Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 35

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/sign-of-progress-from-federal-judge

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/sign-of-progress-from-federal-judge#comment-132304

of & entitled:

"But what about the Federal law in New Hampshire?
By JosephSHaas - 07/14/2010 - 8:30 am New
So in other words until the Federal court case in the District of MAss.achusetts makes it up to the First Circuit in Boston, the U.S. Code or Statutes at Large on taxation of civil unions to NOT get the same tax benefits as traditionally married couples in the other Districts of this Circuit are to be upheld until overturned? That includes the Districts of: Maine, N.H., Vermont, Conn, R.I. and P.R. Who are these 608 same-sex marriage couples in New Hampshire? And are ANY of them fighting this here too? As Articles 12 + 30 "inhabitants" of this state, per parts 1 + 2 of the N.H. Constitution I'd like to see at least one of them tell the I.R.S. still using this un-even scale to back off by executive decision needing no judicial review in what IS the definition of a republic by Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, BUT if not then to seek that "judicial" review to an Article I, Section 8, Clause 9 "judicial" tribunal. WHERE are they? The court over there at the Warren B. Rudman Block at 55 Pleasant Street, in Concord, N.H. is an Article III, Section 1 "inferior Court_ of Congress" in the Legislative branch! They are a tenant court of the landlord being the G.S.A. / General Services Administration, whose "head" of "agency" by Title 40 U.S. Code Section 255 to 3112 Martha Johnson has FAILED to file her "agent" paperwork with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1 from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution. Yes there IS a consent, but of what type? A conditional consent. And by the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court an offer of consent un-accepted is NOT consent. Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution does NOT read of pursuant to with the letter "t" of there having to be a consent, that was and is ever since June 14, 1883, BUT that of "in Pursuance thereof" with the letter "c" of to put into effect WHEN the papers are finally filed with Bill Gardner's office in Concord on the 2nd floor of the State House. That is to WHERE the Feds are Ordered to report by the "shall" word, but that our current governor REFUSEs to send them a written invitation as required by his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to Article 51, Part 2, N.H. Constitution "to execute the laws of the state" for which he is Article 41 "responsible for". His advisers on the Executive Council of five likewise REFUSE to counsel him on this because they don't want to upset the Federal funds coming their way ever other Wednesday at those G&C meetings. His "faithful" performance bond by RSA Ch. 93-B:1,I is to $200,000. My suggestion is that anybody harmed by the Feds alert Lynch and the Dept. of Safety of "to serve and protect" and if not done, then to sue him +/or Barthelmes too as the Commissioner in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims. "

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/childrens-center-closes-shop

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/childrens-center-closes-shop#comment-132314

of & entitled: "Drop the I.R.S., not this service.
By JosephSHaas - 07/14/2010 - 9:21 am New
So how many of the employees were new = ____? and old = #_____ like from 1984? The reason I ask is that if not new, as having already put in their quarters to be able to tap into this socialized medicine program upon retirement, why didn't they just go private contractor in their old age? Hey! Since the Feds failed to file by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State, why can't you REFUSE to file with them? You can, they have no jurisdictional authority over you if you chose not to consent. Details in my Archives here of today in regards to that other article dealing with the I.R.S. too. Read it and weep? No, read it and re-open. Best wishes to you. "

[JosephSHaas]

Here's the latest e-mail through http://www.corrlinks.com from Danny who told me that this argument (withOUT these latest findings?) are withIN his Appeal to Boston, and get this: NEVER rebutted by Seth Aframe, Assistant U.S. Attorney in the case, and so David Hacket Souter of Weare and Hopkinton, N.H. and the other two judges in Boston from the first of #___ hearings on May Day 2010 ought to send it back to the lower court for a re-trial and do it right this time!

Compare to what Clerk James R. Starr told me over the phone last month when I wanted a forum to complain against his transcriber who REFUSED to put down the ENTIRE trial record that in-cluded my "Point of Order", and he said that the events in Maine were not "proceedings" as they were not going forward with the case, but a mere treading water, as in a status conference BELIEVE IT OR NOT! saying the word proceeding in 18USC3232 is nowhere defined by Congress, although I know from the past of the only dictionary ever approved by them being: "Bovier's Dictionary" as THE one to consult for the definition of any word.

