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

[JosephSHaas]

...
"RE:  ....

....
press 8 for Federal judges....

Yeah, I called the 1-800: 869-4499 number again and pressed 8 for this thief of a judge Jeffrey R. Howard AND* his employee(s) #__ of ___ who cut these checks to Bownes and the others against 18USC3232, and the man on the machine said that if the complaint is with a federal judge, to write to the Circuit, or if an employee to call 202-502-2600 for the http://www.uscourts.gov that I did since I've already written to THIS federal circuit court judge through his N.H. clerk Starr and got NO reply, and so WHOever signed these checks as the employee...

...but when I called that 502 # I was transferred over to The Office of General Counsel @ 1:27 p.m. when this #127 woman #7 for short since she REFUSED to give me her name, told me that this was NOT to where to file a complaint.  Me TELLing her to please tell WHOever is in charge of the 869 # to therefore change the information to ANOTHER outfit, like who? The F.B.I. - so I guess the F.B.I. will have to do, re: the above, since the prior calls to these local F.B.I. goons in N.H., Maine and MAss.achusetts resulted in the royal- run-around too, thus dependent now upon the F.B.I. nationals or down there in Texas.  Jose - good luck in your follow-up down there.  I'll let you know if I hear back on my complaint #___________ of today being given some file folder in their office to collect more dust.

In the meantime to call both Hodes and Gregg to see WHEN they are going to be WHERE as next in Concord to be PUSHed over there to the S of S.     - - Joe

[JosephSHaas]

...
"RE:  ....

....
press 8 for Federal judges....

...
Hodes * ....

* Hodes: WHERE are you right now, and tomorrow, plus next week on M, T, W, T or F?

[JosephSHaas]

An apology cover letter FROM Ralph Conner, Deputy G.S.A. Agent TO the N.H. Secretary of State (Bill Gardner) with the required filing to hopefully arrive by next Tuesday, February 2nd @ 10:01 a.m.

THEN Ed & Elaine's attorneys, plus those of for Danny, Jason and Reno, can copy the receipt of same as NEW evidence in their case that BEFORE this filing on February ___, 2010 @ __:__ o'clock a.m./p.m. there was NO jurisdictional authority for to enforce ANY of the U.S. Codes up here against ANY of us Article 12 N.H. inhabitants and to release control by the feds against same as out-of-order!

His telephone # is 202: 501-1609 to where I left him a message just a few minutes ago to please send me an e-mail to JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com and I would send him Lowell (Larry) Becraft's website of:  http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm   from Hutsville, Alabama explaining to WHERE in EACH and EVERY state of the Union these papers are to go...

...such as in Florida to the governor's office, and to the Secretary of State for here in N.H. by RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 of the United States Constitution.

And if this is NOT in the instruction manual from his predecessor, then to add it to the existing one for his boss to do his job of which I pay for indirectly by my employer at work deducting $x amount from my pay and sending to The Feds at: __________ (location).

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100129/FRONTPAGE/1290301&template=single

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100129/FRONTPAGE/1290301#comment-105974

plus: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100129/FRONTPAGE/1290301#comment-105973

entitled: "Great for "Uncle Sam" to bill us less for what we pay for."

of: "Now WHY can't this be done in other areas too, other than the medical?

re: paragraph #13: " Lawmakers are also hopeful that the federal government will extend a program that reduced the state's share of Medicaid expenses, which could mean as much as $60 million in new revenue by the end of the budget cycle. "

Say what? According to: http://www.answers.com/topic/medicaid "Medicaid is a federal-state entitlement program for low-income citizens of the United States. The Medicaid program is part of Title XIX of the Social Security Act Amendment that became law in 1965. Medicaid offers federal matching funds to states for costs incurred in paying health care providers for serving covered individuals. State participation is VOLUNTARY, but since 1982, all 50 states have chosen to participate in Medicaid." (emphasis ADDed, with the question of WHO in our state volunteered us into this "program"? So in other words the "match" will be a ratio of __ to __ of MORE Fed and LESS state, right? )

Medicaid is also defined in http://www.investorwords.com/3032/Medicaid.html as: "A program, funded by the federal AND state governments, which pays for medical care for those who can't afford it. The program typically helps low-income individuals or families, as well as elderly or disabled individuals. To receive Medicaid, an individual must meet certain requirements (such as income level), and also must go through an application process. Although ALL states participate in the Medicaid program, each state MANAGES their OWN program, and is able to SET different requirements and other GUIDELINES." (emphasis ADDed.)

