The Brown criminal trial

[Demosthenes]

Haas works as a janitor, not a lawyer.

[Nikki]

Haas works as a janitor, not a lawyer.

Correction: Haas is paid by family members to be a janitor in family-owned property* Whether he actually works is open to speculation, debate, and snide remarks.

* Joe has a very interesting version of the story about how all of these properties were stolen from him by his family members. Something about them paying off illegal government liens and assuming ownership, I think.

In any case, I'm sure the MelonCat will post the correct information.

[Pottapaug1938]

Haas works as a janitor, not a lawyer.

Correction: Haas is paid by family members to be a janitor in family-owned property* Whether he actually works is open to speculation, debate, and snide remarks.

* Joe has a very interesting version of the story about how all of these properties were stolen from him by his family members. Something about them paying off illegal government liens and assuming ownership, I think.

In any case, I'm sure the MelonCat will post the correct information.

I stand corrected. Maybe I misread something in the past; or maybe it's because I'm so impressed with his wisdom.

[LPC]

Haas works as a janitor, not a lawyer.

My my guess would be that his janitorial skills are about as good as his legal skills, and that he flings around janitorial crap the same way he flings around legal crap.

[Demosthenes]

http://www.redcrayons.net/

[Gregg]

http://www.redcrayons.net/

Bless you


oh, and good piece

[.]

Elaine appeared in the doorway holding a Glock pistol aimed at the Marshals.

Elaine became very animated and was yelling profanities.

Oops. So much for nice, "docile" Elaine who was so terribly scared of the ebil goobermint. Looks and sounds to be just as crazy as Ed every time another glimpse of her surfaces.

Also seems that there's a whole pile of charges that haven't (yet) been brought. Conspiracy to commit burglary, for instance. State matter, possibly federal depending on who seized the building and its contents. Pretty safe bet that it wasn't a Marshal's idea to steal a bunch of dental supplies. Entrapment defense ain't gonna work. Felons in possession of all sorts of firearms, for instance. Probably never will be charged after the morons are sent away for what amounts to forever. But, always good to have serious stuff in reserve.

[Blup]

http://www.redcrayons.net/

Thanks for that, I especially enjoyed the Browns' filings numbers 28 and 34 on the docket. What was interesting is that whoever wrote them seemed to want to type Ed Brown's name twice instead of Elaine Brown's. You'll notice on the last pages of the two filings above.

Sorry if this has been answered before, but who was the one drawing up these filings?

[Thule]

Thanks for that, I especially enjoyed the Browns' filings numbers 28 and 34 on the docket. What was interesting is that whoever wrote them seemed to want to type Ed Brown's name twice instead of Elaine Brown's. You'll notice on the last pages of the two filings above.
Sorry if this has been answered before, but who was the one drawing up these filings?

I believe that is genuine Ed Brown-gibberish©, accept no substitutes. Well, actually it is Ed regurgitating old UCC redemption crap from various sovrun sites. As for the deal with the names, Ed Brown is so full of himself that writing his own name twice would be in character. Besides that, he has some rather old-testament views on marriage, I guess he has signed for his wife and thinks that is perfectly appropiate.

Now, Blup, if you value gibberish, head over to the Concord Monitor, and look for Joseph Haas in the comments under the Brown-articles. It will blow your mind (literally).

[cynicalflyer]

Haas works as a janitor, not a lawyer.

Correction: Haas is paid by family members to be a janitor in family-owned property* Whether he actually works is open to speculation, debate, and snide remarks.

* Joe has a very interesting version of the story about how all of these properties were stolen from him by his family members. Something about them paying off illegal government liens and assuming ownership, I think.

In any case, I'm sure the MelonCat will post the correct information.

