Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 23

[Russell Kanning]

Concord
 
Second judge asks out of Browns supporters' trial
Death threats lead to multiple recusals
       Print article
Send to friend
Letter to editor


By Margot Sanger-Katz
Monitor staff

October 16. 2007 12:05AM


T

he federal district court is running out of judges to oversee the trials of four men accused of helping Plainfield tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown escape capture. A second federal judge opted to bow out of the cases Friday, citing his close friendship with Judge Steven McAuliffe, who had already recused himself from two of the cases.

McAuliffe, who presided over the Browns' trials for tax-related crimes in January, became the subject of repeated death threats from the Browns and their allies after their convictions in January. McAuliffe went on to preside over the Browns' sentencing hearing in April, but he quickly recused himself when the cases of two supporters were assigned to him in September.

Those cases were passed on to Judge Paul Barbadoro, who had already been assigned two related cases. In Friday's order, Barbadoro recused himself from all four, writing that if he managed the cases, some might be concerned that he could be influenced by his friend's treatment.

"Judge McAuliffe and I have been friends for more than 20 years," the order says. "Although I am confident that I could preside impartially over the above-referenced cases notwithstanding this friendship, it is likely that at least some reasonable observers would conclude that my impartiality was compromised by my friendship with someone who allegedly has been threatened by the defendants' alleged co-conspirators."

The four men are accused of helping the Browns sustain an eight-month standoff with federal marshals. The standoff ended Oct. 4 when a team of marshals disguised as supporters arrested the Browns at their home without incident. According to indictments and other court documents, the four men, Jason Gerhard, Cirino Gonzalez, Daniel Riley and Robert Wolffe, are accused of bringing the couple food and supplies used to build traps. Three of the men are also accused of conspiring to impede the marshals and bringing weapons to help defend the Browns. Gerhard, the defendant who faces the most charges, would be sentenced to more than 125 years in prison if he is convicted. ---ADVERTISEMENT---   


All four supporters are scheduled for trials beginning Nov. 6. So far, none has made motions to postpone his trial.

Ed and Elaine Brown are serving 63-month prison terms for a series of tax related crimes. They were convicted of conspiring to evade taxes on nearly $2 million that Elaine Brown earned as a dentist and of conspiring to hide large financial transactions from federal officials. Elaine Brown was also convicted of multiple counts of tax evasion and failing to withhold employment taxes from workers at her office.

During their prolonged standoff, they attracted a number of supporters who brought them weapons, supplies and means of communication long after marshals cut off their phone line. The four men facing charges in New Hampshire were among the most prominent of those helpers.

U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier has indicated that the Browns may face new charges for their behavior since their convictions and said that additional supporters may face charges for helping the couple.

Neither the Browns nor their supporters have been charged with making threats against McAuliffe, but Ed Brown and members of his entourage have made repeated public calls for retribution against the judge for his involvement in the couple's tax case. Brown and several supporters have said that McAuliffe committed "treason" by preventing the couple from receiving a fair trial and should be punished by death.

"Here are the reasons why I am going to see federal district court judge Steven McAuliffe (husband of astronaut Christa McAuliffe), hanged for treason against our Constitution, and hence, the People," read an email sent by Bill Miller, a friend of Ed Brown's, in January. Miller later said he was not calling for the hanging of the judge.

Ed Brown himself suggested that McAuliffe and his family should be targets because of the judge's management of the trial. Brown has argued that McAuliffe is part of the "Zionist Illuminati," an international cabal that wants to run the world.

"This is a warning," Brown said in a February radio broadcast, mentioning McAuliffe by name as a member of the group. "Once this thing starts, we're going to seek them out and hunt them down. And we're going to bring them to justice. So anybody wishes to join them, you go right ahead and join them. But I promise you, long after I'm gone, they're going to seek out every one of you and your bloodline."

In the weeks before his arrest, Ed Brown spoke frequently on the radio about a hit list with more than 50 names that had been distributed to supporters in case of his death or capture. On the day of his arrest, Brown also applauded a proposal to assign secret assassination squads to target key government officials. Brown did not mention names, but he did agree with an admiring portrayal of Bart Ross, who shot family members of an Illinois federal judge in 2005 after she entered a medical malpractice ruling against him.

In his order, Barbadoro indicated that he would not have recused himself if threats had been made against McAuliffe during the course of the supporters' cases.

"A defendant cannot force a judge to disqualify himself in a previously assigned case by making threats against the judge or his friends," he wrote. "However, the threats at issue here allegedly were made before the cases were assigned to me and I have no basis to believe that the alleged threats were made to provoke my disqualification."

Judge Joseph DiClerico Jr. is the only federal judge at the New Hampshire District Court who has not disqualified himself from the Brown-related cases. As of yesterday, the cases had not been reassigned.

