Redress Right Organization - Brett Jones

[Jeffrey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bub8S_kX-bk

Found this video while checking Sovereign Youtube videos. It seems to be the first SovCit case I've been able to find in Puerto Rico, guy behind it seems to be Brett Jones, basic mortgage fraud with different fake documents, you can get the general info from the Youtube Channel.

http://redressright.org/ The guys website

Could I get some help tracking down more info on this? There's some chatter on the Youtube channel saying he was arrested for something.

http://www.nationalrepublicregistry.com ... 000002.pdf

Brett Jones appears in this Moorish "status declaration" I found googling so it might be related.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/119251859/F ... -and-funds

As well as this odd document.

[Jeffrey]

In a rather disturbing turn of events the new Youtube channel links to some dropbox documents that identify the guy running it as Brett Jones - Theophilus

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hv6nbw1cwvkc ... DF%202.pdf
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hv6nbw1cwvkc ... DF%202.pdf

Which leads to the Georgia Case http://dockets.justia.com/docket/georgi ... 99/197558/

Which leads to this mugshot: http://mugshots.com/US-Counties/New-Mex ... 7/details/

Which leads me to believe that Jones after serving time for his "sexual conduct with a minor" charge, moved to Puerto Rico, (which is sadly a somewhat common thing due to lax sex offender registration laws on the island). Then started his Legal Redress Scam around 2010 or later. Been trying to find what exactly he went to jail / court for, it seems to be handled by the PR district court as the dropbox cases mention.

I've been able to reconstruct from his youtube videos that he was recruiting and charging people to join him in a lawsuit against banks claiming mortgage fraud promising them high returns for joining his lawsuit. While at the same time selling EFT, A4V style advice, generalized mortage fraud.

[mursallus]

I have watched all of Brett's videos, and have learned a wealth of information from him. I'm just glad to have found this post and forum. Reading his letter, showed me that he is definitely in honor. I can't wait for his tribulation to be over, so that he can get back to teaching. Those words were definitely his. Keep up the struggle for freedom!

[The Observer]

Reading his letter, showed me that he is definitely in honor.

Reading about him tells me that he has no honor at all and is definitely a person who has found trouble and wants more of it.

[webhick]

Reading his letter, showed me that he is definitely in honor.

Reading about him tells me that he has no honor at all and is definitely a person who has found trouble and wants more of it.

I wonder if being "in honor" is anything like being in deep shit.

[notorial dissent]

I keep wondering how being a flat out liar and fraud can equate to being "in honor", but then I guess maybe I'm just picky about little details.

[mursallus]

I'm not sure how much you know about this man, but he never asked for a dime. He was simply informing people of what the real law was, and how to escape commercial slavery. What did he lie about? He did not get arrested for anything he was talking about on his videos, but for not registering as a sex offender in Puerto Rico. The initial sexual misconduct conviction was bogus anyway. With all that he learned and subsequently taught, why would he register as an offender for a commercial crime? That would be moving backwards. I really hope that the naysayers are not talking negatively simply because he was arrested for protesting wrongs that should not be. How hippocritical would that be?

[mursallus]

I forgot to say one thing. This guy is on the same side of the ball as you guys. He was NOT a scammer. He is against them, just as you and I am.

[webhick]

The initial sex sconduct conviction was bogus anyway. With all that he learned and subsequently taught, why would he register as an offender for a commercial crime?

I had no idea that fiddling a kid was a commercial transaction...

Would loveo say more on this but he auotcorrect keeps repeating syllables and it's jumount around while I type. This phone Harea this site.

No time to fix it right now, sorry.

[wserra]

Jones is currently under indictment (13-cr-58) in Puerto Rico for violation of 18 USC 2250 - failure to register as a sex offender. Since his arraignment early this year, he has filed dozens of pieces of pro se gibberish. Two documents in the lengthy docket, however, give you a pretty good idea of what's going on.

