STAND OFF LIKE THE ONE AT WACO BEGINNING IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

Wow, thanks for the info, Mopar...good post :)

Pinned. Anyone have any additional info?

Thanks for the pin.

I found a news article, this should help.

[link to www.concordmonitor.com]

Couple argues 2004 raid disrespected them
Testimony: 15 or 20 IRS agents participated

On the day in 2004 that federal agents searched her Lebanon dental office for financial records, Elaine Brown turned to her husband, Ed, and said "I knew this day would come."

According to Elaine Brown in court yesterday, her statement was a reflection of her fear that the government would punish her for uncovering the vulnerabilities of federal tax law. But federal agents who heard the statement testified yesterday that they understood it as an admission that she knew she had broken the law and could not escape punishment forever.

Yesterday was the third day of the Browns' trial. The Plainfield couple, who are representing themselves, are accused of conspiring to commit tax fraud, conspiring to disguise large financial transactions and disguising large financial transactions. Elaine Brown, the couple's breadwinner, is also accused of multiple counts of tax fraud and failing to withhold employment taxes. The Browns argue that there are no laws that compel them to pay federal income taxes. If convicted on all counts, each Brown faces decades in prison.

Several witnesses yesterday testified about the raid on Brown's office, an event that provided the government with many of the financial records they used to build their case, and one which also left a lasting impression on the Browns. The couple said they felt violated and disrespected when federal agents arrived armed and armored to download files from their computers.

When Ed Brown cross examined James John, the retired IRS special agent who led the investigation, he questioned him repeatedly about why he had chosen to surprise the couple with an unannounced search and why he had brought so many agents with so many guns. According to John's testimony, 15 or 20 IRS agents participated, along with two postal inspectors, at least three state troopers and at least one Lebanon police officer.

When asked by Brown, John said that he'd called for extra firepower because he had received intelligence that the Browns were likely armed and belligerent.
---ADVERTISEMENT---

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.

Ultimately, Brown persuaded him to permit two minutes of questions about why John had allowed state police to use a sniper pointed at the office parking lot.

"The day was so traumatic, and people were in danger," Brown said to explain why he thought these questions were important.

Suit after search

Ed Brown said in an interview that he and his wife were so upset by the search that they sued John and Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Morse, who is prosecuting the case. The suit alleged that federal employees had violated the Browns's civil rights by conducting an unlawful search. The suit was dismissed by a judge. But Ed Brown said he believes his current prosecution may be motivated by revenge.

John's testimony included his recollection of several statements the Browns made the day of the search. He recalled Elaine Brown's comment on the inevitability of the raid. John said he saw the statement as a confession.

"I think that you thought sooner or later, the government would catch up to you on this," he said.

He also described statements made by Ed Brown, who, he said, told him that he would never pay his income taxes and that he believed that federal agents had no jurisdiction to perform a search on property in New Hampshire.

In the first two days of the trial, Morse and McAuliffe have disagreed about the extent to which the Browns should be allowed to share their unusual legal views with the jury. Morse has argued that the Browns may confuse the jury about what the law actually says. But 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.

That attitude of leniency reached its limit yesterday after Ed Brown tried to quiz John on excerpts from laws that Brown said proved his theories.

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."

Post office testimony

Several postal employees testified about the Browns' habit of purchasing multiple postal money orders. Federal law requires purchasers of more than $3,000 to fill out a form notifying the government about the transaction. The Browns are accused of structuring, or making multiple purchases just below the $3,000 limit to evade the reporting requirements.

According to postal agents, the Browns would frequently wait on line at the post office together and each purchase $2,800 in money orders. Patricia Rebello, a postal investigator who described the pattern of purchases, said that the couple purchased more than $300,000 in money orders this way over a two-year period. All of the money orders, she said, went toward paying the couple's mortgages. According to Rebello and John Hickey, another postal investigator who testified, structuring offenses commonly go hand-in-hand with tax evasion crimes.

The government's final witness was on the stand as court closed yesterday, and the Browns will begin their defense early tomorrow. Both Browns said that they plan to testify in their own defense.

------ End of article

At this point, it would have been up to the jury.
Did the Brown's have more faith in the Supreme Court than a jury of their peers?
If one juror had ignored the judge, there would have been a hung jury.

More article links coming, here is #2.

