Ed and Elaine's idiot filings

[Demosthenes]

Article published on April 13, 2009

Plainfield

Judge considers limiting Brown filings
He tells tax protesters to speak with lawyers

By Margot Sanger-Katz Monitor staff

The federal judge overseeing the conspiracy and weapons case against Ed and Elaine Brown has told the Plainfield couple that he may curtail their ability to file documents with the court or represent themselves at trial if they refuse to comply with the rules of criminal procedure.

In a five-page order, Judge George Singal instructs the couple to stop filing frivolous documents, and he recommends they consult with lawyers and accept discovery materials from the government that they have repeatedly refused.

"The right of self-representation is not absolute and the Court will not allow Defendants to disrupt the previously scheduled trial in this matter by engaging in conduct that represents a complete disregard for the procedural rules that govern this case," the order states.

The Browns were convicted of tax-related felonies in January 2007, but they evaded arrest for nearly nine months as they collected weapons and bombs and entertained guests at their castle-like home in Plainfield. Despite numerous public threats against law enforcement agents, the couple was arrested peacefully by an undercover team of U.S. marshals in October 2007.

They face charges for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, failure to appear, and for using guns and improvised explosive devices in furtherance of a crime of violence. If convicted of the most serious charges, the Browns will receive virtual life sentences in prison.

As they did in their tax case, the Browns have refused the services of court-appointed lawyers and have filed numerous motions questioning the legitimacy of the federal court. They have been longtime skeptics of the mainstream legal system. Their tax case was precipitated by their stated view that no valid law required them to pay federal income taxes.
So far, they have filed nearly 20 motions with the court, many citing "UCC," which Singal suggested was the Uniform Commercial Code, rules that govern business transactions. They have also complained about the type of flag used in the courtroom, harsh treatment in jail, and their limited resources to collaborate and research possible defenses.

"The U.S. Attorney's attempts at magnanimity are shallow and childish, indeed," says one motion, signed by both Browns. The motion describes alleged attempts to torture and kill Ed Brown in a Rhode Island prison and complains that the couple have no privacy and no access to their "preferred council and counsel."

"The candle will not be kept under the bushel!" the motion concludes.

According to court filings, the Browns have met almost daily for several weeks and have been provided access to the jail's legal library and word processing facilities. Prosecution filings also say that the Browns have been given note-taking materials, including red pens, which they specifically requested. Prosecutors and jail officials have made several attempts to give the Browns discovery materials in the case, which include hundreds of pages of documents, photographs and digital videos, but the couple has refused the materials.

The Browns have also each been assigned "stand by" lawyers, who they can ask for help.

Singal was brought in to oversee the case from Maine after all of New Hampshire's federal judges recused themselves from the case, citing the Browns' death threats against Judge Steven McAuliffe, who presided over the Browns' tax trial. Singal also oversaw the cases of four prominent Brown supporters who were convicted of helping the couple escape arrest.

In his recent order, he tells the Browns that while he has rejected their arguments so far, the couple are welcome to reopen the questions on appeal.

In the meantime, he advises them to pursue other defense strategies or risk losing some of their legal autonomy.

"The Court takes seriously its obligation to ensure that Defendants' rights are protected and that each of them are able to mount a vigorous defense," the order says. "With this interest in mind, the Court is directing Defendants to focus their efforts on the evidence and relevant laws."

The Browns are scheduled for trial in late June.

[Demosthenes]

The Brown's "preferred council and counsel" is Joe Haas.

[Imalawman]

The Brown's "preferred council and counsel" is Joe Haas.

Of course it is. He's the only one who is bat-shit crazy enough to deal with them still. As the good cap'n is fond of saying, "break 'em hard and grind them into dust".

[Lambkin]

So all they need to do is have Joe added as a defendant and then the three of them can work on it together.

[.]

In the not too distant future, Ed: family goof-ball, et al will have been convicted and sentenced to 30+ years on top of their existing sentences which means that these morons will die in federal prison, as they should.

After all of their appeals have been exhausted virtually nobody in the so-called TP "movement" will admit to having even the remotest memory of who this blithering idiot was, never mind having supported him.

The only place where Ed's humorous but ignorant rants about his jailers or the "federal UCC" or whatever happened to hit his conspiracy bone on any given day will be noted is here.

