Register Here to join the Ed & Elaine Brown email list at MakeTheStand.com!!! It''s fast, easy, and free. Stay informed with the latest live updates from Ed & Elaine and friends -- direct to your email box!!
Privacy: Ed & Elaine and friends do not give ANY of your information to ANYONE
Site Info
Latest Video
08/19/07
Music slide-show with lots of pictures from Live Free or Die 2. Hat tip to "livefreeordie2" from our forums.
07/14/07
Video from the Live Free or Die 2 Concert provided by Danny Riley. Thanks Danny!
6/12/07
WeAreChange.org presents a brand-new video documentary produced this past week!!! It's so new, that I haven't even watched it yet! Check it out!
6/10/07
Supporter Casey Lee Cobb from OpenYourMindsEye.com puts out a new short film that asks these violent, murderous agents used as cannon-fodder by the new world order some serious questions. Will the cowards ever stop enforcing a non-existent law by committing acts of aggression and violence?
06/07/07
Ed is interviewed by a local news station shortly after federal agents and state and local troopers show up on his property. You can hear their helicopter in the background. Ed stresses that it doesn't matter what they do -- it only matters how he responds, as a lawful man.
06/07/07
Ed and Elaine support, Danny Riley from New Jersey, is attacked by federal and state agents in gilly suits. He is first fired upon and hears two shots whiz past his head. Then he is shocked with a taser and tackled onto the ground, kidnapped, drug through the woods, taken to various locations and interrogated, strip-searched, and finally release (indeed, walking a dog with a cup of coffee is not a crime). He's threatened into talking with many many lies.
06/07/07
U.S. Marshall Steve Monier tells more truth than lies this time, and admits multiple times that they grabbed Danny because he discovered them, possibly foiling their plot to attack and kill Ed & Elaine! Know your enemies: this guy is just a spokesperson for the higher-ups. He takes his orders and will probably take the fall if things go back. It is corrupt, cowardice pigs like this guy that give the new world order and other evil movements their strength. These guys are the "useful idiots" and the "cannon-fodder" for tyrants. When will they learn?
MakeTheStand.com -- The Official Website of Ed & Elaine Brown: Forums
MakeTheStand.com :: View topic - Ed & Elaine Brown: IRS AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS
Affiants have discovered some of the errors made by the U.S. Attorney’s office, and the court, in violation of their own laws, which follow:
1. Affiants claim they have never seen any law, statute, public policy, etc. that requires that a flesh-and-blood man or woman is required to pay an income tax on the fruits of their labors, and believe none exists.
2. Affiants claim that no law, statute, public policy, etc. defines a flesh-and-blood man or woman as a United States citizen, and believe none exists.
3. Affiants claim that no law, statute, public policy, etc. exists that proves a liability for an income tax to be paid by a non-citizen of the United States, and believe none exists.
4. Affiants claim that there is no law, statute, or public policy, etc. that requires one to have a Social Security number, and believes none exists.
5. Affiants claim that a flesh-and-blood man or woman who does not volunteer to obtain a Social Security number is not required to fill out a tax form.
5. Affiants claim that the United States is defined as a “federal corporation” in 28USC3002(15), so incorporated on February 21, 1871, Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419.
7. Affiants claim that a flesh-and-blood man or woman is lawfully able to choose to not join the federal corporation, and thus not subject to the corporation’s policies, as per 1st Amendment “right of association.”
8. Affiants claim that the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE is a foreign agency, not a United States Agency, as testified by United States Attorney, Betty H. Richardson in DIVERSIFIED METAL PRODUCTS, INC. v. T-BOW COMPANY TRUST, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, and STEVE MORGAN, 93-405-E-EJL, 1993.
9. Affiants claim the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE is a foreign agency domiciled in Puerto Rico Trust 62 under Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.
10. Affiants claim the only definition of “Revenue Agent” to be found anywhere in Code of Federal Regulations or elsewhere to be: “Revenue Agent. Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.” 27 CFR 250.11
11. Affiants claim that all INTERNAL REVENUE agents, officers, and employees are thus unregistered foreign agents conducting business in America in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.
12. Affiants claim that the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and all its agents, officers, and employees are thus without jurisdiction in the united States of America, and its fifty several union States.
13. Affiants claim that as the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE is domiciled in Puerto Rico, and that Puerto Rico is a part of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION, the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE does have jurisdiction within the UNITED STATES, that being Washington, DC, the territories and possessions, but not within the 50 union States.
14. Affiants claim “The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.” 19 Corpus Juris Secundum 541.
15. Affiants claim “Location of United States. The United States is located in the District of Columbia.” Uniform Commercial Code, UCC 9-307(h).
