Ed and Elaine Brown have been holed up in their Plainfield, NH house for months, daring federal law enforcement to bother them. While normally that’s not a problem, since I don’t want federal law enforcement to bother me at home either, Ed and Elaine Brown have been not only convicted of federal crimes, but also sentenced to prison for those crimes. They have also repeatedly referred to the outcome of any attempt to take them into custody as another “Waco”, and have openly stated that they will kill anyone who tries to take them into lawful custody. Now, that’s a problem.
Elaine is a very successful dentist (or at least she was, until all this happened). Ed is usually described as a “retired exterminator”. Basically, he lives off his wealthy wife, which I guess is nice work if you can get it. However, if Ed and Elaine Brown were young financially disadvantaged African-Americans, they’d have been toast long ago. See, my problem with this situation has nothing to do with the Browns’ convictions per se – and in fact, the nature of their conviction is irrelevant to me – but rather my concern is that everyone is supposed to be equal under the law. Obviously, though, that is not the case.
This whole mess started years ago, when Ed and Elaine decided there was no law which requires them to pay federal income taxes. So, they didn’t, and quite predictably the IRS came a-knockin’. They had failed to file or pay taxes on over $1.3 million in income, and refused to pay or even discuss payment when the government demanded its money, so they were criminally prosecuted. They then tried to buy their way out of trouble by offering to pay the back taxes, but it was too late.
About halfway through the trial, Ed decided he wasn’t going to show up for court anymore. Elaine stayed out a day, then decided to return to the trial. Ed was convicted in absentia of failure to file taxes, and Elaine was convicted of 17 counts of tax crimes. It appears Elaine got into a lot more trouble because, after all, she was the breadwinner.
Following conviction, the judge released Elaine to the custody of her son pending sentencing, with an ankle bracelet, based on her assurance that she had no intention of returning to the Plainfield house as long as Ed was there. The judge issued an arrest warrant for Ed, since he had skipped out on the trial.
The US Marshal Service, instead of arresting Ed like they were ordered to do by the court, decided to just talk to him on the phone from time to time. Eventually Elaine broke the terms of her release, cut off her ankle bracelet, and joined Ed at their house, which is completely self-sufficient and where, it is claimed, they have stockpiled food, weapons, etc. They apparently don’t even need electricity, since they use solar panels. That’s normally very cool, unless of course you have two fugitives hiding out there. Then, it’s a problem. Needless to say, at that point the judge issued an arrest warrant for Elaine as well.
Ed has been threatening people constantly throughout this situation. He has a militia called the “Constitution Rangers” and they have been more than happy to help him threaten others, including the judge, the prosecutor, and even the jury members. Some have gone so far as to say these people have committed treason, and therefore are subject to hanging without trial. Despite all this, for some strange reason understood only in BizarroWorld, the US Marshal Service still has not arrested Ed and Elaine Brown, although they know exactly where they are. They even let people visit the Browns as if nothing is wrong, if you can believe that.
This week, Ed and Elaine Brown were sentenced to five years, three months each in federal prison. They didn’t show up for that, either. And still, the US Marshal Service has not arrested Ed and Elaine Brown.
Here’s the problem as I see it. Pretend you don’t know Ed and Elaine are millionaires, and ignore the basis of their conviction. Pretend instead that they were, for example, a middle-class couple convicted of federal drug crimes for growing medical marijuana for personal use. Do you really think the feds would just let them say, “look, I don’t accept your authority, so I’m just going to stay here at home; and if you try to come and get me, I’m going to kill a bunch of people, including you”? Not only no, but hell no. They’d have busted through that convicted felon’s door long before the thought was even completed.
Yet, they haven’t done that with Ed and Elaine. Instead, they just keep calling them on the phone from time to time, encouraging them to turn themselves in. Problem is, they’re never going to turn themselves in, because one, they don’t think they did anything wrong, and two, they don’t think the US government has any jurisdiction over them.
What makes Ed and Elaine Brown so special that they are deserving of treatment no other similarly situated person would ever receive? Honestly, I have no idea. After all, there is indeed a law which requires the payment of federal income taxes, so it’s irrelevant to their conviction whether the Browns accept the law. Furthermore, according to the sentencing memorandum, they aren’t even nice people. It appears Elaine’s old receptionist had a husband who was taught some kind of gun trick in a seminar held by Ed, and when trying to do the trick, ended up accidentally killing himself. When the receptionist could not longer work for Elaine (quite understandably, given what happened) Elaine even fought her on her unemployment. Obviously, while Elaine may look like a sweet old lady, she’s not nice at all, and in fact is quite cold-hearted. So why has the US Marshal Service not taken them into custody?
Sure, they’re in their 60s, but they’re also spending their spare time threatening people right and left. Well, to be fair, Ed doesn’t call it threats. He calls it warnings, but in reality it’s the same thing. In fact, he spends quite a bit of time not only threatening to kill people, but explaining how the Bible instructs him to kill people. Religious fanatics who take the Old Testament that literally are always a problem.
Ed and Elaine also recently filed documents with the court, pretending to be the court and dismissing their own cases, which was signed with their first name only, followed by “a Living Soul, in the Body of the Lord, of the House of Israel”. They learned that brain fart from some weirdo named Sonny, who converted them to his cult …. er, I mean, non-denominational church. Obviously, this is a problem, because it means that Ed and Elaine are never, ever going to surrender no matter how many times the Marshal Service calls them. They think our laws do not apply to them, and that only the Old Testament applies to them. Unfortunately, they also think the Old Testament is telling them to kill people, and they make no secret of this belief. That’s a problem.
