Ed and Elaine Brown: Notice to Judge

[RaymondKarczewski]

Ed and Elaine Brown: Notice to Judge

rk: Note: The court is IGNORING the question of JURISDICTION which,
if compelled to answer would SET ED AND ELAINE FREE. It is time for
all Patriots to support Ed and Elaine and COMPEL the judge to answer
the question. Ed and Elaine are incrementally being suckered into the
system through lawyerly deceit and trickery. Rise up America in one
voice and demand "ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTION OF JURISDICTION, JUDGE
SINGAL" Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
June 2, 2009

UCC-1#20070029134~
DISTRICT COURT 009521 DISTRICT OF H .H
I-1LE D

For: George Z. Singal
Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
55 Pleasant St.
Concord,N.H. [03301 ]

From: Edward-Lewis:Brown©, Creditor
Elaine-Alice :Brown©, Creditor
c/o 266 County Farm Rd .
Dover, N.H. [03820]
7009 JUN -3 A II : 3 2

Re: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v . EDWARD BROWN and ELAINE BROWN

Case # 09-CR-00030-01/02-GZS

Notice to Judge

We have consulted between ourselves and with the court appointed
attorneys, and have come to the following decision:

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

2. This is with the understanding that we, the living flesh-and-blood
man and woman created by God, are not these same entities, and are
held harmless and that the EDWARD BROWN and the ELAINE BROWN do not
refer to us .

3 . The EDWARD BROWN© and the ELAINE BROWN© are the common-law
copyrighted properties of Edward-Lewis :Brown© and Elaine-Alice
:Brown© .

4. Edward-Lewis;Brown© and Elaine-Alice :Brown© will appear in cou rt
as the holders-in-due-course and Secured Parties Creditors for the
EDWARD BROWN© and the ELAINE BROWN©.

5. We, Edward-Lewis :Brown© and Elaine-Alice :Brown© are being
wrongfully held by reason of misnomer, and appear without our consent,
under duress, and under threat of death .

6. We reserve our position that the names on the indictment, by which
we are addressed in court are not our true names, i.e. alludes to the
wrong party ; thus we are here in error, and any and all actions
against Edward-Lewis :Brown© and Elaine-Alice :Brown© are unlawful by
reasons of misnomer and more .

7. We reserve our position that neither we, nor our property, EDWARD
BROWN and ELAINE BROWN are "felons," in that in spite of the
conviction in 2007, no law has been transg ressed, as no law exists
that requires us to pay an income tax. For years the IRS refused to
answer this question submitted by us, even though the government is
required by law to answer all such questions .

8. We reserve our position that neither we, nor our property, EDWARD
BROWN and ELAINE BROWN violated the "structuring" law, as this law as
written contradicts the maxim of law that all crime must have two
components : the act and intent . The law cannot contradict itself,
and if there is a question that is not decided, the decision must
favor the accused .

9. We reserve our position that the court, as part of the UNITED
STATES CORPORATION cannot interact with the real flesh- and-blood.

10 . We reserve our position that the UNITED STATES CORPORATION is
bankrupt, and thus has no existence or standing in law to sue or be
sued .

11 . We reserve our position that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, as
named on the indictment, is not defined in 28USC3002(15) or anywhere
else in law, and thus does not exist .

12 . We reserve our position that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is
owned by the USB/UBS FINANCIAL GROUP, formerly by PAINE WEBBER GROUP,
is thus a private corporation which can only issue private policies .,
and thus can have no claim against us in a court of law .

13 . We reserve our position that our research to date has been
restricted by our restriction from the use of the Internet, being
allowed only the very limited resources provided by the Lexus Nexus
program on the jail computer. Sir, in court yesterday, you stated that
you are prohibiting pre-trial statements to the media, for the purpose
of fairness, and to prevent tainting of the jurors . Be it known that
yesterday morning, WMUR-TV aired a brief item of us, and referred to
us as being "delusional ." Last night on the same station, they again
aired a news brief about us, stating that I, Elaine-Alice might have
to be submitted for a psychological evaluation. The Concord Monitor
ran an article written by Margo Sanger-Katz, that insinuated that I am
turning against my husband, that I am controlled by him . Where is the
fairness, Judge Singal? Ms .Sanger-Katz has maligned us, has actually
lied about us, has set us up to be robbed, from the very beginning of
this matter five years ago. How can there be anyone who has not been
tainted by the media? There has not once been anything positive or
supportive about us in the main-stream media, only in
small local newspapers and on the Internet . The corporate media has
proved itself to be part of the problem of illusion, lies, and deceit,
and in shaping unfairly public opinion . It seems that the news media
is also working in the game with the U .S. Attorney's office, as
everything printed and spoken publicly by them is to the advantage of
the U .S . Attorney, and to the detriment of the accused .

When do we get out turn? How can you, sir, assure of us a fair trial
with untainted jurors in these circumstances? We have lost all faith
and confidence in the court . We doubt we will get our turn there .
God bless us all .

