Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Today's Ed Brown RBN Radio Show Now Posted Online

Ed Brown Under Siege

Today's Ed Brown RBN radio show now on-line at the RBN Radio Archives.

Listen to today's Ed Brown RBN Radio Show here.


Blogger Joey Smith said...


(Prior proceedings not transcribed.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Rivera.

I have considered all -- Mr. Rivera, remain there.


THE COURT: The Court is about to impose sentence.

I have considered all of the relevant 3553(a) factors in this case.

With respect to the nature and circumstances of this offense, it is criminal contempt of court in that Mr. Rivera violated an injunction.

I have made my findings and conclusions. Mr. Rivera's latest argument during allocution seems to re-address those concerns and those issues which we declined to do. Our findings and conclusions have been made on the record and they stand, and we disagree with what Mr. Rivera has just said.

This conduct involves his continuation to falsely advocate; and, in fact, to continue to receive money for doing so.

The false advocacy that somehow there is this frivolous notion that people cannot be convicted of tax crimes because no Federal District Court has jurisdiction over them, this is essentially a fraudulent behavior, albeit it is directed to a group that evidently is willing to pay to hear what they want to hear in their misguided opposition to the lawful tax laws of the United States.

I regard this as egregious behavior because the defendant knew of the requirements of this injunction but still deliberately and intentionally acted in violation of it and largely in order to get economic benefit from it.

The history and characteristics of this defendant shows that he is 63 years old, he has not accepted responsibility for his actions, and he is still trying to deflect responsibility with persistence in frivolous arguments.

Moreover, Mr. Rivera, your attempt to somehow wrap yourself in the patriotic flag of opposition is seriously misguided because, while we all have the right to dissent, none of us has the right to disobey the law or other lawful orders of the Court.

You are not being called to answer because you have a different view or a different idea of the lawfulness of the tax law. You are being called to answer because you chose to act in violation of a court order. That's not dissent. That is criminal conduct for which you now stand convicted and for which you will be sentenced.

Mr. Rivera has no prior record. He has had stable, consistent prior employment, at least until the time of his disbarment or thereabouts.

There is a need for the sentence imposed in this case to reflect the seriousness of this offense.

No doubt this is not the most serious of offenses. It did not involve violence, drug dealing or other physical acts. Nevertheless, I think it does a disservice to the entire system of justice and the administration of justice to characterize this somehow as a minor offense. It is never minor when a person, particularly a former attorney, flouts the orders of the Court.

So I regard this as serious in context because this act strikes at not only the tax system but also is an abuse of the system of justice by one who uses self-help.

If you disagreed with our injunction, you were privileged to appeal. And if you were right, the Court of Appeals would have reversed the injunction.

You were not privileged to use self-help to simply take the law into your own hands by violating the terms of the injunction and bypassing lawful processes, such as appeal, when you disagree. You did it for monetary gain, and that is a serious matter.

There is a need for the sentence imposed to promote respect for the law. This is much needed in this case because this whole offense shows that there is utter disrespect for the law, for the courts and for the justice system.

There is, of course, a need to provide just punishment for this offense and to afford adequate deterrence. Here, a prior court order, an injunction of the Court, was evidently insufficient to deter Mr. Rivera from acting in an unlawful manner and advocating actions that are obviously and patently a frivolous statement of the law.

A sanction that is commensurate with this violation is obviously needed to deter Mr. Rivera's future unlawful conduct.

But there is also a need for general deterrence because the word has to go out that the courts will not tolerate -- and the government will not tolerate -- this kind of frivolous behavior and a total disregard and flouting of the laws and the orders of the Court.

There is a need for the sentence imposed to protect the public from future crimes of the defendant.

Here, defendant's actions are essentially fraudulent acts which he knows or should know are frivolous and either is willfully taking advantage of others who, due to their own confused -- or their own refusal to abide by the tax system, blindly succumb to the defendant's manipulations; and unless a sentence is sufficient in this case, the defendant obviously will continue in these actions to the detriment of not only the courts, not only the government, but to others who will fall prey to his false statements.

MR. RIVERA: Your Honor, may I sit down? I have a hernia and I can't stand very long.

THE COURT: Yes. All right. Yes. Yes. You may sit down.

There is, in short, a significant danger the defendant will continue to defraud others, again violate the terms of the injunction which must be adequately addressed to cause him to cease such unlawful conduct.

As far as needed education, medical care or correctional treatment while in custody, those do not appear to be applicable.

The sentence available to the Court is up to six months in prison, plus a $500 fine, plus one year of supervised release.

Guidelines are not applicable because guidelines do not even apply to any sentences that are less than one year. In this case, we have circumscribed the maximum possible sentence to six months.

There are no other pertinent policy statements. I have considered the need to avoid any unwarranted sentencing disparities. The need to provide restitution to the victim in this case is not applicable at this time.

Having considered all of those factors, Mr. Rivera, the following is the sentence of the Court:

It is ordered that defendant shall pay the United States a total fine of $500. The fine shall be paid in full no later than one week after sentencing;

The defendant shall comply with general order 01-05;

It is ordered the defendant shall pay the United States a special assessment of $10 which is due immediately.

It is the judgment of the Court the defendant Eduardo Rivera is hereby committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of 60 days.

Upon release from imprisonment, defendant shall be placed on supervised released for a period of one year under the following terms and conditions:

One, defendant shall comply with the rules and regulations of the U.S. Probation Office in general or a 318;

Two, the defendant shall perform 400 hours of community service as directed by the probation officer;

Three, the defendant shall not be employed in any position that requires licensing and/or certification by any local, state or federal agency without the prior approval of the probation officer;

And, four, the defendant shall comply with this Court's permanent injunction issued in Case Number CV 03-2520-GHK.

The drug testing condition mandated by statute is suspended based upon the Court's determination that the defendant poses a low risk of future substance abuse.

Mr. Rivera, because you have appeared at all of the proceedings, I have no reason to believe that you will not be able to self-surrender; and, therefore, I'm going to allow you a certain period of time to get your affairs in order in order to self-surrender.

Do you think 30 days will be sufficient time for you to do that?


THE COURT: All right. Today is March 26. You will surrender yourself to the United States Marshal of this district by no later than noon on April 26, 2007 to begin your term of incarceration.

Do you understand that?

MR. RIVERA: Noon, April 26.

THE COURT: Noon, April 26, 2007.


THE COURT: All right. You have the right to appeal the sentence and the conviction in this case. If you wish to file a Notice of Appeal, you should do so in a. timely fashion which is ten days of today's date or the date in which judgment is entered.

I suggest that if you wish to have counsel represent you, you should go and look for counsel. If you can't afford to hire your own counsel, we will appoint a counsel or the Court of Appeals will appoint a counsel to represent you on appeal.

Do you understand that?

MR. RIVERA: I understand.

THE COURT: All right. Your bond currently will be exonerated upon your surrender to the United States Marshal by noon on April 26, 2007.

Anything further at this time on behalf of the United States?

MR. DAVIS: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. That's the order.

(Proceedings concluded at 11:28 a.m.)

9:52 PM  
Blogger Ryan Mann said...

no surprise, a federal judge supports the federal mofia.
IRS=federal mofia
IRS=federal mofia
IRS=federal mofia

12:46 AM  
Blogger TruePatriot said...

Here's a partial list of words in the Federal (in)Justice Lexicon:

1) UNConstitutional
2) Malfeasance
3) Subversion
4) Corruption
5) INjustice
6) Coercion
7) Treason

12:23 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home