Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 11

[Dave Ridley]

This is my current list.  I've called maybe 2/3rds of them

Sullivan County Sheriff's Office
Michael L. Prozzo Jr.
14 Main St.
P.O. Box 27
Newport, NH. 03773
PH 603.863.4200
FAX 603.863.0012
or E-mail sheriff@nhvt.net
You can ask him not to cooperate with the Feds in arresting or killing Ed and his friends.   One approach is to keep the message under 12 words and ask his secretary to write it down word for word.


NH Sen. John Sununu
603-647-7500
You can ask him what he's doing to keep the other feds from arresting or killing Ed and his friends.   One approach is to keep the message under 12 words and ask his secretary to write it down word for word.


Office of NH Governor Lynch
State House
25 Capitol Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603)271-2121  (603)271-7680 (fax)  Email the Governor at
http://www.egov.nh.gov/governor/goveforms/comments.asp

NH Sen. Judd Gregg
603-225-7115

U.S. Marshalls, New Hampshire
Stephen Monier, Gary DiMartino
603 225 1632
You can thank them for their restraint thus far and urge them to continue it....or if they do something evil then you can just yell at them!

Colonel Frederick Booth
Director, NH State Police: (603) 271-2450
33 Hazen Drive | Concord, NH 03305
They were involved in arresting Ed last year, you can ask them not to do that again.

Open conference call line 702-851-4044 - press 2 followed by 1626 #

[Russell Kanning]

Margo and the Monitor got punked


http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070213/REPOSITORY/702130398/1043/48HOURS

Ed Brown's new wish list: Legos and Sippy cups

By MARGOT SANGER-KATZ
Monitor staff
February 13. 2007 11:35AM


A

fter a story in Saturday's Monitor described the wish list for weapons, paralegals, cash and earplugs on Ed Brown's MySpace page, the Plainfield man made some alterations.

Included in a new "Super Extreme Items" section are requests for Legos, Barbies, Cabbage Patch dolls, "Pink Ballerina tutus" and Sippy cups.

Brown has been convicted of conspiring with his wife to evade nearly a decade of her federal income taxes and of disguising large financial transactions to avoid federal reporting requirements. Midway through the trial, Brown fled to his fortified Plainfield home, where he says he anticipates an armed standoff with federal officials if they attempt to arrest him.

In an audioblog recording Saturday afternoon, Brown said that the original wish list, which included cash, body armor, P90 submachine guns and high-powered lasers, was not serious.

"It was just a joke," Brown said. "Big deal. Everybody's got to loosen up here a little bit." ---ADVERTISEMENT---   


The full list is available on Brown's MySpace page.

MARGOT SANGER-KATZ

[Russell Kanning]

or rather ..... are getting punked

[error]

Please also send a reporter who isn't a bleeding red Communist!

[JosephSHaas]

Report from Nashua demonstration supporting ed brown 2/12:

grand total turnout was only 2 for this one, me and andy templeman.  He brought a huge banner he made years ago that says "IRS terrorists get out of NH!!"

I had my gadsden flag.

2 cops showed up at least that we saw.  Schmitt from Homeland Security (the guy who cited me back in oct.) and a Nashua cop off in the distance.  schmitt photographed us from about 100 yards away.  we waved at him, and he waved back.   one gal stopped to ask questions, and was supportive.   she wanted to know if we were sovereign citizens, or maybe free staters.

we were there an hour and 15 minutes.   i counted 12 positive responses not including waves, 0 negative

David,

When (not "if") Ed wins his case on there being no jurisdictional authority, then what the I.R.S. did to Andy Tempelman and his wife Priscilla and their son will make them instant $millionaires, almost like "lawful money" in the bank.  No brag, just fact, as the old-time actor Walter Brennan used to say on "The Guns of Will Sonnet" 1960s TV western series. The Tempelmans owned The Ram in the Thicket Restaurant in Milford, and they went through at least two I.R.S. auctions: the first one at the Senator Norris Cotton Federal Building in Manchester where they arrested me for asking a question, terming it disruptive non-free speech, taking me to the basement and giving me a $50.00 ticket but never processed, the bidder backing out of the deal in his legal tender notes. 