Judge: Browns free to state beliefs


Couple can argue tax stance


A Plainfield couple facing federal tax evasion charges should be free to explain their unconventional legal views in front of the jury, the judge ruled yesterday before the second day of trial testimony began.

Assistant U.S. attorney Bill Morse had argued that Elaine and Ed Brown, who are representing themselves in the case, could confuse the jury by repeating baseless assertions about tax law, and tried to persuade the judge to instruct the couple not to mention their theories. But Judge Steven McAuliffe said that showing the jury that they truly misunderstood the law could be the Browns' best chance at an acquittal.

McAuliffe summarized his understanding of the Browns' strategy as: " 'My irrational, peculiar, weird reading of law may be all of that, but I, in good faith, believe it.' That could be a defense," he said.

The Browns have been accused of conspiring to evade federal income taxes by funneling nearly $2 million in profits from Elaine Brown's Lebanon dental practice into a trust and refusing to pay taxes on the income. They are also accused of conspiring to conceal large financial transactions and concealing large financial transactions, and Elaine Brown has been charged with failing to withhold payroll taxes from the practice's employees. If convicted on all the charges, each Brown faces decades in prison sentences.

The Browns have argued in interviews, court filings and their opening statements Tuesday that they do not believe any law compels them to pay federal income taxes. They stopped paying taxes in 1996, they said, and began sending interrogatory letters to the IRS, demanding an explanation of the tax laws and an opportunity to have their questions answered. When they didn't receive any, the Browns contend, they assumed that they'd caught on to a little-known truth.

"Are you aware, sir, that my wife and I have been trying to have a meeting for years with the IRS?" Ed Brown asked one witness, hitting a theme he echoed throughout his cross-examinations yesterday.

In order to win convictions, the government must prove that the Browns evaded taxes "willfully," which means they understood they were breaking the law.

Despite the judge's ruling for the Browns, testimony yesterday cast some doubt on their contention that no one had ever tried to explain the tax law to them. Several former bookkeepers and government agents described repeated communications with the Browns about their tax obligations and the laws governing trusts. In one case, an IRS employee testified, the Browns refused to accept a certified letter that would have offered them a sit-down meeting with IRS officials, an opportunity that Ed Brown said later was all he had wanted.

Yesterday's witnesses included two IRS collections officers, an IRS investigator, a state tax auditor, an official from the state department of employment security and two tax preparers who once worked for the Browns. The state attempted to examine the Lebanon tax collector, but the judge ruled that her testimony was irrelevant to the case.

Walter Freeman, a tax auditor at the state Department of Revenue Administration, described a series of hostile letters and phone calls he received from Ed Brown after he wrote to Elaine Brown to tell her that she needed to pay taxes on her business's profits.

"He informed me that he considered New Hampshire RSAs (statutes) as having no standing and he was not compelled to obey the laws," Freeman said, describing one phone conversation in April 2000. Brown also told him, Freeman said, that his Plainfield home was located on a federal enclave and therefore outside of state jurisdiction.

Freeman read aloud from a letter Brown sent him, printed on the letterhead of the UnAmerican Activities Investigations Commission, one of several anti-government groups that Brown has led over the years. The letter indicated that the group believed the state had engaged in an "escalating trend" of rights violations.

"(The commission) maintains a low profile," the letter said. "But that is about to change."

In cross-examination of the witnesses, the Browns repeated many of the same questions again and again. Elaine Brown often asked witnesses whether they knew the definition of a taxpayer under the internal revenue code - most said no - and Ed Brown, who flipped through bookmarked copies of the revenue code at the defense table, repeatedly asked witnesses to offer legal definitions of terms like "person," "individual" and "income." At one point, Ed Brown expressed frustration that none of the IRS officials were able to answer basic questions about tax law.

"So far, the IRS doesn't seem to know too much of anything," he said.

Most of the IRS witnesses responded that they were expert only in the areas of law related to their job, record searches or tax collection, and were not familiar with the entirety of the tax code.

But a witness called late in the day described the information that the Browns could have received if they had called or dropped into a free information center in the state. Jay Stewart, a tax resolution representative for the IRS, said that his office is open seven hours a day to answer taxpayer questions about the law and how it applies to them. He even produced a tri-fold brochure, titled "Why do I have to pay taxes?" that described how the IRS defined income, explained who had to pay federal taxes, and said that forming trusts could not insulate individuals from tax liability.

