EliotNess wrote:Demo, let me know when your court jesters are finished.
Does this mean that at some point you intend to post something of substance? After all, you've posted three times. You first suggested that Danny gets motivation from Superbowl entertainment, second suggested a 500-lb. JDAM in lieu of foreclosure on Chez Brown, and finally complained about others being "court jesters".
Physican, heal thyself.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
webhick wrote:
Seems like every week I'm pissing some long-standing member off. Perhaps it's time to go on another posting hiatus.
See you guys in a week or so.
Webhick, You are too sensitive. With no offense to the rest of the learned bunch of lunatics, you are also the most entertaining person here. Come back soon.
EliotNess wrote:Demo, let me know when your court jesters are finished.
OK EliotNess, I'll play nice.
Unlike some of the more regulars on this board, I actually feel bad for most of the "Freedom Four". Perhaps it is pity that they are destroying their lives over some serious delusions. I genuinely wonder if Danny suffers from a mental illness. (I mean that in a non-pejorative sense).
I met Ed Brown a number of years ago and found him to be a complete self-absorbed nut case. How he managed to con anyone into following him down that path of destruction is beyond me.
Moving on to you. Are you Danny's brother? What is your take on his beliefs? Do you understand that he is undoubtedly headed to a very long stay in a federal prison?
Something I've been chewing on: what drove this case to turn violent when most tax protest cases don't?
I find it interesting that three of the four co-defendants have codependents in their immediate friends and family egging them on to life sentences in the name of martyrdom. Reno has Donna and his father, Danny has his brother Bill, and Bob Wolffe has his wife Valeri. Ed, of course, has Elaine.
Perhaps it's this extra support system that enables this particular group to think that extreme violence is justifiable, when other tax deniers are smart enough to recognize that a violent solution is really stupid.
BTW, young Jason (just turned 21) was the fool who joined the Army. Danny is the 40 year old electrician.
Demosthenes wrote:Something I've been chewing on: what drove this case to turn violent when most tax protest cases don't?
I find it interesting that three of the four co-defendants have codependents in their immediate friends and family egging them on to life sentences in the name of martyrdom. Reno has Donna and his father, Danny has his brother Bill, and Bob Wolffe has his wife Valeri. Ed, of course, has Elaine.
Perhaps it's this extra support system that enables this particular group to think that extreme violence is justifiable, when other tax deniers are smart enough to recognize that a violent solution is really stupid.
BTW, young Jason (just turned 21) was the fool who joined the Army. Danny is the 40 year old electrician.
I have a hard time believing Elaine egged on Ed. At one point, Elaine seemed to know that Ed was a little more "aggressive" than she wanted him to be (this was about 10 years ago). I think Ed force feed her the kool-aide. She was merely the passive enabler. Ed was a militia nut long before he was a tax denier. He dreamed of the day he could defy the .gov and show the world how he was right. Personally, I think Ed became a tax denier as a method of fulfilling his militia fantasies, which is why this case turned violent.
On the other hand, I spoke with Elaine maybe twice way back when, so maybe I have completely misread her.
I think Elaine qualifies as a co-dependent. After all, it was 100% her income, she was the one who made almost all of the structured transactions (not Ed), she chose to return to the Plainfield home after the judge released her pending sentencing, and even months after their arrests, she's the one (not Ed) filing the nonsense tax denier arguments in court.
I think Elaine's actions have gone a long way towards pushing Ed into his violent stand. If she's simply said "no" to any of his crap at any point in the last 15 years, you have to wonder if he'd have listened to her and questioned his own decisions.
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.
Postby Imalawman »
Demosthenes wrote:I think Elaine's actions have gone a long way towards pushing Ed into his violent stand. If she's simply said "no" to any of his crap at any point in the last 15 years, you have to wonder if he'd have listened to her and questioned his own decisions.
Perhaps. I had a case a while ago where the husband made a very good salary and was a raging TP. Alleging all sorts of stuff. He was kind of a Schiffite. Anyway, he has continued to file crazy returns (despite losing his first case). Now he's facing fraud on the state and federal levels. However, his wife files correct and accurate returns every year. She won't support him and doesn't agree with him. But it hasn't seemingly had an effect on him at all. So, I wonder if in fact, it would have avoided this disaster. Tough to say. (on a side note, its nice to see a spouse stand up for themselves. He might go down, but she's safe)
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
You are all very smart legal and financial professionals of one form or another and you all seem to have it all pretty much figured out. I don't see an upside to engaging in a futile debate about that.
