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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Deep Intel on the Damning New F-35 Report CONFIRMED “A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11” says Military witnesses on the scene NEW: Armed man detained at site of Kirk memorial: Report $200 Silver Is "VERY ATTAINABLE In Coming Rush" Here's Why - Mike Maloney Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030 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!

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: 3314
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  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 245.

#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  

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  

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  

"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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

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  

harges 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?

RS, Are you insinuating that someone put a gun to his head and made him make the threats on radio and to journalists? That this is a conspiracy to discredit him? He himself made the claims and I have yet to hear anything about him denying the claims or about the claims being a form of misunderstanding. He openly advocated the death of officials and even went so far to name them and their family's. I don't care who said what to him, It's also a crime among the many he's committed.

*IF* as you say someone convinced him this was the case, that will come out in the trial is all I'm saying. How do you know they were 'fake' supporters? Being on many political boards, I can say without a doubt there are quite a few who are chomping at the bit to over throw the government in a blood bath. I don't think the government needs to put plants in to make this case known.

Most times I'm on the side of questioning authority, 911, this war, much of the police abuse and so on. Both Ruby ridge and Waco are atrocity's in the highest form, I will even concede that point and also wish to hold the authority's accountable. This case however I'm not willing to defend the Browns. They broke the law, went to court were found guilty. The Browns have done things that are blatantly against the law. They encouraged bloodshed and refused to follow the law at any time throughout this debacle. They believe themselves above the law and were attempting to become martyrs hoping and trying to bait a public suicide by cop. I will not discredit myself or important causes by attaching myself to him. He is an example of what NOT to do to make a point.

Japedo  posted on  2007-10-08   13:45:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

They broke the law, went to court were found guilty.

What friggin law?

angle  posted on  2007-10-08   14:16:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Well the law about Tax evasion for starters, of which they were found guilty for. They hid a large some of money to avoid paying the tax on it.

Free advice here: http://law.freeadvice.com/tax_la...e_tax_law/tax_evasion.htm

What is the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance?

The courts recognize the fact that no taxpayer is obliged to arrange his/her affairs so as to maximize the tax the government receives. Individuals and businesses are entitled to take all lawful steps to minimize their taxes.

A taxpayer may lawfully arrange his/her affairs to minimize taxes by such steps as deferring income from one year to the next. (For example, interest on property sold on 12/31/98 is taxable as part of 98 income. If the property is sold on 1/1/99, it would be taxable as part of 99 income. This is legal to do.) It is lawful to take all available tax deductions. It is also lawful to avoid taxes by making charitable contributions.

Tax evasion, on the other hand, is a crime. Tax evasion typically involves failing to report income, or improperly claiming deductions that are not authorized. Examples of tax evasion include such actions as when a contractor "forgets" to report the $10,000 cash he receives for building a pool, or when a business owner tries to deduct $100,000 of personal expenses from his business taxes, or when a person falsely claims she made charitable contributions, or significantly overestimates the value of property donated to charity. Similarly, if an estate is worth $5 million and the executor files a false tax return, improperly omitting property and claiming the estate is only worth $100,000, thus owing much less in taxes.

Japedo  posted on  2007-10-08   14:27:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The problem you and I both have on this thread is the nature of those who argue against us. They do not argue from knowledge, but from emotion. It is analogous to arguing with a person who believes the Bible, or the Quran, or some other religious text is the answer to all questions. Because that person will only accept the world as viewed through their favored prism, you cannot argue with them using logic, facts, or reasons.

We are talking to people who think the law of the land is whatever misperception they have about what someone intended 100 years ago, or 220 years ago. Some guy thinks he knows what the founding fathers intended, and he's confident that interpretation is the one. Some guy thinks he knows what the income tax amendment means.

You and I deal in the reality of America today, not what we wish it would be. That is what separates us from several posters on this thread. To them. it's a holy war, and unless we sign on for their largely meaningless talk, we're not patriots to the cause.