Though the Browns have declined to hire attorneys, despite repeated pleas from the judge, they do have a number of advisers helping them with their legal strategy, Ed Brown said Tuesday. Yesterday, several of the nine friends who attended the trial in their support counseled the Browns in what questions to ask and what objections to raise. On one occasion, a spectator passed Ed Brown a note while a witness was testifying.

According to Morse, the government is expecting to wrap up its case tomorrow.

------ End of article

[link to www.concordmonitor.com]

They will either end up in prison or dead. TPTB wouldn't want anyone else to get ideas. They know taxes are illegal. They were never ratified.

Article #3 -

[link to www.vnews.com]

Plainfield Couple On Trial Over Taxes


Concord -- A Plainfield couple on trial for income tax evasion agree with federal prosecutors on a key fact: for years, they haven't paid federal income taxes or filed U.S. tax returns.

Where Edward and Elaine Brown dramatically part ways with the prosecution, however, is on whether they're legally bound to pay those taxes. They insist they're free to opt out because federal income tax requirements don’t apply to them.

Yesterday, both sides made their case before a jury in U.S. District Court during the first day of a trial expected to last about a week.

The U.S. government has charged the defendants with 17 felony counts, including tax evasion and failure to withhold federal employment taxes. The Browns, in their mid-60s, pleaded not guilty to all charges in May.

If convicted, Elaine Brown could face decades in prison and more than $4 million in fines, while her husband also could be fined or imprisoned. The Browns could lose their home on 100-plus acres in Plainfield and a commercial dental clinic, Half Hollow Dental Center, on Glen Road in West Lebanon.

After jury selection yesterday morning, jurors heard opening arguments from a federal attorney and the Browns, who are representing themselves. The prosecution also called two witnesses: a former tax preparer for the couple who recalled the day Elaine Brown told her she didn't plan to pay any more income taxes, and an IRS criminal investigator who described the Browns' tax documents (and lack thereof) in painstaking detail.

In his opening argument, U.S. Assistant Attorney William Morse told the jury the Browns have not paid any income taxes on the $1.9 million Elaine Brown has earned since 1995 -- a tax loss of roughly $625,000. “This case arises from the defendants' attempt to avoid the unavoidable: paying their income taxes,” he said.

In addition, he said, Elaine Brown failed to collect $200,000 in employment taxes from the wages of workers in her West Lebanon dental practice. She stopped making the deductions in 2002.

Speaking in measured tones, Elaine Brown told the jury that in 1993 she and her husband began questioning whether the federal income tax system applied to them. “We can't find any statute that requires us to pay a federal income tax,” she said.

She acknowledged that she and her husband had not paid income taxes for “some time,” and that they intentionally chose not to participate in the federal tax system, as the prosecutor had said. She said they have the money that the government believes they owe in taxes -- and would be willing to hand it over if a law exists requiring them to do so.
Anti-Government Tirade

Edward Brown unleashed a tirade against the federal tax system, calling it one of the biggest frauds perpetrated in history. “It doesn't apply to my wife or me or most of you, as it turns out,” he said in his opening statement.

No one has shown them a law requiring payment of federal income taxes, he said. “They won't do it. They can't do it. It does not exist.”

Edward Brown, a former vermin exterminator, became more exercised as his statement went on. “I'm afraid I'm no hero, but I will not be intimidated by those folks” -- he gestured toward prosecutors and court officials -- “this court, or any other agency in the world.”

The Browns had ties with antigovernment militia groups and owned numerous guns, which investigators removed from their home when they were arrested last year. However, the court case is strictly about taxes.

Denise Stark, a certified public accountant in Houston, testified that she prepared tax returns for the Browns for several years. In 1995, she and Elaine Brown met at Brown's dental practice, where Brown informed Stark that she no longer planned to pay taxes. Stark was not surprised, because Brown had told her about her view that the federal income tax was voluntary. Stark did not agree with her decision, however, and had to discontinue the relationship. “Elaine was understanding,” she said, adding that Brown didn't change her mind.

Paul Crowley, who investigates tax fraud for the IRS, testified that in 1996 the Browns jointly filed a return stating they owed no federal taxes because they'd earned only $599. In fact, in 1995 they owed more than $50,000 in taxes on roughly $150,000 in taxable income.

Before opening statements, Edward Brown asked Chief Judge Steven McAuliffe several times if he would allow him to show jurors the text of the law. “Sophistry is not going to get you very far in this case,” McAuliffe finally told him.