Edward-Lewis :Brown©, Creditor
Holder-in-due-Course with
unlimited commercial liability

Elaine-Alice:Brown©, Creditor
Holder-in-due-Course with
unlimited commercial liability

cc: MichaelIacopino
Bjom Lange

[Nikki]

Irrespective of your erudite analysis of the jurisdictional issues, it is totally useless to incite a letter-writing campaign or any other action.

Only Ed and Elaine can challenge the court's jurisdiction and they must do that through a formal pleading to the court.

Since they have demonstrated neither the interest nor the ability to prepare anything with the least semblance of a processable legal pleading, the likelihood of their challenging jurisdiction is approximately equal to the probability of you putting ten words together without getting something wrong.

[Famspear]

Ed and Elaine Brown: Notice to Judge

rk: Note: The court is IGNORING the question of JURISDICTION which,
if compelled to answer would SET ED AND ELAINE FREE. It is time for
all Patriots to support Ed and Elaine and COMPEL the judge to answer
the question. Ed and Elaine are incrementally being suckered into the
system through lawyerly deceit and trickery. Rise up America in one
voice and demand "ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTION OF JURISDICTION, JUDGE
SINGAL" Raymond Ronald Karczewski©

Earth calling.....

This is a federal criminal case. The defendants are charged with offenses against the laws of the United States. This case is in a district court of the United States. Therefore, the court has subject matter jurisdiction (18 USC 3231). Period. And personal jurisdiction is not really a valid issue here either.

By the way, everyone who uses the © symbol without my permission is violating my own super-secret double-naught spy copyright, and owes me ninety-eight gazillion dollars in damages. Come to think of it, I also copyrighted all the upper and lower case letters of the Roman alphabet (in all possible fonts, of course) in a secret Illuminati ceremony in an alternative space-time continuum, some time ago in a galaxy far, far away -- so every person who uses any of that stuff (even to write his or her own name) without my permission also owes me ninety-eight gazillion dollars in damages. Ka-chiiinnnggg! Thank you!

[webhick]

This is document has already been posted here: http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4367

[Pottapaug1938]

It's getting tougher and tougher to laugh at the :Browns. Their minds, and those of their :supporters, are so unhinged that they are incapable of uttering a rational sentence. At least the "Clark Rockefeller" wacko, delusional as he is, can still do that.

[jimni]

Famspear said, "This is a federal criminal case. The defendants are charged with offenses against the laws of the United States." What law of the United States did the Browns violate Famspear? If you're referring to a law that requires an individual to pay federal income taxes, there isn't one.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Famspear said, "This is a federal criminal case. The defendants are charged with offenses against the laws of the United States." What law of the United States did the Browns violate Famspear? If you're referring to a law that requires an individual to pay federal income taxes, there isn't one.

Right. Please return to the planet Eeepsoor and take Ray with you.

[jimni]

Pardon me Judge Roy, but can you provide proof of a federal law that requires an individual to pay federal income taxes? No? I didn't think so.

[Famspear]

Pardon me Judge Roy, but can you provide proof of a federal law that requires an individual to pay federal income taxes? No? I didn't think so.

Dear "jimni": Since you're new here, I'll keep it brief for now. There is a federal law that requires an individual to pay federal income taxes. We don't have to "prove" that. We can provide you with the statutory references and the case law, as we have for countless other newcomers like yourself.

But you're missing the point. Ed and Elaine Brown are not charged with violations of the federal tax laws. They've already been convicted of that. That's why they're in prison.

Ed and Elaine are charged with violations of OTHER federal laws. If you want a list of what they're charged with, just ask.

And don't try to tell us that those laws don't exist.

EDIT: Text changed to reflect that Ed and Elaine are currently charged with violations of federal laws OTHER than tax laws.

[Famspear]

A review of what the Browns are in prison for right now......

On January 18, 2007, Edward Lewis Brown was found guilty by a jury in a Federal District Court in Concord, New Hampshire of:

-----one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 USC 371;

-----one count of conspiracy to structure financial transactions to evade the Treasury reporting requirements in violation of 18 USC 371, 31 USC 5325, and 31 USC 5324(a)(3); and

-----one count of structuring financial transactions to evade the Treasury reporting requirements and aiding and abetting under 31 USC 5324(a)(3) and 18 USC 2.

See Jury Verdict, docket entry 133, Jan. 18, 2007, ''United States of America v. Elaine A. Brown and Edward Lewis Brown, Defendants''; case no. 1:06-cr-00071-SM-ALL, United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire (Concord); and Indictment, docket entry 1, April 4, 2006, ''United States of America v. Elaine A. Brown and Edward Lewis Brown, Defendants''; case no. 1:06-cr-00071-SM-ALL, United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire (Concord). Contrary to some news media reports, Mr. Brown was neither charged with nor convicted of tax evasion.

