Browns agree to be represented by their attorneys

[Demosthenes]

06/04/2009 102 ORDER as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown re 100 Notice to Judge. Court appoints Attorney Michael Iacopino as counsel for Edward Brown and appoints Attorney Bjorn Lange as counsel for Elaine Brown. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_102.pdf

06/04/2009 ENDORSED ORDER as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown re 97 Affidavit of Government Fraud. Text of Order: No action necessary. SO ORDERED. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

06/04/2009 103 NOTICE of Certificate of Protest/Default Judgment by Wayne M. Crowley. (dae) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_103.pdf

06/04/2009 107 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown for Status Conference held on June 1, 2009. Court Reporter: Diane Churas, Telephone # 603-225-1442. Transcript is available for public inspection, but may not be copied or otherwise reproduced, at the Clerk's Office for a period of 90 days. Additionally, only attorneys of record and pro se parties with an ECF login and password who purchase a transcript from the court reporter will have access to the transcript through PACER during this 90-day period. If you would like to order a copy, please contact the court reporter at the above listed phone number. NOTICE: Any party who requests an original transcript has 21 days from service of this notice to determine whether it is necessary to redact any personal identifiers and, if so, to electronically file a Redaction Request. Redaction Request Follow Up 6/29/2009. Redacted Transcript Follow Up 7/8/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/2/2009. (dae) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

[Pottapaug1938]

Hey, Wayne Crowley -- don't bother ordering new notary seals or putting in for a new commission. I have a feeling that your old one will be pulled well before then....

[The Observer]

"We will agree with reservations, with all rights reserved nunc pro tunc in ab initio, that the court appointed attorneys, Michael Iacopino and Bjorn Lange, may represent the legal fictions, a creation of the state, EDWARD BROWN and ELAINE BROWN, as written on the indictment."

It appears that the Browns didn't agree to be represented by attornies. They only agreed that the strawmen got representation. I can see Ed standing up in court and ranting about that when the verdicts come in.

[wserra]

It appears that the Browns didn't agree to be represented by attornies. They only agreed that the strawmen got representation. I can see Ed standing up in court and ranting about that when the verdicts come in.

I'm completely with Obs on this. I read the "Notice", then the resulting order appointing counsel, and the disconnect struck me immediately. Were I the judge, I would immediately schedule another conference to be held ASAP. The stupid games are not over, and the Court has quite limited discretion under Faretta.

[Nikki]

What I said, earlier.

[RaymondKarczewski]

JUDGE SINGAL, Answer the Question of Jurisdiction and Set Ed and Elaine Brown Free.

By Raymond Ronald Karczewski©

New postby wserra on Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:21 pm

The Observer wrote:It appears that the Browns didn't agree to be represented by attornies. They only agreed that the strawmen got representation. I can see Ed standing up in court and ranting about that when the verdicts come in.

I'm completely with Obs on this. I read the "Notice", then the resulting order appointing counsel, and the disconnect struck me immediately. Were I the judge, I would immediately schedule another conference to be held ASAP. The stupid games are not over, and the Court has quite limited discretion under Faretta.

rk: You folks JUST DON'T GET IT!! The court attempting to try Ed and Elaine is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURT. based in Contract Law. It is not a legitimate Article III courts under the Constitution and therefore anyone forcibly brought before such court, who stands under the protection of the US Constitution and Common Law must either through IGNORANCE, be a 14th Amendment Slave, and therefore subject to the Corporate, "Color of Law" legislative policies of such a corporate court, and/or agree to such jurisdiction through consent or waiver of rights. That is the primary issue Ed and Elaine brings before the court. That issue of JURISDICTION must be answered by the Court before the court may continue with further proceedings. That is the present law the courts must follow: See Below

rk: Instead of addressing that fundamental question of a limited courts assuming jurisdiction over the objections of a Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural Man and Woman who have clearly stated they stand and find their Rights under Common Law and the US Constitution, the court continues to misdirect and confuse the issue through "legalistic" minutia, which has no bearing over anyone not subject to the limited jurisdiction of a Contract Administrative Court. Ed and Elaine Brown have made that position clear.

