It Ain't Over Till Its Over!! Letter from Elaine Brown

Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:25 pm

It Ain't Over Till Its Over!! Letter from Elaine Brown

Elaine Alice: Brown
c/o 266 County Farm Rd.
Dover, N.H. [03820]

July 30, 2009

Dear Ray,

As I do not have my address book here and do not have your PO Box, I pray this reaches you.

I have received some of your email postings including the July 27th one.

You mention an appellate attorney David Groom. Is the following text his words or yours. We need a good appellate attorney. Is Mr. Groom someone we should contact? If so, can you send me his address?

Thank you and God bless you for your continued support. Many have turned away due to fear and intimidation or simply by virtue of the ongoing assault by the Mainstream Media. Tell a lie often and people believe it.

Ed and I have missed your letters. I hope all is well with you. Are you enjoying your motor home?

Yashua's blessing to you, my friend.

Love

Elaine

Dear Elaine,

I am so glad you wrote. My last 4 letters to you and Ed have been kicked back by the system. I have no understanding why. As such I thought it was futile to continue writing until I heard from you or ed. . . . and here you are!!.

As a matter of fact, earlier this day, I emailed Shaun to see if he had contact info regarding you and Ed. Here's a copy of it.

Shaun

I hope this reaches you. If you can get this message to someone who is in contact with Ed and Elaine NOW, (prior to sentencing) send this message to Ed and Elaine. Suggest Ed and Elaine, separately and individually, when addressed at Sentencing, refuse to accept the offer of Sentencing given by the judge based on the fact that JURISDICTION was NEVER proven in writing as the law demands. They have, from the beginning, stood on their Unalienable, Common Law and Constitutional Rights. They had been denied Due Process by such evasion of the law, (denial of motion without comment) and therefore any ruling derived therefrom are Unconstitutional, Null and Void, and carry with it, no force of law. No contract breaks the nexus between Ed and Elaine with the Unconstitutional Contract Administrative court.

It worked for me.

Shaun, if you get this out to them get back to me and confirm it. If you have email info of anyone (Elaine's Son) who can get this info to her, send me his email address and I will contact him personally.

Ray

Elaine, If you and Ed silence your public defender and speak for yourselves at sentencing, do not consent to, nor accept the sentence rendered, you shall pose a unresolvable problem for the judge and prosecution. Your repeated demand to be Tried in a Common Law, Constitutional Court, having been arbitrarily and repeatedly denied without comment by the Judges is a denial of Due Process. This question of JURISDICTION must be answered by the court/prosecutor for any of its limited administrative court rulings to be lawful and valid. This is not a case of my practicing Law in advising you.. I am just telling you what worked for me.

Elaine, I'm afraid David Groom can't help you, He is a State of Oregon court assigned Appellate Attorney.

As to attorney David Groom (by the way, the following words are his gleaned from his appeal, i.e., 1 "There are a number of other objections contained in this document, but these are the arguments that are pertinent to the issue raised by this assignment of error".

"It is well settled and not disputed that a court of general jurisdiction proceeding within the scope of its powers will be presumed to have jurisdiction to give the judgments and decrees it renders until the contrary appears. In re Lyon, 128 Or. 94, 98, 265 P. 1087; Northcut v. Lemery, 8 Or. 316, 322". State v.Lillie. 172 Or 194, 139 P.2d 576 (1943).

"The appellate courts have discussed circuit court jurisdiction over the subject matter and over individuals, and have noted a difference between "excess of jurisdiction" and "absence of jurisdiction." This difference was defined as follows:"

"Excess of jurisdiction may be defined as the state of being beyond or outside the limits of jurisdiction, and, as distinguished from the entire absence of jurisdiction, means that the act, although within the general power of the judge, is not authorized, and therefore void, with respect to the particular case, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of his general power in that particular case are wanting, and hence the judicial power is not in fact lawfully invoked. Although a court may have jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties, its act or order may, nevertheless, be in excess of its jurisdiction, as being something which it has no power to do; and it has been said that any act of a court in violation of statutory prohibition may be considered to be in excess of jurisdiction." 21 C. J. S., Courts, section 25.Garner v Garner, 182 Or. 549, 562, 189 P. (2d) 397 (1948)"

