Quote from: coffeeseven on November 09, 2007, 05:49 AM NHFT
...
Also I need a clarification on the addresses of the inmates. Joe Haas has posted one set of addresses that differs from the addresses posted on the front page of the Keene Free Press. http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1&limit=6&limitstart=12
1.) You mean the 326 v.s. 314 address on D.W./ stands for Daniel Webster Highway (Route #3) in Boscawen? Either number will get it there. I just happened to look in the phone book for the 326 #, but see from Valeri for Bob, that their website lists 314. There's the old, and new jail just down the road to the south of the old, but that both #s get the mail there, and even without a # as I've written on the envelopes too.
2.) For the Dover address it's either 03821 or 03820, with the website reading that all the county government mail goes to the 03821-0799 for the long zip code, not really needed, the 21 or 20, depends on whether they use a Post Office Box, or get it physically delivered to the facility mail depot on site is my guess. A Concord Postal Clerk said that the 21-0799 was wrong, and it was supposed to be 20-0799, but that I told him that's the way I was instructed to write 21-0799 from their website.
3.) And yes, Elaine's address is on Route #37, and the officer who I talked with on the telephone said that the precise address on Route 37 is at the exact spot of: 33 1/2 Pembroke Station.
JSH
Keith I like your idea of everyone sending $1 per month but think it should expand to all 6. Ed, Elaine, Bob, Jason and Cirino's commissary account and Danny's legal defense fund.
i dont want anyone to think i was intentionally trying to exclude any of them. i like the all 6 idea i just received a letter from danny saying he didnt want money in his account and i read that bob may be getting out. but i never thought of his defense fund and obviously if bob stays in .... my original goal was to make them comfortable while they are there! i feel like its the only thing i can help with.....but if its all 6 of them im upping my pledge to 2 dollars per week rotated weekly ....... actually im giving more but....lol
I hope that Bob does get out soon. Now would be good. Yesterday would have been better. If he does not the money may be better spent by sending to Valeri to cover her bills. My heart goes out to her. She must be having a rough time of it.
We've got to cover each others backs.
Here's a re-type of my 3:32 p.m. e-mail
"To: The State of New Hampshire
Department of Corrections
Office of Public Information
Jeffrey J. Lyons,*
Public Information Officer
105 Pleasant Street
P.O. Box 1806
Concord, N.H. 03302-1806
603: 271-5600 press 4 (5602)*
Dear Jeffrey:
--Thank you for your prompt actions for information in the past, and hopefully again this time too.
--Now this is to follow-up my telephone call to you of a few minutes ago.
--Please see for background information the http://www.bop.gov/about/index.jsp website since: '...Federal offenders...are confined through agreements with state and local governments....'
--I called the Strafford County Commissioners http://www.co.strafford.nh.us/commissioners.htm at 742-1458 to see if they have the contract I can make a copy of, with the woman there saying to call the jail at 742-3310 to where I talked with C.O. Moore who said to call the Feds at 202: 616-7750 for the Federal F.O.I.A. at http://bop.gov/foia/index.jsp and the woman there said to put it in writing to:
The Federal Bureau of Prisons
320 1st Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20534
and wait up to twenty (20) business days.
--So to speed things up I called the N.H. Dept. of Justice at 271-3658 for the A.G.'s Memo of the Right to Know RSA Ch. 91-A of Feb. 8, 2007 at http://doj.nh.gov/publications/right_to_know.html but that we do not live in a 'democracy' as she writes, but what is supposed to be an Art. IV, Sec. 4, U.S. Constitutional 'Republican form of government', and so the woman there said to call you, and that I did, and so:
--PLEASE, would you send me a copy of the State-Federal Relations Agreement as to the housing of Federal offenders within our state.
--I will not be able to make it to your office, by the 4:00 p.m. closing time, this afternoon, so to mail you a signed print-out of this for delivery on Tuesday morning, to please acknowledge at that time, and get back to me of an answer, hopefully with a photocopy of this agreement, by the following, Tuesday, November 20th: two days before, and a:
Happy Thanksgiving to you. / Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone).
P.S. If you can get this agreement copy out to me in today's mail, you deserve a platinum star! Otherwise a gold or silver star, but never below a bronze star. (;-) Best wishes, - Joe
note: for me to also check to see if maybe Merrimack County might have a separate contract with the Feds, but to await your reply first.
footnote #2: maybe a copy of this agreement is on your website? at page #___."
JSH
Modification: for HOW I got started on this subject today, see my Reply #79 on page 6 over at the "Joe Haas Arrested" http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9345.75 the last paragraph with the fill-in-the-blanks ___ for WHO signed WHAT and WHERE, plus WHEN, also: for when Ed starts his I.R.S. class? where they will show him the law of where it makes him "liable" or not? as in BELIEVE IT OR NOT! the law does NOT exist; and they expect to continue the "correction"!?
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 09, 2007, 02:52 PM NHFT
I hope that Bob does get out soon. Now would be good. Yesterday would have been better. If he does not the money may be better spent by sending to Valeri to cover her bills. My heart goes out to her. She must be having a rough time of it.
We've got to cover each others backs.
Even if Bob doesn't get out right away for good, he still ought to get the proper medical attention for his filling that fell out of his tooth, since he is still innocent until proven guilty, and deserves a visit to see the dentist, or vice versa of a dentist to the facility, like they do with the contract barber for the haircuts. THEN if he is ever the "property" of the government during their sentencing time, they can say to the inmate: either suffer or have the tooth pulled out, but before those privileges are the pre-trial inmate rights, and so Valeri, who did write me an e-mail the other day, saying that they are looking into that, and of my $offer to help, to see just how efficient and kind these Feds really are, and if not, then to do something about it through our Reps in Congress +/or the state Reps, like to what? amend the State-Fed Agreement? To get a copy of this and see to it that Chapter #__, section __ at page ___ be fulfilled, as in to fill his tooth #__ with the filling!
- - Joe
i received another letter from elaine today. written on 11/6 and mailed on 11/07 received today 11/09.
she writes:
dear keith,
as always it is good to hear from you. dont send stamps. they will send them back to you-nothing is allowed to b sent in. i did not receive the ones you say you sent last time. thank you for the $$ you are sending. i will try tommorow to verify receipt. just to make sure. (and the $25 from joe) i am glad you are planning on sending him (ed) some pictures, as he has been asking for them. i received a copy of the letter from ed to joe haas today, and it is terrible the way he is being treated-3 weeks of total isolation + deprivation! i am sending it to people to post on the internet & to fred smart to read on the radio. your support and friendship mean so much to us. god bless you for having the courage to stand.
please keep in touch.
elaine
the stamps i sent never made it through to elaine. when i called the prison last week they said they would be sent (mailed) back to me as long as i included a return envelope. i havent received them yet. so tomorrow i will call to find out. i did send ed photos on multiple occasions (see my last post previous page) but still have not heard from him or received them back. some photos show ed with his liberty tool in his waistband, i wonder if they are prohibited? ive also sent elaine webpage printouts of things like the list of items seized from their property. i wonder if she will get that? i also include a contents list on my letters of anything i sent in the envelope so she will know if they stopped something from reaching her. it is how she knew they stopped the stamps from coming in.
a reminder of who we fight for, not that we need it!
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i188/CYBERPUSHR/DSC00696.jpg)
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i188/CYBERPUSHR/DSC00695.jpg)
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i188/CYBERPUSHR/DSC00668.jpg)
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i188/CYBERPUSHR/d1-733177.jpg)
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i188/CYBERPUSHR/bobpic4_july06.jpg)
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i188/CYBERPUSHR/edbrown_009_copy.jpg)
Geesh Keith, why in the world won't they let Elaine have stamps for crying out loud? How does she get letters to you then?
Thank you for posting the pictures, it made me sad but it's important that no one forgets and just let this be something that is forgotten over time as so many other things in this country have been.
That's another reason I love this forum because none of us just forget somebody. :)
That's a smart idea to list the contents in your letters. Did you know Ed and Elaine personally? I want to write but I don't have the foggiest idea of what to say because I don't know them at all. :-\
I bet Ed never got the pictures. >:(
Does Elaine mean that Ed has been in isolation for 3 weeks? If so, why?
Thanks for posting this! :)
Quote from: raineyrocks on November 09, 2007, 03:57 PM NHFT
...
Does Elaine mean that Ed has been in isolation for 3 weeks? If so, why?
Thanks for posting this! :)
I think it might be because he refused to be booked? (fingerprints and mug shot).
And reference, the booking, did Lauran go through the booking, or is she back in jail awaiting an appeal of such refusal? to a higher court, or on motion to reconsider, in which case I congratulate her for setting a precedence here!
-- Joe
Quote from: raineyrocks on November 09, 2007, 03:57 PM NHFT
Geesh Keith, why in the world won't they let Elaine have stamps for crying out loud? How does she get letters to you then?
Thank you for posting the pictures, it made me sad but it's important that no one forgets and just let this be something that is forgotten over time as so many other things in this country have been.
That's another reason I love this forum because none of us just forget somebody. :)
That's a smart idea to list the contents in your letters. Did you know Ed and Elaine personally? I want to write but I don't have the foggiest idea of what to say because I don't know them at all. :-\
I bet Ed never got the pictures. >:(
Does Elaine mean that Ed has been in isolation for 3 weeks? If so, why?
Thanks for posting this! :)
inmates (i hate calling them that) cant have stamps because they are traded like cash inside. that is what the guards told me when i called last week. they aid the only thing you can mail in is letters (personal) pictures (no polaroids) books (softcover up to five at a time clearly marked as books) hardcover must be sent from the manufacturer from a private address. and they can receive subscriptions to newspapers and magazines. that is it. all guests of the prison must buy stamps from the commissary. as well as everything else.
the pics make me kinda sad too but i like the one of her sitting with her arms crossed because shes smiling. actually i like the one of her cooking too but only because i love cheeseburgers and those tasted good i remember....mmmm cheeeeesburgerrrrs. lol i met them personally only once that day of the second concert.( i tried again on the last concert but was stopped at the road block. i am the person who posted video of the road block on youtube. yeah i know i should have stood up at the road block like lauren did but it was my first encounter with a federal agents and i was more worried about getting it on video then fighting but i have kicked myself ever since) i remember asking her why she wasnt smiling. she just looked tired and worn then. both of them did. i may have met them only once but i used to talk to danny through his email for a couple months. i realized as soon as i heard about ed and elaine that their fight is OUR fight and like reno used to say if not me then who? if not now then when? i know one thing others may but i will never forget or abandon ed and elaine or the rest not now when they need us and everybody more then ever. they definitely taught me to not be afraid and make a stand!
as far as writing to them. what are you afraid of? just say hello. my name is ____and thank you. do you know how happy they would be to start receiving hundreds if not thousands of letters everyday from people they have never met telling them how they have affected their lives? and offering words of support. it is a very very lonely place in there. the only thing they will have sometimes is our letters and photos. afraid of sending a letter or dont know what to say? send a photo of you holding up a free ed and elaine sign? send a book a magazine a photo anything.....like nike says JUST DO IT put yourself in their position would you want letters? what would you want people to tell you?
here is a link to my roadblock video like i said dont harrass me i do it to myself enough... :(
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2261697231309840194
Quote from: keith in RI on November 09, 2007, 05:00 PM NHFT
inmates (i hate calling them that) cant have stamps because they are traded like cash inside.
How does forcing the prisoners to buy stamps from the official store stop such stamp trading? I've always wondered about that question.
Quote from: penguins4me on November 10, 2007, 01:22 AM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on November 09, 2007, 05:00 PM NHFT
inmates (i hate calling them that) cant have stamps because they are traded like cash inside.
How does forcing the prisoners to buy stamps from the official store stop such stamp trading? I've always wondered about that question.
None at all. The restriction on stamps goes back a few years, to when wettable stamps could contain doses of drugs. Peel-and-sticks are pretty immune from that, but... it's government. I've yet to hear an explanation of why skirts are allowed up to 3" above the knee, but no one over 12 can wear shorts, even if those "shorts" are below the knee.
Welcome to my world. ::)
Did I read right that Ed is not receiving his mail?
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 09, 2007, 04:11 PM NHFT
And reference, the booking, did Lauran go through the booking, or is she back in jail awaiting an appeal of such refusal? to a higher court, or on motion to reconsider, in which case I congratulate her for setting a precedence here!
-- Joe
Lauren went through booking and is out.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on November 10, 2007, 04:20 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 09, 2007, 04:11 PM NHFT
And reference, the booking, did Lauran go through the booking, or is she back in jail awaiting an appeal of such refusal? to a higher court, or on motion to reconsider, in which case I congratulate her for setting a precedence here!
-- Joe
Lauren went through booking and is out.
So to appeal Judge Crocker's belief/ opinion and Order that she/Lauren cannot refuse to be booked, to the Superior Court? since her attorney, Anthony Sculimbrene objected to the booking and said: "My client has the right to refuse to be booked." Then if and when she wins she can get them either returned or expunged. That's what they said in my case that the fingerprints and mug shot were to be destroyed, but that I never got verification of that statement as having been accomplished. In other words no Article 8 accounting. Does Lauren need $xxx.xx in appeal filing fee + Sheriff's cost of delivery at: $xx.xx plus how much $x,xxx.xx to the attorney to fight this? She has thirty (30) days to appeal this, and from the outside on freedom is better. A copy of this ought to go over to "Mr. Privacy"/ State Rep. Neal Kirk of Weare, who might be real interested in helping to fund this, since he is the champion of such rights in the State House. And what about the N.H. Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union? When I had my free speech rights case in Federal court, they supplied the attorney for free upon my written request. At least this will get the costs down to maybe $250.00 for both the filing fee and service of process by the Deputy Sheriff. Lauren, if you're reading this, please reply. Good luck -- Joe
thanks for keeping focused on constructive action keith. writing them is also useful...I"m sure it helps relieve their boredom. Danny told me the little postcard he got was worth its weight in gold. But I think it may be better to focus on sending something that takes longer to read and less time to create... what i've tried doing is copying and pasting a bunch of my articles and also my unfinished book into one document. Maybe 50 pages. Then i had a copy center make 8 copies. once I pick up the copies, I can send them to any and all political prisoners in new hampshire. any of you who have written a lot can do this.
if you send you're own writing they're more likely to let it thru apparently than someone else's.
Quote from: keith in RI on November 07, 2007, 10:45 PM NHFT
what do you think?
where are the browns supporters now?
they had thousands of people on their myspace page before it was taken down. everyone of you, most of you on my friends list as well, were posting comments saying things like you would give your life for them and say anything and you will give them what they need. well here it is. the thing you can DO to help ed and elaine and the other freedom fighters. you can pledge and actually donate 1 dollar per week to any of their prison accounts! then rotate it to the next person the next week. this doesnt sound like much and it isnt much but if we all act in mass then it will be very successful. we know that we have the power to fund raise after watching the ron paul november 5th money bomb, now lets stay true to our words to ed and elaine and come through for them when they need us the most. you may not be able to help with their legal battle but you can help to make their stay at the prisons as comfortable as possible! i am aiming to get one humdred people to pledge to do this with me. that is 1 dollar per week 52 dollars per year. if we can get one hundred of us to do this, which should be easy since they had thousands BEGGING to help them when they were making their stand, than that is a minimum of 100 dollars per week going into their accounts. the way i see it is danny doesnt want money to be sent to his prison account because it will be seized by the prison to pay for his share of his room and board while he is there. bob wolffe may or may not be taking a plea deal and if so he will be getting out soon, that leaves reno, ed, elaine, and jason. thats 1 dollar per week to each person equaling four dollars per month . this money will be used to pay for all the stuff they need in prison like stamps,soap, envelopes, medical care (elaine says they have to pay 2 dollars to see a doctor) and other daily needs. this would give each one of them 100 dollars per month in their account to use thats 25 dollars per week. more the more people we get to do this. yes it is almost silly to send a 1 dollar money order at the cost of a dollar (the only way to donate to them besides western union) plus a .41 cent stamp to get them a dollar but if they have to process one hundred money orders a week every week or in the best case scenario thousands of one dollar money orders for each of them.......hey there is power in numbers lets show them we are still behind them and will always be!
if your interested and willing to do this please email me at cyberpushr@yahoo.com so we can keep track of it and see how it goes.
and remember its one dollar per week.......thats way less than a cup of coffee every day ; )
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 10, 2007, 11:35 AM NHFT
By the way the free weekly newspaper that I write a guest column for has chosen not to run my story on Ed and Elaine 5 weeks in a row. To be fair they lost the original and the resubmission ::) so they have really only refused to run for 3 weeks.
I won't recommend that anyone harass the Rock River Times about this but I'm sure they would appreciate reader comments. (They are online)
If you get a response as to why my article will not run let me know.
Jailed for a law that doesn't exist
Submitted Monday, October 08, 2007
By Rick Jones
http://www.rockrivertimes.com
rrtimes@rworld.com
Editor: Brandon Reid
C7,
--I did just call to there at 815-964-9767 and the woman who answered the telephone said that this is a local newspaper, so because Ed is not within Illinois, they are not interested. Maybe an Ohio newspaper* might like to report the hearing(s) on his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Like to have Ed conduct the first hearing, and after the newspaper story of him going at it alone, some attorney to the rescue for an appearance and win.
Thanks for the idea, -- Joe
* pc: Tim Yovich, the Crime Story editor for the http://www.vindy.com/ The "Vindicator" newspaper for Youngstown, Ohio where the Federal Court is located for Ed in Elkton. The title reminds me of that bull in "The Rare Breed" western movie with James Stewart. yovich at vindy dot com thanks to Ohio Newspapers over at http://www.usnpl.com/ohnews.php [the other two newspapers for Youngstown being for: Afro-Americans, and The Business Journal.]
Thanks Joe.
I thought most newspapers were local except USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. Thus proves the myopic authority of the last stronghold of free press - The independent newspaper.
As we huddle nice and cozy inside our Rockford, Illinois homes waiting for the federal wolf to knock at the door.
C7, I did just send Tim an e-mail @ exactly 2:05 p.m. to see about any reply. - Joe
P.S. There's an "Ask '?' The Expert" there that I signed up for too, 8) since learning about the E.O.'s, T.O's and CFRs here, in addition to what I did already know about the OMB#'s, etc. [No brag, Just Fact, as Walter Brennan used to say on "The Guns of Will Sonnett" 1960s TV western.] - - Maybe some landlord might log in for a tax question that I can tell them about that section (5) of the I.R. Code as un-constitutional saving them $thousands! with maybe a finder's fee to help Ed with his to-be-hired attorney.
So is Ed getting his mail? Do we know?
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 10, 2007, 01:32 PM NHFT
So is Ed getting his mail? Do we know?
Yes.
Modification: yes, to the current; maybe soon for the past that's piled up at the Post Office since the Marshals ORDERed them to HALT the mail deliveries to 401 Center of Town Rd.
Quote from: keith in RI on November 09, 2007, 05:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: raineyrocks on November 09, 2007, 03:57 PM NHFT
Geesh Keith, why in the world won't they let Elaine have stamps for crying out loud? How does she get letters to you then?
Thank you for posting the pictures, it made me sad but it's important that no one forgets and just let this be something that is forgotten over time as so many other things in this country have been.
That's another reason I love this forum because none of us just forget somebody. :)
That's a smart idea to list the contents in your letters. Did you know Ed and Elaine personally? I want to write but I don't have the foggiest idea of what to say because I don't know them at all. :-\
I bet Ed never got the pictures. >:(
Does Elaine mean that Ed has been in isolation for 3 weeks? If so, why?
Thanks for posting this! :)
inmates (i hate calling them that) cant have stamps because they are traded like cash inside. that is what the guards told me when i called last week. they aid the only thing you can mail in is letters (personal) pictures (no polaroids) books (softcover up to five at a time clearly marked as books) hardcover must be sent from the manufacturer from a private address. and they can receive subscriptions to newspapers and magazines. that is it. all guests of the prison must buy stamps from the commissary. as well as everything else.
the pics make me kinda sad too but i like the one of her sitting with her arms crossed because shes smiling. actually i like the one of her cooking too but only because i love cheeseburgers and those tasted good i remember....mmmm cheeeeesburgerrrrs. lol i met them personally only once that day of the second concert.( i tried again on the last concert but was stopped at the road block. i am the person who posted video of the road block on youtube. yeah i know i should have stood up at the road block like lauren did but it was my first encounter with a federal agents and i was more worried about getting it on video then fighting but i have kicked myself ever since) i remember asking her why she wasnt smiling. she just looked tired and worn then. both of them did. i may have met them only once but i used to talk to danny through his email for a couple months. i realized as soon as i heard about ed and elaine that their fight is OUR fight and like reno used to say if not me then who? if not now then when? i know one thing others may but i will never forget or abandon ed and elaine or the rest not now when they need us and everybody more then ever. they definitely taught me to not be afraid and make a stand!
as far as writing to them. what are you afraid of? just say hello. my name is ____and thank you. do you know how happy they would be to start receiving hundreds if not thousands of letters everyday from people they have never met telling them how they have affected their lives? and offering words of support. it is a very very lonely place in there. the only thing they will have sometimes is our letters and photos. afraid of sending a letter or dont know what to say? send a photo of you holding up a free ed and elaine sign? send a book a magazine a photo anything.....like nike says JUST DO IT put yourself in their position would you want letters? what would you want people to tell you?
here is a link to my roadblock video like i said dont harrass me i do it to myself enough... :(
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2261697231309840194
Thanks, that is some good advice and I will just do it! :D
Transcript of Letter I got from Danny Riley Oct 4.
Sorry for the slow action getting this transcribed. It's interesting that he is so excited by "all I have done for him" when the only thing I've done is show up outside a couple buildings with the "free the brown supporters" sign. I guess that means most people are doing virtually nothing for him. Same probably goes for some of the others.
I have probably got some spelling errors here that are mine not his.
<< Dave,
Great to hear from you! I really appreciate all you have done for me. I loved your postcard. it is worth its weight in gold.
My time as a P.O.W. have been terridble I just ended a six day hunger strike. I could not take the pain anymore and the staff said eventually I would be force fed with an IV. With nothing to really gain, I gave in.>>
<< I pretty much just keep to myself. I fired my lawyer a few days ago because he refused to file my writ of habeas corpus, he also lied to me that if I cooperate with the enemy that he would have a good chance of getting me out in a week. I told the feds stuff I wish I never did. It pissed me off when my lawyer said he never said it was a definite that I would be released. all lies! I believe my lawyer was part of the enemies camp (being a former fed prosecuter). I will never cooperate again I will fight till the end no matter what the out come (looking at 20 years)
I hope more patriots are helping E and E to fend off the enemy. Their fight is all of America's, if they lose we lose. Tell E and E I said Hi and that I love them.
I would also like to say Joe Haas has been a big help morally. Dave, I always enjoyed listening to your audio blogs @ QFFT, you are definitely a patriot. I wouldlove to see a protest outside the strafford county jail with signs saying "innocent people should not be in jail" LOL
I did file a writ of habeas corpus in strafford county superior court (mailed yesterday). I sent a copy to Joe and my brother billy. The defendant is the Jail superintendent warren dowaliby. the jail notory refused to notorized the writ so i made note to the judge stating i have no access to a notary. the next day when i sent the paperwork out to be photo copied it came back notorized illegally. it was done without me being present, in blue ink, and get this, back dated to cover their criminal activity. I notedall this to the judge. you know we should really call these judges captains because i notice only maritime flags fly in their court rooms. maybe they believe we're on a ship because they are ruling us with maritime law to gain juridiction as art 3 sec 2 gives them in the constitution.
as for something to read, a subscribtion to a local newswpaper m-f would be nice. by the time i get a newspaper its 2 weeks old
tell everyone i said hi Kat, lauren and the troops I appreciate all you have done for the cause. take care
POW Danny Riley>>
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 10, 2007, 01:37 PM NHFT
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 10, 2007, 01:32 PM NHFT
So is Ed getting his mail? Do we know?
Yes.
Modification: yes, to the current; maybe soon for the past that's piled up at the Post Office since the Marshals ORDERed them to HALT the mail deliveries to 401 Center of Town Rd.
Joe...In my continuing research concerning the "JURSDICTION" issue, (which apparently has been ignored?) I found this standing Stump v. Sparkman (1978) U.S. Supreme court case which is self executing. Here is a portion of it verbatim;
"On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment of the District Court, 4 holding that the "crucial issue" was "whether Judge Stump acted within his jurisdiction" and concluding that he had not. 552 F.2d, at 174. He was accordingly not immune from damages liability under the controlling authorities. The Court of Appeals also held that the judge had forfeited his immunity "because of his failure to comply with elementary principles of procedural due process." Id., at 176." It would appear to me that since the congress has not delegated criminal jurisdiction to the USDC, that this is an issue that must be explored for justice to prevail. As I have posted before, "original criminal jurisdiction" is delegated to "district courts of the United States" , 18 USC 3231 and NOT to "United States District Courts" . some may call it semantic subterfuge and others, sedition by syntax. I like the latter.
Video update on Elaine Brown situation
from RidleyReport.com:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hOC9at1qKVo
joe is it possible for someone to file a friend of the court brief in support of dannys motions and position on issues? i know corporations and non profits do it all the time. can individuals? it would be nice for the judge to receive a bunch in support of danny?
elaine has added me to her visiting list! i sent her the form last week telling her i may not be able to go to see her much but im only 3 hours away and i could probably make it once a month or so. she returned it to me signed with instructions on who to return it to, her counselor steve Mcmahon (good to know, he is the one to call with concerns about elaine. (ed must have a counselor too. anyone know his name? ) she sent a note with the form saying look forward to seeing you! i cant wait to get this finalized and get down there to see her. has anyone been yet? it will be good to see her with my own eyes and when i go i will definitely take video of the prison and area so people can see where she is and what its like. hopefully she doesnt get moved before then!
Very cool :) Hope you get to see her.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on November 11, 2007, 06:23 PM NHFT
Transcript of Letter I got from Danny Riley Oct 4.
... I wouldlove to see a protest outside the strafford county jail with signs saying "innocent people should not be in jail" LOL
I did file a writ of habeas corpus in strafford county superior court (mailed yesterday). I sent a copy to Joe and my brother billy. The defendant is the Jail superintendent warren dowaliby...
as for something to read, a subscribtion to a local newswpaper m-f would be nice. by the time i get a newspaper its 2 weeks old...
POW Danny Riley>>
1. Signs + Habeas: So Dada: You want to protest in Dover with signs one of these days? jail +/or courthouse, and if so when? The judge didn't give the Super. +/or his legal counsel, the Strafford County Attorney time enough to either agree or dis-agree with the Habeas, by denying Danny (within hours that's usually up to 10 days for any reply of objection) both his procedural due process for a "complete" hearing by Art. 14, N.H. Const., Pt. 1 & Bill of Rights (converted into a mere privilege) and the Petition, that's been appealed to the Supremes. It was received there on 26Oct.'07 with the acknowledgment letter sent out Nov. 6th for this Docket No. 2007-0745 that I saw last Friday in the Clerk's Office where Donna Nadeau, the Window Clerk there told me that it was NOT a Mandatory Appeal, BUT a Discretionary Appeal, and so the Supremes might DECLINE to take it. Anyway, when I read the original letter with Danny on my Sunday visit to see Jason* and him, Danny said that was O.K. because then he has exhausted his state remedies for such and can now go to the Feds for release by Christmas is hoped for, Danny saying more like New Year's Eve. Then the other three "Freedom Keepers" will know that it works, and can have their Superior Court judges let them out too per their petitions to file for maybe their release by January ___ '08 at the state level, in Merrimack County too.
2. The Newspaper: In the Strafford County Jail pod where Danny is now, there's three inmates currently receiving the http://www.unionleader.com on a daily basis/on time, so if somebody here would like to donate a trial subscription at: $_____ for #__ weeks to the http://www.concordmonitor.com Danny said that is what he would like to receive, to see how often that arrives, since he only got a few of the http://www.fosters.com from the subscription I signed him up for #several weeks, so the C.O.'s absconding with some of "The Foster's Daily Democrat" newspapers: thieves! having turned it into The Foster's WEEKly Democrat.
3. Fellow inmate: Bill Miller, (a) according to his mother Marie, who I did speak with on the phone last Friday, was transferred out last Wednesday, Nov. 7th to the N.H. State Hospital in Concord, where she visits him any day of the week, from 12 noon to 8 p.m., and anybody here too. I think I wrote about his condition before? maybe not, of him in there a week thinking it a month, and his mother seeing him beat red in the face one day, as never before she said; my guess that maybe his emotional outbursts that I've seen too might be a medical/chemical imbalance they call Bipolar Disorder that a friend's son has and he too went to the State Hospital who I used to visit with his father, him O.K. now, and hopefully Billy too, and after his Dec. 4th court date maybe for them to nol-pros, especially since his yelling to his neighbor two houses down the street, might not have really annoyed the family in the middle house as witnesses to it being not as loud as they say, from private land to private land, the COPs got involved in what was said and how relayed to them by the woman neighbor. And (b) according to Danny, Bill went nuts one day asking for a drink of water, not getting any, so desperate like a man crossing the desert in the heat of the noonday sun, setting off the sprinkler system in his max jail cell, and the alarm building wide, and another inmate reporting back to the pod of going by his cell to court and hours later seeing Bill still strapped naked to the chair.
4. Jason. I saw him before seeing Danny on Sunday afternoon. He'd doing O.K. too, as Danny, and for him to maybe do something about this State-Federal contract that is supposed to exist, so reads the B.O.P. website, but that doesn't exist so wrote Jeffrey Lyons, the Information Officer from the N.H. Dept. of Corrections to me today in his e-mail of 8:43 a.m. as soon as I can get the documentation for such from the State Dept. of Administrative Services to where the Dept. of Corrections sends their monthly reports by the fifth of the month, them in turn billing the Feds $47.68 per inmate per day (that Danny thinks is more $money when you're in Max). A re-type of his e-mail to me, some of the Billing document, and my e-mail to the Dept. of Admin. Services, to follow.
JSH
P.S. Ed & Elaine's Electric Account. With a print-out copy to Ed (and Elaine): please give me a POA to contest your ill-treatment as a N.H. Electric Co-Op customer, so that I can tell them at the Dec. 18th meeting (3rd Tuesday of the month) @ 9:00 a.m. [579 Tenney Mountain Highway, Plymouth, N.H. 03264-3154], Tel. 1-800-698-2007, that what they did to you by shutting off your electricity (to internet-free speech rights, and to counsel), was both unlawful and illegal, per 1-8-17 U.S. Const., to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 since the latter paperwork from the Feds to request such from a 501C12-a tax-exempt company does NOT exist at the Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word in the statute to pay you $x amount as monetary damages, and to use as a violation of procedural due process in your Habeas case too, plus to pre-vent such wrongs to current +/or future customer(s), Attn: Mark Dean, their lawyer who just returned by call to Sharon Yeaton, to get on the agenda.
Here's a re-type of the e-mail from Jeffrey Lyons, the Public Information Officer at the N.H. Dept. of Corrections, that was sent to me at 8:43 a.m. this morning:
"November 13, 2007
Dear Mr. Haas,
--This is an electronic mail response to your request for documents under RSA 91-A.
--I am not aware of any state-federal relations agreement that you mention in your correspondence. The New Hampshire Department of Corrections does not manage any contracts. All contracts with all state agencies are approved by the Governor and Executive Council and administered by the New Hampshire Department of Administrative Services, 25 Capitol Street, Rm. 120, Concord, NH 03301. 603-271-3201.
--We do however have a Department of Corrections policy pertaining to how we bill federal agencies for housing federal jurisdiction inmates when we have them. I have attached that policy. Our current fee is $47.68 per inmate per day.
--There is also a Department of Corrections policy based on New Hampshire State Statutes pertaining to the acceptance or rejection of non-jurisdictional offenders housed in New Hampshire facilities under the Interstate Compact agreement. I have attached that one as well.
--his is the best response I can provide for you on this matter. Any requests for documents or information pertaining to the Federal Bureau of Prisons should be directed to them.
Jeff Lyons, Public Information Officer, NH Department of Corrections"
JSH
Here's a re-type of my e-mail letter of exactly 12:52 p.m. today:
"To: The State of New Hampshire, Department of Administrative Services, Attn: Don Hill, Commissioner, 25 Capitol Street, Room 120, Concord, N.H. 03301, 603: 271-3201, http://www.state.nh.us Dear Cindi:
--Here's a copy of the computer-printout, that I've signed as the original to you, after my call to Mike, to please forward to Don or the 'Deputy Compact Administrator', etc. or WHOever.
--What I'm looking for is a copy of both: (1) the 'Monthly Report's from 'the Offender Records Office' over at the N.H. Dept. of Corrections for by October 5th and November 5th '07, and; (2) the actual bills for all 'FEDERAL INMATES' to WHOever at WHATever federal office (name), and WHERE at: ___________, plus WHEN and for what $amount, and HOW: by electronics, the U.S. Mail, or personal delivery?
--Would you please send me this information within five (5) business days, so by next Tuesday, November 20th @ __:__ o'clock p.m. to me at the address below for receipt in my mailbox on Wed. morning, Nov. 21st.
Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone).
cc: Jeffrey Lyons, Info Officer e-mail: jlyons at nhdoc dot state.nh.us
note: See N.H. RSA Ch 123:1, from Art.I, Sec.8, Cl. 17, U.S. Constitution, for the June 14, 1883 offer of 'Consent'."
JSH
Quote from: keith in RI on November 12, 2007, 04:05 PM NHFT
joe is it possible for someone to file a friend of the court brief in support of dannys motions and position on issues? i know corporations and non profits do it all the time. can individuals? it would be nice for the judge to receive a bunch in support of danny?
Keith: Danny showed me his #___-page Memorandum of Law, on Sunday, that I presume has been copied and is going out in today's mail to: (1) The N.H. Supreme Court, (2) his brother Bill for the http://danrileyld.blogspot.com , (3) and me, to re-copy #__ sets, since there are five judges there, and needing the original in the file, and so #__ in total, so that #__ law clerks each have a copy too to work from. Donna Nadeau, the window clerk saying that the initial filing of the Art. 91 petition was O.K. for one set to be copied 8x I think it is by them, but that any further documents have to be supplied according to the rules like for anybody else, and so me to help get them there for distribution. He could have had the jail copy him eight sets, and add an additional postage of $_____ in not a #10 envelope, but in a 9x12-inch one, and so since I'm in Concord anyway, I did offer to save them the additional $expenses, and can verify that they actually have it and them.
-- Joe
P.S. When the Legislature takes questions to the Supremes by Art. 74, they usually print a public notice in the newspaper(s) inviting public opinion, that I've done in the past, and so might be O.K. for an Amicus Curiae/ Friend of the Court Brief, but that I think you've got to get permission from the judges first, otherwise, just to send to either party to use in their own Brief, that's usually due within 30 days (light blue cover) and another 30 days for the Opposition Brief (with red cover), and any Reply Brief (with gray color cover). So the entire process might take 30+30+15 days = 75 days to Feb. __, '08 before any decision.
Joe, did Danny mention when his psych evaluation is going to take place?
joe this is what im talking about:
Amicus Curiae
Definition: Latin term meaning "friend of the court". The name for a brief filed with the court by someone who is not a party to the case.
"... a phrase that literally means "friend of the court" -- someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court's decision may affect its interest." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 89.
Amicus Curiae briefs are filed in many Supreme Court matters, both at the Petition for Writ of Certiorari stage, and when the Court is deciding a case on its merits. Some studies have shown a positive correlation between number of amicus briefs filed in support of granting certiorari, and the Court's decision to grant certiorari. Some friend of the court briefs provide valuable information about legal arguments, or how a case might affect people other than the parties to the case. Some organizations file friend of the court briefs in an attempt to "lobby" the Supreme Court, obtain media attention, or impress members.
"An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored." Rule 37(1), Rules of the Supreme Court of the U.S.
"FRAP 29. BRIEF OF AN AMICUS CURIAE A brief of an amicus curiae may be filed only if accompanied by written consent of all parties, or by leave of court granted on motion or at the request of the court, except that consent or leave shall not be required when the brief is presented by the United States or an officer or agency thereof, or by a State, Territory or Commonwealth. The brief may be conditionally filed with the motion for leave. A motion for leave shall identify the interest of the applicant and shall state the reasons why a brief of an amicus curiae is desirable. Save as all parties otherwise consent, any amicus curiae shall file its brief within the time allowed the party whose position as to affirmance or reversal the amicus brief will support unless the court for cause shown shall grant leave for a later filing, in which event it shall specify within what period an opposing party may answer. A motion of an amicus curiae to participate in the oral argument will be granted only for extraordinary reasons." Rule 29. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
doesnt dannys filings affect all of us as citizens? dont i have an interest in seeing that he is fairly treated as a sovereign? im not a party to the suit. there are currently tons of friend of the court briefs pending for the parker vs dc gun ban case getting ready to go before the us supreme court. why cant we file for dannys sake? how would we?
the article says: Some studies have shown a positive correlation between number of amicus briefs filed in support of granting certiorari, and the Court's decision to grant certiorari. so what would happen if 1000 of us filed in support of danny? is this possible?
Quote from: keith in RI on November 13, 2007, 02:57 PM NHFT
...except that consent or leave shall not be required when the brief is presented by the United States or an officer or agency thereof, or by a State, Territory or Commonwealth....
Or: by an officer of the State, like a N.H. State Representative to the General court? From what committee? Maybe Rep. Lars T. Christiansen of Hudson*, on the State-Federal Relations Committee, with the help of former State Rep. Dick Marple of Hooksett, might like to present one on the jurisdiction angle?
* P.O. Box 171, Zip 03051-0171 Tel. 889-0481, Dist. 27
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ns/billstatus/legdetails.asp?txten=376105
JSH
Quote from: richardr on November 13, 2007, 02:36 PM NHFT
Joe, did Danny mention when his psych evaluation is going to take place?
I think you mean: Bill Miller? That was requested and the newspaper reported it, but that the judge didn't order it, but he landed up over there at the State Hospital anyway in Concord.
And so: no, if for Danny, is that some Order #___ in his file over at PACER? for what? calling the judge Captain? :icon_pirat:
JSH
Reference: two letters from Jason today, of 11/8 + 9, the last one in which he mentions:
"They offered me their excellent 30 year deal, but I'd rather go down fighting."
Sort of like what Randy Weaver said up at Ed's: of a fight to the death if need be, instead of having to live under their tyranny.
JSH
Modification: in reference to mail deliveries, Jason also wrote in his 11-9-07 letter to me that "Today 2 envelopes came in the mail for me. One postmarked Oct. 30 and the other Nov. 7. Odd right? What's weirder is that I had to go to Booking to get them. -- The officer said that the Oct. 30 envelope was opened because an officer thought he felt a sharp object inside." When I saw Jason on Sunday, we talked about this 10/30 one with the Halloween card inside too, in the orange envelope, but that has been swiped by one of the C.O.'s, as in stolen: thief! because Jason never got it. I sent two separate Halloween cards to Ed & Elaine before that, and unsigned ones to the Four Freedom Keepers, so that they could use to mail out to one of their friends or relatives of at least postmarked on Oct. 31st. - Joe
Thanks Kat. I picked up the latest issue of The "Keene Free Press" at "Hannaford Brother's" today in Concord, for November 2007, and see on page 7 of 8 the re-type of "Letter from Ed Brown to Joe Haas", that I sent you the scans from the original 2-side letter, and that you sent a copy to Elaine she wrote me on 11/7 that I received in the mail last Friday, but is she talking about "Ed's letter was hand written"? or the typed version? her getting the newspaper right away? She seems a bit confused by writing that "He could have had no access to a computer." When the fact is that I wrote it out on MY computer!
She also questions of HOW Ed could have written the Habeas Corpus "if he has been in isolation". And she asks for a copy, but that I've already sent her a copy, so some mail not getting through to her? Also "He said he has received no mail other than yours, but I know several people have written him" , but like they say: proof of mailing, is not proof of delivery. It looks that they're keeping back certain letters from others to Ed too, as well has some of mine? so Ed & Elaine not getting the full picture here? So we need to visit them to verbally tell them what's going on.
Elaine also asks "Did you complete + mail the Habeas like he asked you?" Answer: yes, she should have gotten that information too, as reported about in my Reply #____ above on page #___ when I sent it in certified mail, with a copy by regular mail to the court too, plus the U.S. Attorney in Youngstown, Ohio, and then my call to the court there, with the woman telling me that she sent it back directly to Ed to re-file with the proper cover-sheet or whatever.
And get this: "we still do not have permission to write to each other." Permission!? for a husband and wife, to have to get approval to communicate in writing!? Again I ask: what religion are these government goons practicing on our friends!?
JSH
I've written to both Ed and Elaine. Got one reply from Elaine, but none from Ed. So don't know how much of my mail is getting through. I've also sent the KFP to all 6. Jails tend to reject the paper at times, though.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on November 14, 2007, 05:37 AM NHFT
I've written to both Ed and Elaine. Got one reply from Elaine, but none from Ed. So don't know how much of my mail is getting through. I've also sent the KFP to all 6. Jails tend to reject the paper at times, though.
They say when it is sent by the publisher, it's accepted. Like to use your rubber stamp address in the return address section in the upper left corner of the front side of the envelope.
Jason told me on Sunday that they thought I was sending the entire http://www.weirs.com for "The Weirs Times" and so they rejected it, by what? confiscation? or put into his personals? Actually it was not the whole paper but only pieces thereof including the front page story and nice centerfold of the Red Sox Players, as a collector's item, so my guess is that one of the guards took it for his own collection of souvenirs. It seems that they're targeting him, but not Danny? I don't know about the others as they've never written on getting these "tear-sheets". I remember sending that hunting dog one too a few weeks ago. So I guess from now on only one article therefrom each current issue is the way to go. I get them free at the supermarket. Plus it cost me 30-cents extra for postage to send the last bunch with the extra newspaper clippings. None wrote back that they liked it so much that they might like a subscription, so that's all I'm going to do in this department. Ed & Elaine to get their "Reader's Digest". Also I get free paperback books at the book cart at the State Hospital in Concord that's swamped with books from the over-storage at the State Library "Book Bag" and so try to take about a dozen westerns, and others to the Dover jail every trip as they advertise for on their website, as wanting Louie L'Amour westerns, finding just a few every now and then. -- JSH
P.S. I presume that Reno and Bob have enough reading books in Concord? And Ed gets books from the book cart man he wrote about. It was Jason who, if you remember, wrote that he reads about 100 pages a day, re: that Lexington & Concord one, and so what? The guards punish him more by telling him to stare at the walls!? They do have two TV sets up high off the ground at Dover with headsets, and I see them in the pod through the visitor window, but only an in-the-shade basketball court, no stepping on soil like at the State Hospital baseball diamond, nor sunshine. What type of crap is this!? Whoever designed these places in the "new" jails in Dover and Boscawen did a "lousy" job, as far as I'm concerned, their brothers must be in the health field to take care of the inmates when they get rickets or scurvy from lack of vitamin-D from sunshine! or maybe in the undertaker/ funeral business! What a racket! Crooked bastards! And this is supposed to be a government of "We the People". It's more like them against us. Them meaning a type of sub-human form of creature!
note: did whoever here with the extra FTF CD's ever send one to the Dover Jail? The plan was to have the guards view it before placing on the video list, to get the other inmates educated to this corruption.
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 13, 2007, 10:13 PM NHFT
Quote from: richardr on November 13, 2007, 02:36 PM NHFT
Joe, did Danny mention when his psych evaluation is going to take place?
I think you mean: Bill Miller? That was requested and the newspaper reported it, but that the judge didn't order it, but he landed up over there at the State Hospital anyway in Concord.
And so: no, if for Danny, is that some Order #___ in his file over at PACER? for what? calling the judge Captain? :icon_pirat:
JSH
The judge read Danny's latest filings and ordered a psych evaluation.
QuoteORDER REQUESTING POSITION ON COMPETENCY EXAMINATION
On October 26, 2007, the Court held a hearing on Defendant Daniel Riley's Attorney's Assented-To Motion to Withdraw and Defendant Riley's request to represent himself. As a result of Defendant Riley's responses to a number questions posed at the hearing and recent filings in his case (Docket Item No. 47), the Court is concerned that Defendant Riley may be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to stand trial. The Court is considering ordering that a competency examination be conducted of Defendant Riley. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241. Before ordering such examination, the Court would like the benefit of hearing the positions of the government and defense counsel on the issue whether an evaluation of Defendant Riley's competency is appropriate at this time. See Daniel Riley's letter dated October 29, 2007 (Docket Item No. 47). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the government and defense counsel state their positions in writing to the Court on or before November 15, 2007.
George Z. Singal
Chief United States District Judge
Having read Danny's Filing #47, I can't really fault the judge. Maybe Danny's defense plan is to look like he's crazy as a loon.
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 14, 2007, 06:13 AM NHFTAlso I get free paperback books at the book cart at the State Hospital in Concord that's swamped with books from the over-storage at the State Library "Book Bag" and so try to take about a dozen westerns, and others to the Dover jail every trip as they advertise for on their website, as wanting Louie L'Amour westerns, finding just a few every now and then.
I see they also want yarn? Are they going to rehabilitate with knitting? Very
Demolition Man.
Quotenote: did whoever here with the extra FTF CD's ever send one to the Dover Jail? The plan was to have the guards view it before placing on the video list, to get the other inmates educated to this corruption.
I just got them. I will send three copies to each inmate with a cover letter asking the guards to review for inclusion in the library and keep a couple for themselves to pass around.
note: did whoever here with the extra FTF CD's ever send one to the Dover Jail? The plan was to have the guards view it before placing on the video list, to get the other inmates educated to this corruption.
joe i have a bunch and am also sending them to the inmates with a letter to review for inclusion .... i think it would be good if a LOT of people do this........
Prisoners get to watch videos?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on November 14, 2007, 03:29 PM NHFT
Prisoners get to watch videos?
in some prisons yes there is a list of approved. but thats not the point the point is to get the staff to watch the vids and hopefully build sympathy for them. coffee, me, my friend al, thats three sending copies to all six so far. i have two copies to each inmate already addressed and ready to go. how many more can we get sent? theyll have to watch it eventually how many can they throw away before curiosity kicks in?
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 13, 2007, 10:41 PM NHFT
Also "He said he has received no mail other than yours, but I know several people have written him" , but like they say: proof of mailing, is not proof of delivery. It looks that they're keeping back certain letters from others to Ed too, as well has some of mine? so Ed & Elaine not getting the full picture here? So we need to visit them to verbally tell them what's going on.
i have sent ed letters and pictures and still have not heard from him. it has been about 2 weeks. yesterday i sent him and elaine packages with soduku books and crosswords. i wonder if hell get them. i wonder can we prosecute for theft if not? should we send everything certified mail? i feel like elaine isnt getting every letter of mine either. i can kinda tell by her letters to me. in some letters to her i have asked certain questions and never get a response but do from other letters. one time was 2 weeks between her letters then this week like 5 days.... hhmmmm i wonder. all questions ill ask when i see elaine in a couple weeks.
this is scary. if they have him commited because hes crazy they can hold him indefinitely right? and they can medicate him as they see fit i think.....all because he wrote a well thought out well written letter to a fuck head judge?! what a waste of public resources being used to retaliate against someone!
Quote from: richardr on November 14, 2007, 09:08 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 13, 2007, 10:13 PM NHFT
Quote from: richardr on November 13, 2007, 02:36 PM NHFT
Joe, did Danny mention when his psych evaluation is going to take place?
I think you mean: Bill Miller? That was requested and the newspaper reported it, but that the judge didn't order it, but he landed up over there at the State Hospital anyway in Concord.
And so: no, if for Danny, is that some Order #___ in his file over at PACER? for what? calling the judge Captain? :icon_pirat:
JSH
The judge read Danny's latest filings and ordered a psych evaluation.
QuoteORDER REQUESTING POSITION ON COMPETENCY EXAMINATION
On October 26, 2007, the Court held a hearing on Defendant Daniel Riley's Attorney's Assented-To Motion to Withdraw and Defendant Riley's request to represent himself. As a result of Defendant Riley's responses to a number questions posed at the hearing and recent filings in his case (Docket Item No. 47), the Court is concerned that Defendant Riley may be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to stand trial. The Court is considering ordering that a competency examination be conducted of Defendant Riley. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241. Before ordering such examination, the Court would like the benefit of hearing the positions of the government and defense counsel on the issue whether an evaluation of Defendant Riley's competency is appropriate at this time. See Daniel Riley's letter dated October 29, 2007 (Docket Item No. 47). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the government and defense counsel state their positions in writing to the Court on or before November 15, 2007.
George Z. Singal
Chief United States District Judge
Having read Danny's Filing #47, I can't really fault the judge. Maybe Danny's defense plan is to look like he's crazy as a loon.
can someone explain to me what the karma thing is all about?
Quote from: keith in RI on November 14, 2007, 06:39 PM NHFT
can someone explain to me what the karma thing is all about?
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=11973.0#msg203870
Yes, we have no bananas. We have no bananas today.
Hey! I just received in today's mail the 9x12-inch envelope from: The U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Institution, 8730 Scroggs Road, P. O. Box 89, Elkton, OH 44415 postmarked Nov. 8 '07 with $1.14 on the Pitney Bowes Meter #02-1A 0004202228, and initialed by RB, who did type their last name Bowen/ISO whatever that is on the 1-page form #BP-S328.058 CDFRM APR 94 [Replaces BP-328(58) of JAN 91] but that they forgot to add their "Written Signature of Legal Technician". Do you think I ought to send it back to them for an autograph? ::)
The form is dated: 11-07-2007 for "INMATE'S NAME: Brown REGISTER NUMBER: 03923-049" and with not a "(Check One) under "Material Returned" but a "x" next to: "You enclosed unauthorized material: _x_ Other - specify below:
So yes banana, or no banana? "The correspondence or letter has, however, been provided to the inmate with a copy of this notice." whatever that means? like maybe he looked at it, but then they mailed it back to me? "Specific Material Returned Unauthorized legal material" *
* What they returned to me was:
(1) My 5-page Appeal of Merrimack Docket No. 07-C-147 of Haas v. Boscawen and CITIZENS BANK, to the Supremes # 2007-0717 regarding my RSA Ch. 80:60 over-payment to the Town and their offer or tender to me in something other than the Art. I, Sec. 10, U.S. Const. gold and silver coin, also in violation of the Coinage Act of 1792, sec. 20 of which includes courts! YES: courts, as in the Federal court! Hypocritical bastard judges, of the obnoxious type: highly offensive to the LAW! causing injury by their bastardization, or debasing their accounts to something LESS than the law requires, thus being: corrupt! And so as said before, to work on getting this "audit" of the court in Concord! Just because they return the copies doesn't make their shit smell good! It still rots!
(2) My Reply #6231 on page 416 of Wed., Oct. 17th @ about 1:00 p.m. about Judge Joseph DiClerico, Jr. [his ultimate recusal, as not taking any more cases, just civil cases.]
(3) My Reply #6238 on page 416 of Wed. Oct. 17th before the 9:27 AM print-out, so - 45 min. = about 8:30 AM for "Is Judge Joseph DiClerico a 'sociopath'* too?" re: that the end justifies the means!? with my six (6) questions, of: Do you admit: this and that, re: the "venue" from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. to NH RSA 123:1 that does not exist! (*)
(4) My Reply #6239 on page 416 of Wed. Oct. 17th @ 9:47 AM See http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.6225 about what is a "kangaroo court" = sham, false and empty, as in to have a State Prison Shop worker make me a federal storage bin for the N.H. Secretary of State. ___ [P.S. Thanks for the reminder].
(5) My Reply #6245 on page 417 of 10/17 @ 1:32 - 45 min. = about 12:45 PM re: the addresses that Jason wanted me to send to him, like for http://www.makethestand.com/article100.html against FRNs too; plus: Bob Schulz, (see also Lynne Meredith) and The http://www.sportsmansguide.com/ also:
(6) The Lethal Force Institute.
JSH
(*) Hey! Let's have Danny use that pscho-val to his advantage. The medical doctor to agree that Danny is right, that the judge is a sociopath, thinking that they do not need the RSA Ch. 123:1 papers on file as their end, as in asshole smells good to them, and we're supposed to brown nose up to them!? You have got to be shitting me!
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 10, 2007, 12:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 10, 2007, 11:35 AM NHFT
....
C7,
--I did just call to there at 815-964-9767 and the woman who answered the telephone said that this is a local newspaper, so because Ed is not within Illinois, they are not interested. Maybe an Ohio newspaper* might like to report the hearing(s) on his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Like to have Ed conduct the first hearing, and after the newspaper story of him going at it alone, some attorney to the rescue for an appearance and win.
Thanks for the idea, -- Joe
* pc: Tim Yovich, the Crime Story editor for the http://www.vindy.com/ The "Vindicator" newspaper for Youngstown, Ohio where the Federal Court is located for Ed in Elkton. The title reminds me of that bull in "The Rare Breed" western movie with James Stewart. yovich at vindy dot com thanks to Ohio Newspapers over at http://www.usnpl.com/ohnews.php [the other two newspapers for Youngstown being for: Afro-Americans, and The Business Journal.]
Update: Yesterday at about 5:00 p.m. I did call "The Vindicator" newspaper office in Youngstown, OHio at 330-747-1471 press 4 for News, then #1 for local, and I got to talk with Peter Milliken there (e-mail: Milliken at vindy dot com) who's going on a 2 1/2 week vacation, and at first thought to contact Ed Runyan, but then said Patricia/Patti Meade is in federal court more often, and so to write to her over at Meade at vindy dot com like to send her all the newspaper clippings* on the case as it unfolded up here he said, not knowing anything about this "Ed Brown anti I.R.S. case" I told him about "that the newspapers said he was hold-up at his 'bunker' and made the FOX-TV news nationwide."
* So Kat: maybe you could send her the current and back issues of The "Keene Free Press"? Plus Coffee, Keith and Al: maybe one of you could volunteer to also send her a "Freedom to Fascism" DVD? Or maybe divide and conquer? Peter's "vacation" is really for minor surgery he said to recuperate, and so he might have plenty of time to read and watch videos. And so that leaving Patti as the lead reporter, with her assistant: Ed Runyan? I'll send you their address in a re-type of my e-mail to Tim Yovich in a few minutes.
Peter asked what Ed's case #_________ is at the Federal Court in Youngstown, and I told him that I don't know yet, since I did mail the original I got from Ed certified mail to them, and that they returned it to Ed for more paperwork, and that I am also trying to get a local attorney to help him, plus I did mention Attorney Larry Becraft, as THE national expert on this single and double-filing state with his website covering all fifty (50) states in the union, and that when this case breaks it will most definitely make the NATIONAL news! He might be looking up Larry's website now of http://www.constitution.org/juris/1fj-ba.htm and who also helped my friend, F. Tupper Saussy, at http://www.tuppersaussy the publisher of "The Main Street Journal" [and: the book: "Miracle on Main Street"], and author (of other books too, including: "Rulers of Evil".)
Peter also told me that he has access to PACER, and likes the 8-cents per view and copy better than what they charge down there for the Feds at 50-cents per page [compared to only 20-cents up here in Concord, N.H.].
I'll copy the print-out of this reply to Ed so that he might like to write to Peter and/or Patti too who might also like to visit him in the F.C.I. for a more detailed story before he wins the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and get his comments on the courthouse steps of how it feels to be free again next month, on: December ____, his courthouse date at __:__ o'clock a.m./p.m. in courtroom #___ before Judge _________.
Yours truly, - - Joe
Kat:
What's going on? I just tried to print-out my pre-view copy for Ed, and at the 90% level, for page 2 got a double exposure, twice.
So I went to the actual page 440, and on the print preview found my Reply #6594 at 80% complete at page 7 of 8, and that copied fine.
Therefore no more print-preview copies? Just that we have to copy from right off the page after we put it there?
Somebody said that they're sending Ed all of these pages, but that I got a few returned as noted above. So what we write here is not considered like pages from the internet book, but legal correspondence, and because we're not lawyers, when the guards there read stuff and don't understand it, they think it's legal-eze and return it!?
Yours truly, - - Joe
P.S. This just printed fine at 100% for page 1 of 10.
Here's a re-type of my e-mail of 2:05 PM Saturday 11/10/07
"To: The Vindicator (newspaper)
107 Vindicator Square
Youngstown, Ohio 44503
330-747-1471
Attn: Tim Yovich, Crime Story editor
yovich at vindy dot com
http://www.vindy.com/
Hi Tim,
--This is to follow-up my search of Youngstown, Ohio newspapers over at http://www.usnpl.com/ohnews.php finding yours as THE best one of three listed for local news.
--For reference of HOW I got here, please see my Reply #6557 on page 438 over at http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.6555 that's in regards to the I.R.S. v. Ed Brown case, with ed now serving time at the Elkton F.C.I. in Ohio, and with an Habeas Corpus hearing on Dec.ember ___ in the Federal Court in Youngstown, case #____________ )yet to be assigned a number), in courtroom #__ @ __:_ o'clock a.m./p.m. that you might be interested in, because not only will he win after a declaration of mistrial, the merits of his case will have repercussions nationwide, and could help many a businessman and investor in your city. I say the latter of an investor in the light of an apartment/business owner, because the I.R.S. tried to extract $62,000 from me and they lost! by their case #M.83-50-D against me.
--All the details of Ed's case ongoing, and what I did learn from my case now being applied to Ed's benefit too, and whoever might like to get informed to the truth of taxes, that I learned from both: Martin J. 'Red' Beckman's books, and that book by Otto Skinner; plus more than books, re: the internet and this case on-line of E.O.'s, T.O.'s and the CFR, etc. like the OMB#s too.
--So you can see, from like "The Man Who Knew Too Much", it sometimes takes a case to filter it down to the basic ingredients, or some like to say: the brass tacks, and with your help, more people in your neck of the woods can benefit and you profit thereby too. Please click on my name over at The N.H. Underground for what I've just summarized, and what has, is, and will happen that I hope that you can report about for our mutually assured con-struction.
Best wishes, - - - - - - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone).
cc: The webmaster at vindy dot com to consider me as an 'Ask '?' The Expert' on I.R.S. taxes. Thank you."
JSH
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 15, 2007, 07:42 AM NHFT
Kat:
What's going on? I just tried to print-out my pre-view copy for Ed, and at the 90% level, for page 2 got a double exposure, twice.
So I went to the actual page 440, and on the print preview found my Reply #6594 at 80% complete at page 7 of 8, and that copied fine.
Therefore no more print-preview copies? Just that we have to copy from right off the page after we put it there?
Somebody said that they're sending Ed all of these pages, but that I got a few returned as noted above. So what we write here is not considered like pages from the internet book, but legal correspondence, and because we're not lawyers, when the guards there read stuff and don't understand it, they think it's legal-eze and return it!?
Yours truly, - - Joe
P.S. This just printed fine at 100% for page 1 of 10.
Um, if I understand you right, it sounds like an issue with your browser. Maybe try restarting your computer.
joe maybe it was just one thing that was rejected and they refused the whole package? maybe the lethal force institute? what if you sent everything in its own envelope? then you would know which piece they werent allowing in right? more $$ for postage but....
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 14, 2007, 09:54 PM NHFT
Yes, we have no bananas. We have no bananas today.
Hey! I just received in today's mail the 9x12-inch envelope from: The U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Institution, 8730 Scroggs Road, P. O. Box 89, Elkton, OH 44415 postmarked Nov. 8 '07 with $1.14 on the Pitney Bowes Meter #02-1A 0004202228, and initialed by RB, who did type their last name Bowen/ISO whatever that is on the 1-page form #BP-S328.058 CDFRM APR 94 [Replaces BP-328(58) of JAN 91] but that they forgot to add their "Written Signature of Legal Technician". Do you think I ought to send it back to them for an autograph? ::)
The form is dated: 11-07-2007 for "INMATE'S NAME: Brown REGISTER NUMBER: 03923-049" and with not a "(Check One) under "Material Returned" but a "x" next to: "You enclosed unauthorized material: _x_ Other - specify below:
So yes banana, or no banana? "The correspondence or letter has, however, been provided to the inmate with a copy of this notice." whatever that means? like maybe he looked at it, but then they mailed it back to me? "Specific Material Returned Unauthorized legal material" *
* What they returned to me was:
(1) My 5-page Appeal of Merrimack Docket No. 07-C-147 of Haas v. Boscawen and CITIZENS BANK, to the Supremes # 2007-0717 regarding my RSA Ch. 80:60 over-payment to the Town and their offer or tender to me in something other than the Art. I, Sec. 10, U.S. Const. gold and silver coin, also in violation of the Coinage Act of 1792, sec. 20 of which includes courts! YES: courts, as in the Federal court! Hypocritical bastard judges, of the obnoxious type: highly offensive to the LAW! causing injury by their bastardization, or debasing their accounts to something LESS than the law requires, thus being: corrupt! And so as said before, to work on getting this "audit" of the court in Concord! Just because they return the copies doesn't make their shit smell good! It still rots!
(2) My Reply #6231 on page 416 of Wed., Oct. 17th @ about 1:00 p.m. about Judge Joseph DiClerico, Jr. [his ultimate recusal, as not taking any more cases, just civil cases.]
(3) My Reply #6238 on page 416 of Wed. Oct. 17th before the 9:27 AM print-out, so - 45 min. = about 8:30 AM for "Is Judge Joseph DiClerico a 'sociopath'* too?" re: that the end justifies the means!? with my six (6) questions, of: Do you admit: this and that, re: the "venue" from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. to NH RSA 123:1 that does not exist! (*)
(4) My Reply #6239 on page 416 of Wed. Oct. 17th @ 9:47 AM See http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.6225 about what is a "kangaroo court" = sham, false and empty, as in to have a State Prison Shop worker make me a federal storage bin for the N.H. Secretary of State. ___ [P.S. Thanks for the reminder].
