Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 13

[money dollars]

They could always just set Ed's house on fire. Ed's plan seems to revolve around his house.

Sometimes those pesky burning pyrotechnic tear gas nades start fires....

[armlaw]

As many of you may be aware, the Feds are thought to be under some pressure to have Ed and Elaine in the courthouse for their sentencing.   I'm told it will be an almost unique ocurrance if they are sentenced in absentia. 

Are you sure this is right?  I spent a few minutes on Google and found dozens of recent US District Court cases where the defendant was sentenced in absentia.

United States v. Mubang (2005)
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/appendices.pdf

United States v. Elrick Philmore Harty (2005)
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4180/is_20050131/ai_n10070716

United States v. Julio Zalapa-Urbina  (2/22/2007)
http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=EFF16A50-97FA-892B-E8485637EC4ADE8A

The judge in this case also had few reservations about trying Ed Brown in absentia, if that's any indication.

What courts were these cases? Were they "Administrative Territorial" tribunals or were they the constitutional Article III courts? The seminal case for jurisdiction is Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201. The following snip is verbatim from that case and contains several other supreme court cases that preceeded Mookini and thus  are the support for the Mookini decision and mandate of definition. Mookini was last mentioned in 2003 in Ngyen v. U.S., so it has not been overturned!

"The term 'District Courts of the United States,' as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a 'District Court of the United States.' Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 , 154; The City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453 , 460; In re Mills, 135 U.S. 263, 268 , 10 S.Ct. 762; McAllister v. United States, 141 U.S. 174, 182 , 183 S., 11 S.Ct. 949; Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U.S. 445, 476 , 477 S., 19 S.Ct. 722; Summers v. United States, 231 U.S. 92, 101 , 102 S., 34 S.Ct. 38; United States v. Burroughs, 289 U.S. 159, 163 , 53 S.Ct. 574. Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules to the territorial courts and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended."

[Russell Kanning]

I recommend jumping off of the government treadmill real soon.

[powerchuter]

Read Unintended Consequences today!

[JosephSHaas]

I recommend jumping off of the government treadmill real soon.

Yes Russell, the government of New Hampshire anyway is notorious for taking your requests for actions and filing them to collect dust: an "endless" and "monotonous routine" of like that "Who's on First? comedy skit of Abbott & Costello. Sort of like the floating dollar bills that fly through the air with the greatest of ease, see the amazing athletic on the flying trapeze, as in the song. But not athletes here but either ignorant or corrupt bastards. You'd think the voters would get tired of this crap and elect some Libertarian, or like in the Natural Law Party with their plank on the platform to have the heads of all state to have their heads examined as either mush or being pathological liars to their RSA Ch. 92:2 oaths of office...

...Case in point of our N.H. governor, whose duty it is by Article 51 to "suppress insurrection" defined as: "An act of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government". 

This afternoon Ed called me back to say that his certified letter to the Secretary of State of August 8, 2006 was answered by Karen Ladd on August 22nd, in that his concerns about RSA Ch. 123:1 were being directed over to the Attorney General's Office, and that if and/or when they reply to them, then the S of S will get back to him.  The points I think Ed were making being: (1) that by Art. 49, if ever the governor ever was incapacitated, the acting governor chain-of-command is with the: Senate President, House Speaker, Secretary of State and then the State Treasurer, and so he: Bill Gardner might be in that role someday, but anyway, charged by RSA Ch. 5 to keep the records of the government that are supposed to include these RSA Ch. 123:1 records from the Feds, but that do not exist, and so Ed asking for what happens next? (2) As in Art. 41 the governor "shall be responsible for the faithful execution of the laws", and back to that Art. 51 duty too of to suppress insurrection, the word suppress defined as: "1. To put an end to forcibly; subdue; crush.  2. To curtail or prohibit the activities of...4. To hold back, as in an impulse; check."

--So for when The VALLEY NEWS the other day called Ed a "scofflaw", I looked that up in http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scofflaw as "One who habitually violates the law or fails to answer court summonses."  Has Ed "failed to answer"? Hell no! He yells fault, tilt, as in a pinball game, and the referee, judge or governor go about their business as usual: the governor in The UNION LEADER photo and story of a visit to Plainfield to tap some trees for sap to be made into maple syrup. Is he going to invite us over to The Styles Bridges House in East Concord at Exit 16 off I-93 for some pancake breakfast, like 'ol Mel Thomson did in Orford when he retired? This sap of a governor is the dupe of the Feds as being so easily deceived by their antics. RSA 123:1 requires the Feds to comply with the law, the Feds "habitually violate" the law, and so VALLEY NEWS paper reporters: WHO is the real scofflaw!? Isn't it about time for the governor to act and do his duty? I think a CORRECTION is due from you in regards to your defaming Ed.

