Tax laws and advice

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=6626288

Plainfield, New Hampshire – June 7, 2007

State and federal authorities have converged on the home of a New Hampshire
couple involved in a tax standoff.

People are being kept several miles away from the Center of Town Road in
Plainfield, where Ed and Elaine Brown live. Neighbors, including some who
have been evacuated, reported police SWAT teams, a helicopter and at least
one armored vehicle converged on a field near the home Thursday morning.

Authorities have not said if they were moving in to arrest the fugitives

The Browns have been barricaded inside their home for several months, after
being convicted of tax evasion. They did not even attend their sentencing
hearing, in which they were sentenced to five years in prison. The couple
has not paid their taxes in more than a decade and owe nearly a quarter of a
million dollars in back taxes.

Elaine Brown once had her own dentist office in Lebanon.

Ed Brown says he is armed and has promised a Waco like ending, saying he
will not be taken alive.

http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070607/APA…

Feds Show Force to Fugitive N.H. Couple

By PHILIP ELLIOTT
Associated Press Writer

PLAINFIELD, N.H. | Heavily armed officers with an armored vehicle moved in
Thursday on a fortified hilltop compound owned by a couple convicted of tax
evasion, then insisted the show of force was just a precaution.

Officers detained a man walking a dog at the 110-acre spread belonging to Ed
and Elaine Brown, but the man – described as a supporter of the fugitive
couple – was not arrested, and authorities had no contact Thursday with the
Browns, U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier said.

Deputy U.S. marshals served a property seizure warrant at the office where
Elaine Brown is a dentist in neighboring Lebanon. A judge had ordered the
property forfeited as part of the couple’s sentence for scheming to hide
$1.9 million of income between 1996 and 2003.

The Browns insist federal income tax laws are invalid and stopped attending
their trial partway through. They were convicted in January and have been
fugitives since they were sentenced to 5 1/2 years in prison each at an
April hearing they did not attend.

Deputy marshals have negotiated daily with the Browns since January and will
continue doing so, Monier said.

"As we have said from the beginning, we will continue to communicate with Ed
and Elaine Brown to convince them to surrender peacefully," he said.

The Browns’ home has a watchtower, concrete walls and the ability to run on
wind and solar power. Ed Brown, who has shown at least one gun to reporters
in the past, has said he has stockpiled food and supplies and would resist
arrest. He has repeatedly threatened violence against federal officials and
said he would rather die than admit income taxes exist.

"We needed to know where he was. We needed to know where his supporters
were," Monier said, explaining the dramatic law enforcement presence. "We
have no wish to have a violent encounter with either one of them."

Vehicles leaving a checkpoint early in the afternoon included an armored
Massachusetts SWAT vehicle, an explosive disposal unit, a communications
truck, industrial logging equipment and a New Hampshire state police cruiser
driven by someone with camouflage face paint.

Elaine Brown answered a telephone call from The Associated Press about 11
a.m. by saying: "This is the Lord’s House. This is Sister Elaine and Brother
Edward."

Ed Brown said nothing was out of the ordinary at the house, criticized the
media, then the couple hung up.

Earlier, he told a supporter that his suspicions were aroused when one of
his visitors had left to walk the dog, but the dog came back alone. He also
said the power had gone out twice overnight and an airplane had flown over
the house, where he said he was holed up with supporters.

"It could be a test to see our response time, our reaction," he said,
according to a recording the supporter posted online.

–
If electricity comes from electrons,
does morality come from morons?
—————-
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia

"Paul Thomas" <paulthomas…@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:

5…@bignews7.bellsouth.net…

> http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=6626288

> Plainfield, New Hampshire – June 7, 2007

> State and federal authorities have converged on the home of a New Hampshire
> couple involved in a tax standoff.

> People are being kept several miles away from the Center of Town Road in
> Plainfield, where Ed and Elaine Brown live. Neighbors, including some who
> have been evacuated, reported police SWAT teams, a helicopter and at least
> one armored vehicle converged on a field near the home Thursday morning.

