Brown home searched and seized

[Demosthenes]

U.S. Marshals, ATF and IRS Criminal Investigators Conclude Search of Ed & Elaine Brown's NH Property

For Immediate Release

October 18, 2007

U.S. MARSHALS, ATF and IRS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS CONCLUDE SEARCH OF ED & ELAINE BROWN’S NH PROPERTY

Teams of federal law enforcement officers, including members of the United States Marshals Service (USMS), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, concluded their search of the Plainfield, NH, property formerly owned by Edward and Elaine Brown. The search and collection of evidence -- including the rendering safe of a large number of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) -- was a painstaking process that lasted almost two weeks.

Ed Brown, 65, and Elaine Brown, 67, were found guilty of federal tax charges on January 18, and received their sentences, in absentia, during an April 24, 2007, court hearing. The Browns refused to surrender to serve their 63-month sentences. Bolstered by several supporters, the couple remained at their 110-acre residence in Plainfield, vowing to violently resist arrest. A small team of Deputy U.S. Marshals, posing as supporters, arrested the Browns on the front porch of their home on Thursday evening, October 4, 2007.

At a press briefing on October 5, U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier said that a protective sweep of the property conducted immediately after the arrests revealed a large number of IEDs inside and outside of the house, a large number of weapons and ammunition, and booby traps in the wood line around the grounds of the house. Agents from the ATF with particular expertise in handling explosives conducted a more thorough search of the property with their federal and state partners.

The ATF Manchester Field Office, the Boston ATF Arson and Explosives Group, Special Agent Bomb Technicians and Explosive Enforcement Officers from the ATF National Response Team, along with Forensic Chemists from the ATF Forensic Science Laboratory in Washington, D.C., and ATF Explosive Detection Canine Teams, all responded to assist in the identification, rendering safe and cataloging of the numerous explosives, firearms and ammunition that were recovered.

All explosives components were safely destroyed in nearby Cornish Flat, NH, with the assistance of the New Hampshire State Police Bomb Squad. “Following notification from the U.S. Marshals that the Browns had been arrested,” said Special Agent in Charge Glenn N. Anderson of the ATF Boston Field Division, “ATF quickly mobilized its resources to the Brown residence to safely remove any devices that could pose a hazard to anyone entering the property. Though a slow and painstaking process, safety was our first and foremost concern,” said Anderson. “All known IEDs have been properly disposed of, and are no longer a threat.”

Douglas Bricker, Special Agent in Charge of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, expressed gratitude and praised the hard work and dedication of the U.S. Marshals and the other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies responsible for the safe apprehension of Ed and Elaine Brown. “The arrest was an example of good judgment, patience, and common sense,” Bricker said. The safety of the public, law enforcement personnel, and Mr. and Mrs. Brown remained the top priority throughout the entire process and we are thankful that justice was served in a peaceful manner.”

“Moreover,” Bricker added, “honest American taxpayers deserve to know that there are consequences for individuals who intentionally evade their tax obligations. In this case, as in all cases, we operate through a system of justice where facts are presented and applied to the law. Law enforcement reacted to the Browns’ decision not to participate within that system. The threat of violence does not and cannot be permitted to deter the United States from enforcing our tax laws. IRS is responsible for and will continue to protect the revenue that our country depends on to operate.”

Besides criminal penalties, a variety of other processes exist -- including asset forfeiture, civil tax liens, and civil tax penalties. The basic concept is to remove the incentive, profit, and benefit from individuals who do not follow the law. “Without repercussions like these, the majority of taxpayers who properly pay their share have to make up the gap for those who think our laws do not apply to them,” said Bricker.

The Brown’s home and dental building have been seized, secured, posted, and are in the custody of the Treasury Department. The property will proceed through the usual asset forfeiture process and may ultimately be sold to satisfy the judgment imposed by the Court.

Due to tax privacy laws, IRS cannot discuss the Browns’ specific civil tax issues, but information is available in public court records. Civil division IRS Revenue Officers and Revenue Agents work closely with IRS Special Agents on cases like this one to appropriately assess and collect tax revenue.

Now that the search and rendering safe process has concluded, both properties have been secured and prominently posted with signs stating “No Trespassing – Government Property.” Anyone who enters, or attempts to enter the seized properties without permission from proper authorities is subject to arrest and prosecution.

Because there are pending criminal cases against four individuals who allegedly aided the Browns in their effort to avoid being arrested, the government is limited in what can be disclosed. However, more information may be made public as these cases are litigated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

[LPC]

Teams of federal law enforcement officers, including members of the United States Marshals Service (USMS), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, concluded their search of the Plainfield, NH, property formerly owned by Edward and Elaine Brown.

I guess at this point, the eventual transfer of title is just a formality.