rk: Why do I speak so strongly on the law, when everyone else believes it to be crazy and I'm some kind of a nut. Simply because I am Free and you are slaves who believe yourselves free. Simply because I know better than most of you who are all talk and no walk. You see, the State of OREGON, and COUNTY OF JOSEPHINE Threatened me with 35 years as a "paper terrorist" filing liens against the Public Officials, i.e., Judges, Prosecutors, Sheriff deputies, etc, in an attempt to hold them responsible for their criminal behavior or release for time served and probation while awaiting Trial if I accept their "plea bargain."

rk: Lets see?? 35 years in prison, or Release? What to do? What to do? I rejected the plea bargain, stood Sui Juris in two trials. My Juristic Person (Strawman) was convicted in both trials, even though I challenged the court to prove JURISDICTION in some 20 plus appearances, and they refused to answer the questions. You see, Ed and Elaine's stance is pretty much the stand I took as reflected by their "paperwork."

rk: What happened? When it came time for sentencing, I REFUSED to accept the judges offer of sentence which would have been consummated as a contract thereby granting the court the jurisdiction it so badly needed.. My refusal was based on the fact that they had not Proven Jurisdiction over this Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural Man and therefore any determination by the unconstitutional contract court to which I did not consent to, was null and void.

rk: They put me back in the county jail trying to figure out what to do with me. What a dilemma. How could they save face? Finally they decided. They threw me out of Jail, Dropped me off at the curb of the Emergency room of the local hospital as the Jail Nurse Determined I was near death from the physical effects of a combined HUNGER STRIKE OF 55 days. No further jail time, No prison time, No probation, NO NOTHING. I continue to do the very same things for which they arrested me in 2002 but now THEY WILL NOT BRING ME BEFORE A JUDGE, THEY WILL NOT ARREST ME. If my actions were a crime then, why are they not treated as a crime NOW!

rk: Answer: BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.

rk: That is the only issue before the People of America who want to take their country and their freedom back.

rk: WAKE UP AMERICA! DISPELL the dream of Slavery that now binds your conditioned consciousness and return to your True Estate of Consciousness that makes you the Sovereign People that your Truly are.

rk: Rise up, if not for Ed and Elaine Brown, but for yourselves and your children. COMPEL Judge SINGAL to address the Question of JURISDICTION in writing as the present law States:

Existing Case law states: "Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven." HAGENS vs LAVINE, 15 U.S. 533 "No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768; Title 5 U.S.C., Sec. 556 and 558 (b). "Where there is absence of
jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack."
Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471. "The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

rk: It is time to STOP the "legalese game" and Administer True Law.

rk: If Judge SINGAL or the Prosecuting Attorney answers the question under oath or affidavit, Ed and Elaine Brown WILL BE SET FREE, JUST AS I HAVE BEEN SET FREE!

Raymond Ronald Karczewski©

[Demosthenes]

Please don't feed the kook.

Ray, you should check out the NH Free forum; your rants would be welcome there...

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?board=1.0

[Nikki]

Aren't cross-posts subject to, at a minimum, a warning?

[Pottapaug1938]

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." -- Alexander Pope

I'm not wasting any more of my time on shallow draughters like RK.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Wow...that's just the biggest bowl of batsh!t I've ever seen.

Hey, Ray-Ray: just tell Ed and Elaine to pretend they're boats.

[Dezcad]

06/04/2009 103 NOTICE of Certificate of Protest/Default Judgment by Wayne M. Crowley. (dae) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

Looks like Judge Singal has tired of Crowley's nonsense.

06/05/2009 108 ORDER as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown re 103 Notice of Certificate of Protest/Default Judgment. Absent further order of the Court, the Clerk is directed to refuse to file on this docket any further motions or filings that are signed by Mr. Crowley. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 06/08/2009)

[Demosthenes]

06/05/2009 108 ORDER as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown re 103 Notice of Certificate of Protest/Default Judgment. Absent further order of the Court, the Clerk is directed to refuse to file on this docket any further motions or filings that are signed by Mr. Crowley. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 06/08/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_108.pdf

06/08/2009 109 MOTION for Discovery by Elaine Brown. Follow up on Objection on 6/25/2009. (Lange, Bjorn) (Entered: 06/08/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_109.pdf

06/08/2009 110 JOINDER in Motion by Edward Brown as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown re: 109 MOTION for Discovery. (Iacopino, Michael) (Entered: 06/08/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_110.pdf

06/08/2009 111 AFFIDAVIT of Government Fraud by Edward Brown and Elaine Brown. (dae) (Entered: 06/08/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_111.pdf

06/08/2009 ENDORSED ORDER as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown re 110 Joinder in Motion and 109 MOTION for Discovery. Text of Order: Government shall file an expedited response no later than noon on Wednesday, June 10, 2009. No reply is necessary but a reply will be considered if it is filed by 5 PM on Thursday, June 11, 2009. SO ORDERED. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 06/08/2009)

[Pottapaug1938]

It will take the government lawyers an hour and two minutes to respond to the unhinged rant in Document 111 -- an hour to laugh at its Hall of Fame idiocy, and two minutes to draft a response saying something like "So What?"