------ End of article

By MARGOT SANGER-KATZ

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071016/FRONTPAGE/710160318

[Kat Kanning]

Now if they'd just quit their jobs entirely, we'd be getting somewhere, LOL! 

[coffeeseven]

Now if they'd just quit their jobs entirely, we'd be getting somewhere, LOL! 

The ones that refuse to allow evidence before a jury, yes.

The ones that "instruct the jury according to the law", yes.

The ones that follow "case law", yes.

Does that leave anybody?

[kola]

Is ol Margot Stray Katz ever going to print that there IS NO LAW?????

AND that the Judge did run a half assed kangaroo court.

She should report the truth instead of sucking up like a goood lil'  corporate whore.

I know you lurk here "Stray Katz", so start trying to report the f'ing truth. JUST ONCE!!!

THERE IS NO LAW!!!

Kola 

[CNHT]

Well somehow people thought the press was their 'friend'. I cautioned them otherwise.

[JosephSHaas]

Concord
 
Second judge asks out of Browns supporters' trial
Death threats lead to multiple recusals
       Print article
Send to friend
Letter to editor

By Margot Sanger-Katz
Monitor staff

October 16. 2007 12:05AM

The federal district court is running out of judges to oversee the trials of four men accused of helping Plainfield tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown escape capture. A second federal judge opted(***) to bow out of the cases Friday, ...

Judge Joseph DiClerico Jr. is the only federal judge at the New Hampshire District Court who has not disqualified(*) himself from the Brown-related cases. As of yesterday, the cases had not been reassigned.

------ End of article

By MARGOT SANGER-KATZ

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071016/FRONTPAGE/710160318

(*) Disqualify: To declare or render unqualified.

qualify: "To give legal(**) power to."

opt(***): to make a choice.

Come on Margot.  There is no choice here!  The judge does not have the power, [and certainly NOT the "right" as public servants ONLY have as many "privileges" that We, the People, grant to them] to choose, so there is NO option: the freedom(****) to choose.

freedom (****) is the unrestricted use or access.

These judges like to THINK and TRY to convince us by the George Orwellian "Nineteen Eighty Four" and "Thought Police", re: the U.S. Marshals, as the arm of the court, that they/ the judges are unrestricted, as in not or contrary to being kept "within limits" and so them THINKing of being unlimited, as like an octopus with arms reaching as far as they can see and more, when the truth of the matter is that their jurisdiction ends at the boundary to their federal soil!

Joseph DiClerico, Jr. was a N.H. Superior Court judge, and a good one I've been told by my former legal counsel who also liked him as a federal judge.  And I bet when confronted with the proof that there is no "legal"(**) power given to the Feds, as by there being the 1-8-17 U.S. Const. "Consent" offered, but never accepted by RSA Ch. 123:1 that he will do the right thing to not merely declare himself disqualified, but the entire court brain and its arm, needing surgery in a major way: to have the U.S. Marshal do his duty that he has neglected to do, as spelled out above in my Reply #____.

THEN, and only then can the court operate both in a lawful and legal capacity.  The consequences of such a revelation, from the word reveal, meaning to dis-close, is to end this cover-up of them pretending to be in a state of RSA Ch. 123:1 federal filing when they are not! "To expose to view, as by removing a cover; uncover." The cover of darkness by McAuliffe and Barbadoro exposed for what their disqualifications really are: not of the threats to him and an affront to his friend, but that of them needing a disclosure alright, as in to divulge, from the Latin word divulgare of "to spread abroad among the people."  But spread what?  To spread the news of the truth that DiClerico can either join his buddies, or do what is right! Declare the court brain and arm as unqualified, or we will render it unqualified.  The latter not a threat, and no matter HOW Ed might have worded it to eliminate those stumbling-blocks, or block-heads, the common denominator is not the person, but the place, of not who, but what, and so the people as judges on the federal soil secondary to the location.  Judge DiClerico: let's stop swinging the branches and get to the root of the problem.  Thank you.

JSH

[JosephSHaas]

Is Judge Joseph DiClerico a "sociopath"* too?

* One who says that the end justifies the means, to hell with "procedural** due process of law".

incoherent: "Unable to express one's thoughts in an ORDERly**** manner." (emphasis ADDed)

So when OUT-OF-ORDER, the judge can re-arrange; right? And withIN the "border on being incoherent".

So was the 1-8-17 U.S. Const. to RSA 123:1 factor in the following petition?

