Alex Jones Interviews Ed Brown
Tax Protester Exposes Federal Government Fraud
Ed Brown vows to "live free or die"
Infowars.net | January 25, 2007
Steve Watson & Alex jones
Alex Jones was joined on air yesterday ( MP3 ) by Ed Brown to discuss his ongoing case to fight charges of tax evasion. Mr Brown and his wife have not filed or paid federal income taxes since 1997, citing the fact that there is no law that stipulates American citizens have to pay income taxes. Prosecutors claim (based upon arbitrary figures provided by the IRS) that the couple "owes" $625,000 in taxes. A jury agreed in court on Thursday the 18th of January. Click here for more.
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
7:44 PM
2 Comments:
Ed Brown is a kook who believes in Illuminati and other crank theories, and who had a chance to make his case to the jury but chose not to. Really, he is a flaming example of how totally nuts the tax protestor movement is, why no credible person supports their kook theories, and why even Joe Banister admitted at his trial that the reason that he wasn't charged with tax evasion was that he had been paying his taxes all along.
PATTERN CRIMINAL
JURY INSTRUCTIONS
_______________
Chapter 1.00
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Committee Commentary 1.02
2005 Edition
The Committee made no change in the instruction.
A panel of the Sixth Circuit quoted paragraph (4) of this instruction and stated that it cured any confusing statements made by the district court during voir dire. United States v. Okeezie, 1993 WL 20997 at 4, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 1968 at 4 (6th Cir. 1993)(unpublished).
1991 Edition
The jurors have two main duties. First, they must determine from the evidence what the facts are. Second, they must take the law stated in the court's instructions, apply it to the facts and decide whether the facts prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. See Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 102-107, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895); Starr v. United States, 153 U.S. 614, 625, 14 S.Ct. 919, 923, 38 L.Ed. 841 (1894).
The jurors have the power to ignore the court's instructions and bring in a not guilty verdict contrary to the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138, 41 S.Ct. 53, 54, 65 L.Ed. 185 (1920).
But they should not be told by the court that they have this power.
United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013, 1021 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 832, 109 S.Ct. 89, 102 L.Ed.2d 65 (1988); United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 905, 104 S.Ct. 1683, 80 L.Ed.2d 157 (1984); United States v. Burkhart, 501 F.2d 993, 996-997 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 946, 95 S.Ct. 1326, 43 L.Ed.2d 424 (1975).
They should instead be told that it is their duty to accept and apply the law as given to them by the court. United States v. Avery, supra at 1027.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home