DHS letter regarding the Browns

[Demosthenes]

[LPC]

Is there a federal statute that would allow the government to bill the Browns for the costs of their surveillance and apprehension?

[The Observer]

That letter was already discussed here:

http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=1262

[Demosthenes]

Sorry guys, I skipped a lot of threads when I got back.

[Nikki]

That letter was already discussed here:

http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=1262

You have the effrontry to criticize GOD

You are clearly not aware of the subtle reason for reposting this item.

You need to check in with the Illuminati Office of Disinformation to get the latest briefing.

[webhick]

You need to check in with the Illuminati Office of Disinformation to get the latest briefing.

They're on a coffee break. I'd normally recommend checking in with them when they get back next Tuesday, but they're always so jittery on Tuesdays. Can't complain though. Through careful regulation we were able to not only remove two whole days from the break period, but also managed to wrestle the AK-47s away from them. And the postman isn't afraid to deliver to their office anymore now that he has more guns than them.

[The Observer]

You have the effrontry to criticize GOD

What can I say? It's been a slow day.

[Demosthenes]

In the Concord Monitor:

Plainfield

Letter: Traps guard Brown home
Homeland Security copter surveils couple

By Margot Sanger-Katz
Monitor staff

September 10. 2007 12:05AM

The Department of Homeland Security believes there are multiple traps and dangerous devices on the Plainfield property of tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown, according to a letter sent by an agency official to U.S. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.

A copy of the letter appears in image form on the website of an alternative newspaper in Maine. It is dated Aug. 13 and describes why an agency helicopter was flown over the property.

"Intelligence data reveals that the Brown compound contains significant passive and active traps and devices designed to thwart apprehension," it says.

The Browns have been holed up in their fortified concrete home for more than six months, vowing to resist any attempt to arrest them with deadly force. They were convicted of several crimes related to their refusal to pay federal income taxes for nearly a decade and each sentenced to more than five years in prison.

The Browns contend that there are no laws requiring them to pay the taxes. They have said they will fight to the death before surrendering to law enforcement. In interviews, e-mails and radio broadcasts, they have spoken obliquely about their preparations for an attack. Several of their supporters have described weapons on the property more specifically. But the U.S. Marshals, who are charged with arresting the couple, have not said much about what their surveillance of the property has revealed.

In recent weeks, the Browns said they've had several loads of fill delivered to their property. A supporter recently posted online that the Browns have "redone" some of their interior decorations.

During a party and concert hosted by the couple in July, many visitors noticed a helicopter, which they said flew at a low elevation, circling the property for several hours. According to those visitors, the helicopter's call number, identifying it as an agency aircraft, was easily legible. After several hours, the Browns and their supporters set off fireworks, they said.

The letter says that U.S. Customs and Border Protection was assisting the Marshals and the Internal Revenue Service in their investigation of the Browns by watching the property and shooting video.

"The operation involving the aircraft was necessary to further apprehension of the Browns and to secure officer safety in that effort," says the letter, signed by Luke Bellocchi, an assistant commissioner in the agency's office of congressional affairs. "No violations of agency policy or regulations occurred during the mission."

David Deschesne, the editor and publisher of the Fort Fairfield Journal, which published the letter, said he wrote to Collins's office requesting information about the helicopter and received a copy of the letter from her office in less than a month.

"Politicians and bureaucrats walk on pins and needles around me because I have a track record for exposing their corruption and devious plans to destroy our union," he said.

Messages left for Bellocchi, the Customs and Border Protection press line, and Collins's staff were not immediately returned.

[SteveSy]

Is there a federal statute that would allow the government to bill the Browns for the costs of their surveillance and apprehension?

Bill them...that's a joke. The government has already seized or made claim to far more than the browns owed in actual tax. I seriously doubt the Brown's will have anything ever again that the government will not lay claim too. All this nonsense over seizing someone's legally earned money.

I guess those earmarks and vote buying schemes have to be paid for....can't let the sheeple think they have any chance of standing up to the extortion machine.

Pretty sad this will likely end in violence on both the government’s part and the Brown's.....pretty sad people will likely get hurt so the government can make an example by showing what happens to you when you don't pay the extortion and refuse to submit.

Ya, I know he's a "convicted" criminal...convicted of refusing to give up his legally earned money to an entity that has members who have been convicted or indicted of a laundry list of crimes ranging from bribery (to misappropriate tax dollars), fraud, theft and on and on.

Yes, the Brown's are the evil one's....the good guys are the one's that use the money the Brown's refused to give up to buy votes with or make their family and friends rich with federal tax dollars.