There is yet another problem. While the Browns have some vocal supporters, mostly on the internet, there is an even larger number of detractors who think this situation is pure unadulterated bullshit. They have a legitimate concern, too, in that failing to take these people into custody has resulted in increases danger for everyone involved, including the neighbors as well as the people that Ed’s militia has threatened to kill; and it sets a very bad precedent by proving beyond any doubt that the law concerning sentenced felons and fugitives from justice is not, in fact, applied equally as required. Ed and Elaine were found guilty on a total of 18 federal crimes by a jury, yet they’re being treated as if they are exempt from the laws which the rest of us must follow.
Ed and Elaine should be treated the same as any other convicted, sentenced felon who is openly threatening the lives of others. It’s time to stop this injustice against all Americans, with the feds treating rich white people differently than they’d treat anyone else who was doing the same thing. Take off the kid gloves, and put Ed and Elaine Brown in prison, where a jury decided they should be when they found them guilty.
Less
aynrkey
bostonteapartygoer
Kenn Jacobine
mattdharris
Mike Seebeck
Miche
paulie
Jim Davidson
ponggod
Stuart Richards
Todd Andrew Barnett
Geh ,,, I really, really really hate to have to be the one to do this, but someone’s going to anyway, so …
ElfinosMom, you write:
“After all, there is indeed a law which requires the payment of federal income taxes”
Really? Show it to me.
Really? Show it to me.
26 U.S.C. § 1 imposes the tax on incomes. 26 U.S.C. § 6011 and 26 U.S.C. § 6012 require individuals to file a tax return. 26 U.S.C. § 6151 requires individuals to send payment with the return.
There’s more detail in other areas of the code, but that hits the basic requirement.
Now that you’ve taken your shot at derailing the argument, let me ask you: Tom, if someone is convicted of a felony by a jury of their peers, should they be arrested and made to serve their sentence?
LOL – nope, I’m not going to get involved in a tax law conversation, since I have already stated that the nature of their conviction is irrelevant to the preferential treatment they are receiving, as well as irrelevant to me personally.
If you have any questions about federal tax law, read Title Title 26, United States Code; and if you still have questions, read the FAQ at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
Other than that, you’re on your own, because frankly the entire subject bores the living hell out of me. LOL
Now tell me, what do you think about the point of my entry, which is that these convicted felons are getting preferential treatment which nobody else would get? Do you actually think Steve Kubby would get that kind of preferential treatment?
My assumption is that the US Marshal Service is trying to avoid unnecessary deaths, specifically the deaths of their officers. Afterall, the Browns have stated that they will shoot anyone who steps on their property. I would take them at their word and assume that they mean what they say.
As long as they are confined within their “compound”, then they pose no more threat to others than if they were behind bars. Running in guns blazing is a good way for good, honest Marshals with families to end up dead. They probably intend to wait them out. Whether that is a good idea or not can be debated, and whether allowing them to remain at their home results in a greater risk than the risks associated conflict is also debatable.
There is a fundamental difference between a young, middle-class pot growing couple and a heavily armed and violent lunatic. The odds of someone dieing arresting the latter are larger than for the former. It may be best to keep the lunatic confined to a jail by a different name, at least for a while.
Oh, I almost forgot: show me the law.
ElfinosMom,
I’m not the one who started the tax law conversation — you are. I just knew that someone would challenge you on it, so I figured I might as well get the ball rolling
Like you, I consider the question of whether the thugs have a law on their side or not irrelevant. Eichman had a law, too — but I doubt you’d say that the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto were getting “preferential treatment” when Heydrich’s boys hesitated before going in because their victims had finally decided to go down fighting. The fedgoons have learned over the years (at Ruby Ridge and Waco, among other places) that sometimes some of their victims get uppity and fight back … so now they take it slow and easy when it looks like that might happen. They’ll starve’em out, play the psychological warfare game, etc., and in the end their victims will still be kidnapped and caged for at least as long as they would have been otherwise.
As far as Kubby is concerned, no, he couldn’t expect such “preferential treatment,” because he has made it clear that he doesn’t own a gun. He believes in everyone’s right to do so, but he’s decided that the medicinal substances he uses and gun ownership aren’t a sensible mix — not, I think, because he the substances impair his judgment, but because if he owned a gun, he’d likely be shot “while resisting arrest,” with the gun used as “evidence” of that claim. Everyone resists tyranny in their own way, and he’s chosen to do so in the courts and in the arena of public opinion rather than by force of arms. His call, and I respect it.
HOWEVER, I can speak from experience: Yes, drug users, growers, etc. who resist by force of arms DO get preferential treatment. Back when I was a drug warrior with Joint Task Force Six, we were working with the National Forest Service Police and had a mission planned:
They wanted the JTF-6 Marines to conduct our “training operations” (that is the cover under which the military gets around posse comitatus to play drug warrior) in a particular part of the forest where law enforcement agents didn’t go. Why didn’t they go there? Because any time a cop set foot in the area, the automatic weapons started firing and the dogs were set loose, and a couple of cops came out on stretchers or in bags. So, they left that area the hell alone. We ended up not doing that particular operation, because the plan called for TWO medevac choppers on standby, and we could only get one, and because we couldn’t be sure of LZs for the choppers (since nobody knew what modifications had been made to the terrain since the last mapping of it) … which should tell you something about the projected intensity of the mission.
The alleged drug dealers in that area most manifestly DID receive “preferential treatment” for the same reason these guys do: They’re willing to kill their attackers, and their attackers aren’t in any big hurry to get killed.
A couple of references for questions this comment may raise as to my own opinions:
http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/knapp/knapp2.html
http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/knapp/knapp3.html
http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/knapp/knapp2.html
My assumption is that the US Marshal Service is trying to avoid unnecessary deaths, specifically the deaths of their officers. Afterall, the Browns have stated that they will shoot anyone who steps on their property. I would take them at their word and assume that they mean what they say.