> Authorities have not said if they were moving in to arrest the fugitives

   The Browns have been barricaded inside their home for several
months, after

> being convicted of tax evasion. They did not even attend their sentencing
> hearing, in which they were sentenced to five years in prison. The couple
> has not paid their taxes in more than a decade and owe nearly a quarter of a
> million dollars in back taxes.

> Elaine Brown once had her own dentist office in Lebanon.

> Ed Brown says he is armed and has promised a Waco like ending, saying he
> will not be taken alive.

What a way to live!
I guess this dentist may be filling a big cavity

www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
www.quatloos.com  internet tax scams
www.fraudsandscams.com
www.quatlosers.com
Tax Fraud reporting –
IRS Form 3949-A  (available online)

In article <DFGxnF.Cr8.0.bl…@torfree.net>
           bu…@torfree.net "Mike Corley" writes:

>>> ##: There were also a few other things said at the trial
>>> ##: relating to this which I won’t repeat here; it was in the papers
>>> ##: at the time anyway. This quote and others said by and about this
>>> ##: witness were repeating things that had been said by and about
>>> ##: me at around that time.

                When, where and by whom ?  Let’s have some details
                that can be checked.

I’m not going to repeat them. They’re hurtful to me because they contained abuse that was
directed against me by someone else at the time and which got picked up and thrown again
in the trial. It is a matter of record but I won’t repeat it here.

>>> PM: >Who’s character is being assassinated? It isn’t clear from the post.
>>> PM: >Are we talking about Grenville Janner? I thought he was a spook
>>> PM: >himself? He’s certainly able to hold his own on the issue you cite.
>>> ##: Mine, mainly. The reason for putting that episode at the top
>>> ##: of the posting is that they tried to kill two birds with one stone
>>> ##: at the Beck trial – they simultaneously put words into the mouth
>>> ##: of their invented "witness" to smear Janner, and repeated exactly,
>>> ##: word-for-word, stuff which had been said by and about me.

                Why would "they" wish to assassinate your character?

Well, let’s put it this way – just because this is the first time it’s happened in this way,
from these people, on this scale, doesn’t mean that it hasn’t happened before, on a lesser
scale. At university there were people who quite overtly hated me and would have wished
something nasty to happen to me. Because of where I went making the wrong sort of enemies
is pretty deadly.

"They" would wish to assassinate my character because it had all been done before, and
because they knew I would not be able to react in any other way than I’d reacted previously.

>>> ##: They invaded my home with their bugs, they repeated what I
>>> ##: was saying in the privacy of my home, and they laughed that it
>>> ##: was "so funny", that I was impotent and could not even communicate
>>> ##: what was going on. Who did this? Our friends on BBC television,
>>> ##: our friends in ITN, last but not least our friends in Capital
>>> ##: Radio in London and on Radio 1.

                Please give details of when, where and by whom these
                comments were made, so that they can be checked.

This was four, five years ago… sorry, I don’t remember. I can remember individual incidents,
words which were repeated by different people at different times in different locations.

Around the end of 1992 Private Eye rtan a front-cover with John and Norma Major, with
the title "Major’s support lowest ever" and John saying to Norma "Come back norma" on the
front cover. What can you read in to that? Not a lot, seems like standard fare for PE.
The first time I saw it I was in the pub with some people from work. One was expressing doubts
to the other (let’s call the first one Simon, shall we? and the second one Phil?) about
whether what was going on was right. Phil’s answer was that if Private Eye was doing it
then it must be ok, "they’re usually right".

A few days later, again near work, there were some students laughing in the street,
"Were you COMING BACK later? But I thought you said you were COMING BACK ha ha ha?"
Play on words, you see. Not very nice, either. I had start medication soon afterwards.
Clever people, these chaps who think up PE titles. Just slightly lacking in any
sense of morality.

>>> ##: How did they do this? I’ll give you an example. About a year ago,
>>> ##: I was listening to Chris Tarrant (Capital Radio DJ among other
>>> ##: pursuits) on his radio morning show, when he said, talking about
>>> ##: someone he didn’t identify, "you know this bloke? he says we’re
>>> ##: trying to kill him. We should be done for attempted manslaughter"
>>> ##: which mirrored something I had said a day or two before.
>>> ##: Now that got broadcast to the whole of London – if any recordings
>>> ##: are kept of the shows then it’ll be there.

