Will Tax Protestor Standoff Lead To Another Ruby Ridge?

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Sometimes Tax Protestors are just tax protestors. Sometimes they are also Militia/Patriot/Sovereign Citizen wingnuts.


Interview with Ed Brown: Defense Militia Builds NH Base
Union Leader, Jan. 18, 2007
Originally published in the New Hampshire Sunday News, Oct. 9, 1994

Brown is the spokesman for the Constitution Defense Militia, one of numerous "unorganized" citizen militia groups forming around the country in response to what they say is a well-orchestrated and far-reaching conspiracy to deprive Americans of their liberty and even lives.

Brown can name names of conspirators - Bill Clinton, George Bush, Janet Reno, Mikhail Gorbachev - and of organizations - The Council on Foreign Relations, the United Nations, the Tri-Lateral Commission, the American Bar Association, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the CIA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

He contends the deaths of religious cult members in Switzerland and Canada last week were "another WACO," orchestrated by the CIA. And he believes even the baseball strike was part of a plot to squash anything American.

Brown said the militia is setting up "Constitutional courts" in numerous states, including here in New Hampshire, "for the purpose of taking back America."

Who will be tried? "Anybody who commits un-American activity. Anybody who has created insurrection or sedition or conspiracy against the American people." And what will the penalty be? "Whatever the people decide."

He said the militia has declared New Hampshire a "free zone," neutral territory in which the federal government has no authority. "All we're looking for is as many people get warned as possible, to protect as many lives as we can before this thing goes down."

Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort

A typical Patriot meeting was held in November 1994 at the high school auditorium in Burlington, Massachusetts, a few miles north of Boston. ... Ed Brown of the Constitution Defense Militia of New Hampshire passed out brochures offering "Firearms Training, Combat Leadership, Close Combat, and Intelligence Measures."

Ed Brown, who attended the Burlington Patriot meeting, later assisted a regional speaking tour by Militia of Montana leader John Trochmann, including a speech at Yale University and an appearance at a Patriot meeting outside Sturbridge, Massachusetts. Trochmann frequently interlaced his conspiracy theories with bits and pieces from historic antisemitic conspiracy theories and Christian Identity lore. At the Sturbridge meeting, Brown insisted in a private conversation that the converted Khazar Jews run the banks and the media, but he argued that, since the Khazars were converts, not the covenant Jews of the Bible, his statements were not truly anti*semitic. Brown believed he was not being antisemitic while spreading a classic antisemitic story.

More info on John Trochmann and Militia of Montana: http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/mom.asp?xpicked=3&item=mom


BEYOND THE BOMBING: The Militia Menace Grows
Anti-Defamation League, 1995

Ed Brown. head of the Plainsfield-based Constitution Defense Militia (see Armed & Dangerous), has claimed to operate groups in seven states, but his organization has not engaged in any publicly noted activity in recent months. According to The Boston Globe, shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing, Brown said "We think it's an inside job.... These criminals within the U.S. Government want to make us look bad."

Armed & Dangerous: Militias Take Aim at the Federal Government
Anti-Defamation League, 1994

While much of Brown's activity appeals to mainstream opponents of gun control and big government, his enthusiasm for conspiracy theories and his reliance on extremist propaganda places him on the far reaches of the political spectrum. Brown is a devoted reader of The Spotlight, the organ of Liberty Lobby, the best-funded and most active anti-Semitic propaganda organization in the United States. In a recent telephone call to ADL, Brown acknowledged that he gets his information on domestic and international affairs from The Spotlight. He recently wrote letters to his Congressman and Senators in Washington regarding the alleged build-up of hostile foreign troops inside the United States. Other members of his militia reportedly also embrace conspiracy fantasies involving the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Masonic Zionists' targeted by billboard
Connecticut Valley Spectator, June 5, 2003

Claiming that "Jesuit Masonic Zionists" control the nation's government and courts, a billboard in front of an office building on Glen Road in West Lebanon has raised some eyebrows of passerby.

But Ed Brown, owner of the sign and the building in front of which it stands, says the sign is based on his extensive research, which has convinced him of its validity.

He believes much of the pain and suffering in the world is caused by high-level Jesuits, Masons and Zionists, and that the world is in crisis and most people are oblivious. But he insists that you shouldn't take his word for it.

Brown insists that all judges in America are Freemasons. He said the fact that Masonic symbols appear on our currency is an example of them flaunting their power. He points to the Masonic slogan, ordo ab chao ("order out of chaos"), as a guide for their aim to "turn the world into chaos."

Brown is a kook.

 

[daenku32]

We should declare their estate a federal prison, build a fence around it, and send in inmates from our overcrowded prisons.

The other option is to park in to serve a warrant. If they shoot the messenger, they will be ground beef.

 

[Dr Adequate]

That's the point. Brown was simply born into a system he had no say in, no control over, one he doesn't agree with and that he can't get out of.