(5) My Reply #6245 on page 417 of 10/17 @ 1:32 - 45 min. = about 12:45 PM re: the addresses that Jason wanted me to send to him, like for http://www.makethestand.com/article100.html against FRNs too; plus: Bob Schulz, (see also Lynne Meredith) and The http://www.sportsmansguide.com/ also:
(6) The Lethal Force Institute.
JSH
(*) Hey! Let's have Danny use that pscho-val to his advantage. The medical doctor to agree that Danny is right, that the judge is a sociopath, thinking that they do not need the RSA Ch. 123:1 papers on file as their end, as in asshole smells good to them, and we're supposed to brown nose up to them!? You have got to be shitting me!
* So Kat: maybe you could send her the current and back issues of The "Keene Free Press"? Plus Coffee, Keith and Al: maybe one of you could volunteer to also send her a "Freedom to Fascism" DVD? Or maybe divide and conquer? Peter's "vacation" is really for minor surgery he said to recuperate, and so he might have plenty of time to read and watch videos. And so that leaving Patti as the lead reporter, with her assistant: Ed Runyan? I'll send you their address in a re-type of my e-mail to Tim Yovich in a few minutes.
joe just give me a list of names and addresses and they will be in the mail today. i am going there in a little bit (post office) to mail my copies to all six (plus extras for guards to share with a letter to whom it may concern saying as much) freedom fighters. just tell me who. we have hundreds of copies left i think. my friend al bought 1000 copies a while back.
joe i got pacer access two weeks ago also. it doesnt cost anything to sign up online and you dont need a credit card either. its .08 cents per page but there is no charge till the billing reaches 10.00 dollars. (per page charge includes search pages tough) which they then bill you for through the mail. you sign up online and they send you a password through us postal mail. then you can access it till you reach ten dollars / or pay the bill below that amount. anyone can get access. we all should any doc's needed we can just share printing them out when we reach 10 dollars switch....lol
Peter also told me that he has access to PACER, and likes the 8-cents per view and copy better than what they charge down there for the Feds at 50-cents per page [compared to only 20-cents up here in Concord, N.H.].
Open Letter
To: Daniel I. St.Hillaire,
Merrimack County Attorney
4 Court Street
Concord, N.H. 03301
603: 228-0529
Dear Dan:
--This is to follow-up my telephone call to your office of just a few minutes ago, when your receptionist directed me to leave a voice mail for you, that I did, and now put it in writing too, to drop off at your office later today as promised.
1.) Progress Report please: on my Official Complaint #__________ against Judge McAuliffe for RSA Ch. ____ Unlawful Simulation of Legal Process of the bench warrant directed against Ed Brown, that was in violation of 1-8-17 U.S. Const. and there being NO paperwork on file by RSA Ch. 123:1 to the N.H. Office of Secretary of State, as required by our state's offer to the Feds on June 14, 1883, but that for whatever reason, they declined, and so with NO jurisdictional venue within this state! THE website of interest being that of http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm thanks "very" much to Attorney Larry Becraft as THE expert on this subject of single and double-filing states. The states of Ohio and Conn. to where Ed + Elaine have been sent, being single filing states to tell N.H. by an Habeas Corpus proceeding to: Wise up, and file not only with the Registry of Deeds but with the proper governmental unit, that being the Secretary of State too for MAss. where the First Circuit Court of Appeals is located in Boston, and outlaws too. But Vermont and Maine are single-filing states and by Motions for Discovery leading to Motions to Dismiss I expect the four Freedom Keepers to win their cases too on procedural grounds with no need to get into the merits of their cases. BTW for Florida, it's a double filing to the governor's office, and that I couldn't locate the proof for them either.
2. Now please also see RSA Ch. 642:1 over at http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/642/642-1.htm for "Obstructing Government Administration"; Section III dealing with this "simulated legal process"
(a) that I think was added to the Chapter Law 168:1 of 2003 effective Jan. 1, 2004 because of the Andy Tempelman "Common Law Court" stuff I read in the Minutes of this/these House +/or Senate hearings on this HB or SB#_____ a few years ago; +
(b) that I think Rep. Lars Christiansen from Hudson is working on investigating the I.R.S. Notice of Liens, as not really a "lien", but that the Registrars of Deeds are treating as such, and recording illegally. To do an experiment in the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds in Concord, by finding out WHO has $_______ Notice of Liens filed there against them, to contact, and see what they might want to do about this, what might be called the equivalent of a Notice of Lis Pendens? Or in other words: to warn people and companies of that they might not want to deal with such filee's who MIGHT owe $x amount of dollars IF ever the "tax" were ever declared a "debt" due, since by the very definition of a tax, in its essential characteristics is NOT a debt, according to that New Jersey case in BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 5th edition, (c)1979 @ page 1307. The filee's might want to sue for wrongful "Attachment" because an attachment is a taking, as in the equity or borrowing power of the filee stolen from them!
3. See RSA Ch. 642:1 again, but for Section 1 in that: "A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if that person...engages in any other unlawful conduct with a purpose to hinder or interfere with a public servant, as defined in RSA 640:2,II, performing or purporting to perform an official function...." Thus aren't the Feds, without the lawful authority from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. to NH RSA Ch. 123:1, guilty of interfering with the Plainfield public officials in Ed's case, because Ed paid for this Article 12 protection FROM outlaw federal agents by the PAYment of his property taxes? Or does the fact that after Bernie went to the Town Selectmen this Summer for Ed, the town is NOT performing THE official function of PROTECTION since they REFUSED to protect!? Can they do this negativity!? Aren't they under a duty to protect, since the protection money was paid? Bernie said that if you don't protect, you ought to return the property tax money paid! And what of the latest bill? Are they going to say that because it wasn't pre-paid that the Browns were not deserving of such protection? That's a bunch of crap, since people pay later with interest and still get the fire protection, etc. to pre-vent the flames from spreading to others, or is it just the others they worry about!? What happened to Ed & Elaine's "equal rights"!? Maybe a good attorney can help Ed file a Federal RICO action against the Town but WHEN the Feds finally Wise Up to the N.H. statute! Or sue the Town in County Court. Not just the Town of Plainfield in Sullivan County in Newport, but Lebanon in Grafton County Superior Court in North Haverhill, N.H. too for Elaine's dental office building seized first and with an attempt or TRY to forfeit that whoever they try to dupe will be a Manceptor under a sale with all faults who takes the instrument of quitclaim deed (not Warranty), in their hand for better or "worse"! in effect paying the Brown's taxes for them, and the bidder getting nothing but an education in taxes at his/her/their $expense! >:D
Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059.
P.S. Check out the check #________ from the Feds for $6,500 to the Town of Plainfield, N.H. too that they accepted for un-restricted use, that I presume was put into the General Fund? I think they thought this was for $compensation for having to have the police patrol by the 401 Center of Town Road property more? But WHO really put the spotlight on that? The Feds! So them paying some damages up front, but that they are still at fault! Just because they pay six thousand, five hundred dollars of what, doesn't make what they did right! They merely offset their added costs for what they did was wrong!
Quote from: keith in RI on November 15, 2007, 08:54 AM NHFT
...
joe just give me a list of names and addresses and they will be in the mail today. i am going there in a little bit (post office) to mail my copies to all six (plus extras for guards to share with a letter to whom it may concern saying as much) freedom fighters. just tell me who. we have hundreds of copies left i think. my friend al bought 1000 copies a while back.
Keith:
If you can send four (or five*) copies in one mail pouch to "The Vindicator", maybe one of them, at least, will take a special interest in covering Ed's Habeas Corpus hearing.
The names are, Attention:
1. Peter Milliken
2. Patricia Meade
3. Ed Runyon
4. Tim Yovich
5*. other: ________
The Address is:
The Vindicator
107 Vindicator Square
Youngstown, Ohio 44503
330-747-1471
http://www.vindy.com/
I just called to there and pressed 4 for News, then #1 for local, but only got a recording, and left a message for Patti to expect a C.D. in the mail from you about major film producer Aaron Russou, the friend of Hollywood's Kris Kristofersan, and to please cover the Ed Brown hearing soon, plus that Kat would send her some back issues of the KFP, and for me to get back to her, so as not to swamp her with too much information up front, as what might have happened to Tim by reading all this stuff? ;)
Best wishes, -- Joe
Update: on my $50.00 bill + paperwork sent by Insured mail to Ed Brown on Sept. 27th for his legal defense just a few days BEFORE the Thu., Oct. 4th arrest, that IF it had reached him, he might have hired the right attorney, like Larry Becraft, to ward off these unlawful and illegal feds! And so yet another factor to win him an habeas corpus for a violation of "procedural due process of law"? The Postal Service I paid this extra $x.xx for special delivery, but which service I did not get, and so consider that stolen, and maybe to file an action against the Concord Post Office in Concord District Court for theft! The $x.xx times seven for when you catch a thief you charge him sevenfold the $amount stolen, by Proverbs 6:30-31 as this formula is put into Public Law 97-280, 96 Statute 1211 of October 4, 1982= the Year of the Bible for 1983 & Beyond. It annotated in our N.H. RSA Ch. _____ Criminal Code for Restitution, citing the State v. Flemming case of the 1980s, to another two cases, the last citing "Blackstone's Commentaries" to the Bible.
I just got a call yesterday from Kathy Royal, the N.H. Postal Inspector, that the envelope (as unopened?) will be available for me to pick up from Bill Abbott, the Concord, N.H. Postmaster after 12:00 o'clock high noon today. She said that I have to show I.D. and sign for it of course, BUT not with any waiver of rights to sue! In fact a copy of this print-out to staple to whatever they have me sign since this is a SERIOUS matter! since both Ed & Elaine have had their freedom stolen from them! I've told Kathy or Cathy, having never received anything in writing from her, for the correct spelling of her name, that I requested a hearing on this 1-8-17 U.S. Const. and NH RSA Ch. 123:1 issue, as AGAINST the U.S. Marshals who told them to HALT the mail, but withOUT any grant of such there, and so for THEM to face the music in state court as thieves!!!!!!! Yes, -- to even pay MORE for the $___ filing fee in Small Claims Court because the principle is worth MORE than the theft of service, but really more now that I think of it, the enveloped insured for $100.00 and so x 7 = seven hundred dollars of lawful money! as by the Section 20 of the Coinage Act of 1792! 8) minus its return, and so the net amount due of six times the amount after I get it back this afternoon as planned before they close at 6:00 p.m. tonight, after sundown.
Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059.
joe the dvds are going in the mail today. i am putting them all in the same envelope addressed to c/o: all the names is that what you want or should i send them seperately addressed to each one individually? im thinking putting in one envelope and writing the names of each person on the outside sleeve? with an extra for anyone?
i have also been in contact with someone for several months who lives in ohio about 45 minutes from the prison. she received her first letter from ed today, he is requesting help finding an attorney in ohio for the habeous?! she is willing and eager to help but not having a clue what to do or where to start. i told her i would get in touch with you and maybe put you guys in touch with each other. i told her maybe at the minimum she could help in delivering paperwork to lawyers so there is no waiting for mail? she is young but very eager to jump in. if you want her contact info email me and ill send it to you. she is also trying to get on eds visitation list (at my urging) i told her it might be good if the guards know he has regular visitors so they know not to beat on him for fear of it getting out.
thirdly and off topic it seems like the liberty dollar story is true. the website has been updated with the legal documents and story. if you look at the search warrant it says very specifically they want the information on the regional currency officers and associates! they are going hunting! if you know any of these people i would warn them to get ready for search warrants to be served on them!
Update on the insured envelope:
I.) There was no slip in my mail-box last night. I'll check again today and maybe next week*.
II.) I did also call the Plainfield Postmaster, Jean @ 675-2723 today, and she said that there is no change-of-address postcard on file from Ed yet, but that if and when received, she will still have to get "authorization", but from who? Her boss withIN the Postal Service +/or the U.S. Marshal who ORDERed her to HALT mail delivery to 401 Center of Town Road, but on what "authority"? They have none, as there is NO filing at the Office of Secretary of State, as required by NH RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution!
* "NOT to accept it UNLESS they have the two attempted delivery dates marked thereon." (re: the quotes in an e-mail of yesterday of second thought on this matter). "Then two can play at this waiting game, to say NO to Abbott that 'Costello' wants what he paid for: me! to have my envelope delivered better late than never, proving that justice delayed in justice denied. That if I accepted the envelope withOUT the reason for WHY there were no attempted deliveries, then that might forfeit this defense that Ed can use in his habeas? To talk this over with an attorney** who might like to sue for this for me to ricochet and benefit Ed too. The value of freedom worth a lot more than a mere $50.00 bill."
** Maybe just to hire the attorney to benefit Ed. I know of no case, of where somebody fighting a "revolution"(*), as by Art. 10 right here in our N.H. Constitution, can argue after capture, that if they had received the money to pay for legal defense BEFORE the capture, might have avoided the capture altogether. Like maybe Larry Becraft who could have filed some mis-trial motion for Ed in the Federal court in Concord, and claiming that the case be sent to Maine too for pre-trial motions for discovery and dismissal on the 1-8-17 to 123:1 angle.
Such an attorney for Ed in Ohio, might be Sandra Finucane of: #___ _______________ (Street), Columbus, Ohio _______ Tel. (____) _______________ [to look up on http://www.google.com later), as I found her name in the Dr. Elsebeth Baumgartner, disbarred attorney case of her in 120-days contempt and $175,000 judgment against her for criticizing a judge, over at http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/2007/022507JusticeDelayed.html [Dr. B's husband, Joe, "owns a drug store in the area" to maybe visit and talk about Ed's case with them, and Attny. Finucane if Dr. B. is not re-instated]. This website found by a Google search for: "justice delayed is justice denied" in quotes, and to the bottom of page 2 with some other interesting websites too of:
2.) The phrase, originally from: William E. Gladstone, (1809-98), British Prime Minister (1768-94), http://thinkexist.com/quotation/justice_delayed_is_justice_denied/227920.html who also said: (b) "Selfishness is the greatest curse of the human race", and; (c) "No man ever became great or good except through many and great mistakes". Plus: from the Bible, book: ______ chapter:verse #__:__ "When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers". See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_delayed_is_justice_denied for its origin from not "the Magna Carta" but just "Magna Carta" as THE Great Charter, clause 40 "of which reads, 'To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice'." but just look at N.H. RSA Ch. _____ that raised the court appeal fees up from $145 to $175 at the Supremes, even though Art. 14 reads of to be "free", suggesting a tax on winnings in the courts to pay this expense? HB #___ of 2009? Too bad "Civil Disobedience" to these fees canNOT be used in the courts, but only OUTside the courts, as indicated over at:
3.) "Civil Disobedience" by Peter Suber, Dept. of Philosophy, Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 47374, U.S.A. e-mail peters at earlham dot edu http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/civ-dis.htm because "Legal channels can never be 'exhausted'. Activists can always write another letter to their congressional delegation...."(**) [see reply to follow]. And John "Lock, whose social contract theory...permits disobedience, even revolution(*), if the state breaches its side of the contract." [Reference: the Art. 41 duty of the governor to enforce all legislative mandates, as by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 upon the Feds!, or is this what they call enabling legislation, that if they/ the Feds don't file, then they have NO jurisdiction, and so WHERE is the Art. 12 "protection" at the state, county and local levels of our government!? especially after paying into this "protection racket" by property taxes, and such a racket when AFTER payment we are NOT protected!]
Yours truly, Joe Haas
P.S. For more "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied" as it relates to other interesting cases; see:
A.) "OUTSTANDING FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS DATE TO 1980s" over at: (1) http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB102/index.htm and (2) http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB102/press.htm for several filers, including The "Intelligencer Journal newspaper" from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, a neighboring state to Ohio, who might be interested in Ed's case too? re: Show Ed the law! that makes him "liable" (***) [see reply to follow].
B.) "your thoughts about poor defendants who cannot raise money for bail" over at http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Justice_delayed_is_justice_denied.what_are_your_thoughts_about_poor_defendants_who_cannot_raise_money_for_bail_and_must_remain_in_jail_pending_appeal_while_persons_with_can_pay_bail_and_be_free about "mental illness" too, re: Bill Miller's case (****) [see reply to follow].
JSH
Modification: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/atty_reg/Public_AttorneyDetails.asp?ID=0067063
here is the post from my friend lyndse in ohio these are her letters from ed. his letters are taking 2 weeks from the time they are written to come back to us?? i think they are holding them so all his info is delayed.
plus ive sent him several packages of photos and this means he didntget any i think? also joe lyndse found all the lawyers in ohio and has sent them to ed. she also found a lawyer she thinks might be good but hasnt contacted her. she doesnt know how or what to say! here is her website....
http://www.elizabethkelleylaw.com/contact.asp
==============================================================================
FROM LYNDSE:
yesterday, i got to letters from ed brown in the mail, the first dated october 25 and the second dated november 2 but BOTH postmarqued november 14. it seems to take a LOT longer for mail to get through to ed and back out again, compared to elaine. here they are, please reproduce:
1
dear lyndse: boy it's great to head from good folks.
thank you for your kind words, they're humbling, but really lyndse, we're just a main stream couple that really cares about america and its people. someone had to do something. our love for eachother is eternal.
i would love a visit form people, however, i don't know the protocol. i have had no communication with anhyone since i / we were kidnapped.
i would like to get my 1611 king james bible?
prison is very cruel. i'm punished every day for something that i have no knowledge of.
sacrifice: if not us, then who, if not now then when.
i need to know what's going on out there.
god bless you, lyndse rae of the clan faba and may he keep you our friend.
-edward lews, clan brown
ps- lyndse, have you been to the internet sites TAKEASTAND.COM and QUESTFORAFAIRTRIALINNEWHAMPSHIRE.COM
i need stamps
i would like pictures of my home and my wife, etc.
do you know of any good patriotic lawyers where youre close you may be able to help
thank you- ed
"LIVE FREE OR DIE"
2
dear lyndse:
i'm sending you a follow up letter to ask you a favor. would you try to find me a layer that would help me put together a "writ of habeas corpus". i have my own funding but i need someone local that can file the paperwork, (local lawyer).
this whole thing is really starting to tick me off.
the way the u.s. attorney has created and fabricated the entire sham has got to stop. at this rate, we could lose everything. so, it's time to get angry and make it happen.
i need some help finding an honest lawyer here in ohio. to file in federal court. i need to see him or them here.
thank you, edward lewis, clan brown
a yello pages listing of attorneys could help also, time sensitive
ok-
so here's the deal.
we can't send stamps. don't send stamps, they get "lost" anyways. send $$. i'm looking for friendly attorneys, but any on capable of filing what ed wants needs to be ADMITTED TO PRACTISE IN FEDERAL COURT
i sent ed a quick note this morning with pics of the house and elaine and also the form for visitation, which i filled out. hopefully i'll be able to get in there soon, we'll see.
i have a line out on a substitute 1611 king james that i'm going to be able to send to ed.
DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE ED'S BIBLE ENDED UP? if someone can send it to me, i can try to bring it into the prison for him to have.
please pass along.
i'm going to be writing to elaine today to let her know what i learned and also i'll be sending ed the info for as many attorneys as i can find.
Footnotes to above reply:
(**) Elaine wrote me a 1-page letter of 11/12, postmarked 11/13,Tue. that I received in yesterday's mail, 11/15,Thu. that: "Can you get me the names & addresses of the 2 N.H. Senators and the 2 N.H. Reps in Washington? I plan on writing them, re: Ed's situation, enclosing a copy of Ed's letter, it would be good if you and others* did the same." Plus IF Margo has seen Ed's letter in "the latest issue of the KEENE FREE PRESS" and "if so, would she print the truth as she claims."? So: Scoop- have you seen it?, and if so, are you going to investigate and report on Ed's condition? * WHO here would like to do what Elaine is asking about, and if so, would you PLEASE printout the addresses for her, as I have enough stuff to do! Thanks! The websites to get their addresses are over at http://www.nh.gov/government/nhcong.html Personally I think this is a waste of time, but hope to be proven wrong. Plus WHY doesn't the F.C.I. there in Danbury, Conn. provide access to a library for this info!?
She also asks for Sven Wiberg's address that I found over at http://norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=legal&Group_ID=4551 [See also http://norml.com/index.cfm?Group_ID=4551&wtm_view=legal ] and that it is NOT P.O. Box 884, Durham, N.H. 03820 (that is actually the zip code for Dover; Durham at 03824 for UNH where I went to school) according to http://legal.respond.com/profile/1700000026/1713443 BUT to write to: Sven Wiberg, 2456 Lafayette Rd. ste 7, Portsmouth, N.H. 03801 Tel. 603-686-5454 http://www.nhcriminaldefense.com e-mail: mimirblue at comcast.net according to Les, his brother, who I had a nice chat with, who is the business manager there, and on "The New England Brass Band" too, see http://www.newenglandbrassband.org/html/1998_news.html for their having "learned to play in Salvation Army bands" like their great-grandfather, Colonel Sven Wiberg (1865-1947) over at http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/m/c/mcl1/WBSVNCOL.html -- Les telling me that Elaine -- cc: to you, when you write to Sven, he can refer your letter down to an attorney friend of there's in Connecticut for your habeas case.
Plus Elaine: to call Marie Miller about Bill in a few minutes at 603: 834-_____ (on the printout) who called me yesterday afternoon, me getting her voice recording earlier, to get a progress report on her son. (****)
Also: Bernie and I to drive over to see Jason and Danny maybe sometime during their weekday visiting day that Wednesdays is what's good for Bernie he said, so Jason + Danny: to put down 1-3 p.m. and 2-4 p.m. respectfully for the Wednesday after Thanksgiving, Nov. 28th? + Dec. 5, 12 + 19 until we get to see you. The latest question regarding Danny's court-ordered psycho-val, with the right to remain silent too, as my former legal counselor, J.A.S.,Jr. told me when I told my attorney Gerard Boyle, who is now a Concord District Court judge, that I was going through L.A.S. Legal Abuse Syndrome in the Town Tax Sale case that I eventually won the quitclaim deed, but not the stolen rents! and he suggested it to the judge Leonard S. Sawyer in the Plymouth District Court, who ordered it, but like I said, my non-attorney friend from law school who graduated but did not want to become a member of the B.A.R. said that "they" can put you away for up to thirty (30) days for observation, he told me to keep my mouth shut, that I did, and spent no time. This L.A.S. in the newspapers recently this week in the http://www.unionleader.com on ____day, Nov. ___ @ page #___ regarding the Caroline Douglas case. See also http://www.legalabusesyndrome.org/ for us having to deal with this "court dysfunction" as in their betrayals to their oaths of office to the constitution, as in 1-8-17 U.S. to NH RSA Ch. 123:1 as outlined. It not being an "Abuse of power and authority", but an abuse of power alright but withOUT any authority, as in NONE, zip, nada! No RSA 123:1 papers on file! And so WHERE is this supposed check-and-balance withIN the state against the Feds!? The "lack of accountability" is there, or in other words: nowhere to be found, thus leading to L.A.S. and Art. 10 Revolution, as the vent of this "stress" that "can and does lead to physical illness...and adds to Medicare and Social Security costs...and nobody is immune." cc: REDRESS2 at redressinc dot org with thanks, to add this Ed Brown case into the "Study".
E-mail: Elaine also write to "Send me your phone # + e-mail address so I can e-mail you." Say What? She has access to an e-mail machine? That's what my father had in 2002, some "Mailbug" devise, but that could not connect to the internet. So yes, Elaine my home phone # is: _________ and e-mail of also Jail4Judges at hotmail dot com ;) ___________________________
(***) I did also get Bob's letter to me of 11/9,Fri., but not postmarked until 11/14,Wed. in yesterday's mail, 11/15, so there was no way I could have made the 8:30 AM visit 11/14, Wed.; so Bob: Wednesdays is best for you too? And later in the morning is better, so that maybe Bernie and I both could visit then head over to see Danny and Jason that same afternoon, and what about Reno? Your letter suggesting that "We need to be able to coordinate defense strategies. Since the gov't wants to lump us all on one indictment, it is only fair that we are together in jail. I don't know what needs to happen for them to put us together. I hope you can find out and make it happen." is a very good suggestion, and so ASK anybody here for what motion, if any, anywhere exists for such as having happened in the past for case-law, or might one now, as coordinated by all four attorneys, do this?
Bob Wolffe also suggests "A News Conference...(since) What we did was to protect 2 Americans from being KILLED by Federal Agents! Remember Ruby Ridge! and many others. Our side of the story must be told. THEY made a big deal out of reporting all the armaments found at the Brown's. We need to make a BIG Deal out of the armaments the gov't brought to the Brown's in order to KILL them!...." He goes on to say that the people, not kooks at the 7/14 get together, are still looking for "the Gov't to answer a simple question. I think arguments like RSA 123:1 are valid, however they are too abstract for the average person to understand. People will be more receptive to Dave Von Kliest's song (Show Me the Law)...."
Yours truly, Joe H.
Modification: http://www.concordmonitor.com for this L.A.S. Fri., 11/9, p. #__ + Wed. 11/14 @ p. B4 "My Turn" by Margaret Copely of Franklin.
Quote from: keith in RI on November 16, 2007, 09:59 AM NHFT
joe the dvds are going in the mail today. i am putting them all in the same envelope addressed to c/o: all the names is that what you want or should i send them seperately addressed to each one individually? im thinking putting in one envelope and writing the names of each person on the outside sleeve? with an extra for anyone? (*)
i have also been in contact with someone for several months who lives in ohio about 45 minutes from the prison. she received her first letter from ed today, he is requesting help finding an attorney in ohio for the habeous?! she is willing and eager to help but not having a clue what to do or where to start. i told her i would get in touch with you and maybe put you guys in touch with each other. i told her maybe at the minimum she could help in delivering paperwork to lawyers so there is no waiting for mail? she is young but very eager to jump in. if you want her contact info email me and ill send it to you. she is also trying to get on eds visitation list (at my urging) i told her it might be good if the guards know he has regular visitors so they know not to beat on him for fear of it getting out. (**)
thirdly and off topic it seems like the liberty dollar story is true. the website has been updated with the legal documents and story. if you look at the search warrant it says very specifically they want the information on the regional currency officers and associates! they are going hunting! if you know any of these people i would warn them to get ready for search warrants to be served on them! (***)
(*) Yup, all five in one to the newspaper office is the way to go for them to distribute internally to each reporter and an extra one for the delivery person.
(**) I'll send you an e-mail in a few minutes. JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com [the same as here recorded.] That Youngstown, Ohio attorney must have gotten my packet of mail I sent him the other day. Maybe she can visit with him too, after she sees Ed.
(***) I presume that they already know this, but will call my friend Fred* here in N.H. who deals in these Liberty Dollars that they might be paying him a visit soon, and so like to have all of his records in one spot so they don't have to what? search the entire house!? What is this country coming too!?
- - Joe
* Yes, Fred already knows this, his wife just told me on the telephone.
im taking care of the addresses as we speak. im going to mail them out to elaine along with my package with the dvds in about 10 minutes. i have addresses for sven wiberg (lafayette rd) carol shea porter (1st district) paul hodes (2nd district)john sununu and judd gregg. along with phone numbers abd email addresses.
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 16, 2007, 12:54 PM NHFT
Footnotes to above reply:
(**) Elaine wrote me a 1-page letter of 11/12, postmarked 11/13,Tue. that I received in yesterday's mail, 11/15,Thu. that: "Can you get me the names & addresses of the 2 N.H. Senators and the 2 N.H. Reps in Washington? I plan on writing them, re: Ed's situation, enclosing a copy of Ed's letter, it would be good if you and others* did the same." Plus IF Margo has seen Ed's letter in "the latest issue of the KEENE FREE PRESS" and "if so, would she print the truth as she claims."? So: Scoop- have you seen it?, and if so, are you going to investigate and report on Ed's condition? * WHO here would like to do what Elaine is asking about, and if so, would you PLEASE printout the addresses for her, as I have enough stuff to do! Thanks! The websites to get their addresses are over at http://www.nh.gov/government/nhcong.html Personally I think this is a waste of time, but hope to be proven wrong. Plus WHY doesn't the F.C.I. there in Danbury, Conn. provide access to a library for this info!?
She also asks for Sven Wiberg's address that I found over at http://norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=legal&Group_ID=4551 [See also http://norml.com/index.cfm?Group_ID=4551&wtm_view=legal ] and that it is NOT P.O. Box 884, Durham, N.H. 03820 (that is actually the zip code for Dover; Durham at 03824 for UNH where I went to school) according to http://legal.respond.com/profile/1700000026/1713443 BUT to write to: Sven Wiberg, 2456 Lafayette Rd. ste 7, Portsmouth, N.H. 03801 Tel. 603-686-5454 http://www.nhcriminaldefense.com e-mail: mimirblue at comcast.net according to Les, his brother, who I had a nice chat with, who is the business manager there, and on "The New England Brass Band" too, see http://www.newenglandbrassband.org/html/1998_news.html for their having "learned to play in Salvation Army bands" like their great-grandfather, Colonel Sven Wiberg (1865-1947) over at http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/m/c/mcl1/WBSVNCOL.html -- Les telling me that Elaine -- cc: to you, when you write to Sven, he can refer your letter down to an attorney friend of there's in Connecticut for your habeas case.
Plus Elaine: to call Marie Miller about Bill in a few minutes at 603: 834-_____ (on the printout) who called me yesterday afternoon, me getting her voice recording earlier, to get a progress report on her son. (****)
Also: Bernie and I to drive over to see Jason and Danny maybe sometime during their weekday visiting day that Wednesdays is what's good for Bernie he said, so Jason + Danny: to put down 1-3 p.m. and 2-4 p.m. respectfully for the Wednesday after Thanksgiving, Nov. 28th? + Dec. 5, 12 + 19 until we get to see you. The latest question regarding Danny's court-ordered psycho-val, with the right to remain silent too, as my former legal counselor, J.A.S.,Jr. told me when I told my attorney Gerard Boyle, who is now a Concord District Court judge, that I was going through L.A.S. Legal Abuse Syndrome in the Town Tax Sale case that I eventually won the quitclaim deed, but not the stolen rents! and he suggested it to the judge Leonard S. Sawyer in the Plymouth District Court, who ordered it, but like I said, my non-attorney friend from law school who graduated but did not want to become a member of the B.A.R. said that "they" can put you away for up to thirty (30) days for observation, he told me to keep my mouth shut, that I did, and spent no time. This L.A.S. in the newspapers recently this week in the http://www.unionleader.com on ____day, Nov. ___ @ page #___ regarding the Caroline Douglas case. See also http://www.legalabusesyndrome.org/ for us having to deal with this "court dysfunction" as in their betrayals to their oaths of office to the constitution, as in 1-8-17 U.S. to NH RSA Ch. 123:1 as outlined. It not being an "Abuse of power and authority", but an abuse of power alright but withOUT any authority, as in NONE, zip, nada! No RSA 123:1 papers on file! And so WHERE is this supposed check-and-balance withIN the state against the Feds!? The "lack of accountability" is there, or in other words: nowhere to be found, thus leading to L.A.S. and Art. 10 Revolution, as the vent of this "stress" that "can and does lead to physical illness...and adds to Medicare and Social Security costs...and nobody is immune." cc: REDRESS2 at redressinc dot org with thanks, to add this Ed Brown case into the "Study".
E-mail: Elaine also write to "Send me your phone # + e-mail address so I can e-mail you." Say What? She has access to an e-mail machine? That's what my father had in 2002, some "Mailbug" devise, but that could not connect to the internet. So yes, Elaine my home phone # is: _________ and e-mail of also Jail4Judges at hotmail dot com ;) ___________________________
(***) I did also get Bob's letter to me of 11/9,Fri., but not postmarked until 11/14,Wed. in yesterday's mail, 11/15, so there was no way I could have made the 8:30 AM visit 11/14, Wed.; so Bob: Wednesdays is best for you too? And later in the morning is better, so that maybe Bernie and I both could visit then head over to see Danny and Jason that same afternoon, and what about Reno? Your letter suggesting that "We need to be able to coordinate defense strategies. Since the gov't wants to lump us all on one indictment, it is only fair that we are together in jail. I don't know what needs to happen for them to put us together. I hope you can find out and make it happen." is a very good suggestion, and so ASK anybody here for what motion, if any, anywhere exists for such as having happened in the past for case-law, or might one now, as coordinated by all four attorneys, do this?
Bob Wolffe also suggests "A News Conference...(since) What we did was to protect 2 Americans from being KILLED by Federal Agents! Remember Ruby Ridge! and many others. Our side of the story must be told. THEY made a big deal out of reporting all the armaments found at the Brown's. We need to make a BIG Deal out of the armaments the gov't brought to the Brown's in order to KILL them!...." He goes on to say that the people, not kooks at the 7/14 get together, are still looking for "the Gov't to answer a simple question. I think arguments like RSA 123:1 are valid, however they are too abstract for the average person to understand. People will be more receptive to Dave Von Kliest's song (Show Me the Law)...."
Yours truly, Joe H.
Modification: http://www.concordmonitor.com for this L.A.S. Fri., 11/9, p. #__ + Wed. 11/14 @ p. B4 "My Turn" by Margaret Copely of Franklin.
Quote from: keith in RI on November 16, 2007, 02:20 PM NHFT
im taking care of the addresses as we speak. im going to mail them out to elaine along with my package with the dvds in about 10 minutes. i have addresses for sven wiberg (lafayette rd) carol shea porter (1st district) paul hodes (2nd district)john sununu and judd gregg. along with phone numbers abd email addresses....
Thanks Keith. I could have gotten that list out to Elaine as the fastest yesterday IF only I made it to the Post Office in the a.m. and worked on it right away, but today the next fastest, and so thank you VERY much for this for her, as if I was to print it out today, I might have gotten it postmarked today too, but you being in R.I. closer to maybe get to her by tomorrow? or Monday. Now that's fast! :o
The latest replies with website copies too, to print out, not before the 5:30 p.m. mail-truck leaves this afternoon from Concord as usual, but to copy in duplicate tonight at KINKO'S before 10 p.m. and mail tomorrow to hopefully get to them (E+E + 4 Freedom Keepers) by next Wednesday before Thanksgiving. Every Friday from 5-7 p.m. at The Capitol Convenience on North Main St., Concord, they have a different Beer Distributor there giving out Free Samples with free pizza, and a buy a 6-pack get a free drinking glass, bottle opener, hat, key chain and T-shirt free too, so that's where I'll be at 5-:15 p.m. then over to see Bill Miller with his mother Marie at the State Hospital at 5:30 p.m./ they have a nice cafeteria there too: good stuff cheap, dinners for only $3.00 with salad, extra for drinks, or just drink water from the bubbler there; and books on take-out to Jason + Danny on Sunday. (My former lawyer turned Judge Gerard Boyle of Plymouth for Concord court eats lunches there.) During the afternoons the gift shop is open for 50-cent bags of fresh cooked popcorn, you can take in too with a soda is what my friend's mother used to do when she was visited her son with bi-polar disorder O.K. now back at his father's house in Laconia.
I told Marie not to expect an early release and more like in February (so Dec. 4 trial postponed?), since it takes months, and months to first get to that half-way house across the parking lot for campus rights to walk around there, then downtown, and if all goes well, then to be released to complete freedom is better than "liberty", since at-liberty can mean for as far as the chain reaches. Like a sailor at-liberty, but on a time chain to report back to the ship at the dock by a certain time or be A.W.O.L.
JSH
P.S.
I did also call Attorney Sandra Jean Finucane in Gahanna, Ohio 43230 [711 Waybaugh Drive] at 614-471-4163 to get back to me by either e-mail +/or telephone call, if she'd be interested in taking Ed's Habeas Corpus case. The Town/City of Gahanna being only #____ miles away from either Elkton, or Youngstown, Ohio? To check the map later. ____ [or maybe an associate to take the case.]
If you should call her to second this, third, etc. (maybe a team request here might get her very interested) she does have a system in place where you must give your name first, and then over to a recorder for a what looks to be, an unlimited time to leave your message.
re: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/atty_reg/Public_AttorneyDetails.asp?ID=0067063
JSH
Got a nice letter from Elaine dated 11/07. She said she received the October Keene Free Press I sent. Will probably type in the letter later.
can someon post the addresses to give money to reno jason and bob? im sending 5 dollar money orders to each of there accounts and another 5 to dannys defense fund. i just dont know how to donate to reno jason or bob.....are they federal prisoners? do they have prison inmate numbers?
Quote from: keith in RI on November 17, 2007, 03:53 PM NHFT
can someon post the addresses to give money to reno jason and bob? im sending 5 dollar money orders to each of there accounts and another 5 to dannys defense fund. i just dont know how to donate to reno jason or bob.....are they federal prisoners? do they have prison inmate numbers?
Keith, See my Reply #6421 Of Oct. 30th @ 10:24 PM on page 429 here for this list, that was updated to #314 Daniel Webster Highway for Bob and Reno (the #326 from the old telephone book, the 314 from Valeri is from the website for the new jail). I think somebody was looking into their federal numbers, but not finalized unless and until they land in the BOP system that we're trying to pre-vent. -- Joe
P.S. I just sent out my latest packet to each of the 2+4=6 as postmarked this morning to arrive early next week.
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 17, 2007, 04:15 PM NHFTI think somebody was looking into their federal numbers, but not finalized unless and until they land in the BOP system that we're trying to pre-vent. -- Joe
According to their captors they are federal prisoners but do not have numbers assigned. I am transcribing a letter I got from Ed today. I will post it as soon as I have it done.
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 16, 2007, 03:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on November 16, 2007, 02:20 PM NHFT....
...then over to see Bill Miller with his mother Marie at the State Hospital at 5:30 p.m./ ....
I saw Bill with his mother last night to 8:00 p.m. closing time. He reminded me that he was the coordinator when the compound first got to be THE site of the standoff, and thanked him for that affidavit idea, still wondering if they're in the federal file. Although the military court-martial never got activated against McAuliffe, he still thinks he ought to face the music somewhere, and probably will, when the Maine judge Singal to where he sent the cases to for pre-trial in Portland rules on the Motion(s) for Discovery* of the RSA 123:1 papers that they do not exist from 1-8-17 U.S. Const., and so to grant any and all four Motions to Dismiss*. The question being: which attorney will get this into paperwork for processing first? Or will there be a coordinated defense effort to combat their concerted effort to try them all at once? WHEN, WHO, and WHY the wait? Reno said last month (or in September?) that his attorney David Bownes was going to do this* rather than that state habeas in MAss. when he and Jason were down in Essex, but all I see is NOTHING, nothing, and more n-o-t-h-i-n-g. Like cattle grazing out in the pasture getting fed as going to the slaughter. One of Danny's neighbors at the jail was/is (still there>), up from MAss. as a federal inmate, and I sent Danny the paperwork that the MAss. Secretary of State is also in non-compliance with their statute as reported about by Attorney Larry Becraft on his website, for that double-filing state too, but what is he doing with that info? The way I look at it right now, Danny is like the head cattle, with the others just wagging their tails. If this were a war, wouldn't they have #__ maneuvers here and there to surround the enemy and then attack to win the battle(s) and then the war? Are they going to depose them, or be pounded with interrogatories? I've heard of chit-chats they've had with or from to their ears and maybe mouths open saying stuff too in return, but where has that gotten anybody? Nowhere. WHY talk with liars and thieves!? Such scum of the earth must be dealt with the truth! Like Harry Truman used to say: They heard the truth and think it's hell. Well isn't it about time they have the truth shoved in their face!? Rebuke the bastards is a loud voice, straight to their face, causing their ear drums to burst if need be. See http://www.bartleby.com/81/15885.html "The voice of a Stentor. A very loud voice. Stentor was a Greek herald in the Trojan war. According to Homer, his voice was as loud as that of fifty men combined."
JSH
P.S. Here's why I did originally start to write this, and got off on a tangent. Bill's hearing on his competency of whatever is scheduled for Monday morning at __:__ o'clock (time unknown, so 8-9 am?). And anybody is welcome to sit and back him up. I think so far: his mother Marie, Bernie and I will be there.
Received today:
Quote
Page 1
MISTRIAL IS THE ONLY NOISE I SHOULD BE HEARING
Wed Nov. 14, 2007 AD
Dear Rick:
I thank you for all of your efforts. I'm beginning to find myself stunned by our inability to find counsel that can or will help us with clear fact of record of mistrial for many reasons.
Judge denial:
1. all evidence
2. all witnesses
3. all proper cross examination
4. tampered with the jury twice
5. denied 44 plus motions - Good motions
6. wore the robe of prosecutor
7. wore the robe of defendant
8. wore the robe of jury
9. wore the robe of judge
10. and much more, as well as stuff I probably havent even thought about.
What am I missing here? The judge should be disbarred. Has the entire judicial and bar disintegrated into uselessness. All we need to do is get back into court and it's over. I obviously do not understand procedure - That's why we need counsel.
Page 2
1. first step needed is an injunction on the property - hold up the I.R.S.
2. We need a proper Habeas Corpus
Court said they would favor lawyer submitting
3. We then need to file in the same court in Concord motion to vacate or set aside or correct a sentence thats the next step
4. We then need to file an appeal.
A. File for mistrial or for no due process
B. "Reversable error" or C. "Writ of Error"
5. and or file for new trial
My God! It's a done deal. The trial is tainted - Mistrial on Record. The record shows clearly that the judge violated his own rules over and over again.
The money is available now if we move now. Otherwise all is lost.
I'm in extreme ernest now because of this. Jesus - This is so simple. Whats wrong. This is scaring me now. This should have been easy.
Ed Brown
Love You Guys
Page 3
There is no one out of 300 million People qualified to help us. An attorney needs to speak to me. Face to face.
I need an attorney to get me able to communicate from here before they move me to God knows where. I have to be in New Hampshire according to procedure. Elaine as well.
This can be done. I need counsel. Damn - I'm beginning to think we did the wrong thing.
Getting nervous.
Ed.
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 17, 2007, 05:13 PM NHFT
Received today:
Quote
Page 1
MISTRIAL...
Wed Nov. 14, 2007 AD
Dear Rick:
I thank you for all of your efforts. I'm beginning to find myself stunned by our inability to find counsel that can or will help us with clear fact of record of mistrial for many reasons.
...
The judge should be disbarred. Has the entire(*) judicial and bar disintegrated into uselessness. All we need to do is get back into court and it's over. I obviously do not understand procedure - That's why we need counsel.(**)
Page 2
1. first step needed is an injunction on the property - hold up the I.R.S.
2. We need a proper Habeas Corpus
Court said they would favor lawyer submitting
3. We then need to file in the same court in Concord motion to vacate or set aside or correct a sentence thats the next step
4. We then need to file an appeal.
A. File for mistrial or for no due process
B. "Reversable error" or C. "Writ of Error"
5. and or file for new trial...
The money is available now if we move now. Otherwise all is lost...
Ed Brown
Love You Guys
Page 3
There is no one out of 300 million People qualified to help us. An attorney(***) needs to speak to me. Face to face.
I need an attorney(***) to get me able to communicate from here before they move me to God knows where. I have to be in New Hampshire according to procedure. Elaine as well.
This can be done. I need counsel.(**) Damn - I'm beginning to think we did the wrong thing.
Getting nervous.
Ed.
Thanks C7,
--The (*)= "entire "judicial and bar" has NOT disintegrated into uselessness. I note Ed uses the titles of: (1) counsel (**), and (2) attorney (***) twice in his letter, four times for both.
--The "injunction" on the property can start with his right of homestead claims to certain items, like I've already written about. What is Elaine's son doing about getting those items? He writes that "money is available now", but where? and how much? plus more from the sale of homestead items.
--So the federal court in Youngstown wrote back that they favor an attorney on the habeas? That Youngstown attorney has the papers I sent to him, so for me to call him or him to call me, or even visit Ed? And THEN to vacate, set aside or have a mis-trial declared, and what? a new trial? [Forget an appeal to a double-filing state in MAss. in non-compliance]. WHO wants a new trial, when he's out? and everything back to square one. The gov't?
--Plus WHY was Ed so down on Fox-TV News? Just because the Regional Boys might have done a lousy job in reporting the news, as them putting their spotlights on the branches, while the roots are rotting, doesn't mean that the ENTIRE Fox system is corrupt; just those bad apple reporters. A KEY question to ask them is: Did you consult your Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst? Or did you merely go up to middle level? Or no level, just winging it?
--The reason I question this is because I just saw the last 30 minutes (of what? a one-hour program?) on Channel 16 here of "American Perspectives" from 9:30-10:00 p.m. with guest speaker, Andrew Napolitano, Fox News SENIOR Judicial Analyst, who condemned John Adams for the Alien & Sedition Act that Thos. Jefferson opposed, and who also condemned Abe Lincoln for doing away with the right of habeas corpus! Like that N.H. Judge Steve Houran, former Ass't A.G. who wouldn't give Danny a hearing on his "prima facie" case! With NO re-actions either way from the County Attorney, nor her client: the Jail Super. in Dover. Maybe Danny or Ed might like to hire him? On the screen it read that he was a Superior Court Judge in N.J. 1987-95 and now in private practice. Him telling stories of the COPs to his living room at 3:30 in the morning for a search warrant, and him telling them: (a) that without more probable cause to get lost, and (b) of 2 1/2 years later vacating the ones he signed because of this and that.
--Him saying the Patriot Act was about 315 pages long, and the Reps in Congress given only 15 minutes to read it; with only two Members of Congress who did read it before the vote, with one dead now, and the other who voted against it too. Re: The F.B.I. to raid your house while you're in church, plant listening devices, and the local COPs to chalk it down as an unsolved break-in not to be investigated. Just like the FISA and Privacy Act for Banks, or financial institutions, but that on Dec. 13th '03 for such Bank Act, on voice vote only, THE same day that Sadam Hussein was found, it re-defined financial institutions to be a restaurant, hotel, travel agent, your lawyer, telephone company, computer server, the P.O., etc. and they can't tell you of this secret search, and if they do they could face up to 5 years in prison, and if you find out, that you have 10 days to contest these administrative search warrants withOUT probable cause, to a judge AFTER the fact. This re-defining not discovered until Jan. 29 '04 and this type of crap, a violation of the 4th Amendment he said that is supposed to be sacred as from the 1215 Magna Charta (he called "The" Magna Charta by mistake, as Magna, technically mean THE Great, and Charter). Anyway he sounds like an excellent attorney to get on board this case, and at the end of his speech, at the Ritz Carlton on 10/26/07 in Washington, D.C. somebody said to have a nice trip back to New York, so maybe if not for Ed's habeas, then maybe over across the border into Connecticut for Elaine.
--The speech sponsored by http://reason.com , and he's the author of the book: "A Nation of Sheep" - very appropriate, as per the cattle comment I made above too I'd say. - JSH
P.S. For his book, see: http://www.amazon.com/Nation-Sheep-Andrew-P-Napolitano/dp/1595550976 from the original 1961 version by Wm. J. Lederer, over at http://www.constantreader.org/v3/sixtyone.html with that "very" interesting story about what the original purpose of what a "public information officer" is supposed to do, instead having "become prostituted." cc: with thanks to Carol Van Houten, e-mail: carol at constantreader dot org.
I would imagine that it is going to be hard to get this case heard in NH. I think pretty much everyone knows who Ed and Elaine Brown are. We've got to keep trying. If every one of the people that pledged their very lives for Ed and Elaine would just call one attorney we could eliminate the dead weight pretty quick.
Tommy Cryer, Mac MacPherson and Marc Victor all said they would be glad to represent Ed and then refuse to take or return calls. This case must be a "career ender". Surely there's got to an attorney in this country that thinks what the government is doing is wrong.
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 18, 2007, 03:21 AM NHFT
... Surely there's got to an attorney in this country that thinks what the government is doing is wrong.
Like Andrew Napolitano, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Napolitano
Has anybody heard him on his "Brain and the Judge" radio program? 9-12 noon E.T. XM and Sirius satellite radio.
His 2004 book: "Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks its Own Laws". Yeah!!!!!!! When the Feds take an oath to the Constitution 1-8-17 and are told to report to the State Office of Secretary of State (or Governor's Office-Florida) in the double-filing states (like N.H. [RSA Ch. 123:1] + MAss.) and don't! and want to play like in the single-filing states of (Maine + Vermont).
He works in Manhattan and lives in _________ (City or Town) in Sussex County, New Jersey?
Ladies and gentleman: I present to you the next Vice President of the United States: Andrew P. Napolitano, and Mr. President: Ron Paul.
JSH
Modification: Attn: computer guru: the message page to Andrew Napolitano over at http://www.judgenap.com/contact.shtml is not working. I tried to alert the CreateLLC that built it but their page has gone haywire too. Anybody have a solution? What's his tel. # in N.Y. City?
More paperback-book westerns going to the Dover Jail today to add to their list(?):
1.) Slick on the Draw/ Double-Cross Dinero by Tom West
2.) Triggering Texan, by Tom West (also: Nothing but my Gun) a double-book too
3.) Nancy's Dude Ranch, by Marguerite Nelson
plus a dozen more that I received for free, the westerns* @ 25-cents each from the local thrift shop.
Joe
* They already have the CALLAGHEN one by Louis L'Amour, inside description: THE RIVER OF GOLD, for me to read later... [the first one I delivered to there a few weeks ago]. Plus another one I think I'll send for some signed photos from "THE SACKETTS" a major NBC-TV drama, starring: _______________.
joe im looking for the addresses to send money? are these the right ones? or do i send it to a different address like ed and elaine? i sent an email to valerie she said to send bob a money order directly to him is this how i do it for the other 2? (reno and jason) dannys i will send to his brother for his defense. do you have an address for that? i havent heard back from his brother yet. (it is his brother right? i dont even know)
Quote from: keith in RI on Yesterday at 04:23 PM
can someon post the addresses to give money to reno jason and bob? im sending 5 dollar money orders to each of there accounts and another 5 to dannys defense fund. i just dont know how to donate to reno jason or bob.....are they federal prisoners? do they have prison inmate numbers?
Keith, See my Reply #6421 Of Oct. 30th @ 10:24 PM on page 429 here for this list, that was updated to #314 Daniel Webster Highway for Bob and Reno (the #326 from the old telephone book, the 314 from Valeri is from the website for the new jail). I think somebody was looking into their federal numbers, but not finalized unless and until they land in the BOP system that we're trying to pre-vent. -- Joe
P.S. I just sent out my latest packet to each of the 2+4=6 as postmarked this morning to arrive early next week.
Here's the addresses I used and they haven't come back yet:
Cirino Gonzales
326 Daniel Webster Highway
Boscawen, NH 03303
Jason Gerhard
Strafford County Jail
266 County Farm Road
Dover, NH 03821-0799
Oh, I got a letter from Jason too. The Strafford Co. addy is right.
Quote from: keith in RI on November 18, 2007, 01:01 PM NHFT
... dannys i will send to his brother for his defense. do you have an address for that?
The address is over at http://danrileyld.blogspot.com I think.
I saw Jason and Danny this afternoon in Dover.
Jason says his attorney is looking into HOW the Feds get established within the states, and is talking with Reno's attorney about this too. [I guess they don't believe what fellow attorney Larry Becraft put up on his website as too basic!? in that it can't be that simple!? And what of the ramifications? WHO CARES!? That's none of their concern. Either the filing took place or not, that one simple fact, like for an analogy: either you put the coins in the slots at the laundromat or not, you push the lever and see what happens. ] Reno was the one who was reluctant to try the Habeas in MAss. preferring his attorney file a Motion for Discovery for the RSA Ch. 123:1 receipt, that does NOT exist as already proven on the state side by the certificate from Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State, but that MIGHT have existed at one time in the past? Nobody knows, so the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the Feds producing some receipt to PROVE jurisdiction, that when found does NOT exist like down at the Federal Archives on Trapello Road in Waltham, MAss. for all of New England, then Jason will be the first one released to freedom, with the others to follow on a Motion to Dismiss. His attorney gave him a copy of "The Federalist Papers" by Hamilton, Madison and Jay, and he said: where are the anti-Federalist papers? ;)
Danny has some paperwork to be copied tomorrow when the photocopier gal returns (from her 1-week vacation? was the excuse they gave for a delay of 7 days) to mail out Monday night, postmarked Tuesday, and for me to Shepardize an 1867 Reynolds case in Vol. ___ U.S. Reports ____ in #9 on his 15-page paperwork that'll really do a number on the Feds! More details later, as to where to file and with who to do what later.
Both inmates:
(1) say the food is O.K. there, but Jason wanting to know how much better than elsewhere, like how many vitamins or calories in this and that like they do at MacDonald's on their charts per meal sheets you sometimes see as a placemat, and how many watts per fluorescent light etc. all under the RSA Ch. 91-A Right to Know statute. Me saying that the nurse there ought to know this and be part of her job description, or maybe that of the chef, and maintenance man. +
(2) were told by me that even though the local judge Steven Houran, former assistant A.G. let the Superintendent and County Attorney woman off-the-hook in not having to have to answer Danny's Petition, that they still ought to give their executive opinion on the merits of his supposed prima-facie case, especially since the Super. has in-house counsel, and maybe before and after the fact, for Jason and Danny respectfully, so that if/when he agrees with Jason, then maybe the Super. himself could do a county-level Art. 74, to ask the judge for an opinion or show-cause opinion of WHY he should NOT let Jason out on his habeas to him. Sort of like Abe Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, like talked about by Anthony last night, so what? Abe was in the executive branch, and so he instructed his officers not to seek 2nd opinions from the judiciary?
Plus in reference to my Right to Know, I told him the 4:00 p.m. deadline to the N.H. Dept. of Administrative Services this Tue., Nov. 20th is fast approaching for a copy of the State-Fed contract, etc. that the BOP says exists, but that the State says does not exist, the Feds billed $43.xx/day per federal inmate on a written policy form backed up by nothing!
JSH
the only address for danny is his address for the prison and a link for paypal donations to the defense fund no mailing address to send money orders??
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 18, 2007, 05:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on November 18, 2007, 01:01 PM NHFT
... dannys i will send to his brother for his defense. do you have an address for that?
The address is over at http://danrileyld.blogspot.com I think.
I saw Jason and Danny this afternoon in Dover.
Jason says his attorney is looking into HOW the Feds get established within the states, and is talking with Reno's attorney about this too. [I guess they don't believe what fellow attorney Larry Becraft put up on his website as too basic!? in that it can't be that simple!? And what of the ramifications? WHO CARES!? That's none of their concern. Either the filing took place or not, that one simple fact, like for an analogy: either you put the coins in the slots at the laundromat or not, you push the lever and see what happens. ] Reno was the one who was reluctant to try the Habeas in MAss. preferring his attorney file a Motion for Discovery for the RSA Ch. 123:1 receipt, that does NOT exist as already proven on the state side by the certificate from Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State, but that MIGHT have existed at one time in the past? Nobody knows, so the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the Feds producing some receipt to PROVE jurisdiction, that when found does NOT exist like down at the Federal Archives on Trapello Road in Waltham, MAss. for all of New England, then Jason will be the first one released to freedom, with the others to follow on a Motion to Dismiss. His attorney gave him a copy of "The Federalist Papers" by Hamilton, Madison and Jay, and he said: where are the anti-Federalist papers? ;)
Danny has some paperwork to be copied tomorrow when the photocopier gal returns (from her 1-week vacation? was the excuse they gave for a delay of 7 days) to mail out Monday night, postmarked Tuesday, and for me to Shepardize an 1867 Reynolds case in Vol. ___ U.S. Reports ____ in #9 on his 15-page paperwork that'll really do a number on the Feds! More details later, as to where to file and with who to do what later.
Both inmates:
(1) say the food is O.K. there, but Jason wanting to know how much better than elsewhere, like how many vitamins or calories in this and that like they do at MacDonald's on their charts per meal sheets you sometimes see as a placemat, and how many watts per fluorescent light etc. all under the RSA Ch. 91-A Right to Know statute. Me saying that the nurse there ought to know this and be part of her job description, or maybe that of the chef, and maintenance man. +
(2) were told by me that even though the local judge Steven Houran, former assistant A.G. let the Superintendent and County Attorney woman off-the-hook in not having to have to answer Danny's Petition, that they still ought to give their executive opinion on the merits of his supposed prima-facie case, especially since the Super. has in-house counsel, and maybe before and after the fact, for Jason and Danny respectfully, so that if/when he agrees with Jason, then maybe the Super. himself could do a county-level Art. 74, to ask the judge for an opinion or show-cause opinion of WHY he should NOT let Jason out on his habeas to him. Sort of like Abe Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, like talked about by Anthony last night, so what? Abe was in the executive branch, and so he instructed his officers not to seek 2nd opinions from the judiciary?
Plus in reference to my Right to Know, I told him the 4:00 p.m. deadline to the N.H. Dept. of Administrative Services this Tue., Nov. 20th is fast approaching for a copy of the State-Fed contract, etc. that the BOP says exists, but that the State says does not exist, the Feds billed $43.xx/day per federal inmate on a written policy form backed up by nothing!
JSH
Quote from: keith in RI on November 18, 2007, 07:09 PM NHFT
the only address for danny is his address for the prison and a link for paypal donations to the defense fund no mailing address to send money orders??
So Bill: Do you want to list an address here?
Or maybe somebody could volunteer as a "courier"?*
I don't say this "courier"* lightly, because that is exactly what Andrew Jackson was, during the War of 1812 and only 14 years old: A messenger, esp. one on urgent or official business, from the Latin currere, to run; like Bob Wolfe, the courier when the U.S. Postal Service was shut down by the Marshals. SHAME ON YOU Marshal Monier and goon-power deluxe, you are the scum of the earth! When next I see you I will TELL you to: "clean my boots!" >:D Like the British officer did tell young Jackson. An "officer" yes, but of WHAT? The enemy! So with the official RSA Ch. 123:1 certification of non-filing from 1-8-17 U.S. Const., I officially say to you Monier et al, the gang(*) of thieves, liars and scumbags deluxe: CLEAN MY BOOTS! 8)
See the http://www.history.com Channel 58 for this right now, of that courier* mention at the beginning of this 2-hour program from 8-10 p.m. [repeats on: _______], and with the http://www.google.com search for: "Andrew Jackson" "clean my boots", (in quotes) it goes to THE one and only website of: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/America/United_States/_Topics/history/_Texts/MACPRI/17*.html #152 to be exact. [yes, that's an asterisk, "*", but is supposed to be highlighted].
So cc: to Bob: These ought to be your words for when "they" next send you to the interrogation room: Tell them: to "Clean my boots"! ;)
Best wishes to you Bob for being like our future President was, to tell them who the real "official" is, is the truth goes marching on, and maybe to get Nancy Sinatra to sing her "these boots were made for walking...and these boots will walk all over you(*)".
-- Joe
An OPEN LETTER;
To: The United States of America
U.S. Department of Justice
Attn: H. Marshall Jarrett, Counsel
Office of Professional Responsibility
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 3266
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel. (202) _____________
e-mail: _____________
http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/process.htm
Dear Counselor Jarrett:
--According to your "How to File a Complaint" you're "limited to reviewing allegations of misconduct against Department of Justice employees" and so my complaint is as a witness and participant in the I.R.S. v. Ed Brown case #06-cr-71-01/02-SM up here at the U.S. District Court, Concord, New Hampshire.
--My complaint is that exculpatory evidence* was given to the prosecutor, Attorney William Morse DURING the trial, but that he refused to give information about it to either the judge "or" any of the defendants (including Elaine Brown too), as required by Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure #16(c) on page 192, but with the "and" word for both the judge "and" defendant(s) here in New Hampshire by our State Rule 3.8. One of the problems being that Wm. Morse is NOT a Member in Good Standing with the N.H. Bar Association, so would you please also "contact" his "state bar disciplinary organization" in the State of: ____________ to please have them notified too, as by a copy of this letter, to please get back to me, as I'd like to file an official complaint there with them too. Reference: http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/
--* The exculpatory evidence was a copy of my gold-sealed certificate of Thu., Jan. 11th, 2007 that I did get from the N.H. Office of Secretary of State with the summary of the federal non-filing to N.H.'s R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 as from Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. See your own Attorney General Manual #664 on this at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm and especially for the James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 @ 142-43 (1937) in that it "embraces courthouses"!
--The federal government had courthouses in Exeter and Portsmouth, N.H. before moving to Littleton and Concord, formerly at 55, now 53 Pleasant Street in the Warran B. Rudman Building at Concord, and before that at where the Legislative Office Building is now behind and to the west of the Capitol/ State House at 109 North Main Street. Both Concord locations also housed the U.S. Post Office at both locations but is now seperated and down the road at Loudon Road.
--The point being that Attorney Morse knew and still does know of this, but that his office, under the direction of U.S. Attorney Thomas P. Colantuono, appointed by President George Bush, continues to "litigate"** against the "Four Freedom Keepers" in the Brown case but withOUT "authority"**. Reference "exception" clause in your The Report of "Waste, Fraud, Abuse, or Misconduct(*)" and "Report of Violations of Civil Rights or Civil Liberties" over at http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/FOIA/hotline.htm and http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/FOIA/hotline2.htm respectfully.
--So now would you please review this allegation of misconduct(*) that is really ONE STEP BEYOND, the -mis part to an actual mal-administration, in my opinion, to determine "whether further investigation is warranted." http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/proc-hdl.htm As in to "open an investigation" and notify "the attorney whom the allegation has been made and request" a written response from him.
Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059.
pc:
(1) Thomas P. Colantuono, U.S. Attorney
55 Pleasant Street, 3rd floor
Concord, N.H. 03301
603: 225-1552
USANHWebmaster at usdoj dot gov
(2) Marlene M. Wahowiak, Special Counsel for Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts, Office of Professional Responsibility, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 3529, Washington, D.C. 20530, Tel. 202: 514-3365 (FOIA Requester Service Center) [or -3365= FOIA Publuic Liason: Michael Caramelo].