[The Observer]

Teams of federal law enforcement officers, including members of the United States Marshals Service (USMS), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, concluded their search of the Plainfield, NH, property formerly owned by Edward and Elaine Brown.

I guess at this point, the eventual transfer of title is just a formality.

Not really. The transfer of title would be accomplished under federal court order authorizing the sale of the property. The government should not have title to the property at all during this time - they should only be offering the government's lien interest in the property subject to any senior creditors.

Of course, this property has some problems, especially in terms of safety. Despite the sweeps by ATF and the other agencies, there is the possibility that they could have missed one of the booby traps. I sincerely hope this is not so since it would be a tragedy if an innocent person is injured or maimed or killed by Ed's insistence on doing it his "way."

[Famspear]

I guess at this point, the eventual transfer of title is just a formality.

How does that work, actually? Entry 187 on the docket on June 13, 2007 in Ed's criminal case shows a "Final Order of Forfeiture" which provides in part:

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED [ . . . ] that all right, title and interest to:

[ . . . ] (2) $42,840.16 of the value of the property located at 27 Glen Road, W. Lebanon, NH, [ . . . ] and,

(3) $27,997.13 of the value of the property located at 401 Center of Town Road, Plainfield, NH, [ . . . ]

are hereby condemned, forfeited and vested to the United States of America [ . . . ]

Does the document showing the order itself constitute the instrument of conveyance (similar to a deed) of what presumably is, at the very least, an undivided partial fee simple interest in the two parcels of real estate, without any further action needed? If the items of property were worth less than the specified amounts, would the document showing the order constitute a conveyance of the entire fee simple interest?

(Forfeiture is not exactly an area of expertise for me.)

[Famspear]

I should point out that the Order references 21 USC 853(n)(7), (criminal forfeitures) which provides:

Following the court’s disposition of all petitions filed under this subsection, or if no such petitions are filed following the expiration of the period provided in paragraph (2) for the filing of such petitions, the United States shall have clear title to property that is the subject of the order of forfeiture and may warrant good title to any subsequent purchaser or transferee.

[Famspear]

Section 853(g) (relating to "execution") provides:

Upon entry of an order of forfeiture under this section, the court shall authorize the Attorney General to seize all property ordered forfeited upon such terms and conditions as the court shall deem proper. Following entry of an order declaring the property forfeited, the court may, upon application of the United States, enter such appropriate restraining orders or injunctions, require the execution of satisfactory performance bonds, appoint receivers, conservators, appraisers, accountants, or trustees, or take any other action to protect the interest of the United States in the property ordered forfeited. Any income accruing to or derived from property ordered forfeited under this section may be used to offset ordinary and necessary expenses to the property which are required by law, or which are necessary to protect the interests of the United States or third parties.

(bolding added). The seizure would seem to be a separate act than the forfeiture, and the seizure (by the AG) would seem to come after a further order from the court (?).

[Famspear]

I guess the way I'm reading it, you have various separate events:

1. order of forfeiture, possibly constituting the conveyance of the property interest from the criminal to the United States;

2. order or or authorization for the AG to seize the property;

3. actual seizure (taking of possession by government employees);

4. sale of the property interest by the United States to third party.

[Famspear]

Correction:

1. order of forfeiture;

2. expiration of the period provided for petitions (see above); at the time of expiration: a conveyance, by operation of law, of the property interest from the criminal to the United States;

3. order or or authorization for the AG to seize the property;

4. actual seizure (taking of possession by government employees);

5. sale of the property interest by the United States to third party.

[LPC]

I guess the way I'm reading it, you have various separate events:

1. order of forfeiture, possibly constituting the conveyance of the property interest from the criminal to the United States;

2. order or or authorization for the AG to seize the property;

3. actual seizure (taking of possession by government employees);

4. sale of the property interest by the United States to third party.

I suspect you're right, and that the order of forfeiture gave the US rights that are more like a tenant in common than a judgment creditor.

I also expect that The Observer is correct, and that because the US has only a partial forfeiture, the property must be sold by judicial process (a kind of partition) in order for the US to realize its interest, the Browns still being entitled to whatever might be left after the US (and all other lienholders) are paid.

And I also expect that the IRS will not want the property sold until it has been able to enter assessments for income taxes due, so that it will also have a right to proceeds from the sale of the property. But that might take too long.

As I said, a very bare title.

[Famspear]

I should also point out that although the two parcels of real estate may have been worth far more than the values specified for forfeiture in the Order (thus theoretically leaving some partial undivided fee simple interest for the Browns), the properties are presumably also subject to 26 USC section 6321 tax liens in amounts far greater than the TOTAL values of the properties. In other words, the rest of the undivided interests putatively retained by Ed or Elaine or both would presumably be lost by family Brown when the property is sold to satisfy the taxes.

The Internal Revenue Code seizure (theoretically a separate act from the criminal forfeiture seizure) would be under 6331, with an eventual third party sale under 6335. See also 6338 and 6339.