I consider most of what I read on a thread like this to be no different from the ignorant grousing one might hear at the end of a bar, the ranting without purpose and idle threats towards the government. Talking big with no intention of ever acting on it.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-08   15:05:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

We are talking to people who think the law of the land is whatever misperception they have about what someone intended 100 years ago, or 220 years ago. Some guy thinks he knows what the founding fathers intended, and he's confident that interpretation is the one. Some guy thinks he knows what the income tax amendment means.

You and I deal in the reality of America today, not what we wish it would be.

1st, you're talking to real "people" with questions, misperceptions and in most cases much angst direcly related to conditions currently existing in America that appear inconsistent with the original intent upon which the country was established. I don't think it necessary to elaborate on each separate issue instantly, but people taking issue with current existing conditions such as the private issuance of fiat currency and the associated cancerous out growths ie., "national debt", income tax, IRS Gestapo and a great multitude of parasitic lawyers, need not be humiliated.

Viewing the preceeding commentary on this thread does in fact give me the impression of a drunken bar room argument between slobbering shit-faced patrons. Your ego driven remarks indicate a self-inflicted elitist opinion of yourself that even if justified serves no purpose.

Earlier, I mentioned a personal belief that underlies my choice to abstain from any governmental or corporate relationships that might by their existence infer my acceptance of them or status as a member/participant. You replied in an unnecessarily arrogant fashion by referencing biblical authors as goat herders. My comments weren't made in an attempt to persuade anyone else that they take up the goat herders handbook as a reliance defense, my remarks simply let others know that withdrawal from the system is a serious matter that demands more committment than a whimsical interlude created at a patriot meeting.

People from all walks of life have in some way or another worked to destroy the favorable conditions intended for this country after the revolutionary war for "independence". I don't think I'd get much argument here, or anywhere in this galaxy for that matter, that attorneys have been "the" most corrosive element contributing to our immediate unacceptable conditions. Lawyers are toadies that rely upon a system of institutionalized grief that results from laws they legislate then litigate. The more lawyers the more litigation. I don't know what happens to well intentioned law students that become callous assholes by the time they earn their degree (or choose a respectable profession), but having had more than ample contact with lawyers and judges I can fairly attest to their mediocrity in most instances. Not only are they made callous in law school, they are convinced, commanded or somehow cowed into submission and acceptance of the status quo.

With the current opinion of the President and the Congress more negative than at any other time in history, privacy eliminated, wars concocted, citizens tasered, grannys searched, police state tactics, torture, perverted, bribe taking, lawyer politicians, devaluation/debauchery of the currency ... it's not at all unnatural that people would seek solutions. Some might even look back in time trying to determine where we may have gone wrong or taken a position that time has demonstrated to have been a mistake. That is the reality of America today.

Another smart-assed, smart mouthed, sharp tongued lawyer is the last thing any of us or the country really needs.

You follow an ancient text written by goatherders or stolen from Mesopotamia pagans, while speaking of others being brainwashed by tales told them since childhood.

Proving anything about the goat herders might be difficult but the fact that we've been brainwashed and propagandized into a herd mentality is obvious to anyone near a mail box on April 15th, or anyone witnessing 6 and 7 year old children "PLEDGING ALLEGIANCE" to a flag (good little serfs), High School graduates subject to laws that they haven't been taught anything about ...

Mr. Revere, if its brown, and warm, steaming, and looks like shit and smells like shit ... it probably is shit, or on second thought it might just be a lawyer.

noone222  posted on  2007-10-09   6:31:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Standing ovation for your contributions to this thread, noone. The fact that those puffed up in their own "wisdom" don't believe in God, doesn't hinder His plans to bring their "wisdom" to nought.....and as you well know, lawyers were some of the ones He saw coming 2,000 years ago, and singled out for "Woe" [Luke 11]].

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2007-10-09   9:53:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Riiiight. The same God who said Jews were his chosen people?

