Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Tax-evaders face sentencing

But Browns say they will not be in court

By Margot Sanger-Katz
Monitor staff

Ed and Elaine Brown could face more than seven and six years in prison each if the judge agrees with prosecutors' recommendations at the couple's sentencing hearings today in federal court.

The Browns were convicted in January of conspiring to defraud the government, conspiring to disguise large financial transactions and disguising large financial transactions to avoid reporting requirements. Elaine Brown, whose West Lebanon dental practice generated the couple's income, was also convicted of multiple counts of tax evasion and failure to withhold employment taxes.

At trial, the couple admitted that they did not pay any income taxes for more than 10 years, but they claimed that there was no law that made them liable for the taxes.

Read more here.


Blogger TrueLogic said...

The Browns are not liable to withold Federal income taces from their Employees, unless the IRS is willing to PAY the Browns to be a collection agent for them.

The Brown's Employees each have a right to claim exempt on their W-4 forms. The Employer as well as the IRS... Must Honor them.

Don't believe me?

Watch this entire video... and pay close attention to the last half.

Irwin Schiff

7:51 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

Title 28 (Code of Civil Procedure)
Section 3001 (Fed Debt Collection Procedures Act) says that:
Only U.S. Marshals can seize Property. They need a Court Order and A Writ of Attachment or a Writ of Garnishment to do so.

Sec 6331 of the IRC:
A Levy can only be signed and sent by the Secretary. Not the IRS... and Not any Agency. If there was no delegation of Authority directly from the Secretary... Then any Levy sent by the IRS or anyone else to Your Bank is unlawful, and void.

The notice of Levy they send to Your Bank starts with Para (b).


Because Paragraph (A) on the Notice of Levy specifically states that the Notice of Levy only applies to Officers or Elected Officials of the Federal or State Government. Therefore when Your Bank receives the Notice, Para (a) is left out of the Document, which ultimately tricks the Bank into thinking they MUST comply, and Turn over YOUR Money by writing the Government a Check.

This is Unlawful and Un American.

The Government can only seize Property already in it's possession.

Please watch the Video I've posted above. and as always, thanks for Your Time.

8:36 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

Ed and Elaine are not TAX-EVADERS as the Concord Monitor Claims...

They are in fact TAX-PAYERS, and always have been.

What they are not Liable for, and refusing to pay, is the INCOME TAX. Because it is Clearly shown in the Constitution, the Statutes, The Supreme Court Rulings on the 16th amendment, and even in the Internal Revenue Code itself... That They are NOT LIABLE.

The Laws also clearly show that American Citizens born and raised in this Country are NOT LIABLE for FICA! It is solely for Foreigners, and you should get every penny back!

The laws clearly show that No American is Obligated to furnish a Social Security Number as a prerequisite to Employment.

The laws clearly show that Americans have always had the right to claim EXEMPT, and that being a "STUDENT" has never been required in order to claim exempt! All that is required to claim exempt, is that You have no foreign income, are not a beneficiary, Officer, or Official of any Government Office, and that You are not a Corporation making certain Gains and Profit.

The work You do for your Employer is NOT a Profit... It is a even exchange!

When you put it in the Bank, and it earns interest... the Interest is then a profit... and is therefore taxable!


The Laws clearly show that most Employers are under no obligation to collect Taxes from employees on behalf of the IRS, because they have not filed the SS form Obligating them to do so... If the Employer has not filed this form, then they have every right to Charge the IRS a FEE for doing so. The IRS must PAY the employer for being a tax Collection agent. If they refuse... then so too can the Employer refuse to withhold.

9:12 PM  
Blogger YankeesPie said...

Would love to watch it but its not working as you posted it... Plz repost.
Thank you

10:26 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

here is the link again... point to the text of the Url I posted and left click 3 times. This will highlight the entire link, even the part of the link that runs off the page.

simply copy and past it into your browser after opening a new browser window or tab.

I am posting 2 source links for this video.

Thanks for the reply... God Bless.

Irwin Schiff


Irwin Schiff

12:45 AM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

if you find part one to this Irwin Schiff video, please let me know. thanks alot.

- Logic

12:46 AM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

Here's the 1st part of Irwin Schiff's Lecture.... I found it, I'm Sharing... So don't miss it!

These 2 Videos are worth Irwin's own weight in Gold!

Thanks again...
- Logic

Please remember to click 3 times on the url in order to copy the whole link to your browser.

Secrets_Income_Tax_Free Part 1

12:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The trial was absolutely void, because, 1.) they did not have qualified assistance-of-counsell from the first instance, 2.) they failed to complete the court, 3.)they lost jurisdiction as a result. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458.

They were not given ALL inculpatory and EXCULPATORY evidence, regardless of the circumstance. Strickler v. Greene.

They were denied their fundamental Constitutional Right of Allocution at sentencing. see, U.S. v. Custer, the Articles of War.

I could go on and on and on, but it was a phoney admiralty trial in which a judgment could not stand, with a de-facto jury in search of void law. You should read Zerbst but don't start a riot after.

9:44 AM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

Thanks ChiefSteve. It's a good Point. And one that cannot be argued.

9:18 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home