Received this from the good folks at RightWay l.a.w. today. I've placed some things in bold and caps for your particular study.
This ORDER confirms what my friends and investigators have been telling me for some time: "Truth and justice, right and wrong often have little to do with courtroom battles. It's largely a battle of evidence skillfully presented and prevented that counts."
In other words, keeping damaging evidence out is often as good or better than getting your own particular evidence in. The rules of evidence are an area where many defendants in tax matters, including myself, are deficient.
The government knows this and beats our brains at trial with their skill in getting evidence in that should, in maybe 75% of the cases, not be admitted. Once admitted, however, without proper and timely objection . . . well, a man hung by a stolen rope is just as dead as a man hung by a legal rope.
Anyway, thought you might like to review the judge's order. I believe it was actually signed, but do not have the date of the order. I'll check and let you know.
Comments always welcome!
Happy New Year!
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CR-1-98-46-01, 02 and 03
EDGAR FRANCIS BRADLEY,
EDGAR FRANCIS BRADLEY, II
Under the date of June 22 and 23, 1998, Edgar Francis; Bradley, Roy Claudius; Bradley, and Edgar Francis II; Bradley requested they be permitted to withdraw their requests for Bill of Particulars, their Grand Jury Challenge, their Non-Election, their requests for dismissal because fatal defects in presentments, credentials of the purported officials, officers of the Court, Jurisdiction, venue of opposing parties, etc., etc. (doc. Nos. 96, 102 and 103.
The requests to withdraw made by Edgar Francis; Bradley, Roy Claudius; Bradley, and Edgar Francis II; Bradley are GRANTED. All pending requests by them conveyed to the Court by "Notices," "Letters Rogatory" and Motions before June 22 and 23, 1998 are DENIED AS MOOT.
Documents have been filed in this case signed by entities other than W. Kelly Johnson, Esq.; Peter Rosenwald, Esq.; A. Norman Aubin, Esq.; Edgar Francis Bradley; Edgar Francis; Bradley, Edgar Francis Bradley, II; Edgar Francis II; Bradley; Roy Bradley; Roy Claudius; Bradley; Thomas G. Voracek, Esq; and Rita G. Calvin, Esq. (Nos. 68, 69, 76, 83, 84, 98, 99, 115, 158, 159, 160, 1161, 163, 164, 166, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 176, for example). These documents do not comply with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and were filed by entities who have no standing in this case. These documents are not properly before the Court, and are not relevant to the present issues in this case, and cannot be considered by the Court at this time.
In "Letters Rogatory" filed with the Court September 15, 1998, in reply to the Government’s response to "Letters Rogatory" filed with the Court July 29, 1998, Roy Bradley; Roy Claudius; Bradley set forth their position in this case. In the case, the Government accuses them of violating the criminal statutory laws of the United States, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 26 U.S.C. § 7203.
In defense, they say they lawfully protest the enforcement system of the United States; they have made no use of the private copyrighted code of the United States; they are protected by the commerce clause because there is no agreement between them as a private state and the United States; the United States fraudulently changed the Covenant name of Edgar Francis; Bradley to Edgar Francis Bradley, the Covenant name of Edgar Francis II; Bradley to Edgar F. Bradley, II and the Covenant name of Roy Claudius; Bradley to Roy C. Bradley.
They then argue that they have presented evidence that their law form is supersedeas to the criminal statutory laws of the United States. They state that they are absolutely bound by the laws in Original Jurisdiction for Ohio A.D. 1802. They cite the general laws of Oregon 1973, chap. 836, sec 11(2)167§ 13. They claim under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution 1787 as amended 1791, the United States has no authority to alter or modify the Act (Constitution) and is estopped from doing so because it did not appropriately object. They also claim estoppel in the Covenant of Abraham.
Additionally, they request the Court to dismiss this case under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, control the determination of their requests for dismissal of the indictment. The indictment filed in this case informs them of the nature and cause of the accusations. It contains the elements of the charged offenses; fairly informs them of the charges against them and allows them to plead double jeopardy. See United States v. Blandford, 33 F. 3d 685, 704 (6th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1095 (1995); United States v. Callis, 128 F. 3d 313, 319 (6th Cir. 1997), Additionally, each count in the indictment complies with Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1). Therefore, their requests to dismiss the indictment are DENIED.