                What was the date of the broadcast ?
                Out of 2 million plus listeners, why should you be
                the only one that Tarrant was allegedly referring to ?

Sometyime in spring 1994. I can’t remember the date, I heard the broadcast in the
car – I was going into the office from London that day and just happened to snap
on the radio, and hey presto! Mr Tarrant gives us the benefit of his excellent
understanding.

>>> ##: That’s exactly what we did. We went to a competent, professional                            
>>> ##: detective agency in London, paid them over 400 quid to debug our house.                    
>>> ##: They found nothing.                                                                        

                What was the name of the detective agency and their                                
                address ?                                                                          

I don’t see why I should tell you that, but they’re in Yellow Pages; they’re
a well-established outfit.

>>> PM: >What? Spend a quarter mil. a year to amuse themselves? And why not
>>> PM: >change every now and again? Why keep watching you? (Unless you _are_
>>> PM: >doing something, and I don’t think you are, though you may have some
>>> PM: >deep, dark secret in your past.)

>>> ##: See the above.

                Is there a deep dark secret in your past ?

Apart from "it’s all happened before in a different way", no.

>>> ##: In a couple of cases people have even known my name – when I was in
>>> ##: London over Easter somebody (no idea who they were, just some bloke with
>>> ##: his girlfriend) called me by name  - quite clearly, and my name is
>>> ##: distinctive.

                Is your name truly Mike Corley, or are you using it as
                an alias ?

It’s an alias. I’m not English by ethnic origin. If someone manages to pronounce
my name as well as that guy did then they must have been really trying.

>>> ##: There’s a little story behind this. First of all, in 1992 I worked
>>> ##: for a company where the people made clear they knew what was going on,
>>> ##: first of all directly (the very first evening I was there I went out to
>>> ##: the pub with them and the Technical Director said to another guy,
>>> ##: "is this the bloke who’s been on TV?" "yeah, I think so")

                Have you appeared, or been reported by name on TV ?
                When, where and by whom ?

No. Never. Not directly.

>>> ##: Also, in summer 1992 I went on a trip abroad to Europe by coach,

                What was the name of the coach company and your date
                of departure ?

It was a national express coach. At dover we boarded a ferry for Holland somewhere.
The company that organized the trip went out of business some time ago, so they won’t
have records of passengers – so we can’t get any corroboration from anyone else
that way. We tried all that last summer, ran into a brick wall.

The other thing is in summer 1992 I was visibly ill, so other people in the
party might remember that more than anyone getting at me on the coach trip.

>>> ##: >>Yes, this gets me. I think the answer is that I was set up by
>>> ##: >>someone. I was very aware when this started back in 1990 that I
>>> ##: >>was being painted as a "threat" to which people had to "react"

                Why were you being painted as a "threat"; is this related
                to a "deep,dark, secret" ?

Aaaarrrrgh. I think I should make clear that that’s their created justification
rather than the real reason. They started harassing first and then came up with the
reasons for it.

>>> ##: I think I know who set me up.

                Who ?

Someone who knew me some time ago. Someone who would have been able to talk this
little campaign into existence.

>>> ##: The bloke can’t even control his own mind without medicine.

                Is this true ?  What is the medication and dosage ?

Yes, I’m afraid so. Sulpiride, 200mg a day. It’s designed to stop people
coming up with the sort of ideas you’ve heard here for the last few weeks.
Give him a higher dose!!

In the long term it causes tardive dyskinesia, tardive dementia and general
nasty stuff to your brain. So it’s three years of sulpiride talking to you here.

>–
>john heelan

2606

I just thought I’d let you know what I’ve been reading into the
"Crusader" spam. I don’t want to post this to usenet because somebody
might try to tie that in to my posts in some way (someone already has, in
uk.misc).

