[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: 2860
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  

Agreed.

As icons, the Browns are not a good selection. They are hardly what I would call legit tax protestors. If we want to make heroes of tax protestors, the ones who deserve that status are all those little guys who would have owed nothing or next to nothing if they had filed, but chose not to on principle.

Making the Browns out to be heroes is wrong, IMO. They did everything wrong. They used the tax protest movement as their last bastion of denial. Now they've completely ruined their lives and will be lucky if they ever see each other again. It's a terrible toll to pay for their personal greed and obstinence.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-08   11:05:02 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  

I was responding to a specific post, wherein there was mentioned the need for violent action.

Mentioned by whom? Strangely, you also accused noone of an alleged call for violence. I checked both his and my posts and couldn't find any reference at all to a "need for violence". Perhaps you could back up your accusation with a direct quote from the specific post in question? Thanks in advance.

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

Nah, I've wasted enough time with you.

You don't have the intelligence or knowledge for a decent conversation. Also, you lack reading comprehension. Go pester someone who cares about your opinion.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-08   11:13:25 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  

Its worse than that. Most of the rest of us couldn't name a half dozen of these folks, either. We've totally lost our roots, so we're withering and turning brown (in more ways than one.)

I agree, RS. For those of us who still cling to the past, I'd venture to say, presently, the towns of Concord and Lexington couldn't muster enough folks for a Sunday picnic never mind an anti-government militia. This beast system is safe as far as I can see.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2007-10-08   11:16:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Nah, I've wasted enough time with you.

Couldn't find that specific post, huh? How humiliating for you.

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-10-08   11:20:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I don't know that I cling to the past so much as I want to better understand the parts of it that've been buried for political reasons and for the monetary gain of the few at the top.

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-10-08   11:23:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

As I said, "Nah, I've wasted enough time with you."

Still trying to learn how to read at middle school level? Keep working. You'll get that GED yet, Gomer.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-08   11:27:11 ET  Reply   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   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   Trace   Private Reply  

Derry Brownfield www.gcnlive.com was mentioning the Brown's being zapped with a DARPA electronic disorientation device just now - nothing factual, just speculating about how they could have been taken down.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution

Lod  posted on  2007-10-08   11:45:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

At least it seems there were a few wolves in sheep's clothing hanging around the Browns.

in light of how it ended, i'd say that's pretty a safe assumption.

christine  posted on  2007-10-08   11:54:17 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  

Wouldn't something like that also effect the infiltrators who were there to make the arrest? I like Derry, but that kind of speculation isn't especially helpful, IMO.

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-10-08   11:55:13 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  

in light of how it ended, i'd say that's pretty a safe assumption.

Infiltration is the name of the game. And we all know who always wins that game.

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-10-08   12:01:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So are you saying these people didn't exist? Or that they just weren't harmed by the British? Are we supposed to believe the run-up to the revolution was sterile and passive? What?

1. I am not saying they did or did not exist, and at this point in life, I'm not planning to do much, if any, research, about it. I merely noted that a few years back there was this, or a similar article/story/whatever, that came to the public's attention. And many noted/notorious people jumped on the bandwagon on reporting that our Founders gave their all.

2. I cannot remember the details of who did what, when, or where, or even why.....nor do I much give a shit--with your attitude, who gives a damn anyways. I was/am hopeful someone else might remember more details than I did. I'm sure Buchanan was one who talked about the fates these honorable men met, or allegedly met.

3. It turned out that it was not the case; that for all the detailed stories that were given out were simply not factual. I cannot remember who did the researching to come to this.......and again, I don't much give a shit. My respect for the Founders doesn't go to how they died, or by whose hand.

4. You can believe whatever you want to about the run=up to the revolution being sterile or unsanitary or passive or impassive........or as you say, 'what'.

rowdee  posted on  2007-10-08   12:50:18 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  

Thanks, Japedo..........I couldn't and still can't remember all the details at the time this was happening. Just one of those 'things' that stick in your mind for some goofball reason.