Title 17, United States Code, Section 105 specifically forbids the Government to copyright information which has been generated by Government employees, such as the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Their objections in this regard are DENIED.
Edgar Francis; Bradley, Roy Claudius; Bradley, and Edgar Francis II; Bradley contend they have obeyed the law. The Government accuses them of violating the criminal statutory law of the United States, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 26 U.S.C. § 7203.
They claim their law form in Original Jurisdiction is supersedeas to the criminal statutory law of the United States.
They claim the power of the United States is without force because they have no agreement with the United States, have not violated the supersedeas Original Rules in Original Jurisdiction and have not intentionally entered into the United States with the intent of violating regulations of the United States (citing Oregon law).
They allege that they have not violated or breached their law form in Original Jurisdiction.
They argue that under their private democratic federal State and under the commerce clause of "their constitution," the United States must prove an agreement because they have made a lawful protest. They claim that the United States has come forward with no facts of an agreement. They ask "Where is the evidence of agreement with the private State?"
Edgar Francis; Bradley, Roy Claudius; Bradley, and Edgar Francis II; Bradley do not question this Court’s jurisdiction over subject matter of this case. The criminal statutory laws of the United = States under which this case is brought and under which this case shall proceed do not require an agreement for the case to proceed. Their requests for dismissal on this basis are DENIED.
Edgar Francis; Bradley, Roy Claudius; Bradley, and Edgar Francis II; Bradley rely on a bogus Amendment XIII which they have attached to their filings with the Court as part of their defense. They have failed to establish the Bogus Article XIII as attached to their papers became part of the United States Constitution. At most, they have indicated it was considered by the Territory of Colorado. There is no evidence nor can there be evidence that the alleged wording of their bogus amendment presented by them to the Court was ratified by the Congress of the United States and ¾ of the States. Their reliance on this argument is without merit.
The United States accuses that Edgar F. Bradley is the person who has identified himself as Edgar Francis; Bradley and that person has violated the criminal statutory laws of the United States. The United States accuses that Edgar F. Bradley, II is the person who has identified himself as Edgar Francis II; Bradley and that person has violated the criminal statutory laws of the United States. The United States accuses that Roy C. Bradley is the person who has identified himself as Roy Claudius; Bradley and that person has violated the criminal statutory laws of the United States. They claim the United States falsely alleges an implied agreement by trespass upon their Covenant names by changing their Covenant names to Edgar F. Bradley, Edgar F. Bradley, II and Roy C. Bradley.
The use of aliases to avoid conviction or detection frequently is relied on as a defense in criminal cases. Mistaken identity is also a frequent issue in criminal cases. Whether the United States can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the person who identifies himself as Edgar Francis; Bradley, the person who identifies himself as Roy Claudius; Bradley, and the person who identifies himself as Edgar Francis II; Bradley violated 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 26 U.S.C. § 7203 can only be determined by a trail; therefore the case must go to a jury trial, See United States v. McMullen, 755 F.2d 65, 67 (6th Cir.), cert. denied 474 U.S. 829 (1985). Title 18 U.S.C § 3231; 28 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(1).
In documents signed by Edgar Francis; Bradley, Edgar Francis II; Bradley; and Roy Claudius; Bradley (doc nos. 150, 151, 152), Edgar Francis; Bradley, Roy Claudius; Bradley, and Edgar Francis II; Bradley acknowledge receipt of letters from Mr. Voracek and Ms. Calvin, the trial attorneys representing the United State Department of Justice. These letters were addressed to Edgar Francis; Bradley, Edgar Francis II; Bradley, and Roy Claudius; Bradley at the address provided to this Court by them. These entities have not provided any other addresses to this Court. In the documents, these entities give notice they made a mistake which may have relevancy to this case. If relevant, these issues may be submitted to the trier of facts. ONLY LEGAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND ADMITTED DURING THE TRIAL MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE TRIER OF FACTS IN DETERMINING THESE ISSUES.
LEGAL EVIDENCE is the TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES made under oath and subject to cross-examination, the EXHIBITS/DOCUMENTS submitted to the trier of facts by the Court, stipulations of the litigants and facts proper to be judiciously noticed.
