Jump to content

Talk:Edward and Elaine Brown

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alleged Fame of Randy Weaver, POV of Article

[edit]

Let's not have this devolve into an edit war. Fame is relative, I understand, but the tone of this page is becoming horribly slanted. I understand it's a contentious issue with some people, but that shouldn't spill over into Wikipedia. Supporters and detractors should KEEP IT NEUTRAL. Sidatio 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compound or House?

[edit]

It is interesting that "compound" is used to define this man's home. Most architects in the know would classify this home as practical and more precisely it would be considered "sustainable" or "green".

The above comments are correct. The use of the word "compound" is biased, inflamatory, and grossly inaccurate. Wikipedia's own article on "compound" defines it as a complex of several buildings surrounded by a defensive wall. The brown home is no such thing, and is virtually indistinguishable from any other modern home built after the 1980s, save for the well hidden solar panels. The structure is a single, free-standing, and exposed suburban-style house. The house was designed to be energy efficient and environmentally friendly. That section has been edited to reflect this.

See also Wiki's definition of "castle"; this might be more accurate than compound. Most "suburban-style houses" do not have a turret with 10 inch thick concrete walls and gun ports! BlueKnight 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A deck is not a turret, siding is not a 10 inch thick concrete wall, and windows are not gun ports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.146.145 (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2007
  • See MR. BROWN'S DESCRIPTION of the property including a tower and 10 inch thick concrete walls.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070117/REPOSITORY/701170329 BlueKnight 15:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many recent news reports are now referring to the property as "fortress-like" instead of being a "compound." I would suspect that this would be no more acceptable to those who think this is just your average house. BlueKnight 15:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody have a photograph of the place? Brown has a ton of supporters, I'm sure it would be easy enough to find one and ask them to provide some snapshots.

location of standoff

[edit]

What's the matter with putting in a map link to where this is happening? I think this line is a useful + interesting addition: Ed Brown's Plainfield residence (401 Center of Town Road Plainfield, NH 03781) is located at 43°33'13"N 72°18'43"W.

Also, the Browns' home is located at 43°33′13″N 72°18′43″W / 43.55361°N 72.31194°W / 43.55361; -72.31194.


Agreed -- I have re-added the location information deleted by TexasDawg. The Brown's have no privacy issues with this -- they've issued a general invitation for supporters. Also the information provided permits viewing satellite imagery via Google Earth. Soldato 02:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TexasDawg says, "The geographic coordinates of their home are not necessary and irrelevant; take it to the discussion page if you disagree." Hmmm.. I agree that putting their address in the article might be a bit intrusive, though Ed Brown himself has published it far and wide on the Internet to rally supporters to his cause. But the geo coor location is useful. It's the location of an ongoing law enforcement standoff, which could even be dangerous for oblivious hikers or neighbors, cuz the Marshall said the other day that they are conducting surviellence operations in this area... And they arrested that one guy who was walking the dog. What about this: The Browns' home is located at 43°33′13″N 72°18′43″W / 43.55361°N 72.31194°W / 43.55361; -72.31194?

Corrections on criminal convictions

[edit]

I added corrections on the description of the criminal convictions. It's somewhat common for the news media to refer to just about any Federal criminal tax conviction as "tax evasion," and that's unfortunate. Federal tax evasion is actually only one specific tax crime, at 26 U.S.C. § 7201. There are many others.

As the corrected article points out, Mr. Brown himself was not even charged with tax evasion. His wife was so charged (and convicted), and indeed Mrs. Brown actually was convicted on far more criminal counts over all than Mr. Brown.

I will hopefully have more detail on the criminal convictions as I study more of the indictment and the jury's verdict. Yours, Famspear 03:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some detail on the possible prison sentences, but that's subject to change because I showed only a rough total, based on a quick reading of the indictment, the jury verdict, and the statutes. (That's code for: I think I got it right, but it's pretty late on a Monday night and I'm pretty tired, and I haven't even washed the dishes yet, and if I screwed it up I'll change it later or someone else will catch it!) Yours, Famspear 04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear readers: OK, I've added some detail on background for the specific charges - specific things that Mr. and Mrs. Brown were charged with doing.
Also, I haven't yet added anything on the forfeiture matter. The indictment calls for a criminal forfeiture under 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c) that could include certain items of real estate in New Hampshire. This statute involves forfeiture, to the United States, of any property involved in the criminal offenses, and any property traceable to the offenses. Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear 06:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your cleaning up and correcting much of the article. The addition of so many footnotes and full listings of each charge and indictment allegations clutters the article though. I've removed these from the article since they can be found by referring to the reference you've cited. -- TexasDawg 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Protester Statutory Arguments

[edit]

sorry I meant to edit the: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_statutory_arguments#The_.22IRS_refuses_to_say_what_law_makes_U.S._citizens_liable_for_income_tax.22_argument page.

