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

[JosephSHaas]

It's pretty ironic that you bash Nazis but praise Vivien Kellems in the same post, Joe... / ...

There are some new court filings, Joe.  Let me know your email address if you want me to send them to you.

And my brother said that Harrison Ford is soon to return in yet another "Indiana Jones" movie soon, Richard...

You mean those religious papers the judge threw out? JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

Thanks, - -

P.S. I telephoned the http://www.concordmonitor.com at 224-5301 and pressed the first three letters for Kristen Senz (both first and last name) but got nowhere, so dialed the 0 for Operator getting over to the News room and some Shanna Hoffman at extension #324 recording to call Katie Henry at ext. 378 who I did talk with, who said that she will relay my info to either Margot Sanger-Katz who usually does the Ed Brown write-ups over to Kristen Senz now who might be some outside reporter not on the staff? I told her that this relay-tactic to avoid a "Correction" for the "conviction" word is bad medicine, and ought to maybe be reported to her higher-ups, but then probably too late, as next Tuesday the Browns MIGHT be "convinced" of their guilt, and so technically "convicted", but that I highly doubt it, even though the judge might pronounce a sentence, such is void as OUTside their jurisdictional authority and so un-enforceable, resulting in a new trial by some state statutes when somebody in sentenced in absentia, me still trying to find out if N.H. is on that list, and if so WHERE, but if not, then WHY NOT? add this condition into RSA Ch. 123:1 as an amendment to an already useless statute, since our governor REFUSEs to do his duty by Articles 41+ 51, N.H. Const., him/ Lynch to "pay" the ultimate "responsibility" payments, maybe for me/us to file an Art. 32 Petition to Attach with Notice against his every 2-weeks salary?  Any General Court member interested in giving an Art. 36 endorsement of this with his/her/their signature(s) and District Number(s), to like I did write before: shove it into the left hand of the House Speaker to "promptly": before she can chomp down her teeth on her bubble gum, to "process" by Rule 4 to the State-Federal Relations Chairman to her right and set up this Public Hearing! in Room #____ L.O.B. [Legislative Office Building, May __, 2007 @ __:__ a.m./p.m.] To see them tomorrow as planned in their LOB hearing room between the two bills they're working on. http://www.state.nh.us

[LordBaltimore]

The Kristen Senz article was in the Union Leader, not the Concord Monitor, no?

[JosephSHaas]

The Kristen Senz article was in the Union Leader, not the Concord Monitor, no?

Thanks Richard for this info, and the e-mail with attachments for documents no. 162, 163 + 164 in the case.

163: of The "Walter" Rudman Building, should be "Warren" B. Rudman, our former Attorney General and U.S. Senator, plus campaign manager for John McCain for President was the last time I shook hands with him after seeing him also at the dedication of his building over there at 55 Pleasant Street, Concord in 199_ not knowing then what I've found out since, by RSA Ch. 123:1 that some federal papers are missing over at Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State as having NEVER been filed there in the first place: a fact that Mr. Rudman might like to know about and maybe make an Appearance at the Brown sentencing this Tue., April 24th @ 11 am + 1:30 pm for Elaine + Ed Brown respectfully, to go IN SEARCH OF...his address and give him a telephone call at 603: ___________ later today, or tomorrow, etc.

164: in the meantime WHAT is SUSPO and its agent Cathy A Battistelli as reported about by Bjorn_Lange at fd.org from his office at 22 Bridge Street, Concord, N.H. 03301, Tel. 226-7360 to give him a call too, NHBA #1426.

165: Plus WHERE did that $500,000 in Ed's safe go to? or was it like $500,000 in "shredded" currency, like you can buy a half a million dollars of such for $19.95 from the joke shop! 

