Thursday, August 09, 2007

Louisiana lawyer beats tax charges; worries for Browns

If he could go back in time, Ed Brown says he wouldn't change his legal strategy, even after learning about a Louisiana lawyer who defeated similar tax evasion charges last month.

Brown, who claims Freemasons are conspiring to control the world, said Shreveport, La., attorney Tom Cryer won his case because he's a member of that group.

"Of course he won his case," Brown said. "He's one of the boys."

A federal jury acquitted Cryer on July 11 on two counts of willful failure to file a tax return. Cryer convinced jurors that he genuinely believed he was not liable for the $73,000 in taxes the government says he owes for tax years 2000 and 2001. Absent proof of criminal intent, the jury acquitted him.

Read more here.


Blogger Tyler Moore said...

Edward, damn you! He was acquitted by a jury! What, are all the jury members were "Freemasons"?

This is why Ed looses friends...

1:00 PM  
Blogger Scott C. Haley said...

I have to agree...wholeheartedly.

This entire "Freemason-Illuminati-Grand Conspiracy That Goes Back to Egypt" (!) issue is believed to be true by a TINY PORTION of the entire Liberty Movement---or Restore the Republic, or whatever name you wish to call us.

That's fine...folks like Ed have every right to believe whatever they wish.

The problem is twofold:
1. evidence supposedly supporting the Grand Conspiracy is meager at best, and imagined at worst; and more importantly,
2. people tend to view all of us in this Movement as believers in these unproven allegations...and thus we are seen as the "tin-foil hat brigade"...and our efforts at educating people relative to the Republic are dismissed out-of-hand.

To those who may feel compelled to inundate us with "evidence", PLEASE don't. I've seen it all over a period of forty or so years. It doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny. To paraphrase, it's under the "color of evidence".

To the majority in this Movement, I would urge you to politely challenge these "Illuminati"-type claims whenever they are publicly promoted. If we don't do that, this Movement will lose all credibility in the eyes of the people we're trying to wake up.

[I suppose now I'll be accused of either being ignorant, or of being one of the "conspirators".]

So, those of you in that tiny minority...I beg of you, take a break relative to publicly promoting unproven allegations of the "Illuminati Conspiracy"---no one else is buying it, and you shouldn't be selling it, that is, if you really are interested in restoring our Republic. We don't need that kind of publicity.


3:28 PM  
Blogger Scott C. Haley said...


I should add that my comments (above) relative to Ed are based upon an assumption that may not be correct: that is, his quote was in context. In other words, he actually did claim what the source said he claimed.

Admittedly, I don't know that for a fact.

Notwithstanding the above, I affirm everything that I stated relative to the "Grand Conspiracy". Even if Ed's comment was taken out of context, it is still true that anyone who publicly promotes the "Conspiracy" is HURTING this Movement, and that person does not represent the overwhelming majority of us.

3:43 PM  
Blogger Tuva or bust said...

There is no conspiracy or urban legend so absurd that Ed won't believe in it. Ed is Ed's worst enemy.

4:31 PM  
Blogger Tyler Moore said...

Thank you, Scott.

I'm a fierce rationalist, and thus I have a hard time believing every terrorist attack, every war, every shooting, bridge collapse is the work of the government controlled by some ultra-rich "Illuminati".

Could it be possible that some Muslim gets ticked off by America's foreign polices and goes and packs a Ryder truck with fertilizer and blows a building up?

Could it be that some college kid goes off the deep end with a couple Glocks, rather than a sinister plot by the NWO with mind control nanobots gleaned from Alien technology?

Could it be that uniquely designed steel buildings might have structural faults that aren't that conducive to having two-hundred and forty tons worth flying bombs slammed into them at the speed of sound and might.. You know, fall over?

4:37 PM  
Blogger TruePatriot said...

Tom Cryer fought the good fight & won, not only for himself, but for We The People...

As far as the government being involved w/every attack & war... well, suffice it to say 9/11 WAS an "Inside Job." Not only is the evidence irrefutable, but the government's complicity, in outright blocking a proper investigation is proof!

Lastly, to Mr. Tyler Moore- the planes were NOT traveling @ the speed of sound & the mass, which impacted the Twin Towers, was NOT flying bombs. Moreover, Building #7 was NOT hit by anything & any 1/2 wit layman should be able to see that IT WAS DEMOLISHED. Nevermind the fact that Larry Silverstein, the guy who JUST took out a record insurance policy on the whole WTC complex (immediately after signing the 99 year lease), ADMITTED in a PBS interview, that he gave the order to "pull the building." That term means fire the explosives to pull/drop the building. Here's the link:

9:37 PM  
Blogger Tyler Moore said...

I've said it before, so let me say it again.

An inside job is SO USS Maine and passée. Outsourcing the job to FTOs is the 'cool' thing to do...

The velocities involved in the aircraft were within fifty miles an hour of the sound barrier. It's normal cruise speed is .80 Mach. A 757 carries nearly twelve thousand gallons of fuel and weights nearly 250,000 lbs. That's a flying bomb. WTC 5 was hit back the top of (I think it was) the south tower and knocked in one side of it.

Pull also refers to "pulling out". With as much fire as was in the building, and primer cord would have ignited and set off any explosives.

And do you know how hard it is to wire a building with explosives? It's not something you just do. We're talking a office complex with tens of thousands of people.

As well, why do controlled demolitions? Why not just hit them with aircraft and let them do their thing?


7:47 AM  
Blogger TruePatriot said...

Building # 7... touché!!!

12:01 PM  
Blogger Tyler Moore said...

As, I said, building seven was hit by falling debris from the south tower.

The damage and fire were considerable, however I will concede that it did fall rather unusually. Most buildings that collapse by fire, collapse one part at a time, but also remember, the WTC Complex was built with an experimental form of construction. There was a lot ridding on each support beam. The failure of one beam, weakens the next and if several go within a few minutes, it can start a rapid chain reaction.

It's not everyday you have 757s plow their way into high rises and then have those building fall on other buildings... It just doesn't happen everyday, and from my memory has only happened once to a steel framed building.

4:55 PM  
Blogger Tyler Moore said...

Ooooh, sorry. I said WTC Five, I meant #7...

4:59 PM  
Blogger Scott C. Haley said...


As a scientist (now retired) in the field of Hazardous Materials, I would ask you to please consider the following.

1. No definitive conclusion can be drawn about the events of 9-11 until ALL evidence has been released to the public, and in particular, to INDEPENDENT investigators. Thousands of pieces of evidence have yet to be released...among others, over 6,000 private photographs alone, seized on the various scenes, and numerous video recordings of the crashes---especially the one at the Pentagon.

2. Serious questions remain unanswered. Even Lee Hamilton admits to that. He also has stated, "We were underfunded..." and "We were not given enough time...".

3. Those in favor of the Govt's hypothesis as to the cause of each event, and those in favor of the various alternative explanations, both cannot test their hypotheses until all evidence is released. They don't have theories; they have hypotheses. A theory is a hypothesis that has been successfully tested under controlled conditions.

4. The most suspicious events are the PA plane crash, the Pentagon plane crash, and the collapse of WTC-7. But even the collapse of the Twin Towers is suspect---several first responders, as well as the maintenance fellow (I forget his name), reported explosions at ground level and in one of the sub-levels not long after the crashes.

5. The Govt's hypothesis boils down to this: 19 losers armed with boxcutters conspired to outwit and outmaneuver the entire U.S. defense, intelligence, and security apparatus---and were successful. That's quite a claim.

6. Numerous tenants of the Towers reported that, weeks prior to 9-11, whole floors were evacuated for days so that "electrical maintenance" could be performed. Loud sounds of drilling (assumed to be into the walls and floors) were heard by many office workers on other floors. [So, it was entirely possible (not proven) that the buildings were in fact wired with explosives.]

7. Despite #s 2, 4, 5, & 6 above, no one (including the Govt) can have anything but an untested hypothesis (or hypotheses) regarding 9-11 UNTIL all the evidence has been released. That may never happen.

8. Even if it is ever conclusively shown that the 19 losers had inside help, that of course proves absolutely nothing relative to the so-called Illuminati Conspiracy---the subject that seems to have triggered your discussion.

9. Not that it matters to anyone, but I have yet to completely make up my mind about 9-11...and I've looked at all the alternative explanations. Some are very, very good...but in a strict scientific sense, they still remain unproven. I have concluded this much: the Govt's hypothesis is extremely suspect.


6:09 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home