djahn wrote: To: "LPUS - misc discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: More regarding the New Hampshire Man in Standoff with Government Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:59:32 -0500
Folks, This story continues to unfold. Here is part one of a link to a documentary about the New Hampshire man who has barricaded himself inside his home to defend himself against what he sees as an out of control government http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3956130595394471955 __Recap of Events__ The IRS claims that Ed and Elaine Brown owe about $620,000 in back taxes. Over the years, Ed has offered to pay the tax if they would show him the law requiring him to pay. He claims the government has never done that. Within the past two years, Ed and Elaine could have brought the matter to closure by simply paying the money the IRS claimed they owed. Instead, they elected to bring the matter before the court. When the trial commenced, they found problems with the conduct of the trial. The judge's abusive temperament combined with the denial of the Brown's motions, evidence and witnesses along with faults with the proposed jury instructions and other procedural issues made it clear to the Brown's that they would not get an opportunity to present their side of the case to the jury. When they left the court on Thursday, January 11th they decided not to return for the Friday, January 12th session. Instead, they presented the following offer to the government. 1. We will pay you the full alleged tax amount due, approximately $625,000, and the government drops all charges and legal action against us. Essentially resetting the clock back two years when this was only a civil administrative dispute. So the government would get the alleged tax deficiency and we would not be facing prison sentences or any further penalty at all. Both sides could win. --or-- 2. We will return to court on Tuesday January 16, 2007 if we are guaranteed a fair trial in writing, signed by Judge Steven McAuliffe, and entered into the record of this case, which means essentially no restrictions on our defense. All of our defense motions would be promptly answered by valid legal counter argument and then considered on the merits and ruled on fairly. All structuring charges would be dismissed. We could subpoena all our defense witnesses to appear and testify at trial on the record. We could present to the court and jury all of the evidence that we require to fully demonstrate our defense. The court must bend its rules slightly and be tolerant if we should stray across the rigid procedural lines in order to accommodate us in presenting our defense, so that we can present to the jury - without restriction -- our full story and theory of defense If we can reach such agreement, we also would like it to be publicly disseminated so that neither side can renege on the agreement as reached, before or after signing. The court refused both offers. I was brought into a conference call on Sunday morning, January 14th. There were a number of participants in the call including Ed Brown. He was adamant about his denial of due process, and he saw no reason for returning to court on Tuesday, January 16th. He also stated that he had no intention of spending the remainder of his life in prison, asserting that he hasn't committed any crimes. It was clear to us that there were serious flaws concerning the conduct of Ed's trial, the same kind of flaws that seem to plaque every trial involving the government's enforcement of the income tax. Some of us on the initial conference call feared Tuesday would bring an armed conflict, and we wanted to prevent that. We were compelled to action. Some people went to Ed and Elaine's property. I believe most went because they wanted to assure the law enforcement community didn't rush in and slaughter Ed Brown and his Wife on Tuesday. The hope was that witnesses surrounding his property with positive feelings and prayer would help assure negotiations and a peaceful outcome. By Tuesday, January 16th, Elaine elected to return to court with the hope of negotiating a plea agreement which somehow never materialized. Based upon comments Ed Brown has made, I get the impression that the government was not very sincere about negotiating a settlement with Elaine. By Thursday, January 18th, Ed and Elaine were both convicted. Ed missed half the trial and was convicted in his absence. To their credit, law enforcement personnel have not attempted to take Ed Brown into custody to date. By court order, Elaine is reported to be staying with her son. Ed remains barricaded at his house and has drawn national media attention. Citizens have come to his aid and are camping out at his property. Others are traveling there from around the country. So, that is where we are today. I continue to hope for a positive outcome. At some point, I hope someone can negotiate a solution. Many of us believe we are long overdue for a frank discussion about the income tax laws and the conduct of our courts not just in income tax trials but in every other area of law as well including family courts. I believe that this family has suffered tremendously for simply asking questions regarding our tax laws and for believing they would be afforded a fair trial. I think they have suffered enough. Hopefully, we can find a solution to this situation that will assure no one in this country has to endure this abuse ever again. How we make that happen is unclear. View the google video of Part One of John Stoddard Klar's Documentary http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3956130595394471955 You can also learn more at these web sites http://www.triallogs.com http://www.questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com --------------------------------- Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Yahoo! Answers. Try it now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
