Saturday, February 17, 2007

Hear Ye, Hear Ye!! We The People Want To Interview Anyone Who's Against Ed & Elaine Brown



It's now time for all men and women to come to the aid of their country, the republic of the United States of America!!

To begin and advance this effort, We The People of America - the true defenders of the Constitutional Republic - do hereby announce that we are establishing on a regular daily basis an opportunity for individuals who are AGAINST Ed and Elaine Brown to call in and voice their opinion openly in public on this blog.

We need volunteers who can identify anyone who is against Ed & Elaine Brown. All you need to do is provide us with a name, email address and telephone number and we will be sure to have volunteers spend time to trace and track these individuals down. Once a connection is made we will offer them the opportunity to be interviewed on this blog by one of our volunteer coordinators.

We believe Doug Kenline's idea of manning a 24 X 7 conference call that can be connected into this blogging network is FANATASTIC!! But We The People need your help!

The task is very simple:

PLEASE FIND ANYONE WHO IS AGAINST ED AND ELAINE BROWN AND GET THEM TO COMMIT TO BE INTERVIEWED ON THIS BLOG!!


It's that simple!!

Invite anyone and everyone you know!! Doctors, lawyers, the local sherriff, police, firemen, mechanics, nurses, moms, dads, even children!

We need your help! Let's be sure to invite all these individuals who are against Ed & Elaine Brown that post as "anonymous" on this blog and elsewhere. Let's work together to find out "WHO IS AGAINST ED AND ELAINE BROWN??!!" This is a great challenge! Let's all work together and be sure that the voice of these individuals is broadcasted worldwide for everyone to understand them so that mankind can benefit from the truth they have to offer others.

To expedite this process you can send your leads - please include names and telephone numbers - to this email address:

iamagainstedandelainebrown@gmail.com

Thanks for your help and support!!

Editor's Note: Let this be a great challenge! The race is on!! For we are going to keep interviewing sharing the voice of individuals who support Ed & Elaine Brown on a daily basis on this blog. If you support Ed and Elaine Brown and want to share your email address and number so we can interview you on this blog please send your message to:

iamforedandelainebrown@gmail.com

32 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's see, in addition to all the mainstream news writers who have ridiculed Ed Brown, you could probably get Pulitzer prize-winner David Cay Johnston, tax attorney Dan Evans who writes the tax protestor FAQ, tax attorney Bob Sommers of taxprophet.com, Jay Adkinson of quatloos.com, JJ McNabb of deathandtaxes.com, and a bunch of others. No shortage of highly successful people out there who think that tax protestors are total idiots.

11:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem isn't what the Supreme Court has ruled, the problem is what the IRS agents, DOJ and lower Courts ignore that the Supreme Court has ruled.

So what is it that you so dislike about Ed and Elaine Brown the most? That they threaten your $60,000 - $80,000 per year paycheck?


Internal Revenue Manual 4.10.72.9.8 (5-14-99)

1. “Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.”

“Certain Court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court Decisions have the same weight as the code.”

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916); 240 U.S. 1:
“…the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it…”

“…the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source…”

“…on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.”

This statement is quoted in IRS documents: “the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.” This is the statement that IRS literature uses to fraudulently deceive and coerce citizens into paying taxes not due. They fail to print the complete statement by the U.S. Supreme Court that plainly states that this is indeed an “erroneous assumption” and further evidence of fraudulent concealment of truth.

STANTON v BALTIC MINING CO., 240 US 103 (1916):
“Not being within the authority of the 16th Amendment, the tax is therefore, within the ruling of Pollock… a direct tax and void for want of compliance with the regulation of apportionment.”

“…it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation..”

“…it was settled in Stratton’s Independence… that such tax is not a tax upon property… but a true excise levied on the result of the business..”

BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926):
“The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have the power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power.”

PECK v. LOWE, 247 U.S. 165, 173 (1918)
“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects…”

DOYLE v. MITCHELL BROS., 247 U.S. 179, 183 (1918)
“An examination of these and other provisions of the Act (Sixteenth Amendment) make it plain that the legislative purpose was not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit upon the gainful returns from their business operations.”