First of all, I’d like to ask you to believe that my phone line in my
apartment is bugged, and has been for many months. I have moved a couple
of times this year, but "they" have faithfully been on my trail.

Anyway, let’s suppose my phone line is bugged. Now, when I talk to my
internet service provider, it’s over a SLIP (now PPP) connection. So if
you wanted to bug what was said, either you’d listen in over the line and
have to decode the transmission, or you could go to the service provider
(more difficult) and ask them to decode a particular user’s connection.

OK, so now they’re listening to everything I do over my SLIP/PPP
connection. A couple of months ago I was messing around with faking
articles through nntp servers and through anonymous remailers. I chose a
nice inconspicuous newsgroup for my little tests, something no-one would
ever notice. Guess which newsgroup I chose??? Yes, _FISH_!!! or
rec.aquaria to be precise

And guess what articles I tried to post? Goldfish, Koi carp and, you’ll
never guess… PIRANHA!!! The goldfish article and the Koi went through,
but the piranha didn’;t appear.

by now you probably think this is too silly for words. But if you look in
the papers a few eeks ago you will find John Major, Tonny Blair and Paddy
Ashdown sharing a "private joke" about Major’s sunburnt goldfish. We
haven’t had anything about Koi yet (they must be too dull ). Now, sent by
someone who clearly knew what they were doing (they chose an Italian
backbone site for their launch point) we have many thousands of messages
to people all over the globe. All about piranha, and with the punchline
"that gives you something to think about, doesn’t it?"

The way it works is that they’re trying to kill two birds with one stone
again. I don’t knoiw why they should be against these national alliance
people, but my interpretation is that they simultaneously try to
discredit them, and stem the flow of Corley articles.

=================================================================

In article <DFnE55.8tF.0.bl…@torfree.net>,

Mike Corley <bu…@torfree.net> wrote:

>John J Smith (J.J.Sm…@ftel.co.uk) wrote:

>: b) we do know who you are. Or are you someone else we don’t know about?
>: You are currently known as "That bloody persistant net nutter, who’s
>: expanding from uk.misc to the rest of the world".

>I think the point I was trying to make is that I could tell you things
>from my personal life, at home and at work, which would add credibility
>to my story. But if I named people, then (a) they would object violently
>to being included in this shenanigans, and (b) I would be revealing my
>identity which would be bad for my personal life and my work life. Of
>course some people in my personal life, and at work, do know who "mike
>corley" is. But at least we’re observing a studied silence for now.

eople can always be called "MR X", to save them being named.
:
:I’m completely perplexed as to what you mean by b). Revealing identity?
:To who? And why would this be bad for any part of your life when you
:already have a less than respectful reputation here?

I’ll just enumerate one or two things that I can still remember. Sometime
around August/Sept 1992 I was living in a house in Oxford, and coming out
of the house was physically attacked by someone – not punched, just grabbed
by the coat, with some verbals thrown in for good measure. That was something
the people at work shouldn’t have known about… but soon after a couple of
people were talking right in front of me about, "yeah, I heard he was
attacked".

Again, one I went for a walk in some woods outside Oxford. The next day,
at work, someone said "you know he went to the forest yesterday".

I don’t want to put details on usenet of what happened because to do so
would be to risk it happening again. If you put ideas in peoples’ heads
then you can find them reflecting back at you, and I don’t want that.
Also I can’t remember that much from three years ago. From november 1992
I started taking "major tranquilizers" and just blotted the whole thing
from my mind.

>This is a feature time and time again, that the security services
>(presumed) get at you by manipulating other people around you to get at
>you. If you have their contacts, manpower, resources and technology then
>you can do that sort of thing.

:But why? Are you a threat?

They pretend they "have" to get at me. After the first few weeks they had
to find a reason to spy and abuse. You can’t abuse someone unless they’re
in the wrong in some way. What I did "wrong" was to be ill. So it became
"nutter" and "monster" and "he’s going to attack us" coupled with
"ha ha ha, he can’t do anything to defend himself, it was so funny". That
obvious contradiction within their propaganda is something they
blithely ignore.

