Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 28

[armlaw]

Joe...

You might want to check with the Department of Justice (Executive Branch) which is the legal custodian of all Presidential Commissions appointing federal judges, not an office in the Judicial Branch.
Accordingly, the clerk of court is not the legal custodian of any Presidential Commissions. See 5 USC sections 2104(a)(1)(A) and 2902(c). also 28 USC 631(a),  28 USC 631(b)(1) ,  28 USC 636(b)(1)(B)
and if questions arise, then check out 18 USC 912, and 28 USC 372(c). Presidential appointments for magistrates is only 8 years, whereas an Article III constitutional Judge is appointed for LIFE. Accordingly the commission is the evidence of the oath that is subscribed. The corporate employee takes an oath to the corporate charter, the Article III Judge takes an oath to the constitution. So you are on the right trail. Keep up the good work. Maybe the sheeple will learn????

[JosephSHaas]

Joe...

You might want to check with the Department of Justice (Executive Branch) which is the legal custodian of all Presidential Commissions appointing federal judges, not an office in the Judicial Branch.
Accordingly, the clerk of court is not the legal custodian of any Presidential Commissions. See 5 USC sections 2104(a)(1)(A) and 2902(c). also 28 USC 631(a),  28 USC 631(b)(1) ,  28 USC 636(b)(1)(B)
and if questions arise, then check out 18 USC 912, and 28 USC 372(c). Presidential appointments for magistrates is only 8 years, whereas an Article III constitutional Judge is appointed for LIFE. Accordingly the commission is the evidence of the oath that is subscribed. The corporate employee takes an oath to the corporate charter, the Article III Judge takes an oath to the constitution. So you are on the right trail. Keep up the good work. Maybe the sheeple will learn????

Thanks Dick.

--I've just read 5 USC 2104 "(a) For the purpose of this title, 'officer'...means a justice or judge of the United States and an individual who is: - (1) ...appointed...by...(A) the President;" http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/usc_sec_05_00002104----000-.html

--Thus WHY should we, the people settle for hear-say, or see-writes? as in these certificates of filing of oaths, when the PROOF is there for the asking in that other branch, as you write of "the Department of Justice (Executive Branch)", United States, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Tel. 202:514-2000, e-mail: AskDOJ at usdoj.gov * according to http://www.usdoj.gov/ to http://www.usdoj.gov/contact-us.html with the e-mails directed over to the appropriate offices being either: (1) Wm. G. Stewart for the Executive Attorneys, (2) Joan Lapara for the Justice Management, and (3) Wm. E. Bordley for the Marshals; at their F.O.I.A. page http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/04_4.html

-- * 5 USC 2902(c) over at http://vlex.com/vid/19265918 reads that: "The commission of judicial officers and United States attorneys and marshals, appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate...shall be made out and recorded in the Department of Justice under the seal of that department and countersigned by the Attorney General. - - The department seal may not be affixed to the commission before the commission has been signed by the President." **

-- ** So did any of the attorneys for these defendants ever check this out, (for the judge, attorney and marshal) or did they take everything at face value? Reference: (1a) Where and when (on what day and time) did the President sign these, like who did he give the pens too? each of the three during some ceremony? and (1b) Where is the ledger book that would indicate the day and time of sealing by some employee in the Department of Justice for each event? Plus (2) Is it countersigned by the Attorney General?

--A "commission" is the "Authorization to carry out the task" being of to then take the Oath of Office. I have photocopies of the latter for both the U.S. Attorney and Marshal, but should have gone ONE STEP BEYOND to these documents.

--What really irks me is that the judges take their oaths to the words pre-scribed in Title 28 U.S. Code Section 453 over at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000453----000-.html "to perform ALL the DUTIES incumbent upon me...UNDER the Const. AND laws of the United States." (emphasis ADDED with abbreviation), BUT that when they were and are still being asked to PROVE jurisdiction, NOT merely say it, like when Ed originally asked of: WHERE are your [N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1(*) from 1-8-17 U.S. Const.] ceding papers?, they in effect said and say that this requirement or need (from the word incumbent) is NOT a requisite, or "absolutely" needed or essentially applied to THEM because it was NOT "upon them" to have been that officer "to" file as in the future tense.  But Ed's asking was NOT a mere request that could be DENIED, but a claim, "demand" or insistence by inquiry (to ask or examine closely; investigate), of to keep resolute: firm and determined to a re-solve: not in definition #2 of for a determination or decision of the judge, BUT for the purpose of a resolution being the finding of this part of their being, like judge: I see you the creature, but where is your stamp of state "Consent", like in the Good Housekeeping seal of approval, where is your Good "House" & Senate state-keeping seal of approval?  It does NOT exist, as obligatory: legally(*) constraining or compelling and compulsory meaning coercive(***), as to confine or restrain (from the Latin word constringere, of to draw or bind tightly(**) together), since our N.H. Secretary of State canNOT issue one until the filing! The judge, in other words, is separating(**) himself and his court from this domination(***), the word coerce(***) from the Latin word: coercere meaning to enclose together, con-strain.(****)