This "Sometimers" disease really irritates me at times.

rowdee  posted on  2007-10-08   13:01:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

My respect for the Founders doesn't go to how they died, or by whose hand.

So, short of not giving a shit about who said or did what before, during or after the revolution, what is it that you respect about the founders ... keeping in mind that only survivors ended up being founders. The ones who died fighting it were just dead.

Luckily, its not of earth shattering importance to me whether or not you like my attitude, it works just fine for me.

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-10-08   13:07:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

For those of us who still cling to the past, I'd venture to say, presently, the towns of Concord and Lexington couldn't muster enough folks for a Sunday picnic never mind an anti-government militia. This beast system is safe as far as I can see.

My brother hired a young man, 25 years of age, a couple of years back, that was from the Concord - Lexington area. He couldn't even tell my brother a thing about what happened there--all Pete could say was something like 'some important battle happened there, maybe a really big one'.

The guy's Dad was involved with local government there, so it wasn't a case of just born there and moving off. He grew up there.

rowdee  posted on  2007-10-08   13:11:51 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  

My brother hired a young man, 25 years of age, a couple of years back, that was from the Concord - Lexington area. He couldn't even tell my brother a thing about what happened there--all Pete could say was something like 'some important battle happened there, maybe a really big one'.

The dumbing-down is wildly successful, I'd say.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution

Lod  posted on  2007-10-08   13:16:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Brown is dumb for talking that way. It's just as well that he has been taken away to begin his prison sentence. Add that to being holed up, and the comments about not being taken alive. A real jerk. Elaine must have been the brains of that outfit.

rowdee  posted on  2007-10-08   13:18:59 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  

This isn't America and the people enforcing the rules have no rules.

On this, I agree.

angle  posted on  2007-10-08   13:20:51 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  

A real jerk.

I suspect you would have been a "Torie" way back.

angle  posted on  2007-10-08   13:28:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You're right, I don't disagree with your original post in the least. I do disagree with several things in this latest post though, but am not interested in addressing them here. The point I'd like to make above all is that the system itself is never inconvenienced even when it is stampeding rough shod over innocent people that are trying to comply with a set of policies that the policy makers themselves are unable to comprehend.

The system employed today does not meet the standards of lawful application that were etched into the constitution, and the responses from agencies responsible for implementing or enforcing the policies are non-existent except when litigated wherein no one knows any more after litigation than they did prior to it.

"The mighty are only mighty because we are on our knees. Let us rise!" --Camille Desmoulins

noone222  posted on  2007-10-08   13:39:21 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  

If speaking the truth makes me a 'torie', big woohooo. Now that he has lost it all, including the likelihood of never seeing his wife again, I should have said JERK, not just jerk.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist, nor a patriot if prefer, to realize that he doesn't have the $$$$$$, the lawyers, or guns, nor time that gubmint has. Threatening a judge or his kids is about as STUPID as one can get, unless, of course, he actually tries to carry such folly out.

Sugarcoat it all you wish, angle, the guy is a JERK, or jerk, or

jerk

rowdee  posted on  2007-10-08   14:02:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I am not at all claiming anyone put a gun to his head to get him to say those things, I'm saying he was obviously assured these things would be done by someone(s) else and like a stupid fool, he believed and repeated it. He said if the feds killed him, un-named others would kill the feds (and their kin). Truthfully, what he said sounds more hysterical than calculated to me and I'm willing to acknowledge that people have breaking points and often say/do stupid things under intense pressure. I'm simply asking who those others were who were supposed to be doing all the revenge killing and suggesting that we'll never know.

So again I ask, what trial? Do you think they're going to go after the genuine supporters? I suppose that could very well happen, but the Browns have already been convicted of breaking a law the feds were more interested in punishing than in producing any justification for. Others have been acquitted of similar charges, so like they kept asking before the whole thing went ape shit ... where's the law?