16. Affiants claim further proof of non-jurisdiction: Art. I, Section 8, Cl. 17 of the United States Constitution which defines federal jurisdiction:
17. “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
18. Affiants claim further proof of non-jurisdiction as follows: “In view of 40 USC 255 (now 40 USC 3111,3112), no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial.” Adams v. United States 319 US 312, 87 L.Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122 (1943).
19 .“[Federal jurisdiction].., must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended … in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government. United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549, 115 S. Ct. 1624(1995).
20 . “Act of Congress includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.” 18 USC, Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Note: There is no reference to the 50 :States.”
21.. Affiants claim further proof of non-jurisdiction: People v. Godfrey, 17 Johns, 225, 233 (N.Y. 1819), by Chief Justice Marshall:
.. “….to bring the offense within the jurisdiction of the courts of the union, it must have been committed out of the jurisdiction of any state; it is not the offence committed, but the place in which it is committed, which must be out of the jurisdiction of the state.”
22.. Affiants claim thus that the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE has no jurisdiction within the several union States.
23. Affiants claim the Federal Reserve is a private bank.
24.. Affiants claim as proof, the statement of Congressman John R. Rarick, Congressional Record, February 1, 1971: “The Federal Reserve is not an agency of Government. It is a private banking monopoly…. The policies of the monarch are always those of his creditors.”
25.. Affiants claim the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE is a collection agency for the private Federal Reserve Bank.
26.. Affiants claim that ALL income tax monies go to pay the interest on the national debt to the private Federal Reserve Bank, as per the Graves Commission Report of 1999 under President Clinton.
27.. Affiants claim that on page 88 of the 1040 Instruction Manual, under “Disclosure, Privacy Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice,” is the statement, “..you must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for;” neither this statement nor any other statement defines who is “liable for” filing this return.
28.. Affiants claim they spent years submitting requests to the Internal Revenue Service and others to show them the law requiring them to pay the income tax.
29.. Affiants claim no response was received, other than statements that no response is required.
30.. Affiants claim this is in violation of law, as government must answer questions submitted in good faith.
31.. Affiants claim that Section 7201 and 7203 of Title 26, of which they were charged, are penalty clauses only, conferring no duties on anyone, and lacking definition of who is liable.
33.. Affiants claim that one cannot be in violation of a penalty clause.
33.. Affiants thus claim said charges need to be voided, as mistake, error, or malicious prosecution.
34.. Affiants claim that the West Lebanon and Plainfield post offices are situated on private land, neither ceded to nor purchased by the United States.
35.. Affiants claims that no structuring occurred due to lack of federal jurisdiction on said lands.
36.. Affiants claim the maxim of law that all crime has two elements: the act and the intent, and the accused must be aware of committing a crime.
37.. Affiants claim that the structuring law states that no intent to commit a crime, and no knowledge of committing a crime are necessary for a crime to exist.
38.. Affiants claim the structuring law was established for the purpose of tracking money laundering.
39.. Affiants claim the maxim that the law cannot contradict itself, and where vague or contradictory, the decision must favor the accused.
40.. Affiants claim no money laundering was involved, as so stated by Judge Steven McAuliffe in open court during the trial.
41.. Affiants thus claim no structuring occurred, and charge/conviction needs to be voided as mistake, error, or malicious prosecution.
42.. Thus, affiants claim the government has no legal authority to enforce IRC Subtitles A or C. All enforcement action taken by individual agents against Americans to collect any alleged obligation relating to income related taxes will be taken under “color of ”law” and “color of authority” and without legal authority. As such, those agents will be in violation of federal statutes and may be held PERSONALLY and CRIMINALLY LIABLE.
43.. Affiants claim structuring charges were unlawfully applied to them.
44.. Affiants claim no harm/damages were done to anyone or any property.
45.. Affiants claim malicious prosecution by U.S. Attorney’s office, supported by the court, to make affiants appear as criminals, to set an example to anyone challenging the tax laws.
46.. Affiants claim the United States government, as a corporation as defined in 28USC3002(15)(a), is a legal fiction, and as such cannot suffer any damages or loss.
47.. Affiants claim only the affiants themselves are anything of substance, and thus are the only ones who can and did suffer extensive and irreparable damages.
48.. Affiants claim malicious prosecution by the U.S. Attorney’s office, supported by the court, for the purpose of “burying” us, as so stated to affiants by an officer of the court.
49.. Affiants claim the U.S. Attorney’s office and the court are proceeding with more allegations to cover up the damage already done to affiants in violation of law.
50.. Affiants claim current charges should be dismissed as they are based upon the original conviction of 2007, said convictions to be voided.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Register Here
Forum FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