Then when word got back to the Federalies that Ed and his boys were going to be "on the lookout" for The American Un-Activities Investigation Committee of possibly more unlawful and/or illegal happenings by the Feds at Andrew's place, they/ the Feds thought there might be snipers in the woods, and so retreated to the Town Hall to hold the auction there, Gary kicking me out as them setting up some sale requirement of having to have a $5,000 deposit to bid, them NOT letting me look at the bid sheet and to see what "lawful money" they had, them accepting bank checks in the equivalent "as" money, with Andy telling me of not to make a scene at this one as he had everything under control and my telling Andy to be sure to get a "Memorandum of Sale" under this "Sale with All Faults" that is "for better or WORSE" against the manceptor (see BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY for these terms), because even though #many years have gone by, he did appeal Judge Barbadoro's Order because by the Title ___ U.S. Code Section ___ the auction was to have, as a mandatory must requiremet by the shall word, to have been done in a "courthouse" of the county where the land was location.  The Town Hall was never and was not at that time, nor ever since used as a courthouse.  That Jerk Judge Paul Barbadoro of Ridge Rd., Concord saying that the end justifies the means, that ought to get him impeached by our new federal Reps, as Charlie Bass was an Ass in the fishbowl that Hodes told me needed some cleaning, so to wait and see if new Fed. Rep. Attorney Paul Hodes will let this judge say and cement against Andy of to in effect, he might as well have said: to hell with procedural due process, I AM the law in my courtroom! 

Was Schmitt of: Homeland "Security" taking these photos on his own time?, or dressed in uniform?, or under cover like my new-found "buddy" that planted himself down beside me on the bench in Ed's trial when his boss, Gary directed him to halt any "goofy" stuff that MIGHT happen   Schmitty, if you're reading this here: I strongly suggest you look up the word you operate under: security.  In addition to you being a "Safety Patrol"er, it is also defined as "something deposited as assurance for the fulfillment of an obligation".  The Assistant U.S. Attorney kept saying in court: taxes due and owing, as an obligation, so if it ever gets to such another foreclosure, seizure for forfeiture, etc. you can make darn sure that I will be there DAMANDing that there will be none of this Federal Reserve Note crap, nor Bank Note paper backed up by their refusals to redeem and you and others will be strongly "rebuked" by me, hoping that you agree that any order from on high from your bosses to to their dirty work, be shot back at them with the truth by you, because if you don't, you may be squeezed/ pressurized into some atmospheric condition by: _______ that I don't think your system will be able to take this shock!  Just a friendly warning to get educated in the meantime to prevent your having to be brought into the hospital by stretcher to maybe die, and let the next wave take the heat, until ALL of you live by the new state motto: Wise up, or Die! 

Yours truly, -- Joe

[Kat Kanning]

There are some articles about it linked here, dog:

http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/

[cathleeninnh]

VERY IMPORTANT!!!!!!

I am not sure if any of you have had the chance to read the actual jury instructions in Ed and Elaines trial.
If not you can at edbrown.org.  Anyways... On this issue of EVASION the instructions to the jury make it clear that NOT FILING 1040 alone cannot be used to convict.  It says an AFFIRMATIVE action is needed!  Meaning in order to convict on EVASION the government had to prove that their was AFFIRMATIVE action to deceive!  Stuff like lying about the income on the 1040, filing but doing it frivolously..etc..SO PEOPLE A LESSON HERE....IT IS MUCH BETTER NOT TO FILE AT ALL THAN TO FILE INCORRECTLY...etc....KEEP THAT IN MIND.  I was glad to see that the government had to prove AFFIRMATIVE action. THAT IS HUGH.  Whether it did that or not I dont know at this point.  The jury seems to think so.  But if all the charges tie back in with EVASION then it would have been better if Elaine (since she is self-employed) just never filed and was careful to explain that any actions she took affirmatively WAS NOT TO EVADE TAXES BUT WAS DONE FOR SOME OTHER REASON.  Not sure about structuring.  I mean it is her money.  How could the government have proven that her lawful actions at a bank amounted to affirmative EVASION.  It even says in the instructions that this is very subjective.  HOW COULD THIS JURY CONCLUDE AFFIRMATIVE EVASIVE ACTS BASED ON LAWFUL BANKING ACTIVITIES (unless it was admited to by Elaine).  That would be on its face a ridiculous conclusion by the jury.  ONCE AGAIN.  Our fellow citizens can be our worst enemies!  But the lesson here is it is better to do nothing than to act to deceive.  If you are self-employed
like most IRS protesters then that should be relatively easy.

