Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 20

[armlaw]

Bullets will not make us free.

Maybe not but I am still waiting for some one to show me the "criminal jurisdiction" that Title 28 delegates to Magistrate, Mr. McAuliffe ?

I have studied Title 28 and the ONLY jurisdiction delegated to the United States District courts is "CIVIL JURISDICTION". All "CRIMINAL JURISDICTION" for crimes against the "United States",[as defined in 28 USC 3002(15)], is delegated by Title 18 to "district courts of the United States" where Article III judges sit. Only magistrates sit in a United States District Court, an Administrative Tribunal and have no criminal jurisdiction. They can only enforce contracts and equity in civil matters. This so-called "conviction of criminal acts" in a civil venue certainly needs to be addressed as unlawful. I have an open mind so, if I am wrong, show me the delegation of "criminal jurisdiction" to a United States District Court.

[EthanAllen]

Bullets will not make us free.

Maybe not but I am still waiting for some one to show me the "criminal jurisdiction" that Title 28 delegates to Magistrate, Mr. McAuliffe ?

I have studied Title 28 and the ONLY jurisdiction delegated to the United States District courts is "CIVIL JURISDICTION". All "CRIMINAL JURISDICTION" for crimes against the "United States",[as defined in 28 USC 3002(15)], is delegated by Title 18 to "district courts of the United States" where Article III judges sit. Only magistrates sit in a United States District Court, an Administrative Tribunal and have no criminal jurisdiction. They can only enforce contracts and equity in civil matters. This so-called "conviction of criminal acts" in a civil venue certainly needs to be addressed as unlawful. I have an open mind so, if I am wrong, show me the delegation of "criminal jurisdiction" to a United States District Court.

So it is your opinion that Title 28 requires the lawful payment of an income tax but that the court that found them guilty of tax evasion was the wrong jurisdiction?

[J’raxis 270145]

Bullets will not make us free.

Maybe not but I am still waiting for some one to show me the "criminal jurisdiction" that Title 28 delegates to Magistrate, Mr. McAuliffe ?

I have studied Title 28 and the ONLY jurisdiction delegated to the United States District courts is "CIVIL JURISDICTION". All "CRIMINAL JURISDICTION" for crimes against the "United States",[as defined in 28 USC 3002(15)], is delegated by Title 18 to "district courts of the United States" where Article III judges sit. Only magistrates sit in a United States District Court, an Administrative Tribunal and have no criminal jurisdiction. They can only enforce contracts and equity in civil matters. This so-called "conviction of criminal acts" in a civil venue certainly needs to be addressed as unlawful. I have an open mind so, if I am wrong, show me the delegation of "criminal jurisdiction" to a United States District Court.

So it is your opinion that Title 28 requires the lawful payment of an income tax but that the court that found them guilty of tax evasion was the wrong jurisdiction?

Title 28 doesn't even cover income tax; that's title 26, the Internal Revenue Code.

[LordBaltimore]

I have studied Title 28 and the ONLY jurisdiction delegated to the United States District courts is "CIVIL JURISDICTION". All "CRIMINAL JURISDICTION" for crimes against the "United States",[as defined in 28 USC 3002(15)],

snip

Why?  The Browns were convicted of various crimes under Sections 26, 18, and 31.

[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. 

Richard,  Although you mention this Title 18, may I remind you again, and others to here since my post re-quoted, that such is by "exclusive" authority, and that must be granted by "Consent" of the State Legislature according to Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 U.S. Constitution, which partial consent for "concurrent" jurisdiction was offered to the Feds on Flag Day, June 14th, 1883, but that they DECLINED to accept, as they wanted and still need "exclusive" jurisdiction to prosecute for all crimes.  In fact withOUT the N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 paperwork required to be filed with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State, they/the Feds don't even have civil jurisdiction in this state!

Yours truly, - - Joe H.

[JosephSHaas]

Plainfield
Prosecutor: Brown stoking tension 
Tax protester says he's warning police 
By Peter Jamison
Valley News
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 11. 2007 12:26AM

Convicted tax protester Ed Brown is trying to ramp up tensions with the ...

peace officers," ....

--Great!  It's about time! Hey Gillens, Prozzo, and Monier: to the "unclean spirit" within you:  "Hold thy peace, and come of of him" (Mark 1:25), in the Name of: Jesus Christ of Nazareth (Mark 16:17, http://www.religioustolerance.org/dem_bibl.htm )

-- According to http://www.littlescroll.care4free.net/Unclean%20spirits.htm "it is only when an unclean spirit is made to feel tormented beyond their already miserable existence that it leaves a human soul and looks for another resting-place in which to exist.  Righteousness is the enemy that causes their torment."  Plus see Matthew 12:43-45 and the preamble to this "ESSAY" in that: "Then it* goes its way and takes along with it seven different spirits more wicked than itself,...."

--But [Gillens**, Prozzo**, and Monier,] (*) what is your religion, if any? because according to http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_exor4.htm "Casting out demons from an unsaved possessed person is dangerous because it may lead to them being possessed worse than before."

--So do you(*) want to see *= "this frog-like creature with big coal-like, evil, dead, pitch-black eyes" get out of you? or do you want to see it with seven more withIN you?    http://paranormal.about.com/library/blstory_september02_29.htm  The choice is yours.  But anyway my asserting this power OVER you, as your master to be the public servant to your (RSA Ch. 92:2**) oath of office is withIN my religious rights as guaranteed by Article 5, Part First, N.H. Constitution & Bill of Rights.

Amen, - - Joe Haas

[Braddogg]

Woah, how did we get into exorcisms?

[Nicholas Gilman]

--Great!  It's about time! Hey Gillens, Prozzo, and Monier: to the "unclean spirit" within you:  "Hold thy peace, and come of of him" (Mark 1:25), in the Name of: Jesus Christ of Nazareth (Mark 16:17,

     I think it is safe to say that the three names quoted above are experiencing
a drought of moral integrity, and this is the only way to explain the
irresponsibility of three people who at best want to imprison
a senior couple because the refuse to pay federal "protection"
money.   

    BTW, according to an entry on the blog it says someone attempted to
visit Ed & Elaine and was arrested for bringing candles.  It states they
were held for three days and then released, but that they believed
their electronic communications were being monitored by the US Marshalls:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=152568743&blogID=298305020

     FYI- I've seen Monier inside the Blue Tahoe before.  It may be part of the motor pool
in Concord.  Most US Marshalls vehicles do not have government plates or markings.
I wonder if Steven remembers those old metal gasoline cards they used to issue?

[J’raxis 270145]

--Great!  It's about time! Hey Gillens, Prozzo, and Monier: to the "unclean spirit" within you:  "Hold thy peace, and come of of him" (Mark 1:25), in the Name of: Jesus Christ of Nazareth (Mark 16:17,

     I think it is safe to say that the three names quoted above are experiencing
a drought of moral integrity, and this is the only way to explain the
irresponsibility of three people who at best want to imprison
a senior couple because the refuse to pay federal "protection"
money.   

    BTW, according to an entry on the blog it says someone attempted to
visit Ed & Elaine and was arrested for bringing candles.  It states they
were held for three days and then released, but that they believed
their electronic communications were being monitored by the US Marshalls:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=152568743&blogID=298305020

     FYI- I've seen Monier inside the Blue Tahoe before.  It may be part of the motor pool
in Concord.  Most US Marshalls vehicles do not have government plates or markings.
I wonder if Steven remembers those old metal gasoline cards they used to issue?

This story is case in point of why people need to be more careful with their communications about how they're helping Ed Brown.

[armlaw]

[/quote]So it is your opinion that Title 28 requires the lawful payment of an income tax but that the court that found them guilty of tax evasion was the wrong jurisdiction? [/quote][shadow=red,left [/shadow]


You appear to have Title 26, which is PRIVATE Law mixed up with Title 28 which is POSITIVE Law. Private Law is enforceable ONLY "within" the corporate United States and the 25 "insular possessions" owned by that bankrupt municipal corporation. See 26 USC 6331(a) for enumeration of those "persons" liable for taxes.

Title 28 has nothing to do with Taxes. It address what congress has delegated to the judiciary by "Acts of Congress" which are "Statutes at Large" but are codified as "Postive Law" for use in the corporate territories known as "insular Possession" or "Federal States", in contrast with the 50 sovereign states. Title 18, which is "Positive Law" , Section 3231 clearly delegates "original jurisdiction" for all crimes against the United States to "district courts of the United States". These courts are defined as Article III constitutional courts. See supreme court definition in Mookini v. United States (1938) and referenced in Nguyen v. United States in (2003). Article III judges are exempt from any taxation by Article III, whereas "Magistrates" of "United States District Courts" are mere employees of the bankrupt municipal corporation and they must pay Income Tax, Social Security, Medicare etc, as they are defined as "persons" liable in 26 USC 6331. As such they are subject to coercion by other employees of the corporation and it is my opinion that is why "Magistrates" have not been delegated "criminal jurisdiction" by congress. The supreme court has reiterated, on several occasions, that all legislation of congress is territorial private law, unless the statute contains language that entends its force and effect "without" the confines of the district and its possessions.
Mr.McAuliffes employment status should be confirmed for if he is not an Article III judge, then the proceedings in which he presided over are unlawful as congress has not, by statute, delegated "criminal jurisdiction" to the corporate "United States District Court".

[LordBaltimore]

You appear to have Title 26, which is PRIVATE Law mixed up with Title 28 which is POSITIVE Law. Private Law is enforceable ONLY "within" the corporate United States and the 25 "insular possessions" owned by that bankrupt municipal corporation. See 26 USC 6331(a) for enumeration of those "persons" liable for taxes.

Title 28 has nothing to do with Taxes. It address what congress has delegated to the judiciary by "Acts of Congress" which are "Statutes at Large" but are codified as "Postive Law" for use in the corporate territories known as "insular Possession" or "Federal States", in contrast with the 50 sovereign states. Title 18, which is "Positive Law" , Section 3231 clearly delegates "original jurisdiction" for all crimes against the United States to "district courts of the United States". These courts are defined as Article III constitutional courts. See supreme court definition in Mookini v. United States (1938) and referenced in Nguyen v. United States in (2003). Article III judges are exempt from any taxation by Article III, whereas "Magistrates" of "United States District Courts" are mere employees of the bankrupt municipal corporation and they must pay Income Tax, Social Security, Medicare etc, as they are defined as "persons" liable in 26 USC 6331. As such they are subject to coercion by other employees of the corporation and it is my opinion that is why "Magistrates" have not been delegated "criminal jurisdiction" by congress. The supreme court has reiterated, on several occasions, that all legislation of congress is territorial private law, unless the statute contains language that entends its force and effect "without" the confines of the district and its possessions.
Mr.McAuliffes employment status should be confirmed for if he is not an Article III judge, then the proceedings in which he presided over are unlawful as congress has not, by statute, delegated "criminal jurisdiction" to the corporate "United States District Court".

Hokus pokus dominokus...

Check out all those words in quotation marks.  Must be magical language.

[E-ville]

We should start buying military 6x6 2/1/2 ton trucks to go to there place with, there little suburbans and crown vic's would look like speed bumps to one of the nice trucks..  Fight fire with fire.. Use there own ex military equipment to our advantage..  Really are they going to be able to stop you and also do these feds have jurisdiction to pull you over.. I doubt it.

Old school buses are pretty intimidating and easy to find..cheap also,  and you don't need a CDL to drive it if the seats are removed,  not to mention they could haul alot of supplies, if were going to risk going there and getting arrested, make it well worth the trip there, 3 days in the clink for some candles is a joke , but 3 days,  for a school buss full of supplies is well worth it..   A school bus is like a 40 foot shipping container on wheels.. very useful

[JosephSHaas]

--Great!  It's about time! Hey Gillens, Prozzo, and Monier: to the "unclean spirit" within you:  "Hold thy peace, and come of of him" (Mark 1:25), in the Name of: Jesus Christ of Nazareth (Mark 16:17,

     I think it is safe to say that the three names quoted above are experiencing
a drought of moral integrity, and this is the only way to explain the
irresponsibility of three people who at best want to imprison
a senior couple because the refuse to pay federal "protection"
money.   

    BTW, according to an entry on the blog it says someone attempted to
visit Ed & Elaine and was arrested for bringing candles.  It states they
were held for three days and then released, but that they believed
their electronic communications were being monitored by the US Marshalls:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=152568743&blogID=298305020

     FYI- ....

Thanks Nicholas,

According to that myspace report today the helpers who brought in baby food to the Branch Davidians got arrested.  But arrested for what?  Aiding & Abeting a fugitive? Technically a fugitive is one who runs away, flees, like the actor Leslie Nielson who played Francies Marion, "The Swamp Fox" on that Walt Disney TV series of the 1960s.  I can even recite the theme song:

Got no blankets got no beds, got no roof above our heads, got no shelter when it rains, all we got is Yankee brains.

Swamp Fox, Swamp Fox, tail on his hat, nobody knows where the Swamp Fox is at.

Swamp Fox, Swamp Fox, hiding in the glen, he runs away to fight again.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So Ed, who has a house with roof, and blankets on his bed, is known to be at his "compound", so is NOT a runaway, and so NOT a fugitive.  Although the helpers of the Branch Davidians might have been charged, I doubt that anyone was ever found guilty of such an outlandish charge, as he is landed, as yet another analogy.

Federal goons: stop playing "Supermarket Sweep."    -- Yours truly, Joe H.

P.S. I've asked Ed numerous times if he wanted anything from the supermarket, both before and after my visit, and he and Elaine always say that they are "all set", as the saying goes here in New England. 

[LordBaltimore]

According to that myspace report today the helpers who brought in baby food to the Branch Davidians got arrested.  But arrested for what?  Aiding & Abeting a fugitive?  

I don't think the word fugitive is in the law that will likely be applied:

USC Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 1, § 3 - Accessory after the fact
Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

There are other potential criminal charges for the bigger stuff such as supplying weapons or ammunition to the Browns or threatening to "kill the bastards", the language used in this very forum.

[error]

Well, the United States government is pretty offensive...