[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman

China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead

FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call

France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence

Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis

Fooling Us Badly With Psyops

The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong

Put Castor Oil Here Before Bed – The Results After 7 Days Are Shocking

Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison

Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why)

Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them

America Is Reaching A Boiling Point

The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses

This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research

Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani

Man puts down ABC's The View on air

Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka

My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..

Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’

Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC

Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk,

Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up!

Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It!

Mike Johnson Holds 'Private Meeting' With Jewish Leaders, Pledges to Screen Out Anti-Israel GOP Candidates

Jimmy Kimmel’s career over after ‘disgusting’ lies about Charlie Kirk shooter [Plus America's Homosexual-In-Chief checks-In, Clot-Shots, Iryna Zarutska and More!]

1200 Electric School Busses pulled from service due to fires.

Is the Deep State Covering Up Charlie Kirk’s Murder? The FBI’s Bizarre Inconsistencies Exposed

Local Governments Can Be Ignorant Pissers!!


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Are Ed and Elaine Brown Dead?
Source: Keene Free Press
URL Source: http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo ... ent&task=view&id=630&Itemid=36
Published: Oct 6, 2007
Author: Kat Kanning
Post Date: 2007-10-07 12:39:01 by JiminyC
Keywords: None
Views: 2920
Comments: 258

Are Ed and Elaine Brown dead? We don't know - the government won't tell where they are, so we cannot verify their condition. If Ed and Elaine had been hurt during their arrest, it would be in the government's interest to withhold this information, since they obviously fear a violent reaction to the arrest from Brown supporters. Until the government chooses to divulge information on the Brown's whereabouts, we will be unable to verify their condition and will have to assume the worst.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 110.

#56. To: all (#0) (Edited)

When dealing with something like the Browns, it is important to recognize that more than one issue is in play, and therefore, we should attempt to delineate among those issues.

For some, this is a taxpayer protest issue.

For some, this is an issue of IRS and government excess.

For some, this is simply the government doing its job.

The evidence seems to suggest that the Browns were not classic tax protestors, but classic tax evaders. Most tax evaders acknowledge their wrong, negotiate a deal, pay a penalty and back taxes, and avoid criminal prosecution or sanctions. The percentage of federal prisoners who are in prison for taxes is truly small. Without addressing whether the income tax is legit, we do know that the Browns actively misrepresented their income in filings with the IRS. This is much different from tax protest. This is tax evasion.

Classic tax protestors refuse to acknowledge that the IRS and that the taxes sought are legitimate. I'm not going to attempt to address that notion, because there's not much to discuss. Whether the income tax is legitimate is a question that has been answered by those who are in a position to indict, prosecute and imprison dissenters. The courts, the IRS, the prosecutors, and most importantly, the public at large, accept the income tax and the right of the government to enforce it.

When someone like the Browns hides income, then files false information, then espouses tax protestor status, then talks of not being taken alive, they open themselves up for maximum grief and government retribution.

I do not like it when our government uses its muscle against citizens. However, when citizens openly challenge the government, they must recognize that there are ways to challenge the government that have legal and social acceptance, and those that do not. We have an accepted way. It's in the court house and in the court of public opinion. It is not playing at tax protestor, talking big, and drawing in a line in the dirt with the federal government.

I am appalled at the way the IRS and our government sometimes behave. I am also appalled at the way some pit bulls attack people. One should understand when and how to interact with the IRS and pit bulls, and also know when and how not to.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-08   4:03:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: Paul Revere (#56)

However, when citizens openly challenge the government...

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

JiminyC  posted on  2007-10-08   9:17:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: JiminyC (#65)

You clipped my quote so you could use a trite statement that has never been true.

Here's my actual quote.

"However, when citizens openly challenge the government, they must recognize that there are ways to challenge the government that have legal and social acceptance, and those that do not."

Life is more complicated than simple thoughts and simple homilies.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-08   10:07:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: Paul Revere (#75)

"However, when citizens openly challenge the government, they must recognize that there are ways to challenge the government that have legal and social acceptance, and those that do not."

Sure, until they pass new laws making what is currently considered a legal and socially acceptable means of challenging the government illegal and socially unacceptable. Stroke of a pen, dude. Don't protest anything on their side of the sidewalk, which is every side of the sidewalk, just buckle under and accept it all.

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-10-08   10:16:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: RidinShotgun (#77) (Edited)

Sure, until they pass new laws making what is currently considered a legal and socially acceptable means of challenging the government illegal and socially unacceptable. Stroke of a pen, dude. Don't protest anything on their side of the sidewalk, which is every side of the sidewalk, just buckle under and accept it all.

That's a different topic, one on which I've already given my opinions on other threads. Yes, our liberties are now grievously threatened. The answer to that threat is not asinine talk of violent overthrow of the government.

I find such talk downright stupid, especially when made by people posting online to public message boards.

You have a right to be heard. You have a right to state your case, to go on youtube, to create your own website, to get as many people as you can to listen to you and follow you.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-08   10:25:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: Paul Revere (#79)

The answer to that threat is not asinine talk of violent overthrow of the government.

Where have I suggested anything remotely resembling a violent overthrow of the government? How did the Browns act violently against the government?

But since simply saying "no" to government usurpation isn't legally or socially acceptable anymore, it WILL ultimately result in violence, whether you or I want it to happen that way. And I'd even lay you pretty heavy odds that the violence will be engendered by the government itself, not a gaggle of wild eyed rebels.

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-10-08   10:44:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: RidinShotgun (#81)

How did the Browns act violently against the government?

