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

[JosephSHaas]

It looks like "Carl Drega" is back in the news. 

http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/drega1.html?200730

as mentioned by Lebanon P.D. Detective Mike Roberts after talking with
Mrs. Terri Dudley, City Councilor that I might be the next "Carl Drega".

See paragraph #7 of 9 "On 6/18/07 at approximately 1600 hours..."
in my Reply #42 on page 3 over at the "Joe Haas Arrested" chapter:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9345.30

Yours truly, Joe Haas

P.S. Ed's # 675-2909 still: not in service, no reply from the PUC
all last week. Yet to get my case #__________ there.

[armlaw]

[quote  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.***
[/quote]
Joe...

The source you gave above has its origin in Atty Larry Beecraft (Okla) who has taken an oath to protect the Bankrupty of the corporate United States. Please don't quote unofficial drivel like "interchangeably"  when the US. supreme court has ruled and decided otherwise.  The Mookini v. U.S (1938) is a seminal case for definition of the courts and this was used a precedence in the 2003 case of Nguyen v. U.S.. All judges are supposed to know the supreme court rullings an take "judicial notice" of them and abide by them until overruled. Syntax is the diversion that makes the difference.

Respectfully, Dick Marple

[error]

The wandering Fed with the laptop and Verizon data card is back.

[Kat Kanning]

At the hotel?

[JosephSHaas]

Can he use his computer to check at Google, http://www.google.com , Ask.com, etc. to find that Arizona case of _________ v. _________ in Vol. #___ _________ Reports _______ @ page #_____ (1996) to back up what "armlaw" / State Rep. Dick Marple, Ret. says here of that a "District Court of the United States is NOT a "United States District Court", with only the former having Title 28 powers for criminal trials, and that somehow this Littleton, N.H. court is hidden from us? and that he can get back to us, +/or his superiors to blow the whistle and collect $xxx,xxx under the fraud act as his reward, for a savings of $_____________ (him getting the __% bounty) on federal funds being spent in the wrong court!

See the reference to a judge saying this that Freedom of Information Act "FOIA requests must be litigated in the District Court of the United States ('DCUS')." as indicated over at http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/karmacts.htm and so the reason for WHY the N.H. Clerk James R. Starr, in the "USDC" is NOT answering Dick Marple's four (4) Affidavits. This info thanks to: Paul Andrew Mitchell, Counselor at Law, Federal Witness, Supreme Law Firm, c/o Forwarding Agent, 501 W. Broadway, #A-332, San Diego, CA 92101 supremelawfirm at gmail.com or supremelawfirm at msn dot com. Fax 619: 232-2031 (c) November 2, 1996, who ought to also get a "piece of the action" and Dick Marple as a tip from such a cash $award, or re-ward.

Yours truly, Joe H.

[hook]

Interesting.

Where is the Littleton District Court and where does the Concord District Court have criminal jurisdiction? It doesn't seem to exist under Title 28. Title 28 confers civil jurisdiction, no mention of criminal.

Article III seems to limit jurisdiction to parties/actions which cross state lines. Assuming one could find a federal court with criminal jurisdiction, state lines or interests would need to be established before jurisdiction could be invoked.




US Constitution:

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attained.


US Code:

28 U.S.C. § 109. New Hampshire.

  New Hampshire constitutes one judicial district.

  Court shall be held at Concord and Littleton.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 885.)

                      HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES

  Based on title 28, U.S.C. § 1940 ed., Sec. 175 Mar. 3, 1911,
ch. 231, Sec. 95, 36 Stat. 1119; Aug. 23, 1912, ch. 344, 37 Stat. 357; Feb.
20, 1926, ch. 23, 44 Stat. 8

[error]

At the hotel?

Back on the forum. I hadn't really seen much use of those data cards for a while. Gawd only knows what hotel they're at now. Though it would be easy to just drive around and take a look.

[kola]

quote The wandering Fed with the laptop and Verizon data card is back

order him pizza.

[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... My dilligent research of Title 28 does NOT reveal that any criminal jurisdiction or authority has been delegated to any "United States District Courts". ...

Sincerely,

Dick Marple

Dick,

--The only place withIN Title 28 where I've found reference to title 18 (by an http://www.google.com search for: 28 USC criminal)= Title 28, Part III, Chapter 43, Section 636(a)(3) for Title 18, Sec. 3401 about the magistrate judge's appointed to conduct trials for Misdemeanors, see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000636----000-.html

--The Creation and composition of "United States Distriict Court"s is found in Title 28, Part I, Chapter 5, Section 132(a) over at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000132----000-.html

--As you can see from Article III, U.S. Constitution, Section 2, Clause 1: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES...." (emphasis ADDed for both the civil and the criminal laws).

--But then when you get to Title 18, Part I, Chapter 53, Sec. 1152 Laws governing, it's only for "the general laws of the United States as to the punishment of offenses committed in any place within the sole and EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the United States...." (emphasis ADDed).

--Now compare this to Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 U.S. Const. for "Consent" needed by "the Legislature of the State", which was given to the Feds back on June 14th (Flag Day), 1883 by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm but "upon the express condition that the state of New Hampshire shall retain concurrent jurisdiction with the United States". No wonder the Feds never filed the paperwork: they want to claim exclusive ownership rights only? Then what are they doing off their turf up in Sullivan County!?

--So WHERE does this leave us? in 28 USC 109 New Hampshire (99 for MAss., 101 for Mass. + 126 for Vermont). Ed's argument of jurisdiction in his court case #06-cr-71-01/02-SM by SAYing the magic numbers of 123:1 N.H. with this phrase: "concurrent jurisdiction" must have NOT merely been mis-understood by McAuliffe, but making him, the judge, so angry that somebody like Ed has been drinking the truth serum, getting these federal toxins OUT of his system, and so like the anti-body for us all, him/Ed invading these intruding parasites upon our host New Hampshire state. CONGRATULATIONS to you: Ed & Elaine Brown, and THANK YOU "very" much! We should all contribute $1.00 each to them, all one milllion of us.*

--* Or maybe less? like 50-cents, so only getting $1/2 million? Yup, just try writing out a check "for a less sum than $1".00 and see what happens to you, in such an experiment, if you dare, or maybe to dare that our leader/ the governor do it, to prove that we are NOT under this Title 18, Part I, Ch. 17, Sec. 336 over at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000336----000-.html from Chapter 17- COINS AND CURRENCY, over at the Table of Contents at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_17.html The penalty for which is that the person "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

--See also Section 334 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000334----000-.html for The "Issuance of Federal Reserve...notes...put...in(to) circulation...without complying with...the provisions of law regulating the issuance and circulation of such Federal Reserve notes" such as there needing to be the "Gold deposits" by The "FEDERAL RESERVE ACT SECTION 16" http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/fract/sect16.html [by way of http://www.archive.org/index.php for Sherman & Peabody's The Wayback Machine] see #15 of 17 that reads that: "The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to receive deposits of gold...for credit to its or his account" meaning either "any Federal Reserve bank or Federal Reserve agents" by 12 USC 467, but which the Bureau of Engraving & Printing of the U.S. Mint REFUSEs to provide me with this FOIA request denied as to WHO delivered HOW much on WHAT day and time for how many pallets of these greenbacks, thus leaving it up to us, with the help of U.S. Attorney Thomas P. Colantuono +/or Gary DiMartino, the Chief U.S. Deputy Marshal and/or his political boss: Stephen R. Monier, THE U.S. Marshal etc. like maybe the F.B.I. too to monitor the next delivery to "any NATIONAL banking association" (emphasis ADDed, maybe with some state/county and local law enforcement back-up like they used against Ed) to check to see if any "strict accordance" here, and if not, then to see if this/these "chapter 2 of Title 12" officer(s) might like to avoid the "fine" and/or "imprisonment not more than five years" too, by citing NO jurisdiction too, but to at least put the spotlight on the subject MATTER rather than the PERSONs, for maybe one of our Presidential Candidates to set-up such a "stake-out", like maybe with a personal invitation to former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee, Republican http://explorehuckabee.com who's having a BBQ this Sat., July 7th from 4-6 p.m. with his band: The Capitol Offense, in the ballfield behind NE Delta Dental, 1 Delta Drive, Concord, N.H. RSVP for $50.00 by calling 603: 799-6563 pkaroutas at comcast.net as advertised over at http://nhexecutivecouncil.com with  the Peter Martin interview of this 2008 Presidential Candidate.  See also over there Part 1 for Carol Channing's visit to the G&C last Wed., June 27th, and my talk to the G&C during the BFA/Public Hearing about Art. 10, N.H. again at 14:16 - 16:16 of Part 2, with the State Trooper's appearance behind me at about 1/2 way or 1-minute into this 2-minute talk, just in case I had a "Peter MacDonald" PTSD-day, or should I say, might go bonkers and "do a 'Drega'".

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone). Founding Member of VOCALS, Inc. [Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System]

cc: pkaroutas at comcast.net for Gov. Mike Huckabee, with this suplemental invitation too.

P.S. Dick Marple -- McAuliffe makes $141,300 per year as his salary, last adjusted for inflation back in Year 2000, see http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=383301  You'd think that he of all people would investigate this possible "fiat" condition of the $100 bills he receives.  I remember years ago, Barbara Anderson of Epsom, N.H. saying that inflation is taxation without representation, or in other words: the mere cranking up of the printing presses withOUT these gold deposits as required by law! The "Fed" or Federal Reserve Bank has been stealing from us for years, and probably gets to do so by paying off those government agents to whom I write my FOIA requests to, like they say in Missouri, for The "Show Me" state, Show me the gold!  About time this Huckabee or WHOever becomes President of the United States of America audits the U.S. Mint! as one his top 10 priorities during his first 100 days in office starting on Innauguration Day: Jan. 20, 2009.

[armlaw]

Can he use his computer to check at Google, http://www.google.com , Ask.com, etc. to find that Arizona case of _________ v. _________ in Vol. #___ _________ Reports _______ @ page #_____ (1996) to back up what "armlaw" / State Rep. Dick Marple, Ret. says here of that a "District Court of the United States is NOT a "United States District Court", with only the former having Title 28 powers for criminal trials, and that somehow this Littleton, N.H. court is hidden from us? "

Joe...

I must thank you for understanding the syntax, which is the deception the legal oligarchy crafts into the "word-art", to control the people.  What follows is self-explanatory but your attention is called the the location of the word "District".

TITLE 18 > PART II > CHAPTER 211 > § 3231 Prev | Next

§ 3231. District courts


How Current is This?

The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States. Nothing in this title shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the several States under the laws thereof. "

Again, I point out that the code itself specifically places Criminal Jurisdiction excursively with the "district courts of the Untied States" and NOT with thew United States District Courts".

Mr. McAuliffe did NOT have Criminal Jurisdiction in his Administrative Tribunal. This entity, masquerading as a "court", has been delegated by congress, jurisdiction ONLY for Civil matters and minor misdemeanors "within" the sovereignty of the United States and NOT "without", or in any sovereign republic.  Please, again read the definition of a Article III court in the Mookini case and the reaffirmation in the 2003, Nguyen v. U.S. case.

I have "No Standing" to bring criminal action as I am not a "party"! However I can not
let justice be obstructed by letting the fourth estate protect those who perpetrating the extortion and obstructing justice.

Respectfully,

Dick Marple

[Sheep Fuzzy Wool]

Old Buck   http://www.myspace.com/twostraws   
Is coming to visit Elaine and Ed.
Fred Smart offered to put him on his radio show during Old Buck's traveling, but Old Buck is wanting to wait and see what Elaine and Ed say about doing a show, or something like that in his bulletin on myspace.

[JosephSHaas]

...
TITLE 18 > PART II > CHAPTER 211 > § 3231 Prev | Next

§ 3231. District courts

How Current is This?

The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States. Nothing in this title shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the several States under the laws thereof. "
...
Respectfully,

Dick Marple

--Dick, I see this at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00003231----000-.html and read that "exclusive" word meaning "not shared" as with "the courts of the States", and so with that in mind it's: 'The district courts of the United States shall have ORIGINAL jurisdiction...of all offenses against the laws of the United States." (emphasis ADDed), and so I see your point of to tag this "all offenses" phrase to ONLY the "district courts of the United States", but even IF they were interchangable, as Larry Beecraft said with the "United States District Court"s, I like the Title 18, Section 1152 of "Laws governing" statute better, and sorry for not providing the link in my reply above, but do so now, of http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001152----000-.html and although the purpose is to "extend" the laws in"to the Indian country", the basis point is that "the general laws of the United States as to the punishment of offenses committed in any PLACE (is) within the sole and EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the United States...." (emphasis ADDed for NOT the exclusiveness of the State courts, as in Title 18, Sec. 3231 referring to NOT the place, BUT the "offenses", this 18-1152 puts the "exclusive"ness with the PLACE as in "exclusive jurisdiction", so when the state of New Hampshire REFUSED  to give the Feds "exclusive jurisdiction" back in 1883, by giving only "concurrent jurisdiction" by RSA 123:1 from Art.I, Sec.8, Cl.17 U.S.Const., we, in effect told them: NO! their national laws will NOT apply to us UNLESS we have "concurrent jurisdiction" to have our statutes and rules apply to them! on federally owned soil, as it is over at Pleasant Street, Concord. 

--Or in other words, just look what happened in Ed's case when I gave the exculpatory evidence of there being no federal filing with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State to the prosecutor Bill Morse, who by Federal Rule 16 I think it is (see my reply above), he was under a duty to provide it to EITHER the judge OR the defendant(s), and maybe the former, but UNDER a sealed ORDER not to reveal such ex-parte meeting, BUT in our State Rule 3.8 it "shall" or must be given to BOTH the judge AND either defendant, so that there's NONE of this hiding going on! And when I alerted this to the PCC, they are now proven to be co-conspirators with the Feds to protect their brothers of the bar OVER the citizen!

--So WHEN was this Title 18, Section 1152 of "exclusive jurisdiction" put on the books? (_____) BEFORE or AFTER June 14, 1883? and KNOWing that they have NO jurisdiction to prosecute for federal offenses UNTIL they remove this exclusivity and go "concurrent jurisdiction" with our state, OR our state to remove this "concurrent" word, then ALL criminal cases EVER tried over there were and are an affront, offense, and insult to all of us here in the state of New Hampshire! And so to first off, declare a mis-trial in Ed's case #06-cr-71-01/02-SM immediately! for their supposed mis-taken jurisdiction, that is really of mal-intent beyond this point of KNOWing what they did was WRONG, and needing our state, county and local authorities to Art. 12 protect us for which protection we paid for (past tense) through our property taxes, and deserve such action long overdue BEFORE they get their latest tax bills paid!

Yours truly, Joe H. 

[error]

quote The wandering Fed with the laptop and Verizon data card is back

order him pizza.

Oh, I'm sure he can order his own pizza. And I don't know where he is, anyway. Though I can make a few educated guesses as to his location.

[JosephSHaas]

.,..

I wonder how the Feds are enjoying their hotel accomodations. The names they register under are quite creative. How was the pizza guys? My buddy made them and accidently sneezed on a few of them. He wiped off what he could. It is a good thing he didn't put those rat droppings on it like he did to the last order from the Feds. May I suggest Subway next time.

Bon appetit'

Kola 

But if we order him one gratis, we can add a few extra ingredients before the ultimate delivery, is what I think kola meant, heh?

- - Joe  P.S. BTW somebody at Denny's in Lebanon did this once to a COP: he put on some El Diablo hot sauce on the meal, gratis, withOUT the COP knowing about it, and the COP ate it and there being no water drinking glass as requested charged the worker there who did that with: simple assault.

Modification: for the words Denny's "hot sauce" assault "New Hampshire" at http://www.google.com gets you to page 1 #1 there for this N.H. restaurant case indicated at Google, but not at the main page for the website: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/63501106/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 re: the cook, to be exact.

[error]

Hey, Joe, how about a link that actually works? http://wc.arizona.edu/~wildcat/papers/old-wildcats/summer95/June7,1995/06_3_m.html