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-10-08   14:08:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So again I ask, what trial? Do you think they're going to go after the genuine supporters? I suppose that could very well happen, but the Browns have already been convicted of breaking a law the feds were more interested in punishing than in producing any justification for.

As I said, it's been reported that they will be facing more charges. Link and excerpt below.

www.concordmonitor.com/ap...71007/FRONTPAGE/710070323

But Ed and Elaine Brown's story is far from over. The Plainfield tax protesters, who promised their followers an apocalyptic shootout with marshals and were instead arrested quietly Thursday, will likely face a raft of new charges and see many of their key supporters prosecuted, said experts who have watched the case.

On Friday, U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier said the Browns were in transit to federal prisons where they would begin serving 63-month sentences for tax-related charges. They were convicted in January of conspiring to hide Elaine Brown's dental income from authorities, but managed to avoid serving time for nearly nine months, as they rallied antigovernment support and holed up in their well-equipped home.

So far, the Browns have faced no legal sanctions for their behavior, which included issuing explicit threats against judges, prosecutors and local law enforcement figures, stockpiling weapons, and assembling a barrage of improvised explosives devices, according to court documents and statements from Monier. But in a press briefing Friday, Monier suggested that the Browns will face new charges for that conduct.

"Unfortunately, the Browns have turned this into more than just a tax case," Monier said. "By their continuing actions, allegedly, to obstruct justice, to encourage others to assist them to obstruct justice, by making threats toward law enforcement and other government officials, they have turned this into more than a tax case."

Several experts who watch the tax protest movement said the Browns could face a range of new charges, including conspiring to impede the marshals, illegal weapons possessions, criminal threatening, obstruction of justice and possession of explosives.

Japedo  posted on  2007-10-08   14:15:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Speaking the "truth"?

C'mon now. It's merely your opinion, your perspective. And I say your perspective is that of a gubmint apologist and supporter. Picking on Ed Brown whilst BushCheneyInc are murdering and stealing in the name of your country? Puhleeze spare me your righteous indignation about what a "jerk" Ed Brown is for trying to resist tyranny as he sees it.

angle  posted on  2007-10-08   14:15:37 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  

You're right, I don't disagree with your original post in the least. I do disagree with several things in this latest post though, but am not interested in addressing them here. The point I'd like to make above all is that the system itself is never inconvenienced even when it is stampeding rough shod over innocent people that are trying to comply with a set of policies that the policy makers themselves are unable to comprehend.

The system employed today does not meet the standards of lawful application that were etched into the constitution, and the responses from agencies responsible for implementing or enforcing the policies are non-existent except when litigated wherein no one knows any more after litigation than they did prior to it.

I agree with your post.

We are being ruled by people who do whatever they want, and they justify it by criminalizing any who disagree. If someone asks a police officer why he's tasing another person, the questioner is not merely a citizen concerned about police abuse. He's a criminal interfering with an officer while said officer is making an arrest, probably for convulsing without a license.

Nowhere is this more prevalent than with the IRS when they target a person they consider a tax protestor.

The problem is that the public in general doesn't like the IRS or paying the income tax, but they also don't like it when someone else ignores the system they feel bound to follow. For this reason, tax protestors do not have widespread support. They have a very narrow vein of support, and that is only among those who understand the arguments made.

I think only by redirecting the populace away from the current system, and towards either a flat tax or a federal sales tax can we hope to end the current system. You can't do it with anything less than strong popular support. That means we need an idea that is so strong, it overwhelms the corporate lackeys who create, regulate and enforce the current tax system.

Paul Revere  posted on  2007-10-08   14:25:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Okay, I missed that. So they're probably in for life now. Gotta make EXAMPLES of them to scare the rest of the population into greater leaps of faithful and voluntary compliance.

RidinShotgun  posted on  2007-10-08   14:26:23 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  

Comments (124 - 258) not displayed.

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

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