Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Comments From The EdBrown Video Blog

Click here for more.

Editor's Note: The creator of the Ed Brown Video blog - who would not identify himself - called us to object to the tenor-tone of the dicussion on yesterday's "Ed & Elaine Brown Show" over on the Republic Broadcasting Network which you can listen to over at the archives. I/we asked that he call me/us on another line, but this gentleman said "I don't trust you" so we ended this call.

The creators of this blog have a guiding sense of mission and purpose that will continue to connect with and support all that is positive and true. The Republic Broadcasting Network show with Ed and Elaine Brown yesterday with guest, Thursten Bell, was an attempt to bring to light this sense that there's a massive amount of energy, hope and truth that is supporting Ed and Elaine Brown from so many quarters all over the world. We believe Thursten Bell did a masterful job of pointing out examples of how even the controlled media - God forbid!! - has been, increasingly reporting "the truth!!" about the extreme corruption in our courts of injustice in America - eg. see 1) the mistrial of Lt. Watada; 2) the border patrol agents; and 3) the Challenge to Indiscriminate Ga. Sex Offender Law which was validated last year.

The underlying message from yesterday's show was that Ed & Elaine Brown need to remain hopeful! Ed and Elaine Brown need to keep hammering and hammering and hammering their core position which is 1) the courts of justice in America are closed; 2) the courts are corrupt; 3) they were denied their Constitutional Rights under the 6th Amenment:

U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment

Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Ed & Elaine Brown where denied their fundamental right to defend themselves as follows:

1) by the court's denial of their right to present evidence
2) by the court's denial of their right to present witnesses
3) by the court's denial of their right to have their motions entered and responded to into the court record.

Finally, Ed & Elaine Brown - and ALL of their supporters worldwide - in order to maintain CREDIBILITY need to keep hammering and hammering and hammering and hammering THE FACT THAT JUDGE MCAULIFFE LIED TO THE JURY!!!

Let us be sure to repeat slowly and clearly - and perhaps very loudly:





Please read and absorb the following once again - this information has been posted twice on this blog:

Pattern Jury Instructions Revisted: A Fraud On We The People

Did the Judge McAuliffe instruct the jury about their true rights and powers as jurors - see below?

Here is a clip from the jury instructions in the Brown's case:

So "the law" is basically whatever Judge McAuliffe "says it is" - ie. verbatim from the jury instructions above...

"You will decide the case by applying the law as I give it to you in these instructions to the facts as you find them to be from the evidence."

This, despite the fact that Ed and Elaine Brown were never shown the law that requires them to file and pay the taxes Judge McAuliffe "said" they owe.

Click here to read the entire jury instructions in the Brown's case.

Why Didn't Judge McAuliffe Tell Jurors About Their True Power?

From the 6th Circuit's 1991 Edition:

The jurors have two main duties. First, they must determine from the evidence what the facts are. Second, they must take the law stated in the court's instructions, apply it to the facts and decide whether the facts prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. See Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 102-107, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895); Starr v. United States, 153 U.S. 614, 625, 14 S.Ct. 919, 923, 38 L.Ed. 841 (1894).

The jurors have the power to ignore the court's instructions and bring in a not guilty verdict contrary to the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138, 41 S.Ct. 53, 54, 65 L.Ed. 185 (1920). But they should not be told by the court that they have this power. United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013, 1021 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 832, 109 S.Ct. 89, 102 L.Ed.2d 65 (1988); United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 905, 104 S.Ct. 1683, 80 L.Ed.2d 157 (1984); United States v. Burkhart, 501 F.2d 993, 996-997 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 946, 95 S.Ct. 1326, 43 L.Ed.2d 424 (1975). They should instead be told that it is their duty to accept and apply the law as given to them by the court. United States v. Avery, supra at 1027.

If you'd like to learn more about where the true power resides in the court - ie. the jury - please be sure to visit and support The Fully Informed Jury Association.

Thankfully, there are examples of juries exercising their true power as in this example from the Tax Trail of Whitey Harrell in Illinois:

So in passing, the creator/editor's of this blog believe the creator/editor of the Ed Brown Video Blog needs to do more to post EVIDENCE OF THE ENERGY AND THE TRUTH THAT CAN UNITE WE THE PEOPLE.

Finally, the editor/creator of the Ed Brown Video blog needs to post a complete version of Ed's "Wish List" - for this incomplete version could create a negative impression:

It's time for We The People to START FREELY RECEIVING, SHARING THE CELEBRATING THE TRUTH!! I/we appreciate the work that the creators of the Ed Brown Video blog have put into creating that space for that information. I/we will err on the side of trusting others unless and until, by their actions, they have proven that they cannot be trusted.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's pretty obvious that the person who runs the video blog site is Casey Lee Cobb.

11:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First and foremost, I did not refuse to identify myself. I said I was Casey at the beginning of the call and you did not ask me to elaborate further into my last name. But if you must know sir, my full name is Casey Lee Cobb. I have been blogging for quite some time now, and I am not new to this I am true to this. And True to Ed which is why I will not support people that he has blacklisted, in the same manner that you support said people.

Example and Question: You support Jim from New York, and this is after Ed’s official My Space had listed him as being banned . Why?

Question 2, Why did you and Thruston attack Ed Brown in a disrespectful manner on yesterdays audio interview?

P.S. my proof that you attacked him will be the very reason that Ed will not appear on your show today, he feels the same way. Your not backing his stance, it appears as if though you are attempting to cause dissent. Now the ball is in your court, explain yourself.

12:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ed and Elaine had a chance to present their defense to the jury, but did not do so. Now, they cannot complain.

1:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The analysis of the jury instructions is so ridiculous that it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the legal process and it grossly misinterprets the law.

6:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home