You're worshipping a book full of myths, half truths, and stolen stories.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-09   9:55:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The same God who said Jews were his chosen people?

yes...once upon a time....

www.blueletterbible.org/tsk_b/Isa/65/15.html

You're worshipping a book full of myths, half truths, and stolen stories.

nope...I worship the God of truth, not the father of lies.

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2007-10-09   10:06:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Right. Your imaginary buddy agrees with you about everything. Isn't that special?

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-09   10:07:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

mock me all you want....God is not mocked....as you will find out to your horror one day.

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2007-10-09   10:11:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I talk to God every day, and he tells me you're full of shit.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-09   10:16:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

then your god must be the father of lies.

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2007-10-09   10:17:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Church: where one inbred retard tells other inbred retards stories they all share as mass delusions.

Where's your god now, Moses?!

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-09   11:18:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Church: where one inbred retard tells other inbred retards stories they all share as mass delusions.

"gift" from the delusional jews....

www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa066.html#4

...and their god....

www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rev/Rev020.html#8

Where's your god now, Moses?!

...coming...

www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rev/Rev003.html#9 ......

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2007-10-09   11:47:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

here's the closet thing to Jesus in recent times

>

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-09   15:38:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I don't have video...coming from you, it's probably blasphemous anyway.

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2007-10-09   16:54:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Atheism is the religion of the spiritually blind. Don't be too harsh, Paul's Handicapped !!!!!

noone222  posted on  2007-10-09   21:15:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Atheism is the religion of the spiritually blind. Don't be too harsh, Paul's Handicapped !!!!!

No, Sparky. You and your blind buddy are the guys spoken of in the Bible - the blind who lead the blind and they both fall in the ditch.

You are very typical, however, of your brand of "Christian." You're all about your ancient stories and transformed pagan rituals. You worship your own ignorance and idiocy, and call it God's will. You're really no different than the Taliban and the retards who follow them.

You're everything Jesus preached against, the antithesis of his views and teachings.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-10   8:40:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

No, Sparky. You and your blind buddy are the guys spoken of in the Bible - the blind who lead the blind and they both fall in the ditch.

You're everything Jesus preached against, the antithesis of his views and teachings.

Up to this point I have refrained from religious or scriptural rebuttal to your irrational atheistic ranting in an effort to keep the discourse more secular, where you might stand a chance. I'm "not" a lawyer. (And you probably aren't either).

Since you introduced the statement above I'll address it.

Luke 11:46 ... And he said, Woe unto you also, [ye] lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers

Luke 11:52 ... Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Luke 7:30 ... But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves,

Whether one actually believes the verses quoted above isn't the relevant point, the relevant point is that you (if you are actually a lawyer) are the antithesis of the teachings of Jesus.

Frankly, your statement prevents me from believing that anyone capable of making such a ridiculous outburst could be a lawyer unless the standards of bar exams have been dramatically reduced in an attempt to allow the mentally impaired a law degree. This could very well explain the horrible condition of the judicial system and the reason todays lawyers simply do what the judge tells them to do. Most of the lawyers I've met should be greeters at Wal-Mart if placed where their talents suit the occupation.

For your edification Mr.(self)Revered:

Seven Woes: [Specific to lawyers].

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.'

You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self- indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

Some might question the divinity of Christ ... few would question his accuracy in appraising lawyers.

noone222  posted on  2007-10-11   6:14:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

You are completely clueless. Jesus preached against YOU. YOU'RE the guy he was talking about, but you're too stupid to realize it. YOU'RE the guy who thinks he's following THE LAW and preaching THE LAW. Jesus was not talking of civil or criminal Law. He was talking about Religious Law. The quotes you lifted are where Jesus was referring to guys LIKE YOU who worship their own devotion to religious ritual. He wasn't talking about lawyers. They didn't have lawyers. They had religious nuts like you who thought they were getting their signals from God.

