Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 14

[KBCraig]

McAuliffe limited the extent to which the Browns could argue such theories during their trial, and he instructed the jury not to question the validity of the federal income tax as they reached their verdict.

It's obvious the judge knows very little about the law...

He probably knows it quite well. He just doesn't care.

And they are specifically not told about jury nullification.

My only jury service was a federal civil trial, so there really wasn't any law to nullify. But all federal jury pools watch the same "welcome to jury duty" video, which lauds the long history of juries and explains their role, and repeatedly points out they are the last check in our system of checks and balances. It strongly implies the right to jury nullification of bad laws, bad prosecutors, and bad judges.

And then of course, the judge holds the jury hostage. Even in this civil case, the judge droned on about how "I will judge the law, and you will judge the facts. I cannot judge the facts, and you cannot judge the law." He did that at the trial opening, and every single time he addressed the jury, and then went on about it for half an hour when he gave jury instructions.

Kevin

[error]

And then of course, the judge holds the jury hostage. Even in this civil case, the judge droned on about how "I will judge the law, and you will judge the facts. I cannot judge the facts, and you cannot judge the law." He did that at the trial opening, and every single time he addressed the jury, and then went on about it for half an hour when he gave jury instructions.

For a civil action, this may well be true. For a criminal trial, it's absolutely not true.

[Critter183]

The water source is a well on the property.  That's probably the most secure supply.  Ed also has a windmill, generator and solar panels for electricity in addition to a connection to the power company.  He has 100+ acres of forest for fuel and privacy.  He has lots of non-perishable food.  The guy is ready.

I hope they have a way of securing the windmill and solar panels.

[Dreepa]

Hi everyone,

I'm working on a story for tomorrow's paper about reactions to the Brown's sentencing yesterday and the Marshal's statement. If anyone would like to chat about their impressions (or their plans to start delivering Jolly Ranchers), please feel free to give me a call or shoot me an email.

Said article:
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070426/REPOSITORY/704260408

[JosephSHaas]

Kat, Kira and Lauren -- Union Leader --over the fold front page -- 5 by 8 picture --

"Kat Kanning, right, of Keene, Lauren Canario of Winchester and Kira Dillon of Keene were among about a dozen people outside U.S. District Court yesterday to support Edward and Elaine Brown. (BOB LAPREE)"

Nice Spring colors!  Too bad with the change of seasons we have these left-over government goons still spouting that they have the power. They're like trash by the side of the road needing a good town-wide clean-up. Can't they see that their days are numbered? What do their legal counsels tell them behind the scenes that they don't want us to know?  They're probably saying that: although we/ the gov't are operating on illegal ground, the end justifies the means.  To that bullshit they had better wise up, or else! To again repeat to them: there is substantive and procedural due process of law.  The Constitution (Art.I, Sec.8, Cl. 17*) sets it up for HOW they are to proceed into this state by passing through the Secretary of State's Office (RSA Ch. 123:1**) .  Who/ What do they think they are, some immaculate/ free from error corporate unstained body of government!? To stain is to corrupt(*), and (1) when the ends of government are corrupt and perverted, (2) and the means of redress are ineffectual, as when the judge and the governor accept the stain and lives with it as if it doesn't exist, [to find out from the Records Officer, Dan Toomey, at the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston if they too have the stain upon them too, for them to act in the GENERAL first to correct it, or alert us that they do NOT have the stain, and so a green light for Ed in the SPECIFIC to go forward knowing that there will be this jurisdictional issue decided by ones who KNOW what it takes to tell the stained one (McAuliffe) to take a bath! -- the bleach for his dirty laundry being the cleansing power of the state's RSA 123:1], and (3) one other fact (see below*) is in place THEN, by the rights as are guaranteed to us by Article 10 in the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights "the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government." This is step #2 for the people in the plural, because that other factor is: (3) * when "public liberty (is) manifestly endangered."