--(****) My friend F. Tupper Saussy, R.I.P. http://www.tuppersaussy.com [no longer on-line; try Mr. Peabody's the Wayback machine over at http://www.archive.org/index.php for Aug. 18, 2000 - Aug. 26, 2007 gets you to http://www.archive.org/web/*/http://www.tuppersaussy.org/ ] wrote me last year that nobody is con-victed until sentencing.  "They" the gov't likes to SAY you're a convict, but that they canNOT convict withOUT this con-straining or enclosing together of the law with the legal!! BOTH!! The Marshals like to say that they are "law ENFORCEment", so WHY aren't they ENFORCing the law upon the judges!? They are NOT appointed by the judges, but by the President. WHERE is the check and balance withIN the system!?  I see none, and so call for his/their replacements and impeachments!!! before and after this Fall election respectfully.

--Our state governor ought "to lean upon" the Feds by his Art. 41 "may" powers, and that he shall be responsible for NOT doing so by those harmed as victims, and so an action against him by the victims should take place in the Merrimack County Superior Court in Concord. This lean word from the Latin word incumbere for the word incumbent. I already have a case there to insist as in to assert or demand vehemently*** and persistently**** that "they" canNOT use the U.S. Code withIN our state UNTIL they file! The Code NOT to be applied either in the civil NOR criminal realm!!

-*** The word vehement defined as of the ardent, meaning "Characterized by strong enthusiasm" ["The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, (c)1973 @ page 37] and with enthusiasm defined as from the Greek word enthousiazein, of "to be inspired by a god", then WHO "hath blinded the minds of them which believe not" the non-filing?  A double negative here. Answer: "the god of this world" II Corinthians 4:4. Yes, their "god" is inferior to God Almighty, with a capital letter: G.  Their eyes might flash or glow with strong enthusiasm, but can "his face shone" like Moses? Exodus 34:29. 

--WHY do they do this? To put the truth gatherers who stand their ground into being confined= to imprison?  The "compel"ing of to drive together this lawful with the legal instead results in their compelling by the other definition of the word of "to obtain by force", but what type of force did they use to seize the property?  Certainly NOT lawful force with evidence being the receipt of this filing that does NOT exist, but as militants: with force as THE evidence!  We're supposed to be a nation of laws, not men.  No arbitrary justice! So the stand of the truth givers and gatherers, is for them to "stand trial" as in to undergo!? something; [ **** persist= "To hold firmly and steadfastly to some UNDERtaking despite obstacles."] to be "subject"ed to what? The word subject, in the verb is "To submit to the authority of." another. To "submit" is to either: (a) "yield", or (b) "surrender" oneself to the will or authority of another.  When it's the latter of authority proven, then IF they had the PROOF of such filing for jurisdictional authority, he could have yielded or gave way by a re-appearance in court, or surrendered, as in to give himself up to the Marshal, but when it's the former of will alone withOUT authority, the "requirement" definition of the word will is avoided to that of intention, like in the intention of the judge to inflict his pre-judging that what should have been IS already as probably so, him thinking there being no need to prove it and so his emotions of hate taking over in NOT to test out this questioning but "detest", in which case he is both a sociopath (meaning that he feels the end justifies the means, as in to hell with procedural due process of law) and a "demagogue".(*****)

--(*****) Demagogy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy  of being "a political strategy'.  These judges being political creatures to GET the job, but then supposed to be NOT political ON the job!  When their politics continues in this fashion, then they are what H.L. Mencken defined a demagogue as "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

P.S. Thank you too for:

(1) Magistrate: 28 USC 631 over at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00000631----000-.html but what makes you guess that the magistrate here is a full-time rather than a part-time judge? The number of years there? What about his re-appointment?  The first month, day and year on his "appointment" in paragraph (h), "entered of record in such court" ought to provide withIN that file, the paragraph (b)(5) evidence of the "public notice of all vacancies" as when Muirehead replaced William Barry, who used to be the Clerk before Starr, but maybe they goofed up, and so no evidence of such, or it buried elsewhere. We assume they all play by the Code, but you know what that ass-u-me means right? It makes an ass out of "u" (you) and me.

