A Message of Thanks From David-Hatch Bernier (Elaine's Son)
In response to our recent post David-Hatch Bernier wrote: Dear FF:
Thanks for all the press. To answer your question, I did receive a letter from my mother last week, and she seemed in relatively good spirits, all things considered. I don't know how she'll feel about my being so vocal these past weeks, but I can't just sit back and let the Feds steal and kidnap people, when all they had to do was open a book and point to a law. I still am not able to visit or speak to her on the phone, and I do not yet know if she is receiving my letters. For anyone who may be wondering, the letter was in my mother's very distinct handwriting, so yes, it was her hand.
We are approaching 700 signatures on the second day of the petition being posted. I would love to deliver a ten-pound package to the courthouse in two weeks containing tens of thousands of signatures.
Thanks to everyone for all the support. You may never know how muchit means at a time like this. If anyone has a way on contacting Sherry Jackson, please forward my best wishes to her and her family in the weeks to come.
Editor's Note: David, we are 1000% behind you and your mother. Thanks for sharing some of the very special spirit of love, justice and hope that is so central to your mother's life. We wrote to her and Ed last week and will be sharing any response here on this blog. Thanks again!
PS. Please sign the "Ed and Elaine Brown Petition!"
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
7:48 PM
23 Comments:
I can't speak for you Mum, but as a mother my self, I would be so proud of my son for doing all that you are doing for her and Ed! Keep up the good work David and remember you are not alone in this!
Truth at http://www.hereisthelaw.com
Quatloos!
This comment has been removed by the author.
David~
my heart bleeds for your mum & aches for your step dad. It is sickening to think that this (once) land of the free has contorted to the police state of fascist oppression, it has become.
To all others, an elderly couple has their life's dreams crushed, by the very people we call our
"public servants." Instead of being shown the law, which they were convicted of breaking, they were mprisoned for the so-called golden years of their lives- for a NON-violent crime, which apparently is NOT a crime.
Insofar as I'm concerned (as well as COUNTLESS others), they were not apprehended by the Dept. Of Justice, but rather cronies of the Gestapo! God bless the Browns, their loved ones & their/our cause...
By the way, to any of the Brown detractors, such as the poster going by the username of "sooltauq" & all of the other Quatloos Cretins:
There is NO law! If there were such a law, then HOWHOWHOW have all of these people been WINNING their court cases?!? A recent (& prominent example)... Tommy Cryer.
We're all going to be laughing our derriers off when you scoundrels are all out of business:-P
Tom Cryer may have won an acquittal of his criminal case, but he did not avoid the tax liability and is even now asking for donations for people to help him pay his back taxes, interest and penalties.
http://www.hereisthelaw.com Read it!
$10 million challenge at http://www.hereisthelaw.com
This is a REAL CHALLENGE which is backed by REAL MONEY, not some building which already had an IRS lien on it and so was totally valueless, like Elaine's bogus "challenge" (which several people accepted and proved but which she welched on; oh, well, she's going to die in prison so who really cares).
Cryer won on the Cheek defense, he argued that he didn't know he had to file income tax not that he didn't have to. He was found not guilt of willful failure to file. Huge difference. No tax protester argument has ever once one a single court case involving finding of law.
Okay, so 'soostauq' is quatloos' shadow. Of course, this person is going to argue in favour of the Income Tax. He's likely a professional tax preparer. The Quatloos site has perennially aimed to discredit the Tax Honesty movement.
They've yet to explain WHY/HOW Mr. Cryer emerged victorious in his case! Even if he still has a tax liability, who cares?!? He can laugh @ them & be remain free; nevermind the fact that he set precedence for others to follow.
Mr. Cryer is NOT the only proponent of the Tax Honesty Movement who won, as there are many others, with scores more to surly be more to follow suit.
Gee, I wonder why Mr. Cryer doesn't file a lawsuit against the government, for damages... In any case people ARE finally waking up to that rogue thing, which most interpret as the government, when in fact, WE THE PEOPLE are the government.
Lastly, & certainly not least, derailers of the Tax Honesty Movement, such as sooltauquatloos ought to come to grips with the FACT that the vast majority of the Federal Income Tax collected does NOT go to the services, for which most people think it goes. In FACT, most of the revenue goes towards paying the interest on the debt created by the interest, which the Federal Reserve charges, to loan the U.S.A. its money! For any naysayers, do your research & you'll find aforementioned claim confirmed by the Grace Commission (circa `86) under the Reagan administration.
Here's the kicker; the Federal Reserve is NOT a branch of the U.S. government! It's a private entity, owned & controlled by a recondite group of global elites. Any quasi-intelligent person can't help but to then ask the burning trillion dollar question, "WHY wouldn't any UNcorrupt government not simply print its own currency... at zero percent interest?!?
In closing, to sooltauq, who's quoted as stating the following from a previous post, "oh well, she's going to die in prison so who really cares," OBVIOUSLY many of us human beings DO care, ya heartless, social misfit.
One day, good & honest people, true patriots, will be enjoying their day & they'll suddenly experience a surprising little chuckle. The chuckle will come from the knowledge that miserable existence of scum, such as yourself, is no longer...
To trent~
I don't believe that ANY jury would believe that any lawyer could not know that they had to file, if there were, in fact, a Constitutional law compelling him to do so... no way! Unless the the (supposed) law were sooo malfeasant & esoteric, that he, nor any of us, could be expected to interpret said law...
