Main menu

Expertise On Display

(originally launched into cyberspace on 04/26/2007)

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.


Larken Rose