The first are the findings of the M-J, giving the following reasons for denying Jones bail:

1- There is an outstanding arrest warrant against defendant in New Mexico.
2- Defendant has had prior encounters with the law, one of which resulted in a conviction for sexual assault.
3- According to the testimony heard during preliminary hearing, law enforcement obtained identification cards and/or credit cards with defendant’s photograph that identify him as Brett Jones. Yet, defendant refuses to accept such name, a fact that suggests that he uses aliases.
4- Although at the bail hearing defendant clarified that he was willing to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court, according to the Pretrial Services Report defendant was found in possession of a document purportedly issued at the “Land of Pangaea”. On the front side the document reads as follows: “The General ADMINISTRATOR/GRANTOR/Captain/Beneficiary/Director/Governor/Landlord/Commander by self determination and ordination on all levels! Year of Sentient/Conscientious Existence 4026 B.C.E. -Exp. Date 12/31/3099 A.D. “Not a “collective entity”, all contracts are conditionally accepted, under conditions Listed on reverse, Without Prejudice, and Rights Reserved. Peace Treaty by a Peaceful inhabitant, Non-Combative, Non-Aggressive Inheritor of the LAND. All contracts By Admin are “PAYABLE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WITHOUT RECOURSE”.
On the reverse side the document reads:
“The Grantor will never submit to any jurisdiction at any time or in any situation. That my human-rights are never to be trampled and for each instance as well as offence against my secured rights, a penalty and fee assessment of $20,000.00 will be due at the time of such offense[s], and or initiation of such contract offers. WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL AFFIXED HERETO AND ATTESTED TO UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, WITH FULL COMMERCIAL LIABILITY, RESERVATION OF ANY AND ALL RIGHT, WITHOUT RECOURSE”.

I don't know how much of this stuff the Puerto Rican courts have been exposed to, but it looks familiar to us. Even a little crazier than usual, perhaps, but familiar.

The second document is the DJ's order sua sponte committing Jones for a competency exam. In relevant part:

Defendant Brett Jones-Theophilious was charged via a criminal complaint on December 28, 2012 with failing to register as a sex offender in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico after traveling here from New Mexico (docket entry 1). He was arrested on that same date and brought before a U.S. Magistrate Judge for an initial appearance, during which he refused to fill out a financial affidavit and informed that he did not want to be represented by counsel (see docket entry 3). At a subsequent bail hearing held on January 15, 2013, the Magistrate Judge again inquired from him whether he would like to have legal representation, which he refused (docket entry 9). Defendant was formally indicted on January 30, 2013 (docket entry 16), and has been detained pending trial since his arrest on December 28, 2012. At his arraignment held on February 14, 2013, defendant stated that he pleaded “guilty to the facts but innocent to the charges.” See docket entry 21.

