Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 18

[error]

Generating publicity is one thing.  Getting your issue position represented accurately in the media is quite another.

[kadar]

Generating publicity is one thing.  Getting your issue position represented accurately in the media is quite another.

Exactly. Media would just use the fasting as another way to portray the wrong image about those who participate.

[armlaw]

Thanks error.  Then if and when "they" do something stupid, you can I.P. them as having read whatever on that day and time from that location controlled by: ____________ as clocked in during that day/night before punching the time clock, so that there is no excuse for them having been put into that "culpable" mental state for the element of "knowingly" or with a "purpose" in whatever criminal charges might be forthcoming as co-con"spirit"ors with whoever. Thank you.

Thanks Joe...I think I sent you this as a copy of what I sent to Kristen and Margo. I hope they both verify and publish what needs to be. Here it is...

Kristen & Margo.....

Please bear with me as I attempt to reveal the truth behind what appears as the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on human society.

Representative Steve Shurtleff is in his second term of office and is on the Judiciary committee. As a colleague, I learned of his past employment as  a Federal Marshall. Accordingly, he could become a source of information which is being hidden by the corporate government. If either of you believe in justice, I hope you will persue the points I have expressed to Steve. He has not yet answered me? Maybe he will not. If so, silence is deemed acceptance in law.

I ask that each of you, prove to yourself, that Mr. McAuliffe did NOT have CRIMINAL JURISDICTION by study of  Title 28. You wil note, New Hampshire has One judicial district, sitting one in Concord, the other in Littleton.   Please locate the one in Littleton?, as it is my understanding that is an Article III court, and only convenes when criminal petition is made to it !

Let me close with an admonition from the good book;

Hosea 4-6 "Our people are destroyed for lack of knowledge".

Thanks much!

Dick Marple

From: "Dick Marple" <armlaw@hotmail.com>
To: SteveShurtleff@aol.com
Subject: Difference-US Marshal & US Marshal Serv...
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:52:46 +0000

Thanks Steve....

You being a former Federal Marshall I thought you could help me document the following.

What I am attempting to document is;

1- Is Mr. McAuliffe a life-tenured Article III judge. ?

2-Is the compensation that Mr. McAuliffe receives, diminished by deductions for S/S, Medicare and Income Tax?

If so, he would not be a lawful judge of criminal matters in the Article IV Tribunal of which he is a mere employee. (Only employees pay S/S. Medicare  & Income Tax, Article III judges can not have their compensation diminished, See Article III )

The bankrupt municipal corporation we know as the "United States", has by Acts of congress, delegated the United States District Courts CIVIL jurisdiction ONLY !. They can sue and be sued but have NO CRIMINAL JURISDICTION delegated. If there is , I demand the citation of statute be shown, on the record, that justice may prevail. My dilligent research of Title 28 does NOT reveal that any criminal jurisdiction or authority has been delegated to any "United States District Courts".

These courts are mere Administrative Tribunals, created by congress under Article IV for use in administrating the bankrupucty of the United States and for the enforcement of territorial ordinances.  I attempted to convey this fact to Mr. Starr, in 4 Affidavits, covering the jurisdictional limitations of Article IV tribunals. His silence is an acceptance of my assertions . (all Affidavits are matters of RECORD as filed copies with Secretary of State, Bill Gardner), several years ago)

As supreme court evidence that all judges must take "judicial notice" by their oath, the following, from the 1938 decision in Mookini v. U.S. 303 U.S. 201.

"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. "

Further....

"In the presence of a person not a judge. When a suit is brought and determined in a court which has no jurisdiction in the matter, then it is said to be coram non judice, and the judgement is void."
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 13th Reprint (1998).

Further....in 2003 the supreme court  repeated its previous precedence and affrimed what was done in 1938. Please see a portion of the Nguyen case which follows....

'OCTOBER TERM, 2002

Syllabus

NGUYEN v. UNITED STATES

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


No. 01-10873. Argued March 24, 2003-Decided June 9, 2003*

Petitioners were tried, convicted, and sentenced on federal narcotics charges in the District Court of Guam, a territorial court with subjectmatter jurisdiction over both federal-law and local-law causes. The Ninth Circuit panel convened to hear their appeals included two judges from that court, both of whom are life-tenured Article III judges, and the Chief Judge of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, an Article IV territorial-court judge appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a 10-year term. Neither petitioner objected to the panel's composition before the cases were submitted for decision, and neither sought rehearing to challenge the panel's authority to decide their appeals after it affirmed their convictions. However, each filed a certiorari petition claiming that the judgment is invalid because a non-Article III judge participated on the panel.

Held: The Ninth Circuit panel did not have the authority to decide petitioners' appeals. Pp.74-83.

(a) In light of the relevant statutory provisions and historical usage, it is evident that Congress did not contemplate the judges of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands to be "district judges" within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 292(a), which authorizes the assignment of "one or more district judges within [a] circuit" to sit on the court of appeals "whenever the business of that court so requires." As used throughout Title 28, "district court" means a "'court of the United States'" "constituted by chapter 5 of this title." §451. Among other things, Chapter 5 creates a "United States District Court" for each judicial district, § 132(a), exhaustively enumerates the districts so constituted, § 133(a), and describes "district judges" as holding office "during good behavior," § 134(a). Significantly, the District Court for the Northern
Mariana Islands is not one of the enumerated courts, nor is it even mentioned in Chapter 5. See § 133(a). Because that court's judges are appointed for a term of years and may be removed by the President for cause, they also do not satisfy § 134(a)'s command for district judges to hold office during good behavior. Although the Chief

*Together with No. 02-5034, Phan v. United States, also on certiorari to the same court.
Syllabus

Judge of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands is literally a "district judge" of a court "within the [Ninth] [C]ircuit," such a reading of § 292(a) is so capacious that it would also justify the designation of "district judges" of any number of state courts "within" the Ninth Circuit. Moreover, historically, the term "United States District Court" in Title 28 has ordinarily excluded Article IV territorial courts, even when their jurisdiction is similar to that of an Article III United States District Court. E. g., Mookini v. United States, 303 U. S. 201, 205. Pp.74-76.

(b) The Government's three grounds for leaving the judgments below undisturbed are not persuasive. First, this Court's precedents concerning alleged irregularities in the assignment of judges do not compel application here of the de facto officer doctrine, which confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment to office is deficient, Ryder v. United States, 515 U. S. 177, 180. Typically, the Court has found a judge's actions to be valid de facto when there is a "merely technical" defect of statutory authority, McDowell v. United States, 159 U. S. 596, 601-602, but not when, as here, there has been a violation of a statutory provision that embodies weighty congressional policy concerning the proper organization of the federal courts, see, e. g., American Constr. Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W R. Co., 148 U. S. 372, 387. Second, for essentially the same reasons, it is inappropriate to accept the Government's invitation to assess the merits of petitioners' convictions or whether the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings
were impaired by the composition of the panel. Third, the Government's argument that the presence of a quorum of two otherwise-qualified judges on the panel is sufficient to support the decision below is rejected for two reasons. The federal quorum statute, 28 U. S. C. § 46(d), has been on the books (in relevant part essentially unchanged) for over a century, yet this Court has never doubted its power to vacate a judgment entered by an improperly constituted court of appeals, even when there was a quorum of judges competent to consider the appeal. See, e. g., United States v. American-Foreign S. S. Corp., 363 U. S. 685. Moreover, the statute authorizing courts of appeals to sit
in panels, § 46(b), requires the inclusion of at least three judges in the first instance. Although the two Article III judges who took part below would have constituted a quorum had the original panel been properly created, it is at least highly doubtful whether they had any authority to serve by themselves as a panel. Thus, it is appropriate to return these cases to the Ninth Circuit for fresh consideration by a properly constituted panel. Pp. 77-83.

284 F. 3d 1086, vacated and remanded.

71
Full Text of Opinion

Further....