They were begging for bloodshed and put open death threats out on officers and town officials. Did they act? No, but they promised death to people to attempted to capture them, they were after all already found guilty and according to the existing law they were fugitives.

Japedo  posted on  2007-10-08   11:09:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: Japedo (#86)

They were begging for bloodshed and put open death threats out on officers and town officials. Did they act? No, but they promised death to people to attempted to capture them, they were after all already found guilty and according to the existing law they were fugitives.

I think saying (okay, shouting) that you'll defend yourself against an attack in your own home isn't quite the same as "begging for bloodshed".

I guess you have more faith in the justice system than some of the rest of us and that's okay, people have faith in a lot of things that are purely illusion/delusion.

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-10-08   11:15:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: RidinShotgun (#89)

From WPTZ News LAINFIELD, N.H. -- A man convicted of federal tax evasion was quoted in a newspaper article making threats against local law enforcement officials on Friday.

In the New Hampshire Union Leader article, Ed Brown said that his supporters will find and kill local law enforcement officials if they kill him or his wife. Brown mentioned the Plainfield police chief and Sullivan County sheriff.

-----------------
"Threats were made that pertain to the Sullivan County Sheriff's Office, Plainfield police," said Plainfield Sgt. Lawrence Dore. "We're making a joint effort to accurately reflect our response to that."

The Sullivan County attorney issued a statement on Friday saying that Ed Brown was trying to increase tensions.

"Ed Brown has by his recent contingent threat to kill Sullivan County Sheriff Michael Prozzo and Plainfield chief of police Gordon Gillens attempted to increase tension arising from his continued refusal to obey the law," the statement read.

Source: http://www.wptz.com/news/13868618/detail.html

Japedo  posted on  2007-10-08   11:38:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: Japedo (#94)

I have no doubt that that's how it was reported in the newspapers, which are known for being truthful. But tell me, how do we know the "supporters" making these threats weren't feds? At least it seems there were a few wolves in sheep's clothing hanging around the Browns.

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-10-08   11:44:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: RidinShotgun (#95)

They have the source coming from Brown himself RS. Perhaps your right, is there anyplace where the Browns deny making these threats? If so I'd like to view it. Thanks

Japedo  posted on  2007-10-08   11:54:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: Japedo (#98)

They have the source coming from Brown himself RS.

I know, but I think if we look more carefully at how it was worded, Ed was merely REPEATING what he'd been told by alleged supporters, who may or may not have been federal agents.

I'm not saying he handled the situation well, just that we can have no idea how we'd personally handle a similar situation and therefore, I'll withhold judgement.

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-10-08   12:00:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: RidinShotgun (#100)

Ed was merely REPEATING what he'd been told by alleged supporters, who may or may not have been federal agents.

I dunno, according this they have him on a radio broadcast making the threats. It's going to be pretty hard to defend it, and from what I read they are going to be brining more charges against them.

Anyways, Source and quotes as follows.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/ap...E/710060355/0/COMMUNITY01

Instead, this turned ugly, with violence and doom on the horizon. Early on, Ed Brown said this could turn into another Waco if authorities pushed things too far.

In a sense, war was declared by the Browns. Their friends and supporters brought high-powered rifles to their fortress. The Browns vowed never to be taken alive, saying they'd leave their home only as free people or in body bags.

And then there was the harsh rhetoric directed toward Judge Steven McAuliffe, who presided over the Browns' tax evasion trial.

The Browns and their supporters have said that McAuliffe is the criminal. McAuliffe took himself off the cases of two men charged with helping the Browns. He said threats made against him could lead some to question his impartiality. U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier would not confirm yesterday whether McAuliffe received heightened security.

But that would be a reasonable assumption. Here's why:

"This is a warning," Ed Brown said in a February radio broadcast. "Once this thing starts, we're going to seek them out and hunt them down. And we're going to bring them to justice. So anybody who wishes to join them, you go right ahead and join them. But I promise you, long after I'm gone, they're going to seek out every one of you and your bloodline."

In a video posted later that month, Brown cited McAuliffe again. "I wouldn't want to be this judge or these other people. . . . Their names are already out there," Brown said. "They are just as vulnerable as I am. And if they're so foolish and stupid to think that they're not, hey, doom on them."

Japedo  posted on  2007-10-08   12:53:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: Japedo (#103)

But I promise you, long after I'm gone, they're going to seek out every one of you and your bloodline."

Lets just take this one little quote ... if he's speaking of "after he's gone" and "they're" going to be seeking out the attackers, he's obviously speaking of someone besides himself. I wonder who the "they" are that he's referring to. I wonder who gave him that assurance. He was probably a huge fool for believing them, anyway.

Not casting any aspersions, of course, but here's only one group of people I can think of that thrives on blood vengence.

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-10-08   13:14:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: RidinShotgun (#107)

I wonder who the "they" are that he's referring to. I wonder who gave him that assurance. He was probably a huge fool for believing them, anyway.

I'm not sure who's behind it. I guess we'll all have to wait for evidence or lack there of in court after the charges are brought. I'm just saying it was said and he was advocating bloodshed at that point.

Japedo  posted on  2007-10-08   13:19:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 110.

#112. To: Japedo (#110)

I guess we'll all have to wait for evidence or lack there of in court after the charges are brought.

Charges against whom? Evidence of what? If those promises were made by fake supporters to make the Browns look like whackos ... why would they publicly admit to being fakes?

Remember? That whacko Koresh was raping the babies. And remember? Saddam's whacko troops were throwing babies out of incubators. Want me to go on?

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-10-08 13:28:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 110.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]