I've read case law years ago that the government, by the supremes, have given their "opinion" that this Article 10 can ONLY be activated when ALL three factors come into play, or was it the "ends" of government (in the plural), meaning what? there being no more check-and-balance by any of the three branches of government? [Executive, Legislative & Judicial] So like the government (City of Concord) is saying now that RSA 123:2 is a stand-alone statute, then so be it for the last sentence of this Art. 10 too: "The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." HOW do we get to the plural, but for one man to take a stand.  Must there be a collective realization of the fact that the Feds are outlaws to RSA 123:1 and that we all must be placed within the CRIMINAL arena first BEFORE activation of this Article?  To that I answer: bullshit! I've taken a CIVIL step toward Boston for relief in the GENERAL, and if Stephen R. Monier and his goons think that public liberty is manifestly endangered, (see what he did write in his letter in yesterday's http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070425/REPOSITORY/704250341 @ page A8) I ask: HOW? for when Ed is on his OWN "private" property!  Does it become a PUBLIC issue when the lien is sold to a third party trying to get that person who I call a "manceptor" and "under a sale with all faults" for better or WORSE for him! to THEN call upon the government to enforce his/her/their supposed rights? (by conveyance rather than transfer.) They have NONE when the government continues in their un-professional manner! add to that an unlawful* and illegal* manner, of which he/Monier is forbidden to "serve" since his oath of office reads that he can ONLY serve LAWFUL precepts! and if he needs to be taught a lesson by obstruction of in-justice, then so be it to his detriment, plus God-forbid that he should be so stupid or corrupt as to send one of his agents to do his dirty-work for him withOUT fully informing them of all these details.  That is where and when war starts for when the families of those officers killed think that the one being invaded is not the host but the parasite withIN these United States, but what IS the definition of the United States, but for Washington, D.C. and its territories only, by NH RSA Ch. 21:4 http://www.state.nh.us and the Art.I, Sec.8, Cl. 17 enclaves but ONLY when they comply with RSA 123:1. There are no "innocent" officers shot down in the line of duty, as their duty is to their RSA Ch. 92:2 oaths of office. An innocent is one uncorrupted by evil or wrongdoing, and/or without deception(**). (page 368).

But on a lighter note: Remember what the "Wicked Witch of the West" said to Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz" by her broomstick writing in the sky: "Surrender Dorothy".  Well, Steve: I got a kick out of your "Surrender peacefully" in your what-to-do list, and throw it back to you of what-to-do is that you get your own house in order FIRST before you take a step off your federal turf, as like Glenda, the Good Witch said to Margaret Hamilton playing the Big WWW of all time: go away: you have no power here! And look what happened to her/ the Wicked, in the end: she melted from her firery evil.  Let's hope that the evil gets out of you before your end might come from a bullet to the brain to further scramble them like eggs! I do NOT like scramble-egg public servants.  The omelet is the way to go with the RSA 123:1 ingredient therein, and cooked over a slow fire.  You have the slow part right, now get it right as for WHAT needs to be in the batch.

It'll be interesting to see what Margo writes up in today's http://www.concordmonitor.com as she called me yesterday to get my thoughts among #__ others to put into today's newspaper of what we thought of the sentencing hearing. Thank you Margo for relaying what Ed told me, that although he used the "fiction" word, I leave it up to you and your readers to discover what part of the definition of that word he was emphasizing, like from the "fictitious" word it can mean: either: 1. Nonexistent***; imaginary; unreal; or: 2. Purposefully deceptive(**) (page 265 from The "American Heritage Dictionary" (c)1973.  And as said above, my operations are in the CIVIL to expose these federal gov't goons as being "purposefully deceptive"(**) to the fact that McAuliffe warned us in court that ANYbody who raised their hand, or stood up, would be "taken out".  So you canNOT combat their LIES with the TRUTH in THEIR unlawful and illegal areana.  Or in other words: us antibodies to their diseased body  being told get out, as they do not want to be cured, thus needing good medicine from Boston to be applied OVER them, but to find out first if they too be either a good or bad witch.  I can understand the caution the Marshal has when somebody says this "fiction" word, as how can you kill something that doesn't lawfully exist***? The other word is that Ed doesn't "acknowledge" them. Hopefully you/ Margo, will enlighten your readers in the Law. definition here of: "To accept or certify as legally binding" (page 6).  A copy of the certified copy of the fact that there has been NO RSA 123:1 federal filings in the Office of Secretary of State was given to the Court Clerk's Office by me on Monday @ 3:56 p.m., but that was NOT entered into evidence in this case by reprimand from the judge upon the prosecutor having violated Federal Rule 16 and State Rule 3.8, so HOW can one expect compliance with the law and the legal, when the court refuses to play by its own rules!?

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

pc: The Sullivan County Commissioners, on Tues., May 1st '07 @ __:_ p.m. since like what the Dept. of Revenue did by turning over their "Collection Division" to re-enforcements in the Attorney General's Office, Ed ought to say like Reagan did to Mr. Breen (pronounced Green, by mistake): I paid for this microphone! -- I paid for this protection! (Article 12, N.H. Constitution & Bill of Rights!).

[Kat Kanning]

Good article, Margot.

[lildog]

That itself is not as worrisome: people should know their own rights.

But they don't.  Heck people walk into voting booths to elect people who will in many cases have direct impact over their lives and they don't even have the foggiest ideas on where these people stand half the time.

Ever watch the interviews where they question the average guy on the street about politics? Scary!

[Dan]

Remember Californians voted FOR Eminent Domain on a statewide ballot.

[scoop]

Good article, Margot.

Thanks Kat!

[Lex]

I think it was a fairly balanced article. If only more reporters wrote articles like this. 

[Dreepa]

I think it was a fairly balanced article. If only more reporters wrote articles like this. 

although this quote seems to be used too much

holed up in their fortified Plainfield home.

[Lex]

The fact that Ed has been making violent threats is probably going to hurt him in the long run. I think that even if he succeeds in scaring the opressors closest to him (Judge, Marshall, etc) it will have no affect on the machine as a whole and will only have a negative affect on his image in the publics eyes. Not that I have any faith at all in the public as a whole, most people wouldn't lift a finger to do anything about what they feel is wrong.

[LordBaltimore]

The fact that Ed has been making violent threats is probably going to hurt him in the long run.

I think that's an understatement. 

[LordBaltimore]

The other word is that Ed doesn't "acknowledge" them.

Then he should probably stop writing them letters.

Edward's open letter... (his own words.)
Current mood:  calm


(the following was taken down by my own hands as Edward spoke, at his request; to be placed on the internet.

reno)



Dear Mr. Monier,

    You have stated in the news paper, that the Browns are a public safety problem. Due to allege threats against federal personnel.

    I Edward Lewis family Brown, have never threatened anyone in my life.

    It is unlawful to threaten, however, I have warned everyone and anyone that has ever threatened me; that if they attempt to do so or will do so, I will follow the letter of the law (note criminal law, LETHAL FORCE DOCTRINE), that I will use equal or greater force as the law dictates in order to protect myself, my property, my family, my community, my county, my state and my nation at any cost.

    If you feel that following the letter of the law would endanger public safety, then perhaps you should review your U.S. Marshals rules of engagement and consider who actually is conducting the danger to public safety.

    It seems ever increasing that the many law enforcement agencies are creating the dehumanizing hazards to public safety. We will always remember that all government personnel are either law enforcement agents or revenue gathers. Their primary function is currently to protect their own positions, (jobs), for their own personal enrichment, that is why we always hear them say, "I'm just doing my job." It saddens me that you do not seem to understand the the higher law of man and god and elect instead to enter the snake pit.

[JosephSHaas]

Thanks Margo,

for your http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070426/REPOSITORY/704260408 posted to the internet at 8:00 a.m. today and yesterday's statement from the Marshal that: "We're genuinely concerned because of their use of the internet,...." What does this mean?  Of like that Senator ___________ *on the podium at the 1968 National Democratic Convention in Chicago, comparing Mayor Richard Daley's goon-squad to that of the Gestapo, and him saying to Daley in the crowd: "How hard it is to accept the truth"  with Daley yelling something back, and then using his right hand as both a bullhorn and to shield the words from the cameras.  This excellent segment of "The Sixties" was on Channel 2 WGBH Public-TV out of Boston Monday night at exactly 11:05 p.m. from my notes, remembering too of some other program before that about a month ago, then saying that Daley was shouting: F*** You! to Mr. ________ * whose name I do not know, but would like to invite him up here to New Hampshire for if/when the goons use their bullhorns over at Ed's Place. I'll even pay for his trip up and over to here by car, train, bus, or plane, etc. if someone else would like to donate the motel room and another contributor for meals, etc.

I don't think this spiritual "aid" or moral support comes under what was bantered about on Tuesday by the Goddess there at 55 Pleasant Street, with Gary DeMartino with a De- as in to de-fuse this situation, right? 