What I'm wondering is what drives one to get on this and other forums and average 6.43 posts per day, stalking, gossiping and in some cases impersonating TP's in such and obsessive manner that it begins to border on a soft form of vigilanteism (hint: the correct answer is not because I'm researching my next book)?
EliotNess wrote:You are all very smart legal and financial professionals of one form or another and you all seem to have all it pretty much figured out. I don't see an upside to engaging in a futile debate about that.
What I'm wondering is what drives one to get on this and other forums and average 6.43 posts per day, stalking, gossiping and in some cases impersonating TP's in such and obsessive manner that it begins to border on a soft form of vigilanteism (hint: the correct answer is not because I'm researching my next book)?
I don't think anyone here is worried about you writing a book.
Why do you want your brother to spend the rest of his life in prison, Bill?
You are all very smart legal and financial professionals of one form or another and you all seem to have all it pretty much figured out. I don't see an upside to engaging in a futile debate about that.
Good call.
EliotNess wrote:
What I'm wondering is what drives one to get on this and other forums and average 6.43 posts per day, stalking, gossiping and in some cases impersonating TP's in such and obsessive manner that it begins to border on a soft form of vigilanteism (hint: the correct answer is not because I'm researching my next book)?
Speaking only for myself: First, it's fun.
Second, it's good exercise (a learning experience).
Third, it may indeed be obsessive, but it does not appear to be "vigilanteism."
Fourth, there is always the outside chance that we will do some good (such as deterring someone from taking a very incorrect and very self-destructive path). It's a long shot, maybe.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
--Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 1584, World Publishing Company (2d Coll. Ed. 1978).
vigilance committee: a group extralegally assuming authority for summary action professedly to keep order and punish crime because of the alleged lack or failure of the usual law-enforcement agencies
--Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 1583, World Publishing Company (2d Coll. Ed. 1978).
I don't see anything even remotely close to that here.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Bill, everyone has a right to fair trial, including your brother. The only one preventing that from happening right now is your brother himself. He's burying himself in his own stupid deeds and filings. He needs professional legal help and he needs it now. Hire him a lawyer. If you can't afford one, then you need to convince your brother to start working with his court appointed counsel. It's the only hope he's got.
Stop feeding into his delusions. He needs to hear from someone he trusts that he's screwing up his defense. While you may not think he trusts you (if memory serves, you weren't very close prior to his arrest), you're still his brother. If you give a damn about his future, make an effort to really help him.
Demosthenes wrote:Bill, everyone has a right to fair trial, including your brother. The only one preventing that from happening right now is your brother himself. He's burying himself in his own stupid deeds and filings. He needs professional legal help and he needs it now. Hire him a lawyer. If you can't afford one, then you need to convince your brother to start working with his court appointed counsel. It's the only hope he's got.
Stop feeding into his delusions. He needs to hear from someone he trusts that he's screwing up his defense. While you may not think he trusts you (if memory serves, you weren't very close prior to his arrest), you're still his brother. If you give a damn about his future, make an effort to really help him.
JJ, it's terribly presumptuous of you to say I'm feeding his as much as this community is feeding your self righteous delusional crusade. So can we suspend the hyperbolic rhetoric?
What's the matter Bill? Are you incapable of discussing your brother without trying to deflect the issue on to me?
My previous post contained no hyperbole and no rhetoric. Your brother will spend the rest of his life in prison if you don't help him. It's really that simple.
EliotNess wrote:
What I'm wondering is what drives one to get on this and other forums and average 6.43 posts per day, stalking, gossiping and in some cases impersonating TP's in such and obsessive manner that it begins to border on a soft form of vigilanteism (hint: the correct answer is not because I'm researching my next book)?
My interest is two-fold. First, I have had dealings with Ed Brown in the past (10 years ago or so) and have really been drawn to the self-inflicted train wreck that is his world. I guess I could watch Hockey, NASCAR or Ultimate Cage Fighting, but this is really more to my liking. Second, I am genuinely intrigued by the tax denier movement (and the Truthers and similar groups). The obvious sincerity of some of these people in their beliefs compared with the complete lack of reality of those same beliefs. Add in the complete inability to accept any evidence to the contrary and we have an interesting personality issue.