Law enforcement officers do not enjoy armed confrontations and they try to avoid killing fugitives. They do have the ability to bide their time in this case, probably planning a method of assault that will bring the Browns in with a minimum of bloodshed.
Oh, I almost forgot: show me the law.
See the second comment for the law.
I wonder why the Browns aren’t treated the same as Joe Blow. They must be paying $$ to someone or perhaps providing some form of favor. I wish the government would leave all non-violent offenders alone.
I guess I don’t have sympathy for the Browns, but I’m not totally upset about it either. It doesn’t surprise me in the least – add this to a litany of injustices. I must be growing old and callous.
While I do understand your points about the potential danger to law enforcement, and accept those points as extremely valid, are we not sending a message that, as long as a fugitive makes enough threats, we’ll leave them alone?
I was a fan of the Browns until they started being fucking insane.
Elfinos Mom,
It’s highly unlikely that the Browns are being “left alone.” They’re holed up, but they’re not free to come and go as they please, and sooner or later either they’ll come out or the goons will go in and take them out. That’s not “preferential treatment” — it’s the cops deciding when the most opportune moment, and what the best way, to take them down is.
Aw, you young’uns and your need for instant gratification
Also, I don’t know who this “we” is that’s “sending a message.” If the message is “cough up protection money or we’ll kidnap you and steal your stuff,” please leave my name off of it.
Actually, Tom, I’m older than you are.
“We”, in that context, is society. The message has nothing to do with the IRS or taxation, and I’m not sure why you think it does since I thought I made myself clear on that point. The message being sent refers to convicted felons of any stripe. My concern with the Browns is not their failure to pay taxes. My main concern is their affinity for violence, which is very well documented.
Should we let convicted and sentenced criminals who are affiliated with a street gang forego punishment, just because they and their gang threaten physical violence against the judge, the prosecutor, the jurors, and anyone who attempts to apprehend them? If not, what’s the difference between that criminal and their street gang, and the Browns and their “Constitution Rangers”?
Elfninos’s Mom,
Threats of violence in response to attempted extortion are morally permissible, since anyone practicing extortion is (neccesarily) threatening violence, and turn-about is fair play.
You and the Browns have differing opinions about the law. The Browns are ok with that. They’re threatening the people who have guns pointed at them and (so far as I can tell) intentionally not threatening peaceable civiliians like yourself.
Matt: I understand your point, but at the same time, I must reiterate that intentional threats have been made against the jurors, who we must assume are indeed peaceable civilians.
^This.
I think that no matter what your political views, no matter whether you think it’s a right or not, we can all agree that heavily-armed crazy people aren’t a good thing. I think it’s their right to have those weapons, but I’m still not happy about it.
I think that if they hadn’t threatened violence to particular people, but had merely stated that they would violently resist any attempt to apprehend them, I would be on their side here. And I also appreciate Knapp’s analysis of why they’re not going in yet.
Also, there is a legal income tax. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, and its ratification, though it had minor typos and legal snags, has been held up in court time after time as the law of the land. I wish there wasn’t, and I long for the day when there is no more income tax, but for the time being it is here, and it is legal.
I think that if the jurors give moral assent to a violent, extortionary act like the enforcement of the income tax code then they are morally culpable on some level and are no longer innocent bystanders.
That being said, I hope that whatever threats have been made against the jurors are entirely empty, since the Jurors are nowhere near as guilty as the officers and their bosses.
By the way, I’ve noticed that there are two circumstances in life when I am especially likely to say things I later regret:
a) when I’m angry (the Browns certainly are)
b) when I have guns pointed at me (which the Browns do, either metaphorically or literally)
Let’s not jump to conclusions about the Browns.
matt -
you make a good point there.
“I think that if the jurors give moral assent to a violent, extortionary act like the enforcement of the income tax code then they are morally culpable on some level and are no longer innocent bystanders.”
Enforcement of the law is not extortion. Threatening jurors for doing the right thing is. The jury did their legal and moral duty. Ed Brown doesn’t like it and wants to impose his will on others by threatening them if they don’t di things his way.
Matt: “By the way, I’ve noticed that there are two circumstances in life when I am especially likely to say things I later regret:
a) when I’m angry (the Browns certainly are)
b) when I have guns pointed at me (which the Browns do, either metaphorically or literally)
Let’s not jump to conclusions about the Browns.”
The Browns had plenty of time to think things through and do the right thing. They decided instead to ignore the law. They have no right to be angry. Their current situation was completely predictable and they brought it on themselves.
Stuart Richards Says:
“I think that if they hadn’t threatened violence to particular people, but had merely stated that they would violently resist any attempt to apprehend them, I would be on their side here.”
So threatening violence against randomly selected people is better than threatening violence to particular people? The pool containing their potential victims is small, consisting of the U.S. Marshall and his staff and the Sheriff’s office. So chances are that Ed could learn the names of all of the people he threatened when he said he would resist arrest. Surely the rightiousness of Ed’s actions is not determined by whether or not he has a roster for the US Marshall’s office.
To all here who have a problem with the Browns, let’s lay out some hypotheticals:
If you honestly believed that the income tax was theft,
If you expected that you couldn’t prove the above in court,
If you were aware that convicted tax resisters are jailed and impoverished
If you decided, for whatever reason, that staying and fighting was better than submitting and being humiliated
…Then you might end up where the Browns are.
I think the tax laws are profoundly unjust, but I pay my taxes anyway to avoid ending up just there.
You may pay your taxes for different reasons, but you can hardly fault the Browns for being consistent in their worldview. They think paying the taxes would be wrong, and they don’t intend to do it. People threaten to make them pay the taxes and they give back just as good as they’re getting in the threat department.
Simple.