Just thinking about this, maybe different parts of the fee simple are conveyed at different times.

[Famspear]

LPC wrote:

And I also expect that the IRS will not want the property sold until it has been able to enter assessments for income taxes due, so that it will also have a right to proceeds from the sale of the property. But that might take too long.

Yes, and I don't know the assessment history of the case. Obviously, to the extent assessments haven't been made yet, there's no tax lien (yet), which changes the scenario I described.

[Truthstalker]

I sure wouldn't want to be the eventual owner of the Family Brown property or be of his bloodline.

[Famspear]

Hey, let's assume that none of the taxes have been assessed yet. That means the IRS will have to assess the tax for each year, then send a formal written notice and demand for each year to ?? Ed in prison?? Elaine in prison?? both??, and then wait the ten days (or whatever number of days it is now) so that the lien can be created and be effective retroactively to the date of the assessment (and I'm going out on a limb here and assuming that Ed and Elaine won't be inclined to pull the checkbook out and write a check to the Treasury for the tax prior to the expiration of the 10 day period).

Should the IRS send the formal written "notice and demand" to the prison addresses -- or to the theoretical "last known address" in New Hampshire? Which one counts as "last known address," or is that a relevant concept for this purpose?

Hey, somebody tell Ed to fill out an 8822, just to be sure. I'm sure he'll get right on that in a jiffy.

[Famspear]

Come to think of it, has the IRS already gone through the statutory notice of deficiency procedure with the Browns (or do we have another delay before assessment can be made)? I guess I would just tend to assume that the 90 day letters went out long ago, buuuut....

[Quixote]

Should the IRS send the formal written "notice and demand" to the prison addresses -- or to the theoretical "last known address" in New Hampshire? Which one counts as "last known address," or is that a relevant concept for this purpose?

The IRS needs to send notice to the last known address, even if they know the Browns aren't there to receive it.

I know of a case in which the IRS, after sending several letters to the last known address of a taxpayer, found out that the address in question did not exist. (A typo by a return preparer added an extra digit to the taxpayer's actual address at the time he filed his most recent return.) They mailed a NOD to a different address, one at which the taxpayer actually lived. He never received the NOD, which was returned unclaimed. They assessed when he failed to petition Tax Court. Years later, after the limitation period on assessment, the Taxpayer Advocate got involved and got the assessment voided as invalid.

[Scoop]

LPC wrote:

And I also expect that the IRS will not want the property sold until it has been able to enter assessments for income taxes due, so that it will also have a right to proceeds from the sale of the property. But that might take too long.

Yes, and I don't know the assessment history of the case. Obviously, to the extent assessments haven't been made yet, there's no tax lien (yet), which changes the scenario I described.

I certainly won't pretend to understand how the forfeiture process works, but there are tax liens in place, though they may not be completely up to date.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs ... 0/LIVING04

[The Observer]

I also expect that The Observer is correct, and that because the US has only a partial forfeiture, the property must be sold by judicial process (a kind of partition) in order for the US to realize its interest, the Browns still being entitled to whatever might be left after the US (and all other lienholders) are paid.

I may not be correct, after seeing Famspear's posts regarding criminal forfeiture. If this indeed was used to seize the property, then the law appears to give the government title to the property (with superior and bona fide creditors rights preserved). This is different than a sale by the IRS because the IRS cannot offer property for sale with the warranty of good title. Under the forfeiture, the government can offer good title, which would typically increase interest of bidders and the value of the property.

[grixit]

How did they manage to circumvent Ed's allodi-odi-odial title?

[Famspear]

grixit wrote:

How did they manage to circumvent Ed's allodi-odi-odial title?

Pursuant to the super-secret addendum to the super-secret NESARA law and the special powers granted to the Illuminati and Freemasons by the shape-shifting lizard people, any member of the Illuminati Freemason movement has the power to circumvent Ed's allodi-odi-odorous title merely by closing his or her eyes, tapping the heels of his or her ruby slippers together three times, and softly saying "There's no place like Ed's home, there's no place like Ed's home, there's no place like Ed's home, there's no place [ . . . ]" Works like a charm.

[ASITStands]

grixit wrote:

How did they manage to circumvent Ed's allodi-odi-odial title?

Pursuant to the super-secret addendum to the super-secret NESARA law and the special powers granted to the Illuminati and Freemasons by the shape-shifting lizard people, any member of the Illuminati Freemason movement has the power to circumvent Ed's allodi-odi-odorous title merely by closing his or her eyes, tapping the heels of his or her ruby slippers together three times, and softly saying "There's no place like Ed's home, there's no place like Ed's home, there's no place like Ed's home, there's no place [ . . . ]" Works like a charm.

Yuse guys are so comical! Don't give up your day jobs.