Ref: http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/foia.htm from http://www.usdoj.gov/contact-us.html
Please tell me: yes, or no; of whether or not there has ever been such a complaint as this based upon the non-filing of the feds within any state, and if so, which states, and what file(s) to please copy for me to share with others at this website wherein this letter is posted, and so to process this request in accordance with 5 USC 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) "without any charge". The list of single and double-filing states over at Attorney Larry Becraft's excellent website of http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm from which I've found that N.H. and MAss. are double-filing states with the Registry of Deeds and the Office of Secretary of State, also: Florida, but not with the Sec. of State, but with the governor's office, all in non-compliance with the latter; and both Maine and Vermont as single-filing states in compliance with the former; also for both Ohio and Connecticut to where Ed & Elaine have been sent by the U.S. Marshal to where Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Corpus are in the works, to in-effect, have a mis-trial declared as this N.H. court and its prosecutors as out-of-order! Hopefully the new Attorney General, Michael Mukasey as of his first day on-the-job, Fri., Nov. 9th, of less than a fortnight ago, to maybe deal with this on a nation-wide basis. http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/ so as to avoid this hypocrisy mentality in HOW can the government expect respect when it itself is an outlaw!? In New Hampshire we have the Article 10 Right to Revolt against such outlaws! and by our Second Amendment rights if need be, and especially when in a defensive rather than offensive manner, or in other words as the creator state over the creature federal created by us the host, but which you all are parasites needed to be taught a lesson in respect! Let's both of us get to the truth of this matter for a conclusion we can all agree with. Thank you very much!
received a letter from ed today and also a letter from ed to elaine to be forwarded!
in my letter i told ed danny was indigent but didnt explain myself enough to say that danny wanted the feds to pay for his stuff ie: paper pens etc and not take it from him. i also had just read the post someone put up saying bob was considering a plea, but that was before the new indictment.
sir keith:
really! the pictures were just what i needed. it was a fix- brought tears to me, of gratitude.
why is danny "indigent" if he has no friends then please forgo me and send what you can to him. spread the word and please check on the other men cirrino, jason, and bob.
thank you for the funds it all helps. outside im worth a couple million in here ive been an indigent. it all nuts.
oh i just see in your letter their taking dannys money? whats that about? it looks like bob should be home soon-so should we all. now im angry.
keith i need a smart angry honorable lawyer. i need him to help get my funds in the property out so we can begin the battle in the proper manner. put the word out for me will you. that detention facility in rhode island in central falls is one of the suits.
believe me keith when i say to you, "something fearful and wonderful is coming" its already started. thats why the federal agents are running around looking for it. it cant be found that way.however get excited because it is really coming.
pictures are worth a thousand words.
in the love of brotherhood
thank you
sir edward lewis clan brown
"for god and honor everything."
ps the more they hurt us shows us the more they fear us. me thinks they try to hard.
here is eds letter to elaine:
keith would you send this to lady elaine?
dear lady elaine:
my love, ive put myself into this attitude, this play acting or role of lord and lady with you,-thats more real than not.play along with me. it helps keep one stable.
not knowing what your thinking it gets hard to converse. im sure it will get easier when you send me a letter or we are able to speak with each other.
your always a pretty positive lady elaine, thats one of the many reasons i miss you so. so stay positive as i will, no matter how hard untill i hold you again
i cant believe god has this situation in store for us. it will be over when he says it will. i just hope its pretty soon. we need to help ourselves as much as we can (nothing like stating the obvious) , of course, thats why we need to try everything.
im having a hard time believing that the patriot movement will allow this to go on without some legal intervention. i cant do anything from here untill i speak to a lawyer. thats all this system will allow. now, how do i find one without someone from the outside. we do not give a retainer untill we both , or one of us has spoken to them. make damn sure they are with us!
i have a one month beard. they wouldnt let me shave for two weeks, so, wen they let me shave twice a week, i said no thanks. i would always look like i had a 5 oclock shadow. its salt and pepper, mostly salt, with a dark band at the point of my chin and jowls. i think youll like it.
i just checked my blood pressure 114/78. 5mg lisinopril once a day. im sending two paper flowers made from napkins and one airplane i call the office jet. ive also included a wrist band that could also be used as a stem for one of the flowers. the braid is made from toilet paper. paper is just another form of rope material.
braid instructions on other sheet. the braids are out. could be used as rope. they took them. their paranoid about everything.
i ran out of ink. 1 pen 1 week. its the 9th of november and i noticed i hadnt finished this letter . their not letting get or receive any mail or call anyone. i believe they have me and you in lockdown is because they want to sell off everything we own first. then we have no way to fight back they will relax their paranoia more. thats why we need a lawyer now!they know that once we get this case back into court they will lose. in a civil suit we are realistically looking at a minimum of 4-5 million suit. the harm they have done to us is irreparable. i dont know why no onehas gotten an attorney involved for us yet. you would think someone would have figured it out by now. unless the feds are interfering again.
the more they hurt us the more they fear us. they should yahweh will remember everything. and so will we.
i love you i love you i love yu
to bits
sir ed.
letter from reno to me:
keith,
brother man! of course i remember you! if memory serves, your screen name was same? plus, i know i remember r.i. ;mostly because jason was from there as well. what bothers me is i even remember the city pawtucket for you as well. which drives me to think that i should remember you better than i can now. i remember messages once in a while, questions of sorts and some comments. but with the browns page had a few thousand & my own page had a couple of my own thousand, with visitors and guests stopping by everyday at the browns beautifull home. plus my travels to meet a few hundred of others in may many states; i ask that you forgive me for not being able to remember more at this moment. but i sure as hell remember ya!
i am so glad you wrote. i have been getting a few letters now and then. i have been telling myself that the reason for so few letters is because of the nature of the cause/ movement. how fear of the "federal" government is what keeps my "friends" from writing me. i also tell myself that i should view the silence as a good thing for us & a bad thing for , well, the bad guys.
but there are a few other brave souls that have/are writing me. & even more complaining that i have not replied to their letters. but as i asked t be posted, "i promise to reply to every letter i receive!"
yet there begs the problem. letters are not being allowed in for one reason or another, others being returned to supporters over questionable calls of what is allowed or not. i feel many are just not making it.
which is what surprises me so much about yours. 11/13/07 dated and sent? received the friday after (11/16/07). one days travel in this system. thats fast!
it is good to know that you were waiting to see what would happen, then choose to write. i must admit on my bad days, i do feel that the us marshalls are right. they said i was used & will be forgotten by the people. that there is no support anymore. that no one is willing to stand up or even speak out. plus that most americans do not care. i think about it for a few minutes everyday when i see the mail passed out; after the c/o skips my cell, i am forced to think on it. but only for a few minutes. i know the truth. hell even the u.s. marshalls themselves say they know or just do not give a fuck that the fed and irs's so called laws are illegal. so while there may be support or not, while i may be forgottensoon enough.....i AM HERE. &I am not even close to being done by a long sight. i wanted to pull our troops back home and go after the real dangers to our true beloved country! but i have others working that now. the truth spreads. it cannot be stopped.
oh shit my bad i just sort of flew off on that huh? sorry. feel free to ask any questions write whatever you feel is of interest. you are free to share what i say if you so choose. just keep in mind that my mail gets read and copied on the way in. & family and friends report my letters to them are tampered with, looking to have been opened and resealed. thank you so much for the pics! i will share them with my fellow inmates. i look forward to your letter!
founder of the u.t.t.
cirrino aka reno
ps thanx for the beer!
the last comment in his letter refers to a picture i sent him of a beer can on a rock at ed and elaines house this summer. i wrote on it this beer is for you and so is your first when you get out! i sent one to all of them.....sooo does he have supporters? have you written yet?
keith
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i188/CYBERPUSHR/IMAG0049.jpg)
letter from elaine??
i just got a letter back that i wrote and mailed to elaine on 10/30/07....its now 11/19/07???? 3 weeks to return a letter and why is it returned? it is marked unknown number/need number to identify it is ripped open and stapled shut so obviously someone received it?! but alas....the stamps i sent to elaine are in there! the day she asked for stamps i mailed out four of them in a letter this letter. apparently they will deny the entire letter if you include stamps?! oh well at least i got my stamps back.....
Quote from: keith in RI on November 19, 2007, 01:04 PM NHFT
letter from elaine??
i just got a letter back that i wrote and mailed to elaine on 10/30/07....its now 11/19/07???? 3 weeks to return a letter and why is it returned? it is marked unknown number/need number to identify it is ripped open and stapled shut so obviously someone received it?! but alas....the stamps i sent to elaine are in there! the day she asked for stamps i mailed out four of them in a letter this letter. apparently they will deny the entire letter if you include stamps?! oh well at least i got my stamps back.....
That really sucks! I'm glad you got your stamps back though. :-\ How is Elaine suppose to write to people if we can't even send her stamps?
I'm not sure if Ed and Elaine have grandchildren but I came up with a good idea for my son to draw pictures and maybe write short letters along with my longer ones to Ed and Elaine. It might be a good homeschooling thing for kids to do, they could learn about writing letters, addressing envelopes, etc. and helping Ed and Elaine also. :)
my buddy sent pics of his grandkids, at first i was like huh, but then i realized they might like to be reminded of who they took a stand for. the future generations. i bet they would love letters and pics from them.
lawyer elizabeth kelly in ohio just returned my phone call...she would love to sit down with ed however she wants to be compensated for the day being it is far to travel to him. she is mapquesting it and going to call me back with a figure. HELP!!! what do i do?? money money money...i got a hundred anyone else? im going to call elaines son i think hes listed in the book...
Quote from: keith in RI on November 19, 2007, 12:09 PM NHFT
received a letter from ed today and also a letter from ed to elaine to be forwarded!
....
Keith, I tried this once with the actual letter from Ed to Elaine on 5 pages, and the facility rejected the entire envelope of material, just like the stamps case. So if you do mail it, maybe by then they will allow it, and be the signal (indirectly) that they now have "permission" to write to each other. The permission word used by Elaine in her letter to me. So as not to waste postage, you might send it separately, as I doubt if hidden amongst other papers it would get through. I tried that and it didn't work. Good luck - Joe
Quote from: keith in RI on November 19, 2007, 02:05 PM NHFT
lawyer elizabeth kelly in ohio just returned my phone call...she would love to sit down with ed however she wants to be compensated for the day being it is far to travel to him. she is mapquesting it and going to call me back with a figure. HELP!!! what do i do?? money money money...i got a hundred anyone else? im going to call elaines son i think hes listed in the book...
Keith, Is that the correct spelling of her name? I checked it over at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/atty_reg/Public_AttorneyInformation.asp but she has no name, nor registration number. Are you sure she is really an attorney able to practice in Ohio? Watch out for paying $money up front, and hearing nothing back. Where/How did you get her name? Maybe she's a law school graduate who just joined the B.A.R. so not listed yet? If so, then who runs this website to add it right away for us to have more confidence to donate $xx.xx amounts, otherwise, as they say a real "confidence" game alright, like Geo. C. Scott in "The Flim Flam Man." -- Joe
P.S. And yeah, what's up with Elaine's son not getting the RSA Ch. 480:1 homestead items to sell to raise $money for an attorney. Certain items are exempt, but not until AFTER the trial of the other four?
I've got a call in to three attorneys that are (Google Maps) 36 minutes away from Ed. Cincinnati. Awaiting a response.
Keith - If the attorney wants to get paid before working each day it sounds like somebody can't afford gas. Maybe not so good.
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 19, 2007, 02:36 PM NHFT
I've got a call in to three attorneys that are (Google Maps) 36 minutes away from Ed. Cincinnati. Awaiting a response.
Keith - If the attorney wants to get paid before working each day it sounds like somebody can't afford gas. Maybe not so good.
Spelled with the extra letter e: http://www.elizabethkelleylaw.com/contact.asp
she said she is in cleveland and ed is in elkton which is hours away...i think...she said she has to cancel a day to travel to him so she would want to be compensated upfront for that day. then deal with other stuff later. no offense guys this is a lawyer willing to goto ed and sit with him. ed is begging for a lawyer and WE need to get him one. he wants one now it sounds like too. i say depending how much we need to get this lady to him. anyone else have better ideas? i left her a message asking her to call me back about my friend in elkton that needs a lawyer. she called me within 2 hours. saying she also thinks he needs a newhampshire lawyer and she knows one. her practice includes # Post-Conviction Relief/New Trial Motions isnt that what ed wants? and SHE CALLED BACK!! any other lawyer call back yet? hey im just sayin....i told her who ed was and she said she had heard of him and then said she was still willing to talk to him ....i have mailed her copies of freedom to fascism already tonight. i hope to hear from her by tommorow.
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 19, 2007, 02:36 PM NHFT
I've got a call in to three attorneys that are (Google Maps) 36 minutes away from Ed. Cincinnati. Awaiting a response.
Keith - If the attorney wants to get paid before working each day it sounds like somebody can't afford gas. Maybe not so good.
Quote from: keith in RI on November 19, 2007, 05:31 PM NHFT
she said she is in cleveland and ed is in elkton which is hours away...i think...
Yeah, two of them, each way.
Quote from: keith in RI on November 19, 2007, 05:31 PM NHFT
she said she is in cleveland and ed is in elkton which is hours away...i think...(*)
she said she has to cancel a day to travel to him so she would want to be compensated upfront for that day. then deal with other stuff later. no offense guys this is a lawyer willing to goto ed and sit with him. ed is begging for a lawyer and WE need to get him one. he wants one now it sounds like too. i say depending how much we need to get this lady to him. anyone else have better ideas? i left her a message asking her to call me back about my friend in elkton that needs a lawyer. she called me within 2 hours. saying she also thinks he needs a newhampshire lawyer and she knows one.(**)
her practice includes # Post-Conviction Relief/New Trial Motions isnt that what ed wants? and SHE CALLED BACK!! any other lawyer call back yet?(***) hey im just sayin....i told her who ed was and she said she had heard of him and then said she was still willing to talk to him ....i have mailed her copies of freedom to fascism already tonight. i hope to hear from her by tommorow.
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 19, 2007, 02:36 PM NHFT
I've got a call in to three attorneys that are (Google Maps) 36 minutes away from Ed. Cincinnati. Awaiting a response.
Keith - If the attorney wants to get paid before working each day it sounds like somebody can't afford gas. Maybe not so good.
(*) Yes, exactly 77 miles = 1.5 hr. driving time from Cleveland to the Youngstown court for Elkton F.C.I. according to http://www.burghamfamilytree.com/Places%20pages/youngstown.htm so to 2 hrs. past there to Elton x 2 = 4 hours round trip + 2 hours with Ed + 2 hrs. back at office putting together the habeas = 8 hr. day x 2 (day in court) = 16 hrs. x what? $100 per hour deal = $1,600 to $2,000?
(**) A N.H. lawyer: So do I, and he's a former federal prosecutor willing to help Danny out if all else fails.
(***) Yes, Michael G. Kivlighan, 219 W. Broadway Street, Youngstown, OH 44503 Tel. 330: 746-6301 http://www.kivlighanlaw.com called me back on the same day to my cell phone #, and left a recording, I called back to him, we talked, I sent some paperwork, and have yet to call him again, ___ He's right there in the same city as the court and just down the road from Elkton, so to save travel costs of what? $500.00 every time she leaves the office and hits the road? Or is she willing to just charge gasoline costs while driving to/from Elkton? Look at the map of Cleveland up on Lake Erie over at http://consumer.discoverohio.com/visitorinformation/interactivemap.aspx for Youngstown just to the SE of there in the same upper corner of the state.
-- Joe
Before you spend money on an Ohio lawyer, you should be aware that Ed won't be staying in Elkton for long.
Just leave it at that, and I'll let you know more when I can.
Letter from Reno.
I just received in today's mail [Mon. Nov. 19th], a 1-page (both sides) letter from Reno of 11/16,Fri., postmarked 11/17.
He writes that he likes reading the KFP, and wishes to receive any other "liberty news"papers, and "listen(ed?-past tense? to) NPR"/ National Public Radio? Or can he get the radio in there with headphones like to the T.V. sets in Dover? I don't know if he gets the http://www.unionleader.com like Danny does (with three inmates getting a subscription in Dover). To set Danny up with a mini sub. of the http://www.concordmonitor since nobody here as yet has offered such as previously requested.
Reno also like the books there, but "the C/O in charge of the books got into it with one/ few of my fellow MAX inmates. I later heard he fucked us out of even more books because no one wanted to be near him. -- There is a small book case that was full when I arrived. Last week a few others got into it with the SAME C/O. Only allowed the top half to be replaced. I heard it is even less now. I did not check, for if I did, I would have been inclined to comment on big bastard's laziness as well." (*)
He sends out info to his supporters to research then blog. The only blog I've seen is that one from Texas. Are there others? Some guy in Rome is spreading the news.
(*) These bits and pieces by letters is OK, but a visit would be better. The Strafford County Jail in Dover is way better than the Merrimack Dump, even though both places are new, it's the "Establishment" in Boscawen that's made up of goon-squad deluxe. The Super. there must be a real jerk if he has no control over goon C/O's gone berserk. In Dover, there's even a Welcome lady with coffee and cookies, plus toys and reading books for the visitors with children. They welcome additional paperback books as on their website. Do the Merrimack County Commissioners really take the tour and get to see the operation as mal-practiced, like they do in Grafton County? It seems that they take the attitude of they don't give a shit. Let them eat cake. Bob said the food was crap.
- - Joe
P.S. The Nov. 1st packet I sent to "Cirino Gonzales" I just got in today's mail too, as marked: (1) ATTEMPTED, NOT KNOWN, Return to Sender (in black ink); + (2) RETURN TO SENDER/ REASON (in red ink) with black ink printed: Contraband Enclosed*
*Say what?! maybe the one piece of newspaper clipping from the "Laconia Daily Sun"? I checked the box one night after work about midnight, there being a pile of papers there, so I took six and sent each inmate the same clipping, and only this one was returned! So my guess is that they're using these excuses as retaliation techniques. More goon-squad mentality in in-action forward, but ass-backwards, and also marked in black ink: (3) ANIC R-14, whatever that means. To resend withOUT the clipping. Note: similar treatment against Jason in Dover, of one of his envelopes to him held up for 10 days, but eventually delivered.
Ed's letters #__ + #___ to me, of Oct. 29th, 2007 (the Monday before Halloween) x 2. It almost Thanksgiving now, and then onto Christmas and New Year's.
I just got these postmarked November 14th (last Wednesday), in today's mail (Mon., Nov 19th) -- writing this early Tuesday morning, burning the mid-night oil as they say.
He writes of to contact some lawyer; what's happening with Elaine, send pictures of home (I'll send him that color one from the Dees website), and newspaper articles about the case. While he was up there he heard about the news from us visitors, but I guess half the time never saw the stories in print, so maybe somebody has a file on these and can copy and send to him?
Ed also sent me his Oct. 26, 2007 "Formal Complaint" that is being re-typed right now:
"Put this on the internet Joe. Or it will be lost. Ed. Oct. 26, 2007
'Formal Complaint' Against U.S. Deputy Marshal.
U.S. Marshals Service
Deputy Gary DeMartino
Deputy DeMartino:
--A side note regarding Doctor Elaine Brown, my wife.
--After we were kidnapped and brought to the Lebanon P.O. on 10-4-07.
--I was in the holding cell and Dr. Brown was brought into another room. The deputy that brought her in had gone outside for something and returned a couple of minutes later.
--I was standing not three feet from him when he said 'Oh damn! somebody shit on me.' I said 'I hope it wasn't my wife.' I looked down at his leg where he was looking and he in fact did have excrement on his upper left thigh. It was a glob smeared as when you wipe your backside. Elaine could have been so frightened that she soiled herself during her kidnapping or she could have been handled too roughly. / [page 1 / 2, in pencil] whichever the case, be advised that the deputies need adequate training on proper handling of non-combatants especially women.
--However I wish to bring to your attention my grave concern as to this particular action on the night of October 4, 2007, at approximately 7:45 P.M. by one of your deputies.
--Several of us discussed this at length and this is our conclusion: as there were several other witnesses to this incident.
--The excrement was smeared on his upper thigh. The only way that could possibly happen is how?
--Why would the deputy under any circumstances have his leg between my wife's legs? - - Exactly.
--U.S. Marshals had integrity at one time. They would have hung a man for doing that. Here's to decency lost.
Edward Lewis clan Brown"
JSH
footnote: The #10 envelope (with the Liberty Bell "Forever" stamp of first-class postage rate), was opened at the top and re-sealed with Scotch tape. It has Ed's and my addresses and some bar code with the # 03302+3842-42 B225 for my zip and P.O. Box, but what does the dash 42 B225 stand for? and WHO and WHY did they open it? Did the guard(s) read the mail before sending it out?
footnote #2: Ed also writes to: "call the radio shows and ask them to put it on the air. R.B.N., Alex Jones*, Joyce Riley."
* Alex Jones' associate covered my "Wise up or Die" case right? And here's some more info: I also got in today's mail (Mon. 11/19) the Lebanon Prosecutor's 2-page Nov. 14th OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER (of Nov. 5th). And BTW I'm still waiting for the RSA 91-A answer to my question to the PS&T, late as way over the 5-day "dead"line.
im not leaving it at that! ed is begging to talk to a lawyer and i feel all anyone here is doing is arguing. this lawyer is in ohio ed is in ohio ...anyone have better ideas??? any other lawyers yet to call back??? NO! ed wont be staying in elkton long, not if we get him a lawyer who can get him out. are we going to wait till they move them??? or maybe we should wait till they sell the properties and then get them a lawyer to fight for their dirty underwear! i mean wtf guys?? is anyone reading eds letters?? ALL HE WANTS IS A LAWYER! CAN WE GET HIM ONE PLEASE?!?! this shouldnt be that difficult hes been there how many weeks now?!?!
Quote from: KBCraig on November 19, 2007, 10:37 PM NHFT
Before you spend money on an Ohio lawyer, you should be aware that Ed won't be staying in Elkton for long.
Just leave it at that, and I'll let you know more when I can.
Quote from: keith in RI on November 20, 2007, 01:33 AM NHFT
im not leaving it at that! ed is begging to talk to a lawyer and i feel all anyone here is doing is arguing. this lawyer is in ohio ed is in ohio ...anyone have better ideas???
I'm not arguing. I'm just telling you that this Ohio lawyer won't be doing anything for Ed beyond the initial visit, assuming you manage to collect $500-1,000 for her to pay him a visit. Before she makes a second visit, he won't still be in Elkton. If she makes the drive and Ed has already been put on the bus to his next destination, you're still out the money, and she's not going to offer any refunds.
As far as Ed & Elaine are concerned, every day is hell. As far as the legal system is concerned, a day is just another day they get paid. There is no pressing timeline here, legally speaking. When Ed gets to his destination, he'll have much better access to mail, telephones, the inmate legal library, and lawyers via telephone and/or visits.
Save your money until it can do some good.
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 17, 2007, 04:53 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 16, 2007, 03:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on November 16, 2007, 02:20 PM NHFT....
...then over to see Bill Miller with his mother Marie at the State Hospital at 5:30 p.m./ ....
I saw Bill with his mother last night to 8:00 p.m. closing time. He reminded me that he was the coordinator when the compound first got to be THE site of the standoff, and thanked him for that affidavit idea, still wondering if they're in the federal file. Although the military court-martial never got activated against McAuliffe, he still thinks he ought to face the music somewhere, and probably will, when the Maine judge Singal to where he sent the cases to for pre-trial in Portland rules on the Motion(s) for Discovery* of the RSA 123:1 papers that they do not exist from 1-8-17 U.S. Const., and so to grant any and all four Motions to Dismiss*. The question being: which attorney will get this into paperwork for processing first? ...
P.S. Here's why I did originally start to write this, and got off on a tangent. Bill's hearing(*) on his competency of whatever is scheduled for Monday morning at __:__ o'clock (time unknown, so 8-9 am?). And anybody is welcome to sit and back him up. I think so far: his mother Marie, Bernie and I will be there.
(*) Update: There was no hearing. I talked with Marie at about 6:15 p.m. last night and she said that she was with her Billy at about 11:30 a.m. just before the scheduled hearing at 12:00 o'clock high noon, [on special time visit I guess] but then it was canceled, for the reason being that he was on meds they injected at about 11:45 a.m. that got him so hyper that they did not want the judge to see him in such a state. His mother saw him then too, and couldn't believe that they'd stoop so low as this, arguing with them she did to having to be escorted out of the building. I tried to see Bill at about 6:30 p.m. but that he was still in lock-down. Maybe today he will be better and can be seen to explain to us what happened. Marie to call me later this morning or early afternoon to see about seeing him. Before she takes the 1-hr. drive to x 2 = 2-hr. round trip from her home, I might try to visit and call her for a progress report, or she can call in to see if the door is open again from 12 noon to 8:00 p.m. every day as usual. Will report back to here tonight. -- Joe
Quote from: KBCraig on November 20, 2007, 03:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on November 20, 2007, 01:33 AM NHFT
im not leaving it at that! ed is begging to talk to a lawyer and i feel all anyone here is doing is arguing. this lawyer is in ohio ed is in ohio ...anyone have better ideas???
I'm not arguing. I'm just telling you that this Ohio lawyer won't be doing anything for Ed beyond the initial visit, assuming you manage to collect $500-1,000 for her to pay him a visit. Before she makes a second visit, he won't still be in Elkton. If she makes the drive and Ed has already been put on the bus to his next destination, you're still out the money, and she's not going to offer any refunds.
As far as Ed & Elaine are concerned, every day is hell. As far as the legal system is concerned, a day is just another day they get paid. There is no pressing timeline here, legally speaking. When Ed gets to his destination, he'll have much better access to mail, telephones, the inmate legal library, and lawyers via telephone and/or visits.
Save your money until it can do some good.
I totally agree with KBCraig. Keith I understand your frustration and especially Ed's. I'm frustrated too. After thinking about this at length we are attacking this thing backwards. The whole case hinges on the house. No house, no case. There's no way we can raise the amount of money we will need for the long run and this
will be the long run. Ed has already been convicted to the tax charges, structuring etc. We may or may not get that overturned or reduced. Worst case scenario he's in for 5 years. Best case is yet to be seen.
In order of importance the tax conviction is not what's going to equate to decades in prison; it's the weapons charges that haven't been leveled yet.
So while it may make us all feel better to have a lawyer drive two hours to see him, I think we had better concentrate on getting the house back from the feds so we can afford to fight this the right way.
I think we also need to start leaning on the Bureau of Prisons to find out when Ed can receive visitors. At this stage it would be most helpful to monitor his condition ourselves rather than bankrolling a visit from an out-of-venue lawyer.
I am not the boss here. If you guys think I'm all wrong please tell me. I want to see the man get a fair trial and everyone get out of prison ASAP. If you think I am making a statement contrary to that goal I would appreciate the input. We are after all supposed to be a team.
Glad Reno got the KFP :)
hey sorry for getting upset but i see ed as the boss and ed says get him a lawyer, so im getting him a lawyer if i have to sell my fat ass for money on the street corner to do it i will! they have been in for what a month and a half? still no lawyer visit. ed and elaine need to be able to write to each other, the lawyer can help. they need access to legal stuff, lawyer can help. please tell me if im wrong? no timeline? we only have till they sell the house! then all bets off. i called elaines son david hatch-bernier last night (i googled him it was that easy) he called me back this morning. he needs to get in touch with joe haas. (joe i will email you his email address /contact info please get in touch with him also) he is going down for his first visit with elaine this weekend i think he said. i asked him about the homestead exemption items? he said elaine told him that they are doing an inventory of the house and will send her a list of all items eligible to be picked up. she is to put the name of whoever she wants to pick up their things next to each item (multiple people can pick up items) her son told her to just put his name next to everything and they will rent a truck and storage unit for all of it. i agreed that that is the best idea and offered to help. maybe the event can be recorded when it does happen? maybe this can be another ridley report? i like those things. anyway i told him (david) i would email him again later today to talk more but that he really needs to get in touch with joe, he said elaine asked him the same thing, which i had asked elaine to do. where are they going to move ed too? how do you know? what then he gets no mail and has no lawyer priveledges for maybe a month with the mail transfer and "oops we lost the letters sorry!" routine? i dont want to chance it im sorry. i agree im not the boss either and i want to work as a team, but there hasnt been a team yet just all of us working alone and contacting through here. we need to get all of us on the same page. and like i said sorry for gettin worked up but i feel like i let ed down by not doing more till this point. he has been there how long now?
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 20, 2007, 08:17 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on November 20, 2007, 03:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on November 20, 2007, 01:33 AM NHFT
im not leaving it at that! ed is begging to talk to a lawyer and i feel all anyone here is doing is arguing. this lawyer is in ohio ed is in ohio ...anyone have better ideas???
I'm not arguing. I'm just telling you that this Ohio lawyer won't be doing anything for Ed beyond the initial visit, assuming you manage to collect $500-1,000 for her to pay him a visit. Before she makes a second visit, he won't still be in Elkton. If she makes the drive and Ed has already been put on the bus to his next destination, you're still out the money, and she's not going to offer any refunds.
As far as Ed & Elaine are concerned, every day is hell. As far as the legal system is concerned, a day is just another day they get paid. There is no pressing timeline here, legally speaking. When Ed gets to his destination, he'll have much better access to mail, telephones, the inmate legal library, and lawyers via telephone and/or visits.
Save your money until it can do some good.
I totally agree with KBCraig. Keith I understand your frustration and especially Ed's. I'm frustrated too. After thinking about this at length we are attacking this thing backwards. The whole case hinges on the house. No house, no case. There's no way we can raise the amount of money we will need for the long run and this will be the long run. Ed has already been convicted to the tax charges, structuring etc. We may or may not get that overturned or reduced. Worst case scenario he's in for 5 years. Best case is yet to be seen. In order of importance the tax conviction is not what's going to equate to decades in prison; it's the weapons charges that haven't been leveled yet.
So while it may make us all feel better to have a lawyer drive two hours to see him, I think we had better concentrate on getting the house back from the feds so we can afford to fight this the right way.
I think we also need to start leaning on the Bureau of Prisons to find out when Ed can receive visitors. At this stage it would be most helpful to monitor his condition ourselves rather than bankrolling a visit from an out-of-venue lawyer.
I am not the boss here. If you guys think I'm all wrong please tell me. I want to see the man get a fair trial and everyone get out of prison ASAP. If you think I am making a statement contrary to that goal I would appreciate the input. We are after all supposed to be a team.
Quote from: keith in RI on November 20, 2007, 12:17 PM NHFT
hey sorry for getting upset but i see ed as the boss and ed says get him a lawyer,
I don't blame him for that. I wish we could visit him to see how he is.
Ed said in his letter to me to handle the injunction on the house first. I'll be happy to fax the letter to anyone who wants to see it.
Quote
1. first step needed is an injunction on the property - hold up the I.R.S.
2. We need a proper Habeas Corpus
Court said they would favor lawyer submitting
3. We then need to file in the same court in Concord motion to vacate or set aside or correct a sentence thats the next step
4. We then need to file an appeal.
A. File for mistrial or for no due process
B. "Reversable error" or C. "Writ of Error"
5. and or file for new trial
and who files the injunction on the house? the lawyer in ohio says she knows a lawyer in new hampshire that may help if needed. the way i see it they still need a lawyer to file anything with the courts. if they try to file themselves it will get laughed at as jailhouse lawyer junk. mrs. kelley even saying so. at least if its filed by a lawyer it will get seen by a judge. and i know what eds letter said to you, but his to me said "i need a smart angry honorable lawyer. i need him to help get my funds in the property out so we can begin the battle in the proper manner." and in his letter to me to be forwarded to elaine he says" im having a hard time believeing that the patriot movement will allow this to go on without some legal intervention. i cant do anything from here till i speak to a lawyer." now obviously im not trying to play battling ed brown letters but im saying to me thats pretty clear he needs to speak to a lawyer asap! right? i just sent an email to david hatch-bernier elaines son with contact info for joe haas. joe here comes his info now.
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 20, 2007, 12:37 PM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on November 20, 2007, 12:17 PM NHFT
hey sorry for getting upset but i see ed as the boss and ed says get him a lawyer,
Actually Ed said in his letter to me to handle the injunction on the house first. I'll be happy to fax the letter to you if you want to see it.
Quote
1. first step needed is an injunction on the property - hold up the I.R.S.
2. We need a proper Habeas Corpus
Court said they would favor lawyer submitting
3. We then need to file in the same court in Concord motion to vacate or set aside or correct a sentence thats the next step
4. We then need to file an appeal.
A. File for mistrial or for no due process
B. "Reversable error" or C. "Writ of Error"
5. and or file for new trial
They should not file themselves, Ed admits that. I think it's a great idea for Ed to see a lawyer. I just don't happen to agree that hiring a lawyer in Cleveland two hours away (that wants possibly all of the LDF just to visit ONCE?) is better than hiring a lawyer in Cincinnati 37 minutes away. I'm not going to argue this or stand in the way Keith. Do what you see fit.
i didnt understand that you meant to hire a lawyer closer. i thought the discussion was going into not hiring a lawyer untill ed moves to a new prison. which is if/when he moves to a new prison. i dont mean to argue i just debate passionately :D sorry....
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 20, 2007, 03:15 PM NHFT
They should not file themselves, Ed admits that. I think it's a great idea for Ed to see a lawyer. I just don't happen to agree that hiring a lawyer in Cleveland two hours away (that wants possibly all of the LDF just to visit ONCE?) is better than hiring a lawyer in Cincinnati 37 minutes away. I'm not going to argue this or stand in the way Keith. Do what you see fit.
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Nice talking to you today Keith. I'll post here when I hear back from the NH attorneys. I'll try again tomorrow to call Elkton to find out about visitation.
Quote from: keith in RI on November 20, 2007, 03:37 PM NHFT
i didnt understand that you meant to hire a lawyer closer. i thought the discussion was going into not hiring a lawyer untill ed moves to a new prison. which is if/when he moves to a new prison. i dont mean to argue i just debate passionately :D sorry....
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 20, 2007, 03:15 PM NHFT
They should not file themselves, Ed admits that. I think it's a great idea for Ed to see a lawyer. I just don't happen to agree that hiring a lawyer in Cleveland two hours away (that wants possibly all of the LDF just to visit ONCE?) is better than hiring a lawyer in Cincinnati 37 minutes away. I'm not going to argue this or stand in the way Keith. Do what you see fit.
Update: on lawyer Mike K. in Youngstown right next to the federal courthouse. He called me at about 4:30 p.m. to my voice mail this afternoon while I was in the Post Office*, and I got back to my car and over to KINKO's** and I called him at about 4:45 p.m. and he said to me that he would rather not take the case. He also said that on the habeas petition that he filed for an Elkton inmate a while ago, the luck-of-the-draw was that the case was assigned to the federal court in Toledo, (many miles away) and that maybe in Ed's case it might be assigned to the federal court in Cleveland, and so the perfect spot for where Elizabeth is there to just walk to court. The only travel being the initial 4-hr. round trip visit to see Ed. I'd like to send her $_____ anyway for a visit to see Ed sometime next week if possible for her to set it up with the Elkton F.C.I./Ed.
-- Joe
-* The Concord P.O. gave me back one of the envelopes I had sent to Ed BEFORE their arrest, but not the certified one with the $50.00 bill! I'm keeping it sealed as PROOF of non-delivery for whatever it's worth.
** Another packet went out in tonight's mail to E+E + the Fantastic Four. Postmarked before the 6:00 p.m. truck left for hoped-for deliver to the N.H. inmates tomorrow, and E+E maybe on Friday.
P.S. Keith I just printed out your e-mail with David's contact info. Thanks. I'm sending him an e-mail right now, and maybe to talk on the phone tomorrow, as it's getting late for him?
PPS I also talked with: (1) Bernie, and the dog Zoe is to be picked up by that other Elizabeth today or tomorrow for her out of the kennel for Thanksgiving and more time over at her house until Ed & Elaine can return home. Plus (2) Marie called to say that Bill is now over at S.H.U. (Special Housing Unit) at the N.H. State Prison. Standard operating procedure, as my friend's son went through this for about a week to 10 days there then back to the hospital. Bernie said that his next hearing at the in-house court at the State Hospital in Concord is next Tuesday, Nov. 27th. Then onto his Dec. 4 trial, or maybe that postponed too.
New filing about Danny's cooperation with the feds.
QuoteUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DANIEL RILEY
Cr. No. 07-189-01-GZS
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE Re: POSITION ON COMPETENCY EXAMINATION
Title 18, United States Code, Section 4142(a) provides in part:
if there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be
suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to
the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the
proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.
18 U.S.C. 4241(a).
The government, including the undersigned, has met with defendant Daniel Riley on
several separate occasions, each pursuant to a proffer letter, and the defendant has forwarded a
typewritten letter to the undersigned. With respect to all proffer sessions and the letter the
defendant appeared to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings. He
demonstrated a clear understanding that he was facing serious criminal charges that could result
in a significant prison sentence if convicted. He also demonstrated an understanding of the roles
of the various individuals involved in his criminal case: the Judge, the witnesses, the
prosecutors, the investigators, and the defense attorneys.
With his attorney present, the defendant was advised of the terms under which any
meetings between himself and the government would take place, including that he must be
truthful, that if he was not truthful he could suffer serious adverse consequences, and that if he
was truthful the government could not use his statements directly against him but that it could
make derivative use of his statements and use that derivative evidence against him. He
acknowledged that he understood those terms and made what appeared to be a knowing and
intelligent decision to proceed.
He was asked numerous questions that required detailed responses concerning his
observations while at the residence of then fugitives Edward and Elaine Brown. He appeared to
understand the questions and he provided detailed information in response to those questions.
Most of the information he provided has since been corroborated by law enforcement.
Likewise, the letter written by Mr. Riley and sent to the undersigned was clear, coherent
and appeared to have been written by a person who understood the situation in which he found
himself.
Notwithstanding the pro se pleadings that have been filed by the defendant, which are
unorthodox, based upon the direct observations of the defendant by the government, the
government does not have "reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be
suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that
he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to
assist properly in his defense." 18 U.S.C. 4241(a).
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS P. COLANTUONO
United States Attorney
By: /s/ Arnold H. Huftalen
Arnold H. Huftalen
Assistant U.S. Attorney
N.H. Bar Assoc. No. 1215
53 Pleasant Street, 4th Floor
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
(603) 225-1552
November 15, 2007
Quote from: richardr on November 21, 2007, 06:46 AM NHFT
New filing about Danny's cooperation with the feds.
Quote...
He was asked numerous questions that required detailed responses concerning his
observations while at the residence of then fugitives Edward and Elaine Brown. He appeared to
understand the questions and he provided detailed information in response to those questions.
Most of the information he provided has since been corroborated by law enforcement.
....
So what's your point Richard?
The word "corroborate" is defined as: "To strengthen or support (other evidence)." as in physical evidence v.s. verbal testimony.
I can only guess what they asked him for questions.
Like what? Did you see (or touch*) this and that type of gun there? Yes, or no. [James 5:12].
And if no, is that a proven lie? Of course not!
These federal goons, THEN on the touching* part are trying to get fingerprints.
I remember this was what Bernie told me they asked him: are we going to find your fingerprints on anything up there? To which I replied to Bernie for me: yeah! on a drinking glass if Elaine forgot to wash it. ;) or somebody said: on the flush handle of the toilet you should have told them. Sort of like during the "Concord Bomber" days of Fall 1998, when they were asking for my DNA for me to "prove my innocence" in a country that is supposed to be operating under: you're innocent UNTIL proven guilty, my attorney for free from the N.H. Chapter of the ACLU saying before the WMUR-TV Channel 9 camera on the steps of the Rudman Building: "Mr. Haas will spit on anything the government has to provide." >:D
I told Bernie to tell Ed BEFORE to maybe engrave RSA Ch. 627:8 on stuff, as I won that case before a jury of the right to immediately retake your property from an unlawful taking. In this case the unlawful "and" illegal taking is the feds withOUT the 1-8-17 U.S. Const.(*) to NH RSA Ch. 123:1 jurisdiction! But the federal goons not only taking the property, but stealing the persons first. This theft of the persons ought to be dealt with first by the Habeas action(s), and then contest the property, so that they can participate in the rebuke too, IF they proceed to still TRY to forfeit the property., after the seizure.
Are they going to give the defendant something for giving (or selling) them an answer faster than them having to retrieve fingerprints later? Danny thought so, at least for whatever they asked that his attorney said by cooperating he would be released within that week, but that his attorney, an officer of the court, lied to him! In a book I have from a pastor/attorney in MAss., when there's perjury in a case, the case stops to investigate such before it goes on. So did, or didn't the attorney say this? It must be in the transcript of the meeting right? Or was it said in private? And if the latter, can Danny put his former attorney on the witness stand if he refuses to answer such an interrogatory?
The possession of weapons charges to be added to who? So what if my fingerprints are on there? should be the question to whoever's they find. It's just that of WHEN they were put on there, and I think that's what the Feds aim is to get somebody to say they saw so and so holding that weapon ON the Brown property, establishing some "criminal intent" to use it? Again here I go with my often-used expression: you have got to be shitting me! WHERE is the crime when there is the Article 10 defense of the right to revolt against the militants? with pea-shooters against machine guns!? I think Bob said he did patrol the place with gun in hand. So what! To militate is to have force as evidence. ED had the evidence of federal non-filing in the certificate I loaned to him that the Feds stole! To militate is from the Latin word militare, of "to serve as a soldier". A soldier is technically: "An enlisted man as distinguished from a commissioned officer." Monier was commissioned by the President, and who signed an oath to execute only lawful(*) precepts. So the soldiers UNDER him as the Deputy U.S. Marshals are in an un-lawful use of power if their boss has directed to them an unlawful order for them to execute. So the question: Is Monier unlawful when exercising power off the federal turf? Of course he is withOUT the full "Consent" of our State Legislature, that did offer concurrent jurisdiction to the Feds on condition that they file, but for some reason they declined. So the arrest of Ed & Elaine plus the others are unlawful! and for every day, by the Veronia Silva case in the N.H. State Board of Claims in the mid 1980s, ought to pay the real victims that $2,500 per day.
Yours truly, - Joe
P.S. I saw Don Hill of Administrative Services in his office yesterday afternoon at about 2:30 p.m. and he said that Jeffrey Lions was incorrect in that Don's office does NOT send a bill to the Feds for that $43.xx/day per federal inmate. I then saw Jeff in the hallway up at his building on Pleasant Street, Concord and he said that the only federal inmates the state is dealing with now are 3 to 4 immigration cases where the Federal Immigration Dept. of the United States is being billed directly by his N.H. Dept. of Corrections. So again I ask: WHO is sending the bills, if any, to the Feds? for Danny, Jason; Bob + Reno. And to WHAT Federal Dept.? Or is there some memorandum of secret agreement that since the Feds are dishing out $millions to us through the G&C every two weeks at the State House, that they're sharing with the counties, that this $43.xx/day is overlooked? as not worth dealing with? In that case, let's to it to them. Ed & Elaine plus Danny, Jason; Bob + Reno: start sending $2,500 per day bills to the County Commissioners in Strafford and Merrimack Counties respectfully. :icon_pirat: Then THEY will be filing the Habeas Corpus petitions FOR you! 8) so as to minimize the $damages against the county. The Super. in Strafford County has already been notified to "correct" this situation in his "Correctional" Institution at the executive level by Danny, of which case went to the judge for a second "opinion" as denied, but that doesn't make the charges go away. Danny ought to file a civil action against the place for what? $2,500 x 100 days (mid Sept. to mid Nov. = about 60 days + another 40 to go before they realize that they're wrong) = $250,000 is a quarter of a million dollars.
Stephen R. Monier, U.S. Marshal, New Hampshire
Conformed by the U.S. Senate May 7, 2002
http://www.usmarshals.gov/district/nh/general/marshal.htm
So what happened that day in the Senate? Was there any discussion on this?
According to http://senate.gov with the search for Monier, all I could find for Stephen were two entries, and both by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, thank you "very" much, over at: (1) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200210/103002.html of Wed., Oct. 30, 2002 being his Comment on how the President didn't cooperate too much in the process; and (2) http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/nominations/cover040104c.htm for this 108th Congress.
See the http://leahy.senate.gov/contact.cfm page in that I first called his Montpelier office (shut down thru Monday) them saying to call Burlington (also shut down), and so with voice message at Montpelier only, plus through this message box, and later by e-mail to senator_leahy at leahy.senate.gov to this summary page:
The bottom line being that if he can confirm, can he un-confirm when there's been a violation of Monier's oath of office, or promise to obey the Constitution? Yes, or No. As an example, there being the in-house complaint process of INTERNAL Affairs for when an assistant U.S. Attorney goes bad, as in that bad apple needing to be thrown out of the barrel, as in my letter to Washington just mailed out last night to await any reply against Bill Morse for violating Fed Rule 16. And so to go ONE STEP BEYOND any INTERNAL Affairs withIN the U.S. Marshals Service to this OUTside review, as in a check and balance in what is supposed to be the best form of government on earth in an Art. IV, Section 4 U.S. Constitutional Republican form of government of We the People, as they/ our public servants work for us, and when I see, hear and smell a rotten apple like Monier harming my friends, I don't sit back until the next election, but complain and rebuke in a LOUD voice, Stentor style.
So Sen. Leahy, would you please start un-confirming hearings* AGAINST this Marshal please if possible for his violation of oath to only execute lawful precepts. The lawfulness being that of Vermont and Maine, as single-filing states according to Attorney Larry Becraft's website over at http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm for this 1-8-17 U.S. Const. as in the filing with the City or Town Registry of Deeds in Vermont, to compare to both the unlawful and illegal-ness of here in N.H. and MAss. as in non-compliance with the state statutes, N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 here as our State Legislature offered "Consent" for concurrent jurisdiction to the Feds on June 14, 1883 but that they declined for whatever reason (like wanting "exclusive" only? for to apply Title 18 criminal) to file beyond the Land Registry in the County, by there being NO such filing with our N.H. Secretary of State, in this double-filing state, a certificate I loaned to Ed Brown to use in his anti I.R.S. battles, signed by Bill Gardner, the Secretary of State who checked with Frank Mevers in State Archives who confirmed that such does NOT exist. Maybe the Feds have an ancient receipt down on Trapello Rd. in Waltham, MAss. for the Federal Archives, but that the Burden of Proof for jurisdiction is upon them. Hey! Let's make this a Presidential campaign issue, to see what they say what to do when their nominations turn sour.
Best wishes, - - - - - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059.
P.S. Over at the U.S. Senate main page (reference the 200th Anniversary of the Cemetery), I checked the Daily Digest, clicked New Search for the 108th Congress, put in Monier, and after an Enter Search only found two references to Monier being: for Elizabeth and Rick, so I guess nothing talked about Stephen Monier "before" the fact, but now hopefully "after" the fact through your oversight sub-committee to deal with this tarnishing? of the U.S. Marshal badge.
* There were "16 hearings for 21 executive branch nominations". These sixteen hearings transcribed? and located elsewhere? And that included Monier?
i received letters from danny jason and elaine today. i will transcribe them in a little bit except dannys which specifically says do not repost! written on it. however i can say danny SPECIFICALLY said DO NOT SEND MONEY TO MY ACCOUNT! it will be put into his commissary account and it will cause him to lose his indigent status! causing him to pay for postage envelopes court fees, paper, etc.......jason saying the same thing, here is his letter to me:
keith,
thanx for asking, but at this time im pretty much all set. my money situation is fine, and would suggest focusing all the efforts towards ed and elaine. im not big into crosswords or puzzles really and that type of thing.
it is probably not a good idea to say this, but this place is pretty damn nice for the most part. at middleton in mass. (was there for approximately a month) it was bad always hungry and stuff. here though the food is good, we dont have baloney and potato chips everyday for lunch (like in mass) and our toilet doesnt run for 15 minutes when we flush it.(in mass it did it was loud as hell too like a jet taking off)
the only thing i could want would be basic info on whats going on in the world. such as gold/oil prices (weekly or bi-weekly) and other random stuff. like what you read, not too much only a page or two, but enough for me to stay updated and also detailed enough to disseminate to other inmates and c/o's. follow me? like stuff on that highway they are building from canada to mexico, or the UN biosphere program, or anything the average person would say WTF too!
besides that just keep the beer cold till i get out and watch your back as these feds will only continue to tighten the noose around our freedoms till it is for all intents and purposes DEAD. not to far away i might add either.
right now i am reading info from a website:
www.barefootsworld.net/sui_juris
very interesting you might find it worthwhile as well.
thanx for writing and your offer of assistance . in the future if the need arrises i will remember. and always... LIVE FREE OR DIE
jason
so danny wants no account money but i am still waiting on an address to send funds to his defense fund?? anyone help here ive emailed his brother with no response?? jason is all set for money for now, and today i received a money order in the mail from a supporter for 52 dollars! (one year at one dollar per week rotated basis between the inmates paid up front, so 10 dollars or so to each inmate to be mailed tommorow, thank you kristen for taking the pledge with me!)
Habeas Corpus:
In New Hampshire it's not "Habeas Corpus" said in about one second of time, but:
hayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyybeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeussssssssssssssssssss
corrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrpusssssssssssssssssssss long drawn out drawl in #__ seconds
and with NOT upper case Capital Letters, BUT lower case h + c.
JSH
They say: what? to their RSA Ch. 91-A oath to Article 91. And:
What oath? And WHO is there in the legislative branch of government to check us?
They don't have "the balls".
http://m.clipmarks.com/clipmark/DBA4177A-236D-457A-8C42-A13780A3E027/
Or in other words: no Stentor voice of 50 men, or we'll charge you with dis-orderly conduct, even if it's not conduct but free speech we don't like the content of, or how it was said, and where plus when. [ We'll even put a jet-flush toilet in your cube] >:D
Re: Bill Miller now under sedation** to calm down, "Be Milktoast* or else".
* http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=milk+toast
spineless, lacking backbone, not standing up for oneself.
** Operation: remove backbone.
[/quote]
Update: on lawyer Mike K. in Youngstown right next to the federal courthouse. He called me at about 4:30 p.m. to my voice mail this afternoon while I was in the Post Office*, and I got back to my car and over to KINKO's** and I called him at about 4:45 p.m. and he said to me that he would rather not take the case. He also said that on the habeas petition that he filed for an Elkton inmate a while ago, the luck-of-the-draw was that the case was assigned to the federal court in Toledo, (many miles away) and that maybe in Ed's case it might be assigned to the federal court in Cleveland, and so the perfect spot for where Elizabeth is there to just walk to court. The only travel being the initial 4-hr. round trip visit to see Ed. I'd like to send her $_____ anyway for a visit to see Ed sometime next week if possible for her to set it up with the Elkton F.C.I./Ed.
-- Joe
-* The Concord P.O. gave me back one of the envelopes I had sent to Ed BEFORE their arrest, but not the certified one with the $50.00 bill! I'm keeping it sealed as PROOF of non-delivery for whatever it's worth.
** Another packet went out in tonight's mail to E+E + the Fantastic Four. Postmarked before the 6:00 p.m. truck left for hoped-for deliver to the N.H. inmates tomorrow, and E+E maybe on Friday.
P.S. Keith I just printed out your e-mail with David's contact info. Thanks. I'm sending him an e-mail right now, and maybe to talk on the phone tomorrow, as it's getting late for him?
PPS I also talked with: (1) Bernie, and the dog Zoe is to be picked up by that other Elizabeth today or tomorrow for her out of the kennel for Thanksgiving and more time over at her house until Ed & Elaine can return home. Plus (2) Marie called to say that Bill is now over at S.H.U. (Special Housing Unit) at the N.H. State Prison. Standard operating procedure, as my friend's son went through this for about a week to 10 days there then back to the hospital. Bernie said that his next hearing at the in-house court at the State Hospital in Concord is next Tuesday, Nov. 27th. Then onto his Dec. 4 trial, or maybe that postponed too.
[/quote]
joe i havent heard back from her (elizabeth kelley) yet. i sent her this email yesterday but will be calling her in a little bit to inquire again (respectfully of course)
EMAIL TO ELIZABETH KELLEY:
dear ms. Kelley,
i am just writing to inquire if you have had a chance
to come up with a figure required to go see ed brown
about his case in elkton fci? i eagerly await you're
response. also when i spoke with you on the phone i
referred to a documentary by Aaron Russo called
America: freedom to fascism. i have mailed you 2
copies to you're cedar rd. address for you to review
and keep. i hope that you find this documentary so
interesting that you will want to pass it on that is
why i sent an extra copy.
i would also like you to know that ed and Elaine are
not a crazy old couple. they are both honorable and
respectful. they realized long ago that the world we
are heading into was approaching and decided to make a
stand in order to motivate the rest of the Americans
in this country to do something. elaine is a now
former dentist and ed is a retired exterminator, they
are not the people the federal government has
demonized them to be! i would fully admit that they
were ill prepared for the battle that they chose but i
can not stand by and watch these people done wrong by
a federal government grossly out of control. i look
around and see things like the patriot act, the loss
of habeous corpus, the real id act, and i know that
things arent looking up for freedom in america in the
future. and then i think im glad that there are people
like the browns who are willing to stand up and just
say no more. i know that if you would represent ed and
elaine brown you will find that their legal arguments
are sound. it is the system that is stacked against
them.
hope to hear from you soon
keith champagne
105 john st
pawtucket ri 02861
401-359-7865
one of eds last letters had this list in it a "to do"
list of sorts:
1. first step needed is an injunction on the property
- hold up the I.R.S.
2. We need a proper Habeas Corpus
Court said they would favor lawyer submitting
3. We then need to file in the same court in Concord
motion to vacate or set aside or correct a sentence
thats the next step
4. We then need to file an appeal.
A. File for mistrial or for no due process
B. "Reversable error" or C. "Writ of Error"
5. and or file for new trial
Quote from: keith in RI on November 21, 2007, 12:39 PM NHFT
...
joe i havent heard back from her (elizabeth kelley) yet. i sent her this email yesterday but will be calling her in a little bit to inquire again (respectfully of course) ....
Thanks Keith. I did just call her too at the # from her http://www.elizabethkelleylaw.com/contact.asp website and left an about 2-minute message until cut off about my willing to send her $xxx.xx -amount to drive down for the initial visit to see Ed and maybe take this case, that I summarized to be this 1-8-17 US to NH 123:1 jurisdictional issue for his habeas, from Attorney Larry Becraft's excellent website of the single/double filing states (of Ohio, Conn., Vermont, Maine "and" N.H., MAss. + Florida respectfully) and that I did talk with Attorney Mike K. in Youngstown yesterday about the luck-of-the-draw maybe having it heard right up there in Cleveland by her office.
Yours truly, - Joe
Modification: I also told her that Ed has the gold-sealed certificate of federal non-filing, as checked by the Secretary of State to N.H. Archives that does not exist, the "burden of proof" maybe of some receipt from the June 14, 1883 offer of concurrent jurisdiction that was denied because they wanted exclusive for Title 18 criminal actions, but really with none. Any receipt down at Federal Archives, Trapello Rd., Waltham, MAss.achusetts their responsibility to prove.
elaines letter to me written november 17th 2007 a.d.
dear keith,
have you heard from ed? i have not, even though it is more then a week since we received permission to write. do not send stamps. they have been confiscated. they are supposed to return them to you, so please keep an eye out for them. i have received both deposits you have made to my account. $20 on nov 1st and $10 recently. thank you so much, also, thank you for telling me that ** ****** sent me money. i have seen the name "******" on the account, but didnt know who it was. please thank him for me, as i do not have an address for him
i have never received any money from joe haas. i hope it has not been taken. (joe i told her you sent some because you posted you did sorry if im wrong and ill correct it in my next letter to elaine but if im right then your money isnt getting through?!?!) i just read that lauren has been released, but i have no details.
the prison is a minimum security one. it is mostly blacks and spanish with other nationalities thrown in, as this is a deportation center. they all seem to feel compelled to shout all the time. the noise level is incredible, also the language and the arguing. you have to learn to shut it out. i just splurged and spent $41 dollars at the commissary for a radio with ear plugs. also, that is the only way we can listen to the tv. we tune in to a certain station on the radio, ad that gives us the sound on the tv, as the tv itself is muted. thank goodness. yes, we go outside often, almost as much as we would like. there is a recreation area, both indoors and out with a gym and weight room. and outdoor area. the food is what you would expect. there is certainly enough of it. you have to be carefull of what you eat , as it is easy to gain weight here. lots of carbs.
you have been approved to visit. it can only be on an even number day.
i have received pictures from you, and a mountain of puzzle books. so many thanx to you. it always surprises me, who turns out to be a real friend, and who does not. we have heard nothing from bernie, which is a real surprise. but i try not to judge.
god bless danny. i know they have given him a bad time, as they have ed. please let him know that he is very special and will always be loved by us.
any of the new paperbacks by crichton, grishom, king, koonts, cook, deaver (?), james patterson would be good. they are most of my favorite authors, but please dont overextend yourself. just writing to us is sufficient.
i will close for now. oh, i dont remember if i sent you a copy of eds letter to joe haas. i will enclose it here. it needs to go to congress our legislators should know what is going on!
elaine
enclosed was a photocopy of eds letter to joe in the KFP page 7 date (?)
so now im on her visiting list hopefully by this weekend i will get to visit her.
Quote from: keith in RI on November 21, 2007, 01:16 PM NHFT
elaines letter to me written november 17th 2007 a.d.
dear keith,
have you heard from ed? i have not, even though it is more then a week since we received permission to write...
i have never received any money from joe haas. i hope it has not been taken. (joe i told her you sent some because you posted you did sorry if im wrong and ill correct it in my next letter to elaine but if im right then your money isnt getting through?!?!) ... (*)
the noise level is incredible, also the language and the arguing. you have to learn to shut it out. i just splurged and spent $41 dollars at the commissary for a radio with ear plugs. also, that is the only way we can listen to the tv. we tune in to a certain station on the radio, ad that gives us the sound on the tv, as the tv itself is muted. thank goodness. yes, we go outside often, almost as much as we would like. there is a recreation area, both indoors and out with a gym and weight room. and outdoor area. the food is what you would expect. there is certainly enough of it. you have to be carefull of what you eat , as it is easy to gain weight here. lots of carbs.
you have been approved to visit. it can only be on an even number day.
i have received pictures from you, and a mountain of puzzle books. so many thanx to you...
any of the new paperbacks by crichton, grishom, king, koonts, cook, deaver (?), james patterson would be good. they are most of my favorite authors, but please dont overextend yourself. just writing to us is sufficient.
i will close for now. oh, i dont remember if i sent you a copy of eds letter to joe haas. i will enclose it here. it needs to go to congress our legislators should know what is going on!
elaine
enclosed was a photocopy of eds letter to joe in the KFP page 7 date (?)
so now im on her visiting list hopefully by this weekend i will get to visit her.
(*) Yes, I sent her a $25.00 Postal Money Order #000008002: 11270730407 from P.O. 033010 (Concord, N.H.) on 2007-10-30 by Clerk 17 for $25.00 (15-800/ 000) Payable to: The Federal Bureau of Prisons, Elaine Alice clan Brown #03924-049, P.O. Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 50947-0001; also the 11270730396 one of same amount to Ed on that exact day re: his #03923-049. -- Joe P.S. I think I even photocopied the green + tan "CUSTOMER'S RECEIPT" for both her and Ed is how she knew that I mailed it, and to expect a credit to her account.
"SEE BACK OF THIS RECEIPT FOR IMPORTANT CLAIM INFORMATION NOT NEGOTIABLE. / This receipt is your guarantee for a refund of your money order if it is lost or stolen, provided you fill in the Pay To and From information on the money order in the space provided. No claim for improper payment permitted 2 years after payment. If your money order is lost or stolen, present this receipt and file a claim for a refund at your Post Office. / An inquiry Form 6401 may be filed at any time for a fee*. A replacement will not be issued until 60 days after the money order purchase date, provided the money order has not been paid." * a fee of: $_____? Inquiry to take #___ days, so by the 60th day of either it delivered, or them to pay this back to me. I have the cash register receipt of it sent to IA too, with the zip code on the receipt around here somewhere I think.
maybe because you made it payable to the fbop? i just make mine to elaine alice brown # 03924-049 it goes through. i just figured you would want to know she didnt get it. also if anyone remembers a guy that stayed on the browns property for 6 weeks this summer in an rv goes by the name old buck, he posted a message on his myspace page saying this:
============================================================================
As most of you know I spent 6 weeks over the summer at Ed and Elaine Brown home. During this time I was unarmed and on july 28th around midnight there was automatic weapons fired around the property and my Rv was shaken and rocked several time during the night. Before going to ed and elaines ,also during and after my stay I remained in regular contact with my Attorney. (fact -my Attorney is both a long term personel friend and a top knotch criminal tax Attorney) When I received word the four supporters Danny Bob Jason and Reno were arrested I was on my way back to Az . I immediately contacted my attorney incase there was a warrent out for me. My attorney in turn contacted both the US Attorney in NH and the US Marshal's . and was told there was no indictment or warrent for me but that they were still investigating and I may be indicted, they also asked that I be brought in to talk with them. Of course my Attorney told them NO that was not happening He also assured them that if I was indicted he would bring me in.
Update
A few days ago the US Marshal's and US Attorney's office contacted my Attorney and again requested he bring me in for questioning , they said I have not been indicted and that I was not being offered immunity that they just wanted to talk with me. When my Attorney refused there request they let it be known they will indict me if they can.
I told my Attorney let them indict and even if immunity is then offered I would refuse it . I will not tesify for or against anyone. as far as I'm concerned Ed and Elaine committed no Tax Crime ,made only defensive statements and the four supporters had/have a right and a duty as Americans to stop an unlawful arrest .
The Bottom line is the Marshal's and the US Attorney are trying to prop up there case against the supporters and I will not be a part of that Railroad.
By the way My Attorney is a close friend of Ron Paul and Dr. Paul wrote the forword to his book "How to survive the IRS" in 2001 My Attorney also was a keynote speaker and introduced Ron Paul in 1997 at his announcement that he was seeking election back to congress.
