Sunday, January 21, 2007

Ed Brown IRS Standoff Exclusive Video

A Vermont lawyer and writer who has criticized the Bush administration in a well-researched book entitled “Christian Words, Un-Christian Actions: George W. Bush and the Desecration of Christianity in Modern America” ( grabbed a camera and traveled to New Hampshire to capture the full story of Mr. Brown and his supporters. The video is shot by his wife, and the couple is clearly not fearful of the Brown clan: further, they have been trusted by Mr. Brown to tell the story where other media are distrusted and excluded. This video powerfully explains what this is really all about, and why this standoff is likely the beginning of something much larger. Here's the google video link.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

They would have been better off leaving it raw. Looks like 3rd world, high school grade production but gets the word out I guess.
Thank you cause any and all could help.

5:26 PM  
Anonymous quatloos said...

Nuts videotaping nuts. Maybe you can get it onto YouTube with all the stupid teenager videos. About as important.

BTW, thanks Ed for spending another day in home self-detention!

6:24 PM  
Blogger said...

Thank you very much for the video. Excellent work. - dk

7:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is for quatloos:



Chapter 1.00


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 LEXIS 1968 at 4 (6th Cir. 1993)(unpublished).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.

11:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some of the contents may, but the video itself does not do any justice to the man. OMG..Its like a skit or joke. Let ED talk and leave your egos out the video! It was very hard sitting through watching these clowns.
Taking basic video editing classes mite help.
Leave it to the pros kids!

8:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ed Brown is legally correct and Judge McAuliffe should be held accountable for abusing his position as an entrusted servant to destroy the lives of those he is paid to serve--the Browns. There are numerous laws being broken here. In addition to the specifics of Title 26, the Constitution, and past contradicting Supreme Court rulings there is an overriding law, the "Void for Vagueness Doctrine", that is implemented to avert confusion and ambiguity. Every law student learns this in his first year. It states: void-for-vagueness doctrine : a doctrine requiring that a penal statute define a criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement
Note: Under the void-for-vagueness doctrine, a vague law is a violation of due process because the law does not provide fair warning of a prohibition and fails to set standards for enforcement that would govern the exercise of the police power (Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, 1996)

Reading court rulings, interviewing legal professionals, and discussing with “average men” reveals that no one is in agreement with exactly what the “income tax laws” say. Therefore the law nullifies it so no one will be injured. Let us all be just and civilized. Let’s enforce the laws we understand and eliminate the ones we don’t; which is the law.

12:29 PM  
Anonymous Martha said...

To Anonymous, who posted "Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions": GREAT JOB! Is this the name of a book? If not, from what book is this quote taken?

To Quatloose: It's obvious that you're IRS lackeys whose goal is to discredit the tax honesty movement. Any halfway intelligent person who reads your rants realizes very quickly that there is no substance to them. Your "arguments" are based solely on the "logic" of calling people names.

Again, to Anonymous: We are in debt to you for proving at least part of what Ed Brown has been claiming.

3:44 PM  
Anonymous Thomas Jefferson said...

To all readers~
'quatloos' is either VERY ignorant, or complicit in the insidious malfeasance of this corrupt & fascist government. Any 1/2 wit can see the beastly horns of ulterior motive rearing themselves from your proverbial (& very beastly) head, quatloos...

3:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Brown's argument based on legality of the IRS "laws" is unfortunately based on the same failed premises as Irwin Schiff's arguments (Schiff has begun serving a 43-year prison sentence for tax evasion and promoting thereof.)
If Mr. Brown wants to cut to the root of the problem, he must attack the philosophical premise of taxation: that taxation is immoral because it is stealing; it is forced labor, which is slavery.
Unfortunately, religion teaches people that that the individual is subservient to society, and that every man is his brother's keeper. This philosophical premise is the BASIS OF ALL TAXATION and the reason why it has gone without opposition for so long.
One need only make the American People aware that they've been duped by Alruism, which is used by government to keep the taxpaying sheep in line.
If Mr. Brown's final 15 minutes of fame before the flames of law enforcement erupt are to be used effectively, then he must stop wasting his time with useless "legal" arguments that have been shot down time and again in the courts, and use that valuable time instead to make people aware that taxation is fundamentally IMMORAL.
He has a rare opportunity to make a difference. Hopefully he will read these messages and see the truth in these words.

3:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Taxation, per se, is NOT immoral. It is necessary.

Taxation of one's labor IS fundamentally immoral, unnecessary, AND illegal.

Paying $0.55 per gallon of gasoline in order to pay for the roads on which that gasoline will be burnt as fuel is a perfectly logical, moral, and legitimate form of taxation. If you do not wish to pay the tax, then you can choose to not buy gasoline and not drive an automobile on the public roads. You can also choose a method of conveyance that does not use gasoline.

The purported legal ability to tax one's labor, at any percentage rate, means that government may lay claim up to and including 100% of one's labor, which is slavery. Since government only possesses powers delegated to it from the People, and since We, the People do not have the right or power to enslave one another, then the government does not have that power either, as there is nowhere it could have come from.

As for the legal arguments allegedly having been "shot down" in the courts, nothing is further from the truth.

The courts are more and more convicting people by NOT allowing them to argue the law in court at all. This is exactly how Irwin Schiff was convicted, and a host of others, and it is absolutely criminal that this is being done to people, whose sole argument IS the law.

By the way, look up names like Vernice Kuglin and Lloyd Long on the internet and you will see people who, when allowed to argue the law itself in court, prevailed and were found innocent.

Because cases like these prevailed, is exactly why IRS is now rigging the courts to prevent the law from being argued, and thus virtually guaranteeing a conviction, by what amounts to a directed verdict, where the judge tells the jury that they must just take his word for it that the defendant owed the tax. Juries hae even requested the judge to show them a copy of the law that says so, and the judge refused to show the jury the law, and essentially gave the jury no other choice than to find the defendant guilty, thus rendering a directed verdict. Such verdicts are nothing more than weak, lazy, and/or ignorant jurists rubber stamping the judge's pre-determined finding of guilt. The most blatant case of this judicial abuse was the railroading of Dick Simkanin, followed closely by similar treatment given to Irwin Schiff.

By the way, I do believe that Irwin is wrong about his "zero return" strategy, because you cannot file a return, and then later argue that hte Internal Revenue Code does not apply to you. If it does not apply to you, then why are you filing a tax return at all? The fact that you filed the return becomes prima facie evidence that you are subject to the tax, regardless of the dollar amount you write in on the form. Putting a zero amount on the form does not change that fact. Yo uare either a "taxpayer" top whom the law applies, or you are a "nontaxpayer" to whom it does not apply. you cannot straddle the fence. If you are a nontaxpayer, then you must behave accordingly or you give the government every reason to presume that you are subject to the IR Code, and liable for the tax.

Be that as it may, there is no possible legal or moral justification for Irwin Schiff to have to spend the rest of his life in prison, just because he is correct in that he does not owe the income tax by law, but is technically incorrect in how he goes about avoiding paying it. 42 years sentence is an outrage, especially considering how voluminous and what a morass the tax law is. Such confusion, even by someone like Schiff who has studied the law for so many years, is understandable. No one should be crucified for that, but they just wanted to make an example out of him to terrify the general population.

Make no mistake, it IS government sponsored domestic terrorism, plain and simple.

1:07 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home