I encourage you all to check it out, because it does have very biased statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmcneil (talk • contribs) 23:20, 2 March 2007

Verbiage moved from article

[edit]

The following verbiage was inserted by an anonymous user, and is being moved to here:

also forgot to add how the judge was saying how state taxes do not have to abid by the federal taxes...when they do

I'm not sure what the user was trying to say; it sounds like a discussion comment that belongs here on the talk page. Yours, Famspear 19:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious conversion

[edit]

Nice job, Famspear, thanks for your help. BlueKnight 16:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BlueKnight: Thanks, and thank you for locating that Concord Monitor article and adding the material to this article. Yours, Famspear 17:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Why was this removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.120.84.9 (talk • contribs) (on 14 June 2007) I read the referring article in the Concord Monitor and the text appears correct. Nor could I find a source which refuted this. So I put the text back in —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhima.Pandava (talk • contribs) (on 14 June 2007)

I agree. I have added a caution on the anonymous user's talk page about deleting sections of text without providing an explanation in the edit summary. Yours, Famspear 14:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offering to pay U.S. Federal taxes to avoid going to jail: good luck

[edit]

The article mentions that the Browns tried to avoid criminal conviction by offering to pay the back taxes. In the case of U.S. Federal income taxes, I think this would only rarely work. Unfortunately, if you get to the point where you are being prosecuted for Federal tax crimes, you are already in too deep. From the standpoint of the government, you aren't offering them anything they're not already legally entitled to receive, or that they believe they're entitled to receive. The government wants you to go to jail AND pay the taxes, and by law they can legally collect taxes by seizing your assets without even going to court anyway (as long as they correctly jump through certain administrative legal "hoops" prior to the forced collection action).

I therefore made a minor edit to the reference in the article to the Browns' offer about paying the tax. There was probably no intention in the article to give this impression, but you do not want to give the impression in Wikipedia that the U.S. Federal government is in the habit of settling a whole lot of criminal tax cases by accepting offers to pay the tax. A refusal by the government to accept the offer in the Ed and Elaine Brown case would be pretty much par for the course, especially considering the large amount of income involved. Yours, Famspear 17:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free State Project

[edit]

What's the significance of the Free State Project article link at the bottom of the page? Sure, this is in NH and these people don't like paying taxes, but the article never mentions them as members or people connected with it. I'm going to remove the link. If there is indeed a substantial link between the two it should be stated in the article, not inferred by the related articles section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.17.88 (talk • contribs) (on 24 April 2007).

  • Please don't remove the link. While they are separate, there is a significant overlap between the Free Stater community and Ed Brown supporters.[1] The "See also" context doesn't imply a direct relationship, but rather that it's a related concept where the reader of one article may be interested in the other. -AlexLibman 06:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible appeal

[edit]

The Associated Press story on May 10 got it partly right and partly wrong. The judge in the case did not "reverse" himself, and the judge did not file the appeal. The order was back in April, a few days after the judgment of conviction. What the court said -- if we can convert it from legalese to plain English is, in effect, something like this: "Look, defendants, you filed your appeal way back in January, before there was anything to appeal. Therefore, the law treats your notice of appeal as though you filed it on the date of the judgment (the date on which you finally had something to appeal). That means you filed your appeal on a timely basis (although you filed it too early, at least you didn't file it too late). Now, you have 30 days from April 24 to either pay the filing fee for the appeal (since I, the judge, refunded your filing fee when you filed too early) or, if you're too poor now, file papers showing that you're too poor to pay the fee."

Anyway, thanks to TexasDawg for bringing us this new development. Famspear 03:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I'm looking at the April 26th court order again, and it does say 30 days from the date of "this order" (not 30 days from the date of the judgment of conviction on April 24th). Hmmm. I'm just going to delete the reference in the article. It's 30 days from either April 24 or April 26, anyway. Famspear 03:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 7

[edit]

PLAINFIELD, N.H. (AP) - Neighbors of convicted tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown reported police SWAT teams and at least one armored vehicle converged on a field near the Browns' Plainfield (New Hampshire) home this morning.

