New Hampshire Underground

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Please log in on the special "login" page, not on any of these normal pages. Thank you, The Procrastinating Management

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 25   Go Down

Author Topic: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS  (Read 637713 times)

KBCraig

  • Childish in charge
  • Global Moderator
  • Enemy of the State
  • *****
  • Karma: 2251
  • Posts: 13020
  • Spazzing for Freedom
Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« on: May 24, 2006, 07:51 PM NHFT »

http://www.wmur.com/news/9269615/detail.html

Plainfield Couple Accused Of Not Paying Taxes
Officials Say Couple Owes Nearly $1 Million

POSTED: 5:41 pm EDT May 24, 2006

CONCORD, N.H. -- A husband and wife from Plainfield, N.H., are facing federal charges, accused of not paying their taxes for at least 10 years.

Investigators said that Edward and Elaine Brown are members of a militia and have protested paying taxes in the past.

Elaine Brown, 65, is a prominent dentist in the Lebanon, N.H., area. She and her husband face 21 counts of failing to pay income tax. Officials estimate that the couple owes close to $1 million over the last decade.

"In various contexts, Mr. Brown has stated he and his wife have not paid taxes and has raised in his defense several shopworn and frivolous reasons for not paying taxes," Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Morse said.

Prosecutors said the Browns are both members of militia groups who fail to recognize, in large part, the legitimacy of the federal government.

Federal court documents say that the Browns wrote a letter to the IRS in 1997 claiming, among other things, that there was no law establishing liability for the federal income tax and that they were not U.S. citizens and not subject to the federal income tax laws.

In court Wednesday, a judge ordered the Browns to surrender 35 guns kept at their home. The prosecutor presented photographs that show Edward Brown's car with a militia insignia on the side door. He also showed aerial pictures of Brown's home that investigators described as a fortress.

The two were arrested at Elaine Brown's dental practice in Lebanon.

"Well, he's involved with some groups that have expressed hostility to the federal government," Morse said. "In fact, he made statements that he and his wife would defend their property and liberty with their lives."

The judge made it clear that the right to join a militia is protected by the First Amendment and the right to own guns is protected by the Second Amendment, saying that the case is about allegations that the two failed to pay taxes.

The Browns were released pending the removal of all weapons from their home.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2012, 02:55 PM NHFT by Kat Kanning »
Logged

armlaw

  • Independent Thinker
  • *
  • Karma: 193
  • Posts: 198
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2010, 07:36 PM NHFT »

There is much misunderstanding in the jurisdiction of the "Administrative Tribunals" operating under the name; "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS" and the jurisdiction of the Article III constitutional courts that operate under the name; district court of the United States". Please note the distinction of lower case spelling on the Article III courts. This is specific as is the syntax and that is what contrasts the "Territorial/Administrative Tribunals" form the constitutional Article III courts. The seminal supreme court case that confirms this distinction is;
Mookini v. U.S. ,303 U.S. 201, in which, for reader convenience, I have copied the pertinent part from the case;
" The statute contains no requirement that the Court must prescribe identical rules with respect to all the courts mentioned, regardless of varying conditions, or that rules for all these courts must be prescribed at one and the same time. On

Page 303 U. S. 205

the contrary, the manifest intention of the Congress was to permit the Court to exercise its discretion concerning the application of the rules.

The term "district Courts of the United States," as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories [Administrative Tribunals] are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not district Courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the district Courts of the United States does not make it a "district Court of the United States." Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 98 U. S. 154; The City of Panama, 101 U. S. 453, 101 U. S. 460; In re Mills, 135 U. S. 263, 135 U. S. 268; McAllister v. United States, 141 U. S. 174, 141 U. S. 182-183; Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445, 174 U. S. 476-477; Summers v. United States, 231 U. S. 92, 231 U. S. 101-102; United States v. Burroughs, 289 U. S. 159, 289 U. S. 163. Not only did the promulgating order use the term district Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules to the territorial courts and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended."


There are SEVEN stare decisis in the above captioned and they have NEVER been overturned!

In fact in 2003, in U.S. v. Nguyen, Mookini was one of the citations used to prove the the Chief Judge of Guam's "Territorial/Administrative Tribunal/Court was NOT an Article III Judge, who has a life time appointment and PAYS no TAXES, OR OTHER DIMINISHMENT TO THIS COMPENSATION.

