"Tax evasion" trial commences.

[Free Radical]

Ed and Elaine Brown ask the BRL a simple question at the start of their trial. BRL responded by scolding Brown for challenging his authority. "This is not a bully pulpit in which you get to filibuster,...you're now in trial."

Excerpts:
"The Browns said they wanted a lawyer but were having difficulty finding one willing to argue their unconventional views about tax law."
"Brown said he and his wife ultimately decided against an attorney because they were concerned that all bar members were too closely tied to the courts to represent their views impartially."


More here:
After the jury left the courtroom for a break, McAuliffe explained to the Browns that he would not allow them to use the trial as a forum for debating the law. He said that the jury would not be deliberating on the meaning of tax laws.
"They're not going to decide whether the tax laws of this nation are constitutional. They are," he said. "They're not going to decide whether the tax laws of this nation are valid. They are."

[ayanrand]

With all due respect, is there a point to posting this government propaganda, scare them into submission, just in time to get the sheep in line, hit piece?

[Free Radical]

ayanrand said:

With all do respect, is there a point to posting this government propaganda, scare them into submission, just in time to get the sheep in line, hit piece?

Only that it further confirms how "judges" react when asked awkward questions and that "defense" lawyers really work for the prosecution.

[marc stevens]

freeradical said:

After the jury left the courtroom for a break, McAuliffe explained to the Browns that he would not allow them to use the trial as a forum for debating the law. He said that the jury would not be deliberating on the meaning of tax laws.
"They're not going to decide whether the tax laws of this nation are constitutional. They are," he said. "They're not going to decide whether the tax laws of this nation are valid. They are."

Application, application, application...

[Darren Dirt]

freeradical said:

ayanrand said:

With all do respect, is there a point to posting this government propaganda, scare them into submission, just in time to get the sheep in line, hit piece?

Only that it further confirms how "judges" react when asked awkward questions and that "defense" lawyers really work for the prosecution.

Asking questions is not the problem, asking questions that allow the judge to claim you are "arguing/debating" issues that "have been decided by the courts countless times" -- that's the problem.

I'm pretty sure the courts have "decided" that you are entitled to a fair trial, and impartial "judge", etc. etc.


www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070112/REPOSITORY/701120366 :
The Browns argue that there are no laws that compel them to pay federal income taxes.

After a series of questions about the agents' numbers, guns and body armor, Judge Steven McAuliffe told Brown that he needed to stop asking about the strategy of agents performing the search. "How the search was executed really isn't relevant to this case," he said, over Brown's objections.

McAuliffe has ruled repeatedly for the Browns, explaining that their best chance at a defense lies in convincing the jury that they really believed the tax laws didn't apply to them.



www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070110/REPOSITORY/701100361 :
...began yesterday in federal court with Ed and Elaine Brown each arguing that they do not believe the income tax applies to them.

"My husband and I challenged the application of the tax law to us," Elaine Brown said in her opening statement. "We cannot find any statute that requires us to pay."

Ed Brown, who led a local militia in the 1990s, is now a leader in a national group called the Constitution Rangers of the Continental Congress of 1777, which he said was established to confront law enforcement figures whenever they violate the Constitution.

Wow, this is the only non-constitutional issue raised: "In the months since their indictment in May, the Browns have filed repeated, lengthy briefs challenging the jurisdiction of the federal court, the legitimacy of the grand jury indictments and the impartiality of the judge, since he's a federal employee."


- - -

Sure, journalists will be completely SUBjective when it comes to covering "anti-tax" cases (notice the mention of the "militia" membership, the "insignia" on the car, etc.), but even keeping that in mind, to read/hear what the Browns are "arguing" in the courtroom, seems like well-intended but hopelessly offbase Schiff/Rose all over again

[marc stevens]

Yes, question the witnesses about their badges and not their opinions on obligation to pay taxes exists and the facts to support.

I believe that if the agents were questioned about how they determined on obligation was created, there would be an objection in regards to the agents not being competent. Now if the agents are incompetent to determine, then how could the average person determine it?

Oh, that's right, they're only incompetent to determine if OTHER people have an obligation, but not for themselves.

Some one determined the Browns have an obligation to file tax returns, doesn't it make sense to find out who they are and question them???

[Freeborn]

Their opinion on taxes (murdering) is already sited firmly into concrete block and trying to challenge these megalomaniac robots is really hardcore. Hey judge why don't you just tell me that you want me to be your slave, or shot me right now because I"m not willing to comply with your alleged power of treating and harassing my life.