Federal and state authorities haven't commented on whether they are moving in to arrest the fugitives, and the local police, the governor's office and the U.S. Attorney's office referred calls to the U.S. Marshal's office, which has been negotiating with the Browns since their tax evasion conviction in January.

A neighbor who lives a mile or so away from the Browns, on Center of Town Road, said she saw police officers, SWAT team members, a fire truck, ambulance, helicopter and at least one armored vehicle assembled in a field across from her driveway.

Brown told a blog interviewer this morning he's been getting calls from people reporting police in the town, and said he lost power twice during the night.

The Browns have been sentenced to five and a half years in prison for tax evasion. They skipped their sentencing hearings, and Ed Brown has said he and his wife will refuse to surrender.

Why aren't the APCs mentioned? There were 5 tanks as Alex Jones mentioned dozens of times contrary to the claim of the feds that this was "not a raid".

go to this site for updates

[edit]

www.prisonplanet.com/] Alex Jones prison planet, On the left click listen live his radio show will play you will get information about the current events.216.26.216.127 21:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on Ed Brown statements

[edit]

Hi, please excuse me this is my first time using wikipedia. about the above paragraph. I don't know where Ed Brown or his wife supposedly said they had abandoned man's law for that of the Bible, but I have a hard time believing it. Perhaps something was taken out of context. When Mr. Brown was interviewed on the Alex Jones show he stated that he refused to pay the income tax because there is no law stating that the income tax must be paid and that he was following the laws set forth in the US Constitution. The income tax is considered by Ed Brown unlawful as it is perpetrated by a criminal organization (IRS, Federal Reserve) in order to pay off the debt the American government owes to the private Federal Reserve banking system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.122.34.70 (talk • contribs) on 13 June 2007

The material already contains a footnote with a link to the May 19, 2007 article by Kristen Senz of the New Hampshire Union Leader. The verbiage in the article, which appears to be largely a paraphrase rather than a direct quote, is:
The Browns, for whom a judge filed a notice of appeal with the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, said they have abandoned "man's law" and now follow only the rules and laws put forth in the Bible.[2]
That's the report. Wikipedia cannot take a position on whether the reporter accurately paraphrased what the Browns said. As it stands, the material appears to conform to the Wikipedia rules of Verifiability (not truth), Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. If someone finds a reliable source where the Browns said "no, that's not what we said, the Union Leader got it wrong in the May 19 article" etc., then that should be added to the article as well. Yours, Famspear 21:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates of Browns' Home

[edit]

Should the geographic coordinates of the Browns' home be included in the sub-section about their residence? -- TexasDawg 13:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a personal opinion pro or con. What would be the purpose of putting geographic coordinates of someone's house in an encyclopedia article? Famspear 14:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

I was getting a bit tired of the slanted point-of-view primarily in the external links. All that are listed are pro-Brown and are links to various anti-government sites. I have added a link to an IRS pdf file so that those so inclined can read the code explanations of the IRS and the various court precedents. BlueKnight 15:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brown and the early/mid 1990s militia movement

[edit]

Close to the beginning of the article, I have added the information on Brown's involvement in the militia movement from over ten years ago, to add some balance to the article and put things in perspective (i.e., his problems with the government did not arise just last year). Yours, Famspear 04:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brown and the Freemasons

[edit]

I saw Ed Brown make some statements in his televised interviews over the past week to the effect that the "Freemasons" are behind the plots or conspiracies he believes exist. Now the New Hampshire paper has picked up on that as well, so I've added that report to the article, with a link to the newspaper's web site. Yours, Famspear 18:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved vs. famous

[edit]

Restored the claim that Randy Weaver was famous, removing the merely "involved" statement. When one has a breakfast of ham and eggs, a claim can be made that the chicken was certainly involved, but the pig was certainly more than just involved :-) Claiming that Randy Weaver was only involved in a deadly shooting is attempting to sugarcoat the subsequent legal settlement he received for having been shot, and for having had family members (son and wife) murdered. He was more than just "involved" in a deadly shooting. Yaf 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're allowing personal bias to cloud the article's neutrality. I restored the "involved" comment. Fame is relative, but it doesn't hinge on a relatively obscure standoff between US Marshals. There are worse altercations that happen regulary. Please preserve the article's neutrality - or what's left of it. Sidatio 20:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Relatively obscure"? I remember the Ruby Ridge incident being on the cover of Newsweek, Time, and US News & World Report when it happened-- the USA's three biggest newsmagazines at the time. It's a pretty notable incident that got a lot of press and even led to Congressional hearings, and it's a rarity that fatalities result from standoffs with FBI snipers in this country, not something that happens regularly. Please assume good faith on the part of other editors, without assuming motivations for their edits.--Gloriamarie 06:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weaver's Role at Press Conference Noted Twice