:So, the Security Services never *actually* appear, and you assume that
:they get someone else to do your dirty work. This is a bit of a big
:logical step, here: That person doesn’t like me, or is causing me trouble,
:it’s not because they’ve got problems themselves, it must be the "Security
:Services". Yes. Because people are infallible. Or is there more?

A single source is indicated because of the range of harassment.
BBC + Capital + manipulated_public_at_large + set_up_situations,
what does that add up to? Add in the technology to carry out the
covert spying and the manpower and knowhow to follow you around for
five years without being spotted. It smells very much of the security
services, because there is no other organization (to my knowledge)
which does the things I’ve seen these people do.

Remember, they have deliberately chosen the softest of soft targets
to victimize. They purposely chose a mentally ill person who they thought
would be likely to kill himself anyway, so that they could get away with
murder.

And in all likelihood it will have started as a personal vendetta by someone.
Who could that be? I don’t know, but I can give you some clues.

The first possibility (deep breath) is that someone from my college set me
up. Six years ago I graduated from university in the UK, during the last
year there I was steadily getting more and more ill. I know that I was
talking in my sleep; although I don’t know what I was saying, it got
me a reputation, and if someone from my college talked afterwards to
the "wrong" people then that could be the reason for all that has followed.

I think that’s the strongest contender for source. Directly beneath my
room lived another bloke who frequently had his friends round late at
night, after the time that I went to sleep. So they could have heard what
I was saying in my sleep, and that could have got me the reputation for
"talking to myself".

What I don’t know is why that should have rebounded a year after I left.
You’d think it would have happened sooner; it’s a bit odd to wait for a
year and then start abuse. That leads me to question what in particular
happened around May/June 1990 for them to start then.

>What I don’t know is how it looks from the other side, from the side of
>the people who are being manipulated to get at me. On a couple of
>occasions I have challenged people to tell the truth of the matter, but
>they have alwats ducked the challenge.

:Have you ever considered the possibility, that you have made a mistake, and
:the people don’t know what you are talking about?

Yes. I am currently considering the possibility that some people around me
know only what is being posted on Usenet, and have not been "contacted"
by "them". But I _know_ that others have been contacted.

:What words? Are they in common use? Could they be a catchphrase of a
:popular comedian?: "Nice to see you, to see you nice"?

In England the all-time No. 1 is "nutter". Easter this year, returning home
from Clapham police station to report five years of harassment ("we’re not
saying it’s happening and we’re not saying it isn’t happening"), another
"not happening" incident of harassment when a cowardly little slut did her
country proud by yelling "nutter, nutter, nutter" in the face of the
hated enemy.

What can you do about that? You can’t yell abuse back in their face, because
they know they’re supported by their peers, by the media, by the murderers in
the security forces. You can’t put them down when the fascist establishment
is on their side. You can’t hit them, because they would deny their abuse,
they would deny knowing anything, and bring charges against the "nutter"
who attacked them "at random".

>You know, you’re
>passing saomeone, they’re hardly going to construct an argument for your
>benefit, so they work a word of abuse into the conversation which they
>can giggle at.

:Abuse such as what? We’re all adults here, we can take it. Is this abuse
:aimed at you? How can you tell it is?

I think I’ve said already what the words are. Thing is, at any given time
the language is consistent. In January everyone’s calling you X, then a
few weeks later people stop calling you X and start calling you Y.

You can tell it’s aimed at me, because when people repeatedly say the same
words are you walk past, then laugh, you would have to be hard of
understanding not to recognize it.

>Or they repeat something that’s been said somewhere else… the PE thing
>being a case in point. PE says it, then other people pick up the refrain.

:Remind me who PE is again.

PE = "Private Eye"

- — -

>: >To give you an example, which I mentioned in another posting. In around
>: >October 1992, Private Eye ran a cover with the heading "Major’s support
>: >lowest ever", with John calling to Norma on the cover "come back, Norma".
>: >Only one obvious interpretation to that, isn’;;t there? I certainly
>: >thought so when I saw that cover. Wrongo!! Down the pub with people from work
>: >Simon says to phil, "don’;t you think it’s wrong then?" phil says, "well
>: >private eye are usuallyright"…"hislop strikes again..