According to http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidRF/ this is under: "Section 1902(a)(30)(A) of the Social Security Act".

The Social Security tax is a "Federal tax levied* equally on employers and employees, used to pay for Social Security programs." http://www.investorwords.com/4618/Social_Security_Tax.html as summarized over at: http://www.investorwords.com/4617/Social_Security.html of: "The comprehensive federal program of benefits providing WORKERS and their dependents with retirement income, disability income, and OTHER payments. The Social security tax is used to pay for the program." (emphasis ADDed for us WORKers, who are also Article 12, N.H. "inhabitants" who are NOT supposed to be "controllable" by any OTHER laws, such as the U.S. Codes or Statutes at Large than what we as a group by our Legislature or General Court OR us individually "Consent" to, as from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution to N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 see:   http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html  over to the state-by-state list at:   http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm   and our http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm as it relates to #2 below as will be explained, and especially since there is no 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal filing!

Hey! I did just get my "Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement" from my Employer and it has the total Wages for the year minus #2, 4 + 6 of Federal income tax, Social security tax, and Medicare tax(es) withheld.  So now what is this Medicare (v.s. Medicaid?). Medicare = "A federal program that pays for certain health care expenses for people aged 65 or older."   http://www.investorwords.com/3033/Medicare.html   But I'm not 65 years of age or older, so what? This being saved up for me, +/or toward others in that age category now? I don't mind volunteering these #4 + 6 $amounts, but do for #2.

I know from reading Devvy Kidd's website that the mere fact of the employer having the signed W-4 form in the custody of the employer triggers the voluntary nature of these contributions  http://www.devvy.com/  but what about when the employer refuses to give it back to you upon request, but of only a copy when you "wake up" to the truth?  The truth that there is no enforcement clause in the 16th Amendment that reads of to "lay and collect taxes", and that to lay can be either to impose as a levy* to collect, or to apply as in a request that can be: DENIED. To keep my original signature on file when I want to take it back.  Isn't that like a game of Capture the Flag? In other words: don't rock the Federal Boat, or we will rock you: rock you out of a job!  In my case working part-time this is peanuts.  It's just the principle.  So this info to those self-employed that maybe this can benefit in these tough economic times.  In which case I say to you: good luck. "

[DonnaVanMeter]

[JosephSHaas]

....

?    http://www.myspace.com/thegreenspiderisback

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100130/NEWS01/1300372

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100130/NEWS01/1300372#comment-106288

entitled: "Federal dictionary: O.K.; their Tax Code: un-acceptable!"

of: "Re: " to align it with federal law. "

In other words to use the federal dictionary in New Hampshire.

Too bad those in local, county + state "law enforcement" so-called do not even obey the state law! Their RSA Ch. 42:1 and 92:2 oaths of office! http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm to Article 84, Part 2: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html

reference: Article 12 of our N.H. Bill of Rights: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html of: "Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other* laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent."

* The "other" laws being these U.S. Codes or Statutes at Large.

On June 14th, 1883 by N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm we gave the Feds a conditional "Consent" from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, (see the state list over at: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm ) but that by the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court, an offer of consent, un-accepted is NOT consent!  The Feds have FAILed to file their 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112 papers with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word.

The governor "shall" be responsible for AND execute all legislative mandates.  His job description of this is spelled out in Articles 41 + 51 of Part 2: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html

So in other words: we adopt the federal language to tax our own "inhabitants" here according to what the Feds suggest, because that is all it is: a suggestion!  Their statutes are to have no power here withOUT either our collective or individual consent!

And even IF finally effective; re: the Federal Tax Code, the 16th Amendment still has no section 2 or enforcement clause, as in the surrounding ones.  Check it out: Wake Up. "

[armlaw]

Joe...

Federal and National are Not equal. Federal refer to the corporation.National refers to the Republic to which many pledge their allegiance. The same is true with the courts. The USDC is not the same as the dcUS that is used in 18 USC 3231. That has criminal; jurisdiction. The USDC has only civil jurisdiction with exception for minor misdemeanors when the defendant agrees to a "Plea Bargain" which is a "contract" thus giving the "Magistrate civil jurisdiction. Clever game they play, eh.