So Donna and Jose: Please relay this latest info of details below to Reno to put into his Pro Se Brief for a re-hearing:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: "DANIEL RILEY (14528052)"
Date: "7/14/2010 9:06:21 AM"
Subject: "trial"
Message: "A trial is defined in    ( in re relafen antitrust litigation) USDC Mass. 231 F.R.D. 52 @ 93 (1st Cir. 2005), its basically any evidentry hearing, but read for youself. / / 87 criminal law reporter (BNA) 110 / / April 28, 2010 / / "[p]reliminary hearing is a critical stage of trial..."   State v Jones, Kan., No. 98, 571  4/15/2010 / / can be read at    pub.bna.com/cl/98571p.pdf

So the facts show my trial was held in Maine while the offense was alleged in NH, totally unlawful ! " *
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* both: unlawful [in violation of the 6th Amendment: "...all criminal prosecutions...shall...(be held in) the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,...."] and illegal, as against Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 3232. Them trucked to Portland, Maine from New Hampshire over The Somersworth-Berwick Bridge.

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - Joe  / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059, e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

cc: Citizen's Service for Gov. John H. Lynch at:  officeofcitizenservi at nh dot gov plus his five advisers on The Executive Council [ see: http://www.nh.gov/council/ & see also: http://nhexecutivecouncil.com/ for the audio/video versions] who is charged by his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm [see also Art. 42:1 for the City officials at:  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm over to Article 84: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html ]  "to execute the laws of the state and of the United States" too, by Article 51, Part 2, see: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html that in-cludes 18USC3232 for which he is Article 41 "responsible for" should the Article 28-a "political subdivision" of the state http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html The C.O.P. at the gateway over there in Somersworth not protect. Me trying to get him to adopt a similar policy to that Sheriff out west that whenever the Feds come into his territory he pre-scribes to them that they have to prove their authority, as by here in N.H. to have to prove their "head" of "agency" by 40USC255 to 3112 filed their Federal papers as the N.H. R.S.A. "agent" in RSA Ch. 123:1  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm  with Bill Gardner's Office of N.H. Secretary of State, and if not and caught doing monkey business with inmates in their baliwick to arrest and charge them with kidnapping.  Ignorance of the law is NO excuse!  I did write the C.O.P. about this on May 28th, with a June 29th follow-up then and on Fri., July 2nd, plus yesterday's phone call to the City Manager and Ward #1 Councilor who covers the eastern part of the City, to please contact the Chief by the end of his/ the Manager's 1-week vacation starting today, and so by say the end of next week, so that I do not have to take the Manager to the City Council when they next meet on Monday, August 16th per their once a month meetings during the Summer, then back to twice a month in September. See: http://www.somersworth.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={9697F9D0-8AE9-4E95-BA58-93A575FE9EA4} for: Robert M. Belmore, City Manager, Beth Nault, Executive Assistant, City of Somersworth, One Government Way, Somersworth, New Hampshire 03878, 603-692-9503; e-mail: BBelmore at Somersworth dot com and: http://www.somersworth.com/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC={625D2982-80FD-4114-8083-8491B8E1CE15} for: Councilor Martin Pepin, Ward 1, 54 Rocky Hill Road, Somersworth, NH 03878, Telephone No.: 692-4436, email: mpepin at comcast.net plus: http://www.somersworth.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={8A310EE1-A1DE-4F9E-976E-0E23625A595E} for Police Chief Dean Crombie, Karen Cantrell - Executive Assistant, Somersworth Police Department, 12 Lilac Lane, Somersworth, New Hampshire 03878, 603-692-3131 business/dispatch, 603-692-2111 fax To see IF the City of Somersworth does adopt such a policy for future notice to the Feds, and some apology in writing that they have failed to protect several of our Articles 12 + 30 inhabitants, Parts 1 + 2 respectfully of the N.H. Constitution, http://www.nh.gov/constitution/senate.html by calling upon the governor to be the Respondeat Superior to have to answer to them for me having NOT notified the City ahead of these events, BUT having put the governor on notice on June 21st, 2007 @ 4:29 o'clock p.m. with these incidents having occurred on: _____________________ (in my notes and withIN the 3-year RSA Ch. 508:4 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/508/508-4.htm statute of limitations) to sue upon the governor's performance bond of $200,000** by RSA Ch. 93-B:1,I http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/93-B/93-B-1.htm in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm that next meets in September, as they meet quarterly, and so maybe a hearing on this in December.