By RSA Ch. 541-A:29,I over at http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LV/541-A/541-A-29.htm the Secretary of State with their relay over to the A.G.'s office, had until 60 days to get back to him of WHO it was over there who may be contacted, that was done fourteen (14) days = one fortnight by the former S of S, but with nothing from the A.G. back to the S of S, but that does NOT relieve the S of S from the section II requirement of to either: (a) "Approve or deny the application, in whole or in part" or (b) "Commence an adjudicative proceeding" as to start or begin a judicial proceeding against the scofflaws, so that the judge can grant the power to "enforce compliance with...(this) legislative mandate" to the governor by the "shall" word in that BEFORE the Feds can buy property in this state in which to THEN operate therefrom, they must first get the "consent" of the Legislature, as granted in the general, with the provisions that must be followed in recording what needs to be done and where, that has NOT occurred! The S of So is in default as of: 120 days from August 8th and so, on or around: December 8th, 2006, now almost double time to April 8th, BELIEVE IT OR NOT! What is going on here? Double or nothing? Nothing, in that the state officials acquiesce to the Feds!?  This bullshit to passively or tacit consent by actions of silence to allow them/the Feds to skirt the law has got to stop! and now! They say: Silence is golden, alright, as in a golden opportunity for Ed to, like they said in Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In: Sock it to 'em! They, in effect, are saying: Sock it to me/ sock it to me! Laughing contemptuously to us in state, whose state public officials don't give a shit.  Well the time for the sock is due, and I don't mean a wind sock to tell what direction the gas is from: the gas belching from their federal asses over there is most annoying and needs to be dealt with. Yeah! Let's sock it to 'em, alright: load up some socks with dead animals or carcasses like they did in the days of old and give them a donation of dinner: a dinner to make them puke out the bad, so they get well.  Hey: We've got to destory the village to save it, right? 

Yours truly, -- Joe

P.S. In the meantime for Ed to file a claim against the Secretary of State's Art. 70 + RSA Ch. 5:16 $10,000 Penal bond; see http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/5/5-16.htm

[Dave Ridley]

Here is a brainstorm: 

How would you guys feel about scheduling a demonstration to ocurr after April 24, to *support* the U.S. Marshalls' decision not to attack Ed (if in fact they and others do not attack him)?

My sign idea is:

Thanx
Marshalls, for
not attacking
Ed Brown

Thanx Marshalls
For leaving Ed
Brown in peace

I've already said this to them privately; why not say it publicly?

[JosephSHaas]

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.

Dave Ridley
AKA Dada Orwell
NHfree.com

David, You can count me OUT of supporting the U.S. Marshal on ANYthing, even if they do NOT serve the un-lawful precept, as they are mere "lukewarm" fence-sitters at this point in time, refusing to acknowledge in writing that the reason they are not following-through with the judge s bench warrant is that the court has no RSA Ch. 123:1 jurisdiction by Art.I,Sec.8,Cl. 17 U.S. Const. because to do so would expose their unlawfulness too, not only now, but when they arrested Ed last year, with #___ local, County and State Police I presume, and so no wonder my criminal complaint for Unlawful Simulation of Official  process of Jan. 13th to the State Police was referred over to the A.G. s Office because they are BOTH corrupt: State AND Federal, needing some equal peer action by way of a jury trial for monetary damages to teach them a lesson that somehow RSA Ch. 188-F:31 has failed to do, limited to $250,000 by RSA Ch. 541-B:14,I see http: www.gencourt.state.nh.us ...later as my computer is going nuts without printing these bars!

Now to find out what the $amount is, if any, for limitation against the Feds as representing all 50 states, so $250,000 x 50 = $___________?

Yours truly, - - Joe

Modification #1: The links are http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LV/541-B/541-B-14.htm and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XV/188-F/188-F-31.htm  See RSA Ch. 188-F:31,IV to be exact for: "25 percent of the amount collected in the victim's assistance fund." at the N.H. State Treasury, 25 Capitol Street, Room 121, State House Annex, Concord, N.H. 03301, Tel. 603: 271-2621 Attn: Elaine over to Katherine (Kathy) Provencher on the phone, left a voice recording for the $________ dollar amount in this fund.

[Kat Kanning]

Here is a brainstorm: 

How would you guys feel about scheduling a demonstration to ocurr after April 24, to *support* the U.S. Marshalls' decision not to attack Ed (if in fact they and others do not attack him)?

Doesn't appeal to me.

[Russell Kanning]

Read Unintended Consequences today!

are you ready to follow its lead?

[Russell Kanning]

I will thank the marshals when they quit their jobs and stop stealing from people.

[JosephSHaas]

Hey MAC ...you cannot find the transcripts from any of these so-called trials....

The Brown transcript isn't available yet and probably won't be for a few more weeks.  The other court documents are available for free on www.edbrown.org.  These did not come Ed and Elaine, but were downloaded from PACER.....

Richard,  Can you check PACER to see if the 46-page gov't pre-sentence report is there?  And have the http://www.edbrown.org website post it there for free? The government is in DEFAULT as not having it 35 days BEFORE the Sentencing day, by Rule #___ so for Ed to participate by counter-acting it with a Private pre-sentence report would be to overlook this default?

- - Thanks, - - Joe

P.S. From what I've been told, they tried to FAX it all-46 pages to the Brown's house, but that only some of it made it there, but one important piece of the pie, in that the gov't reporter did mention at page #__ that there is still NO evidence that Elaine's employees did or did not report their wages to the IRS, and so they/ the gov't still going after her!? for the total!?

