 |
||||
|
|
In addition, Brown motioned for a dismissal on the basis of a lack of jurisdiction. He cited legal authorities to support his motion for a dismissal of the indictment and the case. The Court denied the motion saying in large part, “The bases of the motion is [sic] unclear.” All this, coupled with the Court’s instruction to Brown in two pre-trial hearings that he would not be allowed to argue the constitutionality of the income tax in front of the jury (meaning Ed would not be able to show the jury what he read in the tax clauses of the Constitution or in Supreme Court cases regarding those clauses, the definition of the legal term “income”, and the absence of any authority for the government to impose a direct, un-apportioned tax on a person’s labor), together with the Judge’s proposed jury instructions (i.e., “I [the judge] will tell you [the jurors] what the law is and your job is to determine only the facts – that is whether the Browns filed tax returns and paid taxes”) was too much for Ed Brown to accept. The national interest is not served by the Government’s continued silence to open murmurs. It breeds disaffection to the law and to the Government among a free people.
Ed Brown is
a symptom of the larger constitutional crisis this
Foundation has been attempting to resolve: our servant
government’s persistent refusal to be held accountable to
the People for its unconstitutional actions, i.e., the
refusal by the Executive, Legislative and Judicial
departments to properly respond to a citizen’s Petition for
Redress of constitutional torts. Unless the government can be forced, by some non-violent means (such as the retention of money) to recognize its constitutional obligation to respond to the People’s proper Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts, we can expect to see more people like Ed Brown willing to defend their Rights by violent means. Make no mistake: the government abhors opposition and will not voluntarily abandon its preference to act without accountability or constitutional restraint.
Ed Brown’s
case is not so much about tax evasion as it is about the
failure of the government to respond to his Petitions for
Redress of Grievances. Citizen Brown was concerned about the Government’s refusal to respond to his Petition for Redress related to the absence of a constitutionally required, well-regulated Militia in the State of New Hampshire. Citizen Brown was concerned by the fact that the government was doing whatever it wanted to do, showing less and less respect for the Constitution and its role of protecting, preserving and enhancing the individual Rights of the average, non-aligned citizen-taxpayer. Citizen Brown was concerned about the erosion and loss of his Rights, Freedoms and Liberties.
Neither is
the national interest served by a national press that
continually fails to investigate and report openly on the
substance of the murmurs of the people. In doing so, it is
failing in its constitutional role as watchdog over
government and as an institutionalized means of protecting
Liberty.
Worse yet, why do the courts refuse to let tax defendants show the jury what they read in Supreme Court decisions regarding, for instance, the meaning of the word “income” within the meaning of the 16th Amendment, or what they read in the internal revenue laws? Why not? After all, the defendants took the action the government finds unacceptable only after reading this material. These defendants are not attempting to tell the jury what the law is, only what they read. It is their most important if not only evidence they have. To prevent the jury from reading what the defendant read is to prevent the jury from receiving the defendant’s evidence. To prevent the defendant from presenting his evidence to the jury is to deny the defendant his Right to a defense, one of the most fundamental Rights of every American. The official record of Ed Brown’s prosecution is apparent. In denying virtually every pre-trial motion filed by the Browns, the U.S. District Court has denied Ed Brown and his wife their unalienable Right to enjoy substantive Due Process and a Fair Trial. In its curt and legally deficient dismissal of Brown’s well drafted motions, each of which raised serious and relevant legal and constitutional issues, the Court effectively denied the Browns their Right to Due Process. Although Ed Brown ultimately refused to continue to participate in a judicial proceeding that he perceived as greatly prejudicial and biased against him as well as constitutionally flawed, once the facts are fully known and understood, his stance in protesting his prosecution will someday and at some level, come to be viewed by posterity as morally justified.
Although We
The People Foundation cannot join in support of Ed Brown’s
stated intent to employ violence in defense of his Rights,
the depth and justification of his personal commitment to
the cause of Liberty should not go unnoticed by the media,
the public or the government. Not so ironically, it is this Right -- the “capstone” Right of Petition -- which, if honored and respected by those in government, is the very check and balance capable of forestalling the very situations such as both Ed Brown and the Government now find themselves. The former committed to Constitutional Order, Liberty and the Rule of Law, the latter to political benefit and expediency, the aggregation of power and the abuse of the limited authority delegated to it by the People. What is axiomatic and self-evident to Brown is that as government gains ground, Liberty loses ground. These two opposing frameworks of governance and moral principle cannot co-exist. Either Men are Free and Sovereign and can rightfully demand Justice, or they are slaves and chattel to those that claim unbridled power over them.