"In the exercise of the power, granted to it by the Constitution, to make all needful rules and regulations with respect to the territory or other property belonging to the United States, Congress may, as shown supra sec. 2, create territorial courts and confer on them judicial power.

The courts so created are legislative courts [28. Mookini v. U. S., Hawaii, 58 S.Ct. 543, 303 U.S. 201, 82 L.Ed 748, conformed to C.C.A. 95 F.2d. 960; Williams v. U. S., Ct.Cl., 53 S.Ct. 751, 289 U.S 553, 77 L.Ed. 1372; O'Donoghue v. U. S., Ct.Cl., 53 S.Ct. 740, 289 U.S. 516, 77 L.Ed. 1356] rather than constitutional courts created
under the judiciary article of the Constitution, [29. Mookini...; International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen Union v. Juneau Spruce Corp., 170 F.2d. 183; cert. den. 69 S.Ct. 641, 336 U.S. 919, 93 L.Ed. 1082; reh. den. 69 S.Ct. 936, 336 U.S. 971, 93 L.Ed. 1121]...


While a territorial court may be considered a "court of the United States" for some purposes, [32.5] or a "district court of the United States" in the context of particular legislation, [32.10] the words "court of the United States" [32.15] or "district court of the United States" [32.20] commonly describe constitutional courts created under the judiciary article of the Constitution and not territorial courts. Most sections of Title 28 referring to the district courts are applicable to constitutional courts of the United States only and are not applicable to the territorial courts created by Congress. [32.25. Callwood v. Callwood, D.C.Virgin Islands, 127 F.Supp. 179.]"
36A CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM (1995), FEDERAL COURTS, § 312.

Bolding and underline is added for emphasis by Dick Marple.

Steve.....I hope you don't think I am pushing you into a corner but my oaths to see justice prevail requires my exposure of the true facts in this matter. I hope you agree and can offer me some direction in doing what needs to be done.

Sincerely,

Dick Marple

[Caleb]

I think the fasting idea is a good idea, but only if you can find some sort of positive proof that Ed has actually made such a threat. I asked him about it last time I went, and he denied ever making such threats. Nor have I been able to find actual source material that says clearly enunciated threats. Does Ed speak violently?  Sure. That's beyond question. But that is an amorphous claim, and you will need something specific for your fast to accomplish. If you just say, "I am fasting until Ed recants his violence" ... you aren't really saying anything other than a moral statement, because Ed could turn around and say, "I don't know what he's talking about." And then your only response is, "well, it seems to me that he is pretty violent" because you shot yourself in the foot initially by not including specificity.

On the other hand, if you say, "Ed needs to stop making specific threats" that is well and good, but only if you can prove that he has made such threats.

Maybe you could do a juice fast, so as to be able to carry the fast indefinitely. Otherwise, you risk either having to end your fast prematurely, or else die from starvation.

[Michael Fisher]

What do you guys think of this idea:

Fasting in front of Ed Brown's property until he rescinds his warning of revenge killings.

This is an absolutely brilliant idea. Though I am far away, I will join anyone who does this. I probably would have already done this if I was there.

The disadvantages you've listed look more formidable than the advantages. 

One person starving for a few days is worse than several people dying needlessly? Are you sure?

A fasting event to put pressure on Ed & Elaine seems cruel to me.  They have enough troubles as it is.

It is a great expression of love to tell your friends something they do not want to hear when they need to hear it, even if they may end up hating you for it.

It is the greatest expression of love possible to self-suffer so that your friends and enemies may find the path of love. I highly doubt anyone needs to fast for more than a few days on this issue to make the point, as long as the message gets out.

Ed changes strategies every other day.  He could rescind his warning one day and double it the next. 

This stand would send a good message to everyone about the truth of this movement's goals.

One more disadvantage:
Some people view fasting as a self-defeating, masochistic, victim-mentality mind game invented by buddhist monks one step shy of self-immolation. 

Au contraire ! Fasting is a victorious (if done properly), compassionate (if done out of love), self-denying soul game of unilateral love utilized by the greatest and most effective activists to have ever lived. It is misused by fools, but in the right hands it is a powerful force for good.

The victim mentality is the opposite of taking responsibility. A fast is the act of taking far more responsibility than necessary in order to help others to do what is right.

That said, Ed might not respond, but his wife might.

Sitting here and allowing Ed to massacre feds, even in self-defense, without even trying to convince him to choose the path of love, is an option you will regret choosing. Fasting may bring about a nearly miraculous end to this situation that will touch the hearts of all involved and all who learn about it.

You will never know the true power of love unless you experiment with it. A conventional Gandhian water-only fast is a great way to do this.

[Kat Kanning]

A fasting event to put pressure on Ed & Elaine seems cruel to me.  They have enough troubles as it is.

I agree with Lauren.

[Sheep Fuzzy Wool]

 It will benefit all the selves who feel Ed Brown needs to be fasted to.
The perspective of the mind clears from toxins and stress from fasting..on the other hand..
The only problem that may occur if a bunch of people who are not used to fasting, and they are outside of Ed and Elaine's place, they may get grouchy and perceive Ed in a more agitated way, which appearances are an illusion and having a bunch of people looking at each other while being hungry envisioning  roasted turkey legs sounds like something the national enquirer would cover. 
Do the fasting at home.

Compassion is what Elaine and Ed need given to them right now.

[Dave Ridley]

The fact that ed has issued specific warnings of revenge violence is not in dispute caleb.  I've heard them directly and so have countless others.  what is in dispute is whether he included innocents in the warning. 

[Henry]

The fact that ed has issued specific warnings of revenge violence is not in dispute caleb.  I've heard them directly and so have countless others.  what is in dispute is whether he included innocents in the warning. 

Exactly, that is the question that should be asked.

And regardless, the world needs more justice than peace nowadays.

[Kat Kanning]

Dave, why do you need to change Ed Brown's behavior?  He's not hurting anyone.  The government is doing so daily, yet you continually give them the benefit of the doubt.  If you don't like what Ed is doing, you can remove your support and suddenly, it doesn't concern you any more.  We can't do that with the government's actions - they concern us all by definition and we can't voluntarily withdraw from them.  I think civil disobedience should be used against the government, not someone who's actually standing up to them.

Russell thought it was a very bad idea, too.

Also, Ed Brown is not going to reconsider his stand if you do this, he'll be more convinced you're a fed - "Oh there's that fed guy again trying to make me look bad."

[Romak]

You know I never thought of that. Maybe I am on Eds "hit" list because of the support Ive given to the Marshalls here. Im pretty sure someone in his house is keeping him posted as to what people are saying. You think he has compiled a list of people for execution when and if he meets his maker? So far as he is concerned everyone who disagrees with him is either a Federal agent or isnt worth the air he breaths. That being said my 3 year old can probably out shoot anyone he supposively has to do his dirty work so Im not worried. Maybe I should ask for protection or move to Canada to avoid prosecution from Mr Brown when his people take over this country and try everyone for treason. 

[Dave Ridley]

<<Russell thought it was a very bad idea, too.>>

well that is why i am putting it up for discussion rather than just running out and doing it. 

In any case I can only do one thing in August, if I even am available for the purpose. 

I would rather do something that unites us rather than divides us.  It looks like the FIJA disobedience is a uniter while this is a divider.   I can't see this a divisive idea suddenly overtaking a uniting one, but I'd continue to welcome everyone's thoughts on the subject.

[error]

Ed, unfortunately, does quite enough to make himself look bad, without anyone else's help. That's why I believe it's so critically important to stay focused on the issue of morality, rather than simply being an "Ed Brown cheerleader."

[LordBaltimore]

<<Russell thought it was a very bad idea, too.>>

well that is why i am putting it up for discussion rather than just running out and doing it. 

In any case I can only do one thing in August, if I even am available for the purpose. 