Vote Ron Paul and end the IRS
==============================================================================
so apparently the fishing expedition isnt over yet for the feds.....
dannys letter to me also asked that people mail copies of america freedom to fascism to all the jails to be reviewed by the library co's to be put on the approved list. he wants multiple copies (i sent 2 last week he didnt know about) knowing they will have to be reviewed and probably passed around. danny and jason both are trying to build sympathy for themselves and the cause, jason through information and danny wants these. also i sent him pics, they didnt get through. the first batch did smaller ones in a regular envelope folded, but the 8x10's didnt also they told him it was because of "bad slogans" on some photos. i think i wrote on one "we will never stop fighting for you!" and on the beer picture i wrote this beer is for you, and so is your first when you get out!" so now i have to resend them sans slogans. plus they told him they were too big! but they got through to the other inmates??
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 21, 2007, 01:38 PM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on November 21, 2007, 01:16 PM NHFT
elaines letter to me written november 17th 2007 a.d.
dear keith,
have you heard from ed? i have not, even though it is more then a week since we received permission to write...
i have never received any money from joe haas. i hope it has not been taken. (joe i told her you sent some because you posted you did sorry if im wrong and ill correct it in my next letter to elaine but if im right then your money isnt getting through?!?!) ... (*)
the noise level is incredible, also the language and the arguing. you have to learn to shut it out. i just splurged and spent $41 dollars at the commissary for a radio with ear plugs. also, that is the only way we can listen to the tv. we tune in to a certain station on the radio, ad that gives us the sound on the tv, as the tv itself is muted. thank goodness. yes, we go outside often, almost as much as we would like. there is a recreation area, both indoors and out with a gym and weight room. and outdoor area. the food is what you would expect. there is certainly enough of it. you have to be carefull of what you eat , as it is easy to gain weight here. lots of carbs.
you have been approved to visit. it can only be on an even number day.
i have received pictures from you, and a mountain of puzzle books. so many thanx to you...
any of the new paperbacks by crichton, grishom, king, koonts, cook, deaver (?), james patterson would be good. they are most of my favorite authors, but please dont overextend yourself. just writing to us is sufficient.
i will close for now. oh, i dont remember if i sent you a copy of eds letter to joe haas. i will enclose it here. it needs to go to congress our legislators should know what is going on!
elaine
enclosed was a photocopy of eds letter to joe in the KFP page 7 date (?)
so now im on her visiting list hopefully by this weekend i will get to visit her.
(*) Yes, I sent her a $25.00 Postal Money Order #000008002: 11270730407 from P.O. 033010 (Concord, N.H.) on 2007-10-30 by Clerk 17 for $25.00 (15-800/ 000) Payable to: The Federal Bureau of Prisons, Elaine Alice clan Brown #03924-049, P.O. Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 50947-0001; also the 11270730396 one of same amount to Ed on that exact day re: his #03923-049. -- Joe P.S. I think I even photocopied the green + tan "CUSTOMER'S RECEIPT" for both her and Ed is how she knew that I mailed it, and to expect a credit to her account.
"SEE BACK OF THIS RECEIPT FOR IMPORTANT CLAIM INFORMATION NOT NEGOTIABLE. / This receipt is your guarantee for a refund of your money order if it is lost or stolen, provided you fill in the Pay To and From information on the money order in the space provided. No claim for improper payment permitted 2 years after payment. If your money order is lost or stolen, present this receipt and file a claim for a refund at your Post Office. / An inquiry Form 6401 may be filed at any time for a fee*. A replacement will not be issued until 60 days after the money order purchase date, provided the money order has not been paid." * a fee of: $_____? Inquiry to take #___ days, so by the 60th day of either it delivered, or them to pay this back to me. I have the cash register receipt of it sent to IA too, with the zip code on the receipt around here somewhere I think.
I just called Elkton and had them look up Ed by inmate # to make sure they would give me the correct info. Ed can receive visitors at the times below. You just have to get added to his visitor list.
Monday, Thursday and Friday 5:00 pm - 9:00 pm
Saturday and Sunday 8:00 am - 3:00 pm
All federal holidays 8:00 am - 3:00 pm
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 21, 2007, 02:41 PM NHFT
I just called Elkton and had them look up Ed by inmate # to make sure they would give me the correct info. Ed can receive visitors at the times below. You just have to get added to his visitor list.
Monday, Thursday and Friday 5:00 pm - 9:00 pm
Saturday and Sunday 8:00 am - 3:00 pm
All federal holidays 8:00 am - 3:00 pm
Plus beware that he gets only four (4) points at the beginning of the month for these one or two hour visits, minus one point for each weekend/day visit, but unlimited night and holiday visits. I don't think that the points carry over if not used. -- Joe
Quote from: keith in RI on November 21, 2007, 02:10 PM NHFT
... also if anyone remembers a guy that stayed on the browns property for 6 weeks this summer in an rv goes by the name old buck, he posted a message on his myspace page saying this:
============================================================================
As most of you know I spent 6 weeks over the summer at Ed and Elaine Brown home. During this time I was unarmed and on july 28th around midnight there was automatic weapons fired around the property and my Rv was shaken and rocked several time during the night. Before going to ed and elaines ,also during and after my stay I remained in regular contact with my Attorney. (fact -my Attorney is both a long term personel friend and a top knotch criminal tax Attorney) When I received word the four supporters Danny Bob Jason and Reno were arrested I was on my way back to Az . I immediately contacted my attorney incase there was a warrent out for me. My attorney in turn contacted both the US Attorney in NH and the US Marshal's . and was told there was no indictment or warrent for me but that they were still investigating and I may be indicted, they also asked that I be brought in to talk with them. Of course my Attorney told them NO that was not happening He also assured them that if I was indicted he would bring me in.
Update
A few days ago the US Marshal's and US Attorney's office contacted my Attorney and again requested he bring me in for questioning , they said I have not been indicted and that I was not being offered immunity that they just wanted to talk with me. When my Attorney refused there request they let it be known they will indict me if they can.
I told my Attorney let them indict and even if immunity is then offered I would refuse it . I will not tesify for or against anyone. as far as I'm concerned Ed and Elaine committed no Tax Crime ,made only defensive statements and the four supporters had/have a right and a duty as Americans to stop an unlawful arrest .
The Bottom line is the Marshal's and the US Attorney are trying to prop up there case against the supporters and I will not be a part of that Railroad.
By the way My Attorney is a close friend of Ron Paul and Dr. Paul wrote the forword to his book "How to survive the IRS" in 2001 My Attorney also was a keynote speaker and introduced Ron Paul in 1997 at his announcement that he was seeking election back to congress.
Vote Ron Paul and end the IRS
==============================================================================
so apparently the fishing expedition isnt over yet for the feds.....
....
My congratulations to "old buck" for bucking the system. Telling the "talking arm" of the court to, in effect, go pound sand. Of course they want to talk. They're hoping that maybe somebody will blab something that they can latch onto and take it for a roller coaster ride. They're going to, by the "will" word, indict; bullshit! They're a bunch of liars. This is what they want, and I bet maybe some of the jurors are wise to their antics, by like reading here, knowing that the Feds lack the authority with no RSA 123:1 papers on file from 1-8-17 U.S. Const., but take the $xx.xx per day jury fee pay for that day to return no true bills, slamming it back in the face of the U.S. Attorney. Sooner or later there will be a REAL criminal that needs dealing with to put away, but until the day that they file making themselves lawful and legal, they are really doing all of us a dis-service! -- Joe
Quote from: keith in RI on November 21, 2007, 01:16 PM NHFT
elaines letter to me written november 17th 2007 a.d.
dear keith, ...
any of the new* paperbacks by crichton, grishom, king, koonts, cook, deaver (?), james patterson would be good. they are most of my favorite authors, but please dont overextend yourself. just writing to us is sufficient...
elaine
....
I was at Border's in Concord tonight before the 10 p.m. closing time, and asked the Reference man about all of these authors, Michael Crichton (who I remember from "Jurassic Park" - I wrote to him and he send me an autographed picture); Robin Cook (lives in Waterville Valley, author of "Coma"); Deaver (sorry I forgot his first name). -- Here's what I found in hardcover: Playing for Pizza (out in July, by John Grisham), and Double Cross (out 2 weeks ago) by James Patterson. http://www.jamespatterson.com So these were 50% off the $50.00 total, so only $25.00 ($12.50 each) + 4.50 postage + packing and only 50-cents per book thereafter, so they'll be mailed by them to Elaine on Friday.
The next books due from the others are: (1) 22 Jan. 08 "Duma Key" by Stephen King, and; (2) 27 Nov. 07 "Darkest Evening of the Year" by Dean Koonts. So next Tuesday, maybe somebody else would like to visit their Border's or Barnes & Nobel Bookstore, etc. and buy this one too for Elaine. _____
Yours truly, -- Joe
P.S. If Elaine could send us a list of books she's already read by these authors, then maybe a cheaper paperback would be O.K. I just didn't want to send her a duplicate copy of something she's already read. I took a chance that maybe she was too busy to read last July for the Grisham book, anyway to give it to another inmate then, and most definitely she hasn't seen the one published just two weeks ago. These are hardcovers as only allowed from the book-sellers. We can mail in paperbacks ourselves is what you wrote about before, right? So to maybe see these at the local thrift store for only 25-cents each. Or holiday bazaar / fair for charity at your local church for Christmas presents.
* new, meaning she's read all of the others for each author?
i cant do it next tuesday but next thursday i will if no one else can. and yes hardcovers must come from the distributor/publisher or as told by the prison it must be mailed from a "private address" whatever that means but softcovers may come from anyone but limited to 5 per package clearly marked books on the outside. i have already sent elaine and ed crosswords and soduku books so they are getting through, well elaines are anyway.
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 21, 2007, 11:33 PM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on November 21, 2007, 01:16 PM NHFT
elaines letter to me written november 17th 2007 a.d.
dear keith, ...
any of the new* paperbacks by crichton, grishom, king, koonts, cook, deaver (?), james patterson would be good. they are most of my favorite authors, but please dont overextend yourself. just writing to us is sufficient...
elaine
....
I was at Border's in Concord tonight before the 10 p.m. closing time, and asked the Reference man about all of these authors, Michael Crichton (who I remember from "Jurassic Park" - I wrote to him and he send me an autographed picture); Robin Cook (lives in Waterville Valley, author of "Coma"); Deaver (sorry I forgot his first name). -- Here's what I found in hardcover: Playing for Pizza (out in July, by John Grisham), and Double Cross (out 2 weeks ago) by James Patterson. http://www.jamespatterson.com So these were 50% off the $50.00 total, so only $25.00 ($12.50 each) + 4.50 postage + packing and only 50-cents per book thereafter, so they'll be mailed by them to Elaine on Friday.
The next books due from the others are: (1) 22 Jan. 08 "Duma Key" by Stephen King, and; (2) 27 Nov. 07 "Darkest Evening of the Year" by Dean Koonts. So next Tuesday, maybe somebody else would like to visit their Border's or Barnes & Nobel Bookstore, etc. and buy this one too for Elaine. _____
Yours truly, -- Joe
P.S. If Elaine could send us a list of books she's already read by these authors, then maybe a cheaper paperback would be O.K. I just didn't want to send her a duplicate copy of something she's already read. I took a chance that maybe she was too busy to read last July for the Grisham book, anyway to give it to another inmate then, and most definitely she hasn't seen the one published just two weeks ago. These are hardcovers as only allowed from the book-sellers. We can mail in paperbacks ourselves is what you wrote about before, right? So to maybe see these at the local thrift store for only 25-cents each. Or holiday bazaar / fair for charity at your local church for Christmas presents.
* new, meaning she's read all of the others for each author?
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 21, 2007, 11:03 PM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on November 21, 2007, 02:10 PM NHFT
... also if anyone remembers a guy that stayed on the browns property for 6 weeks this summer in an rv goes by the name old buck, he posted a message on his myspace page saying this:
============================================================================
Update
A few days ago the US Marshal's and US Attorney's office contacted my Attorney and again requested he bring me in for questioning , they said I have not been indicted and that I was not being offered immunity that they just wanted to talk with me. When my Attorney refused there request they let it be known they will indict me if they can.
I told my Attorney let them indict and even if immunity is then offered I would refuse it . I will not tesify for or against anyone. as far as I'm concerned Ed and Elaine committed no Tax Crime ,made only defensive statements and the four supporters had/have a right and a duty as Americans to stop an unlawful arrest .
The Bottom line is the Marshal's and the US Attorney are trying to prop up there case against the supporters and I will not be a part of that Railroad.
By the way My Attorney is a close friend of Ron Paul and Dr. Paul wrote the forword to his book "How to survive the IRS" in 2001 My Attorney also was a keynote speaker and introduced Ron Paul in 1997 at his announcement that he was seeking election back to congress.
Vote Ron Paul and end the IRS
==============================================================================
so apparently the fishing expedition isnt over yet for the feds.....
....
My congratulations to "old buck" for bucking the system. Telling the "talking arm" of the court to, in effect, go pound sand. Of course they want to talk. They're hoping that maybe somebody will blab something that they can latch onto and take it for a roller coaster ride. They're going to, by the "will" word, indict; bullshit! They're a bunch of liars. This is what they want, and I bet maybe some of the jurors are wise to their antics, by like reading here, knowing that the Feds lack the authority with no RSA 123:1 papers on file from 1-8-17 U.S. Const., but take the $xx.xx per day jury fee pay for that day to return no true bills, slamming it back in the face of the U.S. Attorney. Sooner or later there will be a REAL criminal that needs dealing with to put away, but until the day that they file making themselves lawful and legal, they are really doing all of us a dis-service! -- Joe
yes old buck told me he is not "in hiding" from anyone he is just laying low to see what happens. his attorney has told the us attorney that if and when there is an indictment to call him and they will make arrangements to turn himself in. he wants to donate money to ed and elaine but he is afraid to reveal his location to them by doing it.
Quote from: keith in RI on November 22, 2007, 08:22 AM NHFT
...
yes old buck told me he is not "in hiding" from anyone he is just laying low to see what happens. his attorney has told the us attorney that if and when there is an indictment to call him and they will make arrangements to turn himself in. he wants to donate money to ed and elaine but he is afraid to reveal his location to them by doing it.
I doubt very much that he would be indicted, for what? staying on the property for that six (6) weeks. They just want to talk "with" him, not "to" him, to get him in a chatty mood to maybe say something that he saw or heard from so and so. So in other words for him to be their eyes and ears, but to a "talking arm" of the court!? They have no eyes or ears. Like somebody, maybe Dees can do a cartoon on this Marshal-Attorney mentality of KNOWING they need the paperwork on file with the state by their own Manual #664, but instead go looking elsewhere to others to fill out more paperwork to submit to the cases already there and to try to create new cases? The Grand Jurors ought to be the shield against such bull-shit. When does this Grand Jury that indicted the Four Freedom Keepers go out of business? They last for 12 months with only one extension of 6 months to a max of 18 months I think it is. What we ought to find out is how many no true bills were returned on flimsy paperwork from the gov't. I'd like to find out when the next Grand Jury meets to hand out some information packet to each one of them with a copy of U.S. Attorney Manual #664, Bill Gardner's Certification of the non-filing to RSA Ch. 123:1 with the statute attached, plus a free copy of the N.H. Constitution booklet with the U.S. Constitution therein the front with Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 page corner folded down at the top corner with a paper clip and highlighted. Then to watch for the no true bills of nobody indicted. The Press getting the latest indictments. So Press: how many on average are there there every month when they meet every __ day of the month? And can we do such an experiment, like to have "old buck" daring them to indict him after they have all the evidence of their non-being to go after a being!? Again I say: you have got to be shitting me! This logic of there's just boggles the mind. http://www.sandlotscience.com/Games/Mind_Boggled.htm Maybe Dadda Orwell might like to coordinate such a demonstration? with the Gadsden flag of course of: Don't Tread on Me! - Joe
Modification: The moral of the story is that the Feds do not have the freedom of choice to pick a number from out of the Title 18 basket until AFTER they deal with the New Hampshire numbers 123:1. They take an oath to the U.S. Constitution. 1-8-17 directs, yes DIRECTS them to see what the State Legislature says for the "consent" to be before they can operate within the state they want to go to. Attorney Larry Becraft's website outlines all the states and what each requires. So far I've found only single and double filing states, with the paperwork FROM the Feds to be filed TO the state, NOT to the individual. They are OUT-OF-ORDER if they approach the individual BEFORE the state! Once filed they still do not get on a smooth sail in at least one state I've researched: that being Missouri where the governor may refuse to certify the federal filing for the feds to prove jurisdiction in which to operate, as the ultimate rights of the state OVER the Feds that all of us other states ought to wise up to, and especially New Hampshire to offset the corruption that has occurred to the victims of the past and present* to prevent future harm. It's time to dust of the tarnished badge. Like the Pilgrims who landed at Plimouth Rock, they made friends of the Indians upon whose soil we landed, or as some say we conquered. Either way the Feds on state soil by permission only: yes or no? Yes, of course, then like the Hall Monitor in High School, WHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS? Feds: where are your RSA 123:1 papers? Before you can sit down to eat today, if you're reading this, be glad that you're in N.H./ the granite state, not sitting on a stone today, unless you want to be, and that come Monday morning, you go from state to federal soil, and then try to conduct your business as tentacles from your octopus eye, but like the zookeepers we are, I ask you where are your papers for such a field trip into state waters? Happy Thanksgiving to you today, and may it feed your brain to understand this and do what's right Monday morning, by nol-prosing the indictments by all four Freedom Keepers to start with. Otherwise you will be told by the Supremes of what to do that you do not do voluntarily.
More info over at my "Wise up or Die" page"
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9345.90
When I win this case on the "Motion to Reconsider", I think it will give hope to E+E+4 that although they
spent a Thanksgiving in prison/jails respectfully, that either the State +/or Federal Habeas Corpus Petition(s) will be granted, as I did get out of jail on one I wrote up myself once using the Ch. 37, page 73 form from McNamara's book. [Judge Rbt.E.K.Morrill in Grafton County over-ruled Judge Edwin W. Kelley in Plymouth].
I think Ed ought to re-file his Habeas and find out which court they'll assign him too, and then I, for one, am ready, willing and able to travel to that city IN SEARCH OF...an attorney in person, right around the courthouse block if need be. The Need being IF Elizabeth doesn't see Ed this next week, to get the case started, so that a pre-liminary hearing can occur in early December and maybe the final hearing on the merits of this violation of procedural due process to occur in mid December for his release BEFORE Christmas.
-- Joe
joe, i havent heard back from ms. kelley yet. have you? i sent her another email the other day and just called her now and left a message. (1:20pm saturday) would be nice to get a phone call either way even if the answer is no.
Quote from: keith in RI on November 24, 2007, 12:22 PM NHFT
joe, i havent heard back from ms. kelley yet. have you? i sent her another email the other day and just called her now and left a message. (1:20pm saturday) would be nice to get a phone call either way even if the answer is no.
No, And I don't expect one until Monday after the 4-day weekend here. David never wrote nor called back either, re: his trip to see Elaine, maybe to get both reports on Monday from each of them. -- Joe
P.S. I'll give you a progress report on Jason + Danny tomorrow night after my visit.
There's some more discussion about Bill Miller going on over here:—
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=12205.0
joe i just sent you an email about elaines son.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on November 24, 2007, 03:28 PM NHFT
There's some more discussion about Bill Miller going on over here:—
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=12205.0
Missing or off limits!?
Quote from: keith in RI on November 25, 2007, 10:56 AM NHFT
joe i just sent you an email about elaines son.
Thanks Keith. So do you want to publish it here?, plus my reply if you'd like.
WHO is that estates expert?
Reference: his (and his sister's) trip to see her the other day, doing O.K. (except for her minor hand problem), with help to other inmates without family or friends. She doesn't want to hear about Ed's problems since she can't do anything about his situation, and asked about the Habeas, but which one? The one Ed filed was returned for more paperwork just sitting in Ed's cell for Elizabeth to visit this week? Plus Danny's sitting with the Supremes. And so my reply being for her to maybe wait until either Danny wins his case, or Ron Paul wins the Primary here in early January for his V.P. candidate, Andrew Napolitano to maybe make another name for himself nationwide. Or maybe Andrew to do this to highlight what Ron Paul stands for, with some co-signing of the Habeas by Ron for to alert his Congressional Court in Conn.ecticut that he finds them in compliance with both the law and the statute, and to check-and-balance against the in non-compliance federal court in New Hampshire, with Ron Paul saying something like when he gets to be President, he will hold Executive Hearings on the charges of unlawfully and illegally incarcerated inmates from I.R.S. abuse cases from #___ double-filing states in non-compliance to 1-7-18 U.S. Const., starting with N.H. (123:1), and get back to the very definition of the phrase to lay and collect in the 16th Amend. and that what makes a person "liable" to SHOW RON THE LAW, as in a Show-Cause request from the Executive to the Judiciary, and withOUT any answer, to pardon all the victims of I.R.S. abuse through crooked U.S. Attorneys in violation of their own Manual #664!
- - Joe
P.S. Elaine with e-mail to her daughter as the "only" outside contact allowed?, so to go by channels of Elaine to her to him/David to Keith, to here for help from us as low man on the totem pole.
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 25, 2007, 11:31 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on November 24, 2007, 03:28 PM NHFT
There's some more discussion about Bill Miller going on over here:—
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=12205.0
Missing or off limits!?
Merged with another thread. they're here:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=10631.0
my correspondence with david hatch bernier elaine browns son after his trip to see elaine yesterday.
his first email to me:
Good Morning:
I just wanted to give you an update on my mother. My sister and I
went to visit her in Danbury yesterday. She is doing relatively well
and appreciates all we (you) are doing to help her. The thing that
upsets her the most is when Ed tells her about how badly things are
for him. I wish he wouldn't do that. There is nothing she can do to
help, and it only serves to upset her.
Her hand is being treated- somewhat- but she is otherwise in good
health. She is obviously not being mistreated and has plenty of food
and clean clothing. Even in prison, she is helping others. There
are a couple of girls there with no friends or family to put money
into their commissary accounts, so my mother has them do her laundry
and she buys them what they need (toothpaste, soap, etc) at the
commissary. She makes things like toothbrushes and razors last much
longer so she can afford to do that.
Does anyone know what is happening with the Habeus Corpus? She asked
me about that a couple of times, but I had no answer. I have also
been in contact with Catherine Dion who manages the property trusts
and she seems to think the house could possibly be safe from
confiscation. This is the IRS however, so who knows? If we are able
to save it, then Catherine is going to ask my mother to sign a power
of attorney so we could keep it going or sell it on her behalf. If
we can't sell it right away but are able to save it, my sister and I
could cover the $11,000 annual property tax bill by cashing in 401K
accounts. At least my mother could potentially have somewhat of a
retirement fund when she gets out. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
She may also be able to communicate via email shortly, and has
already been in touch with my sister electronically. She is in the
process of adding my name to her email list, so as soon as that is
established, it will be a breeze communicating with her. Even if you
are not able to establish contact with her electronically, I could
always forward messages on your behalf.
Thanks again for everything, and let me know if there is anything
else I can do. I hope you had an enjoyable Thanksgiving.
-David
my response:
dave thanx for getting back to me. first can i repost
this email on the net? i repost everything so people
can get information just them hearing that elaine is
getting by using money in her account may spur people
to donate more money you know?? but i wont if you dont
want me too...i agree on the information about ed
however if they have permission to write to each other
there is nothing we can do about that, i, however will
not be sending anymore bad info along as i have been
thinking that very thing and dont want to be a part of
making any depression worsen. like you said there is
nothing she can do about it anyway.
you say her hand is being treated. for what? was
something wrong with it? was it hurt during the
arrest? nothing was ever said about it. kinda screwy
that a dentist has limited access to
toothbrushes....thats prison though.
as far as the legal issues, ie:habeous, the person to
ask that would be joe haas he has been working with ed
to try to get this filed. we have been in contact with
several lawyers some refused the case some we are
still waiting to hear from. the last elizabeth kelley
said she would visit ed and talk about representing
him but wanted money up front for having to travel to
elkton fci from cleveland. she said she would come up
with a figure and call back but i havent heard from
her since and ive sent an email and another phone
call. as has joe haas. hopefully she is just busy with
the holiday. joe is looking for as much info on the
house as possible as is ed. i think the plan is this
is going to be a long long fight and they will
probably need the money from the house to fight it! if
you goto www.nhfree.com and click on forum in the
upper left corner then click general discussion then
look for the listing main thread for ed and elaine vs
the evil irs. that is the bulletin board that we all
communicate through. it is where all updates are
posted so any of us working on the case trying to help
can be on the same page. start at the last page first
(currently 445 i think) it is the newest posts. i know
one of eds last messages out said he needed to file an
injunction on the house to protect it from seizure
BECAUSE they needed the equity in it to fight. tonight
im going to ask joe haas to send me every bit of info
that he has on what he has been doing on the habeous
and everything and any questions he has to get
answered by her and im going to go see your mom this
week sometime. i have a crappy car so i need to borrow
one to get the three hours there it is why i cant go
more often but i need to get up to date info from her
i think to be of any help. and the only way to do that
is to go see her. plus im sure joe has questions too.
keep in mind it will probably be more than 11,000 per
year for the house. i think they never paid for local
taxes at the end and there could be lawsuits etc... im
not sure. plus there is regular maintenance on the
house and considering it was never finished being
built that could get expensive! (i think it needs
siding and windows in the very large cupoula (ha ha)
right? and who knows what else! if it is possible to
save it and i know this is far off but, maybe you
could rent it? weekly for vacations or yearly to
someone to help with the bills it is a big house in a
nice area. just thinking?! i can just see the bills
getting rediculous fast! but you would know better
than i would. keep me updated on that though. maybe if
you decided to go that route some of the NH
freestaters could help finding tenants or something.
i already sent your mom my email address but i dont
know if i have to do anything else to get on her email
list? if so let me know ill do it that would be a much
better way to communicate.
look forward to hearing from you
keith
his response back:
Hi Keith:
First of all, her hand was broken prior to the arrest, so it's not
the Feds' fault. Secondly, if it's possible to keep the house out of
the Feds' hands, there's little chance anyone would rent it. It's
not a desirable area and far from any tourist areas like skiing or
sailing. The neighborhood itself is not very high-end either, so
it's not the kind of place that could fetch enough rent to cover the
taxes and other overhead expenses. I think selling it would be the
best bet, and I doubt it would be worth completing the project.
Whoever ends up buying it would have so much to do to make it more
livable. If I were to buy that house, it would probably be just for
the land, and I'd have the thing demolished and start again. Ed
didn't really follow the blueprints I drew up three years ago and
went overboard trying to build some fantasy play castle which would
not appeal to many people.
Anyway, feel free to post whatever you want to from my
correspondences. I know I need to speak with Joe Haas, and he left
me a message last week. I will try him tomorrow. We'll see what
happens, but I'm not overly optimistic. Everyone who claims to want
to help ends up being a dead end.
I'll let you know what comes of my conversation with him if anything.
Thanks for keeping in touch,
Dave
Thanks for posting that Keith. I'm very, very disappointed in these skank lawyers. I can't wait to call Tommy Cryer during his next radio interview on the Power hour, Alex Jones, whatever.
Update: Jason and Danny.
This weekend was a busy one at the Strafford County Jail in Dover. The list had a lot of yellow highlights on the names bunched together, there being #___ windows per cube, and so my guess is that of to let other inmates have visits from their families and friends too, so that the regulars had to be put on the back burner per some quota maybe. So to try next time. -- Joe
P.S. The official reason was that for some unknown reason their names were not put on the list by the deadline of yesterday at __:__ o'clock a.m./p.m. (policy changed in mid-stream, them notified too late?)
Classes on: UFO Sightings being moved from Devens, MAss. F.C.I. to Elkton, Ohio?
http://prisontalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188959 [3-15-06]. JSH
i received letters from reno bob and elaine today. they are coming in faster than i can send them out! i also received BOTH envelopes containing 2 dvd's each of america freedom to fascism addressed to reno and bob. both envelopes stamped refused returned to sender. with hand written notes saying cant have items. both envelopes were opened and renos was resealed with staples and bobs resealed with clear tape. funny thing is, inside renos envelope one of the dvd's was put back into its sleeve backwards? so you couldnt see the writting on the top. when i sent them they were all facing out through the clear plastic in the sleeve. i wonder if someone watched it?! hope so it only takes on person!
letter from bob in response to my 5 dollar deposit o his commissary account:dated 11/22/07
hi keith,
WOW! i really appreciate the cash! that is awesome. i will get a bag of instant coffee, sugar, and powdered creamer! we order from the canteen once a week.THANKS!!! i was begining to wonder if anybody out there was paying attention anymore. i havent heard from anybody except a few close friends. tues, the four of us were reindicted on conspiracy charges. i was not included with the other 3 the first time around. i was the one that just offered moral support to ed and elaine. i never supplied weapons or other stuff. the other 3 are facing some serious time, mine may only be 24 months. what a bunch of crap! no matter what, the only thing we did was to keep (**the rest written in pencil**) the feds from killing the browns.one element of my charge is counterintelligence on a federal agent. isnt that a bogus charge! (i guess i will order another pen mine just went dry!) thanks for your support! keep spreading the word and lets make sure we get ron paul elected!
BOB
elaines letter to me dated 11/21/07:
dear keith,
i didnt realize you were in contact with joe haas. you two are quite a team! thank you for the address' (**i sent her address of senators and reps from nh at joe's request**) i have been sending copies of eds letter to joe that kat published in the keene free press. to everyone i can think of with instructions to send copies to their senators and reps in d.c. their treatment of ed is criminal and can not be allowed to continue. they probably treat all political prisoners this way. it seems they are trying to kill him without leaving any marks, to make it look like he died of natural causes. i am so worried about him.
i got the address for the bureau of prisons from joe and will send to them also.
i received my first letter from ed 2 days ago. he wrote it on november 3 at time of writing he was still in isolation, and still in a very cold room. he said he heard he was going to be moved to a more secure facility in 2 weeks. so i dont know if hes still in ohio or not. he said the marshall told BOP that he is militia and could influence others if he is allowed in general population, or something like that. thank you for the puzzle books and photos. i think i thanked you for the books already. let me know if you did not get that letter. i dont know about any webpages.we have no internet access except for email.
****** **** has been writing to us both, and has even sent some money to my account. we have never met her, and she is turning out to be a real friend!
i received the **** (i cant read elaines writing here and i dont remember what i sent her that she is refering to) you sent. i gave one to one of the women here who is being released in 2 weeks. i have been working with her and another on resolving this through commerce laws that the government works under-ucc-1, bonds,etc, if it works we are all out of here. we do a lot of praying. god bless you and others like you keith you are our lifeline!
it does not require an attorney to file a habeous corpus. anyone can do that, fred smart and thurston bell are supposedly working on one, but it shouldnt take this long, its not that complicated. if you could call rbn 1-800-313-9443 (?) thats republic broadcasting network-its on the internet. in fact, you can speak on the show to give updates and keep us in the news. fred has his show mon-fri @10 am. ask him about the habeous.
will write soon. i will put you on my email list. just rememebr that all email is read by them. also real mail is precious. there is nothing like the written word. you are approved to visit. i already told you that.
ELAINE
renos letter coming. ......
renos letter to me dated 11/22/07:
keith,
hey! happy thanksgiving! i just received an envelope post maked the 19th of nov 07.
there was no letter, or even a note in it. but there was a receipt. money order of 5 dollars was sent to my account from keith *********. first, please, allow me to say "thank you!" i am not sure what pressed you to send me money for canteen but thank you so much!
it was a surprise that i was not expecting! trust me, for it being a holiday, i was not very pleased how the day was going at all.
then a gift! out of the blue! i swear , xmas on thanksgiving for me in jail! again "THANK YOU!" well today was crappy. it started last night. i requested that E (max) block eat together for thanksgiving diner. i was shot down before i even handed in the request sheet. FUCKERS! then today, well long story short, top tier (my tier) was supposed to eat out of our cells/together on the "floor" at least once a day we are supposed to be able to eat our meals out of our cells with each other. well the corrections officers screwed it up today, my tier ended up eating every ,eal in our cells, each of us alone. even after lunch (the holiday meal) one of the c/o's promised we woul get to eat our supper together at least since it was fucked up at lunch time. DID NOT HAPPEN! happy thanksgiving! if it were not for your simple gift, i would have been pissed off the whole day. but some more good news, i "woke up" two more guys. one promised to become active. i could tell the c/o's ears were listening in. GOOD GOOD, truth is infectous!
again thank you!
reno
Hey Keith: Keep up the good work.
I got a letter from Bob in the mail today, saying that he will put me down for a Wednesday visit in the a..m. They have to schedule each week different, the day before, some A-H, I-Z MWF, TTSS crap I guess to confuse things so you've gotta call in to see if request was granted the day before?
From past experience, I think you can drop off $dollar bills for a receipt when the clerk is working there like 8-4 M-F. I'll try to give a $5.00 - $10.00 bill to Bob and Reno too.
Plus another packet in #10 envelopes went out to E+E + 4 tonight @ about 9:30 p.m. for postmark tomorrow and Wednesday delivery @ __:_ a.m./p.m. to N.H., and Nov. __ to E+E.
And: David, I think that was your tel. # on the missed call, so to try you same time tomorrow night, early evening.
Also: I did visit the Supremes and some guy overheard me while he was on the copier talking about this and that and he said to see Rep. Dan Itse this Jan. '08 for a House Bill #_____ to appeal cases to the N.H. General Court by Art. 32 is my guess for REAL justice.
Copied: The page 7 of Danny's Habeas Petition was at the Supremes, and they just sent him a "Case is accepted" letter today 11/26 with his brief due by Dec. 26th, and the opposition's Reply Brief (from Strafford County Attorney, +/or in-house Attny) by Jan. 25th '08 = only days before the start of the trial in federal court. Maybe he can file a Motion to Continue to the Feds to await the state finding that the Feds are corrupt, and so not to waste any more taxpayer dollars either.
Yours truly, - Joe
P.S. Bill - I can scan and send you the page 7 + "Case is accepted" letter to put over at http://www.danrileyld.blogspot.com
PPS I also got my Reader's Digest copy in the mail today, so both E+E ought to have their copies too.
joe still nothing from elizabeth kelley yet? no call to me yet either... she called within 24 hours the first time and now its been days think she got scared off?? wonder if the feds saw her name posted here and "found" her you know? maybe next time we should keep the names in private emails??
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 19, 2007, 03:35 PM NHFT
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 19, 2007, 02:36 PM NHFT
...
Spelled with the extra letter e: http://www.elizabethkelleylaw.com/contact.asp
Keith, I just called Elizabeth (at 11:37 a.m.) and she picked up the phone right away. I told her my name and referenced my call to her last week; and she said that she is supposed to get back to you: Mr. C. -- my reply being yes: Keith, who I guess is the coordinator of all this, for me to go through him, my guess being that she does not want everybody calling her office, like I did to try to give her a summary, and so to deal with Ed directly, but how and when to get there, and what $amount does she need to get this case going?
She seemed rushed today, otherwise I would have told her the latest on Danny's case of his Habeas to be decided at the State Supremes here maybe in February after the opposition Reply Brief in January, so the case "moot" should he go to trial and lose like Ed in not being allowed to provide this 123:1 evidence to the jury!? Of course not! The fact that the legal bullets were not in Ed's case, nor might be the same mal-treatment in Danny's case, as in they might again say that the end justifies the means, as in a sociopath mentality, THEM the actually mentally ill patients needing some treatments for we are supposed to be operating in an Art. IV, Sec. 4 U.S. Constitutional Republican form of government that IN-cludes procedural due process too in that the end does NOT justify the means! Either the Feds have their 1-7-18 papers on file by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 for jurisdiction, or they do not. It's as simple as that!* Too bad the Natural Law Party doesn't have a Presidential candidate running this time, or has anybody else adopted this plank on their platform of to have all public servants' heads examined!
Mitt Romney says on one TV commercial I saw that if/when he gets to be President he will audit the gov't from top to bottom, and that this also includes the U.S. Mint, and WHERE are those Section 16 gold bars from the Federal Reserve Act to mint into gold eagle coins for when the Federal Reserve System and their member banksters refuse to redeem these notes/ or promises to pay by Title 12 U.S. Code, Section 411. Can we get him to put this in writing, and spotlight for the others to sign too? Is Bisquick going to have their traditional Pancake breakfast at the Center of New Hampshire in Manchester next month? That would be a good time to pin-em down. To call some campaign offices now. __ **
The question now being: $______ to her for to file and prosecute Ed's civil case of Habeas now in Ohio, for him to be out by Christmas, or to hoard the money in the $200,000 homestead exemption RSA Ch. 480:1 in the Plainfield property, and await what might happen in Danny's case? Or maybe the Feds are not releasing the homestead $money until LATER? In which case to sit and await Danny's win, to apply to Ed's future case AFTER Feb. '08, to file in another single-filing state if they move him, or will the Feds send him to another double-filing state in non-compliance, which the federal judge will tell him to sit in the prison for the next six years!!! + !!! ? That is UNLESS some candidate like Ron Paul wins the Presidency for those Pardons like Aaron Russo talked about in his "From Freedom to Fascism" film.
I think Ed ought to go forward with his case in Ohio right now, so that when he gets out, Danny can use the paperwork there in his New Hampshire case, and for this sit-on-your-ass mentality in New Hampshire, to have to go through the standard briefing times as regular cases, even in an Art. 91 Habeas case, at the Supremes, then the Strafford County WILL pay dearly***, in that they were given the opportunity to AGREE with Danny withIN 10 days of his Petition being filed, the judge (Stephen Houran, from Laconia, a former prosecutor with the N.H. Attorney General's Office) issuing his opinion BEFORE the 10-days ran out, but which "opinion" the Strafford County does not have to take, and can release him since the Feds don't even have a contract with the state or county, just some verbal agreement to keep on taking in federal funds, and so when they arrive in town to lodge one of their prisoners, the facility is supposed to bend over backwards and take it up the ass!? and like it!? What a bunch of farts! To check out when next the County Commissioners meet and give them a piece of my mind, my 2-cents worth!!
Yours truly, -- Joe
-* footnote #1: When all is said and done, we ought to beef-up this N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 to be like that Minnesota States Annotated Section 1.043 (as I did write about to slimpickens here on Oct. 10 '07 @ 02:29 AM back as Reply #___ on page #____ here) that jurisdiction must be proven by the prosecutor when challenged by the defendant, AND the governor there to issue such a certificate as evidence to be marked as the exhibit, but who can refuse, such as in a removal process to another state, to pre-vent injustice, in like to require proof of that for WHERE the individual is going is in compliance with the state statute there, and if not to be the neighborly thing to do of to "Just Say No", as Nancy Reagan used to say. The governor to say NO, to any certificate, and so to put a monkey wrench into the situation, and especially like when he/she hears how crappy that other state, like N.H. has dealt with others from: New York + Missouri (Danny + Jason), plus Vermont + Texas (Bob + Reno).
cc: Gov. ___________ of Minnesota, with thanks in advance to prevent similar injustice, as maybe the safe-haven to go to if on the run, like F. Tupper Saussy was years ago, http://www.tuppersaussy.com but didn't know about this great state of Minnesota that ought to be called the new "Show Me" state, because Missouri Ch. 12 over at http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm brags about the fact of their state motto, but that Minnesota is the REAL state deserving of this top honor.
** Yesterday I also got in the mail, the denial of my Motion to Reconsider, so to file a Motion for Discovery of just WHERE is this RSA 21:4 technical definition of the word threat to mean something other than the dictionary definition of a coercion of no choice, to include choice! Plus BTW my check for the cassette tape(s) was returned proving that The Lebanon District Court does their banking with The Lake Sunapee Bank, and so to check to see if they have the $lawful money as required by Section 20 of the Coinage Act of 1792.
*** Daily Damages of: $2,500 per day, per the Veronia Silva case in the N.H. State Board of Claims, mid 1980s, her attorney: Andru Volinsky.
so should i try and call today or think i should wait, or another email maybe? did she sound like she was blowing you off? i left her a phone message the other day and she hasnt gotten back to me yet?? but she tells you she is going through me??
Keith, I just called Elizabeth (at 11:37 a.m.) and she picked up the phone right away. I told her my name and referenced my call to her last week; and she said that she is supposed to get back to you: Mr. C. -- my reply being yes: Keith, who I guess is the coordinator of all this, for me to go through him, my guess being that she does not want everybody calling her office, like I did to try to give her a summary, and so to deal with Ed directly, but how and when to get there, and what $amount does she need to get this case going?
She seemed rushed today, otherwise I would have told her the latest on Danny's case of his Habeas to be decided at the State Supremes here maybe in February after the opposition Reply Brief in January, so the case "moot" should he go to trial and lose like Ed in not being allowed to provide this 123:1 evidence to the jury!? Of course not! The fact that the legal bullets were not in Ed's case, nor might be the same mal-treatment in Danny's case, as in they might again say that the end justifies the means, as in a sociopath mentality, THEM the actually mentally ill patients needing some treatments for we are supposed to be operating in an Art. IV, Sec. 4 U.S. Constitutional Republican form of government that IN-cludes procedural due process too in that the end does NOT justify the means! Either the Feds have their 1-7-18 papers on file by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 for jurisdiction, or they do not. It's as simple as that!* Too bad the Natural Law Party doesn't have a Presidential candidate running this time, or has anybody else adopted this plank on their platform of to have all public servants' heads examined!
Quote from: keith in RI on November 27, 2007, 12:23 PM NHFT
so should i try and call today or think i should wait, or another email maybe? did she sound like she was blowing you off? i left her a phone message the other day and she hasnt gotten back to me yet?? but she tells you she is going through me??
Keith,
You ought to give her a call, because maybe she doesn't really want to spend the cost for an out-of-state phone call? If she's there and not busy, fine, or to ask her when a good time to call back would be, to e-mail you that info if she can't answer right away, and call then. We've got to get a $dollar amount of what she wants to drive 2+2= 4 hours, plus an hour with Ed, and then her decision of: yes or no, to take the case. Usually an initial conference with the attorney is free (or $25.00 by the Referral Fee program here in N.H. with the N.H. Bar Association, transferable to another attorney if he/she doesn't take the case?), but how can Ed get to her office? He can't so to get her out of the office to him. Paperwork is fine to a point, but she has got to meet with Ed, and then Ed can communicate with her by e-mail now. Whatever happened to that Pro Bono work? Donating time + $money to indigent clients. Can't she write this off against her gross income, to get to a lower tax bracket? Or is she still trying to make her quarters for Social Security? And once reached, why would anyone not go with the $50.00 gold coin program so as to be under the reporting $amount. Maybe she doesn't want to take the case, because she will be the next Chapter #__ in the book. Or are her principles restricted to only state citizens, not federal withIN her state? Has she a federal #___ to practice in court there, or is that another expense that has to be paid?
Like I did with Mike K., the Youngstown attorney, I called him, sent him some papers, then called again for him to say no. Him saying that the case might be assigned to the Toldeo judge. So either she gets involved now, or maybe for us to go looking in Toledo as where his case MIGHT be sent from the Youngstown court. I'm getting to the point of that saying of you can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink. Ed has all the info for his Habeas and although the court would like an attorney to file it from the start, if one cannot be found ahead of time, then maybe to file it anyway, and IF Cleveland is chosen, THEN maybe Elizabeth might say yes, or if Youngstown to re-call Mike who doesn't like to travel either, to see if he'd reconsider, or if Toledo, then to maybe get on a bus to there and do some walking, as the internet can only go so far, it looking good of Elizabeth's principles of fighting corruption on her website, but for whatever reason(s), the ball is in her court as she said, to give you a call, so maybe to set a deadline of her to toss the ball to you by say the end of this week, and if she can't get caught up on work after the Thanksgiving weekend by then, then to go onto looking for another attorney. But as for me, I GIVE UP! Let Ed sit there until AFTER Danny's case. Merry Christmas Ed in your jail cell, if you really wanted out, you'd be writing to the Treasury Agents for WHEN they'll release your RSA Ch. 480:1 homestead items to sell for an attorney. I called the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Assistant probably recorded our conversation with the Forfeiture Officer who said that the Treasury Agent would get back to me, but that's weeks ago now withOUT any reply. I GIVE UP! here too, after my call to there in a few minutes, THEN Ed can write to them all he wants! - Joe
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 06, 2007, 11:59 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 01, 2007, 11:36 AM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on November 01, 2007, 10:42 AM NHFT
....
... What about the RSA Ch. 480:1 homestead items? that are exempt! What's he doing about that! I never heard back from "That Girl" in Forfeiture, giving her a call now at 225-1552. U.S. Attorney's Office, Joannie Hederman so thought the receptionist the other day and today, but her telling me to call Kim Cooper so I left a message there of WHEN will the forfeiture take place on BOTH properties, and since it is a crime scene for WHEN they will allow David to collect the RSA Ch. 123:1 **homestead exempt items to sell so that Ed & Elaine can have their own money in their accounts!? ....
Update: I just called the U.S. Attorney's Office @ 225-1552 for Kim Cooper, who I finally spoke with who transferred me over to Assistant U.S. Attorney Rob Raybach who put me on hold to a click and busy signal, at just after noontime today, me calling back of him onto a speaker phone with Kim Cooper listening, that of my four questions being:
1. The Treasury Dept.* agent to call me back for WHEN they will have the forfeiture of both properties.
The ball is in their court. If/when they decide to forfeit, then I'll be there. Until then I wait. JSH
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 27, 2007, 12:52 PM NHFT
...it looking good of Elizabeth's principles of fighting corruption on her website...
That would be the case with all of them I talk to. Talked to two more today that once they found out the particulars said that they "don't do Habeas work". Thier website makes them look like friggin' gladiators.
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 27, 2007, 01:49 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 27, 2007, 12:52 PM NHFT
...it looking good of Elizabeth's principles of fighting corruption on her website...
That would be the case with all of them I talk to. Talked to two more today that once they found out the particulars said that they "don't do Habeas work". Thier website makes them look like friggin' gladiators.
Thanks Coffee, as in Sheriff Coffee on Bonanza? You a relative? If you are he was one heck of a lawman on the screen, like these "friggen' gladiators" on paper only. A paper tiger?
They come up with more excuses than Carter has pills, as they used to say.
That's why I did write that "I GIVE UP" on this talk-talk, and more talk bullshit, from what must be bullshit artists wasting my time and money. The attorneys can rot in hell after they're done here, and to stay in their respective states. God help those who are put into the sphere of their corruption.
As for me I'll continue to help Danny, and if/when he wins, then these attorney might look to making some "easy" money by tagging along on his coat-tails, the brown-nosers they are to the Feds, being wimps and chicken shits. Let them eat corn from the ground is what I say.
-- Joe
Here's a re-type of my e-mail of today @ exactly 3:03 o'clock p.m.
"To: The Strafford County Delegates
with e-mail as State Representatives
from: http://www.co.strafford.nh.us/delegates.htm
Dover, N.H. 03820
Tel. 603: 742-1458 County Commissioners
Dear Delegates/Reps. Berube*, Grassie* (Clerk), Hofemann, Knowles*, Miller, Rollo*, Rous, Schmidt, Smith, Spang, Vachon*, and Wall* [*= Member of Executive Committee].
This is to follow up my telephone call to the Commissioner's Office today, finding out that there might be their next Public Hearing portion of their twice-monthly meetings on maybe Dec. 13th + 27th, as nothing is scheduled for Thursday, December 6th @ 9:00 o'clock a.m.
What I wanted to talk about is as written in paragraph #7 over at the 'Introduction to County Government' website page of http://www.co.strafford.nh.us/intro_county_gov.htm and in particular: paragraph #1 under 'The primary functions of the Strafford County Commissioners are as follows' wherein it is written that 'To carry out all administrative, legal, and financial obligations of the County...(that) includes supervision of the Strafford County Department of Corrections...The goal of this office is to fulfill the above-mentioned functions in a timely and cost-efficient a manner as possible.'
Now here is my complaint: On October __ I telephoned the in-house legal counsel woman for Superintendent Warren Dowaliby, and suggested that even though the Judge Stephen Houran (former assistant Attorney General from Laconia) dismissed Case #07-E-0244 without a hearing BEFORE the County Attorney was given the standard ten (10) days to either agree or object to the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by my friend Dan Riley, see http://www.danrileyld.blogspot.com she ought to give her legal opinion anyway, because that's all the judge issues is but his 'opinion', the decision for a Habeas Corpus, being what? That of the County Commissioners in the Executive Branch? Or maybe the delegated powers for such from them to the Superintendent? WHOever has the power to take has the power to give, and so since the Super. took him in as a service to the Feds, I find no such agreement with the State-Fed, as verified by Jeffrey Lyons of the State Dept. of Corrections. He told me last Wednesday that the only inmates they're currently billing the Feds for are 3-4 Immigration cases to Boston.
My presumption is that in exchange for the $millions in federal funds received by the county, that to house two or more federal inmates is peanuts in comparison, and so you overlook any billing. If that is wrong, then to please advise me otherwise what's going on here is that withOUT such a legal opinion, you don't care that the county might be sued for that $2,500 per day as per the formula down from the Veronica Silva case of the 1980s in the State Board of Claims, reference: Attorney Andu Volinsky who got $5,000 in that deal. http://www.state.nh.us
The case is currently on appeal to the Supremes who have given it a Case No. 2007-0745 and instead of giving it the fast track, by Art. 91, Part 2, N.H. Constitution, have set the regular Briefing times of to Dec. 26th '07 + Jan. 25 '08 respectfully for the Brief and Reply Brief from the Attorney General's Office.
So as Legislators and Delegates, to save the county money, not in this case, but in the future, as by to submit a House Bill #___ for 2009 if you're re-elected, would you please consider such and/or attend the next Public Hearing on the re-arrangement of the Court Rules. To change it so that the standard ten (10) days applies up front, but NOT the standard briefing on an appeal, in effect putting the RSA or Rule #___ in complement with Article 91.
Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059."
JSH
RE: Visit to the Merrimack County Jail. (Boscawen)
I did just call 796-3600 to there @ 3:54 p.m. (before they close 7-4:00 p.m.), and press #1, then #1 again for visits and Officer Stewart/ Stuart (spelling) said that I've got to call back in the morning after 7:00 a.m. to see if I'm on the list to visit the inmate (Bob Wolffe) at 8:30 a.m. when it starts).
So in other words if I lived like say two hours away, I'd have to drive 1/2 hour, call from a phone, and if not allowed, to drive back!?) What type of system is this?!?
JSH
maybe we should try to get elaine a lawyer instead? what is it she means when she writes that even i could file a habeous??
Quote from: keith in RI on November 27, 2007, 03:19 PM NHFT
maybe we should try to get elaine a lawyer instead? what is it she means when she writes that even i could file a habeous??
Forget about writing or calling. Somebody here ought to go into the New York City office of Andrew Napolitano and ask him if he wants to take the case. Preferably with a bunch of $100.00 bills.
When she writes that even you could file one, it's usually as a next-best-friend thing when they are reduced to having to write such on toilet paper with their blood I've heard as an example.
But I tried this once for my friend Bob Bonser back in the 1980s at the N.H. Supreme Court, where and when Ralph Wood, the Clerk at that time said: yeah, Mr. Bonser from Nottingham, N.H. can come in to file his own petition. Yeah: right! as if the jailer is going to let him out on a field trip for this one event. I never heard the end of this story, Bob taking this joke to the grave with him, R.I.P. out for a couple of years after this incarceration for several months, his son and daughter-in -aw plus grandson now running the business he started after he got out of WWII before zoning, with grandfather clause, them/ the town, telling Santa to take a hike.
- - Joe
P.S. There was also a hand-delivered habeas for Bob that I took to the U.S. District Court in Concord back then too, on appeal(?)/ having to exhaust your state remedies first, and I put it in the in-tray at the Clerk's Office, then went back the next day to find it still in the in-tray, handing it to Valerie and throwing the tray to the ground, saying it was worthless, her buzzing security, and the Clerk William Barry (later became a Magistrate) escorting me out and down the elevator and off the property, then the James C. Cleveland Building at 55 Pleasant Street with the parking meters seen on Colantuono's website now barricaded after the Timothy McVey bombing out west, my cousin driving by that morning before the explosion.
note: plus one time I asked for a Progress Report from Shane Devine, the Chief Judge there, in his office, door wide open one day (before all the security now), and he said he'd get to work on it from the bottom of the pile, as the squeaky wheel gets the grease; him the complete opposite of Martin Laughlin, hearing that I was looking for him one day, writing me a letter back that I was not to go beyond the secretary desk even if nobody was there. In other words: talk, but don't walk. Use your vocal cords.
Quote from: keith in RI on November 27, 2007, 03:19 PM NHFT
maybe we should try to get elaine a lawyer instead? what is it she means when she writes that even i could file a habeous??
Does her son intend on hiring a lawyer on her behalf?
New Hampshire Supreme Court Accepts Dannys' Appeal:
http://danrileyld.blogspot.com/2007/11/nh-supreme-court-accepts-case.html
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 27, 2007, 04:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on November 27, 2007, 03:19 PM NHFT
maybe we should try to get elaine a lawyer instead? what is it she means when she writes that even i could file a habeous??
Does her son intend on hiring a lawyer on her behalf?
i sent him an email tonight. here is what he said, i asked him a bunch of questions.
Keith:
I'm on my way to bed, so I'll need to reply to you again tomorrow to
answer all your questions, but I just spoke with Joe earlier tonight
and said the exact same thing about a lawyer talking to my mother
instead of Ed. If you are planning on visiting during the week, I
don't believe the odd/even day rule applies Monday through Friday.
I do feel a little better talking to Joe. I think he's a bit
optimistic, but I also like that about him. He's not as willing to
lie down or throw in the towel as others. As far as my plans, I was
hoping to avoid the seizure of the properties, although I don't know
how to proceed; i.e.: who to call, what to ask, what to say, etc. My
task for the rest of the week is to compile a list of who to send the
petition to, and to try to talk my sister into calling the US
Attorney's treasury agent because nobody there has been returning
calls, and she is absolutely ruthless when people ignore her. Also,
the search for a lawyer is always on my mind, and as you know, that's
no easy task.
I agree that somewhere out there someone would appreciate the house,
but I don't think it's worth waiting eight years for that buyer to
come along. They need the money if they're going to fight this
properly as soon as possible. Since they couldn't keep any money in
bank accounts, that house represents their retirement fund.
Anyway, I'll elaborate tomorrow. Off to bed for me now.
Thanks,
David
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 27, 2007, 04:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on November 27, 2007, 03:19 PM NHFT
maybe we should try to get elaine a lawyer instead? what is it she means when she writes that even i could file a habeous??
Does her son intend on hiring a lawyer on her behalf?
I got a call from David at about 7:00 p.m. this evening, and I just sent him an e-mail.
See Reply #____ just above, re: my phone call of Tue., Nov. 6 (exactly 3 weeks ago) to Assistant U.S. Attorney Ron Raybach and that Forfeiture woman, Kim Cooper on speaker phone telling me that a Treasury Agent will get back to me on the RSA Ch. 480:1 rights to homestead items ($100,000 x 2 husband + wife = $200,000). But as yet with NO reply, probably because I'm an outsider. David saying that estate expert Elaine has had for years to maybe get the POA and claim such, plus make sure the water is out of the pipes in the business block + house to prevent a REAL freeze, unlike when they "tricked" Ed originally! Then to have the $money for an attorney. Them maybe reading this now, and so with money bags they're sitting on, of course NOW they will take the case! David's sister to follow up with morning, noon and night phone calls until they get tired of her constant calling and she gets an answer.
-- Joe
P.S. Thanks Keith. I just noticed the "Warning: while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post."
The only two things to add, are the $value of Elaine's dental equipment, and I also called Bernie tonight and he said that although RSA Ch. _____ exempts tools of your trade to a specific $dollar amount, the Feds allow all of it he thinks to the 100% level. See http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XLIX-480.htm for RSA 480:1-9, and section __ in particular. Try 480:4,I for taxes, but only at the state level right? And when they are declared a debt*? See also the Exemption statute RSA Ch. 51:2, VII "The uniform, arms and equipment of every officer and private in the militia", IX, "Tools of the debtor's* occupation to the value of: $5,000" and XVI "One automobile to the value of: $4,000" http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/511/511-2.htm
* Notice that it reads: debtor as in something owed. One does not owe taxes until they have been declared a debt due. "A tax, in its essential characteristics, is NOT a debt" BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 5th Ed. (c)1979, page 1307, the N.J. case.
Modification: I did just call the 225-1552 # for the U.S. Attny's Office in Concord at 7:51 a.m. this morning and the woman's voice said good evening, to call back from 8-5 or press # and leave a message to the mailbox # press letters of Coop-er for Kim Cooper #2667 that I did and told her to get her act together, off her ass in gear and get moving for a name and number of the treasury agent who is supposed to get back to me, re: the $100,000 RSA 480:1 homestead exemptions x 2 for Ed & Elaine, and RSA Ch. 511:2 listed items to get and sell to pay an attorney for their Habeas Corpus actions in Ohio + Conn. and that if I don't get an answer by mid morning, to expect morning, noon and night telephone calls (in the plural), from David's sister, and maybe some of us ought to call there too, as like for a progress report of has Joe received his answer yet? Thanks.
Update: I did just call there again at 8:00 a.m. exactly, and the woman transferred me over to "Rob" Raybach's unknown # where I left him a similar message, of that IF he contacted the Treasury Agent, that person (he or she) NEVER got back to me, and IF he did not contact them yet to do so now, better late than never.
lasnt night i sent an email to andrew napolitano through his website asking if he would be willing to take ed and elaines case. i said there was money available....im not really lying, lol...but i doubt well hear back from him.
i just clicked on my name near karma and it says someone has ignored me...wonder what i did to deserve that?? lol
Quote from: keith in RI on November 28, 2007, 10:36 AM NHFT
i just clicked on my name near karma and it says someone has ignored me...wonder what i did to deserve that?? lol
It's not the ones that ignore you that cause you grief. Don't give it a second thought.
Looks like Bob Wolffe cut a deal after all, Joe.
QuotePlainfield
Brown supporter plans to plead guilty
He's one of four allies facing charges in case
By Margot Sanger-Katz
Monitor staff
November 28. 2007 7:20AM
One of four supporters of Ed and Elaine Brown who pleaded not guilty to criminal charges of helping the couple evade capture will change his plea, according to court documents.
According to a docket entry, Robert Wolffe, 50, of Randolph, Vt., is slated to change his plea of not guilty in a hearing next week.
Neither Wolffe's lawyer, Paul Garrity, nor prosecutor Bob Kinsella from the U.S. attorney's office would comment on the case or say whether the parties had reached a plea agreement. But web postings from Wolffe's wife in recent weeks suggested that Wolffe had been negotiating with authorities.
"He has accepted a plea bargain," she wrote about a month ago. "That means that as soon as the next hearing can be arranged, he might just walk out."
Last night, Valeri Wolffe said that she speaks to her husband "all the time" but did not know anything about his decision to change his plea.
Wolffe, who was the Vermont commander of the U.S. Constitution Rangers, a national anti-government group that Ed Brown once led, was initially charged with just one crime, accessory after the fact. According to prosecutors, Wolffe and his wife, Valeri, brought their camper to the Brown's Plainfield home to stay overnight on several occasions, and they lent a car to the couple. Wolffe told marshals that he was prepared to die defending the Browns, and he acted as their armed guard on occasion, according to prosecutors.
Wolffe also offered his home as a transfer point for supplies after marshals cut postal delivery to the Browns' home. According to an online posting at the time, supporters were invited to double-wrap packages for the Browns and send them to the "Liberty Defense Project" at Wolffe's home address. Court documents allege that supplies delivered through Wolffe included more than 500 pounds of dehydrated food.
On the day of Wolffe's arraignment, Garrity asked the magistrate to give Wolffe a quick detention hearing, since he was in "a different position" than the other defendants, who had all been charged with conspiracy and with bringing weapons to the Browns' Plainfield home. But after prosecutors introduced evidence about the marshals' investigation and described how Valeri Wolffe had packed their car with guns and clothes following her husband's arrest, Garrity withdrew his opposition to Wolffe's continued detention.
Since then, Wolffe has been held in several local jails that contract with the marshals to hold federal prisoners. In an internet message described by the poster as a copy of Valeri Wolffe's e-mail, she said that her husband had reached a plea deal with prosecutors and would return home soon once the details were finalized.
But a court filing penned by Wolffe himself seemed to contradict that account. In his 35-page pleading, which was rejected by the judge because it did not come from Wolffe's attorney, Wolffe challenged the jurisdiction of the court, the honesty of his accusers and the legitimacy of his indictment.
In the document, he acknowledged that he and his wife had loaned the Browns their car, that they spent evenings at the property, that he videotaped U.S. marshals, that he carried a gun on the property and that he delivered supplies to the couple. None of those actions constituted crimes, he wrote.
"It is an undisputed fact that my actions were falsely construed as a crime by my false accuser," the document says, naming a deputy U.S. marshal who worked on the case and the prosecutors. "However, for want of any evidence, and for want of proof of mens rea, and actus reus, my actions are all shown to be totally and completely lawful acts of rightful, peaceful remonstrance."
A few days later, a grand jury indicted Wolffe on several additional charges, which could significantly lengthen his sentence if he is convicted. Wolffe is now charged with two counts of conspiring with three other supporters to impede the government, in addition to the original charge. The four men are scheduled for a trial in late January.
Another recent court filing suggests that prosecutors may be negotiating a plea with another defendant in the case. According to prosecutors, Daniel Riley of Cohoes, N.Y., has met with government officials several times since his arrest "each pursuant to a proffer letter." The document says that Riley gave detailed answers to questions about his experience at the Browns' home and that many of his statements have been corroborated by law enforcement.
