Subject: Expertise on Display -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Subscriber, The following link is to a story about Ed Brown, which also mentions me. All in all, I'd say the reporter actually REPORTED things in this case (imagine that), instead of just parroting government officials. (Be sure to copy the entire link into your web browser to make it work.) Some have asked whether I think what I did was worth it, and in one sense, I don't (as the article states). I don't believe that trying to protect the property and freedom of the American people was worth what I put my family through, mainly because at least twelve Americans (and they probably represent a majority) obviously didn't WANT me trying to stop the government from defrauding them. I stood up for the truth, and did the right thing, and the unthinking sheople put me in a cage for it. If I sound a tad bitter, it's because I am. For those of you who want the truth, I will continue to spread it. For the rest, "crouch down and lick the hand which feeds you; may your chains rest lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." But the main thing I wanted to mention from the article were the comments of a Michael Mello, a CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROFESSOR at Vermont Law School. He was quoted as saying the following, concerning what the judge in Ed Brown's case allowed as evidence: "I don't think he was required to let in any evidence about why they believed they weren't required to pay their taxes. That's not something that the government had to prove as an intent element." This is a CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROFESSOR. Those of you at all familiar with the concept of "willfulness" know that his statement couldn't possibly be any more incorrect than it is. State of mind, or intent, is an ESSENTIAL element of "willful" tax evasion and failure to file. As far as I can tell, in Ed and Elaine Brown's case--just as in mine--"willfulness" was the ONLY issue in question, as their not filing and not paying was no secret. In THE governing case on "willfulness" (Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991)), the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that "a good-faith belief that one is not violating the law negates willfulness, whether or not the claimed belief or misunderstanding is objectively reasonable." So why did a CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROFESSOR not know this? And why did he spout off, on the record, without at least looking it up? Probably because he suffers from the delusions of adequacy so common among self-proclaimed "experts": he thinks his CREDENTIALS give his opinion value, whether it's backed by any evidence or not. Once again, the "experts" demonstrate absolute ignorance of the law. And we're supposed to defer to THEM in deciding what is true and what is not? Speaking of which, I'll shortly be posting some comments about the radio show debate between myself and another law professor, Jonathan Siegel. Sincerely, Larken Rose www.larkenrose.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify Version: Hush 2.5 wpwEAQECAAYFAkYxKg8ACgkQGmVFo/iGj32LwQP7BoleugCs0eE4SXfbUtj8GGKiAwMt mTKzpJaNXXaUvJOmizVDEBw/u/gWFR0wHX/TK60/ZYngOKRC1GwyOW6drlvBHw81sDUJ DG+ZmW/Hxya5egBxQh3JXnlWc1S9C6sd7mfiwO1byWeKRhIHJnw1MthgdfQCl9bz4Kwt K2HmAaY= =olS9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Are your credit card rates too high? Click here for help with your credit cards. http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/CAaCXv1QMqSspB6mu0sfjsMPairHEOXP/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe, send a blank message to 861-on@mail-list.com To contact the list owner, send your message to 861-list-owner@mail-list.com