[Demosthenes]

The government has already seized or made claim to far more than the browns owed in actual tax.

No, they haven't. They seized a commercial building worth $850,000 that was already subject to a pre-existing $350,000 state tax lien.

And I wonder how much the FMV of the property went down when Elaine sent out the juvenile minions to deface it with religious and anti-government graffiti...

[Dezcad]

Ya, I know he's a "convicted" criminal...convicted of refusing to give up his legally earned money to an entity

Don't forget that Ed was also convicted under a non-tax statute, (since he didn't earn any income during the years in question). Ed was convicted of violations of Title 31 USC 5324 and 5325.

There's no question that Title 31 is law.

[grixit]

Don't mind Steve, he's just trying to make his quota.

[The Observer]

Ya, I know he's a "convicted" criminal...convicted of refusing to give up his legally earned money to an entity that has members who have been convicted or indicted of a laundry list of crimes ranging from bribery (to misappropriate tax dollars), fraud, theft and on and on.

No, I don't think you know Ed Brown was convicted - or at least you don't want to believe that he was legally convicted of breaking a law that has been on the books for years. That upsets your applecart of ideas about how to approach the process of taxation in this country.

You don't want to separate the issues from the legality of taxation, because that would undercut your basis for deeming income taxation as being illegal. So you will keep linking taxation with spending, linking it with the character and repuation of current legislators who weren't even in office when the 16th amendment was passed and basically try any intellectually dishonest argument that you think has a minimal chance to fly if no one is paying attention.

Yes, the Brown's are the evil one's....the good guys are the one's that use the money the Brown's refused to give up to buy votes with or make their family and friends rich with federal tax dollars.

No, the good guys are the people who on a yearly basis pay their taxes without trying to squirm their way out of their legal obligation. The good guys are the ones who don't throw temper tantrums and retreat to a fortified compound issuing threats against law enforcement just because they didn't get their way. The good guys are the ones who just keep trudging along doing the best they can with what they have and not complaining about the bad breaks in life that come. The good guys are the ones who actually go out and make a living instead of sponging off of some insecure professional woman. The good guys are the ones who participate in the political process and work within the system to change what they don't like - they don't suddenly decide to pick and choose what laws they want to obey. The good guys don't stand around with their hands out asking for other people to support them when they have made a mistake. Good guys are able to keep their friends and make long-lasting relationships.

It's too bad that you have somehow mistaken Ed Brown for a good guy.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote [excerpts]:

"seizing someone's legally earned money"

"earmarks and vote buying schemes have to be paid for"

"the sheeple"

"standing up"

"extortion machine"

"don't pay the extortion"

"refuse to submit"

"give up his legally earned money"

"members who have been convicted or indicted of a laundry list of crimes ranging from bribery (to misappropriate tax dollars), fraud, theft"

"buy votes"

"make their family and friends rich with federal tax dollars"

On the most fundamental level, this isn't really about the Federal income tax at all. This is about someone's emotions about government. "Government bad." "Me good." "Me no want to submit to bad government."

[Cpt Banjo]

SteveSy wrote [excerpts]:

"seizing someone's legally earned money"

"earmarks and vote buying schemes have to be paid for"

"the sheeple"

"standing up"

"extortion machine"

"don't pay the extortion"

"refuse to submit"

"give up his legally earned money"

"members who have been convicted or indicted of a laundry list of crimes ranging from bribery (to misappropriate tax dollars), fraud, theft"

"buy votes"

"make their family and friends rich with federal tax dollars"

On the most fundamental level, this isn't really about the Federal income tax at all. This is about someone's emotions about government. "Government bad." "Me good." "Me no want to submit to bad government."

This is similar to Larken Rose's tactics. After realizing that his arguments on tax law are completely worthless, he resorts to questioning the legitimacy of law in general and tax law in particular, wrapping himself in the mantle of anarchism. Stevie exhibits the same symptoms.

[Famspear]

Part of the key is the conflation of the concepts of "The Law" and "The Government."

Government is the Authority Figure. The Authority Figure is attacked indirectly through the device of challenging The Law. The specious arguments about The Law are simply an indirect way of challenging The Government.

I see this all the time in another internet forum. In discussions about the nature of the Federal income tax, I am repeatedly attacked as being an agent of "The Government." That's the way these people think. They think of The Law as being merely an extension of The Authority Figure (The Government). Many of these people are obsessed with the idea that anyone who points out that their laughable theories about Federal income tax law must somehow really be "working for the government" if not in fact then somehow in effect. (By the way, I'm not picking on SteveSy here; I don't recall whether he himself has done this or not.)