On that day the same jury found his wife Elaine A. Brown guilty of:

-----one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 USC 371;

-----five counts of tax evasion and aiding and abetting under 26 USC 7201 and 18 USC 2;

-----eight counts of willful failure to collect employment taxes under 26 USC 7202 and aiding and abetting under 18 USC 2;

-----one count of conspiracy to structure financial transactions to evade the Treasury reporting requirements in violation of 18 USC 371, 31 USC 5325 and 31 USC 5324(a)(3); and

-----two counts of structuring financial transactions to evade the Treasury reporting requirements and aiding and abetting under 31 USC 5324(a)(3) and 18 USC 2.

Id.

[Famspear]

Now, here's what Ed and Elaine Brown are charged with in their current case.

-----knowingly and willfully conspiring, by force, intimidation and threat, to prevent employees of the United States Marshals Service in the discharge of official duties in the arrest of the Browns, in violation of 18 USC 372;

-----conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in violation of 18 USC 371 and subsections (a) and (b) of 18 USC 111;

-----carrying and possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence, in violation of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of 18 USC 924;

-----being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of paragraph (1) of subsection (g) of 18 USC 922;

-----obstruction of justice in violation of 18 USC 1503; and

-----failure to appear for sentencing, in violation of 18 USC 3146.

Edward Brown was also charged with one count of failure to appear for trial -- also in violation of 18 USC 3146.

See Indictment, United States v. Edward Brown and Elaine Brown. Docket entry 1, Jan. 21, 2009, case no. 1:09-cr-00030-GZS, United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire (Concord).

[Doktor Avalanche]

When a guy like Randy Weaver thinks you're nuts you can pretty much take that to the bank. After all, at least Randy had the good sense to get the hell off the compound before the shenanigans began in earnest.

What law of the United States did the Browns violate Famspear? If you're referring to a law that requires an individual to pay federal income taxes, there isn't one.

Hooray! Authentic frontier gibberish!

[wserra]

Earth calling.....

If this really is Ray Kazoo, when Earth calls, he's not home.

[wserra]

And don't try to tell us that those laws don't exist.

Why not? That works for taxes, doesn't it?

[The Operative]

This is a federal criminal case. The defendants are charged with offenses against the laws of the United States.[/quoet]

What law of the United States did the Browns violate Famspear? If you're referring to a law that requires an individual to pay federal income taxes, there isn't one.

A simple truth the "there is no law" crowd don't seem to get...In order for a person to be indicted for breaking a law, THERE MUST BE A LAW TO BE BROKEN!

In order to be charged with murder, there must be a law making murder a crime. In order to be charged with tax evasion, there must be a law making tax evasion a crime. In order to be charged with illegal structuring of financial transactions to avoid reporting requirements, there must be a law making that act a crime.

[Pottapaug1938]

The main TP strategy seems to involve playing word games. No matter how many laws you show them which demonstrate the need to pay income taxes, they will keep on coming back to you with demands that you show them a law which reads something like "each person is liable to pay income tax", and then goes on the define each and every term in its text (like "income"). The fact that there is no law which says what they want to hear, therefore, is "evidence" that we don't have to pay income tax on "income" whatever that is.

[Nikki]

Famspear said, "This is a federal criminal case. The defendants are charged with offenses against the laws of the United States." What law of the United States did the Browns violate Famspear? If you're referring to a law that requires an individual to pay federal income taxes, there isn't one.

Jimni:

Despite the risk of opening yet another floodgate --

Are you familiar with 26USC? (That's part 26 of the United States Code.)

26USC is a codification of all laws which have been passed by both legislative houses and signed by the then-sitting President.

It contains very specific language saying (in EXTREME summary) that (1) anyone who has income above a certain threshhold is required to file a tax return and (2) after performing a few simple computations a certain amount of income tax must be paid to the government.

Now, what is your specific disagreement with this?

Are you going to allege that 26USC isn't positive law, that income isn't defined, that federal jurisdiction is limited to a specific zone, or some other issue?

Please let us know what your particular theory is so we can engage you in rational discussion.

[Imalawman]

Please let us know what your particular theory is so we can engage you in rational discussion.

When did you become so irrational as to think that rational discussion is possible with these nutjobs?

[Demosthenes]

Famspear said, "This is a federal criminal case. The defendants are charged with offenses against the laws of the United States." What law of the United States did the Browns violate Famspear? If you're referring to a law that requires an individual to pay federal income taxes, there isn't one.

Here you go:

http://www.hereisthelaw.com

[Pottapaug1938]

"If you're referring to a law that requires an individual to pay federal income taxes, there isn't one."

Despite the best efforts of many Quatloosers, the facts aren't likely to change TP minds -- if they have any. They are looking for a law that says something like "each person is liable for, and required to pay income tax," etc., and which set forth an exhaustive list of definitions relevant to income taxation. They are looking for a law that sets forth this requirement in the loopy language that they use and that they require for anything which they plan to respect and heed. As on point as Demo's last post is, and as exhaustive as Dan Evans's Tax Protestor FAQ is, none of this will ever convince the TPers -- these things don't say what the TPers want to hear.