Magistrates in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT's are appointed for Eight Years only and as employees of the Federal Corporation, defined in 28 USC 3002(15), they are compelled to pay IRS, Medicare, and Social Security, hence are NOT Article III constitutional judges.

Jurisdiction may be challenged at ANYTIME, even after conviction or other proceedings.

Why has this not been done?
Logged

JosephSHaas

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 996
  • Posts: 2960
    • "The Collapsing Door" [U.F.O.]
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2010, 11:44 AM NHFT »

Forest Federalists:  Keep your nails out of our private trees!

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/ag-secretary-lends-ear-to-landowners

"Needed: A State/County Check on Forest Federalists.
By JosephSHaas - 08/10/2010 - 11:41 am

Here's what a Sheriff does out west when the Feds (The BLM) tries to take over:

Mod:
(1) http: // www dot youtube.com/watch?v=JaEKB8pU2Tw&feature=related
(2) http: // www dot youtube.com/watch?v=QdpOT7wR-wU&feature=related
(3) http: // www dot youtube.com/watch?v=W2lVI6gzsVM&feature=related


Sheriff Tony DeMeo - One [9:32 minutes, with 30,519 hits ]
Sheriff Tony DeMeo - One

Sheriff Tony DeMeo - Two [ 10:15 min. with 19,236 hits ]
Sheriff Tony DeMeo - Two

Sheriff Tony DeMeo - Three [ 7:34 min. with 13,647 visits so far. ]
Sheriff Tony DeMeo - Three

Too bad the Ten (10) County Sheriff up here in New Hampshire are wimps!"
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 11:47 AM NHFT by JosephSHaas »
Logged

armlaw

  • Independent Thinker
  • *
  • Karma: 193
  • Posts: 198
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2010, 10:28 PM NHFT »

                Brief on jurisdiction

"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. "There is no discretion to ignore  that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215. "The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416. "Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction
asserted." Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp 150. "A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732. "Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio."  In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846. "Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term."  Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27. "A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331  US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409. "A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of
procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937. "Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris." Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.  "the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest." Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.
                                     And, you may find this interesting as well:


"An action by  Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has subject matter jurisdiction, without such  jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency, by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void." Doolan v. Carr, 125  US 618; City v Pearson, 181 Cal. 640. "Agency,  or party sitting for the agency,  (which would be the magistrate of a municipal court) has no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he is acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract." Schomig v. Kaiser, 189 Cal 596. "When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or  enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially". Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583. "A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law
provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational." ASIS v.   US, 568 F2d 284.  "Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such  powers are necessarily nullities." Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1. "The  elementary  doctrine  that  the  constitutionality of  a legislative act is open to attack only by persons whose rights are affected thereby, applies to statute relating to administrative agencies, the validity of which may not be called into question in the
absence of a showing of substantial harm, actual or impending, to a legally protected interest directly resulting from the enforcement of the statute." Board of Trade v. Olson, 262 US 1; 29 ALR 2d 1051.
                                          Oh Yeah...there is much more
Logged

JosephSHaas

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 996
  • Posts: 2960
    • "The Collapsing Door" [U.F.O.]
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2010, 10:27 AM NHFT »

                Brief on jurisdiction

"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should* dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. ... "the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance** to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest." Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.
                                     And, you may find this interesting as well:


... the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or  enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially". Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583...
                                          Oh Yeah...there is much more