** over to the following: click on the Admin. Services Agency  http://admin.state.nh.us/  - hover over  the Risk Management to the left margin  and click   Insurance Policies gets you to http://admin.state.nh.us/riskmanagement/propandcasualty.asp click on the 1st hyperlink of Insurance Policies = http://admin.state.nh.us/purchasing/property%20and%20casualty%20insurance%20policies.pdf see the 2nd one down to the $6,352/year policy for $200,000 = all positions, except $300,000 for each of the Chairman Lottery and Exec. Dir. Sweepstakes.

[JosephSHaas]

* Monier: I took an oath to execute only lawful precepts.
Ayotte: As A.G. I knew that the Feds failed to file by RSA 123:1 and so what you did to pick up Ed Brown on private soil was illegal, but you know what Steve?
Monier: What's that Kelly ?
Ayotte: Congratulations! The end justifies the means. To hell with procedural due process of law. The sheeple will vote for me because I have the backing of all ten County Sheriffs.
Monier: Yeah, what do you think about Mike Prozzo of Sullivan County going on vacation when Haas presented the evidence of non-filing to the County Commissioners in Newport on May Day 2007?
Ayotte: Great! When the check-and balance gets paid more from us in Federal funds to look the other way than to protect his Art. 12 inhabitants, that's cause for celebration.
Monier: The sheeple sure are gullible in taking our "Protection Racket" hook, line and sinker.
Ayotte: Quiet! Steve, somebody might hear you on that.
Monier: So what!? What can they do? We've got it all sewn up. Or should I say a beeline path to Portland for our judge Singal to further cause insult to injury.
Ayotte: You mean the illegal trips to there against 18USC3232 right?
Monier: Right on! We just love those field trips to the ocean. Yeah know old Georgie boy Singal and his family escaped from the Nazi's right?
Ayotte: No, I didn't know that.  Then Why on earth would he choose to become a part of our Racket?
Monier: Money and power.  He gets a thrill out of seeing the defendants squirm and squeal rights as guaranteed by the constitution and statutes at large, and especially so when we execute these un-lawful precepts.
Ayotte: Don't you think that sometime, somewhere, somebody will test the precepts?
Monier: Not in my lifetime.  David Cargill of the N.H. State Police is our buddy now in the U.S. Marshal's Office.  We've got him trained to do our bidding.
Ayotte: Don't you just love it?
Monier: Yes "Comrade", "they" will never know. Moscow is proud of you. The TOTALitarianism of socialism is to make sure that when one of the "subjects" gets out of hand that we take ALL their apples plus the tree and throw them into the dungeon. The sheeple pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of American and to the Republic for which it stands, but as long as it, of any adversity, doesn't touch them individually, they care not for their neighbors.
Ayotte: Amen to that brother.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/candidates-test-the-market#comment-132782
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kelly Ayotte
From:    ___________________
Sent:    Fri 7/16/10 7:27 PM
To:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Cc:    _________________
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/candidates-test-the-market


Candidates test the 'market'

By Shira Schoenberg / Monitor staff
July 16, 2010


Kelly Ayotte, a Republican Senate candidate, and Ann McLane Kuster, a Democratic congressional candidate, are far apart politically. But the two have one thing in common: They're better at campaigning than at aiming.

Ayotte tried nine times, unsuccessfully, to throw a ball at a target and dunk Concord City Councilor Steve Shurtleff in a dunk tank. Kuster gave up after four throws, but she had the better excuse. "He's a supporter," Kuster said. "I don't want to dunk him."