[learnin2]

What about a question like "Am I state property"? Only requires a yes or no answer, and quickly establishes authority(or lack thereof). If they try to say that you fall under their jurasdiction, keep repeeting the question. The answer would have to be no, which establishes no jurasdiction or authority.

[Darren Dirt]

admin said:

Some one determined the Browns have an obligation to file tax returns, doesn't it make sense to find out who they are and question them???

I stand speechless before your perfectly succint and immeasurably insightful verbiage.

[NonEntity]

"I stand speechless..." yeah, THAT will be the day! ;D

- NonE






(noting something about pots and kettles and such...)

[dudeman]

I read in an e-mail group that I'm in that the Browns are expecting a raid on their house tomorrow morning. The "judge" issued a "bench warrant" for them after they refused to show for a "hearing."

[ayanrand]

STAND OFF LIKE THE ONE AT WACO BEGINNING IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

Posted By: Rayelan <<http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?bem=98053> Send E-Mail>
Date: Friday, 12 January 2007, 8:51 p.m.

Note from Rayelan:

We don't have the full story here... does anyone know the rest of this story? I have emailed to see if I can find out the rest.

This was "forwarded" to me just today. I share it with you only because you have shown an interest in this denial of due process and rule of law.

Dick Marple

William Miller-Constitutional American, US Constitution Ranger, Jan. 12, 2007

There is a standoff developing in Nazi Hampshire (Living the "Freedom" Lie), developing as I write this document. This standoff, like the one at Waco, will result in the deaths of innocent people.

[For a background on this matter: See my previous email: The Final, Fateful Effort to Defend Liberty].

Here are the reasons why I am going to see federal district court judge Steven McAuliffe (husband of astronaut Christa McAuliffe), hanged for treason against our Constitution, and hence, the People.

As regards the trumped up charges against Ed and Elaine Brown of Plainfield and W lebanon, NH, brought by the US Attorney, Colontuono:

Approximately 2:30 PM this day, I called Ed Brown to inquire as to his status and that of his wife, pursuant to the fact that they did not show up in court, for the final day of their trial on various bogus charges pertaining to the fact that they, like many Americans, do not choose to pay the purely voluntary federal "income tax," as is their right, validated by eight US Supreme Court decisions. (See the film "America, Freedom to Fascism," by award winning Hollywood producer, Aaron Russo: <http://www.freedomtofascism.com/>http://www.freedomtofascism.com)

The Browns had gotten a reprieve from the trial today, on the premise of being sick.

I was told by Ed Brown, my mentor in constitution law, and my direct superior in chain of command in the US Constitution Rangers ( http://www.uscrangers.org):

"If we had showed up today, we would by now be in shackles and in jail for life, and our properties would be getting set up for sale at auction as we speak. IT HAS COME TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THE JUDGE IS PREPARED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO FIND US GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS..."

The Browns are now in their home in Plainfield, prepared for a standoff, unto the death, pending the outcome of a proposal that they have made to the US Attorney. Since they cannot and will not receive a fair trial in this case, they are prepared to pay $626,000 to the IRS in an arrangement, in order to remain free of jail, and go on with their lives.

In the past six or so months since the Browns were ambushed and taken into custody by about three dozen local, state and federal officers of a multi-jurisdictional task force, the Browns have filed over forty motions, all of which were based upon US Supreme Court and/or Appellate Court decisions, and Judge mcAuliffe has denied every one of these motitons.

So what we have here is a US federal court judge saying, "Screw the Supreme Court and screw the law of the American nation. In this court I am God Almighty and I will rewrite the law as I choose." Now he has gone so far as to order a jury to find these people guilty, when, clearly, there is no law whatsoever in existence to this day, that compels the average private citizen to pay a dime to the IRS, as attested to by Congressman Ron Paul, of Texas, and numerous other federal officials, in the Rousseau film "America Freedom to Fascism."

Clearly, we now live in an occupied police state.

So, if the US Attorney fails to accept the buyout offer rendered by the Browns, then there is at least a fifty percent chance that these honest, decent, lawful Americans, defenders of your Constitution- guaranteed rights, will be dead by Monday morning, January 15, 2007.

In my conversation with Ed Brown at about 2:30 PM today, I said to him the hardest thing I ever had to say to anyone: "If they try to raid your house, you must die rather than submit." Ed Brwon is my closest friend and my mentor since, in 2000, I approached him for aid in dealing with issues related to repeated attacks and harassment, false arrests and the like, directed against my family by a local (drug corrupted) police department (Farmington, NH, PD), against my family. It was as a result of Brown's timely intervention and mentorship that I was able to resolve that situation without violence, that would surely have led to my being one of several US military veterans gunned down by police in the local area since 1998.