Thank you Dick, very much! But as you can see by the star of that they "should"*, is not a must, or ought to. Now WHY didn't Elaine, on bail with ankle bracelet make her re-appearance in court circumstantial**? WHY didn't her attorney file a Circumstantial Appearance?, or what is usually known around here as a SPECIAL APPEARANCE! I think if the Feds are going to go for it all, they might as well go after the cost of the replacement for such a bracelet.  THEN both Ed & Elaine can bring in this NEW info and get back to the jurisdiction! Will the current crop of candidates for Congress see to it that the government get back THIS money BEFORE they pay more of our tax dollars for more to be made by The ________ Company to make extras on their assembly line? in what city ______ and state of: _______? Telephone # (____) _________ e-mail: ____________  I'd like to buy some stock in that company and at the next share-holders meeting or before with company counsel or in whatever Appropriations Committee of Congress say at such a private or Public Hearing of: no! To neither accept nor pay over $x amount of dollars until the victim of such who was wrongfully shackled by such be compensated for the time stolen from her. And so a cc: to both Ed & Elaine too. - - - - - Plus thank you also for that municipal or district court stuff.  I always knew something was fishy about these legislative courts set up by the State Legislature or General Court by Article 4 that were dis-banded #__ times during its past here in New Hampshire for political reasons, (reference the Dick Bosa of Berlin papers in our V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc. group) somehow now immune from such disbanding as Art. 72-a courts now under the judicial branch? since 1966. Maybe to test it out? Like WHO decided, the Legislature or the Judiciary _____ of that latest try at getting rid of the Franklin District Court? to have all future cases in that district to go to Concord. The definition of a republic is: judicial review of executive decisions, by Art. IV, Sec. 4, U.S. Constitution, and so by the fact also of ALL crimes to be tried by a jury (Art. III, Sec. 2, Clause 3, U.S. Const.) aren't ALL "opinions" at local District Court "hearings" appealable as by right to the Superior Court for a jury trial?  I tried this in the "Wise Up or Die" case from Lebanon in refusing to pay the $500+ fine for the Class B misdemeanor of a fine-only conviction, not entitled to representation at the expense of the state, but it IS a CRIME, just a minor crime, and so since they refused to PUSH it to there, I asked Clerk Bob Muh of the Grafton County Superior Court to PULL it to there, and he too REFUSED to do so.  So to what? Article 32 Petition the General Court for this $500+ theft to have them ORDER the A.O.C./ Administrative Office of the Courts to return my money, OR put it in as a line item expense against their request for more operating funds, or collect it when that Judge retires to attach his Art. 36 pension! - - Joe
Logged

JosephSHaas

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 996
  • Posts: 2960
    • "The Collapsing Door" [U.F.O.]
Logged

armlaw

  • Independent Thinker
  • *
  • Karma: 193
  • Posts: 198
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2010, 08:37 PM NHFT »

Joe...

Your reference to Article 72-a being a Judicial jurisdiction is a FRAUD by the attorneys and lawyers as 72-a was NOT a lawful amendment  as it was "entwined" with another existing amendment and the supreme court (in New Hampshire) ruled that such "entwining" is unconstitutional!
See Gerber v. King and the stare decisis in that case.

If Article  VI, Part two is read the first sentence has unlawful parentheses, (except as otherwise provided by Article 72-a of Part 2). This language was NEVER in the the Voters Guide nor was it on the Ballot to be ratified by the people.

Accordingly it was put into to Article Four AFTER the vote on 72-a by the lawyers serving the courts interest. This FRAUD must be brought to the attention of the people and I will do so if I survive the Primary. I will need Bullet votes in Merrimack's District #9.

There is no such thing as a "statute of limitations" on COMMON LAW FRAUD!
Logged

DonnaVanMeter

  • Mischievous
  • **
  • Karma: 264
  • Posts: 249
    • Defiant For You
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2010, 11:33 AM NHFT »

 A Fraud is a Fraud
An email from Danny Riley

The courts: I'm petitioning a fraud, to admit its a fraud, and to redress its fraudulant ways, which is like a chicken asking a fox to stay out of his coup, it can't happen because the fox will starve, just like the court can not admit its jurisdiction is a fraud, because it will cease to exist. Same with asking for the "liabilty clause" for the income tax (which doesn't exist), your asking a crook to admit he is a crook, its not going to happen.

We a relegated, as the colonial Americans were, to fall back on our God given rights, our natural rights, to fight for our liberties and our rights, as we deem necessary to secure them, not only for ourselves but for our posterity.

Logged

JosephSHaas

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 996
  • Posts: 2960
    • "The Collapsing Door" [U.F.O.]
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2010, 12:53 PM NHFT »

A Fraud is a Fraud
An email from Danny Riley

The courts: I'm petitioning a fraud, to admit its a fraud, and to redress its fraudulant ways, which is like a chicken asking a fox to stay out of his coup, it can't happen because the fox will starve, just like the court can not admit its jurisdiction is a fraud, because it will cease to exist. Same with asking for the "liabilty clause" for the income tax (which doesn't exist), your asking a crook to admit he is a crook, its not going to happen.

We a relegated, as the colonial Americans were, to fall back on our God given rights, our natural rights, to fight for our liberties and our rights, as we deem necessary to secure them, not only for ourselves but for our posterity.