[edit]

Under the header "The Browns' residence", and again in the post-trial timeline, Randy Weaver's involvement in the June 18th press conference is noted. It seems redundant to note it twice, so I removed the smaller notation under "The Browns' residence". Sidatio 12:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More information on past crimes

[edit]

New Hampshire reporters are now digging up more information on this guy's violent past. Information on his armed robbery & assault conviction has been added to the article. Famspear 15:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What are the specifics behind the case? Why was he pardoned? We need some more details on this before you start noting a "violent criminal past" in the first line of the article. -- TexasDawg 05:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had added the reference to his past here [3] to correct what I perceived as some imbalance with respect to neutral point of view. But, I see your point. And I'll see what more I can find on Brown's criminal background. Yours, Famspear 13:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters much now, but actually, if he was pardoned, it's like he was never convicted of that crime at all-- that's how a pardon works. So it can't necessarily be characterized as a "criminal past."--Gloriamarie 05:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear editor Gloriamarie: In my opinion, being pardoned does not make it "like he was never convicted of that crime at all" in any meaningful sense other than a legal one. A pardon is, in this sense, a legal fiction - a legal play-pretend. A pardon does not change the fact that Brown actually was convicted; it allows the legal system to pretend he wasn't convicted. And I suspect the guy that Brown attacked, his family, the prosecutor, the members of the jury (assuming there was a jury trial), and the corrections officers who dealt with Brown might disagree with the idea that Brown's past cannot necessarily be characterized as a criminal past. The legal effect of a pardon does not change the reality that Brown committed a violent crime, was tried and convicted for it, and served time.
Anyway, to the main point: Thanks for a great job converting the article from "Edward Lewis Brown" to "Edward and Elaine Brown." Yours, Famspear 13:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine

[edit]

Shouldn't this be renamed Ed and Elaine Brown? She is just as much involved as he is, if not more because it was the money from her dental practice that started it. I also find little mentioned about the source of their money-- it should be noted that she was apparently a very popular dentist.--Gloriamarie 21:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She deserves to be noted in this piece, but Ed seems to be the catalyst and the mouthpiece here. Certainly, her history as a dentist and primary source of income should be noted somewhere in here. As far as her being a "very popular" dentist, I have no strong opinion either way on it being noted so long as there's an appropriate citation to back it up. Sidatio 12:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although Elaine Brown actually had more tax convictions than Ed Brown, I second what the user at IP70.159.43.66 wrote. I don't have a strong opinion either way. Yours, Famspear 19:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that she was apparently very popular in order to get more than $1 million in income from being a dentist in what seems to be a smallish town.--Gloriamarie 20:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many dentists are there in the area? Over what period of time did she accumulate the $1 million? Was her dentistry practice the sole source of the $1 million? To me, the amount of money she made isn't sufficient proof of popularity at any level because of the many intangibles involved. No offense, of course - I don't know Elaine Brown personally, and she may very well be locally popular. However, unless one is able to confirm this popularity from a reputable, newsworthy source, there's little reason to note it. Sidatio 21:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a Wikipedia editor wants the article to "note" that Elaine Brown was a very "popular" dentist, the article would not be able to base that merely on information that Elaine made a million dollars, etc., in her dental practice. Putting fact A, that Elaine made over a million dollars in her dental practice (as shown in the court documents) together with fact B (and really, it's just assumption B) that "most dentists who make a lot of money are probably popular dentists" and thereby reaching a Wikipedia editor's own Conclusion C - "Elaine Brown was a popular dentist" is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. While all that might be "logical," it's original research (commentary, really), and therefore it's not appropriate in Wikipedia.
If Elaine's home town newspaper or some other reliable PUBLISHED source stated "Hey, Elaine was a popular dentist" then the Wikipedia article could REPORT that, with a citation to the source. Yours, Famspear 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a follow-up, this explains the rule on "No Original Research":

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research."