The judge also admonished Edward Brown when he repeatedly asked whether the prosecution had handed over certain documents, which prosecutors said they had done. “This isn't a pulpit in which you get to filibuster about irrelevant material. I manage the trial,” the judge said.
Judge ‘Feels Badly'

McAuliffe also pleaded with Edward Brown to at least let him appoint a “standby” attorney whom the Browns could consult on procedural questions.

“I feel so badly for you both. You should have counsel representing you,” said the judge.

In an interview afterward, Edward Brown said attorneys don't understand IRS law. “Their first obligation is to the court, not to me,” he said, adding that he was consulting with people who aren't members of the bar.

Elaine Brown is charged with eight counts of failing to collect payroll taxes for employees and five counts of failing to pay federal taxes. The couple is also charged with one count of conspiring to evade Elaine Brown's income taxes.

Both Browns are charged with three counts connected with structuring financial transactions to avoid reporting requirements. They allegedly purchased more than 200 postal money orders between 1999 and 2000, for amounts just under what would trigger a report to the federal government. Sometimes they stood in line together, but made separate purchases that were each slightly below the filing threshold of $3,000, Morse said.

Attending the trial's first day were about half a dozen supporters of the Browns, some of whom did not stand when the judge entered the courtroom.

Mike Famolare of Deering, N.H., said he'd heard about the trial and decided to attend because he shares the Browns' view on the federal income tax. He also has an interest in the trial's outcome, since he said he does not pay income taxes. He questioned why no one in the courtroom had pointed to a law requiring their payment.

“Someone in there should know where to find this thing,” he said. “It's a pretty ridiculous game.”

[link to www.unionleader.com]

Barricaded Epping man in serious condition

By RUSS CHOMA
Union Leader Correspondent
1 hour, 36 minutes ago

EPPING – During a four-hour standoff that shut down a busy stretch of Route 125, an Epping man who witnesses said was distraught over a recent breakup, barricaded himself in a house threatening to light a severed propane gas line.

From noon until shortly before 4 p.m., Steve Kolski, 45, remained in a small ranch house on Route 125 near the Irving gas station and Public Service of New Hampshire office, threatening to light a propane gas line he had cut, while police outside attempted to negotiate with him.

Epping Police Chief Gregory Dodge said police were not able to make contact with Kolski, but a friend did speak with him.
Jan13 standoff SWAT 220px (BOB LAPREE)

Seacoast Emergency Response Team members, on board an armored vehicle, move in to end a standoff in Epping yesterday. (BOB LAPREE)

At around 4 p.m., members of the Seacoast Emergency Response SWAT team went into the house - firing rounds of pepper gas before entering. Kolski was discovered inside with a self-inflicted knife wound to the chest, and was rushed to Exeter Hospital. Dodge described him as being in serious condition.

Kolski was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and attempted arson.

Police later reported that Kolski was discovered lying unconscious on a bed in the house's rear bedroom. The mattress was partially burned, and police said he had started a small fire, which was quickly put out.
Jan13 standoff Buffy 200px (BOB LAPREE)

Buffy Young said she and Melissa Vaccaro were threatened with a knife. (BOB LAPREE)

Buffy Young, who described herself as the best friend of Melissa Vaccaro -- the house's owner and Kolski's ex-girlfriend -- said she was in the house at about 11:45 this morning when he stormed in. Vaccaro recently kicked Kolski out of the house, Young said. When he returned at about 11:45 a.m. yesterday, he smelled of alcohol and was armed with a knife, she said.

According to Young, he entered through the basement, and cut the propane gas line and was threatening to blow the house up.

"He was destroying the house, he took (Vaccaro's) entertainment stand and trashed it, he trashed the kitchen," Young said, adding that he lunged at both women, and threatened their lives. "He said 'I'll do you in.' He charged at me with the knife, and then tried going after (Vaccaro,) but I pulled her out of the way," Young said.
Jan13 standoff stretcher 380px (BOB LAPREE)

Epping rescue and law enforcement personel take a man witnesses identified as Steve Kolski to a waiting ambulance. (BOB LAPREE)

Young said that she and Vaccaro fled the house.

Dodge said that his officers responded to a report of a barricaded subject, and when they arrived Kolski refused to come out, so the regional SWAT team was called in. The propane gas was shut off, and police attempted to make contact with Kolski by throwing a telephone through one of the windows, Dodge said.

