Sunday, February 18, 2007

Ed Brown blog searching for opponents

Site asks readers for names of naysayers

By Margot Sanger-Katz
Monitor staff
February 18. 2007 10:00AM

A website focused on the case of Ed Brown, a Plainfield man who has said he would rather die than submit to federal authority, has posted an open call for Brown's opponents to join the conversation.

The blog asks people who oppose Ed Brown's fight against federal income taxes to call and give recorded interviews to be published on the website. It also asks for readers to suggest "doctors, lawyers, the local sheriff (sic), police, firemen, mechanics, nurses, moms, dads, even children" who they believe to be Brown opponents, by sending the blogger the possible opponents' names, e-mail addresses and telephone numbers.

"We will be sure to have volunteers spend time to trace and track these individuals down," says the posting on the site Quest for Fair Trial in Concord, NH. "Once a connection is made we will offer them the opportunity to be interviewed on this blog by one of our volunteer coordinators."

The posting also encourages supporters of Brown to call in with their own accounts.

"Let's work together to find out 'WHO IS AGAINST ED AND ELAINE BROWN??!!' " the posting reads. "This is a great challenge!"

Read more here.


Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

Forgive me if I don't understand the logic in inviting opponents.

6:21 PM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

Spelling/grammar lesson:

Marshal is always a title, never a name.

Marshall is always a name, never a title.

It kills me to see people refer to U.S. Marshal and Fire Marshal and Provost Marshal and Court Martial and Martial Law and Martial Arts by ignorantly using the NAME (not TITLE) "Marshall."

6:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wasn't thrilled about that original post because it sounded a little like a threat. Guess I should have said something then but attacking a post just gives it more attention.

6:36 PM  
Blogger "Show Me The Law" said...

Ditto with you both!

6:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great article! Ed and his supporters sound crazier than ever. Go hunt down children, yeah!

7:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

FredMarshall1937 said...

Forgive me if I don't understand the logic in inviting opponents.
6:21 PM

Don't concern yourself with it Fred.
Dave Champion has been inviting opponents to talk for 4 years.

He got 1 and he never came back on the air just implied on his own web page that dave did't understand
statuary construction.

I would not hold my breath waiting for any of them to show up other than the one parrot that is already
posting in comments

7:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

G-men as in "Garbage"

8:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to ask myself, if I did't agree with a Blog, would I waste hours of my time just to harass them?

ans-Only if I was well payed for the job!!

8:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dave Champion was invited to debate at but he was too much of a coward to do it. Instead, he will only debate on his own radio show where he can mute the portions he doesn't like.

8:44 PM  

Thank you Margot for your coverage of QFFT!

10:35 PM  
Blogger Rose Lear said...

america: freedom to fascism said...
Thank you Margot for your coverage of QFFT!

Thank You indeed Margot, for now the abusers are really on the spot. They will now see the nasty language and threats that have been posted by government employees. These are paid hacks who do nothing but attack free speech blog site that are out her to tell the other side of the story.

They post comments like this one:

anonymous said...
Great article! Ed and his supporters sound crazier than ever. Go hunt down children, yeah!

Others were even worse describing sexual acts that Ed Brown will suffer in prison. Some try to convince everyone that the judges has the power to control the evidence and witness that the jury will see and hear. Even that the jury must accept the law as the judge gives it to be.

But there are two things that not one of these paid hacks will touch.

They won't give their name and they won't address the Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions right out of the courts handbook.



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.

11:43 PM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

Anonymous said...
"Dave Champion was invited to debate at but he was too much of a coward to do it. Instead, he will only debate on his own radio show where he can mute the portions he doesn't like."

Why would anyone bother with Quatloos, a government site, in the first place? What I have always wondered is whether those who come up with all these stupid government positions in making things seem to reflect the law actually believe what they are spewing, or if they are simply paid to find ways to dodge the real issues. And if they KNOW they are misrepresenting the truth, where does the government find these corrupt people to work for them?

No one can dispute the conclusions any prudent person MUST reach after going through the Data Mining of the Tax Code at The Code was never intended by Congress to apply to most Americans. It was intended by the Fed to be deceptively constructed so that it can be used to MISLEAD the American people. End of story.

12:58 AM  
Blogger Hellfireblogs said...

Hi. I'm against Ed brown. I e-mailed you at your gmail account yesterday. I'd be glad to debate anyone.

Rob Taylor

11:47 PM  
Blogger Hellfireblogs said...

Sorry, forgot to leave my info. Some of you already know me from my site I'm the "fag" "psyops dickweed" with contacts in the cia apparently), if you wanted to set up a phone interview use my contact for there and we'll set something up.

Again regards,
Rob Taylor

11:50 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home