Here, we do have a reliable source for A -- the court documents say that Elaine had over a million in income. The problem is B and C. We have no source for B, which is "dentists who make over a million over five years are, by definition, popular dentists." Further, even if we had a source for assertion B, we as Wikipedia editors cannot ourselves just add C to the article ("therefore Elaine was a popular dentist"), even though that's arguably logical and reasonable conclusion.

On the other hand, if some newspaper included a statement like "Elaine Brown had been a popular dentist in her home town, earning over a million dollars from her dental practice in a five year period" -- THEN Wikipedia could report that the NEWSPAPER said that, with a citation to the article, etc. Yours, Famspear 22:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All very true. A clarification, though: I was never saying that any editor should add that Elaine Brown was a popular dentist-- I was only stating that from the fact that she made more than $1 million from her dental practice (and owned the building it was in valued close to $1 million), it was interesting that at the time I wrote the initial comment, the article never once mentioned that she was a dentist, and that's how the Browns got most of the money involved in the tax case. I instead read it in other news articles. I was only saying that it should be mentioned that she was a dentist.--Gloriamarie 05:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions to Beliefs section slant POV

[edit]

The two most recent paragraphs added by IP 69.182.192.170 to the Beliefs section don't fit for a few reasons:

  • They're not exactly stating "beliefs" about taxes (or anything, for that matter)
  • The refs used aren't from a reputable source.

Unless there's a good argument for restoring them, I recommend removing them.

The external links added don't really fit, either - they're about tax arguments and should be on the tax protester arguments page. Since the one about their trial records directly pertains to Ed and Elaine, it should stay. Since it's only a select cross-section of their filings, though, the title should reflect that. By this reasoning, several of the external links should be cleaned up. If anyone can think of a good argument for restoring them, post it.

I understand there are a few people out there who are using this as a cause celebre for their issues with the income tax, but the POV on this page is again getting way out of hand. Sidatio 18:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have reverted this material. Much of the material that had been added was blatant POV, tax protester rhetoric. Famspear 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I see that IP70.159.43.66 and I were making edits to delete the POV commentary at around the same time. Hopefully, together we have made the right corrections. Famspear 19:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep the link to the selected filings, even if the source is somewhat dubious. It'd be nice if we had copies of the government's filings as well, but what can you do? Also, in the edit I had done, I cleaned up some POV issues in the existing external links, and moved a paragraph about the Browns trying to dismiss the case themselves from the Beliefs section to the Trial section, since it seemed more relevant there. I have taken the liberty of restoring that version; if anyone sees anything that needs to be added, subtracted, or moved, go for it. Sidatio 19:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP70.159.43.66: OK, I see. Famspear 19:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, on the link to the "selected filings," the web page that is linked does appear "selective," with its own somewhat POV commentary. That page is not the official court docket on PACER, which of course would show all the entries made by the Clerk of the Court. I guess the main thing is to keep the POV pushing out of the Wikipedia article itself. The edits made by IP70.159.43.66 (and by me) appear to have largely accomplished that. Famspear 19:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's VERY selective, and the source isn't desirable at all, but not everyone has access to PACER (which, last I checked, was password protected.

Agreed, Famspear - we can only hold down the NPOV here. Also, I can't take credit for the bulk of this work - I just shifted some stuff around. You and the other regular editors of this section have done a great job holding this article in check. You deserve a barnstar for it, once I figure out how the hell to give them! Sidatio 19:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP70.159.43.66: Thanks. You might want to consider setting up your own account, with your own username and password. I'm not a computer "tekkie," but I think it's actually safer than just posting as an IP address (assuming that you don't use your real name as your username). Yours, Famspear 19:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more detail about the Browns' beliefs about taxes, which also include beliefs about the New Hampshire tax system. Famspear 15:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also moved the report about the Browns' tax protester rhetoric (claiming they have been shown no law making them liable for Federal income tax, or that there is no law) down into the footnote. Putting their rhetoric in the main body of the article while showing the citations to the law only in a footnote may be giving undue weight to a blatantly false claim. A jury found that both Mr. and Mrs. Brown were well aware of the Federal income tax law imposing the obligations to file and pay. Therefore, I just put the whole thing in the footnote, for better balance. Famspear 15:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree with that; it seems quite relevant to the article why they did this (or the reasons they give) and interesting for the reader. It should be in the main article and not in the footnotes. (With cites from reliable sources, of course.)--Gloriamarie 05:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Brown SUV story