While their argument is flawed (see here), that doesn’t change the fact that they are resisting theft. Using a euphemism like “taxation” doesn’t change the essential character of what’s going on here.
Just as the libertarian ideal of “equality” doesn’t demand that all rape victims be raped equally brutally, I hope the Browns get away with as much as they can for as long as they can. If they were smart, though, they’d go on the lam.
Brad writes: “If they were smart, though, they’d go on the lam.”
Yea go on the lam sheepishly. Of course the G-men would wolf down anything they could.
Come on work with me people. We gotta get the humor thing down if Stanhope is our best hope.
MHW
Quite a surprise that is, Stuart. It’s not like the government-run courts have any kind of bias in this matter.
True. It also doesn’t change the fact that Ed Brown rants about Jews, Illuminati, etc.
MHW,
All this talk of Stanhope being our best hope makes me want to buy a plane ticket. It’s like the LP heard a rumor that someone somewhere takes us seriously and they’re not going to rest until everyone knows that we’re the “Man Show” party.
Phillies is a dry professor type, Kubby has legal drama hanging over his head, Smiths VP choice is ok with gun control (I once heard someone say), and yet they’d all be better candidates than Stanhope.
“‘We’, in that context, is society. The message has nothing to do with the IRS or taxation, and I’m not sure why you think it does since I thought I made myself clear on that point. The message being sent refers to convicted felons of any stripe. My concern with the Browns is not their failure to pay taxes. My main concern is their affinity for violence, which is very well documented.
Should we let convicted and sentenced criminals who are affiliated with a street gang forego punishment, just because they and their gang threaten physical violence against the judge, the prosecutor, the jurors, and anyone who attempts to apprehend them? If not, what’s the difference between that criminal and their street gang, and the Browns and their ‘Constitution Rangers’?”
I totally agree with Ed and Elaine Brown and I think that it is an insult for you to lump them in with criminals (as in people who engage in acts of theft, coercive violence, or destruction of property). The Brown’s are very brave people as they are taking a stand against corrupt government. This is EXACTLY the type of stuff that people should do when the government goes after them for some bogus “offense”. Tyrants should be RESISTED, not given in to!
When the government arrests somebody for a non-violent drug “offense” it is not the person with the drugs who is the criminal, it is the government! If a government agent tries to confiscate your guns, the proper response should be to show them the business end of it. The same thing goes with IRS agents.
If more people stood up to government they would back down because deep down inside they are nothing more than a bunch of cowards. They only get away with as much as the general public is willing to allow them to get away with, which due to the apathy of most of the general public, is too much for my taste. This struggle for liberty could be won if more people would follow the example of people like Ed and Elaine Brown.
“The Browns had plenty of time to think things through and do the right thing. They decided instead to ignore the law. They have no right to be angry. Their current situation was completely predictable and they brought it on themselves.”
It’s this type of sheepish attitude that has put us in this mess.
I totally agree with Ed and Elaine Brown and I think that it is an insult for you to lump them in with criminals (as in people who engage in acts of theft, coercive violence, or destruction of property). The Brown’s are very brave people as they are taking a stand against corrupt government. This is EXACTLY the type of stuff that people should do when the government goes after them for some bogus “offense”. Tyrants should be RESISTED, not given in to!
Right. The Browns are only criminals if you define criminal as one who has been convicted of a crime. If you define criminal as one who has done something Andy thinks is wrong, they’re totally not criminals.
Do you believe in the rule of law Andy?
It’s not really a question whether or not anyone believes in the rule of law. Pretty much everyone — including anarchists — does.
There are different ways of dealing with (and, yes, defining) unjust laws, however, and it’s not immediately obvious that openly resisting said laws and defending one’s self against their enforcers, or evading said laws through artifice and deception, is any less moral … or any less EFFECTIVE … than, say, working within the electoral political system to seek their repeal.
“Do you believe in the rule of law Andy?”
Just my 2 cents, I believe in the rule of just law. Tax laws, as well as a great deal of the rest of the laws we live under, are not just laws. I support the Browns and anyone else brave enough to resist unjust laws, no matter how off the wall the rest of their beliefs are.
Walt Disney’s 1947 testimony on government propaganda films here. On the tax issue:
I bring it up because it shows how the “voluntary” side of taxes at that time.
scratch how
And, FWIW, I am totally cool with this couple fighting it out the way they are. What power would the government have if we all had the balls to say, “No, it’s not right. Come and get me if you have to.”?
“I bring it up because it shows the “voluntary” side of taxes at that time.”
How is that relevant to this discussion? Efficient administration of the tax law, as with all laws, requires voluntary compliance, then and now. Nothing has changed, so why go back 60 years for your example?
Because the tax talk made me think about the Donald Duck propaganda film. That the gov requested such a film because it would “be impossible to prosecute” all the non-payers is interesting to me. And I followed up by asking what power the government would have if we all had “two fleshy round things between our legs” like the Browns.
“And, FWIW, I am totally cool with this couple fighting it out the way they are. What power would the government have if we all had the balls to say, “No, it’s not right. Come and get me if you have to.”?”
None. But fortunately most of us quit thinking with our balls once we grew up. Those of us who use our brains recognize government as a necessary evil. I think this calls for a quote from A Man for All Seasons.
“Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.”
“Tax laws, as well as a great deal of the rest of the laws we live under, are not just laws. ”
What’s unjust about the federal income tax?
Steve, do you know where you are posting?
This is not Republicrats R Us.
“it’s not immediately obvious that openly resisting said laws and defending one’s self against their enforcers, or evading said laws through artifice and deception, is any less moral … or any less EFFECTIVE … than, say, working within the electoral political system to seek their repeal.”