Because The Law is something that is promulgated and enforced by Society through The Government, it is perhaps easy for some people to confuse the two concepts, or to think that The Law is somehow merely a nefarious tool of The Evil Government. (Attack the Government by attacking the legitimacy of The Law!)

As a tax practitioner who has never worked for any government at any level, I of course view The Law and The Government as two different things. For me, The Law is something that my clients can use to their advantage -- in some cases. In any case, the Law is something that both my clients AND The Government must follow. The Law is definitely not synonymous with The Government.

[LPC]

Part of the key is the conflation of the concepts of "The Law" and "The Government."

Government is the Authority Figure. The Authority Figure is attacked indirectly through the device of challenging The Law. The specious arguments about The Law are simply an indirect way of challenging The Government.

I see it as more of the refuge that extremists take in Manichean absolutes. By characterizing the entire government (and everyone who disagrees with them) as ignorant, corrupt, subhuman, or simply evil, extremists such as Sybil can avoid all the more difficult questions about the proper role of government and balancing the needs and rights of society with the needs and rights of the individual.

[SteveSy]

Part of the key is the conflation of the concepts of "The Law" and "The Government."

Government is the Authority Figure. The Authority Figure is attacked indirectly through the device of challenging The Law. The specious arguments about The Law are simply an indirect way of challenging The Government.

How ridiculous can one be...

Of course I do not like how the government operates nor do I like the government in its current form. Your babble is akin to saying "You just don't like the idea we have a dictator so you attack his supposed illegal activities upon the people. Which of course are perfectly legal because he makes the laws and anyone who has challenged his right to do the things he's done has lost miserably. Most are in prison to today so obviously they were wrong."

Let's make this clear for the very slow one's here....which appears to be most of you. Every entity that is loathed by the people will claim it is justified in its actions. It will also successfully prosecute and imprison those who attempt to prove otherwise. It's not likely, simple common sense to most but not to you apparently, that someone will not like something they feel is acting unjustly or illegally.


To LPC: The government in its current form is not "balancing the needs and rights of society with the needs and rights of the individual". There is no balance it's completely one sided. Any entity that will prey on the sympathy of the people for assistance to the elderly while spending every damn penny in surplus thus screwing future generations has little concern for society. Take into consideration a father that spends every excess dollar he has on new cars, TV’s trips, and anything else he can’t afford and takes out loans on his children’s children’s behalf to help pay for it and you have our government. Any entity that will spend itself into oblivion to the tune of 43 trillion dollars in liabilities to be paid for by future generations most not even born yet has no concern for society. Any entity that will create bills that contain more pork on unrelated projects than the bill contains appropriations than what it was supposedly designated for i.e. Highway bill, Farm bill etc. has no concern for society or the individual for that matter.

It’s all about buying votes with tax dollars for the benefit of the members of government, their family and their friends. Members of government don’t spend billions of dollars each election to help society they do it for personal gain and power.

Our government is corrupt to the core....plain and simple. It will use any means necessary to obtain its objective including illegally extorting trillions of dollars from the people and to make sure it’s declared “legal” they’ll simply appoint those to judge who will claim it is. Its laws are designed for the greater part to benefit those in power and any benefit to the people is purely consequential.

Trying watching the news and listening to how many people in government are busted for bribery and caught supplying federal tax dollars to projects that are designed to get a nice contribution to the next election fund. You ridiculously want to separate that from the way they administer the laws. Why not disregard the fact that a mother is known to smoke crack and walk the streets at midnight as a hooker in a child custody battle too. How she administers care to a child has little to do with how she acts. For people who try very hard to look intelligent you sure do have asinine arguments devoid of any identifiable common sense.

[Quixote]

Trying watching the news and listening to how many people in government are busted for bribery and caught supplying federal tax dollars to projects that are designed to get a nice contribution to the next election fund. You ridiculously want to separate that from the way they administer the laws.

You have to admire Steve's courage. I certainly wouldn't have the nerve to respond to a post I hadn't read.

Hey, Steve, what's your current de-tax theory?

[webhick]

SteveSy, I'm running for President in 2016 (2008 if I can get enough popularity votes to override the age thing). Would you like to be on my oversight committee? Unfortunately, it won't pay much since I'm planning on major salary reductions for those in government (including the Hexagonal Orifice).

I know it sounds like I'm poking fun at you Steve, but I'm not. I'm sick and tired of a lot of what goes on in the government too. If President, I'd make a lot of changes that no one (government, welfare leaches, etc) would like. You sound like you would make a good leader of my oversight committee because you wouldn't take any crap.