Plus: I did call the http://www.unionleader.com thanks Richard, for the correction, at 1-800-562-8218 press 5 for the newsroom, gets you to the woman there who gave me Kristen Senz' phone # 763-3280 to where I called leaving a message that BEFORE 4/24 if she'd like to write up a story on some of us who plan to talk at the sentencing, that maybe that would be a good idea to sneak in a "correction" about this not being convicted until convinced at the time of sentencing, and to also be aware of the Thirteenth Amendment in that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been DULY convicted, shall exist within the United States, or ANY place subject to their JURISDICTION." (emphasis ADDed*)

* ...for the word: DULY as in a "proper"** manner", fittingly, DUE.  The word proper** defined BEYOND definition #6 of seemly and decorous, to that of: 1. suitable, 2. thorough (here in N.H. we are guaranteed "complete" legal remedies by Article 14, Part 1st, N.H. Const. & Bill of Rights), 4. meeting a requisite*** standard, 5b: Rigorously correct (as in the phrase Rigor Juris v.s. in favor of, as spelled out in Black's Law Dictionary). ***The word requisite being something absolutely needed or essential...

...and so by the "shall" word: in RSA Ch. 123:1 where the Feds MUST as the mandatory word "shall" indicates, to be filed their homework papers with the Secretary of State BEFORE they can BUY and operate here in this state, and because they have FAILed to do so, then to counteract any of this "DULY" crap from the court, by giving them a "Requisition" ORDER from this Master to this Outlaw Public Servant, McAuliffe, telling him that he has been duped by Prosecutor Bill Morse, needing "re-education" in his state's Bar Assn of the State of: _______________ (?) WHEREever he came from to send him back packing and pronto by sundown to get out of town! since he/ Morse has violated Federal Rule 16 and State Rule 3.8 IF he were a N.H. Bar Member here that he is NOT, in NOT providing the exculpatory evidence of this non-jurisdictional authority of the U.S. Government located at 53-55 Pleasant Street, Concord TO the judge and/or either party (Ed or Elaine), and so to be reprimanded AGAIN! The Requisition Order to simply state: that your RSA Ch. 123:1 papers are "due" over at the Secretary of State's Office!

Hey! Isn't this country great! with all these check-and-balances against wrongs by both ignorant and/or corrupt public officials? to let the judge know, so as to move him from the ignorant category to that of knowing this fact, and to see what, if anything, he does about it, because only when the DULY has been done can they then move onto the Section 2 enforcement section of the 13th Amendment: "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" but which I do add in an ORDERly manner, by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the people rights, and State powers respectfully like in RSA 123:1 from Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 U.S. Const. BEFORE #13.

Yours truly, Joe

[Recumbent ReCycler]

I just got a couple documents that I think were released today.  I just did a copy and paste into the quotes below.