EISNER v. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189, 205, 206 (1920)
“The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted. As respectfully held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects.”

EVANS v. GORE, 253 U.S. 245, 259 (1920)
“Does the Sixteenth Amendment authorize and support this tax and the attendant diminution; that is to say, does it bring within the taxing powers subjects theretofore excepted? The court below answered in the negative; and counsel for the government say; ‘It is not, in view of recent decisions, contended, that this amendment rendered anything taxable as income that was not so taxable before.”

Just as the issue of wages was settled in countless Supreme Court Decisions, the IRS chooses to look the other way. What the Supreme Court established in EVANS v. GORE was that not only did the 16th amendment NOT confer any new taxing powers to Congress to tax the American Citizen living and working within the United States of America, but it also acknowledged the definition of income as defined by the Supreme Court in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO.

In FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107, 144, 165 (1911), this is also stated:
“A reading of this portion of the statute (1909 Corporation tax Act) shows the purpose and design of Congress in its enactment and the subject-matter of its operation. It is at once apparent that its terms embrace corporations and joint stock companies or associations which are organized for profit, AND HAVE CAPITAL STOCK represented by shares. Such joint stock companies, while differing somewhat from corporations, have many of their attributes and enjoy many of their privileges…
It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable. Applying that doctrine to this case, the measure of taxation being the income of the corporation from all sources, as that is but the measure of a privilege tax within the lawful authority of Congress to impose, it is no valid objection that this measure includes, in part, at least, property which, as such, could not be directly taxed. See, in this connection, Maine v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 142 U.S. 217 , 35 L. ed. 994, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 807, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 121, 163, as interpreted in Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U.S. 217, 226 , 52 S. L. ed. 1031, 1037, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638.”

MERCHANT’S LOAN & TRUST CO. v SMIETANKA, 255 US 509, 519 (1921)
“There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word income must be given the same meaning as in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise tax Act, and what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court.”

BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926):
“Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise tax Act of 1909, in the 16th Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed.”

HELVERING v. EDISON BROS. STORES, 8 Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943):
"The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulation make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."

SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. v. LOWE, 247 U.S. 330, 335 (1918):
"We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government that all receipts, everything that comes in, are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income'. Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 than in that of 1909, and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts."

BUTCHER’S UNION v. CRESENT CITY CO., 111 US 746, 757 (1884):
“The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him.”

12:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some people who post Anonymous are not against Ed or Elaine...they may just want to remain covert warriors!

12:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The U.S. Supreme Court could overturn the convictions of tax protestors at any time, but has not done so. Plus, the most direct statement regarding tax protestors' various goofy arguments comes from the U.S. Supreme Court in the Cheek case where the U.S. Supreme Court stated that tax protestor argument are "surely frivolous".

12:22 PM  
Blogger AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM said...

Anonymous:

Please be sure to share the names and telephone numbers of all these folks who are against Ed and Elaine Brown by sending an email to this address:

iamagainstedandelainebrown@gmail.com

And we would like to urge you, if you really feel confident, to share your name and number so we can be sure to get in touch with you!

Thanks for helping out in this great cause!

12:25 PM  
Blogger AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM said...

Anonymous:

Please be sure to share your leads using this email address:

iamagainstedandelainebrown@gmail.com

Be sure to leave a telephone number where we can contact all these folks!!

Thank you so much for stepping up to help in this great cause!!

12:33 PM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

DOJ out of Potomoc, Maryland is on now. WOW, they must be dedicated to be working on this on Saturday.

12:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You cite the Supreme Court cases as if they support your proposition. Have you actually RTFC(s). The holdings do not support your contentions. They say that the US had the right before the 16th to tax. In at least one case, you are not even citing the majoirty opinion.

Furthermore, if the SC says that income taxes are unconstitutional, why are they not held to be so by the courts? I'm sure all the government got together to orchestrate some big conspiracy, how else could this occur unless...hmm unless TAXES ARE HELD CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE COURTS. You can disagree all you want but to pull words out of the cases that only support your contention when out of context to mislead others is just wrong.