Amid a potpourri of food, crafts and T-shirts, New Hampshire's political candidates used downtown Concord's Market Days to see and be seen. There was some talk about jobs and government spending, and lots of talk about children and Concord connections.

"We have a large family, I get your pizza all the time," Democratic congressional candidate Katrina Swett told an employee at the Constantly Pizza booth.

Ayotte, who bravely tackled Market Days wearing heels, lives in Nashua. But Merrimack County Sheriff Scott Hilliard helped her navigate the Concord crowd, introducing her to friends and voters. Former U.S. marshal Steve Monier* also joined the entourage.

"She was a great attorney general," Hilliard said. "With her leadership qualities, she's not afraid to take on Washington."

Ayotte shook hands with U.S. Army recruiters and told them her husband serves in the Air National Guard. She took a business card from a local lobbyist and thanked a veteran for his service. When a first-term state legislator said he wanted the state House to focus on fiscal issues, not divisive social issues, Ayotte responded that the economy was her top issue nationally.

"We're spending too much money and borrowing too much money," Ayotte told employees in a local copy shop. "We've got to get the economy back on track."

Ayotte's 2-year-old son Jacob stopped by with Ayotte's aunt and uncle but seemed more interested in the bounce house than in his mother's campaign.

Ed Carnahan, running a booth for the church-run Capital City Children's Camp, said Ayotte won a game that involved rolling balls into numbered slots. "She'd make a fine senator," Carnahan said. "I'd like to get a fresh face in Washington now."

Ayotte bore no ill will toward Jim MacKay, the longtime Republican-turned-Democrat state representative from Concord. The two worked together on issues like monitoring prescription drugs. "I appreciated working with you on important issues over the years," Ayotte told MacKay.

MacKay, for his part, said he was "very fond of Kelly" - though he didn't commit to voting for her. MacKay, who is running to regain the state House seat that he lost by 17 votes, spent the morning sitting at the Concord City Democrats booth. He hoped his two years out of politics would give him an edge up in the election. "Nationally, who's winning is non-incumbents," MacKay said.

Kuster and Swett, competing with one another in the 2nd District Democratic primary, set up booths across the street from each other. At Swett's booth, volunteers talked about her parents, who were Holocaust survivors, and her commitment to give part of her congressional salary back to the U.S. Treasury.

Wearing a patriotic outfit of red, white and blue, Swett introduced herself to voters with a quick summary of her platform. "I'm running to fight for the middle class," she said. "Americans are squeezed from every side. We need to create jobs."

In the short term, Swett said, she would extend unemployment benefits. In the long term, she would offer tax cuts and credits as incentives for small businesses to grow.

Swett cooed over a woman's young twins and told the woman that she has seven children of her own. "I know what it means to have a family and make those budgets work," she said. One couple told Swett that years ago their son had his picture taken with Swett's husband, former congressman Dick Swett.

Kuster seemed not to need to introduce herself to anyone. Hardly a minute went by without Kuster running to hug a longtime friend or exclaiming, "Hi, sweetie! How are you?" There was Lucia Kittredge from Kuster's yoga group and Ruth Perencevich from her book club. There was the editor of Kuster's book and a fellow board member from the Capitol Center for the Arts.

Kuster thanked one supporter for holding a house party for her. "We've worked very hard and had 100 house parties!" Kuster exclaimed.

Kuster's son, Zach, a student at Dartmouth College, walked beside her handing out stickers.

"I've lived here my entire life, worked on Main Street for 25 years, volunteered for nonprofits, raised my kids here," Kuster said. She said she even ran into a man she dated in ninth grade.

Farther down Main Street, a young staffer was manning 2nd District Republican candidate Jennifer Horn's booth - Horn was expected to show up last night. John Meibaum, who works in Concord and described himself as "very conservative," had already talked to Ayotte and stopped by to pick up Horn's literature. He noted that there are a lot of women running this election, and added, "Go get 'em!"