I would rather do something that unites us rather than divides us.  It looks like the FIJA disobedience is a uniter while this is a divider.   I can't see this a divisive idea suddenly overtaking a uniting one, but I'd continue to welcome everyone's thoughts on the subject.

IMH, you should focus your talents on positive issues, not negative ones, that's where your strength lies.   

[JosephSHaas]

Thanks error.  Then if and when "they" do something stupid, you can I.P. them as having read whatever on that day and time from that location controlled by: ____________ as clocked in during that day/night before punching the time clock, so that there is no excuse for them having been put into that "culpable" mental state for the element of "knowingly" or with a "purpose" in whatever criminal charges might be forthcoming as co-con"spirit"ors with whoever. Thank you.

Thanks Joe...I think I sent you this as a copy of what I sent to Kristen and Margo. I hope they both verify and publish what needs to be. Here it is...

Kristen & Margo.....

Please bear with me as I attempt to reveal the truth behind what appears as the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on human society.

Representative Steve Shurtleff is in his second term of office and is on the Judiciary committee. As a colleague, I learned of his past employment as  a Federal Marshall. Accordingly, he could become a source of information which is being hidden by the corporate government. If either of you believe in justice, I hope you will persue the points I have expressed to Steve. He has not yet answered me? Maybe he will not. If so, silence is deemed acceptance in law.

I ask that each of you, prove to yourself, that Mr. McAuliffe did NOT have CRIMINAL JURISDICTION by study of  Title 28. You wil note, New Hampshire has One judicial district, sitting one in Concord, the other in Littleton.   Please locate the one in Littleton?, as it is my understanding that is an Article III court, and only convenes when criminal petition is made to it !

Let me close with an admonition from the good book;

Hosea 4-6 "Our people are destroyed for lack of knowledge".

Thanks much!

Dick Marple

From: "Dick Marple" <armlaw@hotmail.com>
To: SteveShurtleff@aol.com
Subject: Difference-US Marshal & US Marshal Serv...
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:52:46 +0000

Thanks Steve....

You being a former Federal Marshall I thought you could help me document the following.

What I am attempting to document is;

1- Is Mr. McAuliffe a life-tenured Article III judge. ?

2-Is the compensation that Mr. McAuliffe receives, diminished by deductions for S/S, Medicare and Income Tax?

If so, he would not be a lawful judge of criminal matters in the Article IV Tribunal of which he is a mere employee. (Only employees pay S/S. Medicare  & Income Tax, Article III judges can not have their compensation diminished, See Article III )

The bankrupt municipal corporation we know as the "United States", has by Acts of congress, delegated the United States District Courts CIVIL jurisdiction ONLY !. They can sue and be sued but have NO CRIMINAL JURISDICTION delegated. If there is , I demand the citation of statute be shown, on the record, that justice may prevail. My dilligent research of Title 28 does NOT reveal that any criminal jurisdiction or authority has been delegated to any "United States District Courts".

These courts are mere Administrative Tribunals, created by congress under Article IV for use in administrating the bankrupucty of the United States and for the enforcement of territorial ordinances.  I attempted to convey this fact to Mr. Starr, in 4 Affidavits, covering the jurisdictional limitations of Article IV tribunals. His silence is an acceptance of my assertions . (all Affidavits are matters of RECORD as filed copies with Secretary of State, Bill Gardner), several years ago)

As supreme court evidence that all judges must take "judicial notice" by their oath, the following, from the 1938 decision in Mookini v. U.S. 303 U.S. 201.

"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. "

Further...