Actually, it IS immediately obvious that evading unjust laws through artifice and deception is less moral than open defiance or working within the system. Artifice and deception work only when they are undetected. Undetected evasion can never change the law, so it can never lead to the greater good, but rather only to private benefit.
Violent open defiance is obviously less moral than non-violent open defiance. Violent open defiance will, more likely than not, cause injury to someone, either the law breaker or someone in law enforcement. If the law were clearly unjust, anyone trying to enforce it would be morally wrong and we need not concern ourselves with their welfare. However, in most cases, for example, the Browns’ situation, the law is not clearly unjust, so law enforcement personnel are legally and morally bound to enforce it. The law breaker is then in a position of using violence against innocent people just to force the rest of us to see things his way.
“This is not Republicrats R Us.”
Unless it’s Anarchy Online, I’m posting in the right place.
“While their argument is flawed (see here), that doesn’t change the fact that they are resisting theft.”
No, they are resisting taxes.
Before I pop off a pissy rant, how much necessary evil do you think is necessary?
The Browns are in a prison of sorts and, at this point, we (you as eager taxpayer) are not paying for room and board. They have not used violence yet and if the gov is smart, the Browns would be left alone. It would be morally wrong for the government to use force (and our tax dollars) to achieve the current situation in a different location.
Taxes are what government call their muggery. You don’t pay someone from their gang will come and kidnap you in extortion or shoot you. Last time I checked the facts that is the same actions as mugery!
The voiced people soley support the Browns because of their guts to stand up against the thugs robbing people of their money. The other traits of their personality while sad and uncomfortable has nothing to do with why they get support. I would actually say in spite of the other traits they still get support because of their bravery.
Steve,
Corporations are creatures of the state. They exist because the government sanctions them. For this reason, it is lawful to tax them. Human beings are another story entirely.
Some of us believe that human life is a gift from God and that the first loyalty of life therefore lies there. Others disagree, but all of us know that human life comes from the family, specifically the mother. Obligations based on the origin of one’s life are logically consistent, while obligations to one’s country (which has no necessary role in the creation of human life) are not.
Put another way:
Unless the Federal Government can prove to me that they made me, they have no inherent right to the fruits of my labor.
To claim that Government has an inherent claim on my resources is offensive, since no good reason for that claim can be advanced. Theists might find such a claim blasphemous, since such a claim equates the State with Creator God for no reason other than it’s size and power, which we believe are infintessimal when compared to those of the Almighty.
“To claim that Government has an inherent claim on my resources is offensive, since no good reason for that claim can be advanced.”
I thought Thomas Jefferson’s argument was pretty good.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, …”
Government secures your rights, so it has a claim on part of your resources to do so. If you no longer want to enjoy the benefits of that government withdraw your consent, both express and implied, by renouncing your citizenship and removing yourself physically from its geographical jurisdiction.
“Right. The Browns are only criminals if you define criminal as one who has been convicted of a crime. If you define criminal as one who has done something Andy thinks is wrong, they’re totally not criminals.
Do you believe in the rule of law Andy?”
I only believe in laws against theft, coercive violence, and the destruction of property. Incidentily, the biggest perpetrator of these crimes are the government.
“Taxes are what government call their muggery.”
No, taxes are what the government calls taxes. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Taxes, especially in a republic, are not equivalent, legally or morally, to theft or extortion. Too many of you think it’s perfectly fine for you to take advantage of the benefits of government without having to pay for them.
Maybe we see that their are no benefits of these so called benefits and we don’t want to pay for these so called benefits. But if one tries to peacefully not give the government people my business but go somewhere else I will get shoot! Nice people to do business with, don’t you think?
If you don’t want to call taxes for what they constitute of after you take away all stories of fiction and illusions surounding them. I feel sorry for your inability to not realise the reality behind your delusions.
“None. But fortunately most of us quit thinking with our balls once we grew up. Those of us who use our brains recognize government as a necessary evil.”
Even if one believes that government is a necessary evil this still does not justify the amount of taxes people are forced to pay. Most of what the government does today is outside the boundries that are established for government in the Constitution.
Getting this back on track, are the Browns being coddled because they’re rich or are they being coddled because Ed is batshit crazy and has threatened reprisals by his batshit crazy friends against everyone connected to his case?
“I thought Thomas Jefferson’s argument was pretty good.
‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, …’
Government secures your rights, so it has a claim on part of your resources to do so. If you no longer want to enjoy the benefits of that government withdraw your consent, both express and implied, by renouncing your citizenship and removing yourself physically from its geographical jurisdiction.”
Jefferson also said the following in the Declaration of Independence.
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Would you say that our government is currently destructive to our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happieness? I would say this and there is a mountain of evidence to back this up. Therefore, it is our right to alter or abolish this government.
“Even if one believes that government is a necessary evil this still does not justify the amount of taxes people are forced to pay. Most of what the government does today is outside the boundries that are established for government in the Constitution.”
Even if that were so, that has nothing to do with taxes. If the government is spending in ways it shouldn’t and that bothers people, they should ask their representatives to stop spending that way.
“Steve Says:
April 27th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Getting this back on track, are the Browns being coddled because they’re rich or are they being coddled because Ed is batshit crazy and has threatened reprisals by his batshit crazy friends against everyone connected to his case?”
I’d say that it’s because the government KNOWS that they are wrong and they are trying to figure out away to work this out without making themselves look bad.
“Even if that were so, that has nothing to do with taxes. If the government is spending in ways it shouldn’t and that bothers people, they should ask their representatives to stop spending that way.”
Of course this has to do with taxes! People have been asking their representitives to to cut spending & taxes for years and they continuely ignore them.
Next you’ll probably say something like, “Well just vote them out of office.” This is easier said than done, especially when one considers things like gerrymandered voting districts, difficult ballot access requirements, shutting minor party & independent candidates out of debates, campaign finace laws that benifit incumbents, as well as other unfair advantage establishment politicians have.
