Source: http://edbrownextendedentries.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2018-05-26 09:36:00
Document Index: 306979449

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', 'art 5', 'art 5', '§ 8', 'art 5', '§ 8', 'art 11', '§ 2', 'art 3', '§ 9', 'art 4']

Ed Brown Extended Entries: September 2007
posted by Freedom Shenanigans at 9:18 PM 0 comments
The hearing should be fairly short. The court has given each side15 minutes for argument, though if the court wants to hear more, itoften goes longer than that. And again, only the search warrantissues (First and Fourth Amendments) will be addressed at thehearing, though my appeal raises other issues in the writtenmotions. As I understand it, a ruling in the case should happen within a few days of the hearing.
So if you want to come along, feel free. As in any appeal, the onlyquestion before the appellate court is whether the trial courtjudge (Judge Michael Baylson) did what he was supposed to do. We'rearguing that he should have granted my motion to suppress, which hedidn't. While I'm at it, let me mention a few more points whichpeople have asked about:
1) If the appeal is successful, I get "unconvicted," but thegovernment could try to prosecute me again. Since I've alreadyserved the sentence, they wouldn't have much to gain by doing so,except for the "making an example" propaganda routine. (On theother hand, they'd have a lot to lose if they tried again and lost.)
2) There are several issues raised in my appeal, any one of whichcan be the basis for the conviction to be thrown out. If we win onthe issue of suppression, however, the government wouldn't beallowed to use anything they got from the 2003 raid of my house(including e-mails in which I say nasty things about the IRS--as ifthat is proof of a crime). In theory the government could still tryme again, but they could use almost nothing they introduced at thefirst trial.
3) If I win (either the government doesn't take it to trial again,or I get acquitted the second time), my conviction disappears, butall I get for the year of wrongful imprisonment is an official"oops." Only very rarely does is a suit for wrongful incarcerationsuccessful. (In addition to the wrongful imprisonment, the courtalso fined me $10,000, which I'm almost finished paying off. If Iwon I'd get that back.)
4) If I win the appeal, am tried again, and convicted again, Iexpect I would just get sentenced to "time served" (what I alreadydid). Since I was coerced into giving them returns pretending Iowed the tax, and giving them lots and lots of money I didn't owe(and entering an installment agreement for what's left), I can'timagine why the sentence would go up the second time around. So the second time around I'd pretty much have nothing to lose.
(* Apparently the Philadelphia appeals court is so backlogged thatsome cases, including mine, are being sent to other courthouses.That's why my appeal is happening in Delaware, and it's also why ittook so long to happen at all.)
A lot of people think it's exaggerating or being melodramatic to
say that EVERY command from "government" is a threat of violence,
backed by the ability and willingness to use deadly force. The main
reason it doesn't look that way is because most people immediately
cave in and comply with government demands ("laws"), so the
violence backing it up is never seen.
Imagine an armed car-jacker using the following defense when put on
trial: "Hey, I didn't ever shoot anyone, or even hit anyone. I just
said some words, and they all GAVE me their cars! I didn't use
violence." If the words he used were "Give me your car or I'll blow
your brains out," I think we'd all agree that that constitutes
violence. The THREAT of force--stating that you WILL use violence
if someone doesn't do what you say--is by itself a form of
violence. No one with a brain would claim that car-jacking is
perfectly fine if the crook has never ACTUALLY shot anyone (but
only threatened to).
Nonetheless, the violence inherent in ALL involuntary "taxation"
goes unnoticed by most people, simply because in most cases, the
violence never actually occurs--people "comply" in order to AVOID
the nasty things threatened by the feds. However, for a reality
check, it's helpful for people to be able to see, every once in a
while, the true colors of so-called "tax collectors," and that only
happens when someone resists.
I was merely put in prison for a year, but even that is a very
deceptive indicator of how vicious and violent the "law enforcers"
truly are. I went along with being put in a cage in order to avoid
the ultimate "trump card" behind EVERY "law" or EVERY "government":
murder. If you doubt that, you need only look to an example of
someone who DIDN'T go along with the federal terrorists. I'm
speaking, of course, of Ed and Elaine Brown.