My heart bleeds for him, unless for some mysterious reason what you've said is completely untrue.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I consider terrorism to be a word so overused that it has little meaning left. Some people would brand MLK a terrorist and the Bus Boycott a terrorist act.

I don't see how civil disobedience can have a meaning, but not terrorism.

I think the Hispanic marches in LA this past summer that led to violence provide a very good example of what I'm talking about.

A group of individuals began throwing rocks. The police responded too aggressively and non-violent activists were hurt. Most people felt that arresting the rock throwers appropriate but firing rubber bullets and tear gas at non-violent activists was wrong.

I don't have all the details, but it's not clear to me that that really qualifies as non-violent. Once someone starts throwing rocks, people have an obligation to either stop them or get out of the way of the police so they can arrest the rock throwers. Acting as a human shield constitutes violence.

"The Browns were convicted in January of conspiring to defraud the government, conspiring to disguise large financial transactions and disguising large financial transactions to avoid reporting requirements. Elaine Brown, whose West Lebanon dental practice generated the couple's income, was also convicted of multiple counts of tax evasion and failure to withhold employment taxes."

Linky: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/.../REPOSITORY/704240314&SearchID=73283735473113

That doesn't really answer my question. Under what alws were they convicted?

Not unless they were also blocking your car door.

What if other cars are? Or if I have to spend an hour walking somewhere else?

MLK is usually characterized as "nonviolent", but he helped enact laws prohibiting discrimination, which means that he just pressured the government to do his violence for him. Often newspapers espousing controversial views are stolen. Is that violence?

I would say that if someone wishes to make the argument that non-violent civil disobedience will not resolve an issue, that they have actually moved on to advocating rebellion.

Are you talking specifically about disputes with the government? If a woman kills her stalker out of fear for her life, is that rebellion? What if here stalker is a police officer?

 

[WildCat]

That doesn't really answer my question. Under what alws were they convicted?

Are you one of those guys who claims that the laws don't actually exist?

 

[gnome]

Art... let me start by saying I'm actually enjoying your questions. Please continue to make me question my beliefs and see if they still hold.

What if other cars are? Or if I have to spend an hour walking somewhere else?

If someone is blocking you into your car that has the ability to lawfully move out of the way, you are imprisoned. If you wind up having to spend an hour walking somewhere else, you are inconvenienced, perhaps criminally inconvenienced if there is such a thing, but you are not imprisoned.

MLK is usually characterized as "nonviolent", but he helped enact laws prohibiting discrimination, which means that he just pressured the government to do his violence for him.

By that argument the enforcement of any law is citizens pressuring the government to do their violence for them. In a technical sense this may be true--in a democracy, the majority may exert force within certain boundaries, and one's vote is an exercise of that force. But is there an other way to have democracy and rule of law?

Often newspapers espousing controversial views are stolen. Is that violence?

It may be a crime, but it is not violence (depending on how it was stolen, if it were done by robbery or machine vandalism my answer is different). In fact I would consider this an act of civil disobedience if it were done openly and the perpetrators made themselves available for prosecution and punishment.

Are you talking specifically about disputes with the government? If a woman kills her stalker out of fear for her life, is that rebellion? What if here stalker is a police officer?

Hm... wouldn't call it rebellion because the stalker is acting unlawfully. It would be violent, it may be justified, but wouldn't be civil disobedience.

 

[gnome]

I may have to amend something I said... about acting openly. A theoretical question: can there be secret civil disobedience? Something that does call attention to an unjust law, but where the perpetrators remain anonymous so that they can continue their campain?

An example: someone is unjustly convicted of a crime. Each time they are imprisoned, hackers corrupt the prison's computer system and secretly order his release. Is that civil disobedience on the part of the hackers?

 

[qayak]

I may have to amend something I said... about acting openly. A theoretical question: can there be secret civil disobedience? Something that does call attention to an unjust law, but where the perpetrators remain anonymous so that they can continue their campain?

An example: someone is unjustly convicted of a crime. Each time they are imprisoned, hackers corrupt the prison's computer system and secretly order his release. Is that civil disobedience on the part of the hackers?

No, that's old fashioned bribery on the part of the Hiltons!

 

[qayak]

I don't see how civil disobedience can have a meaning, but not terrorism.

Because terrorism is used to describe everything from someone spitting ont he streets to someone flying a plane into the WTC. It has no meaning because it is overused.

 

[qayak]

I would say that if someone wishes to make the argument that non-violent civil disobedience will not resolve an issue, that they have actually moved on to advocating rebellion.

Advocating rebellion? No, I don't think so. I think it is just calling a spade a spade. Look what happened at Tiannamen Square in China. Complete non-violent civil disobedience. Completely ineffective.

South Africa before the violence and threat of violence, nothing. After, complete change.

Civil Rights Movement with violence and the threat of violence, complete change.

Truly, in some cases this is justified, but the criteria most would accept are far more stringent than the justification for civil disobedience.

It's a rebellion. I doubt the leaders really care what the people they are rebelling against think. History is written by the victor, after the fact.

