Ed & Elaine Brown arrested on debt slavery [Archive]

mynameis

05-10-2007, 05:48 AM

U.S. Marshal: Convicted tax evaders arrested

By KATHY McCORMACK
Associated Press Writer

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- A couple convicted of tax evasion were arrested peacefully at their Plainfield home Thursday night after holing up at the fortress-like compound for months, the U.S. Marshals Service said.

Ed and Elaine Brown were convicted on federal tax charges in January and refused to turn themselves in to authorities when they were sentenced in April to five years and three months in prison.

It was not immediately clear how they were taken into custody.

"We had no indication that the Browns intended to voluntarily surrender, so we had to move forward with an operation that promised the safest possible outcome. That day was today," U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier said in a news release.

Ed Brown, 65, and his wife, 67, have claimed the federal income tax is not legitimate.

Earlier this year, officials cut power and telephone service in an effort to ratchet up pressure on the couple convicted of scheming to avoid federal income taxes by hiding $1.9 million of income between 1996 and 2003.

After abandoning his federal trial and retreating to his home on 103 wooded acres, Ed Brown repeatedly said that any attempts to arrest him would result in a violent confrontation.

The home is on an isolated dirt road and includes a turret that offers a 360-degree view of the property and a driveway that is sometimes barricaded with sport utility vehicles.

Heavily armed police surrounded the home in June while they seized commercial property the couple owned in a neighboring town. SWAT teams, military and explosives vehicles marshaled in the tiny town and sparked rumors of a raid.

The Marshals Service said it was only for surveillance.

The arrests "will be a relief to everyone in the community," state Agriculture Commissioner Stephen Taylor, a Plainfield resident, said Thursday night. "This has been such a distraction to everybody."

A message left for Elaine Brown's son, David Hatch-Bernier of Worcester, Mass., was not immediately returned.

Neighbors of the Browns were relieved to hear the news.

"I think it's great that it happened without incident," said David Grobe, who lives about a quarter of a mile from the Browns. He's a former patient of Elaine Brown, who used to run a dental practice.

Grobe said he noticed "an unusual amount of traffic all of a sudden" passing by the house, about 30 to 40 cars, about the time of the arrests. "There was no real indication that it was official."

Neither he nor neighbor Robert Carpenter said they heard anything unusual. Carpenter said there were no marked cruisers, but a lot of large SUVs. "We called Plainfield Police and they called back and told us what was going on," he said.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_TAX_EVADERS_ARRESTED_NHOL-?SITE=NHCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Mo0n5tar

05-10-2007, 01:08 PM

Minuteman Matt
Posted: Oct 5 2007, 10:05 AM

I just recieved a email from someone that Ed & Elaine Brown have been arrested along with 5 other people living at the house. Can anyone confirm this? This is to bad I was hoping Ed would escape.

[State_Sovereignty] U.S. Marshals Break the Law, Wrongfully Arrest Ed & Elaine Brown w/o Authority
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Long Stand-off for Ed & Elaine Brown ended Thursday evening when
U.S. Marshals arrested the couple at their home months after being
wrongfully convicted for a Crime that does NOT Exist!

Everyone should contact their Representatives in CONgress to
Strongly Object to the Federal Government's Unlawful & Gestapo
Tatics.

It is Quite Simple there is NO CRIME of which the Brown's are
Actually Guilty of Commiting, and the U.S. Marshals are Lacking ANY
Lawful Authority / Jurisdiction to make an Arrest!

It is Time that Citizens Stand Up & Demand Answers!

Any True Citizen of this Republic has the Duty to Inform Themselves
of the Key Issues in this Matter so they Can Hold Their Elected
Public Servants in CONgress and their subordinates in the various
Alphabet Soup Agencies ACCOUNTABLE! !

FACT: The Premise that the Department of Justice uses to Allege
their Jurisdiction & Authority on is based on a FRAUD (18 USC 3231)
Anyone who has researched the Record concerning same KNOWS that DOJ
is committing FRAUD!

What Next? Ex Post Facto Laws?

Midnight Arrests on Bogus Warrants by the Fed Neo-Nazi Goon Squads?