Check out http://www.google.com for the word and phrase: "aid and comfort" felony, page 1 #1 gets you to that cute drawing over at http://blogs.chron.com/nickanderson/archives/2006/05/aid_and_comfort.html [ see also "My Persective on Immigration by _____________ (unknown/ anonymous/ shady character) who writes at http://centsibility.townhall.com that "Illegal aliens are felons"] and click on the Comments section, with two so far, #1= Thu., July 06 '06 @ 4:11 pm that this "Aid and Comfort" is from Article III, Section 3, U.S. Constitution for treason. [and so NOT applicable here for that phrase, but the "aid" part as explained below].

The actual word is not "aid" but "Provide" as in N.H. RSA Ch. 642:3 Hindering Apprehension http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/642/642-3.htm see section I.(b) of "Provides such person a weapon" but NOT the bullets as for a gun, or arrows as for a bow, nor a shield.  But look what Margo did write in today's paper: "Monier specified on Tuesday that supporters who brought guns or annunition to the house would be prosecuted" by under what statute? Title 18 U.S. Code Section ______ ? of the Federal? The key part for us to watch out for though is (c) "Warns such person of impending...apprehension" and so the question being: does that include a friendly or un-friendly visit, as by the crowing from the end of the driveway acting as a human doorbell announcing a visitor as guest upon the turf? or ANY forward motion by the Marshal? As like maybe: I see a bunch of Federal, State, County and local cruisers going up I-89 to an unknown destination? being the ambulance chaser I am to get a good story, some newspaper reporter might say? But then again NOT to look to the state statutes but the federal ones, and them INFERIOR to our Art. 10 and RSA 123:1.

There is some indication of the blinder mentality of the Marshal in his "MARSHAL'S LETTER" segment of yesterday's CONCORD MONITOR @ page A8 in that you (to the Browns) "have now been sentenced to a period of confinement in the United States Bureau of Prisons" but Margo and others: WHEN did you get this (pre-?)typed copy? Is this the one I saw in your hands at the top of the steps right after the sentencings? I was a witness to both proceedings and even emphasized this to Gary on my way out of the courtroom: asking him of this "to the custody of the Marshal" whether or not that includes "house arrest"? 

Technically Ed & Elaine are not in RSA Ch. 642:6,II "Official Custody" (nor can there be any RSA Ch. 642:7,I "contraband" http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/642/642-7.htm ) that "means arrest...or other confinement pursuant to an order of a court." http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/642/642-6.htm UNLESS the Marshal declares what the prosecutor said was a "compound" and tells them not to escape therefrom, that of course they/ the Browns will not leave in ANY fashion UNTIL this jurisdictional issue is resolved as jurisdiction MUST and always is supposed to be decided BEFORE the merits of the case. That's WHY several states of: #__________ have those "in absentia" statutes. It's supposed to be: Procedure BEFORE substance, as in the due process rights that are guaranteed to us by the Constitution, and in particular the 5th & 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; see also...

...Article IV, Section 4 in that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; AND on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence" (emphasis ADDed) by even the rogues of withIN the United States itself, as they are the unlawful and illegal operatives operating ABOVE and OUTSIDE the law!

And so, as I've stated before, me awaiting the Mother's Day, Sunday, May 13th RSA Ch. 541-A;29,I 120-day deadline for the A.G.'s office to ACT on my criminal complaint of domestic violence, that if this Executive/quisi judicial branch does NOT act, I will be filing an Article 32 cover sheet to that and presenting it by way of a House Rule 36 endorsement with #__ State Representatives signatures with their District Numbers to the House Speaker for her to process by Rule #4 over to the appropriate committee, that I think would be the State-Federal Relations Committee as explained before too.  So to await the extra day past Mon., May 14th with Tuesday, May 15th being THE day these charges against the Fed be filed for Art. IV, Sec. 4 action by those lawfully situated in the Federal government.

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

P.S. See my Reply #_____ above about my telephone call over to the I.R.S. in Portsmouth for this incident report where they said they'd get back to me within two business days!! Me verifying to you now that I have received NO reply, them a big bunch of LIARS and THIEVES!! as refusing to provide this documentation against them of course, wanting to wipe out all witnesses too!?