1:05 PM  
Blogger CRAIG said...

So what part of these Supreme Court decisions don't you comprehend?

BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926):
“Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise tax Act of 1909, in the 16th Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed.”

HELVERING v. EDISON BROS. STORES, 8 Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943):
"The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulation make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."

SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. v. LOWE, 247 U.S. 330, 335 (1918):
"We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government that all receipts, everything that comes in, are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income'. Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 than in that of 1909, and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts."

1:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most of us know that only employees can be levied on. It is exactly these definitions that produced our questions to government and the class action against the gov.

1:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What parts of "surely frivolous" or "convictions affirmed" or "cert. denied" don't you understand?

You quote out-of-context portions of Supreme Court opinions without focusing on the true reasoning or most importantly the result of those cases: No tax protestor has EVER avoided liability for taxes and the Supreme Court has never reversed the conviction of any tax protestor based on tax protestor arguments.

That is the cold hard truth. You can ask that of Lynne Meredith or any number of tax protestors sitting in jail RIGHT NOW who appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and got the thumbs down. Of course, you'll have to visit them on Saturday mornings only.

1:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.


122 S.Ct. 1864, 152 L.Ed.2d 962, 2002.SCT.0000098 , 70 USLW 4464, 2002 A.M.C. 1372

[51]
In another case asking whether an immunity present in the judicial context also applied to administrative adjudications, this Court considered whether administrative law judges share the same absolute immunity from suit as do Article III judges. See Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478 (1978). Examining in that case the duties performed by an ALJ, this Court observed:

[52]
"There can be little doubt that the role of the modern federal hearing examiner or administrative law judge ... is `functionally comparable' to that of a judge. His powers are often, if not generally, comparable to those of a trial judge: He may issue subpoenas, rule on proffers of evidence, regulate the course of the hearing, and make or recommend decisions. More importantly, the process of agency adjudication is currently structured so as to assure that the hearing examiner exercises his independent judgment on the evidence before him, free from pressures by the parties or other officials within the agency." Id., at 513 (citation omitted).

[53]
Beyond the similarities between the role of an ALJ and that of a trial judge, this Court also noted the numerous common features shared by administrative adjudications and judicial proceedings:

[54]
"[F]ederal administrative law requires that agency adjudication contain many of the same safeguards as are available in the judicial process. The proceedings are adversary in nature. They are conducted before a trier of fact insulated from political influence. A party is entitled to present his case by oral or documentary evidence, and the transcript of testimony and exhibits together with the pleadings constitutes the exclusive record for decision. The parties are entitled to know the findings and conclusions on all of the issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record." Ibid. (citations omitted).

[55]
This Court therefore concluded in Butz that administrative law judges were "entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability for their judicial acts." Id., at 514.

[56]
Turning to FMC adjudications specifically, neither the Commission nor the United States disputes the Court of Appeals' characterization below that such a proceeding "walks, talks, and squawks very much like a lawsuit." 243 F. 3d, at 174. Nor do they deny that the similarities identified in Butz between administrative adjudications and trial court proceedings are present here. See 46 CFR §502.142 (2001).

[57]
A review of the FMC's Rules of Practice and Procedure confirms that FMC administrative proceedings bear a remarkably strong resemblance to civil litigation in federal courts. For example, the FMC's Rules governing pleadings are quite similar to those found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A case is commenced by the filing of a complaint. See 46 CFR §502.61 (2001); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 3. The defendant then must file an answer, generally within 20 days of the date of service of the complaint, see §502.64(a); Rule 12(a)(1), and may also file a motion to dismiss, see §502.227(b)(1); Rule 12(b). A defendant is also allowed to file counterclaims against the plaintiff. See §502.64(d); Rule 13. If a defendant fails to respond to a complaint, default judgment may be entered on behalf of the plaintiff. See §502.64(b); Rule 55. Intervention is also allowed. See §502.72; Rule 24.