It is no
secret that our government is out of control. We endure the
pains of undeclared wars and secret systems of surveillance
and abbreviated forms of justice to combat terror. Our
nation now suffers from years of unjustified international
meddling and our families suffer from decades of failed
attempts at social engineering and legislating the morals of
the People.
We would
urge the U.S District Court, in the interests of Justice and
Due Process to strongly consider setting aside the
convictions of Ed and Elaine Brown on the grounds of the
Court’s evident failure to properly decide and explain the
Browns’ pre-trial motions and its prejudicial restrictions
on the Browns denying them the ability to show the jury what
they read in the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions and
the internal revenue laws.
It is
indeed unfortunate that Ed Brown felt his only means to
protest the Court’s deprivation of Due Process and protect
his remaining Rights was to take the steps he has taken.
Thankfully, up to this point, no one has been physically
injured.
We further
urge the Court to strongly consider the larger context its
actions may ultimately influence as our nation continues to
grapple with a Government that seems resolutely defiant of
the limitations placed upon it by the Constitution.
Brief History
of Events On January 12, 2007, Ed and Elaine Brown made the local news when they stayed at home, rather than return to Court, calling the Court a Kangaroo Court and the trial a sham. On January 16, 2007, Elaine Brown returned to court, but Ed Brown did not. On January 17, the government rested its case and Elaine Brown rested her case. On January 18, 2007, the jury found Ed and Elaine guilty on all counts. Sentencing was scheduled for April. Elaine Brown was ordered not to go home, to stay with relatives in Massachusetts and not to have physical contact with Ed Brown prior to sentencing. A warrant was issued for Ed Brown’s arrest.
Ed made
national news, vowing to remain in his home and to resist
any effort by the government to arrest him. The Associated
Press reported, “He has holed up
with armed supporters in the couple's cement-walled house
and has said he will defend himself against capture if
necessary.” The story was quickly covered by networks
and cable TV, radio talk shows, the print media and, at warp
speed, over the Internet.
On Sunday,
January 21, Bob spent nine hours in Ed Brown’s home. After
interviewing citizen Brown, Bob was given access to his
files, which were in chronological order. Bob spent nine
hours reading: 1) all the documents that are included on the
Court’s official Docket Sheet and available through PACER;
2) the transcripts of the pre-trial hearings that are listed
on the Docket Sheet, but not available through PACER; 3)
correspondence between the Browns and the DOJ, and between
the Browns and the Clerk of the Court that does not appear
on the Docket Sheet; and 4) correspondence between Ed Brown
and the IRS prior to the Grand Jury Investigation. Ed Brown’s Personal Background
The
following are the facts according to Ed Brown and the Court
Record.
1959 (Age 17): Joined the Navy. Dishonorable Discharge.
Assault with a deadly weapon. 1963 (Age 21): Married 1965 (Age 23): Governor’s Full Pardon 1967 (Age 25): Divorced from first wife 1967-1979 (Age 25-37): “A job a month” 1971 (Age 29): Married second wife 1979 (Age 37): School for cosmetology. 1979 (Age 37): Divorced from second wife 1979-1984 (Age 37-42): “Homeless” 1984 (Age 42): Exterminator. “Credited with completely eliminating termites and roaches at the Long Beach Navy Yard” 1985-1993 (Age 43-51): Exterminator doing business in New Hampshire 1991 (Age 49): Married Elaine 1992-1993 (Age 50-51): “I was deeply disturbed over Waco. I was paranoid for one year. I read a lot. I learned about the illuminati and the new world order. I determined there was a criminal element within the Administration, the Executive Branch.” 1994 (Age 52): “I formed the Un-American Activities Investigations Commission. We petitioned the FBI for redress of certain criminal acts by people in the administration, including the flow of drugs from South America into America through Keesler Air Force Base. The FBI did not respond. We also petitioned the State Police in Massachusetts regarding the flow of drugs into America through Cape Cod. The State Police did not respond.” 1996 (Age 54): Stopped filing tax returns. 2000 ( Age 58): “I received a commission from the United States Continental Congress Constitution Rangers of 1776 whose mission is ‘To protect and serve the Constitutional Republic of the several states and the People thereof under the Creator.’ The Constitution Rangers was founded in 1980 by Lawrence ‘Pappy’ Robertson, Jr., now living in Phoenix, Arizona. I became the national leader of the Constitution Rangers in 2003.” 2006 (Age 64): “Two months before my indictment and arrest, I received a copy of an FBI report on me. The report gave me a clean bill of health.”
