one employees in the Executive Office of the President, which includes the White House, owe $664,527 in taxes for 2005. About 20 of those employees have entered into an IRS payment plan, bringing the EOP balance down to $455,881 owed by 50 employees.

The White House did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Omigosh --the republic is now doomed....

 

[jcoiii]

I guess supporters keep missing the part where this guy was tried and convicted of multiple felonies by a jury. They'd rather listen to this guy "tell his side of the story" because obviously he's not biased like the government is.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

uh oh....the lawlessness is spreading --it has even gone to the White House.

It pretty much confirms what I thought. They decided a long time ago that laws didn't apply to them unless they wanted them to. They learned a bunch of pseudo-legalistic twaddle to justify what they wanted to hear. They just "had faith" that reality would change to accommodate their wishful thinking. And then they refused to accept that their actions would have consequences.

Sheesh. What idiots.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I too hate the current tax system and like most of you, want it overhauled and/or eliminated. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans don't see it that way.

Every American I have spoken with thinks the current tax system is horrible. I bet everybody on this board agrees. Who are these "majority of Americans" you are referring to?