 

[ponderingturtle]

From the OP (emphasis mine):
They are criminals, as much so as if they had robbed a bank.

If you or I pay what the IRS believes is an incorrect amount of taxes, it may go to Tax Court for adjudication. If the IRS wins, that is a civil judgment, not a criminal one. If the IRS believes you deliberately underpaid, they can press separate criminal charges.

That's why the IRS has a Chief Counsel's office and a separate Criminal Investigation Division (the CID referred to in the story). Not every tax court case is a crime.

The arguement being presented was that all tax cases should be civil, and that means not criminal.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This is the way of Thoreau or Gandhi. Civil disobedience. How else to change the ways of the Gestapo (IRS) in the USA? They are not murders or bank robbers. They are tax protestors. Why doesn’t the IRS go after Marc Rich? Oh yeah Clinton pardoned him. It’s a different set of rules for him. Most people pay their taxes out of fear not duty. It is wrong to live in fear of your government.

Yep, I remeber when all Gandhi's supporters grabed their guns and treatened violence when he was going to be arrested. A true man of peace knows when to kill all those who oppose him.

 

[BPSCG]

The arguement being presented was that all tax cases should be civil, and that means not criminal.

If you don't think a person's actions can have both civil and criminal ramifications, talk with O.J. Simpson next time you see him.

 

[The Painter]

Yep, I remeber when all Gandhi's supporters grabed their guns and treatened violence when he was going to be arrested. A true man of peace knows when to kill all those who oppose him.

Ahh, the joys of the 2nd Amendment.


A little question for everyone;

Do you pay your taxes out of a sense of duty, or do you pay your taxes out of fear of what will happen if you don’t?

 

[BPSCG]

Do you pay your taxes out of a sense of duty, or do you pay your taxes out of fear of what will happen if you don’t?

Yes.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What about a person who was born into a system they had no say in and completely disagree with?

So? This applies to so many things, it just as easily applies to things like equality between races or sexes.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Brown is doing exactly that is he not? He is trying to change the system. He is an activist. He is protesting. He is commiting civil disobedience. Plus, he has taken the uniquely American approach of arming himself against an unjust government. Guaranteed in the Constitution, ya know?

I like it, this works so well as a way of classifying Gandi and say Tim McVeigh as acting in the same fashion.

 

[ponderingturtle]

MLK had little if any affect until the Black Panthers showed up. It wasn't civil disobedience that carried the day it was the threrat of violence. Same with Nelson Mandella in South Africa. It wasn't until the militant wing of the ANC came on the scene, completely willing to do violence, that things changed.

No one would call Mandella a practicer of civil disobedience and know anything about him. He was involved in real violence before he went into prison, he supported sabotage and such.

This is the tough thing about the US Constitution. It specifically gives citizens a mechanism to protect themselves from unjust governments. It doesn't say that everyone has to agree with the dissenting voice before that person is allowed to exercise their rights. They decide themselves.

And it permits the government to act against insurrection as well.

I don't read the minds of long dead founding fathers, I just read what they wrote on the subject. He believed government should be a small as possible with as little control over people's lives as possible. I don't think he would agree with the US system as it stands today. To quote him (bolding mine):

Just look into the Whiskey Rebellion.

 

[ponderingturtle]

They are debts that are criminal matters.

So you are instead trying to lower the bar to preponderance of the evidence instead of beyond a reasonable dought for tax evasion then?

 

[BPSCG]

Brown is doing exactly that is he not? He is trying to change the system.

Oh, well that changes it, doesn't it? I didn't realize he was fighting for justice for oppressed minorities, like King and Gandhi did. I thought he was just a jerk who was trying to evade his tax obligations while using specious legal arguments as justification.

Plus, he has taken the uniquely American approach of arming himself against an unjust government. Guaranteed in the Constitution, ya know?

Codswallop. Here's the way the rules work: If you think a legal decision against you is improper, you appeal the decision. You appeal as far as you can go. When you finally win, you celebrate. If you run out of appeals and you've still lost, you face the consequences.

In Ed-Brown-World, if you don't like what the courts say, you defy them and threaten to shoot anyone who tries to enforce the court's judgment.

Sorry, but I don't recall reading where Ed Brown was given an exemption from US legal processes. If he doesn't want to play by them, then he can accept the consequences, like King and Gandhi did. He can go to jail, like King and Gandhi did, and prick the nation's conscience the way they did, resulting in repeal of the US tax code.

If he doesn't want to do that, then he's nothing more than a hypocritical jerk, who's just trying to evade his tax obligations while using specious legal arguments as justification.

FWIW, I don't know what the Browns are using as their justification for not paying their taxes, but there is a very nice summary of the various objections ("I'm not a US citizen," "The 16th amendment was never ratified," "My salary isn't actually income," blahblahblah) and the history of the court decisions knocking them down right here.

Art, to answer your question regarding which laws they actually broke, click here.