This is what I know of Joe:

Debtor Information
Name: HAAS JR, JOSEPH

Filing Information
Filing Date: 12/26/1991
Case Number: 1944310
Amount: $61,978
Status: RELEASED

Filing 1
Filing Type: FEDERAL TAX LIEN
Filing Date: 12/26/1995
Filing Date: 12/26/1991
Filing Office: NH

Owner Information
Original Name: HAAS, JOSEPH S
Standardized Name: HAAS, JOSEPH S
Original Address: [REDACTED]
Standardized Address: [REDACTED]

Property Information
Original Property Address: [REDACTED]
Standardized Property Address: [REDACTED]
MERRIMACK COUNTY
Land Use: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Data Source: B

Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel Number: BOSC 00049-000033-000000
Recording Date: 05/22/2003
Book/Page: 2506/622
Brief Description: M:00049 B:000033 L:000000
Legal Description: DISTRICT: BOSC; CITY/MUNI/TWNSP: BOSCAWEN

Sale Information
Recording Date: 05/22/2003
Sale Price: $5,000 - FULL AMOUNT

Assessment Information
Assessment Year: 2007
Assessed Land Value: $21,100
Assessed Improvement Value: $37,800
Total Assessed Value: $58,900

Tax Information
Tax Amount: $1,121.00
Tax Year: 2007

Property Characteristics
Year Built: 1960
Bedrooms: 1
Roof: METAL
Building Area: 453 L LIVING
Style: LOG CABIN/RUSTIC
Heating: FLOOR/WALL
Condo Project: ;
Exterior Walls: WOOD SIDING
Acres: 2.95 AC

[Blup]

Like this one?

Anti- as in: "Show Ed the Law" and: "Where are your papers?"
By JosephSHaas on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 11:21

Excellent point there Mr. Serf, or may I call you Global? (;-)

The word "anti" can be defined two ways: 1. "Opposition to, effective-ness against, or counteraction" or 2. "Reciprocal correspondence." The "American Heritage Dictionary of The English Language" (c)1973 @ page 29.

I see from your paragraph #2, you've decided on the "opposition" word. I'd call it: BOTH A.) more in line with the word counter*-action, as in his Un*-American Activities Investigations Committee. He is FOR the government of this Art. IV, Sec. 4 U.S. Constitutional "Republican" form of government that has been stolen by these Socialistic Democrats who call this a "Democracy". And:

B.) also in line with the second definition #2 too, of: WHERE is the 40USC255 federal "correspondence" or papers? (from the G.S.A./ General Services Administration) that is supposed to be on file with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State? by N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution. Our June 14, 1883 offer of "Consent" was NOT a gift BUT was and still is conditional upon this "reciprocity" of an exchange that has YET to "take place".**

** The "TAKE place" to occur BEFORE the Feds "GIVE place" to having Ed sit and stand by the Defense table in what is an unlawful and illegal Art. III, Sec. 1 "inferior court" of Congress. His rising up and down is like music to their ears! Sadistic bastards!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

footnote: My follow-up telephone call to 202: 225-0100 for Pelosi's office at 10:51 a.m. of just a few minutes ago to my e-mail to Jeff there at americanvoices at mail dot house dot gov resulted in his excuse that I have not even received an acknowledgment that my e-mail has even been received [like a mere (Thanks) is what I put in the subject line, and then a "Thank you" in the reply body of the e-mail]is that they receive thousands (1000s) of e-mails a day (#__ or __% of whom call in with a follow-up, and #___ or ___% of them to the comment recorder, to where: Yes - I did leave a message that his boss look into the illegal operation of this court NOW (as an ounce of prevention now, is worth a pound of cure later - but I guess "they" like to spend our tax-payer money on appeals is what I should have added, but that the voice on the machine cuts in at about a minute of time to say 15 seconds left, of which I did have recorded my e-mail address +/or telephone # maybe, as there wasn't even an acknowledgment there either that the message had been recorded and has (past tense) been sent, as like one second ago.

footnote #2: to give a photocopy of this computer print-out to both Fed. Rep. Paul Hodes and U.S. Senator Judd Gregg at their Concord Offices this afternoon, as Jeff said for "faster" action, to see my Federal Rep. (;-) Ha! Now that's the laughing stock of the day or morning here. Or is it? I do give these papers to his receptionist, but does he really get them? I've only received one letter from him, and NONE from Gregg. The letter being an acknowledgment only. No follow-up because why? Probably because his buddies of the Bar can make money in the appeal process.
-----------------------

He may be mildly schizophrenic..