US v. Browns 06-CR-071-SM 04/18/07
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America,
Government
v. Criminal No. 06-cr-71-1,2-SM
Opinion No. 2007 DNH 053
Elaine A. Brown and
Edward L. Brown,
Defendants
O R D E R
Defendants have each filed nearly identical motions for
transcripts of all trial proceedings, at government expense. The
import of defendants? motions is that they seek free trial
transcripts for use at their sentencing hearing, on grounds that
they are financially unable to pay for them, and so qualify for
assistance under the Criminal Justice Act (?CJA?). 18 U.S.C ?
3006A.
In support of her motion, Defendant Elaine Brown has filed a
financial declaration, executed under penalties of perjury on
March 5, 2007, approximately one month before the motion was
filed. That declaration is facially incomplete in that it does
not disclose defendant?s beneficial interest in a trust or trusts
that hold title to real estate currently used by defendant as her
2
personal residence, and commercial real estate that once housed
her dental practice. Evidence presented at trial established
defendant?s interest in each property through trusts, and she has
joined with her husband in publically placing a value on the
commercial building at one million dollars (in connection with an
Internet offer they made to give the commercial building to
anyone who could persuade them that their income is subject to
taxation under federal income tax laws). The affidavit also
omits any reference to vehicles, tractors, equipment, or other
items of value defendants appear to own ? again, based on
evidence presented at trial, information contained in the record,
and information that defendants have publically disclosed.
Defendant Edward L. Brown has not filed a financial
declaration in support of his motion; he merely appends his
wife?s declaration, noting in passing that it ?is [the] same as
his.?
Transcripts at government expense are available to persons
charged with federal crimes who are financially unable to obtain
adequate representation. See 18 U.S.C. ? 3006A(d) (authorizing
reimbursement for expenses reasonably incurred, including
transcripts authorized by the court in CJA cases); see also 28
3
U.S.C. ? 753(f). Before approving such requests, however, the
court is required to conduct an ?appropriate inquiry? into the
financial status of defendants. 18 U.S.C. ? 3006A(b). The
defendants bear the burden of proving financial inability.
United States v. Harris, 707 F.2d 653, 660 (2d Cir. 1983) (citing
cases).
Defendants have not come close to meeting that burden in
this case. The inquiry into financial eligibility is a broad
one, and a necessary first step in determining the facts is full
and complete disclosure by defendants of their financial
resources, which they have not done. See United States v.
Anderson, 537 F.2d 839, 840 (8th Cir. 1977). This district?s
Plan for the Adequate Representation of Defendants Pursuant to
the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) provides, at Section IV(D)(1),
that ?n determining whether the defendant is financially
unable to obtain counsel [or transcripts], the court shall act
only upon statements made by the defendant either (a) under oath
in open court, or (b) by sworn affidavit. The personal
appearance of the defendant is not required.?
Elaine Brown?s affidavit is insufficient in that regard
because she has not accounted for potentially valuable assets
4
that could materially affect her eligibility for CJA funds ?
either fully or partially. She does not deny ownership interests
in the identified real estate through a trust. Instead, she
simply left the relevant spaces on the declaration form blank.
Defendant Edward Brown has not filed a financial declaration at
all. To the extent he seeks to rely upon his spouse?s
declaration, his declaration is insufficient for the same
reasons. His is also deficient because Elaine Brown?s disclosure
is not necessarily descriptive of his assets.
The motions are denied as insufficiently supported, but
without prejudice to refiling. Defendants are advised that they
may file renewed motions for transcripts at government expense,
supported by affidavits and other materials, and may (but of
course are not required to) file them ex parte, for in camera
review by the court. And they are entitled to move for an ex
parte hearing with respect to their financial eligibility for CJA
funds. Ex parte motions and in camera inspection of supporting
materials is the usual manner in which requests for services
under the CJA are considered. That procedure avoids disclosure
of potentially privileged information and/or litigation strategy
to the prosecution. But, to be successful, defendants? renewed
1 Given defendants? fugitive status and that they have
publically suggested their intentions not to appear in court for
sentencing, as required, the request for a free transcript for
use during the sentencing hearing is puzzling.
5
motions must be adequately supported and demonstrate actual
financial inability to pay for the requested transcripts.
Finally, while free trial transcripts are generally provided
as a matter of routine to CJA-eligible defendants who appeal
convictions, trial transcripts are not usually necessary for
sentencing purposes. The court is familiar with the evidence
presented at trial and defendants need only make reference to
that evidence, or other trial-related factors they think
pertinent to sentencing issues. But, if defendants still believe
a trial transcript is particularly necessary for sentencing in
this case, they must explain why a transcript, or a specific part
of a transcript, is necessary for sentencing (again, they may
file pleadings ex parte, for in camera review, to avoid premature
disclosure of their contemplated sentencing arguments to the
prosecution).1
Conclusion
The motions are denied, but without prejudice to refiling,
supported by complete and reliable financial affidavits that
6
fully disclose all assets held by, or available to, defendants,
including cash, deposits, stocks, bonds, real estate, trusts,
beneficial interests in property, inheritances, vehicles,
equipment, and other tangible and intangible property of
significant or substantial value, as well as any liabilities that
ought to be considered, such as debts, liens, encumbrances,
mortgages, judgments, etc.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
Chief Judge
April 18, 2007
cc: Robert J. Rabuck, Esq.
William E. Morse, Esq.
Glenn A. Perlow, Esq.
Elaine A. Brown, pro se
Edward L. Brown, pro se
U.S. Marshal
U.S. Probation