Throughout the standoff, traffic was diverted away from a three-quarter mile stretch of Route 125. Nearby business owners said they noticed many police and fire vehicles arriving around noon, but were not told any details of what was happening, other than that they should not be concerned for their safety.

Chief Dodge confirmed that on Thursday, Epping police were called to deal with Kolski, who was acting suicidal. Dodge said he was evaluated at the hospital, but ultimately was released.

I was planning to do the same thing, myself.

A co-worker's dad tried resisting about 25 years ago.

(Since 911 there is more evidence of gobvernment corruption.)

The judge told him to pay up or go to jail for 5 years.

I know I'll get the same. But I MUST protest against this evil. (After they try to railroad me with the pot plant BS. That trial date is Jan 26. Will they throw me in jail???)

They MUST succeed in manipulati ng the Just-US system epse the people will gain power.

We're screwed. But don't give in so easily...


I'll probably have to pay taxes. But if enough people REFUSED, we could probably have an effect. Then pay just in time to avoid prison, if you can't deal with imprisonment.


Best Wishes,
Stan P.

fuck the motherfucking government and their motherfucking illegal taxes and the motherfucking criminal gangsters who run the whole motherfucking thing

fuck the motherfucking government and their motherfucking illegal taxes and the motherfucking criminal gangsters who run the whole motherfucking thing

no waco-like standoff

just more drama

Just pay your fucking taxes like the rest of us and shut the hell up!

God damned capitalistic infidels...

I think non-tax-payers should be allowed to peacefully coexist with the rest of us tax-paying citizens...

...however, they should also not be allowed to utilize money - cash - or any of the other accoutrements of capitalism - banking, credit, etc.

These people should be set free from ancient practices like jail.

But they SHOULD be forced to utilize ancient practices like barter and "grow your own" foodstuffs.

Good luck to em I say!

He is absolutely right, how many of fellow americans you cowards want to see dead before to move you ass and do your part in taking back the country and the tru consitution and laws that Bush destroy day after day.

Cowards die aswell, and like cowards their name remebered by no one.

I wonder how one can stil live in america after all it's traspiring.

Bump for a Hero, and good luck to the two other peoples for defending their own dignity. The rest of you keep paying the IRS that will use the money to build concentration camps and to finance wars in the world destroying lifes.

Agreed.

Mat 22:21 - Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's

DEATH & TAXES, baby. Those are the only ETERNAL truths. Grow up & get w/the program!

has anyone read a book called "handbook for the new paradigm"? this thread made me think of somewhere in there talking about many waco like situations occuring before SHTF.

when you pay taxes you finance your own enslavement, as well as those around you

what you think is vital to freedom and prosperity (banking, credit, etc) are actually instruments of death - death to a nation and its people

look into the banking system - the Fed, and the rest of the world system...read what Alan Greenspan wrote in the '60s BEFORE he was bought out by the elite

"ignorance is strength" - don't let it be your slogan

We'll just fire up the mircowave mangetrons and fry the shit out of your brains, then go in and kick your retarded heads in.

Those too stupid to know they have no chance without a nuclear weapons, will find there last words dribbling on the end of a boot as the hear the sound of their skull caving in..

Super, I don't have anything that's ceasar's

[link to yannone.blogspot.com]






Article published Jan 10, 2007
They may owe $625,000

Tax protesters have their day in court
Plainfield couple hasn't paid since 1996

By Margot Sanger-Katz
Monitor staff
Jan 10, 2007

Picture
Monitor file photo
Ed and Elaine Brown haven’t paid federal income taxes in years because they don’t think the law requires to them.
Zoom
Purchase Photos Online

The trial of a Plainfield couple who refused to pay income taxes for nearly 10 years began yesterday in federal court with Ed and Elaine Brown each arguing that they do not believe the income tax applies to them.

The couple, who are representing themselves, said they did not dispute the prosecutor's contention that they had opted out of the tax system, but they said they believe they have not broken the law by doing so.

"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."

According to Bill Morse, the assistant United States attorney who is prosecuting the case, the Browns stopped paying income taxes in 1996 and stopped filing tax returns in 1998. Both Browns are accused of conspiring to commit tax fraud, conspiring to disguise large financial transactions and disguising large financial transactions. Elaine Brown, a dentist who practices in Lebanon, has also been charged with evading income taxes and failing to withhold taxes from her employees. Each of the Browns face decades in prison if convicted.