>: Erm. Mike? Heeeelllllooo? What are you on about. What is the other
>: interpretation then? Norma having an affair? Seems a bit wrong, with the
>: heading "Majors support Lowest ever"…

>No, this one isn’t obvious , it really does need to be explained. I
>certainly didn’t understand it when I first saw it. You see, the kernel
>of vitriol is in the words "come back". At the time, the themes of
>abuse were centred around interpretations of those two words (stretch your
>mind a little bit, I don’t have to spell it out for you, surely).

:You did in your mail item.
:
:You seem to be scouting about something called a "Double Entendre". The
:inference being "Come" = Ejaculation, "Back" = Anus (not the first part
f the body I would have went for, I would have foolishly gone for "Back",
:silly old me).
:
:You see to have picked a sodomy double entendre out of a Private Eye
:headline. They are everywhere. The English language has much double
:meaning in it, and if you put your mind to it, you could pull a double
:entendre out of a randomly chosen page of the bible. So what?

>The point is that when Simon pointed it out to Phil, he did recognise
>what it meant after a moment’s thought… and so did I… and so did the
>people who repeated it several times later… so however murky it may
>seem to you, that is the meaning they intended it to have…

I still don’t really know if the meaning was intended when that headline was
written, or if it was simply "found" after the fact. The reason I think it
might be the former is that I got quite a lot of abuse along the lines of
"sound-alike" or "double-entendre" at work, in particularly from Steve.
So "double" inevitably came to mean split-personality, "two people in one";
"back" inevitably came to mean "backside", "come" inevitably meant you-know-
what, "split" (well, we’d better split now) again you can guess, "bent" (of
a similar bent), the list goes on forever. These aren’t "nice" double-
entendres intended for comedy, they’re nasty words to humiliate and cause
pain. If I could turn the clock back three years then I would sue my
former employers for harassment and I would almost certainly win. I had to
take pills after a year of Oxford, so they wouldn’t be able to lie their
way out of it. Actually, I could still take them to court – the main
obstacle being that three years after the fact is a bit late and much
of what happened, the details that would be necessary for a case to go
to court, has just been obliterated by time.

:        Smid

==============================================
From: fla…@flames.cityscape.co.uk (Peter Kr|ger)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,soc.culture.british,alt.conspiracy,uk.media,uk.legal
Subject: Re: Mike Corley – a (helpful) suggestion
Date: Mon Oct  2 05:43:42 1995

In article <812551172…@objmedia.demon.co.uk>, Snail <sn…@objmedia.demon.co.uk> says:

>Indeed, I feel that my Usenet access is censored simply because I don’t want
>to download groups he is partaking in, because of his behaviour.

>I wasn’t that bothered, but I am starting to get seriously pissed off
>with him. Which takes a lot.

Hi Snail

This person Corley seems quite interesting for three reasons. I put the
following at the end of a post in another thread just to see if he was
reading any other threads in uk.media.

It seems he is probably not.

———————————————————————–
Heres an interesting little story from back in the early days of CCD
technology. There was this miniature camera which was designed to fit
behind the infrared receiver lens of the remote control system (just
beside the IR sensor itself) the camera clocked out the data in 256 lines
 of 256 pixels from a Fairchild chip and fed it out, a line at a time,
into the VBI within the TV set itself. The signal could be picked up
remotely from a standard license detector van from where it was stripped
out of the surrounding RF signal and relayed back to the TV station where
it was displayed as a slowscan monochrome image in a corner of the news
readers monitor.

5634

This is all you need to know…
Go now to the Web Site and read the truth…
http://EarnLargeIncome.com/EitherYouWantToOrYouDont.htm

"Mysterion" <mysterionNOS…@supernet.com> wrote in message news:J3hai.

2264$tb6.2…@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net…

    But I’d guess you don’t really owe that much in taxes in any
event.

> Oooh, a little class dig!
> Yawn.
> You scum are so predictable.
> Next will come an inference as to my education or dental work.
> Then an accusation of being an AlQueda supporter or "liberal".
  an anarchist!