Looks to me as if you have been engaged with 8 year appointed corporate employees called "Magistrates", not lifetime appointed Article III constitutional judges?  Check what follows and comment if you will as JURISDICTION is the issue and these Magistrates DO NOT HAVE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION, if the law is followed. Please read and comment on what follows:

"Magistrate judges presided at 912, or 17.2 percent of the civil jury trials held in the federal courts for the one-year period ending September 30, 1994, according to statistics compiled by the Administrative Office. The percentages by circuits range from a high of
25.5 percent to a low of 7.1 percent.

"Lawyers increasingly have been urging their clients to consent to trial before magistrate judges in civil cases," said Magistrate Judge Robert Collings (D. Mass.), who has been following the numbers. "In many districts, magistrate judges can set an earlier trial date than a district judge, and the trial date is afirm one." Magistrate judges do not preside at criminal felony trials, and this may allow them more time to devote to civil cases
Said Collings, "Litigants who consent to a trial before a magistrate judge do not risk the danger of having their civil trial date usurped by a criminal jury trial, which has to take
precedence." District courts have used different techniques to expand the use of magistrate judges to conduct civil trials. A number have found that initially assigning a case to both a magistrate judge and a district judge makes consent more likely because it identifies the magistrate judge who would preside at the trial, if the parties consent.
Other courts have adopted a system where a certain percentage of civil cases are directly assigned to a magistrate judge and only if consent is not forthcoming is the case assigned to a district judge.

In addition to civil jury trials, magistrate judges conducted 831 bench trials and disposed of 6,092 civil consent cases without trial, conducted 1,795 evidentiary hearings in prisoner cases, 774 evidentiary hearings in non-prisoner cases, and 242 evidentiary hearings as special masters.

Since 1979, magistrate judges have been authorized by law to try civil cases with the consent of the parties. Appeals from judgments entered by magistrate judges after trial are to courts of appeals, unless the parties explicitly stipulate that the appeals will be to a district judge. In Collings' Massachusetts court, two district judges and a magistrate judge were paired for an experiment where the judges try a list of civil cases during a particular month without regard to whom the case was originally assigned."
-----
from The Third Branch 9/95

[JosephSHaas]

Joe...

Federal and National are Not equal. Federal refer to the corporation.National refers to the Republic to which many pledge their allegiance. The same is true with the courts. The USDC is not the same as the dcUS that is used in 18 USC 3231. That has criminal; jurisdiction. The USDC has only civil jurisdiction with exception for minor misdemeanors when the defendant agrees to a "Plea Bargain" which is a "contract" thus giving the "Magistrate civil jurisdiction. Clever game they play, eh.

Looks to me as if you have been engaged with 8 year appointed corporate employees called "Magistrates", not lifetime appointed Article III constitutional judges?  Check what follows and comment if you will as JURISDICTION is the issue and these Magistrates DO NOT HAVE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION, if the law is followed. Please read and comment on what follows: ...."

So who are the tenants over there for a majority of the Warren B. Rudman building? If magistrates, (who are NOT Article III judges, who are of the national or District Court of the United States, BUT mere 8-year contract employees of the federal or USDC) can only take care of civil cases, or criminal cases, but only up to the level of a misdemeanor by consent of the parties to plead for the latter; THEN of HOW could Muirehead have set bail for Ed & Elaine originally?  For a misdemeanor, right?  So HOW did it elevate up to that of a felony!? For Reno, Danny, Bob and Jason too?

I tried to get a copy of the contract from the GSA landlord agent there, but was only told verbally of that a contract exists for the court (or was it courts in the plural?  and if so, do they, re: the USDC and DCofUS overlap, using the same facilities?) THE court I think was of THE First Circuit Court, not only with Jeffrey R. Howard's office on the 4th floor at 53 Pleasant Street, Concord, N.H., but for that entire section of the building of __% theirs, with co-divisions of these USDC + DCofUS chambers within, as like two subsets of the 1st Circuit set, and an overlapping of the two within, as like the macro and micro of two divisions?