"This case arises from the defendants' attempt to avoid the inevitable: paying their income taxes," Morse said in his opening statement, which detailed the history of the Browns' nonpayment, which he said totals more than $625,000.

But while Morse characterized the Browns' unwillingness to pay as willful tax evasion, the Browns, who each made an opening statement, called their actions a political stand. They claim that after concluding more than a decade ago that they were exempt from the federal tax system, they decided to test the government. Rather than paying federal income taxes, they began sending letters to the IRS demanding an explanation of the relevant law. They said they've received no response to their questions.
In at least one of the letters described in testimony, the Browns acknowledged that they might be inviting criminal prosecution, but in their comments yesterday, they made clear that they do not believe they have broken the law.

"We will once and for all show beyond the shadow of a doubt - not reasonable doubt, beyond the shadow of a doubt - that the federal income tax system is a fraud," Ed Brown said in his opening statement. "For 12 years, they have avoided answering us."

In testimony yesterday, two government witnesses began sketching the Browns' tax history. According to a former accountant who prepared their returns and an IRS investigator who examined their tax records, the couple filed and paid their joint return for at least five years before they decided to opt out in 1996. According to Denise Stark, who had prepared the Browns' taxes, one day Elaine Brown told her that they'd decided to stop paying.

"Elaine explained to me that they were no longer going to file their tax return because there was a law or some sort of a legal reason," Stark said. Stark said she told Brown she disagreed and said the meeting was the end of their professional relationship.

In 1996, the Browns filed a joint return with a zero on the line that should have shown income from Elaine Brown's practice, according to Paul Crowley, an IRS agent who described the document. That year, the Browns claimed they owed no income tax and appended a letter to their return form. According to portions of the letter Crowley read aloud, the Browns' explanation of their return included contentions that the federal income tax only applied to residents of Washington, D.C., or other federal territories and that Supreme Court precedent had found that labor was not taxable.

The following year, Crowley testified, the Browns sent a second letter to the IRS.

"We have been requesting clarification of our status to no avail," it said. After that, Crowley testified, the Browns did not file any tax returns or pay any taxes.

In interviews since their indictment, the Browns have argued that most Americans don't owe federal income taxes, but that government officials conspire to keep them from discovering the truth. It's one of several ways the Browns believe the federal government is undermining personal freedoms. 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. Brown often wears the Constitution Rangers badge and has the insignia painted on the sides of the couple's two cars.

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.

With a few exceptions, all of these motions have been denied. 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.

Yesterday, shortly after jury selection, Ed Brown asked McAuliffe to promise that he would obey "the letter of the law" during the trial. McAuliffe responded by scolding Brown for challenging his authority.

"This is not a bully pulpit in which you get to filibuster," McAuliffe said. "You're now in trial."

Then he quickly changed his tone and tried to persuade the Browns to consider a lawyer.

"I'm actually begging you," McAuliffe said. "I feel so bad for you both. You really both should have counsel."

From the time of their arraignment, court officials have encouraged the Browns to seek representation. Shortly after their arrest, the Browns said they wanted a lawyer but were having difficulty finding one willing to argue their unconventional views about tax law.

Yesterday, Ed 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.

"Attorneys do not understand constitutional law," he said, in an interview after testimony wrapped up. "Attorneys do not understand IRS law."

Instead of an attorney, Ed Brown said he and his wife are relying on a handful of outside advisers, none of them lawyers.

Those advisers were not in court yesterday, Ed Brown said. But nearly a dozen supporters attended the trial yesterday. Most said they were personal friends of the Browns, but a few said they'd heard about the trial on an e-mail listserv targeted to local residents with anti-tax views. In recesses and during the lunch break, several of them offered the Browns suggestions about questions to ask or ways to phrase their arguments.

The trial will continue today and is expected to take five to seven days to complete.

------ End of article

By MARGOT SANGER-KATZ

Monitor staff
This article is: 3 days old.

Fuckin' A!! What he said.

How about those fuckin' postal employee rats testifying that the couple (gasp) bought MONEY ORDERS (shudder)... those wicked, evil Browns!!! They should go to jail for that alone!!!!

Fuck 'em all.