(2)  The pretender http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18USC0912.html and

(3) Retirement at "one-half the salary" http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00000372----000-.html

[keith in RI]

the full length copies of the surveillance video from the browns driveway on june 7 2007 are now posted online at www.freethebrowns.com this is the video dave ridley edited to use for his ridleyreport on the subject. these videos are not edited, they are exactly the way the government gave them to the defense. much has been written and discussed about these videos now you can see them with your own eyes.

[Kat Kanning]

Is it the video of Danny Riley getting tased?

[keith in RI]

Is it the video of Danny Riley getting tased?

it doesnt show danny getting tasered it shows his attempted murder when the marshals shot at him. he is out of view on this camera when he gets tasered.

[keith in RI]

sherry peel jackson hs finally arrived at her final destination. here is the address if anyone wishes to write to her. it is important to note that she is in a minimum security satellite  camp, elaine is in a medium security detention center. both ed and elaines security levels say they could be in a camp but somehow they are both in medium security facilities.
  also elaine tells me her physicians assistant has given her a permanent release from having to work due to her arm injury. she tells me she has been trying to volunteer to work in the education department bu has gotten denied multiple times now. she has been told they don't want her "educating" people.


sherry peel jackson #59085-019
FCI COLEMAN MEDIUM
SATELLITE CAMP
P.O. BOX 1027
COLEMAN, FL  33521

[coffeeseven]

she has been told they don't want her "educating" people.

Hahahaha

[KBCraig]

the full length copies of the surveillance video from the browns driveway on june 7 2007 are now posted online at www.freethebrowns.com this is the video dave ridley edited to use for his ridleyreport on the subject. these videos are not edited, they are exactly the way the government gave them to the defense. much has been written and discussed about these videos now you can see them with your own eyes.

They haven't been edited since the government released them, but they were edited before then, thus the transition in resolutions at a critical moment.

[Kat Kanning]

Shoot, I wish they wouldn't keep moving these prisoners around. 

[coffeeseven]

the full length copies of the surveillance video from the browns driveway on june 7 2007 are now posted online at www.freethebrowns.com this is the video dave ridley edited to use for his ridleyreport on the subject. these videos are not edited, they are exactly the way the government gave them to the defense. much has been written and discussed about these videos now you can see them with your own eyes.

They haven't been edited since the government released them, but they were edited before then, thus the transition in resolutions at a critical moment.

Do we know specifically by name who did the editing?

[JosephSHaas]

Thank you too Keith for the 3-page attachment in your e-mail of Sven's MOTION TO DISMISS for Danny in Case # Cr.No. 07-189-01-GZS of The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DANIEL RILEY for "to vacate his convictions and dismiss the charges against him, because he was never properly arraigned on the Third Superceding Indictment." The entire MOTION to be placed at the top of Danny's blog, by Bill, later? http://danrileyld.blogspot.com/ the letters ld for: legal documents.

In support of this motion, Sven stated seven (7) paragraphs that I'll summarize here:

1. "...Mr. Riley was attempting to represent himself.  This Court had previously ruled that he could represent himself."

2. "As Mr. Riley told the Magistrate...he had not received a copy* of the indictment prior to the hearing...(and) that he did not want to see or meet with the undersigned, since the involvement of this standby counsel had been a reason for the House of Corrections, where he was being held, to deny him access to material necessary for his preparation to defend himself."

3. "...the indictment was not read** to him at that time.  Instead the Magistrate told him that he would be provided with a copy."

4. "Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:  An arraignment MUST be conducted in open court and MUST consist of: (1) ensuring that the defendant has a COPY of the indictment...(2) reading** the indictment or information to the defendant or stating*** to the defendant the substance of the charge; AND THEN (3) asking the defendant to plead...." (emphasis ADDed*)

5. "...By failing to read or explain*** the indictment to Mr. Riley...the Court violated the rule...."