[armlaw]

If I read you correctly, you are asserting that Jeffrey Howard is an Article III constitutional Judge. If so, he must have two other Article III judges join him to hear the matter before them and make a decision. One judge can not make a decision.

If Howard is, in fact, an Article III judge, then he has a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT and is insulated from any coercion from the Federal Corporation. This protection from coercion is NOT available to Article 4-3-2 Legislative Magistrates. That is why they are not delegated criminal jurisdiction.

Copies of the commission appointments would settle the matter. Have you asked a direct question to any employees to produce their papers or consider a Quo Warranto writ to which they are required to present their papers or be ousted as an usurper.

[JosephSHaas]

If I read you correctly, you are asserting that Jeffrey Howard is an Article III constitutional Judge. If so, he must have two other Article III judges join him to hear the matter before them and make a decision. One judge can not make a decision.

If Howard is, in fact, an Article III judge, then he has a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT and is insulated from any coercion from the Federal Corporation. This protection from coercion is NOT available to Article 4-3-2 Legislative Magistrates. That is why they are not delegated criminal jurisdiction.

Copies of the commission appointments would settle the matter. Have you asked a direct question to any employees to produce their papers or consider a Quo Warranto writ to which they are required to present their papers or be ousted as an usurper.

Dick, I KNOW that Donna FOR Reno reads these replies here, but as for sending the info to him, I pre-sume that she does and that he has asked for this in writing #__ times and through the attorney appointed to him has done what? nothing?, as I think this was talked about before here in Ed trying to get McAuliffe's oath, but never obtained by him.

My strategy was to get a copy of Monier's oath and that I did receive an extract thereof from Washington, withOUT his residence (I already KNOW that of Goffstown, but that I guess somebody else could have asked for this for OTHER purposes and so they send you a summary of oath. )  Anyway the oath or extract reads that he is to execute only lawful precepts from the court. So HOW does he determine the LAWful from the un-lawful? or does he even check this!? Re: for jurisdiction!

When you write the word: decisions, does that mean of administrative decisions too? like when he read the reports from the attorneys for the billings that they be paid $xx,xxx each for attending those illegal hearings in Maine in violation of 18USC3232.  I've seen only his signature on such documents.  Does that mean that withOUT the other two judges in the Circuit signing such that that is the reason WHY I was never "paid" the over $300 check that I did get from Monier?  because it was somehow a commercial transaction rather than constitutional!? Either way of from an Art. III judge or this Art. 4, Section 3, Clause 2 Magistrate of a "Territory"* of theirs withIN the state, the source is the same as from the Constitution! Thus there has to be this Section 20 lawful money in constitutional coin "paid" to me from the Coinage Act of 1792 rather THAN these commerce coins from the Coinage Act of 1965. I have still NOT been paid such, and to file an RSA Ch. 643:1 official oppression charge against Ed Kelly for REFUSing to process my criminal complaint against Monier for Art. 14 "complete" justice as is my right here in New Hampshire.  The N.H. Bill of Rights! Thus ALL of Ed & Elaine's trials were both out-of-order as they had not concluded ALL transactions from the first, as per this Roberts Rules of Order of to do so by the Ninth Amendment.  Same goes for Bob, Jason, Danny and Reno in the other trial! Me as a creditor had NOT yet been paid from the 1st trial, and so them out-of-order!

cc: of this by copy and paste to Donna and Jose for Reno, Keith for Jason, and Bill for Danny. Also by e-mail to Elaine for Ed too.

-- Joe
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mod: (from my e-mail of 9:39 a.m.)

"P.S. * I forgot to mention this "Territory" word over at N.H.U.: as in like what I saw yesterday afternoon at from 1 - 2:00 p.m. on Cable T.V. Channel 20 http://myretrotv.com/  out of Boston for: "Alias Smith and Jones" TV western Season 3, Episode 8 on 25 Nov. 1972 for "The Day the Amnesty Came Through" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0508557/  and involving the removal by President Cleveland of the Territorial governor for Wyoming not then a state.  Could this possibly be WHY our current governor, John H. Lynch of Hopkinton is NOT doing his RSA Ch. 92:2 and Art. 51 duty to enforce all legislative mandates by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 that he "shall be responsible for" is because he thinks territorial as in somehow the Feds have smothered us Art. 12 "inhabitants" and so these OTHER laws not applicable because we have already been absorbed into the system!? 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution and 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112 is still there for the head of agency to file his papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State! This tenant court is under the G.S.A. landlord Leeds, and whose Deputy is Ralph Conner, who is supposedly investigating this.  Give him a call at 202: 501-1609 for a "Progress Report".  THEN when finally filed with a cover letter of apology for being late, to "charge" a late fee is right of the individuals harmed by such being victims of a court having operated both illegally and unlawfully to then have their sentences voided for such."