The Browns held off federal authorities for months while entertaining guests and collecting weapons, but the two were captured by an undercover team of U.S. marshals in October. They are serving 63-month prison sentences for tax-related crimes. The Browns and many of their supporters, including Wolffe, believe that there is no legal basis for the federal income tax.
U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier has suggested that the Browns may face additional charges for their behavior during the standoff. Recent court documents have described a significant cache of improvised explosive devices found at the home after their arrest.
dannys letter to me this week made me believe there is no way danny is ever going to take a deal. he sounded like he was in for the long haul!
Quote from: richardr on November 28, 2007, 10:51 AM NHFT
Looks like Bob Wolffe cut a deal after all, Joe.
QuotePlainfield
Brown supporter plans to plead guilty
He's one of four allies facing charges in case
By Margot Sanger-Katz
Monitor staff
November 28. 2007 7:20AM
Another recent court filing suggests that prosecutors may be negotiating a plea with another defendant in the case. According to prosecutors, Daniel Riley of Cohoes, N.Y., has met with government officials several times since his arrest "each pursuant to a proffer letter." The document says that Riley gave detailed answers to questions about his experience at the Browns' home and that many of his statements have been corroborated by law enforcement.
CNHT is ignoring you, keith. Maybe you said something pro-democrat. ::)
can someone give us the latest info on prisoner whereabouts and contact data? i have a lot of stuff, as in a couple hundred pages, ready to send finally but am worried some of the addresses might be old. i hear they are moving some of the prisoners around a lot.
the latest info i have is at:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=11236.0
and it was updated nov 10. can anyone verify that the info is still good...or let me know what more i might need to know to send these packages?
Quote from: richardr on November 28, 2007, 10:51 AM NHFT
Looks like Bob Wolffe cut a deal after all, Joe.
You may use the slang "cut-a-deal" but if so, it is really a "CONTRACT", offered by the bankrupt municipal corporations employees, who have commercially "over-charged" and thus scared the unknowing and then by "reducing" the charge to a "misdemeanor", and "offering" the reduction to get him to "contract" and thus his agreement that the Magistrate Judge ( Not Article III judge) can prevail over the "contracted" proceedings. This is FRAUD by deception! The "contract" can be voided as Throckmorton v. United States prevails and has been used over 1500 times to void such Fraud upon the court (and that is not an employee or judge)
Quote from: richardr on November 28, 2007, 10:51 AM NHFT
Looks like Bob Wolffe cut a deal after all, Joe.
QuotePlainfield
Brown supporter plans to plead guilty
He's one of four allies facing charges in case
By Margot Sanger-Katz
Monitor staff
November 28. 2007 7:20AM
One of four supporters of Ed and Elaine Brown who pleaded not guilty to criminal charges of helping the couple evade capture will change his plea, according to court documents.
According to a docket entry, Robert Wolffe, 50, of Randolph, Vt., is slated to change his plea of not guilty in a hearing next week.
Neither Wolffe's lawyer, Paul Garrity, nor prosecutor Bob Kinsella from the U.S. attorney's office would comment on the case or say whether the parties had reached a plea agreement. But web postings from Wolffe's wife in recent weeks suggested that Wolffe had been negotiating with authorities....
Thanks Richard. I got the news of this front page blerp in the upper left hand corner to see page B1 directly from Bob himself at 9:30 a.m. this morning on my visit to see him in Boscawen in G Unit for General Population. He said there is NO "plan" to plead guilty, and was angry that the http://www.concordmonitor.com would do this. I think the key word is negotiations, like to plea to a misdemeanor of time served to just get out of there, like an ex gratia payment on a parking ticket, it easier to pay than fight even when you're right, like the meter broken, and then sue in civil court for damages later on the outside with the proof of the broken meter, or in this case the non-filing. Also: Sort of like yes, you're guilty of punching somebody, but that they deserved it! >:D I remember reading years ago of some king, after reading Exodus 21:18-19 in the Bible of to pay for medical bills and loss of time to be "quit", going around punching his subjects landing them in the hospital for #__ weeks out of work, and having his treasurer pay the damages by this formula. ;) Then when the king was overthrown of his "sovereign immunity" some jail time went with such crimes, like him spending equal time in jail for what the amount of time it took the person to recover, as in the phrase time is money.
I bought the newspaper and copied it at KINKO's and it went out in my latest packet to E+E + 4. I was going to drive by the MONITOR to talk to them about this, and gave Margo a call, but this was BEFORE I even read it, and saw some inmate walking down the road having been just discharged, and gave him a ride to the bus terminal in Concord where his girlfriend he called on my cell phone was to drive up from Manchester and pick him up there about a half hour later. They send you packing without info that you can walk a short distance to Penacook and take the bus to Concord for only $1.00 like I did on a parking ticket violation once, spending the night, instead of paying $50.00, walking by that Gun Shop in Boscawen, buying a Buck Knife, and going over to the Kittery Trading Post and having Chuck Buck autograph it for me. ;D
And Keith, you're right about Danny too. There are these negotiations, or what I call parley's, with the enemy, but that's just to get out of slab city for some fresh air and sunshine. The Marshal goons don't give a shit about Bob's tooth them SAYing that they'll look into it, as to look to read a newspaper, but what are they going to DO about it!? Big Talk, No Action.
Also: Bernie and I went over to see Jason this afternoon in Dover, and like I just wrote to Dada here, he would love to get some reading material, his latest find of NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY, and him telling us that his MAss. attorney did find a State-Federal Relations case down in Louisiana where some rapes occurred at some federal enclave but that the feds did not file the paperwork with the governor's office as by the statute from 1-8-17 U.S. Const., and so it was not a federal but state crime on state soil. So there IS this acknowledgment as case-law of that the feds KNOW that they need "Consent" from the state, and when the state gives conditional consent, and they don't fulfill that condition, then they have NO jurisdiction! Jason showed Bernie and me his list of newspapers in New England he's sent a summary letter too with the proof of the N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 certificate of non-correction, the actual 123:1 statute and a copy of the U.S. Attorney's own Manual #664 that acknowledges this, to see who, if anybody, wants to write up a story on this. BTW Louisiana was the one and only state that did NOT want to subscribe to the U.C.C./ Uniform Commercial Code when it first came out, but since has joined the Union I think. In N.H. it's RSA Ch. 382-A. We talked about the price of silver and gold bullion, and a little bit about coins and paper money, but the main concern is him getting his attorney to file that Motion for Discovery of any RSA 123:1 receipt, since Jurisdiction must be proven, and if not, then to go with a Motion to Dismiss. His attorney also brings him plenty of writing paper and pens each trip which is nice. And he had a nice visit with his Mom on Thanksgiving, speaking of which, Bob in his letter to me the other day said that they asked for a group meal, like upper and lower tier to have their Thanksgiving Dinner together, and just for asking the guards retaliated and told them that did happen that they had their Thanksgiving Dinners in their cells: like eating your meal in your bathroom! Plus Bob to call his wife Valerie in Vermont just across the border, even with the phone card(s), has cost over $1,000 so far! And WHO gets that what? 12-cents a minute for e-mail access for Ed & Elaine, like they charge at KINKO'S? I bet there's a kick-back there to somebody somewhere!
Margo says that Bob's hearing is next Friday, December 7th @ __:_ o'clock a.m./p.m. (according to PACER?) and that "Captain" Singal is driving over from Maine, but probably one of these last minute deals of not to go forward with the signing of any deal, because there is still the question of jurisdiction, of whether the ones presenting the deal even have the authority to ask for it!
Plus: Bernie and I tried to see Danny in Max, but that I forgot that you've got to get the captain's permission during the week, before 3:00 p.m. like when I talked with him about my next regular Sunday visit, when he was nice enough to call me on the Saturday before saying that he was in Max the first time and that I needed to get his permission that he gave me. So if like last time, he'll be back into the pod before too long, so if not this Sunday, then next weekend. No need to see him right away since I'll write about helping him with the Brief to his Habeas Corpus Petition, in that all he has to do is type it out, and send to me, and I'll cover copy in blue board front and back with side staples and tape as by the rules of the original, plus seven copies to the court after a delivery to the A.G.'s office. But that he's got to get back into the pod to get the chance to use the typewriter, but before Dec. 26th so O.K.
Finally: Keith: that's great that the e-mail box at Andrew Napolitano's website is now working. When I tried it about a week ago it went nowhere. Please let me know WHEN he gets back to you. Find out, if you can, like maybe from his publisher, for WHERE he'll be at his next book signing, and then after the line is over and he's just sitting there, we can talk with him on company time about Elaine's case.
Yours truly, - Joe
I found an attorney in Youngstown that will file the paperwork for Ed. He wants $1,200.00 to take an afternoon off and drive to Elkton.
Great bunch of guys and gals these.
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 29, 2007, 06:49 AM NHFT
I found an attorney in Youngstown that will file the paperwork for Ed. He wants $1,200.00 to take an afternoon off and drive to Elkton.
Great bunch of guys and gals these.
WHO? What's his website, if any? for address and telephone number? __________ Plus his background? Has he ever done an habeas before? (I did and won a release from jail) Is he a new or old attorney? Does that include an appearance at the court hearing(s) to argue the filing too?, and even if the Youngstown court assigns it to either Cleveland or Toledo, #___ miles away, plus that too of driving there and back? If all of this is included then it sounds like a good deal, and I compare what I've already said to Bill Riley:
Now that Danny has his case accepted at the Supremes for his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus file #745, maybe Attorney ___________ (yes I know his name hidden here, a former Federal Prosecutor) who has my $500 check, un-cashed as an offer to take the case, him saying no since Sven Wiberg got involved as Danny's Federal stand-by counsel who MIGHT help Danny with the State habeas too? But if not, then he MIGHT take the case for what? I told Bill, maybe another $500.00 for to argue the case past the Brief for that $500.00, to pay the other $500 IF and ONLY "if" the Supremes grant Danny a hearing. Me suggesting to Bill to send him $50.00 to take that trip to Concord to read/copy at 10-cents per page Danny's file, then write up and print, bind and deliver the copies to the A.G/'s office too.
So $1,200 is very reasonable I think for the entire case, if it is indeed the full price, or if not, but some come-on for more $money later, then to look around for another one, as this is a real SIMPLE case, as Jason has explained to the area newspapers, that if and when they write it up as so simple, then that newspaper article summary with a photo(s) of the three main documents could be a tear-sheet (one page story) given over to the attorney and get Ed out, then Elaine, then the other four merely pro-tecting Ed on PRIVATE land in a DEFENSIVE mode from these outlaw Feds!
I'm calling around the local newspapers now to see WHO wants to do this story as written into them by Jason taking the first step, me the second by phone call, and maybe Bernie and me, plus WHOever else would like to personally visit their Newsroom for to get the story in their newspaper by maybe December 7th http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_7 as "Pearl Harbor Day" here in the United States of the Japs "Sneak" Attack on us, the Feds sneaking around New Hampshire withOUT the RSA 123:1 papers from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. *
Yours truly, - - Joe
* A Habeas hearing is a test of jurisdiction, not the merits of withIN the case. Ed still has the transcript excerpt of the Judge McAuliffe saying that all the U.S. Code for the IRS has been declared constitutional in every court in the Union, that was either a lie, or him ignorant of my very case in his same courthouse of #M.83-50-D of IRS v. Haas where I proved section (5) for rents as a landlord was unlawful! as by the case-law in my Affidavit to Ed thanks to Bill Miller, that I can back up with the actual DO YOU ADMIT? 1-page paper I gave to the court that got the $62,000 tax upon me wiped out, me not paying them even one red cent! In this part of the case for a mis-trial WHEN the court is lawful AFTER finally filing the 123:1 papers with the Secretary of State.
Prosecutors will often announce (or "leak") to reporters that someone is agreeing to plead. They use that to drive a wedge between the other defendants, and implicitly threaten that someone is going to testify against them, so they better plead out, too.
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 29, 2007, 10:36 AM NHFT
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 29, 2007, 06:49 AM NHFT....
... this is a real SIMPLE case, as Jason has explained to the area newspapers, ....
Update: I did just go to the New England Newspapers website of http://nenews.org/links/index.html first calling George Gears there about WHY there is no highlight to the 50-60 workshops per year they have, like to find out WHO and from WHAT newspapers participated in maybe some "crime" topic, to write to them, but that he said December is usually a slow month, and that he has no info on past attendees as this is more an industry site than for us consumers, and so to use the location box for the state and county that I did for New Hampshire, Strafford for Jason, and got to "Foster's Daily Democrat" in Dover (already called Aaron ___ on Danny's case, he's never even called or visited Danny, nor did he write to him or write ANYthing up on the Habeas Petition, so forget that lazy non-reporter, who calls himself a reporter!?), onto The "Portsmouth Herald" I see at http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=TOOLS02 for that tel. # and address* plus for The "York County Coast Star"**
-* For Portsmouth the woman receptionist at 1-800-439-0303 said the court reporter is Elizabeth Dinan (spelling?) and so I left a voice mail for her, and:
-** Brook Brogard (spelling) too for The YORK COUNTY COAST STAR at 207-985-2961 similar referral to her;
telling both of them of the Sven Wiberg, Attorney in Portsmouth for Danny, and the "Captain" Singal connection of the judge in Portland for Jason too.
So if/when she/they call back to my cell phone later today to get back to you all. In the meantime to send each of them a summary e-mail to please visit us over here at this Reply #___ on page 448 to start.
Yours truly, - - Joe
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 27, 2007, 11:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 27, 2007, 04:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on November 27, 2007, 03:19 PM NHFT
maybe we should try to get elaine a lawyer instead? what is it she means when she writes that even i could file a habeous??
....
...
Modification: I did just call the 225-1552 # for the U.S. Attny's Office in Concord at 7:51 a.m. this morning and the woman's voice said good evening, to call back from 8-5 or press # and leave a message to the mailbox # press letters of Coop-er for Kim Cooper #2667 that I did and told her to get her act together, off her ass in gear and get moving for a name and number of the treasury agent who is supposed to get back to me, re: the $100,000 RSA 480:1 homestead exemptions x 2 for Ed & Elaine, and RSA Ch. 511:2 listed items to get and sell to pay an attorney for their Habeas Corpus actions in Ohio + Conn. and that if I don't get an answer by mid morning, to expect morning, noon and night telephone calls (in the plural), from David's sister, and maybe some of us ought to call there too, as like for a progress report of has Joe received his answer yet? Thanks.
Update: I did just call there again at 8:00 a.m. exactly, and the woman transferred me over to "Rob" Raybach's unknown # where I left him a similar message, of that IF he contacted the Treasury Agent, that person (he or she) NEVER got back to me, and IF he did not contact them yet to do so now, better late than never.
Update: They both say that they WILL get back to you on their voice mails, but that they are LIARS! It's been three weeks and two days now, plus yesterday's phone calls, me continuing my daily* calls to them OUT TO LUNCH now in more ways than one if you get my drift, them not getting just a drift but some Stantor action in to get off your ass again, and that I'll report you to Washington too!! (re: Wm. Morse, the prosecutor) Attorney good-for nothing under Corrupt Colantuono! Oh! I expect some reply by them now like maybe to file an injunction to tell me, their master, that their fellow public servant judge agrees that they don't like my tone of voice and choice of words in what is supposed to be free speech to get my public servants to serve, instead of some warning maybe that if/when the next time I verbally crack the whip, then they'll what? Charge me for telephone harassment next!? Call them at 225-1552 and like the political pollsters, maybe say you're from the New Hampshire Underground and would like their comment on member Haas, and what do you think about his annoying calls to you? >:D
Yours truly, - Joe
* to step it up a notch starting tomorrow with my morning, noon, and night calls too. Anybody else can and is welcome to join in this "Progress Report Requested" too. ;) Then to maybe pay them a personal visit, but I doubt it, as I've declared that Federal Soil there a state disaster area! 8)
So what did Huckabee say during the last debate that made him sound so Presidential? reference the advertisement at the main page for today's http://www.hotmail.com
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/ No wonder Ron Paul made the most internet $money on that day, you've got to have a website that works to begin with, that Mike's webmaster needs to work on this sabotage?
I tried to sign up for his newsletter, with interests of: Constitution, Taxes, 2nd Amendment + Agriculture (food), but it went nowhere. Also what's that side section of: "Become a Ranger"? Does that mean like Ed's Constitution Rangers? 8)
Yours truly, - - Joe
P.S. I had a nice chat with Linda Tomlinson who INTERCEPTED by call to Tom Colantuono, the U.S. Attorney, she's his secretary, and I did ask her to PLEASE remind Tom to get back to me for his comment on U.S. Attorney Manual #664 that reads that 1-8-17 U.S. Const. "embraces courthouses" and WHY has the N.H. one NOT complied with NH RSA Ch. 123:1? Like a Show-Cause for WHY the charges against the Four Freedom Keepers should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdictional authority. Yeah Right! You might reply, like him to cut off his own paycheck, but didn't he take an oath of office to HONOR the Constitution? Of course he did! So Tom: if you're reading this: you'll still be able to get your salary, just that your off-turf field trips will have to cease for the time being, and you made to account for being the middleman between the court and Marshal. Don't kill the messenger as they say.
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 15, 2007, 09:40 AM NHFT
Open Letter
To: Daniel I. St.Hillaire,
Merrimack County Attorney
4 Court Street
Concord, N.H. 03301
603: 228-0529
Dear Dan:
--This is to follow-up my telephone call to your office of just a few minutes ago, when your receptionist directed me to leave a voice mail for you, that I did, and now put it in writing too, to drop off at your office later today as promised.
1.) Progress Report please: on my Official Complaint #__________ against Judge McAuliffe for RSA Ch. ____ Unlawful Simulation of Legal Process of the bench warrant directed against Ed Brown, that was in violation of 1-8-17 U.S. Const. and there being NO paperwork on file by RSA Ch. 123:1 to the N.H. Office of Secretary of State, as required by our state's offer to the Feds on June 14, 1883, but that for whatever reason, they declined, and so with NO jurisdictional venue within this state! THE website of interest being that of http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm thanks "very" much to Attorney Larry Becraft as THE expert on this subject of single and double-filing states....
Update: As of yesterday, it's been exactly: two months of him dragging his ass around as Merrimack County Attorney! Sept. 28th '07 was when this Complaint #07-40622-OF was sent to and supposedly delivered to him to get a legal opinion back to the Concord Police Dept. at 225-8600. Why hasn't he honored his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office to a prompt accounting by Articles 8 + 14 of the N.H. Constitution & Bill of Rights that has in effect turned into a privilege that's been denied, because justice delayed is justice denied! I've left a voice mail to him two times now in two days, and a while back too, the latest with the call to his receptionist saying thanks for the send-over to his voice mail but that that is worthless and so to please remind him of this case number. Plus like in the crowd you hang out with, reflecting on you, I told her that he is doing a lousy job, and that maybe she should start looking for a different job with somebody of honor. She said: excuse me? I said that's right. Good-bye. :icon_pirat: Maybe I should have said bad-bye? - Joe
THESE ADDRESSES ARE RIGHT UP TILL TODAY. UNLESS RENO IS BEING MOVED AFTER HIS COURT APPEARANCE. HE IS GOING TO COURT RIGHT??
Quote from: DadaOrwell on November 28, 2007, 05:26 PM NHFT
can someone give us the latest info on prisoner whereabouts and contact data? i have a lot of stuff, as in a couple hundred pages, ready to send finally but am worried some of the addresses might be old. i hear they are moving some of the prisoners around a lot.
the latest info i have is at:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=11236.0
and it was updated nov 10. can anyone verify that the info is still good...or let me know what more i might need to know to send these packages?
LYNDSE FABAS NEW EMAIL TO ME:
ed's bible came back to me in the mail with a stamp on it that says "not at this address return to sender"
i'm very concerned.
do you know if maybe they are not allowing him to receive packages?
i'm planning on calling the fci while i'm at lunch (probably better to make those kinds of calls while i'm out of the office, i think)
but i was wondering if you knew anything. i also haven't heard from him in a week.
??
DOES ANYONE KNOW IF ED HAS BEEN MOVED?? I KNOW THERE WAS TALK OF IT. THE FBOP WEBSITE STILL HAS HIM LISTED AS AT ELKTON.
Quote from: keith in RI on November 29, 2007, 01:46 PM NHFT
DOES ANYONE KNOW IF ED HAS BEEN MOVED?? I KNOW THERE WAS TALK OF IT. THE FBOP WEBSITE STILL HAS HIM LISTED AS AT ELKTON.
If Ed's info on the BOP inmate finder page is like Irwin Schiff's, the info won't be posted until Ed gets to his new location, which could take a couple of weeks.
Quote from: JosephSHaas on September 26, 2007, 01:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 26, 2007, 12:16 PM NHFT
New article from Elaine
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=625&Itemid=36
Thanks Kat,
--I've read and re-read this with my notes for comment now:
--In the very first sentence of paragraph #1 of 7 I add that these "four men were" UN-lawfully and illegally "arrested", since the Feds have yet to comply with the law: 1-8-17 to 123:1. "[T]he assistance of Ed and Elaine Brown" to assert their Art. 10 rights, The Right of Revolution. That is NOT a crime here in New Hampshire, and back to the sentence #1 again of "arrested by federal marshals" OUTside the state of New Hampshire. You'd think that at least one judge there would have the knowledge of his oath to that of Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution to inquire, of IF the Feds had complied with N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1. A very POOR job on the part of WHOever their appointed defense councilors were there in that stage of the proceedings, with only ONE defense councilor I did overhear talk to his client in court that he was going to check this out: and that's: Attorney David Bownes of Laconia for his client Reno Gonzalez from Texas...
...who signed that Art. 49 complaint I presented to him, as described above, just like "John Hancock" with his signature at the bottom of the document, a comment I made for WHERE to sign like John Hancock too, and that he then did! BEFORE the others in that order, I kid you not. John Hancock BTW so angry at the British impounding his sloop, just imagine how angry Ed & Elaine are for not only a ship as a means to conduct business, as John Hancock was transporting liquor, but Elaine having the Feds seize her place of business, to TRY to forfeit later; and now going after them personally in their home. A Man's Home is is Castle. But does the Sullivan County Sheriff think so? Will he check out my claims of federal non-filing and assert some check-and-balance against the Feds? Why not? He got Jack McLamb's "Aid & Abet Newsletter" plus delivered to him at his office, but will he talk with me, or anybody about it? No! He stands on his wrongs....
Thanks for the info Keith, re: of Reno to court, but when? today? _____ I just called his Attorney David H. Bownes, of office: 486 Union Ave., Laconia, N.H. 03246, 603: 524-4330, but that all I got was his secretary's recorder for him, to where I left a message about that Louisiana case that Jason's attorney found as precedent setting for this 1-8-17 U.S. Const. issue of no federal crime on federal soil since the feds didn't file their papers by statute there with the governor's office. Same for up here of a non-filing by N.H. RSA 123:1 to the Secretary of State, so technically state soil over there at 53-55 Pleasant Street too, the Feds owning the building, but with no jurisdiction beyond the boundary of NOT the state borders BUT only the federal boundary ending on their side of the sidewalk!
Notation being too of me looking at http://www.google.com for "David Bownes" Laconia, in quotes, and finding this Reply #__ here at page one #7, so the New Hampshire Underground as THE place to be for information to seekers for his name and city finding us now and into the future. Keep up the good work Kat.
Yours truly, - Joe
P.S. Like K.B. said earlier of these prosecutor "leaks" to the press, I think it's more than that now that they've run up against some NOT hardened criminals BUT these Four Freedom Keepers hard-pressed to TRY to have them cave in to lies is what I say of them standing on the truth, and like Harry Truman would say to Tom Colantuono and his gang of thugs: they heard the truth and think it's hell! >:D
note: I get the feeling that the Feds' case is falling apart at the seams, them so bloated like a pig ready for slaughter. The bloating being them getting all this 1-8-17 to 123:1 info from me, and them telling the inmates to not listen to this "raving lunatic", that because they have not answered, like Tom's non-answer to his very own U.S. Attorney Manual #664, that it's giving them indigestion, and that they have to lash out by mis- or mal-treating the inmates, treating them like rag dolls to toss around, like a dog being commanded of: here fella, and if you don't obey, like Danny didn't obey and was Pepper-gunned down, then even when they are wrong, as in withOUT any jurisdiction to even ask that a hearing take place, let alone a trial, that this will all come back to haunt them a hundred-fold I think I read somewhere. Like in the Old Testament, of Genesis 26:12 "Then Isaac sowed in that land, and received in the same year an hundredfold: and the LORD blessed him." Plus, in the New Testament:
(1) Matthew 19:29 "And every one that hath forsaken houses...or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life." The word forsake defined as: 1. to give up; renounce. 2. To leave altogether, abandon; from the OE/ Old English of forsacan. See sag= 1. to sink or bend downward, as from pressure* or slackness. 2. To droop. In this case the pressure* put upon Ed & Elaine and the four others to be forced to leave their lands too, and so not to go along with these government liars with their falsehoods, but "for my name's sake" Who He is with a capital letter, and represents the truth. It's as simple as that of to tell the truth, and the truth will set you free. Sometimes not right away as those unfortunate victims in MAss. who spent decades in prison based upon gov't lies, it proven decades later that the F.B.I. had the truth or exculpatory evidence, but who refused to put it into the case! Shame on them, and shame on Tommy C. too! +
(2) Mark 10:30 "with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life."
(3) Luke 8:8 for the "hundredfold" word, but see back to verse "5 for the "sower went out to sow his seed", but what is THE seed? "11 "The seed is the word of God." Or in other words the TRUTH! and to try to plant such on :15 "good ground" rather than :12 "by the wayside", :13 "on the rock" or :14 "that which fell among thorns". So even in prison or jail, upon the rock or cement slabs, it's a real test of your faith there, and so when out on a win upon good ground, those who did you "in" on lies ought to be the nourishment for which your seed produces a hundredfold on the "out"side. The gov't having in effect stolen your land and buildings valued at $___________ so x 7 = $________ per the Proverbs 6:30-31 formula in Public Law 97-280, 96 Statute 1211 of Oct. 4, 1982 = The Year of the Bible for 1983 & Beyond. But what is a theft of your body worth? Your very well being: in N.H. that's already been calculated to $2,500 per day, so divided by 7 = over $355.00 per day so when stolen x 7 = this $dollar amount; per the Veronia Silva case of mid 1980s in the State Board of Claims that made the front pages of the http://www.unionleader.com
These four books (one New; three Old Testament) with the hundredfold word found at page 311 of my STRONG'S CONCORDANCE, (c)1985. Maybe it's 100-7=93 as the magic number in heaven? More on that later.
JSH
* F.C.I. Elkton, OHio Tel. 330-420-6200 Ed's # 03923-049.
Reno was in court earlier today, Joe for his arraignment on the superseding indictment charges.
Quote11/19/2007 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING as to Cirino Gonzalez: Arraignment reset for 11/29/2007 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge James R. Muirhead. (amm) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
And while I'm poking around PACER, Joe, here is Wolffe's entry regarding the change of plea.
Quote11/26/2007 NOTICE OF HEARING as to Robert Wolffe: Change of Plea Hearing set for 12/7/2007 01:30 PM before Chief Judge George Z. Singal at the Rudman Courthouse, Concord, NH. (dae) (Entered: 11/26/2007)
Quote from: richardr on November 29, 2007, 02:54 PM NHFT
And while I'm poking around PACER, Joe, here is Wolffe's entry regarding the change of plea.
Quote11/26/2007 NOTICE OF HEARING as to Robert Wolffe: Change of Plea Hearing set for 12/7/2007 01:30 PM before Chief Judge George Z. Singal at the Rudman Courthouse, Concord, NH. (dae) (Entered: 11/26/2007)
Thanks Richard. Maybe before then the F.B.I. Portland office will advise him of their investigation that New Hampshire is in non-compliance with Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution to N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 and that he ought to stop wasting taxpayer money into non-jurisdictional waters. To call the FBI in a few minutes (from Reply #____ above) and report back to here with what they say in the modification this this.* -- Joe
Modification. See Reply #___ on page #__ here for a typing of my letter to the F.B.I. in Portland, Maine. It's on page 9 of my Archives as #121 to be exact, at the top of the page for Friday., Nov. 2nd of almost four (4) weeks ago @ 1:46 p.m. At the 1-207-774-9322 # from the http://boston.fbi.gov/me.htm website I told the receptionist I was disappointed that they never even acknowledged receipt of my Nov. 2 '07 letter; she immediately referred me over to Mr. ________ who never gave me his name, (not that I cared to ask anyway) him saying that he will not investigate to prove that N.H. is in non-compliance to advise his Maine judge Singal that he ought not to travel into non-jurisdictional waters, and that it is up to a Congressional Investigation since these are Legislative courts. I told him that I've already tried that, by contacting my Federal Reps [Shea-Porter first and then Hodes, plus Sununu gave me the Fed AOC #, and Gregg just a plain waste of time] but that they don't care to correct their wrongs. Neither do the state, county nor town officers care to check-and-balance, as by the governor to assert his Art. 41 powers to enforce all legislative mandates as by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1, and so of course what is the only result being of to live in a lie, of Wonderland, seeing Alice Rabbits and Mad Hatters, etc., or standing on your own turf with the truth but the liars come to get you anyway!
Dis-gusted, -- Joe, with Art. 10 Rights of Revolution, but when you exercise them, they say wrong apparatus, as in what? to exercise them in some OTHER state!? You have got to be shitting me!
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 29, 2007, 03:04 PM NHFT
Quote from: richardr on November 29, 2007, 02:54 PM NHFT....
Quote11/26/2007 ....
... him saying that he will not investigate to prove that N.H. is in non-compliance to advise his Maine judge Singal that he ought not to travel into non-jurisdictional waters, and that it is up to a Congressional Investigation since these are Legislative courts....
Here's a re-type of my e-mail letter of exactly 5:00 p.m. today;
"To: Federal Representative Tom Allen
1127 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202: 225-5590
Fax: 202: 225-5590
[e-mail: rep.tomallen at mail.house.gov ]
http://www.nrcm.org/congressionaldelegation.asp
Dear Rep. Allen:
--This is to follow-up my call to your office this afternoon a few minutes ago where your secretary was nice enough to tell me that you're in Maine now, and back to work in Washington, D.C. next week, and as a member on the: (1) Budget, and (2) Energy & Commerce Committees.
--That's 'very' appropriate since what I'd like to see is more efficiency in the federal government for my tax dollars as extracted by my boss at work. I too own some land in Maine and used to live in Blue Hill.
--Now here's what I'd like for you to investigate, as like to start a Congressional Investigation of ALL fifty (50) states maybe, but to start somewhere, and that is for this Maine-New Hampshire connection, of WHY is it that Portland Maine Judge George Singal is coming to the New Hampshire court when he should realize that N.H. is in non-compliance with Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution. He was given the ball as they say for the Ed Brown anti-I.R.S. co-conspirator cases to deal with pre-trial motions, and so in a way: GREAT that he from an in-compliance state might travel over here to a non-filing state to tell us to get our act together, in that there are none of the required filings by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 with the N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the state statute.
--Attorney Larry Becraft from Alabama has a website of these single, and double filing states, with N.H. and MAss. in non-compliance (Florida too, to the governor's office), but Vermont + Maine in compliance by the mere filing of their deeds with the Registrar of Deeds in these single-filing states.
--Is there a special fund that these monies come out of? And if so, can that person accept some audit of these funds to like send the bill against the judge's salary in N.H. who should have done internal correction in the first place?
--Your comments and suggestions are most welcome, and for details on this, see my Reply #6719 over at page 448 at http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.6705 reference the Portland, Maine F.B.I. agent telling me to contact you, as the only one of four listed without having to jump over the website hurdle to get your e-mail address.
Thank you, - - - - - - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone)."
JSH
P.S. The website was (past tense) working, but not now, for all four; so see http://tomallen.house.gov/
joe what are the odds that you could post a list of current events so to speak? i know you are busy as hell but i think it would be a nice thing to have. im talking about all the "events" that are currently pending. in other words say list for example:
complaint filed with postal service over mail not delivered......
contact person info......
next course of action........
what we can do ie: call in support??
complaint filed with tom allen @......
next courseof action....
what we can do....
lawyer so and so contacted waiting for reply....
its just that you post a lot of stuff asking us to call in support or whatever and i think some of it gets lost in the shuffle of these posts. a nice listing would be useful, a checklist so to speak....
Keith, As they say in jail: Money Talks, and Bullshit Walks.
Or in other words, we can call all these lawyers to try to help Ed & Elaine, but unless they go "Pro Bono" that they harp about being there for the indigent, but that's all I hear from them is harps, no brass band for a victory march, then the only way is to get what was stolen from them returned, and some stuff sold, to pay these "friggin' gladiators", more like "Beefeaters" wanting the top of the line, us to eat beans in the meantime, then we've got to get some phone calls going to the U.S. Attorney's office at 225-1552 Attn: Kim Cooper on Forfeiture ext. #2667 and just ask for a Progress Report of have they gotten over that Treasury Agent's name and # to David's sister for a visit to extract the exempt items under the homestead act? Has anybody gone to the property/ies to see whose name is listed as the contact person? If they don't reply soon, then an RSA Ch. 627:8 action ought to take place with David as the next of kin, with Sheriff back-up to break the Fed locks and re-take his parents' property! The State Police too, now on OUR side! You just don't take over a property and then stop playing the game. The rules require that the exemption items be given over to that estate woman with the POA from Elaine, as in the tens of thousands of dollars worth of dental equipment at her business. The tools of her trade that she can maybe sell to some new doctor or rent, the Marshals, what? waiting for a dentist to take over with all equipment included in the sale? Them jumping over the homestead exemptions! Land lupers! -- Joe
Falling Cinder Blocks:
I don't see it in the on-line version of The http://www.concordmonitor.com under the Opinion section for Letters to the Editor, but yesterday's actual newspaper had at page B9 some letter from a female inmate in Strafford County Jail at Dover (up from the Womens Prison in Goffstown as over-crowded) tell of them eating their meal in the pod one day and two cinder blocks just fell from the ceiling: one hit a woman on the head, and the other one hit a woman in the face, ripping her skin off. No kiddin'!
-- Joe
Quote from: keith in RI on November 29, 2007, 08:22 PM NHFT
joe what are the odds that you could post a list of current events so to speak? i know you are busy as hell but i think it would be a nice thing to have. im talking about all the "events" that are currently pending. in other words say list for example:
complaint filed with postal service over mail not delivered......(*)
contact person info......
next course of action........
what we can do ie: call in support??
complaint filed with tom allen @......
next courseof action....
what we can do....
lawyer so and so contacted waiting for reply....
its just that you post a lot of stuff asking us to call in support or whatever and i think some of it gets lost in the shuffle of these posts. a nice listing would be useful, a checklist so to speak....
(*) Bob's working on this. When I saw him Wednesday, he said that he used to work for the Post Office for three years, and so the reason for why he started this private mail service for Ed.
He's been in contact with the Kathy Royal U.S. Postal Inspector superior here in New Hampshire and is going to subpoena her in on his case, or do a deposition of her +/or whoever her underling was that buckled under to whoever from the Marshals who told her a lie that they were empowered to ask and for the P.O. to say: how high to jump over their request. This is one case they do not want to get to trial, and so are doing their darndest to get him to plea to something. Bob says there's no way in hell that the Marshals had any power over the Postal Service to stop the mail from being delivered. I don't know all the details, but if there would have been a suspected package as like it ticking or something, then they could pull it out of the line, but as the saying goes: by sleet, snow nor gloom of night, etc. the gloom being the maybe boogeyman? Maybe just doesn't cut it, but did in this case, and totally unlawful, especially when they are both unlawful and illegal! as without the NH RSA Ch. 123:1 papers from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. - - Joe
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 30, 2007, 12:26 AM NHFT
Falling Cinder Blocks:
I don't see it in the on-line version of The http://www.concordmonitor.com under the Opinion section for Letters to the Editor, but yesterday's actual newspaper had at page B9 some letter from a female inmate in Strafford County Jail at Dover (up from the Womens Prison in Goffstown as over-crowded) tell of them eating their meal in the pod one day and two cinder blocks just fell from the ceiling: one hit a woman on the head, and the other one hit a woman in the face, ripping her skin off. No kiddin'!
-- Joe
Geesh, that's disturbing! Do you think phone calls and letters will help?
Update: All the mail that was supposed to be delivered to Ed & Elaine Brown at 401 Center of Town Road in Plainfield, N.H. 03781 before their arrest last month on Thu., Oct. 4th (yes -- still only a month ago on the calendar that is).
I did just call Kathy Royal, the N.H. "Manager" of "Consumer Affairs" is her real title, at 603: 626-6818 and got a recording that she's on vacation from Nov. 26th - Dec. 3rd and to call 644-4152.
I did call that # and it gave me two options: Press 1 to speak to a live person, or #2 to leave a message. I chose #2 first and left a short message only alloyed after your name and telephone number, and since I was cut off in mid-sentence I called back and pressed #1 and spoke with Mary Ann, who said that her boss, Lori Houghton, the Acting Manager was on the phone, but that I told her what was going on, or rather what was NOT going on.
I did tell her that this has been over 60 days now, that I have yet to either have my insured letter with the $50.00 bill and papers, insured for $100.00 delivered or returned, and she asked WHY I didn't complain about this sooner. I said I have made #numerous complaints! She asked me what the # was, I said I've temporarily lost it, but she did say that the P.O. keeps their records for up to 30 days, and YES- I did ask about this BEFORE the 30 days but that they gave me the excuse that they needed the number! So WHO is lieing or doesn't know HOW to do their job!?
I did tell her that this is a bunch of crap! My letter was non-lethal, and with the technology we have today, they can determine that, and either deliver the mail or open it to prove as non-lethal, or what? They're securing iit n the bomb room of the "Inspector Service"? so that if something starts ticking and goes off that it won't cause damage to them? What about me and my letter, don't I have rights too to be as far away from any such ticking bomb package? And they put my mail within such a pile? WHEN are they going to open up the real suspected packages? Are they waiting for some Order from the Court on a Search Warrant to open up ALL the mail sent to Ed BEFORE his arrest? Do I have a say in the matter as to get this process speeded up? WHO is this Postal Officer who took the Marshal's recommendation to halt? And where plus when and how was this communicated? by phone call(s) and/or letter(s)? From and TO whom? And did the Marshals verify that they have the authority to even request such? Where is their Secretary of State receipt of the RSA Ch. 123:1 papers, if any, from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution? They have none, and this whole theft is unlawful and illegal. Harm on delivery to the Browns, protecting them? You have got to be shitting me! When Bernie went to the Town Office to complain of to either return the property taxes, or protect the Browns from an outlaw federal government they said right there and in writing later in the Selectmen's Meeting Minutes that they will do neither! Now who is running a Protection Racket here!? Where is the F.B.I.? Are we getting what we pay for in taxes!? My boss pays my federal taxes for me and I see only theft of my rights! and Ed the theft of his property: his $50.00 bill, that could have started a legal defense toward either preliminary actions to work on getting an attorney to handle the Habeas if/when he be captured like he was, +/or to go for the Mistrial Motion.
I did tell Mary Ann that Gary DiMartino, the Deputy U.S. Marshal gave me the excuse that my #10 envelope might have had a fuse in it, so WHY did I get my regular #10 envelope back a few days ago to a week to 10 days ago now from Bill Abbott in person at his office, see my Archives here @ page 7 #102 for Nov. 7th @ 11:41 a.m. over to page 5 #67 for Nov. 15 @ 11:40 a.m. search word: Royal; but NOT this insured #10 envelope with all the colorful stickers on it, that ought to stand out like a sore thumb!?
I did get the message from Mary Ann, that Lori was listening to my message that I had sent earlier, and that she is to get a message over to the "Inspection Service" in: ___________ ? Attn: ___________ Tel. # (__) __________ and when "they" get back to her, she will get back to me. So Keith: maybe after a week to 10 days wait of more time, to call her again next week for yet another "Progress Report" or better yet: Bob Wolffe to subpoena these lazy bastards to a deposition to find out WHO stopped the mail on who's suggestion and order, and WHY didn't the Postal Service demand of that Marshal the authority to even ask such a request!? Go for it Bob, nail these thieves, that they will only call themselves temporary thieves in that the mail will eventually be either delivered or returned to the sender in shreds, or so and so indicted for maybe sending explosives through the mail? You've got to have all of this information BEFORE you decide to enter a plea, and so to get them to act faster BEFORE your Jan. 28th trial day. You were the PRIVATE courier for what is a legitimate right to do what the U.S. P.O. should have done but didn't, and their decision to halt being improper, then you win your case!
Good luck, - - Joe
Update:
I did call the U.S. Attorney's office again this morning at about 10:45 a.m. and spoke with Megan, the receptionist who told me that both Rob Raybach and Kim Cooper are out on vacation now, but that Bob Konsela (spelling), just walked by as the #3 man there from Tom - Joe - Bob, and he took my call then put me on speaker-phone to take notes he said (maybe somebody else listening too?) when I first said that Megan deserves more than a gold star, but a platinum star, and that he agrees very much.
After a chit chat the bottom line is that although the $75,000 machine over at Elaine's dental office as an example is not in any evidence box, as numbered and on the internet from the file, or with a sticker, it ought be be released as a homestead item/ tools of your trade, like to maybe sell to get an attorney to take the case (whether it be Habeas or Mistrial, or Appeal) but that although I'm concerned, I have no authority to act for Ed nor Elaine, or even their son David in Worcester or daughter, but it can only be them, or by whoever Elaine gives the POA: Power of Attorney to that estate woman she's had for years. ONLY she can assert these RSA Ch. 511:2 rights to these attached items under a seizure toward a forfeiture, there being that RSA 480:1 of up to $100,000 each, but with the tax exemption, but is that for state or federal taxes? The statute is not clear on that, and so to maybe visit the State Archives on Fruit Street in Concord this afternoon to get the hearing minutes on when this got on the books in 19__ from House/Senate Bill #____. To post here the details tonight.
So in effect we are only like the cheerleaders in this part of the case, we can yell, but have no power to push them along to an answer. That takes the person with legal authority to assert their legal rights.
Yours truly, - Joe
ok cool thanks for the updated location info. i guess i should not send reno's package until we are sure he's back at the same spot?
According to Donna van Meter's Myspace, Reno wasn't moved.
QuoteHere it is Folks.
I received word from Cirino about court today, he was very pleased with his lawyer, Cirino praised the efforts put forth by his representation despite an angry disgruntled judge, whom for some reason was pretty hostile to Cirinos Public Defender. His Lawyer shredded through the testimony the Marshal gave when the Marshal did not have his facts straight, Thank you Mr. David Brownes for shinning some light on the blatant flatout lies and the BS that they are doing to Cirino. We knew Cirino would not have bond set or would be released today, even with this you did put up a fight, and moved a few people in the gallery when you spoke about the kind of person, the man Cirino is, all he has done and aspires to accomplish.
I was also told tonight though that there was talk about the FBI filing their own cases against him and the others as well on counts of terrorism. we don't know what will become of this, or how they will be tried. Now realize my dear friends that with HR 1955, now even those whom are peaceful activists, anti-war, or those for simply voicing their opinions now can be considered a terrorist act. I will be honest with you right now folks, they could come after alot more supporters whom have done less, we all could be misleadingly mislabeled terrorists, using the internet as a tool of expressing or communicate, to persuade change, reguardless if it is nonviolent, by communicating we could also be seen as a cell by their loose definitions, Hell, your church can be looked upon as such as well, for spreading/sharing your faith. While I will be sad to see many of you jump ship cause many have already gotten scared much earlier on when everyone was taken in. Sadden yes, but not downhearted, Cirino always said we determined our own level of involvement, we understand if you are afraid, but we are going to continue pressing on and forward without fear without regret. While it is my hope this will not intimidate any of the supporters, this is just to give you all a heads up, this is the time to decide your own involvement, decide your fate, and the direction of this nation.
thank you
Donna VanMeter
oh yes he is still being held at Merrimack, they decided not to change his location, that is a good thing, he doesnt have to lose his letters, pictures, canteen monies, ect.
Apparently Bob Wolfe is supposed to be in court for a hearing on 12/7 1:30 pm, fed courthouse 55 pleasant street concord NH
It's been a while since any of us have demonstrated in relation to the brown case; none of them should be forgotten so I'm thinking I will probably head out there and hold my Free The Ed Brown Supporters sign around then. Stay tuned to this thread and lemme know if you hear of any changes in the date/time, or any indication that the Wolfe's would not want us demonstrating.
richardr from this forum says he located the following message on PACER:
<<11/26/2007 NOTICE OF HEARING as to Robert Wolffe: Change of Plea Hearing set for 12/7/2007 01:30 PM before Chief Judge George Z. Singal at the Rudman Courthouse, Concord, NH. (dae) (Entered: 11/26/2007)>>
Quote from: richardr on November 30, 2007, 10:37 AM NHFT
According to Donna van Meter's Myspace, Reno wasn't moved.
QuoteHere it is Folks.
I received word from Cirino about court today, he was very pleased with his lawyer, Cirino praised the efforts put forth by his representation despite an angry disgruntled judge, whom for some reason was pretty hostile to Cirinos Public Defender. His Lawyer shredded through the testimony the Marshal gave when the Marshal did not have his facts straight, Thank you Mr. David Brownes for shinning some light on the blatant flatout lies and the BS that they are doing to Cirino. We knew Cirino would not have bond set or would be released today, even with this you did put up a fight, and moved a few people in the gallery when you spoke about the kind of person, the man Cirino is, all he has done and aspires to accomplish.
I was also told tonight though that there was talk about the FBI filing their own cases against him and the others as well on counts of terrorism. we don't know what will become of this, or how they will be tried. Now realize my dear friends that with HR 1955, now even those whom are peaceful activists, anti-war, or those for simply voicing their opinions now can be considered a terrorist act. I will be honest with you right now folks, they could come after alot more supporters whom have done less, we all could be misleadingly mislabeled terrorists, using the internet as a tool of expressing or communicate, to persuade change, reguardless if it is nonviolent, by communicating we could also be seen as a cell by their loose definitions, Hell, your church can be looked upon as such as well, for spreading/sharing your faith. While I will be sad to see many of you jump ship cause many have already gotten scared much earlier on when everyone was taken in. Sadden yes, but not downhearted, Cirino always said we determined our own level of involvement, we understand if you are afraid, but we are going to continue pressing on and forward without fear without regret. While it is my hope this will not intimidate any of the supporters, this is just to give you all a heads up, this is the time to decide your own involvement, decide your fate, and the direction of this nation.
thank you
Donna VanMeter
oh yes he is still being held at Merrimack, they decided not to change his location, that is a good thing, he doesnt have to lose his letters, pictures, canteen monies, ect.
Thanks Richard, plus Donna (for your e-mail too), I did just call the N.H. F.B.I. office at: 15 Constitution Place, 2nd floor, Bedford, N.H. 03110, Tel. 603: 472-2224 (+ 472-2513) from http://boston.fbi.gov/nh.htm as in my Reply #____ on page #____ here, currently as #121 on page 9 in my Archives for 11/2 @ 2:31 p.m. and the man (name unknown as he never gave it, nor did I ask for it) who answered the phone: I first said I'm very disappointed in you, re: having never acknowledged even the receipt of my letter last month in October, and told him of this federal non-filing of the feds to RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. and the latest in regards to the FBI looking for "terrorists" using some new definitions of the word, me a free speech rights activist, him saying: we all are, but that he assures me that to investigate this non-filing, even though it is a federal agency, and does investigations is NOT their job and so to contact "Governor Gregg", corrected to Senator Gregg, so here goes, me to look up his website of: ____________ and see what happens, if anything, re: the criminal charge I told him I did file with the Concord P.D. against Judge McAuliffe for Unlawful Simulation of Legal Process. - - Joe
P.S. To re-call the Concord P.D. at 225-8600 again for a Progress Report on my Case #07-40622-OF then if still with no legal opinion from the County Attorney to re-call him at 228-0529 too. ___ + ___
Here's a re-type of my e-mail transfer through Judd Gregg's website of http://gregg.senate.gov/ Subject: Judiciary.
"Dear Senator Gregg:
--The F.B.I. Officer in Bedford, N.H. at 472-2224 told me today to contact you, since his office is in effect, neither federal nor investigative!?
-The problem is that the feds have not filed the 1-8-17 U.S. Const. to NH RSA Ch. 123:1 documents with our Office of Secretary of State, as required by the 'shall' word that the government refuses to deal with by his Art. 41 duty.
--Attorney Larry Becraft of Alabama lists the single and double-filing stares.
--I've filed a criminal complaint #07-40622-OF against Judge McAuliffe for Unlawful Simulation of Legal Process with the Concord D.D. at 225-8600. It;s been over 2 months of them looking for a Legal Opinion from the County Attorney. The Watch Commander just told me that Oficer Adam Fanjoy did talk with George Stuart and the file is with them at 228-0529, out of their hands, and so to ask over there.
--Yours truly, Joe Haas" *
Re: to "ask" over there PLEASE I'll call the Washington office (and 5 branch offices) to supplement my e-mail, of to call and ask for Dan St. Hillaire, the County Attorney, because I just called his office and spoke with his receptionist who told me that he was looking for my telephone # to get back to me, that I did leave on his voice mail again for the #__ time, and telling him of to please give me a yes or no, of is "Ignorance of the law no excuse" or are judges exempt from such, as if they investigate they'll find that the court KNOWS of this by the affidavits in the file to back up what Ed said in court of WHERE are the "ceding" papers?, but the judge pretending to not know what he meant?, or maybe he did know, or should have known, and so the reason for only a Class B Misdemeanor of a fine-only possibility like they did to me in the "Wise Up or Die" case. Then if "no" prosecution, THEN Ed & Elaine can file CIVIL charges against the judge and/or court system, or for Rep. Hodes or Shea-Porter at ________________ (to call them in a few minutes) to put in a $money bill for damages at the $2,500 per day rate as per the Veronia Silva case in the N.H. State Board of Claims in the mid 1980s. Oct. 4 - Dec. 4 = about 60 days, so $2,500 x 60 = $150,000 and counting. The deadline for filing new legislation for the 2008 Session being what? December ___, 2007, or has that deadline gone by too?
* Dear Joseph S. Haas, Thank you for contacting me, I will be in touch with you shortly. Sincerely, Judd Gregg, United States Senator, New Hampshire".
I feel like Larry Glick here from the radio station, of when he'd conduct his on telephone calls over the WBZ airwaves of to this and that city/county/federal agency getting the royal run-around, asking the age-old question of WHERE is the public servant to say or have on his office desk the sign that reads: "THE BUCK STOPS HERE"?
I did just call the Washington # at Federal Rep. Carol Shea-Porter's website of http://shea-porter.house.gov/ at 1-202-225-5456 and spoke first with Paulo who asked me if my suggested bill was an appropriations bill? I said yes, and so was transferred over to Robert, the Legislative Director (not "Assistant" as Paulo said), and he said that there are Private Money Bills, and that can be entered any time during the Session, no deadlines, but that they are usually for Relief from some Passport restrictions for some visiting dignitary of a foreign state, and that maybe I ought to call the U.S. Court of Claims* at the unknown tel. # he didn't have, but that someone from his office will get back to me at the address or telephone # provided. Him with about 5 minutes I asked? Him saying yes, and so I gave him from the 1883 statute forward to my Criminal Complaint #07-40622-OF that if there be no criminal action, then some civil action, and by either a civil court action, or civil bill through Congress, as well as maybe a Bill of Impeachment so that this doesn't happen to anybody else! by getting in a judge there who will honor his oath of office to the Constitution!
Yours truly, - Joe
* The United States Court of Federal Claims
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/welcome_mess.htm
Clerk's Office: 717 Madison Place, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Phone (202) 357-6400
Notice that this is "the 'People's Court'...established by Congress in 1855" that is 28 years before N.H. granted to the Feds conditional consent from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. by our N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 but which papers for jurisdiction were NEVER filed, and so there being this "money claim...founded on...the Constitution." Yeah! plus notice that this court exempts "tort"s, that are technically: "Any wrongful act, not involving breach of contract for which a civil suit can be brought". So in other words: the big question is: Is there a contract or not? WithOUT the filing of the federal papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State, to the offer we gave them on June 14th, 1883, is there a contract, or not? But what about the oath of office? Isn't that a contract that the judge be of honor? Of course! He's supposed to honor the constitution, and when there's a breach of contract, then to here goes Ed & Elaine's complaints, plus that of his supporters being the Four Freedom Keepers (Danny, Jason, Bob and Reno) who have been victimized too, deserving equal pay to that $2,500 per day too, their 100 days up by around Sept. 12th to Dec. 12th = 90 days + 10 = 100 to Dec. 22, so a very nice Christmas Present indeed awaiting them to $250,000 = a quarter of a million dollars each. No wonder they want them to enter a plea. To call the # in a few minutes to find out their procedures like how long it takes to hear the case once it's filed, and to please send an introductory packet to each inmate, at the addresses I can give to them today. Office hours 8:45 a.m. - 5:15 p.m. M-F.
joe i have a few hours available this afternoon, anyone i should be calling?? maybe some "im calling in reference to joe haas' calls?"
i just called elkton fci at 3:00pm and asked if ed was still there saying i received a package back stating that he wasnt there (which lyndse did) and i wanted to know before i sent anymore mail. they said he was still there.
Quote from: keith in RI on November 30, 2007, 01:47 PM NHFT
joe i have a few hours available this afternoon, anyone i should be calling?? maybe some "im calling in reference to joe haas' calls?"
Thanks Keith. I tried Elkton F.C.I. yesterday it ringing 33 times twice to nowhere but a shut off. I'm glad you got through to verify Ed as still there.
As for calling around, you might try getting the list of attorneys at the U.S. Court of Claims website in Good Standing who practice there to see who wants or must(?) an attorney be hired, or can you file your own individual complaint? I pressed #2 for new complaints but the man's voice recorder was on, so to call back, maybe you can do this? Like to find an attorney there who might take this "Breach of Contract" case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract for not money damages right away, but for "specific performance" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance as in to compel whoever that federal officer is supposed to file the RSA Ch. 123:1 papers from the Feds to our N.H. Secretary of State to do his job from the contract in Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, and so when finally done, will prove there having been NO jurisdiction before that, and so Ed & Elaine to use this as evidence in their Habeas Corpus petitions, and Danny too, for his Brief to the Supremes by Dec. 26th of to at least report of a copy of some claim pending the 60-day notice, and then him out too, plus followed by Bob, Jason and Reno, onto what? to supplement the claim(s) to then know the exact # of days to put down as the $monetary figure?
Good luck, -- Joe
anyone know how to get in touch with fred smart? elaine said he had a radio show on rbn from 10am on mon-fri but their website doesnt list him? i got a letter from reno today ....7 pages so im not transcribing this one im being lazy. a while back i found myself asking why im helping here, but i know im doing the right thing because everyone of the 6 freedom fighters has told me the same thing. "dont worry about me take care of the others!" reno stressing in his letter to me that he is worried about the others "emotional well being" all 6 of them saying if the others need money dont give to me give to them, selfless even behind bars! reno says that there is a quote that he keeps repeating to himself that keeps him going:
"MY CHILDREN WHEN THEY SPEAK OF THEIR FATHER, THEY WILL SAY HE WAS A MAN WHO STOOD UP FOR WHAT WAS RIGHT, A MAN WHO SAID HE MUST DO SOMETHING NOW. WHAT WILL YOUR CHILDREN SAY ABOUT YOU?"
he asked me to put that out there for people to read so there it is.
in my last letter i confessed to reno that for a while i thought he was a federal agent, a plant, i admit it i was wrong, but i still thought that. he responded with this:
"a federal mrshall!? HA! thats nothing! i have been called a marshall, an fbi agent, a homeland security agent, CIA agent, a blackwater spy, hell i was even told that someone figured out & posted that i was , now get this, a rothschild agent/spy!! ah-hell, since we are on the topic of being accused, one guy even wrote when aaron russo died he thought i was mr russo's son or maybe love child or something.."
i thought that was funny.
Quote from: keith in RI on November 30, 2007, 05:35 PM NHFThe thought i was mr russo's son or maybe love child or something.."
We all know that you are. Keep trying to cover it up and it will make the front page of the Concord Monitor. ;D
yeah maybe Lil Miss "Scoop" Katz -enjammer will spin this one into a frenzy.
KOla
Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 30, 2007, 10:15 AM NHFT
Quote from: coffeeseven on October 30, 2007, 07:54 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 30, 2007, 12:44 AM NHFT
So C7, when Tommy Cryer gets back to you on Wednesday (Oct. 31st - tomorrow) that he's talked with Larry Beecraft, would you please relay the info to Tommy to see if Larry is available to be a paid expert witness on this case. I think Ed would like to conduct the hearing himself, with maybe stand-by counsel,
Yes I will.
Thank you.
Plus Ed wrote ...
(*******) I just called Fred Smart at the 1-888-606-9379 # press 1 to reach (2 to record), that he says he's getting rid of later this week. I found this by a Google search for his name, as for the America: From Freedom to Fascism that also links up with Tom Cryer, and his Federal Tax Case (upper right corner) of http://www.petermacshow.com/content/view/158/34/ and some Attorney at Law advertising banner for David C. Graham at 913: 829-5445. This is for Peter H. McCandles, e-mail peter at petermacshow dot com for http://www.petermacshow.com too as the main page. Fred [at cell phone 847-878-8090 or office # 312: 602-2568] said that he'd like a weekly update on his Radio Show from me, me referring him over to Bernie as the one that does this, to where Bernie can say to Fred, like: "Patch me through to McGarrett" 8) reference: Jack Lord on "Hawaii Five-O", to me if he'd like, as I did on the two radio shows after my "Wise Up or Die" case, still going on.
Fred gave me Thurston Bell's phone # 865-223-5725 who did just draft up his 23-page Habeas Corpus Petition for Ed. I called there to leave a message, of what I've been instructed to do, that can be set-aside, or Ed's original sent in to start this, as like a 2-part Petition with the 23-page one as Part 2 to follow when Thurston sends that for Ed to sign and mail in directly to the court maybe early next week.
Fred also gave me not Tim Watkins, but Tim Wingate's the http://www.thepowerhour.com through 1-877-817-9829 M-Thu. 8-5 CST + Fri. 8-4, me sending him an e-mail to thepowerhour at thepowerhour dot com right now, his wife: Joyce Riley, and who will make sure that their associate David von Kliest will get it too, his cell phone #573-378-0143 confirmed by Misty who I did speak with just now....
Keith, Here's Fred's #. I did just call both his office and cell phone numbers this morning, with only the voice recordings, to where I left a message to call me back about the latest progress report in this case.
I then called Thurston Bell at his # and got to talk with him again, who said that he sent his 11-page habeas corpus papers to Fred back in September, but that nothing was done with them other than to collect dust. Shame on you Fred! :( Or did you look it over and make the single decision of it not worth anything? Or did you not get it? Please explain. Maybe you were waiting until today? Thank you "very" much for the initial contact though to Thurston, for us now to sit silently by and back up the filer and keep demanding by present expectations of WHEN will there be a hearing on this until Ed's release? Thurston saying the usual operating time for release being a mere seven (7) days.
Anyway I did get the e-mail from Thurston, and printed it out, that I can send to anybody here upon request. It's a fill-in-the-black type dealing with some Sixth Circuit case-law he said (as the summary of this) that when the judge tells the jury to NOT judge the law as in jury nullification, he has gone overboard and his decision upon the victim must be set aside or overturned by another judge in a habeas proceeding that does not have to be done by Ed, the victim, but any "RELATOR" and not necessarily as by David for maybe his mother too, the e-mail address for him bouncing sometimes I've found out, and just did again in Thurston's attempt to send it to him.
I told Thurston that Bernie is the one with all the papers in the case, and he's heard Bernie's name before, and so that's what I did just do: I called Bernie and spoke with him that an e-mail forward of this was going over to him, and that if somehow my free hotmail account doesn't send it by forward, as sometimes it doesn't, to let Thurston know to send one direct.
To meet with Bernie on Monday to maybe file this with the U.S. District Court in Concord is what Thurston said (rather than the Youngstown one in Ohio for the Elkton F.C.I.) because the friends and relatives have rights too he said.
I've yet to read this 11-page APPLICATION FOR THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241(c)(1) and (3)" and so to comment on it later. We've got everything to gain, and nothing to lose but the $5.00 filing fee, under Rule 503 I think it was from memory of this being the box to check on the Civil Cover Sheet.
Yours truly, - - Joe
This was just e-mailed to me today from Paul Andrew Michael:
A.) #2 of 3.) http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/nad.shumaker.htm and
B.) #3 of 3.) http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/nad.cressler.htm
about the Clerk + Deputy missing some Oath papers.
Thank you Paul at e-mail: supremelawfirm at gmail dot com for anybody to write to for the complete e-mail.
In the meantime does anybody here know if Ed ever got Clerk Starr's oath from Concord, N.H.?
Reference: the unlawful simulation of official notice criminal charge I filed with the Concord P.D. against McAuliffe, that ought to be amended to include Starr, and what? given over to the U.S. Attorney in Washington who is supposed to be investigating Tom Colantuono's corrupt Assistant Bill Morse for violating not only this, but Federal Rule 16 for NOT giving over the exculpatory evidence in the certificate of non-filing copy to either the Judge or the defendant(s), +/or by State Rule 3.8 to both!!
Yours truly, -- Joe
P.S. Dan St.Hillaire of the Merrimack County Attorney's Office says that he will NOT proceed to prosecute the judge, but what about the Clerk? To update him later too. In other words the judge just gives an "opinion" to his clerk who is supposed to be another level of the check-and-balance against unlawful writs, him the administrative brain + arm of the court like the Marshals are for only the arm without a brain. To see The "Tin Man" tonight on the Sci-Fi channel ought to plug these guys into these roles and find out who to deal with and how.