"The Court of Appeals has even gone so far as to rule that the lack of jurisdiction of the circuit court is an error apparent on the face of the record:

"(W)here the same is apparent on the face of the record it is the duty of the appellate court to not the absence of jurisdiction on its own motion. Northern Ins. Co. v. Conn Organ, 40 Or App 785, 791, 596 P2d 605 (1979); League of Women Voters v. Lane Co. Bndry. Comm., 32 Or App 53, 59, 573 P2d 1255, rev den 283 Or 503 (1978)." Montez v Gomez, 54 Or App 996, 636, P2d 1027 (1981).

The consequence of a lack of jurisdiction was discussed by the Court of Appeals as follows:

"When there is a want of jurisdiction over the parties, or the subject-matter, no matter what formalities may have been taken by the trial court, the action thereof is void because of its want of jurisdiction, and consequently its proceedings may be questioned collaterally as well as directly. They are of no more value than as though they did not exist. But in cases where the court has undoubted jurisdiction of the subject matter, and of the parties, the action of the trial court, though involving an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, which might be taken advantage of by direct appeal, or by direct attack, yet the judgment or decree is not void though it might be set aside for the irregular or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction if appealed from. It may not be called in question collaterally." Bank & Trust Co. v. Fredrick, 271 Mich 538, 544-45, 260 NW 908, 909, (1935)" . Wood v. White 28 Or. App. 175, 179, 558 P2d 1289 (1977).

Applying these judicial philosophies to defendant's case, it is apparent that the circuit court in the present case did not have jurisdiction over him. He made continuous requests, not only during this trial, but over the course of the twelve months leading up tothis trial, that the court prove it had jurisdiction over him. As noted in the Preservation section, and the portions of transcript quoted therein, the trial court stated on the record that it "assumed" it had jurisdiction over defendant. This was not sufficient. The court should have shown to all parties' satisfaction that jurisdiction did indeed exist. Defendant contends in this appeal that the court did not, and thus could not have proven it did.

Defendant had copyrighted his name. Thus, two entities existed; one was the "juristic" person, as defendant described it, which consisted of the, incorporated name. The other entity was defendant himself, a "living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private" person, over whom the court had no jurisdiction by virtue of defendant having copyrighted his name.2
__________________________________________________________________
2 It may be feared that if defendant's argument is correct, it would wreak havoc with the criminal justice system because the court would have to establish jurisdiction over every defendant.This would not be the case, however; very few individuals have copyrighted their names and have asserted their rights in the manner this defendant has.

Because the court had no jurisdiction, or at least did not adequately prove its jurisdiction, defendant could not be tried in criminal court. Thus, the judgment against defendant is void and the charges should be dismissed. Defendant was deprived of his right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Indeed, federal law provides that once state and federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven. Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 4, 100 S. Ct. 2502, 2504, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980).

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing assignment of error, defendant respectfully requests that his convictions be vacated.

Respectfully Submitted,

David E. Groom
Attorney at Law)

As you can see, Their method of getting out from under a pile of doo doo was to AVOID even looking at the appeal. That's the corruption of LAW actually being conducted in the Satanic courts which rule over these united states of America.

Elaine, you and Ed shall never be forgotten for your contribution to justice and liberty in our country. No errant government can destroy your contribution with their force and intimidation. Have faith in yourselves. Your path requires that you must be immersed in darkness before being rescued by the Light.

Elaine, See if you can't get Ed's Address for me.

Chin up Kiddo,
It ain't over till its over

Ray

Newbie Joined: Jun 01, 2009 Posts: 5

The Browns are in the grip of a ruthless government scam.

Quote:

What impresses me about this article is the absolute belief of the jury that the government can do no wrong and that the greatest crime in America is to resist the government.; that the government can brandish guns and tanks around a man's property—and they are innocent, but if a man pulls out a weapon to protect himself against a Waco-like invasion, he must be a villain. Amazing. This government wants total compliance and resistors will be punished severely.