Over at http://www.google.com for "Joseph DiClerico" in quotes, I found on page #1 there, at the top of the page, the website: http://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/browse/state-new_hampshire/court-nhdce/judge-DiClerico/

Click the very first case, and you'll find the Civil No. 07-202-JD of: Joel Drown v. United States of America, Petition to Vacate by 28 USC Sec. 2255

On May 31 '06 there was a plea of guilty to attempted bank robbery in violation of: 18 USC 2113(c). The parties agreed to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(C) of a base level 20 and "a two point increase for taking the property of a financial institution" [even though nothing was taken], sentence: 37 months.

"The petition and accompanying memorandum are rambling and at times border on being incoherent.  The petitioner appears to contest the validity of the indictment...The court finds that the sentence imposed in this case did NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT THE COURT HAD JURISDICTION*** to impose the sentence,...Therefore, the petition is dismissed." July 13, 2007 (emphasis added, because technically for the first part of the highlighted section before the comma, the Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution not only sets up the procedure to be followed, as in the Feds needing this "Consent", and so there being NO violation of an oath of office to the Constitution's game plan, there is the fact that the end does NOT justify the means! as they say, or in this case, the means or game plan needs to be validated by the State to arrive at the Constitutional conclusion.  Said purchase of land by the Feds must be "by Consent of the Legislature of the State", but which Consent was offered to them on June 14, 1883, but that they declined to accept, and so therefore the Feds do LACK JURISDICTION!***)

So to K.I.S.S. / Keep It Simple Stupid, in an orderly**** manner, to ask the judge:

1.) Do you admit that: The powers of Congress by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution requires that: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" that there needs to be "Consent of the Legislature of the State"?

2.) Do you admit that: by Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, that this "Congress"ional court is of inferior status to the Constitutional one being the Supreme Court?

3.) Do you admit that: jurisdiction is defined as both for: (a) venue*****, as in "The authority to interpret and apply the law", and; (b) territorial, as in "The extent or range of such authority"?

4.) Do you admit that: venue***** is defined as: from the word "arrival"?

5.) Do you admit that: the court has arrived at 53 Pleasant Street in Concord, N.H. and that such arrival was "Consent"ed to by the N.H. General Court, but only upon the conditions that the federal filing take place at the Office of Secretary of State?

6.) Do you admit: that there has been NO federal filing at the N.H. Office of Secretary of State?

Thus withOUT the filing there is no lawful and/or legal jurisdiction of this federal court here withIN the state of New Hampshire!

JSH

[JosephSHaas]

Is ol Margot Stray Katz ever going to print that there IS NO LAW?????

AND that the Judge did run a half assed kangaroo court.

She should report the truth instead of sucking up like a goood lil'  corporate whore.

I know you lurk here "Stray Katz", so start trying to report the f'ing truth. JUST ONCE!!!

THERE IS NO LAW!!!

Kola 

Thanks Kola. 

I don't think Margot will highlight the merits of the case, as you're right that there is no law making Ed & Elaine "liable" to have been put into that chart-box of you make $x, so you pay $y by the #'s level as outlined for what is supposed to be only federal government employees since the E.O.(*) from the President to the Treasury Secretary and his T.O.(**) is NOT published in the C.F.R.(***), and so does NOT apply to us in the public-at-large.  You'd think that these Art. III judges of being a constitutional officer would be smart enough to have read that case-law that armlaw printed above (in his reply #__) that they are NOT employees, and so do NOT have to have deductions taken out of their pay! Instead they think otherwise, and want to dilute the contributions of their fellow federal government workers who ARE employees! So the "arm" of the court (U.S. Marshals) actually putting a stranglehold on the throat of the federal brain!?

Kangaroo court is right! Defined over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/kangaroo_court as "A kangaroo court...is a sham* legal proceeding".

* sham, defined as "Something false or empty** purporting to be genuine...counterfeit."

In this case the fact that the federal storage bin over at the N.H. Office of Secretary of State is empty**.  There being no RSA Ch. 123:1 federal filing papers, as required by 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution.

Can somebody here make such a bin*** and donate it to the state? Like maybe a wooden box with a metal plaque saying that it is "The RSA Ch. 123:1 storage box for the 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution papers", with a slot on the side or top, and a hinge with a sign pointing to it, reading something like: "PUBLIC AUDIT: Please lift to verify federal jurisdiction in this state." And so when "Goldilocks" lifts the box, voila http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861734500/voil%C3%A0.html "there you are: used to bring somebody's attention to something" like the cupboard is bare!

Thank you "very" much Kola.  A copy of this and my two latest replies of earlier this morning, being copied and given over to the Shop Director at the N.H. State Prison by way of the cashier at the Prisoner's Souvenir Store at #___ North State Street in Concord this afternoon, to see if maybe one of the inmates there might like to make such a box.  Me willing to donate $_______ to get this project started.

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone).