[wserra]

http://www.redcrayons.net/

"Elaine appeared in the doorway holding a Glock pistol aimed at the Marshals."

Dum(b)-da-DUM(B)-DUM(B). Fish in a barrel at this point.

Nice column, Demo.

[Pottapaug1938]

More than "mildly schizophrenic", I think. His writings are just too unhinged....

I like Demo's column as well.

[Thule]

He may be mildly schizophrenic..

I believe the medical defintion is "bats in the attic".

My personal favorite piece of Haas-logic is this:

"because legal remedies to be free, complete and prompt, as in withOUT delay, delay = postpone, post = after, and pone = meal, and so by the noontime and dinner time respectfully for"

[Blup]

dear god that sounds insane. Kind of like a 'friend' of mine.

The reason I got into reading all this patriot BS is because I took a friend out target-shooting one day and he really enjoyed it so he started getting into the 2nd amendment. Fine, I thought, that's great. But then he started getting into the patriot/redemption crap and trying to get me to buy into all these stupid legal arguments. He spent hours on youtube watching the vids about the Fed, the "Amero" and all that inane conspiracy BS. Now he's traveled to Ohio for some reason to try to meet people there who are into it as well.

Prior to that he was really religious and constantly involved in MLM scams and such. My point being: I'm wondering if there's sort of a common psychological theme to all these folks. He had a poor education and a tough upbringing, in trouble with the law many times.

Could the patriot thing be the symptom of a fairly common psychological problem that most of the people involved share? If so, what could that problem be? They all seem to be able to very easily dupe themselves and believe they are at the mercy of big, sinister forces bent on harming them, and that there's some sort of esoterically technical way of avoiding doom.. much like paranoid schizophrenia.

[Nikki]

When Ed pointed his rifle at the driveway, the sniper aimed at Ed’s left temple with the safety off, and pulled the trigger back part way. He waited for Ed to make a “cheek weld” (move the rifle up to his cheek to aim) at which time he would have fired and killed Ed. Ed never made the move.

Hearing this testimony put Ed into a highly agitated state that lasted the rest of the day. Elaine, in comparison, looked battered. Her posture was slumped, she avoided Ed’s eye contact, and she ignored his overly loud commentary to his lawyer.

Perchance did a couple of people just have their awakening?

Until this information was revealed, everything had been a game and grandstanding play for Ed (and please-drag-me-along-by-my-hair Elaine). They just realized that they had NEVER been in control of anything and that they were both still breathing only because of better men than them.

Ed and Elaine can see the fat soprano warming up on the wings.

[wserra]

My point being: I'm wondering if there's sort of a common psychological theme to all these folks.

"I used to be all f*cked up on drugs. Then I turned on to the Lord. Now I'm all f*cked up on the Lord."

- Cheech and Chong

Welcome to Quatloos, Blup.

[Blup]

Perchance did a couple of people just have their awakening?

I have a feeling that, if so, they went back to sleep again pretty fast. Self-delusion is a powerful thing.

I think the Browns should bring in Gene Ray, the http://timecube.com guy, to argue on their behalf.

[Duke2Earl]

I think the proper technical term is "wacko."

[RaymondKarczewski]

When Courts Refused to Follow the Law, there is Only Tyranny by Consent.

By Raymond Ronald Karczewski©

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).

Origins of Law:

1. God, the Creator,

2. Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural Man, the Creation.