[JosephSHaas]

....

....1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution and 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112 is still there for the head of agency to file his** papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State! This tenant court is under the G.S.A. landlord Leeds, and whose Deputy is Ralph Conner, who is supposedly investigating this.  Give him a call at 202: 501-1609 for a "Progress Report".  THEN when finally filed with a cover letter of apology for being late, to "charge" a late fee is right of the individuals harmed by such being victims of a court having operated both illegally and unlawfully to then have their sentences voided for such."

** I just did.  My call to Mr. Connor at the G.S.A. Office, and division of "Congressional Affairs" he said of just a few minutes ago is that he will remind "the front office" of my having called AGAIN for a progress report. 

He also told me that Mr. Leeds is only the "Acting" head of agency, and that he is being replace by Martha Johnson later THIS week on: ____day February ____, 2010 @ __:__ o'clock a.m./p.m. at: __________ (location) *** I did then ask him to please have a Memo to her of to please get to work on ALL these 1-8-17 filings in EVERY state as per the list of state statutes over at Larry Becraft's http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm website and starting immediately, as her first act of office being the filing for New Hampshire and then Florida, as there be no 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal filings in either our N.H. Office of Secretary of State NOR to the governor's office in Florida.

He said that he will TRY to see to it that it be included in her first batch of to-do's, this being #___ of #___ to which I replied: Thank You.

*** [so if anybody reading this is in WHERE? Washington, D.C. on THAT day, you might like to attend this swearing-in ceremony and follow her to her office and wait in the lobby until she provides you with a copy of the receipt of Federal filing for here in N.H., as by what? mail? or WHEN she or a Deputy plans to deliver the blueprints of the building to Bill Gardner as required by law, that he can put under "seal", BTW see:   "New Hampshire Primary - Sham Chain of Custody" from Black Box Voting dot org   of:   6:20 minutes with 178,166 views     = http: // www dot youtube dot com /watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM ]  YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[JosephSHaas]

Update:

Ed's address, according to the #10 envelope with his return address written there on an envelope postmarked January 27th, that enclosed his 1-20-10 letter to me, that I received in the mail last Friday, January 29th (2 days later) is:

Edward Lewis: Brown
BOP # 03923-049
Brooklyn M.D.C.
80 29th Street
Brooklyn, N.Y. [ 11232 ]

He wrote about The U.B.S. [ United Bank of Switzerland ] as the "literal..own(er of "the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORP".  He thinks that the U.S. Government "went bankrupt" v.s. what I've been saying that these FRNs floating around are NOT fiat currency, but do have value as based on WHO and under what conditions they tendered them to you.

In other words to accept the conveyance but not the transfer, as all they are is a claim ticket to the ultimate transfer of either the commerce or constitutional coin to you, of which the government, when they are on BOTH the sending AND receiving ends have got to ultimately either give or take the required quality of coin as pre-scribed in Section 20 of The Coinage Act of 1792.

They might be able to get away with accepting legal tender notes +/or debased coins as payment from you into the system, but that somehow ALL their accounts SHALL be kept and had in such quality, but then SOME people accept debasement in return, but NOT me!  Monier owes me over $300 in "lawful money" and he WILL pay!

These FRNs are NOT supposed to be "monetized" until a certain #__ amount of gold bullion weighed by the unit of: _____________ is deposited per pallet of FRNs they buy from the U.S. Bureau of Engraving & Printing for only 6-cents each no matter what denomination from a $1.00 to $100 bill because it is NOT until AFTER the bullion is deposited do they actually become legal tender notes! It's spelled out in their contract: part 15 of section 16 of their Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

So when Ron Paul says to audit the "Fed" as in the Federal Reserve System (a private bank), I say: no, instead audit the U.S. Treasury.  WHO are the agents, if any, who did receive the bullion BEFORE these notes were given authority to be put into circulation?