P.S. Gary DiMartino, Deputy U.S. Marshal: sorry, your interview of me as a witness or suspect will have to wait.  In fact I think I might wait, until you pay me some "witness fee" to appear before the great and powerful Oz has spoken.  You like the "Wicked Witch of the West" on your broom flying around New Hampshire blowing smoke like the broom contrails of: "Surrender Dorothy".  And us as the ones to draw back the curtain on "The Wizard of Oz", to show that he's a fake: a counterfeit.  The box at the S of S is empty! 

footnotes:

(*) Executive Order, (**) Treasury Order, (***) Code of Federal Regulations.

*** bin: "A storage receptacle or container." From the Old English word " binne, basket, crib. See bhendh" http://209.10.134.179/61/roots/IE54.html bhende, to bind, Derivatives include bandanna and bundle, 1a: woodbine****, 3a ribbon, 3c bond. Yeah: like they do in MAss. to certify with a red ribbon, here in N.H. with a gold seal, and that we ought to amend RSA 123:1 to include that they have a bond in place for if/when the Feds violate more of our rights in the future! For the governor to sign such a House Bill #__ into Chapter Law by the woodbine****= "Any of various climbing vines esp. an Old World honeysuckle."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeysuckle

[JosephSHaas]

Meeting next Thursday of The Second Amendment Sisters, of Maine

See http://www.ktpevents.com/interior.php/pid/7/eid/253

J.S.H.

[TruthFire]

Still no habeuses of any corpuses (besides knowing Danny is alive and @ 10 pounds lighter)?

What about habeus corpus for their dog?

If Ed and Elaine's home is siezed permanently, then those responsible need to lose THEIR homes.

[scoop]

Is ol Margot Stray Katz ever going to print that there IS NO LAW?????

AND that the Judge did run a half assed kangaroo court.

She should report the truth instead of sucking up like a goood lil'  corporate whore.

I know you lurk here "Stray Katz", so start trying to report the f'ing truth. JUST ONCE!!!

THERE IS NO LAW!!!

Kola 

Did you read my trial coverage?

[kola]

I did not, scoop. Is it here on the forum?

Kola

[EthanAllen]

Is ol Margot Stray Katz ever going to print that there IS NO LAW?????

AND that the Judge did run a half assed kangaroo court.

She should report the truth instead of sucking up like a goood lil'  corporate whore.

I know you lurk here "Stray Katz", so start trying to report the f'ing truth. JUST ONCE!!!

THERE IS NO LAW!!!

Kola 

Did you read my trial coverage?

Are you covering Lauren Canario's detention?

[JosephSHaas]

....

....

Are you covering Lauren Canario's detention?

Yeah, what's going on with her case?  Plus what happened to the dog?

I've received letters from both Jason and Reno.

I see that Reno has his letter re-typed and posted over there at http://www.makethestand.com/ And check out that http://www.makethestand.com/article100.html about the"gestapo agents (US Marshals and Treasury Department agents) have been going around, in multiple states...searching for Ed & Elaine supporters, questioning them, AND threatening them with arrest, subpoenas, and similar things...'just to talk'...(of) the 'militia movement' and 'threats' that had allegedly been made against them or other gestapo agents." Does anybody here have Shawn Allen Kranish's address?, SAK, are you here? Jason would like your address to write to you as the co-founder of this website.

This was requested in Jason's letter to me of 10-6-07, with several other requests too, such as:

(2) Info about his attorney Stanley W. Norkunas (11 Kearney Sq., Howe Bldg., Lowell, MA 01852-1940, 978-454-7465) who I read: (a) is a 3-year Term Town of North Chelmsford Rep., term expires 04/01/2009 http://wwc.townofchelmsford.us/town_meeting_reps/index.htm Annual Fall Town Meeting, begins 3rd Monday in Oct. Meetings are held Monday & Thursday until voted otherwise; + (b) a $100-249 contributor to the Legal Aid in Maine http://www.campaignforjustice.org/contributors_2005

(3) "1937 National Gun Act" at Google goes nowhere; ___.

(4) http://www.defenseassociates.com/lfi.htm for The "Lethal Force" Institute.*

(5) http://www.barefootsworld.net/sui_juris/sui_juris.html

(6) Address for Bob Schulz**= We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., 2458 Ridge Rd., Queensbury, NY 12804 info at GiveMeLiberty dot org Tel. 518: 656-3578 http://www.givemeliberty.org/ that to me looks like a "Patriots for Profit" outfit, as per http://www.quatlosers.com/bob_schultz.htm over to http://www.quatlosers.com/lynne_meredith.htm who "is alleged to have made over $6 million selling her books".

JSH

Modification: not 1-6-07, but 10-6-07.

[scoop]

I did not, scoop. Is it here on the forum?

Kola

It may be back there in the earlier pages of this thread, but I'll pm you with the links.