[quote author=
ours truly, -- Joe
P.S. Dan St.Hillaire of the Merrimack County Attorney's Office says that he will NOT proceed to prosecute the judge, but what about the Clerk? To update him later too. In other words the judge just gives an "opinion" to his clerk who is supposed to be another level of the check-and-balance against unlawful writs, him the administrative brain + arm of the court like the Marshals are for only the arm without a brain. To see The "Tin Man" tonight on the Sci-Fi channel ought to plug these guys into these roles and find out who to deal with and how.
[/quote]
Joe...It has been understood that the County Attorney doesn't make the call. He is under OATH to convene a Grand Jury and have the evidence that supports the complaint put before the Grand Jury and the Grand Jury makes the call !
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 19, 2007, 09:48 AM NHFT
An OPEN LETTER;
To: The United States of America
U.S. Department of Justice
Attn: H. Marshall Jarrett, Counsel
Office of Professional Responsibility
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 3266
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel. (202) _____________
e-mail: _____________
http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/process.htm
Dear Counselor Jarrett:
--According to your "How to File a Complaint" you're "limited to reviewing allegations of misconduct against Department of Justice employees" and so my complaint is as a witness and participant in the I.R.S. v. Ed Brown case #06-cr-71-01/02-SM up here at the U.S. District Court, Concord, New Hampshire.
--My complaint is that exculpatory evidence* was given to the prosecutor, Attorney William Morse DURING the trial, but that he refused to give information about it to either the judge "or" any of the defendants (including Elaine Brown too), as required by Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure #16(c) on page 192, but with the "and" word for both the judge "and" defendant(s) here in New Hampshire by our State Rule 3.8. One of the problems being that Wm. Morse is NOT a Member in Good Standing with the N.H. Bar Association, so would you please also "contact" his "state bar disciplinary organization" in the State of: ____________ to please have them notified too, as by a copy of this letter, to please get back to me, as I'd like to file an official complaint there with them too. Reference: http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/
--* The exculpatory evidence was a copy of my gold-sealed certificate of Thu., Jan. 11th, 2007 that I did get from the N.H. Office of Secretary of State with the summary of the federal non-filing to N.H.'s R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 as from Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. See your own Attorney General Manual #664 on this at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm and especially for the James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 @ 142-43 (1937) in that it "embraces courthouses"!
--The federal government had courthouses in Exeter and Portsmouth, N.H. before moving to Littleton and Concord, formerly at 55, now 53 Pleasant Street in the Warran B. Rudman Building at Concord, and before that at where the Legislative Office Building is now behind and to the west of the Capitol/ State House at 109 North Main Street. Both Concord locations also housed the U.S. Post Office at both locations but is now seperated and down the road at Loudon Road.
--The point being that Attorney Morse knew and still does know of this, but that his office, under the direction of U.S. Attorney Thomas P. Colantuono, appointed by President George Bush, continues to "litigate"** against the "Four Freedom Keepers" in the Brown case but withOUT "authority"**. Reference "exception" clause in your The Report of "Waste, Fraud, Abuse, or Misconduct(*)" and "Report of Violations of Civil Rights or Civil Liberties" over at http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/FOIA/hotline.htm and http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/FOIA/hotline2.htm respectfully.
--So now would you please review this allegation of misconduct(*) that is really ONE STEP BEYOND, the -mis part to an actual mal-administration, in my opinion, to determine "whether further investigation is warranted." http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/proc-hdl.htm As in to "open an investigation" and notify "the attorney whom the allegation has been made and request" a written response from him.
Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059.
pc:
(1) Thomas P. Colantuono, U.S. Attorney
55 Pleasant Street, 3rd floor
Concord, N.H. 03301
603: 225-1552
USANHWebmaster at usdoj dot gov ....
Update: I did just call the D.C. Office at 1-202-514-3365 from the http://www.usdoj.gov/dojofficials.htm#eousa website and the woman there told me: (1) that she cannot verify receipt of my letter of Nov. 20, since it takes six weeks to process, and; (2) that his name: William Morse, is NOT in their system, and so they cannot act as the middleman for WHERE to send my complaint to the Bar Association in the state for where he is a member for proceedings on my complaint for misconduct to Rule 16(c).
Thus Local Rule 83.2a. here in New Hampshire http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ru/local-rules/83.2.asp does NOT apply since he is NOT "a member of the bar of any United States District Court", otherwise his name would appear on this master list of "Attorneys for the United States" in Washington, D.C.
So this leaves one of two possibilities according to http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ac/bar-admissions.asp for either: (1) Local Rule 83.1 but that after my call this morning to Sherry there at the N.H. Supreme Court, 271-2646, they don't have him listed either; and so this leaves (2) only Local Rule 83.2(b) for four criteria to be satisfied: of 1. "be a member in good standing of the bar of any court of the United States or the highest court of any state" the answer being the U.S. court of: ________ or Supreme Court in the state of: ___________, 2. WHO filed the required Pro Hac Vice "motion"? ___________ (Tom Colantuono?), with 3. "affidavit"; and 4. the "$100 fee".
For me to re-call the U.S. District Court @ 1:30 p.m. when: Janice will be back from her lunch break, 225-1423, who told me this morning that she would talk with Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch about this, but, who at about 12:20 p.m. was is a meeting. Yeah: probably in a meeting with the Clerk Js.R. Starr to see how they can delay my obtaining this motion and affidavit, indicating him from the state of: _______ to WHERE to file this complaint and have him put in bad standing, thus eliminating requirement #1 of 4 to have the N.H. judge "may at any time revoke such permission for good cause without a hearing", and so evidence of mal-administration for Ed to use in his case for a mis-trial, to whom the Four Freedom Keepers backed up Ed's right to revolt against this corruption, and were right!
JSH
P.S. Thank you Paul Andrew Michael, Private Attorney General for your http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/federal.judges.htm that includes the clerks too as of "profit" to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" [see 1-8-17 for the "Consent" clause, but there being none by N.H. RSA 123:1], with the filing of such in either "the House of Congress" or "court to which the office pertains", plus the exact words for the "Oath of office of clerks and deputies" in Title 28, Part III, Ch. 57, Sec. 951 over at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00000951----000-.html to "faithfully enter* and record ALL orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of such court" (emphasis ADDed, even if unlawful or illegal!? No! because of the 5 USC 3331 oath to the Constitution.) * The word enter defined as to place formally on record, as in rigorous adherence to established rules, being: (1) the governing power, (2) an authoritative direction for conduct or procedure, + (3) a standard method or procedure; the standard, I presume, being as indicated over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_clerk in that "No judgment of a U.S. court is effective until it is signed by the clerk and entered on the clerk's records." **
** So what exactly did the Marshal use to capture Ed & Elaine with? A court order with two signed copies? by the clerk. WHY didn't the clerk sign the original? or did he? Maybe he knows that the court is withOUT jurisdiction, and so his non-signing on the original order is his way of saying that if the defendants are too stupid to put this into an habeas corpus proceeding in the federal court to where they are sent, then they deserve to rot in prison!?
*** Plus what are these "all other duties" of the Court Clerk? WHERE are they listed? for his job description.
PPS My phone call at 1:40 p.m. to the N.H. Court resulted in more non-information: Ann answered the phone, and tried Janice, who's line is busy, and so over to Dan to where I left a message of to please send me a copy of this motion and affidavit, to my Post Office address, that I'll share with you all hopefully later this week.
i forgot to mention this earlier but i did a ridley report on some of this stuff a couple days back:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_xhDLiKMRDE
If you have mail for Ed, hold onto it for a couple of days. He's en route to his new destination. Currently at the transfer center in OKC, but that's temporary.
Thx, was going to mail the paper to him tomorrow.
Tell Bob I do the same, put my stamps upside down. I also write Ron Paul for Pres 2008 next to it. Kudos to Bob for telling Margot to screw off. She is just a crumb in the corruption pie that is being served.
Kola
Reno too, on all the letters he sends me.
"There is no waste of time in life like that of making explanations." - D'Israeli
maybe i should have clarified better. that was me telling margot to bugoff....not bob. everything after the ====== is me talking.
Quote from: kola on December 05, 2007, 02:17 PM NHFT
Tell Bob I do the same, put my stamps upside down. I also write Ron Paul for Pres 2008 next to it. Kudos to Bob for telling Margot to screw off. She is just a crumb in the corruption pie that is being served.
Kola
gotcha Keith!..and glad to see you can read through the bullshit of Miss Katz-enjammer...just another fecal parasite.
Kola
Margot has my permission to print anything I write. Especially if it turns out to be completely wrong or obviously fabricated. ;)
Quote from: coffeeseven on December 05, 2007, 06:42 PM NHFT
Margot has my permission to print anything I write. Especially if it turns out to be completely wrong or obviously fabricated. ;)
after she gets ahold of it, and works her magic on it, normally it ends out that way.
i don't appreciate folks here calling reporters names.
Does anyone have any updated information regarding the scheduled friday hearing for Wolfe? I'd still like to go demonstrate but would like to make sure the hearing is still on.
Quote from: richardr on November 30, 2007, 10:37 AM NHFT
According to Donna van Meter's Myspace, Reno wasn't moved.
QuoteHere it is Folks.
I received word from Cirino about court today, he was very pleased with his lawyer, Cirino praised the efforts put forth by his representation despite an angry disgruntled judge, whom for some reason was pretty hostile to Cirinos Public Defender. His Lawyer shredded through the testimony the Marshal gave when the Marshal did not have his facts straight, Thank you Mr. David Brownes for shinning some light on the blatant flatout lies and the BS that they are doing to Cirino. We knew Cirino would not have bond set or would be released today, even with this you did put up a fight, and moved a few people in the gallery when you spoke about the kind of person, the man Cirino is, all he has done and aspires to accomplish.
thank you
Donna VanMeter ....
Thanks again Donna, and Richard for this info about last Thursday's Bail Hearing Nov. 29th, plus Reno with the details to me in his letter of 12/3, Monday that I received in yesterday's mail, Wed. 12/5 that "Mr. Bownes did a great, no terrific! job in the court room. -- At the end there was even a woman crying in the back. I can only guess that his words about me* reached her. There should be a blog placed up by now at my page. -- I am requesting a copy of the transcripts of that bail hearing." [* and maybe of your brother too Reno, of being with the Texas Rangers, fighting corruption/ "going against the 'Brother Hood' of 'the law' there / in any small town Sheriff Dept. takes courage. He currently serves at another close town's P.D...to bust C/Os at the Jim Wells Co. Jail, where he "worked there at the time; for beatings/ abuses that happened there" but the Magistrate "was openly hostile with my lawyer. The judge openly saying my brother was a 'bad cop'(?)/" ]
It looks like David Bownes did subpoena the U.S. Marshal in Texas to this N.H. hearing. Reno writes that in "my first hearing in Texas" that Marshal _______ said "that I have a view/ claim that the U.S. is a Fascist government. But in this hearing HE described the Deputies as 'TROOPS' during the raid on my father's home." This is "very" interesting, because a troop is a group of soldiers. The word soldier defined as "An enlisted man as distinguished from a commissioned officer". So did David also subpoena the Commissioner in Texas?, and if not then WHY not? David: see Attorney Larry Becraft's excellent website from Alabama of the single and double-filing states over at http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm So what is Texas? A single or double-filing state? And if the latter, were they (past tense) and are they (current tense) in compliance with their state statute?
The answer found at Larry's website is that in addition to recording their deed at the Registry of Deeds they also must make "application" to the Governor by Vernon's Annotated Constitution of the State of Texas, article 16, section 34, ART. 5247.5275-6. Federal jurisdiction. At page 208 of 229 (page 72 of 90 @ the 100% print-out), with Texas at pages 204-210 and p. 69-74 respectfully. So David: WHERE is the "application" to the Governor? Does it exist down there, and IF not, then there has been a violation of Reno's procedural due process rights there based upon there being no substance, AND up here too, as this Federal court withIN the state of New Hampshire is also/ or stands alone as withOUT jurisdiction (too), in that there is no N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 filing as required by our State Legislature who gave the Feds conditional "Consent" from 1-8-17 U.S. Const., as long as they filed with our N.H. Secretary of State. An offer for "concurrent" jurisdiction that was made to the Feds by the state on June 14, 1883, but that the Feds declined.
To send Reno another copy of: (1) the transcript excerpt of the Jan. 17, 2007 part of the trial; (2) the two Affidavits of Feb. 1+ 6, plus; (3) the third Nov. 5th '07 or a new gold sealed certificate of federal non-filing. The copy of the ones I already sent him re-forwarded to his attorney, or Donna? as he requests same; for current action? in what? A motion to reconsider? within ten (10) days that ends this Sunday, Dec. 9th, so something to get postmarked by Mon., December 10th. He would really like any information: Jason - re: of what your lawyer found of that "State-Federal jurist ruling" in Louisiana of a crime on federal turf, but because the Feds did NOT file with the Governor, it was a "state" crime.
So WHEN, if at all, are Danny and Bob going to have their Bail Hearings for release before trial at the end of next month? I think it was Jason who already had his hearing that I attended, and now this same Magistrate Muirhead saying in Reno's case that "Only 'nutcases' own 50 cal rifles. Yeah he said that in open court!" Jason was from Missouri: the "Show Me" state, but Minn.esota deserving of such, as already written here in Reply #___. Thus Danny from New York, and Bob from Vermont remaining with the opportunity for their bail hearings too. So if Danny has a Bail Hearing, can his attorney subpoena the N.Y. Commissioner/ re: in non-compliance with the N.Y. statute p. 181-186? Hey, I only have so many hours in the day: Bill- you're going to have to research this yourself. Danny already contesting it on THIS side of the border, with his appeal to the Supremes. This leaves Bob: as I've already found out: Vermont and Maine are single-filing states IN compliance, and so that Maine Judge George Singal to rule in your part of the case, that yes: there has to be jurisdiction proven for you to enter into a plea agreement, and since there is none for N.H., that you be released upon the filing of a Motion to Dismiss. To see you in court this Fri., Dec. 7th tomorrow @ 1:30 p.m. should be "very" interesting!
JSH
P.S. Plus thank you Margo for your newspaper article in yesterday's http://www.concordmonitor.com at pages B1+6 (just above the "Mummy" case) at http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071205/NEWS01/712050315 entitled "Judge okayed seizing home in June" on a "writ of entry", and the yet to be un-sealed file #________ of "In the Matter of the Tax indebtedness of Elaine A. Brown" where she wrote from Danbury, Conn. and asked "the court to halt its seizure of her home...pending proof of jurisdiction on the record by the plaintiff."
Thank You Mr. Haas, so much would go undone without your hardwork, and dedication to the freedom of Cirino, the Four, and Ed n Elaine Brown. I can honestly say I dont know what we would do without you, i truely mean that from the heart. I can not express in mere words the gratitude and my appreciation for everything that you have done and are doing.
Thank you!
..> donna
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 03, 2007, 12:46 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 19, 2007, 09:48 AM NHFT
An OPEN LETTER;
To: The United States of America
U.S. Department of Justice
Attn: H. Marshall Jarrett, Counsel
Office of Professional Responsibility
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 3266
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel. (202) _____________
e-mail: _____________
http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/process.htm ....
Update: I did just call the D.C. Office at 1-202-514-3365 from the http://www.usdoj.gov/dojofficials.htm#eousa website and the woman there told me: (1) that she cannot verify receipt of my letter of Nov. 20, since it takes six weeks to process, and; (2) that his name: William Morse, is NOT in their system, and so they cannot act as the middleman for WHERE to send my complaint to the Bar Association in the state for where he is a member for proceedings on my complaint for misconduct to Rule 16(c).
Thus Local Rule 83.2a. here in New Hampshire http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ru/local-rules/83.2.asp does NOT apply since he is NOT "a member of the bar of any United States District Court", otherwise his name would appear on this master list of "Attorneys for the United States" in Washington, D.C.
So this leaves one of two possibilities according to http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ac/bar-admissions.asp for either: (1) Local Rule 83.1 but that after my call this morning to Sherry there at the N.H. Supreme Court, 271-2646, they don't have him listed either; and so this leaves (2) only Local Rule 83.2(b) for four criteria to be satisfied: of 1. "be a member in good standing of the bar of any court of the United States or the highest court of any state" the answer being the U.S. court of: ________ or Supreme Court in the state of: ___________, 2. WHO filed the required Pro Hac Vice "motion"? ___________ (Tom Colantuono?), with 3. "affidavit"; and 4. the "$100 fee".
For me to re-call the U.S. District Court @ 1:30 p.m. when: Janice will be back from her lunch break, 225-1423, who told me this morning that she would talk with Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch about this, but, who at about 12:20 p.m. was is a meeting. Yeah: probably in a meeting with the Clerk Js.R. Starr to see how they can delay my obtaining this motion and affidavit, indicating him from the state of: _______ to WHERE to file this complaint and have him put in bad standing, thus eliminating requirement #1 of 4 to have the N.H. judge "may at any time revoke such permission for good cause without a hearing", and so evidence of mal-administration for Ed to use in his case for a mis-trial, to whom the Four Freedom Keepers backed up Ed's right to revolt against this corruption, and were right!
JSH
P.S. ....
Update: Here's a re-type of the letter I received in the #10 envelope yesterday:
"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 55 PLEASANT STREET, ROOM 110, CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301-3941 OFFICE OF THE CLERK James R. Starr Clerk of Court Telephone 603-225-1423
December 4, 2007
Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, NH 03302
Re: USDC-NH Bar Admission of William Morse
Dear Mr. Haas:
--I am responding in writing to your oral request for bar admission information on Attorney William E. Morse from the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Hampshire.
--According to our records, Mr. Morse is properly admitted to practice in this district pursuant to LR 83.2(a). The Office of the Clerk of Court does not disseminate to the public personal information provided by attorneys seeking membership to our bar, including their bar memberships in other states or districts as well as any written petitions to become a member of our bar.
Sincerely, Daniel J. Lynch, Chief Deputy Clerk DLJ/ "
So there you have it folks: an in-writing reply that throws the light to Washington that just because his name is not on their master list, it must be on file somewhere down there, for them to forward to the state Bar, and to get back to me within 6 weeks of Nov. 20th, and so by Tuesday, January 1st being New Year's Day, then by Wed., Jan. 2nd, and what? #____ weeks for that state Bar to hold a hearing on this? The Mon., Jan. 28th trial start is fast approaching, and might have to be extended pending the outcome of Morse being disciplined for not providing the exculpatory evidence in the Brown case as required by Rule 16(c) on page 192, the evidence of non-jurisdiction for the non-filing to N.H. RSA 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. that ought to result in a mistrial in the Brown case, and so all the Four Freedom Keepers released too, as of their Art. 10 right to revolt against a federal government gone running amok* as the outlaws they are!
* amok: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_amok See my Reply #____ for these gov't agents as the real militants from the word militate: to use force as evidence, v.s. Ed, the Art. 10 revolutionary with the evidence of federal non-filing, and my Reply #_____ about those who say: the end justifies the means, as in to violate someone's right to procedural due process of law, as being the "sociopath"s they are, first thought of having "internal parasites" and then some "spirit possession" (see also my Reply #__ on this too, as Monier needs these lies extracted from him to be the truth-maker) over to this "sudden explosion of internal tension created by life in a HIGHly hierarchical society" (emphasis ADDed as the Marshals are on HIGH red- alert, and resent it when they are told that they must prove jurisdiction they know does not exist! Where are your papers? Or as the Germans used to say during WWII: "ver are yer papers?" The word high defined as many? In which case they should not be so like the "beserker of the Norse" (yes, see this beserker word in my Reply #__ above too) nor like the Zulu, because there is only one oath they subscribe to: and that is THE Constitution of the United States of America. Pure and simple. Read Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 for "Consent" by the Legislature in the state where you want to do business. Does it exist? If not, then you have NO jurisdiction! This is a dissociative connection, or disconnection, and so there being orders and disorders, dis as in like a foul ball, an order that is not right but wrong, and so needs to be dissolved as in to dis the order, get rid of it, either a win by Habeas Corpus, like Danny is doing, or for Bob to have the judge entertain a Motion to Dismiss from him since only a party with jurisdictional authority has the power to enter into a plea agreement, and withOUT which there can be no criminal case!
Quote from: KBCraig on December 04, 2007, 11:00 PM NHFT
If you have mail for Ed, hold onto it for a couple of days. He's en route to his new destination. Currently at the transfer center in OKC, but that's temporary.
How temporary? days, weeks, months?
http://bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp for Edward Lewis gets many different individuals by the same name, so try the search under Register Number 03923-049 gets you to http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/okl/index.jsp click on the "Contact Information" gets you over to http://www.bop.gov/DataSource/execute/dsFacilityAddressLoc?start=y&facilityCode=okl for the address:
INMATE NAME & REGISTER NUMBER
[Edward Lewis, clan: Brown, Reg. No. 03923-049]
FTC OKLAHOMA CITY
P. O. BOX 898801
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73189
Tel. 405-682-4075*
Another packet of mail going out to him and Elaine, plus the other Four Freedom Keepers this afternoon on the 6:00 p.m. truck from the Concord Post Office N.H., and if it's not forwarded if he's moved before it arrives, and is returned, then so be it, to re-send to his new address then.
JSH
* I just called this number, and after the recorder with the man's voice over to the woman's voice, let it ring fifty (50) times on the double-ring system, after I pressed zero for the inmate, so now to try just to stay on the line, result: five rings to the single rings 30x, then the double-ringing system again 45x, so seventy-five (75) rings, still no answer, better to try in the morning or night? rather than the afternoon.
note: usual time at Transfer Center being #___ days? #___ weeks? with visiting days and hours of: ___________? from __:___ am/p.m. to __:___ o'clock am/pm?
Quote from: keith in RI on December 06, 2007, 12:50 PM NHFT
ELAINES "AFFIDAVIT" OF WHAT HAPPENED THE NIGHT OF THEIR CAPTURE SENT TO ME AND RECEIVED TODAY.
NIGHT OF THE CAPTURE
ED AND I WERE CAPTURE IN THE EVENING OF THURSDAY OCTOBER 4TH 2007,
... ONE OF THE MARSHALLS KEPT TELLING ME HOW GLAD HE WAS THAT WE WERE NOT SHOT. THAT THEY REALLY DIDNT WANT TO HURT US. OF COURSE THEY DIDNT THINK, OF THE BAD P.R. IT WOULD BRING THEM.
HE WAS SHOUTING AT ED AT THE POLICE STATION, ABOUT HOW HE (ED) BROKE THE LAW, ETC.. THIS MAN ALTERNATED BETWEEN CONCERN AND VERBAL ABUSE. HE IS THE ONE WHO KEPT HIS HANDS ON ME THE WHOLE TIME, FROM THE HANDCUFFING TO THE POLICE STATION. I DONT KNOW IF THAT IS PART OF THEIR TRAINING, OR IF HE HAS A MENTAL PROBLEM OF SOME KIND. FOR EXAMPLE, WHILE AT THE HOUSE HE HELD ME BY THE ARM EVEN THOUGH I WAS HANDCUFFED AND SURROUNDED BY A NUMBER OF ARMED MEN, HE STARTED SHOUTING IN MY EAR ABOUT MY CRIME, HOW I SHOULD HAVE PAID TAXES, HOW WRONG WE WERE, ETC ETC. I TOLD HIM I WOULD NOT RESPOND TO HIM, SO HE SHOULD STOP TALKINGTO ME. HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO TALK AS MUCH AS HE WANTED, AND I HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO LISTEN TO HIM. I JUST TUNED HIM OUT BY PRAYING SILENTLY....
ELAINE ALICE : BROWN
Elaine: If I were you, I would have said to that jerk: "Ver are yer papers?" as in the 123:1 papers that do NOT exist? Yeah you jerk, if you're reading this: Wise up! - - JSH
joe i just called the 405 number and after about 5,000 rings a guard answered and i asked what the average time an inmate is in that facility? i told him i had a friend transferred there and i wanted to know if it was worth sending him mail or if they are in and out in a couple days?? he told me the average stay in that facility is 3 weeks to 3 months. and they will get mail sent to them as long as it complies with regular rules....
Quote from: DadaOrwell on December 05, 2007, 07:20 PM NHFT
i don't appreciate folks here calling reporters names.
Does anyone have any updated information regarding the scheduled friday hearing for Wolfe? I'd still like to go demonstrate but would like to make sure the hearing is still on.
Dada, What do you mean "reporters" in the plural? I thought it was just Margo, her always calling that Mark Potok jerk at the Southern Poverty Law Center for advice on what to say in her being a spoon-fed journalist in that regards if you really want to call her a journalist, from the word journalism: "The collecting, writing, editing*, and publishing of news in periodicals." We all know that she is not a first class journalist because her editor* does a hatchet job on what she writes, and in order to keep her job there to get her weekly paycheck so her horse can be fed, she allows her name in the bi-line even though some of the words are not hers, but his on some hidden agenda, as Bill wrote about here of this newspaper owned by the higher-ups that are really the lower-downs as the dregs of society dishing out lies to the masses, brainwashing our people, the future jurors, to try to get them away from being our peers. This type of bullshit has got to stop!
As for the Friday hearing in courtroom #___ or letter ___ for Bob Wolffe @ 1:30 p.m. it's still on schedule as I just called the Court Clerk's Office @ 225-1423 who confirmed this day, time and place. I'll be driving by with my honk on the horn to your flags, keep up the excellent work! And to hopefully see Gary D. there too, as I just called him on the Marshal phone #225-1632 and left a voice mail of WHO this jerk Deputy Marshal was and is who likes to lecture those in handcuffs Stentor style, to see if he can take his medicine in reverse! Like "Ver are yer papers?" sonny boy.
JSH
1. EDWARD BROWN 03923-049 65 White M 04-30-2012 OKLAHOMA CITY FTC
INMATE NAME & REGISTER NUMBER
FTC OKLAHOMA CITY
FEDERAL TRANSFER CENTER
P.O. BOX 898801
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73189
Has a scan of Elaine's Affidavit posted anywhere online?
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 06, 2007, 02:06 PM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on December 05, 2007, 07:20 PM NHFT....
...
As for the Friday hearing in courtroom #___ or letter ___ for Bob Wolffe @ 1:30 p.m. it's still on schedule ....
Update: Marie Miller* will be there too, maybe for lunch at 12:30 p.m. over at Reme's with Bernie.
And Gary, you're invited too even though you coordinated their capture, the tide is turning and you've got to be prepared for the waves so that your body doesn't get buried in the sand with head sticking up like what happened to Blackbeard the Pirate in the movie version with Robert Newton. We need your key to let Ed out when he wins his writ of habeas corpus. :icon_pirat:
- - Joe
* Marie said that the Probate Judge's Order was to keep Bill in the S.H.U./ Special Housing Unit of the State Prison, because he is too vocal, the judge saying, in effect, that we've got to control the people, and to turn them into zombies, or in other words: the "Thought Police" must prevail to such a degree that nobody should even think about daring to go against the tide of authority that is never wrong. He set the day for Bill's release sometime during the time frame of between now, and "up to five years", even though ihs sentence for the two misdemeanors could only have been up to two years, or 8x2= 16 months, with time off for good behavior.
<< As for the Friday hearing in courtroom #___ or letter ___ for Bob Wolffe @ 1:30 p.m. it's still on schedule >>
awesome thanks joe...for now I'm still planning on standing there tomorrow but expect to be alone; if others want to join me that's great.
I know that some people here have warned me not to post too much stuff that maybe the opposition might find and deal with trying to halt the truth, and so what I was going to write of WHO contacted I will NOT do so right now, as contacted yes, only to say that they might file an Amicus Curiae/ Friend of the Court Brief in Danny's case for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on appeal to the N.H. Supremes, the deal offered of to pay them the travel to here, plus motel, meals and $x dollars now, more later to them, and more information to you all WHEN that event happens, or shortly thereafter, just wanting you all to know that this case is special for Danny (and of course the others to benefit thereby too after-the-fact) and with truth or consequences, as they used to say in that 1960s TV game show, with the truth to win out in the end here, and so the consequences of adverse situations resulting upon those who do continue to lie by their fabrications, and so I say to them in half sentence only as a warning now by like an epistle to: Wise Up! ...
JSH
It's funny Joe. I knew a hair beautician who had a saying she used that was similar to yours.
When she was talking about older peoples hair turning grey (from againg) age she would say:
WISE UP OR DYE!!!!
I hope she never gets arrested for it..ya know? ;)
now..WISE UP OR DYE!!
greying,
Kola
this was sent from elkton written 12-04-07 and postmarked 12-05-07 from youngstown ohio. so this is the most recent contact from ed.
keith:
i love you guy.
i see i, or we have a team forming. thank you!
yes! joe haas is detail oriented, you wont find a more perservering (and your right) bulldog when he gets on track. joes mind is like a trip hammer.
i do not have a lawyer because when they kidnapped us they put me into 24hour lockdown immediately and kept me sequestered ever since. they did this because their concerned. "the truth is absolute which cannot be changed or denied" their afraid of us because thats all we speak "truth"
counselor kelley is irish how bad can she be? i have futrher funding once i get started. i just need a leg up. help!! thanks. nobody has ever lost anything with elaine or i. we always take care of our friends. im looking forward to speaking to any one of them. she seems to have the right background. im still in lockdown with limited access to anything. no phone, no one to talk to.
all i get is controlled mail. im praying we can be home for christmas. we have serious lawsuits against these people.
STAY IN TOUCH! PLEASE!!
EDWARD LEWIS:BROWN
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i188/CYBERPUSHR/Picture003.jpg)
Thanks Keith!
And now like Paul Harvey says: Here's "The Rest of the Story"
to http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071208/NEWS01/712080346
in today's http://www.concordmonitor.com/ @ page #__ of the actual newspaper.
1.) Beverly Wang, for the Associated Press wrote that of: "a possible life sentence if convicted" for Dan Riley, and the details being of from 30 years to life as the guidelines recommended by Congress, but that the judge said he does not have to follow, as they are not mandatory, as like in many drug offenses.
2.) Robert Wolffe's "bail hearing" is scheduled for this Monday morning, December 10th @ 11:00 o'clock a.m. and his wife Valerie said that the judge told Bob to have as many friends there as possible.
(a) I offered to testify that I sent him a 9x12 envelope for Ed as a PRIVATE courier when the PUBLIC mail service through the Post Office came to a HALT when the Marshals lied to that other branch of government, that they have the authority to ORDER them to shut down ALL mail, of even a postcard BELIEVE IT OR NOT!
(b) Since Magistrate Muirhead is already on record as not liking people with 50 cal. rifles, thinking them "nutcases", then what of 9 mm handguns as Bob had patrolling the property. What do the U.S. Marshals have? _______ Didn't they volunteer for the job of protecting the judge?*** Then HOW is Bob's volunteer service to protect the Browns on PRIVATE property any different in a NOT offensive BUT defensive mode from a government that has run amok?* OFF their property!
*I like Danny's question of: "Are all words used in the charges used in the constitutional sense?" Or in other words: sense as leading to a "correct judgment" as compared to the obvious of an in-correct judgment, the definition of the word sense being of a "lexical meaning" from the word lexicon: "a vocabulary used in a particular profession". As in N.H. RSA Ch. 21:4 for the common meaning of words to be used unless the statute gives to that word another technical meaning. One way to look at is maybe what he can use in his opening remarks to the jury, that is if his case starts BEFORE the Supremes grant his appeal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus.
Jury members: look at the walls, look at the lights that make the walls visible. Now look at the humans in this room, and especially the one sitting up there in the black robe. What does that robe represent? The word represent defined as to stand for, and "To serve as the authorized delegate or agent for". In this case the agent for Congress as this is NOT a constitutional court created by the constitution, but a legislative court created by Congress. The man sitting at that table is the Assistant for the United States Attorney. The U.S. Attorney convinced another judge in this courthouse to have the U.S. Marshal's Service pick me up for having violated some statutes passed by Congress. These are the charges against me, but does this court have the authority to hold me in this arena? The answer can be found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution. All of these officers here: the judge, the prosecuting attorney, and these #__ many bailiffs have taken an oath to obey this as the supreme law of the land. Supreme to what? Supreme to the statutes. So I do ask the judge right here and now on "the bench" so-called, WHERE are your 1-8-17 operating papers? Was this place "purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State" of New Hampshire? Show me the proof of jurisdiction before we delve into the lower law: the statutes.
Supreme is of "1. Greatest in power, authority, or rank. 2. Greatest in importance or degree. 3. Ultimate; final." From the Latin word supremus meaning "situated above, upper." Yes the Legislature granted its "Consent" on June 14th, 1883, but what TYPE of Consent? It was a conditional consent. Conditional or depending, as in "To be determined by", depends upon the fulfillment of the requirements by the "shall" word in N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 to file the necessary papers with our Office of Secretary of State. Did the Feds do this? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I now present evidence to you, not the judge to I.D. and decide to maybe not to present it to you as an exhibit. You are my judges, and the judge of this judge. We the people fought a war of Independence from a King to that of an Article IV, Section 4, U.S. Constitutional Republican form of government, where we live, or are supposed to live by the rule of law, and not the rule of any man, to which is arbitrary in-justice and condemned by Article 17(1) in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A courtesy copy of this evidence is being given to the judge. Judge: what do you say to this? I make a motion to dismiss all the charges. Do you say: granted? [Judge: yes, verbal motion to dismiss is granted, with prejudice.] Note: if the judge says no, then say to the jury: We've all heard of the term: a 'Kangaroo Court', what what does that mean? It means: a judicial proceeding that denies due process in the name of expediency. Due process defined as both: substantive and procedural due process of law. There must be the procedure or "A series of steps" taken BEFORE jurisdiction can be asserted OVER me! Those steps were outlined by our State's General Court to the Federal government on Flag Day in 1883. WHY the creature didn't comply with the demands of its creator is beyond me. I now remind this Federal government of its obligation and to follow me on a Northeast march to the Capitol Building here in Concord, New Hampshire. I leave the courtroom, this courthouse and challenge you to re-indict me. Good-bye.
** I also like the judge's answer to Danny question of the judge answering the question with a question to Danny of: Do you know?, or the statement of that you must know the Federal Rules of Evidence. To which I would have replied: Oh yes. Oh "very" yes, and in particular Rule 16(c) of exculpatory evidence, of not only a current investigation of wrongdoing by the prosecutor William Morse in Ed Brown's trial but also that same evidence to be dealt with in my opening statement to the jury.
JSH
*** P.S. And in regards to Bob's case again for guarding his friends from harm, isn't that what the Seraphims do to guard God's throne. Actually "caretakers of God's throne" according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraph see Isaiah 6:1-3, see also Numbers 21:6 "So the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and many of the people of Israel died." Are they/ these Seraphim, told to "stand down"? Yes, this very phrase was used by Marshal Monier to our new Merrimack County Sheriff Scott Hilliard of Northfield, when Rep. Dick Marple and I were in his office a few months ago. To which I make the phrase therefrom to any such dittos of such, as in the new phrase of: he did a Monier. As in the old expression: of you're name is Mudd, as in the doctor that attended to the wounds of John Wilkes Booth who shot President Abraham Lincoln at Ford's Threatre. [But see Roger Mudd's NBC-TV Special on this trying to clear his ancestor of this purported defamation]. To the Deputy Marshals: Your name is Monier, as in the clan of Monier. Maybe someday some subordinate of Monier to get tired of being called a Monier and do something about it, like bring him up on charges of insubordination to his oath of office.
Daniel J. Riley Legal Defense blog entry regarding the hearing:
http://danrileyld.blogspot.com/2007/12/pre-trial-hearing-held-on-127.html
Quote from: Bill Riley on December 08, 2007, 09:55 AM NHFT
Daniel J. Riley Legal Defense blog entry regarding the hearing:
http://danrileyld.blogspot.com/2007/12/pre-trial-hearing-held-on-127.html
Thanks Bill.
The walk to see Dave and Jim at the traffic lights there was with Lauren who came to see Bernie and I having lunch at Reme's, where she told us that she has yet to get verification of her fingerprint sheet and mugshots destroyed in her motor vehicle case, as they said were going to be done to mine, way back in 1987 in case #87-S-313 at the Merrimack County Superior Court in Concord, now in Manchester Archives. I asked that whoever torched them with the match had turned them into pieces of carbon dust, but was never given this acknowledgment, just that they were going to be (future tense) done they said to the judge, but never proven as having been done (past tense.) Plus while walking to there I remembered that Rockingham County driving without a license case that was to the jury trial in Superior Court when the county seat was in Exeter that I attended, and his name was (and still is?): Bill Elliott, so the State v. Bill Elliot, case #________ there for HOW to get a trial by jury, on what must have been a 2nd offense driving without a license case, since the first time is only a violation. To which I summarize to anybody put in such a position: like the old saying of Remember the Alamo, I say: Remember the Oregon Law Review of Dec. 1954, page #1: a license is a restraint on the individual when you are a proven threat to the public, and you are NOT a proven threat until AFTER your first accident.
As David said: I thought Judge Singal is an OK judge, because he relieved any fears of years behind bars since he does have the power to deviate from what the Congress recommends. One of the steps to prove his worth being: will he acknowledge some Findings of Facts, and Rulings of Law, like what ANY of the Four Freedom Keepers can put into their case? To find that WHOever from Congress that was supposed to file the RSA Ch. 123:1 papers with the N.H. Office of Secretary of State FAILed to do so, and the consequences being a lack of jurisdiction to operate here in New Hampshire UNTIL such be done, and so to let the victims released to sue for such wrongful incarceration, like at that $2,500 per day amount per the Veronia Silva case I've mentioned before, and thus have some $money to hire PRIVATE attorneys to battle in court should they be re-indicted, that I doubt not, because to guard their friends the Browns from being taken by outlaws is not to be despised but honored! as that is what the bailiff's do for the judge, the Seraphim for God Almighty, and the Four Freedom Keepers here, in a totally defensive position on PRIVATE turf from outlaw federalies, and Judge Singal from Maine, being a single-filing state to teach this lesson to this federal court here in New Hampshire, being a court in non-compliance with the law in this double-filing state.
Although Judge Singal doesn't know it yet, or does he? that I think Danny is planning on getting an expert witness to testify on this: Larry Becraft himself who put that excellent website together of the single and double-filing states over at: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm or to maybe help file that Motion for Findings of Fact and Rulings of law. The judge (actually a Captain with the military flag of admiralty displayed in violation of Army Regulation #___ that requires that a military flag be displayed with the gold-fringed flag of the United States) . He did ask Danny some excellent questions of: (1) Did you go to law school? Answer: no. (2) (a) Have you studied the law? Answer yes. then (b) how much? Answer: for three wins against criminal charges, and a civil case with after a dismissal, then re-activation for the win., plus (3) What education? Answer: Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering at Columbia.
Now let's not forget about Bob. What about Bob? Is he a danger to the public-at large? And will he skip if let out on bail? Of course not! to both questions. Bail being "Money supplied as a guarantee that an arrested person will appear for trial." But how much money? And what of the 9 mm pistol? It is certainly not a 9 mm submachine gun as indicated over at http://digg.com/odd_stuff/HOW_TO:_Build_your_own_9mm_submachinegun Check out what kf6zql wrote of: "I'm sure that had something like this* been around pre-WW2 the French might have said the same thing, but during the German occupation they would have loved a book* like this. I'm not saying the US is going to be occupied any time soon, but I am saying it doesn't hurt to get all the info you can and store it somewhere...you never know what the future might bring. That applies not only for this book, but also survival books and other things that we don't think would be useful now, but may have a real impact on us later." * = "Expedient Homemade Firearms The 9 MM Submachine Gun, by C.A. Luty, 96-pages. But look what kherrick wrote in that "In other news, 'People can't legally make their own machine guns and escape federal prosecution, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday." And compare it to: what danp wrote in that: "As a collector of LEGAL machineguns, I can tell you that building a machinegun in the US is a federal felony that will get you 10 years in federal jail and a $250,000 fine." Again: Bob's gun was just a pistol, and with what TYPE of bullets, if any? A LEGALly owned gun. And so to make any intruder on PRIVATE land, having to be bogged down with body armor just in case. See http://www.bondforfeitures.com/armor.htm of "Choosing Concealable Body Armor".
With the trial only about a month and a half away, I think the magistrate will say no, or set bail so high as to be un-reasonable. And WHO appointed this magistrate in the first place? Will it be Muirehead again? from this same corrupt court in non-compliance with the law? How can you expect any justice from an outlaw court!? It has to be the magistrate or judge from Maine, like Singal. Bob's federally appointed attorney sounds lazy to me, of going this you gotta plead guilty route. He ought to get another federally appointed attorney at the very least, and from outside the New Hampshire pool of attorneys, like from Maine too IF he is not allowed bail to go IN SEARCH OF...a private attorney. There is a private attorney right here in New Hampshire, who is a former federal prosecutor, and who might take his +/or Danny's Habeas Corpus case, that all the others can benefit from when he win this in Concord in February. I think what'll happen, is that the trial will start on time, but before they finish, the Supremes will issue their order that'll halt the Feds from proceeding against these "victims" of federal aggressors as operating OUTside the law. There might even be some kind of motion for an interlocutory appeal to the First Circuit to give it a chance to correct itself too, as per any denial of to answer the Findings of Facts and Rulings of Law. Either way, the more people there to pack the courtroom for Bob, the better!
-- Joe
Joe, was there any indication that Valeri is now facing an indictment since Bob didn't cut his deal?
Quote from: richardr on December 08, 2007, 12:03 PM NHFT
Joe, was there any indication that Valeri is now facing an indictment since Bob didn't cut his deal?
None. BTW See Don Knotts in "The Shakiest Gun in the West" now airing on the http://www.amctv.com/ Channel 55 here. We need somebody like him to set things right around here! ;D a/k/a "The Incredible Mr. Limpet". 8)
We are putting some Liberty Dollar items on eBay to raise funds for the Browns, for the Liberty Dollar organization, and for my wife and me. We've made a very neat collection out of the items, and they should become extremely collectible (they're already collectible, since the Liberty Dollar was raided).
We do have at least one lawyer for the Browns, who will begin by assisting the Browns with communications issues (no access to phones, not receiving letters, etc), and will go from there. This is going to cost money. We've used a bit of the Browns defense fund already by sending them money. Electronically (using the credit card system) might be the best way to send them money. Both Ed and Elaine could use money in their accounts.
Anyhow, if you'd like to help out some good causes and have a memorable keepsake to this whole mess, please consider bidding on some of the items. A small number of the items will include Ed & Elaine memorabilia from their home as well. Thank you :)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250195954744
Quote from: SAK on December 08, 2007, 01:35 PM NHFT
We are putting some Liberty Dollar items on eBay to raise funds for the Browns, for the Liberty Dollar organization, and for my wife and me...
We do have at least one lawyer for the Browns, who will begin by assisting the Browns with communications issues (no access to phones, not receiving letters, etc), and will go from there. This is going to cost money...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250195954744
Shawn, It's not only the "not receiving letters", but the ones sent out by Ed too, as I got three of them, dated Thu., Fri. + Wed., Nov. 15, 16 + 28 respectfully in yesterday's mail all at once, in three separate #10 envelopes postmarked Tue., Dec. 4th and with the First Class Liberty Bell stamp on each envelope.
It sounds like this attorney is working on getting Ed his procedural rights to due process of law straightened out first, and then go to fight the substantive later? like when he or she gets the details to then file whatever.
Here's the type of crap Ed had to deal with from that jerk-Clerk in Ohio in that their office sent him "The Habeas Corpus form that the court sent back is only if I am in state custody." (re: Ed's letter to me of 11/15). And: "The other form they sent AO 243: motion to vacate, set aside or correct a sentence(*) by a person in custody. - motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 must be filed in the court that placed the sentence. - That would be Concord. - Unless I get an attorney nose to nose Elaine and I are screwed."
Ed goes on to write that he'd like "all info on filing a Petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court" and "all info to file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari for this "rule of four" to accept the case, usually after it's been from the District and to and through the Circuit. But with both N.H. + MAss. as double-filing states in non-compliance to 1-8-17 U.S. Const. I doubt that he'll find any justice here.
Anyway he did send me in his Nov. 16th envelope, now 22 days old, as the Friday before Thanksgiving, a cover-letter for me to give to Clerk Starr in Concord. The document being what might be a 3-page MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT A SENTENCE(*) [as from the idea planted in his mind by the Ohio Clerk], but with only two pages enclosed, missing the middle page between the heading and his signature, the bottom of page #1 not matching with the continued sentence on page #3 from something else on page #2.
I like where he writes of (**)= "to see that proper due process is followed and clear jurisdiction is established" BEFORE he writes of it THEN being an "honorable court". From first reading it looks like he's calling THE court honorable, but no: that "the court bring us forth from the hell it has placed us in, in order to rectify a situation that the court itself escalated. We pray the court will use its wisdom and its grace..." (**)
So, Clerk James R. Starr, here is a print-out of this Reply #___ here to go with my Mon., Dec. 10th cover letter from me to you too when I place into your hands or that one of the window clerk's this latest paperwork from Ed in which he asks that both he and Elaine "request a hearing" at which time I'd like to provide my testimony to what I did put into writing in my AFFIDAVIT of Tue., Feb. 6th and filed with this court on May 14th but returned to me by the Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch, since I was not a party to the case.
As you can see when you compare what the judge said to the jury at page 2 of the Transcript Excerpt of Jan. 17th in that "The courts have held the tax laws of this country to be constitutional" when they were not, as I did win in this very same court an Order of dismissal of the I.R.S. case #M.83-50-D against me the landlord, with Chief Judge Shane Devine presiding with former Clerk then Magistrate Wm. Barry who found that Title 26 U.S. Code Sec. 61 (5) for Rents that are "direct" taxes by the Pollock v. Farmers case 158 US 601 @ 607 (1895) still on the books is unconstitutional because, according to "The Sixteenth Amendment conferred...indirect taxation...." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 @ 112 (1916). I ended up paying not one red cent from that $62,000 amount wanted by the I.R.S. through their Portsmouth officer Joe Stella, and Laconia Agent Frank Lungarelli.
Thus the jury in Ed's case was given erroneous information from the judge in which to base its decision of NOT to inquire into any other unlawful or illegal being of either the tax code or how applied, and so ought to result in a mis-trial!
Thank you, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P. O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059.
P.S. See also the photocopy of this cover letter from Ed to me, wherein it is written that "We really need a lawyer to be doing this with." And so maybe to hold off on this hearing until an Appearance be filed by some lawyer? I thought I'd at least get this action going, putting what I think that I can contribute to the cause into it, and so to please write to Ed & Elaine that it has been filed and awaiting the judge's decision to maybe write of WHEN both defendants would like that hearing? BEFORE or AFTER the Appearance of some attorney.
footnote: To consider the factor of the conditions that he is under as he wrote in his letter to me of Nov. 16th: "Above continues each day - Below 60 degrees with chill factor every day. I've lost 10 lbs. in the last month - down to 153 lbs and dropping. The food is bad. I have a beard like Randy Weaver - His looks better. My health is slowly failing. Need to get out of here soon." Reference his now prior address in Ohio, him now in Oklahoma City, OK according to the BOP website for the next 3 weeks to 3 months on average some guard told one of Ed's friends who reported this to us here.
pc: Thomas P. Colantuono,
the United States Attorney
Here's the typing of Ed's letter to me of November 28th:
"Put this letter on internet Wed., Nov. 28, 2007 AD
Dear Joe:
--Fifty five days a P.O.W. and still kept in isolation with no real outside contact. They know just how much damage they are doing to all of us.
--When you look at every so called charge you find that it's all illusion.
--Remember 'no victim - no crime.' The reason for all the Hoopla by the Federal agencies is because they were told to 'Show the Law.' and they can't. So they have to make everyone else look bad.
--Again remember the only injured parties are Danny - Jason - Bob - Reno and Edward and Elaine Brown. - Bill Miller.
--We have been tortured - beaten - sexually assaulted - isolations - deprivation robbed - Tazered - Pepper sprayed - Drugged - Poisoned - Shot at, and that's not all.
--Elaine and I will also help the other guys! over [page 1 / page 2]
--Joe: all of our cases are interlocked. They have to allow us to communicate. They keep us separated because they know we would clean their clocks. In law they're afraid of us. We are the law. Ed.
--Good God! and they prevent communication to acquire proper counsel.
--There's a 1 year deadline for the Brown case cr-00071-01-sm which is January. I believe that's what the U.S. District Court is trying to do to the Brown case in Concord, N.H.
--This whole case should end for everyone based on the total and I mean total misconduct of the Brown case by Stephan McCauliff. Remember: he disallowed all motions - good motions - refused to discuss jurisdiction - conducted collusion. and more - etc. Does nobody see this? Elaine and I have our own funding in the property. Can no one get a good lawyer to me? You're right Joe, we should have been home for Thanksgiving.
-They won't let me do it from here. We need one of you to get it started. Joe: what of James Dennehey/Salisbury, N.H.?
Edward Lewis clan Brown
my condition has not changed here - no help. Ed."
Return address on the #10 envelope with the First Class Liberty Bell postage stamp, being:
NAME Edward Lewis clan Brown
REG. # 03923-049
Federal Correctional Institution Elkton
P.O. Box 10
Lisbon, OH 44432
here are my video reports from the demonstration outside the hearing in concord:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1_zeon5u2HU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7GO1kaVwI-Q
Great videos, Dave, thanks! Sorry we couldn't be there.
Did you get a few $$ from Doritos for the product placement? :D
Joe Haas is camera shy...how cute! ;D
Great job, Dave!
damn this is already at $60.00 with tons of time left...
Quote from: SAK on December 08, 2007, 01:35 PM NHFT
We are putting some Liberty Dollar items on eBay to raise funds for the Browns, for the Liberty Dollar organization, and for my wife and me. We've made a very neat collection out of the items, and they should become extremely collectible (they're already collectible, since the Liberty Dollar was raided).
We do have at least one lawyer for the Browns, who will begin by assisting the Browns with communications issues (no access to phones, not receiving letters, etc), and will go from there. This is going to cost money. We've used a bit of the Browns defense fund already by sending them money. Electronically (using the credit card system) might be the best way to send them money. Both Ed and Elaine could use money in their accounts.
Anyhow, if you'd like to help out some good causes and have a memorable keepsake to this whole mess, please consider bidding on some of the items. A small number of the items will include Ed & Elaine memorabilia from their home as well. Thank you :)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250195954744
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 08, 2007, 04:35 PM NHFT
--There's a 1 year deadline for the Brown case cr-00071-01-sm which is January. I believe that's what the U.S. District Court is trying to do to the Brown case in Concord, N.H.
What one year deadline is Ed referring to, Joe? Ed and Elaine already turned down all opportunities for appeal by sending back all correspondence unopened to the court marked with that whole "Body of the Lord" nonsense. As a result of missing every single deadline, they lost their right to appeal. Both the criminal case docket and the appellate docket are closed.
Speaking of Body of the Lord, whatever happened to that Sonny guy?
Quote from: richardr on December 09, 2007, 05:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 08, 2007, 04:35 PM NHFT
--There's a 1 year deadline for the Brown case cr-00071-01-sm which is January. I believe that's what the U.S. District Court is trying to do to the Brown case in Concord, N.H.
...
Speaking of Body of the Lord, whatever happened to that Sonny guy?
Would you believe?: Sonny's gone over to the "dark" side!
May "The Force" be with you.
Correction Keith,
That's not Sonny, that's Yacob. Sonny has long hair and wears all white.
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on December 09, 2007, 10:02 PM NHFT
Correction Keith,
That's not Sonny, that's Yacob. Sonny has long hair and wears all white.
i stand corrected....i should see my karma rating drop for this one! lol
Hey, This "MrTideman"* is right on! ;)
I just conducted a Google search for: Cirino Gonzalez, and found his* reply at page one #7 there:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/455687/Federal-District-Court-Superseding_Indictment
for the case of: USA v. Riley, Gerhard, Gonzalez, and Wolffe cr. no. 07-189-01/02/03/04- GZS
"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!"
The exact words to 18 USC 372 over at http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/372.html to compare.
JSH (alias "MrTideman) :icon_pirat:
the latest news ... from this forum I guess
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071209/FRONTPAGE/712090388
Elaine Brown offers details of her arrest
Font size:
Print article
E-mail this to a friend
Letter to editor
By Margot Sanger-Katz
Monitor staff
December 09. 2007 12:06AM
Elaine Brown performed dental work on the undercover U.S. marshal who arrested her, and was eating pizza and drinking beer with him and her husband, Ed, when she was suddenly tackled, Tasered and handcuffed, she said in a letter recently posted on the internet.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on December 10, 2007, 12:37 AM NHFT
the latest news ... from this forum I guess
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071209/FRONTPAGE/712090388
Elaine Brown offers details* of her arrest ...
By Margot Sanger-Katz
Monitor staff
December 09. 2007 12:06AM
* I see that Margo conveniently left out the part of the screaming deputy into her ears. Margo: shame on you. You deserve the chicken "battery cage", now go stand on your "sheet of paper" and do not raise your pen to write another article until you have eaten two eggs. Doctor's orders! http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2007/03/16/nh_lawmakers_asked_to_give_chickens_room_to_spread_wings/
- - Joe
Don't forget: Bob's Bail Hearing is at 11:00 o'clock a.m. today in Concord.
That's 2.5 hours from now. - - Joe
This thread made me wonder:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=12414.0
Did Shaun or anyone ever have a photo of this "Dutch" guy?
Update:
The Bail Hearing for Bob is being conducted in two parts today:
1.) Part #1 went from about 11- 12:30 p.m. in Courtroom B; +
2.) Part #2 is going from 1:15 p.m. to the end in Courtroom #5.
The Courtroom #5 has the monitor(s) for the video and link to the website that his Attorney Garrity wants the Magistrate Muirehead to see and hear before his decision to grant bail. Garrity said it was O.K. for the judge to view them in chambers, but he said he'd like an open/ public hearing when either side can ask that he rewind if wanted to re-view to emphasise something.
The prosecutor started off familiarizing the magistrate with the case, and told of how Danny made a proffer of Bob seeing the tannerite being made into tree bombs, and that Bob offered to bring some containers for such, but that could be used for signal wind-chimes too is what Bob said out-of-turn.
His attorney then rebutted to the fact of Bob sending an e-mail to Valerie since he could not open the attachment on his computer, and neither could she at her office, but the prosecutor highlighting that it was some handbook on how to kill intruders. Bob's attorney countered with: yes, that was printed during the cold war between us and a possible Soviet Union / Russian take-over of our country back then.
Garrity then asked the judge if three of Bob's friends could talk, and she did plus her husband, and then Lois Gardner (of Jail4Judges BTW but not mentioned, who took over after Fred Davideit quit as our N.H. Commander). They spoke from behind the railing for about 2-minutes each and did a great job of highlighting Bob as not a threat to the public, and that couple even offering to hire Bob to work for them at their company.
What was also stated by Garrity was that Bob is NOT a flight risk because of the minimum amount of time that he COULD get IF convicted would only be eight months, but then Huffington, or whatever his name is, said that IF his finderprints are on the items (that COULD be wind chimes, OR something else), then it could be more time, to which the magistrated then said: 30 years to life, but unlike Judge Singal who said last Friday (in Bob's or Danny's hearing, I forget), it's only a recommendation from Congress to impose such a sentence within this range IF found guilty.
The government prosecutor then said that the federal laboratory is still conducting its finderprint tests, but that the results are not in yet. So maybe the judge might wait a week for this, or grant bail on some condition that IF found, then that might have been the straw that broke the camel's back to have said no? and for a re-call?
I'll report back to here later this afternoon of the result.
Yours truly, - - Joe
JESUS H CHRIST MARGOT!!!
perhaps before you publish your next story you could just send me some blank paper and a pen and i will write it for you then send it back to you so you can sign it and submit it to your publisher as yours!
you still havent asked the marshalls "if there really arent any rsa papers on file with the state then does that mean everything that ed and elaine are doing is LEGAL?!?!" or how about asking where he saw the letter elaine wrote, i only posted it here and on my myspace. is he a regular visitor to the nhfree.com forums? or was he referred to this because of the letter? or did he infiltrate my friends list....lol...
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stay away from bobs hearing today i know your probably there right now trying to butcher that information the best you can!
here are some questions i have after reading your article:
1: how much beer were the "marshalls" drinking when they apprehended ed and elaine?
2: were they all 21?
3: were they in control of their weapons while drinking?
4:were they all federal marshalls?
5:you say they "hosted like-minded guests committed to helping them hold off authorities." i was there for a day and never vowed to help them hold off authorities! in fact they were alone when they were arrested except for federal marshalls who i believe are the only ones who made those statements. right? why not ask about that, if they had supporters willing to help them hold off the feds why were they alone? what was the percentage of "neighborly visitors" to "supporters who have vowed to fight the feds off?"
6:why didnt you note that shaun introduced them to the undercover agent unwillingly? he was fooled just like he browns. but that goes unmentioned and makes shaun, who is helping us currently with the search for a lawyer and fundraising for the browns, look like a rat or something. shame on you!
7: i wonder how the public will perceive a bunch of drunken federal marshalls ganging up on, and tasering an elderly couple for simply asking to see the law! remember they did offer to pay the tax and walk out if they were shown a law! did the marshalls celebrate the beating they gave by finishing the rest of the beer? and if not is the remainder of the beer currently in an evidence locker awaiting pick-up by one of the browns agents under the homestaed exemption act for personal belongings?? joe do you think beer is covered?
8:hey wait, didnt i tell margot she couldnt use anything i posted without my permission? did she break a law or some code or something? :D
9:margot im glad to see you at least hired a handwriting expert for this.....you did hire one right? or is that just your OPINION in an article you claim is based on fact?
10: you could have asked monier, "even in elaines isolation from the world the federal government was able to get her to exchange her hard worked labor (fixing the marshalls teeth) for absolutely nothing in exchange, does that seem right?" you neglect to mention that he paid her then they stole the money back from them along with everything else they own so they basically, yet again, stole her labor by deception! the exact thing they are accusing the feds of to begin with! does this slip by you?
11: you didnt note or question how elaine was so concerned about the marshalls health that she wouldnt use metal fillings but they were so unconcerned with hers that she suffered from untreated asthma attacks her first week in prison. why not? she also had a broken hand before she was arrested you never questioned that or her medical condition at all??
12:why didnt you note that the same officer who said he was glad they werent shot also was screaming at elaine about her "crimes" ?
i could go on but its not worth it. ....margot if you want to show us how good of a butcher you are maybe you should make us all dinner instead! plus you would have more friends that way!
Keith, the below should help explain Ms. Sanger-Katz journalistic integrity: (Georges son, Geordie Wilson is now the publisher)
Quote from: Bill Riley on September 25, 2007, 05:04 PM NHFT
Hello Everyone,
I wanted to put some facts out to forum to consider when reading stories from the Concord Monitor, one of the leading newspapers that have been somewhat hostile and disingenuous to the Tax Honesty movement. The CM's coverage of the Ed and Elaine Brown story frequently tends to spin the THM as fringe, radical, anti-government kooks etc. etc.
The Concord Monitor's Parent Company is:
Newspapers of New England, Inc. George Wilson is President and CEO
Mr. Wilson also sits, or has sat, on the Board of the Washington Post:
http://www.washpostco.com/history-directors.htm
One of the leading members on the board of the Washington Post is:
Lee C. Bollinger (Columbia University President who recently made news with the Ahmadinejad visit to Columbia University)
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=62487&p=IROL-govHistBioDirectors&t=Regular&id=165099&
Mr. Bollinger also serves on the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/org_nydirectors.html
http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/orgchart/board/Bollinger.html
So please consider the news source and some of the inherent conflicts of interest that exist when you have a nexus between the News Media and the Central Banking system and their vested interest in keeping the income tax system alive.
regards,
Bill Riley
(PS I'm not the father of Danny Riley as recently reported in the CM)
received letters from reno and jason today. some really good news from jason. a few weeks ago i sent all 6 of the inmates 2 copies of freedom to fascism to be included on the approved inmate viewing list. jason did a follow up and it turns out they have been in the prison library for a couple weeks now! the only other ones i havent gotten back yet are the ones i sent to elaine i think...
here is a copy of the form jason sent in to request the info on he movie not sure if you can read it or not. ill transcribe his and renos letters later...
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i188/CYBERPUSHR/Picture010.jpg)
it says this dvd was placed in the library several weeks ago.
Quotehey wait, didnt i tell margot she couldnt use anything i posted without my permission? did she break a law or some code or something
IMO this should be taken further.
Kola
Quote from: kola on December 10, 2007, 08:12 PM NHFT
Quotehey wait, didnt i tell margot she couldnt use anything i posted without my permission? did she break a law or some code or something
IMO this should be taken further.
Kola
I'm glad to say I'm not a lawyer but but but........I would imagine that anything posted to an "open" forum is considered the same as the spoken word in public. There is no regard for permission given or retracted for reprint.
No expectation of privacy.You print it here there's a chance you'll read about it in the "news" paper. It will be cherry picked for spin, but it will be printed.
What I want to know (like anyone will admit it) is how many of us disagree with what they write about but still advertise with them?
isn't some stuff copyrighted for protection of issues like this?
I have seen some sites that state their print is off limits for reproduction etc.
Kola
Quote from: kola on December 10, 2007, 10:11 PM NHFT
isn't some stuff copyrighted for protection of issues like this?
I have seen some sites that state their print is off limits for reproduction etc.
Kola
I doubt that any copyright covers every spoken word of an individual. Seems to me it's meant more to cover things like phrases, designs and ensigns to keep profits from being infringed upon. That would be an interesting copyright to prove that no one else has the right to copy any of your words.
Now if the owner of this forum made a written "blanket" declaration that they revoke copy rights that might hold more sway. I'd love to argue that one.
for those who havent heard bob was denied bail today. here is an email from valeri, his wife to myself a little while ago.