Does anyone need machine-guns and tanks in order to ask nicely for
a voluntary contribution? Are SWAT teams and sneak attacks required
to collect "donations"? No. The IRS, the ATF, and all "tax
collectors," are gangs of armed robbers, willing to murder those
who do not give in. Again, we rarely SEE the true colors of these
gangs of inhuman monsters, because almost everyone caves in quickly
in order to AVOID having the really nasty stuff happen to them.
I have heard that there are indications that the feds are
escalating their "presence" near the Browns' house. Setting aside
authoritarian euphemisms, what that means is that they are getting
closer to using overt violence to either capture or kill the
Browns. And since Ed Brown has made it clear that he won't go
quietly, it's pretty darn obvious that if they go in, the feds have
every intention of MURDERING him.
For what? For not giving them a piece of his paycheck. Let's
pretend for a minute that the Browns legally owed the "taxes" in
question, and let's even pretend that the Browns THOUGHT they owed
the tax (neither of which is true). Even if they said "Yeah, we owe
it, but we're not paying," would that make it okay to MURDER them?
In his brilliant writings, Lysander Spooner constantly described
government agents as "bands of thieves and murderers," which to
most people would seem a little harsh and over-the-top. But the
Browns are performing the public service of PROVING that that is
EXACTLY what authoritarian "law enforcers" are: people who forcibly
rob people, and who are willing to commit MURDER against those who
resist. Of course, if no one ever resists, we never get to actually
SEE just how evil the parasite thugs really are.
Whatever someone thinks of Mr. Brown personally, or of any
unorthodox tax-related beliefs, it is good for Americans to be
forced to face the question: Is it okay to MURDER people for not
paying the government's "protection" fees? If you say "yes," you
deserve any level of enslavement and oppression "authority" can
impose upon you. If you say "no," then ALL "taxation"--however many
layers of euphemisms and platitudes the truth is buried under--is
an intolerable evil.
Some people are going as far as volunteering to use defensive force
to try to prevent the murder of Mr. Brown. Amazingly, those people
are then publicly demonized--and when possible, arrested--by the
hypocritical, power-happy, murderous, machine-gun-toting fascists
who are willing to COMMIT the murder. Mr. Brown is in his house,
surrounded by a bunch of heavily-armed enemies, who are there with
the obvious goal of capturing or killing him (knowing that the
former is extremely unlikely), but when someone tries to come to
the aide of Mr. Brown, to protect him from the aggressors, that
person is arrested for being a nasty criminal. This shows just how
insane the belief in "authority" can make people: armed robbery and
murder are okay because they're (supposedly) "legal," but using
defensive force against thieves and murderers is evil (if they call
themselves "government").
Well, if that is the case, then I'm proud to be rooting for the
evil side. Only the belief in "authority" can brainwash people so
thoroughly that they can see the guy who is being ROBBED as the
criminal, and the ROBBERS as the good guys. Such is the power of
Not surprisingly, the thieves and murderers want things happening
quietly, which is why they've cut off the Brown's phone lines and
internet. Personally, I'd love to see a thousand eyes all around
the place, always watching, always recording, always spreading the
truth. If the U.S. Marshals, the New Hampshire Sheriffs, and any
other "authorities" involved actually believe that THEY are the
good guys, wouldn't they WANT lots of people watching? Wouldn't
they WANT the whole thing to be open and public, so their nobility
and righteousness would be plain for all to see? They are the
criminals, and they know it. They just want the rest of the country
to remain so indoctrinated and clueless that the Browns will look
like the "criminals"--dead criminals, if "government" once again
has its way (as it did in the cases of Waco, Ruby Ridge, Gordon
Kahl, and many others most people have never heard of).
Not surprisingly, most people don't really want to go up against
the most powerful regime the world has ever known. But at least let
he who has eyes SEE what is going on, and once again the "law
enforcers" will be shown for what they are: as Lysander Spooner put
it, "a band of thieves and murderers."
(P.S. I have no idea what the physical layout of the surrounding
area is, but if Mr. Brown's house is visible from anyone else's
property, I hope they have 24-hour video surveillance going--
infrared if possible.)
