Home | Community | Message Board


Sporeworks
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineDr_Z
Orangutang, M.D.
Male


Registered: 07/19/09
Posts: 16
Loc: USA
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Woman refuses to pay federal income tax, gets shafted greatly
    #11172978 - 10/03/09 02:57 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

I was reading the local news headlines online earlier, as this is my sole, remotely-social pleasure on Friday nights for me anymore. I thought I'd share it with you fun~guys! Heh, get it? Ugh...anyways, here's a link to the news article if you want to read the entire article from it's source.

Otherwise, here's an excerpt:

Elaine Brown given 35-year prison term


By DALE VINCENT
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff


CONCORD – At her sentencing yesterday in U.S. District Court, a defiant Elaine Brown said she is being punished for civil disobedience and compared herself to biblical figures. Brown was in court for sentencing on July convictions on charges stemming from a nine-month weapons-enforced standoff with federal agents at her Plainfield home.

Brown, 68, again insisted she is being held unlawfully and punished for trying to awaken people to government corruption and injustice. Brown said: "Our country was founded on civil disobedience. . .I will always resist."

After U.S. District Court Judge George Z. Singal sentenced Brown to 35 years in federal prison -- to be served consecutive to her current 63-month sentence for tax evasion -- a smiling Brown turned to supporters, and with a thumbs-up gesture, said: "See you soon."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Arnold Huftalen, who had sought a sentence of up to 44 years, said Brown was hardly just a good wife supporting her husband in their fortified home filled with guns, ammunition, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), flak jackets and helmet.

When arrested by federal agents who had infiltrated the group of Brown supporters Oct. 4, 2007, she was armed with a Glock handgun with one bullet in the chamber and 16 more in a large magazine.
Quote:


‘They invited us in; we escorted them out' (14)




"This was not a small, dainty, self-defense handgun," said Huftalen, but a large, heavy weapon "designed to kill 17 people without reloading." Another 16-bullet magazine was on a nearby table. "That's who she was," said Huftalen.

She lived surrounded by weapons and bombs in her bedroom along with stuffed animals and kept protective vests in her West Lebanon dental office, he said. She had a bomb in her kitchen jelly cabinet and ammunition next to the jigsaw puzzles. Huftalen said the only reason Brown didn't kill or injure anyone is because U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier's office acted in a prudent manner and, resisting the urging of Huftalen and others, was able to infiltrate the supporter group and arrest the Browns peacefully.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDr_Z
Orangutang, M.D.
Male


Registered: 07/19/09
Posts: 16
Loc: USA
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Woman refuses to pay federal income tax, gets shafted greatly [Re: Dr_Z]
    #11173064 - 10/03/09 03:14 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

I also attempted to write a comment on the bottom of the page in which the article is on. I fell that the great deal of effort I spent writing my comment on the news story is going to be wasted if left to die there, if anyone from the Union Leader :rolleyes: actually allows it to be viewed on the page. So, my friends, here is my comments on the Elaine Brown story. Don't give me TL/DR, I'm tweaking out and have nothing better to do except write about things around my general location that ordinarily play no other part in affecting my life otherwise, outside of this mumble jumbo, talking about the hilar that can be found in the various under workings that the man is engaged in. Read it, criticize my view, and do whatever you do to make this thread somewhat productive.



Doing the right thing and refusing to contribute to the coffers of the federal government lands you 35 years? This seems excessively harsh to me, and a couple more of you posting as well.

Now, this is the same federal government that, despite never initially winning at least 3/4th's of all votes that were cast in favor for a federal income tax, with each vote received representing the collective opinion held by the majority of citizens of that state in which had contributed a vote either for or against the mandatory proposed tax, this federal body never-the-less enacted the then new mandatory tax anyways.

Not having won the majority for the proposed federal tax, even with several states not counted at all yet, (either because of the federal government's refusal to recognize a particular state's vote or the lack of participation entirely from a few states to even contribute a vote either way), the federal government saw that it stood to lose far too much in not receiving a portion of the income made annually by each of it's citizens.

This loss would have been so great that it still could seem justifiable in it's hypocritical actions, those of which set in place the federally mandated annual tax on the income of it's citizens that unless otherwise paid and not questioned, deserves one to be justly punished with 35 years of incarceration. The federal government had then, and has done so every year continuously from the second year of the income tax till the present, blatantly ignored the very same democratic principles in which it claims makes up the foundation upon which it governs from.

These founding democratic principles are said to have been laid in order to create a more perfect union, in which it's citizens would not be subjected to unjust taxes imposed unto them without the proper representation of it's people to voice either their acceptance or disapproval of such proposed taxation's. The very same acts of unjust taxation that forged this great democratic nation from a few colonial possessions of the English Crown is what keeps the U.S. government ever powerful still.

If the federal government could not feed itself from the pockets of it's own citizen's, it would quickly lose any of it's "earned" power that extends globally in the modern age. Why would it ever give up the very fuel for it's continuing tyranny after all these years? Why would the federal government ever let slip-by it's greatest opportunity to gain power through monetary means? That is, and has always been, the way and mean for a governing body to gain some measure of power over another ever since antiquity. The one who can afford to spend the most has the greater opportunity to buy more. Be it numbers of soldiers or weapons, military wise the one who can spend more money towards their efforts will often be the victor.