[edit]

I have added some information about the latest incident, in which a 17 year old girl was allegedly injured, and her allegedly vehicle totaled, by someone driving Elaine Brown's vehicle -- apparently to go buy food. This illustrates an example of how the Browns are impacting people. Famspear 14:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impacting people? Or, just an everyday car wreck. The wreck is notable because it involved their car, but the Browns themselves did not "impact" anyone. -- TexasDawg 13:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear TexasDawg: Yeah, I was using the term "impact" in the connotative sense, as in "My father had a big impact on my life" or "A good education can have a big impact on future earnings." Actually, I thought it was a clever use of double entendre! And I agree, I think it's notable here because of the possible ramifications with respect to the delicate "stand off" situation with the Browns and the law enforcement people. Famspear 16:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cryer

[edit]

I really don't see the relevance of linking the two articles - the only thing in common seems to be the fact that both are tax protesters. Their cases vary wildly on several key points - amount owed, methods used, etc. Any comment? Sidatio 11:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have deleted the link. I've also made some changes to the Cryer article. Yours, Famspear 14:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, isn't there some strong similarity in the BASIS for both the Cryer and the Brown case? i.e. that the accused were challenging their accusers to prove the factual basis of the charges against them? And that in Cryer's case they acknowledged there was no evidence, therefore he could not be found guilty? That's just my basic understanding of it anyway, not like the non-alternative media covered Cryer's case that much, did they... SPECIFICALLY, the local news story (shreveporttimes.com I think) quoted Cryer as saying the following: "The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes my revenues taxable. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose an income tax on anything but the profits and gains. When you work for someone you give your service and labor in exchange for money, so everything you make is not profit or gain. You put something into it." 199.214.28.95 20:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the Tom Cryer talk page for a detailed explanation of the type of defense Cryer used. It's markedly different from the Ed and Elaine "show me the law" routine. Also, it's important to note the only true similarity in the two cases; both are still liable for their back taxes. Cryer was only found not guilty of willfully avoiding his tax liability. As far as the quotations, they don't accurately reflect what went on in the courtroom. To read them, one would think he had been found not liable in his tax burden. Rest assured, he still has to pay it. But check out the explanation on that article's talk page for the expert take on the subject. Sidatio 21:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user at IP199.214.28.95: The similarity is that both cases are criminal cases where the defendant (defendants, in the Brown case) was a tax protester. That's about it.

By definition, nearly all court cases (civil and criminal, tax or non-tax) involve an attempt by the defendant to challenge the accuser to prove the factual basis of the "charges" against the defendant.

Whether there is a law imposing Federal income tax is a called a question of law, not a question of fact. Questions of law are not subject to determination by a jury. Questions of law are subject only to a ruling by a judge. Litigants in civil and criminal cases in the United States are not allowed to argue to a jury that something is or is not "the law." Prior to jury deliberation, the jury is instructed on the law by the judge. Indeed, in Texas (where I live) the jury takes an oath to follow the law as instructed by the judge and not to follow what the jury thinks the law is or should be.

Neither the judge nor the jury in Cryer's case "acknowledged" that there was no "evidence" against Cryer. I have reviewed the court docket on PACER. Indeed, the "evidence" was presented at the trial. Had there literally been "no evidence," the judge (upon motion by the defendant) would simply have thrown the case out without even giving it to the jury. Instead, the case went to the jury and the jury found Cryer not guilty of willfully failing to file Federal income tax returns. The jury did not "find" that there was no law requiring Cryer to file those returns (and, indeed, there is no such thing a "jury finding" that there is no law requiring someone to file such returns). The jury also did not "find" that there is no law making Cryer liable for taxes.

The quotation by Cryer is, unfortunately, a false statement. The statement also more or less contradicts what he admitted in an interview I heard on the internet shortly after the acquittal. (By the way, the law itself is clearly found at 26 U.S.C. § 1, 26 U.S.C. § 61, 26 U.S.C. § 63, 26 U.S.C. § 6151, 26 U.S.C. § 6012 and related statutes.) Saying that the court in Cryer's case could not "find the law" making him liable for tax is like saying that the court in the O.J. Simpson case could not "find the law" making Simpson liable for murder. Simpson was acquitted of murder not because there was no law against murder in California, but rather because the jury rendered a not guilty verdict. That means that the prosecution failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, at least one of the elements of the crime of murder under the California statute.

Cryer admitted in the aforementioned interview that he was not even allowed to argue to the jury that there was no law. The court properly refused to allow him to make such an argument to the jury, just as the court would be proper in refusing to allow a murder defendant to argue to the jury that there is no law against murder.

Whether there is a law against murder, or a law against willfully failing to file a Federal income tax return, is a question of law, not a question of fact. Questions of law are decided by the judge, not by the jury.

When a jury in a Federal tax case renders a verdict, the jury does not issue a formal statement as to which of the elements of the crime the government failed to prove. Unfortunately, Cryer's statement (if he actually made it) does tend to lead persons having no expertise in law to falsely conclude that Cryer was acquitted because either the judge or the jury "could find no law" making Cryer liable for tax.

Statements like "show us the law" or "there is no law" or "they can't find the law" or "they never showed us the law" are examples of frivolous tax protester rhetoric. The statutes themselves are clearly referenced in the instructions for Form 1040 and on the IRS web site. These examples of tax protester rhetoric are, well rhetorical devices used by protesters to mislead people into incorrectly believing that "there is no law," etc. Once the actual Internal Revenue Code sections are pointed out, protesters back off and argue, that, oh well, but the statutes don't "really mean" what the statutes say, or what the courts have ruled. This is intellectual dishonesty. (Actually, a few protesters spread the preposterous claim that the entire Internal Revenue Code itself is not a "statute" or is not "law" or was never "enacted by Congress" -- which is also totally false.)

Oh, by the way, in the Cryer quote, Cryer is apparently trying to give the false impression that the Supreme Court has ruled that wages are not taxable, or that wages are not "income" or "profit" or "gain." The United States Supreme Court has never ruled any such thing. No Federal court has ever ruled that compensation for personal services (whether called wages or salaries or any other name) are not taxable.

This statement: "When you work for someone you give your service and labor in exchange for money, so everything you make is not profit or gain" -- is nonsensical. Tax protesters make statements like this over and over. This kind of statement betrays, in the person who says it, a fundamental misunderstanding (or even a deliberate deception) not only with respect to tax law but also with respect to basic economics and basis principles of accounting.

Yes, when you work for someone, you do give your service and labor in exchange for money. And yes, the VALUE of the service and labor you give IS EQUAL to the VALUE of the money you receive. But that has nothing to do with whether you make profit or gain. By definition, in any ordinary arm's length exchange (regardless of whether you're talking about a transfer of property, or of services), what you give is equal in value to what you receive. In tax law, as in financial accounting, "income" or "profit" or "gain" is not computed by subtracting the current VALUE of what you give up from the current VALUE of what you receive. That would be nonsensical. If gain, profit or income were computed that way, almost no one would ever realize a gain, profit, or income (or a loss for that matter).

Think about it for a while. And think about how gain or profit or income actually is computed. If you want to know how "income" (or "profit" or "gain") actually is computed under principles of economics, or accounting, or tax law, feel free to discuss on my talk page. Famspear 21:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and a clarification is in order. Above, I wrote that a Texas jury takes an oath to follow the law as instructed by the judge and not to follow what the jury thinks the law is or should be. The requirement that the jury follow the law as given to the jury by the judge is actually in Texas law itself. In a criminal case in Texas, the exact wording of the juror's oath is as follows:
"You and each of you do solemnly swear that in the case of the State of Texas against the defendant, you will a true verdict render according to the law and the evidence, so help you God" (see Tex. Code of Crim. Proc., art. 35.22).
The jury is very specifically bound and governed by the law given by the court (i.e., by the law the jury receives from the judge):
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article. 36.14. CHARGE OF COURT. Subject to the provisions of Article 36.07 in each felony case and in each misdemeanor case tried in a court of record, the judge shall, before the argument begins, deliver to the jury [ . . . ] a written charge distinctly setting forth the law applicable to the case [ . . . ] [bolding added]
And:
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 36.13. JURY IS JUDGE OF FACTS. Unless otherwise provided in this Code, the jury is the exclusive judge of the facts, but it is bound to receive the law from the court and be governed thereby. [Bolding added; the reference to "the court" is a reference to the judge.]
On the Cryer case, I would assume that Louisiana law is similar. Yours, Famspear 22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, Cryer was a Federal case, so Federal law, not Louisiana law, would apply. I'm tired. Can I go home now? Famspear 23:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move suggestion

[edit]

The article is about both Edward Brown and Elaine Brown, and indeed the whole affair began with Mrs. Brown's conviction. On top of that, it is less a biography of the Browns than it is an article on their tax protest, and the events leading up to and about the current standoff. As such, perhaps a rename is in order, especially following the arrests of other individuals who have aided the Browns. At the very least Edward and Elaine Brown, or preferably something to reflect the overall nature of the ongoing event, like Plainfield, New Hampshire tax standoff. Thoughts? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor Jeffrey O. Gustafson: I don't have a strong preference for either keeping the article name "as is" or moving it, but your suggestion for "Edward and Elaine Brown" seems appropriate. I think that would work better than "Plainfield, New Hampshire tax standoff." Using "Edward and Elaine Brown" would work, as I assume (and hope) that this event ends peacefully with no one hurt, and that the article can continue to develop once the Browns are in prison. And I agree that "Edward and Elaine Brown" might be more descriptive than just "Edward Lewis Brown." I'm not pushing for a move, but I wouldn't object to "Edward and Elaine Brown." Any thoughts anyone? Famspear 01:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to Edward and Elaine Brown, either. Elaine Brown should (disambiguate) to the article, wherever it is. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to Edward and Elaine Brown. The lead will need to be rewritten to reflect the change. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, I had suggested this a long time ago, and it had never gotten done. It's much better this way.--Gloriamarie 05:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to editors Jeffrey O. Gustafson and Gloriamarie for good work on converting this article! Yours, Famspear 16:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


allegations of torture

[edit]

Ed brown supporters/websites (prisonplanet.com for one) have been accusing the federal holding facility he is at of torturing him, recently someone got a hold of Ed, recorded their phone convo (prisonplanet.com/audio/171007brown.mp3) and Ed Brown claims they have held him in a deprivation tank for 15+hrs and gassed him. Relevant? (personally, though, i think he's full of shit.) 76.25.115.99 07:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think prisonplanet.com would be considered a reliable source for factual information in Wikipedia. Famspear 14:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its an audio recording of ed brown himself saying they tortured him - actually visit the links before you pass judgement--Krautukie 17:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I think we'd need authentication that it really is Ed, and that the audio "tape" wasn't edited. (I'm not going to listen to it here, as prisonplanet is blocked from work and filtered from home as having a lot of popup/unders/arounds, and my commenting whether or not it sounded like Ed's voice from other sources would be WP:OR, anyway.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Krautukie: I've already heard the audio (actually, just the first part of it, as I had to break for a phone call, and I hadn't gotten back to the recording yet). The question by IP76.25.115.99 was whether prisonplanet.com was relevant to the Wikipedia aricle on Ed Brown. And without answering the relevancy question, my point is that while the material is (or may be) relevant (i.e., logically related to the subject of the article), the concept of "relevancy" is not the only consideration in determining whether Wikipedia cites to, or links to, a particular source. In Wikipedia, we have rules about using only reliable sources.
I believe that the recording I've heard (and it may have been at a web site other than prisonplanet anyway -- I'd have to go back and double check), seems to be a "real" recording of Ed Brown's voice. Even assuming that it's an accurate recording (i.e., not edited to make it sound like Ed's saying something other than what he said), that fact may or may not be enough for other Wikipedia editors, in terms of the rule on Verifiability.
Stay tuned. Gotta go. Famspear 17:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I hope there is some way to document this in Wikipedia if Ed Brown really did allege he was tortured, gassed, or whatever. This kind of wild allegation is very consistent with Brown's well-documented, delusional threats of violence and repeated rantings about world-wide conspiracies involving supposedly non-existent tax laws and Jews and Freemasons and Illuminati and so on. Famspear 17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added material on this story -- from the Concord Monitor, which is considered a reliable source. Yours, Famspear 15:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 untruth?

[edit]

I'm interested in whether anyone knows if the Browns believed the 9/11 terrorist attacks, in which Al Qaeda terrorists flew perfectly ordinary jetliners into the World Trade Center towers, were the result of some other plot? Nevard (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Honestly. What would you think? I would say they're aware that the official 9/11 story is bunk. They are aware of the corruption that is the US federal system..(71.222.44.224 (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Karczewski material

[edit]

A user at IP74.133.92.116 tried to add material from a weblog or web site for Raymond Karczewski -- hardly a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia. I reverted. Famspear (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Edward and Elaine Brown. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Edward and Elaine Brown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Edward and Elaine Brown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_and_Elaine_Brown&oldid=1196510518"