3. Government, a fiction, created by Sovereign, Natural Men and Women, the Creator.

4. Juristic Persons, a fictional Corporate Entity, created by a Fictional Government, and is declared subject to the Legislative Policies of the Fictional Government. It is the only "person" which government actually does have jurisdiction over.

Ed and Elaine have challenged the courts to prove jurisdiction as the law provides for, yet the court refused to ANSWER THE QUESTION.
(See: Docket Court Order entry 149 dated June 29, 2009 Below: --- Denial does not constitute an offer of proof.) When those infused with power by the Sovereign People sit in judgment of other human beings do not follow the law they purport to administer and simply sidestep the HARD QUESTION to be answered under oath or affidavit, , is not TYRANNY AND INJUSTICE/MASTERS AND SLAVES the outcome?

What is that Question asked of the court by Ed and Elaine Brown? Simply this. Does a Fictional Unconstitutional, Non-Article III, Administrative Contract Court have JURISDICTION over a Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient Natural Man or Woman who are standng with full legal capacity in Common Law, and have not waived their rights, nor entered into contract with the court, thereby granting the Limited Courts jurisdiction over them?

As stated above, a Fictional Court only has jurisdiction only over other fictions of its own creation, in other words, the JURISTIC PERSON/DEFENDANT, and thus operate on the presumption that Ed and Elaine Brown, the Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient Natural man and woman consent to acting as a surety or underwriter for the debts of the STRAWMAN DEFENDANT,.

This is not hooey, as government would have you believe. THIS IS LAW.

Here are excerpts from the Court Docket ducking the question of JURISDICTION CHALLENGE by Ed and Elaine Brown standing in Common Law and Constitutional Law.

U.S. District Court
District of New Hampshire (Concord)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09-cr-00030-GZS All Defendants

Case title: USA v. Brown et al

Date Filed: 01/21/2009

Assigned to: Judge George Z. Singal

Defendant (1)Edward Brown
represented by Michael J. Iacopino
Designation: CJA Appointment

Defendant (2)Elaine Brown
represented by Bjorn R. Lange
Federal Defender's Office

05/19/2009 83 * AFFIDAVIT of Edward-Lewis:Brown and Elaine-Alice:Brown of Facts to Challenge Jurisdiction (dae) (Entered: 05/19/2009)

06/15/2009 118 AFFIDAVIT of Edward-Lewis:Brown and Elaine-Alice:Brown Demanding Release Due to Refusal of Court and US Attorney to Submit Proof of Jurisdiction by Edward and Elaine Brown (dae) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

06/29/2009 149 ORDER as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown denying: 97 Affidavit of Government Fraud, 111 Affidavit of Government Fraud, 112 Affidavit of Facts for Release of Creditors, 117 Affidavit of Truth, 118 Affidavit Demanding Release Due to Refusal of Court and US Attorney to Submit Proof of Jurisdiction, 119 Notice of Objection - re jury sequestration. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 06/29/2009)

It has been said, "Render to Caesar that which is Caesars, and to God that is Gods"

Caesar is the Fiction. Those who willingly consent to the jurisidiction of the Fictional Caesar through adhesion contracts are duty bound to Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Those who have not consented to, or have withdrawn from all previous unlawful contracts made with the fictional Caesar on the basis of fraud and complete lack of disclosure, are not bound to Caesar in any way.

Simple, is it not? Is not Heaven and Hell on Earth a matter of choices made by the men and women who make them? Ed and Elaine Brown have made them.

It is when the masses of sleeping sheeple who awaken to the Tyranny of Caesar remove themselves from the Adhesion contract which binds them to Caesar that all this SATANIC NEW WORLD ORDER nonsense will end. " .And the Meek Shall Inherit the Earth".

America: Demand that the Court answer the question of JURISDICTION and halt all court processes until they do so!

ONLY IN A LAND OF TYRANNY DOES ARBITRARY DENIAL CONSTITUTE AN OFFER OF PROOF.

Raymond Ronald Karczewski©