Some of the actions presented by the prosecutor were a number of cash transactions at the bank that were just under the limit for reporting to authorities.

[Russell Kanning]

What  I find interesting is that this supposed Tribune article appears neither on Lawrence Eagle Tribune site nor WMUR news site.

maybe the claremont eagle times or some such

[coffeeseven]

VERY IMPORTANT!!!!!!

I am not sure if any of you have had the chance to read the actual jury instructions in Ed and Elaines trial.
If not you can at edbrown.org.  Anyways... On this issue of EVASION the instructions to the jury make it clear that NOT FILING 1040 alone cannot be used to convict.  It says an AFFIRMATIVE action is needed!  Meaning in order to convict on EVASION the government had to prove that their was AFFIRMATIVE action to deceive!  Stuff like lying about the income on the 1040, filing but doing it frivolously..etc..SO PEOPLE A LESSON HERE....IT IS MUCH BETTER NOT TO FILE AT ALL THAN TO FILE INCORRECTLY...etc....KEEP THAT IN MIND.  I was glad to see that the government had to prove AFFIRMATIVE action. THAT IS HUGH.  Whether it did that or not I dont know at this point.  The jury seems to think so.  But if all the charges tie back in with EVASION then it would have been better if Elaine (since she is self-employed) just never filed and was careful to explain that any actions she took affirmatively WAS NOT TO EVADE TAXES BUT WAS DONE FOR SOME OTHER REASON.  Not sure about structuring.  I mean it is her money.  How could the government have proven that her lawful actions at a bank amounted to affirmative EVASION.  It even says in the instructions that this is very subjective.  HOW COULD THIS JURY CONCLUDE AFFIRMATIVE EVASIVE ACTS BASED ON LAWFUL BANKING ACTIVITIES (unless it was admited to by Elaine).  That would be on its face a ridiculous conclusion by the jury.  ONCE AGAIN.  Our fellow citizens can be our worst enemies!  But the lesson here is it is better to do nothing than to act to deceive.  If you are self-employed
like most IRS protesters then that should be relatively easy.

Some of the actions presented by the prosecutor were a number of cash transactions at the bank that were just under the limit for reporting to authorities.

Their "money" doesn't even have any value. It's a note which means debt, their debt.

Ed Brown is guilty of not reporting their debt to them.

Anybody got an aspirin?

[Dave Ridley]

joe in answer to your question Officer Schmitt was in uniform

[guy]

Channel 9 should have quoted www.triallogs.com or a similar source. Thanks Kat.  More inaccurate reporting by local news media whom should know better.

It was the Eagle Times:

http://www.eagletimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=2587

[lildog]

http://www.eagletimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=2587

From that link:

"According to court documents, third parties with interest in the property may file a claim with the court."

What does this mean?  That people can bid on his land?

[JosephSHaas]

There are some articles about it linked here, dog:

http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/

Thanks Kat.

1. This blogspot website you quote here has sure been busy today!

2. This morning when I went to there I found at the top of the page the http://www.livefreenow.org/upcoming_events.cfm for what looks like a "very" interesting meeting-of-the-minds at The Freedom Law School course at the Atrium Hotel, Irving, CAlif. March 9-11 '07 for when "Former IRS Special Agent to Speak In Southern California", Joe Bannister*, and also Robert Lawrence**.

3. In regards to Robert Lawrence**, he "challenged the IRS claim that he is required to file a 1040 Income Tax Confession Form and pay a Federal Income Tax.  The U.S. Government charged him with committing 'tax crimes', but later dismissed these charges!  The IRS dropped the case when they found out that Robert relied on the instructions within the IRS' 1040 booklet and the law. Robert had proof from these sources that he was not required to file.  Hear how this living 'David' won his victory over the paper-tiger 'Goliath' (the IRS)."

4. The question beside Robert's picture by this advertisement is: "Is the IRS lying and defrauding the American people? Hear from the man who beat the IRS Beast". And as I've already said in my prior replies, the answer is: yes, they are liars per that section (5) still in there for Rents, and I too beat the IRS back in 1983 by my case #M.83-50-D using this same 5th Amendment assertion to the IRS agents in Laconia with my grocery bags full of receipts for fixing up my apartment building. My age 20-something back then request to the S.B.A. (Small Business Administration) for a loan denied because my business block too, was my "investment" not my business for me, but for my tenants.

5. See also for this lying what Dr. Phil Roberts says in his CASE HISTORY over at http://famguardian/org/Subjects/Taxes/CaseStudies/PhilRoberts/PhilRoberts.htm (under Taxation) where "He still firmly believes that he is correct and that the law is misapplied (intentionally) to extract funds from the citizens of this country." He spells it out, like what Ed says too in that: "the court did not allow any introduction of these facts before the jury", the facts being that "He was...unable to present evidence of his good faith in communicating with the IRS" to which Ed has that Rule 16 power working for him too, in my complaint to the PCC against the U.S. Attorney for not presenting the defendant with this "exculpatory evidence" as by N.H. Rule 3.8 too.  The U.S. Marshall in Robert's case saying: "I'm taking you out like I took out John Gotti and Noriega".  Re: Dr. Roberts' civil suit of 1999 that resulted in the 26 U.S.C. 7203 criminal charge.  But now offset by anybody else thanks to what Rbt. Lawrence found on page #__ of the IRS 1040 instruction booklet to back up the 5th Amendment.

6. The above Roberts case in the HALL OF SHAME file thanks to Brenda Gray opusone at ipa dot net and Joe Banister* jbanister at freedomabovefortune dot com over at http://www.freedomabovefortune.com to read more in the HALL OF FAME later; ___ but to see what Robert recommended of to go over to both: (a) http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/taxes.htm   that as "The Ed Brown Story" of 1/25/2007 at the top of the list, and; (b) http://www.angelfire.com/oh4/befree that gets you to http://www.angelfire.com/oh5/waltmaken/DCUS.html for (1) "Is there any legal opr lawful difference between a 'District Court of the United States' and a 'United States District Court'?" over to The "How to handle judicial treason" (me Visitor #002314 there a few minutes ago, and thanks to WaltMaken at gmail dot com but don't expect the judge to automatically "sua sponte correcvt his prior actions) that goes over to http://www.clr.org/Easterbrook-Frank-H-treason.html with two documents on pdf file:

(1) The http://www.clr.org/Easterbrook.pdf of the letter from Eugene W. Alpern, P.O. Box 672, Morton Grove, IL 60053-0672 of May 14, 2001 to this Judge Frank H. Easterbook, 7th Circuit Ciourt of Appeals in Chicago; and

(2) the 7-page letter at http://www.clr.org/Treason.pdf of his letter of July 9, 2001 to President Geo. W. Bush.

In regards to the former, see (a) page 1 + 3 in that: "In Case No. 00-4267, In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation, Appeal of: William Mack Price, et al, a panel of this court, of which you were a member, stated that: 'Napoleon at his coronation took the imperial crown out of the hands of the Pope and crowned himself.  Federal judges do not have a similar prerogative.  A court that does not have jurisdiction cannot assume it, however worthy the cause.'" plus (b) Eugene writes that: "There are many cases that hold that a judge has no lawful authority to make a void order valid.  An order issued based on a void order is itself void."

In regards to the latter, see (a) page 1 of 7: "We [Judges] have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to USURP THAT WHICH IS NOT GIVEN. The one or the other would be TREASON to the Constitution.' [clarification added]'. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed.257 (1821)." (emphasis ADDed by me for Ed's case, re: this Usurption word and treason, per the complaint of last Friday to have Dan St. Hillaire, the Merrimack County Attorney process it over to the Grand Jury that meets tomorrow and Friday, Feb. 15+16th, in what is THEIR RSA Ch. 600:3 diligent inquiry by way of their investigation too of my RSA Ch. 638:14 Unlawful Simulation of Legal Process as I did spell out to the N.H. State Police who gave my complaint to the A.G's office to what? cover-up, by not re-processing it over to Dan to the Jury? or for Dan to TAKE over from her to them, or for me to re-call the State Police to re-call what they sent to the A.G. to re-direct over to Dan +/or the Clerk/Judge to ghet indirectly to the Jury or directly by way of Registered Mail to the Grand Jury Foreman (this or next month?) for a "Presentment" that they all sign when not so presented to them on a silver platter by Dan.

...and see (b)  page 2 of: "the Illinois Supreme Court has held in Brown v. VanKeuren, 340 Ill. 118, 122 (1930), an repeated in other cases (in other states and the Fed?/ this my question/comment-Joe) citing this case, that: 'The petition required to put the court in motion and give it jurisdiction must be in conformity with the statute* granting the right and must show all the facts necessary to authorize it to act, -i.e., it must contain all the statements which the statute says the petition shall state, -and if the petition fails to contain all of these essential elements the court is without jurisdiction." -- to compare with Arty.I, Sec.8, cl. 17 U.S. Const. with our N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1

...and see (c) page 4 as it regards my complaint to the PCC of: "A reviewing court must first actively review the entire chain of legal actions that brings an action before the reviewing court by the judges, for the judges to determine whether actual jurisdiction was conferred upon their court, Freytag et al. v. C.I.R., 501 U.S. 868 (1991), and may not BLINDLY assume it has jurisdiction." [emphasis ADDed, as that was what the prosecutor and the judge said of Ed and Elaine in that they selectively closed their eyes to that section 1, but in what sphere of existance?] This ostrich with head in the sand stuff reminds me of Peggy Poor's "The Upright Ostrich" publications I did get in the mail, back in the 1980s from her, R.I.P.

...and see (d) page 5 of: "Courts have held that if the judge held no jurisdiction, tyhen he and those who advise and act with him, or execute, i.e. those who act in concert with, his process, are also trespassers. Von Kettler et al. v. Johnson, 57 Ill 109 (1870); 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328,340 (1828)." (see also page 3) reference: the U.S. Marshall and his Deputies taking cautious steps OUTside the boundaries of Ed's place, and ought to throw this Bench Warrant back in the judge's face, especially when the judge learns from here +/or by the PCC judgement that he was duped by Wm. Morse, the Assistant U.S. Attorney.

...and see (e) pages 6-7: "Under the principal of law established in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (21974), when a Federal judge acts in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he 'comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subject IN HIS PERSON to the consequences of his individual conduct.  The government has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.' [Emphasis in original]." cc: Senate Judiciary Committee, House Judiciary Committee, etc.

Thus as per the "Help Not Hinder" block, Ed, who "has been railroaded by a kangaroo court",has decided NOT to "utilize this failed judicial system, that is hell bent on stealing his property", or in other words, in my words it's time to get out of the web to swat the spider with a big club! because the web is as Sir Walter Scott, the Scottish author, 1771-1832 said: "On what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/27150.html and: from the angelfire #4 above: "'It is the right of the accused to be tried by a LEGALLY constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.' William v. United States (1951) 341 U.S. 97, 101." (emphasis ADDe, for RSA 123:1).

Yours truly, Joe, cc: with thanks to the edbrown dot org webmaster, and with that link to http://www.triallogs.com with post by djahn yesterday in that "The theft of the Browns' property isn't about recovering a tax that is die.  According to the government, they are stealing the Brown's property simply because they don't approve of the WAY, Ed and Elaine PAID their bills." (emphasis ADDed).

[coffeeseven]

The Creators of This Blog Have REMOVED OUR SUPPORT FROM ED BROWN

That's kind of not good.

Agent provocateurs seem to be at work.

[Kat Kanning]

Where did the prior quote about support being withdrawn come from?

http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/