6. "...the error in failing to properly arraign Mr. Riley seriously affected the fairness and integrity of these judicial proceedings. See, Johnson v. United States, 520 IU.S. 461, 467 (1997)...."

7. "...because of this failure to comply with the rule...his convictions must be set aside.  Moreover, the case must be dismissed so as not to violate the protections against double jeopardy."

WHEREFORE: to A. Vacate and B. Dismiss

signed: Sven D. Wiberg, Thu., May 15, 2008

Thus with no objection, the judge will grant the motion before the real "Memorial Day", this Friday, May 30th. 

JSH

[JosephSHaas]

After Danny is released this Thursday, May 29th, 2008 @ __:___ o'clock p.m. he ought to take a five day vacation through Tuesday, June 3rd and then that afternoon personally deliver for Jason this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in Strafford County Superior Court, in Dover, [on this New Moon day of an indication of "Things to Come"] and plug into it what was lacking, that he could have found, had he had access to the inmate law library that was denied to him because "they" said that he had counsel, and that is to use the wording as found in the 1909 case of "International Text-Book C. v. Pigg", Vol. 217 United States Reports 91, 30 Supreme Court Reporter found over at http://books.google.com/books?id=r5wKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA487&lpg=PA487&dq=%22alternative+of+force%22right+to+sue%22&source=web&ots=h-y9DL5_nk&sig=O3H0NJ-jyQdP99_3L9t8FbRE2Kg&hl=en at page 487 there, as from page xii of the Index:

"This court held in Chambers v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 207 U.S. 142, 148, 52 L.ed 143, 144, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 34, that a state may, subject to the restrictions of the Federal Constitution, 'determine the limits of the jurisdiction of its courts, and the character of the controversies which shall be heard in them.'  But it also said in the same case: 'The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force.  In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly* government.  It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship, and must be allowed by each state to the citizens of all other states to the precise extent that it is allowed to its own citizens. Equality of treatment in this respect is not left to depend upon comity between the states, but is granted and protected by the Federal Constitution.'"

Or in other words: if and when the Superintendent Warren Dowaliby objects within the 10 days by Friday the Thirteenth  or tries to use that U.S. Code to "Remove" the case to the federal court, the judge ought to realize on Sat., June 14th as Flag Day of what really is the truth, and then say and write on Tuesday June 17th, after a Mon., June 16th hearing pre-scheduled that can be canceled should there be NO objection or attempted transfer that : "No! This court hereby determines that the limits of this state court's jurisdiction does NOT stop at the boundary line of the property owned by the United State gov't over at 53-55 Pleasant Street in Concord since the Federal gov't has failed to comply with N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 as from 1-8-17 U.S. Cons't, for jurisdictional authority, in that "Consent" was offered by our ancestors in the N.H. Legislature & General Court of House & Senate convened, to the feds, in a conditional manner, on June 14, 1883 (Flag Day), but that they/ the feds refused to cooperate, and now you motion to me to cooperate with a dis-orderly* bunch of non-filers!? you have got to be shitting me!  The answer is, as I've said: No!, with a capital letter "n"! and this exclamation point! They are out-of-order.  Toward my order I find that they have "trespassed" on private land of two of our citizens**, who were peacefully holding with others this Second Amendment right away and against "from a government unwilling to subject itself to the compulsory process of law" by the "shall" word in our statute. The Feds must "be held reasonably accountable for its usurpations of power".  To that end of accountability this case will NOT be either "Dismissed" or "Removed" to them for a burial, as was done by Maine Judge George G. Singal in Portland, acting on the Recommendation of the Magistrate in violation of Congress and an insult to us, as having violated Title 18 U.S. Code Section 3232 in that "all" is supposed to mean everything, and not just that "some" pre-trial hearings can occur in a jurisdictional territory foreign to where the alleged crime is said to have occurred. In fact, this judge finds it amazingly absurd, that a judge in a federal district of in-compliance, can side with this neighboring federal district in our state that is in non-compliance! http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm  I agree with California attorney John Wolfgram, and a Vietnam veteran [plus attorney Cyrus Zal] in case No. 05-5359 at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. over at http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update2006-03-31.htm that "the Magna Carta of 1215" is the "root" from which our "Tree of Liberty" arose with like ten branches of The Bill of Rights, and more that likewise provides "for lawful, violent rebellion to secure effective Justice", that we here in New Hampshire, have planted as Article 10 in our Bill of Rights, not to be just a seed sitting in the ground, but  to grow and for the allowance of "the threat and demonstration of pending violence that substantive Justice could peacefully be secured", or in this case since it/ this right and liberty was taken away from this individual by militant action or force as evidence, when the REAL evidence be in their non-filing, as per the certificate of non-filing by our N.H. Secretary of State, Bill Gardner, I weigh this evidence of non-filing and it tips the scales of justice for the applicant, and thus my order is: Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus: GRANTED.

