Ed and Elaine Brown's latest filing

[Arthur Rubin]

Elaine's new bat-sh*t insane guru posted a huge addendum to that Affidavit of Truth.

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_222.pdf

There's some good stuff in there.

Good for what? Bird cage lining (if you don't too much about the mental health of the bird)?

[LPC]

There's some good stuff in there.

If by "good" you mean "incoherent."

In some parts, it looks like he went dumpster diving, took random discarded pages, and stapled them together.

[wserra]

Awright, I give up. What is the significance of page after page of mutual fund quotes?

[Nikki]

They have run CUSIP searches on their SSNs. the case numbers, and anything else they can think of to demonstrate that they have been monetized, thereby supporting their reliance on UCC filings.

[LaVidaRoja]

They underwent competency hearings, right? Running CUSIP searches on their SSNs?? Competent???

[Nikki]

They underwent competency hearings, right? Running CUSIP searches on their SSNs?? Competent???

Competent? Mais oui.

Bat shit crazy -- likewise.

There's a relatively recent soverignoramus theory that every prisoner has a bond attached to him. Said bond being traded on the financial markets and generating income to the government.

All the prisoner has to do is identify the specific bond associated with him. Then, there's some additional magic words to utter which nullifies the bond, thereby eliminating the monetizing and nullifying the prison sentence.

If you want more details on the process, please contact SFBFKADMVP. He's a self-proclaimed expert on that process and, for a mere $300, will explain it to you.

[Judge Roy Bean]

It's all part of the magic words realm where ignorant people see otherwise meaningless and irrelevant things on computer screens and printouts and attach a belief to them.

Not much has changed over the centuries when it comes to taking advantage of the easily duped.

[Joey Smith]

Elaine's new bat-sh*t insane guru posted a huge addendum to that Affidavit of Truth.

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_222.pdf

There's some good stuff in there.

Yes, it gives bat-sh*t a bad name. Why, for instance, are copies of the various Fidelity stock quotes included? Or receipts from various businesses across the U.S.?

It looks like somebody cleaned out their drawer, randomly mixed old receipts and papers with some Sovrun Citizun crap they got at the gun'n'knife show, and scanned it all together as a single document.

[notorial dissent]

Well, about all I can say is that other than being a colossal waste of time and paper, and warranting another "no action required" by the judge, on the positive side, they have contributed a big piece of change to that court for filing a piece of gibberish that will have accomplished absolutely nothing. I personally feel that the person who filed it should be sanctioned for wasting the court’s time.

[fortinbras]

It would appear that it was Elaine herself who filed it. This Michael Grady (?), who is mentioned and whose signature appears on some pages, apparently filed this document in another court in an earlier case and, somehow, ELaine got a copy, added her own signature below Grady's signature, and submitted it in her court.

Since she's going away forever, a fine for frivolous pleading would be superfluous.

[notorial dissent]

True, but someone had to have found it for her, and doctored it up, since I cannot and do not believe she is capable of coming up with this nonsense on her own.

[Trippy]

Since she's going away forever, a fine for frivolous pleading would be superfluous.

I disagree. I think her prison wages (such as they are, or would be) should be garnished to pay such a fine. This kind of junk needs to stop, and stop now.

She may have no working brain cells left, but a good swift kick to the pocketbook is something even a dumba** can understand.

[fortinbras]

The Browns already owe so much in restitution that it's a waste of the court's time to try to calculate making their debts even more astronomical.

[Judge Roy Bean]

IMHO, the courts could kill it off by issuing local rules that clerks are to not accept any document with the hyphenated name semi-colon silliness on it.

And among any here who are notaries, has there been any exchange of views on notarizing documents with the sovereign gibberish? Were one to present a jurat with that kind of signature on it to me I'd tell him or her to take it somewhere else.

[.]

Well, there are factual circumstances which can result in being designated a "vexatious litigant" which results in the inability to file anything at all without the prior consent of the court.

She's certainly asking to be tossed into that or a similar hopper.

[Trippy]

The Browns already owe so much in restitution that it's a waste of the court's time to try to calculate making their debts even more astronomical.

You're right. No sense in wearing out the calculator battery.

But I still think she and Ed family:dumba** ought to be declared vexatious litigants. Why they have not, at this point, boggles me.

[cynicalflyer]

IMHO, the courts could kill it off by issuing local rules that clerks are to not accept any document with the hyphenated name semi-colon silliness on it.

And among any here who are notaries, has there been any exchange of views on notarizing documents with the sovereign gibberish? Were one to present a jurat with that kind of signature on it to me I'd tell him or her to take it somewhere else.