Just to clarify, we don't argue that the income tax described in I.R.C. Subtitle A is unlawful or even unconstitutional as the article accuses the Browns of, but rather that:

1. It is misrepresented and illegally enforced against people who are not mentioned in it and who are not lawfully engaged in public offices in the District of Columbia, which the code calls a "trade or business".

2. It is being used to unlawfully CREATE public offices in places where they are not lawfully allowed to exist outside of internal revenue districts and outside of the "United States" in violation of 4 U.S.C. 72.

3. Those who participate and who were not lawfully engaged in a public office BEFORE they signed any tax forms are committing the crime of impersonating a public officer in violation of 18 USC 912. All "taxpayers" are public officers in the U.S. government. It is a violation of most state constitutions to serve in a public office in the federal government and a public office in the state government. Therefore, most judges and attorneys are criminals by this standard if they are "taxpayers", and especially those who are STATE judges and STATE attorneys.

4. The federal government is illegally establishing franchises and the offices that implement them within states of the Union in violation of Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine. This is an unlawful and criminal INVASION of the sovereignty of the states.

If you would like to learn more about the above, see:

1. The Great IRS Hoax
http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatI...reatIRSHoax.htm

2. The Galileo Paradigm
http://famguardian.org/Publications/Galile...leoParadigm.pdf

The judge should have talked about how the following criminal activities by public servants ALSO have no place in a civilized society and amounts to SLAVERY and involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.:

1. Criminal attempts by public DIS-servants to establish franchises and licensed (SSN is the de facto "license") activities within the borders of a state and to compel participation in franchises

2. Judicial and prosecutorial verbicide with the words includes and geographical terms that really mean the government and no physical place and his failure to distinguish between constitutional and statutory citizens and Constitutional and statutory "States" is a conspiracy against the rights of all Americans and a destruction of the separation of powers doctrine.

God Himself in the Bible condemns this verbicide scam that both the prosecutor and the judge were involved in:

QUOTE
"Getting treasures [unearned money] by a lying tongue [using verbicide and "words of art"] Is the fleeting fantasy of those who seek death."
[Prov. 21:6, Bible, NKJV]

Tools to defend against this verbicide scam can be found at:

1. Meaning of the Words "includes" and "Including"
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Fals...c/Includess.pdf

2. Rules of Presumption and Statutory Interpretation, Litigation Tool #01.006
LITIGATION TOOLS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Litigation/General/RulesStatConstInterp.pdf

Ultimately, God's judgment and sentence on these WICKED public dis-servants who have turned their right to protect people into a way to destroy them and plunder them and establish a pagan civil religion that is a substitute for and an affront to God will be DEATH administered NOT by us, but by HE himself, who is a just and merciful God.

[...]

Persecution of the Browns by the District of Criminals began with the filing of false Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) and a suspicious activity report filed by the U.S. Post Office in connection with postal money orders that Ed was using to pay his mortgage. They went after the Browns because:

1. The money orders themselves say that all those who use them are public officers. Note the language on the postal/GOVERNMENT money orders:

"Valid only in the United States [government], territories, and possessions."

Everyone who uses postal money orders is a public officer in "U.S. Inc." folks subject to corporate policy documents that include the I.R.C. Subtitle A.

2. They didn't know that these reports were false, didn't file a criminal complaint against the filer, or what the basis for filing them was. Conviction for the crime of "structuring" ensued under 31 U.S.C. 5324. What you don't know CAN and WILL hurt you, people! You better take the information on this site very seriously if you want to stay out of this kind of trouble. If you want to know what the DIDN'T know and DIDN'T have in their administrative record and therefore couldn't raise at their trial, see:

2.1. Demand for Verified Evidence of "Trade or Business" Activity: Currency Transaction Report, Form #04.008
Forms and Publications

2.2. The "Trade or Business" Scam
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme...usinessScam.htm

Convicted "tax protesters" to receive death sentence with new conviction - Family Guardian Forums

I pray that Ed and Elaine appeal the case against them. I hope that appeal-able objections are raised in their transcript, of course they must get the transcript of the trial ASAP!

**Member** Joined: Apr 25, 2007 Posts: 1235

Welcome BOBT12