During his internment, defendant has been a prolific motion-filer (see docket entries 14, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 53, 54, 55, 65, 66, 67 and 69). The Court is seriously concerned, however, based on the averments made by defendant in those motions, about whether he is able to appear pro se and represent himself or even properly assist a lawyer were one to be appointed as stand-by counsel or as his legal representative. Some assorted examples of the statements made by defendant which raise serious concerns on his ability to defend himself or assist in his defense follows:
- “Brett Jones-Theophilious is a fiction, a collective entity, a foreign estate/trust, created by Brett Son of Isaac to engage in commerce and for no other purpose!” Docket entry 14, at pp. 3-4.
- “[T]he presenter ‘Brett’ a son of Isaac an acknowledger of the Constitution, and a member of the Public, one of the People of the United States of America; an American National, non-citizen native, utilizes his full faith & credit to post bond and bond this case. Instrument #BJTD 8175438129741171 in the credit amount of $4,000,000 should suffice to cover bond, and is in the line with law.” Docket entry 14, at p. 4.
- “Until such time as the aforementioned is provided you are commanded/ordered to cease and desist all further debt-collection activities associated with this account/matter immediately. You are trespassing and are in breach of agreement.” Docket entry 14, at p. 8.
- “The title Bret Jones-Theophilius is just that a title, adjudicated on the public and court records. A corporation, 98-6066113, a foreign unincorporation on file with the United States Company Corporation.” Docket entry 18, at p. 1.
- “The fact is the Court has charged a corporation, legal fiction (see legal definition for person), and has unlawfully detained, imprisoned a non-citizen, natural national real man, without justification.” Docket entry 18, at p. 3.
- “ So order/command to jailer’s to reflect the God given & family name ‘Brett a son of Isaac’ on all prison system computers, documentation, even Brett son of Isaac, special administrator for Brett Jones-Theophilious is acceptable.” Docket entry 18, at p. 8.
- “Legal person, fiction, corporation, individual, instrumentality, state and the like are legal terms, and have been applied to the defendant Brett Jones-Theophilious, a creation of myself. I created that fiction under U.S.A.F.R.U.C.T., to engage in commerce.” Docket entry 26, pp. 10-11.
- “I run reddressright.org, and the redress right organizations, I allowed my self to be abused so as to test this system and prove once and for all what is really going on is ‘debt collection.’” Docket entry 40, at p. 2.
- “It is my firm belief and knowledge that I am the principle, as is equatable to the beneficiary, YOU ARE THE TRUSTEE, YOU HAVE A DUTY OF CARE, You are close to dereliction of duty, and are to fulfill your responsibility! The issue remains that you are not now nor have you ever been given permission to construde any of my words, as a natural man I maintain control of my thoughts and trueful intentions, that shall never change, again you are commanded to bring about settlement and closure, credit the beneficiary for the over payment and the unverified alleged debt, and provide for his being made whole again by any and all necessary means at your disposal.” Docket entry 44, at p. 4.
Although no motion to determine competency has been filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a), the Court cannot disregard the fact that the conduct of defendant so far during the course of this litigation suggests that he is presently mentally unstable. The only reasonable manner to clear these doubts is to order that a mental evaluation of defendant be conducted by a forensic psychologist.

The most recent filings include one by "Jim Todd " and "Betty Todd", and purports to be Jones' opening statement. Call me crazy, but I don't think he'll be permitted to argue that the judge isn't really a judge, or to subpoena her as a witness. Oh, and I like his idea of a subpoena, but I don't think the law permits it to be signed by "Frances, Commissioner" of the "Redress Right Commission".

I forgot to say one thing. This guy is on the same side of the ball as you guys.

I don't think so. I'd say the only "ball" this guy is acquainted with is a wrecking ball, and his head was on the wrong side of it. The rest of him is about to be.

[LPC]

I forgot to say one thing. This guy is on the same side of the ball as you guys. He was NOT a scammer. He is against them, just as you and I am.

I looked at the "redressright" website, and it's all crap. Most of it is meaningless gibberish, and when it's not meaningless, it's wrong.

If he's not running a scam, it's only because he hasn't yet figured out how.

[mursallus]

wserra, Thanks for your information on his case. Up until your post, I hadn't been able to find any information. I respect your point of view on his unorthodox methods, but if he beats this case, will you still think your reasoning about him are correct? Reading those motions only strengthens my resolve in his research. Call me a moron, but I have bought into his words, and I believe in his will to defend himself. After all, he did not write the rules, but he appears to have dissected them meticulously. Thanks again for your information and research on his case. I appreciate your conviction towards your research, as well.

[wserra]

I respect your point of view on his unorthodox methods,

Jones' "methods" are "unorthodox" in the same manner that astrologers' are. Yes, they're out of the mainstream, largely because they neither work nor make any sense.

but if he beats this case, will you still think your reasoning about him are correct?

Yes. Your question is akin to asking me to look at a clock I know to be broken, and agree that it is in fact working if it happens to tell the correct time. Juries, God bless 'em, have been known to do some strange things.

Thanks again for your information and research on his case. I appreciate your conviction towards your research, as well.

You're welcome, but the only research involved was finding the case and pulling the docs from PACER. I don't need to research the law on this stuff. Thirty-seven years of practice, which include a slew of high-profile trials, is plenty. Jones doesn't even raise interesting or, for that matter, non-frivolous issues.