[58]
Likewise, discovery in FMC adjudications largely mirrors discovery in federal civil litigation. See 46 U. S. C. App. §1711(a)(1) (1994 ed.) (instructing that in FMC adjudicatory proceedings "discovery procedures ... to the extent practicable, shall be in conformity with the rules applicable in civil proceedings in the district courts of the United States"). In both types of proceedings, parties may conduct depositions, see, e.g., 46 CFR §502.202 (2001); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 28, which are governed by similar requirements. Compare §§502.202, 502.203, and 502.204, with Rules 28, 29, 30, and 31. Parties may also discover evidence by: (1) serving written interrogatories, see §502.205; Rule 33; (2) requesting that another party either produce documents, see §502.206(a)(1); Rule 34(a)(1), or allow entry on that party's property for the purpose of inspecting the property or designated objects thereon, §502.206(a)(2); Rule 34(a)(2); and (3) submitting requests for admissions, §502.207; Rule 36. And a party failing to obey discovery orders in either type of proceeding is subject to a variety of sanctions, including the entry of default judgment. See §502.210(a); Rule 37(b)(2).

[59]
Not only are discovery procedures virtually indistinguishable, but the role of the ALJ, the impartial officer *fn9 designated to hear a case, see §502.147, is similar to that of an Article III judge. An ALJ has the authority to "arrange and give notice of hearing." Ibid. At that hearing, he may

[60]
"prescribe the order in which evidence shall be presented; dispose of procedural requests or similar matters; hear and rule upon motions; administer oaths and affirmations; examine witnesses; direct witnesses to testify or produce evidence available to them which will aid in the determination of any question of fact in issue; rule upon offers of proof ... and dispose of any other matter that normally and properly arises in the course of proceedings." Ibid.

[61]
The ALJ also fixes "the time and manner of filing briefs," §502.221(a), which contain findings of fact as well as legal argument, see §502.221(d)(1). After the submission of these briefs, the ALJ issues a decision that includes "a statement of findings and conclusions, as well as the reasons or basis therefor, upon all the material issues presented on the record, and the appropriate rule, order, section, relief, or denial thereof." §502.223. Such relief may include an order directing the payment of reparations to an aggrieved party. See 46 U. S. C. App. §1710(g) (1994 ed., Supp. V); 46 CFR §502.251 (2001). The ALJ's ruling subsequently becomes the final decision of the FMC unless a party, by filing exceptions, appeals to the Commission or the Commission decides to review the ALJ's decision "on its own initiative." §502.227(a)(3). In cases where a complainant obtains reparations, an ALJ may also require the losing party to pay the prevailing party's attorney's fees. See 46 U. S. C. App. §1710(g); 46 CFR §502.254 (2001).

[62]
In short, the similarities between FMC proceedings and civil litigation are overwhelming. In fact, to the extent that situations arise in the course of FMC adjudications "which are not covered by a specific Commission rule," the FMC's own Rules of Practice and Procedure specifically provide that "the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be followed to the extent that they are consistent with sound administrative practice."*fn10 §502.12.

1:24 PM  
Blogger Tyler said...

Question, is the We The People foundation anti-Ed Brown, OR are they merely giving a fair and balanced platform so that all people have a voice in this debate?

1:28 PM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

Anonymous said...
The U.S. Supreme Court could overturn the convictions of tax protestors at any time, but has not done so. Plus, the most direct statement regarding tax protestors' various goofy arguments comes from the U.S. Supreme Court in the Cheek case where the U.S. Supreme Court stated that tax protestor argument are "surely frivolous".

12:22 PM

Why don't you post the pertinent part of Cheek in its proper context? Could it be because it doesn't say what you claim it says?

1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Why don't you post the pertinent part of Cheek in its proper context? Could it be because it doesn't say what you claim it says?"

I'm sure that wasn't his/her intent. Trying to take your monopoly on out-of-context quoting of judicial opinions is a job far too great for just one anonymous poster.

2:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ok you cite:
HELVERING v. EDISON BROS. STORES, 8 Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943):
"The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulation make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."

What do you think this says? It certainly doesn't mean what you imply. Do you even know what a treasury regulation is? Guess what, the court is stating common knowledge...interpretive treasury regulations are NOT LAW. It is only the treasury's position on how the code it refers to should be applied.

Now, the statement is out of context anyway. It really means nothing. Let's look at the NEXT SENTENCE in the opinion?

"But Congress, in defining gross income in the various revenue acts, manifested its intention to use to its fullest extent the power granted it by the Sixteenth Amendment....The meaning of the word ‘income‘ in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the acts of Congress pursuant to the Amendment is that given it in common speech and every day usage.".

I would ask you what part of the Supreme Court cases YOU don't comprehend, but I already know the answer-

2:34 PM  
Anonymous V said...

So why not argue your position in front of a jury? Lets let the jury decide as it should be done and not the corrupt judges.

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.

2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd like to report Douglas Kenline, Fred Smart, Bob Schulz, and John Kotmair as being anti-Ed Brown.

2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

V said...
So why not argue your position in front of a jury? Lets let the jury decide as it should be done and not the corrupt judges.

What the heck are you talking about? Who has been denied the right to a jury trial. If you understand whatever it is you quoted, the jury decides the facts and applies it to the LAW given to it by THE COURT. (in its instructions)

Just crying a corrupt judge means nothing. Apparantly you believe every judge is corrupt, separation of powers is dead, and you are a slave. Move to Canada, I hear its nice there this time of year.

The Brown's had the opportunity to argue their case in front of a jury and LOST. They couldn't present evidence about the constitutionality of tax laws to the jury because the JUDGE decides questions of LAW, the JURY questions of FACT. Why? Well it has always worked that way and because jurors are not lawyers. If the law wasn't given correctly to the jury it will be overturned on appeal.

3:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well it has always worked that way and because jurors are not lawyers."

Don't forget that Eddie and his hottie wife Elaine aren't lawyers either. That's maybe why they lost. Oh, and also the bullshit argument. That too.

3:22 PM  
Anonymous V said...

Shame, Shame. Such language. Always when you can't define what "IS is" you resort to nasty language.

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.

3:52 PM  
Blogger Thurston said...

anonymous IRS agent.

First...

Your post only shows the rank and gross prejudice of the the court because as you say, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed convictions, by not hearing appeals to it.

This is a violation of the Constitution since the U.S. entered into an international treaty that requires the U.S. Government to give due process of law to those with grievances against the government, including the Courts (Wolfgram's Summer 200 Law Review Article as posted at givemeliberty.org).

Your comment has played directly into our hands as we know the lower courts are ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court’s rules and instructions as the law of the land and instructions to all lower courts.

This is the application of the Logic of War (Wolfgram, Summer 2000) to the governance of the People by the Courts.

It is Treason Sir. Any you are aiding an abetting.


Second...

The only thing you are right about concerning legal scholars is that they will not hear anything. Their technology, art, thought process is DEAD in academia.

Five years ago I met with Professor Robert Nassau, Head of the Tax Law Department of the University of Syracuse who was lauded as the greatest mind in Tax Law in the State of New York, and an Expert on Foreign Tax Law.

He said he was an expert on 861 and claimed that it only applied to Foreign Source income because of the Title of Subchapter N of the Code.

I showed him 26 USC 7806(b) (construction of statute) that nullifies the Title, heading, or mere location of any law to be of legal significance or effect, in that the words in the law indicate what the law means and nothing was to be inferred by said titles, headings, and construction.

Then he said that the law did not apply to U.S. Citizens.

So, I showed him the 4 cases cited in the IRS publication against 861 and how each of those cases were decided by the court that the law applied to U.S. Citizens.

Then I showed him the 3 where the Courts decided that the law did not apply. (All of these provided to the public by the IRS now.)

Proving the public claims of the IRS to be ambiguous at best he agreed to allow me to SHOW HIM THE LAW as the facts that would determine the truth of it substance and applicability to U.S. Citizens.

I showed him where U.S. Citizens are mentioned no less than 5 times in the statutes and the regulations.

He then claimed that the regulations were not law.

Then I handed him the Chevron case from 1995 where the U.S. Tax Court used U.S. v. Correll (U.S. Supreme Court) to state in an 861 case that since the regulations have remained unchanged for over 80 years that they have the full force and effect of law.

He then argued that the exemption provision of 861 and its regulations only applied to U.S. Citizens if they had gross income from foreign sources.

I excitedly requested that he point that out to me in the law so I could take my correction and could immediately communicate to all of the NITE members to place $20 in interest bearing Canadian bank accounts so that we could claim the taxable foreign interest and then claim applicability of the exemption provision of the regulations, and that I would appreciate a letter to that extent, as I had used a search engine on the entire Code and the regulations and could not find a pre-requisite that 861 determinations and application of exempt income definitions therein depended solely on a preliminary determination of foreign earned income under 862.

(In my research since then this by the way might have been the closest thing to the truth that Professor Robert Nassau had to say about the law, but I was not about to project any legal conclusions upon theories of jurisdiction. My effort was to presume jurisdiction and then reveal the law.)

His response to that request was that he would give no such letter. That 861 did not apply to U.S. Citizens. I asked him to explain how he reached his conclusion in light of the facts of the construction of the law as it had stood for over 80 years.

He said he would not.

I asked why not.

He said because I would not listen to him.

I told him I flew here from central PA, am under Federal prosecution against my speech, and have lost my family over this, I want the proof and I am willing to be proven wrong, otherwise I would not have braved his presence.

He wished me well in court and got up and left the room.

The ruling against me stated that section 861 applied to U.S. Citizens, and that my claim that the exemption provision being applied to U.S. Citizens, in violation of multiple requirements and instructions of lower courts by the U.S. Supreme Court, was to be enjoined for false speech.

The 3rd Circuit refused to address the issue of the correctness of my speech and violated multiple requirements and instructions of lower courts by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yes, I was enjoined for speech agreeing with the IRS, and the shining experts of Academia are afraid to talk about the what the law actually says.

This is proof of the corruption and intellectual putrefaction of the institutions of America and the United States of America, to the point that there is no Rule of Logic or reason. Only Caprice and FORCE, the Logic of War that Wolfgram wrote of.

Third...

No legitimate organization will take the case because they have known for over 21 years since the publication of the Law review articles of Shaw in 1986 and Wolfgram on 2000, that the Courts are corrupt and are at War against the People and their Laws as enacted by the symbol of their consent in the Congress.

Their refusal to defend is no more legitimate than the refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Judicail Petitions for Redress, in violation of International Law (Wolfgram).

They are scared of the corrupt courts, and they are terrified to tell the people the true condition of the law in this Land.

They are collective cowards like Professor Robert Nassau.

They are intellectually dishonest and delusional as they live in their denial of the ugly painful truth of their hypocrisy.

We have torn the veil of legitimacy off of the Executive, the Courts, the U.S. Supreme Court who is made politically irrelevant on everything since the lower Courts ignore its edicts by case law (and by the way has no power to enforce its rulings), and academia for its best and brightest running from the room in my face as I SHOWED HIM THE LAW.

Thus your position on legitimacy is gone, and has played into our hands for us to show the world that there is no institution looking out for the People telling the truth, for Academia, the DOJ, the Judges, the IRS, and Rights protecting NGO's all run from any discussion of the actual words of the law.


Fourth...

The DOJ, in the case against me where the Court stated that section 861 applied to U.S. Citizens and thus enjoined me for telling people that 861 applied to U.S. Citizens, said my position was "frivolous because it is frivolous".

The court disagreed with the DOJ, agreed with me that 861 applied to citizens, but enjoined me.