This is highlighted because by the USA v. Laugenour case No. 2:06-CV-00183-GEB-KJM (that I can send anybody by e-mail for the attachment to download the 7-page document FILED FEB 21 2007 in California) in #1,2+3 @ pages 1+2, by some Federal Rules of Evidence #___ @ page #__ of the 200__ Edition, "The records of the Internal Revenue Service are business records...(and) are hearsay absent qualification for entry into the record of a lawsuit...(and that) The only business record which authorizes IRS collection activity is the summary* record of assessment."

So when the judge asked the prosecutor, Bill Morse in court that day, as I did witness, of what was the bottom line $amount, or summary* the IRS wanted, they did NOT produce such, and so Elaine, not knowing this Rule #__ of Evidence, in which to ask for a dismissal, (at the time Attorney Bjorn Lang, was appointed standby too? who should have known this too, and advised her about making this motion) then this non-evidence is already being alerted to the judge for sentencing that ought to get the case dismissed sua sponte, not needing any  participation from the Browns.

[scoop]

Richard,  Can you check PACER to see if the 46-page gov't pre-sentence report is there?  And have the http://www.edbrown.org website post it there for free? The government is in DEFAULT as not having it 35 days BEFORE the Sentencing day, by Rule #___ so for Ed to participate by counter-acting it with a Private pre-sentence report would be to overlook this default?

- - Thanks, - - Joe

According to the court clerk, the pre-sentencing report isn't part of the official court record and won't be posted on PACER. If you'd like it posted on the internet, you'll have to ask Ed to give you his copy.

[LordBaltimore]

Joe, there are only three recent additions on PACER, and none of them are the BOP presentencing report.

I'm pretty sure that that report stays under seal, so the only person you'll be able to get a copy from is Ed.  He said on today's radio show that he had just gotten the 45 page report over the internet (which I assume means they emailed it to him after the fax broke down.)

The only new items on PACER all deal with the State of New Hampshire putting in their claim on the real estate for $348,235.  This lien covers state business taxes on Elaine's practice from 1999 to 2002.

[LordBaltimore]

Richard,  Can you check PACER to see if the 46-page gov't pre-sentence report is there?  And have the http://www.edbrown.org website post it there for free? The government is in DEFAULT as not having it 35 days BEFORE the Sentencing day, by Rule #___ so for Ed to participate by counter-acting it with a Private pre-sentence report would be to overlook this default?

I looked it up:

(2) Minimum Required Notice.
The probation officer must give the presentence report to the defendant, the defendant's attorney, and an attorney for the government at least 35 days before sentencing unless the defendant waives this minimum period.

Unfortunately, we don't know what day the report was given to Elaine's attorney or mailed to the Browns.  If the 35 day requirement wasn't met, then Ed and Elaine can request a delay of the sentencing to a later date to give them at least 35 days.  This is what happened in Irwin Schiff's criminal trial.  There is no default.

Ed, Elaine, and the government attorneys all have a maximum of 14 days from the day it was delivered to object to the report.  I think those filings will be public available on PACER when filed.

[armlaw]

Richard,  Can you check PACER to see if the 46-page gov't pre-sentence report is there?  And have the http://www.edbrown.org website post it there for free? The government is in DEFAULT as not having it 35 days BEFORE the Sentencing day, by Rule #___ so for Ed to participate by counter-acting it with a Private pre-sentence report would be to overlook this default?

- - Thanks, - - Joe

According to the court clerk, the pre-sentencing report isn't part of the official court record and won't be posted on PACER. If you'd like it posted on the internet, you'll have to ask Ed to give you his copy.

This appears to be an exercise in confusion ?

First- Mr. McAuliff is an employee of a bankrupt municipal corporation, pursuant to 28 UCS 3002(15) and can not adjudicate any constitutional issues. He presides over an "Administrative Tribunal" which has jurisdiction ONLY over the "Territorial insular possessions", owned by the corporate United States. He has NO JURISDICTION over any sovereign State or the "inhabitants" thereof pursuant to Article #30, Part II, New Hampshire Republic constitution, nor can he, or anyone connected with the corporate tribunal, issue any "pre-sentence report" which should be returned as "Unacceptable", pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code" which IS applicable to all IRS activity as prescribed by the Tax Lien Act of 1966 and has not been repealed. The Tribunal must conform to the UCC or it is in "Administrative default.

Second- As I posted earlier the controlling jurisdiction is mandated in the Mookini case and the Ngyen case of 2003 (Guam), only Article III judges, who have no diminishment of their compensation for serving as Article III judges, can preside over any constitutional issue. There can be no coercing by IRS or other non-congress created entities.

Third- There is no constitutional gold or silver coins at issue in the alleged matter and it is "legal Tender", not "lawful money" that is being disputed. Accordingly,, the commercial paper can not be a CRIMINAL MATTER as it is a FICTION and is NOT redeemable.

Fourth....Settle the foregoing and the current fraud upon the court will cease.