Thank you Donna, as I got the same on the bcc. -- Joe

Here's what I did just send to Dan, to likewise copy Ed & Elaine, plus Reno:

"Thanks Dan, re: the fox guarding the chicken coop for jurisdiction never to admit.  Donna just posted this to The N.H. Underground.  No reply/ies yet... -- Joe

P.S. That's WHY I'm doing this check and balance in the state courts: both in Grafton County Superior Court AND The Laconia District Court, for Lebanon and the U.S. Census respectfully THEN Sullivan County Superior Court for Plainfield, and not to forget the State Board of Claims in Concord: yet to hear back of my complaint against the Dept. of Safety for the unlawful state AND Federal gas taxes, the former against Art. 95 of the N.H. Constitution, and Art. 12 against the Feds as we are NOT supposed to be controlled over by ANY of the OTHER laws, like the U.S. Codes or Statutes at Large NEVER ever "consent"ed too by either me, nor my Reps per RSA Ch. 123:1 being THE "pursuance" to and not that of "pursuant" with a t.  The letter c in this case over-rules the letter t every time! -- Joe "
Logged

JosephSHaas

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 996
  • Posts: 2960
    • "The Collapsing Door" [U.F.O.]
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2010, 12:55 PM NHFT »

My 10:55 e-mail to State Rep. Dan Itse:

"Dan,

Keep up the good work.  Too bad The A.F.P. did not put this page 13 into electronic format.  Or have they by now? ____  Best wishes, -- Joe

Re: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/candidates-take-the-stump

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/candidates-take-the-stump#comment-138148
of:
"
Attorneys ought NOT to be U.S. Senators! (Either R or D)
By JosephSHaas - 08/12/2010 - 10:51 am New
nhfoos: So quantity over quality gets your vote eh?
Attorney Ovide Lamontagne can sure pick 'em on the campaign trail, just imagine what he would do if elected. And I mean the pickin' of BAD apples, really ROTTEN ones! Like former House Speaker Doug Scamman: a worthless no-good-er who doesn't even abide by his own rules!
Case in point of having to send over all Article 32 petitions from the people as endorsed by House Rule 36 to the appropriate committee by House Rule 4. What did Doug do with mine and others? Nothing but let it and them to collect dust. He is a thief! He stole my and their rights for a cause petition to get a hearing. And Lamontagne wants people like this on his side and working with him in Washington!? Disgusting.
Disgusting for ALL the rest too. They KNOW that what the current House Speaker Terrie Norelli did to relieve themselves of this duty was to change the Rule to let all petitions become non-cause petitions as did King George to ours that resulted in the American Revolution. And you vote for people like this!?
Come on, "Wise Up"! pick THE candidate who will not just talk about what he will do, like Hodes who REFUSES to endorse too at the Federal level, but will sign such a pledge. A pledge that when the executive Federal Fraud Unit refuses to investigate and report on complaints to them of which you pay for by your taxes for them NOT to sit on it in their office, BUT to do their jobs, that if and when the Congressman hears of this at his office that he WILL endorse and send it over to the appropriate oversight committee, like what State Rep. Dan Itse intends to do from Freemont for the next Republican House Speaker in Concord when they both are re-elected. See The AMERICAN FREE PRESS of Aug. 2, 2010 @ page 13: http://www.americanfreepress.net/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Itse plus http: // www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=MYjDc8vNb-E * the vote being 221-106 to make Article 32 useless, a mere non-cause petition process, of that the people can write in anything they want, just that none of them will ever get a hearing!"

* Dan Itse calls out the House
Logged

JosephSHaas

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 996
  • Posts: 2960
    • "The Collapsing Door" [U.F.O.]
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2010, 12:57 PM NHFT »

And this follow up: (of 12:37 p.m.)

"It's official:

Re: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/candidates-take-the-stump

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/candidates-take-the-stump#comment-138177