US v. Browns 06-CR-071-SM 04/18/07
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America,
Government
v. Criminal No. 06-cr-71-1,2-SM
Opinion No. 2007 DNH 054
Elaine A. Brown and
Edward L. Brown,
Defendants
O R D E R (Ancillary Proceeding)
The State of New Hampshire has filed a petition for
ancillary proceedings to determine its rights to property owned
by the defendants and subject to partial federal criminal
forfeiture. Fed. R. Cr. P. 32.2 The government has not
responded.
Counsel to the government and State shall confer and file
either a joint stipulation as to the priority of their respective
rights to the forfeited property, or, failing agreement, the
parties shall file motions for summary judgment, supported by
legal memoranda, setting forth their respective priority claims
and the bases upon which they claim superiority. The material
facts appear to be undisputed and priority ought to be resolvable
2
as a matter of law. The stipulation or motions shall be filed on
or before Monday, April 23, 2007.
The court notes that defendants? real estate is subject to
partial criminal forfeiture to the following extent: $42,840.16
of the value of 27 Glen Road, West Lebanon, New Hampshire, and
$27,997.13 of the value of 401 Center of Town Road, Plainfield,
New Hampshire. Ownership of the real estate, beyond what the
government acquires through forfeiture, seemingly will remain
with defendants, albeit subject to the usual liens and
encumbrances of record. See, e.g., United States v. Serendensky,
393 F.3d 348 (2d Cir. 2004). A money judgment against defendants
in the amount of $215,890.47 (representing the forfeited money
orders whose proceeds are not traceable to the identified real
estate) will also be entered in favor of the government, giving
the government the same collection rights with respect to that
amount as a plaintiff in a civil case. United States v. Hall,
434 F.3d 42, 59 (1st Cir. 2006). And, the government can be
expected to pursue civil remedies to recover all back federal
taxes, interest, and penalties owed by defendants.
The State?s interest in the residential and commercial
property appears to arise from a state tax lien dated August 29,
3
2006, in the amount of $342,844.68, representing unpaid state
business taxes assessed against Dr. Brown and owed for tax years
1999-2002. The State?s lien was amended as of December 29, 2006,
presumably to add accumulating interest, for a total current lien
amount of $348,235.32. The State?s lien appears to have been
recorded in the appropriate land records.
Given that the government?s title to the property to be
forfeited is limited in degree and relates back to the date when
the criminal conduct was committed, it may be that there is no
priority dispute, at least not with respect to the government?s
claim of entitlement. See 21 U.S.C. ? 853(n); United States v.
McClung, 6 F.Supp. 2d 548, 600-01 (W.D. Va. 1998). And, there
may be sufficient equity in the property to satisfy both claims,
making the State?s claim unnecessary. In any event, a hearing
does not appear to be required since the material facts do not
appear to be subject to reasonable dispute.
Conclusion
The State and government shall file either a stipulation
regarding the priority of their respective rights in the
partially forfeited property, or cross-motions for summary
4
judgment with respect to priority, on or before Monday, April 23,
2007.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
Chief Judge
April 18, 2007
cc: Robert J. Rabuck, Esq.
William E. Morse, Esq.
Glenn A. Perlow, Esq.
Elaine A. Brown, pro se
Edward L. Brown, pro se
U.S. Marshal
U.S. Probation

[penguins4me]

The defendants bear the burden of proving financial inability. United States v. Harris, 707 F.2d 653, 660 (2d Cir. 1983) (citing cases). Defendants have not come close to meeting that burden in this case.

Wonderful - 1983 case law states "can't pay? Tough - you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent/insolvent!". Funny, that - isn't that court case essentially demanding the defendant prove a negative? Which is scientifically impossible? O.o

The judicial branch: amending the Constitution from the bench since 1803. :P

[error]

Oh, and don't forget they seize all your money BEFORE they charge you with anything, so that you can't afford to defend yourself.

[LordBaltimore]

Sorry but you can't say stuff to the court like "Just show me law and I'll cut you a check for $650,000 today" and "I'm destitute and can't afford $2,000 for transcripts" and expect to be taken seriously.

[armlaw]

And how does that work out in the real world?

Error.....If "real world" is Reality, Can you read this?

| ||||| ||||||| | |||||| |||||||| ||| ||||||| ||||||| ||||| | | ||| ||| || ||
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Rellay amzanig huh?



It would appear that your education begins with your need to know that the world you live in is not always as it appears.

You have been deceived !

And here you begin your journey into reality.

[error]

Error.....If "real world" is Reality, Can you read this?

| ||||| ||||||| | |||||| |||||||| ||| ||||||| ||||||| ||||| | | ||| ||| || ||
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Rellay amzanig huh?



It would appear that your education begins with your need to know that the world you live in is not always as it appears.

You have been deceived !

And here you begin your journey into reality.

And you aren't making any sense. Maybe the answer was in the red text you almost posted but decided not to?

[TackleTheWorld]

Happy No More Wacos Day!
Ed and Elaine are still living peacefully at home.
Spring has arrived at Ed & Elaine's place.  The pond is unfrozen and some lost camping gear was found at the camp at head of the driveway.
(Message me if you lost anything.)
Ed & Elaine are still hosting a number of friends and supporters.  The most recent arriver is Reno from Texas.  Reno and I ran some errands and stuffed some envelopes with AFTF DVDs for the protests this weekend. 

Ed said he may venture into town some day soon, so he warned the local sheriff to keep 100 feet away from his truck.
Ed's latest strategy is to refuse to talk to the media and the authorities.  Hearing him berate the local reporter asking him for an interview, I reckoned it was more of a gradual decrease than an abrupt halt. 

[Kat Kanning]

Thanks for the report, Lauren!

[JosephSHaas]

To: Contact my Federal Rep. later today

RE: In WHAT Title #____ Statutes at Large Section _____ of 19___ @ page no. ___

does it require the state agent to sign?  that they shall or must,

under some mandatory requirement, that they: __________ (fill in name)

"consents to accept the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts"*

even when they KNOW that Art.I, sec.8, Cl. 17 U.S. Const. reads that

the "consent" of the Legislature MUST be obtained BEFORE they can operate.

[N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 with filings to be** placed with the Secretary of State.]

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Private Investigator of Public Corruption

* See the "Legal Notice in The http://www.unionleader.com of last Mon.,

April 9th '07 @ page C9 for requiring that RSA 92:2 state public servant,

Mary Anzmann of http://www.nhhfa.org must sign this CONTRARY to her

state oath in order to receive $27 million in Federal Funds, to be used for

Housing starting in Fiscal year June 1st, 2007.

** HOW can a present signing occur for a future tense event? when the RSA 123:1

papers do NOT exist!?

To: U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, Hampshire Plaza - 8th Floor, 1000 Elm Street, Manchester, N.H. 03101 603: 666-7510 (Attn: David Aborn).

1.) The answer to this question is: 24 CFR 58.13 (Code of Federal Regulations) according to David Aborn at H.U.D. in Manchester, tel. 666-7510, press #1 for ABO 1st 3 letters = 226.  I just called him and he said that this is in there for any Environmental complaint, so my guess is that any complainant would of course not cite this RSA 123:1 (or would they?) wanting a forum in which to argue any aspect, but maybe claiming that it be in a legal and lawful forum.

