Live Free or Die?
One man, Ed Brown, seems to be prepared to live free or die in New Hampshire. He is challenging what he calls a "Kangaroo Court" and would rather be killed by the federal government than submit to a court that will not allow facts or law into the case. This may be developing as this is posted, so watch the news carefully!
Apprently Ed wanted to be sure that the jury was informed that their job, according to the Constitution, is that they are not only able to judge the facts of the case, but also the law. And that is absolutely correct -- if a jury disagrees with a law, ANY law, they can simply declare the defendant "not guilty" no matter what else has transpired. It's called freedom and it's very, very important that juries retain that right. Well, Ed found out that the judge in his case would absolutely no allow the jury to be informed of that right, so Ed left the trial and isn't coming back. Various people and organizations are rallying behind Ed and his cause. There's even a conference call number set up to hear details and up-to-date information. But the latest details indicated that Ed has been told that hundreds of federal agents are "likely" to come arrest him from his house for not coming to his kangaroo trial. Ed has vowed that he will not be taken alive. Ed also has "some people" with him that will assist in his defense. He's been talking on the phone with the US Marshall who will attempt to bring him in. From all outward appearances, the federal government is going to have to kill more than one person in this case, or they're going to have to give up -- and we all know the odds of the federal government giving up on anything bad. So what's all this about? Taxes. If the feds go through with this, Ed and his friends will be assassinated by the federal government for non-payment of taxes. That's all, nothing else. He's commited no violent crimes, he's harmed no other people. He just didn't pay some taxes. And know what? He even offered to pay every single dollar the government says he owes -- but the government said that wouldn't be enough, they needed to punish him. Ed is in Plainfield, NH. His email and phone are posted on sites linked above. You may join him and his friends if you like. But be prepared to be killed because that appears to be the government's choice. Realize now that when I say that taxation is government by force, this is what I mean. When I say that raising taxes means you will be killed if you do not pay them, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Godspeed, Ed, and those with you. I truly hope this does not turn out as it appears it will.
Comments
1
Pardon me for being stupid - but where does a directed verdict fit into this? where a judge sets aside a jury's verdict for being in conflict with the law?
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at January 16, 2007 08:44 PM (GFaLW)
2
A directed verdict is wrong according to the Constitution. The jury is supposed to have absolute and total power in our system of government. They are supposed to be the check on the government. Literally, if a jury doesn't like a law, they absolutely are permitted to ignore it.
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that gives a judge the power to overrule a jury.
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that gives a judge the power to overrule a jury.
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2007 10:07 PM (pHUVv)
3
While there is nothing in the constitution about a directed verdict, it isn't wrong. It is a mechanism to insure fairness. When the facts of a case don't bear out the judgment. For example, when a judgment is entered for $5.00 but the punitive damages - because the jury doesn't like what the defendant did, is in the millions. Or where there is no evidence supporting a judgment - but one was likely entered based upon bias or other personal reasons.
It has its place. You may not like it, but it has its place.
It has its place. You may not like it, but it has its place.
Posted by: oddybobo at January 17, 2007 03:24 PM (mZfwW)
4
But by allowing that, all power is taken from the jury -- they can, quite literally, have no purpose at all. If the judge decides the defendant is guilty, then it really doesn't matter what the jury thinks if the judge gets to overrule them at will.
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2007 03:55 PM (oifEm)
5
unfortunately our tax system is enforced at gunpoint... even though the laws and constitution do empower the government to tax income, and wages are not normally defined as a form of income, the government still enforces tax laws on wages... the traditional definition of income is "the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, as rents or investments." there is a guy out in Vegas that has tried to fight this for years and been sent to jail several times for it... if you don't believe that taxes are collected at gunpoint, try not paying them... i guarantee that the people that show up to arrest you will be carrying guns...
Posted by: chris at January 17, 2007 06:02 PM (rBjHa)
6
That's exactly what this fellow is facing today.
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2007 09:16 PM (pHUVv)
7
The judge can't overrule at will. The judge is constrained by the evidence. If it is there, no directed verdict. Also, if the verdict goes against the precedential law, it can be changed by directed verdict. It is similar to the review taken on appeal just without the actual appeal. A directed verdict is only useful in that it curbs abuse by a jury, it doesn't take their power away completely. And remember, the trial judge is still reviewed by higher courts.
Posted by: oddybobo at January 17, 2007 09:39 PM (mZfwW)
8
I still say that a directed verdict is completely wrong under the Constitution. The jury is SUPPOSED to be able to ignore all evidence if they believe the law is wrong. They are SUPPOSED to be able to judge the law, not just the facts, despite what judges might claim. Juries are SUPPOSED to be the ultimate power of the people, the final authority in the land. As long as there are directed verdicts, juries have lost all purpose and indeed, the final say on the law.
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2007 10:40 PM (pHUVv)
9
juries have lost their place already... look at the number of people that have been convicted of sexual assault and murder that have been exonerated by DNA testing 20 years later... personally id rather take my chances with the 95% reliability of a lie detector than the 50% reliability of a jury...
Posted by: chris at January 18, 2007 03:20 AM (w5aUh)
10
I can understand that you don't like a jury -- but if we truly live by the Constitution that is supposed to govern this land, the jury is supposed to have supreme power to everyone and everything.
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2007 12:25 PM (oifEm)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0115 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0091 seconds, 18 records returned.
Page size 11 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.