In US v. J.B. Kotmair and SAPF the court took that ruling against me in the PA and applied its reasoning practically word for word to the Defendants. even though there was no record that either defendant promoted application of 861 to Member's cases to teh IRS, and had 10 years previously been determined to be a First Amendment organization, not a Tax Shelter and thus its nature was res judicata.

Watch the 4th Circuit who has already read that judge the riot act.

Who is WORNG?

The Courts, the Executive, Academia for not protecting the minds of the people and forcing the issue of the construction and words of the law, and YOU anonymous IRS Agent.

Also who is WRONG, are the people who seek to have the Rule of the Law of the People to govern this land and make their Government that Rules by their Consent to be accountable, for their fate was to be born onto the WRONG side of anonymous IRS Agent's Law of the Jungle.


Actually, the subjective notion of who is WRONG is now in flux. The pendulum is clearing center line.

The media has now reported and acknowledged the pattern jury instructions in GA, the Right to make the defense of your choice in Watada, and the denial of due process by the suppression of witnesses and exculpatory evidence in Border Guard cases.

The media now acknowledges the corruption before the WORLD.

The legal profession has been publishing on it for over 21 years as shown at http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/InfoCenter.htm.

The only people who are WRONG and HATE America are the groups I have listed in the sixth paragraph of the Third point above, and includes the U.S. Department of Justice, and you Mr. anonymous IRS agent.

You are part of the group applying the logic of war (Wolfgram Law Review Article, 2000) to the due process of the people, and seek to obfuscate the facts of the law and the court rulings from the people.

Your lot is responsible for more pain, suffering, death, terror, and destruction than a thousand 911's for your lot terrifies the people from their duty and Birth Right to control their government and enforce its accountability in every way.

Your lot is the enemy of the Republic for you have proved your Logic of War against the letter of the Law of the People.

The injustice is so RANK and Gross that there is no way that our foreign enemies can hate us because we are free. They HATE our government because YOU are WRONG, EVIL, TREACHEROUS, and INIQUITOUS. (Wolfgram 2000)

Yes Wolfgram predicted what would happen to me as it has been going on for a long time. He predicted domestic terrorism would lead to foreign terrorist against America because we have no recourse.

Before the IRS came after me for my speech, I filed suit against the IRS on September 10, 2001, the planes hit on September 11, 2001.

I did not read Wolfgram's Article until December 2006.

You are the disease anonymous Agent.

3:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, Tinker Bell, if 861 is right then why didn't YOU argue it in defense of the DOJ's injunction against you and take the argument up to the U.S. Supreme Court?

Oh, because 861 is a big joke and everybody knows it is a big joke, including the U.S. Supreme Court, that's why.

Instead, you rolled over for the DOJ like a wet dog begging for a treat and started selling used cars instead.

4:08 PM  
Blogger AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM said...

"Anonymous" Enemy Of We The People:

Please reveal who you are. Seize the power. Here's the email address:

iamagainstedandelainebrown@gmail.com

Come into the light.

You can do it!!

4:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Enemy Of We The People"

Oh I wouldn't say we're against the people, just ignorant idiots. Don't you have some bugs to be spraying or some other intellectually stimulating occupation to tend to?

Your afternoon dump break is probably over soon...better clock back in before the boss finds 'ya!

5:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You guys do know that you can turn off the anonymous commenting, right? I realize it would take 5 of you to figure it out and at least 20 test posts to make sure you got it right, but if you really dislike the people lurking in the shadows, it might be worth investigating.

6:06 PM  
Blogger Ryan Mann said...

Anonymous said:
The Brown's had the opportunity to argue their case in front of a jury and LOST. They couldn't present evidence about the constitutionality of tax laws to the jury because the JUDGE decides questions of LAW, the JURY questions of FACT. Why? Well it has always worked that way and because jurors are not lawyers.
Basically, "Anonymous" is saying that jurors don't have the right to decide whether a law is right or wrong because they are not part of the legal cult. Basically, jurors should be robots.

8:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to ask myself, If I didn't agree with a blog, would I waste hours of my own time just to harass them?

Ans...Only if I was well paid for the job.....

8:25 PM  
Blogger New SOL said...

