Tax Protester Ed Brown Being Gassed and Tortured In Prison

reply to post by Wig


Its been a while since I was into the bowns issue, but from what I recall, The Browns gave up on the system which failed them, the local government to which they did pay taxes to, that didn't protect them from the feds, (feds have very very little constitutional authority within the several states) they weren't allowed to present evidence in their defense, they gave up on the system, which is why they didn't appear for the remaining court dates when they weren't allowed to present said evidence, they didn't show up for the sentencing either, why bother?

It's like being charged for murder, when you didn't commit murder, and any proof you present which shows you couldn't have committed said murder isn't allowed to be presented, would you continue to show up for court when you are going to go to jail for the rest of your life for something you know you didn't do?

Mind you this was before he was arrested and when he had another option.. now his options are stays in jail or take a shot at getting out even if its slim to none..

His fate was decided before his first day of court.

[edit on 24-10-2007 by C0le]

i read o lot of interesting things in this topic.

first of all. USA is not a civilized state. in fact i don't know a country that is. it is just an illusion, and for the higher levels anarchy applies, see politics.

in a federal prison you can be striped of your rights if FBP plays nasty. and they do.

"Congress has given federal prison officials full discretion to control prisoner classification as affecting conditions of confinement. Generally, such matters are left to the control of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (www.bop.gov...)."

"Courts tend to give deference to prison officials regarding prisoners' rights. So long as the conditions or degree of a prisoner's confinement are within the sentence and not otherwise violative of the Constitution (www.law.cornell.edu...), the due process clause does not require judicial oversight. For prison regulations that do impinge on inmates' constitutional rights, the strict scrutiny test does not apply. Rather, the rational relationship test is used (the lowest level of judicial scrutiny -- the test is whether there is a rational relation to a legitimate state interest)."

reply to post by C0le


That's irrelevant. Section 61 refers to income from whatever source derived. And that provision is interpreted broadly by the courts. Compare this with IRC 2033, which is interpreted narrowly. You're not interpreting the statutes correctly. These sections must be construed together so as not to water down one section at the expense of another; that is a fundamental principal of statutory construction.

Originally posted by Wig
OK so I'll repeat my question,

Why doesn't Ed Brown appeal the ruling and thus aviod a prison sentence for the time being? Is he trying to avoid prison without even bothering to appeal?

reply to post by Togetic


Yes and income as defined in section 61, are sources but those very sources are also types of GAINS AND PROFITS

Not your labor, income = GAINS AND PROFITS.

The Courts ruling as i have shown refer to GAINS AND PROFITS, and also includes what types of dealings GAINS AND PROFITS can be DERIVED FROM.




[edit on 24-10-2007 by C0le]

Originally posted by C0le

The Courts ruling as i have shown refer to GAINS AND PROFITS, and also includes what types of dealings GAINS AND PROFITS can be DERIVED FROM.

Can you show which cases those are? I would point to Reese v. United States, 24 F.3d 228, 231 (Fed. Cir. 1994), for example. You are pointing to statutes, so you're only looking at 1/10 of the picture.

I would also point to United States v. Becker, 965 F.2d 383, 389 (7th Cir. 1992) (finding defendant’s contention that wages are not income to be “ridiculous"); United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500 (7th Cir. 1991) (rejecting defendant’s argument that the revenue laws of the United States do not impose a tax on income; the court recognized the “Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on all income”); United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-44 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1029 (1990) (court stated that “[e]very court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income.”); Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71, 72 (5th Cir. 1981) (court rejected as “meritless” the taxpayer’s contention that the “exchange of services for money is a zero-sum transaction...").

[edit on 10/24/2007 by Togetic]

reply to post by Wig


What good would furthur appeals do?The facts are the facts....the Gov Boys want the money, the Browns say they dont owe it to anybody......but the Gov Boys got the guns....
Furthur appeals woul be just forstalling the inevitable....
At the browns age even five years of appeals and courts may leave them far more unable to fight the fight for everyone reading this....
The truth is that this confrontation is better faced by all now........
In Canada, it is a similar situation, where the first world war(which is paid up in full by now)was the very reason foir the tax in the first place.From the moment that war debt was paid, income tax has been illegal here.....
They still deduct it but they can do what they want with us because we are too darn spineless to stand up!
I commend the Browns courage.....

reply to post by AllSeeingI

All to pay for more of the same Nationbuilding/Medicare/SocialSecurity...

From my understanding of the case, which is very limited, I understand this to be a simple case of Ed went to an Ice Cream store, tried to offer up old, out of circulation money, as payment and the clerk refused.

If the above is a correct summary of the "case", then this small little tidbit for the US Treasury might seem relevent. Lets read a little from what the US Treasury considers legal tender:

www.ustreas.gov...

"
Question: I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

Answer: The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy."


From what I can comprehend from that paragraph is that the vendor can just so "No" to whatever monies you try to pay with and it is perfectly legal. Basically what I see is that ole Ed Brown tried to pay with cash, old cash at that, and the vendor for whatever reason did not like it. Perfectly legal in the ice cream vendor's right. Ed got mad, caused a fuss and the vendor called the cops. No tax evasion going on here that I can see.

As for the rest of the story of torture and gassing? Tell your cell mate to stop farting and tell yourself, welcome to jail. This may seem like torture to you and it isn't fluffy pretty pony land. You made your bed, now you gotta lie in it.

Originally posted by bobafett1972
reply to post by AllSeeingI

 

Show me exactly were it states one can plant homemade bombs around their property when they know that the law is coming to arrest them. Right to bear arms doesn't include planting bombs to cause harm. Why would anyone in their right mind do this? Who plants bombs in their yard? What happens if a child is walking by and their ball goes in to your yard and they get blown up? This in no way has anything to do with the 2nd amendment.