"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I did not speak
up because I was not a communist. Then they came for the Jews and I
did not speak up because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the
trade unionists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a trade
unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak up
because I was not a Catholic. Then they came for me and by that time
there was no one left to speak up for anyone." Pastor Martin
Niemoeller,German Evangelical Lutheran (1892-1984)

"A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high
virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of
necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in
danger, are of higher obligation." Thomas
Jefferson

"For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a
vanquished liberty is that is was lost because its possessors failed
to stretch forth a saving hand while there was still time."
Justice George Sutherland

Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore get wisdom. And in all your
getting, get understanding. Proverbs 4:7

"vivus spartacus"
All Rights Reserved (In the 9th Amendment.Guarantee d by the 2nd)

http://z13.invisionfree.com/THE_UNHIVED_MIND/index.php?showtopic=1919&st=75

Posted: Jul 12 2007, 11:14 PM
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert O'Brien
> To: dave
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 10:16 PM
> Subject: trabscript of Hauert
>
>
> Patriots: Please keep this going: Hauert was indicted on five counts
> Sec. 7203 WILLFUL FAILURE etc. Hauert wanted to know the OFFENSE
> statute he was accused of violating and would be pleading guilty to.
> He wanted to know the particular statute that made him the person
> required to pay the income tax. His attorney (addressing the
> judge) "The prosecution has been trying to get my client to plea
> bargain. My client is interested but has a few demands of the
> prosecution in order to understand the charges and determine the
> potential guilt. He has a serious question that nobody will address.
> Will the court entertain that question?"
>
> Judge: "Certainly."
>
>
> Hauert: "Your honor, Section 7203 of the I.R. Code is a DIS-
> CIPLINARY STATUTE. It defines the penalty for someone who has broken
> the law. I need to know the underlying offense statute that is used
> to determine if I am the "any person" required to file. The
> term "any person" is ambiguous.
>
> Judge: "I don't know what he is asking for.(Looking at Prosecutor)
> Do you know what he's asking for?"
>
> Prosecutor: "No, your honor, I don't know what he's asking for
> either."
>
> Judge: "I am not knowledgeable of every law and can't be."
> (Hey, isn't he presumed to to know the law?)
>
>
> Hauert: Could you please bring me the I.R. Code book with 7203 in it
> so I can show you what I am talking about. (note: the clerk brought
> in the I.R.Code book.)
>
>
> Judge: (Reading Sec. 7203) " Any person required under this title to
> pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by
> regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any
> records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such
> estimated tax or tax, make such return..."
>
> Judge: "Sounds clear to me."
>
> Note: (In the words of Hauert) "I looked at the prosecuting
> attorney and criminal investigator looking business-like and smiling
> confidently and I thought, these suckers have gotten to the judge."
>
>
> Hauert: "May I see the book? (Reading) any person required by this
> Title...What I am asking is, what statute establishes the FACT that
> I am one of these "persons" required, by this title, to pay the tax?
> Where, exactly, in the Title is the offense defined, where am I made
> the subject of the tax?"
>
> Note: (In the words of Hauert: "I then handed the judge back the
> book. Looking perplexed, the judge read those words over and over
> again for what felt like an eternity.")
>
> Judge: "So what you're asking for, Mr. Hauert, is the Statute,
> referred to in Section 7203, that makes a person liable for the tax
> and subject to the penalties imposed by Section 7203?"
>
>
> Hauert: "Yes, that's what I have been asking the prosecutor for. I
> have also been asking the IRS the same question for several years
> and no one will give me the Statute of law that I am accused of
> breaking."
>
> Note: In one sentence that would destroy the government's entire
> case,
>
> Judge: "No problem, Mr. Proscutor, I'm sure that you can provide a
> copy of that statute."
>
> Prosecutor: (Stammering and stuttering) "Um, ohh.. I'm...uh.. not
> familiar with.. uh.. that part of the code." (With that, the
> Prosecutor lost his business like composure and the case was
> concluded. The prosecutor was ordered to find someone who knew which
> statute defined the offense.)
>
>
> Hauert's attorney then requested a Bill of Particulars, defining the
> specific offense statute that created the liability for Hauert to
> pay the income tax and file a 1040 Tax Retutn. A Bill of Particulars
> is a written statement of the SPECIFIC CHARGES agains the defendant.
> This switched the burden of proof back to the government to provide
> such a statute. After an extended period of time, the prosecution
