Ed and Elaine Brown are going to jail for knowing the truth
Around 1996, Ed and Elaine Brown first realised the truth about the income tax. They know, like me, there is no law requiring them to pay. They questioned the IRS many times about the income tax, but the IRS refused to respond. 11 years later, they are going to prison.
That is, Elaine is. On Friday, neither showed up. But later, Elaine finally showed. As I write this, Ed has barricaded himself inside his home and preparing himself for a fight.
The couple, who were representing themselves, said they did not dispute the prosecutor's contention that they had opted out of paying taxes, but they said they believe they have not broken the law by doing so.
"My husband and I challenged the application of the tax law to us," Elaine Brown said in her opening statement. "We cannot find any statute that requires us to pay."
That is what they believe when they questioned the IRS. In at least one of the letters described in testimony, the Browns acknowledged that they might be inviting criminal prosecution, but in their comments yesterday, they made it clear that they do not believe they have broken the law.
Can you say "good-faith belief" in Cheek v. United States?
But, it all boils down the judge doesn't allow the Browns to get a fair trial. Ed himself said the trial was a kangaroo court. The judge was somewhat allowing them to bring up their defense, but he won't allow to attack the law itself. That is exactly what happened to Larken Rose and Irwin Schiff. In Schiff's trial, the judge specifically states, "I will not have the law in my courtroom!" Say what??? A crime is an action which violates the law; if there is now law, there is no crime! What an idiot!! Besides, the jury DOES has the power to try the facts AND the law, in spite of what the judge might tell you otherwise! The Browns made a mistake by trusting the judge. From that mistake, Elaine is going to jail...at her age, for life, and Ed puts his life on the line by barricaded himself in his house. All of this because the judge rail-roaded the jury into a guilty verdict.
Around 1996, Ed and Elaine Brown first realised the truth about the income tax. They know, like me, there is no law requiring them to pay. They questioned the IRS many times about the income tax, but the IRS refused to respond. 11 years later, they are going to prison.
That is, Elaine is. On Friday, neither showed up. But later, Elaine finally showed. As I write this, Ed has barricaded himself inside his home and preparing himself for a fight.
The couple, who were representing themselves, said they did not dispute the prosecutor's contention that they had opted out of paying taxes, but they said they believe they have not broken the law by doing so.
"My husband and I challenged the application of the tax law to us," Elaine Brown said in her opening statement. "We cannot find any statute that requires us to pay."
That is what they believe when they questioned the IRS. In at least one of the letters described in testimony, the Browns acknowledged that they might be inviting criminal prosecution, but in their comments yesterday, they made it clear that they do not believe they have broken the law.
Can you say "good-faith belief" in Cheek v. United States?
But, it all boils down the judge doesn't allow the Browns to get a fair trial. Ed himself said the trial was a kangaroo court. The judge was somewhat allowing them to bring up their defense, but he won't allow to attack the law itself. That is exactly what happened to Larken Rose and Irwin Schiff. In Schiff's trial, the judge specifically states, "I will not have the law in my courtroom!" Say what??? A crime is an action which violates the law; if there is now law, there is no crime! What an idiot!! Besides, the jury DOES has the power to try the facts AND the law, in spite of what the judge might tell you otherwise! The Browns made a mistake by trusting the judge. From that mistake, Elaine is going to jail...at her age, for life, and Ed puts his life on the line by barricaded himself in his house. All of this because the judge rail-roaded the jury into a guilty verdict.
posted by Thomas Bell @ 7:36 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home