So based on one of your other current threads, you think we shouldn't be killing anyone. But here, in this instance, it is within the Brown's Constitutional rights to plant bombs and make booby traps when they know that the authorities are coming to arrest them?

I am just glad this went down the way that it did. It could have gone very badly for all of the parties involved. The last thing needed was another Ruby Ridge or Waco.

As for militia's; the Brown's were 2 people fighting with the government, how is that a militia? How does this legitimize their use of bombs?


[edit on 10/23/2007 by bobafett1972]

Whatever, the US military will go over to foreign countries and blow up women and children by accident, what do you think would happen if a full scale war between the populace and military would yield us? The browns knew that treacherous liars would be send in, they were making a statement that said "you come near my property where I dont want you, expect what you give yourself for trespassing". It would be ideal if we had a world though that didnt require taxes, cops, or strict and unconstitutional laws. NO DIRECT TAXES.. THINK ABOUT IT! ITS VERY CLEARLY WRITTEN! Appearently the system doesnt give a d**n about rightiousness, only greed and lying. Then people defend these bastards. It all is making so sick i think im going to avoid these boards for a bit, humans are so so ignorant.

reply to post by mastermind77


Yes, so so ignorant. I did not know that expressing alternate views meant I was ignorant. Don't ever look in a mirror, unless of course you are beyond reproach.

How dare someone speak up and defend something they believe in? Yes, I guess depending on one's stance this is true. Bit of a contradiction if you ask me. It must be nice to be able to pick and choose which laws we should or shouldn't follow, based soley on whether or not we consider them constitutional. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about solving problems. But as you say, whatever.

While you're all going on about the legal case in this -- how are these people doing? Any word/press release from the son?

Originally posted by royalblood
Kind of reminds me of a song that a prior generation sang!!!!!

Kind of reminds me of the 60's.

Wow, I just happened across this thread while doing a subject search and was shocked at what huge misconceptions people have about prisons and how they function.

I don't know the nuts and bolts of the Brown case, but if anybody thinks that this guy is being "gassed" and "tortured" by Federal Bureau of Prisons staff you drank more than your fair share of kool-aid. This guy is a complete shyster(smart, though) who has his next scam already on the drawing board courtesy of easily lead goofballs that believe unconfirmed "facts" because they fit their worldview.

Sounds to me like this semi-rich dude thought he could get over on his taxes like his lawyer/legislator/rock star buddies and got caught. Boo-hoo. Get in the bus with the rest of us proles, dirtbag.

Originally posted by ConserVet
I don't know the nuts and bolts of the Brown case...

....

Sounds to me like this semi-rich dude thought he could get over on his taxes like his lawyer/legislator/rock star buddies and got caught. Boo-hoo. Get in the bus with the rest of us proles, dirtbag.

You admit you don't know about the case, yet at the end of your post you come to such a conclusion?

As far as the allegations made in the thread title, it isn't impossible.

www.givemeliberty.org...

Tax protesters always lose. Always. You have to approach it differently.

After having worked for local county detention centers, I have to say the treatment is NEAR mid-evil.

I mean the amount of hatred filtering around the system is horrendous, and the mixing of lesser criminals with hardened criminals is common. The idea that someone is being gassed, well I wouldn't discount any of this. Sad.

Originally posted by ConserVet
Wow, I just happened across this thread while doing a subject search and was shocked at what huge misconceptions people have about prisons and how they function.

I don't know the nuts and bolts of the Brown case, but if anybody thinks that this guy is being "gassed" and "tortured" by Federal Bureau of Prisons staff you drank more than your fair share of kool-aid. This guy is a complete shyster(smart, though) who has his next scam already on the drawing board courtesy of easily lead goofballs that believe unconfirmed "facts" because they fit their worldview.

Sounds to me like this semi-rich dude thought he could get over on his taxes like his lawyer/legislator/rock star buddies and got caught. Boo-hoo. Get in the bus with the rest of us proles, dirtbag.

Are you blind!?!?!?!?

Do you see what our government has done in Gitmo, in Abu Ghraib, and in situations like this!?!?

Your method of thinking is the mob mentality that Cheney and his bunch depend on. This stuff goes on in our prisons ALL THE TIME!

But you sit back and just because you can't imagine it happening you blame the victim.

You disgust me!

reply to post by Quazga

Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are military detention centers outside U.S. territorial control. My post referred to the federal prison Mr. Brown is assigned to. Comparing overseas detention centers to federal prison is like comparing an Indy car to a Ford Pinto.

Even though I work in the criminal justice field(perhaps because of it) I have issues with administration of justice in America today, mostly arbitrary sentencing and mandatory minimums. Once in federal prison however, the only way to get "gassed" or have other force used upon you is by assaulting prison staff, assaulting other inmates, or participating in a riot or other disturbance. There are no tasers, sensory deprivation chambers, isolation cells, or other such punishments in federal prisons. The likelihood that Mr. Brown has ever been gassed(we use OC pepper spray) is extremely remote given the low security level of the institution to which he is assigned.

My main point was that Mr. Brown's claim of prison abuse is patently absurd. There are huge misconceptions about how modern prisons are administrated so I try to address such mis- and disinformation whenever I can. That's not to say prison is a wholesome, happy environment, but Mr. Brown's allegations are outright fabrications.

As for the validity of his conviction, the man does an admirable job of prosecuting himself. I doubt the U.S. Attorney had difficulty securing the Browns' conviction. A second-year law student could probably have handled the case. Anyone who not only breaks the law(several in this case) but then stands on a podium and proclaims it to the world will probably get exactly what they deserve.

reply to post by jsobecky


I dont think you have been under arrest before, or locked up it is very possible that he is being abused.