So ordered. ___________________, Presiding Justice, Tuesday, June 17th, 2008

footnote: all the while, Attorney David Bownes, putting a like motion together for his client: Reno, whose case was scheduled for Jury Selection on Wed., June 18th, having been moved to Thursday, June 19th with re-trial set to start on Monday, June 23rd, and so to file said motion on the same Tue., June 3rd for a similar reaction in federal court, of this Maine judge finally waking up to see the light that: yes: the light is on like a lighthouse beacon over in Maine from where he is on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean, but that on his drive over here, the light has not dimmed to nothing, but that he carries that light like a torch, to see that the N.H. light does not even exist!

footnote #2: then afterwards, "What About Bob?" The contract he had was that if anything in there was improper, then it contaminates the entire instrument, and so his plea of guilty is a nullity, as if it never was made. To avoid a further motion or petition, the N.H. federal court does a fast-track action to bail and then sentencing of: time served. He then, later files papers wherever and for whatever toward correcting the Feds to whom wanted to likewise send him to a similar "correctional" facility to where "they" sent Ed & Elaine**, who ought to file their own Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the court of sentencing for relief then release too.

JSH

[keith in RI]

joe here is dannys filing:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3100052/danny-429

no we dont know who exactly did the editing, or if someone does i havent been told anyway...

also last night another supporter took a five hour drive down to new jersey to visit ed and stayed overnight with the intention of visiting him in the morning. the visit was kept very quiet and no one was told except family over the phone. when the person arrived at fairton this morning they were told ed was no longer there and they had no info on him didnt know him etc... today he is showing at the oklahoma city center in oklahoma once again. that is the same transfer center he was in before he was moved to new jersey. so if anyone has sent ed any letters in new jersey they will be returned to you. here is the new address but he could be there from a day to 6 months before hes transferred again.

edward-lewis: brown #03923-049
FTC OKLAHOMA CITY
FEDERAL TRANSFER CENTER
P.O. BOX 898801
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK  73189

and yes kat, i wish they would stop moving them around too......

[JosephSHaas]

Thanks Keith.

I did just print this new address out for Tuesday's packet to Ed.

Plus: My visit to see Jason then Danny today resulted in me hearing for the first time:

1. from Jason: that the special attorney phone is in the other cell-block NOT available to him!? and

2. from Danny: that he has not been able to call his attorney for any part of these nine (9) months!

- - Joe

Modification: To call the HI-CALIBER Investigations of CAlif. @ 1-800-470-2926 on Tuesday to see if they know about some right to have set-up an attorney-client phone separate from the others the jail monitors, and of its availability. http://hi-caliber.blogspot.com/2007/10/police-eavesdrop-on-attorney-client.html

[JosephSHaas]

the full length copies of the surveillance video from the browns driveway on june 7 2007 are now posted online at www.freethebrowns.com this is the video dave ridley edited to use for his ridleyreport on the subject. these videos are not edited, they are exactly the way the government gave them to the defense. much has been written and discussed about these videos now you can see them with your own eyes.

They haven't been edited since the government released them, but they were edited before then, thus the transition in resolutions at a critical moment.

Do we know specifically by name who did the editing?

C7:

I specifically asked Danny this question today and he said that he tried to get Sven to Motion for this, but to no avail, since the prosecutors said that they would object, and so convincing Sven that it would be a waste of time, since they would probably get the motion denied. So much for trying, eh? Give up before by pre-judging what the judge would judge. Take the money and sit back and do nothing. Let the gov't tamper with the evidence so it leaves a gray light on the subject.  They didn't want anything too bright to shine upon the juror's eyes.

- - Joe