Yes, you can still buy a gallon of gasoline for 30-cents IF you have the right coins = three FDR dimes of silver minted 1964 or before; and yes you can "buy" (so-called) these coins for FRN 3.00 (or FRN 1.00 each), but what happens when the price of certain commodities or all of them start creeping up to the wheel barrow quantity as per what happened in Germany during WWII? Then WHO, if anyone around who still knows the rules of the game, as the referee is going to cry: foul!? To see IF the deposits have been made.  Actually the holder of the quality coins is "buy"ing commercial paper.

So when next to pay like a parking ticket TO the government, you might try this experiment, as I did of to try to  pay DIRECT.  I once tried to put a JFK 1964 Silver Half Dollar on deposit with the Concord District Court a few years ago, and said that I'd be back later when I get the redemption for my notes in what the law requires, but that the judge nor clerk would have anything to do with direct-ness.  They want to deal in the indirect, in that by RSA Ch. 91-A:5,IV http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/91-A/91-A-5.htm for exemptions, that this is for ALL "financial information" but that I'm not looking for a past tense record, but am currently trying to make a present-day record: a receipt of the silver coin!

My rights as guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment is that when I deal with government I can deal directly withOUT having to deal with a third party in the commercial realm.  As it says in the Bible and per Article 5 of the N.H. Bill of Rights I do not have to deal in "filthy lucre" or debased coins! 

Here's the website for U.B.S. http://www.ubs.com/   * to go exploring there later...   - - Joe

* see also: http://www.acronymfinder.com/UBS.html to http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Union+Bank+of+Switzerland ; also: http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=466 for: "Senator Barack Obama's backing for the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act and an aggressive approach by the Internal Revenue Service against the Swiss banking giant UBS, which is suspected of facilitating tax evasion by wealthy Americans, are symptomatic of a changing political climate in the United States. " So I don't know from WHO and WHERE he is getting this ERRORoneous information!  He's supposed to be in a "Correctional" Facility and they are feeding him this garbage too!?

Thus we are NOT getting our money's worth!  So to let this be like his term paper to me as the principal, and the result is that he gets a grade of an F: he flunks, but not only him but his teachers too!  They, or who-ever "they" are who are teaching him this crap ought to be fired! No more classes in whatever course taught by whoever.  The bell rings for a recess! Out to play in the real world. Ed: your time is up: you are expelled! 

[keith in RI]

6.      EDWARD BROWN     03923-049      67-White-M      08-18-2044      OKLAHOMA CITY FTC

update to eds address as of today. its a transfer center though, so he'll be there for only a couple of weeks or so....

[armlaw]

....

Joe...There appears to be`an unlawful "joining of party's". ie: The Article III constitutional judge can not merge the powers delegated to him by Article III, with the administrative powers congress has delegated to the Territorial administrative Tribunals operating in the "maritime law of the sea" jurisdiction as this is not delegated to them by the congress. See Article III, Section two. The constitution clearly delegates Maritime Jurisdiction the the Federal Courts, not the Commercial Administrative Tribunals operated by the corporate employees known as "Magistrates".

They are the Administrative Tribunals that adjudicate "contrascts" with those having contract with the corporate federal government and fly the gold fringe Flag and the "Law of the Flag" prevails. See Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. page 638, "Law of the Flag" This is strictly commercial contract equity law, not constitutional common law as required by the 7th amendment. Lawyers are "Officers of the court" and as such admit jurisdiction by "leave of the court".

As admonished by Article III Judge, James Alger Fee in the case " United States v. Johnson",anyone wishing to preserve and execute remedy for his common law constitutional rights, he must do two things.

#1- He must do it himself by affidavit of truth under the penalties of perjury.

#2- He must identify himself as a "Belligerent Claimant at Law".

This is necessary as the Trading with the Enemies Act, as used by FDR made all American Citizens enemies of the Corporate United States as defined in 28 USC 3002(15)(a)
Constitutional Rights can ONLY be address in Article III courts.

Any one who now has an attorney should consider firing him immediately and proceeding Sui Juris, not "pro se", as that is a commercial appellation for use in commercial tribunals.