Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 27

[Kat Kanning]

5 cowardly judges, sittin in a row...lol


btw, are we supposed to know who this sherry peel person is?

[Kat Kanning]

Oh, OK. I've heard of her.  The 'Peel' part threw me off.

[Pat K]

I always liked this Mrs. Peel

[JosephSHaas]

I always liked this Mrs. Peel
....

Me too, plus her voice over at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eCGFiAdvLU&feature=related (in B&W with Patrick Macnee as John Steed);

One episode I remember of some big ball of lightning to a cabin and its amazing effects (sort of like that ball in "The Prisoner" too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prisoner on the island in "The Village" starring Patrick McGoohan, with co-stars http://www.netreach.net/~sixofone/ )

This is what Danny needs to wake 'em up at the courthouse.  Can somebody find a clip of this episode? ...

Here's the Theme Song over at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V09a79WW7Vs&feature=related

...or maybe to the jail, so that he can get those 2x7=14 hours at the law library, back up to 5x7=35 hours per week, then maybe he can find out more about what happened in the U.S. v. Basurto case of 1974 (CA9 Ariz.) 497 F.2d 781 that he wrote about in #8 on page 1 of 4, in his "Motion to Dismiss" of Fri. Feb. 22 [George Washington's Birthday, of he can't tell a lie that he did chop down the cherry tree] that the Judge denied on: _____ with the ten (10) days to file any "Motion to Reconsider" BEFORE the March 6th deadline for the AUSA to reply to this law library request.  The Basurto case saying of no "automatic" dismissal, but what happened to what I thought was going to be a SHOW-CAUSE hearing of WHY the indictment should not be dismissed for a due process violation of the 5th Amendment.   The Superseding indictment, even though the first one related to the picture that does NOT exist, as proof of perjury, the per-jurors allowed to be tainted to get to the grand-jurors by way of the SAME foreman!? Somebody should have been indicted BEFORE they be allowed to continue! I have a book around here somewhere written by a Minister/Lawyer in MAss. who put out a newsletter back in the 1980s that I used to get too from DESTINY PUBLISHING, (in the blue envelopes) and he wrote that when a lie is detected, everything is supposed to STOP, come to a HALT, until that issue is dealt with.  I'll try to find it and get back to you. *

Yours truly, - - Joe

* Yes, The book is entitled: "Digest of the Divine Law" by Howard B. Rand, LL.B ($9.00) over at http://www.destinypublishers.com/ P. O. Box 177, Merrimack, Massachusetts 01860-0177 to contact Henry Law, M-W only 9am-1pm ET at 978-346-9311 to see if there's been an update to this "repeated reading" of Ch. #___ @ page no. ___ since, as I remember, this perjury halt was mentioned, but without any case.  Maybe since then, there's a case or cases on the books, or Danny's case can be THE first case, like when one of the jurors TELLS the judge to HALT until their be a SPECIAL GRAND JURY, and investigative GRAND JURY to indict the U.S. Attorney and his hacks.

note: I think the author cited some scripture (Chapter and verse from the Book of: _________, maybe to find by Strong's Concordance) and he put it with Public Law 97-280, 96 Statute 1211 of October 4, 1982 = The Year of the Bible, for 1983 & beyond.

[keith in RI]

dannys appeal docket. still showing him as pro se.

  US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Case Summary

Court of Appeals Docket #: 08-1199                           Filed: 2/12/08
Nsuit:    0  (Criminal or NOT SET)
US v. Riley
Appeal from: U.S District Court of NH

Lower court information:
      District: 0102-1 : 07-00189             lead: 07-00189
      Ordering Judge: George Z. Singal, Chief Judge


2/12/08          CRIMINAL CASE docketed. Opening forms sent. Notice of
                  Appeal filed by Appellant Daniel Riley.  Appearance form
                  due 2/26/08. Docketing Statement due 2/26/08. Transcript
                  Report/Order due 2/26/08. [08-1199] (myra) [08-1199]