[Demosthenes]

In short, a jury could find by a preponderance of the evidence that any possession of
firearms by Elaine Brown after June 7, 2007 was justified by a well-founded fear that the
government was prepared to use excessive, unlawful force against her. See Morelli v Webster,
552 F.3d 12, 22-25 (1 Cir.2009) (upholding plaintiff’s verdict on excessive force).

I wonder when it was that Elaine started packing the Glock pistol in her fanny pack.

[Pottapaug1938]

Demosthenes, quoting: "In short, a jury could find by a preponderance of the evidence that any possession of firearms by Elaine Brown after June 7, 2007 was justified by a well-founded fear that the government was prepared to use excessive, unlawful force against her. See Morelli v Webster,552 F.3d 12, 22-25 (1 Cir.2009) (upholding plaintiff’s verdict on excessive force)."

A jury could also find that the actions of the :Browns, in holing up in Fortress :Brown with their armed fellow batsh*t-crazy TP comrades, justified the goverment's response.

Anyone taking bets on the outcome?

[Demosthenes]

Demosthenes, quoting: "In short, a jury could find by a preponderance of the evidence that any possession of firearms by Elaine Brown after June 7, 2007 was justified by a well-founded fear that the government was prepared to use excessive, unlawful force against her. See Morelli v Webster,552 F.3d 12, 22-25 (1 Cir.2009) (upholding plaintiff’s verdict on excessive force)."

A jury could also find that the actions of the :Browns, in holing up in Fortress :Brown with their armed fellow batsh*t-crazy TP comrades, justified the goverment's response.

Anyone taking bets on the outcome?

I would never assume that a New Hampshire jury would find it bat-shit crazy for someone to believe that the gov was out to kill them. This isn't a big city or liberal state jury. This is a Live Free or Die, Come and Take Them jury.

And just because a defense tactic is a long shot, doesn't mean the defense attorney shouldn't make an effort to assert that defense. Elaine's lawyer doesn't have anything else to work with.

[Nikki]

After the events of June 7, 2007 Elaine Brown had ample reason to believe that she was under a threat of death or serious bodily injury

Will the government be able to introduce into evidence the most likely source of that threat?

[Demosthenes]

06/08/2009 ENDORSED ORDER as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown re 110 Joinder in Motion and 109 MOTION for Discovery. Text of Order: Government shall file an expedited response no later than noon on Wednesday, June 10, 2009. No reply is necessary but a reply will be considered if it is filed by 5 PM on Thursday, June 11, 2009. SO ORDERED. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 06/08/2009)

06/10/2009 112 AFFIDAVIT of Facts for Release of Creditors by Edward and Elaine Brown. (dae) (Entered: 06/10/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_112.pdf

06/10/2009 113 MOTION Leave to File Response One Hour Late by USA as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown. Follow up on Objection on 6/29/2009. (Huftalen, Arnold) (Entered: 06/10/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_113.pdf

06/10/2009 114 OBJECTION by USA as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown re 109 MOTION for Discovery. (Huftalen, Arnold) (Entered: 06/10/2009)

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_114.pdf

[cynicalflyer]

"Defendants, EDWARD BROWN and ELAINE BROWN, as entered on the indictment, are corporations, represented by court-appointed attorneys, as defendants have no physical capacity to appear in court."

Playing both sides. Sure, the STRAWMEN "agree to be represented by their attorneys", but not Ed and Elaine Family:Felonious.

[wserra]

06/10/2009 112 AFFIDAVIT of Facts for Release of Creditors by Edward and Elaine Brown. (dae) (Entered: 06/10/2009)

You don't get to file pro se garbage if you are in fact represented by counsel.

I give this arrangement another day or two at most.