[JamesVincent]

How to answer an unlawful detainer filing
In reference to unlawful detailers, everyone is going into court trying to prove something, I would suggest that that is probably not the right move
there are several questions that need to be addressed first
1. "I will pay whatever it is that they say that I owe without question if they can give me an accounting of the monies they let me, so that I can compare it with my books. For I do not have any record of receiving any funds from the (so-and-so) bank"
2. Excuse me your honor but this is a matter that involves revenue, and I think there may be some jurisdictional issues that we need to address.
3. I have made several attempts to pay this obligation, I have asked for a statement of account that is certified from the bank and they have yet to provide. I must submit to the court that this particular bank does not have clean hands in this matter.
I use the word submit in the last item, we do not want to use words like submit, plead, pleadings, documents, motions or the like in reference to anything we place in the court it is a presentment (look up the legal definition for the word presentment and you might get a better understanding)

This is a direct quote from the Redress page. Even me being a non-lawyer can see all kinds of wrong in this. Whoever wrote this and/ or believes in it is in for a world of hurting come court time.

[mursallus]

Thanks, I will go back and review redressright.org. However, doesn't the court have to prove his statements to be false, or either acquiesce to whatever he states as fact. After all, an unrebutted statement becomes fact. Also, it was my understanding that they cannot proceed without first proving jurisdiction, since it was challenged. I'm definitely not a lawyer, but due to me making special appearances in court over the last several years for various cases, I have been able to learn a few things. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

[wserra]

Assuming you're sincere, here you go. I mean no offense, but we get lots of folks who like to play word games.

However, doesn't the court have to prove his statements to be false, or either acquiesce to whatever he states as fact.

No, the court need do no such thing.

After all, an unrebutted statement becomes fact.

Only if there's a legal duty to answer. For example if, during the course of civil litigation (there is no equivalent device in a criminal context) a party serves a request to admit per FRCvP 36, and the adverse party fails to respond, the matter is deemed admitted - but only because the Rule says so. If there is no duty to respond, it can be ignored.

Also, it was my understanding that they cannot proceed without first proving jurisdiction, since it was challenged.

Saying "Judge, I don't think you have jurisdiction" is not "challenging jurisdiction". If Jones wants to make a formal motion, he should have at it. Matter of fact, he did. He lost. See 18 USC 3231: "The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States". Despite all the nonsense one reads to the contrary, that's the end of that. Jurisdiction is rarely an issue in civil matters, and almost never in criminal.

[AndyK]

In the future, please post appropriate warnings. It took almost a half hour to clean all that excrement off my computer screen.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... but due to me making special appearances in court over the last several years for various cases, I have been able to learn a few things. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

Making "special appearances" is yet more evidence of serious confusion on the part of Jones and others who stumble across his web site and start believing what they're reading.

[JamesVincent]

Thanks, I will go back and review redressright.org. However, doesn't the court have to prove his statements to be false, or either acquiesce to whatever he states as fact. After all, an unrebutted statement becomes fact. Also, it was my understanding that they cannot proceed without first proving jurisdiction, since it was challenged. I'm definitely not a lawyer, but due to me making special appearances in court over the last several years for various cases, I have been able to learn a few things. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

The court is not there to prove anything, the attorneys are. The court does not argue a case, the attorneys do. The jurisdiction hangup always fascinated me. If you get summoned to court then the court put you in its jurisdiction. The only time I've ever really heard of a jurisdiction issue is settling between Federal and local courts when the crimes overlap. Even then certain crimes or issues will have a default. Courts usually have a preset jurisdiction (in Md Circuit was civil cases, felonies, and serious litigation, District was traffic, landlord, and minor crimes or litigation generally).

[Famspear]

.... I'm definitely not a lawyer, but due to me making special appearances in court over the last several years for various cases, I have been able to learn a few things.......

Two sets of questions:

1. Can you describe a "special appearance" that you have made in a court case? Without disclosing any confidential information, can you tell us what kind of case it was (contract dispute? tort? property dispute? federal tax? employment discrimination? criminal case? traffic ticket? whatever), what kind of court it was (federal, state, municipal, justice of the peace, whatever), and why you made a "special appearance"?

2. What are some of the important things you've learned in court cases in which you have participated?