2/12/08          RECORD filed: I volume(s) consisting of docket entries 242,
                  197, and 207. No Transcript(s) filed yet. [1334222-1]
                  [08-1199] (myra) [08-1199]

2/12/08          Involvement of attorney Mark E. Howard for Daniel Riley in
                  08-1199  terminated. [08-1199] (myra) [08-1199]

2/25/08          SELECTION OF COUNSEL FORM filed by Appellant Daniel Riley
                  in 08-1199 to proceed pro se [08-1199] (myra)
                  [08-1199]

2/25/08          PRO SE APPEARANCE filed by Appellant Daniel Riley in
                  08-1199. [1337814-1] [08-1199] (myra) [08-1199]

[grolled]

dannys appeal docket. still showing him as pro se.

  US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Case Summary

Court of Appeals Docket #: 08-1199                           Filed: 2/12/08
Nsuit:    0  (Criminal or NOT SET)
US v. Riley
Appeal from: U.S District Court of NH

Lower court information:
      District: 0102-1 : 07-00189             lead: 07-00189
      Ordering Judge: George Z. Singal, Chief Judge


2/12/08          CRIMINAL CASE docketed. Opening forms sent. Notice of
                  Appeal filed by Appellant Daniel Riley.  Appearance form
                  due 2/26/08. Docketing Statement due 2/26/08. Transcript
                  Report/Order due 2/26/08. [08-1199] (myra) [08-1199]

2/12/08          RECORD filed: I volume(s) consisting of docket entries 242,
                  197, and 207. No Transcript(s) filed yet. [1334222-1]
                  [08-1199] (myra) [08-1199]

2/12/08          Involvement of attorney Mark E. Howard for Daniel Riley in
                  08-1199  terminated. [08-1199] (myra) [08-1199]

2/25/08          SELECTION OF COUNSEL FORM filed by Appellant Daniel Riley
                  in 08-1199 to proceed pro se [08-1199] (myra)
                  [08-1199]

2/25/08          PRO SE APPEARANCE filed by Appellant Daniel Riley in
                  08-1199. [1337814-1] [08-1199] (myra) [08-1199]

What's wrong with him being shown as "pro se"? Isn't Danny representing himself, which is the meaning of "pro se"? Or does he now have an attorney and isn't pro se anymore?

[coffeeseven]

dannys appeal docket. still showing him as pro se.

  US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Case Summary

Court of Appeals Docket #: 08-1199                           Filed: 2/12/08
Nsuit:    0  (Criminal or NOT SET)
US v. Riley
Appeal from: U.S District Court of NH

Lower court information:
      District: 0102-1 : 07-00189             lead: 07-00189
      Ordering Judge: George Z. Singal, Chief Judge


2/12/08          CRIMINAL CASE docketed. Opening forms sent. Notice of
                  Appeal filed by Appellant Daniel Riley.  Appearance form
                  due 2/26/08. Docketing Statement due 2/26/08. Transcript
                  Report/Order due 2/26/08. [08-1199] (myra) [08-1199]

2/12/08          RECORD filed: I volume(s) consisting of docket entries 242,
                  197, and 207. No Transcript(s) filed yet. [1334222-1]
                  [08-1199] (myra) [08-1199]

2/12/08          Involvement of attorney Mark E. Howard for Daniel Riley in
                  08-1199  terminated. [08-1199] (myra) [08-1199]

2/25/08          SELECTION OF COUNSEL FORM filed by Appellant Daniel Riley
                  in 08-1199 to proceed pro se [08-1199] (myra)
                  [08-1199]

2/25/08          PRO SE APPEARANCE filed by Appellant Daniel Riley in
                  08-1199. [1337814-1] [08-1199] (myra) [08-1199]

What's wrong with him being shown as "pro se"? Isn't Danny representing himself, which is the meaning of "pro se"? Or does he now have an attorney and isn't pro se anymore?

You can't represent yourself. You ARE yourself. It has it's roots in self proclaiming that you are an idiot and that's why a lawyer must represent you, the capital letter fiction of the state; the differnece between DANNY RILEY and Danny Riley. Trying to get a judge to own up to the truth is like taking the Mountain to Mohamed.