Very fitting.

[webhick]

Demanding that Haas be your representation is kind of like sticking a shotgun up the ass of any chance you had of seeing daylight again.

[webhick]

Like clockwork, Haas has already begun to infest the article at the Concord Monitor.

It comes complete with multiple asterisks that aren't attached to any footnotes, a reference to the Wizard of Oz, a thanks to Larry Becraft, and something about (what I can only conclude is) an IRS audit. Jeez, just reading the gibberish makes it hard to write an understandable sentence.

Thank you Margot for that next to last sentence quoting the judge writing of that "the Court is directing Defendants to focus their efforts on the evidence and relevant laws."

Yes: THE evidence is the gold-sealed certificate of federal non filing of the 40USC2525 documents with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State by N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution.

Plus: THE law in the singular to their laws in the plural, or in other words our state constitution is OVER these U.S. Codes in that by Article 12, of our Bill of Rights in Part First of The New Hampshire Constitution: "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."

Thus the judge canNOT direct as a Director. The word director is a manager*, from the word direct**** meaning: to conduct the affairs of, and so also a Conductor.

To manage* is to control; to administer, or regulate; to make submissive (from the word: submit, being: to yield** or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority*** of another; give in.) ******

I like that yield** word, because when the IRS came after me in 1983 I merely yielded my paperwork of the many bills of receipts from the re-hab of my apartment building to their agents at The Forestry Building in Laconia by extending my arm to them with receipts in hand, asking if any of this information could be used AGAINST me, and their answer of: yes, and so like Judge Shane Devine, the Chief judge said back then, of to go through the motions at least to yield (as in you yield your car to the driver to the right at an intersection, but do not get out of your car and turn it over to this stranger!) Thank you "very" much "Chief" in that I won the case #M.83-50-D of not paying even one red cent toward what they wanted of over $62,000 that BTW was in violation of section (5) of their Code, as unlawful per the U.S. Supreme Court case given to me by Otto Skinner in his book of "The Best Kept Secret".

Furthermore this judge has no authority***, defined as: "The right and power to command, enforce laws, exact obedience, determine, influence, or judge" ("The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (c)1973 @ page 48.)

Now back to the direct**** word again for the definition of also: To take charge of with authority, control; and also straightforward, meaning honest (not lying, cheating, stealing, or taking unfair advantage, honorable, not characterized by deception or fraud; genuine; having or manifesting integrity and truth; unpretentious; simple.)

And so it is the "honest to goodness" truth, as absolutely genuine, that this document they/ the Feds lack of their receipt of federal filing makes them dis-honest, as in not straightforward, the word straight, as in a straight line, but crooked in more ways than one: of not only with bends and curves, but also: dishonest and fraudulent: engaging in fraud***** deceitful; and fraud***** defined as "A deliberate deception for unfair or UNLAWFUL gain" (emphasis ADDed for against THE law being the constitution!, see also definition #2 @ page 285 of: a swindle, trick, and #3: one who practices deception: an impostor!

Back at you with the words: control, administer and regulate ******from paragraph #5 above, in that:

to control is to exercise a regulating influence over; to VERIFY******* or regulate by systematic comparison; to dominate. But WHO is the creator and WHAT is the creature? The states created the federal government and with LIMITED powers! Their contract with THIS state has yet to be consummated/ perfected, completed with our conditional consent to them unfulfilled!

Now WHO must verify*******? Who has the burden to prove they have jurisdictional authority OVER us? The Feds! To substantiate with the truth. But do they do so? No! They continue to lie! Liars! They are in-accurate.

The President nominated this judge (George Z. Singal, a refugee from Italy to Bangor, Maine in the late 1940s, now in Portland) to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and he was but that I have a question about his Naturalization over in Maine, that by their statute there (as found in http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm thanks to Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft of Huntsville, Alabama) the Feds have yet to obtain that constitutional grant of authority not by some state statute but from withIN the state constitution itself by an Amendment! that has NEVER been done! WHO administered the oath to this judge? so that he could "mete out" justice? I'd like to see a copy, since he is in violation of same for to report this back to WHOever of this deal out or allotment of in-justice by him and others!!