2006-2007
(Age 64-65): “Michael Avery from
Outlaw Legal Services
out of
Florida
has served as my paralegal, helping me with the preparation
of all pre-trial motions.” Ed Brown’s Court DocumentsClick here for the official Court Docket, which lists all documents filed with the Court in USA v. Brown, et al., Case No 06-00071, United States District Court, District of New Hampshire.
WTP has
also prepared a
spreadsheet
analysis that lists (by Docket number and
date) the 35 substantive legal motions filed by the Browns
in the case and the single legally substantive motion filed
by the Government. It shows the government’s response (if
any) for each of the Brown motions, and the date and short
summary (or link to) the Court’s Order, if any, regarding
each motion. The Court denied the government’s single substantive motion. It also issued Orders denying (in whole or part) 29 of the 35 substantive motions filed by the Browns. The full text of most of the Court’s Orders are included as entries within the Court Docket itself and are labeled “Endorsed Order.” Where the Court’s Order was a separate document, WTP provides a link to the Order on the spreadsheet analysis. For most of Brown's motions, the court gave little or no explanation for its rulings. On three occasions, the DOJ invited the Browns to meet with the Grand Jury that was investigating the Browns. The Browns refused the offers on the ground that the DOJ will control the process to the point of unfairness. The Browns provided the DOJ with certain conditions that would have to be met before the Browns would agree to appear before the Grand Jury. The DOJ did not agree with those conditions. The Browns did not appear before the Grand Jury. There were two pre-trial hearings. The transcripts are listed on the Docket (Numbers 57 and 88). The transcripts are not available through PACER. Ed Brown had copies of the transcripts at his home. Bob Schulz read the two transcripts. During each pre-trial hearing the Judge instructed the Browns that they would not be allowed to present evidence or argue the constitutionality of the income tax.
There are
no jury instructions from the Court in the Docket. Nor did
Bob Schulz come across a copy of any jury instructions from
the Court in Ed Brown’s files. The Docket does include two
proposed jury instructions from the Government. According to
Ed Brown, on Thursday, January 11, just before deciding not
to return to the Courthouse, he was shown a copy of the
instructions the Judge intended to give to the jury.
According to Ed Brown, while the jury instructions did not
contain an explicit exhortation to find the Browns guilty,
the instructions were clearly intended to “persuade” the
jury to find the Browns guilty. Observations
Appearing
without attorneys, the Brown’s pre-trial
motions
were exceptionally well drafted and presented significant
questions of law to the Court, questions that should have
been addressed by the Court but, in most cases, were not.
The
government failed to respond to 15 of Brown’s legally
substantive motions.
However in
almost every instance, the Court violated its own rules and
Brown's Due Process Rights by deciding Brown's motions
without giving Brown an opportunity to reply to the
Government's response. Clearly, the Court gave the Browns’ motions short shrift. The questions that were properly presented to the Court, and which the Court did not answer, are questions that continue to pervade the entire Patriot and Tax Honesty movements.
In the
Court’s defense, the Court denied the Government’s motion in
limine (Docket #99), which motion sought a court order that
would have prevented the Browns from arguing and presenting
any evidence in support of their “tax theories.” However,
the Court’s order, in effect, directed the Government to
raise any objections during the trial, at which time the
Court would decide whether to allow the argument and
evidence. If past experience in federal criminal tax trials
is any indicator (Simkanin, Schiff, etc.), DOJ would
repeatedly object and the Court would routinely sustain all
the objections, essentially depriving the Browns their Right
to a defense.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