Its all bad news. The judge decided that bob is dangerous to society,
a conspirator and should do 30 to life.
Valeri
A danger to the judge's society and a Nobleman in ours.
So they bought the judge.
Be warned... as all things go full circle.
Kola
Quote from: keith in RI on December 10, 2007, 10:45 PM NHFT
for those who havent heard bob was denied bail today. here is an email from valeri, his wife to myself a little while ago.
Its all bad news. The judge decided that bob is dangerous to society,
a conspirator and should do 30 to life.
Valeri
Thanks Keith.
Upon leaving the courtroom this morning I think it was I did tell Valeri that this magistrate is good in two ways seen so far: (1) of some metal detector hunter in the White Mountain National Forest finding some junk, who put it on a stump, took a picture of it, then put it back in the ground. Some Ranger saw him do this and charged him with violation of the antiquities act. When the magistrate asked what it was: of some rusted tea kettle with the bottom rotted out, he said: case dismissed. (2) the other involves the Rangers putting ticket envelopes for those without stickers on their car windshields as parking to hike fines, that the magistrate rips up whenever anybody contests them.
Plus I forgot to mention that both: (a) the string-locked shotguns in the woods, and (2) tannerite tree bombs, were all removed BEFORE Ed was arrested. I think it might have been when I was questioning WHY the N.H. Fish & Game was not up there posting the place for out-of-state hunters who might not know about the Ed Brown case, and knowing that's it's open land to hunt if not posted, and so some innocent person could have gotten the tree bomb, one of which has nails stuck to it, for maybe a picture to scare the Marshals, but was never used.
Anyway the magistrate said it was the biggest arsenal in Marshal history in the whole country, and so one of the reasons he used to denied Bob the bail. At the outset some comment was made by Garrity that this is not like the murder case of O.J. Simpson, who got out on bail. The magistrate saying: yes, this is not L.A.
What got the magistrate's interest were those pictures presented by the prosecutor, one showing a bunch of boxes of what he asked. Answer: of 1000 rounds per box, there being about 22 boxes there, and with the magistrate going: puff, gasp, or whatever.
Sorry for this info not in order, as just from my notes on a small scrap paper in no particular order. The prosecutor also giving that old horse example of the farmer in the field, and then the horse drops dead. The farmer then saying: well that's never happened before. Thus alleging that anything could happen if Bob were let out on bail.
The video tape was of Bob meeting with the Vermont Marshals for a friendly chat, and "edited" the prosecutor said #__ times. The radio report of that man out west advising Valeri to load up the guns into the trunk of her car before they return. Him mentioning some: (a) Larry Myers case of 1995 held 4 days without any charges then let go, and (b) Charlie Pocket's wife + son, whoever they are.
The prosecutor also summarizing the 2nd video not seen, as Valeri in that saying that she had "code words" to Bob, and did make "the" call. [Yeah, Platu Veradu Necktu. >:D ]
The magistrate merely said in his closing remarks of some interference with the Marshal's duties. Notice that he NEVER used the words: lawful duty, NOR official duty!! This is "very" important, because I can see it now: some state officer coming to knock on the front door of this establishment and serving the bailiff at the revolving door the copy of the Order on the State Habeas Corpus case. The question to the Feds being: WHERE are your papers? 8)
Monier followed us out the courtroom a few minutes later that was good, because Valeri had indicated the fact that she has not even touched her husband in almost three months. So when Monier walked by I asked him to please listen to her request for such. Him saying: them's the jail rules: visits between glass only. But this was not the jail building! Come on Monier, the good old days are surely gone forever it seems, and you like those characters in The Wizard of Oz: the scarecrow without a brain "and" the tin man without a heart, plus with no courage, nor convictions of any religion, but mere preference to go along with your buddies up the road at the jail. Your days are numbered until the next election of a new President, and then you're outta there!
I then went to the Clerk's office and read to page 11 of 25 of Bob's 12/05/2007 @ 11:11 a.m. filing of his NOTICE OF ERROR as document no. 69 in case #1:07-cr-00189-GSZ-4 that's very interesting: (1) Preface, page 1: "But while he (The United States Attorney) may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones." Berger v. U.S., 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935); (2) page 2 "absent challenges, authority becomes totalitarian" Judge Harold J. Rothwax, (3) page 3 the quislings, noun: "a traitor who...serv(es) in a puppet government." (4) page 6: "In 1976, for example, federal grand juries returned 23,000 indictments and 123 'no bills' Hearings on H.R. 94, 95th Congress, 1st Session, Congressional Record, pg. 739 (1977). So what are the statistics for 2006? _______ And here's something to find out about too:
A. First the background:
(5) page 6 #34: "The very fact of the presence of the prosecutor in the grand jury room contradicts the historically defined rule of that body." Schwartz, Demythologizing the Grand Jury, 10 American Criminal Law Review 701, 759 (1972) See also page 758, note 211 [but see page 7 herein].
(6) page 6 #35 of Nov. 3, 1806 when Joseph Hamilton Daviess the U.S. Attorney for Kentucky moved that a grand jury indict Aaron Burr for attempting to induce the U.S. in a war with Spain. Dec. 3rd grand jury called. Davies moved "to be permitted to attend the grand jury in their room." This motion was considered "novel and unprecedented" + was denied. After hearing the evidence the grand jury deliberated + on Dec. 5th an "ignoramus bill" or "no bill" (Black's 6th p. 746) was returned, DeMyth supra at 734.
(7) page 8 #41 "Prosecutors were not allowed in the grand jury room" U.S. v. Rosenthal, 121 Fed. 862, 874 (S.D.N.Y. 1903) except by invitation, U.S. v. Kilpatrick (see p.5) 16 F.765,770 (D.S.W.D.N.C. 1883).
B.) 8. page 8 #42: to overcome Rosenthal Congress enacted on June 30, 1906 18 USC Sec. 515 to F.R. Cr.P. 6(d) permitting attorney to "attend the grand jury in their room" Congressional Record, June 6, 1906, pages 7913-7914. *
(9) See also page 10 #53 for the "formal vote" of: ___ to ___? (#51: 16-23 grand jury members)
(10) pages 10-11 Rule 6(f) F.R.D. 343, 393, n. 350 The indictment shall be returned to federal magistrate in open court. Bob asks in 55.) WHERE are the records? Answer: from the window clerk after my first draft written request: that you can buy the C.D. for such at $26.00 and that it's not the entire grand jury, but only the foreman she said, to compare with my notes of F.R.Cr.P. (Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure) being the Grand Jurors (re: page 41 of the 2007 book), _______ (to buy the CD), + was this 6(d) [see #8 above*] (page 39 of the 2007 book) posted correctly and given a Public Hearing as by House Rule #___? _______ [to write to Congressional Research?].
To read pages 12-25 later...
JSH
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 11, 2007, 01:01 AM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on December 10, 2007, 10:45 PM NHFT
for those who havent heard bob was denied bail today. here is an email from valeri, his wife to myself a little while ago.
Its all bad news. The judge decided that bob is dangerous to society,
a conspirator and should do 30 to life.
Valeri
Anyway the magistrate said it was the biggest arsenal in Marshal history in the whole country, and so one of the reasons he used to denied Bob the bail. At the outset some comment was made by Garrity that this is not like the murder case of O.J. Simpson, who got out on bail. The magistrate saying: yes, this is not L.A.
What got the magistrate's interest were those pictures presented by the prosecutor, one showing a bunch of boxes of what he asked. Answer: of 1000 rounds per box, there being about 22 boxes there, and with the magistrate going: puff, gasp, or whatever.
so BOB didnt get bail because ED had an arsenal??? huh?
Quote from: JosephSHaas on January 30, 2007, 02:58 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on January 30, 2007, 01:58 PM NHFT
Joe-
with all due respect to you and the famous iconic face you have selected (Mr. Bruce Willis)...do you think anyone can make heads or tails out of anything you are writing in legalese?
if you do then you must be as deluded as Mr. Brown in believe there is no law that requires him to pay an income tax.
Frank, I just got off the phone with Ed @ 3:00 p.m. today and he said that the $626,000 the I.R.S. wants from him has NOT ever been filed in any Book ____ Page #______ at the Sullivan County Registry of Deeds. The certified copy of my Affidavit to him that was mailed out of Concord last Friday afternoon (with the U.S. Postage Meter sticker, over the counter to the woman clerk there whose friend had some problems with the I.R.S. back in the 1970s she told me after asking how Ed was doing) has still not made it over to him at 401 Center of Town Road this Tuesday afternoon, two and a half business days later for Friday afternoon, 1/2 day Saturday, plus: Monday, and now Tuesday, so maybe the Feds have intercepted that, that included a copy of the 2-page Transcript Exerpt of where the judge said to the jury that (all of the) tax laws have been determined by (all of the) courts as CONSTITUTIONAL, valid and enforceable. As you can see from my above Reply #1751 that section (5) Rents you quoted in one of your previous replies is a bunch of shit! foisted upon us by the Internal Revenue "Service" alright, but really a dis-service as them the liars and thieves they are. Hey get this: by Proverbs 29:24 "Whoso is partner with a thief hateth his own soul: he heareth cursing, and bewrayeth it not." Hopefully you are not "for" the thieves, as a partner in the 2nd or 3rd degree, etc. to endores their thievery, but then again there has been no attachment or taking, but of the taking of this man's liberty, and is just as bad in that by Black's Law Dictionary, Libertad is this and that in the Latin, for it is inestimateble or meaning above price, as priceless, defined as the $250,000 limit here withIN this state per person, so x 2 = $500,000 for husband and wife, and in a corporate trust #__ many more! (;-)
Update: Last year, on January 1, 2006, to be precise, this lien recording process changed from those N.H. RSA Ch. 382-A UCC [Uniform Commercial Code] "debt" cards etc. at the Town of City Clerks Office to that of being recorded for a $30.00 filing fee, by RSA Ch. 454-B:5,I to the Office of Secretary of State, Corporation Division on the 3rd floor of the State House Annex in Concord, N.H. See http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2005/HB0651.html and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XLI-454-B.htm for sections 1-10.
To go there later this afternoon to find out what papers they have for Ed +/or Elaine Brown and/or their ATT Corp. in File(s) #__________ and pay the __-cents per page copy as per RSA 454-B:4,IV as established by RSA 382-A:9-525 see 219:4 of this Chapter Law of 2005. And to report back to here of what I find, because tomorrow all four attorneys for the Four Freedom Keepers are going up to Plainfield to view the crime scene, and maybe deal with the RSA Ch. 511:2 and 480:1 homestead rights to certain items and up to $100,000 each (husband + wife) respectfully, see http://www.state.nh.us to the state statutes on-line under the laws and rules chapter. Then after sale, E+E will have the $10,000+ retainer wanted by one attorney to take their cause, in both cases of: for a Petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus (for both Ed & Elaine) in two different states, and/or a Motion for a Mis-Trial here in New Hampshire.
The point being that "A tax, in its essential characteristics, is not a debt" [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition (c)1979 @ page 1307] and so one does not owe a tax, but is obligated to pay it IF it makes it up to the level of a debt. And how does that happen? By a jury trial on the supposed debt of course, and as is supposed to be a guarantee to us by Art. 20 of the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights. Or in other words the pollywog (tax) must become a frog (debt) charged and THEN if contested, either asserted by lien (see also the word seizure) as claimed to be due* and owing, to foreclose; or dis-charged, based upon the verdict of the jury.
Last Friday my research at the State Archives in Concord for RSA Ch. 480:4,I Exemptions for debt, except in the collection of taxes, does NOT apply to federal taxes, or does it apply to BOTH federal and state taxes? It was in the year 1867 when this statute slimmed down to "any taxes", but in what sphere of existence? In that of the whole or macro of the entire country as in the federal of this United States, or just the micro, in this one state of New Hampshire? For the answer, I found Chapter 1089 in the Laws of the State of New Hampshire for 1851, section 5 on page 1055 for the detail words before it changed. Back then the original intent for the HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION was and still is: "The provisions of this act shall not extend to any...mortgage...nor any claim...of any mechanic or other person, under any statute of this State, ...nor from the payment of taxes due* thereon." Another key word being thereon, defined as "on this, that or it" [Funk & Wagnall's New Practical Standard Dictionary, M-Z, Vol. 2 @ page 1353, and thereupon, as in thereat, at the place. So NOT a lien in another place like in Concord, but AT the property, and so specifically referring to the property tax only!
Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone); "foreclosure consultant" (see RSA Ch. 479-B:1,I) with FREE "service" and "for the BENEFIT of a homeowner" (479-B:1,III(a)) of to "prevent the loss of a home because of...a tax deed" and so NOT unlawful by 479-B:5 since there is no "retain"ing agreement to provide a service "on behalf of a homeowner", but merely the organization of my body and words to be in a nonprofit mode and so exempt by 479-B:11, and by the assertion of my right to Free Speech as is supposed to be guaranteed by both: Article 22, N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights, and the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
(*) lien: "The right to take and hold or sell the property of a debtor as security or payment for a debt**." The AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, (c)1973 @ page 407 ** a tax is NOT a debt, then there can be no tax lien, and so that's why they call it a Notice of Lien, rather than a lien? When do they: the I.R.S., ever get down to brass tax!? i
Quotetomorrow all four attorneys for the Four Freedom Keepers are going up to Plainfield to view the crime scene, and maybe deal with the RSA Ch. 511:2 and 480:1 homestead rights to certain items and up to $100,000 each (husband + wife) respectfully, see http://www.state.nh.us to the state statutes on-line under the laws and rules chapter.
Why would any of these four attorneys work on helping Ed and Elaine with the homestead rights when they aren't being paid (by taxpayers, ironically) to work on behalf of anyone but their four clients?
Quote from: richardr on December 11, 2007, 12:49 PM NHFT
Quotetomorrow all four attorneys for the Four Freedom Keepers are going up to Plainfield to view the crime scene, and maybe deal with the RSA Ch. 511:2 and 480:1 homestead rights to certain items and up to $100,000 each (husband + wife) respectfully, see http://www.state.nh.us to the state statutes on-line under the laws and rules chapter.
Why would any of these four attorneys work on helping Ed and Elaine with the homestead rights when they aren't being paid (by taxpayers, ironically) to work on behalf of anyone but their four clients?
Because how much are these guns and ammo worth? $_________ If they can claim them as homestead items, then, in effect, they can buy the evidence away from the Feds? >:D
One piece of evidence they don't want to claim right away is that poster that was at the end of their driveway that told the Feds to KEEP OUT. What happened to it? WHO stole it? Is there a picture and/or video of it/ them?
Margo wrote that the judge's writ of entry was just unsealed last week after all this time. WHY the cover-up over all this year almost? Isn't PRIVATE property to be respected in New Hampshire? and safe-guarded by those we pay property taxes to for this Article 12 protection!? Did the judge have the authority to ORDER such a what-would have been trespass otherwise? And if withOUT the authority*, isn't that a TRESPASS!? and THEFT! WHO, if anybody is going to stand against the Feds tomorrow afternoon when the U.S. Attorneys, as the second line of federal attack go trampling OVER Ed's property!? The Marshals UNDER the judge's order violated by raping the land first, and now more blood-sucking parasites are going to there too!? How disgusting. Ver are yer papers?, Tom Colantuono Re-read your U.S. Attorney Manual #664 and do the right thing. Stop prosecuting these Four Freedom Keepers because you have NO authority to do so. Motion into your court for a mis-trial on Ed's case.
Something MIGHT happen to you if you don't do what's right. Yeah: would be done to you by WHOM, plus WHERE and WHEN? For all you know it might be God Almighty saying that you've deviated from the truth and are being called home now! Your ambassadorship has ended, or if you are of no religion, or some other religion, and have been given enough time to do what's right and He feels that you ought to be made an example of the phrase: the bigger they are, the harder they fall, then may your demise be witnessed with this in mind. Your demise of what: your life, you might be asking me? I won't tell you, you'll have to guess that. It might be that the President is revoking his commission to you as being the jerk you are. In violation of your oath of office. Wise up!
-- Joseph S. Haas, with right of free speech, as guaranteed by Art. 22, N.H. + the First Amendment! There is no threat in here to do anything, and if this disturbs you then so be it! It ought to shame you into doing the right thing. The time for pleasantries has ended. When I see you again you will be on my shit list! I might even give you some toilet paper, with directions on where to hurl it! when full. ;D Our Legislature told you where to file your papers*, and so if not, then if you can't give, then you will receive, to receive the toilet paper award.
* N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution.
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i188/CYBERPUSHR/sign_2.jpg)
this sign joe?
Are you saying the feds never had a warrant?
Kola
Quote from: kola on December 11, 2007, 04:51 PM NHFT
Are you saying the feds never had a warrant?
Kola
They had a warrant, but what kind? It certainly was not a lawful one, since they have yet to file their RSA 123:1 papers as directed by Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. I called Warren Rudman about this and he said this allegation is "ludicrous"! Laughable because of obvious absurdity, in his mind, but like I've said before, these end-justify-the-means people saying to hell with procedural due process of law, are sociopaths needing their heads examined! And "they" send away vocal people like Bill Miller when he used his voice like a Stentor being like the sound of fifty (50) men, them calling such talk or yelling disorderly conduct of even when said in a private place it was heard in public, and they didn't like what he had to say too.
The oath of the Marshal is to ONLY execute "lawful precepts". If these four cases ever make it to trial, all they have to do is: (1) put the original or a certified copy of: (a) the Marshal's oath, and (b) the arrest/ bench* warrant, into evidence, and have both of them marked as Exhibit #____ + ____ respectfully to go over to the trial jury, with: (2) a certified copy of the evidence of non-filing to RSA Ch. 123:1 as signed by Bill Gardner, the N.H. Secretary of State under the gold seal into Exhibit #___ and have the jury decide: yes or no, of whether the warrant is lawful or not! And when they find that it is not, then that's a part of the closing argument: you must or shall find the defendants not guilty, but instead recommend to the Grand Jury that they investigate the corruption within their own court!
I received a letter from Reno yesterday saying that he got the gold seal document and it was a great surprise, and sort of like Charlie getting the Golden Ticket in that "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" movie of 1971, see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/
Yours truly, - - Joe
* P.S. The word bench is defined as: "The judge's seat in court". And a seat being "A center of authority". So maybe a motion might be in order to inspect the judges "seat" to see if it has the State Seal branded thereon, and if not then why not? To which he might say why should it? To which you could reply that you're just exercising your Ninth Amendment Rights to discover just what warped authority from elsewhere they're dealing with over there, because they certainly do NOT have the authority from our State Legislature as required by law, and so are deserving of the Whoopee cushion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopee_cushion because what air is breathed out through the judge's nostrils and mouth is rotten to the core, so rotten that that he deserves the Whoopee cushion award!
The Union Leader gets it's news from makethestand.com. ;D
Browns shared beer, pizza with captors
By KRISTEN SENZ
Union Leader Correspondent
Convicted tax protesters Ed and Dr. Elaine Brown were eating pizza and drinking beer with their captors moments before they were tackled and arrested on Oct. 4, according to a recent letter purportedly written by Elaine Brown and posted on the Internet.
In the letter, posted on www.makethestand.com, Dr. Brown, a dentist, wrote that about a week before her arrest, she replaced some broken fillings for a man identified as "Dutch/Dan," one of the undercover U.S. marshals who executed the Trojan Horse-style arrest of the Browns at their Plainfield home.
Convicted of felony tax evasion last January, the Browns were both sentenced in April to more than five years in federal prison, sentences they are now serving in out-of-state facilities. They barricaded themselves in their Plainfield home for more than nine months, avoiding apprehension and receiving support and assistance from hundreds of supporters who agreed with their assertion that the federal income tax is unlawful.
"Dutch/Dan had been working his way into the confidence of our friend for some time, professing to be a supporter and sympathizer of us and our cause," Elaine Brown wrote.
After she fixed the man's fillings, he offered to get the rest of her dental supplies from her West Lebanon dental office, which was seized by federal authorities during a heavy show of force in June.
"(Dutch/Dan) went back and forth to New York a couple of times during the week, so he said, getting in touch with some associates to assist him in getting the supplies. He scouted out the office to see what kind of security was there... so he said," Elaine Brown wrote. "I had asked him why he would take such a risk for someone he didn't even know; his answer was 'because I love you guys.' I remember those exact words."
Dr. Brown wrote that "Dutch/Dan" and four of his "associates" arrived at the Browns' house Oct. 4, carrying four bags of what they purported to be dental supplies.
"Dutch/Dan also brought three pizzas, and we broke out the beer, we all sat on the front porch eating pizza and drinking beer, just relaxing," she wrote. "Suddenly, they all jumped us."
Dr. Brown claims Dutch/Dan secured her hands and another officer used a Tazer on her left knee. The other men "had Ed on the floor, they had actually forced him out of his chair, through the front door, and onto the foyer floor..."
The Browns were transported to the Lebanon Police Station, according to the letter.
"After an hour or so, I was taken from the police station," Dr. Brown wrote. "I passed by the cell Ed was in. We kissed through the metal screen. That is the last time I saw my husband."
The Browns were then taken to the Wyatt detention center in Central Falls, R.I., before being transferred to other facilities, according to Dr. Brown, who wrote that she was not allowed to bring her asthma medication with her and suffered two asthma attacks during her first week in prison.
Ed Brown remains in isolation at a federal prison in Elkton, Ohio, she wrote.
At the end of the letter, Elaine Brown compliments the skills of undercover agent "Dutch/Dan."
"Dutch/Dan was very good. Ed and I had our suspicions, but we let our guard down. Perhaps the situation was starting to get to us. I know I was starting to get itchy about being unable to leave, and having to rely on others. It had to end one way or another, and so it has," she wrote.
Elaine Brown said she is continuing to fight in defense of her belief that the average American isn't liable to pay federal income taxes.
"I have met some amazing women here who have opened my eyes to a new path in our quest for freedom," she wrote. "We are working along that road now, in our continuing effort to expose the fraud in our government. Is this why I am here? Only the future will tell."
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on December 12, 2007, 12:57 AM NHFT
The Union Leader gets it's news from makethestand.com. ;D
Browns shared beer, pizza with captors
By KRISTEN SENZ
Union Leader Correspondent
Thanks FTTI,
--The comments so far are inquiries of what type of Pizza, and maybe from what establishment we could find out? After that Court Order we heard about, but have never seen, just that red paper that was handed out at the roadblock* said we had to get PUBLIC Marshal permission to visit PRIVATE land!? this is what Bernie and I did anyway, was give a call over to Gary one day who said: fine, you have permission to even take him a piece of cake, as the Marie Antoinette saying of: qu'ils mangent de la broche "Let them eat cake" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Antoinette to read that "The Affair of the Diamond Necklace" over at http://www.joslinhall.com/diamond_necklace_affair.htm ___ later and the New Hampshire Connection over at http://treasurequestxlt.com/community/new-hampshire-ghost-towns/6691-new-hampshire-ghost-towns-3.html see Hillsborough County, Part 5 at the top of the page, see also The "Isle of Shoals" Part 4 too of The "Nottingham" sunken ship story I had never heard before, only that tale by Edward Rowe Snow of a box found and then buried in the middle of some pond in MAssachusetts.
So when Ed & Elaine win their freedom from this unlawful government, they ought to be released with credits, so that any federal antiquities act requirements that the lion's share of any historical find be reversed to the gov't getting the lamb's share. >:D Like when we charter a boat out to Boon Island over in Maine to recover the "12 large, blood red rubies were aboard the 'Nottingham' in a metal box inside the ships safe enroute to the Americas in 1710 when the vessel wrecked on an exposed rock known as Boon Island just N of the Isle of Shoals and off Portsmouth. The gemstones, worth more than 1 1/2 million today, have never been recovered."
Actually, Bernie and I went to the Pizza Hut in Claremont I think it was, on our way to see Ed & Elaine after my Newport District Court hearing that day, and brought him up some pizza (green pepper and onions) as an approved substitution according to Gary, little did we know that months later, the Pizza Delivery #2 would do them in. At our time we had Pepsi rather than beer, so the moral of the story is to watch out for Beer guzzling Marshals. ;D
Yours truly, - - Joe
* The Roadblock video, thanks to Keith: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2261697231309840194
** My comment, being #___ over at http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Browns+shared+beer%2c+pizza+with+captors&articleId=976cf4a8-7fc0-4963-b606-9a3eeef87132 with the exact wording being: "Hey! What type and brand of beer was it? I'd like to order some for when David Dees has his artist autograph-signing in the parking lot of where Ed is now at the F.C.I. in Oklahoma City. When Ed can co-sign the paintings of those 'Show Ed the Law"*** ads by signing with a pen through the fence. The proceeds to benefit his Habeas Corpus fund. I heard that an attorney's in contact with the place to place the call for the contract for maybe a release by Christmas." - *** Now that would be a "really big shoe" as Ed Sullivan used to say every Sunday night.
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 12, 2007, 09:56 AM NHFT
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on December 12, 2007, 12:57 AM NHFT
....
...
** My comment, being #___ over at http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Browns+shared+beer%2c+pizza+with+captors&articleId=976cf4a8-7fc0-4963-b606-9a3eeef87132
F.Y.I. since the http://www.unionleader.com doesn't post the times of the comments, nor tell how many they filter out by edit to make up their own display on some "hidden agenda" of who knows how many people there collecting same for re-forward onto the IRS itself for kick backs? I thought I'd mention that to my 9:43 a.m. printout there were only six comments to Tabitha of Londonderry; then I typed mine to them, and still don't see it, but see six (6) more to Benjamin of Bedford at 12:20p.m. now, wondering who will be the Baker's Dozen, #13?
- - Joe
-The comments so far are inquiries of what type of Pizza, and maybe from what establishment we could find out? After that Court Order we heard about, but have never seen, just that red paper that was handed out at the roadblock* said we had to get PUBLIC Marshal permission to visit PRIVATE land!?
joe this red flyer?
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i188/CYBERPUSHR/FLYER.jpg)
i received a letter from elaine today. she received a bunch of letters from ed all at once. i will post a scan of eds letter to elaine that she sent to me as soon as i stop crying................
Miss Plagerism Margot will be "scooping" those up, Keith.
Anyway you can restrict her?
Kola
Quote from: kola on December 12, 2007, 12:09 PM NHFT
Miss Plagerism Margot will be "scooping" those up, Keith.
Anyway you can restrict her?
Kola
then distorting and disfiguring it
let me say this upsets elaine very very very much! she tells me she now cries whenever she even thinks of ed! she said all she does is write letters and cry.
also on a side note. she tells me that she received the aftf videos i sent her?? she actually got them which is a surprise because the inmates arent allowed to receive anything. she gave one to another lady that was released who was also their on tax charges. she writes:
"it was the aftf dvd i wrote you that i received, and gave a copy to a friend she was released on wednesday. so she is able to watch. we have no way of doing that in here. she was here on tax charges also, as were her husband and son. husband out son still in."
and she tells me that her email costs her 5 cents per minute so even a little 1 dollar donation to her account goes a long way. it would buy 20 minutes of email time which gives her near instant contact!
modification*****
i thought about not posting it but elaine asked that i do. she wants people to know what is happening to ed. and about margot, im thinking of changing my screename to "margot is a boob" or "margot the regurgitator" so when she quotes stuff i post she'll have to use those names. what do you think?
"AND A POSTER WHO GOES BY THE NAME MARGOT IS A BOOB SAID...." :D
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i188/CYBERPUSHR/Picture015.jpg)
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i188/CYBERPUSHR/Picture016.jpg)
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i188/CYBERPUSHR/Picture017.jpg)
Ed needs medical attention. asap.
kola
Quote from: keith in RI on December 12, 2007, 12:58 PM NHFT
let me say this upsets elaine very very very much! she tells me she now cries whenever she even thinks of ed! she said all she does is write letters and cry.
Just my opinion here, but Ed is being a complete ass. No doubt that Elaine cries, because Ed has done nothing but play up the "poor, poor me!" sympathy ploy. He didn't ask a single question about how she's doing (it comes to mind that
she's in prison too!), only talked about how they're trying to "murder" him.
What kind of husband does that? The selfish, self-centered, asshole kind. >:(
Quote from: kola on December 12, 2007, 01:02 PM NHFT
Ed needs medical attention. asap.
Ed just "needs" attention, however he can get it.
KB,
Being in prison can really change a person. It will bring out a persons strengths and weaknesses. It can mentally kill a person. people are treated like wild animals,..sub human. It slowly eats at you from the inside out and can kill your spirit.
Try not to condemn Ed for his weakness.
been there,
Kola
yes ed is self centered. isnt that the kind of person that stands up to the government? but i know ed has been like that his whole life and elaine accepted him that way and married him so im sure she wants to know what hes going though she just knows that she is helpless to do anything about it. ed also knows from us that elaine is ok and in a good prison (if there is such a thing) plus i think he gets her letters but they delay his. hopefully these lawyers will straighten that all out.
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 12, 2007, 11:21 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 12, 2007, 09:56 AM NHFT
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on December 12, 2007, 12:57 AM NHFT
....
...
** My comment, being #___ over at http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Browns+shared+beer%2c+pizza+with+captors&articleId=976cf4a8-7fc0-4963-b606-9a3eeef87132
F.Y.I. since the http://www.unionleader.com doesn't post the times of the comments, nor tell how many they filter out by edit to make up their own display on some "hidden agenda" of who knows how many people there collecting same for re-forward onto the IRS itself for kick backs? I thought I'd mention that to my 9:43 a.m. printout there were only six comments to Tabitha of Londonderry; then I typed mine to them, and still don't see it, but see six (6) more to Benjamin of Bedford at 12:20p.m. now, wondering who will be the Baker's Dozen, #13?
- - Joe
Update: There's two more e-mails over there in the Comments section to sub-total: 14 now. I just sent into them another one: "Tom, As Paul Harvey would say: you've got to read 'The Rest of the Story' like at Bob Wolffe's Bail Hearing on Monday when the truth surfaced that there were (past tense) booby traps, but that BEFORE the Marshals arrived during Hunting season, they were all uprooted by who knows who to prevent innocent Sportsmen from out of state who might have ventured onto un-posted property as it was posted but I think the Marshals ripped down the signs!" JSH
Kat, You have my permission to relay and post your bcc copy of my e-mail to the N.H. Secretary of State's Corporation division, Attn: Joan, at 1:54 p.m. today, regarding the I.R.S. lien against Ed if you'd like.
Here's what Wayne sent me:
"Contesting and Voiding IRS & State Tax Liens ('Notices')"
http://expositor1.com/wtclien1.htm
- - Joe
Powdered eggs? Yuck!!! I haven't had them since I was in the Army. They are some of the worst tasting egg products I've ever tried. I remember eating a little then throwing the rest out. They don't even taste like eggs. Soy based egg substitute tastes much better than powdered eggs. It is revolting to me that people who have not harmed anyone (like Bob Wolffe et al) are being threatened with harsher sentences than many convicted murderers. It makes me feel like vomiting. :puke:
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 11, 2007, 02:26 PM NHFT
Quote from: richardr on December 11, 2007, 12:49 PM NHFT
Quote....
....
...Tom Colantuono Re-read your U.S. Attorney Manual #664 and do the right thing. Stop prosecuting these Four Freedom Keepers because you have NO authority to do so. Motion into your court for a mis-trial on Ed's case.
Something MIGHT happen to you if you don't do what's right. Yeah: would be done to you by WHOM, plus WHERE and WHEN? For all you know it might be God Almighty saying that you've deviated from the truth and are being called home now! Your ambassadorship has ended, or if you are of no religion, or some other religion, and have been given enough time to do what's right and He feels that you ought to be made an example of the phrase: the bigger they are, the harder they fall, then may your demise be witnessed with this in mind. Your demise of what: your life, you might be asking me? I won't tell you, you'll have to guess that. It might be that the President is revoking his commission to you as being the jerk you are. In violation of your oath of office. Wise up!
-- Joseph S. Haas, with right of free speech, as guaranteed by Art. 22, N.H. + the First Amendment! There is no threat in here to do anything, and if this disturbs you then so be it! It ought to shame you into doing the right thing. The time for pleasantries has ended. When I see you again you will be on my shit list! I might even give you some toilet paper, with directions on where to hurl it! when full. ;D Our Legislature told you where to file your papers*, and so if not, then if you can't give, then you will receive, to receive the toilet paper award.
* N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution.
I got a call from Gary at about 4:30 p.m. this afternoon saying that Tom C. was/is not pleased with what I did write. I said: so what!? I did not write it for his amusement.
There are three paragraphs after his name, and summarized here:
A.1. read your Manual
--2. stop the prosecution
--3. file a motion
B.1. Something MIGHT happen to you...
--2. by WHO(*), WHERE, WHEN (what happened to WHAT, WHY and HOW?)
--3. The WHO, might be God Almighty
--4. The word demise has two forks in the road:
--5. Death, or: ...
--6. I will not answer to that, nor:
--7. ...from the Latin word dimittere, of "to dismiss" = "1. To discharge, as from employment. 2. To direct or allow to leave.
--8. You ARE "In violation of your oath of office."
--9. "Wise up!"
C.1. My name with rights of free speech by both constitutions.
--2. To disturb is: "1. To upset the tranquility or settled state of. 2. To intrude(*) upon; interrupt. 3. To disarrange." [So which is it here?: to upset is "To disturb the usual or normal functioning of." Then so be it, as the normal, usual or typical pattern, or the standard there of ignoring this RSA 123:1 has gone on long enough! Tom C. has a copy of this certificate of non-filing and this is an "unwanted element"(*) into his operations. The word intrude from the Latin intrudere of: to thrust in, as in to interject= from the Latin word: interjicere of: to throw between, as in to throw to him of between me in freedom and my friends incarcerated unlawfully and illegally!! Lastly of to dis-arrange, meaning: to upset the arrangement of, arrange= of to agree about, settle, and so with the prefix dis-, a most definite dis-agreement, the dis- in this case being the "invalidation" of your credentials! to void your credit or authority, your written evidence of qualification. Thus to reverse the sentences upon both Ed & Elaine, and remove them from custody forthwith!
--3. Shame: the noun: "Have you no shame? 3. A person or thing that brings dishonor or disgrace...5. A great disappointment; + the verb: "3. To force by making ashamed: shamed into an apology."
--4. Pleasantry: "A jesting or friendly remark." The word jest from the Latin word gesta, exploits, the exploit being: noun: "A noteworthy act or deed; feat"; and verb: "1. To utilize fully or advantageously."
--5. shit list. See also http://www.lotsofjokes.com/cat_02.htm
--6. Directions to hurl toward: _____________________
--7. Give or receive papers, the choice is yours.
JSH
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 13, 2007, 11:56 AM NHFT
Kat,
Is there any way to retrieve what I did just TRY to write to here? Like it being saved to a draft folder with your main office?
I'm on the State Library Computer, and got here through http://www.google.com for the words" "Ed Brown" "New Hampshire Underground", and started typing away, but then it just disappeared on me.
I checked the tabs that usually show at the bottom of the screen, but this was not there, nor was Google in the address location bar at the top of the screne!
Thanks, -- Joe
The following are: (1) findings of facts, and (2) requests for: rulings of law; that maybe one of the attorneys for the Four Freedom Keepers could file in their client's case:
1. The President of the United States appoints, and the Senate confirms, the appointments of both officers to be: (a) The United States Attorney, and (b) The United States Marshal.
2. Here in New Hampshire those offices are held by: (a) Thomas P. Colantuono, and (b) Stephen R. Monier, respectfully.
3. Both officers have taken an oath of office to obey the Constitution* of the United States of America.
4. There's a clause 17 in Article I, Section 8 of this Constitution* that reads that "Consent"** of the State Legislature is needed BEFORE the federal government can operate in any particular state.
5. Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft of Huntsville, Alamaba has put together an excellent website listing all fifty (50) states in the Union, and of whether they be single, or double-filing states.
6. New Hampshire is a double-filing state, in that in addition to the Registry of Deeds, certain papers from the federal government are required, by the "shall"*** word, as a must/ mandatory requirement, to be placed on file with the N.H. Office of Secretary of State.
7. That "shall"*** word is in N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1.
8. That Consent** was given FROM the N.H. State Legislature TO the federal government on June 14th, 1883 ("Flag Day"), but that the TYPE of consent was a conditional consent: on the condition that they file!
9. The Secretary of State has certified that there has been no filing as required by the statute.
10 A copy of this certification was given FROM Joseph S. Haas, TO The Office of United States Attorney DURING the case of U.S.A. (I.R.S.) v. Edward Lewis & Elaine Alice Brown this past January 2007.
11 The Office of the U.S. Attorney was prosecuting this case, and that its contact person, Bill Morse either knew or should have known about this "exculpatory evidence".
12 A complaint was filed against Colantuono as Respondent Superior for his subordinate's insubordination with the N.H. P.C.C./ Professional Conduct Committee but that it was not elevated up from a grievance to that of an official complaint, because the actual prosecutor is the one to go after for a violation of Federal Rule 16 to bring this information to either: the judge or the defendant(s). See also State Rule 3.8(d) to compare to both the judge and the defendant(s).
13 Joseph S. Haas did then send an official complaint against Morse to the U.S. Attorney General in Washington, D.C. to forward it onto the state BAR in: _______ for where Morse is licensed for a disciplinary hearing.
14 Colantuono KNOWS about the fact that this court is in an unlawful position, as from it mentioned in his U.S. Attorney Manual #664, but fails to do anything about it!
15 The N.H. governor, John H. Lynch knows of his Art. 41 **** duty to enforce all legislative mandates*** but he too, refuses to do anything about it.
16 The U.S. Marshal Monier's oath of office is to execute only lawful writs, and he KNOWS that the bench warrants against the Browns were and are unlawful!
17 The Town of Plainfield and County of Sullivan took the Brown's property tax money for their bills for such Article 12 protection, but refused to protect against an outlaw federal government! Instead the Town took a $6,500 check from the Feds thanks to Sen. Judd Gregg to offset this extra expense. And the $1.00 bill into the Ed Brown Protection Fund at the N.H. State Police, has yet to be dealt with, other than their back-up to the town and county.
18 Joseph S. Haas visited Senator Judd Gregg's office this morning and requested a hearing with either the Senator and/or his delegate on this matter of that since he can confirm, he ought to be able to un-confirm, as in to dismiss both officers for dereliction of duty!
19 Joseph S. Haas did also visit Don Hill's Office of Legislative Services to see WHEN a decision of Bud Fitch's, Deputy Attorney General will be either agreed to or not in a decision for a hearing on whether to halt the governor's paychecks for not doing his job!****
20. _______________________________________________________________________
Thus like the phrase, of: twenty questions, here are my twenty findings of fact, and that ought to be placed before the federal judge Singal from Maine, a single-filing state, to say: yes: the New Hampshire case is OUT OF ORDER. One of the defendant's attorney having written to Colantuono's subordinate as the prosecutor of that case for the receipt if any showing compliance with RSA 123:1 and if there is no answer, then to file such a Motion for Discovery, and if still not located, then to file a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdictional authority. Thank you Judge George S. Singal.
Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P. O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059
pc: right now to: (1) Gov. Lynch, (2) Don Hill, (3) Bud Fitch, (4) Bill Gardner, (5) N.H. State Police, (6) Judd Gregg (7) NH PCC; later to: (8) Tom Colantuono, and (9) Stephen Monier.
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 12, 2007, 10:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 11, 2007, 02:26 PM NHFT
Quote from: richardr on December 11, 2007, 12:49 PM NHFT
Quote....
....
...Tom Colantuono Re-read your U.S. Attorney Manual #664 and do the right thing. Stop prosecuting these Four Freedom Keepers because you have NO authority to do so. Motion into your court for a mis-trial on Ed's case.
Something MIGHT happen to you if you don't do what's right. Yeah: would be done to you by WHOM, plus WHERE and WHEN? For all you know it might be God Almighty saying that you've deviated from the truth and are being called home now! Your ambassadorship has ended, or if you are of no religion, or some other religion, and have been given enough time to do what's right and He feels that you ought to be made an example of the phrase: the bigger they are, the harder they fall, then may your demise be witnessed with this in mind. Your demise of what: your life, you might be asking me? I won't tell you, you'll have to guess that. It might be that the President is revoking his commission to you as being the jerk you are. In violation of your oath of office. Wise up!
-- Joseph S. Haas, with right of free speech, as guaranteed by Art. 22, N.H. + the First Amendment! There is no threat in here to do anything, and if this disturbs you then so be it! It ought to shame you into doing the right thing. The time for pleasantries has ended. When I see you again you will be on my shit list! I might even give you some toilet paper, with directions on where to hurl it! when full. ;D Our Legislature told you where to file your papers*, and so if not, then if you can't give, then you will receive, to receive the toilet paper award.
* N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution.
I got a call from Gary at about 4:30 p.m. this afternoon saying that Tom C. was/is not pleased with what I did write. I said: so what!? I did not write it for his amusement.
There are three paragraphs after his name, and summarized here:
A.1. read your Manual
--2. stop the prosecution
--3. file a motion
B.1. Something MIGHT happen to you...
--2. by WHO(*), WHERE, WHEN (what happened to WHAT, WHY and HOW?)
--3. The WHO, might be God Almighty
--4. The word demise has two forks in the road:
--5. Death, or: ...
--6. I will not answer to that, nor:
--7. ...from the Latin word dimittere, of "to dismiss" = "1. To discharge, as from employment. 2. To direct or allow to leave.
--8. You ARE "In violation of your oath of office."
--9. "Wise up!"
C.1. My name with rights of free speech by both constitutions.
--2. To disturb is: "1. To upset the tranquility or settled state of. 2. To intrude(*) upon; interrupt. 3. To disarrange." [So which is it here?: to upset is "To disturb the usual or normal functioning of." Then so be it, as the normal, usual or typical pattern, or the standard there of ignoring this RSA 123:1 has gone on long enough! Tom C. has a copy of this certificate of non-filing and this is an "unwanted element"(*) into his operations. The word intrude from the Latin intrudere of: to thrust in, as in to interject= from the Latin word: interjicere of: to throw between, as in to throw to him of between me in freedom and my friends incarcerated unlawfully and illegally!! Lastly of to dis-arrange, meaning: to upset the arrangement of, arrange= of to agree about, settle, and so with the prefix dis-, a most definite dis-agreement, the dis- in this case being the "invalidation" of your credentials! to void your credit or authority, your written evidence of qualification. Thus to reverse the sentences upon both Ed & Elaine, and remove them from custody forthwith!
--3. Shame: the noun: "Have you no shame? 3. A person or thing that brings dishonor or disgrace...5. A great disappointment; + the verb: "3. To force by making ashamed: shamed into an apology."
--4. Pleasantry: "A jesting or friendly remark." The word jest from the Latin word gesta, exploits, the exploit being: noun: "A noteworthy act or deed; feat"; and verb: "1. To utilize fully or advantageously."
--5. shit list. See also http://www.lotsofjokes.com/cat_02.htm
--6. Directions to hurl toward: _____________________
--7. Give or receive papers, the choice is yours.
JSH
Well written and it all makes sense. Excellent!
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 14, 2007, 10:02 AM NHFT
Quote from: coffeeseven on December 14, 2007, 07:04 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 12, 2007, 10:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 11, 2007, 02:26 PM NHFT
Quote from: richardr on December 11, 2007, 12:49 PM NHFT
Quote....
....
...Tom Colantuono Re-read your U.S. Attorney Manual #664 and do the right thing...
Thus to reverse* the sentences upon both Ed & Elaine, and remove** them from custody forthwith! ....
JSH
Well written and it all makes sense. Excellent!
Thanks Coffee.
The bottom line is to reverse* and remove**.
I just called Tom Colontuono's office, at 225-1552, and spoke with the Receptionist saying this is Joe Haas, and that it's been several weeks now with no answer from your boss on this U.S. Attorney Manual #664. What a jerk he is for putting this off for so long. Oh, I hear you have another call coming in (ring, ring), Have him get back to me, thanks.
Sorry for typing in the blue section. Hey Keith: can you call there? like to request a Progress Report of WHEN Tom C. will get back to me in writing about his understanding of this #664. Maybe he doesn't understand it!? In that case he needs a refresher course in the English language. His George Orwellian "Nineteen Eight Four" and "Doublespeak" has got to end! Maybe the Federal Executive branch has some Policy #__ ? [like the N.H. Supreme Court Rule #__ for the judges] that requires them to go for continued education. Yeah, to call again to find out now:
OK here it is: she said that since Tom is a N.H. Bar member he has to take an annual course, or class, but that when I asked if he was in compliance, and which course, she said that is not public information.
Well, with that I called the N.H. Bar Assn. http://www.nhbar.org at 224-6942 and the woman receptionist there said that Tom C. is a "Member in Good Standing" (as in that book of such you can find at the State Library), but that they do not give out detailed information as to what class he took and when, us having to rely on the truth as if by what, voluntary statement from the attorney that he did take the course!? And even if he took it, that being compliance in the quantity but not the quality of a flunk? Yeah: my new name for him: a flunky, a lackey, An "obsequious" or fawning person, a toady, as in: "Full of servile compliance" from the Latin word obsequi of to comply with but in a fawning manner? fawning: "To seek favor by obsequious behavior"*, but my suggestion that his next class be in to understand fully this #664 out of his own manual resulting that there is no suggestion box there, and that if I don't like what the attorney is doing to take him to the PCC: which I said was a waste of time as Jim DeHart's Professional Conduct Committee is a Protection Racket for the attorneys, to cover-up what they have done! or don't do!!
* compare the word favor, with rigor juris, in Black's Law Dictionary. I DEMAND or claim that my public servants don't fawn to me for favor, but are in STRICT compliance with the law, because when they are NOT then how in hell, or should I say: WHY should we do what they say when they are WRONG!? They are a bunch of hypocrites there within that entire U.S. Attorneys Office, and the N.H. Bar. Plus what is a "toady": but "A servile flatterer; a sycophant." So N.H. Bar Association: stop your flatter: To compliment excessively and often insincerely; to please or gratify the vanity of; to portray favorably. I seek no favor, but rigor juris! from your members, and especially those who are my public servants. Your book of Attorneys in GOOD standing is a bunch of crap! See also for the word: sycophant: being "One who attempts to win favor or advance himself by flattering persons of influence: a servile self-seeker." From the Greek word: sukophantes "fig shower" and "accuser", now that's "very" interesting: what is a "fig- shower"?** So a sychophant is an accuser, from the word accuse: To charge (someone) with an error. Law. To bring charges against (someone) for a mis-deed. From the Latin word: accusare, to accuse, "call to account". So Tom C: YOU are in "error", for these Four Freedom Keepers to counter-charge you as being wrong for your non or mis-deed of technically a deed as in the Registry of Deeds, but the word deed also meaning an act. So where is this act of the N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 filing from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution? There is none, and so you are a phony! Not genuine, spurious, fake. Reference the spurious word for: not only counterfeit or false, but also: "lacking authenticity". So there you have it Tom C. you phony, and sycho- flunky fawning toady operating withOUT authority! Wise up!
-- Joseph S. Haas
** "fig-shower" over at http://www.google.com/ in quotes gets you to page one #1 there of: http://www.baldji.gr/aboutfigs.html See indented paragraph #5 from the top: "The word sycophant, meaning an informer, and one who seeks favors by flattering the wealthy, comes from the Greek 'to shower the fig.' As the valuable and sacred figs were stolen for export purposes, certain persons revealed the figs and accused the robbers; hence 'fig shower'."
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 14, 2007, 11:24 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 14, 2007, 10:02 AM NHFT
Quote from: coffeeseven on December 14, 2007, 07:04 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 12, 2007, 10:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 11, 2007, 02:26 PM NHFT
Quote from: richardr on December 11, 2007, 12:49 PM NHFT
Quote....
....
....
....
...
... Hey Keith: can you call there? like to request a Progress Report of WHEN Tom C. will get back to me in writing about his understanding of this #664.
Update: Since in N.H.: Legal Remedies are to be free, complete and prompt* (Art. 14, N.H. Const. Part 1st & Bill of Rights) that has somehow changed into mere privileges revoked by these attorney/ public NON-servants!
* prompt = without delay
delay = postpone
post = after
pone = meal
I did just follow up my morning telephone calls to there again at 225-1552 with this during lunchtime call and was referred over to the voice mail of Linda Tomlinson, the blocking secretary for Colantuono, telling her voice recorded that I am still looking for an answer from him to this #664 that I've called to there about #__ times plus did put it in writing on his own form, and delivered in person back on October or November ___ 2007 @ __:_ o'clock a.m./p.m. to his office window clerk to deliver to him, that I still do not know whether it was delivered or trashed, or whatever.
Linda said to leave a message "or" to call her cell phone # 603: 496-8144 and that she "will" get back to you, but never does, as yet another liar in the bunch there! and so to call her back later this afternoon (after what? the snack time? as on snack time with candy bar by the vending machine) to see WHEN I can expect an answer to my request that he verify in writing of whether or not this "embraces courthouses" in #664 refers to the courthouse where he does business, and if so, whether or not it is in compliance with the law!
- - Joe
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 13, 2007, 12:44 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 13, 2007, 11:56 AM NHFT
....
...
14 Colantuono KNOWS about the fact that this court is in an unlawful position, as from it mentioned in his U.S. Attorney Manual #664, but fails to do anything about it!
....
Bill - I just sent you the scan of the 2-page letter of eleven (11) days [nine (9) business days] ago, the two pages reduced to one print-out at 64% for the http://www.danrileyld.blogspot.com if you'd like to post that there, and with any reply so far, that if none, the question being of WHEN the attorney plans to file the Motion for Discovery, and still if with no answer, then the Motion to Dismiss for his client?, that the others can rely on, and then Ed's attorney to file a Motion for a Mis-trial and/or Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus with the U.S. District Court out in __________, Oklahoma. Let's say that the Motion for Discovery gets filed by the end of next week, Friday, December 21st as the last day of this Fall season, that means an answer has to be returned within ten (10) calendar days and so by December 31st, for the Motion to Dismiss put in like on Fri., January 4th, [before the Tuesday, January 8th group meeting of all four attorneys with all four inmates in one room] + another ten (10) days to Monday, January 14th, and when Judge Singal sees that there has been no objection, or one objection but with a bunch of B.S., then to like hold a hearing the next Monday, January 21st, the week before the scheduled start of the trial on Mon., Jan. 28th, for Singal to dismiss all the charges.
Here's a typing of a part of that letter:
"STANLEY W. NORKUNAS, ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR AT LAW, 11 KEARNEY SQUARE, HOWE BUILDING, LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS 01852
TELEPHONE: (978) 454-7465 FAX: (978) 937-7753
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE: MASSACHUSETTS NEW HAMPSHIRE MAINE
Arnold H. Huftalen, Esquire, Assistant United States Attorney, 55 Pleasant Street, Concord, NH 03301
3 December 2007
RE: Jason Gerhard, United States v. Riley, Et Al No. 07-189 GSZ
Dear Attorney Huftalen:
--In accordance with the local rules I am requesting from you the following information in regard to the above referenced case:
1. RSA 123-1 sets out a requirement for the federal government to obtain legal jurisdiction within the State of New Hampshire in '...that an accurate description and plan of the lands so owned and occupied, verified by the oath of some officer of the United States having knowledge of the facts, shall be filed with the secretary of this state;...' I am seeking a copy of any such documentation filed in regard to the establishment of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
2. ...
3. ...
--If you are unable or do not intend to provide such information please notify me as soon as possible in order that I may file a motion with the Court to obtain these items.
Very truly yours, Stanley W. Norkunas".
JSH
Joe,
Here's Bob's Order of Detention if you haven't seen it.
http://www.box.net/shared/static/ig8bbc0qjz.pdf
QuoteAccording to his co-conspirator Riley, whose several proffers were born out on the ground, Wolffe watched Riley and
Brown make pipe bombs and then offered to and did bring material for more pipe bombs.
Bottom line, don't trust Danny with your secrets.
1.) Danny's Appeal.
Bill -
-- I did just call the N.H. Supreme Court, at 271-2646 and Donna Nadeau told me that his Motion to file an Amicus Curiae later due to his being in Max-lock up for a week's extension from the Dec. 26th Brief-ing deadline wanted was DENIED, as moot since he is already allowed the BRIEF, and that any third-party friend-of-the-court must request by motion with copies to both main parties that may be granted.
--So while looking up on the internet http://www.google.com search engine for "Larry Becraft" Huntsville Alabama, I found what, I guess, was (past tense), his telephone # 265-533-2535 in #5 of 5 on page one of one, as disconnected. But look in #4 there of the BRIEF already done! :hello: at http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ over to http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/FEDJurisdiction.html that I just printed out onto eight [8] pages at the 70% level, to copy and send to him and the others later this afternoon. Yet to read; ___.
2.) Ed's Habeas +/or The Freedom Four Dismissal.
--Plus see also #2 of the http://www.opc.org/OS/html/V4/4b.html website entitled: "Render to All What is Due Them, Part 2" by David H. Hagopian, as Attorney in Los Angeles, but like they say of practicing law, he has yet to make it to perfection, this October 1995 Report in The "Ordained Servant", Vol. 4, No. 4 filled with garbage from Robert Haldane in that he quotes "a tax is a debt", as just the opposite from that New Jersey* case for the word tax, in "Black's Law Dictionary" 5th Edition (c)1079 @ page 1307; but with some interesting info about WHO to tax, but the "strangers" from foreign lands, and not our own people, re: Matthew 17:24-27, and those phoros and tulos words for tribute and duties respectfully.
--And so with some extra time today, did call Attorney Jeff Dickson (bottom of the "Render" page) of P.O. Box 150124 of Tulsa, OK (918) 663-1490, but # disconnected, so did search for Oklahoma attorneys at Google and found at the http://attorneypages.com/lawyer-state_criminal-OK-Oklahoma_City.htm after the Civil Rights section, that same Jaye Mendros Law Firm at 1-866-490-0338 with Gina referring me over to Cindy Voil, 1-405-528-1285 (who I had a nice chat with about Ed's case, after talking with Jennifer too), but that although she just got her federal license to practice, she mostly does in-state and appeal criminal cases, and suggested I try FindLaw dot com, but one other one here first being: Atkins & Markoff at 1-866-451-9070 with a chat with Lothario who said that she'd call one of the attorneys to get back to me in about an hour, and that I could return the call to their main # 405-607-8757 Their website: http://www.oklahomacriminallawcenter.com/index.html?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=PPC&utm_campaign=Oklahoma+Criminal+Defense+Lawyers&source=yahoo&cd=1096044
--The suggestion being that WHEN either Danny wins his Habeas Corpus in February and/or The Motion to Dismiss the charges against the Four Freedom Keepers as unlawful on January __, 2008 by Judge Singal from Maine who can tell the N.H. Feds to comply with the law! THEN to have the paperwork in place for an immediate hearing of release for Ed in Oklahoma, and then Elaine too in Connecticut. Maybe not needing this Okla. attorney and Conn. attorney to find (Andrew Napolitano in New Jersey*?) IF McAuliffe does what's right in admitting this federal error, and the consequences upon the current victims, and declare an immediate mis-trial for Ed & Elaine, thus proving the Four Freedom Keepers as correctly asserting their "defensive" positions against an outlaw federal government gone running amok.
Yours truly, - - Joe
Quote from: richardr on December 14, 2007, 02:50 PM NHFT
Joe,
Here's Bob's Order of Detention if you haven't seen it.
http://www.box.net/shared/static/ig8bbc0qjz.pdf
QuoteAccording to his co-conspirator Riley, whose several proffers were born out on the ground, Wolffe watched Riley and
Brown make pipe bombs and then offered to and did bring material for more pipe bombs.
Bottom line, don't trust Danny with your secrets.
Thanks Richard,
For this 5-page Order, and especially where Muirhead used the phrase of: "bizarre* views'. I wonder what he'll have to say when Singal tells the N.H. court to wise up! >:D
* bizarre = unconventional, as in what? against the standard operating procedures of to ignore their oaths of office to file these papers!? [N.H. RSA 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Const.] I should hope so to be in such a bizarre situation, because to be in contempt of court to this corrupt court is to be in honor of the Constitution of the United States of America. "God save the Queen" and Defender of the Faithful, as Sonny would say.
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 14, 2007, 03:16 PM NHFT
...: Atkins & Markoff at 1-866-451-9070 with a chat with Lothario who said that she'd call one of the attorneys to get back to me in about an hour, and that I could return the call to their main # 405-607-8757 Their website: http://www.oklahomacriminallawcenter.com/index.html?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=PPC&utm_campaign=Oklahoma+Criminal+Defense+Lawyers&source=yahoo&cd=1096044
...
It looks like my packet of mail won't be going out to them tonight for delivery tomorrow, but maybe for Saturday postmark, and Monday delivery to the four plus E&E maybe on Wednesday of next week on the sixth day** BEFORE Christmas as in that other song (for some songwriter to write about here, as we go before #___ more judges) Me remembering something about somebody who always started his mailings on Monday morning so that it would never be transported on a Sunday when even the postal workers should take off as their day of rest too, being the sabbath, day-of-rest, for the heart actually I read years ago for the technical meaning of the word. So maybe a Monday mailing. MMM, as in 3M.
Here's what kept me busy this afternoon too, in that I did call Lothario back at the 607 # and she said that she did talk with Tommy, the head of the Criminal Bureau there, and that he would like to talk with me about the case. I asked: when? She said now; and gave me his cell phone # 405: 808- _____ (on the printout to the others by mail), and we had a nice chat too, of that as soon as Ed files the paperwork with the Federal Court "and" sets it up for a hearing on his Petition for an Habeas Corpus, that Tommy will file his appearance and argue the case, since he heard about this Louisiana case of similar situation (the one that Jason's lawyer told him about the crime on federal soil, but because the feds did not file the paperwork with the state governor's office, that it was a state, not federal crime), and so Tommy would like to get credit for being the first in another state to use what Attorney Larry Becraft has posted at his excellent website of these single and double-filing states. The word getting around somehow on this state of New Hampshire maybe being the second state to use this, and so Oklahoma third, but still O.K. with him and even better, as that would make his job that much easier.
So Ed: Here's a photocopy of the http://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/ print-out* for you to send a $5.00 Money Order by Rule #___ to start the docket #_________ of your Petition for an Habeas Corpus Petition, citing the non-jurisdiction of N.H. to have wrongfully tried and sentenced you in violation of Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17, U.S. Constitution, since the Feds FAILed to file the N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 papers, and that as soon as you get a case # and/or hearing date, that this attorney "will" then file his appearance for you, because I "will" send him the $x,xxx for this service.
Yours truly, - - Joe
*U.S. District Court
Western District of Oklahoma
200 NW 4th Street
-Room 1210
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
(405) 609-5000
** to read: http://www.cresourcei.org/cy12days.html
for the Twelve Days OF Christmas, beginning Dec. 26th
to Jan. 6th, the Epiphany, or Three Kings Day.
HAS ANOTHER ONE OF THE BROWNS SUPPORTERS BEEN TAKEN DOWN??
some of you may remember a few days back i posted about a guy that went by the name "old buck" who camped out on the browns property in his camper for about 6 weeks this summer. he informed the marshalls and police he was there but was unarmed and would stay that way. he last posted through his myspace saying that the federal prosecutors had contacted his lawyer to have him come in and speak to them. he asked if they were offering "immunity" they said no the lawyer said no back. jim aka:old buck said he wouldnt speak even with immunity because he didnt do anything wrong! they told his lawyer , who wrote a book that ron paul wrote the forward to, that if he didnt speak to them they are going to do everything they can to indict him. he said so indict me! \
today i try to contact jim through his myspace page and it has been hijacked by the same thugs that hijacked ed and elaines time2makeastand website. it looks identical and the only "friend" is ed and elaines old page now labeled as "showing ed and elaine brown supporters the law" jims old myspace is myspace.com/twostraws see for yourself. he is now unreachable. if anyone has seen or heard from jim please let us know. if he has been arrested we would like to verify his safety.
we do not know if he has been arrested or how long the page has been taken over for but if history is a guide ed and elaines page wasnt hijacked until several days after their arrest.
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 14, 2007, 12:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 13, 2007, 12:44 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 13, 2007, 11:56 AM NHFT
....
...
14 Colantuono KNOWS about the fact that this court is in an unlawful position, as from it mentioned in his U.S. Attorney Manual #664, but fails to do anything about it!
....
Bill - I just sent you the scan of the 2-page letter of eleven (11) days [nine (9) business days] ago, the two pages reduced to one print-out at 64% for the http://www.danrileyld.blogspot.com if you'd like to post that there, and with any reply so far, that if none, the question being of WHEN the attorney plans to file the Motion for Discovery, and still if with no answer, then the Motion to Dismiss for his client?, that the others can rely on, and then Ed's attorney to file a Motion for a Mis-trial and/or Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus with the U.S. District Court out in __________, Oklahoma. Let's say that the Motion for Discovery gets filed by the end of next week, Friday, December 21st as the last day of this Fall season, that means an answer has to be returned within ten (10) calendar days and so by December 31st, for the Motion to Dismiss put in like on Fri., January 4th, [before the Tuesday, January 8th group meeting of all four attorneys with all four inmates in one room] + another ten (10) days to Monday, January 14th, and when Judge Singal sees that there has been no objection, or one objection but with a bunch of B.S., then to like hold a hearing the next Monday, January 21st, the week before the scheduled start of the trial on Mon., Jan. 28th, for Singal to dismiss all the charges.
Here's a typing of a part of that letter:
"STANLEY W. NORKUNAS, ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR AT LAW, 11 KEARNEY SQUARE, HOWE BUILDING, LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS 01852
TELEPHONE: (978) 454-7465 FAX: (978) 937-7753
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE: MASSACHUSETTS NEW HAMPSHIRE MAINE
Arnold H. Huftalen, Esquire, Assistant United States Attorney, 55 Pleasant Street, Concord, NH 03301
3 December 2007
RE: Jason Gerhard, United States v. Riley, Et Al No. 07-189 GSZ
Dear Attorney Huftalen:
--In accordance with the local rules I am requesting from you the following information in regard to the above referenced case:
1. RSA 123-1 sets out a requirement for the federal government to obtain legal jurisdiction within the State of New Hampshire in '...that an accurate description and plan of the lands so owned and occupied, verified by the oath of some officer of the United States having knowledge of the facts, shall be filed with the secretary of this state;...' I am seeking a copy of any such documentation filed in regard to the establishment of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
2. ...