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at 10:40 PM 1 comments
Ron Paul v Big Brother
George Orwell created Big Brother in his novel “1984”. Orwell’s fictional creation, a totalitarian state, had gained complete control over its subjects. The term Big Brother has since become synonymous with all dictatorial political systems which ultimately supplant their greedy wills over the natural actions and private thoughts of the common citizen. A modern manifestation of Big Brother can be witnessed today through the phenomena known as political correctness. Be careful of what you say. When rights are converted into privileges and fear of the authorities is the rule not the exception, Big Brother’s ominous form is once again casting its long shadows. Orwell’s nightmare of a dictatorial political and philosophical system has evolved into a modern religion, a non theistic one unless you consider government and God as the same. An encompassing force incrementally imposed through steady doses of fear is Big Bro’s modus operandi. Long tentacles reach into all spheres of life. The economy is where the greatest amount of social force can be applied and Big Brother completely controls it through the Federal Reserve Bank, the World Bank and virtually all modern systems of finance. Fractional banking, compound interest, and money creation through debt have trumped congressional control in the U.S. Big Brother’s seductive power has cast a spell on our representatives in Washington D.C. “Congress shall have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof; and of foreign coin…” U.S Constitution Article I § 8 part 5. This spell has made our elected representatives blind to section 8 part 5 of Article 1, and magically created an authority that gave Congress’s exclusive power for coining/creating money to private for profit bankers. Trillions in interest have been harvested by seducing Congress into ignoring Article I § 8 part 5.
Big Brother’s incantation has done similarly with the following Constitutional provisions:
“Congress shall have the power… to declare war…” Article 1 § 8 part 11:“
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included in this Union, according to their respective numbers…” Article 1 § 2 part 3.
And, Article 1 in § 9 part 4. No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census…”
The Constitution demands that direct taxes be apportioned. Every contender in the 2008 presidential race except for Congressman Paul is either under big brother’s spell or is just another of his unwitting accomplices.
We are in a mortal struggle with the ghost, conjured in literary form by George Orwell. Orwell has proven himself to be a prophet with his futuristic specter, an atheistic “paradise”. Ron Paul is a challenger vying for president…the only one willing to do battle with the shadow government of Big Brother. His success depends on his two weapons, the Constitution and us. I’m certain of the Constitution, but do we patriots have the fortitude required for a serious fight? The real question now is not can Ron Paul win, but rather, can we make him the winner.
Bill Price www.article1-taxation.com
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at 11:49 AM 0 comments
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at 10:32 PM 1 comments
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at 8:26 PM 0 comments
posted by Freedom Shenanigans at 1:04 PM 0 comments
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at 8:17 PM 0 comments
The Court added WTP's motion for a stay of Judge McAvoy's entire injunction order and to expedite the appeal to the substantive motions calendar for September 18, 2007.
Finally, the Court directed the Government to submit its written response to WTP's emergency motion ASAP.
"We are very pleased with the way the 2nd Circuit has been responding to our case," said Bob Schulz. "We fully expect that on September 18, or shortly thereafter, the Court will grant our motion to stay the lower Court's injunction order, allowing WTP to turn on its website, without fear of being held in contempt of Court by Judge McAvoy. We also expect the Appeals Court to expedite our appeal from the District Court's order, by setting a tight briefing schedule. Finally, we expect to prevail on the appeal: we expect the Appeals Court will reverse the lower Court's summary judgment order and dismiss the case. We expect the Court to see the transparent motive of the Government to use WTP's Speech related to the Blue Folder as a front, or pretext for its real objective -- to fully silence WTP and thereby shut down the Right to Petition program."
We gratefully acknowledge the warm response we have been receiving to our call last Friday for donations, and we respectfully request that everyone carefully consider sending a donation - either a monthly or a one-time donation. We have much to do and pay for as we prepare to file our landmark Right to Petition case with the United States Supreme Court, and as we appeal from Judge McAvoy's order.
Here is the text of the Court's order entered on Friday, August 31, 2007:
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at 8:01 PM 0 comments