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/cashing-in-on-collections

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/cashing-in-on-collections#comment-133026

of: "Time for a pay raise to our public servants.
By JosephSHaas - 07/19/2010 - 8:43 am New
Thank you Ray. And as Richard would probably tell you he did not technically "buy" the gold coins from that woman for $2,500 (two thousand five hundred dollars) so that she could have heating oil, but that she bought his commercial paper (c.p.) being the private Federal Reserve Notes to exchange in commerce for the oil. Or maybe the commercial coins (instead of the c.p.) per the Coinage Act of 1965 that did not replace but supplemented the one for 1792 that is still the law, and as annotated in Article 97 of our N.H. Constitution as the quality of coin that the State Treasurer and all City and Town Treasurers must pay their officers and employees by Chapter 28 Laws of New Hampshire of 1794 in Vol. 6 at page 155. Now WHERE be the law enforcement of such!? Section 20 of the 1792 Act requires this! That ALL government offices AND the courts deal ONLY with this quality of coin! Is there ANY public official reading this at ANY level of state or federal gov't willing to do something about this? To claim the quality of coin from their next paycheck. Like an instant raise in pay. (;-) To then take to the coin dealer for an exchange ratio of what? ___ to ___? But: If they are too chicken to do so, may I "buy" YOUR check please to contact me. Thank you. And hopefully from a state-chartered bank, governed by the N.H. Banking Commissioner, that when notified of default, to invite the Bank President in to give reason WHY they refuse to pay in the quality defined by law, and if still as outlaws, to notify the governor "to execute the laws of the state and of the United States" by his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to Article 51 for which he is Article 41 "responsible for" and shall be by an action of debt and damages against him in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims. He has an RSA Ch. 93-B:1,I Insurance Bond of $200,000 to faithfully perform his duty. So to test this out by the end of this month, to get "prompt" action by Article 14, but if not then to sue toward their next quarterly meeting in either September or December. "

[JosephSHaas]

RE: State Rep. Bill O'Brien, of Mt. Vernon, N.H.

http://www.ipolitics.com/legislator/22318/William-O%27Brien/newtopic/

and: http://www.ipolitics.com/legislator/22318/William-O%27Brien/7109-the_new_house_speaker_maybe_2011.htm

Subject: "The New House Speaker - maybe 2011"

Message of: "I just heard today (Mon., July 19th '10) that if/when the Republicans win this November 2010 that Attorney Bill (of 88 No. Main St., Suite 209, Concord, N.H. 03301, 603: 228-6610) will probably be the next House Speaker. To which I say: About time! And reference: current House Speaker, Terrie Norelli, "Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish!" Bill to set up a new statutory committee on the Constitution to where Article 32 Petitions go to there as the former "appropriate" committee BEFORE Norelli had House Rule #4 changed to that of to merely collect dust now, as our ancestors ran up against similar and worse of repeated injuries in retaliation from King George in England that resulted in our "Declaration of Independence".  Some people like Norelli never learn from history, or TRY to repeat it for their power ego trip that it just that: a trip in time, and then they are gone, off to jail if I have my way for her Official Oppression of my January 12, 2007 Petition Endorsed by a State Rep. by House Rule 36, and so to go after Norelli within 2 years of her leaving office by RSA Ch. 625:8,III(b).  Luckily for others in the future not having to put up with this type of Norelli crap. Future petitions automatically over to this Committee hopefully chaired by State Rep. Dan Itse from Freemont to hopefully win re-election too. Yours truly, JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com, Tel. 603: 848-6059. POB3842 Concord 03302. "

[DonnaVanMeter]

http://cirinogonzalez.wordpress.com/








To read Riley and Wolffe Proffers with Reno's Notes:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=170785320&blogId=522932004

[Dave Ridley]

Thanks for posting this donna I will look at it and see if I can at least mention it on my channel...  always looking for any excuse to remind folks of the excessive sentences.

[JosephSHaas]

....