2.) Correction: Claira P. Monier, the Executive Director [since 1987 = 20 years ago (according to Louise, the receptionist) as appointed by the #__ Board members who took the RSA Ch. 92:2 oaths by whatever governor(s) appointed them with advice from the Executive Council (when Hugh Gallen was the governor?)] IS the "NHHFA's Executive Director" by section (a) of the Legal Notice, and by 24 CFR 58.13 does consent "to accept the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts if an action is brought to enforce  responsibilities in relation to environmental process" but which consent or agreement or approval is to accede, meaning both this and: "To come into an office or dignity". 

3.) It is my "written comment" to the NHHFA on this "Environmental Review Record" to read __ that there is no E.I.S. (Environmental Impact Statement) needed now ahead of time for to find out WHERE these federal funds will be (future tense) spent later THERE at that/those  LOCATION(S), but that IF there is a federal monitor, like H.U.D. who can look into this please, to make sure that if or when that event happens, that there will be that both legal and lawful forum in which to litigate any such dispute that the "Federal Court" starting point in Concord (before any appeal to the First Circuit in Boston) be in full compliance with both the U.S. Constitution and statute of New Hampshire= RSA Ch. 123:1.

4.) To send Clara P. Monier a courtesy copy of this print-out and the Legal Notice (Attn: Jane, or Dean), who I did just talk with too, because although not in her job description that any consent "to accept the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts" be qualified that such starting-court be lawfully and legally constituted as beyond her powers to so order, she ought to at least notify the Board who ought to notify the Governor & Council, to advice the governor to exercise his Art. 41+ 51 powers "for the faithful execution of the laws" and "to execute the laws" respectfully. [Part the Second, of the N.H. Constitution].

5.) According to the Legal Notice an "objection" to the release of funds "and" the NHHFA certification is "not" an "and/or" situation?  This is what I do object to by procedure, as I'd like to see these funds for "the American Dream Downpayment Assistance Program" here in this state, but want to see the process OPEN to the lawful and legal forum at the Federal Court IF ever an environmental complaint need be filed there by WHOever, and so do within "fifteen days" (15 days) of the Thu., April 26th submission or request date, do file this partial objection with HUD to section (b) that of although the "step" was NOT omitted to this "consent", there seems to be a question in regards to the "HUD's NHHFA approval" as to whether it really "satisfies its responsibilities under NEPA* and RELATED LAWS** and authorities...." (emphasis ADDed for**= to wit: Art.I,Sec.8,Cl. 17 U.S. Const., + N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1) * NEPA = ______________ ?

So, by 24 CFR 58.76 I do hereby (a) sign my name below, (b) dated, and that the (c) facts and legal authority supporting the basis for objection are described above, and with PROOF of no RSA Ch. 123:1 filing by the certificate attached hereto, plus (d) state that of this day and time that a copy of this objection was mailed to the "responsible entity's Certifying Officer", Clara P. Monier.

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone)

Dated: Friday, April 20th, 2007 @ __:_ o'clock p.m.

pc: Clara P. Monier, Executive Director, New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority, 32 Constitution Drive, Bedford, N.H. 03110, Tel. 603: 472-8623.

[lastlady]

Happy No More Wacos Day!
Ed and Elaine are still living peacefully at home.
Spring has arrived at Ed & Elaine's place.  The pond is unfrozen and some lost camping gear was found at the camp at head of the driveway.
(Message me if you lost anything.)
Ed & Elaine are still hosting a number of friends and supporters.  The most recent arriver is Reno from Texas.  Reno and I ran some errands and stuffed some envelopes with AFTF DVDs for the protests this weekend. 

Ed said he may venture into town some day soon, so he warned the local sheriff to keep 100 feet away from his truck.
Ed's latest strategy is to refuse to talk to the media and the authorities.  Hearing him berate the local reporter asking him for an interview, I reckoned it was more of a gradual decrease than an abrupt halt. 

If you would like or have any need for extra copies of AFTF please let me know and I will send you some.

[Kat Kanning]

I worked your post into a little article, Lauren:

http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=497&Itemid=36

and added the upcoming demonstrations

[Kat Kanning]

How many people are going to be able to come to this?