Elaine's son tries to petition the Appellate Court

[Demosthenes]

The guy doesn't seem to get that his mother's appeal wasn't denied, it expired when she refused to pay the fee. On the contrary, she and Ed bragged about not opening any mail from the court on the daily radio show.

http://www.petitiononline.com/brownirs/

[webhick]

All legal experts who read the motions agreed that they were flawlessly written and all within the scope of the law and in accordance with established court procedures.

I think he means "I showed the motion to all the legal experts who I thought would agree with me."

Also, since when do experts agree on anything? Only 4 out of 5 dentists recommend any given brand of toothpaste. (I'm fairly certain that #5 is Elaine because the person running the panel pays his taxes and she doesn't trust him because he never showed her the law that said that she had to give her professional opinion despite him showing her her signed panel contract like 450 times in the past hour. She just keeps looking at him with those dead eyes hoping that Ed will walk in and tell her what to think but in the meantime, time has expired and the cards have been collected and they're forced to count her answer as a "no". All the other dentists are now glaring at her and shooting bad dentist juju in her general direction hoping that she's convicted on those tax evasion charges and hides out at her compound for 9 months so she can't show up at the panels anymore. But, oh, they will be sorely disappointed because there are a ton more Elaine's out there just looking to creep out and annoy four more dentists just like them.)

[.]

The guy doesn't seem to get

Acorn. Tree. Or something like that.

[Demosthenes]

All legal experts who read the motions agreed that they were flawlessly written and all within the scope of the law and in accordance with established court procedures.

I think he means "I showed the motion to all the legal experts who I thought would agree with me."

Also, since when do experts agree on anything? Only 4 out of 5 dentists recommend any given brand of toothpaste. (I'm fairly certain that #5 is Elaine because the person running the panel pays his taxes and she doesn't trust him because he never showed her the law that said that she had to give her professional opinion despite him showing her her signed panel contract like 450 times in the past hour. She just keeps looking at him with those dead eyes hoping that Ed will walk in and tell her what to think but in the meantime, time has expired and the cards have been collected and they're forced to count her answer as a "no". All the other dentists are now glaring at her and shooting bad dentist juju in her general direction hoping that she's convicted on those tax evasion charges and hides out at her compound for 9 months so she can't show up at the panels anymore. But, oh, they will be sorely disappointed because there are a ton more Elaine's out there just looking to creep out and annoy four more dentists just like them.)

Now that's just freaky. I wrote a very similar paragraph about two hours ago.

[webhick]

Now that's just freaky. I wrote a very similar paragraph about two hours ago.

Jinx.

[The Observer]

When they are finally released from prison, they will be homeless, penniless, unemployed, and in their seventies.

It appears that Elaine's son has forgotten that there are further charges pending against his mother which certainly could add more time to her prison time.

[LPC]

All legal experts who read the motions agreed that they were flawlessly written and all within the scope of the law and in accordance with established court procedures.

I think he means "I showed the motion to all the legal experts who I thought would agree with me."

I think he means that a couple of lawyers he showed it to were polite, and said that there were no obvious spelling, grammatical, or procedural errors. That's all that "flawlessly written" and "within the scope of the law and ... procedures" means.

But where are the "legal experts" who are willing to say that the motions "had merit" or "should have been granted"?

[Demosthenes]

I think the legal expert was Bob Schulz.

[webhick]

I think the legal expert was Bob Schulz.

He said "all the legal experts". That must mean there's three Bob's in one: Bob Schultz (generally crazy), Robert Shultz (who comes off as sane until you realize that he's crazy), and SHULTZ (who just as crazy as the other two, only he hasn't figured out what "use your indoor voice" means).

[LPC]

I think the legal expert was Bob Schulz.

That would explain the sudden reliance on the first amendment right to petition.

[Dezcad]

The guy doesn't seem to get that his mother's appeal wasn't denied, it expired when she refused to pay the fee. On the contrary, she and Ed bragged about not opening any mail from the court on the daily radio show.

http://www.petitiononline.com/brownirs/

Not only that but both Ed and Elaine said (on many occasions) that the courts don't exist and they would not be involved with the courts. Did the courts somehow come into existence since the arrests?

Even Ed said in his recent phone call with Shaun that he wants a new trial. It's the convenient argument strategy.

[Joey Smith]

Speaking of new trial, any word on new charges to be filed against Ed and/or Elaine arising from the standoff?

[grixit]

Now that's just freaky. I wrote a very similar paragraph about two hours ago.

Jinx.

Hey, don't silence her!

Senehtsomed!

[Quixote]

The case of United States vs. Edward and Elaine Brown was not about income taxes.

Technically, he's right. The only crimes both Ed and Elaine were charged with and convicted of were structuring financial transactions and conspiracy to structure financial transactions, i.e., money laundering.

[Famspear]

On January 18, 2007, Edward Lewis Brown was found guilty by a jury in a Federal District Court in Concord, New Hampshire of:

---one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 USC 371;

---one count of conspiracy to structure financial transactions to evade the Treasury reporting requirements in violation of 18 USC 371, 31 USC 5325 and 31 USC 5324(a)(3), and

---one count of structuring financial transactions to evade the Treasury reporting requirements and aiding and abetting under 31 USC 5324(a)(3) and 18 USC 2.

On that day the same jury found Elaine A. Brown guilty of:

---one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 USC 371;

---five counts of tax evasion and aiding and abetting under 26 USC 7201 and 18 USC 2;

---eight counts of willful failure to collect employment taxes under 26 USC 7202 and aiding and abetting under 18 USC 2;

---one count of conspiracy to structure financial transactions to evade the Treasury reporting requirements in violation of 18 USC 371, 31 USC 5325 and 31 USC 5324(a)(3), and

--two counts of structuring financial transactions to evade the Treasury reporting requirements and aiding and abetting under 31 USC 5324(a)(3) and 18 USC 2.

See Jury Verdict, docket entry 133, Jan. 18, 2007, ''United States of America v. Elaine A. Brown and Edward Lewis Brown, Defendants''; case no. 1:06-cr-00071-SM-ALL, United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire (Concord); and Indictment, docket entry 1, April 4, 2006, ''United States of America v. Elaine A. Brown and Edward Lewis Brown, Defendants''; case no. 1:06-cr-00071-SM-ALL, United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire (Concord).

[Famspear]

As you can see, Elaine was convicted of tax evasion. But I don't remember what taxes she was convicted of attempting to evade. Was it the income tax, or the unemployment tax?

[Famspear]

OK, I checked and it was income tax after all. Starting with the 1999 Form 1040 tax (over $96,000 in income tax for that year, according to the indictment).

[Famspear]

According to the indictment, the income tax evasions were by Elaine, as follows:

year tax
1999 $ 96,969
2000 70,946
2001 56,991
2002 124,862
2003 110,510
----------
$ 460,278

A tidy sum

[Famspear]

Also according to the indictment, the Federal employment taxes for eight different quarterly periods that Elaine willfully failed to collect totaled over $116,000 (income tax withholding for employees, plus Social Security & Medicare taxes).

[Scoop]

Speaking of new trial, any word on new charges to be filed against Ed and/or Elaine arising from the standoff?

Not so far.