The Tax on labor AKA "income tax" is a blunting force on self-production. A limitation of a workers productivity thus his commercial potential is being controlled. A tax on labor is also a limitation on production to reduce inflation. The claim is that income taxes pay for gov. services but this is just a stupid lie. A very well engineered lie which allows blanket assertions to be made without actual proof.

The credit and good faith of the American People is where the real swindle begins. Think of this like an egg. The credit is the yolk of the egg. The waste product of empty egg-shells is then turned into monetized debt. That tender note is a negative note of credit AKA M-debt. As a synthetic issuance of paper money it is of course fake. It is PRODUCED to be fake just like a plastic apple. The fake note has no substance of itself and must be measured in terms which are inflationary. People payed in fake notes are taxed on these notes as IF they are indeed money. The fed notes of course are not real money and that too is a swindle. A swindle on the substance and the measure of what was once a limited substitution for the substance in hand. A certificate for a specific amount of gold or silver was not a dollar. The dollar was the silver coin not the paper certificate. Disconnecting the two and demanding the paper version be treated as IF it were indeed as GOOD as a Real Dollar is of course what the actual crime is all about. Do you eat plastic apples with a bowl of egg-shells as your morning meal?

Meanwhile the Defense Dept, admitted 2.5 trillion in dollars terms has vanished from their books of accounting. A sum equal to a full year of tax revenue (note it is called revenue for a reason) has been lost and NOT one single investigator from any government agency besides the GOA is the least bit concerned about this loss including the IRS. Name one corporation which has revenue/income of 2.5 trillion in one year and can LOSE THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES OF ANY KIND!

Since the defense dept. did not shut down from this staggering loss of budget revenue nor lead to the financial destruction of the feds themselves, this proves beyond a shadow of doubt that THE revenue removed from the working class is clearly NOT required for government services.

You cannot spend what you did not collect period.

The FEDS spend the GOOD faith and credit which they steal from the American people by fiat and edict. Just like the gold and silver they stole it came from the people. Since they steal the real money they have no need for M-debt themselves. The waste product is served up to the people in a perfect mental conditional process: SALE SALE SALE. Yes that synthetic dollar will buy what-ever you want on the Market. And thus you believe it has value. However, it does not conserve value thus it must be consumed to have any value at all: Buy buy buy.

If credit represents that which has been spent as debt, the 2.5 trillion debt of the defense dept. is once again being added to the debt cycle. This compounding interest cycle IS forced on people who ironically had the initial CREDIT to create positive wealth, but not the wisdom to remove it from the black-hands of the dead-smiths who now spend the people into generational debt-poverty. After all, a tax on your productive potential is no different form breaking your knee-caps to ensure you cannot finish the race. The race of self-determination and survival.


I purposely avoided the securities/treasury aspect, but if anyone wants to tackle that section feel free. Just answer the question of why my deduction for tax does not directly buy the financial instruments from which my cash is to be created. IF the sole purpose is to pay for gov. services the gov. has taken the low road to hell to kiss the OLD Devils Ass. Must be a bankers wet dream come true to collect before, during and after service rendered into infinity, of which the people pay for every step.

Direct Income Taxation is just another form of enslavement. Every synthetic dollar is borrowed into existence. But people EARN positive value. Why are we paid in debt notes? I produce a basket of apples and you hand me an IOU NOTE from the Fed's ON which the word money is no-where to be found. I am taxed on how much money I earn and yet I have none. Only a slave can be taxed on his own labor, to his own harm on the absurd premise he owes the fed. gov. VIA the IRS a "share" a cut of his 'earning' a wage to be tendered, thus paid, in debt notes. A note of debt for positive production of wealth... is ass-backwards. Could it be If people were still being paid in real money said people would not need any gov. hand-outs, services, social---> securities and other crutches as excuses for the very defects of which the people suffer? Self-sufficient, independent people do not need central banks and the devils Hench-men to run them.

The fight against the IRS is not about fairness or money. It is a fight against the criminal syndicate which incorporated the gov. right into their back pockets and to use the people as a form of collateral for their wet dream of world-wide domination.

so what is going on

The sentencing is supposed to be this month. Has anyone heard anything else on what is going on?

mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2007/05/19/new-hampshire-tax-proteste​rs-in-stand-off-with-federal-marshals/

Jesus will have the last word, on putrid traiterous scum..

Good luck with that, Mr. FBI