> still could not supplt the court with the offense statute or
> regulation that made Tom Hauert (or any American Citizen) the person
> made liable to pay the S.1 graduated Income Tax (because no such
> statute exists). Hauert, therefore, filed for and was granted a
> dismissal!
>
>
>
> - -----Original Message-----
> From: Oneseadog@aol.com
> To: JCA4Unison@aol.com
> Bcc: ScottatConcord@aol.com
> Sent: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 3:22 pm
> Subject: transcript of Hauert-SAYS HE BEAT-A 26 USC 7203 CASE---
> SEARCH PACER FOR ANSWER
>
> - ------------------------------
> - ----------------------------
> - -----------
> See what's free at AOL.com.
> Attached Message
> From: DCadjust@aol.com
> Subject: transcript of Hauert
> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 3:27:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>
> Subj: transcript of Hauert
> Date: 07/10/2007 1:46:14 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert O'Brien
> To: dave
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 10:16 PM
> Subject: trabscript of Hauert
>
> Patriots: Please keep this going: Hauert was indicted on five counts
> Sec. 7203 WILLFUL FAILURE etc. Hauert wanted to know the OFFENSE
> statute he was accused of violating and would be pleading guilty to.
> He wanted to know the particular statute that made him the person
> required to pay the income tax. His attorney (addressing the
> judge) "The prosecution has been trying to get my client to plea
> bargain. My client is interested but has a few demands of the
> prosecution in order to understand the charges and determine the
> potential guilt. He has a serious question that nobody will address.
> Will the court entertain that question?"
>
> Judge: "Certainly."
>
> Hauert: "Your honor, Section 7203 of the I.R. Code is a DIS-
> CIPLINARY STATUTE. It defines the penalty for someone who has broken
> the law. I need to know the underlying offense statute that is used
> to determine if I am the "any person" required to file. The
> term "any person" is ambiguous.
>
> Judge: "I don't know what he is asking for.(Looking at Prosecutor)
> Do you know what he's asking for?"
>
> Prosecutor: "No, your honor, I don't know what he's asking for
> either."
>
> Judge: "I am not knowledgeable of every law and can't be."
> (Hey, isn't he presumed to to know the law?)
>
> Hauert: Could you please bring me the I.R. Code book with 7203 in it
> so I can show you what I am talking about. (note: the clerk brought
> in the I.R.Code book.)
>
> Judge: (Reading Sec. 7203) " Any person required under this title to
> pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by
> regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any
> records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such
> estimated tax or tax, make such return..."
>
> Judge: "Sounds clear to me."
>
> Note: (In the words of Hauert) "I looked at the prosecuting
> attorney and criminal investigator looking business-like and smiling
> confidently and I thought, these suckers have gotten to the judge."
>
> Hauert: "May I see the book? (Reading) any person required by this
> Title...What I am asking is, what statute establishes the FACT that
> I am one of these "persons" required, by this title, to pay the tax?
> Where, exactly, in the Title is the offense defined, where am I made
> the subject of the tax?"
>
> Note: (In the words of Hauert: "I then handed the judge back the
> book. Looking perplexed, the judge read those words over and over
> again for what felt like an eternity.")
>
> Judge: "So what you're asking for, Mr. Hauert, is the Statute,
> referred to in Section 7203, that makes a person liable for the tax
> and subject to the penalties imposed by Section 7203?"
>
> Hauert: "Yes, that's what I have been asking the prosecutor for. I
> have also been asking the IRS the same question for several years
> and no one will give me the Statute of law that I am accused of
> breaking."
>
> Note: In one sentence that would destroy the government's entire
> case,
>
> Judge: "No problem, Mr. Proscutor, I'm sure that you can provide a
> copy of that statute."
>
> Prosecutor: (Stammering and stuttering) "Um, ohh.. I'm...uh.. not
> familiar with.. uh.. that part of the code." (With that, the
> Prosecutor lost his business like composure and the case was
> concluded. The prosecutor was ordered to find someone who knew which
> statute defined the offense.)
>
> Hauert's attorney then requested a Bill of Particulars, defining the
> specific offense statute that created the liability for Hauert to
> pay the income tax and file a 1040 Tax Retutn. A Bill of Particulars
> is a written statement of the SPECIFIC CHARGES agains the defendant.
> This switched the burden of proof back to the government to provide
> such a statute. After an extended period of time, the prosecution
> still could not supplt the court with the offense statute or
> regulation that made Tom Hauert (or any American Citizen) the person
> made liable to pay the S.1 graduated Income Tax (because no such
> statute exists). Hauert, therefore, filed for and was granted a
> dismissal!

I always enjoy reading that transcript, people are getting out of the fictional corporate USA system.

http://www.usavsus.info/