Ed Brown, my friend and mentor, for patriotic reasons, is now worth more to me, and to what I stand for, dead, than alive.

Brown's response was typical: "In my youth I made the mistake of committing the only crime or dishonest act of my life. I turned myself in, pleaded guilty and spent six months in jail. I swore to myself and to God that I would never do another dishonest thing again, and I haven't. I have no intention of doing another day in jail, knowing that I am not a criminal."

I, William Miller, a Desert Storm paratrooper, who has gone to great lengths, in reckless endangerment of his own life, to expose the crimes and criminality of "government" in this "land of the free," now say this to the people of America:

It is because most of you are abject cowards and brainwashed idiots, that it has come to this in our country: what passes for "law, government and authority," rendering un-Constitutional dicta to the people at every turn and commanding obedience.

Furthermore, i will not live a slave in my own country. I am going to see judge McAuliffe, and US Attorney Colontuono and various other officials hanged for treason for these actions. It is a matter of time only.

I do not fear repercussions. "They" may arrest my corpse and do business with my ghost, should they decide they wish to continue on in this vendetta against the Constitution Rangers. It does not matter.

Because so many of you have remained so passive, self-delusional and abjectedly cowardly, for so long, we are now on the eve of a widespread, destructive civil war in this country, one that I would have avoided, having been to war, and being no fan of such activity. I will not be made a slave in my own country.

Wake up America. Wake up.

William Miller, US Desert Storm Paratrooper, US Constitution Ranger

[NonEntity]

I feel his passion, but really, who is it that is delusional?

- NonE

[Darren Dirt]

blah blah constitutional rangers blah blah hang the judge for treason blah blah we want civil war blah blah

^ that is, sadly, how most people would summarize the verbiage. I understand the logic of his position, and if I were facing life in prison due to a judge Playing God in "his" courtroom when I had done noone wrong, I suppose I can imagine "taking a stand" and going out shooting. But this will *so* disappear off the radar within weeks, if not days, of the event...


Stay out of their hair, don't be a pest to them, don't foment violent revolution (i.e. using phrases like "hanging for treason" or "civil war") and this kind of extreme degree of conflict is less likely to occur. At least until they officially declare the imagi-nation a "police state" or whatever.

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

...really, who is it that is delusional?

Would you be so kind as to clarify what you mean here?

Granting, that the whole Constitutional (UNITED STATE OF) mindset is built upon concept-- but wherein essentially, violence as the primary moral issue, no? Therein granting, there's more awakening needed regarding that core foundation; but equally granting that, hey, these folks are the product of the same indoctr-a-Nation as most; and regarding "the letter" ie "a nation of law" aren't they on point? [as I've presented before, apart from the violence, said Constitution is nothing less, principally, than a covenant/contract, same as with any other voluntary association; the violence/enforcement is for many if not most, simply contract defense; noting then that it is the usurpers confusing such that makes much of the delusion. Noting, that for the "legalist" (delusional?) no, honorable contracts do not have to be "signed"-- other than the "sign"al called actions (that speak louder than words, etc)]

Honestly, this whole thing centers for me in the heart of the matter: where does one-- ie each individual --in order to be honorable, respectful, and moral have to "draw the line"?

Niemöller is said to have expressed it in his version of war (and yes, I present that we indeed are and have been at war on this soil) as "he said nothing". I often question whether "saying" is enough for one professing to be honorable...

And that question looms much larger when I simply (mentally/philosophically) swap places with the guy doing 10-to-20 simply for living life. [one example: Google--> "georgia 17-year-old prison sex"]

I suppose I hear in this "passion" the simple eternal (or is it infernal?) question: is 'life' to be lived free or as captive? Is degree thereof relevant to honor and respect? Where for me the essential aspect centers "in the golden rule" (aka genuine common liberty rule). Applied here as: if it's being done to any other, then my response to it is all that I can expect in 'my turn' [see again, those doing 10-20 years-- day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute, thought by thought...]. How much more relevant if I'm directly and/or indirectly (yupp, hear "tax" lingo here) paying for it? Summed somewhat in the email author's line:

I will not be made a slave in my own country.

I'll not question here what this author means by "country". I'd assume from the rest of the text he means "U.S." But for honor's sake, can't it be heard as country side? aka 'neighborhood'?

So what about any other(s) being made a slave? And in such, is my honor (and/or morality) in jeopardy? Or as you asked, who is the delusional here?

Again, I'd sure welcome hearing what you're seeing here-- here being the comfort of meye2 unintruded computer chair. Thanx.