It can be applied to so many aspects, but the one rule remains. The rule of money is widely known by those who have ever possessed it at one time. The rule is clear: Money equals power. This has been the sole motivation for the federal income tax since the very first day we reluctantly let Uncle Sam to take from within our very own pockets. Without doing so, Canada would have prevailed through the years to become the world's superpower, instead of u.s. Realistically, it could have done more harm to us as a nation to have never unjustly enacted the income tax in the first place. However, this realization is not enough to justify the actions of a truly unjust governing federal body from screwing it's citizens out of their earned incomes then nor does it make it justifiable to continue the mistakes it has previously made just to run with them, lest they jeopardize their self-assumed power to govern over each and all of the independent states that form this great union today.

What really upsets me the most, and perhaps I am a little biased against sex crime offenders, but I really don't understand the aspects the government of the united states has used to decide the length of punishment by incarceration of those who defy it's authority and laws set forth to "correct" the few who defy them.

What I'm really trying to say is that I believe something is wrong with our judicial system when someone such as Elaine Brown is sentenced to something like 35 years incarceration, such as the case with her. This is 35 years of punishment she will endure for her actions of resistance and dissent when it came simply to standing up against an unjust tax set forth by a hypocritical & tyrannical federal government. However, on the flip side, someone who is so full of evil that they take pleasure in the molestation of children or those who take their pleasure in the forcible sexual acts they perform with adults even, victims who aren't totally as helpless due to obvious physical limitations and aren't naive as children are either, such as the whole understanding of what types of sexual advances are to be considered inappropriate or not.

The physical damage is usually mended with time, but rarely are victims of rape/molestation able to mend themselves mentally forever, and certainly those who are children and victims of sexual crimes can never regain simple things we overlook in our lives that have shaped us into successful, functioning and able taxpayers. One can not simply regain their childhood innocence by any means, nor can they ever reverse the twisted notions of the differences between appropriate and inappropriate sexual advances, as well as what way to respond to these advances in a way that is socially acceptable.

Far different story than not paying the government in owed taxes that aren't technically legal in the first place to have ever existed and taking up arms to defend one's life, possessions, and personal freedoms from such an unjust government that is ever more than ready to use it's endless means and accumulated wealth in order to prevent the next Elaine Brown sprouting up, not paying taxes, and possibly influencing more citizens to resist being strong-armed into paying for a tax that was not nor still is legal, just, or even mandatory to participate in.

Based upon length of punishment, using some examples, we can see how our government claims to see a greater misdeed and need of corrective punishment for certain crimes. (i.e. what they see as a more severe crime, based upon length of punishment and assuming under principles of common sense that the more severe the crime, the greater the time of punishment will be). With Elaine Brown, she gets a sentence of 35 years. The average time served by a felony sex offender is claimed to be about 7.5 years.

Clearly a victimless crime is more severe than one in which involves victims of such sexual crimes like child molestation, where those victims will never be able to fully recover from the forced and unwanted sexual acts performed upon/with them by the offender of the crime, unable to wipe away the memory of the abuse, and forever struggling to just fit back into society where they can only pretend to be a "normal" person, instead of forever remaining a victim of a sexual offender that is constantly forced to relive memories of the crime committed and subjected  to the suppression of their emotions, be it related to the crime committed or as in some cases the absolute suppression of any deep emotion, whatever it's relation or lack of to the crime endured.

But the true villain is Elaine Brown, as we can see. Victimless crimes are less severe than say the crime of forcible aggravated sodomy on a minor, committed unto a 4 y/o girl by her 56 y/o grandfather for example. That is unless the federal government is refused the privilege to steal a fraction of one's collective monetary earnings annually. My only conclusion to all of this is to say one last thing.

Why do we continue to allow the government to get away with this?
Who do you feel is really at fault here?
You may choose only one
Elaine Brown
The Feds
Me for posting this filth


Votes accepted from (10/03/09 03:13 AM) to (No end specified)
You must vote before you can view the results of this poll



--------------------
"Never forget - the free ape is he who does not fear to go to the end of his thought."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJT
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/01/07
Posts: 7,026
Loc: athens Flag
Last seen: 9 months, 30 days
Re: Woman refuses to pay federal income tax, gets shafted greatly [Re: Dr_Z]
    #11173654 - 10/03/09 07:56 AM (8 years, 2 months ago)

it's a death sentence really for that grandma

Quote:


"This was not a small, dainty, self-defense handgun," said Huftalen, but a large, heavy weapon "designed to kill 17 people without reloading." Another 16-bullet magazine was on a nearby table. "That's who she was," said Huftalen.