The documents (nos. 154, 155, 156) entitled "Letters Rogatory" filed by Edgar Francis; Bradley, Roy Claudius; Bradley, and Edgar Francis II; Bradley specifically refer to the trial procedure to be applied in this case. These filings do not comply with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and are DENIED for the reasons state on page 2 of Document No. 165.
The United States also has requested pre-trial rulings on trail procedure. (Doc. No. 143). Unless otherwise specifically ordered by the Court, the LEGAL EVIDENCE is confined to testimony by entities who have been placed under oath to speak in response to questions proposed by the lawyers or pro se litigators and the documents submitted to the trier of facts by the Court. Lawyers and pro se litigators’ questions are not evidence. Lawyers and pro se litigators have only opportunity to argue their positions to the jury – that is in their closing argument. The parties may discuss only the testimony of witnesses; the exhibits and the legal evidence in the case in their closing arguments. If a pro se litigator becomes a witness and is sworn, he is subject to cross-examination and waives his Fifth Amendment rights to be free of cross-examination on any subject to which he testifies. The lawyer and pro se litigator may comment on the evidence only in their closing argument.
Additionally, intent must be proved by the acts and omission and the surrounding circumstances. Statements made by the entity may or may not be legal evidence. WHETHER A PARTICULAR STATEMENT SHALL BE ADMITTED AS LEGAL EVIDENCE CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED DURING TRIAL.
In sum, a) this Court has original jurisdiction to determine whether criminal violations charged under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 26 U.S.C. § 7203 have been committed by the entities named in the indictment and, if found guilty by the trier of facts, to impose an appropriate punishment on them under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the United States Sentencing Guidelines; b) THE INCOME TAX IMPOSED BY THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION. IT IS IMPOSED BY THE STATUTORY LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. The authority to tax has always been an inherent power given to Congress. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 416, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819), and with that authority must also go the power to enforce the collection of such taxes. See United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir.). (per curium), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 942, 104 S.Ct. 359, 78 L.Ed. 2d 321 (1983). The courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of criminal penalties for tax evasion. E.g., United States v Thiel, 619 F. 2d 778, 782 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 856, 101 S.Ct. 152, 66 L.Ed. 2d 70 (1980); United States v. Moore, 692 F.2d 95 (10th Cir. 1979); United States v. Edgan, 587 F.2d 338 (6th Cir. 1978) (Per curium); United States v. Ming, 446 F.2d 1000, 1004 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 915, 93 S. Ct. 235, 34 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1972). THE PROCESS FOR OBJECTING TO THE PAYMENT OF TAXES NOT LEGALLY DUE IS OUTLINED IN TITLE 26. The day has long since passed to object to the constitutionality of our system of taxation. While many reasons can be advanced why our present system of taxation is not equitable or fair, the appropriate forum is not a refusal to comply with a valid statute. The appropriate forum is the Congress not the courthouse; Mullen, 755 F.2d at 67; (c) the case shall be tried in accordance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; d) the LEGAL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE SHALL BE THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES STATED FROM THE WITNESS STAND UNDER OATH SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION AND THE DOCUMENTS ADMITTED IN LEGAL EVIDENCE BY THE COURT, THE STIPULATIONS OF THE PARTIES AND FACTS WHICH MAY BE JUDICIALLY NOTICED.
Accordingly, the requests in documents number 154, 155, 156 and 143 are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Finally, the Court finds that it cannot, will not and did not act in any manner as surety or otherwise on behalf of anyone in this case.
This Court has provided standby counsel. The Court has urged the persons who identify themselves as Edgar Francis; Bradley, Roy Claudius; Bradley, and Edgar Francis II; Bradley to seek the assistance of counsel. The Court has advised them that it is in their best interest to seek the advice of counsel; however, they have knowingly refused to accept counsel and continue to represent themselves after knowingly and intelligently waiving representation by counsel.
This Court can do no more in the matter except administer justice according to the criminal statutory law of the United States of America to all persons and entities. The requests in "Letters Rogatory" (doc. Nos. 128, 129, 130, 140, 141 142) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Herman J. Weber, Judge
United States District Court