“Would you say that our government is currently destructive to our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happieness?”
No. This administration certainly is, but George Bush is not the government, just the President.
“I would say this and there is a mountain of evidence to back this up. Therefore, it is our right to alter or abolish this government.”
True, WE have a right to abolish it. I don’t have that right, individually. You don’t have that right, individually. Neither does Ed Brown or anyone else. The right to institute a government or abolish one is a collective right, not an individual one.
“No, taxes are what the government calls taxes. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Taxes, especially in a republic, are not equivalent, legally or morally, to theft or extortion. Too many of you think it’s perfectly fine for you to take advantage of the benefits of government without having to pay for them.”
What “benifits” are you talking about? Yeah, I drive on the roads but I also pay for them everytime I pay gasoline taxes when I buy gas. Beyond that, I don’t need or don’t even want most of the rest of what government does.
Typical bullshit response. But, because you and your ilk seem to be the norm of late, we are planning the move now (to Buenos Aires) and with us will go the >$100k yearly my household pays in FEDERAL TAXES ALONE. That is today’s tax liability on today’s income. On the + side, when the real taxpayers leave (the not rich, but middle class), America might get it right again. (A new revolution will be required.)
to anything that would pass for equal in nature. What does anyone get for our tax dollar? (Or anybody else’s?) Bullshit wars, bullshit social programs, and the trampling of civil liberties. And we get such a bad return on our investment in “necessary evil” because of people (like you, I assume) who create problems so they can feel good saving other people.
I don’t know your taxable income Steve, but I am guessing that you benefit more from the “necessary evil” than most of us here.
“No. This administration certainly is, but George Bush is not the government, just the President.”
I’d say that just about everyone in every branch of government is corrupt. This includes Congress (minus Ron Paul), the Supreme Court, just about every state legislator, every govenor, probably every state judge, the vast majority of city council members, almost every mayor, etc… I’d say that almost every government official in this country is corrupt.
“True, WE have a right to abolish it. I don’t have that right, individually. You don’t have that right, individually. Neither does Ed Brown or anyone else. The right to institute a government or abolish one is a collective right, not an individual one.”
Well going by this “logic” you wouldn’t have supported the American Revolution since it was only supported by about 1/3 of the people, and only like 3-5% did the actual fighting. 1/3 of the people were Loyalist to the British Crown (aka-Tories) and another 1/3 didn’t care one way or the other.
“Michelle Shinghal Says:
April 27th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
‘Government secures your rights, so it has a claim on part of your resources to do so. If you no longer want to enjoy the benefits of that government withdraw your consent, both express and implied, by renouncing your citizenship and removing yourself physically from its geographical jurisdiction.’
Typical bullshit response. But, because you and your ilk seem to be the norm of late, we are planning the move now (to Buenos Aires) and with us will go the >$100k yearly my household pays in FEDERAL TAXES ALONE. That is today’s tax liability on today’s income. On the + side, when the real taxpayers leave (the not rich, but middle class), America might get it right again. (A new revolution will be required.)”
Michelle, I can’t say I blame you and your family for leaving the country, but I hate to see you go. We need all of the freedom fighters we can get and I hate to see a good one like you go.
“Of course this has to do with taxes! People have been asking their representitives to to cut spending & taxes for years and they continuely ignore them. ”
You’re kidding, right? After the 2002 tax cuts, a family of four making less than $41,900 pays no federal income tax. With a little luck and some tax planning, that figure goes up to almost $50,000, although most of the difference will only be available after retirement.
Steve wrote:
Why? An assertion with no rationale proves no point. I can just as easily say “Sure they are”.
The Browns are dealing with a government that obviously realizes that it would sink if it started killing off people who are self-imprisoned only to put them in another cell.
“Well going by this “logic” you wouldn’t have supported the American Revolution since it was only supported by about 1/3 of the people, and only like 3-5% did the actual fighting. 1/3 of the people were Loyalist to the British Crown (aka-Tories) and another 1/3 didn’t care one way or the other.”
What’s the source of that factoid? I would love to know how the ambivalent colonists were distinguished from those who had an opinion but were just keeping their heads down.
“What’s the source of that factoid? I would love to know how the ambivalent colonists were distinguished from those who had an opinion but were just keeping their heads down.”
It is a fact that it was a small minority that did the fighting and a minority that supported the Revolution. From the content of your posts it sounds like you would have been a Torie.
Lemme guess Steve; you make $50,001 through a traditional employer/employee relationship and feel just slightly disenfranchised, but not enough to bitch about things that really matter?
Andy,
Thank you. This is my country- shit I even have provable Native American blood- and I will never stop fighting for it. God only knows how much good I’ll do.
Steve wrote:
“Taxes, especially in a republic, are not equivalent, legally or morally, to theft or extortion.”
Why? An assertion with no rationale proves no point. I can just as easily say “Sure they are”.
I see you missed the next sentence: Too many of you think it’s perfectly fine for you to take advantage of the benefits of government without having to pay for them.
Anytime an individual or a group takes something that does not belong to them from someone who does not willingly wish to give it up, it is theft. Hiding your property from a thief is not wrong no matter what the thief or his beneficiaries claim.
There is also no such thing as “a collective right”. All rights are only individual and they are not additive: two people do not have twice the rights of one person. If every person in the country wished to take your money from you, it is no more right than if you wished to take the money of every person in the country.
Jurors have the right and the obligation to judge the facts of the case and also to judge whether the law is legitimate or not. Because of dishonesty on the part of the judge in the Brown case, the jury was not informed that this was part of their job. Therefore they came to the verdict that was demanded of them by the corrupt court. They were not informed that it was their obligation to judge whether a “law” allowing “taxation” is a morally correct thing to enforce. Ed Brown is not right to threaten the jurors because they were deceived into convicting him for violating a counterfeit “law” which legalized theft-by-government.
“Thank you. This is my country- shit I even have provable Native American blood- and I will never stop fighting for it. God only knows how much good I’ll do.”
So that bit about moving to Buenos Aires was not true?
“I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.” Thomas Jefferson
The above quote from Thomas Jefferson rings true even more today than when Jefferson said it back in the 1800′s.
Name a benefit Steve, I’ll tell you how much I use. It has been a daily conversation in the “Should I Stay or Should I Go” discussion.
I have oppressed the masses enough for today. I must take my communist royalist self home to the commune.
I said we are planning a move; I did not say I would stop fighting for freedom. The Internet is a great tool.
There are no “benefits” of government. All purported services it provides would be more efficiently and more ethically provided by the market if competition were allowed.
“Leave the country if you don’t like it!” “You must have lied because I can’t read!”
Same shit from the same people…
“… God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)
I’d say that we are past due for another revolution.
Andy, just stop. Steve has picked up his cool toys and gone home. See what you did! I so wanted to play with a taxpayer financed Tonka truck.
“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” Thomas Jefferson
We were past overdue for another big long theory thread.
Who could have guessed it would be this one?
From todays Union-Leader newspaper:
Probably lessons learned for Ruby Ridge and Waco. Don’t make them martyrs, just make them irrelevant and incapable of harming others.
if the marshalls say that they will not use violence does that mean the they will? i’m so used to assuming the opposite of what the gub’ment says is true.
p.s. anyone who argues that those who refute the legitimacy of a government’s law should leave the country, argues that only those who violate the property of others have rights. ludicrous.
Mr. X,
I missed your comment earlier — maybe it was in moderation or something? In any case, you write:
“Now that you’ve taken your shot at derailing the argument, let me ask you: Tom, if someone is convicted of a felony by a jury of their peers, should they be arrested and made to serve their sentence?”
As a law student, surely you recognize that that is a simplistic question.
Was the law they were convicted of breaking just or unjust?
Did they receive a fair trial — including but not limited to the jury being fully informed of its duties and powers?
Was the sentence just?
I recognize no legitimate authority to enforce an unjust law. I know that they will be enforced (at least until they are repealed politically or until enough of the enforcers go home in body bags that their accomplices decide that discretion is the better part of valor), but I’m not going to put down those who resist them.
As a law student, surely you recognize that that is a simplistic question.
Answer the simple one, then we’ll get into nuance.
Was the law they were convicted of breaking just or unjust?
Who gets to decide which laws are just? The American system has the laws written by elected representatives, interpreted by the courts, and enforced by executive agencies. When you make yourself the arbiter of what is and is not just, that’s no longer the rule of law; it’s civil disobedience. Thoreau, King, Gandhi, et al spent a lot of time in jail because they were breaking the law. They all felt that the laws were unjust, but I don’t recall them arguing that the laws should not be enforced while they were on the books.
Did they receive a fair trial — including but not limited to the jury being fully informed of its duties and powers?
The law on informing juries is that they have to be told about their duties, but not their powers. See Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895). The judge is given control over matters of law, the jury over matters of fact.
Do I agree that this should be the case? No. But the trial is still fair. The system and the process are different.
Was the sentence just?
Again, should you be the arbiter of this, or should the jury and judge who saw all the evidence, weighed the testimony, and heard the arguments in open court?
“Who gets to decide which laws are just? The American system has the laws written by elected representatives, interpreted by the courts, and enforced by executive agencies. When you make yourself the arbiter of what is and is not just, that’s no longer the rule of law; it’s civil disobedience.”
I’m totally in favor of civil disobedience as well as violent disobedience (as a response to the initiation of force). The Constitution does not enforce itself. Ultimately it is up to We The People. If some among us don’t have the balls to stand up to the state this is not an excuse for those of us that do to curl up in a fetal position, accept our role as slaves, and lick the boots of our government masters.
“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Samuel Adams
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
Personally, I’d take my chances with Tom Knapp.
props to andy!
Mr. X,
I am asking seriously about jury nullification: If a jury does not have to be told about their power but knows its power and attempts to nullify, can’t the jury members be arrested for perjury? (I read something like it somewhere.) If indeed it is as I remember reading, how do you reconcile exercising your right as a juror to judge the law with the judge’s instruction to follow the law as he gives it?
When the law is not lawful it must be disobeyed.
http://www.google.com/search?q=hebrew+midwives&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
Mr. X,
Right to the heart of the matter, as usual! You write:
Not only does everyone get to decide which laws are just, but everyone has to decide which laws are just, or at least which ones they’re willing to obey.
You do, and I do it, every day, for all of our lives.
Correct, but you stopped too soon. You never reached the underlying foundation that makes it possible for that process to work. The legislature can pass laws all day long, the courts can interpret those laws any way they like, and the executive branch can do its utmost to enforce those laws …
… but it still all comes down to something approaching unanimous consent — explicit or tacit — among those who are expected to obey. Absent that consent, the laws simply aren’t going to be enforced, no matter how much one shake’s one’s fist at the sky and rails about the sanctity of “the rule of law.”
The “rule of law” enjoys no claim to perpetual legitimacy in the absence of a continuing foundation of such consent, and that foundation of consent is just as appropriate a point at which to strike versus a law as the system atop it is.
Jurors could, theoretically, be prosecuted for perjury if they lied under oath during the jury selection process. I’m not familiar with it happening, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility.
Jurors cannot be penalized for nullifying. Period. That’s the essence of the power. Similarly, if you are acquitted by a nullifying jury, the acquittal stands. The government cannot prosecute you again for that crime. It’s a free pass.
If a juror tells another juror that they’re planning to ignore the law and disregard the judge’s instructions, one of the other jurors may tell the judge. If it’s early enough in the trial, the judge will probably meet with the nullifying juror to gauge his/her ability to apply the law as instructed. If the judge is convinced that the juror is planning to disregard the law, the judge will seat an alternate juror and excuse the nullifying juror.
The nullification power is seen as a “safety valve.” It’s not supposed to be a part of every trial, because then there really wouldn’t be a “rule of law,” but a “rule of whatever 12 people you have in front of you.” A power is something different from a right, insomuch as it’s something you can do, but not something you should do. The solution under our system is that a jury can nullify with impunity and that verdict stands, but judges and lawyers are not permitted to tell them that.
That’s my recollection from Advanced Criminal Procedure, but it’s been a year or so since I took the class and it was not a major component of the material.
That “something approaching unanimous consent” thing is only correct in the last chapter of The Probablity Broach. In this universe, consent is required, but it’s majority consent, not unanimous consent. Compare the number of jury nullifications for alcohol crimes during prohibition to the number of nullifications for drug crimes during our current prohibition. The drug war does not have anywhere near unanimous consent, but that lack of consent has not risen to the level that people are withdrawing their consent en masse, and thus those laws will continue to be enforced (excepting some small jurisdictions that have made drug law enforcement a low, low priority).
I believe in the rule of law. I also believe in civil disobedience. If drafted for an unjust war, I would plan on going to jail, rather than be compelled into service. My problem with the Browns is that they want the nobility of the mantle of civil disobedience without bearing the weight of their actions on their shoulders.
Mr. X,
Stop and hold. You’re mixing apples and oranges — or, rather, political test criteria and real-world requirements.
When I say that “it still all comes down to something approaching unanimous consent — explicit or tacit — among those who are expected to obey,” I am not saying that we have an explicit “unanimous consent” system like that described in The Probability Broach.
What I am saying is that the political “majority rule” system through which issues are processed can only function insofar as that system enjoys near-unanimous acceptance of that system’s legitimacy and willingness to abide by the outcomes of the process.
If more than a small portion of the citizenry rejects that legitimacy or becomes unwilling to abide by the process, the system can’t survive. It has to collapse, or become something else … another kind of system that is not largely dependent on near-unanimous acceptance of the legitimacy of its processes or outcomes.
I got that point. I think we disagree on what size that small portion has to be to precipitate a collapse or change. The aforementioned novel used 90% consent and 7/8 consent in various places. I don’t think the numbers have to be that high, but I could be proved wrong.
I have a question — given the failures of Jury Nullification in the turn of this decade, what would be the overall “stance” on the concept of something like continuing the fight for what South Dakota’s “Amendment A” in 2002 was?
I.e.; restructuring the law so that a defendant can attempt to request a jury find him not guilty via jury nullification? I realize it’s a double-edged sword; in the deep south in some places this could make a “colored person” something of an endangered species; in the midwest the same could be said of the ‘homosexual.’ But still — at the very least this could be something we could communicate within the circles of the libertarian movement further. I don’t know; I’m rambling here.
that’s an interesting idea. one i haven’t heard. to address the concerns you raised, they could make that available only to non-violent offenses, maybe.
cool idea.
Thanks, IanC, for an idea for a new blog entry.
Yeah — that seems to be goin’ around.
I blame Titanium Girl.
The biggest problem it raises is a due process/equal protection problem. If one defendant is treated differently from another (for being white, straight, whatever), there’s a question of whether that defendant is receiving equal protection under the law.
Check out http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023 it explains THE LAW.
Also a tax on the fruits of your labor is slavery
Now the question is show me where in the law that shows a citizen has to pay income tax. If the income tax was to be withheld from the pay of citizens then why is the liability for paying it found in section 1461
Dear Elfinos Mom,
Overall I agree with you. But I do not fault the U.S. Marshalls for trying to do what they must as safely as possible. Though it’s obvious that such Federal officers go into their jobs knowing they will face risks, they are right to minimize risks to themselves (which I think should be their major worry) but also to the criminals they must apprehend. I do not want to see anyone killed. But I would be much more saddened by the death of one of the law enforcement officers than I would be by the death of the Browns. The Browns caused this standoff. They can end it at any time by surrendering. They are the ones who are acting illegally, unethically, and immorally.
I agree that it is not particularly relevant what law they have broken. Suppose for example that you received a summons to appear in traffic court for something you did not do at all. Suppose it was a mistake and you did not even drive a car. You would try to clear it up before the court date. Probably you could do so. But if you did not, then you would have to appear in court. If you just tried to “stonewall” eventually some officer would come to get you. If he or she inadvertently twisted your arm to bring you in, in my opinion you would have only yourself to blame.
Tax resistance is not a high moral principle. The income tax is clearly legal. I think it is also highly moral and necessary. It is authorized by the Constitution of the United States and there are numerous clear (well, clear after a fashion, they certainly are complicated aren’t they) laws on the books. The courts have decided many times that these laws are constitutional. Occasionally though some clever person who actually fights it out rationally in court, which the Browns neglected to do, can get a favorable verdict in which the jury essentially nullifies the punishment. But there is no serious question about the validity of the law.
On top of that, I think it is a good law. The income tax is a good way to raise money that is needed for important things: defense, highways, medical care, medical research, …even saving the spotted owls. Perhaps after the government takes the Browns’ land in partial payment of their taxes, fines and penalties (which must be accumulating daily) their “compound” can be turned to a better use such as being a nature sanctuary. What a fitting and wonderful use of our tax dollars that would be. Seriously.
All the best,
Steve