Look for a new address for Attorney Joshua Gordon in the coming weeks. I walked the dog by Mail Boxes, Etc. is this address the other day, his Box #175 therein, and there's a sign that it is moving down the road to another location.  Maybe the Concord Natural Foods Co-Op is expanding?

[DonnaVanMeter]

father,

wife,



The dead line should have ended yesterday on the government's time to reply to the court's order for them to file a brief. We need to find out what the government filed about the BOP withholding my discovery. It will be a while before I am able to see anything on it; from now till then, this will be just wasted time for us. Both of you need to follow up on this and relay to me and post the situation again for everyone else to know what is going on.

*See Images below for
Motion to Allow Prisoner Receipt of Certain Mail


Remember, on wolffe's testimony,
( 132-3-31-08 day 7 pm )
he said there was no one taking notes and there was no recording devices and they even said there would not be any used at his meetings with the prosecuters and marshals. Remember the proffer statements from Bob and Danny were word for word when it came to the subject of me only
( as i rememeber it ).

( Proffer Riley v Wolffe wCG Notes )

( CG Notes Trancript )
these were two different guys interviewed on two different days, seperate interviews...



good luck getting info on the government's order.



cirino

Motion to Allow Prisoner Receipt of Certain Mail page 1

Motion to Allow Prisoner Receipt of Certain Mail page 2

Motion to Allow Prisoner Receipt of Certain Mail page 3

[armlaw]

Here is something Mr. Gordon can sink his teeth into as it would benefit all who have been victimized by the CORPORATE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in "territorial Jurisdiction:" It is NOT the National government that brought the action. Study and think about what follows;

Docket Sheet 6/1-6/22/2010
USA Motion for Revoking Bond of Snipes - Doc 526.
11th Cir. Denial Exhibit at 526
Snipes Appeal Brief and Reply
USA Appellee Brief.
Jury Instructions of Snipes case.
United States v. Rivamontek, 666 F.2d 515 (11th Cir. 1982)
United States v. White, 611 F.2d 531 (5th Cir. 1980) - Important - how the house was built on sand, then misquoted.
United States v. Wuagneu, 638 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir. 1982).

Jury Instruction of Snipes to the Jury had the "preponderance of evidence" standard - don't know if the current attorney for Snipes THEN fought this or not - EXTREMELY important - didn't have the time to track back preponderance of evidence of how it arrived and if really fought or not.  I searched the Snipes record of the documents that I had downloaded from Pacer and I found no record of any of Snipes Attorneys attacking the preponderance of evidence standard prior to the trial but that MAY not be true - lots of documents filed in his case - could have missed one - just can't take the time to assure my statement is really correct.

There is some useful very information contained in this including that the revoking of the Bail before the Mandate of the Court of Appeals was final.  Should be interesting to see how this one plays out.
Still have not read the 11th Cir. decision - just scanned quickly but the thing that jumped out at me was the "preponderance of evidence" standard was used - this is total BS as all of the substantive elements of a crime are to be by the "reasonable doubt" standard -- wherein they start the duplicity of a "crime"  with the "essential" elements versus the "substantive" elements. (White, infra)  Lacking time to research out enough for a module on this, but one only has to go back a couple of cases to the fraud of the circuits, wherein the house of sand is built then morphed into purportedly a  house built upon rock - precedent  - the courts do this over and over, but for some reason very few folks/attorneys follow the link back to the source to then see and prove the misapplications in citing based on earlier cases.
United States v. White, 611 F.2d 531 (1980) wherein White DID NOT request the venue issue in the jury instructions, therefore the issue comes under "plain error" review on Appeal of every "essential element" of a crime.  Then the circuit sidesteps the issues of "plain error" with at 536 -  "we decline to hold either that a trial court's failure to instruct the jury on territorial jurisdiction and venue will always be plain error or that it will never be plain error."
Then the cat is out of the bag with the following - "We hold only that in this case the failure to instruct on territorial jurisdiction and venue did not constitute plain error. " "[H]old only that in this case" is the key.