Your post is a TESTAMENT to your complete lack of understanding of anything that Jesus said. You're full of phony righteousness and don't have a clue what Jesus was saying. If Jesus comes back, you'll be one of the first to get a beating from him, because you claim to represent him and you are nothing like the person he applauded. You have none of the qualities Jesus held or admired, not a single one. You're a petty, ignorant, unintelligent, knee-jerk religious person who doesn't have a spiritual bone in his whole body, unless it's the one connected to the priest or preacher who last bent you over.

You ARE the Pharisee, dumbass.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-11   8:33:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

You are completely clueless. Jesus preached against YOU. YOU'RE the guy he was talking about, but you're too stupid to realize it. YOU'RE the guy who thinks he's following THE LAW and preaching THE LAW, as Jesus spoke of it. He was referring to guys like you who worship their own devotion to religious ritual, not lawyers.

Your post is a TESTAMENT to your complete lack of understanding of anything that Jesus said. You're full of phony righteousness and don't have a clue what Jesus was saying. If Jesus comes back, you'll be one of the first to get a beating from him, because you claim to represent him and you are nothing like the person he applauded. You have none of the qualities Jesus held or admired, not a single one. You're a petty, ignorant, unintelligent, knee-jerk religion person who doesn't have spiritual bone in his whole body, unless it's the one connected to the priest or preacher who last bent you over.

You ARE the Pharisee, dumbass.

Calm yourself, you're appearing frazzled.

noone222  posted on  2007-10-11   8:40:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm appearing frazzled, Church Lady? You're the guy pulling verses out of his ass, verses you don't even understand.

You'd better pray for forgiveness, and ask me to forgive you for your sins. If you die in your current sinful state, it's straight to hell for you.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-11   8:42:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#252. To: Paul Revere (#245)

You'd better pray for forgiveness, and ask me to forgive you for your sins.

Gee Paul you are a bit high-minded aren't you. Now you think you are God.

And that coming from someone that earlier in the thread stated "I don't believe the Bible is anything more than a collection of stories, legends, half truths, and dogma." Of course, that sentence was immediately followed by "Christianity and what it has "accomplished" through group think is more vile than the income tax." And further down the thread you stated "Jesus was a myth. Sorry."

Why is it that so many assume and automatically classify anyone that studies Scripture as a Christian? Having said that, I would agree (at least to some extent - and it should probably be furthered by stating ALL "organized religions") with you concerning the "vileness" of organized religion. (Tough call - the "income tax" and especially the "enforcers" of it are pretty damned vile.) Has the thought ever crossed your mind that there might be people out there that study and believe Scripture that aren't part of some "organized religion"?

Actually, I don't understand why you or anyone would think Jesus was a "myth" or that the Bible is nothing but a collection of stories, legends, half truths, and dogma. What discredits any of the authors of any books of the Bible to the point of labeling them inaccurate (at best)? In fact, there are MANY instances of prophesies (or predictions if you prefer) which came to pass later on - in some cases hundreds of years later - and can be proven historically. Just for one example, Isaiah prophesied about Cyrus (even correctly naming him) and events which would happen under his rule some 150 years prior to the birth of Cyrus the Great, the King of Persia. Coincidence??? There have been numerous archaeological finds which support many things spoken of in Scripture. And in fact, for the scrupulous, you can see these prophesies playing out STILL TODAY - over 2000 years after they were written. I honestly can't say I have ever heard of many other "authors" which can make such a claim (Nostradamus is the only one that comes to mind at all that may qualify).

In your eyes they may have been nothing but a bunch of "goatherders" whose writings were mere fables, and you're certainly entitled to that opinion - but remember, it's just that - an opinion. There's no sense in bashing somebody for not sharing that opinion. If it was an issue brought before a court you could not advance any evidence which would back up that opinion. Any lawyer worth a grain of salt would know that too.

innieway  posted on  2007-10-13 23:33:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

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