She lived surrounded by weapons and bombs in her bedroom along with stuffed animals and kept protective vests in her West Lebanon dental office, he said. She had a bomb in her kitchen jelly cabinet and ammunition next to the jigsaw puzzles. Huftalen said the only reason Brown didn't kill or injure anyone is because U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier's office acted in a prudent manner and, resisting the urging of Huftalen and others, was able to infiltrate the supporter group and arrest the Browns peacefully.




and wow...i think the only people who were in danger were federal agents trying to arrest the lady. clearly if she'd had these weapons since july (and most likely for MUCH longer) she wasn't planning to just start offing people.

how dare a citizen actually use the right to bear arms in a peaceful way to protect themselves from the government...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleShad0w
In trouble again.
Male

Registered: 06/08/08
Posts: 3,639
Re: Woman refuses to pay federal income tax, gets shafted greatly [Re: JT]
    #11174167 - 10/03/09 12:17 PM (8 years, 2 months ago)

LoL @ the idea that apparantly "self-defense weapons" should be dainty?

17 rounds sounds like she was being conservative if she had many other gun choices and tons of ammo... and BOMBS!

35 yrs for a standoff.... where she didnt fire her LEGALLY OWNED weapons............

Tad exsessive, I do feel she is "to blame" for how long of a sentance she is getting, "civil disobedience" means going to jail sometimes. 5yrs was the tax evasion deal, which I bet she could have gotten lowered.

But, whoever wrote that article is obviously stupid.


lol @ "the ONLY REASON she didnt kill anyone was the wonderful cop."

AFTER A NINE MONTH STANDOFF?!?!!?

She didnt kill anyone because.... OBVIOULSY she didnt want to? I am fairly sure, if she had all those weapons, she probably had a high power rifle with a scope and could have made it a 24 hour standoff ending in 4 dead cops and a murder suicide of her family........

Yer, she might be a tad out of the norm..... But she doesnt seem as crazy as the writer wishes us to believe.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSmackshadow
It's Time for Wild Speculation


Registered: 09/27/05
Posts: 575
Last seen: 8 months, 19 days
Re: Woman refuses to pay federal income tax, gets shafted greatly [Re: Shad0w]
    #11187141 - 10/05/09 03:42 PM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Come on, The woman committed tax fraud, they came to arrest her, and rather than taking responsibility for her actions, she had an armed stand off with the police.

The 16th amendment was properly ratified.  Even if it wasn't Pollock only made income tax off of property unconstitutional not income off of labor.  So the income tax on personal income would be constitutional even without the 16th amendment. 

An if she didn't want to get anyone killed then maybe she should have come out with her hands up. 

I do think 35 years might be to sever, however, it seems permissible under law, and if you think it is unjust I would recommend changing the law.


--------------------
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
     
~H. L. Mencken~


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineWindmiller
Stranger

Registered: 12/25/08
Posts: 136
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: Woman refuses to pay federal income tax, gets shafted greatly [Re: Smackshadow]
    #11187874 - 10/05/09 05:49 PM (8 years, 2 months ago)

she sounds like a strong peaceable freethinking individual and i respect her for her bravery in the face of a corrupt organization.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSmackshadow
It's Time for Wild Speculation


Registered: 09/27/05
Posts: 575
Last seen: 8 months, 19 days
Re: Woman refuses to pay federal income tax, gets shafted greatly [Re: Windmiller]
    #11187935 - 10/05/09 05:58 PM (8 years, 2 months ago)

she sounds like a strong armed peaceable violence threatening freethinking individual criminal and i I don't respect her for her bravery needlessly endangering others in the face of a corrupt organization constitutionally sound law.

I guess we are all entitled to our own opinions.


--------------------
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
     
~H. L. Mencken~


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineWindmiller
Stranger

Registered: 12/25/08
Posts: 136
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: Woman refuses to pay federal income tax, gets shafted greatly [Re: Smackshadow]
    #11188414 - 10/05/09 07:00 PM (8 years, 2 months ago)

question: the article said nine month stand off but it also said they 'invited us in' how does that work?


Quote:

"This was not a small, dainty, self-defense handgun," said Huftalen, but a large, heavy weapon "designed to kill 17 people without reloading."


  thought that was funny.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Federal Income Tax
( 1 2 all )
z@z.com 2,252 34 02/11/07 07:06 PM
by kotik
* Who really likes to pay their income tax?
( 1 2 all )
trippindad82 3,264 34 02/10/07 04:39 PM
by robbyberto
* Income Tax for War? nugsarenice 750 1 07/12/01 02:20 AM
by MOoKie
* Why income taxes must be abolished silversoul7 622 6 10/20/04 01:56 AM
by silversoul7
* Income Tax checks!!
( 1 2 3 all )
Innvertigo 4,598 52 08/21/01 02:04 AM
by capncracker
* Apparently you dont have to pay income tax? learningtofly 523 5 12/26/07 01:52 AM
by learningtofly
* Income Taxes Voluntary?
( 1 2 3 all )
Redstorm 1,603 47 02/17/16 02:58 PM
by Falcon91Wolvrn03
* Obama's Income tax plan will save economy. Cannabischarlie 847 19 12/10/08 07:13 PM
by ScavengerType

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
565 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
RVF Garden Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.07 seconds spending 0.035 seconds on 24 queries.