Court clerks are loathe, and I mean loathe, to get into the document itself. There's a ton of case law to the effect that, so long as the proper forms are used (and in the case of pro se, this is even waived) the clerks have absolutely no right to look into the document or reject it. There has even been successful suits against clerks who refused to accept items for filing.

"In general, the clerk of court is a purely ministerial officer who has no discretion to refuse to accept papers in a cause before the court or in connection with specific duties imposed by statute." 15A Am. Jur.2d, Clerks of Court, §23

Texas' work around, when the loons were filing lien upon lien on judges, was three fold. First, there is a big sign at the intake warning the filing of any false lien is a felony. (TX Government Code 59.904) Second, if the clerk has any reason to doubt the veracity of the document, he or she must kick it to the local prosecutor to have them make the call. (TX Government Code 59.901) Finally, anything coming from a prison or prisoner is presumptively false and kicked to the AG or local prosecutor. (TX Government Code 59.901)

As for notaries, again generally notaries are prohibited from looking into the document, only if the person is who they say they are. I think there is something to be said for refusing to sign the crazy jurats, but I am not sure. What is absolutely a no-no is some of these notaries signing off on documents that the person who allegedly signed them was not present (e.g. Reno's dad signing as Reno and getting some notary to sign off because Reno's dad supposedly had "power of attorney").

[LPC]

Well, there are factual circumstances which can result in being designated a "vexatious litigant" which results in the inability to file anything at all without the prior consent of the court.

I would be very (very) hesitant to do anything to prevent a defendant in a criminal case from filing anything in her own case as long as that case is open and ongoing.

Elaine Brown was sentenced on 10/2, and filed a timely notice of appeal, so her case is still technically ongoing and I think she should be allowed to file anything she wants.

[notorial dissent]

As for notaries, again generally notaries are prohibited from looking into the document, only if the person is who they say they are. I think there is something to be said for refusing to sign the crazy jurats, but I am not sure. What is absolutely a no-no is some of these notaries signing off on documents that the person who allegedly signed them was not present (e.g. Reno's dad signing as Reno and getting some notary to sign off because Reno's dad supposedly had "power of attorney").

Actually, on this point you are dead wrong. A notory is REQUIRED to look at the document and determine if it is in fact a document they are allowed by law to either do a jurat on or certify as a true copy. If it is not within those parameters they are in fact REQUIRED to NOT touch the document. Further if they do not feel the document is on the up and up or that there is something wrong about it, they are not REQUIRED to touch it. They are REQUIRED to know who is signing the document and have some proof that they are who they say they are. The general and specific rule, is that if it doesn’t feel right DON’T do it. There is nothing that compels a Notary to participate in nonsense or illegality, and a lot that can happen to them if they do.

Actually, the document in question is a forgery, and at the very least not properly notarized, since the document contains, at least the appearance of, both the signatures of Elaine and the original nut job, it is therefore a fraud since there is no way that the notary could have witnessed both signatures, since Elaine's is added over the one that was originally there. So either Elaine is committing fraud, or the notary is, either way the document cannot be / is not properly notarized.

For what it is worth, if someone presented that nonsense to me, I would without hesitation show them the door.

[bmielke]

As for notaries, again generally notaries are prohibited from looking into the document, only if the person is who they say they are. I think there is something to be said for refusing to sign the crazy jurats, but I am not sure. What is absolutely a no-no is some of these notaries signing off on documents that the person who allegedly signed them was not present (e.g. Reno's dad signing as Reno and getting some notary to sign off because Reno's dad supposedly had "power of attorney").

Actually, on this point you are dead wrong. A notory is REQUIRED to look at the document and determine if it is in fact a document they are allowed by law to either do a jurat on or certify as a true copy. If it is not within those parameters they are in fact REQUIRED to NOT touch the document. Further if they do not feel the document is on the up and up or that there is something wrong about it, they are not REQUIRED to touch it. They are REQUIRED to know who is signing the document and have some proof that they are who they say they are. The general and specific rule, is that if it doesn’t feel right DON’T do it. There is nothing that compels a Notary to participate in nonsense or illegality, and a lot that can happen to them if they do.

Actually, the document in question is a forgery, and at the very least not properly notarized, since the document contains, at least the appearance of, both the signatures of Elaine and the original nut job, it is therefore a fraud since there is no way that the notary could have witnessed both signatures, since Elaine's is added over the one that was originally there. So either Elaine is committing fraud, or the notary is, either way the document cannot be / is not properly notarized.

The notaries in the law office I work in always skim the document they are notarizing. That way they know what it is the person is signing, and generally they will refuse to notarize something for someone off the street. Every time I have had to have something notarized the notary has known what the document was. I would expect a notary to be at lease a little curious about a 100+ page document.