Cryer did not win on the basis of law, he convinced a jury that he did not willfully fail to file. That is it. No issue of law was decided. The only cases that any tax denier has one has been through jury aquitals. These have zero bearing on issues of law..none...zilch. Every single decision on law has gone against the tax deniers. They have not won a single point.
This meme about income tax not funding our government is absolute bullshit as well. The total amount of money spent last year on deficit interest and payment was bout $300 billion. The total amount that was collected from income taxes was $2 trillion. The rest was spent funding all the parts of the government that you claim it doesn't fund. The interest and debt payment is a small percentage of taxes collected.
Ignorance and credulity for quack theories is what discredits your "movement."
Cryer's whole defense was that he did not willfully fail to file. Whatever you think the jury believed or not doesn't matter. The fact is that Cryer's aquital has nothing at all to do with the existence of a law or not. Nothing.
Yeah, sure Cryer's aquittal has nothing to do with the law. Just like the Grace Commission didn't establish/uncover the fact that "after all the revenue from collected Income Tax is spent, not a nickle goes towards the services that the people expect."
Of course you're vehemently opposed to my claim, because it's tantamount to the jeapordy of your livelihood...
You still haven't answered a rather quintessential question... WHY do our elected officials allow a private entity print our money @ interest, when the Constitution provides that the government print it @ 0%?!?
Word of the day---> CORRUPTION.
Cryer's defense was that he didn't BELIEVE that he had to file, i.e., that he was delusional, and not that he actually did not have to file.
That is why Cryer is still liable for his taxes and seeking donations to help pay them. After his legal defense fees, interest and massive penalties are calculated, that dumb old fart would have been FAR ahead just to pay his taxes.
But he can spend his retirement in poverty for all I care.
sooltauq's claim of Mr. Cryer seeking monetary aid to "pay his taxes" is laughable! Instead, he's seeking aid to recover from fighing the system (defense costs, loss of wages, etc.). Once he's back on his feet, he'll just set up a corporation & trust to procure & maintain(protect)his F.R.N.s & assets... & he'll be laughing @ the government!
wow you just state whatever you want as fact. I give up, anyone who wants to look at a budget report can see your full of shit about your claim regarding what income tax pays for...totally and completely fully of shit. And all of the legal documents about Cryer's case are available as well. Your either willfully ignorant or a liar.
The gang from q'what-losers still doesn't understand what this was all about from the begining. Ed and Elaine Brown paid their lawful taxes, and merely asked for clarification on one tax- the income tax. Read the first amendment, it is our right to ask the government a question, and their duty to answer. Also, the fallout is about the right to a fair trial. Even OJ Simpson, who murdered two people, got to present evidence and call witnesses. He ended up on a golf course with his friends, but we all know there is a law against killing people. Ed and Elaine said they would write a check if someone just cited the law. They weren't even convicted of a crime, they were convicted of two penalty clauses. Why didn't that unmade bed, Bill Morse, just show the law?
I'm not even coming back to this thread because eighty percent of what's being left here is just garbage. If sooltauq wants to just rant, let him. If everyone were like him, we'd still be under British rule. This is about the government being accountable to us, and not the other way around, it has very little to do with money and taxes. I don't about where the rest of you are from, but here in Massachusetts, if you get a speeding ticket, they write the citation number of the law or statute you violated right on the ticket. Why couldn't the prosecution in the Browns' case just do the same?
Another reason I won't revisit this thread, or any other littered with hateful commentary by our dear friends from quatloos, is because although they feel so superior and entitled, their web site does not allow any comments which contradict theirs. That alone should tell you what they are all about.
Long story short: if what he is showing on hereisthelaw.com is accurate, why is it that even the guy who wrote the tax code can't cite it? There's more to it than meets the eye.
Bravely ran away, away.....no point in discussing your delusions if you are a coward....let us know if you plan to back up your "points" with anything substantial.
Liar. Quatloos has always allowed a free discussion of taxes at http://www.quatloos.com/qforum/viewforum.php?f=8 But tax protestors stay away from there for they are routinely shown to be totally wrong.
There is no "one guy" who wrote the tax code; the tax code is drafted by Congress. No accredited legal or constitutional scholar has any trouble finding The Law that imposes tax liability, which is 26 U.S.C. section 1.
See http://www.hereisthelaw.com for the truth and take the $10 million challenge ! ! !
hereisthelaw wants someone to PROVE a negative.
Very interesting, but not logical...and without merit.
I'm still waiting for this---
RE: The Tax Code describes "taxable income" as "gross income minus deductions". In describing "gross income" it begins with these words: "Except as otherwise provided...".
So, I'm waiting for either Trent or sooltauq---because they know so much about 26 USC, Subtitle A, Chapter 1 (and all the Subchapters)---to provide us with all the EXCEPTIONS to the description of "gross income".
Still waiting.
While you're at it, what income is "excluded" (found in the Code)? What income is "excepted" (also found in the Code)? What income is "exempted" (also found in the Code)? What income is "eliminated" (also found in the Code)?
Until you answer the above questions, and provide us with the list of exceptions to "gross income", I have no more time for either of you. Your research is shallow; you don't know how to perform proper due diligence.
Sincerely,
Scott
http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/
And nobody who matters agrees with you.
http://www.hereisthelaw.com
Come on mod, get this useless BS off our site! It only takes away from our efforts.. Good people don't want to see this stuff!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/finally-action-ron-pau_b_69042.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home