[keith in RI]

dannys appeal docket. still showing him as pro se.

  US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Case Summary

Court of Appeals Docket #: 08-1199                           Filed: 2/12/08
Nsuit:    0  (Criminal or NOT SET)
US v. Riley
Appeal from: U.S District Court of NH

Lower court information:
      District: 0102-1 : 07-00189             lead: 07-00189
      Ordering Judge: George Z. Singal, Chief Judge


2/12/08          CRIMINAL CASE docketed. Opening forms sent. Notice of
                  Appeal filed by Appellant Daniel Riley.  Appearance form
                  due 2/26/08. Docketing Statement due 2/26/08. Transcript
                  Report/Order due 2/26/08. [08-1199] (myra) [08-1199]

2/12/08          RECORD filed: I volume(s) consisting of docket entries 242,
                  197, and 207. No Transcript(s) filed yet. [1334222-1]
                  [08-1199] (myra) [08-1199]

2/12/08          Involvement of attorney Mark E. Howard for Daniel Riley in
                  08-1199  terminated. [08-1199] (myra) [08-1199]

2/25/08          SELECTION OF COUNSEL FORM filed by Appellant Daniel Riley
                  in 08-1199 to proceed pro se [08-1199] (myra)
                  [08-1199]

2/25/08          PRO SE APPEARANCE filed by Appellant Daniel Riley in
                  08-1199. [1337814-1] [08-1199] (myra) [08-1199]

What's wrong with him being shown as "pro se"? Isn't Danny representing himself, which is the meaning of "pro se"? Or does he now have an attorney and isn't pro se anymore?

danny is representing himself sui juris. as he has made very clear 1 million times already. the courts say "oh we know that" then list him as pro se anyway. he has a filing regarding it. it is posted here earlier.

[keith in RI]

here is a link to the call between myself and ed brown recorded at noon today

http://www.podbean.com/podcast-audio-video-blog-player/mp3playerdarksmallv3.swf?audioPath=http://www.podbean.com/podcast-blog-embeddable-flash-player-mp3/NDU4NzIvZWRjYWxsZWRpdGVkdmVyc2lvbjIubXAz/edcalleditedversion2.mp3&autoStart=no
   

[keith in RI]

the court clerks letter to danny riley re: his letter to the court asking why his subpeonas werent signed yet.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2182085/danny-10

[keith in RI]

elaines recent filings in her case:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2181197/elaine-11

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2181190/elaine-12

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2181170/elaine-13

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2180826/elaine-14

the original sentencing memorandum:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2182373/elaine

elaines letter to the judge and the clerks response to her:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2182398/elaine-237

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2182387/elaine-238

third notice for validation of debt:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2182401/elaine-236

notice of dishonored status to daniel lynch:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2182426/elaine-227

[Kat Kanning]

Elaine describe the night she and Ed were captured:

http://nhunderground.com/NHFreePress/?q=node/10

[JosephSHaas]

Elaine describe the night she and Ed were captured:

http://nhunderground.com/NHFreePress/?q=node/10

Reference that mental case who kept on yelling into her ears, I asked Monier who this jerk was, and he said they employ "professionals". This was when I first read this about a month ago.

Plus: Keith: thanks for the two audio blogs over at: (1) http://keithinri.podbean.com/2008/02/27/ed-brown-calls-from-fairton-fci-on-22708/ and (2) http://keithinri.podbean.com/  for the latest, of 13:06 + 11:43 minutes respectfully.

In yesterday's http://www.concordmonitor.com/ actual newspaper (not in the electronic version, as I checked by search for Ed Brown getting back to 2/17 only) on page B1 Margo did write up a blerb on your telephone call from Ed.  I photocopied it and gave the copy to a N.H. court employee who did go to that Jesuit College (Viola?), but just because they went there, doesn't mean that they are a Jesuit.  Sort of like if I went to a meeting on the Communist party, that doesn't mean I'm a communist.  Now see WHO takes this out of context and says, yeah: Joe Haas wrote "I'm a communist"  when it's just the opposite of my very strong protests against Plank #1 of The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx, and of the N.H. Supreme Court (make-up back then in the 1980s + 90s) who were and still are in retirement practicing communists as alerted to the N.H. General Court in my Art. 32 Petition that went nowhere! re: all rents to public purposes, as in the tax sale against me. The Legislature did change the statute AFTER my case to return all excess over and above the taxes, but what about the $42,500 the town contracted to give back to me?  The Supremes said that when my corporate attorney signed a stipulation to docket markings it ended the case, but HOW?, not completely, by ending as a defendant, yes, but there was not supposed to be a block there for us to sue as plaintiffs! Thieves they be in retirement, undeserving of their Art. 36 pensions, but WHERE are these annual votes? Where is the check-and-balance in the system!?

Can Ed make photocopies from these books he's been receiving from these religious outfits? and at what cost per page? I'd like to read of what he's learned about the modern-day Jesuits.  The only thing I know about them is of the days of old when they enslaved the Indians out west to work in their gold and silver mines, then buried $millions. Hey! This is in the 1970s issue of my TRUE TREASURE magazine around here somewhere, from "Long John Latham" of Texas, now called LOST TREASURE at the newstands that I sometimes buy. Maybe the creator of The National Treasure (2004) http://imdb.com/title/tt0368891/ might like to do another sequel, in addition to the 2007 one; this time of finding this Jesuit treasure?  or do they dip into it like The Knights of the Golden Circle?  And what about that Templar treasure, where did it go? To Oak Island, Nova Scotia?

Yours truly, - - Joe

[Kat Kanning]

Nice how they tasered an elderly lady after they'd already subdued her.

[JosephSHaas]

Here's the latest in Danny's case:

the 2-page/ NOTICE, as typed here

"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

DANIEL J. RILEY, Plaintiff
v.
WARREN DOWALIBY, Superintendent, Defendant

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor-Defendant*

CIVIL NO. ___________

- - - - - NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION - - - - -

--The United States of America, intervenor-defendant, by its attorney, Thomas P. Colantuono, United States Attorney for the District of New Hampshire, removes the above-captioned case for the following reasons:

1.  The United States of America is an intervenor in an action now pending before the Supreme Court for the State of New Hampshire, No. 2007-0745, entitled, Daniel J. Riley v. Warren Dowaliby.

2. On February 22, 2008, the New Hampshire Supreme Court granted the United States of America's Petition to Intervene.

3.  The captioned case was commenced in or about October, 2007, when the plaintiff, a federal inmate awaiting trial in Criminal No. 07-189-01-GZS, filed a Request for Writ of Habeas Corpus before the Strafford County Superior Court.  Following the denial of his request, on or about November 19, 2007, he filed a Motion to Grant A Writ of Habeas Corpus and Liberty to the Appellant before the New Hampshire Supreme Court.  The United States first learned about the plaintiff's efforts in late November, 2007.  Because plaintiff is a federal pretrial / detainee and any relief granted to plaintiff would effect the United States of America's interests, the United States petitioned to intervene and the New Hampshire Supreme Court granted that petition.  Copies of the plaintiff's Motion To Grant A Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petition of the United States of America to Intervene and the New Hampshire Supreme Court's February 22, 2008 Order granting that petition are attached as Exhibits A,B, and C, respectfully.

4. This removal is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(b), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446.*  The action commenced in state court is a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking the release of a federal pretrial detainee to which the United States has a legitimate interest.**

--WHEREFORE, this action now pending in the New Hampshire Supreme Court shall stand removed from the New Hampshire Court to this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec.s 1441(b), 1442(a)(1) and 1446.

--RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

--In Concord, New Hampshire this 27th day of February, 2008.***

THOMAS P. COLANTUNO, United States Attorney

/s/Aixa Maldonado-Quinones By: Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, Assistant U.S. Attorney
PR Bar No. 208503

53 Pleasant Street, Concord, NH 03301-3904, 603-225-1552 aixa.maldonado at usdoj dot gov

February 27, 2008"

my comments to this: later: ...