"G"-man, take a look at the Pollock v. Farmers rehearing:

'The stress of the argument is thrown, however, on the assertion that an income tax is not a property tax at all; that it is not a real-estate tax, or a crop tax, or a bond tax; that it is an assessment upon the taxpayer on account of his money-spending power, as shown by his revenue for the year preceding the assessment; that rents received, crops harvested, interest collected, have lost all connection with their origin, and, although once not taxable, have become transmuted, in their new form, into taxable subject-matter,-in other words, that income is taxable, irrespective of the source from whence it is derived.'

Sound famillar "G"-man?

'Where did Mr. Hamilton stand?
In the thirtieth number of the Federalist, : 'The taxes, intended to be comprised under the general denomination of internal taxes may be subdivided into those of the direct and those of the indirect kind. ... As to the latter, by which must be understood duties and excises on articles of consumption, one is at a loss to conceive what can be the nature of the difficulties apprehended.'

'An 'excise' duty is an inland impost, levied upon articles of manufacture or sale, and also upon licenses to pursue certain trades or to deal in certain commodities.'...In the constitution, the words 'duties, imposts, and excises' are put in antithesis to direct taxes...And Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution (section 952), expresses the view that it is not unreasonable to presume that the word 'duties' was used as equivalent to 'customs' or 'imposts' by the framers of the constitution, since in other clauses it was provided that 'no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state,' and that 'no state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws'

'We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. But this is not such an act...Being invalid as to the greater part, and falling, as the tax would, if any part were held valid, in a direction which could not have been contemplated, except in connection with the taxation considered as an entirety, we are constrained to conclude that sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act, which became a law, without the signature of the president, on August 28, 1894, are wholly inoperative and void.'

You "G" people are really creative when it comes to definitions;

"G" = Gestapo
man = agent

9:43 PM  
Blogger "Show Me The Law" said...

Ed & Elaine are monument to what our founding fathers meant when they created the Constitution. They put a face to what the creators of the Constitution meant by "We the People". It's truly amazing that so many choose to ignore what is happening to our country. My husband says to me why do you waste your time with all these things, He Said even if I want to believe in half of what you claim; you know there's nothing any of us can do! Being an optimist I believe we can if we stand together. I told him; look at what they did to the Jews; I don't want to be a sheep lead to slaughter, to go willingly without a dang good fight.

Our leaders are allowing Illegal immigrants into our Country for several reasons, not the least of which is it gives them power. The more people they can get to be dependent on the government the more powerful they become. The real sad part is that within the next ten or fifteen years we the people will become the minority. Who will fight for our rights then? Their own country wasn't worth the effort to fight for, why would they fight here?

Pres. Bush has given 7000 Iraqi's visas to America.... So now we will be importing the Shiites and Sunnis so they can bring their fight here on our land.

Don't misunderstand me... I have nothing against legal immigrants.... after all they helped build our Great Nation we have today... the immigrants brought their cultures, most for the betterment of man kind... But its got to make you wonder what culture Islam has to offer other than a fanatical religion and war. We have to start looking at the broader picture Folks.. The excuse of not having enough time is over, because if you don't start seeing things for what they truly are it will be too late, for us, our children, and grandchildren...

YankeesPie

8:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Basically, "Anonymous" is saying that jurors don't have the right to decide whether a law is right or wrong because they are not part of the legal cult.

Umm, no. What I am saying is that it is not the job of the jury to decide whether a law is right or wrong. And just because it may be said that they can disregard the law, doesn't mean it's their job. It does not follow that they can hear arguments on the law just because they have the right to disregard the law as the judge gives it. disclaimer: i'm not really sure that the jury has this right but assume it is correct for this arg.

11:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You seek to track down people who disagree? Does this not reek of intimidation? You want to find out their phone number and then, from that, their address? I smell both a rat and a hypocrite. Imagine Mr. Brown's chagrin if the courts called him to "interview." This reeks on intimidation and should be discontinued, even if the intentions are good.

11:40 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

 

SITEMETER