3. ...
--If you are unable or do not intend to provide such information please notify me as soon as possible in order that I may file a motion with the Court to obtain these items.
Very truly yours, Stanley W. Norkunas".
JSH
Joe...This just arrived from another list that shares info and you may find some good case law to use....
Cases Jurisdictional Failings
Jurisdictional Failings
"Absent required colloquy by magistrate judge, language printed on consent form was not sufficient to inform defendant of his rights under statute allowing defendant charged with misdemeanor to waive trial before district judge and to elect trial before magistrate judge, where the relevant portion of the consent form was three sentences long, and only one of the sentences addressed defendant's right to an Article III judge." U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, sec. 1 etseq; 18 U.S.C.A. sec 3401(b); FRCrP 58(b)(2), (b)(3)(A), 18 U.S.C.A. U.S. v. Gochis 196 F.R.D. 519 (2000)
"Court may always raise question of subject matter jurisdiction on appeal and in courts below." U,S. v. Prestenbach, 230 F.3d 780 (2000)
"Courts can always consider questions as to subject matter jurisdiction whenever raised and even sua sponte." U.S. v. White, 139 F.3d 998 cert den 119 S.Ct 343, 525 U.S. 393, 142 L.Ed.2d 283 (1998)
"Jurisdiction over a defendant requires both personal and subject matter jurisdiction." Boles v. State, 717 So.2d 877 (1998)
"Courts acquire authority to adjudicate matter if they have both subject matter and in personam jurisdiction." McKinney's CPL v. sec. 1.20 subd. 9. -- People v. Marzban, 660 N.Y.S.2d 808, 172 Misc.2d 987 (1997)
"Subject matter jurisdiction is determined from pleadings." Hall v. State, 933 S.W.2d 363, 326 Ark. 318, 326 Ark. 823 rehearing denied (1996)
"In its most fundamental or strict sense, 'jurisdiction' means an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case, an absence of authority over the subject matter or the parties, but the term may also refer to the situation where a court that has jurisdiction over the subject matter has no power to act except in a particular manner, or to give certain kinds of relief, or to act without the occurrence of certain procedural prerequisites; action 'in excess of jurisdiction' by a court that has jurisdiction in a fundamental sense is not void, but only voidable." People v. Burnett, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 71 Cal.App 151 (1999)
"Judgment made when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction is void." Clark v. State, 727 N.E.2d 18, transfer denied 741 N.E.2d 1247 (2000)
"In a criminal action, the trial court must not only have jurisdiction over the offense charged, but over the question which the judgment presumes to decide." State v. Kraushaar, 957 P.2d 1106, 264 Kan. 667 "Information is the only vehicle by which a court obtains and has limits placed on its jurisdiction." -Id (1998)
"Court lacked jurisdiction over defendant charged with possession of loaded firearm such as would enable it to entertain defendant's motion to dismiss indictment on ground that diplomatic immunity created legal impediment to his conviction, where defendant failed to appear in court to be arraigned on accusatory instrument." -Id
"In legal prosecution, all legal requisites must be complied with to confer jurisdiction on the court in criminal matters, as district attorney cannot confer jurisdiction by will alone." People v. Page, 667 N.Y.S.2d 689, 177 Misc.2d 448 (1998)
Where the court is without jurisdiction, it has no authority to do anything other than to dismiss the case." Fontenot v. State, 932 S.W.2d 185 "Judicial action without jurisdiction is void."-Id (1996)
"Jurisdiction means the power of a court to hear and determine a cause, which power is conferred by a constitution or a statute, or both." Penn v. Com. 528 S.E.2d 179, 32 Va.App. 422 (2000)
"A court cannot acquire jurisdiction to try a person for an act made criminal only by an unconstitutional law, and thus, an offense created by an unconstitutional statute, is no longer a crime and a conviction under such statute cannot be a legal cause for imprisonment." State v. Benzel, 583 N.W.2d 434, 220 Wis.2d 588 (1998)
"Jurisdiction is determined solely from face of information or indictment." State v. Lainez, 771 So.2d 617, and Snyder v. State 715 So.2d 367, review denied 727 So.2d 911 (2000)
"As a prerequisite for presiding over a case , a court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of an offense and of the person of the defendant; that is, two jurisdictional requirements must be satisfied before a court has authority to hear and determine a particular cause of action." Malone v. Com., 30 S.W.3d 180 (2000)
"Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a non-waivable defect which may be raised at any stage of the proceedings." State v. LaPier, 961 P.2d 1274, 289 Mont. 392, 1998 MT 174 (1998)
"Ruling made in absence of subject matter jurisdiction is a nullity." State v. Dvorak, 574 N.W.2d 492, 254 Neb. 87 (1998)
"If the trial court is without subject matter jurisdiction of defendants case, conviction and sentence would be void ab initio." State v. Swiger, 708 N.E.2d 1033, 125 Ohio.App.3d 456, dismissed, appeal not allowed, 694 N.E.2d 75, 82 Ohio St.3d 1411 (1998)
"Before a court may exercise judicial power to hear and determine a criminal prosecution, that court must possess three types of jursdiction: jurisdiction over the defendant, jurisdiction over the alleged crime, and territorial jurisdiction." Const. Art. 1 sec. 9, State v. Legg, 9 S.W.3d 111 (1999)
"Without jurisdiction, criminal proceedings are a nullity." State v. Inglin, 592 N.W.2d 666, 274 Wis.2d 764 (1999)
"Criminal subject matter jurisdiction is the power of the court to inquire into charged crime, to apply applicable law, and to declare punishment." W.S.A. Const. Art. 7, sec. 8; W.S.A. 753.03, State v. West, 571 N.W.2d 196, 214 Wis.2d 468 , review denied 579 N.W.2d 44, 216 Wis.2d 612 (1997)
"Municipal courts do not have jurisdiction to render final judgments on felony charges." Muhammad v. State, 998 S.W.2d 763, 67 Ark.App 262 (1999)
"Circuit courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over all misdemeanors which arise out of the same circumstances as a felony also charged." State v. Coble, 704 So.2d 197 (1998)
"Circuit court has no jurisdiction to try misdemeanors in the absence of a felony." Short v. State 767 So.2d 575 (2000)
"State Constitution establishes exclusive jurisdiction over felony cases in the superior court." State v. Sterling, 535 S.E.2d 329, 244 Ga.App. 328 (2000)
"There was no merit to defendant's contention that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over him because his crime did not take place on federally owned land and the 10th Amendment reserved drug prosecutions such as his to the states." U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 10, Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, sec. 401(a), 406, 21 U.S.C.A. secs 841(a), 846. U.S. v. Deering 179 F.3d 592, cert. den. 120 S.Ct 361, 528 U.S. 945, 145 L.Ed.2d 283 (1999)
"Whether or not the government takes out the interstate commerce element of an offense has no effect on the district court's subject matter jurisdiction. U.S. v. Degan, 229 F.3d 553, 2000 Fed.App 367P. (2000)
"Federal criminal jurisdiction is limited to cases involving activities specifically made criminal by either Federal Constitution or Congress." U.S. v. Corona, 934 F.Supp. 740, affirmed in part 108 F.3d 565 (1996)
"Under 'effects doctrine,' a sovereign only possesses jurisdiction to prosecute a crime when, inter alia, the effect within the territory is substantial." U.S. v. Woodward, 149 F.3d 46, cert. den. 119 S.Ct 1026, 525 U.S. 1138, 143 L.Ed.2d 37 (1998)
"Under the theory of 'territorial jurisdiction,' jurisdiction to subject the accused to criminal prosecution rests in the courts of the state in which the crime is committed." State v. Liggins, 557 N.W.2d 263, denial of post conviction relief confirmed 2000 WL 1827164 (1996)
"Territorial jurisdiction is an essential element of a crime, and a state is required to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt." -Id
"Territorial jurisdiction" is question of state's power to prosecute and punish accused for crime and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt." People v. al-Ladkani, 647 N.Y.S.2d 666, 169 Misc.2d 720 (1996)
"Jurisprudence of personal jurisdiction in civil matters has no bearing on question whether a person may be brought to a State and tried there for crimes under that State's laws." In re Vasquez, 705 N.E.2d 606, 428 Mass. 842 (1999)
"Where the law provides method for acquiring jurisdiction over defendant in criminal action, as by indictment of grand jury, that method must be strictly pursued to acquire jurisdiction." People v. Page, 677 N.Y.S.2d 689, 177 Misc.2d 448 (1998)
"If defendant enters plea of not guilty and is in court on day of trial, the court has jurisdiction over his person." State v. Waters, 971 P.2d 538, 93 Wash.App 969 (1999)
"Subject matter jurisdiction may not be conferred on a federal court by stipulation, estoppel, or waiver." U.S. v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666. (1999)
"Power of courts to proceed, i.e., their jurisdiction over the subject matter, cannot be conferred by mere act of litigant, whether it amounts to consent, waiver, or estoppel, and hence the lack od such jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal." People v. Lopez, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 511, 52 Cal.App.4th 233 (1997)
"Jurisdiction can not be conferred to court by agreement of parties." Akins v. State, 691 So.2d 587 (1997)
"Lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent or waived by entry of a guilty plea; doctrine of waiver cannot be effective when court lacks jurisdiction over the case itself." Harrell v. State, 721 So.2d 1185 rehearing denied , review dismissed 728 So.2d 205 (1998)
"Party cannot stipulate to jurisdiction when court lacks it." Sterling v. State, 682 So.2d 694 (1996)
"Where no cognizable crime is charged, the court lacks fundamental subject matter jurisdiction to render a judgment of conviction, i.e. it is powerless in such circumstances to inquire into the facts, to apply the law, and to declare the punishment for an offense." Robinson v. State, 728 A.2d 698, 353 Md. 683 (1999)
"Parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction upon judicial tribunal by either acquiescence or consent; nor may subject matter jurisdiction be created by waiver, estoppel, consent, or conduct of parties." State v. Trevino, 556 N.W.2d 638, 251 Neb. 344 (1996)
"Appearance ticket is not accusatory instrument and its filing does not confer jurisdiction over defendant." People v. Gabbay, 670 N.Y.S.2d 962, 175 Misc.2d 421 appeal denied 678 N.Y.S.2d 26, 92 N.Y.2d 879, 700 N.E.2d 564 (1997)
"Service of an appearance ticket on an accused does not confer personal or subject matter jurisdiction upon a criminal court." People v. Giusti, 673 N.Y.S.2d 824, 176 Misc.2d 377 (1998)
"No valid conviction can occur if the charging instrument is void." State v. Wilson, 6 S.W.3d 504 (1998)
"Threshold issue of whether court has jurisdiction to resolve pending controversy is fundamental and cannot be ignored; accordingly, court may sua sponte address issue, as subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement of parties, but must be vested in court by constitution or statute." State v. Roberts, 940 S.W.2d 655, on remand 1997 WL334879. (1996)
"While superior court lacks authority to try a defendant for a felony charged by information with an offense not previously subjected to a preliminary hearing , violation of this limitation on the superior court's power would constitute action in excess of jurisdiction, waivable error, and not non-waivable subject matter jurisdiction." People v. Burnett, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 71 Cal.App.4th 151 (1999)
"Trial court acts without jurisdiction when it acts without inherent or common law authority, nor any authority by statute or rule." State v. Rodriguez, 725 A.2d 635, 125 Md.App 428, cert den 731 A.2d 971, 354 Md. 573 (1999)
"Criminal law magistrates have no power of their own and are unable to enforce any ruling." V.T.C.A., Government Code sec. 54.651 et seq., Davis v. State, 956 S.W.2d 555 (1997)
"A court's authority to exercise its subject matter jurisdiction over a case may be restricted by Filure to comply with statutory requirements that are mandatory in nature and, thus, are prerequisite to court's lawful exercise of that jurisdiction." Moore v. Com., 527 S.E.2d 406, 259 Va. 431 (2000)
"Only Congress can make an act a crime, affix punishment to it, and declare court that shall have jurisdiction." U.S. v. Beckford, 966 F.Supp. 1415 (1997)
United States v Guest 383 U S 745 1966 Right to Travel
United States v Guest, 383 U S 745, March 28, 1966
HARLAN, J., Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
383 U.S. 745
United States v. Guest
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
No. 65 Argued: November 9, 1965 --- Decided: March 28, 1966
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join Parts I and II [n1] of the Court's opinion, but I cannot subscribe to Part III in its full sweep. To the extent that it is there held that 18 U.S.C. ? 241 (1964 ed.) reaches conspiracies, embracing only the action of [p763] private persons, to obstruct or otherwise interfere with the right of citizens freely to engage in interstate travel, I am constrained to dissent. On the other hand, I agree that ? 241 does embrace state interference with such interstate travel, and I therefore consider that this aspect of the indictment is sustainable on the reasoning of Part II of the Court's opinion.
This right to travel must be found in the Constitution itself. This is so because ? 241 covers only conspiracies to interfere with any citizen in the "free exercise or enjoyment" of a right or privilege "secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States," and no "right to travel" can be found in ? 241 or in any other law of the United States. My disagreement with this phase of the Court's opinion lies in this: while past cases do indeed establish that there is a constitutional "right to travel" between States free from unreasonable governmental interference, today's decision is the first to hold that such movement is also protected against private interference, and, depending on the constitutional source of the right, I think it either unwise or impermissible so to read the Constitution.
Preliminarily, nothing in the Constitution expressly secures the right to travel. In contrast, the Articles of Confederation provided in Art. IV:
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States . . . shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States, and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively. . . [p764]
This right to "free ingress and regress" was eliminated from the draft of the Constitution without discussion even though the main objective of the Convention was to create a stronger union. It has been assumed that the clause was dropped because it was so obviously an essential part of our federal structure that it was necessarily subsumed under more general clauses of the Constitution. See United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281, 294. I propose to examine the several asserted constitutional bases for the right to travel, and the scope of its protection in relation to each source.
I
Because of the close proximity of the right of ingress and regress to the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Articles of Confederation, it has long been declared that the right is a privilege and immunity of national citizenship under the Constitution. In the influential opinion of Mr. Justice Washington on circuit, Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash.C.C. 371 (1825), the court addressed itself to the question -- "what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states?" Id. at 380. Corfield was concerned with a New Jersey statute restricting to state citizens the right to rake for oysters, a statute which the court upheld. In analyzing the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution, Art. IV, ? 2, the court stated that it confined "these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental," and listed among them
The right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise. . . .
Id. at 380-381.
The dictum in Corfield was given general approval in the first opinion of this Court to deal directly with the right of free movement, Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, [p765] which struck down a Nevada statute taxing persons leaving the State. It is first noteworthy that, in his concurring opinion, Mr. Justice Clifford asserted that he would hold the statute void exclusively on commerce grounds, for he was clear "that the State legislature cannot impose any such burden upon commerce among the several States." 6 Wall. at 49. The majority opinion of Mr. Justice Miller, however, eschewed reliance on the Commerce Clause and the Import-Export Clause and looked rather to the nature of the federal union:
The people of these United States constitute one nation. . . . This government has necessarily a capital established by law. . . . That government has a right to call to this point any or all of its citizens to aid in its service. . . . The government, also, has its offices of secondary importance in all other parts of the country. On the sea-coasts and on the rivers, it has its ports of entry. In the interior, it has its land offices, its revenue offices, and its sub-treasuries. In all these, it demands the services of its citizens, and is entitled to bring them to those points from all quarters of the nation, and no power can exist in a State to obstruct this right that would not enable it to defeat the purposes for which the government was established.
6 Wall. at 43-44. Accompanying this need of the Federal Government, the Court found a correlative right of the citizen to move unimpeded throughout the land:
He has the right to come to the seat of government to assert any claim he may have upon that government, or to transact any business he may have with it. To seek its protection, to share its offices, to engage in administering its functions. He has a right to free access to its sea-ports, through which all the operations of foreign trade and commerce are [p766] conducted, to the sub-treasuries, the land offices, the revenue offices, and the courts of justice in the several States, and this right is in its nature independent of the will of any State over whose soil he must pass in the exercise of it.
6 Wall. at 44. The focus of that opinion, very clearly, was thus on impediments by the States on free movement by citizens. This is emphasized subsequently when Mr. Justice Miller asserts that this approach is "neither novel nor unsupported by authority," because it is, fundamentally, a question of the exercise of a State's taxing power to obstruct the functions of the Federal Government:
[T]he right of the States in this mode to impede or embarrass the constitutional operations of that government, or the rights which its citizens hold under it, has been uniformly denied.
6 Wall. at 44-45.
Later cases, alluding to privileges and immunities, have in dicta included the right to free movement. See Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 180; Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78.
Although the right to travel thus has respectable precedent to support its status as a privilege and immunity of national citizenship, it is important to note that those cases all dealt with the right of travel simply as affected by oppressive state action. Only one prior case in this Court, United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281, was argued precisely in terms of a right to free movement, as against interference by private individuals. There, the Government alleged a conspiracy under the predecessor of ? 241 against the perpetrators of the notorious Bisbee Deportations. [n2] The case was argued straightforwardly in terms of whether the right to free ingress and [p767] egress, admitted by both parties to be a right of national citizenship, was constitutionally guaranteed against private conspiracies. The Brief for the Defendants in Error, whose counsel was Charles Evans Hughes, later Chief Justice of the United States, gives as one of its main points:
So far as there is a right pertaining to Federal citizenship to have free ingress or egress with respect to the several States, the right is essentially one of protection against the action of the States themselves and of those acting under their authority.
Brief, at p. i. The Court, with one dissent, accepted this interpretation of the right of unrestricted interstate movement, observing that Crandall v. Nevada, supra, was inapplicable because, inter alia, it dealt with state action. 254 U.S. at 299. More recent cases discussing or applying the right to interstate travel have always been in the context of oppressive state action. See, e.g., Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, and other cases discussed infra. [n3]
It is accordingly apparent that the right to unimpeded interstate travel, regarded as a privilege and immunity of national citizenship, was historically seen as a method of breaking down state provincialism, and facilitating the creation of a true federal union. In the one case in which a private conspiracy to obstruct such movement was heretofore presented to this Court, the predecessor of the very statute we apply today was held not to encompass such a right.
II
A second possible constitutional basis for the right to move among the States without interference is the Commerce Clause. When Mr. Justice Washington articulated [p768] the right in Corfield, it was in the context of a state statute impeding economic activity by outsiders, and he cast his statement in economic terms. 4 Wash. C. C., at 380-381. The two concurring Justices in Crandall v. Nevada, supra, rested solely on the commerce argument, indicating again the close connection between freedom of commerce and travel as principles of our federal union. In Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, the Court held squarely that the right to unimpeded movement of persons is guaranteed against oppressive state legislation by the Commerce Clause, and declared unconstitutional a California statute restricting the entry of indigents into that State.
Application of the Commerce Clause to this area has the advantage of supplying a longer tradition of case law and more refined principles of adjudication. States do have rights of taxation and quarantine, see Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. at 184 (concurring opinion), which must be weighed against the general right of free movement, and Commerce Clause adjudication has traditionally been the means of reconciling these interests. Yet this approach to the right to travel, like that found in the privileges and immunities cases, is concerned with the interrelation of state and federal power, not -- with an exception to be dealt with in a moment -- with private interference.
The case of In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, may be thought to raise some doubts as to this proposition. There, the United States sought to enjoin Debs and members of his union from continuing to obstruct -- by means of a strike -- interstate commerce and the passage of the mails. The Court held that Congress and the Executive could certainly act to keep the channels of interstate commerce open, and that a court of equity had no less power to enjoin what amounted to a public nuisance. It might [p769] be argued that to the extent Debs permits the Federal Government to obtain an injunction against the private conspiracy alleged in the present indictment, [n4] the criminal statute should be applicable as well on the ground that the governmental interest in both cases is the same, namely to vindicate the underlying policy of the Commerce Clause. However, ? 241 is not directed toward the vindication of governmental interests; it requires a private right under federal law. No such right can be found in Debs, which stands simply for the proposition that the Commerce Clause gives the Federal Government standing to sue on a basis similar to that of private individuals under nuisance law. The substantive rights of private persons to enjoin such impediments, of course, devolve from state, not federal, law; any seemingly inconsistent discussion in Debs would appear substantially vitiated by Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64.
I cannot find in any of this past case law any solid support for a conclusion that the Commerce Clause embraces a right to be free from private interference. And the Court's opinion here makes no such suggestion.
III
One other possible source for the right to travel should be mentioned. Professor Chafee, in his thoughtful study, "Freedom of Movement," [n5] finds both the privileges and immunities approach and the Commerce Clause approach unsatisfactory. After a thorough review of the history [p770] and cases dealing with the question, he concludes that this "valuable human right," id. at 209, is best seen in due process terms:
Already, in several decisions, the Court has used the Due Process Clause to safeguard the right of the members of any race to reside where they please inside a state, regardless of ordinances and injunctions. Why is not this clause equally available to assure the right to live in any state one desires? And unreasonable restraints by the national government on mobility can be upset by the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment. . . . Thus, the "liberty" of all human beings which cannot be taken away without due process of law includes liberty of speech, press, assembly, religion, and also liberty of movement.
Id. at 192-193.
This due process approach to the right to unimpeded movement has been endorsed by this Court. In Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116"]357 U.S. 116, the Court asserted that "The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment," id. at 125, citing Crandall v. Nevada, supra, and Edwards v. California, supra. It is true that the holding in that case turned essentially on statutory grounds. However, in 357 U.S. 116, the Court asserted that "The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment," id. at 125, citing Crandall v. Nevada, supra, and Edwards v. California, supra. It is true that the holding in that case turned essentially on statutory grounds. However, in Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, the Court, applying this constitutional doctrine, struck down a federal statute forbidding members of Communist organizations to obtain passports. Both the majority and dissenting opinions affirmed the principle that the right to travel is an aspect of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause.
Viewing the right to travel in due process terms, of course, would clearly make it inapplicable to the present case, for due process speaks only to governmental action [p771 ]
IV
This survey of the various bases for rounding the "right to travel" is conclusive only to the extent of showing that there has never been an acknowledged constitutional right to be free from private interference, and that the right in question has traditionally been seen and applied, whatever the constitutional underpinning asserted, only against governmental impediments. The right involved being as nebulous as it is, however, it is necessary to consider it in terms of policy as well as precedent.
As a general proposition, it seems to me very dubious that the Constitution was intended to create certain rights of private individuals as against other private individuals. The Constitutional Convention was called to establish a nation, not to reform the common law. Even the Bill of Rights, designed to protect personal liberties, was directed at rights against governmental authority, not other individuals. It is true that there is a very narrow range of rights against individuals which have been read into the Constitution. In Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, the Court held that implicit in the Constitution is the right of citizens to be free of private interference in federal elections. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, extended this coverage to primaries. Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, applied the predecessor of ? 241 to a conspiracy to injure someone in the custody of a United States marshal; the case has been read as dealing with a privilege and immunity of citizenship, but it would seem to have depended as well on extrapolations from statutory provisions providing for supervision of prisoners. The Court in In re Quarles, 158 U.S. 532, extending Logan, supra, declared that there was a right of federal citizenship to inform federal officials of violations of federal law. See also United [p772] States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552, which announced in dicta a federal right to assemble to petition the Congress for a redress of grievances.
Whatever the validity of these cases on their own terms, they are hardly persuasive authorities for adding to the collection of privileges and immunities the right to be free of private impediments to travel. The cases just discussed are narrow, and are essentially concerned with the vindication of important relationships with the Federal Government voting in federal elections, involvement in federal law enforcement, communicating with the Federal Government. The present case stands on a considerably different footing.
It is arguable that the same considerations which led the Court on numerous occasions to find a right of free movement against oppressive state action now justify a similar result with respect to private impediments. Crandall v. Nevada, supra, spoke of the need to travel to the capital, to serve and consult with the offices of government. A basic reason for the formation of this Nation was to facilitate commercial intercourse; intellectual, cultural, scientific, social, and political interests are likewise served by free movement. Surely these interests can be impeded by private vigilantes as well as by state action. Although this argument is not without force, I do not think it is particularly persuasive. There is a difference in power between States and private groups so great that analogies between the two tend to be misleading. If the State obstructs free intercourse of goods, people, or ideas, the bonds of the union are threatened; if a private group effectively stops such communication, there is, at most, a temporary breakdown of law and order, to be remedied by the exercise of state authority or by appropriate federal legislation.
To decline to find a constitutional right of the nature asserted here does not render the Federal Government [p773] helpless. As to interstate commerce by railroads, federal law already provides remedies for "undue or unreasonable prejudice," 24 Stat. 380, as amended,49 U.S.C. ? 3(1) (1964 ed.), which has been held to apply to racial discrimination. Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816.
A similar statute applies to motor carriers, 49 Stat. 558, as amended, 49 U.S.C. ? 316(d) (1964 ed.), and to air carriers, 72 Stat. 760, 49 U.S.C. ? 1374(b) (1964 ed.). See Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U.S. 454; Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, 229 F.2d 499. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 243, deals with other types of obstructions to interstate commerce. Indeed, under the Court's present holding, it is arguable that any conspiracy to discriminate in public accommodations having the effect of impeding interstate commerce could be reached under ? 241, unaided by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Because Congress has wide authority to legislate in this area, it seems unnecessary -- if prudential grounds are of any relevance, see Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 258-259 (CLARK, J., concurring) -- to strain to find a dubious constitutional right.
V
If I have succeeded in showing anything in this constitutional exercise, it is that, until today, there was no federal right to be free from private interference with interstate transit, and very little reason for creating one. Although the Court has ostensibly only "discovered" this private right in the Constitution and then applied ? 241 mechanically to punish those who conspire to threaten it, it should be recognized that what the Court has in effect done is to use this all-encompassing criminal statute to fashion federal common law crimes, forbidden to the federal judiciary since the 1812 decision in United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32. My Brother DOUGLAS, dissenting in United States v. Classic, supra, [p774] noted well the dangers of the indiscriminate application of the predecessor of ? 241:
It is not enough for us to find in the vague penumbra of a statute some offense about which Congress could have legislated, and then to particularize it as a crime because it is highly offensive.
313 U.S. at 331-332.
I do not gainsay that the immunities and commerce provisions of the Constitution leave the way open for the finding of this "private" constitutional right, since they do not speak solely in terms of governmental action. Nevertheless, I think it wrong to sustain a criminal indictment on such an uncertain ground. To do so subjects ? 241 to serious challenge on the score of vagueness, and serves in effect to place this Court in the position of making criminal law under the name of constitutional interpretation. It is difficult to subdue misgivings about the potentialities of this decision.
I would sustain this aspect of the indictment only on the premise that it sufficiently alleges state interference with interstate travel, and on no other ground.
1. The action of three of the Justices who join the Court's opinion in nonetheless cursorily pronouncing themselves on the far-reaching constitutional questions deliberately not reached in Part II seems to me, to say the very least, extraordinary.
2. For a discussion of the deportations, see The President's Mediation Comm'n, Report on the Bisbee Deportations (November 6, 1917).
3. The Court's reliance on United States v. Moore, 129 F. 630, is misplaced. That case held only that it was not a privilege or immunity to organize labor unions. The reference to "the right to pass from one state to any other" was purely incidental dictum.
4. It is not even clear that an equity court would enjoin a conspiracy of the kind alleged here, for traditionally equity will not enjoin a crime. See Developments in the Law -- Injunctions, 78 Harv.L.Rev. 994, 1013-1018 (1965).
5. In Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787, at 162 (1956).
Cases My Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest
MY RIGHT OF DEFENSE AGAINST
UNLAWFUL ARREST
LAWFUL CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE
"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated:
"Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."
"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. if the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
"Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that 'a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.' There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, 'If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.' That was the `ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.'" (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace." (Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)
Disclaimer: We are just people that get together and exchange information.
We are not a group or organization.
We are not a company or corporation or association.
We sell nothing and we charge nothing.
To cancel your class e-mail click "reply" and type "stop messages".
Quote from: armlaw on December 14, 2007, 09:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 14, 2007, 12:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 13, 2007, 12:44 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 13, 2007, 11:56 AM NHFT
....
...
14 Colantuono KNOWS about the fact that this court is in an unlawful position, as from it mentioned in his U.S. Attorney Manual #664, but fails to do anything about it!
....
Bill - I just sent you the scan of the 2-page letter of eleven (11) days [nine (9) business days] ago, the two pages reduced to one print-out at 64% for the http://www.danrileyld.blogspot.com if you'd like to post that there, and with any reply so far, that if none, the question being of WHEN the attorney plans to file the Motion for Discovery, and still if with no answer, then the Motion to Dismiss for his client?, that the others can rely on, and then Ed's attorney to file a Motion for a Mis-trial and/or Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus with the U.S. District Court out in __________, Oklahoma. Let's say that the Motion for Discovery gets filed by the end of next week, Friday, December 21st as the last day of this Fall season, that means an answer has to be returned within ten (10) calendar days and so by December 31st, for the Motion to Dismiss put in like on Fri., January 4th, [before the Tuesday, January 8th group meeting of all four attorneys with all four inmates in one room] + another ten (10) days to Monday, January 14th, and when Judge Singal sees that there has been no objection, or one objection but with a bunch of B.S., then to like hold a hearing the next Monday, January 21st, the week before the scheduled start of the trial on Mon., Jan. 28th, for Singal to dismiss all the charges.
Here's a typing of a part of that letter:
"STANLEY W. NORKUNAS, ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR AT LAW, 11 KEARNEY SQUARE, HOWE BUILDING, LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS 01852
TELEPHONE: (978) 454-7465 FAX: (978) 937-7753
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE: MASSACHUSETTS NEW HAMPSHIRE MAINE
Arnold H. Huftalen, Esquire, Assistant United States Attorney, 55 Pleasant Street, Concord, NH 03301
3 December 2007
RE: Jason Gerhard, United States v. Riley, Et Al No. 07-189 GSZ
Dear Attorney Huftalen:
--In accordance with the local rules I am requesting from you the following information in regard to the above referenced case:
1. RSA 123-1 sets out a requirement for the federal government to obtain legal jurisdiction within the State of New Hampshire in '...that an accurate description and plan of the lands so owned and occupied, verified by the oath of some officer of the United States having knowledge of the facts, shall be filed with the secretary of this state;...' I am seeking a copy of any such documentation filed in regard to the establishment of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
2. ...
3. ...
--If you are unable or do not intend to provide such information please notify me as soon as possible in order that I may file a motion with the Court to obtain these items.
Very truly yours, Stanley W. Norkunas".
JSH
Joe...This just arrived from another list that shares info and you may find some good case law to use....
Cases Jurisdictional Failings
Jurisdictional Failings
"Absent required colloquy by magistrate judge, language printed on consent form was not sufficient to inform defendant of his rights under statute allowing defendant charged with misdemeanor to waive trial before district judge and to elect trial before magistrate judge, where the relevant portion of the consent form was three sentences long, and only one of the sentences addressed defendant's right to an Article III judge." U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, sec. 1 etseq; 18 U.S.C.A. sec 3401(b); FRCrP 58(b)(2), (b)(3)(A), 18 U.S.C.A. U.S. v. Gochis 196 F.R.D. 519 (2000)
"Court may always raise question of subject matter jurisdiction on appeal and in courts below." U,S. v. Prestenbach, 230 F.3d 780 (2000)
"Courts can always consider questions as to subject matter jurisdiction whenever raised and even sua sponte." U.S. v. White, 139 F.3d 998 cert den 119 S.Ct 343, 525 U.S. 393, 142 L.Ed.2d 283 (1998)
"Jurisdiction over a defendant requires both personal and subject matter jurisdiction." Boles v. State, 717 So.2d 877 (1998)
"Courts acquire authority to adjudicate matter if they have both subject matter and in personam jurisdiction." McKinney's CPL v. sec. 1.20 subd. 9. -- People v. Marzban, 660 N.Y.S.2d 808, 172 Misc.2d 987 (1997)
"Subject matter jurisdiction is determined from pleadings." Hall v. State, 933 S.W.2d 363, 326 Ark. 318, 326 Ark. 823 rehearing denied (1996)
"In its most fundamental or strict sense, 'jurisdiction' means an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case, an absence of authority over the subject matter or the parties, but the term may also refer to the situation where a court that has jurisdiction over the subject matter has no power to act except in a particular manner, or to give certain kinds of relief, or to act without the occurrence of certain procedural prerequisites; action 'in excess of jurisdiction' by a court that has jurisdiction in a fundamental sense is not void, but only voidable." People v. Burnett, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 71 Cal.App 151 (1999)
"Judgment made when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction is void." Clark v. State, 727 N.E.2d 18, transfer denied 741 N.E.2d 1247 (2000)
"In a criminal action, the trial court must not only have jurisdiction over the offense charged, but over the question which the judgment presumes to decide." State v. Kraushaar, 957 P.2d 1106, 264 Kan. 667 "Information is the only vehicle by which a court obtains and has limits placed on its jurisdiction." -Id (1998)
"Court lacked jurisdiction over defendant charged with possession of loaded firearm such as would enable it to entertain defendant's motion to dismiss indictment on ground that diplomatic immunity created legal impediment to his conviction, where defendant failed to appear in court to be arraigned on accusatory instrument." -Id
"In legal prosecution, all legal requisites must be complied with to confer jurisdiction on the court in criminal matters, as district attorney cannot confer jurisdiction by will alone." People v. Page, 667 N.Y.S.2d 689, 177 Misc.2d 448 (1998)
Where the court is without jurisdiction, it has no authority to do anything other than to dismiss the case." Fontenot v. State, 932 S.W.2d 185 "Judicial action without jurisdiction is void."-Id (1996)
"Jurisdiction means the power of a court to hear and determine a cause, which power is conferred by a constitution or a statute, or both." Penn v. Com. 528 S.E.2d 179, 32 Va.App. 422 (2000)
"A court cannot acquire jurisdiction to try a person for an act made criminal only by an unconstitutional law, and thus, an offense created by an unconstitutional statute, is no longer a crime and a conviction under such statute cannot be a legal cause for imprisonment." State v. Benzel, 583 N.W.2d 434, 220 Wis.2d 588 (1998)
"Jurisdiction is determined solely from face of information or indictment." State v. Lainez, 771 So.2d 617, and Snyder v. State 715 So.2d 367, review denied 727 So.2d 911 (2000)
"As a prerequisite for presiding over a case , a court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of an offense and of the person of the defendant; that is, two jurisdictional requirements must be satisfied before a court has authority to hear and determine a particular cause of action." Malone v. Com., 30 S.W.3d 180 (2000)
"Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a non-waivable defect which may be raised at any stage of the proceedings." State v. LaPier, 961 P.2d 1274, 289 Mont. 392, 1998 MT 174 (1998)
"Ruling made in absence of subject matter jurisdiction is a nullity." State v. Dvorak, 574 N.W.2d 492, 254 Neb. 87 (1998)
"If the trial court is without subject matter jurisdiction of defendants case, conviction and sentence would be void ab initio." State v. Swiger, 708 N.E.2d 1033, 125 Ohio.App.3d 456, dismissed, appeal not allowed, 694 N.E.2d 75, 82 Ohio St.3d 1411 (1998)
"Before a court may exercise judicial power to hear and determine a criminal prosecution, that court must possess three types of jursdiction: jurisdiction over the defendant, jurisdiction over the alleged crime, and territorial jurisdiction." Const. Art. 1 sec. 9, State v. Legg, 9 S.W.3d 111 (1999)
"Without jurisdiction, criminal proceedings are a nullity." State v. Inglin, 592 N.W.2d 666, 274 Wis.2d 764 (1999)
"Criminal subject matter jurisdiction is the power of the court to inquire into charged crime, to apply applicable law, and to declare punishment." W.S.A. Const. Art. 7, sec. 8; W.S.A. 753.03, State v. West, 571 N.W.2d 196, 214 Wis.2d 468 , review denied 579 N.W.2d 44, 216 Wis.2d 612 (1997)
"Municipal courts do not have jurisdiction to render final judgments on felony charges." Muhammad v. State, 998 S.W.2d 763, 67 Ark.App 262 (1999)
"Circuit courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over all misdemeanors which arise out of the same circumstances as a felony also charged." State v. Coble, 704 So.2d 197 (1998)
"Circuit court has no jurisdiction to try misdemeanors in the absence of a felony." Short v. State 767 So.2d 575 (2000)
"State Constitution establishes exclusive jurisdiction over felony cases in the superior court." State v. Sterling, 535 S.E.2d 329, 244 Ga.App. 328 (2000)
"There was no merit to defendant's contention that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over him because his crime did not take place on federally owned land and the 10th Amendment reserved drug prosecutions such as his to the states." U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 10, Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, sec. 401(a), 406, 21 U.S.C.A. secs 841(a), 846. U.S. v. Deering 179 F.3d 592, cert. den. 120 S.Ct 361, 528 U.S. 945, 145 L.Ed.2d 283 (1999)
"Whether or not the government takes out the interstate commerce element of an offense has no effect on the district court's subject matter jurisdiction. U.S. v. Degan, 229 F.3d 553, 2000 Fed.App 367P. (2000)
"Federal criminal jurisdiction is limited to cases involving activities specifically made criminal by either Federal Constitution or Congress." U.S. v. Corona, 934 F.Supp. 740, affirmed in part 108 F.3d 565 (1996)
"Under 'effects doctrine,' a sovereign only possesses jurisdiction to prosecute a crime when, inter alia, the effect within the territory is substantial." U.S. v. Woodward, 149 F.3d 46, cert. den. 119 S.Ct 1026, 525 U.S. 1138, 143 L.Ed.2d 37 (1998)
"Under the theory of 'territorial jurisdiction,' jurisdiction to subject the accused to criminal prosecution rests in the courts of the state in which the crime is committed." State v. Liggins, 557 N.W.2d 263, denial of post conviction relief confirmed 2000 WL 1827164 (1996)
"Territorial jurisdiction is an essential element of a crime, and a state is required to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt." -Id
"Territorial jurisdiction" is question of state's power to prosecute and punish accused for crime and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt." People v. al-Ladkani, 647 N.Y.S.2d 666, 169 Misc.2d 720 (1996)
"Jurisprudence of personal jurisdiction in civil matters has no bearing on question whether a person may be brought to a State and tried there for crimes under that State's laws." In re Vasquez, 705 N.E.2d 606, 428 Mass. 842 (1999)
"Where the law provides method for acquiring jurisdiction over defendant in criminal action, as by indictment of grand jury, that method must be strictly pursued to acquire jurisdiction." People v. Page, 677 N.Y.S.2d 689, 177 Misc.2d 448 (1998)
"If defendant enters plea of not guilty and is in court on day of trial, the court has jurisdiction over his person." State v. Waters, 971 P.2d 538, 93 Wash.App 969 (1999)
"Subject matter jurisdiction may not be conferred on a federal court by stipulation, estoppel, or waiver." U.S. v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666. (1999)
"Power of courts to proceed, i.e., their jurisdiction over the subject matter, cannot be conferred by mere act of litigant, whether it amounts to consent, waiver, or estoppel, and hence the lack od such jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal." People v. Lopez, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 511, 52 Cal.App.4th 233 (1997)
"Jurisdiction can not be conferred to court by agreement of parties." Akins v. State, 691 So.2d 587 (1997)
"Lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent or waived by entry of a guilty plea; doctrine of waiver cannot be effective when court lacks jurisdiction over the case itself." Harrell v. State, 721 So.2d 1185 rehearing denied , review dismissed 728 So.2d 205 (1998)
"Party cannot stipulate to jurisdiction when court lacks it." Sterling v. State, 682 So.2d 694 (1996)
"Where no cognizable crime is charged, the court lacks fundamental subject matter jurisdiction to render a judgment of conviction, i.e. it is powerless in such circumstances to inquire into the facts, to apply the law, and to declare the punishment for an offense." Robinson v. State, 728 A.2d 698, 353 Md. 683 (1999)
"Parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction upon judicial tribunal by either acquiescence or consent; nor may subject matter jurisdiction be created by waiver, estoppel, consent, or conduct of parties." State v. Trevino, 556 N.W.2d 638, 251 Neb. 344 (1996)
"Appearance ticket is not accusatory instrument and its filing does not confer jurisdiction over defendant." People v. Gabbay, 670 N.Y.S.2d 962, 175 Misc.2d 421 appeal denied 678 N.Y.S.2d 26, 92 N.Y.2d 879, 700 N.E.2d 564 (1997)
"Service of an appearance ticket on an accused does not confer personal or subject matter jurisdiction upon a criminal court." People v. Giusti, 673 N.Y.S.2d 824, 176 Misc.2d 377 (1998)
"No valid conviction can occur if the charging instrument is void." State v. Wilson, 6 S.W.3d 504 (1998)
"Threshold issue of whether court has jurisdiction to resolve pending controversy is fundamental and cannot be ignored; accordingly, court may sua sponte address issue, as subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement of parties, but must be vested in court by constitution or statute." State v. Roberts, 940 S.W.2d 655, on remand 1997 WL334879. (1996)
"While superior court lacks authority to try a defendant for a felony charged by information with an offense not previously subjected to a preliminary hearing , violation of this limitation on the superior court's power would constitute action in excess of jurisdiction, waivable error, and not non-waivable subject matter jurisdiction." People v. Burnett, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 71 Cal.App.4th 151 (1999)
"Trial court acts without jurisdiction when it acts without inherent or common law authority, nor any authority by statute or rule." State v. Rodriguez, 725 A.2d 635, 125 Md.App 428, cert den 731 A.2d 971, 354 Md. 573 (1999)
"Criminal law magistrates have no power of their own and are unable to enforce any ruling." V.T.C.A., Government Code sec. 54.651 et seq., Davis v. State, 956 S.W.2d 555 (1997)
"A court's authority to exercise its subject matter jurisdiction over a case may be restricted by Filure to comply with statutory requirements that are mandatory in nature and, thus, are prerequisite to court's lawful exercise of that jurisdiction." Moore v. Com., 527 S.E.2d 406, 259 Va. 431 (2000)
"Only Congress can make an act a crime, affix punishment to it, and declare court that shall have jurisdiction." U.S. v. Beckford, 966 F.Supp. 1415 (1997)
United States v Guest 383 U S 745 1966 Right to Travel
United States v Guest, 383 U S 745, March 28, 1966
HARLAN, J., Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
383 U.S. 745
United States v. Guest
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
No. 65 Argued: November 9, 1965 --- Decided: March 28, 1966
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join Parts I and II [n1] of the Court's opinion, but I cannot subscribe to Part III in its full sweep. To the extent that it is there held that 18 U.S.C. ? 241 (1964 ed.) reaches conspiracies, embracing only the action of [p763] private persons, to obstruct or otherwise interfere with the right of citizens freely to engage in interstate travel, I am constrained to dissent. On the other hand, I agree that ? 241 does embrace state interference with such interstate travel, and I therefore consider that this aspect of the indictment is sustainable on the reasoning of Part II of the Court's opinion.
This right to travel must be found in the Constitution itself. This is so because ? 241 covers only conspiracies to interfere with any citizen in the "free exercise or enjoyment" of a right or privilege "secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States," and no "right to travel" can be found in ? 241 or in any other law of the United States. My disagreement with this phase of the Court's opinion lies in this: while past cases do indeed establish that there is a constitutional "right to travel" between States free from unreasonable governmental interference, today's decision is the first to hold that such movement is also protected against private interference, and, depending on the constitutional source of the right, I think it either unwise or impermissible so to read the Constitution.
Preliminarily, nothing in the Constitution expressly secures the right to travel. In contrast, the Articles of Confederation provided in Art. IV:
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States . . . shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States, and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively. . . [p764]
This right to "free ingress and regress" was eliminated from the draft of the Constitution without discussion even though the main objective of the Convention was to create a stronger union. It has been assumed that the clause was dropped because it was so obviously an essential part of our federal structure that it was necessarily subsumed under more general clauses of the Constitution. See United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281, 294. I propose to examine the several asserted constitutional bases for the right to travel, and the scope of its protection in relation to each source.
I
Because of the close proximity of the right of ingress and regress to the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Articles of Confederation, it has long been declared that the right is a privilege and immunity of national citizenship under the Constitution. In the influential opinion of Mr. Justice Washington on circuit, Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash.C.C. 371 (1825), the court addressed itself to the question -- "what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states?" Id. at 380. Corfield was concerned with a New Jersey statute restricting to state citizens the right to rake for oysters, a statute which the court upheld. In analyzing the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution, Art. IV, ? 2, the court stated that it confined "these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental," and listed among them
The right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise. . . .
Id. at 380-381.
The dictum in Corfield was given general approval in the first opinion of this Court to deal directly with the right of free movement, Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, [p765] which struck down a Nevada statute taxing persons leaving the State. It is first noteworthy that, in his concurring opinion, Mr. Justice Clifford asserted that he would hold the statute void exclusively on commerce grounds, for he was clear "that the State legislature cannot impose any such burden upon commerce among the several States." 6 Wall. at 49. The majority opinion of Mr. Justice Miller, however, eschewed reliance on the Commerce Clause and the Import-Export Clause and looked rather to the nature of the federal union:
The people of these United States constitute one nation. . . . This government has necessarily a capital established by law. . . . That government has a right to call to this point any or all of its citizens to aid in its service. . . . The government, also, has its offices of secondary importance in all other parts of the country. On the sea-coasts and on the rivers, it has its ports of entry. In the interior, it has its land offices, its revenue offices, and its sub-treasuries. In all these, it demands the services of its citizens, and is entitled to bring them to those points from all quarters of the nation, and no power can exist in a State to obstruct this right that would not enable it to defeat the purposes for which the government was established.
6 Wall. at 43-44. Accompanying this need of the Federal Government, the Court found a correlative right of the citizen to move unimpeded throughout the land:
He has the right to come to the seat of government to assert any claim he may have upon that government, or to transact any business he may have with it. To seek its protection, to share its offices, to engage in administering its functions. He has a right to free access to its sea-ports, through which all the operations of foreign trade and commerce are [p766] conducted, to the sub-treasuries, the land offices, the revenue offices, and the courts of justice in the several States, and this right is in its nature independent of the will of any State over whose soil he must pass in the exercise of it.
6 Wall. at 44. The focus of that opinion, very clearly, was thus on impediments by the States on free movement by citizens. This is emphasized subsequently when Mr. Justice Miller asserts that this approach is "neither novel nor unsupported by authority," because it is, fundamentally, a question of the exercise of a State's taxing power to obstruct the functions of the Federal Government:
[T]he right of the States in this mode to impede or embarrass the constitutional operations of that government, or the rights which its citizens hold under it, has been uniformly denied.
6 Wall. at 44-45.
Later cases, alluding to privileges and immunities, have in dicta included the right to free movement. See Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 180; Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78.
Although the right to travel thus has respectable precedent to support its status as a privilege and immunity of national citizenship, it is important to note that those cases all dealt with the right of travel simply as affected by oppressive state action. Only one prior case in this Court, United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281, was argued precisely in terms of a right to free movement, as against interference by private individuals. There, the Government alleged a conspiracy under the predecessor of ? 241 against the perpetrators of the notorious Bisbee Deportations. [n2] The case was argued straightforwardly in terms of whether the right to free ingress and [p767] egress, admitted by both parties to be a right of national citizenship, was constitutionally guaranteed against private conspiracies. The Brief for the Defendants in Error, whose counsel was Charles Evans Hughes, later Chief Justice of the United States, gives as one of its main points:
So far as there is a right pertaining to Federal citizenship to have free ingress or egress with respect to the several States, the right is essentially one of protection against the action of the States themselves and of those acting under their authority.
Brief, at p. i. The Court, with one dissent, accepted this interpretation of the right of unrestricted interstate movement, observing that Crandall v. Nevada, supra, was inapplicable because, inter alia, it dealt with state action. 254 U.S. at 299. More recent cases discussing or applying the right to interstate travel have always been in the context of oppressive state action. See, e.g., Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, and other cases discussed infra. [n3]
It is accordingly apparent that the right to unimpeded interstate travel, regarded as a privilege and immunity of national citizenship, was historically seen as a method of breaking down state provincialism, and facilitating the creation of a true federal union. In the one case in which a private conspiracy to obstruct such movement was heretofore presented to this Court, the predecessor of the very statute we apply today was held not to encompass such a right.
II
A second possible constitutional basis for the right to move among the States without interference is the Commerce Clause. When Mr. Justice Washington articulated [p768] the right in Corfield, it was in the context of a state statute impeding economic activity by outsiders, and he cast his statement in economic terms. 4 Wash. C. C., at 380-381. The two concurring Justices in Crandall v. Nevada, supra, rested solely on the commerce argument, indicating again the close connection between freedom of commerce and travel as principles of our federal union. In Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, the Court held squarely that the right to unimpeded movement of persons is guaranteed against oppressive state legislation by the Commerce Clause, and declared unconstitutional a California statute restricting the entry of indigents into that State.
Application of the Commerce Clause to this area has the advantage of supplying a longer tradition of case law and more refined principles of adjudication. States do have rights of taxation and quarantine, see Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. at 184 (concurring opinion), which must be weighed against the general right of free movement, and Commerce Clause adjudication has traditionally been the means of reconciling these interests. Yet this approach to the right to travel, like that found in the privileges and immunities cases, is concerned with the interrelation of state and federal power, not -- with an exception to be dealt with in a moment -- with private interference.
The case of In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, may be thought to raise some doubts as to this proposition. There, the United States sought to enjoin Debs and members of his union from continuing to obstruct -- by means of a strike -- interstate commerce and the passage of the mails. The Court held that Congress and the Executive could certainly act to keep the channels of interstate commerce open, and that a court of equity had no less power to enjoin what amounted to a public nuisance. It might [p769] be argued that to the extent Debs permits the Federal Government to obtain an injunction against the private conspiracy alleged in the present indictment, [n4] the criminal statute should be applicable as well on the ground that the governmental interest in both cases is the same, namely to vindicate the underlying policy of the Commerce Clause. However, ? 241 is not directed toward the vindication of governmental interests; it requires a private right under federal law. No such right can be found in Debs, which stands simply for the proposition that the Commerce Clause gives the Federal Government standing to sue on a basis similar to that of private individuals under nuisance law. The substantive rights of private persons to enjoin such impediments, of course, devolve from state, not federal, law; any seemingly inconsistent discussion in Debs would appear substantially vitiated by Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64.
I cannot find in any of this past case law any solid support for a conclusion that the Commerce Clause embraces a right to be free from private interference. And the Court's opinion here makes no such suggestion.
III
One other possible source for the right to travel should be mentioned. Professor Chafee, in his thoughtful study, "Freedom of Movement," [n5] finds both the privileges and immunities approach and the Commerce Clause approach unsatisfactory. After a thorough review of the history [p770] and cases dealing with the question, he concludes that this "valuable human right," id. at 209, is best seen in due process terms:
Already, in several decisions, the Court has used the Due Process Clause to safeguard the right of the members of any race to reside where they please inside a state, regardless of ordinances and injunctions. Why is not this clause equally available to assure the right to live in any state one desires? And unreasonable restraints by the national government on mobility can be upset by the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment. . . . Thus, the "liberty" of all human beings which cannot be taken away without due process of law includes liberty of speech, press, assembly, religion, and also liberty of movement.
Id. at 192-193.
This due process approach to the right to unimpeded movement has been endorsed by this Court. In Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116"]357 U.S. 116, the Court asserted that "The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment," id. at 125, citing Crandall v. Nevada, supra, and Edwards v. California, supra. It is true that the holding in that case turned essentially on statutory grounds. However, in 357 U.S. 116, the Court asserted that "The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment," id. at 125, citing Crandall v. Nevada, supra, and Edwards v. California, supra. It is true that the holding in that case turned essentially on statutory grounds. However, in Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, the Court, applying this constitutional doctrine, struck down a federal statute forbidding members of Communist organizations to obtain passports. Both the majority and dissenting opinions affirmed the principle that the right to travel is an aspect of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause.
Viewing the right to travel in due process terms, of course, would clearly make it inapplicable to the present case, for due process speaks only to governmental action [p771 ]
IV
This survey of the various bases for rounding the "right to travel" is conclusive only to the extent of showing that there has never been an acknowledged constitutional right to be free from private interference, and that the right in question has traditionally been seen and applied, whatever the constitutional underpinning asserted, only against governmental impediments. The right involved being as nebulous as it is, however, it is necessary to consider it in terms of policy as well as precedent.
As a general proposition, it seems to me very dubious that the Constitution was intended to create certain rights of private individuals as against other private individuals. The Constitutional Convention was called to establish a nation, not to reform the common law. Even the Bill of Rights, designed to protect personal liberties, was directed at rights against governmental authority, not other individuals. It is true that there is a very narrow range of rights against individuals which have been read into the Constitution. In Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, the Court held that implicit in the Constitution is the right of citizens to be free of private interference in federal elections. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, extended this coverage to primaries. Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, applied the predecessor of ? 241 to a conspiracy to injure someone in the custody of a United States marshal; the case has been read as dealing with a privilege and immunity of citizenship, but it would seem to have depended as well on extrapolations from statutory provisions providing for supervision of prisoners. The Court in In re Quarles, 158 U.S. 532, extending Logan, supra, declared that there was a right of federal citizenship to inform federal officials of violations of federal law. See also United [p772] States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552, which announced in dicta a federal right to assemble to petition the Congress for a redress of grievances.
Whatever the validity of these cases on their own terms, they are hardly persuasive authorities for adding to the collection of privileges and immunities the right to be free of private impediments to travel. The cases just discussed are narrow, and are essentially concerned with the vindication of important relationships with the Federal Government voting in federal elections, involvement in federal law enforcement, communicating with the Federal Government. The present case stands on a considerably different footing.
It is arguable that the same considerations which led the Court on numerous occasions to find a right of free movement against oppressive state action now justify a similar result with respect to private impediments. Crandall v. Nevada, supra, spoke of the need to travel to the capital, to serve and consult with the offices of government. A basic reason for the formation of this Nation was to facilitate commercial intercourse; intellectual, cultural, scientific, social, and political interests are likewise served by free movement. Surely these interests can be impeded by private vigilantes as well as by state action. Although this argument is not without force, I do not think it is particularly persuasive. There is a difference in power between States and private groups so great that analogies between the two tend to be misleading. If the State obstructs free intercourse of goods, people, or ideas, the bonds of the union are threatened; if a private group effectively stops such communication, there is, at most, a temporary breakdown of law and order, to be remedied by the exercise of state authority or by appropriate federal legislation.
To decline to find a constitutional right of the nature asserted here does not render the Federal Government [p773] helpless. As to interstate commerce by railroads, federal law already provides remedies for "undue or unreasonable prejudice," 24 Stat. 380, as amended,49 U.S.C. ? 3(1) (1964 ed.), which has been held to apply to racial discrimination. Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816.
A similar statute applies to motor carriers, 49 Stat. 558, as amended, 49 U.S.C. ? 316(d) (1964 ed.), and to air carriers, 72 Stat. 760, 49 U.S.C. ? 1374(b) (1964 ed.). See Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U.S. 454; Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, 229 F.2d 499. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 243, deals with other types of obstructions to interstate commerce. Indeed, under the Court's present holding, it is arguable that any conspiracy to discriminate in public accommodations having the effect of impeding interstate commerce could be reached under ? 241, unaided by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Because Congress has wide authority to legislate in this area, it seems unnecessary -- if prudential grounds are of any relevance, see Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 258-259 (CLARK, J., concurring) -- to strain to find a dubious constitutional right.
V
If I have succeeded in showing anything in this constitutional exercise, it is that, until today, there was no federal right to be free from private interference with interstate transit, and very little reason for creating one. Although the Court has ostensibly only "discovered" this private right in the Constitution and then applied ? 241 mechanically to punish those who conspire to threaten it, it should be recognized that what the Court has in effect done is to use this all-encompassing criminal statute to fashion federal common law crimes, forbidden to the federal judiciary since the 1812 decision in United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32. My Brother DOUGLAS, dissenting in United States v. Classic, supra, [p774] noted well the dangers of the indiscriminate application of the predecessor of ? 241:
It is not enough for us to find in the vague penumbra of a statute some offense about which Congress could have legislated, and then to particularize it as a crime because it is highly offensive.
313 U.S. at 331-332.
I do not gainsay that the immunities and commerce provisions of the Constitution leave the way open for the finding of this "private" constitutional right, since they do not speak solely in terms of governmental action. Nevertheless, I think it wrong to sustain a criminal indictment on such an uncertain ground. To do so subjects ? 241 to serious challenge on the score of vagueness, and serves in effect to place this Court in the position of making criminal law under the name of constitutional interpretation. It is difficult to subdue misgivings about the potentialities of this decision.
I would sustain this aspect of the indictment only on the premise that it sufficiently alleges state interference with interstate travel, and on no other ground.
1. The action of three of the Justices who join the Court's opinion in nonetheless cursorily pronouncing themselves on the far-reaching constitutional questions deliberately not reached in Part II seems to me, to say the very least, extraordinary.
2. For a discussion of the deportations, see The President's Mediation Comm'n, Report on the Bisbee Deportations (November 6, 1917).
3. The Court's reliance on United States v. Moore, 129 F. 630, is misplaced. That case held only that it was not a privilege or immunity to organize labor unions. The reference to "the right to pass from one state to any other" was purely incidental dictum.
4. It is not even clear that an equity court would enjoin a conspiracy of the kind alleged here, for traditionally equity will not enjoin a crime. See Developments in the Law -- Injunctions, 78 Harv.L.Rev. 994, 1013-1018 (1965).
5. In Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787, at 162 (1956).
Cases My Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest
MY RIGHT OF DEFENSE AGAINST
UNLAWFUL ARREST
LAWFUL CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE
"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated:
"Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."
"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. if the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
"Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that 'a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.' There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, 'If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.' That was the `ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.'" (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace." (Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)
Disclaimer: We are just people that get together and exchange information.
We are not a group or organization.
We are not a company or corporation or association.
We sell nothing and we charge nothing.
To cancel your class e-mail click "reply" and type "stop messages".
Thanks. Maybe Lauren might like that Right to Travel case of 1966; to read all of this later... -- Joe
Quote from: keith in RI on December 14, 2007, 07:22 PM NHFT
HAS ANOTHER ONE OF THE BROWNS SUPPORTERS BEEN TAKEN DOWN??
some of you may remember a few days back i posted about a guy that went by the name "old buck" who camped out on the browns property in his camper for about 6 weeks this summer. he informed the marshalls and police he was there but was unarmed and would stay that way. he last posted through his myspace saying that the federal prosecutors had contacted his lawyer to have him come in and speak to them. he asked if they were offering "immunity" they said no the lawyer said no back. jim aka:old buck said he wouldnt speak even with immunity because he didnt do anything wrong! they told his lawyer , who wrote a book that ron paul wrote the forward to, that if he didnt speak to them they are going to do everything they can to indict him. he said so indict me! \
today i try to contact jim through his myspace page and it has been hijacked by the same thugs that hijacked ed and elaines time2makeastand website. it looks identical and the only "friend" is ed and elaines old page now labeled as "showing ed and elaine brown supporters the law" jims old myspace is myspace.com/twostraws see for yourself. he is now unreachable. if anyone has seen or heard from jim please let us know. if he has been arrested we would like to verify his safety.
we do not know if he has been arrested or how long the page has been taken over for but if history is a guide ed and elaines page wasnt hijacked until several days after their arrest.
Keith: What is it with these U.S. Marshals as the "arm of the court", when they say that they only want to talk "wich ya"? Gary still wants to talk "to" me. October and November have gone by, and so has the retaliation time, or has it? I keep on telling him to tell "them", his higher-ups who are really the lower-downs, which positions he ought to take-over as a whistle-blower, of the goons back in Fall 1998 on the "Concord Bomber" case: yeah! I talked/ chit chatted with two of them at my residence one day as they blocked the end of the driveway, and then they wanted me to talk more to the Grand Jury. I said: fine, but was blocked and herded to see the F.B.I. and Mr. Big-Shot "Profiler" who never got his man; a waste of taxpayer $money, the guy ought to get into a different line of work, like when then Gov. John H. Sununu, the father (with his stamp collection on Air Force Two from Washington, D.C. to sell it in New York City) said he'd never hire Michael Cornealius to even run a lemonade stand. Sununu, the son came through in getting me the Federal A.O.C. # to write to about this non-filing to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17, but what did they do with my letter to them? As Clark Gable said in "Gone With The Wind": I don't give a damn! The burden of proof is on them to prove jurisdiction and they don't have it! If they arrested Jim, then the way I see it is far beyond mere stupidity as they might claim in the Four Freedom Keepers, even though I put everyone on notice BEFOREhand, to that of a definite MAL-icious prosecution. This Tom Colantuono is a menace to society. He's the Puppet Master to the Marshal goons as his puppets under his control. There is no check-and-balance between these two needing the appointing authority of the Senate to investigate this crap that smells to high heaven. The stench is like a pile of manure that's been sitting there for years ready to ignite under its own internal corruption. It wouldn't surprise me if Tom Colantuono burst into flames one of these days from what's known as: "Spontaneous Human Combustion", him not needing the slow track to hell, but a graduate of the mis-information super-highway: so full of himself that he explodes into flames.
- - Joe
modification: into flames, websites:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_human_combustion
2. http://www.crystalinks.com/shc.html
3. http://science.howstuffworks.com/shc.htm
4. http://castleofspirits.com/shc.html
5. http://www.csicop.org/si/9611/shc.html
6. http://theshadowlands.net/spon.htm
7. http://anomalyinfo.com/bw_articles/ga00003.shtml