Sincerely,

Dick Marple

Dick, 

1. My presumption is that McAuliffe is an Article III, Section 1 judge of this NOT U.S. constitutionally created court as is the "one supreme Court" but as one of the "such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ORDAIN and establish" (also described as a "third tier"* court) [emphasis ADDed because the question is NOT whether this N.H. court was "establish"ed as in "create"d, that it was in N.H. at "Exeter and Portsmouth" before moving to Concord in 1881 and by "the Bankruptcy Act of 1898" for "MINOR criminal cases" (emphasis ADDed), see http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ci/history/usdc.asp * BUT see that paragraph within this website for then from the MINOR to all "criminal cases falling under federal LAWs" (emphasis ADDed) AND this "ordain" word of "To order or decree" BUT to WHO was the ORDER given? Or in other words: WHO did the Congress ORDER to file these N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 papers with our N.H. Secretary of State as from the requirement as PRE-scribed in Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17, U.S. Constitution BEFORE the place "purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State"?  The Feds do own their own place, and so are RSA 123:2 exempt from taxation, but they do NOT have the "Authority" to exercise Legislation here! Do they claim some "grandfather clause" as being in business in 1881 in Concord two years BEFORE this RSA Ch. 123:1 statute of June 14, 1883? They canNOT use this excuse because the United States Constitution of Sept. 17, 1787 set up the ground rules four (4) years BEFORE 1881. So in effect, they have been operating in four centuries now unlawfully, and in three centuries both unlawfully and illegally, BELIEVE IT OR NOT! Back when they were dealing in MINOR laws, nobody really bothered to check on their status, as by the ex gratia payment principle, it was easier to just pay the fine.  But nowadays when, like in the Ed Brown case, the judge issues an order that the Browns pay $x million and serve 63 months in the custody of the Marshal, and that Marshal wants them in a Federal "Correctional" Facility to teach them a lesson.  Well that is just a bunch of bullshit! as for WHO needs to be "corrected" is not Ed, but these government goons that are running amuk!

2. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to call the Federal A.O.C. (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts), Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Washington, DC 20544 at 202: 502-1441 on Monday, +/or e-mail them at SDInformation at ao.uscourts.gov to see if McAuliffe is having these deductions taken out of his pay, thus proving that he is NOT an Art. III judge, BUT an Art. IV, Section 3, Clause 2 judge over this "other Property belonging to the United States" and restricted to "Rules and Regulations" only.

3. So when Ed says: Show me the Law! he means a statute "passed by a legislative body" http://www.wvu.edu/~law/library/guides/wvcode.htm or in other words the law that makes him "liable" or "required" as in those sections of the code indicated above in my Reply #4419 on page 295 of my re-type to the http://www.unionleader.com on Sunday night, June 24th '07 @ 6:42 PM in regards to Title 26 U.S. Code Section 6011(a) + 6012(a) respectfully over at http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=IRS+official+cites+federal+code&articleId=2710f166-1e74-4fce-853e-e443ccc3869e

4. Because: a code is "a systematic collection or revision of laws, rules OR regulations"*** (emphasis ADDed as NOT the "and/'or" situation) reference the WVU website above, quoting "Black's Law Dictionary, 8th edition" at page #___ and get this: see the front inside cover or first page of this Code Book for the Internal Revenue where it has an asterisk or star-shaped figure of "*" that reads something like: This code has not been enacted into positive law.

5. Therefore the Bench Warrant to Stephen R. Monier, THE Marshall, with two certified ciopies to him too? or were they directed to the U.S. Marshal Service? (see my Reply #4570 on page 305 of yesterday morning, Fri., June 29 '07 @ 11:48 AM about the difference between THE Marshal's oath for to serve only "lawful precepts", and this Section 566 Marshal Service for to serve "all orders of the 'United States District Court'**) for the arrest of Ed Brown signed by McAuliffe is not a "lawful precept" and ought to be returned to this Art. III or IV court, either way, by the Marshal, having investigated this with the help of the F.B.I.? (Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION), because he is LAW ENFORCEment, and without any law, there is no law to enforce, and so to return it (and the two certified copies) marked: VOID, as NOT a "lawful precept".

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

** P.S. According to http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=20817196 "the terms 'United States District Court' and 'district court of the United States' have been used interchangeably, so my guess is NOT of the name of the court BUT that of HOWever the judge is paid, determines which TYPE of court he is operating in either an Art. III or Art. IV court for "the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States" and if the latter, then only for "Rules and Regulation" and not law.***