of: "
Who is Dennis Lamare? (Insurance Agent)
By JosephSHaas - 08/12/2010 - 12:35 pm New
Thank you Shira for your comment too about the other candidate of Dennis Lamare. Too bad nobody asked him even one question, because by my e-mail to him I have, and whatever he replies, if any, or that of the other two of the three businessmen here I will get back to you. Here's a copy and paste of my e-mail to two State Reps:
"To Dennis Lamare too by website contact box: "Please see and copy today's reply by me at The CONCORD MONITOR website for yesterday's Stump Speech event in Canterbury and either sign it as that you WILL thus DO so if/when elected to endorse all such complaints, or copy and sign an attached letter to this effect. A similar request to Jackie for Binnie (and Ms. ____ for Bender) has been made too as either of these two $businessmen$ or you (with cents and common sense) to get my vote of the one who signs such. Thank you, - - Joe Haas"
footnote: I did also TRY to call him* too, and so for all three non-attorneys, but that as I got through to the other two he lists no telephone #. To maybe see at Saturday's Tea Party 12-5 in Claremont? as advertised on his site at the EVENTS section.
* An insurance agent from Newport, N.H. with the _______ Company. Maybe he can help to insure the Elaine Brown Dentist Office Building at 27 Glen Rd. in Lebanon that the Feds seized but have yet to forfeit, and the Browns were paying property taxes on as Art. 12 inhabitants but NOT the Feds conducting Totalitarianism in taking ALL the apples of the tree, the tree AND caretaker's quarters and throwing the caretakers into prison and sending us, the tax-payers, the bill! This I find un-constitutional in what is supposed to be an Article IV, Section 4, U.S. Republic! of by the Elegit process of to take up to only half the apples or crop, whether agricultural or in the urban environment, the same common denominator! "
Logged

cariann

  • Liberty Lover
  • *
  • Karma: 2
  • Posts: 1
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2010, 05:04 PM NHFT »

Here's a copy of the indictment, of by pdf and html:

1.) http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/DION_Indictment.pdf

2.) http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:1fcNhMVmwSAJ:www.usdoj.gov/tax/DION_Indictment.pdf+%22Myron+Thorick%22+%22west+Warwick&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (is how I found this by a GOOGLE search for these words).

The obituary you posted for Marjorie E. Floyd, were they involved with the topic of this thread? 
I was trying to follow the thread but then got confused by the post of the Obit.
Logged

JosephSHaas

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 996
  • Posts: 2960
    • "The Collapsing Door" [U.F.O.]
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2010, 09:47 AM NHFT »

Here's a copy of the indictment, of by pdf and html:

1.) http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/DION_Indictment.pdf

2.) ... (is how I found this by a GOOGLE search for these words).

The obituary you posted for Marjorie E. Floyd, were they involved with the topic of this thread? 
I was trying to follow the thread but then got confused by the post of the Obit.

cariann: Thanks for your exploration here.  The connection is her/ Marjorie having relatives of Catherine and Scott Dion of Milton, MAss. who were indicted last August 2009, and who are supposed to be the caretakers of the Plainfield property, but who never came forward to help Sonny,II when he camped out there and the Feds called the local COPs to have him/Sonny,II arrested for trespass, but him who kept saying in court: WHO is the owner of record? Pointing at the Fed agent there and there plus there: Are YOU the owner?, what about you? Or you?  The Feds having merely seized the place, as in taken control like the BLM out west of who manages the public lands for us, the citizens who own it. When Atlas carries the world on his shoulders, does that mean we have to jump off into outer space!?  8) The judge told Sonny,II to take a hike and don't go back to the property for two years or else he would serve time in jail on a suspended sentence. Maybe somebody now might like to test this out again and do it right of having the caretakers there to direct the Feds to show their RSA 123:1 cards of the receipt of Federal filing or for THEM to take a hike! Pay a token dollar to the Town toward the property tax bill that the Feds are NOT paying and so letting them/ the Town know that you are there under an agreement from the caretakers +/or owners and are expecting Art. 12 protection.- - Joe
Logged

JosephSHaas

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 996
  • Posts: 2960
    • "The Collapsing Door" [U.F.O.]
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #13 on: August 13, 2010, 10:12 AM NHFT »

$2.6 million of your Federal tax money to China for to teach prostitutes there to drink responsibly:

http: // www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=9Gp0JuBp8xA   *

And here in America, we drink the mamey juice and get sick:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38680483/ns/health-infectious_diseases/?gt1=43001

(Hotmail banner #___ of 5 today).

* REAL or FAKE: Can you tell which of these government spending projects are real or fake?
Logged

armlaw

  • Independent Thinker
  • *
  • Karma: 193
  • Posts: 198
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2010, 06:21 PM NHFT »

Here's some "homework" for your discernment.

There are no Judicial courts in America and there have not been since 1789

Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes.

Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes.
See...(FRC v. GE, 281 US 464, Keller v. PE, 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)

Do we have a debate?


Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 25   Go Up