/  15
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIREUNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Cr. No. 07-189-01/02/03/04-GZSDANIEL RILEY,JASON GERHARD,CIRINO GONZALEZ, and ROBERT WOLFFESUPERSEDING INDICTMENTTHE GRAND JURY CHARGES
:
BACKGROUND1.
On or about January 18, 2007, the last day of a trial thatstarted on January 9, a jury returned verdicts convicting EdwardBrown and Elaine Brown of conspiracy and a number of federal taxcrimes.
2.
The jury returned its verdict against Edward Brown in hisabsence. After the third day of evidence, January 11, 2007, EdwardBrown returned to his and Elaine Brown’s joint residence inPlainfield, N.H., and never came back to court. On January 12,2007, a federal warrant was issued for Edward Brown’s arrest basedupon his failure to appear for the completion of his trial.
3
. Elaine Brown also failed to appear for what was to be thefourth day of evidence but, after a brief continuance of theproceedings, she returned for the remainder of the trial. Shortlyafter her conviction, however, she was charged with violatingconditions of her release pending sentencing by removing anelectronic monitoring ankle bracelet and returning to her residence
 
Page 2 of 15where Edward Brown remained. A federal warrant was issued for herarrest.
4
.On April 24, 2007, Edward Brown and Elaine Brown wereeach sentenced to sixty-three (63) months in prison. NeitherEdward Brown nor Elaine Brown appeared for the sentencingproceeding and the sentences against them were imposed in theirabsence.
5
. While the Browns had been fugitives, officers of theUnited States Marshals Service had made efforts to arrest them.During the same period of time, the Browns had remained inside theboundaries of the property on which their home is located, and theyhad publicly stated their intention to forcibly resist any effortto arrest them.
 
Page 3 of 15
COUNT ONEConspiracy To Prevent Officers of theUnited States From Discharging Their Duties18 U.S.C.§ 3726
. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 5 of thisIndictment are re-alleged and incorporated as if set forth in fullherein.
7
. From in and around January 2007, through in and aroundSeptember 2007, in the District of New Hampshire and elsewhere, thedefendant,
DANIEL RILEY,JASON GERHARD,CIRINO GONZALEZ, and ROBERT WOLFFE
knowingly conspired and agreed together and with other individuals,both known and unknown to the grand jury, to prevent by force,intimidation and threat employees of the United States MarshalsService, who are officers of the United States, in the discharge oftheir official duties, to wit: arresting Edward Brown and ElaineBrown, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 372.
Purpose of the Conspiracy8
. The purpose of the conspiracy was to prevent the UnitedStates Marshals Service from arresting Edward Brown and ElaineBrown.

Federal District Court, Superseding Indictment

Download this Document for FreePrint
This is a private document.

Info and Rating

briley

Share & Embed

More from this user

Add a Comment

Characters: ...

MrTidemanleft a comment

O.K. so the word "official" is in 18 USC 111(a)(1) too, so what? Official in the noun is "one who holds an office or position", buy the verb is "of, pertaining to, or AUTHORIZED by a proper AUTHORITY". (emphasis ADDed), So WHERE is the authority? It's derived from "We the People" in our contract: The Constitution of the United States of America, to which our agent swears on oath of allegiance to obey. The contract specifying a "Consent". Was it given? Yes, but with conditions. Were the conditions fulfilled? No. Thus by 18 USC 371 of two to conspire and needing only one to act, WHO to relieve, comfort or assist? The one with the truth or the liar? re: 18 USC 3. And with WHAT? Mere words of support or to back up the truth with firepower of equal or greater strength? Remember the phrase of to battle against all enemies: foreign and DOMESTIC. (Emphasis ADDed again) and with the Second Amendment with the right to bear arms, alongside our New Hampshire Article 10 to resist against arbitrary power and oppression. We are supposed to be a nation of law, not man. The law of "to lay and collect" in the Sixteenth Amendment was twisted by this judge to mean only the impose part of the definition for the word lay, when he said you fall into that $amount on the I.R.S. chart and so MUST or SHALL pay $x,xxx listed in column 2. A judge acting with authority or the fulfillment of the Consent? No. And even IF or WHEN fulfilled, in the future tense, to assert your rights to the King's English as they say: the apply definition of the word lay, of to request, and so withOUT any enforcement clause #2 as in the surrounding Amendments, to say: request denied. These charges hereby dismissed, and this case closed!
12 / 10 / 2007
Reply

MrTidemanleft a comment

COUNT ONE, #7 on page 3 of 15 is a bunch of crap! The "official duties" phrase only applies to when there is a conspiracy to injure the PROPERTY of any officer of the United States, so as to molest, interrupt, hinder or impede him in such discharge. The charge of conspiracy to prevent, by force, intimidation OR threat applies to either: (a) BEFORE the "any person" accepts, (b) while "holding", or (c) wants to discharge those duties in any office, trust, or place of confidence. In this case it's section (c) involving to discharge, but what TYPE of discharge? Answer: a "lawful discharge". This phrase repeated twice in this one long-winded sentence for good cause, because here in New Hampshire, we have the right to rebel against any and all unlawful discharges. See Article 10 in the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights. And so because the Feds are in non-compliance with N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Const., they are the outlaws! There is NO engagement of lawful discharge, and so NO crime; this Count One FAILS!
12 / 09 / 2007
Reply