> Seriously, though, isn’t there an "official" ass somewhere you should be
> kissing right now

You should be helping poor "Dr. Brown" right now !    Just think about
all the poor dentists !

www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
www.quatloos.com
www.quatlosers.com

Earn $3500-$6000 a Week. Work with Top Money Earner 1 on 1 Not MLM
Never Pick Up a Phone Not Predator or Coastal 100% automated 100%
internet based business See how Average Joes are earning $20,000 their
first month Get the details here http://PerfectlyFinanciallyFree.com

Subject: A Terrorist By Any Other Name

Dear Subscriber,

The belief in "authority" drastically warps the way most people view
reality. Oddly, people like to think the belief is a civilizing influence,
when the exact opposite is true: the most heinous evils because generally
accepted as legitimate and good when done by a perceived "authority." Most
people are utterly incapable of viewing the world without their
authority-colored glasses dramatically twisting what they see. The belief in
"government," man-made "law,"and "authority" in general, make most people
unable to see the literal truth of what is going on.

For years now the government and the media have been condemning the evils of
"terrorists." Who are they talking about? Well, if you use the government’s
definition, a "terrorist" is one who uses violence, or the threat of
violence, to achieve a political end.

As many of you have heard by now, a collection of several vehicles,
apparently including an armed vehicle, filled with heavily armed state and
federal "law enforcement" personnel, was seen yesterday heading towards the
New Hampshire home of Ed and Elaine Brown. As I understand it, those
"authorities" have now laid seige to the place, and cut the phone lines, but
it sounds like there has been no raid and no arrest as of yet.
(Incidentally, I’m just getting this from various internet posts, so don’t
expect me to have any special inside info.) In one newspaper article, one of
the "law enforcement" personnel said that they had no intention whatsoever
of having a violent conflict with the Browns. Yeah, sure. I guess they
brought along the armored vehicle to do some fun off-roading in their spare
time.

Can anyone tell me, with a straight face, that the government is NOT using
violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a political end? Mr. and
Mrs. Brown did not assault anyone, or rob anyone, or defraud anyone. Their
"sin" was to not pay the federal terrorists their "protection" money, which
(as far as I can tell) the Browns had good reason to believe they didn’t
even "legally" owe.

But whether a terrorist passes a "law" before committing his violence makes
no difference to whether his actions are righteous or justified.
Unfortunately, it does make a huge difference to whether people PERCEIVE the
actions as justified. If not for the belief in "authority," any moron could
see that the Browns are now surrounded by a gang of terrorists. But when the
terrorism is "legal" (whatever that means), the vast majority of people
suddenly see the VICTIM as the bad guy, and the perpetrators as noble "law
enforcers."

There is one up-side to the current thuggery being used against the Browns:
it is happening in the open. Normally the terrorism perpetrated by American
"authorities" is only implied, which helps people not think of it as
terrorism. EVERY demand by government is backed by the ability and
willingness to use force, including deadly force. Because most people comply
long before such a threat ever becomes blatant, we rarely see the true
nature of the beast. Only when people like the Browns refuse to comply with
the veiled threats dressed up as "requests" do we get to see the NON-veiled
threats, which show the true nature of the American terrorists.

If you want a taste of what lies behind the euphemism of American "law
enforcement," go rent "Waco: Rules of Engagement." These people are
murderers and terrorists. Behind their uniforms and pretended legitimacy,
they are despicable, power-happy, authority- worshiping fascists, who will
not hesitate to injure, torture, or kill their fellow man if the
"government" myth tells them to.

I very much hope that the Browns have a better end result than the Branch
Davidians did. One advantage they have is that a lot more people are paying
attention to what is really going on up there (though it sounds like the
terrorists, who like their sins to be done in secret, have cut their phone
lines).

It was only a few short years ago that I considered myself to be a supporter
of "law enforcement." After a few first-hand experiences (a lot more tame
than what the Browns are going through) showed me who and what these people
really are, I am proud to say that I will forever be an enemy of the state,
as any decent person should be. You cannot be pro-government and
anti-terrorism. The two are one in the same.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose

www.larkenrose.com

=============================================

No law compels a work eligible man or woman to submit a form W-4 or W-9(or
their equivalent) nor disclose an SSN as a condition of being hired or
keeping one’s job. With the exception of an order from a court of competent
jurisdiction issued by a duly qualified judge, no amounts can be lawfully
taken from one’s pay (for taxes, fees or other charges) without the worker’s
explicit, knowing, voluntary, written consent.
http://www.preferredservices.org/NonconsentualTaking.html

Dear Subscriber,

The belief in "authority" drastically warps the way most people
view reality. Oddly, people like to think the belief is a
civilizing influence, when the exact opposite is true: the most
heinous evils because generally accepted as legitimate and good
when done by a perceived "authority." Most people are utterly
incapable of viewing the world without their authority-colored
glasses dramatically twisting what they see. The belief in
"government," man-made "law," and "authority" in general, make most
people unable to see the literal truth of what is going on.

For years now the government and the media have been condemning the
evils of "terrorists." Who are they talking about? Well, if you use
the government’s definition, a "terrorist" is one who uses
violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a political end.

As many of you have heard by now, a collection of several vehicles,
apparently including an armed vehicle, filled with heavily armed
state and federal "law enforcement" personnel, was seen yesterday
heading towards the New Hampshire home of Ed and Elaine Brown. As I
understand it, those "authorities" have now laid seige to the
place, and cut the phone lines, but it sounds like there has been
no raid and no arrest as of yet. (Incidentally, I’m just getting
this from various internet posts, so don’t expect me to have any
special inside info.) In one newspaper article, one of the "law
enforcement" personnel said that they had no intention whatsoever
of having a violent conflict with the Browns. Yeah, sure. I guess
they brought along the armored vehicle to do some fun off-roading
in their spare time.

Can anyone tell me, with a straight face, that the government is
NOT using violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a
political end? Mr. and Mrs. Brown did not assault anyone, or rob
anyone, or defraud anyone. Their "sin" was to not pay the federal
terrorists their "protection" money, which (as far as I can tell)
the Browns had good reason to believe they didn’t even "legally"
owe.

But whether a terrorist passes a "law" before committing his
violence makes no difference to whether his actions are righteous
or justified. Unfortunately, it does make a huge difference to
whether people PERCEIVE the actions as justified. If not for the
belief in "authority," any moron could see that the Browns are now
surrounded by a gang of terrorists. But when the terrorism is
"legal" (whatever that means), the vast majority of people suddenly
see the VICTIM as the bad guy, and the perpetrators as noble "law
enforcers."

There is one up-side to the current thuggery being used against the
Browns: it is happening in the open. Normally the terrorism
perpetrated by American "authorities" is only implied, which helps
people not think of it as terrorism. EVERY demand by government is
backed by the ability and willingness to use force, including
deadly force. Because most people comply long before such a threat
ever becomes blatant, we rarely see the true nature of the beast.
Only when people like the Browns refuse to comply with the veiled
threats dressed up as "requests" do we get to see the NON-veiled
threats, which show the true nature of the American terrorists.

If you want a taste of what lies behind the euphemism of American
"law enforcement," go rent "Waco: Rules of Engagement." These
people are murderers and terrorists. Behind their uniforms and
pretended legitimacy, they are despicable, power-happy, authority-
worshiping fascists, who will not hesitate to injure, torture, or
kill their fellow man if the "government" myth tells them to.

I very much hope that the Browns have a better end result than the
Branch Davidians did. One advantage they have is that a lot more
people are paying attention to what is really going on up there
(though it sounds like the terrorists, who like their sins to be
done in secret, have cut their phone lines).

It was only a few short years ago that I considered myself to be a
supporter of "law enforcement." After a few first-hand experiences
(a lot more tame than what the Browns are going through) showed me
who and what these people really are, I am proud to say that I will
forever be an enemy of the state, as any decent person should be.
You cannot be pro-government and anti-terrorism. The two are one in
the same.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com