At 538 they again expose their intentional  criminality with ] "Although "(i)t is axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove territorial jurisdiction over a crime in order to sustain a conviction therefor,"

Isn't this just special that the jurisdiction is "axiomatic" wherein if the real Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum was and could (still there but not used) be used today, the cornerstone of it was "jurisdiction", i.e., including VENUE.  In the  they shut down the real Habeas Corpus for the 2255 habeas (just a motion in the Admin. State) then with verycurrent Administrative State specific limitations they MAY look at a real Habeas.

HOLD ONLY IN THIS CASE in White, supra is the key and from there down the slippery slope comes the "preponderance of evidence" lurking in this Case wherein the Venue was not put to jury and therefore the "plain error" and "essential" versus "substantive" is used to give the appearance of the validation of the fox to get into the chicken house, with it then being misapplied/misstated in later cases. Damn, you have like those crooked sobs scams - what a system.

[Tunga]

How this plays out?

Ha Ha. We think you already know the answer to that one.

Tunga is not certain how much of what you wrote has been absorbed but we do appreciate your perspective. 

So many words. Never enough ammo.

Tunga a simple guy who just needs to file a writ of error.

[DonnaVanMeter]

Rigged Trial, email from Danny Riley (Ed and Elaine Brown Supporter)



The more i reflect beck on the trial and its extrementies, the more i realize it was fixed for us to lose, not ot be a "fair trial."Let me explain, i was the only non participatorr in the scheme to find us guilty, so they had to get rid of me. the court did this by: not allowing me any witnesses, not enforcing the discovery i was entitled to, would obfuscate the issue of my privatelt obtained evidence not being turned over to me, just to name a few. These violations forced me to to relinqush my right to defend mtself. The court also would not let us put on our defense, which was self-defense and defense of others in the face of excessive force, which is 100% justifiable under the law, and was the truth of the matter. So we were defeated before the trial even started.



The attorneys were sided with the feds, not us. We had no effective assistance of counsel. For example, Bownes argued vehemently against introducing those two impeaching letters written by Wolffe. Think about that for a minute, not wanting evidnce introduced that helps your client, arguing at sidebar, hearsay, competency and no oath, which all make no sense. Can't be hearsay Wolffe is on the stand! Bownes also tried to get the liberty tools taken from Texas introduced against Reno, his own client, Why? Its evidence that would of helped the feds thats why.



Norkunas, what a joke he was. After 6 months of trial prep, lead to putting on a 5 minute video showing the Brown's home while "I fought the law and the law won" cranks over the court room speakers! Think about that! Its a dead give away who he was really working for. He did not call one witness, basically put on no defense at all.



Wiberg had the sniper that tried to kill me in the hallway and never put him on the stand, why?



Another tell-tale sign is both Norkunas and Bownes could of saved the liberty tools from forfeiture, by simply filing a 12(b)(6) motion, because the statute of limitations had run out for a 924(d) frofeiture, but yet they didi nothing and of course i was never even notifief the forfeiture was taken place because the feds knew i knew about the statute of limitations.



Now ther is 3 innocent people rotting in prison, basically political prisoners.



There is no such thing as a "fair trial" in a federal court, as long as the BAR flies a running the show.




addendum---rigged trial

i forgot to mention, the attempted murder video, Wiberg showed it the first time and said absolutely nothing when i told him to explain it to the jury. The second time, when the marshal was on the stand, the judge would not lwt Wiberg show it, was told save it for closing arguments. At closing arguments, i had the whole video laid out, with specific times and what to point out to the jury. When i tried to play the video, the court's electronic equipment mysteriously stopped working, depriving me of the ability show my best piece of evidence. To this very day i say the government on purpose made the electronic equipment stop working, to stop me from proving my innocence. Another thing to think of!



How can a logical person believe us three got a fair trial ?

[armlaw]

It appears that Title 42 USC 1985(3) will offer some relief for the political prisoners.

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

For color of Law see what follows.

The Seal of the US Department of Justice The banner of US Department of Justice, Civil Rights
   
   
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Summary:

      Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
      The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

          Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Return to the Criminal Section Home Page

[DonnaVanMeter]

http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100730106