Finally to the word regulate, as in "To control or direct according to a rule", as in the first paragraph in this newspaper story of that the judge wants them "to comply with the rules of criminal procedure", but that before somebody plays by ANY rules, there must be proof provided that the parties are lawful to begin the game in the first place! See also definition #2 of to regulate being that: of "To adjust in conformity to a specification or requirement."

And so I say: for this judge to adjust to the RSA 123:1 requirement by the shall word in the statute, that is his mandatory duty to fulfill, or that of WHOever this government agent is, and that UNTIL this occurs neither he nor his court have any power here! Sort of like what Glenda, the "Good Witch of the North" said to the what's her name (Margaret Hamilton the actress) "Wicked Witch of the West" in "The Wizard of Oz".

JSH, The Conductor (;-)

[Ragnar]

"Prosecution filings also say that the Browns have been given note-taking materials, including red pens, which they specifically requested."


Red pens?

[webhick]

"Prosecution filings also say that the Browns have been given note-taking materials, including red pens, which they specifically requested."


Red pens?

They're magically delicious. Besides, I thought red crayons were the utensil of choice because they're made by radioactive puppies. I could be wrong about that, though.

[grixit]

And a skeptic is someone who doubts something but is willing to consider proper evidence. The Browns do not fit this category.

As for Haas's screed, it seems to have the same level of intellegibility as the "FOR THE TRUTH:LANGUAGE" stuff.

[LPC]

They have been longtime skeptics of the mainstream legal system.

That second sentence is badly written.

I would say that it's not a product of bad writing, but sloppy thinking.

"Mainstream" legal system? There is only one legal system.

What about the sovereign common law courts?

Okay, it's not really legal, and it's not really a system, but it's definitely not mainstream and one out of three isn't too bad.

[Gregg]

THE law in the singular to their laws in the plural, or in other words our state constitution is OVER these U.S. Codes in that by Article 12, of our Bill of Rights in Part First of The New Hampshire Constitution: "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."

Thus the judge canNOT direct as a Director. The word director is a manager*, from the word direct**** meaning: to conduct the affairs of, and so also a Conductor.

All that to say he thinks a federal judge is the guy who drives the train?

does this nutjob write anything in english?

[ASITStands]

The sum total of his legal studies appears to be the dictionary.

Can anyone point me to 40USC2525?

I think I know what he's driving at but I can't find the statute.

[webhick]

What about the sovereign common law courts?

I refer to them as so-called common law "courts." That way no one gets the wrong idea.

Do you do the little finger quotes in the air, too? I must warn you: I tried to describe the sovereign citizen movement to someone the other day and I did so many of those that I pulled the muscles in my index and middle fingers on both hands.

[The Observer]

They have been longtime skeptics of the mainstream legal system.

That second sentence is badly written.

I would say that it's not a product of bad writing, but sloppy thinking.

"Mainstream" legal system? There is only one legal system.

What about the sovereign common law courts?

Okay, it's not really legal, and it's not really a system, but it's definitely not mainstream and one out of three isn't too bad.

Well, see that's the problem. Having only one legal system in this country violates our system of open competition - anyone can see that this is monopolistic and certainly doesn't allow for anyone else to come up with an alternative choice of which legal system they would like to participate in. Heck, I would be willing to go as far as saying that our judicial system is bordering on violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and may be a contender for a RICO injunction.

[Dezcad]

Even more filings since the Order, including their "Notice of Acceptance for Value" of the Order:

04/13/2009 58 NOTICE of Acceptance for Value, et al. as to Endorsed Order on Doc. 52 by Edward Brown, Elaine Brown. (dae) (Entered: 04/14/2009)
04/14/2009 ENDORSED ORDER as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown re: 58 Notice ofAcceptance for Value, et al. as to Endorsed Order on Doc. 52. Text of Order: No action needed. Frivolous filing. SO ORDERED. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 04/14/2009)
04/14/2009 59 NOTICE of Demand for Bonds and Oaths by Edward Brown, Elaine Brown. (dae) (Entered: 04/15/2009)

[Judge Roy Bean]

04/14/2009 59 NOTICE of Demand for Bonds and Oaths by Edward Brown, Elaine Brown. (dae) (Entered: 04/15/2009)

04/15/2009 60 RESPONSE to 59: