1

TO: All Witnesses of the U.S.A. v. Brown Trial SUBJ: Affidavit of Criminal Complaint to Support Our Public Officials in Lawfully Performing and

Protecting Their Constitutional Oaths Herein is the awaited “Corrective Process” evidence packet many Witnesses of the U.S.A. v. Brown Trial

have requested and assisted in compiling. This Corrective Process is intended to Correct The Perceived Wrongs Committed by Government Officials prior to and during the U.S.A. v. Brown Trial. This Corrective Process packet is by its very nature a dynamic* document. It has two dynamic parts: 1= A cover letter to Investigative Accountability Teams (IAT) and 2= The Affidavit of Criminal Complaint (ACC). * = This ACC by its nature is fluid / dynamic allowing you to customize your own version of the ACC. Keep in mind this ACC is an evidence packet with over 25 Complaints and it is intended to also educate any IAT to whom you may present the ACC so that they have a better understanding of why you as a witness, Affiant feel the Behaviors you are reporting are in fact unlawful, criminal, and or have violated the official’s oath of office, in this case Judge Stephen McAuliffe.

It is suggested that we send the Attached Letter of Advise and Recommendations to appropriate IATs

(Investigative Accountability Teams along with the “AFFIDAVIT OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT” (ACC) signed by Witnesses to the U.S.A. v. Brown Trial. This “Corrective Process” packet will be used as a first piece of evidence to educate & engage the IAT to both validate these Complaints & to make the necessary corrections related to the unlawful Administration of the U.S.A. v. Brown Trial.

The attached ACC is a comprehensive document containing Complaints, Footnotes, and four Appendices,

and Additional Background information perhaps further explaining why there is cause for alarm i.e. this ACC.

Remember, this ACC is to serve as an Evidence / Education Packet to assist all Investigative Accountability Teams (IATs) to lawfully determine guilt or innocence and then to begin putting in place corrective actions and procedures that will in fact “Guarantee Every State Our Republican Forms of Government (Article 4 Section 4 U.S. Constitution). All IAT suggested corrective actions and procedures will then have to be put in place and sustained into the future by We The People, the Sovereign Inhabitants of our Sovereign State of New Hampshire. We The People WILL be responsible for sustaining these corrected procedures into the future in order to protect and sustain our American Republican form of Government (Article 4 Section 4 U.S. Constitution) as intended and documented by America’s Founding Fathers.

We are the 2007 and Beyond Founding Fathers… It is now up to us… ”Will Ben Franklin, Molly Stark, Patrick Henry, Betsy Ross, Thomas Jefferson, and Sam

Adams please step forward…” Our “heart felt” thanks go out to the team that has contributed to the creation of this ACC packet to date.

They made it easy for all witnesses to the U.S.A. v. Brown trial and related events to be able to add to and to customize this ACC to best represent their observations as witnesses.

The format recommended for presenting the ACC packet is in two parts. On the front is a cover letter to Investigative Accountability Team(s) IATs that ideally contains recommendations from the well informed witnesses. See the sample cover letter attached below. Following this cover letter to the IATs is the comprehensive, multipart ACC allowing for customization, additions, subtractions, or editing. NOTE(s): I-) It cannot be emphasized enough, YOU AS A RESPONSIBLE WITNESS MUST READ AND UNDERSTAND BOTH THE COVER LETTER YOU NOTORIZE & SEND TO IATs & THE ACC ! You must be comfortable that you can discuss any Complaint(s) you witnessed and which you are willing to certify your signature on before a Notary or JP. You will do fine, just read this packet and think about what you saw, heard, and know from your own knowledge base which is your “Evidentiary Foundation” i.e. why you believe and act the way you do (per Judge McAuliffe 1-11-07). II-) The 3 < > bracketed items in yellow in the cover letter must be customized when the letter is ready. @@HENRY, DECIDE THIS III-) NOW AND TELL THEM MULTIPLE PEOPLE CAN SIGN ONE SIGNATURE SHEET WITH MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS ON IT BECAUSE IT SAYS THAT YOU OBSERVED ONE OR MORE AND NOT ALL OF THE LISTED COMPLAINTS… III-) One of the Notary Forms on page 61 or so of the ACC has space for multiple witnesses to sign one form and all can be notarized together, if

2

needed. If page 61 is the most acceptable signature form perhaps it should be attached to the IAT cover page and we can eliminate pages 62 & 63 of the ACC. 5) NOTE that page 68 of the ACC is related to ALLOCUTION and IS FOR YOUR EYES ONLY ! DO NOT SEND OR FILE IT WITH ANY OFFICIALS. Thank you for being part of the legacy of “…Guaranteeing and Protecting our Republican Form of Government into the Future…” Since We The People performing it in the 1600s to the 1700s an then wrote it in both Our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then in 1787 when WE The People formed our servant the Federal government we wrote it into the organic 1787 Constitution in which the 13 Sovereign States specified exactly what we wanted our Servant Federal Government officials to do for us the Sovereign States. We specified what we wanted our servants the Federal officials to do to assist our efforts to protect and “guarantee the Republican Form of Government” which we had been living and practicing for almost 150 years at that time, 1787 when we formed the Federal Government and wrote our organic Constitution in which we included Article 4 Section 4 so that future generations of Federal servants would know to continue to assist the States in “guaranteeing a Republican Form of government.” The Founding Fathers knew, as you probably do also, knew that the “STRENGTH” of any Society or Nation or State or Community or FAMILY or INDIVIDUAL is in the People, the INDIVIDUALS… And in order to keep the “STRENGTH” of the Individuals vibrant and strong they had to, among other things, BE KEPT INVOLVED IN EVERY ASPECT OF THEIR SOCIETY no matter how big it gets to be… This is why the Republic was and is today so important. As the early statutes of all the original 13 colonies and then the 13 states show; the people were required to be involve (a draft if you will) in every aspect of there society from managing every thing from natural disasters to man made disasters, medical, preventive maintenance of bridges, dams, and roads, Flood Control, Fire Fighting, Medical Assistance, Local to State to Federal Politics. Most of these draft requirement type laws are still on the books but they have been, of recent, seriously down played and ignored. Therefore, we must get back to this ACTIVE involvement by our PEOPLE the INDIVIDUALS TO MAKE US STRONG AGAIN AS A NATION AND AS INDIVIDUALS… Our American Founding Fathers knew this in the 1600s & 1700s and operated that way. This is why ALL ACROSS AMERICA we are currently rekindling this spirit of and practice of ACTIVE INDIVIDUAL INVOLVEMENT in the IMPORTANT management of every aspect of our society from the Local to State to National to the International levels and some are saying to the Universe… @@

henry this is what i sent lynch, mailed it yesterday Governor Lynch: Are you with the Feds or with New Hampshire? 1/30/06 Dear Governor: Thank you for the time you afforded me on 1-24-07 outside the Executive Councilor meeting room to discuss the Ed Brown situation . However, I must tell you this: It was disappointing to me and to many others when you indicated that the situation is "not on your radar screen...." that you are, apparently, not interested in the fate of a New Hampshire citizen threatened with Federal assault on his own property for a "crime" that hurt no one and probably helped many others.

3

I am curious to know: 1) Are you as Governor breaking your Oath Of Office to uphold and defend the organic NH Constitution by dishonoring Part II Article 41? 2) This U.S.A. v. Brown trial had been going on at the U.S. District Court building located at 55 Pleasant Street in Concord. Is it true that this building is at all times under the Joint Jurisdiction of both NH and the United States? Have you failed to see to the faithful execution of the NH RSA 123:1 as officially mandated to your office? Is it true that RSA 123:1 mandates that before any Federal Activities can lawfully take place in the State of NH they must file paper work to this effect with the NH Secretary of State? 3) Do letters over a six year period, signed and certified by the SOS show that no such papers have ever been filed by the Feds for the Joint Jurisdiction property at 55 Pleasant Street? Were copies of the letters certifying this recently, officially given to you? If so, it is an additional source of disappointment to me for you to respond to my questions with "It's not on my radar." 4) What, if anything, could you be doing now that you are not currently doing to nullify Federal designs upon the Brown's property and freedom? Are you doing anything now which might tend to aid and abet such designs? If so, would you please stop? I'm reluctant to request any expenditure of taxpayer money in preventing the Feds from hurting us...but I do think you should make sure you are not doing anything to help them. I do think you should at least express your concerns to the Feds. I am assuming, of course, that you have concerns when citizens of your state are threatened with Federal arrest and possible death after harming no one. I welcome a response to these questions from you or your staff. If I receive none, I and posterity will assume that the answers to each of them are detrimental to you. With sincerity, Dave Ridley NHfree.com 721-1490 On the following page is a Letter of Advise and Recommendations as a 3rd party Amicus Curie (or a friend to your investigative process investigating the complaints against the government official(s) mentioned in the attached “Affidavit of Criminal Complaint”

4

DATE: January 26, 2007 TO: ALL appropriate agencies responsible for monitoring and correcting Judicial, Executive, and Legislative conduct (herein = Investigative Accountability Team(s) [IAT]) Including But Not Limited to: - Merrimack County Attorney and Grand Jury; - NH Judicial Misconduct Committee; - US District Court Clerk; - The Appellate Board of NH; - Head Judges; - U.S. Senators; - U.S. Congressmen; - NH State Senators; - NH State Representatives; - NH SOS; - NH Attorney General; - NH Governor; - NH Governor’s Councilors; - U.S. Department of Justice; - U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff; - U.S. Marshals; - New Hampshire Judicial Board of Misconduct - -Others 6. Provide Notice of Penalty that such parties who are unwilling to get involved will be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, condoning and acting in collusion and conspiracy to commit treason and perpetuate treason in that court. That usually elicits rapid responses. TO: Daniel St. Hilare, Merrimack County Attorney & The Honorable Merrimack County Grand Jury RE: Criminal / Oath Breaking Behaviors of Public Officials Judge Stephen McAuliffe & Governor John Lynch Related to the U.S.A. v. Brown Trial in the U.S. District Court of NH SUBJ: Criminal Complaints Against Federal Judge Stephen J. McAuliffe and New Hampshire Governor John Lynch Which Complaints Are Mandated By Oaths and Statutes To Have “Diligent Inquiries” Made Into These Complaints and Indictments Brought Forward as Appropriate

I was in the U.S. District Court in Concord, New Hampshire observing the U.S.A. v. Brown trial and have some serious complaints concerning those proceedings. For your investigative convenience I have as an amicus curie attached a comprehensive “Affidavit Of Criminal Complaint” (ACC). This ACC contains an extensive list of Criminal Behaviors. One or more of these behaviors I observed and have first hand knowledge. See the attached ACC.

Here, for your consideration, is what I as a well informed witness and friend of your investigation efforts recommend for your honorable <IAT’s> consideration and for your sua sponte determination of action(s) to accomplish.

Because of the breath and Severity of the facts and observations testified and sworn to in this ACC it is humbly but strongly offered that under your own sua sponte that you move forward with the utmost haste and determination and if your investigation determines guilt that you sua sponte using New Hampshire RSA 92:2 and 18 United State Code as a portion of your authority to: 1) remove Judge Stephen McAuliffe from the bench forthwith before he does more damage to himself or others AND 2) That you sua sponte either Reverse and Remand the entire U.S.A. v. Brown proceedings with prejudice; Or 3) Put these U.S.A. v. Brown proceedings on hold until all these Criminal Complaints are thoroughly investigated by only persons who

5

have NO perceived BIAS OR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST until possibly 4) A New Trial can be adjudicated in an unbiased venue by only people who do not have any BIASES or CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (COI). See complaint 13) in the ACC for more detail on the BIAS & COI. In the matter of Governor John Lynch, NH RSA 92:2 is very clear, if the Governor is found to have broken his Oath Of Office then the Governor is to be removed from office forthwith either on his own sua sponte or by representatives of the People like your honorable <IAT>.

I trust that these recommendations and your independent investigation(s) will be of assistance in your review of this matter to determine your course of corrective action(s) related to this Affidavit of Criminal Complaint. Attorney Hilare, please see that this Affidavit of Criminal Complaint against the Judge and Governor as mentioned above is presented to the Merrimack County Grand Jury under their oath of RSA 600:3 which says that they will “Diligently Inquire” into the matters documented herein and systematically brought to their attention by We The Sovereign People and Witnesses of New Hampshire. It is expected that if the Honorable Grand Jury validates this sworn Affidavit of Criminal Complaints, they will indict both Judge Stephen J. McAuliffe and Governor John Lynch for their criminal behaviors which minimally would include breaking their oaths. We the undersigned witness(es) hereby state and certify our individual observation(s) of one or more of the Judge’s and or Governor’s Criminal Behavior documented herein under COMPLAINTS. We are concerned that serious Fraud Upon the Court1 has and is occurring in this U.S.A. v. Brown matter. Complaint 13) is a poignant example.. The Court proceedings presented herein were presided over by Judge Stephen J. McAuliffe and are on the Court Record. The judge’s behaviors were observed and recorded in Court Room # 5 at the U.S. District Court at 55 Pleasant Street in Concord, New Hampshire during the proceedings of Case No.: 06-CR-0071 U.S.A. v. Brown. Governor John Lynch’s criminal behaviors are of two major categories including 1) His lack of enforcing the laws of the Land and of the State of New Hampshire that have jurisdiction over the lawful operation of any Federal Agency operating within New Hampshire and in this case the U.S. District Court’s and the IRS’s prosecution of this trial U.S.A. v. Brown and 2) The Governor’s alleged unlawful behavior that have been observed since he originally came into office all of which minimally relate to Governor Lynch lawfully upholding his oath to enforce and protect all the laws of New Hampshire.

If I can be of further assistance, I am humbly at your service. Please feel free to

contact me. Sincerely yours, <Your First Name-Your Middle: Your Last Name & Contact Info> All Rights Reserved

1 Fraud Upon The Court In Footnotes at End

6

AFFIDAVIT OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Table of Contents 1 page

APPROX.\|/ AFFIDAVIT OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Introduction and Instructions 2 page COMPLAINTS: 8 pages END NOTE: ¼ page FOOTNOTES: & LEGAL REFERENCES 2 pages Appendix A 36 pages “Fully Informed Jury Instructions” Appendix B 3 pages “Optional Relief Considerations” Appendix C 4 pages “Ninth Circuit Denies IRS’ Ignorance of Code Argument Ruling”

Appendix D 3 pages “2001 & 2007 Letters From NH Dept of State Certifies That The Federal Government Has Still Not Filed The Required Materials Gaining Them Lawful Presence To Be Operating In The Sovereign State of New Hampshire”

Witness Signatures & Notary Certification 3 pages ADDITIONAL 3 pages “EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATION” MATERIAL (For Your Important Additional Consideration)

ADDITIONAL (on Allocution) 1 page “FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY” NOTES:

7

AFFIDAVIT OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT This Affidavit of Criminal Complaint is a prima-facie case pursuant to Art 4 Sec 1 of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees everyone access to lawful “judicial proceedings”. Husbands v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 395 Supp 1107. United States v. Kiss 658 F.2d 256 “1981” “Indeed no more than an “Affidavit” is necessary to make the prima-facie case. This protected right of access to lawful, due process of “judicial proceedings” was denied several times to the Browns and the Honorable Jury pool of 14 in the U.S.A. v. Brown Trial. The complaints below were observed by several witnesses during the court proceedings and form the basis of this Affidavit of Criminal Complaint which includes serious Fraud Upon the Court2 COMPLAINTS:

1) Upon multiple cross examination questions concerning the contents of and the applicability of a couple key IRS Code sections by Mr. Edward Brown to IRS Agent Jim John, Mr. John surprised everyone when he answered repeatedly that he does not know what those basic IRS Code sections say or mean. Denying any knowledge, on the record, of what this his job responsibilities are. At that point, Judge Stephen McAuliffe once again appeared to be biased against Mr. Brown in that it seemed as though the Judge had removed himself from the bench and was badgering or prosecuting Mr. Brown and sustaining objections from the Assistant Attorney William Morse rather than letting Mr. Brown explore the fact that this witness, Agent Jim John, was ignorant of very crucial facts of his profession that had gotten the Browns into court in the first place… and now he is lying with his “pleading of ignorance.” It appeared that Judge McAuliffe was biased to the point of protecting Agent John. THIS ENTIRE TRIAL SEEMS AS THOUGH IT SHOULD BE DISMISSED AND JUDGE MCAULIFFE FOUND GUILTY OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR ON THIS ONE POINT OF LAW ALONE. There is additional evidence3 from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that has come to our attention that it is apparently a regular practice for the Internal Revenue to tell their Agents that when they are being “cross examined” it is ok to lie and say that you do not know or understand the applicability of the more than complex IRS Code Sections that they are responsible for enforcing. This additional evidence further seems to indicate that the complexity of the IRS Code makes the Code basically incomprehensible to most IRS Agents and, by definition, to ordinary American People. This 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ Denial of this “Ignorance of IRS Code Argument by IRS Agents” received National News Attention in January 2007.

2) The U.S. Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Sec. 3512 Public Protection Act) clearly

specifies that key forms in the Internal Revenue’s Private Taxing Strategies are illegal because they “…do not contain a valid OMB number and conflicts with the Constitution.” Therefore, forms like 1040 should not be used as part of any Public Taxing strategy by the IRS and this has also been confirmed very clearly as ruled in U.S. Court decisions like U.S. v. Lawrence. This is some of the exculpatory evidence that

2 Fraud Upon The Court In Footnotes at End 3 9th Circuit Court Denies “Ignorance of IRS Code Argument” by IRS Agents is In Footnotes at End

8

Judge Stephen J. McAuliffe unlawfully denied to be presented to the Jury in the U.S.A. v. Brown matter.

3) The U.S. District Court of the District of Concord, New Hampshire has also STILL

NOT shown any Facts, Laws, or Evidence after multiple requests (see Appendix D “NH Dept of State’s Certificates of Non-Response”), which is incorporated herein by reference, which certifies that the Federal Govt. has STILL NOT fulfilled the mandates of both the Constitution for the united States and the New Hampshire Constitution and the RSA Statutes of New Hampshire like RSA 123:1 and lawfully registered their intentions and detail plans for their planned activities here in the State of New Hampshire. These regulatory laws which our Founding Fathers mandated that all Federal Officials MUST abide by before coming into the jurisdiction of any of the 50 Sovereign States. These laws were put in effect by our Founding Fathers in order to ensure that the Newly created Federal Government or its officials would not be able to encroach upon States’ Rights. Therefore, this fact that the U.S. District Court has not lawfully registered its presence here in New Hampshire also invalidates any rulings by this U.S. District Court in Concord, New Hampshire related to the Case No.: 06-CR-0071 U.S.A. v. Brown.

4) Related to 3) above, Governor John Lynch has not enforced RSA 123:1 as mandated to

him by Article 41 Part 2 of the New Hampshire Constitution and supported by Article I Section 8, clause 17 of the organic Constitution for the united States which mandates that before any activities by the Federal Government et al. can take place in any of the Sovereign States the Feds must have acquired the Consent of the Legislature of the State. This State consent must be acquired before buildings and property can be acquired. Therefore, I- under mandates of Art 41 Part 2 of the NH Constitution (which says in part, “The governor shall be responsible for the faithful execution of the laws,” and RSA 92: 2 mandates that Governor John Lynch must resign or be removed “forthwith” from office for breaking his oath of office in that he has not “faithfully” enforced many of New Hampshire’s laws including RSA 123:1 which requires the Feds to file their plans for any and all of their lands & buildings (over which the State retains joint jurisdiction.) Secretary of State William Gardner has certified multiple times, see Appendix D for copies, that the Feds have not filed these plans. II- These alleged Federal lands and buildings at 55 Pleasant Street, Concord, New Hampshire also must “…revert to and revest in this state (New Hampshire),” should the People of New Hampshire determine that these alleged properties at 55 Pleasant Street, Concord, New Hampshire never were properly and lawfully under the jurisdiction of the Feds i.e. only New Hampshire.

5) Further related to Gov. John Lynch under mandates of Art 41 Part 2 of the NH

Constitution, which says in part, “The governor shall be responsible for the faithful execution of the laws,” and RSA 92: 2 mandates that Gov. John Lynch must resign or be removed from office forthwith for breaking his oath of office in that he has not enforced many of New Hampshire’s laws including NH Law Chap 264: 1 1994 which states, “The entire Piscataqua River and all Islands and submerged lands in it belong to the State of NH which relates to and should invalidate many New Hampshire County and District Court decisions that have unlawfully and fraudulently taken properties of various amounts from many NH

9

Inhabitants and given same to the State of Maine based on fraudulent and unlawful claims including but not limited to Judges legislating from the bench by giving inappropriate and biased interpretations to laws like the Constitution attempting to justify their own “Private” ends of unlawfully taking properties that are in the “Public” from NH Inhabitants who deal only in the “Public”. This appears to be being accomplished by NH Judges conspiring with Maine Judges when both parties misinterpret for fraudulent intentions Article IV Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution when they say that the “Full Faith and Credit of ‘public Acts’ in one state can be applied to their “Private Acts” includes the Title 26 Income Taxing activities of the “Private” United States government which Maine has adopted to apply to their Maine inhabitants and to workers who work in Maine. Governor Lynch is and has been failing to enforce the laws related to NOT applying the “Private Income Tax Laws” of Maine and the U.S. to the “Public Inhabitants of New Hampshire who have worked or are working in the Portsmouth, New Hampshire Naval Shipyard which is not and never been in the State of Maine’s boundary or jurisdiction.

6) Judge Stephen J. McAuliffe told the defendants (Browns) that the argument of jurisdiction had already been decided and that they were forbidden from presenting any jurisdictional related evidence to the jury. Judge McAuliffe lied about this jurisdiction issue because Jurisdiction can lawfully be challenged at anytime even at sentencing, which is true, it can be.

7) Because Stephen J. McAuliffe is a member of the N.H. BAR Association he has also

taken an oath as prescribed in NH RSA 311:6 which mandates that Judges cannot prosecute from the bench. Judge McAuliffe was observed effectively as having removed himself from the bench when he began prosecuting the Browns multiple times with bias against them.

8) Judge McAuliffe again was observed effectively as having removed himself from the

bench when he began advising the prosecuting attorney William Morse which is bias again against the Browns.

9) The court has not provided any evidence that the Browns did not have a lawful

“Evidentiary Foundation*” which lawfully justified why the Browns had adopted the beliefs and behaviors in this “Taxing” matter and which lawfully justifies why both their evidence and witnesses should have been lawfully allowed to be presented to this court and jury.

* The Brown’s lawful “Evidentiary Foundation” minimally is composed of these facts: The Evidentiary Foundation (EF) of the Browns lawfully justifies the adoption by the Browns of both their beliefs and behaviors discussed in this U.S.A. v. Brown matter. The Browns’ study, review, understanding and adoption of their Evidentiary Foundation was key in forming their beliefs and behaviors. The Brown’s EF consist minimally of the founding history and intents of those who formed our American Nation from the 1600s to 1800s including the intents of the three branches of government and the separation of powers and the taxing authority all of which were put is place by our Forefathers for the protection of the rights of We the Flesh and Blood People. Included in these functions of America’s governmental bodies was the use of Common Law Courts. The united States was defined in the Constitution for the united States as comprising an area not to

10

exceed ten miles square and to perform only 17 specific tasks for the then 13 Sovereign States. The Brown’s EF also believes that America’s Flesh and Blood Forefathers also, in their wisdom put in place the Federal Article 3 Courts that as needed would support the already existing Common Law Courts so that together these Courts would be used by the People to protect the “Public”* from unlawful encroachments by any Federal officials.

*The “Public” is composed of Flesh and Blood Sovereign inhabitants, like the Browns, who do

NOT either live** in or work for the United States or one of its instrumentalities and ,therefore, is NOT lawfully liable for the IRS’s “PRIVATE” DIRECT INCOME TAX.

**All unconscionable contracts aside, the American “Public” does not lawfully and consciously LIVE in any of the Federal districts that allegedly have been foisted upon the American “Public”. These courts (Article 3 and the Common Law Courts) were intended to integrated together whenever Federal Groups / Officials may be in contention with any Sovereign Inhabitants, like the Browns, of the Sovereign States. This long lived strategy to have the Federal Article 3 Courts to compliment the Common Law Courts in protecting the Rights of the “Public” Inhabitants of the Sovereign States has existed from the beginning of the creation of the Federal Government by the 13 Sovereign States in 1790 after the Sovereign States ratified the Creation of the Federal government and the Constitution for the united States. The strategies of the Founding Fathers always took into consideration the various oaths that were mandated to be taken by America’s various public servants (elected, appointed, and hired). These mandated Oaths were put in place in order to add additional protections to the “PUBLIC” by forcing the public servants to abide by the various State and Federal Constitutions against all enemies DOMESTIC and FOREIGN so help them GOD.” These protective measures were all put in place to ensure the protection of the already existing rights of We the Flesh and Blood People of the States. These preexisting Rights included the Right to have fair and lawful court hearings before unbiased and a Fully Informed Jury of our peers. A Fully Informed Jury (FIJ) is/are able to lawfully rule on both A) the law(s) alleged to be involved in any matter and B) the facts and evidence and witnesses involved in any matter. The court procedures including FIJs are not to be presented any opinions or presumptions by any judge(s), prosecutors, or witnesses, or experts. If such opinions or presumptions are presented the FIJ is to assume that such opinions and presumptions are presented to them as one way of attempting to “TAMPER**” with the Jury. The jury must therefore deny any such opinions / presumptions. **See the lawful and proven “Fully Informed Jury Instructions” provided in Appendix A “Fully Informed Jury Instructions” which is incorporated herein by reference. These Fully Informed Jury Instructions (FIJI) which, as Judge McAuliffe knows, are and have been since Colonial Days more than adequate in assisting FIJs to accomplish their unbiased job of fairly and lawfully evaluating judicial proceedings without any Judge or prosecutor ATTEMPTING indirectly or directly to “TAMPER” with the Jury by giving the Jury customized instructions to sway the Jury’s thoughts and opinions in any way that might cause them to become “biased” in anyway. The ongoing review and understanding of these and other facts and laws and lawful precedence traditions of our Country are the core of the “Evidentiary Foundation” of the Browns. This is why the Browns and millions of Americans have adopted the beliefs and behaviors that are being unlawfully prosecuted in this U.S.A. v Brown matter. We do not believe any evidence exists that disproves the existence of the Brown’s lawful “Evidentiary Foundation” which lawfully explains the Brown’s beliefs and willful behaviors they have adopted. Plus Judge McAuliffe unlawfully

11

stated multiple times that he would tell the jury what the laws are and how they were to interpret these laws, i.e. “JURY TAMPERING”. This unlawful behavior by Judge McAuliffe must be investigated forthwith by all unbiased agencies’ agents that are responsible for monitoring judicial conduct and sua sponte rule to correct all wrongs and protect the “PUBLIC” interests. 10) Additionally, the Separation of Powers doctrines was also violated by Judge McAuliffe in that he was witnessed to have “stepped down” from the bench and began prosecuting the Browns. 11) A plethora of Jury Tampering acts by Judge McAuliffe were witnessed. 12) Additionally, neither the Court nor the Prosecution has ever proved with valid evidence, facts or laws that they have Political Jurisdiction over the Browns. Only opinions and or presumptions have been used as evidence by the judge and prosecution. The Browns attempted to “Take Exception” to this but Judge McAuliffe repeatedly disallowed the Brown’s taking “Exception” to this jurisdiction question. Therefore, without lawful jurisdiction this Brown matter sua sponte must be dismissed with prejudice. 13) Additionally, neither the court, nor the prosecution, nor the Internal Revenue, nor the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) have presented any evidence of lawful Direct Income Tax liability being on ANY “PUBLIC” inhabitant like the Browns. A “Public” inhabitant is a person who does NOT EITHER LIVE IN OR WORK FOR the United States or one of its instrumentalities and ,therefore, does NOT carry any lawful liability for the IRS’s “PRIVATE” DIRECT INCOME TAX. This is why America’s Founding Fathers Constitutionally documented that these types of U.S.A. v. Brown court cases should NEVER be foisted upon the “Public Side” of our country by any Federal Government officials i.e. NOT onto the very people on the “Public Side” who had created the Federal Government. The Federal officials were ONLY to serve and NOT BE involved in any behavior which has even the slightest appearance of putting our people into any form of involuntary servitude. Sections of 18 U.S.C. carry heavy penalties for any public official who attempts such acts of foisting involuntary servitude onto We The People on the “Public Side.” Judge McAuliffe appears to have been unlawfully foisting involuntary servitude onto the Browns. This needs to be investigated. All Federal Employees involved with prosecuting Federal Tax Related Issues, like U.S.A. v. Brown, by definition, have “Tax Paying” BIASES and or CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. The officials who prosecuted the U.S.A. v. Brown matter include Federal Judges et al. (McAuliffe), IRS Agents et al. (Jim John), USPS Personnel et al., U.S. Attorneys et al. (Thomas Colontuono), U.S. Assistant Attorneys et al. (William Mores) ALL OF WHOM by definition ARE BIASED AND HAVE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST because they ALL are Federal Employees and they ALL ARE LAWFULLY LIABLE TO PAY THE IRS’s “PRIVATE” DIRECT INCOME TAX. (U.S. Const. Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 17 & the “Private Law section of the United States Code” Title 26 IRS Code Section 6331 (a) ! Therefore, if all Federal judges like Judge Stephen McAuliffe, by definition, are BIASED & have “CONFLICTS OF INTEREST” because they have to lawfully pay this DIRECT INCOME TAX why wouldn’t Judge McAuliffe be suspected of believing that everyone coming before his court on tax related cases like U.S.A. v. Brown must also have to pay these taxes even at the risk of “Tampering” with the jury.

12

It seems like a possibility, because of these BIASES, that Judge McAuliffe may either consciously or subconsciously be guilty in his judicial duties of some form of the following thought processes. “Even if these Private Tax Laws mixed with sophisticated unconscionable contracts do only lawfully apply to the “Private Side”? “And So what, if it is UNLAWFUL to apply these Private Tax Laws to the “Public Side”? “After All, we have adroitly created a plethora of unconscionable “Private Law” facilitating contracts. These facilitating contracts have ALSO BEEN FOISTED upon the “Public” ! And they are also assisting our unlawful taxing strategies on the “Public Side.” “Therefore ! The Original Intent of the Founding Fathers and The laws of the land to protect all those on the “Public Side” ‘BE DAMNED…’ ! If any of this thought process is possibly on the part of Judge McAuliffe it seems that ALL appropriate agencies responsible for monitoring judicial conduct at this level should sua sponte investigate these BIAS & CONFLICT OF INTEREST concerns against Judge McAuliffe forthwith. **= Public Law, as many of you know, is the law that Congress passes with its Public Law Process. This Public Law Process (PLP) recognizes that the Constitution restricts proposed “Public” law(s) in order to protect the Public Will. The PLP requires public input on proposed “Public” law. The PLP further requires proposed “Public” law to be read into the Official Congressional Record at least twice and then voted into law by both houses of the Congress and then the States have to ratify it which is Certified by the Secretary of State of each Sovereign State and then the U.S. Secretary of State certifies whether the requisite # of Sovereign States ratified the Law and then the Current Sitting President has to sign this proposed “Public” law before it becomes “Public” Law over the now 50 Sovereign States (i.e. the Public.) *= The Private Law Passing Process (PLPP) is quite simple by comparison. The PLPP does NOT require a proposed law to be restricted by the Constitution (Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 17 to exercise exclusive Legislation… over the District NOT EXCEEDING ten miles square.”) This is because a proposed PRIVATE LAW will only apply to the united States, the District (NOT exceeding 10 miles square) and their “Private” united States Functions. Founding Fathers intended that All of this “Private” laws would NEVER be applied to any Sovereign Flesh and Blood Inhabitants on the “Public” side living and working in the Sovereign States. Sovereign State approval of these “Private Laws” is not required. The Secretary of States are not involved. The Congress does not have to read it into the record twice because the Private Laws will not apply to the Sovereign States or their Sovereign Inhabitants. In their cross examining efforts the Browns attempted TO CLARIFY THE TRUTH FROM LIES & BIAS and Opinions and presumptions, however, the Brown’s CROSS EXAMINATION efforts WERE ALL DONE under the HEAVY, UNLAWFUL, NEGATIVE BIAS of Judge Stephen McAuliffe who it appeared time and again was intent on not having the “truth out” so the Jury could make a true and complete evaluation leading to at least an UNBIASED RULING whether it be Guilty or Not Guilty AT LEAST IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN UNBIASED RULING. Therefore, this behavior of Judge McAuliffe must be sua sponte investigated and lawfully ruled to ensure that lawful Justice is served by ALL appropriate agencies responsible for monitoring judicial conduct. Further court cases that have ruled that the 16th Amendment, which gives rise to the IRS’s claim that the Direct Income Tax is lawful for all Americans on the “Public Side” as well as for Americans on the “Private Side”, was NEVER ratified. See Baskerville and Foster v. Credit Bank of Wichita, Federal Land Bank, and First Interstate Bank of Fort Collins known as the Farmers Cases From the Denver Federal District Court in 1993 and then to the U.S.

13

Supreme Court in which the court ruled seven to two in favor of the Farmers on all major issues which confirmed that the 16 Amendment was never lawfully ratified. Additionally the Federal Reserve System was also ruled as unconstitutional. Remember the IRS is the FED’s unlawful tax collection agency. 14) Judge McAuliffe was also witnessed to have “stepped down” from the bench showing partiality when he was observed coaching the prosecuting U.S. Assistant Attorney William Morse. 15) Judge McAuliffe on several occasions exhibited the appearance of partiality4 against the Browns. We have not seen any evidence that inappropriate and unlawful prejudicial meetings did not take place prior to the commencement of the U.S.A. v. Brown trial between Judge McAuliffe, & IRS Agent(s) Mr. Jim Johns et al., Pamma Mitchell et al., & Assistant U.S. Attorney William Morse et al., & U.S. Attorney Thomas Colontuono et al.; & USPS Officials / Employees et al. (Patricia Rebello, Inspector [and apparently an under cover and unlawful photographer]; John Joseph Hickey, Inspector et al.; Gregory Pretcent, Clerk et al. These illicit meetings and discussions prior to the trial obviously from the evidence of Judge McAuliffe’s behaviors were influential in prejudicing Judge McAuliffe against both the Browns and their body of evidence and witnesses. [Some mixture of Motion in limine and Motion to Suppress seem to have been carried out in these illicit pre-trial meetings as shown by the fact Judge McAuliffe is guilty of prejudice as made obvious by the FACT that Judge McAuliffe has unlawfully disallowed any of the Brown’s planned and needed evidence and witnesses to be presented to the Court and to the Jury for their lawful consideration. This unlawful criminal behavior by Judge Stephen McAuliffe invalidates ALL appearances of justice (see footnote 5) being allotted to the Browns. Therefore, sua sponte remove Judge McAuliffe from the bench forthwith. 16) We have seen no evidence that the litigant(s) have either actually received justice, nor have we seen any evidence that the Browns believe they have received justice5. We do not believe any such evidence exists; (therefore, this case should sua sponte be dismissed with prejudice} 17) We have seen no evidence that "justice is being satisfied by the appearance of justice6. We do not believe any such evidence exists therefore, the appearance of more criminal behavior by Judge McAuliffe; 18) We have seen no evidence that Judge McAuliffe has any intention to recuse himself sua sponte even with all these prejudicial questions being raised by Witnesses, the Browns, and in the media7. We do not believe any such evidence exists; therefore, sua sponte remove Judge McAuliffe from the bench forthwith since he is not taking the responsibility to recuse himself; 19) Neither the plaintiff nor the court, as requested on the record by the Browns, has provided any evidence of a lawful contract existing between the Browns and the IRS. We do not believe any such evidence exists. Judge McAuliffe stated unlawfully that he would make that determination using opinions, assumptions, and presumptions which are all unlawful to be used in a lawful court of law. Therefore, once again, sua sponte remove Judge McAuliffe from the 4 In Footnotes at End 5 In Footnotes at End 6 In Footnotes at End 7 In Footnotes at End

14

bench forthwith if he cannot prove with irrefutable facts and evidence that the Browns had a lawful contract with the Internal Revenue. 20) Judge McAuliffe with his BIASES & CONFLICTS OF INTERES (See Complaint 13) also seems “Hell Bent” on completely destroying Article IV Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. Our “Republican Form of Government” spoken about here @@ 21) We have seen no evidence that jurisdiction cannot be challenged at any time even at final determination, Basso v. Utah Power and Light Company 495 F 2nd 906 at 910. We do not believe any such evidence exists. Therefore, Judge McAuliffe sua sponte must be severely reprimanded and removed from the bench forthwith.

22) We have seen no evidence that the Browns have understood any of this court’s or Judge McAuliffe’s proceedings or charges nor have we seen any evidence that the Browns have freely without use of Threats, Duress, and Coercions accepted now or at anytime any of the court’s or judge’s or prosecution’s proceedings or rulings. We do not believe any such understanding on the part of the Browns exists. Therefore, because of Judge McAuliffe bias and mishandling of this entire U.S.A. v. Brown matter must sua sponte be removed with prejudice and Judge McAuliffe must be severely reprimanded and removed forthwith from the bench and any other positions of public trust.

23) We have seen no evidence that compulsory access to Rule E (8) of the Federal Civil Judicial Procedure & Rules is being allowed for the Browns who are unschooled in law and who are noticing / petitioning the court of enunciation of principles as stated in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519. We do not believe that lawful evidence for denial of this compulsory access to the due process procedures as defined in Rule E (8) and Haines v. Kerner exists. Therefore, sua sponte Judge McAuliffe must be severely reprimanded and removed from the bench for denying this lawful compulsory access to these due process procedures that are to be allotted to all litigants as defined in Rule E (8) and Haines v. Kerner. Judge McAuliffe must sua sponte be estopped from any further judicial damage(s) he may cause by his immediate removal from the bench. 24) The tortuous actions described herein comprise a grave injury to public policy and America’s National Security at the highest levels of America’s “GUARANTEED” Republican Form of Government (Art 4 Sec 4 Constitution for the united States), and therefore destabilizes America’s “GUARANTEED” Republican Form of Government. Therefore, forthwith any and all individuals and corrective organizations responsible for holding government officials accountable for their unlawful behaviors must move with the utmost speed to adjudicate these Criminal Behaviors being brought against Judge Stephen McAuliffe and the Judge should be removed immediately from any and all official duties until this entire matter with the Browns is corrected to everyone’s satisfaction. 25) The Court Records, Documentation, and Witnesses of this U.S.A. v. Brown Trial record that Judge Stephen McAuliffe and the co-conspirators mentioned in the complaints above have also violated 18 USC 241 the due process and Judge McAuliffe used no lawful authority for his denial of due process to the Browns and to the Honorable Jury pool of 14. 26) The co-conspirators mentioned above have also violated 18 USC 242. 27) INCLUDE OTHER ACTS OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR NOT LISTED ABOVE:

15

END NOTE: The Honorable Merrimack County, New Hampshire Grand Jury is under Political and judicial mandate to with “Diligent Inquire” to study this Affidavit of Criminal Complaint against Judge Stephen J. McAuliffe and NH Governor John Lynch and indict for Contempt and Prejudicial Behavior and Breaking their Oaths of Office and other crimes that are documented and sworn to herein against both and issue appropriate charges which may include tort claims to purge the dishonor within ten (10) days of the date of filing of this affidavit if both Judge McAuliffe and Governor Lynch do not either A) Throw this U.S.A. v. Brown case out and apologize for their criminal acts or B) Show cause, in the case of the Judge, why he should not recuse himself and to be held in contempt and be liable for a comprehensive tort claim and C) in the case of the governor, immediately begin correcting the wrongs related to I) Not enforcing the laws of New Hampshire, II) Correct the property thefts against the NH Inhabitants that the NH Courts unlawfully took and gave to Maine, III) Severely punish the NH Judges involved in these unlawful NH Property Theft cases involving NH Inhabitants who currently or formerly worked at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, New Hampshire which has always been totally within New Hampshire. The above criminal complaints against Judge Stephen J. McAuliffe as observed by multiple witnesses, are also a matter of court record.

Based on the above laws, facts, and observations and if the Honorable Grand Jury and or Honorable Court concurs after your “Diligent Inquire” into this “Criminal Complaint” concurs we recommend the Honorable Grand Jury and or Honorable Court Sua Sponte remove Judge McAuliffe from the bench along with potential other Relief as may be outlined in Appendix B “Optional Relief Considerations” which is incorporated herein by reference; and similarly remove Governor John Lynch from office based upon RSA 92:2 which says that any public official operating in New Hampshire who is found to have broken the public trust by violating their oath of office shall be removed forthwith from that office of trust.

FOOTNOTES: 1 "Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court. It is also clear and well-settled State and Federal laws that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).

16

Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect. 2 The 9th Appeals Court in Case No. 04-74846 ruled in December 2006 the IRS and their agents are to be held responsible for knowing their codes and rules and how they are applied and cannot claim and get judgments on the basis that the IRS et al. does not know their codes and statutes and whether they are even to be applied to individuals. The 9th Appeals Court in Case No. 04-74846 ruled that the IRS must be held liable for their ignorance and failure to understand their own codes, rules and regulations. (See Appendix C “Ninth Circuit Denies IRS’ Ignorance of Code Argument Ruling”) which is incorporated herein by reference. The 9th Appeals Court in this Case No. 04-74846 reversed the “Ignorance is Ok Decision” of the Tax Court and found in favor of Robert C. McKee. This was found by the 9th Appeals Court in Case No. 04-74846 to be an abuse of discretion by the Tax Court and the IRS. THE PETITION GRANTED. The decision of the Tax Court is REVERSED and REMANDED. This 9th Appeals Court in Case No. 04-74846 apparently also remembered the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that the 16th Amendment gave NO NEW taxing authority to the U.S. Congress.

LEGAL REFERENCES

3 Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances. In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994). Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. 455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process."). That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). 4 In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice." 5 The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice. 6 "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for

17

his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202. Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect. Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause."). Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law. If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself. However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce. Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

Appendix A “Fully Informed Jury Instructions”

18

IMPARTIAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OF THE SUBMITTED

{BY THE ALLEGED DEFENDANT(S)} (For Quick Reference)

PAGE # [These page #s must be adjusted by adding the number of pages that precede this page] 2 I. THE INITIAL ESTABLISHMENT OF THE IMPARTIAL JURY 12 II. DISTINCTION OF THE LAWFUL AND INHERENT

POWER OF THE JURY IN CONTRAST TO ALL OTHER OFFICIALS OF AND WITHIN THE UNITED

STATES, OR OF EITHER OF THEM, PLUS MANDATORY DUTY OF EACH JUROR

18 III. PRESENTMENT OF THE LAW, OR INSTRUCTING THE JURY AS TO THE LAW 22 IV. OBJECTIONS 23 V. ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE 26 VI. TRIAL. (To have complete and sole power and control of a process or thing with the potential and right to control the outcome of such process or thing’s existence.) 28 VII. BIFURCATION HEARING OR TRIAL 30 VIII. SUMMATION 31 IX. VERDICT 33 X. SENTENCING 34 XI. PREVAILING IMPARTIAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS 35 XII. CONCLUSION OF IMPARTIAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS 35 CERTIFICATION OF INSTRUCTIONS – BY

ALLEGED DEFENDANT

19

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE IMPARTIAL JURY TO TRY

THE CASE # 00 – CR – 0000 FOR THE JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTY OF

FREEDOM COUNTY, STATE OF FREESTATE, TO BE HELD ON SUCH TRIAL

DATE HEREAFTER AS SHALL BE DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE

CALENDAR OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT. THESE INSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE

PROVIDED UNTO THE JURY BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT PRIOR TO

COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL ON THE DATE SO SCHEDULED.

I. THE INITIAL ESTABLISHMENT OF THE IMPARTIAL JURY.

PRIOR TO THE IMPARTIAL JURY COMMENCING TO BE ADVISED OR INSTRUCTED

AS TO ITS PROCEDURES FOR TRYING THIS CASE SET FORTH BELOW, IT IS

HEREBY GIVEN SUCH INSTRUCTIONS AS ARE APPLICABLE WITH THE

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND WITH WELL SETTLED LAW

APPLICABLE TO THIS SPECIFIC CASE.

THE IMPARTIAL JURY IS HEREBY INSTRUCTED THAT, IN ACCORDANCE TO THE

AFOREMENTIONED CONSTITUTION, THAT THE DEFENDING PARTY (OR

DEFENDANT) IS INNOCENT OF ALL CHARGES UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY BEYOND A

REASONABLE DOUBT. IF THERE SHOULD BE EVEN THE REMOTEST DOUBT

AMONG ANY JUROR, THEN THE COURT AND THE IMPARTIAL JURY CANNOT

CONVICT.

ADDITIONALLY, THE IMPARTIAL JURY IS INSTRUCTED THAT THIS TRIAL IS TO BE

BOTH A TRIAL COURT OF LAW AND OF EQUITY. THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY

20

PROVIDES THE IMPARTIAL JURY THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE ANY MATTER OR

CASE COMING BEFORE IT ON THE BASIS OF WHAT IS FAIR IN HONESTY AND

TRUTH AS IT PERCEIVES IT TO BE, NOT BY EVIDENCE ADDUCED ALONE, AND

NOT JUST WHAT IS ESTABLISHED AS A STRICT MATTER OF LAW, BUT BASED

UPON THE IMPARTIAL JURY’S DETERMINATION THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE AN

ADJUSTMENT MADE, GREATER OR LESSER, TO FIT THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PERTAINS TO THE CASE AT HAND.

THE IMPARTIAL JURY IS ALSO HEREBY INSTRUCTED THAT THE DEFENDING

PARTY HAS NOT PRESENTED EITHER ALL OF THE TESTIMONY OR THE EVIDENCE

THAT IS TO BE GIVEN ON HIS BEHALF UNTO THE COURT AT THIS TIME, NEITHER

SHOULD THE IMPARTIAL JURY CONSIDER ANY ALLEGED MERITS PRESENTED BY

THE PROSECUTION IN ITS OWN VERSION OF THE IMPARTIAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

PRIOR TO THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL; EVEN THOUGH THE PROSECUTION MAY

HAVE PRESENTED ITS OWN VIEWS AS TO THE CHARGES MADE OR ALLEGED, THE

DEFENSE HAS NOT PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY OR REASONING OR

FINDINGS OF FACT UNTO THE IMPARTIAL JURY AT THIS TIME; THE TRIAL WILL

NOT HAVE BEGUN UNTIL THE IMPARTIAL JURY SHALL CALL THE TRIAL INTO

SESSION.

THE IMPARTIAL JURY IS HEREBY PROPERLY INSTRUCTED TO REALIZE THE

FOLLOWING:

1. That a government operates off of taxpayer money, giving it, ordinarily, a much greater

financial advantage than that available to most ordinary citizens.

2. That because of such greater expanse of wealth from either taxes or else international

finances obtained for purposes of financing prisons and jails, with considerable profits in

21

return to the lenders from the fruits of Slave Labor (note that the 13th Amendment did not

actually abolish slavery in the United States, but merely converted it from its original form

to slavery when linked to a crime, giving governments the advantage of slavery as a trade

over historic private enterprise, pre civil war), you are instructed to realize that the

government may be able to bring forward considerable more “evidence” than the defendant

is capable of to prove its case due to such greater financial ability, and that the same goes

true to the government’s ability to find and call witnesses to bolster its case, particularly

witness that are claimed to be “expert” witnesses, sometimes also called “special masters.”

3. You, the Impartial Jury, are instructed to realize that the government, due to not only its

overall superior financial position, may be able to out-finance the defendant in its gathering

evidence and locating and subpoenaing witnesses on its own behalf. In fact, in some events,

you are instructed to know, government agencies and prosecutors have managed to convince

judges to grant them powers which violate the mandate of a jury to try, or control the

proceedings, of a criminal case, by determining guilt or potential guilt before the fact under

the guise of protecting the public, where no trial has been conducted by you, the Impartial

Jury, and where the result of the acts by the government has been to freeze, constitutionally

– illegally, the bank account(s) and other finances, if any, of the defendant before you in

order to cripple the same financially, for the greater purpose of preventing such defendant in

having the ability to hire or retain such counsel as might be able to defend the defendant

with a veracity equal to the government’s own prosecutorial force itself.

4. You are instructed to consider that the defendant may have been put into an inferior

financial position by the acts of the government, because the government, by 13th

Amendment Abuse, has an ulterior motive to gain by incarceration of individuals, or

citizens, on a wide scale basis, and therefore you must conduct a pre-trial inquiry into the

acts by the prosecution in relation to any financial impairment that it has caused the

defendant, and by inquiring of the defendant if there has been any financial impairment by

the prosecution, and to what extent such has occurred, and you, the Impartial Jury, from the

answers given, must decide as to whether a further investigation into the acts by the

prosecution is warranted as to any deliberate financial disadvantaging of the defendant.

5. You are instructed also, however, that in the event you find that the defendant has not been

impaired in any way by any act(s) of the prosecution, or government, as would cause the

defendant to not be able to finance substantially a competent defense before you, then you

22

must disregard numbers 3 and 4 above and hold that the defendant is able to finance such

counsel as he or she may have chosen to assist in these trial proceedings on behalf of

defendant.

You, the Impartial Jury, are instructed to consider that instructions number 1 through 4 above

may not apply to this case whatsoever, and should be disregarded as having no instant

applicability, and that you are to move forward with the trial as though no such instructions had

been given.

YOU, THE IMPARTIAL JURY ALONE ARE TO TRY, OR CONTROL, THE

PROCEEDINGS AND OUTCOME IN THIS CASE; THE JUDGE MAY NOT IN ANY

MANNER OR CAPACITY INFLUENCE OR SEEK TO INFLUENCE THE TRIAL

PROCEEDINGS OF YOU, THE IMPARTIAL JURY; FOR ANY PARTY TO SEEK TO

EITHER MANIPULATE OR INFLUENCE THE IMPARTIAL JURY OTHER THAN THE

TWO SIDES OR PARTIES DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH IT CONSTITUTES JURY

TAMPERING, AND MAY CONSTITUTE EMBRACERY, BOTH BEING CRIMINAL

OFFENSES, AS WELL AS CONTEMPT OF COURT, AS CONTEMPT OF JURY, IN ITS

EMBODIMENT IN THE IMPARTIAL JURY - ALSO A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

FOR A JUDGE TO, IN ANY MANNER, MANIPULATE OR INFLUENCE THE JURY,

SUCH AN ACTION IS KNOWN AS THE CRIME OF EMBRACERY, AFOREMENTIONED,

AND IS A CRIME AT BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL LEVELS ACCORDINGLY. THE

JURY SHALL HAVE FULL CONTROL OF THE BAILIFF(S) AND ALL LAW

ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WITHIN THE REACH OF THE COURT FOR

ENFORCEMENT OF THE JURY’S DECISIONS IN ALL OF THE TRIAL’S PROCEEDINGS.

23

THE FOLLOWING CONSTITUTES PROPOSED PROCEEDINGS OF BOTH A LOGICAL,

OR PRACTICAL, AND LEGAL NATURE, TO ESTABLISH A WORKABLE PROCEDURE

BY WHICH THE IMPARTIAL JURY MAY TRY THIS CASE AS DEMANDED OF THEM

BY ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 3. AND GIVEN EXTENDED MEANING BY THE

SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE SAID CONSTITUTION.

THE IMPARTIAL JURY SHALL, UPON ITS EMPANELMENT, MEET TOGETHER IN A

PRIVATE MEETING ROOM DESIGNATED FOR THAT PURPOSE, AND THEREIN

SHALL ELECT A JURY DIRECTOR FOREMAN, FORMERLY REFERRED TO AS A JURY

FOREMAN OR JURY FOREWOMAN OR JURY FOREPERSON, SUCH ELECTION

PROCESS TO BE CONDUCTED AS FOLLOWS:

A. Each Impartial Jury Member shall speak for approximately 5 minutes, giving such

information as follows:

(1) The Jury Member speaking unto the Impartial Jury SHALL give his/her name,

whether he/she believes that he/she knows or may know, directly or indirectly, the defendant(s)

or the plaintiff(s) in the Case(s), or has any reason to believe that there may be other external

influences such us, but not limited to, conflicts of interest, news media sources, public rumors of

reputation, and so forth, which might be cause to modify his/her otherwise impartial or neutral

opinion toward either the defendant(s) and/or the counsel therefore; the plaintiff(s) and/or the

counsel therefore, which shall include the prosecutor(s) of the said Case(s), as well as toward the

Case(s) itself, and whether the Juror’s occupation, educational background, or other background,

can be held as having common grounds for association with either the subject matter of the

Case(s) itself, the defendant(s) or the plaintiff(s) or the prosecutor(s), of any Prejudices or Biases

that such Juror may be known to have toward any racial, ethnic, or religious group, or toward

any creed or nationality, or toward either gender, or work group or occupation which such

24

foregoing conditions would constitute such said Juror as being potentially partial and not

impartial during the trial process and procedures.

(2) In addition to the above requirements, the Jury Member thus speaking before the

other Jurors may provide such other information as occupation(s), educational background,

hobbies, civic interests and involvement, personal interests, military and/or political background

and involvement, if any, and such other accomplishments as he/she shall deem applicable or

appropriate, this to further determine the issue of impartiality of the Jury Member and for other

efficient qualifications for the position of Jury Director.

(3) Each Juror shall be provided approximately 5 minutes to speak and give the foregoing

information pertaining to himself/herself, after which such Juror shall, by raising his/her

right hand, conclude with the following statement, “Under Penalty of Perjury, to my

fellow Jurors, and unto the People, and unto the Court hereby dedicated to serve the

People, I hereby warrant that the Constitution of the United States, and my obligation to

the just laws established thereunder, shall ever be before me during this case and trial,

and that all of the foregoing information I have just provided you is true and correct and

complete to the best of my knowledge and ability, to this I now solemnly swear -

(optional) . . . so help me God.”

B. (1) After all Jurors have made their spoken presentments and sworn statement as set

forth above, the Jurors shall retire to their seats where they shall write their nomination for Jury

Director on a piece of paper. When all nominations have been placed in the box which shall be

located on a table in the Jury Room, the Impartial Jury shall call for the Court’s Clerk to come in

and count the nominations. If more than half of the nominations shall be for the same person,

such nominations shall immediately be deemed as being votes instead thereof, and the person so

named by such votes shall be, and shall forthwith have the responsibilities, duties and authority

25

of, the Jury Director.

(2) Any other two Jury Members who shall have the next greatest number of

nominations, as votes, shall be appointed to the duties of Co-Secretary to the Impartial Jury, and

shall be responsible to keep record of the Impartial Jury meetings and proceedings, each

separately and as they alone shall review such meetings and proceedings.

(3) In the event that there shall not be a majority of nominations as votes, then the

three persons with the greatest number of nominations, or if there shall be tie votes accordingly,

shall be designated as candidates for Jury Director. There shall be NO campaigning. The

Members of the Impartial Jury shall then cast their votes by writing the name of the person for

whom they are voting upon a piece of paper, and placing such piece of paper in the

aforementioned box, shall call for the Court’s Clerk to come in and count the votes. The person

with the greater number of votes shall each forthwith be the Co-Secretary to the Impartial Jury.

(4) In the event that there shall be any tie vote in the procedure as contained in “B.

(3)” above, the procedures as contained in “B. (3)” above shall be utilized again to eliminate

conflicting tie votes until there shall be no conflicting tie votes among the candidates, and the

Jury Director and the two Co-Secretaries to the Impartial Jury shall have been clearly

determined.

C. ALL Members of the Impartial Jury, during the Court proceedings as pertaining to the

Case At Hand, shall take and keep personal records and observations, subject matter covered,

facts and evidence presented, as well as personal opinions of the Jury Member himself/herself.

D. The Constitution of the United States requires that all Juries be impartial during the trial

process of any case. It has long been commonly, erroneously held that citizens, in criminal

cases, had and have a “right to a trial by a jury of their peers.” This notion is untrue from a

26

number of standpoints. First of all, to be able to peer across at someone, or as to peer through a

doorway or through a window, to peer at someone and thusly gain some kind of understanding,

and from there, and opinion, the true definition of a “peer” being someone having familiarity

with either the defendant(s) or the plaintiff(s), thus inherently renders such a person as either

biased or prejudiced, which is inherently unacceptable under the United States Constitution,

THEREFORE neither the Juror, whether or not prospective, presenting himself/herself unto the

Impartial Jury, nor the Impartial Jury itself shall consist of any “peers,” but shall instead be

consistent of an “impartial jury” only, as is required by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution

of the United States.

(1) Furthermore, the Constitutional requirement of an impartial jury, not being a right

that may be waived as the right (being contained within the parenthetical phrase therein) to either

a speedy or public trial may be waived, may not and does not allow for a “partial jury,” or a jury

of “peers” to try a case, neither may any judge try the Case, the opposite of an “impartial jury”

being a “partial jury” and not a judge to any degree or extent at all, and as required by Article III,

Section 2, Clause 2 of the aforementioned Constitution, which not only gives the Jury the Right

exclusively, to TRY ALL criminal cases (the accused therefore not having any right to a trial by

jury that he or she might be able to somehow, otherwise waive), but actually MANDATES the

Impartial Jury to try ALL criminal cases, such aforesaid Clause 3 having •Concurrent

Application unto both the United States government and the states’ governments, concurrent

application being “equally and at the same time.” (•applied equally and at the same time)

(2) As a matter of Statements of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in addition to the

foregoing, the Constitution’s Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, states that the Impartial Jury

SHALL TRY (try – literally “control,” not simply hear) ALL crimes, except in cases of

impeachment, which conditions of impeachment does not apply at any time in either a United

27

States Court or any State Court or any court authorized under the charter or constitution of any

state. No judge, in and under authority of the Constitution of the United States, has been, or is,

given any standing whatsoever in any criminal trial proceeding, the previous practice to the

contrary being in constitutional error and therefore irrelevant.

(3) Further, the presence of any judge in the courtroom would constitute a clear and

present influence upon the Impartial Jury; this Fact is undeniable, otherwise there would be no

reason for the judge to be there at all; - such presence therefore constituting what is referred to in

Law as an Undue Influence, and would likewise constitute the Crime of Jury Tampering, or

Embracery, and any judge who had presence in the court room at the same time as a Jury Trial

was in progress, would be forthwith chargeable with such said crime.

(4) Therefore, it is both legally-technically and pragmatically illegal for a judge to be

present in the court room while a Jury has been impaneled to try (not hear) any given case. The

Sixth Amendment clearly has extended the principle requirements of the mandate of a Trial By

Impartial Jury for all crimes to be that of an Impartial Jury only, also further clearly establishing

that such Right and Mandate of the Impartial Jury to Try ALL criminal Cases (as opposed to the

heretofore erroneous belief that it was somehow the “accused’s right” to a trial by (impartial)

jury, which he or she might somehow waive, without consideration as to the “impartial”

application to the jury aspect applicable thereto) is concurrent, or concurrently applied, to both

the United States Courts and the States Courts at the same time, the impartial jury’s right being

preemptive to the accused’s alleged “right to a trial by (impartial) jury,” and that furthermore,

whether right or wrong, the United States supreme Court’s interpretation of the 14th

Amendment, rendering that the same has extended unto the states all of the requirements of the

“Bill of Rights” or the First Ten Amendments, which is inclusive of the Sixth Amendment – at

the very least (Selective Incorporation Doctrine), thus purportedly further extending and

clarifying unto the states the powers of concurrent application in such Amendments, to be

28

irrevocably bound thereby to the same extent as the United States, or Federal, Government is so

bound.

E. TRIAL WHERE A CLAIM OF RACIAL PREJUDICE, AS PART OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED

WITH, MAY EXIST:

Within the United States of America, there are many racial and ethnic groups. In

the event that there shall be a claim of racial prejudice between two races of

people which may be seen or regarded as existing as an issue that could affect the

outcome of the trial, no member of the Impartial Jury shall consist of either of the

two races so affected, but must consist of persons, fully and duly qualified, of any

other race than the two races so affected.

F. Upon the election of the Jury Director, the Jury Director, in conjunction with the

authority of the Impartial Jury itself, shall secure the Court and the Courtroom from all persons

who might influence the Impartial Jury (with the exception of defense persons, prosecution

persons, witnesses, etc.) and thereby constitute the Crime of “Jury Tampering,” which shall

include the judge ordinarily expected to be assigned to “supervise” or “oversee” or “control” or

in other words “tamper” with the (Impartial) Jury” as well. The keeping of order in the

Courtroom is to be the responsibility of the bailiff under the direction of the Jury Director. The

Jury Director shall thereafter direct all Court proceedings as the judge would otherwise

heretofore have done.

G. The Impartial Jury Shall Have, And Has, the Right to order the issuance of arrest

warrants, search warrants, and other such instruments of the Court as are applicable and

necessary, or desirable, in the Case At Hand, which arrest warrants, in the event that the

Impartial Jury shall find just cause for such issuance, may include persons other than the

29

Defendants, which may or may not be persons from among the Plaintiffs if there shall be any

indication of criminal wrong doing in the charges so brought before the Impartial Jury, whether

or not the Defendant(s) may be found guilty of the offense charged with to any degree

whatsoever. In short, these instructions now restore to the Impartial Jury all rights and powers

as Impartial Juries had the right to, where no judge was present, for whatever reason, that first

were established by the Sixth Amendment in 1791, prior to any other judicial interferences with

the Impartial Jury system itself.

H. The Impartial Jury alone lawfully trying (controlling) and therefore knowing the Case At

Hand, the right of sentencing shall belong, and belongs, to the Impartial Jury alone.

I. In accordance to a decision by the United States supreme Court, JURORS, in any and

every case, state of federal, have the right to take notes during trial; this right is hereby conveyed

as a duty to the truth and to justice, unto Each and all Jurors in this case, to take such reasonable

notes as seemeth them good and useful in their deliberation together thereafter at the conclusion

of trial by the Impartial Jury. In this case, Jurors have the duty to keep an accounting of some

kind in order to provide the service of justice to the maximum degree, accordingly.

II. DISTINCTION OF THE LAWFUL AND INHERENT POWER OF

THE JURY IN CONTRAST TO ALL OTHER OFFICIALS OF AND

WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, OR OF EITHER OF THEM, PLUS

MANDATORY DUTY OF EACH JUROR.

A. Article Six, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States requires that all members

of government be bound to the taking of an oath or affirmation, to be bound to, and therefore

under, the Constitution of the United States, which requirement includes all judge of all courts,

30

but DOES NOT extend itself to Impartial Juries or Juries of any kind, this because Juries are

(and were) considered to be direct representations of the sovereign People, or that is “We the

People,” of the United States. THEREFORE, Impartial Juries are fundamental to the system of

justice in the United States, Benjamin Cardoza’s (Palko v. Connecticut), 1937, erroneous opinion

to the contrary – which officially started the conspiracy by judges against juries and the rights of

juries to try all crimes - notwithstanding. Consequently, all Impartial Juries have certain powers

over and inherent obligation and responsibilities to the Constitution of the United States, not

being lawfully bound underneath it as all other member of government are so required to be.

B. Recognizing that Members of a Jury are not Under the Constitution, not being required

by Article VI, Clause 3 to take an oath in support of same, nevertheless it is a fundamental

necessity that members of the Jury know the law which they are to judge any defendant under.

C. All accused persons, for rights for legal protection, come under the Constitution For The

United States as to the supreme Law that they are being tried under, no matter the nature of the

criminal accusation. Inasmuch as that the Jury is to try the accused under the supreme Law of

the land, at the very minimum, it becomes manditorially necessary, as well as prudent (wise) that

each and ever member of the Impartial Jury know, to a minimum degree at the least, that law, or

Constitution, before proceeding with the Trial of the Accused. (Note. Not even law schools of

today provide the type of Certified Reading as has been provided for below.)

D. While it is not necessary that a Member of the Impartial Jury be educated specifically in

the law, or have any particular degree of education, it is necessary that they know the law of the

Constitution itself, that they therefore be certified as having read that supreme Law, the

Constitution beginning with the first word of the Preamble, to the last word of the last

31

Amendment, word by word, without any external influence being imposed upon the Member so

reading the same, during the Certified Reading itself.

E. To bring about the Certified Reading of the Constitution, which is to be entered into a

record for the same after the fact, it requires two (2) witness for each one (1) person participating

as a candidate in a Certified Reading. The two witnesses and the candidate are to assemble in a

private room of the courthouse for this purpose. At the designated time, the candidate

commences the reading, by reading aloud for the distinct hearing of the two witnesses, beginning

with the first word in the Preamble, and continuing, with the two witnesses reading each word

along with the candidate. The amount of time for the average reader is about 2 to 2 ½ hours.

F. Neither witness may speak to the candidate during the time of the Certified Reading, until

the last word of the last Amendment thereof has been spoken. Furthermore, no comments are to

be made to the candidate as to what any part of the Constitution may have meant, except in the

Impartial Jury’s deliberation room, as a continuing part of the Trial itself. Upon completion of

the Certified Reading of the Constitution, the two Impartial Jurors serving as Witnesses are to

enter their own signatures in the Impartial Jury’s official record book, which shall show that the

Jurors have each and all been Certified as having read the Constitution, as fundamentally

necessary for the preparation of a lawfully competent Trial by Impartial Jury. This is the most

essential education that any Impartial Jury Member can receive.

G. The Impartial Jury having the requisite of twelve (12) Members, with there being the

potential for certifying four (4) Jurors at a time, the Certification of the entire Impartial Jury of

twelve (12) Members should be accomplished in approximately six (6) to eight (8) hours. This,

all things considered, is not too great a time for this most essential of all educations in order to

make the Impartial Jury to do its best job of being over the Constitution as it tries any Case to be

32

brought before it. The Certified Reading of the Constitution shall not be construed to indicate

that each Impartial Juror should not read the Constitution for more understanding as the Trial

proceeds, but not so as to detract from their required attention during the actual Trial itself.

H. In addition to the foregoing finding at Article VI, Clause 3 – Juries, of any kind, not

being Under the Constitution for Oath taking purposes, and conducting Certified Readings of the

Constitution for lawfully competent necessity instead, there are two other principles for

understanding that should be brought to the attention of the Impartial Jury as it relates to the

essential and esteemed Duty, and revered Honor, of being a Member of a True Impartial Jury as

originally established by the Constitution’s Founders themselves.

I. The first such principle is found by this fact: The highest Power in any nation is the

Power to Try ALL Crimes. Trying civil matters comes nowhere close to this trust. And it is in

the hands of the Jury, later amended by the Sixth Amendment to indicate Impartial Jury, at

Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, not in the hands of judges, that we find that the Constitution’s

Founders, or Founding Fathers, chose to place, in trust, this Highest of All Powers.

J. This entrustment and placing has great significance. It means that it is the Jury’s right

and role to actually control the courthouses themselves, not the right or alleged duty of any

judge, even though, by statute, hired for the job by the unlearned legislature. Such legislative

act, unConstitutional in the final hour, was never passed to comprehend, nor had the right to

deny the true and lawful Power of an Impartial Jury.

K. Though this is the correct understanding from a Constitutional standpoint as it relates to

the Impartial Jury’s right to Try All Crimes, without a judge in the courtroom, the Impartial Jury

is instructed to proceed prudently with the Trial Process as these instructions has provided for.

33

L. To illustrate conclusively what the True Purpose of the Jury is, it should be known that

according to the official records of the Constitutional Convention itself, leading up to the

Constitution’s official first ratification on September 17, 1787, just five days before that date, on

September 12, 1787, according to the official notes taken by Father of the Constitution, James

Madison, the Founding Father who brought us the Trial By Jury to begin with, little known Mr.

[Founder] Gerry, in his second statement for the day, stated the exact reason or purpose for the

Jury itself. These are the official words, as recorded by Mr. James Madison himself. “Mr.

GERRY urged the necessity of Juries to guard agst. corrupt Judges. He proposed that the

Committee last appointed should be directed to provide a clause for securing the trial by Juries.”

M. The True Purpose of Juries in the United States, according to this Founding Father, was

to be to “guard against corrupt Judges.” The only way that this condition can possibly exist,

since the Jury can never know ahead of time which judge will be corrupt and which one won’t,

and to prevent the judge from controlling the Trial process, not the Impartial Jury, is if the judge

is NOT in the courtroom whatsoever during the time when the Jury is Trying the alleged Crime.

N. No disrespect toward any particular judge; this is the way that it lawfully, legally,

Constitutionally is. This disclosure by Mr. Founder Gerry, in the official proceedings of the

Constitutional Convention itself, establishes for us, and confirms the absolute Right for the

Impartial Jury to Try All Crimes, without the existence of any judge in the courtroom while such

Trial is being tried by such Impartial Jury. This confirms, irrevocably, and closes this matter for

You, the Impartial Jury, accordingly.

O. THEREFORE, the Impartial Jury for the Case At Hand, which shall be made up of the

number of Impartial Jurors as established underneath the aegis of the aforementioned United

States Constitution and as protected by the Ninth Amendment’s powers of non-disparagement or

34

reduction of rights from the days of the First Generation of those Citizens of the United States

who first retained those certain rights, Shall At ALL Times Regard The Constitutionality Of The

Matters Of The Case Which Shall Have Been Brought Before Them; at the beginning of the

Trial they shall consider the Constitution and the Constitutionality of the Case At Hand, and at

the end of the Trial they shall consider the Constitution and the Constitutionality of the Case At

Hand; at all times between the beginning and end of trial shall the Constitution and the

Constitutionality of the Case At Hand be considered and taken into full account.

P. Contempt of Constitution. While you as a collective jury, when trying the crime alleged before you,

have the full rights over the Power of contempt of court, there is another Power over which this jury, as

direct representatives of the people, has command, for it is the power, above the power of contempt of court,

but existing or inherent for a parallel of the same reasons, to keep or maintain the Constitution safe, sound,

and orderly in its functions. The Constitution, from the word “constitute,” was established in writing for the

people; the people were not created for the Constitution, and represents, inalienably, the people and the

higher agreements between them. As has been well established by both law dictionaries and cases in many

courts, “Contempt” is not a civil matter, but is a Criminal Offense, coming under the category of – not either

a felony or misdemeanor – a quasi crime, and accordingly belongs inherently (inseparably, irrefutably,

inalienably) to the people alone, to be upheld by the juries whose purpose it is to directly represent the people

in any case over which they preside or try (or control, as by trial).

Q. Duty of Each Juror. Contempt of Constitution is a criminal offense, to which the perpetrator is liable

directly to the people for. No person is excluded from the commission of this crime, nor are they immune

from it, so long as the prosecution for it is done in an orderly fashion, and is tried by an impartial jury (not a

jury of peers). It is the Constitutional duty of each person, as an impartial jury member, to participate fully

in the trial process to the maximum extent of which he or she is capable. Without a full and honest

participation, the seriousness of the trial over which the Impartial Jury must preside, or control, the trial

becomes defective, violates the Constitutional rights of both the defending party or parties as well as the

prosecutorial ones, and rises to the crime of Contempt of Constitution, accordingly. Therefore, any impartial

35

jury member who shall not fully participate in the trial process to the maximum degree of their capability,

who either sleeps while in session, talks to other jurors about matters unrelated to the case itself, lies to

another member or to the other courtroom participants about the case, takes any bribe or favor, directly or

indirectly, from either side of the issue at trial, shall be and is guilty of the inherent crime of Contempt of

Constitution, and therefore punishment in a competent court of law may be sought against such juror

therefore.

III. PRESENTMENT OF THE LAW, OR INSTRUCTING THE JURY AS

TO THE LAW.

A. The Impartial Jury shall, prior to the being of the prosecution an defense procedures,

provide a time for the prosecuting and defending parties to present the law as each believes the

law to exist in the case before the court. The Impartial Jury shall require that both parties

provide them with precise exhibits as to any law upon which each party relies upon as the law

under which the law is to be continued forward.

B. The prosecution shall go first. The prosecution shall present unto the Impartial Jury the

full explanation of the law which the prosecution sincerely believes his/her case is to be

prosecuted upon. If the prosecution does not know the law upon which his/her case is to be

predicated, upon its discovery of such a condition if the same shall be found to exist, the

Impartial Jury shall dismiss the case, without prejudice, for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

If the prosecution does present the law sufficiently to establish that an offense is to be prosecuted

under such law as presented, the Impartial Jury shall continue the trial forward at this time,

subject to the defense’s own presentment of the law. If the case stems from a grand jury

indictment, the charges as established by the grand jury alone shall be read unto the Impartial

Jury, and the Impartial Jury shall proceed with the presentment of the law from the defense.

36

C. The defense, after the prosecution has finished with its presentment of the law or the

grand jury indictment, whichever shall be applicable, shall present the law s it believes the law to

exist in contradiction to any presentment of law that the prosecution has made. Lack of

knowledge of contradicting law by the defense shall not be grounds for a guilty verdict against

the defendant.

D. After consideration of the law as presented by both the prosecution and the defense, the

Impartial Jury shall weigh the presentment of the law from both opposing parties and make a

determination as to whether there is sufficient law to continue the trial or to dismiss the case,

without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the event that the prosecution has

presented the law, and instructed the Impartial Jury as to the law sufficiently to establish the

grounds for trial, the trial shall go forward to its just conclusion.

E. The Impartial Jury is hereby instructed that the Trial is to be held under the principles of

common law, both Express Law (statutes) and the common law as pertains to Mores (strongly

regarded and held law held and believed to be understood by the common people to exist, though

only implied by common consent or acknowledgement as to its application to a case at hand),

and Folkways (more localized applications of law perceived to exist but not as strongly regarded

as Mores) where applicable.

F. Considering that the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires or

mandates Due Process in all matters of law and equity, and further considering the fact that a

denial of a just prosecution denies unto all people the access to that right of Due Process, No

Impartial Jury empowered by these Impartial Jury Instructions, lawfully submitted, nor any

37

prosecuting witnesses upon the establishment of any Case before this Court shall be authorized

or have power to “plea bargain,” so called, with any Defendant charged with any matter or crime

alleged to any degree whatsoever, however the Jury may consider, in addition to the law(s) in

question, the principle as contained in the United States Constitution regarding equity, and shall

have the right to apply the principle of equity in any case where the Impartial Jury alone in its

trying of the case shall determine the same to be appropriate. The Impartial Jury shall have the

right to Try All Crimes, and no claim for plea bargain, whether real or pretext, shall have the

effect of denying the Impartial Jury, not the prosecutor, the mandatory right to try such crime, to

at the least, determining for themselves whether or not the Case to be tried is without merit;

G. In the event that the Impartial Jury shall find the defendant’s Case to be worthy of a

dismissal by declaring such Case to be ripe for being a “directed verdict,” and issuing a

statement for directed verdict, that the Case is frivolous or without merit, and that the charges, in

the Impartial Jury’s own determination, should never have been brought against the defendant.

For the record for definition’s sake, a “directed verdict” is the verdict in a case whose

requirement for a decision for “not guilty” is the only verdict that can and must be reached based

upon the law that has been alleged to have been violated, where the burden of proof against the

defendant fails to such a degree, that the failure of the claim that the law in question has been

violated is patently obvious, and therefore no guilt can be assumed as a matter of law, based

upon the lack of ability of the law in question to be used to prosecute the defendant for the crime

alleged by that law.

H. In past cases, a judge, in issuing a directed verdict, would do so without allowing

the Impartial Jury to even know of the alleged crime’s existence, however, based upon

the greater and more correct knowledge provided to this Impartial Jury in the foregoing

38

sections of these Instructions, it is now held that it is the Impartial Jury’s right to have

ALL cases involving accusations for crime to be timely brought before the Impartial Jury

for its own consideration for trial procedures, by duly scheduled docket for the same, or

upon the initial review of the Case, to determine to end the trial proceeding by reaching a

decision for directed verdict, dismissing, in effect, the Case before it by that such

decision.

I. No sentencing imposed by the Impartial Jury shall violate the Eighth Amendment of the

Constitution of the United States, wherein any punishment constituting either cruel or unusual

punishment is prohibited, which punishment shall include, but may not be limited to,

incarceration if according to the law, or a reasonable fine, or reasonable public service, or any

reasonable combination of the three foregoing provisions of punishment.

J. The Impartial Jury shall have, and has, the right to call for current copies of such

information as Rules of Evidence, Rules of Criminal Procedure, or copies of any statute or law,

whether current or of historical establishment or of record, that they believe to be applicable to

the Case At Hand, or other such information as they, by United States Constitutional mandate,

have been called upon to do by trial, and to determine the applicability or non-applicability of

any such information reviewed by them, as they alone shall determine.

K. The Impartial Jury, as an Impartial Jury or as individual Jurors, each being impartial,

shall also have the right to consult with counsel of their choice, if they shall choose to do so,

which may or may not be a judge or close jurisdiction and/or availability, if the same shall be

available, and the same shall be available for such consultation as counsel only, Jury Room itself,

or the courtroom where the Trial is to proceed lest it should be perceived as establishing a Trial

NOT exclusively by Impartial Jury as the United States Constitution does lawfully demand.

This article shall not be construed to establish a burden upon the Impartial Jury that the

39

Impartial Jury or any Juror thereof must seek any outside counsel in order to Try the Case

At Hand.

IV. OBJECTIONS.

A. Prior to the Trial beginning, the opposing parties, in comprehension of any issues that

either side believes should be stricken or disallowed from being considered by the Impartial Jury

or any witnesses that should not be heard as being ones to provide testimony not relevant to the

case, each party shall make a list of the issues or points and the witnesses that each opposing

party believes should not be allowed to be made a part of the trial itself and submit copies to the

Impartial Jury in a number sufficient for each Member thereof to have one, plus a copy to the

opposing party. Upon receipt of such controverting documents by the Impartial Jury, if any, the

Jury Director shall direct both opposing parties to not attempt to present any argument which

may be reliant upon any issue or point or potential witness that is contained in the Objections

List of either side.

B. During the trial itself, the Objections List may be added to at any time that either

opposing party raises an objection to the other party’s statements, evidence presented, witness

called for, or argument made or attempted to be made. The Impartial Jury shall add each

objection point to the Objections List to be determined by the Impartial Jury alone during the

Bifurcation Hearing or Trial held at the latter part of the trial. (see Bifurcation Hearing or Trial

below)

V. ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE.

A. The Matter of Admission of Evidence is one of the most Fundamental (Essential and

40

Basic) Rights of a Jury for Trial Purposes. It has long been known, and it is supposed to have

always been the Rule, that a judge cannot try Fact, that a Jury only can try Fact(s), and that a

judge’s job is to try the law only. Based upon the material provided by these Instructions, we

now find that the latter idea is not so; the Right of the Jury may not be diminished by any judge’s

instruction without there being the running of the risk that the Crime of Embracery will be

committed by the judge, not to mention Contempt of Constitution.

B. To help this Jury understand this question thoroughly, the following United States

supreme Court case information is provided in order that it may be ascertained more fully that

this is the correct idea, and that no error has been made to this end. The Case reads, and is cited,

“It is not the judge's role to determine ‘the truth of the matter,’ Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of

North America, Inc., 974 F.2d 1358, 1363 (3d Cir. 1992) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1262 (1993), in light of all the evidence.

Rather, summary judgment must be denied "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could

return a verdict, either way, pertinent or relative to the nonmoving party.” Liberty Lobby, 477

U.S. at 248.”

C. This is not an isolated case. It is well known and understood, and has always been so,

that a Jury’s Jurors are the only ones, together as a Jury, who are authorized to try Facts,

meaning Evidence. With this understanding then, it should become evident that something has

been wrong, all of this time, with the idea that a judge could be ordained to decide what evidence

was to be admitted for trial purposes, or not, when according to the rule of thumb mandating that

a Jury be the Trier of Fact, a judge cannot know “the truth of the matter.” Therefore, it has been

Constitutional and Judicial Error for any judge to be the one to be charged with the alleged duty

to admit or deny evidence, since it is inappropriate for him/her to believe that he/she knows

whether that evidence is truthfully evidence, or is not evidence.

41

D. The Correct Rule is that the Jury alone be trusted for this purpose, to every extent

necessary. It has never been correct that anyone else but the Trier of Fact to review the evidence

and decide if the proposal of evidence was in fact admissible evidence, or not, to be argued on

both sides of the case, by prosecution and defense.

E. Accordingly, this Impartial Jury is charged with the centuries old Right and

Responsibility of receiving any evidence proposed by either the prosecution and defense, to label

that evidence, if not already properly labeled for the Impartial Jury’s convenient recognition, and

to have such evidence placed in a nearby location where it can retrieve it for examination during

its Trial of the Case, in order to compare it, proposed evidence, with what is being argued or

presented, as the concept of evidence being proposed so demands. In the event after the

Impartial Jury has heard sufficient argument and information to draw its own conclusions, it

may, at any time, move to deny the proposed evidence as competent evidence in its Trial of the

Crime alleged, or confirm its apparent applicability as evidence, to be continued in the Case until

the Trial has been concluded, with both the prosecution and the defense being able to argue both

sides of the evidence in the Case, respectively.

F. The Impartial Jury shall not be limited or constrained (compelled) as to what evidence

that it sees fit to admit or deny; the Impartial Jury is the sole Trier of Fact, and is the sole

Witness as to what the claim for violation of the law that the defendant has been charged with

actually involves, in accordance to the prosecution’s own instructions on the law alleged to have

been broken which goes to a verdict of “guilty” if true and the facts of the Case agree with the

law as being broken, as well as the defense’s own claim as to the law, if existing for the defense

in addition to the facts, that comes to the defendant’s aid for a verdict of “not guilty” if

determined by the Impartial Jury to be true.

42

G. Based upon these foregoing truthful matters, the Right of the Impartial Jury to be the sole

determiner of the Evidence to be Admitted into this Case is plenary (or full), and there exists no

reason in law or in any Rules that are not contrary to long standing legal practices, centuries old,

that should create any difficulty for this Jury in its proceeding to Try this Case as it alone shall

see fit to determine.

VI. TRIAL. (To have complete and sole power and control of a process or thing

with the potential and right to control the outcome of such process or thing’s

existence.)

A. The Procedures under which the Impartial Jury shall Try the Case At Hand, are set forth

in full and complex detail, below, as follows:

(1) The Jury Director, in convening the Case before the Court, shall first read

the charges aloud before the Court, and ask the Defendant(s) as to how he or she,

or it – if it shall be a corporation or other such business entity, may respond. No

question of guilt or innocence, or any not-guilty type question shall be asked of

the Defendant(s). If a “guilty” or confessional response is voluntarily entered by

the Defendant, the Jury Director shall briefly question the defendant(s) as to the

sincerity or honesty as to this response, to ascertain that there has been no prior

coercion or misunderstanding pertaining to the nature of the response, after which

if the response remains the same, the Defendant(s) shall be provided sufficient

time to give a summary explanation to the Court as to the circumstances leading

43

up to his/her/its guilt, if any, whereupon the Jury Director shall acknowledge the

same and call for a recess of the Impartial Jury into the Jury Room to deliberate

the Case in private for a reasonable amount of time on the matter, though briefly,

thus tried, and the sentence to be given, if any.

(2) If a “let the Court (or else “Charges”) proceed response is entered, the Jury

Director shall then proceed to call upon the witnesses or any evidence that may be

relevant to the Case in favor of the prosecution. During this time neither the

Defendant(s) nor any of the Defense’s witnesses may speak. All evidence and

initial testimony in favor of the prosecution witnesses must be presented at this

time, and any evidence or initial testimony not presented may NOT be heard at

any later time except by special petition as to special circumstances that may have

arisen, and if it is determined hat there has been any withholding or suppression

by any of the prosecution witnesses of any evidence or initial testimony

whatsoever for the purposes of calling up such evidence or initial testimony that

any of the prosecution witnesses of any evidence or initial testimony at a later

time, the Impartial Jury, upon ascertaining such a fact, shall direct that charges of

Contempt of Court and Obstruction of Justice be filed against the perpetrators

thereof at the conclusion of the trial.

(3) After all evidence and initial testimony has been presented by the prosecution

and prosecution’s witnesses, the Defendant(s) and the witnesses therefore must

then present all initial counter-testimony and evidence in favor of the defense at

that time, and any counter-evidence or initial testimony not presented may NOT

be heard at any later time except by special petition as to special circumstances

that may have arisen, and if it is determined that there has been any withholding

or suppression by any of the defense witnesses of any counter evidence or initial

44

testimony whatsoever for the purposes of calling up such counter evidence or

initial testimony at a later time, the Impartial Jury, upon ascertaining such a fact,

shall direct that the charges of Contempt of Court and Obstruction of Justice be

filed against the perpetrators thereof at the conclusion of the trial.

(4) After all counter-evidence and initial testimony has been presented by

Defendant(s) or the Defense Witnesses, the Jury Director may ask questions of

the Defense Witnesses and/or the Prosecution Witnesses on redirect, or

Defendant(s), however Defendant(s) Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights shall

be preserved,; and Ninth Amendment rights, concurrently shall be upheld, OR the

Jury Director may grant, upon motion of hand shown, unto a designated

prosecution witness the right to question any or all of the defense witnesses, of the

prosecution witnesses. Further, other members of the Impartial Jury, upon

petitioning the Jury Director by motion of hand raised, may ask a question of a

defense witness or witnesses, or of a prosecution witness or witnesses.

(5) Nothing by the way of testimony or evidence shall be held back in the initial

or preliminary presentation of either the prosecution or defense before the

Impartial Jury and the Court. Therefore, no redirect questioning for either or both

sides should be necessary for either side in excess of seven times. However, in

the interest of true justice, the Trial shall continue until each Juror has been asked

by the Jury Director as to whether or not they have any questions of any witnesses

for either side, or about any evidence entered before the court.

VII. BIFURCATION HEARING OR TRIAL.

45

A. The Impartial Jury shall, prior to summation being given by the two opposing parties,

hold a bifurcation hearing or trial to determine all of the objections raised prior to and throughout

the trial.

B. In so doing, the prosecution and defense shall each give their arguments on each point

raised as aforementioned as to why such point should be stricken from the trial proceeding, and

why the Impartial Jury should ignore or not consider the issue as being relevant and having a

bearing upon the trial and the rights of both the defense and the prosecution. The Impartial Jury

shall not consider any point or argument that arises as an element derived from hearsay or

proffers. Any point presented which incorporates slander or libel upon either the prosecution or

the defense shall not be allowed, except it can be shown that such point if contended has a

relevance and bearing upon the case.

C. As to witnesses objected to, each party shall make arguments as to why a witness should

or should not be allowed to testify during the main trial proceedings.

D. The Impartial Jury shall hear the arguments from both sides until the Jury Director, upon

behalf of the Impartial Jury, shall determine that the arguments are to be closed. Each point shall

be concluded in this manner. When the points to be considered and the witnesses proposed to be

heard testimony from as a result of this bifurcation process are finished being presented and

argued, the Jury Director shall direct that the Court remain present and still or continue in orderly

behavior, and the Impartial Jury shall adjourn to the Impartial Jury’s deliberation room to

consider the points and arguments presented in the bifurcation hearing and the witnesses still to

be called if the Impartial Jury should determine that the testimony to be given might have some

sufficient relevance to have bearing and shed light upon the case.

46

E. Upon their concluding examination of the points and arguments, and the potential

witnesses to be called, presented during bifurcation, the Impartial Jury shall reconvene back in

the court room and there shall present to the court, for the record, each point that it considered

and the decision to either continue the point and argument as a part of the main trial proceeding

or to strike or rule against the point as being relevant to the trial at hand altogether, with the

intent of the Impartial Jury to not so rely thereupon the points and arguments thus denied.

F. In the event that there are witnesses to be called that were before restrained from being

called due to the Objections List restrictions, such witnesses shall be called, testimony given,

examined, and cross examined, in accordance with all other testimony and evidence, if any,

relying upon the same applicable trial procedures as are found in other parts of these instructions.

G. Except where one or more witnesses must be first called in order to hear testimony

relative to the case before them as determined by the Impartial Jury alone, upon concluding their

decision on the last of the points raised before or during the trial, the Impartial Jury shall

announce that the Bifurcation hearing or trial is adjourned and that the Trial is now continued.

Summation is to directly follow.

VIII. SUMMATION.

A. When all of the Jurors, including the Jury Director, have stated for the record that they

have no further questions of any witness of either side, or of any of the evidence pertaining to the

Case, except that there be a request for special redirect by any such Juror, which privilege shall

not be abused as to repetitiveness, the Court Trial shall come to a preliminary conclusion, and the

summary presentations, or summations, shall thereupon be presented.

47

B. The first summation presented shall be by the prosecution, which shall be by a single

prosecutor, which if there shall be more than one and such prosecutors cannot expediently

determine the issue among themselves, shall be selected by majority vote by the Court’s

Impartial Jury itself, and the second summation to be presented shall be by the defense, which

shall be presented by either the Defendant or by such assistance of counsel as the Defendant may

have chosen and secured.

C. Upon the conclusion of the summations of both the prosecution and the defense, the case

shall rest, and the trial before the Open Court by this Impartial Jury shall be ended, and the

Impartial Jury shall then retire to the Jury Room for a reasonable time, for deliberation of the

Case that the Impartial Jury alone shall have tried. The Impartial Jury shall establish rules

of order to conduct the deliberation process to be conducted under the direction and auspices

(influence) of the Jury Director.

IX. VERDICT.

A. Upon completion of the deliberation process and the casting of their votes by each

Impartial Juror and thereby reaching a decision or verdict, the Impartial Jury shall reconvene in

the Courtroom; the defendant, the defense witness(es), the prosecutor(s) and the prosecution

witness(es) shall be subsequently called before the Court, and the decision or verdict of the

Impartial Jury shall be read before the Open Court.

B. If the decision is “guilty,” then the Jury Director shall direct the Court Clerk or the

Court’s Bailiff or applicable other officers of law enforcement, if applicable, to proceed to carry

out the Court’s (or Impartial Jury’s) sentence. (also see SENTENCING below)

48

C. At this time, if there be any other charges, such as arrest charges for such issues as

Contempt of Court, etc., the Impartial Jury, briefly reviewing or trying such issue before itself as

its constitutional and inherent right to do, providing any such defendant the opportunity to

present statements in his or her own defense, and the Impartial Jury subsequently reaching a

verdict relevant to such said charges of Contempt of Court, shall direct that the result of such

additional charges, if any, be carried out with the applicable branch of law enforcement, or else

by the bailiff if for Contempt of Court.

D. After these foregoing matters have been taken care of, if the decision of the Impartial

Jury is “not guilty” or “innocent,” the Impartial Jury shall directly inform the former Defendant

that he/she is free to go without further delay, and the Court’s Clerk of the Court alone shall be

responsible to enter such decision thereafter on the official records of the Court.

E. In the event that the Defendant is contained, restrained and secured before the Court by

any restrainment devices or equipment, such Defendant shall remain so throughout the entire

length of the Trial, however the Impartial Jury is hereby ordered by this directive to disregard

such restrainment as a presentation of evidence against the Defendant while viewing, hearing and

trying testimony or viewing evidence or reviewing evidence presented during the Trial; at the

end of Trial, if the Defendant is determined by the Impartial Jury, and therefore the Court, to be

“not guilty” or “innocent,” the applicable Defendant is to be let go immediately; but if “guilty,”

the applicable Defendant is to be continued to be kept in a safe and secure condition in order to

carry out the sentence of the Impartial Jury, or the Court.

49

F. The Defendant, if not so restrained by any such devices during the Trial, if found

“guilty,” the Court’s Bailiff and/or other appropriate members of Law Enforcement shall, if so

ordered by the Court, or if, because of the nature of the charges, it is understood that immediate

incarceration is inherently mandatory, immediately proceed to restrain and secure the Defendant

to whom the charges apply, and shall continue to carry out the Impartial Jury’s sentence

thereafter.

G. In the event that the Defendant is ordered to pay a reasonable fine or to do a public

service, the arrangements between such Defendant and the Impartial Jury shall be worked out to

the mutual understanding (though not necessarily by mutual agreement on the part of the

Defendant) of both Defendant and Impartial Jury at the time of sentencing.

X. SENTENCING.

Sentencing, as described above, is to be carried out in one of two ways as determined by the

Impartial Jury, as follows:

The Impartial Jury, after deliberating on all of the evidence, argument, and points of law,

inclusive of the Constitutional requirements and protections, before it, shall:

1. Read its verdict before the Court without any further comment, and the verdict

shall be recorded by the Court’s reporter, but such verdict shall also be recorded,

along with any comment as to any reason for its verdict where such verdict may

pertain to any particular principle, insight, or point of necessitating law

demonstrating the Impartial Jury’s decision as it relates to the case, on the Record

of the Proceedings of the Impartial Jury, a record which shall be established and

maintained by the Impartial Jury thus presiding, and the sentencing procedure

50

shall be competed as a matter of record.

2. If the crime being prosecuted before it was a more serious, heinous, oppressive,

degenerative or abhorrent type, then, after first announcing the verdict and if the

verdict is guilty, in addition to the duty of record keeping and comment rendering

as set forth in number 1 immediately above, the Impartial Jury, Member by

Member, commencing with the Member immediately to the right of the Jury

Director and proceeding to the next Member adjacent thereto thereafter or until all

Members on all rows have had the opportunity to speak and until the Jury

Director shall be the last one to speak, shall speak to the defendant such words of

brief admonishment as shall be upon their mind and conscience as it pertains to

the offense, or offenses if more than one was tried, or they may each alone

choose, turn by turn, or to abstain from comment if any should so desire, until the

Jury Director shall at last be called upon to render his or her comment, if any, then

the guilty verdict shall be restated by the Jury Director at that time, and the

sentencing procedure shall be competed as a matter of record.

IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE INTEGRITY AND SURETY OF THE IMPARTIAL JURY’S

RECORD, EACH MEMBER OF THE IMPARTIAL JURY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO KEEP

A RECORD OF THE SAYINGS OF EVERY OTHER IMPARTIAL JURY MEMBER FOR

HIS OR HER OWN RECORDS.

XI. PREVAILING IMPARTIAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS.

51

The State of FreeState is bound to the Constitution of the United States via Article VI, Clause 2

thereof. These Instructions, where no other instructions provided to the Impartial Jury shall

meet or exceed the minimal standards contained herein, except a Constitutional provision

establishing why they should not be, must become the prevailing Instructions, as determined by

the Jurors of the Impartial Jury alone.

XII. CONCLUSION OF IMPARTIAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

This concludes the Instructions to the Impartial Jury, under which the Impartial Jury shall

proceed to Try (not simply hear) the above numbered Case At Hand. Any attempt to subvert or

cover up or deny these lawful and lawfully submitted instructions given unto the Impartial Jury

duly called into session on the above numbered Case, submitted by the defense, shall constitute

Contempt of Constitution, a criminal offense, governable and prosecutable by such due process

as shall be duly availed before the Court’s Impartial Jury, directly by the People, for whom the

Constitution was first written. Amen (So Be It).

THESE IMPARTIAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS LAWFULLY AND RESPECTFULLY

SUBMITTED FOR USE, FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE IMPARTIAL JURY TO BE

SO IMPANELED ON OR BEFORE THE DATE THAT THE TRIAL SHALL BY DUE

PROCESS BE CALLED FOR, IN ACCORDANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SUBMITTED RESPECTFULLY TO THE CLERK

OF THE COURT THEREFORE, A SEPARATE OFFICER OF THE COURT FROM

ALL OTHER OFFICERS THEREOF, ON THE DATE SHOWN BELOW.

CERTIFICATION OF INSTRUCTIONS

52

I / WE, THE(SE) DEFENDANT(S), HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THESE INSTRUCTIONS

WERE PROVIDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE IMPARTIAL JURY FOR THE PURPOSES

OF TRYING THE CASE BEFORE IT, IN ACCORDANCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ON A FAIR, JUST, AND TRUE BASIS, TO

ASSIST THE IMPARTIAL JURY IN ITS PROCEDURES ON HOW TO TRY THE CASE BY

ITS OWN RIGHT ALONE, WITH NO PERSON PRESIDING OVER IT FOR ANY PURPOSE

AS ITS HISTORICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT PRESCRIBES FOR THIS

IMPARTIAL JURY, ACCORDINGLY, AND NOT TO DEFEAT, IMPEDE OR INHIBIT

JUSTICE, ACCORDINGLY.

/ / .

DATE

.

John J. Doe – Defending Party,

Citizen - State of FreeState

53

Appendix B “Optional Relief Considerations”

1. Judge Stephen McAuliffe must show cause why his judicial performance as defined in the facts

above does not comprise criminal Contempt, and why a tort claim should not issue to purge the

contempt.

2. All proceedings and rulings by Judge McAuliffe in this USA v. Brown matter must be nullified

immediately.

3. All previous proceedings by Judge McAuliffe are now suspect and must also now be reviewed for

their lawfulness and the determination made as to whether those rulings should also be nullified

and corrected immediately.

4. In the event Judge McAuliffe fails to show cause, the Court / Grand Jury is required sua sponte to

charge him with Contempt of Court, arrest the vessel, prosecute the Contempt in a criminal

proceeding, issue a tort claim against him, prosecute the tort claim against Judge McAuliffe and

his risk management carrier, terminate his public hazard bond, and remove Judge McAuliffe from

public office pursuant to his inability to provide bond to protect the public from future injuries.

5. The commercial and judicial dishonors noted in the record serve to destabilize the commercial

and judicial systems of equitable justice and maritime commerce which is the foundation of

modern society. To be sufficiently instructional, the tort claim must reflect the gravity of the

offenses. The fair market value of the tort claim is Sixty Million Dollars ($60,000,000.00)

pursuant to the terms of the Petition to Compel Reconsideration and Limine, the terms to which

Judge McAuliffe has stipulated by his default thereon.

6. In the event Judge McAuliffe fails to timely (30 days) show cause, the Court is required to issue,

in addition to the necessary citations and Orders above-noted, all necessary Orders to compel the

Clerk of Court to issue a Writ of Execution/Assistance to the Defendant to facilitate collection of

the Claim from the principals and their risk management underwriters.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

7. Courtesy notice is hereby provided that in the event the Grand Jury / Court dishonors this Petition

by failure to perform, the fee to join the Creditor’s registered security interest in the Petitioner as

54

a co-claimant has been previously established by the parties at Sixty Million Dollars

($60,000,000.00) per each impairment thereof or the parties thereto.

8. It is a maxim of law that silence comprises agreement by default of the facts in all venues of law

when respondents had the opportunity and failed to plead.

55

Appendix C “Ninth Circuit Denies IRS’ Ignorance of Code Argument Ruling”

56

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEC 04 2006 CATHY A. CATTERSON, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ------------------------------------------------- ROBERT C. MCKEE; et al., | No. 04-74846 |

Petitioners - Appellants, | IRS No. 4036-03 |

| v. |

| MEMORANDUM * COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL | REVENUE, | |

Respondent - Appellee. | | -------------------------------------------------

Appeal from a Decision of the Internal Revenue Service

Argued and Submitted November 16, 2006

San Francisco, California Before: KLEINFELD and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and LEIGHTON**, District Judge.

The IRS assessed a tax deficiency of $164,765 upon the McKees for tax years 1999-2000. After negotiations in which the IRS acknowledged key errors ---------------------------------

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The Honorable Ronald B. Leighton, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

57

were made in calculating that figure, a settlement was reached in which the deficiency was reduced to $44,535. The McKees petitioned for reasonable litigation costs under 26 U.S.C. § 7430, but were denied by the Tax Court. Because we find that the Tax Court abused its discretion in finding that the position of the IRS was "substantially justified" we reverse the Tax Court and grant the McKees's petition.

The IRS bears the burden of proving that its position in the proceedings below was "substantially justified."8 In the settlement negotiations, the IRS admitted that it made errors in applying its own code and regulations. The Tax Court's finding that the IRS was excused because its own regulations were “complex" was an abuse of discretion.

The settlement resulted in a net reduction in the deficiency by 73%.

Thus the McKees "substantially prevailed" with respect to the total amount in

8 26 USCS § 7430(c)(4)(B).

58

controversy.9 Under IRS regulations, the McKees are excused from further exhaustion of remedies.10

We remand to the Tax Court for an award to the McKees of $31,078.28, their reasonable litigation costs under the Internal Revenue Code. 11 PETITION GRANTED. The decision of the Tax Court is REVERSED and

REMANDED.

8 See 26 USCS § 7430(c)(4)(A)(i). 10 See CFR § 301.7430-1(g) example 5. 11 See 26 USCS § 7430.

59

Appendix D

“2001 & 2007 Letters From NH Dept of State Certifies That The Federal Government Has Still Not Filed The Required Materials Gaining Them Lawful Presence To Be Operating In

The Sovereign State of New Hampshire”

60

William M. Gardner Robert P. Ambrose Secretary of State I Deputy Secretary of State

September 10, 2001

To Joe Haas

This is to certify that we have checked our records and do not find a copy of the filing required by RSA 123:1.

Very truly yours, Wm Gardner

William M. Gardner Secretary of State

State House, Room 204, Concord, N.H. 03301 Ph. 603-271-3242 FAX 603-271-6316

TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964

61

State House, Room 204, 107 N. Main St., Concord, N.H. 03301

Ph. 603-271-3242 FAX 603-271-6316

TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964 www.nh.gov/sos email: elections@sos.state.nh.us

62

I, ___________________________, a New-Hampshire national, being over eighteen (18) years of age, competent to testify and having firsthand knowledge of the facts, do affirm that my “yes” be “yes” and my “no” be “no” and that the facts stated herein made in Good Faith are true, correct and complete and not misleading to the best of my knowledge and belief under my full unlimited commercial liability. SPACE FOR MULTIPLE WITNESSES TO SIGN TOGETHER IF NEEDED: ___________________________, ___________________________, ___________________________, ___________________________, ___________________________, ___________________________, ___________________________, ___________________________, ___________________________, Before me ______________________________ a Notary Public in and for __________________ County, State of New Hampshire, appeared before me __________________________________ known and made known to me did affirm the truth of the facts herein stated and placed his signature on this document on the ____ day of the ___ month Two-Thousand Seven A.D.. My commission expires: ______________________________________________ Notary Public for State of New Hampshire: Foreign Agent

63

Further Affiant sayeth naught. Signed and Sealed this __________ day of _______________, in the year of Our Lord, two thousand and _______.

All rights reserved. Void where prohibited by law. _________________________________________ suae potestate esse Affiant, a living breathing Lawful Man/Woman in care of mailing location:

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

On this _______________ day of the __________________ month in the year of Our Lord two thousand __________, We, the undersigned living breathing Lawful man/woman in this state, having ascertained that the above noted Affiant has read and knows the contents of and one or more of the complaints of this Verified Affidavit of Criminal Complaint, witnessed his/her execution and sealing of the same, and do hereby witness the foregoing by voluntarily setting Our Hand and Sealing this Verified Affidavit of Criminal Complaint. WITNESS my hand and official seal.

___________________________suae potestate esse, living Lawful man/woman

___________________________suae potestate esse, living Lawful man/woman

___________________________suae potestate esse, living Lawful man/woman

___________________________suae potestate esse, living Lawful man/woman ___________________________suae potestate esse, living Lawful man/woman

___________________________suae potestate esse, living Lawful man/woman

64

State: New Hampshire ) ) Sworn and Subscribed: County: Merrimack )

For verification purposes only SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me by

<Appropriate Name of Witnesses or Injured Parties>,

___________________________

___________________________

___________________________

___________________________

known to me or proven to me to be the real man signing this document this _____________ day of

_________________, 20______.

WITNESS my hand and official seal. ___________________________________ ________________ (Seal) NOTARY PUBLIC DATE My commission expires: __________________________, 20_____ (Stamp)

65

ADDITIONAL “EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATION” MATERIAL (For Your Additional Consideration)

MAJOR PREMISE

NATURE'S GOD Created Mankind,

Mankind created Constitutions,

Constitutions create governments

Governments create Rules, Codes, Regulations, and/or Statutes (hereinafter called Enactments). The overt, publicly stated intents of these enactments was that these enactments were to apply only to that particular governmental body. That is why it is so easy for these burecarucies to pass these “Private Enactments” because they only need the very narrow approval of their own burecratic group to get them passed. Many public officials then for various nefarious reasons attempt the “PLOY” of “foisting” these enactments upon the Public as being “Public Enactments”. This nefarious process is attempted because in order to lawfully convert a “Private Enactment” into a “Public Law” means that the Private Enactment must be presented to the U.S. Congress and read into the record twice with associated public hearings and then voted on by both houses of congress and then signed by the President before any “Private Enactment” can become a Lawful, Enforceable “Public Law” with jurisdiction and force and effect of law over the Public.

The presumption that the THE PEOPLE are subject to government Jurisdiction by way of government Enactments, presumes that THE PEOPLE are subject to those Jurisdictions created by the Constitutions, which in-turn created Such governments in a self-perpetuating fashion.

66

The Colonists' intent not to create a SOVEREIGN but rather, to further bind the Branches of government is made clear in the Preamble To The Bill Of Rights-December 15, 1791.

"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, THAT FURTHER DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES SHOULD BE ADDED: And as extending the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."

The Unlawful presumption that the Colonists intended to establish a SOVEREIGN, by Their Constitutional Charter, thereafter conferring upon Such SOVEREIGN certain Jurisdiction over the Colonists Themselves, is properly debunked by: Article I., Section 9, Clause 8

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: --" and Article I., Section 10, Clause 1 "No State shall ... grant any Title of Nobility."

Any Jurisdiction emanating from a presumption of a fiction is presumptive or fictitious, and Such is a Factitious Tool For Unlawful Control.

Government sovereignty over THE PEOPLE is a presumption and a fiction, and which when once repudiated, must thereafter be proved to exist.

If the Individual cannot be Proved to be subject to the Jurisdiction of any Constitution or Other Social Contract or Compact, He also cannot be proved to be subject to the Jurisdiction of any Branch of government Created Thereunder.

Likewise, if it cannot be Proved that The Individual is DIRECTLY Subject to the Jurisdiction of any Legislature, it also cannot be Proved that He is INDIRECTLY Subject to Such Jurisdiction by way of any Legislative Enactments.

If proof does not exist that The Individual is subject to the Jurisdiction of any Constitution or other Social Contract or Compact, then Jurisdiction over Him DOES NOT EXIST

67

ARGUMENT - SUMMARY

The general requirement that "... the burden is on the defendant to show the nonexistence of Jurisdictional facts; Russell v. Butler, (Tex.civ App.) 47 S.W.406; Gilchrist v. Oil Land Co., 21 W.Va.115, 45 Am.Rep.555.", (Bouvier's Volume 2, Page 1763), is resolved by Article VI which defines exactly Who is subject to the Jurisdiction of the Constitution, and exactly Who shall be Contractually Bound by Oath or Affirmation to support Such Constitution in Consideration for Offices Of Public Trust and those Benefits of Public Service and Public Employment. "... The Senators and Representative before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executives and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; ..." Article VI

Since the intent of Article VI is to define exactly to Whom the Constitutional Jurisdiction applies; since the fact exists that THE PEOPLE are excluded from the requirements of Article VI, prima facie; See: INCLUSIO UNIS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS: Black's, Page 687;

Since no presumption that THE PEOPLE are subject to the Jurisdiction of the Constitution is, or can be made; since all Constitutions are considered in pari materia with all other Constitutions;

Since all Constitutions are subject to the provisions of Article VI; since no Constitution operates on THE PEOPLE at-large by virtue of the fact that THE PEOPLE are excluded from the requirements of Article VI, et sqq; then in pursuing His occupations of Common-Right, the Individual has made no Oath or Affirmation supporting any Constitution, and He is not subject to any Constitutional Jurisdictions.

CONCLUSION - SUMMARY

If The Individual is not subject to any Constitutional Jurisdictions, He is also not subject to any Enactment made by any Constitutionally Created Legislature; if He is not subject to any Constitutional Jurisdictions, He is also not subject to any Jurisdiction presumed by any Constitutionally Created Executive Branch of Government; and

68

if He is not subject to any Constitutional Jurisdictions, He is also not subject to any Jurisdiction presumed by any Constitutionally Created Judiciary.

In the complete absence of any Lawful and verified Oath or Affirmation made by a Nonparticipant Individual, to support any Constitution; or in the complete absence of proving a Higher Title to that Property Known and Described as the Nonparticipant Individual Himself, Political and In Personam Jurisdictions do not exist; and

in the complete absence of proving a Lawful and voluntary contract made by Such Nonparticipant, pledging Himself and/or His Property- Rights to certain specified performance, Subject Matter Jurisdiction does not exist; and

in the complete absence of any Lawful and verified complaint made against Such Nonparticipant, wherein a Real Injured Party Claims a Damage, no criminal Jurisdictions exist; thus

in the complete absence of proving the existence of either Political, In Personam and or Subject Matter Jurisdiction, governmental Jurisdiction over the Nonparticipant Individual does not exist. QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM.

TORT REMEDY

Every Act perpetrated by any Constitutional Created Branch of government while absent Jurisdiction; every Such Act being required to be made unlawfully under Forces of Arms; and every Such act having been made without probable cause; then, every Such Act is required to have been made as a Trespass, and/or other Tort upon a Nonparticipant Individual, and shall constitute a Case to be pursued against the Perpetrator in an Action At Law for the recovery of Damages.

69

ADDITIONAL “FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY” NOTES:

(THIS ALLOCUTION INFO IS NOT TO BE FILED ANYWHERE ! ONLY READ IT FOR ITS ENTERTAINMENT VALUE)

ALLOCUTION (another defensive strategy only in person in a court at time of sentencing) [FOR ENTERTAINMENT OF OUR EYES ONLY] Allocution (see e.g. Fed R.Crim.P. 32(a)) happens In open court at time of sentencing when the Judge asks, “Do you have anything to say?” You MUST raise your right arm to the square and state loudly and with conviction, "For and on the record, I do not understand the charges and I do not accept them now or ever !” The Defendant(s) would be wise to have certified copies of their birth certificates at allocution so it could be surrendered [in lieu of your body], if convicted. It is this writer’s understanding that the authorities cannot apply any punishments anyone unless that person either acquiesces or overtly accepts the Court’s punishment contract by stating something like, “I do not have anything to say” or “Yes, I understand” [which means that you “stand under”] their punishment ruling jurisdiction. This denial of their “Sentencing Offer” is like the person who has been drafted into the military. They are not drafted until they freely take the OATH. If they refuse to take the OATH, they cannot be forced to take the OATH and, therefore, they cannot be inducted into the military. Therefore, do not VALIDATE their “Sentencing Contract” by either your remaining silent or your saying, “I have nothing to say !”

YOU MUST, WITH YOUR RIGHT HAND RAISED TO THE SQUARE SAY LOUDLY AND WITH CONVICTION, "For and on the record, I do not understand the charges and I do not accept them now or ever ! I DO NOT ACCEPT YOUR OFFER !!” YOU MAY NEED TO REPEAT THIS SEVERAL TIMES… DEPENDING ON HOW PERSISTENT or HOW CREATIVE THE WORDS ARE THAT THE JUDGE “OFFERS TO YOU” TO TRICK YOU INTO “ACCEPTING” THEIR OFFER i.e. THEIR SENTENCING CONTRACT. If you prevail in your “REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE OFFER(s) of their SENTENCING CONTRACT”, the court cannot lawfully sentence or punish you ! It they do, you MUST “ON THE RECORD, TAKE EXCEPTION” to what ever they do and you have another charge which you can appeal with, especially when you, “TAKE EXCEPTION” to anything they do after you refuse to accept their offer of sentencing. AND you, the defendant MUST !!! have the last word in this interaction. I.e. “I DO NOT ACCEPT YOUR OFFER !! ” Unless of course they sua sponte make you an offer your want ?? like “Case Dismissed”… Get the proper council on this… REMEMBER THIS IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY !!