New Hampshire Underground

Quote from: keith in RI on September 29, 2009, 10:41 AM NHFT
i just received this email from the administrators of the federal inmate email system. im on jason's email list.

******Important  Notice****** ....

So Keith: is the charge off a credit card(s) of both the sender and/or receiver, as in by the inmate like a telephone call, but not the outside party, right? ___-cents per e-mail or time on the machine at the F.C.I.?

Here's a copy and paste of The "Terms and Conditions":

"CorrLinks Terms and Conditions of Service

Welcome to CorrLinks. By using this website, you accept the terms of this usage agreement (the Agreement). Please read this Agreement carefully. CorrLinks terms and conditions of service may be changed at any time and the new terms and conditions will be available on the website. Your use of the CorrLinks service shall constitute your explicit agreement with the terms and conditions of this service as modified from time to time. CorrLinks makes no representation or warranties of any kind, either written or implied, as to the services provided. This Agreement has been made in, and will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Iowa. By using CorrLinks services, you consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the state and federal courts in Des Moines, Iowa in all disputes arising out of or relating to this Agreement or CorrLinks services.

Services Provided

The services provided by CorrLinks are per agreements between CorrLinks and Correctional Agencies permitting CorrLinks to provide message delivery services to the institutions. Each correctional agency determines which CorrLinks services are authorized for an institution, group of inmates or even a particular inmate. New services are only added via agreements with correctional agencies.

Services are provided to you as-is. You understand that there may be delays, omissions, interruptions, inaccuracies and/or other problems with the website and services provided. CorrLinks and its affiliates, agents and licensors cannot and do not warrant the merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose of the website or services available. Under no circumstances will CorrLinks or its affiliates, agents or licensors be liable to you or anyone else for any damages arising out of your use of these services, including without limitation, consequential, special, incidental, indirect, punitive, exemplary or other damages of any kind. You agree that the liability of CorrLinks and its affiliates, agents and licensors, if any, arising out of any kind of legal claim arising out of or otherwise relating to the website or services provided by CorrLinks will not exceed the amount you paid, if any, for the use of the services out of which such liability allegedly arises.

Service Fees

Each service is provided for free or a nominal service fee which is specific to each service and each correctional agency. The service fees, if any, are displayed at the time of each transaction and may change with a 30-day advance notice. There are no charges for services provided when communicating with inmates housed in Federal Bureau of Prisons institutions, and your CorrLinks account would not require funding as stated below.

You must fund your CorrLinks account, via a credit card payment, prior to use of the CorrLinks services. A convenience fee is charged by the credit card processing entity at the time of each transaction. All fees are in US Dollars. The fees vary by correctional agency.

Refunds

The CorrLinks service may be canceled once all subscribed inmates are no longer available for communication. Once no inmates are available, the user may request a refund of the remaining balance to the credit card used for the last transaction made on their credit card. The user will be required to confirm the last 4 digits of the credit card used, the last amount transacted and their password. Upon confirmation, the remaining balance, less the aforementioned convenience fee will be refunded to the credit card and the account canceled.

Delivery of Messages

Messages are received by CorrLinks on behalf of the correctional agency responsible for the custody of the particular inmate. CorrLinks is responsible for delivery of messages to the correctional agency; once the message has been delivered to the correctional agency, CorrLinks has successfully completed its obligation. Correctional agencies have published policies governing correspondence that they will deliver to inmates. Messages the correctional agency decides not to deliver to the inmate are not refundable to the sender and no information is available to CorrLinks support staff about specific rejections and reasons.

Delivery of Money

Money sent by the CorrLinks service for delivery to the inmate's account for any purpose may be rejected by the correctional agency with custody over the inmate for a variety of reasons. If the rejection is due to the inmate's release from custody or due to institution rejection, the money sent will be refunded to the sender less the convenience fee. Once funds are delivered to the correctional agency and accepted, no refunds can be processed.

Delivery of Packages

Packages or goods requested via the CorrLinks service for delivery to the inmate account for any purpose may be rejected by the correctional agency with custody over the inmate for a variety of reasons. Once the goods are ordered for delivery, no refunds are available. A delivery cancellation button is available until the order is processed.

Passwords and Account Access

To obtain access to services you will be given an opportunity to register with CorrLinks. You agree that the information you supply during that registration process will be accurate and complete and that you will not register under the name of, nor attempt to enter the service under the name of, another person. You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your account information, including your password, and for all activity that occurs under your account. You agree to notify CorrLinks immediately of any unauthorized use of your account or password, or any other breach of security. You may be held liable for losses incurred by CorrLinks or any other user of CorrLinks due to someone else using your password or customer account. You may not use anyone else's password or customer account at any time. You may not attempt to gain unauthorized access to the site. You are not authorized to use any automatic device, program, algorithm, system or manual process to access, acquire, copy, scan, probe, test or monitor any portion of the CorrLinks services, or in any way reproduce or circumvent the navigational structure or presentation of the site through any means not purposely made available through the site.

CorrLinks retains the right to terminate your access to the site and its services at any time, for any reason. If we terminate your account, a refund of any remaining balance will be provided.

Monitoring

CorrLinks service staff may access content on the service, including any messages sent or received via the service. All information and content about messages sent and received using CorrLinks are accessible for review and/or download by staff at the correctional agency or their assignees responsible for the particular inmate. By using CorrLinks services you are at least eighteen years old, and expressly agree to the monitoring and review of all messages sent and received via this service by CorrLinks staff, and the applicable correctional agency and its staff, contractors, and agents.

[LAST CHANGED: Aug 25, 2009]"

Keith: I just registered here at Corrlinks and put in Danny's # 14528-052 for the Inmate # or Identification Code, but that there is a zero so I guess he has got to send me a new invitation, since hotmail was NOT OK under the old system but is now OK? or does he just send me an e-mail from his side? Then it appears in my hotmail inbox to click into this account to read and reply? -- Joe

P.S. Thanks for keeping in contact with Jason, and I presume Jose +/or Donna are in e-mail contact with Reno? From what I read a few days ago in an e-mail from Jose I think it was, that Reno would like to coordinate their appeal with us in contact with all of them, but inmate-to-inmate by relay from us forbidden? and so to keep it our own words? Or can we at least quote of what they do send with a ? question mark, or comment to relay to the other for HOW or WHAT to do in helping them with their appeal...

...like I'd really like to know at what page #__ of the transcript is that "side-bar" huddle of the judge and attorneys when Sven tried to enter that Art. 49 Petition copy that Reno signed into evidence to be marked as an exhibit for the jury to weigh in reaching their verdict, for which the judge REFUSED, and it as item #__ of the appeal in ALL three appeals? or are these 3 separate appeals?  I presume that Sven for Danny used this, plus Reno's new appellate attorney, but what about Jason's attorney(s)? ...

...re: of when Reno was asked by Kinsella of if he did anything to try to resolve this issue peacefully, and he said: no, as in the direct, but should have said: yes, as in the in-direct in that he signed AND gave back that petition to me (at Ed's in Plainfield IN the house that day), an uncalled witness, who would have said, and can at a re-trial, in that YES- I did deliver the June 20, 2007 signed Petition to the governor's receptionist on the very next day of June 21st, 2007 @ exactly 4:29 o'clock p.m. thinking that his (John H. Lynch's) office closed at 4:30, but really closes at 5:00 p.m. the State House doors all closed and locked EXCEPT for the front door.

Quote from: JosephSHaas on September 28, 2009, 04:38 PM NHFT

Quote from: JosephSHaas on September 28, 2009, 10:34 AM NHFT
jzacker:  ...
cc also: to the applicant for this position of Private Attorney General.

Update: ...
A House Bill signed by Shea-Porter ...

Thanks, Joe.

What exactly are you looking for?

Mike"

Here's a copy and paste of Mike's reply, plus my reply to that reply:

"
RE: 18USC3232 (no graphics) Private Attorney General.?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Tue 9/29/09 11:30 AM
To:    mike.brown at mail.house.gov; Dick Marple (armlaw at hotmail.com)
Cc:    olga.clough at mail.house.gov; Rep. David Russell (russells at metrocast.net)
Bcc:    _____________________________________________

Thanks Mike, and I understand what you've written as per that Qui Tam action for a Private Attorney General, as the term applies, as I have read this information before, but thought it ought to be funneled out to include more territory such as you say these court-appointed attorneys are to zealously represent their clients but that they do so ONLY on substance but not on procedure, as in what is the defendant's right as guaranteed by the 5th + 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution to BOTH substantive and procedural due process of law.

The attorneys in the Ed & Elaine Brown case, plus those for 3 of 4 of the co-conspirators: Dan Riley, Jason Gerhard and Cirino Gonzalez (Bob Wolffe plead guilty), IF they/ these attorneys had been "legal" too as you wrote, would NOT have accepted those paychecks from U.S. Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey R. Howard (our former N.H. Attorney General) from the First Circuit in Boston, at his 4th floor branch office at The Warren B. Rudman Building at 53 Pleasant Street, in Concord, N.H. BECAUSE to transport these inmate/defendants across state lines from N.H. to Maine was illegal!  Against Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 3232 as NONE of them waived this right! to have ALL (100% of) proceedings happen in the "district" of where the crime occurred, NOT the "circuit"!! for the benefit of the witnesses too, including: me: as an uncalled witness, my rights having been stolen too!! Although Assistant U.S. Attorney Arnold Huftallen did TRY to get Reno (Cirino Gonzalez) to sign such a written offer to waive, he REFUSED! but that the hearing in Portland, Maine before Judge George Z. Singal occurred anyway!

So when you write that of who does the paying of these checks as making no difference, I dis-agree with you "very" much!, and so would you take your "opinion" and the facts here of my suggestion to your boss, and my Federal Rep. Carol Shea-Porter to do something about this, like to at least start a bill to be drafted by Legislative Services to hold the Public Hearings, so that #__ others in #___ other states where this problem might have occurred to, be corrected first by her finally signing my written complaint to the sub-committee of the House Judiciary Committee, that they say they never got in the mail, but that I did give to Olga and Rep. Hodes, plus Sen. Judd Gregg, to easily re-copy and submit by you in person please, so that these illegal payments can be returned to Judge Howard under orders to collect by this sub-committee's recommendation that the Order go out by the Chairman of this Committee!

Thank you, -- Joe

Subject: RE: (no graphics) Private Attorney General.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:24:13 -0400
From: mike.brown at mail.house.gov
To: josephshaas at hotmail.com; armlaw at hotmail.com
CC: Olga.Clough at mail.house.gov

Joe,

This makes no sense.  Court appointed attorneys are chosen by the Court, hence the moniker, from a list of qualified attorneys in private practice who apply to be court-appointed attorneys on a case-by-case basis.  They are paid by the government.  Regardless of who is paying their fee, court appointed attorneys are ethically and legally required to zealously represent their client to the best of their abilities.  To be considered for appointment as a court-appointed attorney, an attorney must apply with the court for appointment and demonstrate their qualifications.  Because different attorneys have different experience levels and skills, the court keeps separate lists of attorneys to ensure that the attorney they appoint is qualified to handle the case to which they have been appointed.  The judiciary is the best manager of this process.  They are the ones who identify those defendants who needs assistance and have the most familiarity with the skills of the attorneys that practice before it.  The judiciary is also a neutral arbitrator.  Having an outside body make these appointments who result in unnecessary complication, bureaucratic delay, and potential bias.

There are thousands of court appointed attorneys currently defending indigent clients across the country.   Subjecting these attorneys to the Constitutional Advise and Consent process through which Cabinet appointees are reviewed by the Senate would be both impractical and impossible.

As I explained to Mr. Marple, a "private attorney general" is a term given to an individual who sues on behalf of the public good and, upon prevailing, is entitled to collect attorneys fees.  This is different from most cases where a prevailing party in a civil action cannot collect attorneys fees unless they suing on a contract that explicitly allows them to do so.  There is no process through which a private attorney general is appointed because there is no single "private attorney general."  There is no office, no responsibility and no appointment.  It is merely a term of art.  Accordingly, a "private attorney general" would not be able to bark any orders including those you request.

I hope this addresses your concerns and clarifies any misperception.

Mike "

Quote from: JosephSHaas on September 29, 2009, 12:07 PM NHFT
Keith: I just registered here at Corrlinks and put in Danny's # 14528-052 for the Inmate # or Identification Code, but that there is a zero so I guess he has got to send me a new invitation, since hotmail was NOT OK under the old system but is now OK? or does he just send me an e-mail from his side? Then it appears in my hotmail inbox to click into this account to read and reply? -- Joe

P.S. Thanks for keeping in contact with Jason, and I presume Jose +/or Donna are in e-mail contact with Reno? From what I read a few days ago in an e-mail from Jose I think it was, that Reno would like to coordinate their appeal with us in contact with all of them, but inmate-to-inmate by relay from us forbidden? and so to keep it our own words? Or can we at least quote of what they do send with a ? question mark, or comment to relay to the other for HOW or WHAT to do in helping them with their appeal...

...like I'd really like to know at what page #__ of the transcript is that "side-bar" huddle of the judge and attorneys when Sven tried to enter that Art. 49 Petition copy that Reno signed into evidence to be marked as an exhibit for the jury to weigh in reaching their verdict, for which the judge REFUSED, and it as item #__ of the appeal in ALL three appeals? or are these 3 separate appeals?  I presume that Sven for Danny used this, plus Reno's new appellate attorney, but what about Jason's attorney(s)? ...

...re: of when Reno was asked by Kinsella of if he did anything to try to resolve this issue peacefully, and he said: no, as in the direct, but should have said: yes, as in the in-direct in that he signed AND gave back that petition to me (at Ed's in Plainfield IN the house that day), an uncalled witness, who would have said, and can at a re-trial, in that YES- I did deliver the June 20, 2007 signed Petition to the governor's receptionist on the very next day of June 21st, 2007 @ exactly 4:29 o'clock p.m. thinking that his (John H. Lynch's) office closed at 4:30, but really closes at 5:00 p.m. the State House doors all closed and locked EXCEPT for the front door.

joe the system is stand alone i think. technically the inmates will no longer be allowed to email. i guess technically it could be called "corrlinking"? you will have to create an account, first you need to wait for a request from the inmate to your regular email account (you cant create an account before then it says and the system doesnt go online until october 5th i think) then in order to send messages to the inmate you will need to log in to your corrlinks account and send and receive through them. the messages will not go to your email. after the initial request email you will not use your email again. you will log into corrlinks to send and receive. they promise only to deliver the messages to the facility, after that its up to the individual facility to determine when or if the inmates get them.  there is no charge for the corrlinks system to and from inmates in the BOP. this system is also used for county and other federal inmate lockups, so some of THEM charge for its use. the BOP however is stating that they are not charging for this service. corrlinks says it is up to the controlling entity whether or not there is a charge.

i have only 2 transcripts. several pages from when sven told the judge he was falling asleep at the table and jason sent me his 89 page transcript from his sentencing this week. i havent read the whole thing yet though.

Quote from: keith in RI on September 29, 2009, 12:39 PM NHFT

Quote from: JosephSHaas on September 29, 2009, 12:07 PM NHFT
Keith: I just registered ....

joe ... first you need to wait for a request from the inmate to your regular email account ...

i have only 2 transcripts. several pages from when sven told the judge he was falling asleep at the table and jason sent me his 89 page transcript from his sentencing this week. i havent read the whole thing yet though.

O.K. Thanks, Hopefully Billy is reading this for Danny to send me another e-mail since they would not accept hotmail, but yahoo, and I was too lazy to set up another account, or should I now to get included under and into this system as a prior? I think it would be a lot easier that if Danny really would like to communicate with me by e-mail as he desires, then to have him send me a new e-mail for to be into this new system either before or AFTER October 5th is OK right?

Quote from: JosephSHaas on September 29, 2009, 12:14 PM NHFT

Quote from: JosephSHaas on September 28, 2009, 04:38 PM NHFT

Quote from: JosephSHaas on September 28, 2009, 10:34 AM NHFT
jzacker:  ...
cc also: to the applicant for this position of Private Attorney General.

Update: ...
A House Bill signed by Shea-Porter ...

Thanks, Joe.

What exactly are you looking for?

Mike"

Here's a copy and paste of Mike's reply, plus my reply to that reply:

" ...."

Mike's "Swan Song": the landlord Congress canNOT spank the tenant court! or in other words: because the child is superior to the parent.

"
RE: 18USC3232 (no graphics) Private Attorney General.?
From:    Brown, Mike (mike.brown at mail.house.gov)
Sent:    Tue 9/29/09 2:28 PM
To:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com); Dick Marple (armlaw at hotmail.com)
Cc:    Clough, Olga (Olga.Clough at mail.house.gov)

While I understand your concern, the approach you recommend is an unwieldy solution in search of a problem.  There are adequate means to appeal venue at the district court and appellate levels.  Obviously, I do not know enough about the case or the trial strategy to comment on whether venue was appropriate or whether the Browns have a justifiable complaint.  I do know that such complaints are heard by the courts rather than the Congress and that questions about a judge's decision is not grounds for impeachment.

Did the parties complain about the venue or accept it?  Have they appealed their conviction on a claim of improper venue?  Are they dissatisfied with their counsel?  Have they claimed that they were inadequately represented by counsel?  As a non-party, regardless of whether you were an uncalled witness, you have no cognizable rights that have been violated and, thus, no grounds on which to appeal the decision other than an academic interest.  Your academic interest does not provide adequate justification for rewriting the statute and changing the ways in which court-appointed attorneys are appointed or creating an unspecified, indeterminate, superfluous federal "Private Attorney General."

We have been over this a couple of times and, while I appreciate your position, it is time to move on.  Speaking of which, tomorrow is my last day as Chief of Staff for Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter.  Naomi Andrews will be replacing me.  Her e-mail is Naomi.Andrews at mail.house.gov.  She can be reached by phone at 202-225-5456.

I have enjoyed communicating with both of you (actually, with all three of you – Joe, Dick, and Olga) and wish you all the best of the luck in the future.

Mike "

Public Hearing on The House Bill of Address against: Edwin W. Kelly set for January ____, 2010 @ __:__ o'clock a.m./p.m. in Room #____ LOB, Concord, NH

Since there are actually three (3) bills against him, any one of which can be expanded upon with an amendment against him "and" others, such as I've described below, that since my e-mails never make it past this staff member of the Congresswoman for her to deal with in sub-committee, Committee and the full House, then this might wake her up WHEN she finds out that Mike took off with "her" papers:

"Petition of Joseph S. Haas
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Thu 9/24/09 2:08 PM
To:    itsenh at comcast.net
TO: The Honorable Senate and House of Representatives in General Court Convened

FROM: Joseph S. Haas
P.O. Box 3842
Concord, N.H. 03302
JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com
603: 848-6059 (cell phone)

DATE: Thursday, September 24th, 2009

SUBJECT: Judicial Branch, District, Superior and Supreme

Whereas, the New Hampshire Bill of Rights at Article 8, Part First of the New Hampshire Constitution provides that "All power residing originally in, and derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them.  Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive;" and

Whereas, the New Hampshire Bill of Rights at Article 35, Part First of the New Hampshire Constitution provides that "It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice.  It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as impartial as the lot of humanity will admit.  It is therefore not only the best policy, but for the security of the rights of the people, that the judges of the supreme judicial court should hold their offices so long as they behave well;" and

Whereas, the New Hampshire Bill of Rights at Article 37, Part First of the New Hampshire Constitution provides that "In the government of this state, the three essential powers thereof, to wit, the legislative, executive, and judicial, ought to be kept as separate from, and independent of, each other, as the nature of a free government will admit, or as is consistent with that claim of connection that binds the whole fabric of the constitution in one indissoluble bond of union and amity;" and

Whereas, the judicial branch has used its authority under Article 35 to interpret the separation of powers under Article 37 to insulate itself from accountability to the sovereign people in derogation of Article 8; and

Whereas, this general abuse of authority by the judicial branch has resulted in particular oppression and violation of the constitutional and statutory rights of your Petitioner, and consequent harm to he and his friends, by the Concord District Court Criminal Division for which, by reason of collusion, conflict of interest, insularity and indifference, there is no practical means of correction within the judicial branch; and

Whereas, the New Hampshire Bill of Rights at Article 32, Part First of the New Hampshire Constitution provides that "The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble and consult upon the common good, give instructions to their representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by way of petition or remonstrance, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer;" and

Whereas, the New Hampshire Bill of Rights at Article 31, Part First of the New Hampshire Constitution provides that "The legislature shall assemble for the redress of public grievances and for making such laws as the public good may require;"

Now, Therefore, your Petitioner, Joseph S. Haas, hereinafter presents the particulars of his grievance against the judicial branch, Concord District Court, Criminal Division; Administrative Judge Edwin W. Kelly, and others, invokes the constitutional authority and duty of the Honorable General Court pursuant to said Articles 31 and 32 to bring about their redress:

1. Judge Edwin W. Kelly did this Spring 2009 both by official oppression and tampering with public records, to wit: by instructing his Clerk to return the Petitioner's criminal complaints against The U.S. Marshal and his  Deputy U.S. Marshal for issuing a bad check and simple assault respectfully to the Petitioner, who has the right to file a private criminal complaint per the Rita Premo case in Vol. ___ N.H. Reports _____ (2002), but that Judge Kelly did REFUSE to process citing in his written letter to the Petitioner for his reason being of the sole dissenting opinion of Judge Joseph P. Nadeau in that case. [ Kelly BTW the attorney for the Petitioner's former tenant when the Petitioner was a landlord in Ashland back in the 1980s dealing with a Town Tax Sale with proceedings related thereto in the Plymouth District Court.]

2. Reference is made to the Petitioner's Case #2009-13 with the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims, yet to have a hearing on the merits, that was filed there back on October 15, 2008 against the governor for his dereliction of Article 51 - Part 2 duty to enforce all legislative mandates as by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 upon the federal government, by a start of to merely send them an invitation to file with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State, which failure of the governor to act he "shall be responsible for" by Article 41 - Part 2.  The "them" being like the GSA landlord of The General Services Administration, of which one of their tenants over there at the Warren B. Rudman Building at 53 Pleasant Street, here in Concord, N.H. is this Art. III, Section 1 "inferior Court" of Congress per the United States Constitution.

3.  See also the very last sentence of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights at Article 12, Part First of the New Hampshire Constitution that provides that of: "Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent."

4. On June 14, 1883 we did offer the feds our Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 "Consent" by RSA Ch. 123:1 but that as spelled out in Title 40 U.S. Code Section 255, an offer is not an acceptance and so no consent.  Our "conditional" consent or offer of consent was based upon their accepting that our Article 7 - N.H. power to tax their lands shall be exempt by RSA Ch. 123:2, but not their buildings, and especially when the "CONFIDENCE" placed therein the federal government by us for taxation by the feds be NOT of to destroy either the liberty of the producer or that of a forfeiture of the land +/or buildings of where that income did arise, but that the feds in the Ed Brown case chose to lien outside the Writ of Elegit process (of to take up to half or a "moiety" amount of the apples, but not the tree) from which this power to lien is for a debt, of which a tax is not so ripened thereto until so decided by due process of law: that being an Article 20 trial by jury in N.H. And of HOW taxed, as spelled out in Article 95-N.H. of state collectors of the federal tax FOR the Feds to receive from us, and so NOT of BY them, and because for the simple reason that there is no enforcement clause in the 16th Amendment as there are in the surrounding ones. The phrase of "to lay and collect" having the meaning of either to apply or impose, as in to request or levy. Thus the feds declining our offer, and so their FAILure to comply with the law of both the U.S. and state Constitutions, plus both state and federal statutes too! be a demerit against them citing any superior powers, as spelled out in the McCulloch v. Maryland case,  in the U.S. Supreme Court, in 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) REPORTS 316-437, Marshall, Chief @ page 431 (1819) for this CONFIDENCE word typed in all capital letters, in that of when to destruction there be an abuse, and an abandonment or to have them banished from carrying it any further! their taxation to destruction! This McCulloch case, as cited in U.S. v. Boyd, 378 U.S. 39-51 @ 44 (1964), from 84 C.J.S. Taxation 242 of pages 312-314 @ p. 313, footnote #2.

5.  The effect of all of this is spelled out in the Adams case.  See: ""In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."

6. All of this possibly prevented IF there had been "complete" justice by Art. 14- N.H. within the N.H. system at both the Superior and Supreme Court levels too!! There being both Judge Jean K. (Mrs. Peter Hoe) Burling in Grafton County, and Judge Kathleen McGuire in Merrimack County in the Brown and Haas civil cases against the Feds there respectfully both judges allowing the Fed defendants to have their cases pushed up for "Removal" to the federal court by some U.S. Code, but that as indicated above, this be in violation of their RSA Ch. 92:2 oaths of office to Article 84- N.H. too, and so to look into their doings too, plus that of Strafford County Superior Court Judge, and former Assistant Attorney General of N.H., Stephen Horan who did NOT give co-defendant Dan Riley in the Ed Brown case a hearing on his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, thus being another violation of Art. 20 for "complete"ness, as appealed to the N.H. Supreme Court in case #2007-0745 and to where the feds appeared as intervenors who were allowed to "pull" the case for "Removal" to the federal court system where it got buried, and even against the U.S. Code where only the defendant, or Superintendent Warren Dowailiby of the Dover Jail can "push" it to there, but again: NO authority of the U.S. Code supposed to be controllable over us in either a civil or criminal case, and so the then N.H. Supreme Court judges on that case in the wrong too!

Wherefore, your Petitioner prays that the General Court:

A. Accept the within Petition for Redress of Grievance for enrollment and by vote of the General Court appoint a committee to hold public hearings and examine into the circumstances hereof; and following such hearings and examination, recommend to the full General Court that it:

B. Insert a line item in the judicial branch appropriation for the next biennium (since the appropriations are already done for 2009-10, and so for 2011) a figure sufficient to reimburse your Petitioner for his time and expenses incurred in and his financial losses resulting from all of this as explained above and the case of State v. Haas in the Lebanon District Court for which over $500 was extracted toward a future superior court fine if any as there being yet that Art. III, Section 2, Clause 3 jury trial by the U.S. Constitution in this "Wise up or Die" CRIMINAL Class B misdemeanor fine-only case of the charge of: criminal threatening, that be NOT the verdict when given a "choice".

C. Initiate address proceedings against: District Court Judge: Edwin W. Kelly, Superior Court Judges: Jean K. Burling, Kathleen McGuire, and Stephen Houran; plus N.H. Supreme Court Judges: Broderick, Dalianis, Galway, Hicks, and Duggan who were in on the 2007-0745 case.

Respectfully Submitted:

Thursday, September 24th, 2009 _______________________________

Joseph S. Haas "

Elaine just got served with a $1.2 million lawsuit today (Tue., Sept. 29th '09), and so now to offset that with the $5 million insurance policies for each of Strafford and Merrimack Counties respectfully, so x 2 = $10 million (like what Grafton County pays over $100,000 per year for said coverage), please see the copy and paste to follow...

Here's a copy and paste of my e-mail:

"To enforce the N.H. law against the Feds!
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 9/30/09 1:06 AM
To:    Concord Police Dept. (police at onconcord.com); pcavanaugh at onconcord.com; jhoward at onconcord.com; shilliard at merrimacksheriff.net
Cc:    a.colarusso at ci.dover.nh.us; s.myers at dover.nh.gov; County Strafford (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us); isb at dos.nh.gov
To: The Chief of Police
35 Green Street
Concord, N.H. 03301
603: 225-8600
http://www.ci.concord.nh.us/

RE: RSA Ch. 91-A Claim & Article 8 Instruction.

Dear Chief:

--Last night (Tue., Sept. 29th) I did receive a copy of The "OATH" that you as the appointee from The City Council and your employees take as Patrolmen that reads as follows:

"OATH   I, ____________ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter and will enforce all federal and State Laws and Ordinances of the City of Concord to the best of my ability.    So Help Me God"

--Now, in accordance with RSA Ch. 91-A of The Right to Know statute, would you please tell me WHO wrote this up, and when, plus do you still use this wording?

--Particular attention is directed to that part of that you "will enforce ALL FEDERAL and State LAWS" with emphasis ADDed for "all federal...laws" that I find disturbing, since by Article 12, last sentence of the N.H. Bill of Rights at http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html "Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent."

--This is to put you on notice that an offer was made on June 14, 1883 by RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm to the Feds, but that is was a "conditional" offer of consent with the understanding in RSA Ch. 123:2
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm that we would exercise our Article 7-N.H. power to tax both the land and buildings of the Feds, and did give the Feds an exemption of ONLY the land but NOT the buildings! for which they did REFUSE our offer as there has been no 40USC255 consent, see:

--an offer not accepted gives them NO JURISDICTION! according to 40USC255 http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 They even spell it out in their U.S. Attorney Manual #664 at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm and get this of even worse than this civil case of us inhabitants here in N.H. being THE victims of these federal "outlaws" in the criminal realm also: See: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm of: ""In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."

--Thus leading onto my Article 8-N.H. instruction to you to Art. 12 protect "inhabitant" Elaine-Alice Brown who is planned to enter your jurisdiction within the next one, two or three days toward her sentencing on Friday, October 2nd, 2009 @ 9:00 o'clock a.m. in The Warren B. Rudman Building at 53 Pleasant Street, in Concord, N.H. To protect her from further harm of illegal custody of in federal control, as such U.S. Codes canNOT be controllable over her, because the Feds have FAILed to file their paperwork as required by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1.  Check it out.  Give Bill Gardner, the N.H. Secretary of State a call, and he or Karen Ladd there with the "Joe Haas file" will tell you that the Feds are in default!

--A copy of this e-mail likewise on the printout and copy with signing by me to deliver to both you and the Merrimack County Sheriff and Commissioners later today to have dual "protection" please, plus to The N.H. State Police too getting a cc: of this and the Dover Police Chief and Administration there too for where she is presenting incarcerated at The Strafford County Jail illegally and unlawfully there too to likewise "protect" her from further harm, lest you all be sued, and so a copy of this to the administration dept. of your city too, plus that of The Government Center behind TARGET on the Heights to alert the Insurance Company for where you have your policy, both City and County for Dover/Strafford and Concord/Merrimack respectfully.

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - -  Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone), e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com "

RE:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090930/FRONTPAGE/909300302&template=single

entitled: "A man's car is his mobile castle, and is to be "protect"ed."

of: "Question: When the COPs took away his car keys (ignition and trunk) was that before or after they made sure that he could sleep it off in his un-locked car? [ re: paragraph #9: "(Dick) Scott took (Carl) Statchen's car keys and the beer in his car".

Comment: re: paragraph #3: " Accusations and lawsuits - or even fear of a lawsuit - aren't taken lightly, they said." The they = " Concord attorney Charles Bauer, ...and police Chief Robert Barry". See: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9135 and Reply #9146 (my reply #2285) of 11:15 PM last night on page 610 there for this "fear of a lawsuit" if "they" FAIL by REFUSAL to Article 12 "protect"! 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTu9HaHDI0A&feature=related "

Quote from: JosephSHaas on September 30, 2009, 12:15 AM NHFT
Here's a copy and paste of my e-mail:

"To enforce the N.H. law against the Feds!
....

Here's a reply from one of the City Councilors, being the Deputy Mayor, and of my reply back to him and the others:

"
RE: (City Councilors + Attorney) To enforce the N.H. law against the Feds!?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 9/30/09 12:49 PM
To:    d.trefethen at dover.nh.gov; citycouncil-all at dover.nh.gov; c.bessette at ci.dover.nh.us; m.joyal at dover.nh.gov; a.colarusso at ci.dover.nh.us; a.krans at ci.dover.nh.us
Bcc:    ____________________________________

Thank you for your acknowledgment of having received this, and as I've tried to tell you about this on three different days in June and July of this year and at the same times of just after 7:00 o'clock p.m. for when you invite all residents and business owners to be allowed to talk during the Public Comment section for up to five (5) minutes each, of when your City Council does meet every other Wednesday (tonight too?) , but got voted down on a 5 to 4 vote against, the facts don't lie, but as they say: liars figure.

As a beneficiary of a trust that owns stock in Exxon/Mobil with two Mobil service stations in your city, I think it is my right to talk as not an owner, but with a beneficial interest in that all those in your city pay what they are not exempted from, and that includes the $47,000+ per year your Tax Collector ought to be getting from the United States Post Office since by RSA Ch. 123:2 their land is exempt for our Art. 7-N.H. power to tax, but NOT their building. Thus I'd be getting more as a dividend since the expenses of these two gas stations will have been reduced by such an amount spread over the entire tax payer base. And no matter what percentage of even if infinitesimal it's the principle that counts, and not this political B.S. of we get so much federal funding, we ought not to buck the feds.  Such mentality is like what Sam Adams warned us against, that if you love wealth more than you do liberty, then get down on your knees and lick the hand that feeds you!  See also Art. 95 of the N.H. Constitution.

To see to it that your Tax Assessor list the P.O. for the next billing, but if not, then to charge him with RSA Ch. 643:1 Official Oppression. A copy of my e-mail to Concord City Solicitor to forward to you in a few minutes showing that by a U.S. Supreme Court case, that when taxation is to destruction (of life, LIBERTY or property), there is an abuse of power, and that those who wield same as to be in banishment of their "CONFIDENCE" spelled out in ALL Capital letters.

Furthermore I do have a Sixth (6th) Amendment P.O.A./ Power of Attorney to fight for my friends Ed & Elaine Brown, who ARE residents of your city, and so although not a direct resident in having a space there of either a residential or business concern, I do have rights that need to be honored by each of your RSA Ch. 42:1 oaths of office, as likewise spelled out in RSA Ch. 92:2 over to the wording in Article 84 - N.H. Constitution, Part the Second.

So would you and the other officials please see to it that your city employees do their job of to Art. 12 "protect" my friends Ed & Elaine Brown, or you all will be sued in County Court for a trial by jury; plus BTW, what is the $amount of your Insurance Policy for a pay-out of errors and omissions? with what company? and how much do you pay for a premium per year?  I've been told that for Grafton County it's $100,000+/year for $5 million coverage.

Yours truly, - Joe Haas

From: D.Trefethen at dover.nh.gov
To: josephshaas at hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:22:25 -0400
Subject: RE: (City Councilors + Attorney) To enforce the N.H. law against the Feds!

Oh yeah, we all got it. Since you are not a Dover resident, why do you think you
deserve a response to your original email which is an obvious, pointless
idealogue statement?


Dean Trefethen
Deputy Mayor/City Councilor – Ward 4
City of Dover, NH
288 Central Avenue
Dover, NH  03820-4169
e: d.trefethen at dover.nh.gov
p: 603.742.4740

Dover: First in New Hampshire, First with you!

http://www.dover.nh.gov "

Quote from: JosephSHaas on September 30, 2009, 12:18 PM NHFT

Quote from: JosephSHaas on September 30, 2009, 12:15 AM NHFT
Here's a copy and paste of my e-mail:

"To enforce the N.H. law against the Feds!
....

Here's a reply from one of the City Councilors, being the Deputy Mayor, and of my reply back to him and the others: ....

Plus here's another one to them:

"
FW: (City Councilors + Attorney) To enforce the N.H. law against the Feds!?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 9/30/09 12:11 PM
To:    c.bessette at ci.dover.nh.us; citycouncil-all at dover.nh.gov; m.joyal at dover.nh.gov; s.myers at dover.nh.gov; a.colarusso at ci.dover.nh.us; copinierio at co.strafford.nh.us; jsheing at co.strafford.nh.us; dlegere@ at co.strafford.nh.us
Cc:    Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us); pcavanaugh at onconcord.com; Concord Police Dept. (police at onconcord.com); shilliard at merrimacksheriff.net; katbeep at aol.com; jdcolcorde at merrimackcounty.net; isb at dos.nh.gov
Bcc:    ____________________________________
To: Colleen Bessette, Executive Assistant, Dover, N.H.

Thank you for taking my telephone call of a few minutes ago this morning directing me to speak with Attorney Krans giving him a heads-up, as they say, of to read my e-mail to him, to please acknowledge and do what's right, like maybe to call Warren Dowaliby, the Superintendent of the Jail that he release this "inhabitant" over there in your city being held unlawfully and illegally against her will, and that if he, the Super. would like a 2nd opinion from some judge before he (and/or his bosses on The Board of Three County Commissioners) makes that executive decision, then so be it of to physically take Elaine's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus across the road to the Strafford County Superior Court to file as Equity case #2009-E-___ so as to have one of those Art. 14 "prompt" hearings, like maybe tomorrow morning or afternoon of BEFORE your City would then have to "protect" in a more aggressive manner of to physically stop this federal transport! [on Friday morning?]

On Monday I did mail to her the photocopies of those pages out of the book entitled: McNamara's "Criminal Practice and Procedure" but that of from the latest edition at the State Library in Concord that does NOT have the fill-in-the-blank form that I used back in the 1980s to get out of jail using such form within three days of by the over-rule of Rbt. E. K. Morrill, the Grafton County Superior Court judge in North Haverhill, N.H. against Judge Edwin W. Kelly of the Plymouth District Court who was my tenant's attorney. The State Library Reference woman there finding that North Carolina form in the West Law book that somehow other state inmates do amend and use as a general form in all states. Elaine supposedly has that as of Sunday night and will be filling it out for processing today, that ought to go the speedy route for you to assert this "protection" in a "prompt" manner.

I've been told that Ed and Elaine Brown meet every Wednesday and Friday to organize their strategy on what to do on their case of against these federal invaders who are technically trespassers upon city, county and state soil here withOUT their paperwork having to be on file with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State getting a copy of this too.

An easy solution would be for the County Jail to ask WHOever it is from the Feds for their operating papers to see if they have been filed per the mandatory word "shall" that is a must requirement by RSA Ch. 123:1, and if not, then to DENY the Feds the "control" over this Article 12 "inhabitant" and assist Elaine with the filing of her paperwork with the County Court to offset this federal corruption!

Failing this of the Merrimack County Sheriff to be on-the-lookout for this illegal and unlawful transport into his jurisdiction and that of The City of Concord as the final destination attempt of the Feds for that Friday, October 2nd @ 9:00 o'clock a.m. sentencing day and time.  To halt these Feds maybe with help from the N.H. State Police.

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

[cc]: to the Mayor Scott Meyers and City Council of Dover; The City Manager, J. Michael Joyal, Jr., 288 Central Avenie, Dover, N.H. 03820, 516-6023; Dover Police Chief, and since Jean L. Miccolo is "Out of Office" from Thu., Sept. 24th to until tomorrow, for Strafford County (like to get a copy of this over to each of the three Commissioners on The Board, and The Sheriff Warren Estes, plus County Attorney Tom Velardi) then to the three others of: Corrine, Jill and Diane who she did mention to me in her automatic e-mail reply;

cc: To those in Concord too, being: Paul Cavanaugh, The City Solicitor; Concord Police Chief, Robert Barry; plus Merrimack County Sheriff Scott Hilliard; Merrimack County Attorney; and the Chairman Commissioner J. D. Colcord of Warner. Plus The N.H. State Police under the Department of Safety.
"

An interesting quote on today's headline #1 of 3 at the http://www.hotmail.com main page for: "Posted  Sunday, September 27, 2009 10:59 AM
Don't Bail Out Newspapers--Let Them Die and Get Out of the Way
Daniel Lyons"

at: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/techtonicshifts/archive/2009/09/27/don-t-bail-out-newspapers-let-them-die-and-get-out-of-the-way.aspx?GT1=43002

of: "It's hilarious to hear these folks puff themselves up with talk about being the  Fourth Estate, performing some valuable public service for readers—when in fact the real customer has always been the advertiser, not the reader."

Here's my latest e-mail to the Dover Crappers:

The sh*t there is piling up fast! It's like the toilet is clogged by this delay.  8)


"Receipt Please (Assessor of knowledge) & RSA 91-A FW: Delivery Status Notification (Delay)?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Thu 10/01/09 9:28 AM
To:    d.lynch at dover.nh.us
Cc:    citycouncil-all at dover.nh.gov; c.bessette at ci.dover.nh.us; m.joyal at dover.nh.gov; a.colarusso at ci.dover.nh.us; a.krans at ci.dover.nh.us
Bcc:  _______________________________________________________
   
Attachments:    2 attachments | Download all attachments (34.4 KB)
   ATT00001 (0.3 KB), FW (To bi...mht (34.1 KB)

So did you receive this?  An acknowledgment please, because I cannot charge somebody criminally for NOT doing their job as for RSA Ch. 643:1 "Official Oppression"* (to be fined up to $1000 for a Class B fine-only misdemeanor, no jail time, although you might deserve it, since your FAILure to do so, reflects that the Feds in your jurisdiction are legally exempt from paying the building share of the property tax when they are NOT!) unless they have a culpable mental state of KNOWing and with a purpose to evade the law of statute RSA Ch. 123:2 **as it applies to your Art. 7 ***power to tax that was only taken away for the land, and that of it a proven fact that there is federal taxation to the destruction of liberty in this state and your First in N.H., first with you slogan is B.S. as far as I'm concerned, you duping the citizens with your lies! Please do what's right and send that tax bill to the Feds for their P.O. there so as to gain an addition $47,000 + per year from them, and I don't care whether they send in more federal funds to your City or not!  If you will look at Art. 95 ****you will find that there are supposed to be state collectors of the federal taxes for the Feds, not by the Feds as yet another check and balance put in their by our N.H. Founding Fathers whose graves, in effect, you trample upon!  Disgusting, thoroughly disgusting!  I hope the strench from there has been removed before my return to your city.  Unfortunately I think not as you will instead allow to be removed the victim of who you are charged with protecting, and so to result in that lawsuit against the city that will increase the insurance premium for your errors and omissions policy with what company? Thus this another RSA Ch. 91-A request for information within five (5) business days please, so as to notify them that if they have not heard from you of these factors to try to mitigate the eventual $damages you will be forced to pay by a jury verdict, that they will hear from me directly. Yours truly, -- Joe Haas - - - - - - - - - -/ Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone); e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/643/643-1.htm

From: postmaster at mail.hotmail.com
To: josephshaas at hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:14:56 -0700
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Delay)

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE.

Delivery to the following recipients has been delayed.

       d.lynch at dover.nh.us

--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: d.lynch at dover.nh.us
Subject: FW: (To bill the Feds) Taxation of Federal Property
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:13:43 -0400

Here's your direct copy from an old e-mail just found again. - Joe Haas

From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: citycouncil-all at dover at ci.dover.nh.us; a.krans at ci.dover.nh.us
Subject: FW: (To bill the Feds) Taxation of Federal Property
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:05:46 -0400

Here's the forward as promised in my last e-mail to you.  Would one of you please direct this over to the Finance Director of Mr. Lynch to see to it that the Assessor do his job. Thank you. -- Joe Haas P.S. First in N.H. , First with You, or will Concord, N.H. be THE first? (;-)

From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: mjache at onconcord.com
CC: pcavanaugh at onconcord.com; sdixon at onconcord.com; concordward4 at gmail.com; jhoward@onconcord.com; elections at sos.state.nh.us
Subject: RE: (To bill the Feds) Taxation of Federal Property
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:52:41 -0400

Summary: To City Manager Thomas J. Aspell, Jr., Would you PLEASE send a tax bill to the Feds for their buildings over there at 53-55 Pleasant Street....

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091001/OPINION/910010314

entitled: "Easter Seals: Go to hell!"

of: "You're right that the employers look into the criminal background checks of those who want to work for them.

Case in point of me going for a swim at a lake in a N.H. Park a few years ago, and an older retired couple there telling me that with so much time on my hands from having only a part-time job during 2nd shift that instead of enjoying the fresh air and sunshine plus crystal clear waters during the day that I ought to visit Easter Seals in Manchester and sign up to be a volunteer or paid driver for the invalid, and they were at that time even looking for somebody to be paid $50.00 a day with free room, no board for staying with somebody in need and driving them on errands.

Well you know what? I did apply, as I was staying in a rooming house with just a toilet and sink at the time in Concord of only $5.00 per day rent, having to go over to the YMCA to take my showers, as a member there too for where they used to have rooms I've been told back in the 1960s, but that "Easter Seals" did a criminal background check and found out that my sheet was an arm-length long, BUT for WHY?  I told them that it was for tax protesting this and that against government agents only (NO criminal dealings with ANY private party or parties), but that they get so much federal funding for this and that is I guess WHY they would rather keep Uncle Sam happy than to allow one who asserts his First Amendment rights of Free Speech!

To that mentality to this day is why I do not donate any money as I had in the past as a landlord to The "Easter Seals".  As far as they go, they can go to hell, as far as I'm concerned!

JSH

P.S. Yes I was up-front with my employer with all my past dealings of crimes for violations and misdemeanors only, (no felonies) plus a few contempt of courts OVER the 10-day limit that was and still is against the law! Articles 22+23, N.H. Constitution, to compare to the Art. 72-a supposed co-equal branch of the judiciary that be as arrogant as hell! but my employer hired me for my "convictions" not of as defined as per being convicted per-se by a jury, but of what I stood for and still stand by, and that former A.G. Stephen E. Merrill, then counsel for Gov. John E. Sununu even wrote to my Dad in Maine of to say: sorry about the non-pardon application of your son NOT going to even an Art. 14 hearing, as he was sentenced (by judge) but not convicted (by jury) for contempt, and so cannot pardon him, that BTW I found a case-law that over-rode this Merrill statement against the 13th Amendment BTW but that when I re-applied to Audrey Blodget's office in the A.G. Building the N.H. State Police conveniently "lost" my file! I was NOT looking for an annulment to "hide" this, but a pardon for the State to say that they are sorry that the judiciary broke the law! A current House Bill of Address on this filed last Friday @ 3:59 o'clock p.m. of just one minute before the 4:00 p.m. deadline for 2010 Legislation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTu9HaHDI0A&feature=related "

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091001/FRONTPAGE/910010361&template=single

entitled: "The ass, the liar and the lazy."

of: "Bass is an ass;  Hodes is a Satanic bastard! And Horn is namby-pamby.

How many times did Bass ever file a Bill of Impeachment?  Answer: None!

Charlie would hold his "Town Meeting" forums in the basement of The Concord Library, and he'd take your thoughts, be they verbal +/or in writing, but that before he left the building they'd be crunched up and in the waste-paper basket.  He was there to protect the brother-hood of the Bar Association that gave him the $money to run for to protect their buddies on the bench.

The same crap goes for Attorney Hodes: his office worker there on the 4th floor calls over to the federal court for an answer by Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch that some Rule 72.5 allows a deviation from 18USC3232 so that inmate/defendants do NOT have to waive their rights to have ALL proceedings occur withIN the "district" of where the crime occurred.

Unfortunately that Rule # given by Lynch to Jane Pauley deals with CIVIL cases, but NOT for CRIMINAL cases!  Even the Assistant U.S. Attorney Arnold Hiftalen tried to get Cirino Gonzalez to waive his right in writing, but the he refused!  And so what happened next? All the court-appointed attorneys drove over to Portland, Maine anyway and got fat checks from First Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey R. Howard (our former N.H. A.G.) on the 4th floor of the Rudman Building that still has not complied with N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 for their operating papers!

This I've reported to both Hodes and Shea-Porter to impeach these thieves of the public funds, but that the Democrats do nothing! But don't get me wrong; Iike SOME Democrats, like former State Rep. Roland Hemon of Dover R.I.P. who had the guts to impeach that crooked judge over there in Strafford County Probate Court who turned his mother from a part-time seasonal resident with license plates from Maine, into a permanent resident, and allowed John MacIntosh, the N.H. Bar lobbyist to suck the estate dry with billings of: 1st and "final" accounting of $10,000 and then a 2nd and "final" accounting of another $10,000 etc. to a 10th and "final" accounting!  "THEM" using the George Orwell dictionary of "1984" of final doesn't mean what it is defined at in the regular dictionary.

I told this federal corruption to Jennifer Horn too, after I met her with her card table over at the Warner Fall Festival, and did she even get back to me?  No, her campaign worker called to, in effect, say: that he wanted her to remain milk-toast http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/milktoast namby-pamby, wishy-washy, as in the biblical of a "lukewarm" fence sitter.

So there you have it folks: an ass, a liar who takes the lie to his office worker hook-line-and-sinker, and the wishy-washy of wanna-be Congresswoman but without the convictions of to do what the job description is of to obey the U.S. Constitution, including that "Consent" clause in 1-8-17 in that an offer of consent by NH RSA Ch. 123:1 is of the type of a conditional consent, because if not accepted by 40USC255 it does not exist: NO jurisdiction! So to Art. 7-N.H. bill them now for their buildings, as only the RSA 123:2 land is exempt!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTu9HaHDI0A&feature=related "

Quote from: JosephSHaas on September 30, 2009, 12:23 PM NHFT

Quote from: JosephSHaas on September 30, 2009, 12:18 PM NHFT

Quote from: JosephSHaas on September 30, 2009, 12:15 AM NHFT
Here's a copy and paste of my e-mail:

"To enforce the N.H. law against the Feds!
....

Here's a reply from one of the City Councilors, being the Deputy Mayor, and of my reply back to him and the others: ....

Plus here's another one to them: ....

Signed copies of these e-mail print-outs were delivered by me yesterday afternoon to which I did mark as "Certificate of Service" and sent to E&E:

1. a A.G.
    b. Gov. (Brittany)
    c. City Solicitor
    d. City C.O.P.
_______________ at about 3:30 p.m.

2. a County Sheriff  (at exactly 3:41 p.m.)
   b. County Attorney
   c. County Commissioners [ getting info of: $____ policy from PRIMEX (Melinda)]

3. Dept. of Safety/ Commissioner 4:10 p.m. Nancy Cassidy

                                             signed:              - - Joe Haas - -

Quote from: JosephSHaas on September 30, 2009, 12:15 AM NHFT
Here's a copy and paste of my e-mail:

"To enforce the N.H. law against the Feds! ...

"OATH   I, ____________ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter and will enforce all federal and State Laws and Ordinances of the City of Concord to the best of my ability.    So Help Me God" ....

Yup, In the old days at per my drop off there of this yesterday afternoon at about 3:30 p.m. I'd of had my answer by the close of business that day of 1.5 hr. later at 5:00 p.m. that so and so wrote this up, like what? from some book and page as supplied to him or her or them from the PS&T (Police Standards & Training) over on Fort Eddy Road in Concord, and an answer of: yes or no, they do still use this "OATH", but if not, as for the latter, then like: here's an updated copy, with maybe some explanation that: because you brought this issue up to us earlier this year when you wanted to file an assault charge against a Deputy U.S. Marshal over there, we told you that we have no state/city jurisdiction for state crimes committed on federal soil, but have since learned by the details in the Dan Riley case #2007-0745 at the N.H. Supreme Court of that Pease A.F.B. case in Portsmouth, N.H. that such excuse we told you was NOT the case, as we do have jurisdiction, and...

...here's what I also told Ms. Carrie Dutell, the Chief's Assistant at from about my 11:39 a.m. call into the main # 226-3100 hearing that recording over to her until 11:46 a.m.for seven (7) minutes total is that I'd like for the police to re-read these lines #8+9 of 10 in the OATH of to enforce all federal laws, to get it right that such is NOT supposed to be the case of these federal statutes or any U.S. Code to be over my friends: the Browns of Dover, and so would they please be the law-enforcement for this Article 12 - last sentence protection by putting up a road block on City Property on the sidewalk to this federal driveway into the Cleveland Block to HALT the unlawful transport of these Art. 12 "inhabitants" under some U.S. Code since the offer we gave the Feds in RSA Ch. 123:1 was not 40USC255 accepted by them, and so them not supposed to be in a receiving mode of accepting people over there, but have first got to present that RSA 123:1 paperwork to our N.H. Secretary of State, and when finally billed by the City Assessor, to pay us the building tax since by RSA 123:2 only the land is exempt from our Art. 7 taxation.

A copy of this over to those in authority in Dover to see to it that these federal leaches do not suck out Elaine as an Art. 12 "inhabitant" today or tomorrow on her way to that 9:00 a.m. appointment on Friday, October 2nd, tomorrow, which Art. III, Sec. 1 tenant court of Congress is OUT-OF-ORDER, me having alerted all four of our Congressional Delegation of this, to likewise call again to say that they too WILL be added into any lawsuit for damages from a rogue tenant court of theirs that is the real "outlaw" to have to pay for damages that they were supposed to prevent as per their oath too to Art. 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution!

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 01, 2009, 11:09 AM NHFT

Quote from: JosephSHaas on September 30, 2009, 12:15 AM NHFT
Here's a copy and paste of my e-mail:

"To enforce the N.H. law against the Feds! ...

"OATH   I, ____________ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter and will enforce all federal and State Laws and Ordinances of the City of Concord to the best of my ability.    So Help Me God" ....

Yup, In the old days at per my drop off there of this yesterday afternoon at about 3:30 p.m. I'd of had my answer by the close of business that day of 1.5 hr. later at 5:00 p.m. ....

Here's another copy and paste:

"Prevent the leaches/ halt the "outlaws".?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Thu 10/01/09 12:29 PM
To:    a.colarusso at ci.dover.nh.us; s.myers at dover.nh.gov; c.bessette at ci.dover.nh.us; citycouncil-all at dover.nh.gov; m.joyal at dover.nh.gov; County Strafford (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us); Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us); G&C Exec. Sec. Joanne Ruell (gcweb at nh.gov); G&C#1 (rburton at nh.gov); G&C#2 (jshea at nh.gov); G&C#3 (bhollingworth at nh.gov); G&C#4 (rwieczorek at nh.gov); G&C#5 (debora.pignatelli at nh.gov); Citizens Service - N.H. (Lynch) (officeofcitizenservi at nh.gov); a.krans at ci.dover.nh.us; olga.clough at mail.house.gov
Cc:    Concord Police Dept. (police at onconcord.com); shilliard at merrimacksheriff.net; pcavanaugh at onconcord.com; katbeep at aol.com; Representative Paul Hodes (nh02ima at mail.house.gov)
Bcc:    __________________________________________________

Dear Dover-ites:

--Your prevention of allowing these federal leaches to suck Elaine Brown out of there today or tomorrow is appreciated; failure of which law-enforcement by you to this Article 12 - N.H. "inhabitant" to be controllable by these U.S. Codes OVER her WILL result in a lawsuit by all those who had the power to do so prevent, and didn't, to be made to pay for this omission of duty by topsy-turvey maneuverings of subordinating our Article 12 right to UNDER these federal statutes that may be called statutes-at-large, but that large part NOT applied to us here in New Hampshire UNTIL the feds do file their RSA Ch. 123:1 paperwork with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State, to where maybe you could call the governor on this to have him Art. 51 send an invitation to the Feds for which he is Art. 41 "responsible for" to meet him on the 2nd floor of the State House.  Thank you in advance for doing what's right, or may you succumb with "The Golden Emerods" up your ass as spelled out for what ought to be your private misery for not doing your public duty!

cc: The Concord-ites "

re: JoephSHaas * Revolutionary * Posts: 2294

Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #9155 on: Today at 10:09 AM »
Quote from: JosephSHaas on September 29, 2009, 11:15 PM NHFT

Update:

1. I did just call Olga in Dover for Shea-Porter who transferred my call over to Naomi Andrews' voice mail http://www.shea-porter.house.gov/ where I did leave a message that they shut down "their" court from sucking in any more Art. 12-N.H. "inhabitants" into there against the law, as their U.S. Codes are not enforceable here per their refusal to 40USC255 accept our RSA Ch. 123:1 conditional offer (and I would have also left a message, but got cut off, in to expect a $2.2 million property tax bill from the City of Concord, since we Art. 7-N.H. exempted their land by RSA Ch. 123:2 but not their buildings, at the $20.00 per $10000 of valuation.)  12:37 p.m.  603: 743-4813 over to 202: 225-5456.

2. It 12:47 p.m. right now to 12:57 = 10 minutes, and so another call to another Dover-ite there of U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, see:  http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Jeanne+Shaheen+Dover+NH&aq=f&aqi=&aq=&aqi=&aq=&aqi=&aq=&aqi=&aq=&aqi=&aq=f&aqi=&oq=Jeanne+Shaheen+Dover+NH&fp=cfa5904f5913bf03  for her at: 1589 Elm St # 3, Manchester, NH 03101-1261; (603) 647-7500, because that is WHERE the not "Chief of Staff", but "State Director" Mr. __________ is (but currently in a meeting), so said Maggie_Leuzarder at shaheen dot senate dot gov getting an e-mail of these five points I told her about of: (1) 1-8-17 U.S. "Consent", (2) NH RSA Ch. 123:1 offer of June 14, 1883, (3) the fed refusal as no 40USC255 consent probably based on that they want the building Art. 7 tax exempt there too, like the land in RSA 123:2, (4) the 1943 Adams U.S. Supreme Court case that says an offer not accepted confers no jurisdiction, and (5) to prevent the sucking out of Elaine, an Art. 12-N.H,  "inhabitant"  by these federal leaches in Dover, or to have the Concord Police put up a roadblock on the sidewalk there to their Art. III, Sec. 1 inferior Court of Congress.  Me telling her to shut down her court from sucking in our inhabitants!  (1:03 p.m. end of my typing this. Adding that she checked the computer of having received a telephone call from me back in July, but that they never got my letter!? by U.S. Postal Service!)

3. It now 1:07 p.m. and so my next call to Hodes' office: http://hodes.house.gov/singlepage.aspx?NewsID=1501 in Concord at 223-9814 now 1:17 p.m. = another 10 minutes speaking with Trevor, as Jane Pauley, the "District Director" is out today, me going over all of the above with him, who should have recorded it, as I doubt that he takes dictation, but who knows? maybe he does, as he said that he will get my message over to his boss, but really?  Of 51% of the message, round up to the nearest whole number?  I told him that this is not something new to him, and that he can get the latest updates right here on the N.H. Underground website and to shut down his court from accepting any more Art. 12 "inhabitant"s who REFUSE to have the U.S. Codes rule over them! And if this is not done by them (of these 4 Congressional Delegates in the N.H. Delegation) on their side of the fence, then to combine with the Dover and Concord public non-servants (plus State Police*) to all be sued for $x in a trial by jury (* State Police to call now before Gregg, as to see what's going on there, or to sue that Commissioner in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims). 1:21 p.m. I feel like Larry Glick of the WBZ-radio of running into this on-going "Moving Wall" like them playing "Musical Chairs".  You'd think that the veterans who fought for these rights would protest this NEW "Moving Wall"!

4. Gregg (skip over to*)

5. The N.H. Dept. of Safety (* State Police), http://www.nh.gov/safety/commissioner/contactus.html 271-2791 (Nancy Cassidy) I did just send them a forward of my 12:29 e-mail at exactly 1:28 p.m. of almost an hour later. 1:30: Nancy not in, so I spoke with Ms. _______ who I told that I had just sent an update to my papers dropped off yesterday, to the isb at dos dot nh dot gov and to wait to hear back from them.

* Gregg, 1:34 p.m. http://gregg.senate.gov/public/ 225-7115 in Concord, 1:37 p.m. a quick 3-minutes talking with Kathy that if Gregg does not do something of to shut down his Art. III, Sec. 1 inferior court of Congress from trampling upon the rights of us Art. 12-N.H. "inhabitants" from being controlled by NO other laws like the U.S. Codes that we as individuals NEVER consented to, nor our legislative body by our offer of consent by RSA Ch. 123:1 as having never been 40USC255 accepted by the Feds that he (and Hodes, plus: Shaheen and Shea-Porter) will be sued for a jury verdict to award $damages to the victims!

Here's the latest on that "federal" laws stuff in the "current" Concord "OATH"s for the police:

"RSA 91-A Request?
From:    Cavanaugh, Paul (PCavanaugh at onconcord.com)
Sent:    Thu 10/01/09 3:17 PM
To:    josephshaas at hotmail.com
Mr. Haas

In answer to your RSA 91-A request please be informed that you currently have a copy of the current police oath and that is all the information that I have been able to discover.  I do not know who originally drafted this oath or when. 

Sincerely,

Paul F. Cavanaugh"

from david elaines son


Sorry to be brief, just leaving NH. Mom got 35 years. The court made it obvious that they wanted to make an example out of her.

I'll be in touch later.

 :(

News stories - http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=35+years+for+Elaine+Brown&articleId=d8e1ed41-d388-47c5-b8c5-db52b9fcc113

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2009/10/02/nh_tax_evader_gets_35_years_in_prison_for_standoff/

Quote from: keith in RI on October 02, 2009, 10:55 AM NHFT
from david elaines son


Sorry to be brief, just leaving NH. Mom got 35 years. The court made it obvious that they wanted to make an example out of her.

I'll be in touch later.

Well they have made an example and they have sent a message
but I don't think it is the one they intended.

Message sent:  be too afraid to resist.

Message received:  they must be fought with every single peaceful means possible.

Quote from: grolled on October 02, 2009, 03:43 PM NHFT
News stories - http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=35+years+for+Elaine+Brown&articleId=d8e1ed41-d388-47c5-b8c5-db52b9fcc113

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2009/10/02/nh_tax_evader_gets_35_years_in_prison_for_standoff/

Thanks grolled; especially that Boston dot com A.P. report citing Singal to say: "Judge George Singal REJECTED Brown's civil disobedience ARGUMENT, saying she was NOT engaged in principled DISSENT to laws she BELIEVED to be UNJUST of: "LET'S not be fooled," he said. "The conduct engaged in by Mrs. Brown was PURELY criminal conduct. It was a THREAT TO KILL WITHOUT A TRIAL, without a hearing." (emphasis ADDed)

Singal, you bastard and thief! if you're reading this, you can and did reject her argument of civil disobedience, but don't say for us in the let us KNOW that this is purely "criminal conduct", because it was NOT! Here in N.H. we have the right AND duty to revolt, by Article 10, and you to dis-allow that Art. 49 Petition into evidence in the co-conspirator case are a smother-er of the truth, a liar!

This "threat to kill without a trial" say what? HOW do you think this country was formed? We petitioned King George numerous times, but that it fell on deaf ears.  What was our solution?  That his soldier's not only get deaf ears but a stopped heart. So yes: deaf ears (or in this case your federal "Removal" by U.S. Code over-ride of our Art. 12-N.H. of the original case Ed did file against the Feds in Grafton County Superior Court) leads to a stopped heart and the entire body goes from the vertical aggressions to the peaceful laying down horizontal in the grave quiet, given the "shaft" in those countries with not enough room, of to bury their dead in the vertical.

A man's home is "his" castle, NOT that of the government.  WHERE did this "threat to kill" take place?  On PRIVATE property! Property never properly liened or seized as by The Writ of Elegit process for a tax is NOT a debt!  Your Court is OUT-OF-ORDER! The end does NOT justify the means.  You are THE sociopath in extreme denial of HOW the game is to be played. Your illegal hearings in Maine (in violation of 18USC3232) are being looked into now by your own Federal Rep. there of Shelly Pingri, your boss of this Art. III, Sec. 1 "inferior Court" of Congress.  She is your superior to you the inferior who has got to play by the rules, lest there be a violation of procedural due process of law, as is supposed to be a guarantee by the 5th + 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution that you have supposedly taken an oath of office to honor, but are in dis-honor, a disgrace to your native country of Italy, and who needs to be impeached! Shame on you and all those withIN the government as the bad apples who paid MY tax money for these illegal travels from N.H. to, at and from Portland, Maine back to this "Live Free of Die" state, that if you do not like our slogan then KEEP OUT!

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/99948/82168 (N.H. Judge Susan Carbon to Obama team)

entitled: "She's an unrepentant witch! lazy, but still gets paid."

of: "Tommy: you want the facts eh? Well, here they are: from a winning victim of her non Article 14 completeness from the bench in the Concord District Court where she sat back in the Fall of 2004 to say that my free speech copy of a computer printout to then Attorney General Kelly Ayotte was RSA Ch. 640:3 "Improper Influence" http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/640/640-3.htm when she knew or should have known that such statute was declared unconstitutional for ten (10) years prior to that, of back to 1994 in the last century, but never taken off the books, but finally amended in 2006 for the effective date of Jan. 1, 2007.  Her violation of her RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office to Art. 84 was dealt with by my appeal of her decision that I be locked up with $25,000 bail to the Merrimack County Superior Court, and with the help of my court-contracted attorney, Ted Barnes of Concord, the case was dismissed. 

This Kelly Ayotte notorious for keeping political prisoners locked up for MORE than what the N.H. Speedy Trial Rule says in this state of to be heard in your day-in-court withIN four (4) months, or set free, and so when I merely quoted Moses saying to Pharaoh of to "let me people go", or maybe to suffer the same consequences to your first-born-child too, she got it in her head that her daughter was possibly to suffer the same fate by a mysterious cloud conjurned up or down by my Art. 5 religious power and so had the Concord C.O.P.s arrest me at work before midnight that night. What a jerk! And now she's running for Congress, and this "lazy" judge to work for Obama!? WHEN, if ever, will I get an apology from her? I think that is deserving from both these witches! Let their lies take then not to the "political graveyard" as it's called for where they eventually go, but be halted and non-confirmed, for Ayotte and Carbon respectfully.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTu9HaHDI0A&feature=related "

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091002/FRONTPAGE/910020342

entitled: "Do NOT mock* God's law! (* Contempt of God Almighty!)"

of: "What has this country become?!

re: paragraph #8: "Once Elaine Brown is sentenced, the couple are likely to be separated for good." And:

"Origin - The injunction is taken from the Bible, Matthew 19:6 (King James Version):

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
                                             
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/405750.html

The British knew this and so sent their criminals to Australia.  Now America, by the Quaker "quality" of no punishment, but prison time, behind bars in the dark like a mushroom, or Navy officer on submarine duty for decades, is somehow "better" in our country!?

I think that there is a religious element to this case of this phrase AND what is THE truth!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTu9HaHDI0A&feature=related "

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091003/FRONTPAGE/910030371&template=single

entitled: "To halt these Wheels of In-Justice!"

of: "Re: paragraph # 17: ""She was his coach," he* said. "She was his supporter. And she may have been his mentor.**"  * = Assistant U.S. Attorney Arnold Huftalen, THE A.H. who KNOWS about no travel to OUTside the "district" of where the crime occurred, as forbidden by 18USC3232 but who did so anyway!

And this judge citing another "mandatory""!? What a hypocrite!

SHAZAM! (;-)   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWfDh7FoxYY for "Billy Batson and his Mentor"** 1:00 minutes, with  13,315 views.

I see that Arny's Army has taken over what Attorney David Bownes of Laconia said to me after the Cirino Gonzalez sentencing of: " Huftalen described Brown as someone who had RUINED other people's lives." (emphasis ADDed for this paragraph #18).  What a crock!  It is these bad apples in the government barrel that have ruined or have turned rotten, and those of us who allow this to happen?: well to you I say: SHAME on you!  We do NOT live in a dictatorship or supposed to have this dulocracy where the servants dominate over their masters! It time for "Dominion" action, with the capital letter "D"! This I do pray and petition in writing this morning that these wheels of injustice come to a halt! and in "God's speed" of His timing. Me just putting in the written request of WHEN left up to Him of WHERE and HOW, like maybe to re-activate the old curse of "The Golden Emerods" to those in their privates for their public mis-and mal-doings! Take that "Hunter Dan"! (;-)

Yours truly, Joe Haas, a "friend" of the Browns since the 1980s when Martin J. "Red" Beckman came to this State running for President of the United States with his books about this I.R.S. Mafia, that Sheriff Richard Mack describes as the U.S. "Gestapo". Re: paragraph #24 of  33: "Few friends attended their trial this summer. " And so Margo, WHY was that?  For me it was that I did REFUSE to set foot on federal turf UNLESS they had first complied with the law: 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution for "Consent" by our offer of N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 on June 14, 1883 that "they" declined***, and so with no 40USC255 acceptance, per the Adams case-law of 1943 from the U.S. Supreme Court, there be NO jurisdiction OVER the Browns but was and is, that I (and Obama, by Executive Pardon?)  find revolting to our Art. 12-N.H..  Hey! Maybe the Court in Boston will "see the truth" WHEN certain things are done by that Federal Rep. in Portland to take back these illegal 18USC3232 expenditures! and I win my case #2009-13 against the governor for his dereliction of Art. 51 duty for which he SHALL be Art. 41 "responsible for"!

*** The Feds declined because they wanted more than just the land exempt from our Art. 7 power to tax, by RSA Ch. 123:2, but also wanted their buildings exempt too; assessed at over $111 million that at $20 per $1000 of valuation, ought to bring in an addition $2.2 million per year to the City of Concord and Merrimack County."

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 03, 2009, 09:31 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091003/FRONTPAGE/910030371&template=single

entitled: "To halt these Wheels of In-Justice!"

of: "Re: paragraph # 17: ""She was his coach," he* said...."

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/100105/82266

entitled: "Maybe Margo will write-up the Federal Rules Hearing?"

of: "Bethany:  Like what in particular, and the worst example plus did Elaine make mention of this in court yesterday?

To me the grossest lie, is that of what is called being a "liar by omission", in to stand silent when there is a duty to talk or write.  The people buying the newspaper but not getting these details of our comments from the on-line version are being robbed of now 75-cents an edition.

The basic lie or laziness that I found to be from the judge himself, Steven J. McAuliffe during DAY 4 on January 17th, 2007 in the original case #06-cr-71-01/02-SM of which I did buy a transcript excerpt thereof in which the judge told the jury: "The courts have held the tax laws of this country to be constitutional, to be valid, and to be enforceable, ...." when he either knew or should have known, that in this very SAME court of the U.S.A. v. Joseph S. Haas (me) in Case #M.83-50-D for Chief Judge Shane Devine, in 1983 that after "Red" Beckman came to town selling his books, that I did buy AND use that legal bullet of a case-law therein mentioned saying that section "(5)" of the Internal Revenue Code against landlords for rents was and still IS unconstitutional, and so now WHO to start an impeachment of this judge to at least result in an out-of-Congress settlement that he revise the docket for a mis-trial for re-trial, AND all subsequent mis-deeds in the co-conspirator case too (to act like depositions as a PART of THE entire case) since his Deputy Clerk REFUSED to take this truth to put into the case because Ed was not there that day this happened, and so there needing to be: just lower than an impeachment, maybe a revision of the Court Rules written by Congress, their next Public Hearing: on _________ __, 2010 (?) @ __:__ o'clock in Washington, D.C. at the ____________ Building to include that if there be an instruction to the jury by the judge when the defendant be in absentia that the void can be filled to some degree by an eye and/or ear witness to such a wrong (whether it be a knowing lie, or surmising that is just not true), can present evidence to the contrary, as I did by Notarized Statement, but like I said: this proof was refused by the Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch on outdated rules! that does NOT make the truth disappear, just that of having the victim/ defendants go into the "system" of the F.C.I.'s to be so-called "correct"ed that I find revolting at MY expense as a federal taxpayer too, as by the indirect, of these taxes taken out at work by my employer. I want my public servants at the federal level to do their jobs, and right! plus completely! as by Article 14 of our N.H. Constitution, because if they are to do business here, they have got to abide by our laws too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTu9HaHDI0A&feature=related "

Quote from: JosephSHaas on August 10, 2008, 11:36 AM NHFT....

Quote from: JosephSHaas on July 15, 2008, 09:21 AM NHFT
Here's a re-type of the letter from: ...

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, ...
DOVER, NH 03820
(603) 743-4813

http://www.shea-porter.house.gov ...

Dear Mr. Haas:

--Thank you for your January 23, 2008 call regarding the arrest of Ed and Elaine Brown, and your subsequent April 7, 2008, June 6, 2008 and July 3, 2008 follow up calls as well as your June 4, 2008 e-mail.  You requested that Congresswoman Shea-Porter contact the General Services Administration (GSA) and request that documentation be filed with the New Hampshire Secretary of State.

--Please understand that although prior to April 1, 1985 the National Archives office was a part of the GSA; on that day they became an independent agency operating as the National and Records Administration (NARA).  GSA offices are unable to address your concerns.  However, records in the legal custody of NARA are open to the public and individuals are encouraged to research matters of interest.  You may visit NARA at their office located at 380 Trapelo Rd., Waltham, Massachusetts, 02452-6399...

--Mr. Haas, there may be one more agency that may possibly have the information you seek; the Congressional Research Service (CRS) who does research for current Members of Congress.

--In order for us to contact them on your behalf we need a written request, listing your specific federally related concerns.  Please direct your correspondence to my attention at the Congresswoman's Dover, New Hampshire office.  Once I receive your letter, I will contact the CRS and provide you with a copy of their response.

Sincerely, Olga Clough, Director of Constituent Services

cc: Mr. Joseph S. Haas, Jr., PO Box 3842, Concord, NH 03302-3842"

JSH

Update: On a random search of prior postings I landed on this page 512 and did an 'Olga" search of my e-mail account at JSH but could not find any follow-up e-mail by me.  Why didn't somebody here remind me of this, or ask if it had been done? Somehow it skipped my mind, maybe for a reason of having later found the answer in 40USC255 * and the 1943 Adams case ** , and so an Open letter here to copy and paste to send to Olga to relay on Monday for an answer.

Dear Olga, After 14 months (from July 2008) you're still looking or have the door open for my e-mail, right?  Well here it is: Would you PLEASE contact the C.R.S. as your boss is a M.O.C. and ask them (him or her: name: __________ title: _________ address: ___________ tel. no. ___________, in the copy or attachment back to you to relay over to me) that he/she/them have found out WHO this N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm federal "officer" is Mr./Ms. ___________, title: ____________ address: ____________ tel. no. __________ who is in charge at the federal level to file these 1-8-17 U.S. Constitutional acceptance of "Consent" documents within each state, per the list over at Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website of:  http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm  from Huntsville, Alabama.

Then to have someBODY for whom our governor will KNOW exactly to who and where to send his Art. 51 Invitation (see also: Art. 41 for which he SHALL be "responsible for" any omission of this duty, in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims, http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm   ) to him or her  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html  to FINALLY file these papers with the N.H. Office of Secretary of State (currently: Bill Gardner) proving that by the Adams case, there was no jurisdictional authority of these U.S. Codes over ANY and ALL of our Art. 12 "inhabitants" here, http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html  and so for the attorneys for my friends Ed & Elaine Brown and the three co-conspirators who went to trial as defendants, the actual victims of a non-reply to our Art. 49 Petition REFUSED to be allowed into evidence for to be marked as an exhibit for the jury to weigh, to file a Motion for Mis-trial.

For the details of the * + ** above, see:

--This is to put you on notice that an offer was made on June 14, 1883 by RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm to the Feds, but that is was a "conditional" offer of consent with the understanding in RSA Ch. 123:2
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm that we would exercise our Article 7-N.H. power to tax both the land and buildings of the Feds, and did give the Feds an exemption of ONLY the land but NOT the buildings! for which they did REFUSE our offer as there has been no 40USC255 consent, see:

--an offer not accepted gives them NO JURISDICTION! according to 40USC255 http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 They even spell it out in their U.S. Attorney Manual #664 at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm and get this of even worse than this civil case of us inhabitants here in N.H. being THE victims of these federal "outlaws" in the criminal realm also: See: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm of: ""In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."

Reference: my letter of Wed., Sept. 30th '09 to the Concord, N.H. Police Chief; the City of Concord sending over a bunch of Fire Engines yesterday (Fri., Oct. 2nd to the Federal Building) but where was this Article 12 protection!? an altert also to the N.H. Dept. of Safety, me having given them a copy too, plus yesterday morning at about 7:00 a.m. I did also visit Troop D on Iron Works Road in Concord, (off the Clinton Street, Exit 2 off I-89 by the Park & Ride) seeing three vehicles there, (2 cruisers) rang both buzzers, waited a few minutes, and then took off because nobody answered for what? A "Wizard of Oz" sign needed of something like: "Bell out of order, please knock" ?

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone), e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

pc: Ed & Elaine Brown, plus Jason Gerhard (by both regular mail and e-mail through Keith C.); cc: Bill Riley (for his brother Dan), and  Jose for his son Cirino Gonzalez, plus Donna.

For all this writing here of to find out WHO from WHO of WHEN they were supposed to do WHAT for the reason WHY already outlined in the law and statute combined for harmony, their extraction therefrom both unconstitutional and illegal, the WHERE being to the S of S office, and how of either in person or by mail, so never mind all this double and triple talk, etc. of Who, What, Where, When, Why and How, for ANYbody and EVERYbody to answer THE question:

WHO is this federal "officer" as indicated in N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1?

Not just "Show Ed the Law" The N.H. statute there, and

THEN to move onto a dance of with the rest of the W's.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

WHO is this federal "officer" as indicated in N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1?

WHO is this federal "officer" as indicated in N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1?

WHO is this federal "officer" as indicated in N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1?

WHO is this federal "officer" as indicated in N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1?

WHO is this federal "officer" as indicated in N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1?


WHO, WHO, WHO, WHO, WHO, WHO? WHO? WHO? WHO? WHO?

The OWL does a "WHO?" This federal "officer" is AWOL, WHO? ____________

Yeah: WHO? ___________________________________

A friend told me years ago that I ought to stop this scatter gun, or shotgun approach, and go the rifle approach, like that sniper in the gilly suit aiming for Ed's head.  Therefore: WHO is this federal "officer"?  I'll call our four congressional delegates morning, noon and night, plus visit their Concord offices of Gregg and Hodes every weekday on my way to work, to ask them: WHO this federal "officer" is UNTIL they give me an answer!

I'll ask it politely the first few days, and then by the middle of the week if no answer, then a knock on the door, so by the end of the week, the knock a little bit louder like a fist pounding on the door rather than just my knuckles, and even bring in my trumpet* to sound off of my arrival! Attention: Joe Haas is approaching and is expecting an answer!

* Mod: or boom box on base.  >:D

Modification in error, today (10/6,Tue.) as the real one is indicated below).

KISS*:  WHO is this federal "officer" as indicated in N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1?

* Keep it Simple Stupid. (You're dealing with federal idiots who cannot comprehend but the simple).

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/100105/82285

entitled: "Next time to employ a "mote of explosives"; and boom box it now"

of: "...like "we" did to that criminal Noriega.  These federal "outlaws" to get same treatment in return!

You're right, in like "the mote of explosives" upon all wild life and federal agents who can't read NO TRESPASSING signs, de-activated for confirmed visitors of FOR the cause, thus eliminating all would-be infiltrators.

Plus you're right as for the rotting in a cell, growing like a mushroom in a dark and damp basement, but not for long, the RSA Ch. 543-B:1-23 State Board of Claims to finally "get it" in my case #2009-013 against the governor to force him to find out WHO that RSA Ch. 123:1 federal "officer" is for to send him an Invitation to file.

So like that sniper aiming for Ed's head, to stop this scatter gun, or shotgun approach of writing of this and that of the Who, What, When, Where, Why and How?, to concentrate on one thing at a time, like to K.I.S.S.:

WHO is this RSA Ch. 123:1 federal "officer"?

I'll be calling and visiting the Congressional delegation of Four here in N.H. by morning, noon and night visits to their offices, mostly in Concord for the latter of Hodes and Gregg to politely ask at the beginning of the week this question, like on Monday, to return in mid-week for an answer, and if I have to return again on Friday, to knock on the door with my knuckles that day, but then if with no answer then, to pound the door with my fist on the following Monday, and still if with no answer, then the next times to announce my visits with a trumpet or boom box on high base! (;-) "

Bullhorn to Feds: WHERE are your papers?  The RSA Ch. 123:1 ones.

Where can I buy one of these? $________

To prepare for when Ed goes to sentencing, or to take down to Fort Devens, MAss. to politely ask the authorities down there of HOW they got him delivered from here in N.H. withOUT the proper documentation!

Then if they don't "voluntarily" seek a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to that ________ County of the Commonwealth, to Bullhorn them too!  >:D WHERE are THE papers?  The New Hampshire papers?

Their answer: Hey! We're MAss.! 

Answer: yeah, you're right, but the end does not justify the means!

Your end is messed up, and so will your ass with "Golden Emerods" if you don't "Wise Up!"  8) [Art. 5 - N.H. Religious Right].

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091004/NEWS01/910040399

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091004/NEWS01/910040399#comment-82389

entitled: "Another ignoramus bites the dust."

of: "False pleads guilty to False? How outrageous!

Did this kid have an attorney?  If so, who? I think he ought to sue his attorney for mal-practice! because:

This Article III, Section 1 "inferior Court" of Congress is operating there illegally and "they" know it.

Who's the "they" you ask?  The landlord of the place of The G.S.A./ General Services Administration (a Mrs. Tarlton in Boston for the entire New England region, AND this tenant court! Plus the State of New Hampshire and it's crime boss: Gov. John H. Lynch.)

On June 21st, 2007 I told Lynch this in a signed Petition that I did drop off with his receptionist at the desk there on the 2nd floor of the State House @ exactly 4:29 p.m. (actually his office doesn't close until 5:00 p.m. weekdays, but that after 4:30 p.m. you've got to go in through the front door), and with no Art. 51 action to enforce*  this "legislative mandate" in RSA Chapter 123:1 for him to easily send a written Invitation to the Feds to have their "officer" (WHOever that is, nobody and I mean NOBODY seems to know or take the blame for not doing their job) of to file their papers with Bill Gardner's Office of the N.H. Secretary of State.

It's a lose-lose situation of that we did offer the Feds an Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 U.S. Constitution "conditional" Consent on June 1, 1883, but that they have yet to 40US255 accept our offer, and so by the Adams case of 1943 in the U.S. Supreme Court they have NO jurisdiction over us, and that we, here in N.H. have it spelled out too, in the very last sentence of our Article 12, N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights.

The reason that the Feds refused was I think because we gave them an Art. 7-N.H. tax exemption for their land, but that they also wanted an exemption for their buildings too, now amounting to $111 million, that at about $20.00 per $1000 of valuation would bring in an additional $2.2 million per year to The City of Concord and Merrimack County.

The City Assessor Kathy Tamcheck is thinking about this, and awaiting a final word from City Solicitor Paul Cavanaugh as to what to do or not do and why. Paul leaning to the Feds as some opinion supposedly overrides our Art. 7 and that "forever" word having been replaced by not an express-ion from us when Congress was in session, but of some words out of a judge's mouth to pen in that other branch BELIEVE IT OR NOT!  To cry "Uncle" Sam we don't want to rock the boat and all YOUR federal funds to US that we should look to HOW the federal taxes were collected in the first place under our Art. 95-N.H. from 1903 to 1913 of when the state supposedly had tax collectors of both the state AND federal taxes NOT by the Feds for the Feds, but by the state for the feds who ought to be fed on an Art. 38-N.H. frugal basis of not what "Uncle Sam" wants, but only "needs" as in what is supposed to be a limited government.  Reference what the attorney for the State Dept. of Revenue told me on last Friday's visit to his office of that of some Bureau of Taxation from 1903 to 1976 before it was changed to the Dept. of Revenue, and my comment that in 1913 was when the 16th Amendment was supposedly enacted, but WHERE be the "enforcement clause" as in the surrounding Amendments?  It isn't there of "to lay and collect" having a dual meaning of to apply or impose, of to request or to levy or collect, and so I choose the more consumer-friendly definition of to request and say: DENIED! (;-) I stay away from George Orwellian "1984" and "Doublespeak" of to collect and collect.

Good luck Mr. Ryder in having already waived your Art. 12 right by individually having accepted their jurisdiction over you."

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091004/NEWS01/910040403

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091004/NEWS01/910040403#comment-82399

entitled: "It's NOT a recession/Depression issue BUT a depreciation issue!"

of: "Picture Sununu with greenbacks bulging out his pants pockets.

You've got to start at the beginning of when these candidates for office "pay" their filing fee.  Will it be "legal tender" notes called Federal Reserve Notes from a private Bank labeled A for the Boston Region of the "System" of promises "to" pay sometime in the future tense, or a check as an "order" to pay, again: sometime in the future tense, or will it be the actual coins?, and of what type?: of from The Coinage Act of 1965 dealing with commerce?, or the constitutional coin? as defined by our own Article 97 - N.H. Constitution as annotated with the Jackson case of to The Coinage Act of 1792 that is still the law.

Unfortunately there can be no audit of the financial as to HOW they supposedly paid, of these candidates, since RSA Chapter 93-A exempts the financial of withIN the government, and so to SEE what they pay or tender and ask them WHY they do so with paper or debased coins and WHAT, if anything, they intend to do about it once elected!  Will they go after the contractors with us or not!? for NOT supplying us with the quality of coin that we deserve!

According to Section 16 of The Federal Reserve Act the Fed is supposed to deposit so much gold bullion per pallet of FRNs delivered to them at their Regional bank, from The U.S. Bureau of Engraving & Printing for a cost of only 6-cents per note x 32 = $1.92 per sheet of ANY and ALL $denominations from the $1.00 to the $100.00 bill.  It is only upon the deposit of the gold bullion with the U.S. Treasury do these notes become "monetized".  And that "they" of our OWN government, upon a FOIA request of the records of this transaction that is supposed to take place, the requester is told: to GET LOST! we're off the gold standard, but that is NOT what I did ask in writing.  The "gold standard" is the redeemability of the notes into gold coins.  Gold Certificates are no longer in use and both I and they KNOW it!  Title 12 U.S. Code Section 411 is the redeemability of these notes into lawful money! of which ALL government offices SHALL keep their accounts in according to Section 20 of the Act of 1913. Thus the $1.00 bill supposed to be exchangable for THE dollar, as a dollar is defined as so many grains of silver.  Check it out as a unit of measurement.  Like gallons: Gallons of what? milk or gasoline?; thus Dollars of what? gold or silver coin?

Therefore "to focus on pocketbook issues" is right!  Not just the wallet or billfold for the men, nor the handbag or purse for the women, but of the "Financial resources"; WHO are these U.S. Treasury agents who are supposed to be accepting this capital or assets for the "available supply that can be drawn upon when needed"? And WHY have they not been fired already for not doing their job?

See also: Chapter 28 Laws of N.H. for 1794 in Vol. 6 at page 156 and Ch. 7 of 1793 @ page 109 for the reason being: "for settling the depreciation of the paper currency"!"

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/100251/82397

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091004/NEWS01/910040399#comment-82405

entitled: "Two wrongs do NOT make a right!"

of: "intoleranttoflint: WHY do you ask? Are you an attorney or THE attorney in this case? or maybe a federalie? or friend of Lynch? Who BTW I've taken to the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims in my case #2009-013 filed last October 15th, 2008 with hearing on Sept. 4th '09 yet to be decided..

Sorry about not putting in the U.S. Constitution in my paragraph #3.

And as you can read in the article paragraphs #1 + 2 of 3 this is a federal issue with (1) him being sent to a "prison" or F.C.I. to be "corrected", from (2) a court that is not true to the law! Thus my paragraph #1 of a false statement in the article paragraph #3 to this false court! as I've explained in paragraph #4 of WHO is responsible for this is the governor by Article 41 of the N.H. Constitution, Part the Second, thank you for pointing this omission out to me.

Plus sorry if you cannot comprehend the interweaving of the state and federal laws and statutes in my paragraphs #5, 6, 7, 8 + 9 of to result in a reprimand of this attorney allowing his client to enter into a lieing court, and so the moral of the story is that: two wrongs do NOT make a right!

So when you ask why this is not relevant, I say to you to look up, or "lift up" the lid over this cover-up of the fact of this federal non-filing, to relieve not only this individual here but many others. The SPECIFIC matter that makes this pertinent is of the NON jurisdictional authority of this court that yes: the individual can over-look as per his waiver of the Art. 12 right, but don't expect me to agree that what he did was correct, as I dis-agree with this two wrongs make a right! If he did the crime as he says then he ought to be sentenced in state court, not federal! or are all transactions in a federal bank on federal soil!?  I think not! The apposite or pertinent fact of the matter at hand, is WHO is this federal "officer" who is supposed to be filing these papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State?, not WHO did WHAT in N.H. and has to explain themselves with an Appearance Form in this federal court; or did he file a "Special Appearance"?, that if not, can be amended as such.

Thank you "very" much for this opportunity to explain this in more detail. (;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTu9HaHDI0A&feature=related "

Here's the latest copy and paste:

"WHO is the N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1 federal "officer"??
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Mon 10/05/09 9:50 AM
To:    maggie_leuzarder at shaheen.senate.gov; olga.clough at mail.house.gov; Representative Paul Hodes (nh02ima at mail.house.gov)
Cc:    Citizens Service - N.H. (Lynch) (officeofcitizenservi at nh.gov); Concord Police Dept. (police at onconcord.com); County Strafford (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us); Foster's Daily Democrat (letters at fosters.com); G&C Exec. Sec. Joanne Ruell (gcweb at nh.gov); G&C#1 (rburton at nh.gov); G&C#2 (jshea at nh.gov); G&C#3 (bhollingworth at nh.gov); G&C#4 (rwieczorek at nh.gov); G&C#5 (debora.pignatelli at nh.gov); Rep. David Russell (russells at metrocast.net); Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us)
Bcc:    _____________________________________________________

To:
1. U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (by e-mail to Maggie in Manchester, N.H.)
2. U.S. Senator Judd Gregg (by drop-off this afternoon to his Concord Office)
3. Federal Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (by e-mail to Olga in Dover, N.H.)
4. Federal Rep. Paul Hodes (by e-mail to Jane in Concord, N.H. )

Question:

WHO is the New Hampshire R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 federal "officer"?

who was and is supposed to have filed the paperwork for the federal buildings at 53-55 Pleasant Street, with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State, since by the U.S. Attorney Manual #664    http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm this includes courthouses! Re: Your Article III, Section 1 "inferior Court" of Congress, according to the United States Constitution.

Answer: _______________________________________

Reference: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm

of:

"  123:1 Ceded to United States. – Jurisdiction is ceded to the United States of America over all lands within this state now or hereafter exclusively owned by the United States, and used as sites for post offices, custom-houses, military air bases, military installations or other public buildings: provided, 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; and, provided, further, that this cession is upon the express condition that the state of New Hampshire shall retain concurrent jurisdiction with the United States in and over all such lands, so far that all civil and criminal process issuing under the authority of this state may be executed on the said lands and in any building now or hereafter erected thereon, in the same way and with the same effect as if this statute had not been enacted; and that exclusive jurisdiction shall revert to and revest in this state whenever the lands shall cease to be the property of the United States. Source. 1883, 1:1. PS 1:1. PL 1:1. RL 1:1. RSA 123:1. 1955, 223:1, eff. June 23, 1955.

Please send the answer to me at: - - - - - - - - -  Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone) e-mail: JosephSHaas@hotmail.com "

Modified today (10/6,Tue.) for The "Concord Monitor" (see below).

RE:  http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/100251/82525

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091004/NEWS01/910040399#comment-82539

from: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091004/NEWS01/910040399

entitled: "Crazy Haas like "Crazy Horse"?"

of: "Glad to be of assistance to the local "critters" as Elle May Clampett would have said on "The Beverly Hillbillies" T.V. series of the 1960s, reference the naming of the Indian by what his mother saw at the time of his birth, see: http://www.crazyhorsememorial.org/ for "Crazy Horse", and so if I'm crazy or in-sane then the "wild" animals be sane? (;-) I guess so, because they are ON the range, and until I get back on mine as taken away by an unlawful Sheriff's Sale, that I'm de-ranged! (;-) Or in other words: those who do NOT play by the rules and are pointed out by me to you as such, you agree with "them" and so are ON the range, but what type of range? One that is red hot with lies, like the fires of hell to where they will go and you too, if you don't "wise up"! So I say to you: jump the hot plate!  Don't be the lukewarm frog that doesn't realize it until it's too late! For your own well being and that of to restore the victims of such hots to the cool mountain breezes where they belong.  So when you look at the bright colors of this Fall Foliage remember the reds, because your burning desire to allow the wrongs to continue will doom you all if you do not amend your ways and that of your servants: our public servants who have taken an oath to obey the law, but are in reality "outlaws".  And "they" want to punish the "outlaws"!?  How insane! or should I say: civil? (;-) If that's civilization, then it's time for me and my friends the Browns to turn Grizzly Adams. To be out of the system our Founding Fathers formed that has gone corrupt and people like you eat the latter up hook, line and sinker.  You're god is your belly sucking this all in. You're a glutton like what "Uncle Sam" has become: wanting this and that at ANY cost, when he and it is supposed to be operating in a frugal manner of what is not wanted, but needed in a limited government.  For you to agree that this individual here of a state citizen be allowed to plead guilty to the feds is disgusting, thoroughly disgusting WHEN you KNOW that such entity over there at Pleasant Street is corrupt, but that you like their rust blowing in the wind, you eat it right up. I bet you go by the front door every day to pray on your knees to the goddess statue there in the front hallway.  Take your mentality away from me until you have done your homework and report back that you have become enlightened to the truth. So ends today's lesson to the "Grasshoppers" who like watching the old King Fu TV shows with David Carradine, but only those parts of where he chops apart his adversaries instead of learning what went wrong to have turned them into the gross beings they are but need not be, to be refined by words of wisdom. Now as Jack Chase used to say on the noontime news in Boston: So long and MAKE it a good day!"

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091006/FRONTPAGE/910060305&template=single

entitled: "COPs trained as revenue agents are worthless, fire them all!"

of: "Re: paragraphs #6 + 7"

"Resident Bruce Johnson... quoted a passage from the state Constitution, which entitled residents to police coverage, he said.

"The town counsel disagrees," Chairman Tom Mullins said. "And, I guess I'd have to say, where did you get your law degree?"

So Trent, to make up for your mis-spelling of they're as their, would you please tell us what number? What Article # in the Constitution was mentioned, if any?

My presumption is that it was and is: Article 12, of Part the First and our Bill of Rights, right? http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html of:

"[Art.] 12. [Protection and Taxation Reciprocal.] Every member of the community has a right to be protected by it, in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property; he is therefore bound to contribute his share in the expense of such protection, and to yield his personal service when necessary.

But no part of a man's property shall be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people.

Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent.*

June 2, 1784"

and especially that first sentence #1 of 3.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* footnote: My favorite is paragraph three, as per my replies here about the Feds! Our RSA Ch. 123:1 offer of conditional consent per 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution that they have refused to 40USC255 accept, and they KNOW it by U.S. Attorney Manual #664 and the Adams case of 1943 in the U.S. Supreme Court, but that we allow them to trespass upon our rights.

Do these town COPs have the SAME RSA Ch. 92:2 and 42:1 oath as Concord does to support the federal laws (of the U.S. Codes or Statutes at Large), when there has been NO Consent!?  Then HOW can the citizens be protected against these federal invaders!? They are worse than some common criminals! They are THE "outlaws" for operating ABOVE the law too.  And you expect your COPs to bend THIS way, so that they can ONLY bend THAT way!? You can't have it ONE way! Either they are law-enforcement officers, or revenue agents, as  the N.H. State Police because in the mid 1960s a third of the force quit! not wanting to become the latter. Check it out, they are now in cahoots with the Feds, and are liable for their errors and omissions in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims to the tune of $250,000 damages per incident.

The County Sheriff's Office is worthless too. I did get an e-mail reply last week from Scott Hilliard, the Sheriff (at his new office at the old County Nursing Home in Boscawen) to the latest federal crap, and he said in effect that he REFUSED to "protect" probably because of the mentality as told to me by that woman COP in Concord who said that who I was talking about to protect is NOT a "resident", but since WHEN was the word "inhabitant" changed to such!?

Oh the mentality of the COPs, get rid of them, arm yourself, and then maybe re-hire when the PS&T (Police Standards & Training) gets back to basics. The 20% tax on criminal fines to them is being wasted."

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/100251/82649 click back to the original page at: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091004/NEWS01/910040399/0/FRONTPAGE

and this exact comment at: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091004/NEWS01/910040399#comment-82735

entitled: "WHO is this RSA Ch. 123:1 federal "officer"?"

of: "Thank you NHJonesy and Montana Mule.  You're both right in my scatter gun or shotgun approach of too much of the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY and HOW.

Thus I've decided to go sniper, or to employ the rifle approach, and give you an example of this right here and now in Reply #9177 over on page 612 for The NHUnderground website: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg309750#msg309750

K.I.S.S. of to Keep It Simple Stupid. Of yes: a federal crime in the WHAT, but of HOW to get it to there for trial or sentencing is that the end does NOT justify the means, in that my ancestors (and Uncle still living from The Korean War) fought for the rights we now have, and that includes "procedural" due process of law too.  Not only the "substantive".  It's supposed to be a guarantee by the 5th + 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.

I'm sorry if I've been a pain for many people here, injecting this HOW into other people's cases, but that since it didn't work by an alert to the judge in my friend's case in the particular, then I had to spread it out like a funnel to capture others' attention, like in an event horizon to a black hole, but with a benevolent being here of to return you to that ONE STEP BEYOND the horizon once you've learned the truth.

So here I do offer a first: a $1000 Reward from me to the first person who can identify this RSA Ch. 123:1 federal "officer".  I mean it, but with the proviso that it be paid out of when my friend, the victim, pays me when he is released from federal custody on like using this info in his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, either at the County or Federal level, and if the latter, then to the sentencing court first by U.S. Code or Federal Rules and THEN "if" denied there, then a Rule 63 collateral attack in another federal jurisdiction that IS in compliance with the law, to tell the creeps here that this Halloween horror show is OVER and OUT!

You'd think that at least one attorney in here reading this would "get it" and open up a "can of worms" or Pandora's Box that would be "litigious heaven" for all them attorneys for years if not decades, or in other words I close by saying: Happy Fishing, you're gonna catch a Whopper! The bigger they are, the harder they fall! Get ready for the earthquake. "

John "I love torture" McCain voted to eliminate Habeas Corpus from the lexicon of the legislature at the federal level.

The county seat is as high as you need to go to see the heights here in the Granite state of affairs.

Otherwise we are currently constructing a waterboard "interview" device that the Chinese invented but failed to patent!

Ha ha. Now we get to see what outsourcing really does to the balance of trade.  >:D

Quote from: Tunga on October 06, 2009, 07:48 PM NHFT
... Habeas Corpus...

The county seat is as high as you need to go to see the heights here in the Granite state of affairs....

Elaine was supposedly given The McNamara Criminal Practice & Procedure papers that I mailed to her and Ed, plus that North Carolina form from West Law that she could have amended to read N.H. and file for free by Article 91-N.H. in the Strafford County Superior Court, (current sitting judge for Oct. +/or Nov. = _______) but even after her calling Marie to remind her by phone, and Bernie there too in person, it was NOT done as she told Bernie who told me that she tried this Habeas stuff in some of the other places she was at, but that it didn't work there, and for good reason as IF to the Feds, you've got to petition the sentencing court first and THEN the federal court where you're located by Rule 63 (as found by Reno - yet to do himself IF he loses the appeal for a mis- or re-trial with THE Art. 49 Petition that Singal refused to mark as an exhibit for the jury) .  Was Elaine told this as the reason WHY those others (that I didn't know about until just the other day) were DENIED? Plus she had a better chance than Danny in the same court because since his case appeal #2007-0745 we've found that 40USC255 and the 1943 Adams case. So now it's up to Ed right away or when he returns from Danvers, MAss. after his 30-day psycho-val.

Bernie told me that when he called over the weekend, the jailers in Dover said that Elaine had left, and to check with the Feds for WHERE to she went, and that Ed was in some other unit there but that he forgot or did not put anybody's name down for a visit, (or if he did, that it got "lost" in the paper shuffle.)

I mailed them each a #10 envelope of computer printouts of The "Concord Monitor" articles with comments about her sentence "looms" and the 35-years on Saturday, for delivery to the jail yesterday (Monday), and hopefully to Ed today (Tuesday); plus another 9x12 -inch envelope to both of them today, not realizing that Elaine had left, or is this a bluff, of really there, but that they lied, or just told that to tell anybody to check with the feds for security reasons as to WHEN she plans to be (future tense) shipped out.  I would have thought that with her Manchester attorney that he would want her around during the 10-day appeal time, but then I guess it's just a notice of appeal, with the details later, like what? that it was not a "public" trial by the 5th Amendment because I was not allowed to attend, as MY requirements are strict: in that I will NOT set foot on federal soil in N.H. withOUT the proof of filing per RSA Ch. 123:1  I'm serious! Having filed a claim with the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims against the governor for NOT enforcing this Art. 51 legislative mandate as he SHALL be "responsible for" by Art. 41 and his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office.  Like would you ride in a chauffeur -driven limo if you knew that the driver did not have the proper operating papers? Same goes with the federal ship of a Capt. Singal as out-of-order too, with those 18USC3232 illegal hearings also. My 2nd claim returned for a new cover-sheet yet to re-file, awaiting word on case #13 first so as not to muddy the waters. WHEN I finally get a judgment against the governor in December, it can be reduced, or vice-versa so as to mitigate the damages in The Dover District Court, (my case #432-2009-SC-00473) and THEN with this info, Ed can use in whatever court he wants to file in. 

Plus BTW I did serve Judd Gregg's receptionist in Concord with that WHO? letter today at about 4:45 o'clock p.m. To ask him and Hodes, plus Shaheen and Shea-Porter maybe on Friday for a Progress Report.

No word yet as to my Case #2009-013 with the State Board of Claims, and so now to add in yet another one against the N.H. Dept. of Safety for their failure to "protect" the "inhabitant" Elaine from these U.S. Codes NOT 1-8-17 U.S. "Consent"ed to by us per Article 12 of our N.H. Bill of Rights.  Shame on you Commissioner, to sue you for at least $5000 (no filing fee needed when $5000 or less, or is there an attorney reading this? who would like to gamble/ invest the $___ filing fee to get a percentage of up to $50,000 or any appeal to the Merrimack County Jury to get $250,000!

The Strafford County Commissioner due to answer my Small Claims Court case there by the Tue., Oct. 20th deadline or be in default.

Also still working to get the City Assessors in Dover and Concord to bill the Feds as by that "forever" word in Article 7-N.H. of the power to tax the buildings as we gave then RSA 123:2 exemption for only the land.

Yours truly, - - Joe

2.      ELAINE BROWN     03924-049      68-White-F      04-30-2012      DANBURY FCI


elaine is currently back at danbury fci in danbury conn.

ed is at fort devens for his psych eval....

6.      EDWARD BROWN     03923-049      67-White-M      05-24-2012      DEVENS FMC

1.      DANIEL RILEY     14528-052      41-White-M      01-22-2039      TERRE HAUTE FCI

1.      JASON GERHARD     20229-045      23-White-M      02-12-2025      FAIRTON FCI

1.      CIRINO GONZALEZ     76342-179      32-White-M      08-31-2014      EL RENO FCI

1.      ROBERT WOLFFE     09879-049      51-White-M      11-16-2009      IN TRANSIT

bob has one month 9 days left on his sentence....

Quote from: keith in RI on October 07, 2009, 05:00 AM NHFT
2.      ELAINE BROWN     03924-049      68-White-F      04-30-2012      DANBURY FCI

elaine is currently back at danbury fci in danbury conn.

ed is at fort devens for his psych eval....

6.      EDWARD BROWN     03923-049      67-White-M      05-24-2012      DEVENS FMC ....

Thanks Keith.

For Ed, I just called 1-978-796-1000 press zero if in regards to an inmate, and the woman said after I gave her the secret code numbers for Ed that he is allowed to get mail (and $money to WHERE for phone calls? - she said to check that out too at bop dot gov), and so the following:

1. http://www.bop.gov/

2. http://www.bop.gov/locations/maps/NER.jsp

3. http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/dev/index.jsp

4. http://www.bop.gov/DataSource/execute/dsFacilityAddressLoc?start=y&facilityCode=dev

INMATE NAME & REGISTER NUMBER
FMC DEVENS
FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER
P.O. BOX 879
AYER, MA  01432     and

Use this address for in-person visits.

FMC DEVENS
FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER
42 PATTON ROAD
AYER, MA 01432
MapQuest® Map and Directions1
Phone:  978-796-1000

I called the woman back and she said to write to the inmate first for a visitation form to send out, then I send back in for him to process, and they get visits on Friday, Saturdays and Sundays anytime from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. for up to #_____ hour(s) each (to find out later). And he can have up to five (5) visitors on his list.

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091008/NEWS01/910080326&template=single

entitled: "A 7-month search!? (Kevin Guay)"

of: "How long did it take the government to examine Ed & Elaine Brown's 110-acre property? How many acres does Mr. Guay own here in Concord?   

Not to forget that "they" raided two other places withOUT a "search warrant".*

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant

Plus see: http://www.fsmlaw.org/kosrae/code/title06/t06p04c43.htm#section_6_4305___time_of_execution_and

for: " Section 6.4306.  Execution and return of warrant." and

"   (2)  Promptly following completion of the search, the person executing a search warrant writes on the warrant a signed statement of action taken pursuant to the warrant, showing the DATE of the search, the person or place searched, and the person to whom he gave a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken or the place where he left the copy and receipt.  He delivers to the Court the warrant, with a written inventory of property taken, and the property seized. "

(emphasis ADDed for THE day, NOT days in the plural, nor weeks, nor months, nor over half a year! So WHERE is the Article 14-N.H. "prompt"ness here!?)  **

** prompt = without delay
delay = postpone
post = after
pone = meal

The judge takes an RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to the N.H. Constitution.  WHEN these warrants are unsealed on Halloween, I think some State Rep ought to get involved to investigate this judge!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTu9HaHDI0A&feature=related "

2.      ELAINE BROWN     03924-049      68-White-F      04-30-2012      IN TRANSIT

elaine is being moved from danbury conn.... unfortunately with the explosives charges she may end up in a max security prison.

bob is in philidelphia. one month left. i think the philidelphia ccm is either a halfway house or an office for the halfway house.

1.      ROBERT WOLFFE     09879-049      51-White-M      11-16-2009      PHILADELPHIA 

http://www.bop.gov/locations/cc/index.jsp

Community corrections is an integral component of the Bureau's correctional programs. Community corrections staff develop and administer contracts for community-based correctional programs and serve as the Bureau's local liaison with the Federal courts, the U.S. Marshals Service, state and local corrections, and a variety of community groups. Through the community corrections program, the Bureau has also developed agreements with state and local governments and contracts with privately-operated facilities for the confinement of Federally adjudicated juveniles and for the detention or secure confinement of some Federal inmates.

The Bureau's community-based programs are administered by staff of the Correctional Programs Division in Central Office (in Washington, DC), community corrections regional management teams in each of the Bureau's six regional offices, and the employees of 28 community corrections management (CCM) field offices serving specific judicial districts within their regions.


The Bureau contracts with residential re-entry centers (RRCs), also known as halfway houses, to provide assistance to inmates who are nearing release. RRCs provide a safe, structured, supervised environment, as well as employment counseling, job placement, financial management assistance, and other programs and services. RRCs help inmates gradually rebuild their ties to the community and facilitate supervising offenders' activities during this readjustment phase. An important component of the RRC program is transitional drug abuse treatment for inmates who have completed residential substance abuse treatment program while confined in a Bureau institution.

To copy this printout and mail:

"Violation of 18 US Code 3232
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Fri 10/09/09 3:30 PM
To:    josephshaas at hotmail.com
Bcc:    ______________________
To: U.S. Senator Susan Collins
One Canal Plaza
Suite 802
Portland, ME 04101
Main: (207) 780-3575

http://collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home&CFID=9262752&CFTOKEN=85216594

Dear Senator Collins:

--Thank you for your phone operator Chuck at the Portland Office to where I did call after I had first called the Washington, D.C. office #202: 224-2523 who gave me that phone number of the woman there who said that all cases start at the state office.

--I told him that there has been a violation of Title 18 of the U.S. Code Section 3232.  I told him my name, and then he gave me his name, and that I was calling from New Hampshire where I live and work, and have been ever since the 1960s, 70s + 80s when I last lived and worked in Maine too, and that this involved an illegal transport across state lines. Of people that is. The real victims of federal aggression! by one of YOUR Art. III, Section 1 "inferior Courts" of Congress. The United States Constitution.

--He said that there is a separation of powers issue, and I said that I got this SAME excuse from an Ann Goodright, Constituent Service Manager for Federal Rep. Chellie Pingree at 207: 774-5019 who hung the phone up on me when I did ask that I receive a DIRECT answer from the Rep. herself RATHER than some road-blocker!

--I've yet to contact U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe, and hope that I do not have to bother the Senior Senator for what the Junior Senator can do.

--Chuck was told that I did question his reply of there being an "issue" that the Senator canNOT get involved with, with my reply of that of WHAT "issue"?  I was NOT talking about THE U.S. Supreme Court that IS the judicial branch that takes original cases, and by appellate procedure from these inferior Courts of Congress, that does have the power to impeach!

--What I'm looking for is a referee to rule on my cry of like a foul ball.  He said that before that can happen they do send a cover letter over to the person I'm complaining against for their answer.

--My question to the judge, George Z. Singal, in this case of the U.S. District Court @ Portland, Maine is: Did you violate 18 USC 3232? Yes or no?  _______  by NOT getting a waiver from the inmates: Ed & Elaine Brown, plus in the co-conspirator case of: Cirino* Gonzalez, Jason Gerhard, and Dan Riley. The Assistant U.S. Attorney Arnold Huftalen even tried to get Reno* to sign such a waiver in writing that was NEVER co-signed.

--As an uncalled witness in this case, I did send the judge a bill for over $500.00 for the waste of my time and gas money in going to, at and from Maine back to N.H. in that ALL (that means, 100%) of the proceedings [for the dual benefit of the defendant AND of ALL the witnesses] SHALL (that means a MUST, as a mandatory requirement) be held in the jurisdictional district of WHERE the crime occurred.  That district IS New Hampshire withIN the First Circuit that includes Maine and Vermont, plus MAss. and Rhode Island as separate districts. Also Puerto Rico.

--So would you please send the cover letter to the judge for him to answer the question above of yes or no, and when he answers or fails to answer, that THEN you investigate the truth of this matter!  Please initiate a complaint in the sub-committee of the House Judiciary Committee (or elsewhere?) is what I've been told is the funding source of to the operating account of these/ your courts, as I've TRIED to get my complaint to there endorsed by ANY and ALL four of my Congressional Delegates here in N.H., but that "they"/ meaning the sub-committee woman who told me this, THEN later said that she never got my complaint in the mail that I DID mail, and that none of the four delegates from N.H. would take their "copy" that I did give to them, that was not really as copy as signed in blue ink by me too as a back-up to file, but that all four delegates are "lazy" or corrupt! as Paul Hodes is a "Brother of the Bar" accepting the lie to his secretary Jane Pauley, in Concord, N.H. from the Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch who told her to tell him to tell me that Rule 72.5 is the exemption, but yes, only in CIVIL cases, NOT criminal!

--I even filed a complaint with the PCC: N.H. Professional Conduct Committee against this N.H. Bar Member Huftalen AND some of the attorneys involved, plus Gerhard did same against his MAss. attorneys to the Bar Overseers down there too, but that nobody wants to repay this money!  Stolen money! My money paid into the "system" by my employer at work, and so am thoroughly disgusted in this waste and fraud that I've alerted to the Federal Fraud Unit too, but that nothing gets done! Liars to oaths to obey THE law, and they have the audacity of to railroad my friends to dis-allow evidence!  How revolting! Art. 10 revolting if you ask me per our Right and DUTY in the N.H. Constitution.

--So to please process this to the next step toward a positive solution to this. Positive to the law, and negative to the law-breakers: the "outlaws" being this judge who was appointed by the N.H. Judge Stephen J. McAuliffe, but who was too lazy to hold ALL proceedings in Maine. A lazy judge who owes us all an apology, his paychecks garnished if he doesn't pay this $money back, and maybe even impeached if with no apology that it will not happen again to other victims!

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone). e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com "

To copy this printout and mail:

"Fort Devens Log Book. (N.H.)
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Fri 10/09/09 4:53 PM
To:    josephshaas at hotmail.com
Cc:    Adjutant (N.H.) General [Kenneth Clark] (sandie.gillander at us.army.mil); Citizens Service - N.H. (Lynch) (officeofcitizenservi at nh.gov); Concord Police Dept. (police at onconcord.com); Donald C. Vittum (dvittum at pstc.state.nh.us); G&C Exec. Sec. Joanne Ruell (gcweb at nh.gov); G&C#1 (rburton at nh.gov); G&C#2 (jshea at nh.gov); G&C#3 (bhollingworth at nh.gov); G&C#4 (rwieczorek at nh.gov); G&C#5 (debora.pignatelli at nh.gov); Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us)
Bcc:    ________________________________________

To: Lt. Spina (the gatekeeper)
Fort Devens
47 Quebec Street
  Building 681, Box 48
Fort Devens, MAss. 01434
Tel. 978: 796-3512

Dear Police Officer Spina:

--This is to follow up my telephone call to you of earlier this afternoon, in which Sandi, the Assistant to the Lieutenant Commander at 978-796-2126 (from the Mass. Development Devens # 978-784-2900) told me that there is only one gate, THE Main Gate into this Fort, and that you are THE man in charge who checks to see that those entering the fort have the proper credentials of the D.O.D. (U.S. Department of Defense) identification numbers as approved by WHOever.

--Thus would you please tell me WHO the transport agents were who did deliver my friend Edward-Lewis: Brown to your establishment.  What were their names, from what source (the U.S. Marshals in MAss. on an over-turn to them by the U.S. Marshals in N.H.?) because although the latter in MAss. might be qualified, the end does NOT justify the means, as you already know, and which my ancestors fought wars for this right of ours in this country! [ My Uncle Bob not an ancestor yet! (;-) from The Korean War] in that we are supposed to have both substantive AND "procedural" due process of law, by the 5th + 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.

--My friend Ed, #03923-049 there to see a doctor for a psycho-val that his N.H. attorney wanted to go to see a doctor in Portsmouth, N.H. who is also an attorney/doctor combination, in that would have been "better" in my opinion, but maybe not, as for an attorney/doctor in MAss. too, but if not, then the reason for my writing to you to please be the equivalent in a check and balance in that Ed is not "mad" as in "insane", but mad he is, and rightly so, as being "angry" at a system that is supposed to have checks and balances is taking too much voltage of corruption before the circuit-breaker triggers a wrong.

--The ultimate wrong in this case of you having accepted an Article 12 - N.H. "inhabitant" who is not supposed to be controllable by any other laws than that of which he agrees to in the individual or group.  And since he does NOT agree personally, then that leaves it up to the latter of our "legislative body" of the N.H. General Court or Legislature that did Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 U.S. Constitution, "offer" a "conditional" Consent on June 14, 1883 to the Feds to operate here, by N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1, but that they REFUSED, or declined to 40USC255 accept for whatever reason(s) being I think, that we only Art. 7-N.H. gave them property tax exemption for their land, but not their buildings, by R.S.A. Ch. 123:2 and that they wanted both.  See the 1943 Adams case in the U.S. Supreme Court that highlights this of it takes two to tango, as they say, and that the dance here be of when the Feds say dance or jump, we're supposed to ask how high?  No! We're supposed to be allowed to present evidence into a court, but instead have this militant action! The word militate to use FORCE as evidence.  We have THE evidence of the federal non-filing of these RSA Ch. 123:1 papers from WHOever that federal "officer" is, who was and is supposed to be filing these papers with the N.H. Office of Secretary of State, which was NOT done here, nor in Florida BTW to the governor's office there, each state having a different set of criteria according to Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website of http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm from Huntsville, Alabama; check it out, plus the following:

"--an offer not accepted gives them NO JURISDICTION! according to 40USC255 http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 They even spell it out in their U.S. Attorney Manual #664 at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm and get this of even worse than this civil case of us inhabitants here in N.H. being THE victims of these federal "outlaws" in the criminal realm also: See: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm of: ""In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."

--So to please get back to me with a photocopy, with redactions of the surrounding entries in your log book if you prefer, to show me WHO signed in when Ed was delivered to there last weekend or earlier this week, as I'd like for you AND me to contact your superior(s) as to what to do about this individual there illegally and unlawfully per both the state and federal statutes and both constitutions of this state and of The United States of America.

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone), e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmaildot com "

To copy this print-out and deliver on Monday:

"RE: Taxation of Federal Property (Dover, N.H.)
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Fri 10/09/09 5:58 PM
To:    d.lynch at dover.nh.gov
Cc:    a.krans at dover.nh.gov; m.joyal at dover.nh.gov; assess at ci.dover.nh.us; assess at dover.nh.gov

Thank you Director Lynch.

Three key words you use are: oversee, should and shall, all strategically placed.

To oversee is to supervise or inspect, but that the word supervise is to both direct AND inspect, so I presume that you mean the former definition of this word of to also direct, as in to manage, but if that were the case, then why have a City "Manager"? Or is he, J. Michael Joyal, Jr. there to be the middleman to "take charge of with authority" as in to control; or "To conduct the affairs of; manage"? The take from the state?, and/or the Chief Assessor", Will Corcoran, getting a copy of this e-mail too.  Does Chief Corcoran send his list of WHO to tax to you directly? or indirectly to you by first sending that list to the State to verify through some process?

And writing of verification, as in "To prove the truth of; substantiate" as in "To support with proof or evidence" where is this case-law you're referring to? THE case law I did read in CJS was that this power to tax is the power to destroy, as in the creator (state) always has the power over its creature (the federal government), in those powers not expressly delegated to them of when Congress was in session; thus WHERE is this express delegation of exemption from BOTH the land AND buildings from being taxed by us? Was the RSA Ch. 123:2 exemption formally presented to Congress? that when its powers of taxation from it upon us are to the point of the destruction of the individual (that is: of to destroy 51% of the life, liberty or property of the creator), then that power ceases to exist! reference the Writ of Elegit process of UP to 50% of the apples but NOT the tree, and the Internal Revenue Code, AND there being no exemption other than to the land of the feds, because as by our Article 7-N.H. we SHALL forever have this power to tax, as in RSA Ch. 123:2 we exempted their lands but not their buildings!  Thus the SHALL word is not in your decision of that you SHALL not tax, but that you SHALL tax, and I did make mention of this by my telephone call to the voice recorder of Stephan Hamilton, the Chief Assessor for the State of New Hampshire at The N.H. Dept. of Revenue at 109 * Pleasant Street in Concord @ 271-2191 to call me back, but would prefer an e-mail reply, that might not reach me for another five (5) days by some RSA Ch. 91-A response time. So WHEN that happens you'll be one of the first to know, so as to keep your City Motto of: "DOVER: First in New Hampshire, First with You!"

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone); e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

* http://www.nh.gov/revenue/

From: D.Lynch at dover.nh.gov
To: josephshaas at hotmail.com
CC: A.Krans at dover.nh.gov; D.Lynch at dover.nh.gov
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 14:45:42 -0400
Subject: Taxation of Federal Property

Dear Mr. Haas:

                I am responding to the document you left with the Finance Department secretary (Thursday Oct 8, 2009) to my attention regarding taxation of Federal Property. My understanding, based on case law, is that the City of Dover has no authority to levy property taxes against the United States government for the post office located in the city.

                The NH Department of Revenue Administration (NH DRA) oversees the tax assessment process for all NH municipalities. Therefore, until the City of Dover is instructed, in writing, by the NH DRA that property taxes should be levied on the United States government for the post office located in this city – then no such levy of property tax shall occur.

                I believe this answers your question/request presented to me.

                Sincerely,

                Daniel R. Lynch

Daniel R. Lynch

Finance Director"

Footnote: Will Corcoran has until Fri., Oct. 30th to get this yearly list over to Lynch WITH the United States Post Office in Dover listed for a tax of about $47,000 per year. This is an annual list put together that is completed by the end of this month. (three weeks remaining).

" The government informed the Judge that Danny Riley (aka "Dogwalker" in my earlier blog entries) had participated extensively in the prosecution of the Browns and, as a result, the DOJ would be requesting a reduced sentence on his behalf on a later date.  This gave the Judge some flexibility in choosing a sentence for Elaine that was lower than the 36-year sentence he'd doled out to Danny."

found this on jj mcnabbs blog. this is probably the smartest thing danny could have done. without overturning the browns original tax convictions, which isnt possible without appeals, the browns were guaranteed to be found guilty on the standoff charges as the court would have seen them as convicted felons. even if they could have overturned the original tax charges as unlawfull it still wouldnt guarantee the standoff charges wouldnt stick, so danny had nothing to lose and everything to gain. he certainly didnt hurt the browns any. they were almost certainly going to be convicted with or without his help. the question is what will he gain for helping the feds? i doubt they will reduce his sentence very much. even if its by half, which i highly doubt it will be, he still serves 18 years.......

Quote from: keith in RI on October 10, 2009, 11:16 AM NHFT
....

As soon as U.S. Senator Susan Collins' staff member Chuck sends my letter of yesterday to her with a cover letter to Singal to have to explain himself of WHY he/Singal did violate the law (18USC3232) originally found by Danny, then his appeal to Boston will have been won for a new trial with that Art. 49 Petition to be put into evidence and the Article 10 right AND duty to revolt against these militants with force as their evidence against THE evidence of federal non-filing to N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1 where they have NO jurisdiction! yet are sent to the F.C.I.'s to be "corrected" NOT to the law, but these policies of subverting the constitution and laws to their own warped sense of being: corrupt judges who need to be impeached! including McAuliffe who lied to Ed's original jury that ALL the Tax Code has been declare constitution when it has NOT! as per Section (5) of the I.R. Code for the landlord rents proven to be unlawful in my case #M.83-50-D of 1983 with then Chief Judge Shane Devine.  All of this crap AFTERward this "error" that be more than just a mis-take, but mal-practice, especially when I did alert the Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch of this fact and that he refused to bring to the attention of the judge, even since I was not a party to the case so what? A lie is a lie! McAuliffe is a liar! We canNOT have liars being paid by MY tax money! And I will see to it that he is sent out to pasture ASAP: a worthless P.O.S. that deserves NO respect for the dis-honor to his profession of to seek the truth! Instead he and Singal are in a cover-up mode.  They are indeed the Black-Robed Mafia as written by Martin J."Red" Beckman.  THE contract is to the constitution.  They have violated the contract and need to be dealt with accordingly: impeachment!

Joe...

I believe I sent you this case before?  If not it is a very significant case to follow as it appears the proper court has been located to bring action against the judges or anyone, for that matter, who is an employee of the Federal corporation, as defined in the Positive Law 28 USC 3002(15)(a).

Here is an introduction to what Rod and his companion are pursuing.  Dick

DALE v. UNITED STATES (dba corporation)

Could Place All Federal Corporate Charters In Jeopardy Washington, D.C.

A potential landmark case was filed into the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, 500 Indiana Ave. NW, Room JM-170, Washington, DC 20001 on July 29, 2009.

The case seeks, among other multiple remedies, the nullification of all Federal Corporate Charters, and is quietly gaining traction as the numerous named Defendants continue to default Court protocol and procedure.

The named, lead Defendant is Eric H. Holder, Jr, Attorney General of the UNITED STATES, in his corporate capacity.

Summonses were formally ordered by Chief Judge Lee F. Satterfield and issued by the Plaintiff starting on July 30, 2009 for Mr. Holder at 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20530.

The case is officially designated as DALE, RODNEY Vs. UNITED STATES, Case No. 2009 CA 005391 B, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and is docketed for an Initial Scheduling Conference at 9:30 am on Friday, November 6, 2009 before Judge Brian F. Holeman in Courtroom A-49, 515 5th Street NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20001.

Judge Holeman's Chambers' phone number is 202-879-7815.

The case is styled, by the Court, as a "Complaint for Fraud" on behalf of the American people and places ALL interlocking Corporate Charters in this country in question.

This means that the Federal Corporate charters, on down to the smallest political subdivisions (city or town), are in jeopardy and alleged to be in violation of their written and enumerated Fiduciary duties.

In addition, because of the style of the Plaintiff's filing, ALL courts in the 50 states, including the United States Supreme Court, have been interlocked as parties to this suit.

Rodney Dale Class of High Shoals, North Carolina filed the case in conjunction with Carl Weston of Oklahoma with both serving as Private Attorneys General on behalf of the American people.

Clever. ::)

Quote from: armlaw on October 10, 2009, 08:10 PM NHFT
...

DALE v. UNITED STATES (dba corporation)

Could Place All Federal Corporate Charters In Jeopardy Washington, D.C.
....

Dick: Here's a youtube video of this: "CORPORATE AMERICA IS GETTING SUED!!! p1" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMS28Lu3dbs&feature=youtube_gdata of 9:53 minutes, with 473 views, so far.

The mention of the lawsuit is at 6:19 to the end of the tape.

She talks about corporate America not abiding by the constitution & Bill of Rights, but that I'd say NOT that BUT of the U.S. Codes, such as when the dollar was redefined by the Coinage Act of 1965 to ALSO be of inferior debased bi-metal as different from the Coinage Act of 1792, and L.B.J.'s speech to Congress back then of the two coin types to circulate "together" or con-currently.

Thus for the real U.S.A. government to get into the corporate world is an invasion and theft to us of whom are due the silver dollars per Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, and Section 20 of the Coinage Act of 1792 in that ALL government offices AND courts are to be kept and had in such quality!

So when Monier gave me a check from the co-conspirator case that bounced in that there was no silver dollars to back it up as required by the law, their invasion into the corporate realm was a theft against me.  A theft taken as a criminal case by me against him to The Concord District Court but thrown out on the "dissenting" opinion in the Premo case-law of N.H. that Joe Nadeau was the only judge of five to say that private prosecutions could NOT take place, when just the opposite is the truth!

This Judge Edwin W. Kelly (my former tenant's attorney when I was his landlord) from Plymouth at the Concord District Court with three, count them: THREE House Bills of Address against him set for Public Hearing in January 2010, to include this RSA Ch. 643:1 "Official Oppression" against him!

Yours truly, -- Joe

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091011/FRONTPAGE/910110379

of: "Church life still "intertwine"s with the government!
New By JosephSHaas on Sun, 10/11/2009 - 00:32

Oh, the good old days before the Quaker religion entered into the government arena as The Friends project of NOT to punish the "outlaws", BUT to incarcerate them in dark jail cells like mushrooms!

As an example: The law for thieves is spelled out in Proverbs 6:30-31 for the thief to restore sevenfold the $amount stolen. This is even cited in our N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 651:63 Restitution statute as annotated with the State v. Fleming case, over to a case and then another to "Blackstone's Commentaries" that cites this Biblical book: chapter and verse.

Wouldn't you rather have the law-breaker put in the stocks, or do community service work, rather than give him in Concord or her in Goffstown three meals and a cot for free? when a felony, and look at all the $savings potential in each of the ten (10) counties too! for Class A misdemeanors, and contempt for up to ten (10) days only by Articles 22+ 23, Part 2, N.H. Constitution, as it applies to the judiciary by Art. 72-a in what is supposed to be a "co-equal" branch of government!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTu9HaHDI0A&feature=related

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091011/FRONTPAGE/910110432&template=single

entitled: "To hell with court "opinions"!"

of: "Thanks for the info on this bus case in 1955 that was nine months BEFORE the Rosa Parks bus case.

And for the "Jim Crow Laws" see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws for its origin of: "The origin of the phrase "Jim Crow" has often been attributed to "Jump Jim Crow", a song-and-dance caricature of African Americans performed by white actor Thomas D. Rice in blackface, which first surfaced in 1832 and was used to satirize Andrew Jackson's populist policies.[2] The phrase "Jim Crow Law" first appeared in 1904 according to the Dictionary of American English,[3] although there is some evidence of earlier usage.[2] See Jump Jim Crow for more information on etymology." ...

...wherein is a railroad case of 1892, see:

"In 1890, Louisiana passed a law requiring separate accommodations for colored and white passengers on railroads. Louisiana law distinguished between "white," "black" and "colored" (that is, people of mixed white and black ancestry). The law already specified that blacks could not ride with white people, but colored people could ride with whites prior to 1890. A group of concerned black, colored and white citizens in New Orleans formed an association dedicated to rescinding the law. The group persuaded Homer Plessy, who was only one-eighth "Negro" and of fair complexion, to test it.

In 1892, Plessy purchased a first-class ticket from New Orleans on the East Louisiana Railway. Once he had boarded the train, he informed the train conductor of his racial lineage and took a seat in the whites-only car. He was directed to leave that car and sit instead in the "coloreds only" car. Plessy refused and was immediately arrested. The Citizens Committee of New Orleans fought the case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. They lost in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), in which the Court ruled that "separate but equal" facilities were constitutional. The finding contributed to 58 more years of legalized discrimination against black and colored people in the United States."

So proving that the U.S. Supreme Court's opinions change over time, the "opinion" back then of the prevailing feeling or sentiment of public opinion, re: that segment of the public in the majority, but then we are supposed to be living in an Article IV, Sec. 4 U.S. Constitutional Republican form of government of NOT what three wolves and two sheep vote for what they will have for dinner in a democracy.

The word opinion is also defined as: an evaluation based on special knowledge, as in distinct among others of a kind, the white kind back then.

The final definition of the word opinion is: a belief, conclusion, or judgment not sustained by positive knowledge or proof.

And so here in New Hampshire we have the right to a trial by jury in all cases dealing with real estate or when rhe value in dispute is $1500 or more.  Unfortunately the judges in the superior courts take away these proofs and substitute them with their opinions!  This thievery has got to stop! And so the House Bills of Address against Judge Ed Kelly et als in the General Court for Public Hearings this January 2010."

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091012/NEWS01/910120331

entitled: "Watch out for the Subsidizers and Banksters!"

of: "I.) Yeah: right! Forget about Rose (Mrs. Milton) Friedman, whose husband won the Nobel Prize in Economics, and their solution to the school slice of the tax pie here in New Hampshire, in Chapter 5 of their best-selling book, "Free to Choose", also made into a PBS-TV mini-series in the 1980s, and what!? listen to what these others have to say AWAY(!?) from this solution!?

Have they even read 55NH503@505(1879) of the Brentwood case of to only subsidize the poor, in what N.H. Supreme Court Judge William R. Johnson wrote in the Epsom case about a General Tax.  Yes- we do operate by the majority "opinion", and that was THE opinion of all five judges, so why isn't the executive branch at the city and town levels abiding by case-law?  Because they want the Legislature to micro-manage the Art. 38 frugality clause in our Bill of Rights to pay for only those in "need" BELOW the poverty line, not for everybody's "wants" like for the widow on fixed income to have to subsidize the rich family's kid, because his parents don't "want" to have to give up their yearly vacation $money to travel to the Rocky Mountains for their skiing. Spend it there, not here, OK for when and after the basics have been taken care of according to THE law! WHY do we take this school lunch program survey to establish this chart of the poverty rates per municipality and then do nothing with it!?

II.) And as for that Federal Reserve "Bankster" I'd call him, when is this Robert Tannenwald from Boston going to talk? On the same Monday, November 2nd? I'd ask him if his "outfit" is in compliance with their "contract" with us! Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.  They buy these notes they order from The U.S. Bureau of Engraving & Printing for only 6-cents per note x 32/sheet = $1.92 per sheet of ANY and ALL denominations from the $1.00 to the $100 bill.  They are their "private" property until "monetized", and that only occurs AFTER they have deposited the gold bullion per pallet of THIS and THAT denomination with the U.S. Treasury.  Are they*/Treasury Agents (us, actually in the government of We The People) getting what has been contracted for?  When was the last audit done of NOT the Fed (as in this private bank) BUT this exact Federal government unit? Answer: ___________ cc: to all four Congressional delegates here in N.H. to answer this question. 

And THEN we can finally get "paid" in the quality of dollar as defined by Section 20 of the Coinage Act of 1792 in that a constitutional dollar is defined as so many grains of silver. The commerce dollar is from the Coinage Act of 1965 that did NOT replace the former, but as LBJ told Congress of the coins of quality and debased metal to circulate "together".  See also Art. I, Sec. 10 of the U.S. Constitution.

The excuse "they"* use is hogwash, writing in a FOIA answer to my request, that we are off the "gold standard" of yes- we are, in that means that the notes, as promises to pay in gold coin are no longer there for this 12USC411 redemption is in silver dollars.  So if not enough silver metal is there for melting down to be minted into coin, THEN the gold bullion is sold to buy the silver!  Get it?  And not this George Orwellian "Nineteen Eighty Four" and "Doublespeak"!

When the working man can collect the quality of coin he deserves each payday per the check as an order to pay from his or her employer from a bank operating by law, then we will finally have the "change" Obama promised us! "

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 10, 2009, 11:19 PM NHFT

Quote from: armlaw on October 10, 2009, 08:10 PM NHFT
...

DALE v. UNITED STATES (dba corporation)

Could Place All Federal Corporate Charters In Jeopardy Washington, D.C.
....

Dick: Here's a youtube video of this: "CORPORATE AMERICA IS GETTING SUED!!! p1" ....

Plus this e-mail just received, yet to visit the websites listed:

"
DALE v. UNITED STATES - Latest update as of 10.10.09?
From:  _______________________
Sent:    Sun 10/11/09 11:17 PM
To:    __________________

So, you want to know how this case may impact the "corporation" that is
our "government" ?  This is grassroots America at its best !

If you weren't on last night's call (Sat. 10.10.09) here's a link to the audio on
Radio Free America on Talkshoe.

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-17898/TS-278430.mp3

Last night Rod Class (and Carl Weston) went over the case nice and slow and
also ties in the concept of being A Private Attorney General...and talks about the
Ronald Groves and Donald Mann case that Rod help file into the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia. Ron and Don have been thrown in jail because of this filing
as the judge in their California case obviously is a bit skittish about the D.C.
Court. Rod starts his part about 15-20 minutes in...

Listen to it anytime at http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=17898&cmd=tc
Title: EPISODE 62 - RADIOFREEAMERICA  HOW TO FILE IN DC

AIB Radio with Rod Class and friends Fri nights at 9pm EST
both at http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361&cmd=tc

Radio Free America with Rod Class and friends Sat nights 9pm EST
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=17898&cmd=tc


Also, to follow Rod's case here's the link to the court...
you'll be able to see the court using the word "please" in their request for
Rod to re-file his Default as a Motion, rather than a Petition...

https://www.dccourts.gov/pa

Sometimes the court system doesn't easily display the dockets...
Name search... Last name: DALE  First name: RODNEY

By the way...Rod filed as Rodney-Dale; Class and the court styled their
paperwork and reference him as DALE, RODNEY v. UNITED STATES
...they know Rod isn't a "corporation" !

The link goes to the case search section. Use the top search in the menu to the left.

Only docket entries are displayed. This court doesn't use the PACER system which
let's us electronically see all filed papers. Too bad !  Info could get to us a lot sooner
if they were part of the PACER system.

--
Restore The Republic AND Uphold ALL Treaties With The Originals !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP-IM7maxbI

Here's another copy and paste of my e-mail just sent to the Concord P.D. Attn: Lt. John F. Brown:

"RE: Oath (history + current)
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 10/14/09 2:35 PM
To:    jbrown at onconcord.com
Cc:    pcavanaugh at onconcord.com; Citizens Service - N.H. (Lynch) (officeofci at pstc.state.nh.us); Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us)
Bcc:    _____________________________________________

Thank you, as Paul Cavanaugh wrote back already as the City Attorney to say that it's been the same oath for about 20 years now, but that nobody seems to know WHO added that "federal" word in there.  From the PS&T? Or Municipal Association? Now called The Government Center (behind TARGET, on the Heights.) If you have any details like WHO put it in there and WHEN, would you please contact me, and that according to Paul's secretary, the time to get on the agenda for the October meeting of the City Council has passed by, and so to see about by Oct. 20th I think she said for the November meeting of the Mayor & Council as the elected bosses over the employees at City Hall and you next door, all of whom should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing this to have happened, in light of there being NO federal filing to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 and of your so-called "protection" of the Article 12 "inhabitants" of this state who pass through your city, which I did ask for this work ahead of time, but all of you either too busy or corrupt to do anything about it!  Hey! I even contacted the Dept. of Safety, and as a state agency did nothing either and so to sue the Commissioner in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims for up to $50,000 per person, with maybe an appeal to the Superior Court for $250,000, all paid to the victims by a Writ of Elegit, of up to a moiety or half of their salary for #__ years until paid! I'm serious! This bullshit has got to stop! to likewise sue the City and Merrimack County Sheriff, do-nothing but answer e-mails of acknowledgment only, Scott Hilliard of Northfield, with new office I've been told up at the old Nursing Home in Boscawen.

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059, e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

P.S. What is really amazing is that the Feds KNOW that they have to file by the "shall" word in RSA 123:1 and 40USC255 plus that Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court, plus their own U.S. Attorney Manual #664, and you in local "law enforcement" are public -non servants to not the law, but these federal "outlaws"!  How thoroughly disgusting! The time to clean up this mess is NOW.  The sooner you get to working on revising the current and new oath the better.  Will you at least tell me that has happened than your continued pig-slop in the trenches of the un-truths, like the bad apples rotting in the barrel so much that the stench is just too unbearable! That is for those who operate in truth, as not like the lousy governor we have too, John H. Lynch of Hopkinton, who I've also taken to the State Board of Claims last Oct. 15, 2008 in Case #2009-013 still un-resolved! me having sued him for $5000 for non-performance of his Art. 51 duty for which he SHALL be Article 41 "responsible for".

Subject: Oath
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:04:39 -0400
From: JBrown at onconcord.com
To: josephshaas at hotmail.com

Mr. Haas:

Chief Barry asked me to get in touch with you regarding questions you have regarding our police officer oath.  You can reply to this e-mail or reach me at 230-3736.

Lieutenant John F. Brown
Concord Police Department
Training and Services Division"

Open Letter to: The Merrimack County Grand Jury [ Concord, N.H. ]

Attention: The Foreman (for either an Indictment or Presentment); and

Also to   : Any or all of the other 23+ members (for a Presentment).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Here's the Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How.

To please "diligently inquire" by your R.S.A. Ch. 600:3 oaths http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/600/600-3.htm to see to it that Deputy U.S. Sheriff Jamie Barry be indicted or have a "Presentment" against him for the criminal Class B Felony offense of: "Improper Influence", by RSA Ch. 640:3    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/640/640-3.htm    since it reads in paragraph I "(b) Privately addresses to any public servant who has or will have an official discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding any representation, argument or other communication with the purpose of influencing that discretion on the basis of considerations other than those authorized by law".

In that he, James Barry is alleged to have called by telephone The Chief Judge of the N.H. District Courts Edwin W. Kelly of Plymouth to have the case against him of State (by Haas) v. Barry "removed" by sending it back. Please obtain a record of HOW Kelly did receive this request by a subpoena duces tecum of his records to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena_duces_tecum

Last Spring '09 I did RSA Ch. 594:14 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/594/594-14.htm summon the named defendant Barry in a criminal charge already filed with the Concord District Court, by me having paid $xx.xx to the Merrimack County Sheriff's Office for this service that was done by Deputy Sheriff, for a set day and time for his arraignment, but that when that day and time arrived, I was there as the private prosecutor, but that Defendant Barry was nowhere to be found to enter a plea to the charge of RSA Ch. 631:2-a Simple Assault against him of me, http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/631/631-2-a.htm him having pushed me out of federal courtroom #4 in April 2008 DURING the co-conspirator part of the Ed Brown case, when I did stand up with my hat on, calling to the judge before allowing the jury back in to read the verdict, that there be a "Point of Order". It planned ahead of time by them to do so as there were two deputies to each of my left and right side who BOTH pushed!

I did try to take this as a civil matter in case #08-C-___ in this Merrimack County Superior Court, but that the judge did trample upon my Art. 12 -N.H. rights by having it "removed" by some U.S. Code to a Rhode Island court where the judge there was told that my actions were done DURING the 6th Amendment Public Trial that had YET to be concluded but that he wrote in his "opinion" of my "Nadir" call of too-late AFTER the trial; there being NO 40USC255 acceptance by the Feds to our R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 conditional offer of June 14, 1883 for the reason I think being that in addition to the RSA 123:2 property tax exemption from our Art. 7-N.H. forever powers to tax, they wanted more than just the land exempted but that of for the buildings too, thus at about $20.00 per $1000 of valuation on their $111 million Pleasant Street complex of the Cleveland and Rudman Blocks to save $2.2 million per year! The Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court of FOR this requirement by the "shall" word in RSA 123:1 and even acknowledge as a requirement to be done by their own U.S. Attorney Manual #664.

When I did ask Kelly WHY he had returned the court papers to me through his Clerk, he did write me a letter that he would answer me within thirty (30) days.  On the tenth (10th) day he wrote back that the reason was that no "private" prosecutions can occur in N.H. according to the Premo case.  This is a lie!  The Rita Premo case at http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2002/0209/marti098.htm of 2002 reads just the opposite: in that a private prosecutor CAN sue criminally, but that the consequences thereof amount to no jail time, but for a fine-only conviction possible.  What Ed Kelly did, was in effect, to go by the sole dissenting opinion in THE "case" of that of Joe Nadeau.  Thus Kelly to be investigated too for RSA Ch. 638:3 Tampering With Public Records.   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/638/638-3.htm There being an Art. 32 +  73 House Bill of Address against Kelly at the N.H. General Court, as House Rule 36 endorsed by State Rep. Dan Itse, going for a Public Hearing this Winter 2010.  Kelly BTW, my former tenant's attorney! And so any side-notes from this investigation of him and Barry, would be appreciated there too, and/or your in-actions as somehow maybe intercepted by whoever of you not getting this, as a receipt is requested please.

Thank you, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059; e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

Elaine is still "IN TRANSIT" as of 4:26 p.m. this afternoon:

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Elaine&Middle=&LastName=Brown&Race=W&Sex=F&Age=&x=70&y=18

Mod: same status; http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp

today ( Thursday, October 15th ) @ 9:38 o'clock a.m.

update: Fri., Oct. 16th @ 10:04 a.m. = still "IN TRANSIT".

Here's a copy and paste:

"Dover Oaths.
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Fri 10/16/09 1:22 PM
To:    __________________
David,

I got an answer to my FOIA that I sent you as an attachment.

Krans wrote in his 10/13 letter to me that here is the fill-in the blank oath form that is read to the police officer who take the oath verbally (and recorded into their personnel jackets by themselves?) and that my RSA 91-A is hereby concluded, thus presuming that there are NO RSA 42:1 "subscribe"d oaths as REQUIRED by the state statute, and so there being NO true law-enforcement there, and so the charges against you to be dismissed.

But: what I want is for these COPs to enforce the law! Article 12, last sentence AGAINST the Feds to help protect my friend Ed when he gets back from Danvers, MAss. later this month.

So IF they/ the Dover Police are "outlaws" then WHO to go after the federal outlaws!?  Two wrongs do NOT make a right! And I've been to the Strafford County Sheriff AND the N.H. Safety Commissioner, but with NO "protection" from them either!

So to not pro-tect, but what? to sue for unlawful and illegal arrest AFTER the fact? Like to the N.H. RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims.

Please let me know if you'd like for me to forward, by attachment, either the Krans letter +/or the Oath form, that BTW does NOT have the word "federal" in it, like what they have in Concord.

Good luck, - - Joe "

Appeals Brief for Cirino Gonzalez


http://www.appealslawyer.net/briefs/Gonzalez_Cirino_BriefAsFiled.pdf

originally posted on Joshua L Gordon's site earlier this afternoon.

http://www.appealslawyer.net/case_list.html

Thank you,
Donna

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on October 16, 2009, 02:13 PM NHFT
Appeals Brief for Cirino Gonzalez

http://www.appealslawyer.net/briefs/Gonzalez_Cirino_BriefAsFiled.pdf

originally posted on Joshua L Gordon's site earlier this afternoon.

http://www.appealslawyer.net/case_list.html

Thank you,
Donna

Very good, but not excellent (yet)*.

I like that Section VI about Government Officers at pages 29-31 (p. 41-43 of 74 @ 118%) wherein Singal merely SAID that the U.S. Marshals were all officers of the law, when in fact it has to be proven! as Monier is THE official appointed by the elected President as confirmed by the U.S. Senate, but that his deputies are mere employees hired by him as second in command.  29USC630(f) In fact Monier's own oath of office reads that he shall execute ONLY lawful** precepts. IF a copy of his oath had been entered into evidence as an Exhibit #___ then there could have been ANOTHER question dealing with this issue of:

**Section XII No Territorial Jurisdiction. pages 55-60 (p.67-72) of yet ANOTHER case more than what Danny found of The Pease AFB case in N.H., to that of to include The Presidio military reservation in San Francisco, CAlif., GREAT! But as I said above, not "yet"* excellent, because Joshua: (226-4225) where is your reference to 40USC255 in the Table of U.S. Codes? [table of "STATUTES" at page x / #11], and the Adams case of 1943 in The Table of Cases? [table of "AUTHORITIES" at page iii/p.4]  I suggest that you amend such with same, as here on the copy and paste:

"--an offer not accepted gives them NO JURISDICTION! according to 40USC255 http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 They even spell it out in their U.S. Attorney Manual #664 at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm and get this of even worse than this civil case of us inhabitants here in N.H. being THE victims of these federal "outlaws" in the criminal realm also: See: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm of: ""In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."

Is Joshua saving this so as to K.I.S.S. the Boston judges, but who need a "smooch" to press it upon them with the extra above in some "Motion to Reconsider"?  - - Joe

P.S. After a quick reading of this I also make brief mention of that I also like what he wrote about: (1) assault, in that Reno did NEVER assault WITH a weapon*** (page 13/25) [or did he?] see also VIII @ p.34/46 for that grew up in Texas narrative, also p. 44-47/56-59 quoting 3 Blackstone Commentaries 120 of an assault of touching, or "other" of (2) no injury but WITH a weapon, or (3) injury with a weapon [and so to re-sentence down from 5 to 1 year for (2)]; and (2) re: III of Accessory After the Fact of no one felony indicated as an Element for the Browns of which to base the range of sentence (p. 21-24/33-36), see also IV of same at pages 25-26/37-38; plus (3) that 2B found guilty, but not 2A but sentenced for both, (p.33/45) so to re-sentence (or re-try, re: page #27-28/39-40****) see also IX @ p.44/56 in that 2A is only a misdemeanor, not a felony, but sentenced as for the latter!; also (4) had #___ extra time added on for his "teaching" the jury about their right, when the pupils were "shuffling" out of the courtroom, and might not have even heard him as it was NOT a yell. (p. 51-54/63-66).

*** page 42/54: "Mere possession of a gun does not implicitly create a threat. See e.g. United States v. Chapple, 942 D.2d439, 442 (7th Cir. 1991)".

**** Bottom line, easy-out so that they/the court don't have to get down to the constitution (yeah! they avoid this like the plague!) and that is V "Reasonable Doubt Instruction Diluted Government's Burden of Proof", in that "Reasonable dount is...not mere possible doubt" Victor v. Nebraska 511 U.S. 1 (1994); so when Singal said this "possible" word, he in effect, guaranteed them a new trial!  8) now to do it right!

elaines is still listed as in transit...

Quote from: keith in RI on October 16, 2009, 06:21 PM NHFT
elaines is still listed as in transit...

Today too. As of 10:30 a.m. Will try again this afternoon. Hoping for an address for where to send at least a letter and maybe a money order for $10-20 for commissary. 

I did send some $money to Ed in MAss., and that letter to the gatekeeper.  Hopefully he/ the gatekeeper will "check it out", as in to call/write/visit the N.H. Secretary of State: Has that federal "officer" filed those RSA 123:1 papers with you yet?  Bill Gardner: Answer: no, not yet, BTW our N.H. A.G. AND Safety Commissioner have asked me to ask you of WHAT you intend to do about keeping one of our Article 12 "inhabitants" there unlawfully and illegally. The Commissioner is especially upset because if nothing is done by the end of next week, Friday, October 23rd, that on Monday Oct. 26th Joe Haas has told us that by some POA from Ed he's going to see some attorneys to maybe sue the Commissioner for $50,000 by $___ filing fee (not gamble/ but investment) in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims. We'd like to avoid that if possible. Thank you, Bill Gardner, N.H. Secretary of State.

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091017/NEWS03/910170341

entitled: "1.42 trillion dollars* of what?"

of: "* a "dollar" is a unit of measurement, like a gallon.  And so I say: #x gallons of what? water or gasoline? And then I say: #x dollars of what? ___________________ (see below for the answer).

Thank you M.C. for the A.P.

I went to GOOGLE for the words: 1.8 trillion deficit chart  http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=1.8+trillion+deficit+chart&aq=f&aqi=&aq=f&aqi=&oq=1.8+trillion+deficit+chart&fp=59681ffd38a8e39f

And found THIS: http://fatasmihov.blogspot.com/2009/04/changes-in-funding-of-us-current.html (click the "Brad Setser" hyperlink)

and THAT: http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/ (see, in particular: The "Still growing" of Aug. 1, 2009 hyperlink "fed's custodial holding of Securities"

OVER to: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/Current/

and the NOTES.

Now I want to know, as a Federal Reserve Note holder: WHERE'S THE MONEY?  My lawful money per Section 20 of The Coinage Act of 1792.

The "Fed" as is the Federal Reserve System buys these notes for only 6-cents each from the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing.  Whether it's a $1.00 bill or a $100 bill the cost is the same.  It's only when the notes are "monetized" by the SUPPOSED deposit of gold bullion per pallet of notes is delivered to the U.S. Treasure do they THEN become U.S. Dollars.  But have these Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 deposits been made?  I'd like an AUDIT of NOT the "Fed" BUT of our own government who is not only hiding this from us, but who has stolen our time in letting our employers and the banks pay us in ever-decreasing in value like tickets to buy ever decreasing in value goods and services.  This theft has got to stop!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTu9HaHDI0A&feature=related "

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 17, 2009, 09:41 AM NHFT

Quote from: keith in RI on October 16, 2009, 06:21 PM NHFT
elaines is still listed as in transit...

Today too....

Also this morning.

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 17, 2009, 09:41 AM NHFT

Quote from: keith in RI on October 16, 2009, 06:21 PM NHFT
elaines is still listed as in transit...

Today too. As of 10:30 a.m. Will try again this afternoon. Hoping for an address for where to send at least a letter and maybe a money order for $10-20 for commissary. 

joe as far as money goes no matter what facility she ends up in you send a postal money order to the des moines iowa adress. they handle all inmate accounts from there....

Federal Bureau of Prisons
03924-049
elaine brown
Post Office Box 474701
Des Moines, Iowa 50947-000

the money order should pay payable to elaine brown, or whatever inmate you are sending money to. include her inmate number n the money order.

from the bop's website:


"...The deposit must be in the form of a money order made out to the inmate's full committed name and complete eight digit register number. Effective December 1, 2007, all non-postal money orders and non-government checks processed through the National Lockbox will be placed on a 15 day hold. The Bureau of Prisons will return funds that do not have valid inmate information to the sender provided the envelope has an adequate return address. Personal checks and cash cannot be accepted for deposit.

The sender's name and return address must appear on the upper left hand corner of the envelope to ensure that the funds can be returned to the sender in the event that they cannot be posted to the inmate's account. The deposit envelope must not contain any items intended for delivery to the inmate. The Bureau of Prisons shall dispose of all items included with the funds..."

Thanks Keith, I forgot about that.  I was at a Western Union terminal for Ed is HOW I sent him some money electronically through Iowa to MAss. rather than the paper Money Order by U.S. Post Office (whose officer(s) and/or employee(s) stole that $50 bill after I mailed it to Ed for legal defense in Sept. 2007) To sue withIN three years. No word back from him as of its receipt (like maybe to have to buy some ear phones for the TV set-up like they have in Dover, +/or a radio, plus for food, (writing and T) paper, envelopes and stamps, etc.). Plus: yet to receive a Visitor Form to fill out and send back too, to see if/when approved. Bernie to go down to see him I hope. My main concern is that the gatekeeper there who registered him in KNOWS that he is there unlawfully and illegally in that the end does NOT justify the means IF the MAss. U.S. Marshals did deliver him as THOUGHT to be O.K., but from a corrupted source of the N.H. Marshals in non-compliance with the law! To call him tomorrow, to see if he can call the N.H. Secretary of State to verify that there has been no 40USC255 filing per N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1.

Also: Here's some info about Elaine's future lawsuit against The City of Concord and County of Merrimack, plus that I did also notify ahead of time for this Article 12 protection to the N.H. Dept. of Safety too, to sue its Commissioner in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board pf Claims for $50,000. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm and http://www.nh.gov/safety/commissioner/index.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091018/OPINION/910180332

entitled: "Local Government Center website; & Risk Management info."

of: "http://www.nhlgc.org/LGCWebsite/index.asp

Plus: in regards to paragraph #7 of 13: " dozens of risk management ...programs and services help KEEP local governments functioning RESPONSIBLY...." (emphasis ADDed.)

Oh really!? Risk Management is ALSO for if and when the "local" government screws up in some "error or omission" too! as in to pay* the victim.

* One County I did check recently pays over $100,000 per year is their premium for a $5 million insurance policy.  I did ask what the premium is for Merrimack County at the Commissioner's Office (line item #____ in the budget, for to guess at such policy, using this similar ratio since financial info is exempt from the RSA Ch. 91-A:5 Right to Know,  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-VI-91-A.htm ) and was told, in effect, to: "get lost"! re: the Sheriff's FAILure to Article 12 "protect" one of the city and county's "inhabitants" from any OTHER law not consented too. The "local" COPs telling me that she was NOT a "resident", and so deserved NO protection!  But see: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html and http://www.appealslawyer.net/briefs/Gonzalez_Cirino_BriefAsFiled.pdf from http://www.appealslawyer.net/case_list.html and in particular Section XII at pages 55-60 of 62."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQNnXDnSqL0&feature=player_embedded

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Did the court err in instructing the jury it could find guilt if there was intent
to commit either of the objects in the dual-object conspiracy, when the
indictment required an intent to commit both?
2. Did the court err in sentencing Mr. Gonzalez for a dual-object conspiracy
when the special verdict found guilt on just one object?
3. Did the court err in convicting Mr. Gonzalez for accessory after the fact
when the indictment was insufficient in that it failed to adequately specify
the nature of the allegations against him?
4. Did the court err in convicting Mr. Gonzalez for accessory after the fact
when the government failed to prove that Mr. Gonzalez knew the nature of
the predicate offense?
5. Did the court dilute the government's burden of proof by giving the jury a
reasonable doubt instruction that would require any doubt it might have to
be substantial before it could acquit?
6. Did the court err in instructing the jury as a matter of law that the United
States Marshals are employees of the government, when that is an element
of the crime?
7. Did the court err in sentencing Mr. Gonzalez for a dual-object conspiracy
when the jury found guilt on just one object?
8. Did the court err in sentencing Mr. Gonzalez for use of weapons when the
jury refused to convict for that conduct, in violation of Mr. Gonzalez's right
to trial by jury?
9. Did the court err in sentencing Mr. Gonzalez for felony conspiracy, when
the underlying crime was merely a misdemeanor?
10. Did the court err in sentencing Mr. Gonzalez on the conspiracy count with
regard to a supposed underlying offense of obstruction of justice, when
obstruction was not charged, and other underlying offenses are intended by
the indictment?
11. Did the court err in augmenting Mr. Gonzalez's sentence for obstruction of
justice for informing the jury of its capacity for nullification, when
nullification obviously is within the jury's capacity, and there is little
likelihood of prejudice?
12. Did the court lack territorial jurisdiction to prosecute Mr. Gonzalez when
both the place he was alleged to commit a crime and the courthouse in
which he was tried had not been ceded by the State of New Hampshire to
the federal government?

STAND FOR FREEDOM
keep the faith

:{ jmg

joe jason called me tonight. he is on the corrlinks email system now. you have to get an email with a secret code from him first though. i told him to try to put you on his list.

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on October 18, 2009, 01:18 PM NHFT
12. Did the court lack territorial jurisdiction to prosecute Mr. Gonzalez when
both the place he was alleged to commit a crime and the courthouse in
which he was tried had not been ceded by the State of New Hampshire to
the federal government?

Joe,

It looks like the jurisdiction issue will be addressed in the appeal. Is this the one that you've been writing so much about?

What do you think will happen?

Quote from: grolled on October 19, 2009, 08:55 AM NHFT

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on October 18, 2009, 01:18 PM NHFT
12. Did the court lack territorial jurisdiction to prosecute Mr. Gonzalez when
both the place he was alleged to commit a crime and the courthouse in
which he was tried had not been ceded by the State of New Hampshire to
the federal government?

it will probably be ignored. the people on quatloos seem to think that renos lawyer only included that item in the appeal to appease reno. they claim that would explain why it was listed last, as a kind of hint to the court that even the lawyer doesnt believe it but hes including it anyway.....

Joe,

It looks like the jurisdiction issue will be addressed in the appeal. Is this the one that you've been writing so much about?

What do you think will happen?

Quote from: keith in RI on October 19, 2009, 12:00 PM NHFT

Quote from: grolled on October 19, 2009, 08:55 AM NHFT

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on October 18, 2009, 01:18 PM NHFT
12. Did the court lack territorial jurisdiction to prosecute Mr. Gonzalez when
both the place he was alleged to commit a crime and the courthouse in
which he was tried had not been ceded by the State of New Hampshire to
the federal government?

it will probably be ignored. the people on quatloos seem to think that renos lawyer only included that item in the appeal to appease reno. they claim that would explain why it was listed last, as a kind of hint to the court that even the lawyer doesnt believe it but hes including it anyway.....

Joe,

It looks like the jurisdiction issue will be addressed in the appeal. Is this the one that you've been writing so much about?

What do you think will happen?

Keith: See the below in answer to grolled's question to me, and that of being #12 last is because that IF Reno can win the appeal on anything other than having to get to #12 that is HOW the courts operate: they stay AWAY from a win on the constitution if they can avoid doing so, and so for Reno to win on that case-law against the "possible". This way the attorneys never nip it in the bud, but can churn accounts of others to the point of that if no other way of winning that poor victim in the future withOUT any other way to win, finally gets down to brass tacks or the roots of the law. The quatloos paralegals and attorneys over there KNOW about wins on ANYthing other THAN the constitution is THE reason for WHY the constitutional argument is listed LAST, and NOT that it does NOT have any merit! IF Joshua had put in that 40USC255 stuff WITH the Adams case-law quotes, I wonder what those quatloos readers would then say or write about.  I bet you than NONE of them did refer to ANY of this 40USC255 stuff in their answers KNOWING that they have read it here, but prefer to remain in the dark and keep you there too!  Time to say that you REFUSE to become one of their mushrooms!

The answer to grolled is: Yes, and like what I did write about above and in a previous Reply: they will try to avoid this like the plague:

"**** Bottom line, easy-out so that they/the court don't have to get down to the constitution (yeah! they avoid this like the plague!) and that is V "Reasonable Doubt Instruction Diluted Government's Burden of Proof", in that "Reasonable doubt is...not mere possible doubt" Victor v. Nebraska 511 U.S. 1 (1994); so when Singal said this "possible" word, he in effect, guaranteed them a new trial!  8) now to do it right!"

Plus: Joshua to add in that 40USC255 and the Adams case of 1943 to give the feds the "cement boots" so that IF the POSSIBLE word does trigger a new trial, then these NEW attorneys (with the old ones as counsel only, as they DID violate 18USC3232 and I would NOT want to have them hired for me unless they gave back the stolen money! with an apology) can ALSO file a "Special Appearance" arguing that there is NO jurisdictional authority within their claimed jurisdictional territory, and especially AFTER my win in Case #2009-013 of when the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims rules that because the governor did NOT send the Feds an Invitation to file their N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 papers with our N.H. Secretary of State, that he SHALL be Art. 41-N.H. "responsible for" his dereliction of non-performance of Art. 51 duty by him owing me $x,xxx.xx up to the $5,000 amount claimed withOUT a filing fee. Up to $50,000 if you want to pay a $xx.xx filing fee, that maybe I will pay for WHEN I win, and against the Safety Commissioner for Elaine and THEN Ed, since he FAILed to Art. 12 Protect her as an "inhabitant" from the abuse of these U.S. Codes never Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 U.S. Constitution "Consent"ted to by our New Hampshire General Court, in that an offer of consent or a conditional consent is NOT a consent! per 40USC255 and see also the U.S. Attorney Manual #664.

THEN with this win to copy and use as evidence to either the judge to dismiss all charges against Ed & Elaine, plus all the co-conspirators: Danny, Jason and Reno, and hopefully BEFORE Bob is released November 16th, so that WHEN he is released, and using this information, plus the provision in his contract that if the government entered into the contract in bad faith, then all is null and void, then to also be able to sue for $2,500 per day like in that Veronica Silva case in the State Board of Claims in the mid 1980s as reported about on the front page of The UNION LEADER. That's $2,500 x 100 days = $250,000 x round up to 4 (of 365 days per year, round up to 400) = $1 million per year x 2 years (Sept./Oct. 2007 - Fall 2009) = $2 million each!

- - Joe

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 18, 2009, 10:36 AM NHFT

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 17, 2009, 09:41 AM NHFT

Quote from: keith in RI on October 16, 2009, 06:21 PM NHFT
elaines is still listed as in transit...

Today too....

Also this morning.

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp

And this afternoon (Monday, Oct. 19th) too @ 1:21 p.m. Eastern Time.

Mod: still "IN TRANSIT" @ 4:18 p.m. this Monday afternoon.
Mod: still "IN TRANSIT" @ 8:30 p.m. this Monday night.
Mod: still "IN TRANSIT" @ 9:24 a.m. this Tuesday morning.
Mod: still "IN TRANSIT" @ 5:50 p.m. this Tuesday afternoon.
Mod: still "IN TRANSIT" @ 11:53 am this Wednesday morning (+ see below)
Mod: still "IN TRANSIT" @ 5:02 p.m. this Wednesday afternoon.
Mod: Carswell FMC      @ 10:20 a.m. this Thursday morning.

The N.H. House Ways & Means Committee to get a report(s) from: _______________ tomorrow and Thursday in Room 202-204 L.O.B. Concord about "State revenue info session", but NOT a Public Hearing for to talk, just listen.

See: http://www.meetup.com/nhseacoastliberty/calendar/11576292/  *

and: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2009/houcal2009_58.html

* "#
1 Maybe

    *
      Joseph S. Haas
      " See Article 95 of the N.H. Constitution for State Collectors of the federal taxes, especially when there is no RSA Ch. 123:1 federal officer registered with the N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by 40USC255. " "

- - Joe

Mod: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H28

Here's a copy and paste:

"
(Federal taxes to them by a new path) N.H. Ways & Means.?
From:    Joseph S. Haas Jr. (josephshaasjr at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Tue 10/20/09 9:07 AM
To:    ~houseways&meanscommittee at leg.state.nh.us
Cc:    ________________________________________
To:

House WAYS AND MEANS
Secretary:    Barbara Moynihan    Phone:    271-3529
Researcher:    Nancy LeVinus    Location:    RM 202 LOB
Committee Members:    Email Committee Members
Chairman:    Susan Almy(d)    Bills Currently in Committee
V. Chairman:    William Hatch(d)    Bills Originally Referred to Committee
Clerk:    William Butynski(d)    Mailing list of Committee Members
*** Listen to Committee Hearings! ***
Frank Davis (d)    Dennis Vachon (d)    Gilman Shattuck (d)
John Kelley (d)    Ron Mack (d)    William Johnson (d)
Susan Price (d)    Robert Walsh (d)    Norman Major (r)
Mary Griffin (r)    Priscilla Lockwood (r)    David Boutin (r)
David Bettencourt (r)    Russell Ober (r)    Frank Sapareto (r)
Jordan Ulery (r)    Joe Osgood (r)    
Dear Reps.:

Here's a copy and paste of my summary over at:
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg310901#msg310901
JosephSHaas

    * Revolutionary
    * ******
    * Karma: 1011
    * Posts: 2338
*

Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #9218 on: Today at 06:19 AM »

The N.H. House Ways & Means Committee to get a report(s) from: _______________ tomorrow and Thursday in Room 202-204 L.O.B. Concord about "State revenue info session", but NOT a Public Hearing for to talk, just listen.

See: http://www.meetup.com/nhseacoastliberty/calendar/11576292/  *

and: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2009/houcal2009_58.html

* "#
1 Maybe

    *
      Joseph S. Haas
      " See Article 95 of the N.H. Constitution for State Collectors of the federal taxes, especially when there is no RSA Ch. 123:1 federal officer registered with the N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by 40USC255. " "

- - Joe

Mod: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H28

on page 615. "

Would you PLEASE send me your list of speakers = _______________________  ?

WHEN the Revenue Commissioner talks and/or his attorney, who I did see and talk with last month at his Pleasant Street Office in Concord, I was told that BEFORE the current naming of this Dept. it was called: _______________ before the 1976 or thereabouts changeover that had been that way since about 1903.

The point being that BEFORE the 16th Amendment of 1913 the federal government collected their revenue by other means from 1903 to 1913 for that ten (10) years by what I suspect were State Collectors of BOTH the State AND federal taxes NOT "by" the Feds, but "for" the Feds, as an Article 95 state check and balance so as to feed "Uncle Sam" of what he "needs" but NOT all of his "wants", so as to keep him fit and trim in a "limited" government. Sort of like what we did in-state with N.H. RSA Ch. 21-G:2 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/21-G/21-G-2.htm

The Feds had it in their power for a direct tax by Article I, Section 8 of a capital or head tax, but that Frank Mevers, the State Archivist could find NO State Collectors of Federal taxes back then, and said that we almost had a national head tax back in the War of: _____ in or around 1812. You might ask him about this too.

Actually the 16th Amendment for an indirect tax is for "to lay and collect", and if enough people protest, then the State Collectors for the Feds is the way to go, since to lay can mean either to apply or impose.  Most people accept the government's definition of to impose as in to levy or collect, but that is George Orwellian "1984" and "Double-speak" of to collect and collect.  I prefer the word apply as in to request and say: Request DENIED! (;-), especially since there is no Section 2 enforcement clause as there is for the surrounding Amendments. See my case #M.83-50-D in U.S. District for for 1983 in Concord, N.H. that proved this. "They" wanted over $62,000 in taxes from me as a landlord, and I told them this and that section (5) of their I.R. Code for rents was un-constitutional! reference the Otto Skinner and Martin J. "Red" Beckman books for when he/"Red" was here in N.H. running for President back then with 1/2-hour Info-mercials on WMUR-TV Channel 9 to get us all up to the then N.H. Highway Hotel in Concord. One of the early recruits being: Ed Brown himself from Plainfield, and the rest is history-in-the-making, YET to conclude AGAINST the Feds AND our governor by my Case #2009-013 against him in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm

But that our country has to operate, but that ought to be like what N.H. is supposed to be doing too, in an Art. 38 "frugal" manner of needs over wants! http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html In other words to subsidize only the poor people under the poverty line for the schools as per the Milton Friedman Plan, and 55NH503 @ 505 (1879) per the Brentwood School District case from Rockingham County. WHY do you think the Dept. of Revenue tabulates the School Lunch Program statistics for this Poverty Chart?  To collect dust!? No! To use in the taxing measures. See my Abatement Case #2009-___ against Boscawen for the details.

So with all these taxes TO the Feds by unlawful and illegal means, as the end does NOT justify the means, in what is supposed to be a guarantee of "procedural" due process of law, by the 5th + 14th Amendments to The United States of America, please do NOT be a "sociopath" in extreme denial to the truth. Stop kneeling before Uncle Sam begging for federal funds for this and that and do the CHANGE that was voted for back in November to get Obama in there to accept the N.H. Way of doing business with the feds, in that all those $millions feeding Uncle Sam now, to divert to the State and THEN send Uncle Sam a new diet! (;-) For a lean-mean-fighting machine!

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone), e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com "

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 09, 2009, 04:01 PM NHFT
To copy this printout and mail:

"Fort Devens Log Book. (N.H.)
....

I did just leave a message with Lt. Spina's voice mail (at 9:18 a.m. today) asking if he has verified my claim with the N.H. Office of Secretary of State that there has been no 40USC255 federal filing per N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, and when so notified to please execute the executive check-and-balance to help my friend and Victim Ed Brown who they have taken into illegal and unlawful custody.

- - Joe

615 pages of this thread is too much to look through manually. Does anyone know the current jail/prison that Ed is in? How about Elaine?

I ask because I sent Ed a letter at Strafford County Jail a week or 2 ago and it was bounced back to me as "Return to Sender," and the jail told me today that he was "transferred to the feds."

Thanks for your help.

B. Obama advised of Cirino Gonzalez, Elaine & Ed Brown

From: Jose M.

"He that violates his oath profanes the divinity of faith itself." ... Cicero

Sent by United States Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECIEPT
To:

U.S. President Barack Obama 7008 1300 0001 9865 6511
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

U.S. Congress member
Kay Bailey Hutchinson 7008 1300 0001 9765 6504
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

U.S. Congress member John Cornyn 7008 1300 0001 9765 6498
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

U.S. Representative Ruben Hinojosa 7008 1300 0001 9765 6481
2463 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Please, see the attached NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND CRIMINAL INTENT, the delivery information thereof, and reply by mail within TEN business days of receiving this letter as verified by United States Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECIEPT (numbers as listed above per each recipient's name) and include the tax identification number of your office, the name and account number of your bond (insurance) company, as well as your personal tax identification and/or social security number.

In accordance to the established checks and balances expected/..DEMANDED of your position I, Jose Manuel Gonzalez©, and on behalf of victims Cirino Gonzalez, Romeo Lee Gonzalez, Donna Mae VanMeter, Jason Gerhart, Daniel Riley, Robert Wolffe, Edward Brown, Elaine Brown, and countless freedom-loving inhabitants of various States of the United States of America, do hereby notify you of my/our CLAIM against your duty to over-see, stop an injustice, and correct an ongoing act of lawlessness on the part of the Judicial branch of the United States of America.
My DEMAND and CLAIM is made as acceptance of your OATH OF OFFICE, by which you swore to uphold THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA as a condition of the elected position held by you.

1. Inaction on your part to immediately correct this most egregious violation against the principles of freedom established by the founding fathers of these united States is evidence of your incompetence, complacency, or willingness to be a conspirator in the violation of Rights and acts of treason against the people of sovereign States of the United States of America ...
2. making YOU personally liable for legal and civil actions as retribution for the violations of rights of the above listed victims ...
3. and making your OFFICE liable for civil/..financial retribution for the violations of rights of the above listed victims ...
4. and making your staff members liable for legal, civil, and financial retribution for the violations of rights of the above listed victims ...
5. in accordance to the U.S. Criminal code, The Uniform Commercial Code, and Civil code, as well as the United States Constitution.
6. My repeated attempts to contact you, your office, or staff have met with a lack of response.
7. NOTICE to agent is considered notice to principle; notice to principle is considered notice to agent.
8. Reply within ten business day of receipt of this AFFIDAVIT, as verified by
United States Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECIEPTs:
7008 1300 0001 9865 6511
7008 1300 0001 9765 6504
7008 1300 0001 9765 6498
7008 1300 0001 9765 6481

Copy: Alice Echo-News Journal
Corpus Christi Caller-Times

_.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..______________ _________
Jose M. Gonzalez© Date

This document was acknowledged before me on _____________ (date)

_.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._______________
(signature of notarial officer) Seal/Stamp:

_.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._______________
(print name notarial officer) My commission expires:.._.._______________

...
The "attached NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND CRIMINAL INTENT" is as follows:

Sent by certified mail, return receipt requested
7008 2810 0001 0429 6204
District of New Hampshire
53 Pleasant Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
AND CRIMINAL INTENT
Vs.
? FILE ON DEMAND ?
CIRINO GONZALEZ POST ON
BULLETIN
Cr. No. 07-189-01-GZS


NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND CRIMINAL INTENT

In as much as UNITED STATES officials are protected, by law, from personal liability only within the performance of their OFFICIAL duties, The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, and ALL of its officers, employees, and agents IS/ARE Hereby NOTIFIED of their violation of:

A. Article 1 section 8 clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution:
...to exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, magazines, Arsenals, dock Yards, and other needful Buildings;..."

B. New Hampshire revised statutes and specifically RSA 123:1:
TITLE IX ACQUISITION OF LANDS BY UNITED STATES; FEDERAL AID CHAPTER 123 JURISDICTION OVER LANDS ACQUIRED; TAX EXEMPTION Section 123:1, 123:1 Ceded to United States. – Jurisdiction is ceded to the United States of America over all lands within this state now or hereafter exclusively owned by the United States, and used as sites for post offices, custom-houses, military air bases, military installations or other public buildings: provided, 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; and, provided, further, that this cession is upon the express condition that the state of New Hampshire shall retain concurrent jurisdiction with the United States in and over all such lands, so far that all civil and criminal process issuing under the authority of this state may be executed on the said lands and in any building now or hereafter erected thereon, in the same way and with the same effect as if this statute had not been enacted; and that exclusive jurisdiction shall revert to and revest in this state whenever the lands shall cease to be the property of the United States

C. 40 U.S.C. § 255. This statute requires the head or authorized officer of the agency acquiring or holding property to file with the state a formal acceptance of such "jurisdiction, exclusive or partial as he may deem desirable," and further provides that in the absence of such filing "it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been acquired." See Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312 (district court is without jurisdiction to prosecute soldiers for rape committed on an army base prior to filing of acceptance prescribed by statute). The requirement of 40 U.S.C. § 255 can also be fulfilled by any filing satisfying state law...

Further action on the part of officers, employees, and agents pertaining or related to Cr. No. 07-189-01-GZS will be deemed as a WILLFUL AND INTENTIAL VIOLATION on the part of ALL officers, employees, and agents NOTIFIED herein; making any/ALL officers, employees, and agents personally LIABLE and subject to civil/criminal litigation. Other cases, previous, current, pending, or future, are also affected.

Denials, by Officers of the Court, of MOTIONs questioning JURISDICTION and refusal to demand, of the U.S Attorney, a demonstration/..REVELATION OF JURISDICTION, regarding A, B, and C above, is deemed as conspiratorial and a violation of OTHER acts, codes, rules, and statutes to be considered upon further investigation by COMPLIANT States authorities with proper jurisdiction.

Officials, employees, and agents of/within the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, may also be in violation of other New Hampshire and United States Statutes, Acts, Codes, and Rules requiring the prevention of, and acting upon, criminal activity known to them and may apply retroactive as per investigation.

As a concerned third-party, this NOTICE is hereby served as a demand of release of Cirino Gonzalez as the ONLY option available to the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE within its STATUS of NONCOMPLIANCE of A, B, and C above.



_.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..______________ _________
Jose M. Gonzalez Date

This document was acknowledged before me on _____________ (date)

_.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._______________
(signature of notarial officer) Seal/Stamp:

_.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._______________
(print name notarial officer) My commission expires:.._.._______________


...also included was a January 11, 2007 copy of a gold-sealed letter to Joe Hass form the New Hampshire Dapartment of State stating "This is to certify that we have checked our recordes and do not find a copy of the filing by RSA 123:1"
Signed by David M Scanlan
Deputy Secretary of State

Quote from: Mike Barskey on October 20, 2009, 11:24 AM NHFT
615 pages of this thread is too much to look through manually. Does anyone know the current jail/prison that Ed is in? How about Elaine?

Ed is in Massachusetts at the Devens facility for the next couple of weeks undergoing a pychiatric evaluation.  Assuming he's found mentally competent, he'll be sentenced later this year in Concord, NH.

Elaine has already been sentenced and is "in transit" for the time being.  She's probably on the road to the same Texas prison where she was kept prior to this last trial.  Unless she's told someone here, there's no way of knowing where she'll end up until she gts there.

Quote from: LordBaltimore on October 20, 2009, 01:23 PM NHFT

Quote from: Mike Barskey on October 20, 2009, 11:24 AM NHFT
615 pages of this thread is too much to look through manually. Does anyone know the current jail/prison that Ed is in? How about Elaine?

Ed is in Massachusetts at the Devens facility for the next couple of weeks undergoing a pychiatric evaluation.  Assuming he's found mentally competent, he'll be sentenced later this year in Concord, NH.

Elaine has already been sentenced and is "in transit" for the time being.  She's probably on the road to the same Texas prison where she was kept prior to this last trial.  Unless she's told someone here, there's no way of knowing where she'll end up until she gts there.

Ed's address is in Reply #9184 on page 613:

INMATE NAME & REGISTER NUMBER*
FMC DEVENS
FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER
P.O. BOX 879
AYER, MA  01432

* Edward-Lewis: Brown #03923-049

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on October 20, 2009, 11:58 AM NHFT
B. Obama advised of Cirino Gonzalez, Elaine & Ed Brown

From: Jose M.

"He that violates his oath profanes the divinity of faith itself." ... Cicero

Sent by United States Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECIEPT
To: ...

U.S. Congress member
Kay Bailey Hutchinson 7008 1300 0001 9765 6504
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

U.S. Congress member John Cornyn 7008 1300 0001 9765 6498
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

U.S. Representative Ruben Hinojosa 7008 1300 0001 9765 6481
2463 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
...
The "attached NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND CRIMINAL INTENT" is as follows:

Sent by certified mail, return receipt requested
7008 2810 0001 0429 6204
District of New Hampshire
53 Pleasant Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
AND CRIMINAL INTENT
Vs.
? FILE ON DEMAND ?
CIRINO GONZALEZ POST ON
BULLETIN
Cr. No. 07-189-01-GZS


NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND CRIMINAL INTENT

In as much as UNITED STATES officials are protected, by law, from personal liability only within the performance of their OFFICIAL duties, The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, and ALL of its officers, employees, and agents IS/ARE Hereby NOTIFIED of their violation of:

A. Article 1 section 8 clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution:
...

B. New Hampshire revised statutes and specifically RSA 123:1:...


C. 40 U.S.C. § 255...

Further action on the part of officers, employees, and agents pertaining or related to Cr. No. 07-189-01-GZS will be deemed as a WILLFUL AND INTENTIAL VIOLATION on the part of ALL officers, employees, and agents NOTIFIED herein; making any/ALL officers, employees, and agents personally LIABLE and subject to civil/criminal litigation. Other cases, previous, current, pending, or future, are also affected.

Denials, by Officers of the Court, of MOTIONs questioning JURISDICTION and refusal to demand, of the U.S Attorney, a demonstration/..REVELATION OF JURISDICTION, regarding A, B, and C above, is deemed as conspiratorial and a violation of OTHER acts, codes, rules, and statutes to be considered upon further investigation by COMPLIANT States authorities with proper jurisdiction.

Officials, employees, and agents of/within the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, may also be in violation of other New Hampshire and United States Statutes, Acts, Codes, and Rules requiring the prevention of, and acting upon, criminal activity known to them and may apply retroactive as per investigation.

As a concerned third-party, this NOTICE is hereby served as a demand of release of Cirino Gonzalez as the ONLY option available to the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE within its STATUS of NONCOMPLIANCE of A, B, and C above.
_.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..______________ _________
Jose M. Gonzalez Date ...

...also included was a January 11, 2007 copy of a gold-sealed letter to Joe Hass form the New Hampshire Dapartment of State stating "This is to certify that we have checked our recordes and do not find a copy of the filing by RSA 123:1"
Signed by David M Scanlan
Deputy Secretary of State

The charge for KNOWingly keeping somebody behind bars who is an Article 12 - N.H. victim of these federal "outlaws" who are technically trespassers on state soil, is FALSE IMPRISONMENT!*

* http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/633/633-3.htm

When Ed gets back to Dover, I'll see to it that the Three Commissioners there be brought up on separate charges of this misdemeanor by the local C.O.P. to see them serve out a one-year sentence each for their "knowingly confines another unlawfully", as I told them all of this that you've mention above. THANK YOU for putting these Feds on notice too.  Maybe that's WHY Joshua did NOT put the 40USC255 in the brief, because although he is fighting FOR his client, he is also a Member of the Bar, and so to bend over backwards for his "brothers" to some degree, but when they KNOW this, and act to do wrong, then they are to be incarcerated themselves! Way to go!

Now to what? Charge them for a separate offense for each separate day? I think the SAME amount of time Ed spent over there and will be spending in the future ought to be the limit of their incarceration too.  To teach them a lesson that when they take the RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office WE MEAN IT! that when they screw up, they pay with the loss of their liberty too!

- - Joe

P.S. Here are the websites for these two U.S. Senators, and Federal Rep.:

A. http://hutchison.senate.gov/

B. http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/

C. http://hinojosa.house.gov/

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 20, 2009, 05:15 PM NHFT

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on October 20, 2009, 11:58 AM NHFT..."He that violates his oath profanes the divinity of faith itself." ... Cicero

Sent by United States Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECIEPT
To: ...
U.S. Congress member
Kay Bailey Hutchinson 7008 1300 0001 9765 6504
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

U.S. Congress member John Cornyn 7008 1300 0001 9765 6498
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510 ....

...P.S. Here are the websites for these two U.S. Senators, and Federal Rep.:
A. http://hutchison.senate.gov/
B. http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/
C. http://hinojosa.house.gov/

Jose: Here's a copy and paste of my message that I did just TRY [ * ] to send to your U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson: (to likewise duplicate, and send to your other U.S. Senator Cornyn.)

entitled: Title 40 U.S. Code Section 255

"Dear Senator Hutchinson:
- - - - -
As a friend of one of your constituents, Cirino** Gonzalez and his father Jose, who just wrote you a NOTICE of wrongs being done by one of your Article III inferior Courts of Congress per the U.S. Constitution, and who started this Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 "Consent" investigation on Sept. 10, 2001 with the certificate of federal non-filing in N.H. by the feds being in 40USC255 non-acceptance to our N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 offer for conditional consent, you might also be interested in the Adams case of 1943 in the U.S. Supreme Court too that backs up his claim that there be NO jurisdiction, and so the money you authorize for THAT court to operate is being spent both unlawfully and illegally, (see also the violations of 18USC3232 over to Maine) and thus I 2nd his report to you that you stop this wrong by stopping the flow of money to it, as in feed-a-cold, starve-a-fever, and so starve-a-wrong until corrected. Yours truly, -- Joe Haas, a federal taxpayer through my employer at work, with ancestors from West Texas who later moved to Oklahoma and their descendants/ my cousins, still there plus over to Mississippi too where my Uncle Bob lives. Them originally from the Jamestown Settlement and into Kentucky the years just before Daniel Boone.
- - - - -  P.S. We here in New Hampshire are working on this too, by my suing the governor for his dereliction of Art. 51 duty for which he SHALL* be "responsible for" by Article 41 in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims Case #2009-013 filed Oct. 15 '08 to enforce ALL legislative mandates* since Reno** was an Article 12-N.H. "inhabitant" entitled to this protection not provided. And so to send you a copy of their decision against the governor who was supposed to have sent you this "Invitation" to have YOUR federal "officer" visit our N.H. Secretary of State with the appropriate federal papers for filing. - - - - - cc: my two U.S. Senators: Judd Gregg, and Jeanne Shaheen."

[ * ] At exactly 10:20 a.m. Eastern Time: "The connection has timed out       

The server at hutchison.senate.gov is taking too long to respond.

    *   The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few
          moments.

    *   If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network
          connection.

    *   If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure
          that Firefox is permitted to access the Web."   [ Try Again ]

...I did, and this is what happened: at exactly 10:25 a.m.: I did get the confirmation page with the sole message at the top of the screen that I tried to "copy" by blue highlight, but that I was not "fast on the trigger" to the words: "Thank you for your input...."     

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 21, 2009, 09:35 AM NHFT

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 20, 2009, 05:15 PM NHFT

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on October 20, 2009, 11:58 AM NHFT..."He that violates his oath profanes the divinity of faith itself." ... Cicero

Sent by United States Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECIEPT
To: ...
U.S. Congress member
Kay Bailey Hutchinson 7008 1300 0001 9765 6504 ...

U.S. Congress member John Cornyn 7008 1300 0001 9765 6498
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510 ....

...P.S. Here are the websites for these two U.S. Senators, and Federal Rep.:
A. http://hutchison.senate.gov/
B. http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/
C. http://hinojosa.house.gov/

Jose: Here's a copy and paste of my message...

entitled: Title 40 U.S. Code Section 255

"Dear Senator Hutchinson:
- - - - -
As a friend of one of your constituents, Cirino** Gonzalez and his father Jose, who just wrote you a NOTICE of wrongs being done by one of your Article III inferior Courts of Congress per the U.S. Constitution, and who started this Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 "Consent" investigation on Sept. 10, 2001 with the certificate of federal non-filing in N.H. by the feds being in 40USC255 non-acceptance to our N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 offer for conditional consent, you might also be interested in the Adams case of 1943 in the U.S. Supreme Court too that backs up his claim that there be NO jurisdiction, and so the money you authorize for THAT court to operate is being spent both unlawfully and illegally, (see also the violations of 18USC3232 over to Maine) and thus I 2nd his report to you that you stop this wrong by stopping the flow of money to it, as in feed-a-cold, starve-a-fever, and so starve-a-wrong until corrected. Yours truly, -- Joe Haas, a federal taxpayer through my employer at work, with ancestors from West Texas who later moved to Oklahoma and their descendants/ my cousins, still there plus over to Mississippi too where my Uncle Bob lives. Them originally from the Jamestown Settlement and into Kentucky the years just before Daniel Boone.
- - - - -  P.S. We here in New Hampshire are working on this too, by my suing the governor for his dereliction of Art. 51 duty for which he SHALL* be "responsible for" by Article 41 in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims Case #2009-013 filed Oct. 15 '08 to enforce ALL legislative mandates* since Reno** was an Article 12-N.H. "inhabitant" entitled to this protection not provided. And so to send you a copy of their decision against the governor who was supposed to have sent you this "Invitation" to have YOUR federal "officer" visit our N.H. Secretary of State with the appropriate federal papers for filing. - - - - - cc: my two U.S. Senators: Judd Gregg, and Jeanne Shaheen." ....

Jose: Here's what I did get at the Confirmation Page for Sen. Cornyn at 10:47 a.m. Eastern Time (8:47 a.m. Central Time): "Thank you for contacting our office. Someone will be in contact with you soon."  This was just after I had sent him the same information that was sent to Senator Hutchinson.  Instead of using the subject: Judiciary (as I had for Hutchinson), and so as not to be in the general too with: Taxes, I did choose: "Federal employees" as in WHO is this N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 federal "officer" who is supposed to be doing this job, and getting paid for doing NOTHING!

From his main page of:

http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/ I did get to his Contact Page of:

http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

and pressed the button for" "Request Senator Cornyn's help with a federal agency:"

http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ServicesForTexans.HelpWithFederalAgencies

but that was YOUR Certified Mail envelope to him, and so back to:

http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

and the

http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

by pressing the button for: "Email Senator Cornyn..." that I did, and got the following Confirmation page:

http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactSubmit&CFID=18105524&CFTOKEN=82459813

Notice that "Someone WILL be in contact with you soon" (emphasis ADDed), and so WHEN that occurs, I'll get their name and relay it over to you for WHO to deal with in finding out WHO this N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 federal officer is, for to file, and THEN to get the copy of that receipt from him or her by our N.H. Secretary of State, Bill Gardner and/or a copy of the federal filing with the N.H. Date Stamp thereon to present as NEW evidence in your son's criminal case to re-open at the U.S. District Court with either a Motion to Dismiss or at the very least for a Re-Trial to prove that at the time of the events (the alleged crime(s)), the Feds had NO jurisdiction, and so the jury to find the defendants: NOT Guilty! and then to what? Sue in the U.S. Court of Claims? and/or N.H. State Board of Claims too.

Best wishes, -- Joe

cc: William M. Gardner, the N.H. Secretary of State

Thank you for the info on where Ed & Elaine are located. I called the Danbury FCI to confirm that Elaine was there and they said that she was "on writ in Carswell, Texas." I don't know what "on writ" means (or maybe I heard him wrong), and he did not know for how long she would be there. He gave me the address and phone number for the FMC Carswell:
(817) 782-4000
FMC Carswell
PO Box 27066
J Street, Building 3000
Fort Worth, TX  76127

I called them but after ringing for 2-3 minutes with no answer, I gave up (and will try again later).

I have not yet confirmed that Ed is still at FMC Devens.

Thanks again for the info. In the future, I would really appreciate it if anyone who learns of Ed or Elaine being moved would email admin@mail-to-jail.com so we can update the address to which we send them letters.

Here's a copy and paste of my e-mail letter to Bill Gardner, our N.H. Secretary of State that was sent to him by me at exactly: 11:27 AM E.T. and notice the names in the cc: section:

"Haas - N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1* (+ Texas)?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 10/21/09 11:27 AM
To:    Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us)
Cc:    Citizens Service - N.H. (Lynch) (officeofcitizenservi at nh.gov); Concord Police Dept. (police at onconcord.com); County Strafford (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us); Donald C. Vittum (dvittum at pstc.state.nh.us); Foster's Daily Democrat (letters at fosters.com); G&C Exec. Sec. Joanne Ruell (gcweb at nh.gov); G&C#1 (rburton at nh.gov); G&C#2 (jshea at nh.gov); G&C#3 (bhollingworth at nh.gov); G&C#4 (rwieczorek at nh.gov); G&C#5 (debora.pignatelli at nh.gov); Jeb Bradley (jebebrad at metrocast.net); Rep. David Russell (russells at metrocast.net); Representative Paul Hodes (nh02ima at mail.house.gov); Senator Patrick Leahy (senator_leahy at leahy.senate.gov)
Bcc:    Andrew Tempelman ...who started this on Sept. 10, 2001... Bernie Bastian ...who notified the Town of Plainfield, N.H. on June 20, 2007 of their duty to protect Ed & Elaine as Article 12 "inhabitants" whose property taxes were paid for this service...Bill Tinker, my friend with Linda who did visit Ed & Elaine with me that Summer of 2007 before their unlawful taking on 10-4 over and out... Bill Riley ...for to help his brother Danny, another victim in this case; Bob Schulz ...with thanks for that 40USC255 info and the 1943 Adams case at the U.S. Supreme Court; ...Kat Kanning, for providing this website to "Chronicle" all of this; ...C7; my friend Danny Mac in MAss. (who might like to visit Fort Devens for a Progress Report of my request for a copy of the log entries); David (Elaine's son); Dennis ...; Dick Marple (armlaw at hotmail.com), my good friend since the 1980s, former N.H. State Trooper, and N.H. State Rep. Retired; Donna (Reno's best friend); Fred Davideit, our former Jail4Judge President; gary b.(re: the World Court); Harriet C.(former State Rep. too) ; Harvey W. friend of: Henry McElroy, former N.H. State Rep.; JAIL4Judges Attn: Barbie; Joe O. (friend of Danny Mac); Jose Gonzalez; keith c. (in contact with Jason Gerhard, another victim); Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft of Huntsvill, Alabama, and his website of: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm a friend of http://www.tuppersaussy.com R.I.P. when I was a subscriber of his "The Main Street Journal" back in the 1980s; Lois G., our former JAIL4JUDGES President here in N.H.; lyndse r.f.; Mary B.; melody w.; Michael L.; Stephen J. D.; sue b.; and Wayne B.

To: William M. Gardner, Secretary of State
Concord, New Hampshire

Bill, Here's a copy and paste of my Reply #9227 (actual reply #2344) on page 616 over at

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9225

that was posted at exactly 9:09 a.m. (Central Time/ 11:09 Eastern Time) this morning:

WHEN U.S. Senator John Cornyn from Texas sends that federal "officer"* to finally file these papers, would you please record the event with a camera for which I will repay you for the film by buying you a complete roll for future events, and please have for me to pick up: a copy of the DAY (and time) STAMP on the cover of this filing, presumably to stamp on the upper right corner of a cover-letter as signed by the "officer".

Thank you "very" much! - - - - - - - - - Joe  / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel.l 603: 848-6059 (cell phone), e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

bcc: Jose Gonzalez and others."

Quote from: Mike Barskey on October 21, 2009, 10:37 AM NHFT...
(817) 782-4000
FMC Carswell
PO Box 27066
J Street, Building 3000
Fort Worth, TX  76127 ....

Thanks; to write to her there maybe later today, Elaine-Alice: Brown #03924-049.

I also pressed zero and let it ring for three (3) minutes too from 12:00 o'clock high noon to 12:03 o'clock p.m. E.T. exactly withOUT an answer either.

If and when I do make contact, to see what their policy is in getting earphones to watch AND listen to T.V., +/or a radio, etc., as I think nothing is transferred(?), other than maybe converted to $dollars, but at a discount, so to add $x more to buy all NEW equipment from Commissary where THEY make the profits?

- - Joe

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091021/NEWS01/910210360

entitled: ""Follow the Money"."

of: "Reference paragraph #9 of 13: "$80 million to * schools to fund an "adequate education," .

* how many? #____ and where? which ones? ____________

Is the federal "bunch" and "chunks" of money being spent in a "frugal" manner? as required by Article 38 of the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights!

As in: WHO audits this? as to certify that the Section 20 of 1795 Act "money" was actually received, AND allocated in accordance with the needs, but not wants of everyone, per the case-law in 55NH503 @ 505 (1875) in the Brentwood School District case out of Rockingham County; re: The Rose & Milton Friedman Plan adaptation of this N.H. case-law.

Do the recipients who receive this money sign on the dotted line that they will spend it in a lawful manner?  And who are they bonded with? What's the Insurance Company? with policy #____________ in that City/ Town for which they pay $xx,xxx per year for errors and omissions.

Let's hope that the educators who educate the next generation do not dumb-down or keep us who paid this money into the "system" in the dark.  A full accounting is claimed by Article 8 of our Bill of Rights.

Yours truly, Joe Haas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTu9HaHDI0A&feature=related "

Quote from: Mike Barskey on October 21, 2009, 10:37 AM NHFT
Thank you for the info on where Ed & Elaine are located. I called the Danbury FCI to confirm that Elaine was there and they said that she was "on writ in Carswell, Texas."

Perhaps he said that she was "en route" to Carswell.

Quote from: LordBaltimore on October 21, 2009, 11:33 AM NHFT

Quote from: Mike Barskey on October 21, 2009, 10:37 AM NHFT
Thank you for the info on where Ed & Elaine are located. I called the Danbury FCI to confirm that Elaine was there and they said that she was "on writ in Carswell, Texas."

Perhaps he said that she was "en route" to Carswell.

Yeah, that makes much more sense. :)

Here's the automatic reply you get from if and when you write this U.S. Senator in Texas:

"Your Message To Senator Cornyn?
From:    donotreply at cornyn.senate.gov
   Medium riskYou may not know this sender.Mark as safe|Mark as junk
Sent:    Wed 10/21/09 10:47 AM
To:    JosephSHaas at hotmail.com

Dear Joseph Haas,

Thank you for contacting my offices. Your correspondence has been received, and we will respond to you as quickly as possible. A copy of your message is attached below for your records.

If you need immediate assistance regarding an urgent problem you are experiencing with the federal government, visit the "Help With Federal Agencies" section of the website for details on how to proceed so that your difficulties are brought to my attention as soon as possible.

If you are seeking information or services from my offices that are NOT related to my Legislative duties, please visit my "Services For Texans" section for more information.

Warmest Regards,
U.S. Senator John Cornyn

---------------------------------------------------
Name/Email: ...."

I have confirmed with one person at the FMC Devens prison that Ed Brown is currently there.

Quote from: Mike Barskey on October 21, 2009, 12:06 PM NHFT
I have confirmed with one person at the FMC Devens prison that Ed Brown is currently there.

Mike: What is Lt. Spina you talked with?

Re: "Lt. Spina (the gatekeeper)
Fort Devens
47 Quebec Street
  Building 681, Box 48
Fort Devens, MAss. 01434
Tel. 978: 796-3512"

He's supposed to be looking into the legalities or NOT of whether Ed is there un-lawfully too, re: no 40USC255 acceptance papers to the N.H. Secretary of State that would give the N.H. U.S. Marshals the lawful authority in which to deposit Ed there either directly or in-directly through the MAss. U.S. Marshals.

If you could call him to ask for a Progress Report of my 10/9 paper to him mailed on Tuesday, October 13th, right after Columbus Day, that he's had since maybe last Thursday 10/15 and so to have had the opportunity to work on this maybe Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, like my call to him yesterday (Tuesday) to please verify that there has been no 40USC255 filing to N.H. RSA 123:1 per 1-8-17 U.S. Const. and to deal with what to do next.

That would be GREAT! to end this nightmare! and ricochet back to help Elaine too of course, and the co-victims of: Danny, Reno, Jason and Bob.

Yours truly, -- Joe

Here's a copy and paste:

"RE: (N.H.) Oath Keepers Conference - Sheriff Mack Speaking?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 10/21/09 4:26 PM
To:    lifeforce43 at rockymountains.net

Thank you, plus for here in New Hampshire, to add to #5 of that of the individual too, as no Article 12- N.H. "inhabitant" shall be controllable by any other laws*, than those to whom he or she or their "legislative body" meaning the N.H. General Court or Legislature "Art. I. Sec. 8, Clause 17 U.S. Constitution "Consent" to, and that includes: * the U.S. Codes or Statutes at Large that are "peanut" statutes here, since our June 14, 1883 "offer " of consent, or a "conditional" consent to the Feds was never 40USC255 accepted by them, and so as spelled out in the case-law of the Adams case of 1943 in the U.S. Supreme Court they have NO jurisdiction OVER us! -- Yours truly, Joe Haas, "Sovereign Citizen".

From: lifeforce43 at rockymountains.net
To: lifeforce43 at rockymountains.net
Subject: Fw: Oath Keepers Conference - Sheriff Mack Speaking
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:53:08 -0600

LET'S HOPE THIS SEES A LOT OF MAILBOXES.....

Thanks to: awarenessgroup
Subject: Oath Keepers Conference - Sheriff Mack Speaking

  This Saturday & Sunday - Very Important - Spread the Word
Bugle Call to Oath Keepers Conference - October 24th & 25th in Las Vegas
Stewart Rhodes, Constitutional Attorney, Yale scholar, formerly on staff with Ron Paul's DC office, U.S. Army paratrooper, firearms instructor.  He has worked as an artist & a firearms instructor.  Stewart was invited to speak at Stanford University on unlawful enemy combatant status, and teaches classes on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  He has been on numerous radio shows.  Oath Keepers fills a need to bring Americans together with law enforcement & military.  Oath Keepers a most important organization with a plan to save our freedom!
http://oathkeepers.org

See Videos - "Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey"
Sheriff Richard Mack - Forced Vaccine Prevention.  "The sheriff's power supercedes federal regulatory programs,
as Sheriffs are NOT agents of the federal government.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/09/28/richard-mack-forced-vaccine-prevention/

We The People Must Help Sheriff Mack and Oath Keepers to educate our sheriffs, police and military concerning their
oaths/responsibilities to the Constitution & the people.  Know the Mission!
Sheriff Mack's Book...and Mission:  "The County Sheriff: America's Last Hope"
http://www.beyondtheordinary.net/sheriffmack.shtml

$50 to preregister - $150 includes meals

OATH KEEPERS: ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY
Read full length version. http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
Stop tracking by Google/Big Brother
Protect Your Privacy!  Google is building massive data banks on you...bigger than the gov or the IRS according to Dr. Katherine Albrecht, author of "Spy Chips'.  She urges that we use Start Page by ixquick.  www.startpage.com  Make Startpage your homepage."

2.      ELAINE BROWN     03924-049      68-White-F      10-26-2042      CARSWELL FMC

Elaine is at Carswell, but she's not there on writ. ("On writ" is jargon for being transferred for a court hearing.) Elaine's status is that she's designated to Carswell. Carswell is the Federal Medical Center for women prisoners. She may have been sent there for medical treatment, or she may have been sent there as "inmate cadre", to work using her dental skills.

Or, because all the medical centers are "ADMIN" security level, she might just be there because they don't have another place to designate her that matches her security level based on her charges and length of sentence.

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091022/NEWS01/910220319

entitled: "Ask each of them this question, and have answer put in writing."

of: "More suck-ups to the Feds, or not?

Candidate #__: yeah, I like feeding at the federal trough.

Candidate #__: no, I think we ought to activate Art. 95 of the N.H. Constitution.*

* http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html = State collectors of the Federal taxes NOT "by" the Feds, BUT "for" the Feds, to keep "Uncle Sam" on a diet of NOT what he always "wants" BUT only "needs", like our own Article 38-N.H. "frugal"ity clause, http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

We shall "forever" have the Article 7 N.H. power to EITHER tax OR exempt the Feds.  On June 14, 1883 we exempted them from property taxes of their land, but NOT their buildings, http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm from http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm

So at about $20.00 per $1,000 of valuation for their complex over there of both the James C. Cleveland and Warren B. Rudman buildings at 53-55 Pleasant Street, Concord, N.H. assessed at $111 million, that calculates to over $2.2 million to the City of Concord and County of Merrimack every year!

Now which candidate(s) will truly honor their RSA Ch. 42:1 and 92:2 oath(s) of office? http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm to Article 84, N.H. Constitution.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTu9HaHDI0A&feature=related "

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/103174/85704

from: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091022/NEWS01/910220379

entitled: "Time to: "Think outside the box." "

of: "Thank you "NH".  Plus how many of these people are registered lobbyists?  #____ I KNOW that the Shapiro attorney outfit (on North Main Street in Concord, across from the HESS gasoline station/ convenience store), is one of them, as I've seen their name listed there in the book on the table in the Office of Secretary of State, 2nd floor, State House.  Too bad they stop there and don't inquire of WHERE the other filing is: re: the RSA Ch. 123:1 federal filing that is nowhere to be found, and "they" and others give their 2-cents of this and that when we should be talking $millions of dollars of not only this WHAT of to tax and spend but HOW the federal money is collected in the first place.  Time for our cut as the State collectors NOT "by" BUT "for" the Feds, to keep "Uncle Sam" in tip-top-shape of what he "needs", and sometimes to give him what he "wants". In other words: the parent or creator to give the allowance to the child or creature. See my other Reply today in TRYing to pin down what the Concord City Council candidates [CCCC, or C-4] can put in writing of yes or no to activate our Art. 95-N.H. powers for this, and see also Article 7 N.H. - Part First.

And quoting: ""The long-term strategy of the Democratic leadership in New Hampshire is to change our state political culture and significantly increase the size and scope of government," said State Rep. Jennifer Coffey, (R- Merrimack 6)." To which I say: so what? IF that change is to DECREASE the Federal involvement here, and INCREASE the N.H. size of a few more collectors of taxes in the State Dept. of Revenue to: up periscope, and bombs away, or tax bills sent from there to us, instead of from and directly to the Feds! At least then there would be an executive check-and-balance closer to home rule in being able to talk to a "David" (of indirectly to the Feds) rather than a "Goliath" from the Feds.

To see what is written up in the Official Minutes of the State of what Gary and Alex said for The "Stonyfield Farm" and "Common Man" respectfully, to compare to any Report at their websites for more accurate and full information. http://www.stonyfield.com/ and http://www.thecman.com/ respectfully.

The "Stop the Spending" for next week, re: "The House Republican Office will host a "Stop the Spending" session on Tuesday, October 27 from 9:30 to noon at the Grappone Conference Center in Concord." is a good start of the present mentality, but that I think they ought to: "Think Outside the Box" of beyond the borders of the State to HOW the Feds get their money from us!"

Re:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091024/NEWS01/910240352

entitled: "Feds did AND does NOT comply with state law!"

of: "What a bunch of hypocrites! WHEN are the Feds going to comply with our state REQUIREMENT?, by the "shall" word as a must condition in RSA Ch. 123:1

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm

from: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm

in regards to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution; see also:

http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTu9HaHDI0A&feature=related "

I know this is something i've asked before and gotten an answer...but it's been a while and I've forgotten ...  where do I find Reno's latest addie?

If someone could pm me the answer so i don't have to wade through joe's legalese that would help

also i've suggested putting jason and reno both on mail-to-jail.com

Cirino Gonzalez 76342-179
FCI EL RENO
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
P.O. BOX 1500
EL RENO, OK 73036

Brown supporters appeal convictions
Judge's sentencing also challenged

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091026/FRONTPAGE/910260302&template=page2

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on October 26, 2009, 12:25 AM NHFT

Brown supporters appeal convictions
Judge's sentencing also challenged

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091026/FRONTPAGE/910260302&template=page2

Thank you Donna; now here's a copy and paste of my reply over to there in a few minutes AFTER posting here:

Re: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091026/FRONTPAGE/910260302&template=single

entitled: "Possible" Doubt Instruction violated 511 U.S 1 (1994) case-law."

of: "Thank you Margot, and especially for that: "Gordon's brief raises several other issues, including: ...• That the jury instructions did not properly reflect the requirements of the conspiracy law Gonzalez was accused of violating. "

The details* of that are over in the Appeals Brief for Cirino Gonzalez:

http://www.appealslawyer.net/briefs/Gonzalez_Cirino_BriefAsFiled.pdf

originally posted on Joshua L Gordon's site:.

http://www.appealslawyer.net/case_list.html

* He and they will win on this point of law so that the court doesn't have to get down to the constitution** (that they avoid  like the plague!) and that is V "Reasonable Doubt Instruction Diluted Government's Burden of Proof", in that "Reasonable doubt is...not mere possible doubt" Victor v. Nebraska 511 U.S. 1 (1994); so that when Singal said this "possible" word, he in effect, guaranteed them a new trial!

And so THEN they can have their NEW attorneys enter SPECIAL APPEARANCE forms because it's not so simple as you wrote of: " because the federal courthouse in Concord is not actually federal property" because it IS by their proprietary "right, title and interest" as THEY say in this bundle or phrase of words. The title there by REGISTRY of the transfer of ownership from one to another, re: to where the Sawyer Prints were made back in the old days.  The REGISTERS at both the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds and City Hall reference to such on the Property Card.  And that although THEY "say" rights, I instead say: powers, as in the creature Federal government MADE by us the creator with rights that we give only certain LIMITed powers to that of what we create. In other words: yes, they have an interest, but of what type?  An interest to PROTECT their building, but there being no jurisdictional interest over us! The Article 12 "inhabitants" http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html  in that: "...Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent." The Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 "Consent" of the United States Constitution. On June 14, 1883 we gave them Consent, but of what type?  A "conditional" consent, or actually an "offer" [ * ]OF Consent, that by their own Title 40 U.S. Code, Section 255 http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575  reads as follows:  See: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm of: "In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized [ * ] government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)." THEY even spell it out in their own U.S. Attorney Manual #664 at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm The statute you ask? N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm and probably never filed or REGISTERed with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State because THEY want more than just an RSA Ch. 123:2 property tax exemption of the land, but for their buildings too, assessed at about $111 million, that if at the $20.00 per $1000 of valuation would amount to a yearly tax for them to pay The City of Concord (and Merrimack County) over $2.2 million per year! We have this  power to tax them "forever" mentioned in our Article 7, N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights.

Yours truly, JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com, founding member of V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc. [Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System], in 2010 maybe to amend to: Victors of a Corrected American Lawful System.

P.S. I also like: page 42/54: "Mere possession of a gun does not implicitly create a threat. See e.g. United States v. Chapple, 942 D.2d439, 442 (7th Cir. 1991)".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTu9HaHDI0A&feature=related "

Quote from: DadaOrwell on October 25, 2009, 08:54 PM NHFT
... so i don't have to wade through joe's legalese....

David: to "wade"* as in to "walk"? How insulting!  ;D It's "goose-step" time in a "hike"!  >:D

* "To make one's way arduously**"

** arduous: DEMANDing great effort or labor; strenuous; difficult; from the Latin word: arduus of high***, steep.

Yours truly, Your "high"ness.  8)

I have confirmed that Elaine is being imprisoned at the FMC in Carswell, and that the mailing address is:
Elaine Brown
#03924-049
FMC Carswell
Federal Medical Center
P.O. Box 27137
Fort Worth, TX 76127

They would not tell me how long she would be there. I have updated this info on Mail-to-Jail (http://mail-to-jail.com).

She's likely to be there the rest of her life.

Quote from: Kat Kanning on October 27, 2009, 08:49 AM NHFT
She's likely to be there the rest of her life.

I "highly" doubt it VERY much!  Although we have crooks in government, they have NOT taken over the whole system of checks and balances.  So yes, we have their disease of these bad apples in our barrel of government, not this ship-of-state B.S., and so needing the tools to eradicate them: to pluck them up by the roots. As like when they "pull"ed Danny's case #2007-0745 to the Feds.  That was AGAINST the law, and the N.H. Supreme Court judges were and are their co-horts!  The ONLY way for Federal REmoval is by a push by the Defendant, and NOT a pull by the Intervenor! So I say to the Feds: "pluck you"! Yes PLUCK YOU in capital letters, all the way to your individual destruction of the uproot by having those officers not doing their job, and those doing their jobs in the wrong and KNOWing it, erased from the government payroll!

Here's another copy and paste:

"Log Book copy please, Devens BOP, MAss.
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Tue 10/27/09 1:29 PM
To:    ntsongas at nikitsongas.com
Cc:    senator_kirk at kirk.senate.gov
Bcc:    ________________________

To: U.S. Representative Niki Tsongas
11 Kearney Square, 3rd Floor
Lowell, MA 01852
(978) 459-0101
Attn: Emey
http://tsongas.house.gov/index.html

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/one_item_and_teasers/kirk.htm

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=MA

Dear Rep. Tsongas:

--Good afternoon to you, Emey and that woman who did answer the Washington, D.C. telephone for Ted Kennedy's replacement in Congress.  I had earlier called U.S. Senator John Kerry's office in Washington, and some Patrick there transferred me over to some "Foreign" Affairs by mistake, and so I said to heck with dealing with his "outfit"!

--Now Emey: I see that the zip code for the Devens letter as in the copy and paste below of 01434 works at your website, but NOT for Ayer, MAss. 01732 to where my friend is located and with a P.O.A. (Power of Attorney) from him and his wife to help them file a monetary claim of up to $50,000 each with the N.H. RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm  against The N.H. Dept. of Safety here and its Commissioner for their and his failure to Article 12 "protect" him as an "inhabitant" from when that RSA Ch. 123:1 federal "officer" has FAILed to file with our N.H. Secretary of State as required by the statute and law as indicated below for 1-81-17 U.S., and 40USC255. See: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html  and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm  respectfully, and with wrongful actions subsequently committed by local, county, state and federal agents. It is the federal agents part that concerns you.  I've asked both of my U.S. Senators Judd Gregg and Jeanne Shaheen for WHO this RSA Chapter 123:1 federal "officer" is, and three paydays have gone by so far of Fridays, October 9, 16, + 23 of my employers paying into this "system" but that when I want to know WHO my "public servant" is who I've paid for this action, and WHY he or she has NOT done their job, I find it very annoying of this run-around to the point of now having to go outside the state to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and you Feds there and maybe with a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus with that __________ County Superior Court, or when my friend is transported back to Strafford County in Dover, N.H.

--Hopefully you can start to correct this by PLEASE getting me the name of the gatekeeper there and a copy of the log book for WHO entered him in from WHO and because of the illegality of him being there to do something about it now, rather than on yet another appeal!  See item #12 of 12 as I've indicated in my Reply to The CONCORD (NH) MONITOR story about this over at: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091026/FRONTPAGE/910260302   that refers over to The Brief at: http://www.appealslawyer.net/briefs/Gonzalez_Cirino_BriefAsFiled.pdf

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone), e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

pc: U.S. Senator Paul G. Kirk, Jr., Democrat, 317 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. 20510, Tel. 202-224-4543

P.S. The below copy and past is of my Reply #9187 on page 613 of Friday, October 9th, 2009 @ 1:33 PM that was postmarked to Lt. Spina the day after Columbus Day, on Tue., Oct. 13th, with my phone call to him and his back to me of last Thursday, Oct. 22nd that he never received my envelope nor letter in the #10 envelope, with copy that I mailed to Ed at the same time from The Concord, N.H. Post Office, and my 2nd call to him this morning 10/27 in that he's been on duty there since this past Spring, but that his gate-keeping duties are to the Fort only as separate from this Federal Facility. http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9180  Thus WHO is the Federal gatekeeper, and WHERE are his records of WHO accepted Ed from WHO, as I'd like an internal check of to see if legal or lawful that is is NOT! so as to be corrected administratively by the executive branch of the federal government as a check against this corruption in the courts: of this Art. III, Section 1 inferior Court of Congress, YOUR court! in N.H. doing this dirty-work! BEFORE of ANY of said Petition as mentioned to the County Court in either MAss. or N.H."

Mod. Tel. # not 979, but 978.

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 27, 2009, 12:46 PM NHFT

Quote from: Kat Kanning on October 27, 2009, 08:49 AM NHFT
She's likely to be there the rest of her life.

I "highly" doubt it VERY much!  Although we have crooks in government, they have NOT taken over the whole system of checks and balances. 

Well, I hope you're right.

Ed,

Yes, Devens withIN Ayer, MAss. is withIN Middlesex County, and the closest courthouse is in Lowell, MA 01852 (360 Gorham Street, tel. 617-788-8130 main # over to 978-453-0201) but the man there on a press 280 for Civil said that all NEW cases start out of the Main Office: Middlesex County Superior Court, 200 Trade Center, Woburn, MA 01801 Tel. 781-939-2700 ___*

* to call there about getting you a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus form (like the one I used in Grafton County, N.H. and got out of jail thanks to the form in McNamara's "Criminal Practice & Procedure" book).

Reference: http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm for The Massachusetts Constitution, Part The Second, Chapter VI, Article VII of: "The privilege and benefit of the writ of habeas corpus shall be enjoyed in this commonwealth in the most free, easy, cheap, expeditious and ample manner; and shall not be suspended by the legislature, except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time not exceeding twelve months."

Thus for the judge there to see to it that unless the Feds there can supply proof of the N.H. filing as the end does NOT justify the means, as in the turn-over to there by N.H. Deputy Marshals of the U.S. Marshal Service which is in default of N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 for the 40USC255 non acceptance of such, that you either be released forthwith to freedom, or at least back to Strafford County for our N.H. judge to deal with this illegal and unlawful incarceration.

Good luck, -- Joe

* At Press 5 for Civil, the man transferred me to Press 4 for Criminal Attn: Mary, where I got her voice mail, and left a message that she send the form to me, so that I can attach all the documentation of the above and re-send to you, but by that time you might be out of there? back to Dover?  Anyway, it's being done as soon as she listens to my voice recording, and to get back to you.

P.S. Just like what Danny did in Dover too, but that at the time he didn't have that 40USC255 stuff nor the 1943 Adams case from the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Federal system of that you've got to first file a habeas with the sentencing court, and then by Rule 63 to whatever federal court be in the jurisdiction of your next location for what's called the collateral attack. This latest info thanks to Reno.

Joe,

You keep mentioning 40USC225 but I can't find it.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sup_01_40_08_I.html

Does it still exist?

Quote from: Mike Barskey on October 26, 2009, 02:44 PM NHFT
They would not tell me how long she would be there.

From the BOP website:

ELAINE BROWN   03924-049    68-White-F    10-26-2042   CARSWELL FMC

Quote from: grolled on October 27, 2009, 06:06 PM NHFT
Joe,

You keep mentioning 40USC225 but I can't find it.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sup_01_40_08_I.html

Does it still exist?

It disappears from page #1 at GOOGLE every now and then for some strange reason it's not there today, re: 40 USC 255 (with the spaces), or 40USC255. 

Here it is from Archives here: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 28, 2009, 12:13 AM NHFT

Quote from: grolled on October 27, 2009, 06:06 PM NHFT
Joe,

You keep mentioning 40USC225 but I can't find it.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sup_01_40_08_I.html

Does it still exist?

It disappears from page #1 at GOOGLE every now and then for some strange reason it's not there today, re: 40 USC 255 (with the spaces), or 40USC255. 

Here it is from Archives here: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575

I know but that is from Archives and doesn't appear currently to exist in the US Code.

All sites with United States Code (USC) do not have 40 USC 225.

Quote from: grolled on October 28, 2009, 08:27 AM NHFT

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 28, 2009, 12:13 AM NHFT

Quote from: grolled on October 27, 2009, 06:06 PM NHFT
....

....

I know but that is from Archives* and doesn't appear currently** to exist in the US Code.

All sites*** with United States Code (USC) do not have 40 USC 225.

Nobody uses those middle numbers in THAT order or sequence: "Cite as: 40 U.S.C. 255 (OSCN 2009), CHAPTER 3 - PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS GENERALLY"

When I wrote "Archives here"*  I meant it, as from what I had previously written on THIS website here on page #___ of MY Archives, NOT Federal Archives!

It IS "current"**. Just because GOOGLE gets rid of it every now and then does NOT eliminate it from the U.S. Code, or Statutes at Large!

*** Can you give me just one site that skips over this?  I dare you!

See also: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/Title_40.txt

"40 USC TITLE 40 - PUBLIC BUILDINGS, PROPERTY, AND WORKS"

"THIS TITLE WAS ENACTED BY PUB. L. 107-217, SEC. 1, AUG. 21, 2002,
                              116 STAT. 1062

                                                               
    Subtitle                                                         Sec.
    I.      FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES             101
    II.     PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS                              3101"

"TABLE SHOWING DISPOSITION OF ALL SECTIONS OF FORMER**** TITLE 40"   

**** Now that's VERY interesting! The word: "former" in capital letters!

BUT: then see the chart:

"  Title 40                            Title 40           
            Former Sections                       New Sections"

THUS: "255 (1st-5th pars.)                3111                             
    255 (last par.)                    3112"

SO: for some reason the government wanted the old section 255 of 6 paragraphs split up into two NEW Sections of 3111 and 3112.

I'll get to the actual book at the Library today and copy that for my files. Thank you VERY much! Therefore if and when the government might have tried to say to the jury in my case...

[yes - the Strafford County Attorney for the Board of County Commissioners who I have sued in the Small Claims Court, in Dover, N.H. has paid the $115 appeal fee to have my case #432-2009-SC-473 there tried by jury in reference to them using the excuse of me not to have my Art. 5 - N.H. religious visits and as a 6th Amendment Counselor by the U.S. Constitution for to be able to visit Ed with a POA because the Feds dictated to these County goons who took it and still take it: hook, line and sinker even against their own RSA Ch. 92:2 oaths to do otherwise, of me NOT to be allowed in to visit Ed, or in other words a federal override of not just a law, but by mere policy, that be against our N.H. rights as Article 12 "inhabitants" to NOT be controllable over us withOUT our 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution "Consent" that was given to the Feds by our "legislative body" of the Legislature or General Court on June 14, 1884 (Flag Day), as a "conditional" consent or offer, but that was NEVER accepted, as required by the old 40USC255 now what? 40USC3111 and backed up my the case-law opinion in the 1943 Adams case from the U.S. Supreme Court that said, in effect, it takes two to tango.  Thus there being NO dance or harmony with the feds who are technically trespassers here when we refuse to give them an individual waiver and especially when our demands or claims are for like when Ed asked them from PRIVATE property of: "Show Ed the Law", that makes him "liable" to be put into that payment chart. As an "inhabitant" he had and still has these rights and I WILL sue the N.H. Dept. of NON- Safety in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims for Ed and against this Commissioner to have to pay Ed $50,000 in a moiety amount of up to half his salary per year garnished for such until the full $amount is paid that was supposed to be THE way to go for Ed too, as by the Writ of Elegit process to collect upon a debt of to take up to half the apples but never the tree! (the interest but not the principle, as like in common stock vs preferred shares of stock) The lien arose from this power, and the fact that "a tax, in its essential characteristics is not a debt"! reference the definition of the word tax in The (Henry Campbell) BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (5th edition @ page 1307).]

...that this offer is no longer required BY Section 255, I can say for them to stop using these additional words of: "by Section 255", and back up, in that "this offer is STILL required" just NOT by Section 255 as the OLD Section, BUT by the NEW Section 1311.

Again, thank you VERY much to prepare against these manipulators!  Is this their excuse too?, and if so, and they are reading this now, would you please get with it! Have your federal "officer" by N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 finally file their papers with our N.H. Secretary of State to accept our Article 7 - N.H. "forever" powers to tax you too, as from the creator to its creature (as in a parent telling the child who has come of age that the freeloading has got to stop of you now having to get a job and pay rent, or your share of the public benefits like fire protection to your buildings over there at 53-55 Pleasant Street, Concord, N.H.)  The creator giving you a tax break by RSA Ch. 123:2 for the land being exempt, but NOT the buildings.  The Tax Assessor to send you a bill for $2.2 million per year based on the assessment of $111 million at at the rate of about $21.00 per $1000 of valuation.

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

Here's a typing of the: (1) cover letter, (2) the check mark, and (3) The APPEARANCE form:

(1) "OFFICE OF THE STRAFFORD COUNTY ATTORNEY, P.O. Box 799 - 259 County Farm Road, Dover, New Hampshire 03821   COUNTY ATTORNEY  Thomas P. Velardi   DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY  Hope Morrow Flynn  (County Seal)

October 15, 2009

Joanne Sullivan, Clerk, Dover District Court, 25 St. Thomas Street, Dover, NH 03820

Re: Joseph Haas v. Strafford County Board of Commissioners, 2009-SC-473

Dear Joanne:

Please find enclosed is my Appearance on behalf of the Board of Commissioners, together with a check for $115 filing fee, and request for trial by jury in Superior Court, in the above-referenced matter.

Sincerely,

Steve
Stephen G. LaBonte, Assistant County Attorney  B

SGL/blf
Encs.
Cc: Joseph S. Haas
Board of Commissioners

General Phone: (603) 749-2808 ...General Fax: (603) 743-4997 ...."

(2) "INSTRUCTIONS ...____ SECTION A: DISTRICT COURT HEARING BEFORE A JUDGE... __(check mark)__ "SECTION B: SUPERIOR COURT TRIAL BY JURY  If this claim is for more than $1,500, or the title to real estate is involved you may request that the claim be transferred to the Superior Court for a jury trial.  YOU MUST: (1) check this box; (2) complete the bottom of this form; (3) include $115.00 (DO NOT MAIL CASH) for the transfer fee: and (4) return the form and the $115.00 to the District Court Clerk by the RETURN DATE on the front of the complaint.  If you do not include the $115.00 transfer fee, your case will be scheduled for hearing before a judge in the District Court.

Date _______________     Signature ________________ [ I can't read the scribbling, except for the "Esq." for Esquire and the printed words underneath of:] "OFFICE of the Strafford County Attorney  Address __PO Box 799____  City State Zip  Dover NH 03821 "

(3) STRAFFORD, SS THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE  Dover District COURT
APPEARANCE/WITHDRAWAL
__ COURT
__ JURY             Docket No. 2009-SC-473

Joseph S. Haas OF _________ v. Board of Strafford County Commissioners OF ___________

Returnable on the first Tuesday of __________________

APPEARANCE  Please enter my appearance as _x_ Counsel for: Strafford County Board of Commissioners ...

I hereby certify that duplicates of this notice were: _x_ mailed to:
Joseph S. Haas on ____September 22, 2009_______


Signed Stephen G. LaBonte, Assistant County Attorney
Address  Post Office Box 799, Dover, New Hampshire 03821-0799
Telephone  603-749-2808 "

RE:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091028/OPINION/910280368

entitled: "Time to bill the Feds."

of: "So WHO is paying this $17 million bill?  The County or State?  I think the County owns the land and building, and THEN rents out the space as the landlord to the tenant court of the State of New Hampshire.  Right? Sort of like the GSA at the federal level of The General Services Administration is the landlord of both the Norris Cotton Federal Building in Manchester, and the other buildings of both the James Cleveland Building and Warren B. Rudman Building in their complex at 53-55 Pleasant Street in Concord, N.H. (where the old Sawyer prints were made.)

Thus WHY should the landowners of Hillsborough County have their property taxes increased? by $____ per $1000 of valuation to pay for this over #___years, like to pay both the principal PLUS interest on some bond where the private investors benefit financially at __%.

There are "freeloaders" in the County NOT paying their fair share! Check it out: By RSA Ch. 123:2 we gave the Feds our Article 7 - N.H. "forever" power to tax as exemption from the land but not the building(s).  So how much is the Cotton Building assessed at: $_________ and with what? $20.00 tax per $1000 of valuation = $_________ from them per year x #____ years would (and hopefully WILL pay for this project).  All that's needed is for We The People to wake up the City Assessor to his duty to abide by the law of to exempt the land but NOT the building.  What is he or she using as an excuse? FOR the Feds and AGAINST the taxpayers who pay his/her salary. That the Feds are exempt from the building tax too?  WHERE is that in the statutes?  It is NOT there!  Time for some RSA Ch. 643:1 Official Oppression charge? There is a U.S. Supreme Court opinion of some inter-governmental policy of NOT to tax, but that opinion came AFTER our N.H. Founding Fathers put that "forever" word in there that the Feds canNOT take out!  Other states might NOT have it in their Constitutions, BUT that we have it in ours, and by RSA Ch. 92:2 and/or RSA Ch. 42:1 these State and City Public Servants "shall" obey the law! The law of N.H. AND the U.S. because by 1-8-17 U.S. there has to be a "Consent", that there was by RSA Ch. 123:1 back on June 14, 1883 in that we/ our "legislative body" of the N.H. Legislature or General Court did give them consent alright, but of what type?  Of "conditional" consent, or an offer, but that has NOT been 40USC255 (or 3111) accepted.  In other words: maybe not even the land exempt UNTIL they file their papers with Bill Gardner, in his: THE Office of N.H. Secretary of State.

JSH "

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 27, 2009, 12:50 PM NHFT
... I had earlier called U.S. Senator John Kerry's office in Washington, and some Patrick there transferred me over to some "Foreign" Affairs by mistake, and so I said to heck with dealing with his "outfit"!
...
pc: U.S. Senator Paul G. Kirk, Jr., Democrat, 317 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. 20510, Tel. 202-224-4543 ....

Update: I did get a call from Emey yesterday to my voice mail of BEFORE the e-mail was sent saying that she will NOT do anything for me from Fed. Rep. Nikki Tsongas's office, reason: I just called her at 2:12 p.m. right now to 978-459-0101 and she said that her supervisor who has worked on such for 14 years told her to tell me that "it is not under their jurisdiction" and them ONLY to deal with there if there was a "dire medical" situation, thus my surmising of NOT of procedural due process of law being dealt with by this Federal Rep who ONLY is concerned with the end of the substantive.

But get this: at about 11:35 a.m. this morning I did get a phone call from U.S. Senator John Kerry's office, that I had thought was worthless, with Ashley O'Neill saying that someHOW word got to them of the problem here and that she had called the Medical Facility there in Danvers withOUT pressing any buttons, and instead of the 44 rings twice as from a private line, I guess they saw WHO was calling and picked up to answer, and then when asked the question by Ashley to some woman who REFUSED to give her name nor title, she was "brief and blunt" that there would be NO copy of WHO logged Ed in to their facility from WHO, (unless by Court Order I guess as they REFUSE to provide same to a Federal Senator who funds the place, AFTER our tax dollars of course BELIEVE IT OR NOT!) and so back to my contacting the Office of Attorney ____________ (secret for the time being) of to help Ed file that Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

I had told Ashley of this latest info of 40USC255 over to the NEW section 3111 (three one-one-one) and that maybe that is WHY the Feds thought and still think that they do not have to file any papers with our N.H. Secretary of State is because 255 no longer exists?  It doesn't, but has not been eliminated but REPLACED by 3111. This "error" has got to be corrected but WHEN and WHERE and by WHO? -- I also told Ashley that it might be the TIME and PLACE of my Small Claims Court case against the Feds indirectly through their stool pigeons, see: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stool+pigeon of actually "stale or stall" pigeons as in THEM of TRYing to make us THINK (as in the "Thought Police" of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty Four") that this 255 is stale of a non moving statute because it no longer exists, but it DOES exist, just over in another section number, # 3111, like to place the words of the OLD 255 into the NEW 3111, and thus to stall or delay!?  Hey! Justice delayed IS justice denied!

Ashley said that I try re-calling the Medical Facility (from a different phone # like what? from Gregg's office in Concord?) and talk to the woman with no name, as I can speak directly (rather than her indirectly for me), and to get the chain-of-command there to the Warden, and then if he or she refuses them for me to get back to her/Ashley with a written statement of such as signed by me (or Ed), that she can forward onto the Warden with a cover letter.  To which I said thank you, but that that trick was used by Fed. Rep. Shelly Pingree in Maine for sending a similar cover letter to Judge Singal asking him WHY he violated 18USC3232, but that I've yet to hear from from her either.

-- Joe

Here's another one of my replies ALREADY posted over at The CONCORD MONITOR: [usually I post here first and THEN there, but forgot to press the print button here first.]


RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091028/NEWS01/910280309&template=single

entitled: "What about: The "Dead Peasant" Contracts?"

of: "Reference: " He suggested putting contracts and other governmental information online."

Does this include "Dead Peasant" contracts? (;-) Like in that Michael Moore movie about "Capitalism" I saw last night at The Red River Theatre*. He talks about these key man insurance policies at WalMart.  Maybe time to extend these contracts from the PRIVATE to the PUBLIC Sector? (;-)

*  http://www.redrivertheatres.org/

over to: http://www.google.com/movies?hl=en&near=concord+nh&dq=red+river+theater+concord+nh&theater=red+river&ei=O4boSvPeG860lAfqzYWMAg&sa=X&oi=showtimes&ct=title&cd=1&ved=0CAsQxQMoAA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTu9HaHDI0A&feature=related "

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 21, 2009, 11:09 AM NHFT

Quote from: Mike Barskey on October 21, 2009, 10:37 AM NHFT...
(817) 782-4000
FMC Carswell
PO Box 27066
J Street, Building 3000
Fort Worth, TX  76127 ....

Thanks; to write to her there maybe later today, Elaine-Alice: Brown #03924-049....
- - Joe

Mike: WHERE did you get the 27066 number?  According to their website at: http://www.bop.gov/DataSource/execute/dsFacilityAddressLoc?start=y&facilityCode=crw it's 27137.

- - Joe

Mod: I called "Reader's Digest" at 1-800-304-2807 with my account # after I found my account page on the internet but that it would not allow me to type in a change of address for my gift subscribers of Ed & Elaine (was: only $5.00 per year by last offer, that I tried to register Jason, Reno and Danny too back then, but that it wouldn't work, and so left it up to their relatives to call in by phone). Ed's is still for Dover for when he returns from MAss., and I just changed Elaine's to POB 27066, but that when I double-checked I found this to be WRONG (or is it?), so by the official website of POB 27137 I re-called R.D. and gave Harry this updated number.  Unless I hear otherwise as to THE source of the 27066 #, I'll leave it by the current website for that F.M.C. - Joe

details: my subscription ends this month of Oct. 2009, but that Ed's ends on: June 2011 and Elaine will NOT get the Dec.2009, nor Jan. 2010 issues (probably not the Nov. 2009 one either), and so they've extended her subscription to August 2011.

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 28, 2009, 01:46 PM NHFT

I had told Ashley of this latest info of 40USC255 over to the NEW section 3111 (three one-one-one) and that maybe that is WHY the Feds thought and still think that they do not have to file any papers with our N.H. Secretary of State is because 255 no longer exists?  It doesn't, but has not been eliminated but REPLACED by 3111.

Joe - I think you mean to cite 40 USC 3112 9not 3111). See, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html

Quote from: grolled on October 28, 2009, 03:35 PM NHFT

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 28, 2009, 01:46 PM NHFT

I had told Ashley of this latest info of 40USC255 over to the NEW section 3111 (three one-one-one) and that maybe that is WHY the Feds thought and still think that they do not have to file any papers with our N.H. Secretary of State is because 255 no longer exists?  It doesn't, but has not been eliminated but REPLACED by 3111.

Joe - I think you mean to cite 40 USC 3112 (not 3111). See, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html

You're right, thanks! Now what are THEY going to say? That the "head" of the ______ "agency" over, or called The G.S.A. landlord of the place for which there are #__ tenants of the Cleveland-Rudman Complex in Concord IN-cluding the Art. III, Section 1 inferior court of Congress, called The U.S. District Court, that occupies __% of the space there, does NOT have to accept if he or she doesn't want to, because of the "may" word in the federal statute? 

THE question is: do the Feds there have 3112(a) Exclusive jurisdiction? Answer: yes or no.  I think the answer is no, because by the 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution the states of Virginia and Maryland (re: The Virgin Mary) did cede to the Washington, District of Columbia WITH the "acceptance of Congress" this place to be THE "Seat of the Government of the United States" WHERE "exclusive Legislation" is for "all Cases" there, BUT NOT "to exercise like Authority" OVER all Places purchased, UNLESS "by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be" located.  Although 40 USC 3112(b) reads of that of to file "a notice of acceptance with the Governor of the State" there is the word "or" right after that of "or in another manner prescribed by the laws of the State where the land is situated."

So here in New Hampshire, that is for this federal "officer" as head of this "agency" to by N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 have to file with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State, that is located on the 2nd floor of the State House (107 North Main Street, Concord, N.H.), and that by Article 51- N.H. the governor ought to be sending THEM a written invitation, and shall enforce all legislative mandates (for which he is Art. 41 "responsible for") in that the Feds "shall" do so, and not "may" do so, IF they are to take advantage of our RSA Ch. 123:2 tax exemption for the land, but that THEY have been arrogant, and which federal octopus, has extended its arms WAY past their lawful limit of ONLY for OVER that SPOT bounded by the City of Concord sidewalks there!  They have no business of TRYing to enforce their U.S. Codes OVER us! especially since we never gave them "consent" as in an offer yes, or a "conditional" consent if you want to call it that, but that until accepted, let's have the City Assessor send them a bill for at least the buildings part of their property! lest he be brought to court on criminal charges of RSA Ch. 643:1 "Official Oppression" for not doing his RSA 92:2 and 42:1 duty. - Joe

27066 is for the staff, not the inmates in Texas.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Modification.

Sorry: I should have "shut up"; maybe if enough mail went to the staff location for her, they might think that she works there as a dentist, Dr. Brown, and walk out the front door some day?

That is similar to what happened to me once at the county level.  I used to be the janitor there and walked outside with the trash into the fresh air and sunshine. Then one day somebody was going over calculating my release time of concurrent v.s. consecutive, and out I went: back to my apartment building where I was the landlord, and some tenant complained to the town that because THEY were not paying the rent, I had not paid the electric bill for that apartment, and it was turned off by the town for non-payment, and so when the COP found out I was out on a mathematical error of one of the C.O.'s, he had me arrested and transported back to the place because I was a bad boy: I did NOT pay for the electricity for my dead-beat tenant!

Here's another copy and paste from my e-mail:


Re: Fw: Sheriff Arpaio Tells Feds to Go to Hell
From:    Reclusive (4freedom at wildblue.net)
Sent:    Mon 10/19/09 11:16 PM
To:    BryanD (formula at embarqmail.com)
Him'n the governor of Montana share the same attitude.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:12 PM, BryanD <formula at embarqmail.com> wrote:

     
    ----- Original Message -----
     

    Sheriff Arpaio tells the feds to go to hell, and he continues to do it his way.The Feds have no authority over a sheriff - he is the supreme law of the land under the Constitution. A little known fact to the brain-washed cops is that the feds can't even issue a warrant without permission of local authority.  But like everyone else, they think the feds are #1.  In reality, the feds are last in authority domestically.
   

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gqkxAbwklmMogwQte-JHN_SEp4jgD9BCHREG4
   

    Ariz. sheriff launches immigration sweep

    By JACQUES BILLEAUD (AP) – 1 day ago

    SURPRISE, Ariz. — An Arizona sheriff known for cracking down on people who are in the country illegally launched a crime and immigration sweep in northwestern metro Phoenix on Friday, a half day after officials in Washington limited his powers to make federal immigration arrests.

    Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose sweeps have led to allegations of racial profiling, said the rebuff from Washington won't stop him. He said he can still arrest immigrants under a state smuggling law and a federal law that gives all local police agencies more limited power to detain suspected illegal immigrants.

    "It doesn't bother me, because we are going to do the same thing," said Arpaio, whose deputies had arrested 16 people by Friday evening on unspecified charges. "I am the elected sheriff. I don't take orders from the federal government."

    The officers were participating in a federal program that grants a limited number of local police departments special powers to make immigration arrests and speed up deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement stripped Arpaio of his power to let 100 deputies make federal immigration arrests, but renewed another agreement that allows 60 jails officers to determine the immigration status of people in jail.

    The sheriff's sweeps in some heavily Latino areas of metro Phoenix have drawn criticism that Arpaio's deputies racially profile people. Arpaio said people pulled over in the sweeps were approached because deputies had probable cause to believe they had committed crimes and that it was only afterward that deputies found many of them were illegal immigrants.

    The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating Arpaio's office over allegations of discrimination and unconstitutional searches and seizures.

    "He is doing this to thumb his nose at the Obama administration," said Lydia Guzman, president of the Hispanic civil rights group Somos America.

    The sweeps have discouraged some Hispanics who have witnessed or been victims of crime to refuse to call Arpaio's deputies, for fear of mistreatment, Guzman said.

    Observers who are part of Guzman's group fanned out across the area of the sweeps with video cameras to record exchanges between deputies and motorists.

    Arpaio said volunteers will use cameras owned by his agency to video-record deputies so viewers can see for themselves that they weren't doing anything wrong. Arpaio responded angrily to a question during a news conference about the costs of the cameras, saying they were paid through seizures in drug cases. "Dope peddlers bought the cameras," Arpaio said.

    A dozen anti-Arpaio protesters yelled throughout the news conference. At one point, they chanted: "Order equals K-K-K — here's what Arpaio has to say."

    Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City and an advocate of expanding local immigration efforts, said Arpaio's office — like every other local police agency — can detain people suspected of immigration violations for a day or two until federal authorities come to pick them up.

    In the past, Arpaio could have held such immigrants for longer than two days and conducted investigations of smuggling rings, Kobach said.

    "It's really a slight narrowing, but it's not much," said Kobach, who worked as an immigration law adviser to then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft from 2001-2003.

    Dan Pochoda, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing people who filed a lawsuit over the sweeps, said Arpaio still can't pull over motorists solely because they are suspected of being illegal immigrants.

    "He can't do it under the terms he is claiming. He has indicated that he can stop people without the suspicion, based on what they look like, what they sound like," Pochoda said.

    Arpaio said the Bush administration had no complaints about his use of the special federal powers, but all that has changed with the Obama administration.

    "What's changed?" Arpaio asked. "Politics has changed, because they don't like us going on the streets to catch illegals."

    This round of sweep, Arpaio's 12th, is set to end late Saturday.

    On the Net:

        * Maricopa County Sheriff's Office: http://www.mcso.org/

--
"A gun in the hands of a free man frightens and angers the GOVERNMENT,
not because they fear the power of the gun, but, rather, the spirit of the man who holds it." 
If truth offends ya don't go here:       
http://www.notgovernmentapproved.com
    O-ne-B-ig-A-ss-M-istake-A-merica!
A new look and check out the links:
http://www.hirepasha.com/hirepasha.com/Update.html "

Here's a copy of my latest letter to the governor:

"Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112.
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Thu 10/29/09 1:04 PM
To:    Citizens Service - N.H. (Lynch) (officeofcitizenservi at vnh.gov)
Cc:    Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us)
Bcc:    Andrew Tempelman ....

To: N.H. Governor John H. Lynch

RE: Your Art. 51 duty to enforce the legislative mandate by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 for which you SHALL be Art. 41 "responsible for" in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm

http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm

Dear Gov. Lynch:

Please see the very latest information of:

the old Title 40 U.S. Code Section 255 that I've been citing along with the 1943 Adams case in the U.S. Supreme Court too from Bob Schulz of "We The People" in New York who did visit with Ed Brown at his home in Plainfield, N.H. in Sullivan County back then in the Spring of 2007 when and where I did meet with both of them.

Now over two years later, thanks to the "grolled" member of The New Hampshire Underground website, re: page 618 over at http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9255 is THE answer to this entire case: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html of WHO for you to send the INVITATION to for him to file those papers with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State is:

the "head" of this "agency" being the landlord of the Federal Buildings over there at 53-55 Pleasant Street, Concord, N.H. consisting of both the James C. Cleveland and Warren B. Rudman Blocks and who is:

Paul F. Prouty, Acting Administrator of the G.S.A.: General Services Administration, , 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20405, Phone: (202) 501-0800. See:

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_OVERVIEW&contentId=10482

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=11164

As you know, I did contact Mrs. Tarlton, of the G.S.A. Boston office for the Region of New England, sometime in either late 2007 or early 2008, thinking that she was THE one to file, or at least knew who was, like her boss, but that my request ended at her desk! until now! As THE answer is for the "head", not the "arm" to file these papers.

Thus the Feds of course have proprietary powers there as the owner of that real estate by deed of the 1960s and can get to deal with legislative matters out of Washington over THAT piece of property but only AFTER the Consent from us as required by the law: 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution. Our Consent of June 14, 1883 in RSA 123:1 was of a certain type: of a "conditional" consent or offer, as YET to be accepted for "concurrent" jurisdiction.

Therefore back to our Art. 7, N.H. "forever" power to tax them, http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm .  We gave them property tax exemption for their land, but NOT their buildings.

And, because their powers be LIMITed to there only, then HOW to get the funds to them, our creature from us, the creator, other than from withIN our territorial jurisdiction of to feed Uncle Sam what he needs and maybe for a few of his wants, and that is by the Art. 95 - N.H. collectors of BOTH the state AND federal taxes, not BY but FOR the Feds. See: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html as the WAY of this procedural due process of law to ensure (or get back) to this check-and-balance.

So the bottom line for now, of would you PLEASE send Administrator Prouty that INVITATION, in writing for he (or his delegate) to file, and would you Bill: cc: to you too with thanks back to the first ever gold-sealed document request and receipt on September 10, 2001 right after the Andy Tempelman case out of Milford, N.H. ALSO PLEASE record this event with either a camera and/or camcorder as to the exact day and time with a receipt over to me post-haste to relay to the victims of this tragedy.

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059, e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com."

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 29, 2009, 12:13 PM NHFT...

Paul F. Prouty, Acting Administrator of the G.S.A.: General Services Administration, , 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20405, Phone: (202) 501-0800....

I called the 202: 501-0800 GSA # in Washington and the woman there said to call the Public Affairs at NOT 202- 501-0830 (State McClure, whatever that is, he said to call) BUT 202- 208-0438 and the woman there from Texas said that the nominee is: Martha Johnson, see: http://www.federaltimes.com/federal-times-blog/2009/10/14/martha-johnson-gsa-administrator-in-waiting-still-waiting/

- - Joe

Here's a re-type of the copy of the letter FROM The DOVER DISTRICT COURT and TO The Strafford County Superior Court Clerk:

" DOVER DISTRICT COURT
25 St. Thomas Street, Dover, New Hampshire 03820

Stephen M. Morrison, Presiding Justice
Stephen H. Roberts, Special Justice
Joanne H. Sullivan, Clerk of Court
742-7202

October 20, 2009

TO: Julie W. Howard, Clerk of Court

FROM: Joanne H. Sullivan, Clerk of Court

RE: Joseph S. Haas vs Board of Strafford County Commissioners
Docket # 432-2009-SC-473

Dear Ms. Howard;

--The Defendant's counsel has filed a Motion to Transfer to Superior Court.

--Enclosed are the certified copies of the Small Claims Complaint and all documents filed in the above matter.

--Please schedule a Hearing on the Merits at your earliest convenience.

Thank you,
(signed)
Joanne H. Sullivan
Clerk of Court

cc: Joseph S. Haas
Stephen G. LaBonte, Assistant County Attorney "

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091102/NEWS01/911020325

entitled: "John Boehner's website."

of: "Mr. Leader*:  When you come to N.H. next Friday the Thirteenth would you please bring Paul F. Prouty, Acting Administrator of the G.S.A.: General Services Administration, , 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20405, Phone: (202) 501-0800. See:

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_OVERVIEW&contentId=10482 and

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=11164 with you to file the N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm papers according to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html see also: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm and http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm because the new 40USC3112 is from the old 40USC255 and still requires this filing of federal papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State (Bill Gardner) by the Consent word in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of The United States Constitution.

I've sued our Democrat governor John H. Lynch for $5000 for his dereliction of duty to Article 51-N.H. for which he is Art. 41 responsible for http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm in Case #2009-013 filed Oct. 15, 2008. Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated for ALL Article 12 inhabitants of this state. http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

To remember what Party compelled the other Party to fulfill this constitutional obligation by the "shall" word at the next election.  Yours truly, - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059, JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com  "

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* http://republicanleader.house.gov/

to: http://republicanleader.house.gov/Contact/

and: http://republicanleader.house.gov/Contact/thankyou.htm

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091102/NEWS01/911020307&template=single

entitled: "Petitions to the General Court are still black-listed."

of: "Reference: paragraphs #1 + 2 here of: "In 1779, Prince Whipple and a small group of other New Hampshire slaves petitioned the Legislature to free them.

Whipple eventually was freed by his owner, not the Legislature, which IGNORED* the petition...." (emphasis ADDed).

* WHY did the General Court ignore the Petition?  Was it because the House Speaker back then too** did NOT send it over to the "appropriate Committee"? as required by the SHALL word in current House Rule #4.

** Back last century (;-) in 199__ another Dover Rep. tried to help me out in such an Article 32 Petition. http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html His name was Roland E. Hemon, R.I.P. but who, by mistake, put his seat number on such instead of his District Number, as required by House Rule #36 for his endorsement. This was when Donna Sytek was the House Speaker http://www.vestaroyseries.com/donna_sytek.htm with my complaint against her successor Gene Chandler http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=370346 who I took to the Ethics Committee to where he finally red-penciled this mistake under orders from them to him to have to explain himself.

Thus a new and detailed Petition was filed by me as properly endorsed by House Rule 36 with three State Reps: Henry McElroy of Nashua, Dick Marple of Hooksett, and Lars T. Christiansen of Hudson http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376105 But what happened to it?  Even worse: Then House Speaker, Doug Scamman of Stratham, knowing that it was properly endorsed this time went after NOT the substance but the procedural.  It was not until I complained to current House Speaker Teri Norelli http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/default.htm that I got answer #2 from her legal counsel: it was hand-delivered by me to Jill in Legislative Services (where she kept it), instead of delivered in person DIRECTly by ALL three of the Reps.

Now to what? File an Ethics complaint against her to the Ethics Board? because although two of the three Reps have retired, Lars is still a State Rep. No, not yet.  What I've done is pass the latest Petition to State Rep. Paul Ingbretson of Pike  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376480 as co-chairman of The Legislator's Council for The Petition for Redress of Grievance. He filed it. Thanks again Paul, and co-chair Dan Itse http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376357 of Fremont, N.H.

Yours truly, Joe Haas, founding member of VOCALS, Inc. [Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System]. "

Time to audit the U.S. gold at our Fort Knox.

According to this article and comment over at: http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/07/not-just-gold-missing-from-mint-hunt.html

this has not been done since 1978, and only a partial audit.

Re: The Section 16 gold deposits supposed to be made to our federal government BEFORE the PRIVATE FRNs of The System are monetized. Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

So that IF there is not enough silver bullion to melt down and coin into the dollars for the Constitutional requirements by Section 20 of The Coinage Act of 1792, then to sell the gold, buy the silver, and do so!

- - Joe

Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 02, 2009, 10:22 AM NHFT
Time to audit the U.S. gold at our Fort Knox....

According to this article and comment over at: http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/07/not-just-gold-missing-from-mint-hunt.html

this has not been done since 1978, and only a partial audit.

Re: The Section 16 gold deposits supposed to be made to our federal government BEFORE the PRIVATE FRNs of The System are monetized. Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

So that IF there is not enough silver bullion tu melt down and coin into the dollars for the Constitutional requirements by Section 20 of The Coinage Act of 1792, then to sell the gold, buy the silver, and do so!

- - Joe

Here's a copy and paste:

"Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Not just gold missing from mint; hunt also on for silver, platinum
by Eric deCarbonnel

The Vancouver Sun reports that not just gold missing from mint; hunt also on for silver, platinum.

(emphasis mine) [my comment]

Not just gold missing from mint; hunt also on for silver, platinum
By Ian MacLeod, The Ottawa CitizenJuly 3, 2009

OTTAWA - More than just a fortune in gold is missing from the Royal Canadian Mint. Silver, platinum and palladium have disappeared, too, but the mint won't say how much.

Independent audit results released this week found no accounting, bookkeeping or other internal errors to account for about 17,500 troy ounces of gold missing from the mints inventory, the equivalent of almost 44, 400-ounce bars valued at $15.3 million.

The probe by Deloitte briefly notes the mint has "also identified an unaccounted-for difference related to silver," and asked auditors to determine if sloppy accounting or bookkeeping was behind that, too.

Christine Aquino, mint spokeswoman, said in an e-mail the missing $15.3 million in gold, "takes into account ... all our (missing) precious metal, gold being the most significant component but also including silver, platinum and palladium metals."

The suggestion is the amounts are minor, though the mint declined requests to elaborate on the quantities involved.

Meanwhile, speculation is mounting over how to sneak half a ton of gold out of the fortress-like mint headquarters on Sussex Drive, supposedly one of the most secure buildings in Canada.

The bulk of it, 16,494 ounces, disappeared from the gold refinery on the north side of the historic stone building, which is wired with metal detection and monitoring equipment that scans employees exiting the high security area.

According to employees and visitors, one of the detectors creates computerized profiles of any metals in an individual's body, such as dental work and heart stents. If the person's signature profile does not match with the metal scan as they exit the high security zone where precious metals are handled, guards are alerted.

"The first time I went through, I had a one-cent coin in my wallet and they found that," says Bret Evans, managing editor of Canadian Coin News. "They X-rayed my wallet. It was just a simple penny and they gave it physical security to ensure that it was in fact a genuine one-cent coin, not a piece of gold that I'd painted or anything like that."

Beyond the scanning equipment, "to get to where the gold is, you've still got to go through a bunch of guys who make it their job to make sure nothing gets out," he says. "So security is pretty impressive. Having said that, its not a perfect situation."

That was the case in 1996 when a mint machinist smuggled 85 ounces of almost pure gold worth about $37,000 past the metal detectors, surveillance cameras and electronic sensors. A charge of theft against the man was later dropped for unexplained reasons and the mint was spared the humiliation of a trial that would have explained how the man beat the elaborate security system.

The mint has experienced other thefts, though nothing like the prospect it now faces if it's determined the missing gold is due to theft.

In 1988, a 23-year veteran janitor at the Sussex Drive plant stole at least $30,000 in gold, bit by bit. The man worked in an area where objects that come into contact with liquid gold, such as tools, are crushed and recycled so the gold can be recovered. Police found he had more than $150,000 in unexplained income between 1985 and 1988.

The biggest gold heist in Canada remains the 1974 Ottawa airport theft by the Stop Watch Gang headed by Paddy Mitchell, the most infamous hood to come out of Ottawa. In an article he wrote for this newspaper in 2000, Mitchell revealed how the trio stole more than $750,000 in gold from the Ottawa airport and en route to the mint.

"We needed an inside man who could tell us when the gold arrived and how much there was," Mitchell wrote. "The guy I recruited worked on the night shift and was a petty thief who had been stealing things at the airport for years — mostly nickel-and-dime stuff.

"We had to get past an armed guard into a locked warehouse, break into a security room, lug out six gold bars weighing 65 pounds each and hope that the RCMP or the city police didn't drive by the busy access road and notice something amiss.

"Minutes later the guard's head was covered and he was handcuffed to a steel bar. Stephen (Reid) let Lionel (Wright) in through the door, the gold bars were loaded into the car and they hit it down the road with the car 4,380 troy ounces heavier than it was when it arrived. At least, that's what know-it-all journalists and book authors wrote. The truth is we just re-labelled the boxes in the cargo area and Air Canada very generously delivered them to us in Windsor the next day.

"I shipped five bars of gold across the Windsor-Detroit border, collected $250,000 cash as a downpayment and got a promise of another $250,000 when (a middleman fence) sold the gold. I never saw another dime from it."

Mitchell was convicted in 1977 on that and other crimes, and sentenced to 17 years behind bars. He escaped from a Kingston prison two years later. He died in a U.S. prison in 2007.

Before the Stop Watch Gang, the "Flying Bandit" is believed to have held the Canadian gold theft record. Winnipegger Ken Leishman, a bush pilot-turned-bandit, staged a series of bank and other robberies in the '60s and '70s, escaping from police in a small plane.

In March 1966, he and two accomplices dressed in Air Canada overalls pulled up to a small plane that has just landed with a reported 360 kilograms of gold ingots being delivered to the mint's Winnipeg plant. Leishman signed a receipt and the men drove off with the gold, valued at $400,000.

Globally, the biggest gold theft in modern times remains the 1983 London Heathrow Brinks Mat job. More than three tonnes of gold ingots, then worth about 26 million pounds sterling or $110 million Cdn based on today's price of gold, were stolen by six armed men dressed in security uniforms.

The suspects burst into the security company's Heathrow Airport depot the morning of Nov. 26, 1983, disarmed a security system, doused two guards with gasoline and threatened to set them on fire unless they revealed the combination to a vault.

Expecting to find cash, they instead found the gold packed into 76 cardboard boxes, plus two boxes of diamonds.

A handful of men were arrested and imprisoned, including another warehouse guard who gave the gang inside information. But police believe as many as 15 suspects were in on the heist, some of whom retired to luxurious European homes and villas.

The BBC reports some of the gold simply vanished into a criminal underworld and reappeared in foreign bank accounts in Luxembourg, Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Miami and the Bahamas. Much remains missing today. It is claimed in some quarters that anyone wearing gold jewelry bought in the United Kingdom after 1983 is probably wearing Brinks Mat.

My reaction: More than just a fortune in gold is missing from the Royal Canadian Mint. Silver, platinum and palladium have disappeared too.

1) Independent audit results released this week found no accounting, bookkeeping or other internal errors to account for about 17,500 troy ounces of gold missing from the mints inventory.

2) Speculation is mounting over how to sneak half a ton of gold out of the fortress-like mint headquarters on Sussex Drive, supposedly one of the most secure buildings in Canada.

3) Although, gold was the most significant component, silver, platinum and palladium metals are missing too.


Conclusion: If half a ton of gold could disappear from one of the most secure buildings in Canada, then couldn't it the same thing happen in the US? Isn't it about time for US gold reserves to be audited?
pencil icon, that\

Posted by Eric deCarbonnel at 11:43 AM Delicious email Print this post
Labels: Gold News_Developments
Click Here To Scroll Through My Recent Post List
3 Comments:

VegasBD said...

    When was the last audit of the US's Gold? '78? Even that wasnt a full audit.
    July 21, 2009 12:55 PM   
Anonymous said...

    What about all those "secure" storage facilities, such as the vaults operated worldwide by HSBC, Morgan Stanley, and dozens of private corporations? If the RCM can't hold their valuta safely, how can anyone trust any storage facility?

    Which leads to another question. Let's presume that SLV and GLD are legit outfits and they have every ounce of silver and gold represented by their outstanding shares, and these shares are not simply being readied for delivery to the Comex to satisfy futures deliveries. How do we trust the security of their vaults?

    If you own precious metals, keep it by yourself and to yourself.
    July 21, 2009 3:39 PM   
Robert said...

    Amusingly Brinks Mat is one of the custodians for GLD. When the gold was stolen it was in 83 it was taken from this warehouse.

    Brinks Mat warehouse

    I wonder if there's any GLD gold there today...
    July 21, 2009 4:06 PM   

Post a Comment
Newer Post | Older Post | Home | "

Funny Russell!  ;D the word to spelled "tu". -- Joe -- I checked!  8)

tu read all of this stuff later:

"Treasury Secretary Geithner tu Imprison Thousands on Tax Charges"

over at: http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=4982&cpage=1#comment-14770

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More stuff to read about the I.R.S.:

http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Media/Antishyster/V10N2-PiercingCorpVeil.pdf

Here's the proof of delivery:

"
RE: Web Site Contact Form?
From:    John Boehner (AsktheLeader at mail.house.gov)
   Medium riskYou may not know this sender.Mark as safe|Mark as junk
Sent:    Mon 11/02/09 10:13 AM
To:    JosephSHaas at hotmail.com

Thank you for contacting the Office of the House Republican Leader. Your thoughts are important to me and are appreciated. Due to the volume of E-mail I receive, it may not be possible to personally respond to your comments. However, please be assured that your comments are important to me and my colleagues.

Sincerely,

John A. Boehner

Republican Leader"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I did just call his office at 1-202-225-4000 and asked the man who answered the phone to please read my e-mail through the website with receipt of exactly 10:13 AM Eastern time to likewise refer to the House Leader Boehner (pronounced Bay-ner) and either have him deliver the 40USC3112 papers himself to our N.H. Secretary of State or be accompanied by the GSA Administrator of the man with that woman who wants to take over his job.

- - Joe

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091103/FRONTPAGE/911030301&template=single

entitled: "The case of the missing data."

of: "This doesn't make sense.  There's something missing here in this story.

Reference: "Replacing the floodgates would cost about $1,000." and then the statement that: " It will cost several thousand dollars to heat his mill with wood this winter, instead of with his hydro-powered turbine. "

So WHY doesn't  Mr. Wagner just buy two more floodgates @ $500 each instead of spending $1000s of dollars later!? Plus how much $______ for "the turbine needs major repair work at a machine shop." That work taking #____ amount of time to complete, or the machinist not available now?

I'll bet his name, address and telephone # are on the next ones if and when ever bought and " left them leaning against a 15-foot boulder" and with either a NO TRESPASSING sign, or one reading: Private Property, not Abandoned, and here's the reason WHY, of maybe a metal box with papers there explaining the process to those who happen to stumble upon what they thought was Abandoned Property.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_turbine and http://new.wvic.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8&Itemid=45 plus: *

Good luck in getting these back, that if you do, and have already purchased two more, now you have some spares! (;-)
________________________________

footnote #1: http://books.google.com/books?id=9FISAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA3-PA36&lpg=RA3-PA36&dq=floodgate+penstock+private&source=bl&ots=AyUjDC0klN&sig=ekejb_lKd7CwumriV22pDN21RXo&hl=en&ei=iEXwSvWnK9OrlAfovuntCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=floodgate%20penstock%20private&f=false about a "floodgate, flap, sluice, penstock" - now there's that "moiety" word again, re: my previous reply about taxes of never to take the entire tree, but only up to half the apples as an example, plus in this report of sometimes of charges against only that part of the district, sort of like the N.H. RSA Ch. 239:29  Betterment Assessment of to fix up Class VI roads for only the abutters to re-pay in an up to 10-year time frame. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XX/231/231-29.htm

footnote #2: http://www.motherearthnews.com/Renewable-Energy/1980-11-01/Mothers-Hydroelectric-Plant.aspx "

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 27, 2009, 03:11 PM NHFT
Ed,

Yes, Devens withIN Ayer, MAss. is withIN Middlesex County, and the closest courthouse is in Lowell, MA 01852 (360 Gorham Street, tel. 617-788-8130 main # over to 978-453-0201) but the man there on a press 280 for Civil said that all NEW cases start out of the Main Office: Middlesex County Superior Court, 200 Trade Center, Woburn, MA 01801 Tel. 781-939-2700 ___*

* to call there about getting you a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus form (like the one I used in Grafton County, N.H. and got out of jail thanks to the form in McNamara's "Criminal Practice & Procedure" book).

Reference: http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm for The Massachusetts Constitution, Part The Second, Chapter VI, Article VII of: "The privilege and benefit of the writ of habeas corpus shall be enjoyed in this commonwealth in the most free, easy, cheap, expeditious and ample manner; and shall not be suspended by the legislature, except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time not exceeding twelve months."

Thus for the judge there to see to it that unless the Feds there can supply proof of the N.H. filing as the end does NOT justify the means, as in the turn-over to there by N.H. Deputy Marshals of the U.S. Marshal Service which is in default of N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 for the 40USC255 non acceptance of such, that you either be released forthwith to freedom, or at least back to Strafford County for our N.H. judge to deal with this illegal and unlawful incarceration.

Good luck, -- Joe

* At Press 5 for Civil, the man transferred me to Press 4 for Criminal Attn: Mary, where I got her voice mail, and left a message that she send the form to me, so that I can attach all the documentation of the above and re-send to you, but by that time you might be out of there? back to Dover?  Anyway, it's being done as soon as she listens to my voice recording, and to get back to you.

P.S. Just like what Danny did in Dover [tu], but that at the time he didn't have that 40USC255 stuff nor the 1943 Adams case from the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Federal system of that you've got to first file a habeas with the sentencing court, and then by Rule 63 to whatever federal court be in the jurisdiction of your next location for what's called the collateral attack. This latest info thanks to Reno.

What a jerk!  I called Mary @ 11:59 a.m. today and told her that I had called her last Tuesday about getting a form for a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.  Instead of having past-tense already sent it to me was what I was hoping she would say, she got into the start of a twenty questions by asking if "it" was a civil or criminal case; I told her that I had originally called for the civil papers, but that "they" over at the other court, the man, said to call here for a criminal form.  She then asked what the case # was.  I said it was not in her court, and instead of playing this "game" of 20 Questions, I hung up!

I called her back a few minutes later and a man answered.  He asked his question #1 of: are you an inmate? no; are you an attorney? no. I'm a friend of an inmate over at the Devens FMC.  He said that "We cannot supercede the Feds, you've got to file it in federal court." Thus which one?

Question to everyone and anyone: The sentencing court by Rule 63, right? so as to get denied there by Singal and THEN do a collateral attack to THE federal court in Boston, right?  But then again, as Danny's petition said, you do not need to go federal, so try telling this to these Clerks and Deputy Clerks, etc. to try to get to first base!

http://www.bclilaw.com/news.html

"June 2009 – Michael J. Iacopino Appointed to New Hampshire Public Defender Program Board of Directors – On June 26, 2009, Mike Iacopino was unanimously selected by the New Hampshire Bar Association Board of Governors to serve on the Board of Directors for the New Hampshire Public Defender Program ("NHPDP"). The NHPDP (a non-profit, private corporation) administers a state-wide contract to provide legal services to indigent persons charged with crimes and juveniles alleged to be delinquent. NHPDP boasts over 200 employees, 117 of whom are public defender staff attorneys who practice in every court in the State of New Hampshire. NHPDP operates on a budget in excess of 17 million dollars each year and is among the most respected public defender programs in the Nation."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Modification:

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Iacopino_Michael_132716980.aspx

1. Page 1 of 5+ #2 down from the top to 75 entries:

messenger-inquirer.com/articles/2009/07/09/news/nationa - [Cached Version]
Published on: 7/9/2009    Last Visited: 7/9/2009 

Ed Brown's defense lawyer, Michael Iacopino, argued that prosecutors had failed to prove his client acted with willful criminal intent.

[ $1.00 to get that story: https://secure.townnews.com/shared-content/subscription/authenticate/index.php?mode=start&domain=messenger-inquirer.com&usereg=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmessenger-inquirer.com%2F%2Farticles%2F2009%2F07%2F09%2Fnews%2Fnational%2F15149273.txt&discover=0&amex=0 ]

2. Page 1 #6

www.nhbar.org/publications/display-news-issue.asp?id=51 - [Cached Version]
Published on: 8/7/2009    Last Visited: 8/7/2009 

Retired District Court Judge Vincent Iacopino, at left, with his son, attorney Michael Iacopino.

[ this link supplied is NOT the one with the photo of the son and his dad. ]

3. Page 1 #8

www.arkenterprises.com/dialch258.html - [Cached Version]
Published on: 8/9/2009    Last Visited: 8/9/2009 

Michael Iacopino, the lawyer appointed to assist Ed Brown, has not filed a motion questioning Ed Brown's competency, but in a series of questions yesterday, Singal appeared to probe the issues necessary for making such a determination.

[For Iac in the search box of Edit: Find i(this page) t goes to two postings of the June 2, 2009 article by Margo in The "Concord Monitor" plus his Notice to Judge on the same day. ]

4. Page 1 #9

www.arkenterprises.com/dialch259.html - [Cached Version]
Published on: 8/9/2009    Last Visited: 8/9/2009 

represented by Michael J. Iacopino
...
Ed Brown's attorney, Michael Iacopino, focused on his client's mental state.
...
Brown's perspective was informed by his knowledge of prior bloody government standoffs and his own personal experiences with the U.S. marshals, who employed large teams of armed men to arrest the Browns and search their home and office, Iacopino said.

"His intent was to live, not to commit a crime," he said.
...
Iacopino urged jurors to look past Brown's personality to focus on the elements of the crimes.
...
He didn't take direction well," Iacopino said.

[ This includes Margo's July 20, 2009 report in The MONITOR about: "David Quinn and that he worked for a company called the Forseti Group".

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=25647

I did just send him an e-mail; to copy and paste, later...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mod:

"40USC3112 filing to N.H. - - Please!?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Thu 11/05/09 3:29 PM
To:    judith.larsen at gsa.gov
Cc:    ...iacopino... linda at ....
To: Judith Larsen, scheduling secretary
for GSA "head" Mr. Prouty.

Paul F. Prouty, Acting Administrator of the G.S.A.: General Services Administration, , 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20405, Phone: (202) 501-0800.

Dear Judith:

This is to follow-up my telephone call to Ms. Chanel there at the GSA HQ's in Washington, D.C. a few minutes ago, to when and where she said to contact you for to PLEASE have your boss, or one of his subordinates finally file these 40USC3112 papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the SHALL word in N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1.

A copy of my latest contacts involving this subject matter includes: (1) my letter to the Devens FMC in MAss. where a friend of mine is a current victim of the over-reaching federal militant action without authority, which Lt. Spina told me on the phone that he never got my letter! and so could not transfer it over to the other side of that "body" there!!; (2) The REFUSAL by Federal Rep. Nikki Tsongas to get involved because that zip code of a subsection of Ayer is NOT in her bailiwick!; (3) my call over to that Middlesex County Superior Court for a check-and-balance likewise REFUSED by them too at the Commonwealth level, preferring not to buck the feds, (4) some MAss. attorney MAYBE to see to it that justice be done no matter what the cost as per the counselor word in Bouvier's Dictionary, but probably not, as my friend might be shipped out before then, as back to here in N.H., and so: (5) (a) I did contact some N.H. Attorney next to where he will be re-housed, but that he said to contact his public defender at the Federal level who CAN go after the Feds that feed him his salary by some collateral attack, but will he? and so (b) to him too, as ALSO the head of the N.H. Public Defender Program, great! To see to it that this Article 12- N.H. "inhabitant" is not further harmed by these federal "outlaws"!

Thus would you, Mr. Prouty PLEASE file these papers right away, like tomorrow, or next Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday on a Special Trip to here (or by mail?), or maybe WITH House Republican Leader Mr. Boehner leading the way, or is he a follower? or will you follow AFTER his next Friday appearance here in N.H. when he can claim that he got here first and THEN you filed it, after what? making one phone call to you to get the job done?

A copy of this e-mail to Mr. Boehner to "spur" him to set the fire under your feet, or will that fire be set by my e-mail to you right here and now?  Time is of the essence, as they say because if this new evidence of federal non-filing having at last been filed, is NOT filed, then the same 'ol B.S. will be conducted by this Art. III, Sec. 1 inferior Court of Congress in effect saying: we don't care about the rules or the Constitution of the United States! We will do EVERYthing in our power to hurt by whatever means, those who argue such to NOT allow this to ever be brought in as an Exhibit # to the jury of his peers! Such I find arrogantly disgusting, and hope and pray plus petition that you see the light here of what the truth is and to do your job as request by me, a citizen of the state of New Hampshire needing no middleman or governor to have to send you a written invitation, my invitation to you right here and now of to please do so.

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

cc: to both the N.H. and MAss. attorneys, as I think they ought to know about your plans AND its conclusion for if and when to file such Petition(s) in either MAss.achusetts and/or New Hampshire based upon this NEW evidence.

bcc: to nobody else (yet)."

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091106/NEWS01/911060338

entitled: "The pen is mightier than the sword. * + **"

of: "Holly and Hany: Thanks for the info.

I think a photo of Ed Brown holding the Constitution outside his "compound" when he gets released on Habeas Corpus later this month, with his gun in the other hand ought to be Front Page News.

Re: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg311976#msg311976

* http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/pen+is+mightier+than+the+sword.html

** http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/the-pen-is-mightier-than-the-sword.html

I like this history and for into the future the best: "Thomas Jefferson sent a letter to Thomas Paine in 1796, in which he wrote: "Go on doing with your pen what in other times was done with the sword."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTu9HaHDI0A&feature=related "

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091106/OPINION/911060302

entitled: "These graduates of honor then, now tarnished of dis-honor!"

of: "Time to give them: "the boot".

Yes, the "People are Rines's biggest legacy", both the good and bad* apples.

* Emphasis added for the following:

1. "James Duggan, now a New Hampshire Supreme Court justice. " Too bad he can't add! re: of when I told him in Superior Court, in the Gus Breton case, that when the judge said this case was almost four months old without a trial, I told him he ought to re-calculate his math, as it was OVER four months! per the "Speedy Trial Rule", and the Investigator Mike Bahan from the A.G.'s Office said to me, on the way out: "you asshole"!

2. "There are many familiar names among the 86 members of that 1976 graduating class. It included... Charles Russell...." now a member of the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims.  BTW he recused himself upon my Claim #2009-013 there in September '09 of my Oct. 15, 2008 filing because he's a friend of the governor, John H. Lynch of Hopkinton, that lazy bastard whose Art. 51 duty is to send an invitation to the G.S.A. Federal Officer by 40USC3112 to file those N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 papers with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State but won't! "Charlie", a golf buddy, refusing to tell the governor to, in effect, replace the divot, or in this case: take the swing!  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm

3. "Merrimack County Superior Court Clerk William McGraw" who allows the Feds to use their U.S. Codes to over-ride our rights as are supposed to be a guarantee by Article 12 of the N.H. Constitution! "http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html of: "...Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent." Re: Those Removal Statutes at Large, that are NOT supposed to be at-large over us! here in New Hampshire!

4. "Cathy Green" aka Mrs. James R. Starr, him the Clerk of the U.S. District Court.  She "knows" that he has no operating papers for that Article III, Section 1 inferior Court of Congress, but turns a deaf ear because it's her husband who works there, of not WHAT you know but WHO you know, in the cover-up! http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html see also: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm and http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm

5.  "The state's newest Supreme Court justice, Carol Ann Conboy, is a Franklin Pierce graduate" because of her confirmation hearing votes by the Executive Councilors http://www.nh.gov/council/ and http://www.nhexecutivecouncil.com/ who allowed the substantive to over-ride her violation(s) of "procedural due process of law", or, in effect, the Council, after hearing my report of her misdeeds in that Public Hearing, said: the end justified the means, to heck with the 5th & 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution! See http://www.nh.gov/constitution/council.html for "[Art.] 63. [Impeachment of Councilors.] The members of the council may be impeached by the house, and tried by the senate for bribery, corruption, malpractice, or maladministration. - June 2, 1784 - Amended 1792 changing wording generally and changing mal-conduct to bribery, corruption, malpractice, or maladministration." "

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 18, 2009, 11:53 AM NHFT
Thanks Keith, ...

Also: Here's some info about Elaine's future lawsuit against The City of Concord and County of Merrimack, plus that I did also notify ahead of time for this Article 12 protection to the N.H. Dept. of Safety [tu], to sue its Commissioner in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board pf Claims for $50,000. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm and http://www.nh.gov/safety/commissioner/index.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091018/OPINION/910180332

entitled: "Local Government Center website; & Risk Management info."

of: "http://www.nhlgc.org/LGCWebsite/index.asp

Plus: in regards to paragraph #7 of 13: " dozens of risk management ...programs and services help KEEP local governments functioning RESPONSIBLY...." (emphasis ADDed.)

Oh really!? Risk Management is ALSO for if and when the "local" government screws up in some "error or omission" [tu]! as in to pay* the victim.

* One County I did check recently pays over $100,000 per year is their premium for a $5 million insurance policy.  I did ask what the premium is for Merrimack County at the Commissioner's Office (line item #____ in the budget, for to guess at such policy, using this similar ratio since financial info is exempt from the RSA Ch. 91-A:5 Right to Know,  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-VI-91-A.htm ) and was told, in effect, to: "get lost"! re: the Sheriff's FAILure to Article 12 "protect" one of the city and county's "inhabitants"** from any OTHER law not consented [tu]. The "local" COPs telling me that she was NOT a "resident", and so deserved NO protection!  But see: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html and http://www.appealslawyer.net/briefs/Gonzalez_Cirino_BriefAsFiled.pdf from http://www.appealslawyer.net/case_list.html and in particular Section XII at pages 55-60 of 62."

** In reference to this "inhabitant" word, the only excuse I can see of THEM using this is based upon The "ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND PERPETUAL UNION", see: http://books.google.com/books?id=nLgZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=lien+against+body+%22Habeas+Corpus%22&source=bl&ots=EQEDYNqkvS&sig=_Tl4waPx7-nZiKbg8s-5ALCjOEk&hl=en&ei=Ap71SoGPAo-m8Aaw_OjzCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false click for the pdf file gets you to this and of The Declaration of Independence plus Constitution of the United States in the front of the book entitled "REVISED STATUTES OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 1887 TOGETHER WITH THE GENERAL ACTS" compiled by HARVEY B. HURD, EVANSTON, COOK Co., Ill.

See, in particular page 3 / 26 of 1531 for  The "ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND PERPETUAL UNION" and "Between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Caroline, South Caroline, and Georgia."

And especially: ARTICLE IV ( of XIII at page 4 / 27) of: "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, (paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted,) shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states;"

So in Elaine's case of late, as per the above, then the City of Concord and Merrimack County Sheriff's Office plus The N.H. State Police relied on this for their reasoning that she was NOT entitled to Article 12- N.H. "Protection" as an "inhabitant" from "any other laws" like these U.S. Codes, because this Article 12 of June 2, 1784 canNOT void the 1778 contract by The "ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION"? ARTICLE IV of ONLY to "free inhabitants" and so NOT for ALL inhabitants?

Answer: No! That is only for when there be dealings "among the people of the different states in this Union", but NOT the federalies themselves! or is it that because a team of federal agents comprised of members thereof from various other states like U.S. Deputy Marshal Andre LeBier from New York, then our Article 12 of ALL inhabitants has been replaced by this for only to be allowed to those FREE inhabitants?

So the general question to all of us is: Is our Article 12 N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights as for ALL "inhabitants" in 1784 a nullity because by  ARTICLE IV of XIII in The ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION of July 9th, 1778 we had previously agreed to these privileges to be NOT "controllable by any other laws" to be ONLY limited to FREE inhabitants? as signed by JOSIAH BARTLETT and JOHN WENTWORTH, JR on August 8th, 1778 here in New Hampshire "On the part and behalf of the State of New Hampshire" (page 8 / 31).

Thus leading to the age old question of: does the end justify the means? As in: have we given up our procedural due process of law as is supposed to be a guarantee by the 5th & 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

As for example: Ed & Elaine were both free BEFORE these U.S. Codes were wrongfully applied to them, and now that they are NOT free, then they come under the Articles of Confederation as NOT currently entitled to these privileges!?

Therefore getting to our Article 14-N.H. rights to COMPLETE justice too! BOTH of the past and current tense to lead to the future tense of them freed as victims of these federalies operating as outlaws to THE U.S. Constitution and in particular Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of needing our "Consent" BEFORE their laws can be used OVER us! by our protections afforded us by Article 12- N.H. since there has been no N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 federal filing by that G.S.A. "head" of agency, as landlord OVER this Article III, Section 1 inferior court of Congress as a tenant there, and so WHEN will Mr. Prouty of the General Services Administration finally file these 40USC3112 papers!? thus proving that they/ the Feds had no jurisdictional authority UNTIL then, and that ONLY for OVER their boundaries as to the place there that ought to have a sign reading: Woe to all those entering this temple with goddess of in-justice statue at the entrance without full knowledge of the truth!

First Draft at: The Strafford County Superior Court, Dover, N.H.

Joseph S. Haas v. Board of Strafford County Commissioners

Case Number: 219-2009-CV-00614

Motion to Attach.

NOW COMES the Plaintiff Haas in regards to the Commissioners' dis-allowance of me to be able to visit my friend Ed Brown in the Strafford County Jail because of some dictate from on high from the Feds, that has been argued in writing is against: (1) my right to "assemble" by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or in other words: to "gather together into a group" both of Ed and me to fulfill his right "to have the Assistance of Counsel" that we both contracted for such "meet"ings*; and (2) my right of NOT to be "controllable by any other laws" such as these U.S. Codes or Statutes at Large nor any verbal or written policies or rules, etc. that act as having the force and effect of law! that is against Article 12 of The New Hampshire Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights.

See my latest Reply #9278 on page 619 over at The NHUnderground website of what I think is the mix-up here, and of this Board and Fed cooperative maybe using a prior agreement as their excuse that we, as a "State" with the capital letter S for the corporate State had (and maybe still have with those other States), in that by ARTICLE IV of The "ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION" these protections are NOT afforded to fugitives from the law, but only those free inhabitants, and of WHEN the free kicked into being a fugitive, and of WHEN this protection SHALL have been afforded in the first place, as the end does NOT justify the means!

This being said, and of the payments from the Feds to the Board of housing inmate Edward-Lewis: Brown there at $____ per day, with $_______ in sub-total having already supposedly been "paid" in the lawful money of account of the United States per Section 20 of the contract being The Coinage Act of 1792, then:

Be it hereby requested in a Claim of to please Attach said payments or dollars remaining in said account to the level of at least $3000 where this money was supposedly deposited to be liened for the benefit of me, the Plaintiff for when I do win this case of to be compensated for these two trips to, at and from there, as explained, for the jury to first determine: yes or no of a damage(s) against me of having taken place by them, and THEN to determine its value as based upon the remedy for theft per our RSA Ch. 651:63 for Restitution as annotated.

Sincerely Yours, - - Joe Haas

*assemble: see also: ""gather into one place, company, body, or whole".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mod:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3476557

JSTOR: California Law Review, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Mar., 1933), page 266

"JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS ON 'FUNDAMENTAL' OR 'JURISDICTIONAL' FACTS. [ by Felix S.] - The general proposition that an administrative body or tribunal should be confined to the exercise of the authority validly conferred upon it will be accepted without question."

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091109/NEWS01/911090345&template=single

entitled: "Time to put Uncle Sam on a diet!"

of: "Thank you "very" much Norma! and Ovide too for "to bring the federal budget into balance and pay off the country's debt" by the "control" of "federal spending".  The key word of "control" as in not only to regulate, but verify, and that reserve word of not only as a verb but in THE Reserve, a noun being what is supposed to be by Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 BEFORE these private FRNs costing the "System" only 6-cents each for ANY and ALL denominations from the $1.00 to the $100.00 bill are "monetized".

I did just try to connect with the http://ovide2010.com website but that it needs a user name and password, and so I called and spoke with Ovide for a few minutes about 30 minutes ago of him in his Manchester office of: http://www.devinemillimet.com/ at the 603: 669-1000 telephone number, me (1) saying hello, long-time no-see since around the Bill Zeliff days ...

[of when Bill, as U.S. Rep. was to investigate by check-and-balance for "Free Commercial Speech" (Vol. 400 Mass. Reports __ the Beineke case of 1987, footnote #7, for William Devine of Boston, the Locator ) the Indirect Criminal Contempt of Court N.H. Rule 95-b Champerty charge against me being an un-licensed "Bounty Hunter" of Missing Heirs to inheritances for finder's fees that the N.H. Supreme Court ruled in Spring 1992 in the Adkin case was no longer case-law, but of the inferior* Superior Court in Grafton County in Fall 1992 charging me with violation of same that was retrospectively against the law! by Article 23 of the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights. The result being of my incarceration for100 days to be "corrected" when finally this Winter 2010 the N.H. Legislature will be dealing with this in a House Bill of Address for me having spent 90 days MORE than what the law allows for up to ten (10) days according to Articles 22+23, Part 2, N.H. Constitution as applied to the judiciary by Art. 92-a that used to be UNDER the Legislature or GENERAL Court and is now supposedly a "co-equal"branch of government with "MORE" powers!?]

...and (2) a question of HOW and WHERE this federal filing will take place today and by WHO, with him telling me of by an associate of his in Washington to deliver it to the office in-person @ __:__ a.m./p.m. that ought to be an EVENT, him saying that there will be more EVENTS here in N.H. during the campaign, with "stops" at _______ and _______; that "stop" word used by me, as in the old train-stops of old.

And that in regards to federal filing by THE Feds to us I told him he should look into the Title 40 U.S. Code 3112 (from the old section 255) non-filing of the Feds that "shall" be done by our N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 and that his brother-of-the-N.H. Bar Association  M.I. of Manchester ( for Mission: Impossible? (;-) ) too hopefully will be working on it, in a case that I think all of you know of what I'm talking about, and it a "firecracker" case is what I told Ovide, as not to violate any Rules of Ethics in over-stepping the workings of a brother attorney, but KNOWing that as a future public servant, I think it would be a "platinum star" for him if SOMEhow he helps current General Services Administration "head" of "agency" Paul F. Prouty to complete his job description, and especially when invited to by me, an Article 12 "inhabitant" of this state of New Hampshire as I did by e-mail to him through his scheduling secretary of last Thursday, Nov. 5th @ 3:29 PM.  To which I add now, like what Martin J. "Red" Beckman, the author did say in the 1980s here in our state when running for President of the United States: of something like: to have this federal gorilla over there on Pleasant Street, Concord like in a U.S. Zoo, and with the bars of the constitution to have him so contained, getting fed by our Art. 95 state collectors of both the state AND federal taxes, or in other words to put Uncle Sam on a diet!"

I read the email from the lawyer (Joshua Gordon), to Reno when he called this afternoon, he said he expected the process to take quite some time, and was not discourage by this information.

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=170785320&blogId=517791015

Reno said that he has written Kim to explain that he has filed the paperwork for a transfer, and other issues in the correspondence, he fears that they will hold this letter and foresees that he will be thrown in the HOLE for some time for this letter and for protesting his being housed there in El Reno, instead of a lesser security facility like a camp since he has no history of violence in his case. So if we do not hear from him as far as phone calls in the next several days, he is being punished and would hope that we all make noise as well as file through the appropriate channels to get his transfer to go through.


Thank you
Donna VanMeter

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on November 09, 2009, 02:02 PM NHFT
... the email from the lawyer (Joshua Gordon), to Reno when he called this afternoon, he said he expected the process to take quite some time...

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=170785320&blogId=517791015

...hope that we all make noise as well as file through the appropriate channels to get his transfer to go through.

Thank you
Donna VanMeter

Thanks for the info of the Dec. ___ 2009 Brief deadline of Sven for Danny. I had thought that it was for sometime in November.

Plus WHO to contact for Reno? The Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee to send him or her a copy of that page #__ of Joshua's Brief of just holding a gun for self defense is NOT aggressive action but in preparation as a re-action to any Fed action, thus proving that he ought NOT to be there but WHERE? At: _____________________ as the closest F.C.I. to his friends and relatives. - Joe

Ed's back at The Strafford County Jail in Dover, N.H.

He sent Maria a letter that he's been there since last Tuesday, Nov. 3rd (a week ago). The envelope of papers I sent to him there yesterday supposedly arrived at the place today and it takes another day to process, and so for delivery tomorrow = Veteran's Day.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mod:

The test for insanity down there at Devens FMC in MAss. is that when you're thrown into a cell with a confirmed lunatic and find it annoying to have to deal with somebody with half his marbles, then you're sane.

Marie said that when Ed wrote to her it was of two such incidents and the doctor only saw him thrice. Sort of like: before the cock crow thrice you will deny Me twice.

Bob gets out in four (4) days, on next Monday, November 16th:

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Robert&Middle=&LastName=Wolffe&Race=W&Sex=M&Age=&x=53&y=10

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091114/FRONTPAGE/911140334

entitled: "$200,000 would have provided a great "Geraldo Rivera"."

of: ""The Monitor's publisher, Geordie Wilson...said. 'That's a lot of reporter salaries.'"

You betcha.  A lot of  "investigative" reporters who could have found out in the "Ed Brown" case that his claim of the Feds having no jurisdictional authority is correct.

Re: No Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112 to our N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1.

Where was "The Fourth Estate" to hold government accountable to "The Rule of Law"!?

The Feds AND the State/County/Locals per Article 12 of the N.H. Bill of Rights!

When jurisdiction is questioned, it must be proven, not hidden by the judge refusing to provide the answer!"

Joe...

Perhaps the following can be of value as it appears from your investigation, the collusion between the magistrates in New Hampshire and Maine is self evident.

"Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court"
And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal"

1. Who is an "officer of the court"?
2. What is "fraud on the court"?
3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?
4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"

1. Who is an "officer of the court"?

              A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

2. What is "fraud on the court"?

              Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."
              "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."

3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?

              "Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
              It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
              Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"

              Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
              In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
              Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
              That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."
              The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
              "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
              Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
              Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
              Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").
              Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
              If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
              However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.
              The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
              Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

Quote from: armlaw on November 14, 2009, 08:42 PM NHFT
Joe...

Perhaps the following can be of value as it appears from your investigation, the collusion between the magistrates in New Hampshire and Maine is self evident.

"Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court"
And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal"

1. ...
2. What is "fraud on the court"?
3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?
4. ...

1. ...
2. What is "fraud on the court"?

              Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "... It is ...where the judge has not performed his judicial function [ * ] ... Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."

3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?

              "Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
              It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts [ ** ] and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
              Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

4. ....

Thanks Dick.

[ * ] To place those cases that Ray K. posted at The "Concord Monitor" in which jurisdiction, once challenged, SHALL be proven!

[ ** ] re: ALL contracts, like in those P.I.'s hired by the Feds out to get Ed. The end does NOT justify the means!

Just want to be one of the first to say WELCOME BACK to FREEDOM Bob!

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on November 16, 2009, 10:40 AM NHFT
Just want to be one of the first to say WELCOME BACK to FREEDOM Bob!

And another November 2009 Philadelphia freedom to this COP, but only after he spends the next thirty (30) years in the B.O.P. See:

http://lawenforcementcorruption.blogspot.com/2009/11/former-police-officer-sentenced-to-30.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mod: http://www.lyrics007.com/Elton%20John%20Lyrics/Philadelphia%20Freedom%20Lyrics.html

"the whippoorwill of freedom zapped me".

"Elton John-Philadelphia Freedom" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkMXnk16kiE of 5:27 min. 410,759 x at The "SOUL TRAIN".

Quote from: JosephSHaas on September 28, 2009, 11:13 AM NHFT

Quote from: JosephSHaas on September 28, 2009, 10:34 AM NHFT
jzacker: ...
cc also: to the applicant for this position of Private Attorney General.

Update: a copy and paste of this from my e-mail account was just sent over to The President of The United States of America (Barack Obama, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500) by e-mail with the following conformation page of a Thank You at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ContactUs-ThankYouPage/ at 12:07 o'clock p.m. today.

Yours truly, -- Joe, it included my NAZ + tel. # + e-mail add. plus my "Note" of that of "to the President."

Here's a reply from his office just received by me today:

"Thank you for your message
From:    The White House - Presidential Correspondence (noreply-WHPC at whitehouse.gov)
   Medium riskYou may not know this sender.Mark as safe|Mark as junk
Sent:    Mon 11/16/09 6:35 PM
To:    josephshaas at hotmail.com

Dear Joseph:

      Thank you for contacting the office of President
Barack Obama.  The President appreciates your taking the
time to voice your concerns and opinions.

      We would like to be of assistance to you; however,
due to the separation of powers, it is not within our
authority to become involved in legal matters.  You must
resolve this issue through the judicial system.

      Please be aware that you can visit www.usa.gov or
call 1-800-FEDINFO for information about Federal
Government assistance.

      We hope your concerns are resolved to your
satisfaction.

      Again, thank you for your correspondence.

Sincerely,

F. Michael Kelleher
Special Assistant to the President and
Director of Presidential Correspondence

To be a part of our agenda for change, join us at www.WhiteHouse.gov "

My presumption is that the Strafford County Superior Court Clerk received this original in her office as signed by me in the mail last Friday, and that the judge is thinking out it, like maybe to await the ten (10) days from my 11/10 Motion to Attach, to see what the Assistant County Attorney writes about, so to act like to open an Equity case for Ed on Monday 11/23 or before, if the Assistant should reply earlier than the ten days, and hold a hearing on Tuesday or Wednesday, Nov. 24th or 25th and write GRANTED on The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, so that Ed can have a Happy Thanksgiving 2009, and better one with his wife Elaine and all of us in Year 2010...two years before the world ends in 2012. -- Joe

"
"Proposed Order"?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail dot com)
Sent:    Thu 11/12/09 12:13 PM
To:    josephshaas at hotmail. dot om
- - - - - - - - - -      STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE     - - - - - - - - - -

Strafford County                                                  Superior Court
                                    Joseph S. Haas
                                             v.
                       Board of Strafford County Commissioners

[259 County Farm Rd.,                                           Docket # 219-2009-CV-00614
P. O. Box 799
Dover, N.H. 03821-0799
603: 742-3065

                                    PROPOSED ORDER

--It has come to the Court's attention that the Plaintiff has indicated that he may settle this case for nominal damages of $1.00, IF the Court will "sua sponte" open up an Equity case of: Edward-Lewis: Brown v.s. Warren Dowaliby, the Superintendent, and hold an Article 14 "prompt" hearing on such an Article 91 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, plus grant same, as based upon the documents provided in the "MOTION TO ATTACH" taken to the next step, and that is of:

--See: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm of: "In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."

--See also: U.S. Attorney Manual #664 at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm

--WHEREFORE in preparation for the Tuesday, December 15th "Structuring Conference" of just over a month away @ 9:00 o'clock a.m., I do hereby set my hand and seal that the Clerk shall open up an Equity case so titled and schedule a hearing within the next two weeks, or to Monday, November 30th, 2009, whereupon if such petition be granted and the one dollar be paid, then by a copy of receipt of same from the Plaintiff to the Court, then the hearing of 12/15 be moot and this civil case closed.

Dated this ___ day of November 2009                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                                                     Judge ________________

pc: Stephen G. LaBonte, Esquire
Assistant County Attorney
254 County Farm Rd., P.O.Box 799
Dover, N.H. 03821
603: 749-2808

Joseph S. Haas
P. O. Box 3842
Concord, N.H. 03302
603: 848-6059
JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

Edward-Lewis: Brown
Strafford County H.O.C.
266 County Farm Road
Dover, N.H. 03828
603: 742-3310
http://www.co.strafford.nh.us/jail/ "

Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 07, 2009, 11:56 AM NHFT

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 18, 2009, 11:53 AM NHFT....

...
So the general question to all of us is: Is our Article 12 N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights as for ALL "inhabitants" in 1784 a nullity because by  ARTICLE IV of XIII in The ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION of July 9th, 1778 we had previously agreed to these privileges to be NOT "controllable by any other laws" to be ONLY limited to FREE inhabitants? as signed by JOSIAH BARTLETT and JOHN WENTWORTH, JR on August 8th, 1778 here in New Hampshire "On the part and behalf of the State of New Hampshire" (page 8 / 31)....

Update: In Preparation for MY "Memorandum of Law" in MY case #614 of MY rights having been stolen by these County Officials and employees, reference: my (1) right of association with others that is supposed to be a guarantee by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and further detailed by; (2) my (a) religious rights (see also Matthew Chapter 10, verse 39) plus (b) broader rights, that are supposed to be a guarantee also by Articles 5 + 12 of our N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights NOT to be limited to only FREE inhabitants, but for ALL inhabitants,...

...I've contacted the attorney outfit of which my membership allows for questions to be answered for the monthly $25.00 charge to my credit card, but that my question is too complex they say, of me needing to hire the attorney that they assign to me and at the 25% off rate as a member from his or her regular hourly rate.

The attorney in MAss. who is a licensed N.H. Attorney to refer me over to WHOever to call back to see about maybe doing 20 hours of work on this case at roughly $100 per hour = add on two zeroes get me to a $2000 fee, and toward that Tuesday, December 15th @ 9:00 a.m. Structuring Conference, at which time I'd like to have already (past tense), presented my Memorandum of Law to back up my claims so as to relieve the law clerks for either Judge Brown or Waseling over there, from having to do the re-search, or verify of what they found, or more information.

So it looks like my lawsuit for $3000 is going to have to be detailed out as to compensate me for $1000 of it and the other $2000 going to this attorney UNLESS they do that sua sponte Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus right away, because as soon as I pay the attorney a Retainer of: $_____ then my offer to accept nominal damages of only a dollar is thereby amended by such, plus might as well add the $92.00 initial filing fee in the District Court.

Yours truly, -- Joe

pc: to Ed to give to Mike I., the court-appointed attorney for him to delay any federal sentencing until this matter of Ed getting his 6th Amendment counsel advice from me to the attorney representing him in court.  Me only a paralegal having taken and graduated from The People's Law School, early 1990s at Reps Hall in Concord, N.H. as from our teacher: Linda Dalianis, now one of the N.H. Supreme Court judges.

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5092
Brown supporter Al Martin sentenced to 51 months

Cirino's request for transfer to a lower security facility denied, here is the blog with the BP8 forms over the matter.

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=170785320&blogId=519145459


The points system they have does not reflect Cirino should be held at El Reno which is a maximum security facility, with no history of violence in his record or case. The only reason the COs have given for this is that the FBOP needs to keep close supervision on him. They have threatened to lock him in the hole if he continues to file complaints.

He will file/has filed a BP9 which will be up for evaluation by the warden of El Reno. If denied this more formal filing please send all complaints to:

# Gerardo Maldonado, Jr.
Regional Director, South Central Regional Office
Federal Bureau of Prisons
4211 Cedar Springs Rd
Dallas, TX 75219

Phone: 214-224-3389
E-mail: SCRO/EXECASSISTANT@BOP.GOV*
# Harley G. Lappin
Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons
320 First St., NW,
Washington, DC  20534
For general information, call 202-307-3198

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on November 19, 2009, 10:10 PM NHFT

Cirino's request for transfer to a lower security facility denied, here is the blog with the BP8 forms over the matter.

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=170785320&blogId=519145459


The points system they have does not reflect Cirino should be held at El Reno which is a maximum security facility, with no history of violence in his record or case. The only reason the COs have given for this is that the FBOP needs to keep close supervision on him. They have threatened to lock him in the hole if he continues to file complaints.

He will file/has filed a BP9 which will be up for evaluation by the warden of El Reno. If denied this more formal filing please send all complaints to:

# Gerardo Maldonado, Jr.
Regional Director, South Central Regional Office
Federal Bureau of Prisons
4211 Cedar Springs Rd
Dallas, TX 75219

Phone: 214-224-3389
E-mail: SCRO/EXECASSISTANT@BOP.GOV*
# Harley G. Lappin
Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons
320 First St., NW,
Washington, DC  20534
For general information, call 202-307-3198

Donna, I did just call the 214 telephone # here, and spoke with the woman from Dallas as their Regional Office for Reno, OK, and she said after I gave his #76342-179 that he is NOT in a MAXimum unit, BUT in a medium to low category.

This was after she said he was there because of 3 counts of conspiracy and 3 counts of to use (future tense) violence against a federal agent*. I gave her the analogy of that this is NOT a crime of violence since as an analogy if I were to conspire with my neighbor to rob the local market, that's communication of verbal chat between two people so NO violence there, NOR for the mere fact of wearing a weapon, like a gun to the scene where only a verbal communication might have been to merely say: turn over the money.

So although not in max, at least what? to get him into a definite low facility and closer to home?

Good luck, -- Joe

* federal agents who did trespass BEYOND their proprietary powers within their sphere of existence to trample on Ed's private property rights!

Thank you Joe! I was under the impression that it was a Max facility. Thank you for this clarification. According to the points he should be at a minimum security camp. He was told he had too many supporters and requires a higher security facility.

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on November 19, 2009, 10:10 PM NHFTThe points system they have does not reflect Cirino should be held at El Reno which is a maximum security facility, with no history of violence in his record or case.

Just for clarification, El Reno is a Medium. The levels are Minimum, Low, Medium, High, and Administrative.

Edit: I see Joe beat me to it.

Even if Reno has a low points score, it looks like they're applying a "management variable" to keep him at a higher level.

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on November 20, 2009, 09:39 AM NHFT
... He was told he had too many supporters and requires a higher security facility.

Oh yeah!  8) like what do they expect, too many letters from those who say that "the pen is mightier than the sword", and that this extra mail disturbs their nap time?  ;D

Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 20, 2009, 09:49 AM NHFT

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on November 20, 2009, 09:39 AM NHFT
... He was told he had too many supporters and requires a higher security facility.

Oh yeah!  8) like what do they expect, too many letters from those who say that "the pen is mightier than the sword", and that this extra mail disturbs their nap time?  ;D

Speaking of too many supporters doing what? planning to break him out THEY think? Remember when the Feds raided the Brown's? and everybody called 9-1-1 emergency* to get the attention of the local, county, and state to counter this "sudden, unexpected occurrence"* by the feds in "demanding immediate action"* like for to support Ed's right as is supposed to be guaranteed by Article 12, or is 911 limited to medical emergency only? such as to PREvent a killing? by federal agents, like that sniper! acting withOUT lawful AND legal authority!

If so, then what? to call the higher-ups? When those higher-ups are in cahoots too?!

Friction! That's what's needed is friction: like in "Clash of the Titans"; no, not definition #2 of to just dis-agree, but to "strike together with a loud, harsh noise".

Like yesterday's noontime visit to strike = impress = "1. To produce or apply with pressure" and "4. To affect or influence deeply or forcibly".

re: my phone call to the GSA from Gregg's office, telling the GSA agent woman to please "copy" their phone call back to me to Gregg's office too, her saying no, but that resulted in the following: [ * ]

So was/is this an "affect** or influence"? and either "deeply or forcibly"?

Influence = "1. A power indirectly or intangibly affecting a person or course of events." Like in: GSA agent: do your job, or I will insist that my public servant here in N.H. put the pressure on you to do it, as I pay my federal taxes weekly, by my employer at working deducting same and sending to you who gets paid every 2 weeks, right? and with exactly two weeks from Thursday, November 5th as having already gone by, you getting paid for doing NOTHING on my claim that you file the 40USC3112 documents as required by the SHALL word in N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution.  To let the "chips fall where they may" is what I told Mr. Conner yesterday, him saying that no doubt, the legal dept. is working on this. Yeah, like what? to see what the consequences are WHEN finally filed!?  Don't look at what MIGHT happen, just do your job, and "let the chips fall where they may". 

Or: "2.a. Power to sway or affect** based on prestige, wealth, etc."? prestige = from the Latin word praestigiae of a "juggler's tricks"; as in yes: there are two statutes: both of the state AND federal, but that THEY seem to keep both "in the air at one time" by non-harmony of the "Law of the Land", NOT this law of the juggle! (like Law of the Jungle).

Do I force my way into Gregg's office?  No, it's to "deeply" affect** or influence. As in the adjective of since this is "Well on in time; late", as having to file this AFTER these victims have already been harmed by both the State (includes local plus county) and Federal, then the "Profound" action needed: to counter-act their profound or complete silence with profound contempt! "Coming as if from the depths of one's being"!  That being of our "constitution"! and if the constitutional framework of those anti-bodies as bad apples in our government barrel need to be plucked out and were NOT so plucked, then to what? shoot them like fish in a barrel? Let the sea gulls land and feed on their carcasses?

His phone # 202: 501-1609 to where you can call for a "Progress Report."  >:D
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ * ]  "FW: 40USC3112 filing to N.H. - - Please!?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Thu 11/19/09 11:27 PM
To:    ralph.conner at gsa.gov
Per my call to the office from U.S. Senator Judd Gregg's Concord,N.H. office at about noontime today and my return call to you of about 4:15 p.m. this afternoon. -- Joe

From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: judith.larsen at gsa.gov
CC: _____________________
Subject: 40USC3112 filing to N.H. - - Please!
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:29:26 -0500

To: Judith Larsen, scheduling secretary for GSA "head" Mr. Prouty.

Paul F. Prouty, Acting Administrator of the G.S.A.: General Services Administration, , 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20405, Phone: (202) 501-0800.

Dear Judith:

This is to follow-up my telephone call to Ms. Chanel there at the GSA HQ's in Washington, D.C. a few minutes ago, to when and where she said to contact you for to PLEASE have your boss, or one of his subordinates finally file these 40USC3112 papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the SHALL word in N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1.

A copy of my latest contacts involving this subject matter includes: ...."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sub-total:

1.) the original phone call and follow-up e-mail

2.) 2 subsequent phone calls asking for a progress report

3.) yesterday Progress Report phone call from Gregg's office

4.) a return call from the GSA @ 3:43 p.m.

5.) my return call at 4:13 p.m. for 13:32 minutes and seconds to 4:27 p.m.

6.) my forward of the original e-mail to Mr. Conner last night.

7.) this write-up.

8.) my call for verification of receipt at 11:23 a.m. earlier this morning to his voice mail (after 3 rings), to please acknowledge receipt of my forward of the e-mail to him of last night.

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 09, 2009, 02:33 PM NHFT
...
"Violation of 18 US Code 3232
...
To: U.S. Senator Susan Collins
...
Portland, ME 04101
Main: (207) 780-3575

http://collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home&CFID=9262752&CFTOKEN=85216594
....

12:07 p.m. - line is busy. ________

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Update:

12:10 p.m. Jennifer said that Chuck is "out to lunch" and will return my call back to me later this afternoon. Re: of my three questions:

1.) Did they receive my signed letter of October 9th? (no acknowledgment)

2.) Did he put the cover letter on it and send both to the judge as promised?

3.) Did they get any reply back from the judge? And if so, what?

4.) _____________________________________

Update #2:

Chuck called to say that he did not receive my letter, and so I just sent him an electronic version through his boss' website:  http://collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCollins.EmailIssue&CFID=23758547&CFTOKEN=73847482 to http://collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCollins.EmailIssueAct&CFID=23758547&CFTOKEN=73847482 =    "Thank you for contacting Senator Collins on this issue."

My opinion is that this too will be a waste of time, and so to call Senator Snowe...

Quote from: JosephSHaas on August 05, 2009, 01:27 PM NHFT
To: ...The [N.H.] Dept. of Safety
Office of The Commissioner...
Concord, N.H. 03301...

RE: Claim for $24.51 ....

Amendment.

1. WHEREAS: According to The "CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES OF 1956" of the "Papers presented at the 10th Public Affairs Institute, (Saturday) April 7, 1956" at the "Public Administration Service of the Department of Government, College of Liberal Arts, The University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire"  49198c under the sub-title of: "THE POWER TO TAX" by Panel Member: Amos N. Blandin, Jr. @ page " - 55 -" "What is an excise tax? It is a tax on your occupation or business.  It is allowed in many states, but it is not allowed here." in New Hampshire. +

2. WHEREAS: over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise it is further defined as: "According to the New Oxford English Dictionary (Revised 2nd Ed., 2005), an excise is "a tax levied on certain goods and commodities produced or sold within a country and on licenses granted for certain activities" (emphasis added)." and "In the United States, the term "excise" means: (A) any tax other than a property tax or capitation (i.e., an indirect tax, or excise, in the constitutional law sense)"; +

3. WHEREAS: In QUESTION No. 3 of 3 in the November 1958 General Election, from the 1956 Con-Con the question was asked: "Are you in favor of removing certain obsolete words and phrases from Part II of the Constitution as follows...In Article 95 of Part II changing the word 'continent to 'United States'; striking out...the word 'excise' and change the word 'continental' to 'federal'?" Yes 87,138   No  17,034; +

4. WHEREAS this very issue of the federal tax upon us Article 12 inhabitants here in New Hampshire was proven to be an "indirect tax" and so unconstitutionally applied against me by the Feds in their Case #M.83-50-D in 1983 that I won, as having never paid them even one red cent toward the over $62,000 that they wanted from me as a landlord, furthermore proving section (5) of the Internal Revenue Code unlawful too; +

5. WHEREAS: from all of this information the State AND federal gasoline taxes are BOTH unlawfully applied here in this state, and especially since there is no 40USC3112 filing* to our N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 per 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, then be it hereby amended in that:

THEREFORE: the State $amounts collected on the number of gallons from my receipts be ADDed to the sub-total to pay me the FULL taxes taken out unlawfully!

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059, e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

*When filed, then "they" may have a case of lawfully to maybe collect their share, but that it will THEN be a proven fact that of those $amounts taken unlawfully PRIOR to that, be returned to us as stolen goods from a federal thief BEFORE we start collecting the federal taxes for the Feds, as by a lien put upon the current amounts until the past amounts be re-paid!

Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 20, 2009, 02:13 PM NHFT

Quote from: JosephSHaas on August 05, 2009, 01:27 PM NHFT
....

Amendment.
...
THEREFORE: the State $amounts collected [ * ]  on the number of gallons from my receipts be ADDed to the sub-total to pay me the FULL taxes taken out unlawfully! ....

Somewhere I read that these (federal) excise taxes are paid to the Feds (and State? being delivered to/ future tense?) at the time the oil companies buy the gross product from the refinery, and THEN get it back from us when we pay at the pump, so there is no payment AFTER we pay that THEN goes to "them" because it has already been pre-paid.  Just that somewhere to file a claim against its unlawful taking, and for the State by either the State or Federal taxes and of HOW and WHEN paid, somebody as to the WHO has to re-imburse because of its unlawfulness here in New Hampshire! To start the process in The RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims.

This message informs you that your below electronic message to the above-named Federal prisoner is REJECTED and will not be delivered for the following reason(s):

*   The content of your message jeopardizes the safety, security, or orderly operation of the correctional facility, or the protection of the public.

The prisoner to whom you sent this message is NOT being informed of this rejection.

You may appeal this rejection within 15 days of the date of this message by submitting a written request to the warden of the prison where the prisoner is located. You should include a copy of this rejection, an explanation of your appeal request, and any additional documents or information you wish to be considered.

****************************************************************************************************
See Below for Spanish/Ver abajo para leer en español
****************************************************************************************************

Este mensaje le informa que su mensaje electrónico al preso federal susodicho FUE RECHAZADO y no será entregado por la siguiente razón(es):

* El contenido de su mensaje compromete la seguridad, o la operación ordenada de la facilidad correccional, o de la protección del público.

El preso a quien usted envió este mensaje NO será informado de este mensaje rechazado.

Usted puede apelar este rechazo dentro del plazo de 15 días de la fecha de este mensaje enviando una petición por escrito al guardia de la prisión  donde se localiza el preso.  Usted debe incluir una copia de este rechazo, una explicación de su apelacion, y de documentos o información adicionales que usted desee ser considerada.



--------Original Message--------



Date: 11/15/2009 11:32:09 AM

From: thatdamnvanmeter@yahoo.com

To: 14528052@inmatemessage.com

Subject: Re: test

I hope you get the help you need from the ACLU, basically we were told that since we have lawyers that they could not be of any help.
Reno is being held in a maximum security facility even though according to the points he should be at a camp facility, he is fighting that and was threatened with being sent to the hole if he makes too much of a fuss. Also going through the appeals which could last up to a year and a half. We are not hopeless though, and doing all we can to get everyone released. They have been holding his mail as well. I'm glad that you got in contact with me, let me know if there is anything I can do for you, I am here for all of you guys. Robert will be getting released tomorrow, and Ed is going up for sentencing soon. I cant wait to see all of you come out of all of this and back home to your families. You are all heroes despite what the media and the injustice system may say.

Take care, you're in our thoughts and prayers.
Donna

DANIEL RILEY on 11/13/2009 11:46:44 AM wrote
Hey,

anything new I should know about? Tell 'em i said hi. Hope to win a new trial. I am in a suppression control unit. The ACLU  has and the center for constitutional rights are filing/filed lawsuits against the unit i am in.

http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac134/FREE_RENO/USCOURTOFAPPEALGUNS2UPDATED.jpg

(http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac134/FREE_RENO/USCOURTOFAPPEALGUNS2UPDATED.jpg)

Appeals denied for the return of the Gonzalez's family firearms (the ones circled)

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on November 25, 2009, 12:04 AM NHFT
Appeals denied for the return of the Gonzalez's family firearms (the ones circled)

Were these the ones seized from the home in Texas, after Reno was already in jail? They didn't have any evidentiary value, and even if they once did, the trial is over.

They were the ones taken from our home the day of the raid. Most were returned, except for the 3. Since he was not found guilty of any of the weapon charges, nor does he have a history of violence, these should be rightfully returned!

Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 07, 2009, 01:03 PM NHFT
...
Motion to Attach....

Here's the "canned" OBJECTION  from the Assistant County Attorney who seems to have a one-track mind in him thinking he IS the "State"* (see the WHEREFORE section), and so he'd rather pay $3000 than one dollar ($1.00) and agree to let the judge sua sponte give Ed a hearing on a Habeas Corpus:

" - - - - - THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE - - - - -

STRAFFORD, SS                            SUPERIOR COURT
........................ JOSEPH S. HAAS ........................
                                v.
......BOARD OF STRAFFORD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS .......
_________ Docket No. 219-2009-CV-00614 ____________

/ / / / / / OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ATTACH / / / / /

NOW COMES the Board of Strafford County Commissioners by and through the Office of the Strafford County Attorney, and objects to the Plaintiff's Motion to Attach on the following grounds:

1. The Plaintiff's petition does not state with any specificity and facts supporting his contention that an attachment is necessary.

2. The Plaintiff is requesting an attachment of $3,000.

3. Board of Strafford County Commissioners is defended and indemnified by the Strafford County Government, which holds a large extent of real estate and liquid assets.  In the unlikely event the Plaintiff is successful in his action; it is unforeseeable that Strafford County could not satisfy a judgment against it for $3,000.

WHEREFORE, the State* respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:

A. Deny the Plaintiff's Motion To Attach; and

B. Grant such other relief as it deems fair and just.

Respectfully submitted,
By the Office of the Strafford County Attorney

____________________________________
Stephen G. LaBonte, NH Var # 16178
Assistant County Attorney

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
STRAFFORD, SS
November 23, 2009

I hereby certify a copy of the foregoing has been forwarded this date to Joseph Haas, Plaintiff Pro se.

_________________
Stephen G. LaBonte   "

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on November 25, 2009, 07:30 PM NHFT
They were the ones taken from our home the day of the raid. Most were returned, except for the 3. Since he was not found guilty of any of the weapon charges, nor does he have a history of violence, these should be rightfully returned!

Yes they should. What's the reason for denial?

Quote from: KBCraig on November 25, 2009, 09:37 PM NHFT

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on November 25, 2009, 07:30 PM NHFT
They were the ones taken from our home the day of the raid. Most were returned, except for the 3. Since he was not found guilty of any of the weapon charges, nor does he have a history of violence, these should be rightfully returned!

Yes they should. What's the reason for denial?

Cause "THEY" are nazi fascists!

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on November 25, 2009, 09:48 PM NHFT

Quote from: KBCraig on November 25, 2009, 09:37 PM NHFT

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on November 25, 2009, 07:30 PM NHFT
They were the ones taken from our home the day of the raid. Most were returned, except for the 3. Since he was not found guilty of any of the weapon charges, nor does he have a history of violence, these should be rightfully returned!

Yes they should. What's the reason for denial?

Cause "THEY" are nazi fascists!

Donna, Time to give Easton & Levy a call.  See:

http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/the_vatican.htm

Good luck, -- Joe

P.S. My house (and RSA Ch. 480:1-9 $100,000 homestead http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XLIX-480.htm  ) and rents were stolen by these type creeps! who have no respect for The Rule of Law. That's WHY we are supposed to have an Article 20  trial by jury  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html  with ALL and Art. 14 "complete" evidence allowed to be admitted and by "due process of law" that includes procedural too! Is supposed to be a guarantee by the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to which "they" take an RSA Ch. 92:2 oath http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm [ see also RSA Ch. 42:1  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm  for the locals to provide this Art. 12 protection, paid for by your taxes, but that is really an extortion/ "protection racket"]  to support in that they "will" do so in the future tense of this word, but WHEN!? http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html to NOT pro-tect, BUT re-turn!? and to the sevenfold level as thieves!!!!!!! Proverbs 6:30-31 and Public Law 97-280 (96 Statute 1211) of October 4, 1982 = The Year of the Bible for 1983 & Beyond, that they have got to be reminded of! And so not just the guns but seven of like quality.

Like in my case: WHERE was the RSA Ch.  528:18 notice? http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIV/528/528-18.htm  and in Ed's case: WHERE is the RSA Ch. 123:1 filing? http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm from 40USC255 to 40USC3112 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution.

Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 20, 2009, 02:13 PM NHFT

Quote from: JosephSHaas on August 05, 2009, 01:27 PM NHFT
To: ...The [N.H.] Dept. of Safety
Office of The Commissioner...
Concord, N.H. 03301...

RE: Claim for $24.51 ....

Amendment....

Here's a copy and paste for over at:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091126/NEWS01/911260325

entitled: "What about "excise" taxes?"

of: "Yup: "Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy. "

Check it out: http://www.ctj.org/itep/

by a random landing on page 13 at http://www.itepnet.org/whopays.htm over to http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf  :

"excise taxes are typically based on volume rather than price - per gallon, per pack and so forth.  Thus better off people pay the same absolute tax on an expensive premium beer as low income families pay on a run-of-the-mill variety.  As a result, excise taxes are usually the most regressive kind of tax.  Overall, state excise taxes on gasoline, cigarettes and beer ... are 22 times harder on the poor than the rich.

But get this folks:

1. According to The "CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES OF 1956" of the "Papers presented at the 10th Public Affairs Institute, (Saturday) April 7, 1956" at the "Public Administration Service of the Department of Government, College of Liberal Arts, The University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire"  49198c under the sub-title of: "THE POWER TO TAX" by Panel Member: Amos N. Blandin, Jr. @ page " - 55 -" "What is an excise tax? It is a tax on your occupation or business.  It is allowed in many states, but it is not allowed here." in New Hampshire. +

2. over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise it is further defined as: "According to the New Oxford English Dictionary (Revised 2nd Ed., 2005), an excise is "a tax levied on certain goods and commodities produced or sold within a country and on licenses granted for certain activities" (emphasis added)." and "In the United States, the term "excise" means: (A) any tax other than a property tax or capitation (i.e., an indirect tax, or excise, in the constitutional law sense)"; +

3.  In QUESTION No. 3 of 3 in the November 1958 General Election, from the 1956 Con-Con the question was asked: "Are you in favor of removing certain obsolete words and phrases from Part II of the Constitution as follows...In Article 95 of Part II changing the word 'continent to 'United States'; striking out...the word 'excise' and change the word 'continental' to 'federal'?" Yes 87,138   No  17,034; +

4.  As an Article 12 N.H. Bill of Rights "inhabitant"  the State AND federal gasoline taxes are BOTH unlawfully applied here in this state, and especially since there is no 40USC3112 filing to our N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 per 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, then the State $amounts collected on the number of gallons from YOUR receipts ought to be added up and presented to the N.H. Dept. of Safery who is supposed to "pro"-tect us, but rather a re-bate needed, that if not given, ought to result in some class-action claim to the RSA Ch. 541-B State Board of Claims. -- that is UNTIL the "excise" word is voted back INto our N.H. Constitution."

Dear Brain Trust,

Enclosed is a 3 page packet

tracking my "Paper trail of Injustice."

1 of 3 is most recent "Cop Out" I had
submitted to correct my security
level. Mr Haines, J. decided to
use a delay structured response
instead of acting honorably in
his position. He never held a meeting
with me. I do not even know
what he looks like. (Case Manager)
2 of 3 is "BP-8" filed & answered by Mr
Hamlin, (Unit Counselor of "A" Unit). Sadly
he too decided to lie to me instead
of acting honorably in his position.
  Now where is the words "close
supervision" written in Mr Haines, J.
reply (1 of 3) to my "Cop Out." Therefore it is
not "clearly stated" as Mr Hamlin's reply
implies. In my book, that's a lie, which
I had just complained about on the
same "BP-8" form!

  Plus! Minimum (Comp)/Low/Medium/
High are the order of security levels
for prison systems from least to the
greatest. Remember this order ...



2 of 2

   Even if this current situation of
my security level were current as in
having 8 points which is "Camp points"/

Minimum prison – A "Management
Variable" only allow an increase
or decrease by ONE security level.

Consequently : ONE level up from my
minimum security score (at present) of
8 points places my status then still
in a low! " El Reno " is not a low;
it is a medium, "F.C.I."  Hence, I am
not appropriately housed at F.C.I El Reno
, as determined by the BOP.

   So lets recap: Mr Hamlin is a liar.

(Which is sad because I did trust him
to do right).

3 of 3 is currently the next step, "BP-09"

As you can read, it states my issues of
my current situation. It was submitted
today 11/19/09.

  I will continue to keep you advised.



                                    Signed
                                    Cirino Gonzalez
                                    AKA Reno

(http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac134/FREE_RENO/CGtoJMG09111903.jpg)

(http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac134/FREE_RENO/CGtoJMG09111904.jpg)

(http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac134/FREE_RENO/CGtoJMG09111905.jpg)

Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 26, 2009, 08:53 PM NHFT

Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 20, 2009, 02:13 PM NHFT

Quote from: JosephSHaas on August 05, 2009, 01:27 PM NHFT
To: ...The [N.H.] Dept. of Safety
Office of The Commissioner...
Concord, N.H. 03301...

RE: Claim for $24.51 ....

Amendment....

...

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091126/NEWS01/911260325

entitled: "What about "excise" taxes?" ....

My latest reply to G.I. over there:

entitled: "Let the Revolution*** begin!"

of: "G.I.: The answer to your question is: yes, a revolt, as in to be filled with disgust or abhorrence (loathsome: to de-test, execrate: to inveigh (pro-test, rail/roar, from the Latin word invehere, to carry in, assail/attack against, denounce*) of not just to dis-like intensely, but hate to that of the Latin word: destestari of to curse = a scourge = of to chastise severely**! and then of not merely to just criticize but to punish, as in to make them pay back all of these unlawful taxes that may be legal, because when a statute is unconstitutional, it is taken OFF the books! ** Another word for this is excoriate= to denounce* = to express vehement disapproval of openly, to accuse formally, inform against, from the Latin word: denuntiare of to make an official announcement, as in my/our Claim #2009-_____ to the RSA Ch. 541-B State Board of Claims.

Plus to "usurp" is to "seize and hold by force and without legal right or authority... to TAKE into use." This quote from my dictionary that should have read of for us to use our LAWFUL authority to Re-TAKE or PREVENT further THEFT of our $money by these unlawful taxes! Not to "militate" = use force as evidence, as "they"/the Feds do withOUT the proper paperwork on file with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State, but to answer your question #2 in that of to see Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, in that the key word and phrase is about "the Laws of the United States" as in the U.S. Codes or Statutes-at-Large as being "the supreme Law of the Land", but of HOW they be such for "procedural" due process of law, in that the end does NOT justify the means!  The Laws of the U.S. "shall" or must be made NOT pursuant to (as in accordance with), but "in Pursuance thereof" the WAY as prescribed! A carrying out or putting into effect.  Thus the Feds NEED our Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 U.S. Constitutional "Consent" BEFORE their laws can have any effect here! On June 14, 1883 we gave them a "conditional" consent, or an offer that has YET to be 40USC255 to 40USC3112 accepted, as "It Takes Two to Tango."

*** Noting of to revolt as indicated for a revolut-ion, but not rebell-ion, as that definition of the word revolt is for "An uprising against authority."  So when the authority is THE Constitution, but that there be bad-apple public servants operating as outlaws, then to do something about it! Take the letter e off of the word loathe, to loath for to take the un-willing to pay what is un-lawful to the next step of to dis-incline: to stand up against these thieves! To be reluctant to obey unlawful orders! Or in other words to struggle to some degree but with the Board behind you. The RSA Board of Claims to "averse" = to be opposed to all that is unlawful, and do something about it."

Quote from: JosephSHaas on August 19, 2009, 12:49 PM NHFT
They're going to $pay!

"Bill for: $3,300.65
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaasat hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 8/19/09 1:34 PM
To:    County Strafford (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us)
Cc:    Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us)
Bcc: _____________________________________________
Bill of: $3,300.65 to Strafford County Commissioners. Dover, N.H.

Dear Jean: Would you please forward this to all three members. Their Superintendent Warren Dowaliby has "goons" running the place to my detriment! for which I do seek a correction by payment for damages.

On the last two Sundays, of August 9 + 16 I was told by a woman, and the Negro man there respectfully when I called before I left my house that I was O.K. to visit with Ed Brown, my friend at the Jail there from 10-11 a.m. and so drove the 32.51 miles from G.I.W. to the Jail but when I arrived:

(1) on the first Sunday, two men, and then a 3rd man appeared at the metal detector to tell me that the woman told me wrong, and (2) on the second Sunday the Negro man told me that he was the one I spoke to on the phone, giving him my name at BOTH during the call and my visit, but that instead of an apology and $payment for my time and money spent, he said that if I ever set foot there again, that he will have me arrested for trespassing, to which I did complain to Officer Forcier over at Control, and he told me to check with him on any "next" time....

To: Assistant County Attorney Stephen G. LaBonte

From my original filing of this case in Dover District Court on Wed., Aug. 26th with 8/31 Amendment, and Appearance on Sept. 25th with the Oct. 15 transfer fee of $115 supposedly paid by what? (check #____ from the ___________ Bank) with actual transfer FROM the District TO Superior Court on Tue., Oct. 20th, with Motion to Attach of Nov. 10th not acted upon withIN the 10 days by 11/20, but three days later with an objection on Mon., Nov. 23rd, and phone call to me of Wed., Nov. 25th = the day before Thanksgiving to call the Attorney for The Commissioners on Monday, thus in preparation for such, to reprimand you: Attorney LaBonte of your OPINION of this NOT an "unlikely event the Plaintiff is successful" BUT to please answer the FACTS, of Admitted or not!  The facts of those two phone calls and drive down to be told otherwise on Sunday, August 9th + 16th.

With the Appearance of Sept. 25th, or by the First Tuesday of October 6th, whichever is later, then for you to have an Answer withIN thirty (30) days, right? So WHERE is your answer?  It was due by Thursday, November 5th. It being three full weeks MORE and I get this crummy OBJECTION from you of including an OPINION only!  Get with it! Answer the two charges of: Admitted or Denied! Then if you deny, then to call those guards to a Deposition!

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 25, 2009, 09:22 PM NHFT

Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 07, 2009, 01:03 PM NHFT... Motion to Attach....

... he'd rather pay $3000 than one dollar ($1.00) and agree to let the judge sua sponte give Ed a hearing on a Habeas Corpus: ....

While scanning the TV schedule Channel 36 here last night I saw that ENTW TV Channel 68 http://www.ewtn.com/TV/index.asp (http://www.ewtn.com/TV/index.asp) was re-broadcasting a few of The Loretta Young Show episodes of actually "Letter to Loretta" that I've heard about before but had never seen, or if I had it was decades ago.

One half hour episode I did see was from 9-:30 p.m. entitled "Faith, Hope and Mr. Flaherty" from 1960, and 8 May 1960 to be exact (Season 7, Episode 27) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0630860/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0630860/) about how she turned a quarter into $20,000.

At the end of every program (I did catch the end of the previous one), she quotes from the Bible, and last night for this episode did read from Proverbs 16:3 KJV of: "Commit they works unto the LORD, and thy thoughts shall be established."

And upon opening my Bible I also read in this Chapter 16 of 31 in Proverbs 16:6 of: "By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: ...."

So with my "Compassionate treatment of an offender" in this case: the "enemy" being The Board of County Commissioners, not giving them complete clemency, but "A disposition to be kind and forgiving" to a certain level, like from over $3,300 down to only one ($1.00) dollar, as "A fortunate occurrence" to them, to "Alleviation of distress" in the "relief" or "reward" to that of $3,299, THEN the truth of what the guards did, or did not do need not be "proven" but of to be "accepted as true" that there has been no RSA Ch. 123:1 filing of the 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers from the Feds to finally accept our conditional offer of "Consent" of June 14, 1883 and thus prove that withOUT jurisdictional authority as per the Adams U.S. Supreme Court case of 1943 THEN now having the truth or "Conformity in knowledge " of this "fact" of "actuality", the "Fidelity" to their RSA Ch. 92:2  oath to the "original" Constitution, and especially 1-8-17 of the U.S. as THE "standard" will make "Real" their "integrity" or  "Rigid* adherence to a code of value" * = "Not bending" the Fed rules of written or verbal policy to that of OVERlords of the legal and lawful!! The "hardship" of the victim needing this "hardship" in return! as two hardships make a right! Oh what a "trying circumstance" to be "Strict" with "precision" of "accuracy".  Keep a "stiff" upper lip, as they say, to await this "action, or judgment" and hopefully both of the judgment from the judge being the action to say YES on the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

"By mercy and truth iniquity (this "unjust" or illegal AND unlawful act of incarceration) is purged (as in to be "rid"** or free of the "guilt" or "objectionable" = offensive-ness to the law, to get rid of the unpleasant-ness, by this "Arousing dis-approval" ** rid = to also be free from the undesirable.  The desire of the Board being NOT to harm, but to be in HARMony with the law! right? The word rid from the Germanic of rudjan.

The word "rudjan" http://www.pepysdiary.com/archive/1662/08/26/index.php (http://www.pepysdiary.com/archive/1662/08/26/index.php) to "Terry F, on Sat 27 Aug 2005, 05:58am. Flag this / rid. To free from something objectionable or undesirable. [Middle English rud{d}en, rid(d)en, from Old Norse rythja (past participle ruddr), from Germanic rudjan (unattested).] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language."

Therefore unattested = "Not attested"; and "attested" = from the word attest = either of 1 or 2.  And in THIS case of the federal judge having allowed "To provide evidence of" the fact of the federal non-filing ONLY to his being BUT for NOT to the jury!  Here in New Hampshire that is un-acceptable and unlawful as us Article 12 "inhabitants" here are enTITLEd to Art. 14 "complete" justice, and not this half-assed justice! Thus to see to it that there be this check-and-balance of definition #1 of this attest word, and that is: "To affirm to be correct, true, or genuine." So: Yes, the truth to affirm that it is correct, that there has been NO federal filing, and so no jurisdictional authority of the U.S. Codes to be applicable over us inhabitants here withIN this state, and the individual Ed Brown is hereby released from further non-correction over at the Strafford County House of "Correction" because he is correct!ed.

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas, and seconded by The Assistant County Attorney plus:

Signed: Judge ____________________ this ______ day of December, @ __:__ o'clock a.m./p.m. in The Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Nine (2009) at Dover, New Hampshire. In Equity case #2009-E-____ of Ed Brown v. Warren Dowaliby, Superintendent.

So the Assistant County Attorney for Strafford Co. in Dover, N.H. wants me to reply to his phone call of last Wednesday, eh? Well here it is by an indirect reply to him through Jean, the receptionist for the Three Board Members, to get a printout of this e-mail to each of them, to get together as a Board to present to their counsel:

"Admit or Deny.
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Mon 11/30/09 11:04 AM
To:    County Strafford (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us)
Cc:    Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us)
Bcc:    [ Kat, with much thanks for this NHUnderground website!]
Jean,

Would you please relay this over to the Board of three Commission members thereof this Strafford County in Dover, N.H. being sued by me in that they have FAILed to Answer within the 30 days of the Appearance Form by their attorney: The County Attorney's Assistant, and have such Answer to me pronto! failure of which I shall ask at the Tue., Dec. 15th Scheduling Conference in Superior Court (upstairs) that the judge find them in DEFAULT, and so there being no denial, as ADMITted to the fact that they do NOT want to further contest this and so to pay me the $3,300.  But if this is incorrect, then to have them either ADMIT or DENY to AT LEAST the two facts of me being told over the phone that I could visit, but when I did arrive at each time on those two Sundays mornings, of August 9th + 16th they reversed themselves to refuse me permission to visit and the reasons being that the federal policy adopted by this County has somehow overridden our Article 12 - N.H. Bill of Rights in Part First of our New Hampshire Constitution! There being two factors in this case: (1) for to (a) Admit or (b) prove these facts and then (2) not if, but when found to be the case, then for the jury to find just how much $money in damages ought to be paid to me for these thefts of my rights to not just Article 12, but Article 5 also for my Sunday Religious rights too, plus Article 22 - N.H. too for Free Speech, but more in particular for the details in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution of the Freedom of Association!

Thank you, - - Joe Haas

footnote: Did the Assistant County Attorney advise the Board that this case could be settled for one ($1.00) dollar IF the judge "sua sponte" opens up an Equity file #2009-E-____ to take care of the criminal aspects of this case, in that by the SAME case-law of the Adams case in the U.S. Supreme Court, that because of the Federal FAILure to file the 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with our N.H. Secretary of State (Bill Gardner) in Concord from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 then the U.S. CRIMINAL Code has no effect here as withOUT jurisdictional authority AND to grant such Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

P.S. Here is a copy and paste from Reply #9314 (my actual reply #2407) on page 621 over at http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9300 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9300)  that was posted to there on Saturday, November 28th, 2009 @ exactly 11:55 a.m.: ...."

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091130/FRONTPAGE/911300301 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091130/FRONTPAGE/911300301)

entitled: "Does the "outline" or general plan add to  RSA 123:2 too?"

of: "Re: paragraph #8: "That study put the cost of building a 40,000-square-foot library downtown along with a 40-car parking lot at close* to $15.7 million".

Hey! That's a pay-back in only eight (8)* years IF the City Assessor would just do her job: send a property tax bill for the buildings over there at 53-55 Pleasant Street to the Feds, because by R.S.A. Chapter 123:2 we only gave them property tax exemption for their land, but not their buildings that at the current rate of about $21.00 per $1000 of valuation on $111 million = over $2.2 million per year.

Check it out: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm) from http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm)

* Maybe only seven (7) years needed, as close to $15.7 million = $2.2 million x 7 = $15.4 million.  Then WHERE to spend the Year 2018 + property tax money from the Feds? "
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Modification:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091130/FRONTPAGE/911300301#comment-93161 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091130/FRONTPAGE/911300301#comment-93161)  (to be exact).

Update:

"RE: Admit or Deny.
From:    Jean L. Miccolo (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us)
Sent:    Mon 11/30/09 11:30 AM
To:    'Joseph S. Haas' (josephshaas at hotmail.com)

I will forward this information to the appropriate persons. Thank you.

Jean L. Miccolo, Administrative Assistant

Strafford County Commissioners Office

603.516.7100, jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us

The first day of your new beginning: Knowledge fueled by emotion equals action. Action is the ingredient that ensures results. Only action can cause reaction; only positive action can cause positive reaction."

Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 26, 2009, 08:52 AM NHFT

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on November 25, 2009, 09:48 PM NHFT

Quote from: KBCraig on November 25, 2009, 09:37 PM NHFT

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on November 25, 2009, 07:30 PM NHFT
They were the ones taken from our home the day of the raid. Most were returned, except for the 3. Since he was not found guilty of any of the weapon charges, nor does he have a history of violence, these should be rightfully returned!

Yes they should. What's the reason for denial?

Cause "THEY" are nazi fascists!

Donna, Time to give Easton & Levy a call.  See:

http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/the_vatican.htm (http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/the_vatican.htm)

Good luck, -- Joe ....

Follow-up with:

1.  The April 18, 2005 opinion from the judge and judges about this gold not like art, and with "some evidence" but WHERE to litigate?  http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/164412 (http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/164412)

2.  http://www.jca-psasl.org/catpdfs/def060705monroecocatstateofmich.pdf (http://www.jca-psasl.org/catpdfs/def060705monroecocatstateofmich.pdf)

49-page "COMMERCIAL AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH"

from: page 1 #9 at GOOGLE for the words: "Thomas Easton" Attorney Cincinnati

see: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22Thomas+Easton%22+Attorney+Cincinnati&aq=f&aqi=&oq=%22Thomas+Easton%22+Attorney+Cincinnati&fp=6b22d27f49a5e7dd (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22Thomas+Easton%22+Attorney+Cincinnati&aq=f&aqi=&oq=%22Thomas+Easton%22+Attorney+Cincinnati&fp=6b22d27f49a5e7dd)

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/109169/93437 (http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/109169/93437)

entitled: "For to prosecute ALL thieves by Article 14 N.H. Constitution!"

of: "So right*...and wrong** you are Army Vet,

* re: your paragraph #2 of: "As Obama and his economic policies of Bailout to the WallStreet Robber Barons... continue to hurt American workers and their families, more robberies will continue...." +

** re: paragraph #3 of: "Dollar debasement through Obama's ever increasing deficits are destroying the dollar".***

But which dollar are you speaking of?  You're like Reporter Annmarie Timmins here of referring to the paper dollar as THE dollar but that this is NOT the truth!; see: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091201/NEWS01/912010338#comment-93417 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091201/NEWS01/912010338#comment-93417)

Then you report that: "Gold has reached another record high this morning at over $1200 dollars per ounce...$1217.00 per ounce" to be exact. Thus my question to you is, so what? Is that good or bad?  My presumption is that when the paper dollar is devalued in spending power then people invest in the intrinsic value of metal such as gold.  Reference Chapter 7 of The Laws of New Hampshire of 1793 @ page 109 "for settling*** the depreciation of the paper currency"; *** thus it is un-settling when our own government dis-obeys the law! To settle is not only defined as "to fix" (v.s. fluctuate - as in to "rise and fall like the waves"), or "establish", or "stabilize", but: "To make compensation for (a claim)" and "To pay(a debt)".  So WHEN are you and the others going to wake up and put in your claim that these debt instruments of a dollar bill be paid!?

As I wrote last night in the "Where's the 'Money'?" reply the real thieves are withIN our own government, so it is hypocrisy if and when this thief is caught and prosecuted to have to cost us even more for his incarceration.  He should be turned into like a slave to pay back these victims to the seventh degree, from a moiety or half of his paycheck from his job on a Writ of Elegit. See Public Law 97-280 (96 Statute 1211) of Oct. 4, 1982 = The Year of the Bible for 1983 & Beyond to Proverbs 6:30-31 of to charge the thief x 7 the $amount stolen.  It's annotated in our own N.H. RSA Chapter 651:63 for "Restitution". "

Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 30, 2009, 12:36 PM NHFT
Update:

"RE: Admit or Deny.
...

Assistant County Attorney: If you're reading this, get this: I'm giving you until tomorrow for when I check my mailbox to write of whether you've found out that what I'm saying is true about these guards, or if you've contacted them and they tell you otherwise, then to press them to tell the truth under an oath at either a deposition or on the witness stand! If I receive nothing from you, then I'll be typing out to mail 12/4, Friday too a Motion for Default Judgment that you have to answer withIN ten (10) days, and so by Monday, December 14th, whereupon if still in the dark to have the judge shine the light on you in court the next day: Tue., Dec. 15th @ 9:00 a.m.: the facts in non-dispute, just that of to the jury now to determine the $amount of damages based upon whether they agree or dis-agree with the formula of sevenfold the theft of my time and gas money to get there and back.

First Draft                         - - - - - Motion for Default Judgment - - - - -

Strafford County Superior Court Case #219-2009-CV-00614
Joseph S. Haas v. Board of Strafford County Commissioners

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, in reply to the Board's 2-page BRIEF STATEMENT OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES of November 30th '09 and replies as follows:

The Defendant caNOT merely write that it does "neither confirms or denies each of the factual assertions set forth in said claim and puts the Plaintiff to his burden of proof" since by Article 8, Part First of the New Hampshire Constitution & Bill of Rights they* are "at all times accountable to" us "the people"; the they* word herein of these "officers" over who these employees work.

1. The defendant Board with its three member Commissioners are individually and jointly liable or "Legally obligated" to have their employees as an extension of themselves from the main to these branches bound to be constrained by the statute, and in this case, of RSA Ch. 92:2 to the constitution of the state of New Hampshire and in particular to Article 12, last sentence as already explained. This contract or promise by their oath of office compels them to follow the law!

2. The word negligent is defined as habitually guilty of neglect, or extremely careless, and that since the word habitual is from the word habit of "A pattern of behavior acquired by frequent repetition", and that since this repetition only occurred once, then it is not a frequency of to be dealt with here, nor is it in the extreme to the word drastic as in there was no violence in the physical because the alternative of force is to sue and defend in the courts.

3. For the Board to say that "The Plaintiff caused or contributed to the cause of the injuries/damages he claims he has suffered as a result of the alleged incidents on 'August 9 + 16'" is ludicrous or laughable because of obvious absurdity or incongruity, as in the harmony of a yes you may visit over the phone was reversed to a no upon my visit!

4. To "mitigate" is "To make or become less harsh or severe; alleviate".  So just HOW was I to do that? To have to call the supervisor to verify of what the employee at the visiting desk said was wrong? Am I required to have E.S.P.!?

5. What "Statute of Limitations"?  These two incidents occurred this past Summer and so way before August of 2012, per RSA Ch. 508:4.

6. "Sovereign Immunity" by RSA Ch. 29-A:1  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/II/29-A/29-A-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/II/29-A/29-A-1.htm)  only applies for when these officers and/or employees are "acting within the scope of official duty and not in a wanton or reckless manner". The word wanton is defined as "lacking discipline", as in "A state of order based upon submission to rules and authority" and in this case "The right and power to command, enforce laws, exact obedience, determine, influence, or judge". The one holding this right AND power to exact obedience is me, the Plaintiff to require that the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 92:2 be upheld, in that they MUST, as their mandatory duty obey the law, and that includes no deviation from the last sentence in Article 12 to that of some verbal or written policy over-ride of to comply with the mere wishes of the feds!   In fact see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity) and in particular: "the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party."  Thus the County-Fed contract here to house federal inmates against the law is unlawful and can be sued against, since the Feds have FAILed to comply with RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution, since our June 14, 1883 offer of conditional consent has NOT been accepted by 40USC255 over to 40USC3112 and like the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in that 1943 Adams case, their written Criminal Code and any and all either written or verbal policies have no bearing on us Art. 12 N.H. "inhabitants" since they are withOUT jurisdiction! as technical trespassers in this state, of which these county officials are also criminals in the second degree!!

7. Enclosed please find a photocopy of both my Reply #9314 incorporated into my e-mail letter to The County Commissioners on Monday, November 30th @11:04 that I think prompted this STATEMENT by the Board's Attorney of that they either: ADMIT or DENY these factual allegations, and THEN to go over to the jury to find out just how much $damages ought to be re-paid to me.

Because the first hearing on this matter is scheduled for the day after the ten (10) days would have ended on this Motion on Monday, December 14th, I purposely do violate Rule #__ in having to double-space type this for it to be required for the attorney to reply ON that day, I do hereby give him an extra day to reply either in writing or verbally at said hearing on Tuesday, December 15th, 2009 @ 9:00 o'clock a.m. in courtroom #___

Thank you, - - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059, e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

pc: The Strafford County Attorney's Office
Attn: Stephen G. LaBonte, Assistant.
N.H. Bar # 16178
P. O. Box 799
Dover, N.H. 03821

and: Edward-Lewis: Brown
Strafford County H.O.C.
266 County Farm Road
Dover, N.H. 03820

P.S. Since the Assistant County Attorney calls upon me to put forth by "burden of proof" to each and every element of my action, and that includes the 6th Amendment contract by Ed Brown of for me to "counsel" him and another one of even to have the P.O.A. to file an action against the State in the RSA Ch. 541-B State Board of Claims for him as against the Dept. of Safety for their FAILure to Art. 12 "protect" him, then would the court please issue an Order that Ed Brown attend this morning hearing in court to take the stand and affirm to the truth to this/these document(s) before he is sentenced and shipped out of state illegally and unlawfully whereupon if no Habeas action here he will have to Rule 63 collaterally attack such in another federal court after being denied by the sentencing court.  Hopefully NOT to happen as I request again that an Equity case be opened in his behalf by the judge, since if a prosecution of such can be done as was done against me by Judge Peter W. Smith in that "Champerty" Rule 95-B Indirect Criminal Contempt of Court against me in Grafton County as a Bounty Hunter or Locator of Lost Heirs for a finder's fee (that BTW which offense was previously done-away with by the case law of the Adin case of Spring 1992 at the N.H. Supreme Court), then a defense ought to be able to be done too, and under the scientific basis of that for every action, there is an equal and opposite re-action.

Check this out:          http://www.whale.to/ (http://www.whale.to/)

Somebody just told me about this yesterday afternoon.

I've yet to explore there, but like this quote at page one:

"Authentic journalism is telling people something that the government doesn't want them to know."--Gary Webb

Cirino was handed a response from Administrators noticing him that he had 20 days to reply.
But the response was held for TEN days before given to Cirino.
(Cirino got the C/O "Scheurer" to sign the response when delivered)
The case number is 565879-F1
We need to complain about the administration'..s foot-dragging.

[SAMPLE: "I want to lodge a formal complaint regarding the foot-dragging of BOP officials in Administrative Remedy Case# 565879-F1 on time sensitive documents and the BOP's policies circumventing DUE PROCESS, as per the 5th & 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution"]

Direct your calls to:
214-224-3389 and 202-307-3198

and/or correspondence to:

Gerardo Maldonado, Jr.
Regional Director, South Central Regional Office
Federal Bureau of Prisons
4211 Cedar Springs Rd
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: 214-224-3389
E-mail: E-mail: SCRO/EXECASSISTANT@BOP.GOV*

Harley G. Lappin
Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons
320 First St., NW,
Washington, DC 20534
For general information, call 202-307-3198


If you are better at articulating you can also complain that BOP placement policy violate requirements of Due Process

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091205/FRONTPAGE/912050347 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091205/FRONTPAGE/912050347)

entitled: "Crooked judges dealing in fractional currency!"

of: "1.) What's Kathleen McGuire from Hopkinton who usually sits in Merrimack County as the judge (when she's not down in Manchester for Hillsborough/ North on that COP murder case) doing in Belknap County in Laconia?  * She sure gets around, eh?

2.) And that Probate Judge O'Neill: I've had dealings with her and her brother judge too, and they both smell just as bad! First her Clerk tries to extort double the filing fee in a case of mine there and then she refused to allow the relative's bill for a burial to be paid even though he provided an affidavit of a lost receipt to the Funeral Parlor for to take his ancestor to the cemetery.  And he violates his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to the N.H. Constitution for contempt to be limited to ten (10) days by Articles 22+23 in this supposed co-equal branch of government, to exceed by 90 to 100 days.  A current House Bill of Address against him for a hearing in the Legislature next month.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* Plus exactly how many creditors were pushed by the Attorney General to file this bankruptcy?, and in the federal court in Manchester.  Shouldn't he first try to get the Feds to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with our N.H. Secretary of State by RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution first?  See the Adams case opinion on this in the U.S. Supreme Court of 1943.

Will these defendants be smart enough to file a "Special Appearance" to argue jurisdiction?

Here we have a commercial enterprise dealing in coins of commerce by the Coinage Act of 1965 being "forced" into bankruptcy (re: paragraph #4).

Do these Section 20 facilities of the government by the Coinage Act of 1792 (as annotated in our own Art. 97 N.H. Constitution) operate according to THE law? Answer: No! and I can prove it:

Since it takes at least five (5) creditors of IOUs to force a private outfit into court, why not?  Yeah: why don't YOU take out that dollar bill of a note as a promise to pay from out of YOUR pocket and TRY to get it redeemed in the definition of the "dollar" pre-scribed by law, especially you State Reps who are paid $100.00 per year to look out for to Art. 12 "protect" our rights, but who side with the enemy: the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, with the letter A remaining with corporate seal ONLY on the $1.00 and $2.00 bills, of which it used to read of redeemable at ANY Federal Reserve Bank under Title 12 U.S. Code Section 411.

Wake up people!  There are more thieves at the baseboard than do operate above the board in their board rooms! And these judges KNOW it but pretend not to.  They are liars and thieves! deserving impeachments!!

So can I get four readers here together on such a cause and we can file a bankruptcy action against whatever branch bank of the Boston Fed of our choosing, since the Fed buys there FRNs for only 6-cents each, but that we use our sweat equity at work to earn it at the $1.00 level, and so they pocket the difference of 94-cents because they REFUSE to redeem according to the law! The law is their contract with us by Part 15 in Section 16 of The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to deposit so much gold bullion per pallet of Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) monetized ONLY when the serial numbers are recorded with the government AFTER the bullion delivery, to sell and buy the silver to melt down into the coins of "dollar"s when there is not enough available. Thus ignore their lies that we are off the "gold standard" as defined by THEM as no gold transactions at all!  That is a bald face lie that they have to deliver nothing on these 6-cent notes. 

You've heard of fractional currency of years ago, right?  Well what do you think you're current;y dealing with!?  Wake up to what the Bible teaches of having just weights and measures!"

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on December 05, 2009, 10:36 AM NHFT
Cirino was handed a response from Administrators noticing him that he had 20 days to reply.
But the response was held for TEN days before given to Cirino.
(Cirino got the C/O "Scheurer" to sign the response when delivered)
The case number is 565879-F1
We need to complain about the administration'..s foot-dragging.

[SAMPLE: "I want to lodge a formal complaint regarding the foot-dragging of BOP officials in Administrative Remedy Case# 565879-F1 on time sensitive documents and the BOP's policies circumventing DUE PROCESS, as per the 5th & 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution"]

Direct your calls to:
214-224-3389 and 202-307-3198

and/or correspondence to:

Gerardo Maldonado, Jr.
Regional Director, South Central Regional Office
Federal Bureau of Prisons
4211 Cedar Springs Rd
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: 214-224-3389
E-mail: E-mail: SCRO/EXECASSISTANT@BOP.GOV*

Harley G. Lappin
Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons
320 First St., NW,
Washington, DC 20534
For general information, call 202-307-3198


If you are better at articulating you can also complain that BOP placement policy violate requirements of Due Process

Dear Regional Director Gerardo Maldonaldo Jr.

I am emailing you to file an official complaint in regards to the unjust manner the El Reno Oklahoma Facility has been handling my husband's (Cirino Gonzalez) case. He has filed a BP8 and a BP9 over being transferred to a more appropriate setting in regards to the custody level points from his PSR (pre sentencing report/interview). The BP8 and BP9 were not only handled inappropriately by the CO's and the warden, but all requests were unreasonable denied. Inaction to resolve this matter opens YOU up to personal liability for lack of compliance with BOP policy, as well as the violations of due process as per the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

He was told that he was being denied transfer to a minimum security facility due to:

1) The facility/FBOP fears the Bad Publicity; Told to him by one of the CO's at El Reno. I promise you, there will be lots of bad publicity if this matter is not swiftly resolved and Cirino be re-designated to a low security facility.  I am informing you that we, his family, are officially implementing a media blitz, which will be the first phase of our drawing attention on this situation.

2) Cirino was told "You were designated here by the consolidated Designated Office as a LOW inmate with a greater security Management variable due to the number of SUPPORTERS you have" by the UNIT-A Case Manager, J. Haines on 11/05/09. Well did it ever occur to the BOP that Cirino has hundreds and thousands of supporters world wide because he is a good person wrongfully imprisoned, known by many for his work being a peace activist, and now known as a political prisoner of conscious for defending an elderly couple from being murdered by federal agents in a similar fashion as those of the Waco Texas Massacre?

3) Another reason he has been told that he is being held there wrongfully was that there were gun charges involved in his case, which were dropped and dismissed. Despite this judge Singal ignored the PSI suggestions for sentencing, as well as due process, by verbalizing that he was going to add on more time just because Cirino OWNED firearms, which were for self defense. Singal's comments demonized a majority of Americans whom happen to believe and stand on their 2nd amendment rights. Let me refresh your memory of one particular case of David Summerville. That just because someone owns a firearm does not show or prove intent of commissioning their weapon in a violent act nor can ones punishment be enhanced by the mere ownership of a firearm. Further, CO's continually have been citing a dead prison policy P5100.08 which was rescinded in 2006, outdated now for several years.

4) The CO's also falsely stated that my husband had a history of violence, when my husband has requested proof of such to be provided he is told "I don't care" and  "don't make things harder on yourself!" and he is threatened with being "thrown in the hole" if he continues to file complaints.  The testimony of US MARSHAL Eugene Robinson has changed several times throughout the hearings and trial in which he claimed Cirino tried to resist, while the testimonies of Robinson's fellow Marshals whom were there that day conflict with Robinsons statements about events of Cirino's arrest on September 12th 2007.

Once again let me reverberate; by not resolving in a timely fashion, the FBOP will face the consequences of bad publicity via media blitz AND opening all those directly involved whom Cirino has discussed this matter with; Intake Staff, Unit Managers and Case management (G. Mendez, B. Edwards, J. Rogalsky, G. Macias, J. Haines) and yourself up to personal legal, commercial, and financial liability for the harm being done to Cirino Gonzalez, his family and friends.

Thank you,
Donna VanMeter-Gonzalez

Donna, if you haven't already sent that, you might want to change "reverberate" to "reiterate", which I'm pretty sure is what you meant.

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on December 05, 2009, 10:20 PM NHFT

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on December 05, 2009, 10:36 AM NHFT

"I am emailing you to ......... has been handling my husband's (Cirino Gonzalez) case."

"The CO's also falsely stated that my husband "

Thank you,
Donna VanMeter-Gonzalez

donna i wasn't aware the two of you got married..... congratulations?? when did this happen??

Quote from: keith in RI on December 06, 2009, 08:37 AM NHFT

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on December 05, 2009, 10:20 PM NHFT

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on December 05, 2009, 10:36 AM NHFT

"I am emailing you to ......... has been handling my husband's (Cirino Gonzalez) case."

"The CO's also falsely stated that my husband "

Thank you,
Donna VanMeter-Gonzalez

donna i wasn't aware the two of you got married..... congratulations?? when did this happen??

Thanks Keith
Since the late part Aug. 2007 under Texas common law. We are not the kind to ask permission from the state in the forms of license, believing that the state/govt has no place in peoples personal relationships. We had a informal ceremony/agreement here at the house in front of his younger brother Lee, a police officer and at the time a Notary Public. From there on out we have addressed each other as our spouse. Jose introduces me as his nuera (daughter in law) Cirino's wife, and I address Jose as my suegro (father in law) publicly.

To have a common law marriage in Texas, you must do three things:
(1) have an agreement to be married
(2) hold yourself out to a third party as being married, and
(3) live together

Remember, while common law marriage in Texas has the same legal status as a ceremonial marriage, you have to get a formal divorce with either common law or ceremonial marriage.

This website says Texas has four requirements.

http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage-fact-sheet.html (http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage-fact-sheet.html)

Quote from: LordBaltimore on December 06, 2009, 11:31 AM NHFT
This website says Texas has four requirements.

http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage-fact-sheet.html (http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage-fact-sheet.html)

If you are the type that believes that the state/govt has no place in peoples personal relationships, then it does not matter what the state of Texas requires.  :P :V_mask_50:

various websites say various things, 3 or 4, depending on your particular county. Regardless, we hold ourselves out as a married couple. Not to mention the fact that my suegro is not only a family and marriage counselor but also went through the process of becoming an ordained minister, residing over wedding ceremonies.

And you are correct ThinkLiberty, I dont care what the state requires. I require a warrant when they showed up to raid us and they didn't produce one, so therefore we don't have to have their paperwork to say we devoted to each other.

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on December 06, 2009, 12:04 PM NHFT
And you are correct ThinkLiberty, I dont care what the state requires. I require a warrant when they showed up to raid us and they didn't produce one, so therefore we don't have to have their paperwork to say we devoted to each other.

When were you raided???

Quote from: LordBaltimore on December 06, 2009, 03:40 PM NHFT

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on December 06, 2009, 12:04 PM NHFT
And you are correct ThinkLiberty, I dont care what the state requires. I require a warrant when they showed up to raid us and they didn't produce one, so therefore we don't have to have their paperwork to say we devoted to each other.

When were you raided???

We were raided and Cirino was arrested on September 12th 2007 in Alice, (Jim Wells Co) here in Texas. Are you not familiar with the story of the arrests of the four Browns Supporters?

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on December 06, 2009, 03:58 PM NHFT

Quote from: LordBaltimore on December 06, 2009, 03:40 PM NHFT

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on December 06, 2009, 12:04 PM NHFT
...I require a warrant when they showed up to raid us and they didn't produce one, ....

When were you raided???

We were raided and Cirino was arrested on September 12th 2007 in Alice, (Jim Wells Co) here in Texas....

And Attorney David Hugh Bownes of Laconia, N.H. was the federal attorney appointed by the judge as the cover-up agent to fly down there to make sure that certain questions were NOT asked, like WHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS?

I've been told that his office has been shut down, and him what? having moved to his house for an office space there?

He never asked the court to order that the prosecution provide the proof of jurisdictional authority for the Texas Feds to turn over Reno to a bunch of federal thugs in New Hampshire operating as outlaws outside the law of 40USC255 to 40USC3112 for their failure to file said documents to do business in THIS State of New Hampshire as REQUIRED by the "shall" word, as a must to-do duty by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution that they ALL in BOTH states take an oath to obey, but dis-obey and so WHO and WHERE to argue this than at first in the very court of corruption, and then as Reno has learned, by a Rule 63 collateral attack in another federal court but only AFTER a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed with the sentencing court and denied.

So WHEN might this occur?  AFTER Sven files Danny's Brief later this month and THEN with that info to copy the Concord court either by a courtesy copy for a case to be opened sua sponte for such relief and witHIn THE case, or to file such a Petition, or await what happens in Dover, N.H. in my case of SAME criteria in them using these federal policies as an over-ride to our N.H. Article 12 rights per that last sentence.      Yours truly, - - Joe

P.S. David did not want to rock the federal boat, or $ gravy train $ as they say because his mother, as the widow of Hugh Bownes of the First Circuit in Boston from N.H. was and still is collecting a nice retirement check every month of to what? 75% of the $100,000+ per year his father made as a federal judge? And he stands to collect some of this as she saves for his inheritance. He definitely had a conflict of interest! A violation of his RSA Ch. 92:2 and 311:6 oath but that the P.C.C.-N.H. doesn't care: they're a cover-up group for the cover-up man.

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on December 06, 2009, 03:58 PM NHFT
We were raided and Cirino was arrested on September 12th 2007 in Alice, (Jim Wells Co) here in Texas. Are you not familiar with the story of the arrests of the four Browns Supporters?

Sorry, when I hear "raid" I think search warrant, which they have to show you.

The only person they had to show an arrest warrant to was Cirino, since he was the one arrested. 

So let me start again.  They never showed Reno an arrest warrant?

Quote from: LordBaltimore on December 07, 2009, 09:18 AM NHFT

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on December 06, 2009, 03:58 PM NHFT
We were raided and Cirino was arrested on September 12th 2007 in Alice, (Jim Wells Co) here in Texas. Are you not familiar with the story of the arrests of the four Browns Supporters?

Sorry, when I hear "raid" I think search warrant, which they have to show you.

The only person they had to show an arrest warrant to was Cirino, since he was the one arrested. 

So let me start again.  They never showed Reno an arrest warrant?

Nope, Never! Not for his arrest, nor for the firearms that were removed from the property. And we were not shy to ask for them to produce one, all of us at the home that day asked several times for a warrant and for why there were here. Reno, his brother (whom was a police officer), and myself ask on multiple occasions. We were told, "We don't have to show you anything!" "Its on file at the Sheriffs Department" "Mind your own Business" and when asked of the local boys there if they had even seen the warrant, they told us, "No, its in Corpus Christi, that its on file somewhere but have not physically seen it with their eyes!" "They don't bring paperwork along when they raid and arrest" "They are just doing their jobs!" "The Federal agents have higher authority, they are just here to help an aid them in their arrests." Which I tried to ask them if they knew they had higher powers of Jurisdictional authority over the federal agent outside invaders whom they should be protecting us from, not serving these jackbooted thugs and baby killers!

RE:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091207/NEWS01/912070325 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091207/NEWS01/912070325)

entitled: "A Tax is not a debt "owed" but to be contested on legal grounds."

of: "Pay up with what? A check is an order to pay, and a note is a promise to pay.  Does the City really get the quality of coin as required by law? The law in Section 20 of the Coinage Act of 1792 as annotated in our N.H. Constitution, Part the Second and in Chapter 28 of The Laws of N.H. for 1794 in Vol. 6 @ page 155 for the reason as described in Ch. 7 Laws of N.H. for 1793 @ page 109 of "for settling the depreciation of the paper currency."

Yes, since then the Feds have enacted The Coinage Act of 1965 for the Commerce Coin to circulate "together" with the Constitutional Coin, per the speech by L.B.J. to Congress that year, and so WHERE is this co-mingling? Does your local bank take your order to heart, or flips over just debased coins of commerce to the government? It's all a secret to us because the Legislature, our State Reps had it in their wisdom per suggestions from certain strong-arm lobbyists to keep us in the dark, and so exempted all government financial transactions from the RSA Chapter 91-A Right to Know.

But not to worry: there's an Accounting Firm of: _______________ Address: __________________, Telephone # (___) _____ - ___________ that conducts an annual Audit and certifies that the City is in compliance with all laws; right? Last one conducted by Mr. __________ with his signature affixed next to the corporate seal of his company.

And "you people" work for the green paper that "they" the Fed (as in the Federal Reserved Bank) buys from the U.S. Gov't for only 6-cents per note of ANY and ALL denominations, BEFORE it is supposedly monetized, as by the recording of the serial numbers per pallet of FRNs (Federal Reserve Notes) by the supposed deposit of the gold bullion per Part 15 in Section 16 of the Act, The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 in their contract with us.  And so I ask again: WHERE IS THE MONEY?  Not the legal tender/ paper dollar bills, but the actual "dollar"s as defined as so many grains of silver.

But THEY say to us that if you're working in commerce you get the commerce coin, and so yes, that WOULD be the case of THAT 1965 Act over us but that the Feds have FAILED to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution. See the 1943 Adams case at the U.S. Supreme Court.  Our June 14, 1883 conditional consent or offer has NOT been accepted, as so that we go by the CURRENT law of 1792.

So do YOU want to continue to fork over your rights to the 94-cents difference in value of the note of for the silver dollar to let the Fed benefit thereby? making it Fiat Money!?  I say no! "A tax, in its essential characteristics, is NOT a debt" (Henry Campbell) Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition, (c)1979 @ page 1307.  I challenge the City to prove that they DID (past tense) do business by law and WILL (future tense) do so, before any current/present tender of what is supposed to be there for the transfer.

Plus: BTW, WHY hasn't the City Assessor sent over her tax bill to the Feds on Pleasant Street, since by RSA Ch. 123:2 their land is exempt, but not their buildings! At about $21.00 per $1000 of valuation on 111 million dollars, that's an extra $2.2 million to the City. I'd offset my bill of $x,xxx with a photocopy of this printout, in that you will pay your fair share when your employee does her job! to "mitigate" the bill down to a more reasonable and fair, plus lawful and legal $amount. This info dedicated to Bill Burns, R.I.P. of Amherst who first started this assignment back in the early 1980s and made front page news at The Union Leader. "

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mod: RSA 91-A (not 93, as in Ski 93 - me thinking of snow).

Quote from: JosephSHaas on July 16, 2009, 11:59 PM NHFT
Update: I did meet with the County Commissioners today (Thu., July 16th), and they said for me to call Gary D. again to see if the road issue is still bothering them, and if so for WHERE to meet to talk about it OFF federal turf was my reply as to "parley" with the enemy on neutral territory like Reme's.  So Gary, if you're reading this out-of-state as Wayne said you were on a mission south to please call the Jail and tell Dowaliby that Ed can put me down on his visiting list for to start sometime next week. Like to discuss this Motion to Arrest the Judgment that I still have yet to research at the Law Library.*

* ....

This is from page 24 of my Archives here.  When the guards told me on the phone on both August 9th + 16th that I could visit with Ed, I thought that Gary or another from the Feds had called the Super. at the facility who delegated down the message that I was now allowed to visit Ed.

The Assistant County Attorney did write the Superior Court this past Monday, December 7th a "DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY STATEMENT" that: "The claim arises from an ALLEGED incidents that occurred at the Strafford County House of Correction (hereinafter 'the HOC') on August 9th and 16th, 2009, where the Plaintiff claims he was denied visitation to a federal inmate. (emphasis ADDed as to the word ALLEGED from allege of to assert (affirm or claim) to be true withOUT proof, defined as "The EVIDENCE establishing the validity of a GIVEN assertion".  (emphasis ADDed) And that assertion word defined as: "A POSITIVE statement withOUT support* of proof. (emphasis ADDed.)

* The word support defined as "To corroborate** or substantiate***."

** To corroborate = to strengthen or support, "To make or become strong or stronger."  as in solid = "Not hollowed out", substantial = "of or having substance" and thus back to my N.H. Article 8 Claim for Accountability of for the guards to account for the truth of what I claim, to get away from this hollowness from the council or counsel of cavity to that of validity, as from the word valid of not only a grounded claim, but well-grounded, the word well defined as  thoroughly, as in well cooked for example, and so to bake this case with the heat of their breath from the guards to have already said and/or written into their accounts and/or now tell or write to the Board/Counsel/Plaintiff/Court that my claim is true and thus beyond a mere alleging to having been substantiated*** from the word substantiate = "To support with proof or evidence; verify." The word proof defined as: "The evidence establishing the validity of a given assertion." To verify = "The condition**** or quality of being true."

**** And since this case be a master - servant case whereupon the master has called upon the servants to TRY to counter what is claimed by challenging them in TRYing to give an otherwise account by Article 8 of the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights then the "condition" or prerequisite or prior condition is that of the master OVER the servant in what is a prima facie case of what I do write and say IS the truth! So help me God Almighty, let those who deal in evasion from the word evade of to try to avoid by cleverness or deceit succumb as in to yield or submit to this overpowering force, the word succumb from the Latin word succumbere meaning to lie down under, and so here you have the truth by me standing, and this counselor for the Board trying to evade  this Article 8 requirement, and so I find it disgusting to have him standing there behind his Defendant table in court next Tuesday morning @ 9:00 a.m., when he should be ashamed of himself and so either default by not showing up, or slither into the courtroom like a snake!

The disgust upon him AND The Board for putting him up to this, and so a copy of this to BOTH of them!!

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059, e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

pc: Edward-Lewis: Brown, Strafford County H.O.C., 266 County Farm Road, Dover, N.H. 03820, Tel. 603: 742-3310.

P.S. In paragraph #3 the Assistant County Attorney writes that "Discovery in this matter is pending".  What a bunch of crap! And then in his "PROPOSED STRUCTURING ORDER" paragraph #3 he wants "Discovery track: Standard" and in #7 he details this want in  "e) Completion of discovery by July 15, 2010".  Again, this is crap! The N.H. Constitution is clear: for this Art. 8 accounting to be done in a "prompt" time frame as required by Article 14. Prompt = without delay, delay = postpone, post = after, pone = meal, and so BEFORE he next eats any meal of breakfast, lunch or dinner.

In paragraph #6 of the "PROPOSED...ORDER" he goes on to try to get away from this Respondeat Superior status in TRYing to deviate the blame away from the Board of officers as over-seers of their employees by writing that: "If the defendant's claim unnamed parties are at fault (See DeBenedetto v. CLD Consulting Engineers, Inc., 153 N.H. 793 (2006), defendant's shall disclose the identity of every such party and the Basis of the allegations of fault no later than April 15, 2010.  Plaintiff shall have 60 days from that date to amend the initial pleading."

Re: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091210/FRONTPAGE/912100302&template=single (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091210/FRONTPAGE/912100302&template=single)

entitled: "A  "major industry is above the law"."

of: "Right on Frank! reference: page 2 of 3 here of: ""To say a major industry is above the laws* of the state, I don't agree with that," he said. "

* What exact laws (in the plural) are you talking about?

THE law is in Article 12 of the New Hampshire Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights, see: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) and in detail, the very last sentence: "Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent." as in the U.S. Code or Statutes at Large.  WHEN, if ever, have they ever been "consent"ed to by us?

Answer: Never!  Yes by RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm) we gave the Feds our Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 U.S. Constitutional "Consent" back on June 14, 1883, but what TYPE of Consent was it?  Answer: A "conditional" consent, because by 40USC255 to 40USC3112 an offer not accepted is not consent, and that even their U.S. Criminal Code* is not supposed to be OVER us UNTIL this Federal filing!

See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html) see also: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm) and http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm (http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm)  * plus the original http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575) for 40USC255.

* """In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."

See also: RSA Ch. 123:2 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm) from:  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm)  So WHEN is the Concord City Tax Assessor going to send them the bill? for over $2.2 million/year  for their "buildings" over there at 53-55 Pleasant Street assessed at $111 million at the $21.00 per $1000 of valuation.

JSH / P.S. The score so far: 3 votes for Merrimack County Savings Bank, and 1 vote for Laconia Savings Bank. That BTW are BOTH "Mutual" Savings Banks, v.s. this and these other stockholder banks.

footnote: Neal: When is your Public Hearing on this HB #____ of 2009? http://www.state.nh.us/ (http://www.state.nh.us/)  Suggestion: You might want to amend it to alter RSA Chapter 123:1+2 also so that if and when the Feds finally file, that there be this banking exemption, like there is for "land". "

Here's a copy and paste.  Maybe somebody here can research the court files in Concord for the Fed to see IF they have complied with all the requirements for publications and hearings as outlined in The Federal Register. Sort of like an audit.  Maybe to contact your Federal Rep. and/or U.S. Senator for to conduct this audit through their Legislative Services? as these courts are supposed to be Article III, Section 1 U.S. Constitution inferior Courts of Congress, and so accountable to us when we ask if all the i's have been dotted and t's crossed like these mandatory notices for to hear from us as to WHY that local rule shall NOT be implemented until AFTER the Feds comply with the local law! N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. since as stated in the Adams case in 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court,  for 40USC255 to 40USC3112, an offer of conditional consent is NOT a Consent until they comply! 5th + 14th Amendments for procedural due process of law! So until then they have no jurisdictional authority over us N.H. Article 12 "inhabitants"!

"
RE: [citizensoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica_news] Jerold Barringer Summons Case 3:09-cv-430 - USDC S.Dist. Illinois?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Fri 12/11/09 11:28 AM
To:    Wayne _______
Cc:  ______________
Bcc:    ______________
   
Attachments:    3 attachments | Download all attachments (74.9 KB)
   USA.jpg (39.1 KB), Joker.jpg (18.1 KB), Picture 1...png (17.7 KB)
Thanks Wayne.  Sending to Bill for Danny to get his Attorney Sven Wiberg of Portsmouth, N.H. to maybe put this in his Brief due later this month for his Appeal in Boston at the First Circuit. Best wishes, -- Joe

cc: also to Jose and Donna for Reno, and Keith for Jason.

#___ "Local Rules" used in their case, but like it says below, were they ever put out to public comment by a 30-day notice? I doubt it, and call upon the Feds to prove it by documentation, re: that local Rule that reads that non-party contacts to the court of error are forbidden to have their affidavits presented to the judge by the clerk. Reference my affidavit of the Feds in my case #M.83-50-D there in that same court, the D for then Chief Judge Shane Devine, since deceased, signed by a N.H. Notary given to the Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch who returned it to me saying it was against the local rule. Re: of when Judge McAuliffe told the jury in Ed's case that ALL of the Internal Revenue Code has been declared valid by ALL the courts in this country when he knew or should have know, and that I tried to notify him that Section (5) for Rents from Landlords (like myself back then in 1983) was already declared unconstitutional! Thanks to the info from both books by Otto Skinner thru the mail, and Martin J. "Red" Beckman at the N.H. Highway hotel in Concord where I first met Ed after those 1/2 hour info-mercials on Channel 9 WMUR-TV during the game-show hour after dinnertime from Manchester, N.H. when he was running for President of the United States of America.  I bought the transcript excerpt of such from the transcriber and gave all of this to Ed & Elaine for a DIRECT rebuttal on an appeal to Boston that they did NOT do as they gave NO jurisdiction to this court, but as we all know, the American way of case-law of to have to prove jurisdiction has been turned topsy turvey, then I did TRY to provide this truth but was REFUSED, and so by the information below, refused by a local rule never given its public hearing to become effective is my claim that THEY/ the court and/or prosecutor prove same, and so maybe to have the First Circuit judges require the lower court to hold a hearing on this truth to offset what McAuliffe said as incorrect, and so to call a mis-trial on the original trial.

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone) e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

P.S. BTW I won that 1983 case as for when the IRS was asked by me of WHO the Director was who was supposed to have delegated some powers down through channels to whoever at the regional and local levels (of Joe Stella at their Portsmouth office to Frank Lungarelli of Laconia, where a car ran him over and I visited him at his hospital bed, and when Stella called he got all upset). This was done at a hearing conducted by Wm. Barry, former Clerk turned Magistrate of when I did ask the IRS agent WHO the "Secretary" was and he coyuld NOT answer the question, and so with this AND that (as indicated) above, plus the offer of receipts at the U.S. Forestry Building in Laconia of having to go through the motions as the judge said to do, I won the case as them getting not one red cent for the $63,000 wanted from me.

From: __________________
To: _______________
Subject: FW: [citizensoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica_news] Jerold Barringer Summons Case 3:09-cv-430 - USDC S.Dist. Illinois
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:49:49 +0000

This is FYI.

To: _________________
From: ralph at jusbelli.com
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:15:07 -0900
Subject: [citizensoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica_news] Jerold Barringer Summons Case 3:09-cv-430 - USDC S.Dist. Illinois

Attachments of references cases, etc contained herein - Special List only.
Docket of Case.
Answer - Docket 14.  IRS Docket 11 response is total BS.

I have been looking at some of the work of Barringer and this case is very interesting in that Barringer has put in the Answer  that the IRS in this summons case is abolished the "internal revenue districts" and the "district director."  Good source for PRA argument (Doc. 14 - answer).

I have taken issue with Barringer only on the issue of "force and effect of law."  Forwarded this to him.  Very unusual for an attorney to get this far into the fighting the IRS.

First the "force and effect of law" on page 14 is incorrect (Doc 9), as you  must first (always) check the Federal Register to affirm that statement. See Chrysler v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) for "substantive regulations" and the best summary case is Production Tool Corporation v. Employment & Training ..., 688 F.2d 1161, 1165 (7th Cir. 1982) for "force and effect of law."

To have the "force and effect of law" in the IRS world, the mandates of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1)(D) must be met (all regs must published in the FR and in particular "substantive rules"); and then the mandates of 5 U.S.C. § 553§(b)(c)(d) must be met (notice and comment + 30 days & 30 days to become effective) - remedy is in (d).  In the Federal Register compliance must state 553(b) in the proposed rule and the final rule.  The IRS hasn't done a Part 1 (Individual Income Tax) "substantive rule/regulation" since 1981 - far back as I checked.

553(b)(c)(d) is the jugular of the IRS on all actions - criminal and civil, as all of the Part 1 "substantive regulations" [that have the "force and effect of law"] as found in 601.702 and as published in the Federal Register November 19, 2002 at 67 FR 69673-69688, ibid. 69675.  Use judicial Notice of 44 U.S.C. § 1507 of FR.

553(b)(c)(d) is found in numerous cases but the one at the 9th is in one paragraph proves the courts know the truth.  See Paulsen v. Daniel, 413 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir. 2005).

All of the other regulations are agency material and clothed under "interpretative regulations."  See 553(a)(2) and other "for cause" exceptions in 553.  There can be no violation, enforcement or legal action using "interpretative regulations."  See Drake v. Honeywell, Inc., 797 F.2d 603, 607 (8th Cir 1986); and, United States v. American Production Industries, Inc., 58 F.3d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1995).  Regs such as 1.6012-1 on returns are not "substantive regulations" - IMP.

The IRS attempts to use the "for cause" in 553 and the way to shut that door is several cases but American Federation of Gov. Emp. v. Block, 655 F.2d 1153, 1156 (C.A.D.C. 1981) is one of the best on-point cases.

I personally think that the PRA is probably valid but using the MANDATORY 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1) and 553(b)(c)(d) is the strongest position.

Also the part 301 regulations are only for federal employees.  You will notice that the 601.702 has two authorities (actually 3, but ignore the third) of 5 U.S.C. § 301 (housekeeping statue for fed. employees) and 5 U.S.C. § 552 (APA).

The best way to prove the part 301 regulations are only for the feds is found in as published in 1994 in the Federal Register in 59 FR 39910-931, ibid.  39915.

Even criminal convictions have been overturned by the APA 553 regulation violations - this example is (d) effective date.  See United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099 (8th Cir. 1977).

If you want to enter the Matrix, I suggest that you read and understand the REAL problem is the creation of a headless 4th Branch of Government with the 1946 APA officially introduced.  I have attached an excerpt from the Congressional record - this is the key to all agencies - the sobs live in the FR and there is the jugular, i.e. substantive regulations. See Congressional record Vol 91 Part 2/5 1946 Excerpts.

As an example of 1.6012-1 that does not meet the requirements of 553(b)(c)(d), i.e. then is only an "interpretative regulation", I have attached the 2008 where they added in three territories.  Search on 553 and note also the effective date.  See 73 FR 19350, ibid.19357 [553 not complied with].

Ralph

  Chief Justice Marshall, in the course of the debates of the Virginia State Convention of 1829--1830 (pp. 616, 619), used the following strong and frequently quoted language:
'The Judicial Department comes home in its effects to every man's fireside; it passes on his property, his reputation, his life, his all. Is it not, to the last degree important, that he should be rendered perfectly and completely independent, with nothing to influence or control him but God and his conscience? * * * I have always thought, from my earliest youth till now, that the greatest scourge an angry Heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and a sinning people, was an ignorant, a corrupt, or a dependent Judiciary.'
In a very early period of our history, it was said, in words as true to-day as they were then, that 'if they (the people) value and wish to preserve their Constitution, they ought never to surrender the independence of their judges.'  O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 532 (1933).
Notice: I am not a counsellor-at-law or attorney.  All research materials provided are for you to check out and use at your discretion, and is protected under the right of free speech in all forms.  I neither suggest that people file an Individual Income Tax Return or not file - that is a personal choice for each man/woman.
There are three lists that may be joined by the home page of www.jusbelli.com (http://www.jusbelli.com).  There is a special e-mail list for $120 per year donation that includes attachments - contact me via e-mail to join.  Requires a minimum of 5 meg. of e-mail storage by your server.
I have a talk show on Republic Broadcasting accessible by going to
http://republicbroadcasting.org/ (http://republicbroadcasting.org/)  The show will be on Sundays (5PM - 7 PM CST).  Call in is 1-800-313-9443.
Ralph
Is this the lying despot JOKER that is
responsible for the demise
of our constitutional Republic?"

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091212/FRONTPAGE/912120315&template=single (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091212/FRONTPAGE/912120315&template=single)

entitled: "To increase in 2010 because the gov't prints up more notes?"

of: "Why don't "they" just get back to basics!? It's the law!

Reference paragraph #5: "Longevity pay has been required by state law since the late 1940s* and included in employee contracts since 1980. The annual amount was raised from $200 to $300 in 2003. "

Here's the actual wording of this statute from http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/vi/99/99-5.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/vi/99/99-5.htm) =

"TITLE VI    PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES   CHAPTER 99
ADJUSTMENT OF SALARIES OF STATE EMPLOYEES
Section  99:5 Longevity Payment for Regular Classified Employees. – Any regular classified employee of the state who has completed 10 years of continuous service for the state other than a law enforcement employee, shall be paid, in addition to the salary to which he or she is entitled by the classification plan, the sum of $300 annually and an additional $300 for each additional 5 years of continuous state service. The additional compensation provided by the provisions of this section shall not affect the maximums set by the classification plan and the receipt of said long service payments shall not prohibit the recipient from receiving the yearly increments to which he or she may be otherwise entitled within his or her classification ranges. Any regular classified employee who transfers, without a break in service, to a position in the unclassified system may transfer all time served for purposes of longevity pay.

Source. 1947*, 243:3. RSA 99:5. 1979, 434:53. 1989, 396:4, eff. June 5, 1989. 2005, 177:149, eff. July 8, 2005."

* as you can see, the actual year this started was two years after the end of WWII in 1945 when I think it was: $100.00 and increased to $x and $y in 1979 and 1989, so where is this 2003? as mentioned, I think Shira meant to write 2005.

Plus WHY all these $increases? to keep pace with inflation in the world of commerce?  Don't these officers and employees know that the government coffer or State Treasury is supposed to dole out or transfer lawful money?** from a strongbox full of silver dollars rather than a conveyance of computer blips to some bank account to be exchanged for a lesser number therein by the relay of paper dollars and debased coins of copper and nickel, etc.

** Reference: The Coinage Act of 1792, and in particular Section 20 for all government accounts including the courts too, as annotated in our Art. 97, N.H. Constitution, that if an officer thereof this government they have taken an RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to honor! See also Chapter 28 Laws of N.H. of 1794 in Vol. 6 @ page 155."

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/110446/95409 (http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/110446/95409)

entitled: ""Pay for performance" is the law, but we do otherwise in retire-"

of: "ment checks to those on the sidelines. Hey millennia, Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to take what you wrote about in the very last sentence of: "Pay for performance is the only system that government SHOULD* have in place!" ( * emphasis ADDed) to the next level, like a "One Step Beyond" to see how many of the retired judge's widows are collecting under some statute that is obviously unlawful since by Article 36 of the New Hampshire Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights, http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) "Economy being a most essential virtue in all states, especially in a young one, NO pension SHALL be granted, but in consideration of ACTUAL services; and such pensions OUGHT* to be granted with great caution, by the legislature, and NEVER** for more than one year at a time." (emphasis ADDed, especially for that "never" word as per the biannual budget of a vote in one year for multiple years in unconstitutional too, as backed up by the case law, and so WHO in the Legislative Audit to certify that the $monies out of the Treasury are going only to people lawfully entitled to same?  This list at the AOC/ Administrative Office of the Court is secret by RSA Ch. 91-A as exempt from public exposure to the citizens, and so we are IN SEARCH OF...that Seal of Approval!)."

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/110528/95508 (http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/110528/95508)

entitled: "Fix up the place with the Federal $money...now!"

of: "Reference the: "I look around at all the stimulus money being spent";

see: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118419 (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118419)

"WND YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
Obama stimulus: $246,436 per job
Economic analyst: Funds could have paid 2.6 million American salaries
Posted: December 08, 2009    11:27 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling   © 2009 WorldNetDaily

President Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package has cost taxpayers $246,436 for every new job the administration claims to have created, according to an economic analyst.

While the administration claims its stimulus has saved 640,329 jobs from February through October, analyst Ed Yardeni declares, 'That amounts to $246,436 per job based on the $157.8 [billion] that has been awarded so far!'"

I find it amazing that the Feds, of instead of giving or loaning this company "corporate welfare" to keep these jobs in a safer environment decide to fine them so they have LESS to spent of such safety measures! Or do the Feds who "settled"* with this company give back the money (or a certain percentage thereof?) for these safety projects? Or do the fines go into the general fund?  WHAT was and is in this "settlement"?  WHY did they settle for WHAT? Didn't they know that the Feds have no jurisdictional authority here by their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 FAILure to file their N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 paperwork from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State (Bill Gardner) and so the company execs, as N.H. Article 12 "inhabitants", chose to "Consent" with them on an individual basis? since our Legislature or General Court, way back on June 14, 1883, gave the Feds a conditional "Consent" or offer, but that has yet to be consented to?  WHY?, because we only exempted their "land" but not their "buildings"? by RSA Ch. 123:2, and that they want (and got anyway) this exemption too?  "Who cares!?" they, the Feds say, because the Concord City Tax Assessor doesn't send them a property tax bill for their buildings anyway!  That would bring in over $2.2 million to the City and County of Merrimack, and Franklin IS in THE County, so project #1 for this County $money if and whenever received? How many more lives are going to be ruined before "law enforcement" does something!? Like Sheriff Scott Hilliard of Northfield, right down the road: may the wind blow in your direction to wake you up! This reply dedicated to my friend Bill Tinker who I think died from one of these dust clouds over to his mobile home in the Park next door, R.I.P. He was the homeless advocate, and so I say to see also this Obamaville sign over at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118827 (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118827) "

Joe  -

Has Ed's sentencing been set or results of his eval at Devens been issued?

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091214/NEWS01/912140326 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091214/NEWS01/912140326)

entitled: "The State canNOT make them take the State-Fed deal."

of: "Here are the words from the actual statute: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxii/651/651-25.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxii/651/651-25.htm)

"VII. (a) The commissioner of corrections may* release a prisoner who is serving a New Hampshire state sentence to the custody and control of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement if all of the following requirements are satisfied:
          (1) The department of corrections receives an order of deportation for the prisoner from the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
          (2) The prisoner has served at least 1/3 of the minimum sentences imposed by the court;
          (3) The prisoner was not convicted of a violent crime, or any crime of obstruction of justice, or sentenced to an extended term of imprisonment under RSA 651:6; and
          (4) The prisoner was not convicted of a sexual offense as defined in RSA 651-B:1, V.
       (b) If a prisoner who is released from his or her state sentence pursuant to this section returns illegally to the United States, on notification from any federal or state law enforcement agency that the prisoner is in custody, the commissioner of corrections shall revoke the prisoner's release and immediately file a detainer seeking the prisoner's return to the custody of the department of corrections to serve the remainder of his or her sentence.

Source. 1971, 518:1. 1975, 179:1. 1981, 205:1, 2; 329:4. 1993, 45:1. 1994, 192:4. 1995, 237:6. 2002, 181:1, 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2003. 2009, 144:63, eff. July 1, 2009."

Notice that this became effective 5 1/2 months ago on July 1st, 2009.  How many inmates have taken advantage of this? #_____

My presumption is that of the individual "Consent" as offered to the inmate to accept by their Article 12 "inhabitant" status, since the Commissioner "may"* "allow" them to leave, but that they do not have to, as the Commissioner canNOT order them to abide by any of these federal U.S. Codes or Statutes At Large, because the Feds have FAILed to file their required 40USC255 to 40USC3112 paperwork by the "shall" word in N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State (Bill Gardner's office on the 2nd floor of The State House) [ * ].  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm) per Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.  **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

** See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html) see also: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.h... (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.h...) and http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03... (http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03...) ** *plus the original http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575) for 40USC255.

*** """In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."

Or in other words, our "Consent" to the Feds on June 14, 1883 was of a certain type: a  "conditional" consent, upon the fulfillment of that requirement to be met by them, of to accept, as in the phrase of: it takes two to tango, and that UNTIL such an occurrence takes place AT that certain spot [ * ] , they are NOT supposed to exert any federal jurisdictional authority OVER us Art. 12 inhabitants.  [ See: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) and read the last sentence: "Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent." ]

So under WHAT authority do the New Hampshire State Police here, in cooperation, or should I say, in cahoots, with the county and locals, have as their excuse to violate same?, other than to twist the arm of them captured****  to submit to the "authorities" so-called who actually have NO authority! but being in an abuse of authority! Their RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office to honor the law! http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm) See also RSA Ch. 42:1 for the locals: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm) and to Art. 84, N.H. Part 2: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html)

**** captured HOW?, by NOT force of LAW, but by militant action from the word militate to use force as evidence, over THE evidence of their non-filing.  What really irks me is that when somebody in federal court tries to present this evidence to be marked as an exhibit for the jury to weigh in reaching their verdict, the judge REFUSES our Article 14 rights to have "complete" justice, in that THAT evidence is NOT allowed to be presented to the jury!  Talk about tampering with the jury!  [On Appeal to the First Circuit Court in Boston]. I called a "point of order" once and was tackled by the goons there, and when I took one (name) to court for criminal assault, and even had him served a subpoena by the Deputy County Sheriff, the judge did an RSA Ch. 643:1 official oppression  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/643/643-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/643/643-1.htm)  in supposedly calling him to say it was O.K. NOT to obey the subpoena or summons because he dictates from on high that it is O.K. to disobey the law! The defendant never appeared in court that day! That judge currently in a House Bill of Address for to answer this as an amendment to the other charges this 2010 Legislative Session.

Quote from: grolled on December 14, 2009, 10:36 AM NHFT
Joe  -

Has Ed's sentencing been set or results of his eval at Devens been issued?

I don't know.  Bernie* was supposed to have visited Ed yesterday, but that because of the snow-to-rain-to-icy roads he might not have visited him yesterday, nor the two weekends prior to that too. Why don't you give him a call?

Plus I thought somebody here was monitoring PACER to get back to us.  Either directly, or indirectly by those quatloos paralegals over there at their website whose opinions are worth a dime a dozen. They read here in private and then post over there in public.

- - Joe

P.S. I'll ask Ed tomorrow if and when I see him in Strafford County Superior Court, in Dover @ my 9:00 a.m. Pre-Trial Scheduling Conference, wherein the paperwork is my request that Ed be there** to put it on the record (before he might be shipped out) that he did contract with Bernie and me as his co-counsels per the 6th Amendment, and that 2nd contract with me to take his claim to the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims, that BTW is supposedly having their quarterly meeting this month of December, and so them still considering that A.G. Motion to Dismiss my 2009-0013 case (filed Oct. 15, 2008) against the governor, that had a hearing NOT on the merits BUT only on this Motion back in September, and the reason I think of being that they're waiting to see what mitigation of damages occurs in my win in Dover for $x,xxx.xx to be deducted from the $5,000 amount there at the State.

- - Joe

* P.S. I just left Bernie a message on his voice mail to please get back to me about this.  So that if and when I hear or read anything by e-mail I'll let you know.

** I was going to call the Court +/or The Sheriff's Office to see if there's a Transport Order for Ed to visit next door tomorrow, but that because of "security" I doubt that they would tell me anyway.  And now with this posting, maybe them assigning an additional guard or two.  >:D

12/14/2009 NOTICE OF HEARING as to Edward Brown: Telephone Conference set for 12/18/2009 09:00 AM before Judge George Z. Singal. The U. S. Attorney's Office will initiate the call. (dae) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

Quote from: keith in RI on December 14, 2009, 06:37 PM NHFT
12/14/2009 NOTICE OF HEARING as to Edward Brown: Telephone Conference set for 12/18/2009 09:00 AM before Judge George Z. Singal. The U. S. Attorney's Office will initiate the call. (dae) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

Thanks Keith.  So from 9:00 a.m. today in court (my case) + 3 days to this Friday at same time, the conference from where and with who? Mike with Ed from the Jail? or some pre-sentencing conference with just the attorneys from the Concord courthouse over to Maine? Or from each of their offices?

I'll try to get them something to chew on, like what the judge might say today that Ed be made available for this trial next August is what the County Attorney plans, and so to help me assert my right of association to Ed's right of counsel for this civil trial to lead onto a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and his final release from the tentacles of the Feds that ought to have no suction power here before they have failed to file their operating papers!

In court today with several "Court Watchers". Will fill you all in later as to WHO will be there. One advisor suggesting that I read the riot act, so called of: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXX/311/311-6.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXX/311/311-6.htm) in that:

"TITLE XXX
OCCUPATIONS AND PROFESSIONS
CHAPTER 311
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS
Section 311:6
    311:6 Oath. – Every attorney admitted to practice shall take and subscribe, in open court, the OATHS to SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE AND of the United States, and the oath of office in the following form: You solemnly swear or affirm that you WILL DO NO FALSEHOOD, nor consent that any be done in the court, and if you know of any, that you will give knowledge thereof to the justices of the court, or some of them, that it may be reformed; that you will not wittingly or willingly promote, sue or procure to be sued any FALSE or unlawful suit, nor consent to the same; that you will DELAY NO PERSON FOR LUCRE OR MALICE, and will act in the office of an attorney within the court according to the BEST of your learning and discretion, and with all good FIDELITY as well to the COURT as to your client. So help you God or under the pains and PENALTY OF PERJURY."* (emphasis ADDed.)

Source. RS 177:5. CS 187:5. GS 199:5. GL 218:5. PS 213:5. PL 325:6. RL 381:6. RSA 311:6. 1995, 277:3, eff. Aug. 19, 1995.

* Notice that of NOT only any falsity as withIN the definition of a perjury, but for to be UNDER the pains and penalty prescribed under the definition of perjury for violation of their RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office for dis-obeying the mandates in the constitution of the state of New Hampshire that includes the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 of which the Feds must comply with, and that any Board-Fed agent woman connection by contract in Washington is inferior to such, as a victim thereof federal aggression MAY buckle under to their cooperative joint venture, but does not have to as an Article 12 "inhabitant".  This IS the law that he/ this Assistant County Attorney must obey, and to delay an answer of to either Admit or Deny my charges is also in violation of that prompt word in Art. 14, Part 1st, N.H. Constitution & Bill of Rights!

Perjury, according to: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/641/641-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/641/641-1.htm) RSA Chapter 641:1,I is "a class B felony", and so over to RSA Ch. 651:2 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/651/651-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/651/651-2.htm) for the details.

Yours truly, - Joe

Got a letter from Elaine today dated 12/509 via the usual ex wife delay. Elaine wants us to know she's back in Texas:

Elaine Alice Brown
03924-049
Federal Medical Center, Carswell
PO Box 27137
Ft. Worth, TX 76127

She says she can get email now though Corrlinks.com. I'm not having too much luck with it but I'll try again in the morning.

Here's my latest copy and paste:

"
RE: (to N.H.U.) Justice Scalia wrote;,,,,,
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaasat hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 12/16/09 8:07 AM
To:    Dick Marple (armlaw at hotmail.com)

Thanks Dick.  I have this booklet and was reading it in my car* right before Elaine was sentenced THAT exact day, of when I found some gold nugget withIN so powerful that I copied it to give to the local Concord COP**, and County Sheriff but that they did NOT support her Art. 12 "inhabitant" rights! - N.H. - read very last sentence again PLEASE, plus I also gave a copy to the Dept. of Safety to "protect" her: a state agency and its Commissioner that and/or who WILL be sued in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims for her AND Ed, for when I do same, or merely call to them instead of more paperwork that Ed goes for sentencing on Dec. ___

(a telephone conference on this this Friday morning @ 9:00 a.m. with the judge in Maine, Ed not even told about this until Marie told him yesterday @ about 10:15 a.m. in her 10 to 11 a.m. visit after my scheduling conference before the woman judge there who took to adjusting the time frame for an Assistant County Attorney wanna-be trial of August 2010 by speeding it up by 3 months to May, since by RSA Ch. 92:2 these Board Members, once I prove the allegation by interrogatories +/or a Motion for Discovery if a future double-spaced Motion for Default Judgment isn't presented to be granted, have got to be "dismissed forthwith".  Maybe this is the way to go to have Ed put on hold over there by some other type of Motion to Prevent Loss of Testimony from him by having the Feds TRY to take him away, by some type of Habeas Corpus Petition to have the body if not freed then to at least have him available for this trial in May.  He likes it there better than any of the other places he's been said Marie to me yesterday.)

* my car was parked next to the fed driveway, and one of the guards saw me and came across the street to say hello and I showed him that page I was reading and told him of this federal crap, but that he didn't bring his reading glasses.

Thank you "very" much! -- Joe

P.S. In regards to fighting "on our own turf" that is exactly WHY I did not attend this what was supposed to be a "public trial" by the 6th Amendment.  I, as a member of the public, with rights too as described for protection also in the 9th + 10 Amendments, do NOT go onto federal turf UNLESS that government landlord there of the GSA comply with the law first! And he did NOT, and so two NOT's make a right! (;-) To file yet another claim with that 541 Board for Ed AND Elaine plus me, and too bad nobody else here reading this did same as they could have made up to $1/4 million by state statute too. Or did they? as in they did read this and did NOT attend for same reason, just that they want me to blaze the trail on this and follow in a class-action lawsuit? (;-) Where are the ambulance chasing attorneys for this?  They're like sharks smelling blood, and in this case the federal blood boiling. (;-)

** BTW The oath of the Concord COP is NOT in compliance with RSA Ch. 92:2 to Art. 84 in that it reads and has for about 20 years when he signed it back in the 1980s that he will support all federal laws, as in the U.S. Code and Statutes at Large that is a blatant over-ride of our Art. 12. Thus any and all action or non-actions by him to be able to choose a federal statute OVER our rights to have the feds pounce on any of us inhabitants is WRONG! And which opens the City up for a lawsuit too, in Superior Court for this wanton officer, and that RSA for sovereign immunity NOT applicable to him and this City because of this key word.  This RSA mentioned by the County Attorney in his papers and referred to yesterday in his aim to file a Motion to Dismiss my case over there in Dover, but as I've already explained in writing and verbally yesterday, this only applies to like a worker for the government who aims to do right, but somehow does wrong, v.s. this intent to do wrong by KNOWing since "ignorance of the law is NO excuse!"  This and these City and County PLUS State officials under oath*** of what is supposed to be the discipline of the contract of the constitution and laws of New Hampshire is harmony with any and all U.S. Constitutional provisions, like in that 1-8-17 U.S. "Consent", and THEN the U.S. Code applies to us AFTER they file! Thus them in a wanton mode, "lacking discipline" in that these are the rules of the game, and they REFUSE to honor their oath, but choose instead to dis-obey them, and so ought to be dis-charged! dis-missed!

Hey! I think I'll attach this to my Objection to said Motion to Dismiss. (;-) Thank you "very" much!

*** Upon my entering the building there yesterday in Dover, I went to the County Attorney's Office asking for a copy of this attorney's oath to see if he signed it with the words: So Help me God, OR under the pains and penalty of perjury, as it can be either but not both, of BEFORE I consent to him operating in court THAT day.  I told the judge that "they" were giving me the "run-around" downstairs in that they told me by Mr. "Investigator" [ * ] take-over of my request first to the Window Clerk to get the Manager, that I go to the County Commissioner's Office where it is on file, but that Jean told Marie who told me that it is not there.  To get an affidavit of non-filing by the N.H. Supreme Court is where they keep the cards of such open court proceedings as having occurred there AT that exact day is what I used to get in the past, and know that whenever oaths are taken, and if re-elected or re-appointed, then there being not the requirement to take again UNLESS it be previously on file with the N.H. Secretary of State, and so to check there too.  The point being that since they KNOW to file there, then WHY are they looking the OTHER way when federal officers non-file there too!?

[ * ] Mr. Investigator told me "either" at the Commissioners OR Secretary of State. Compared to the Commissioner's Oaths at BOTH places!!!

From: armlaw at hotmail.com
To: ____________________________
Subject: Justice Scalia wrote;,,,,,
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:28:20 +0000

Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County Arizona, has written "The County Sheriff – America's Last Hope".

This is the best treatise on Freedom in government that I have ever seen. Let me quote from the booklet dealing with Sheriff Mack's Supreme Court suit against the Brady Bill. " We are now ready to fight a battle on ground of our own choosing. It is refreshing to fight on our own turf rather than ground chosen by the enemies of Freedom." This is an educational battle that will have great long-lasting results.

"On June 27, 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the Brady Bill was in fact unconstitutional and that the Federal Government could not commandeer state or county officers for federal bidding."

In the ruling Justice Scalia wrote for the majority, stating, 'The Federal Government may not compel the states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program.' "

"Federal agencies could no longer do what they damned well pleased.   The ruling stated at least three times that the states were 'not subject to Federal direction.'   (Don't you wish your state was aware of this?)    More importantly, the case proved that local officials have the right, the power, and the duty to stand against the far reaching incursions by our own Federal Government.   

This booklet should be read by every peace officer, elected or appointed official, bureaucrat, business owner, and voter in this great land. Think of how many county or city commissioners, peace officers, and state legislators this information can empower. In the next decade, imagine thousands of our fellow citizens saying "NO!" to the demands of an out-of-control Federal Government. I was sure that you would want to be involved in this battle. This is a way that powerful local and state government officials can be educated on their rights and duties. The effects of this program will be far reaching.

Will you pass this message on to your network?

Then will you place copies of the booklet in the hands of your local elected officials and peace officers and get their promise to read it?

This is one pro-active method of bringing the Federal Government back within the bounds of the Constitution. The National States Rights Coalition will unveil another method later in this month.

The attached flyer will give you information on bulk prices for the booklet and delivery information.

It is hoped that ALL READERS will circulate this notice to their organizations so that a saturation effort can be made to restore our REPUBLIC !"

More info:

"RSA Ch. 311:6 oath of: LaBonte (Stephen J.)
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 12/16/09 10:15 AM
To:    County Strafford (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us)
Cc:    Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us)
Bcc:    _______________________________________

To: The Strafford County Receptionist
       to The Board of Commissioners
       Dover, New Hampshire 03821

Jean,

Would you please verify to me in writing of what you told Marie Miller yesterday who relayed verbally to me upstairs in court (with Judge Marguerite L. Wageling presiding) that you had told her, after my prior verbal request for a copy of this RSA Ch. 311:6 oath to your assistant, that your office has no such oath or copy on file for Assistant County Attorney Stephen G. LaBonte.

As you can read from the details below of a copy and paste of Reply #9351 on page 627 over at http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9345 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9345)   (my actual Reply #2429) of 8:12 a.m. as amended @ 8:29 A.M. to reflect this [ * ] footnote that: "Mr. Investigator told me 'either' at Commissioners or Secretary of State." was where this 311:6 oath is located. And "Compared to the Commissioner's Oaths at BOTH places!!!" (for ALL three Commissioners.)

Yours truly, Joe Haas

pc: The N.H. Secretary of State's Office: (Attention: Ellen @ 271-3242 - to call you back in about half an hour) Would you please verify that this 311:6 oath for Attorney LeBonte exists there, and for me to pick up a copy please this afternoon.

P.S. I find it hypocritical for this attorney and his Investigator Hart to say that he has it therefore on file with the S of S, but then when the statute ALSO reads for the feds to file there too by RSA Ch. 123:1 they/ this attorney and his client of these three Board members purposely go blind* to this fact.  So yeah: the curiosity is there for a higher Petition to God Almighty should he have chosen that instead of under the pains and penalty of perjury in his oath, that he gets/ they get what he/they wants/want: blindness*!

footnote: my offer of to settle for $1.00 to my over $3,300 lawsuit is still open for if the Commissioners instruct their attorney to file such a Motion to Close this Case upon the opening up AND for a hearing AND granting of such for my friend Ed Brown, a victim of this federal trespass here on state to private soil!! Jean: Are the Commissioner's meeting there tomorrow, Thursday, December 17th? __:__ o'clock a.m. And if so, is it too late to be put on the Agenda, or may I talk during the public comment section? Or if not tomorrow then what Thursday? Certainly not next Thursday as Christmas Eve, nor the following Thursday of December 31st [ * ] , as New Year's Eve, right? And so to January 7th? The day after the Epiphany.

footnote #2: I just called Sherry at 10:00 a.m. at the N.H. Supreme Court (271-2646) who is in charge of all "Bar Stuff" to please have a photocopy/ies of this index card and/or oath available for me to pick up on my drive-by offset to THEIR "looting" this afternoon."

N.H.U. note: I forgot to copy and paste, but that they can read it here.

Modification: correction of Dec. 24th to the 31st in the above footnote.

Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 16, 2009, 09:19 AM NHFT
More info:...

pc: The N.H. Secretary of State's Office: (Attention: Ellen @ 271-3242 - to call you back in about half an hour) Would you please verify that this 311:6 oath for Attorney LeBonte exists there, and for me to pick up a copy please this afternoon.
...
footnote #2: I just called Sherry at 10:00 a.m. at the N.H. Supreme Court (271-2646) who is in charge of all "Bar Stuff" to please have a photocopy/ies of this index card and/or oath available for me to pick up on my drive-by offset to THEIR "looting" this afternoon." ....

Update

A few minutes ago @ exactly 12:23 p.m.Sherry called from 513-5400 (her cell phone?) from the N.H. Supreme Court to say that I SHALL put my request in writing.  I asked her that if I did that by 4:00 p.m. may I get an answer by 4:15 p.m. and she said neither yes nor no, but that it will be processed. My comment back to her of not like in the good old days of when Ralph Wood was Clerk I'd ask and get a photocopy of the card right then and there. The old RSA Ch. 91-A of on the spot by the end of the day, re: my call of this morning to be answered by the afternoon, after their Article 14 "prompt"ness* to right after lunch and before they leave for supper-time.

I then called Diana at the S of S who referred me back to Ellen, who said that they have no such oath on file for this attorney.

So compare the difference of HOW the Executive v.s. Judicial branch operates; the latter like many-an-attorney of to "churn" the account.

- - Joe

* prompt = without delay
delay = postpone
post = after
pone = meal

The new RSA Ch. 91-A of giving them up to five (5) days to answer.  In this case of to walk two steps to get the card out of the file, walk two steps to the copier and a side step to the Dutch door, taking in this case: five (5) business days or in other words one day for each step !!!!!

Maybe she has to contact the PRIVATE N.H. Bar Association to send her a copy for me?

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091217/NEWS01/912170355 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091217/NEWS01/912170355)

entitled: "I thought cities and towns were political sub-divisions..."

of: "...of the State (Article 28-a of the N.H. Constitution, Part the First  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) )

Re: that last sentence: "Earlier this week, the city council agreed to cut him a five-year tax break, allowing him to pay taxes on the assessed value of the current building rather than the value after renovations."

I didn't know that the City can deviate such from the state statute that requires all buildings to be assessed at whatever the rate was on April 1st of each year.

BUT then the City Council (if for a City, or The Selectmen, for a  Town) can grant any landowner an Abatement...but isn't that a deal on a yearly basis?  HOW can this go for five (5) years!?

I guess this is how Concord gets away from charging the $2.2 million a year to the Feds, because they can also deviate from RSA Ch. 123:2 by giving them a tax break for BOTH the land AND their buildings? when only the state statute exempts the land.  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm) WHERE is their request?  Re: the one from the Feds?  Or do those "federal funds" act as some kind of payoff to look the other way!?  "Law enforcement" to NOT enforce the law!? for some but not for all?

The law is the law!  HOW can "they" do this?! "Home Rule"? "

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/?q=node/2 (http://www.concordmonitor.info/?q=node/2)

Letter to the Editor

of: "Thank you "Concord Monitor" and based on the history as repeated below from:

"AMERICA THE LAND WE LOVE  A NARRATIVE RECORD OF THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THEIR HISTORY GOVERNMENT WARS INVENTIONS DISCOVERIES GREAT MEN FAMOUS WOMEN INDUSTRY COMMERCE AND THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS THAT HAVE ENTERED
INTO THE BUILDING OF THE REPUBLIC BY FRANCIS TREVELYAN MILLER, LL.D., LITT. D.
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF THE TEN VOLUME "PHOTOGRAPHIC HISTORY OF THE CIVIL WAR,"
AUTHOR OF "AMERICAN HERO TALES," "PORTRAIT LIFE OF LINCOLN,"
"WONDER STORIES," FOUNDER OF THE JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY WITH EXCERPTS FROM EPOCH-MAKING SPEECHES BY WOODROW WILSON, WILLIAM H. TAFT, THEODORE ROOSEVELT, PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES THREE HUNDRED ILLUSTRATIONS
HISTORIC ENGRAVINGS FAMSUS PAINTINGS PHOTOGRAPHS NEW YORK WILLIAM THOMAS ELAINE MCMXVI COPYRIGHT 1915 THE SEARCH-LIGHT BOOK CORPORATION (Egbert Gilliss Handy, President) NEW YORK J. F. TAPLEY CO. NEW YORK

PART IV CHAPTER XII GREAT AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS

"The modern American newspaper is more powerful than the preach-
ers ; greater than the political bosses ; it is the main strength of the business world and the people's grand jury of the whole. Newspapers mold opin-
ion; they preach to millions, and they enlighten and guide the democratic
multitude. Without them liberty, democracy, and self-government would
be incomprehensible and therefore impossible. Every historic democracy
before our own perished for want of a free press; our newspapers are the
very life breath of our institutions. They are the very atmosphere of our
minds, the throb of our great common heart. They are what we are and
what we have made them. Nothing else that we have created is so truly
a part of our life and being as the daily and weekly records of our history.

To have a correct knowledge of human affairs, to be well informed,
it is necessary to-day to read the current daily and weekly press. Fully
300,000 miles of ocean cables beneath the seven seas, wireless telegraphy
and the telephone, with a dragnet of wires over this continent, bring the
important events and affairs of the world daily into every center of popu-
lation through the printed page of the local current press. It correctly
and daily interprets the amazing age of scientific progress in which we live."

...now and into the future, correcting only that we do not live in a democracy, but an Article IV, Section 4, U.S. Constitutional Republican form of government, as indicated in the title here but not the text.  The other words remaining and of which I do highlight that of "the people's grand jury of the whole." You with your instant opinion forum on the internet having made up for your mistake of the past of when I had to go to The "Union Leader" to place my ad in Fall 2004 for that drawing about Free Speech of quoting history as NOT a threat, but a warning to public officials to do their job, or else be fired! RSA Ch. 92:2 and this website of: http://www.archive.org/stream/americalandwelov00milliala/americalandwelov00milliala_djvu.txt (http://www.archive.org/stream/americalandwelov00milliala/americalandwelov00milliala_djvu.txt) found by way of GOOGLE for the words: Kerosene Lamp 1978 stamp "America's Light Will Shine Over All the Land" to page #1 there at: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Kerosene+Lamp+1978+stamp+%22%22America%27s+Light+Will+Shine+Over+All+the+Land%22&aq=f&aqi=&oq=Kerosene+Lamp+1978+stamp+%22%22America%27s+Light+Will+Shine+Over+All+the+Land%22&fp=b36c7832dbb01be6 (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Kerosene+Lamp+1978+stamp+%22%22America%27s+Light+Will+Shine+Over+All+the+Land%22&aq=f&aqi=&oq=Kerosene+Lamp+1978+stamp+%22%22America%27s+Light+Will+Shine+Over+All+the+Land%22&fp=b36c7832dbb01be6)

Yours truly, Joe Haas of Concord. "

Mod: "Thank you. Your Letter to the Editor has been submitted to the Concord Monitor." from: http://www.concordmonitor.info/node/2/done?sid=4922 (http://www.concordmonitor.info/node/2/done?sid=4922)

Let's widen The Christmas Truce  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce)  from here in New Hampshire to that parasitic judge Singal over there in Maine, to cease his unlawful trespasses upon us the host state which federal officer of theirs, being the Inferior Court of Congress, Members thereof have allowed this McAuliffe to act beyond his authority as an appointee to work for which his first act of office was supposed to be to see to it that his landlord had filed his operating papers to do business here with our N.H. Secretary of State as pre-scribed in the contract! The GSA "head" whose brain is still churning as like a roulette wheel wondering when to stop and take in that legal advice from adviser #___ still working on this!? To give another call from Gregg's office for a Progress Report to the GSA next week.

This just to my inbox,

http://www.bluestonepremiumroofingsystemsinc.com/2008-02-04%20-%20REVOKED%20-%20No%20trial%20by%20a%20jury%20of%20my%20peers.htm (http://www.bluestonepremiumroofingsystemsinc.com/2008-02-04%20-%20REVOKED%20-%20No%20trial%20by%20a%20jury%20of%20my%20peers.htm)

to read, later...

It's time for the Probation Officer to "form"* his Gov't P.S.I. so as to: "ameliorate** the sentence".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentence_investigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentence_investigation)

** To make or become better; improve, from the word: meliorate = an instance*** or form of improvement.

Thus for the word instance*** as either a case or example, or a step in a series of steps OR "A prompting; request" I choose the latter, and suggest that Ed prompt (as in "To give rise to; inspire", as in to have the P.S.I. embossed**** with the State Seal of Approval or NOT, as in that of finding out IF the Feds have filed their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 as per the mechanism of our choice upon the Feds from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution.)

* The "form" or "Procedure as determined by regulation" is already spelled out in our N.H. Constitution of to guarantee to the inhabitants, not only this Article 12 protection, but for Art. 14 "prompt"ness too, as in this part of the definition of the word prompt requiring this embossing: from the word emboss of: "To cover with or as with a RAISED design" (emphasis ADDed for our State Seal to be OVER that of these words written by federal agents! The law of the Flag, as BOTH flags do fly at the flagpoles there at 53-55 Pleasant Street. Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen having given the flags for inside the new Warren B. Rudman building.) The word emboss from the Old French of "to put a knob in", the word knobb = "A rounded protuberance on a surface" and "A rounded handle, as a "tree knot", the branches of government supposed to be in harmony with each other, that if missing this Seal of Approval after prompted to be there, then any federal sentence is NOT approved by THIS state and to be challenged collaterally by Rule 63 by any other federal jurisdiction IN compliance with the law to teach this and these corrupt judges here that the end does NOT justify the means, as they have stolen this procedural due process of law!

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas, the point-of-order man with the raised seal of gold on the document as proof of non-filing that was bumped out of court by the goon squad there of the Deputy U.S. Marshals, and so also was its reference paper in court referred to in transcript page #___ about that Side Bar Whispering, and so to re-do another seal at this POINT in time further on down the road of time, Ed and the others being victims to a GREATer degree for more $damages in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims against the N.H. Dept. of Safety for their FAILure to protect!

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/111382/96735 (http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/111382/96735)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091219/FRONTPAGE/912190342 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091219/FRONTPAGE/912190342)

entitled: "Time to Karma-ize the Feds here with some 100-fold vibes!"

of: "Right on Tim; especially for that: "As Keefe notes, 'My saying is you do us good, we'll do you good back; you do us bad and we'll give you 100 times worse.' - - That's the side law enforcement* focuses on. That's the side that makes headlines."

* "Law" Enforcement !?  You have got to be sh**ing me!

The judges here in N.H. are consistent too: by throwing those thieves in jail costing us, the tax payers money! when they should be on a leash working at a 50% reduction of pay toward the sevenfold of what they stole. [Proverbs 6:30-31, and Public Law 97-280 (96 Statute 1211) of Oct. 4, 1982 = The Year of the Bible for 1983 and beyond.] That includes government thieves too!

Where do they get this hundred fold formula? Like the word centurion? So in other words if one of the officers commanding a century or a group of a hundred people, does wrong, then it's not a 100-fold rightness in the other direction to correction for every one of the 100, but a 100-fold correction to THAT individual? Wow! Talk about the fine-line that our COPs are supposed to walk! Like the COPs of the N.H. State Police withIN the N.H. Dept. of Safety.  WHERE was their "protection" we paid for when some members of us as Article 12 "inhabitants" were taken over by the Feds!? Those federal agents, like our Congressmen who KNOW that their Article 3, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution inferior court of Congress being this U.S. District Court, is a tenant to the GSA / General Services Administration landlord Mr. Prouty who has FAILed to file his 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution. 

So WHEN this is finally "corrected" will these victims collect that $2,500 per day too, like in the Veronica Silva case of the mid 1980s at the N.H. State Board of Claims (RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23) currently amounting to about $2 million for about 800 days so far, or be restricted to this statutory $amount of only up to $250,000 !?  When officers of law act under "color" of law that is NOT the law, they abandon their protection when done in a "wanton" manner and are liable to pay the difference.  You'd think that they'd wise up sooner than later to mitigate that "moiety" damage against both their principle plus interest, as in a Writ of Elegit action against them resulting in having to give up half their house and garnishment of 50% of their salary until the damages are paid in full!

The songs we hear out of Congress at the branch offices, like for Hodes and Gregg in Concord (and Shaheen and Shea-Porter in Dover, plus their Manchester offices too) are a tune of bad vibes.  They do us bad, and ought to get some of these hundred-fold vibes in return.  Like I was there on my cell phone the other day at Gregg's office calling this federal agent of Prouty to do his job! Maybe 100 Hell's Angels in the office and hallway might make them listen? AND do the law!"

About time for the NEW A.G. of the U.S. to bring some Obama "change" to here in N.H.with a Special Grand Jury, eh?  Like to ask WHY the Feds have FAILed to have their landlord, Mr. Prouty of the G.S.A. file those 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with our RSA Ch. 123:1 N.H. Secretary of State, as from 1-8-17 U.S. and HOW "they" can legally spend $money from our taxes for these ILLEGAL trips to, at and back from Portland, Maine in violation of 18USC3232:

                     "January 4, 2009

Fax No. (202)224-9516

Justin C. Pentenrieder, Hearing Clerk
United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Attn:  Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman

   On December 5, 2008 I attended a Judiciary Committee Field Hearing in St. Albans,
VT, chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy. I request that you forward this correspondence to him.

Dear Senator Leahy,

      On December 5, 2008 I attended a Judiciary Committee Field Hearing in St. Albans,
VT. re: "Community-Based Solutions to Drug-Related Crime in Rural America."
I submitted testimony, documentation and a demand for a full investigation into drug related crimes and violations of law, rights and due process. I am quite disappointed that I was not afforded the opportunity to speak with you. Your only response to me was that you would read my documents
on the plane. The evidence/documents presented to you demands a full investigation into the cover
up of drug-related crimes, including a death, and extends from New Hampshire to Washington agencies, ie., DOJ, FBI, US Attorneys Executive Office, H. Marshall Jarrett, Counsel - Office of Professional Responsibility, NH U.S.A.G. Thomas Colantuono and Asst. U.S.A.G. Mark
Zuckerman, and others. I have had no response from you regarding this matter. Concerns by the
Police Chief of St. Albans, Gary Taylor, were the New York and Canadian borders. He, apparently,
is not aware of the activities in his neighboring N.H. border. I have given you this information/documentation for investigation.

   Secondly, I direct your attention to
http://www.cchr.org/#/videos/making-a-killing-introduction (http://www.cchr.org/#/videos/making-a-killing-introduction) "Making a Killing."  This will answer
questions posed by you and witnesses who presented testimony at the field hearing. Quite
revealing!

   Thirdly, I presented to you correspondences to the N.H. U.S.A.G.'s office which
outlined my legitimate demand for investigation, indictment and prosecution of the following:

Death (drug related); cover up
Theft By Deception
Interstate transportation of stolen property
Official Corruption
Obstruction of justice, abuse of discretion and malfeasance of office by New Hampshire and New Jersey officials/agencies
Violations of Elder Abuse Laws and the Americans with
Disabilities Act by Department of Human Services
Theft of N.J. subsidized housing in furtherance of these crimes
False swearing on an official document

All crimes stated in this summary are indictable offenses.  This has also been sent to the Office
of Inspector General and was forwarded to the U.S. Attorneys Office in Washington.

   On October 14, 2008 I received correspondence from NH Asst. U.S. Attorney Mark
Zuckerman regarding my request for his review of his investigation into a drug related death
in N.H. He advised me that his "office will treat (my) request as a FOIA and forwarded my "FOIA"
to the FOIA/PA Unit, Office of Legal Services, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. If I
had questions, I should contact that office. A couple of days later I received correspondence from
William G. Stewart II, Asst. Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for U.S.
Attorney, Freedom of Information & Privacy Staff, Washington, DC., and a FOIA/PA form
regarding this matter.

   On November 14, 2008 I called this office. I learned that a request had already been
forwarded to the NH U.S.A.G.'s office. I was a little confused, as I had not sent back my FOIA
request. I explained to the person in that office that all that I requested were the documents
relative to N.H. Asst. U.S. Attorney Mark Zuckerman's investigation/review. I faxed this person
my specific request.

   On, or about, December 12, 2008 I received a packet from the FOIA/PA office of the
information that they received from the NH U.S.A.G.'s office regarding my request for
"documents relative to N.H. Asst. U.S. Attorney Mark Zuckerman's investigation/review."
The documents that I received, I already am in possession of. THIS IS NOT AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT! NO INVESTIGATION WAS CONDUCTED! I DEMAND A FULL INVESTIGATION.

   As my documentation reveals, the U.S. District Courts justices have failed miserably
in their duties and obligations. The above stated crimes were presented before a Justice in the
N.H. U.S. District Court with a request for a Federal Grand Jury investigation. The judge did
not have authority to do so. Instructions were to go to the NH U.S.A.G.'s office and the results
are stated above.

   Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3332(b), District Courts are authorized to impanel additional
special grand juries when the special grand juries already impaneled have more business than
they can properly handle. When impaneling additional special grand juries, a court should make
a finding as to the need; and a court should always make it clear that the special grand jury is being impaneled under 18 U.S.C. § 3331 (and is therefore not subject to the limitations of a
regular grand jury). See Wax v. Motley, 510 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1975)..
 
The special grand jury has a duty under 18 U.S.C. § 3332(a) "to inquire into offenses
against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district."
Such alleged offenses may be brought to the jury's attention by the court or by any attorney
appearing for the United States to present evidence to the jury. It is incumbent upon any such government attorney to whom it is reported that a Federal offense was committed within the
district, if the source of information so requests, to refer the information to the special grand jury,
naming the source and apprising the jury of the attorney's action or recommendation regarding the information. [cited in USAM 9-11.101; USAM 9-11.300]

Senator Leahy, you are the Senate Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as well as a
member of the law making body of this country and an attorney. Is there not obstruction of
justice within the judicial system and U.S. law enforcement, whose members you and your
colleagues nominate?

I will anticipate a response and immediate action taken on this most serious, egregious
travesty of justice. I thank you for your attention to this most serious matter which is long overdue.

   Additionally, in the few weeks President elect Obama will submit the name of Eric Holder for Congressional approval to become the next Attorney General of the United States.  Congress will have to approve Mr. Holder for the job after confirmation hearings during which Mr. Holder will be asked numerous questions by the Senate Judiciary Committee.  I request the questions, attached herein, be asked of Mr. Holder.  I believe these questions will help establish the quality of his leadership at the DOJ and his respect for the written law.

               Sincerely,

               Dorothy Lafortune
               P.O. Box 187
               Biddeford, ME 04005

CC: others

Questions for Eric Holder
 

1.  Do you believe it is the responsibility of U.S. Attorneys to enforce the laws of the U.S.as they are written?

2. If the law contains the word "shall" do you believe the law relieves a U.S. Attorney from using any discretion for the enforcement of the law?

3. 18 USC 3332. states:
   
  (a) It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district.
Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence.
 
Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney's action or recommendation. (b) Whenever the district court determines that the volume of business of the special grand jury exceeds the capacity of the grand jury to discharge its obligations, the district court may order an additional special grand jury for that district to be impaneled.

 4. What is your interpretation of the requirement for a U.S. Attorney to enforce this law?

5. What do you believe the purpose of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Resource Manual is?

6. The U.S. Attorney Criminal Resource Manual 158 states:
      
 
158
Impaneling Special Grand Juries
As provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3331(a), the district court in every judicial district having more than four million inhabitants must impanel a special grand jury at least once every eighteen months (unless a special grand jury is then sitting); and the district court must also impanel a special grand jury when the Attorney General, Dep uty Attorney General, or a designated Assistant Attorney General certifies in writing to the chief judge of the district that in his/her judgment, a special grand jury is necessary "because of criminal activity in the district." (See 28 C.F.R. § 0.59 under which the Assistant Attorn ey General in charge of the Criminal Division is20designated to make certifications under 18 U.S.C. § 3331.)
 
 District courts are authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3332(b) to impanel additional special grand juries when the special grand juries already impaneled have more business than they can properly handle. When impaneling additional special grand juries, a court should make a finding as to the need; and a court should always make it clear that the special grand jury is being impaneled under 18 U.S.C. § 3331 (and is therefore not subject to the limitations of a regular grand jury). See Wax v. Motley, 510 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1975)..
 
The special grand jury has a duty under 18 U.S.C. § 3332(a) "to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district." Such alleged offenses may be brought to the jury's attention by the court or by any attorney appearing for the United States to present evidence to the jury. It is incumbent upon any such government attorney to whom it is reported that a Federal offense was committed within the district, if the source of information so requests, to refer the information to the special grand jury, naming the source and apprising the jury of the attorney's action or recommendation regarding the information.
[cited in USAM 9-11.101; USAM 9-11.300]
 
7. 18 USC 242 states:
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Summary:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected=2 0by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
 
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
 
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts commit ed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kid naping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

  8. Do you believe Federal Judges as well as U.S. attorneys can be held accountable for their actions under 18 USC 242 if they fail to  enforce 18 USC 3332? 

9. Please describe the process th at you envision to enforce this conduct.

10. How would you hold U.S Attorneys accountable for their violation of the law and what action would you take if they failed to adhere to the requirements of 18 USC 3332 and/or  the U.S. Attorney Criminal Resource Manual?

11. Who would determine the extent of any punishment?

!2. What do you believe punishment does?"

A Christmas Card to: Warren Dowaliby, Superintendent of the Strafford County Jail in Dover, New Hampshire.

GREETINGS & Good Will* Toward Men...is what most people say, but that after watching last night's Joel Osteen program on the Family Channel 66 here I do use another phrase where the letter W and the word Good canNOT be taken OFF so easily as to erase such to leave "ill Toward Men" or Mankind, and that is:

GREETINGS & Well being Toward Men, because this is the definition of a "bode" from the word auger or presage, as in a Roman auger or one who is in charge of interpreting omens, an omen being to hear, from the word monstrance as in the word benediction as in to "well-say" of an advantage (rather than dis-advantage), like the blessing over a prayer, as certified by the minister in a church.  Us to pursue with benedictions (in the plural) those who pursue us with hatred* and curses.**

Or in other words: * to detest the test, and **profane*** an oath, as in to make said oath not pure, as in to impure**** it, defined as: in to dirty the oath, make it not clean, but contaminated by as a mixture of something, like  consisting of diverse elements in a blend of substances not BOUND***** to each other, as in the past participle of bind, as to be confined by bonds, under obligation.

Thus for the County to bind itself with some woman in Washington, D.C. to take in federal inmates is an un- bound (as the noun for this word), or in other words not within but without, as in out of bounds, beyond boundaries, and a transgressing of conventional****** limits, the convention or agreement or compact, supposed to be a concord of an accord******* or con-currence, from the Latin word concors "of the same mind", an arrangement between parties, but more than that of to be in harmony as in  "A PLEASING combination of parts or elements." (emphasis ADDed...

...So YES it is pleasing or glad, as in feeling, showing, or giving joy and pleasure when both sides are happy and willing, as the enjoyment or satisfaction that the will or desire of: "may it please the court", but that the case in Superior Court is to ONE STEP BEYOND this "will" to that of the jury for a well-being, and any "opinion" of a will need not be taken by the plaintiff from either the bench OR bar, but laid upon those jurors to decide this monstrance in like an Article 32, N.H. Re-monstrance if need be to deal with Art. 14 "complete"ness!

So let my GREETINGS include a "Joy to the World" that includes this Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 U.S. Constitution "Consent" by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 as having been consented to by us, but of the type of a conditional consent or offer of such that we can individually waive if we "want", but not need to do as under some order, since The N.H. Legislature or General Court pre-scribed for what the Feds must do in order to MAKE such an order upon us valid, and that is to have to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State that has NOT been accomplished.

And let us be in accord: a settlement of conflicting opinions between us, as from the VL or Vulgar Latin of accordare "to be heart-to-heart with", and not only that of compassion or "A deep feeling of sharing the suffering of another; mercy", as in "to sympathize with", the word sympathy defined as: (1) "Mutual understanding between persons" and (2) "A feeling or expression of pity or sorrow for the distress of another; compassion" plus (3) "Favor; agreement; approval: in sympathy with one's ideas" but ONE STEP BEYOND the mere "favor" to what's called "rigor jurus" of that called for not by our opinions but of what the law is! BUT beyond just the word heart of the essence as in: "the heart of the problem", but to be "at heart" in that phrase of to be in addition to the essential of also to that of the fundamental, of: the basic, central and KEY [ * ], plus primary, as in: the physical "Of or pertaining to the component of LOWest frequency of a periodic wave or quantity." From the Latin word fundus, of "bottom". 

And so back to what Pastor Joel Osteen said of in reading from Roman 12:19 of to open a path to allow anger to not be reflected back in revenge, but to allow it to proceed onto God Almighty Himself for to avenge in His way, and so the reason for why I've asked of what exact words this Assistant County Attorney did pre-scribe in his RSA Ch. 311:6 oath of to either "So help me God" or to be under the pains and penalty of perjury for when he puts his hand or hands together with this Board of Commissioners to help them continue to violate their RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office, for which violation thereof, they are to be "forthwith dismissed".

My "THE HOLY BIBLE WITH A Devotional and Practical COMMENTARY By the Rev. R. Jamison, D.D [ ** ] & the Rev. E.H. Bickersteth, A.M." with writing therein back to 1870 of this a "Bible of my family" and "WITH ILLUSTRATIVE ENGRAVINGS ON STEEL" from "JAMES S. VIRTUE, CITY ROAD AND IVY LANE" in LONDON @ page 259 for Romans 12:19 reads that of to "learn much from the poorest and the lowest", as in the fundamental too, and so my cherish-ments to Art. 83 education having been stolen too!!

[ ** ] "MINISTER OF ST. PAUL'S PARISH, GLASGOW; AUTHOR OF "EASTERN MANNERS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS," "THE MANNERS AND TRIALS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS," ETC. ETC."

"Merry Christmas" indeed for you to use this "KEY" [ *] and THE Executive key accordingly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone), e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

pc: Edward-Lewis Brown, Strafford County H.O.C. (House of "Correction"), 266 County Farm Road, Dover, N.H. 03820, Tel. 603: 742-3310; and;

Pastor Joel Osteen c/o Lakewood Church, P.O. Box 23297, Houston, Texas 77228, 713: 635-4154 General at Lakewood dot cc , http://www.lakewood.cc/ (http://www.lakewood.cc/)

Here's another copy and paste:

"FW: BPA: Bottles and cans...beware
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Mon 12/21/09 11:53 AM
To:    __________________
______: Happy New Year! too, -- Joe

From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: _____________________
CC: _______________________________
Subject: FW: BPA: Bottles and cans...beware
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:51:55 -0500

F.Y.I.  Have a "Merry*" (and "Healthy") Christmas! -- Joe

* "Joy to the World" - happiness in that you know you'll get "better" as off the "can". (;-)

From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: _____________________
Subject: RE: BPA: Bottles and cans...beware
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:48:00 -0500

Thanks _______.

Re:
http://www.therealfoodchannel.com/page/38.html (http://www.therealfoodchannel.com/page/38.html)

of 10:00 minutes , about WHERE $80 million of our tax money went to PRE-vent the testing of these 15,000 chemicals, with only 73 chemicals,  after the two lawsuits, having been tested to this day, and for BPA in year 2010 (next year) AFTER the damage has been done, re: the lining within plastic and cans, is why I drink from glass bottles.

Remember #__ years ago the warnings of getting Alzheimer's disease from aluminum cans?

Now to avoid cans AND plastic bottles until this substance is removed.

If not then sort of like "The Island of Dr. Moreau" in reality of deformations from birth, and as we age.

Thank you "very" much! - - Joe

forward of this onto others later...

From: _______________
To: _____________
Subject: FW: BPA: Bottles and cans...beware
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:51:58 +0000

ALL Federal Alphabet Agenices ....

> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:43:35 -0500
> To: _________________
> From: newsletter at therealfoodchannel.com
> Subject: BPA: Bottles and cans...beware
>
> ____________
>
> Here's a simple principle for good eating.
>
> "If it comes in a box, a bag, a bottle, or a can
> it's automatically suspect.
>
> The only safe place in the supermarket is
> the produce department."
>
> The subject of BPA - a plastic used in virtually
> all cans and bottles - comes up from time to
> time and then is quieted down.
>
> Here's what you need to know about it and
> why it's so hard to get the straight story.
>
> A textbook case of food industry manipulation
> of science and regulation.
>
> Video:
>
> http://www.therealfoodchannel.com/page/38.html (http://www.therealfoodchannel.com/page/38.html)
>
> Ken McCarthy
>
> Amacord, Inc.
> 14 North Road,
> Tivoli, NY 12583, USA
>
> To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit:
> http://www.aweber.com/z/r/?nIxsrIyctCysrByM7GzstGa0LJxsbEwsbA== (http://www.aweber.com/z/r/?nIxsrIyctCysrByM7GzstGa0LJxsbEwsbA==)

I sent mail to Ed at the following address and it was returned:

Edward-Lewis Brown
#03923-049
FMC Devens
Federal Medical Center
P.O. Box 879
Ayer, MA  01432

Where is he now?

did Mr. Brown get sentenced yet?  and are the Browns appealing at all? 

Ed is in Dover, N.H. until the sentencing on January (?) __, 2010.

Which jail/prison is he in? Or, if you know the mailing address for Ed there, what is that?

Relatively recently, he was in MA:

Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 20, 2009, 04:49 PM NHFT

Quote from: LordBaltimore on October 20, 2009, 01:23 PM NHFT

Quote from: Mike Barskey on October 20, 2009, 11:24 AM NHFT
615 pages of this thread is too much to look through manually. Does anyone know the current jail/prison that Ed is in? How about Elaine?

Ed is in Massachusetts at the Devens facility for the next couple of weeks undergoing a pychiatric evaluation.  Assuming he's found mentally competent, he'll be sentenced later this year in Concord, NH.

Elaine has already been sentenced and is "in transit" for the time being.  She's probably on the road to the same Texas prison where she was kept prior to this last trial.  Unless she's told someone here, there's no way of knowing where she'll end up until she gts there.

Ed's address is in Reply #9184 on page 613:

INMATE NAME & REGISTER NUMBER*
FMC DEVENS
FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER
P.O. BOX 879
AYER, MA  01432

* Edward-Lewis: Brown #03923-049

Thanks for updated info.

A 2-step process?

I did just call the Strafford County Jail in Dover @ 742-3310 at 8:12 a.m. this morning and that the man at the front desk would not tell me HOW this process works to determine the status there of ANY visitor of: (1) first whether they are on the visitor list, and (2) second of whether they have been suspended.  Is the visitor's name listed WITH an asterisk? As in YES - you're on the list BUT that you're prohibited until further notice. Just HOW is this information made available?  The guard REFUSED to answer the general question, and asked me for my last name to go into NOT a general question BUT for a specific.  I gave him: Haas, and he said immediately (within half a second) that I was not allowed.  So "they" all must have been given instructions that if and whenever I call in the future of: don't bother to "check", just tell him no, off the top of your head; a standing order to say no.  But this specific question does not answer the general question.  The guard said that the WAY they conduct business is NOT available for me as an answer to my question because it's a "security" issue or concern.  And so I did ask to speak with the Superintendent Dowaliby, but that I was merely connected to his voice mail, and left a message that he get back to me for what I think is a cause, of be-cause of when this happened twice before, it must have been negligence on the part of those two other guards who were either: (1)  too lazy to "check" on this two step process, or (2) who were never told about HOW to do a COMPLETE "check" of verification of YES on the list, BUT of NO when suspended, and so the answer to anybody calling in with a question of whether or not they can visit THAT day of calling, the answer is based upon BOTH criteria.

You'd think that the Assistant County Attorney would have inquired of this and found out this report of some disciplinary action or demerit check-mark against these two individuals for those two days when they told me otherwise, but who have since been "corrected".  But: no, he either did not call over there to find this out, or is in a cover-up mode, and now into his Motion to Dismiss my civil case for FAILure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.  He stated this in court last Tuesday morning that he could NOT answer either ADMITed or DENIED to my claim of having been WRONGfully told that I could visit THAT day of calling BUT that when I arrived, two more guards were there added to the original or another to say that that first answer of YES had been changed to NO be-cause of this process having NOT been completed by the one who I had talked on the phone with earlier who gave me erroneous information.  As in the "errors and omissions" clause in all insurance policies.

So this is the reason of my lawsuit of be-cause of error or omission both on the part of the instructor and the student, plus back to the Commissioners because of the reason WHY I've been suspended being some federal policy over-ride of my Article 12 rights in that there has been no 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal filing as required by the "shall" word in N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 for "Consent" from Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution, of which they took an RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to obey "Complete"ly by Article 14 of the N.H. Constitution. Thus in addition to this negligence of error or omission, also to that of KNOWingly with a purpose to evade Article 12, since this was told to them by me at a Commissioner's Meeting,  puts them in a culpable state of mind of which to sue for their deciding to violate their oaths of office!

A copy of this printout and other documents returned by the Clerk because of lack of a cover sheet with the information as double spaced with side margins given a title up top. To staple them to my OBJECTION to the 12/18 Motion to Dismiss, to file within the next ten (10) days by Monday, December 28th. To either agree with this objection to DENY the Motion, but if not then to proceed to a hearing.

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - -  Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone), e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

pc: Edward-Lewis: Brown, Strafford County H.O.C., 266 County Farm Road, Dover, N.H. 03820.

Thanks for the effort and the information!

Quote from: JosephSHaas on December 09, 2009, 10:41 AM NHFT

Quote from: JosephSHaas on July 16, 2009, 11:59 PM NHFT
Update: ....

...

pc: Edward-Lewis: Brown, Strafford County H.O.C., 266 County Farm Road, Dover, N.H. 03820, Tel. 603: 742-3310....

Mike WHY do you go back to October 20th that is OVER two months ago!?

That is NOT his CURRENT address!

His LAST known address posted here by me was on December 9th and it has NOT changed.

I called Bernie last night and he visited Ed over the weekend with Marie and Ed told them who told me who I'm now telling you all here that Ed has YET to get a copy of either the doctor's report on the psycho-val TOWARD the Gov't P.S.I. to which the defendant, by the rules, has #__ days to digest and counter BEFORE any Sentencing Hearing.

- - Joe

Quote from: Mike Barskey on December 22, 2009, 08:08 AM NHFT
Thanks for the effort and the information!

You're welcome.  I presume you read all my stuff, or at least that pc: to Ed with his current address stood out like a red-flag!  8)

I saw that somebody (you) had posted something, and with that warning when I pressed the publish button that I could revise what I did write, but chose otherwise to ignore that and wait to reply later, that I'm doing now.

Plus: I did also call the Jail again and left a further voice mail for the Assistant Superintendent Bird (Sid Bird), Super Bird, to find out if beyond an asterisk to some footnote at the bottom of THAT page or does the person who checks have to go to ANOTHER page on the computer screen to compare that to some information in another column of information?

Does ANYbody here KNOW of HOW this is done? Like a former guard reading this of like for example we did or do it like: _____________________ in the ________ County or within another state.

Thanks.

Legislative Facilities of Concord just banned what Ed used to bring to there: his concealed weapon.  See my reply to such over at "The Concord Monitor", and I can send anybody my e-mail chain-of-contact with detailed info from the NH Liberty Seacoast group, like this summary and more:

"NRA ALERT AS WELL:

Gun Ban Put into Effect at New Hampshire State House
Please Contact the Members of the Joint Committee on Legislative Facilities Today!
Yesterday, the Joint Committee on Legislative Facilities voted 8-3 to take away our Second Amendment rights while in the State Capitol complex.  The newly enacted regulation states:

"No person, except for law enforcement personnel in active duty, shall carry a firearm or other dangerous or deadly weapon or an explosive, openly or concealed, while inside the State House, the Legislative Office Building, the Upham Walker House, or any of the underground tunnels connected to these buildings. Law enforcement personnel, when requested by State House security staff, must produce sufficient identification establishing their status as law enforcement personnel."

In 2008, the legislature voted down similar legislation overwhelmingly.  Unfortunately this week, a handful of legislators passed a regulation in committee and created this new "victim zone" without notice.

Please contact your State Legislators and the members of the Joint Committee on Legislative Facilities TODAY and respectfully urge them to re-consider their attack on our Second Amendment rights.  Contact information for the committee can be found below.  To find contact information for your State Legislators, please click here."

12/21/2009 NOTICE OF HEARING as to Edward Brown: Competency Hearing and Sentencing set for 1/11/2010 08:00 AM before Judge George Z. Singal, USDC-NH. (dae) (Entered: 12/21/2009)

"Is That a Knife"
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01NHcTM5IA4#)
0:47 seconds  336,406

First Draft lawsuit:

To: The Strafford County Superior Court
Strafford County Justice & Administration Building
259 County Farm Road
P.O. Box 799
Dover, NH 03820-0799

Clerk : Julie W. Howard
Phone : (603) 742-3065
Hours : Monday - Friday, 8:30am to 4:00pm
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/courtlocations/straffsupedir.htm (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/courtlocations/straffsupedir.htm)

Petition for Damages of $2,500 per day since Oct. 4, 2007 of wrongful incarceration and federal prosecution against the Plaintiff and the laws and statutes of this state of New Hampshire and of the United States of America

Edward-Lewis: Brown
266 County Farm Road
Dover, N.H. 03820
603: 742-3310

v.

John P. Kacavas
http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/08/13/three-obama-us-attorneys-sworn-in/ (http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/08/13/three-obama-us-attorneys-sworn-in/)

formerly of The Law Firm of:
Kacavas Ramsdell & Howard,
175 Canal Street
Manchester New Hampshire [ NH ] 03101
Phone Number: (603)625-1254
http://uslawyersdb.com/attorney15851 (http://uslawyersdb.com/attorney15851)

and now of: The Office of U.S. Attorney
James C. Cleveland Building
55 Pleasant Street
enter 53 Pleasant Street
Concord, N.H. 03301
603: 225-1552
http://www.justice.gov/usao/nh/ (http://www.justice.gov/usao/nh/)

Bar No. ______________

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Edward-Lewis: Brown, an Article 12 "inhabitant" of the City of Dover, County of Strafford, and state of New Hampshire http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) (and specifically for the words in the last sentence thereof of: "Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent.* ) and complains as follows:

1.) That on December ____ 2009 / January ____ 2010 having THOUGHT about WHY the Judge in the case of Joseph S. Haas v. Board of Strafford County Commissioners, Docket No. 219-2009-CV-00614, had NOT opened up an Equity case #2009-E-____ to have been entitled: Brown v. Warren Dowaliby, Superintendent for being in violation of the law, as requested therein the civil case by Mr. Haas to either be done by the initiative of the judge sua sponte and/or some motion for relief down from the over $3,300 claimed therein to a settlement of: $1.00; and;

2.) That N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 311:6   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXX/311/311-6.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXX/311/311-6.htm) reads that: "Every attorney admitted to practice shall take and subscribe, in open court, the oaths to support the constitution of this state and of the United States, and the oath of office in the following form: You solemnly swear or affirm that you will do no falsehood, nor consent that any be done in the court, and if you know of any, that you will give knowledge thereof to the justices of the court, or some of them, that it may be reformed; THAT YOU WILL NOT WITTINGLY OR WILLINGLY PROMOTE, SUE, OR PROCURE TO BE SUED ANY false or UNLAWFUL SUIT, nor consent to the same; that you will delay no person for lucre or malice, and will act in the office of an attorney within the court according to the best of your learning and discretion, and with all good fidelity as well to the court as to your client. So help you God or under the pains and penalty of perjury. " (emphasis ADDed.); (see photocopy of the Defendant's RSA 311:6 oath attached hereto) and that:

3. ) evidence in the form of a Certificate of Federal Non-Filing to N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm) was presented to BOTH (1) this tenant: Attorney Kacavas on December __, 2009 with a request to nol-pros the current case #______________ there in the Warren B. Rudman Building because of the fact that (2) the Feds, in the form of it's landlord Stephen R. Leeds, Acting Administrator of The General Services Administration as of Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009, the new "head", see:   http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentId=11164&contentType=GSA_BASIC (http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentId=11164&contentType=GSA_BASIC) and http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contactus.do (http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contactus.do) for his address of: "U.S. General Services Administration, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405" with same telephone number of  (202) 501-0800 and e-mail address of:  judith.larsen at gsa dot gov have yet to accept our Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 Conditional "Consent"* or offer of June 14, 1883 by filing the necessary 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112 federal papers with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State (2nd floor, State House, 107 North Main Street, Room 204, Concord, N.H.  03301,
Phone: 603-271-3242, Email: Elections@sos.state.nh.us http://www.sos.nh.gov/ (http://www.sos.nh.gov/)   ) per the "shall" word in the statute; former Acting Administrator of the G.S.A. Paul F. Prouty, having last been contacted about this to his subordinate ralph.conner at gsa dot gov on Thursday, November 19th, 2009 @ 11:27 o'clock p.m. in an e-mail from Mr. Haas per his phone call to the office from U.S. Senator Judd Gregg's Concord,N.H. office at about noontime that day and his return call to agent Conner of about 4:15 p.m. that afternoon, and with the latest contact to the G.S.A./ Attn: both Agents Larsen and Conner by e-mail of __:__ o'clock a.m. Wed., Dec. 23rd '09 by Mr. Haas, and by a photocopy of the computer printout of this First Draft lawsuit by him to the New Hampshire Underground website as Reply #_____ on page 625 at: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9360 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9360) along with a copy of the latest certificate of federal non-filing by it having been mailed to him by Mr. Haas on Wed., Dec. 23rd '09 @ __:__ p.m. from the Concord, N.H. Post Office to his address in Washington, D.C. as indicated above;

4.) because he ought to have known better and especially per his own U.S. Attorney Manual #664

See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html) see also: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.h... (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.h...) and http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03... (http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03...) ** plus the original http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575) for 40USC255.

** "'In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial.' Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."

WHEREFORE to please issue an Orders of Notice for a Return Day of the second Tuesday in February, of Feb. 2 (Groundhog Day), 2010, for when the Defendant shall file his Appearance Form, and Answer within thirty (30) days thereof this finalized version of this lawsuit customized by Attorney __________ of: ________________ for Mr. Haas who gave same to me, Edward-Lewis: Brown for processing to this court and that of the N.H. Dept. of Safety, http://www.nh.gov/safety/commissioner/index.html (http://www.nh.gov/safety/commissioner/index.html) Attention: Commissioner John J. Barthelmes,  James H. Hayes Safety Building, 33 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03305, Tel. 603-271-2791 because of his and their FAILure to "Serve and PROTECT" my rights as are supposed to be a guarantee by Article 12 of our N.H. Bill of Rights, with copies of this first draft lawsuit, in addition to him by Mr. Haas @ ___:___ p.m. Wed., Dec. 23rd '09 having been delivered to Nancy Cassidy there for him or someone else being: ________ and additional copies to both: Scott Hilliard (of Northfield), Merrimack County Sheriff, http://www.ci.concord.nh.us/govmnt/county (http://www.ci.concord.nh.us/govmnt/county) 163 N. Main Street, Concord, NH 03301, Phone: (603) 225-5451 / (603) 225-5583 @ __:__ p.m. 12/23/09 and Robert C. Barry, Chief of Police, City of Concord, 35 Green Street, Concord, N.H. 03301, Tel.  603-225-8600, Email:  police@onconcord.com   http://www.ci.concord.nh.us/Police/concordv2.asp?siteindx=H05,40 (http://www.ci.concord.nh.us/Police/concordv2.asp?siteindx=H05,40) at __:__ p.m. 12/23/09 to likewise sue for a Jury Trial in Merrimack County Superior Court for going along with any federal kidnapping should it occur on or before the scheduled sentencing day of Monday, January 11th, 2010 @ 8:00 o'clock a.m. The Commissioner of Safety to be sued in the RSA Ch. 451-B:1-23 State Board of Claims http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm)

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Edward-Lewis: Brown, 266 County Farm Road, Dover, N.H. 03820, Tel. 603: 742-3310

p.c.: Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone), e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

Sample Admissions by the Defendant:

In ANSWER to the charges set forth above and summarized here, I John P. Kacavas:

1. ADMIT that it is highly likely that the Plaintiff "THOUGHT" of the reason for WHY the Judge in the Haas v. Board case did NOT open up an Equity case entitled: Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus; +

2. ADMIT that that is my signature on the photocopy of the attached RSA Ch. 311:6 oath, and the reason why I chose _____________ over ____________ ("So help [me]God" or "under the pains and penalty of perjury.") is because: ________________________

3. a. I ADMIT that on December __, 2009 I did receive a photocopy of the certificate of federal non-filing to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1...

b. ...with a request to nol-pros this case by Mr. Haas who did circle these words with his initials in the right side margin; +

c. After contacting the GSA Acting Administrator Leeds +/or Agent(s) ____________ on: ______________ @ ___:___ am/pm by phone/visit to: _______________ ADMIT that the GSA landlord as 40USC3112 "head" and landlord to us here as tenants of both this office and the court is in default of the laws and statutes of both the state of New Hampshire and of the United States of America. And;

4. I ADMIT that I have read the U.S. Attorney Manual #664, 40USC255, 40USC3112 and the excerpt for the Adams case and agree that I am in violation of my RSA Ch. 311:6 oath to NOT promote any unlawful suit of what this criminal case "was" (past tense), as having been nol prossed by me in my capacity as the advocate/ arguer of what was in contention, dispute and of quarrels finally agreeing that there is now no argument that there was no jurisdictional authority from the time of the arrest on Oct. 4, 2007 of Mr. Brown up until _______ __, 20___ when the 40USC3112 papers were finally filed by the GSA "head" Mr. Leeds with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State.

signed: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - John P. Kacavas, with my apology that I hope is accepted as evidence toward what was supposed to be a state/county and city executive check and balance by the N.H. State Police, Merrimack County Sheriff's Office and Chief of Police for the City of Concord who should have investigated AND ORDERed us to NOT treat any of their Article 12 "inhabitants" by a wrongful prescription of the U.S. Codes since the victims had not either individually consented thereto, nor was there any "consent" by their Representatives at the Legislature or N.H. General Court.

Here's another copy and paste:

"Happy New Year!?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 12/23/09 8:26 AM
To:    isb at dos.nh.gov; shilliard at merrimacksheriff.net; pcavanaugh at onconcord.com; Concord Police Dept. (police at onconcord.com)
Cc:    judith.larsen at gsa.gov; ralph.conner at gsa.gov; Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us); County Strafford (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us); Citizens Service - N.H. (Lynch) (officeofcitizenservi at nh.gov); Foster's Daily Democrat (letters at fosters.com); G&C#2 (jshea at nh.gov); G&C#3 (bhollingworth at nh.gov)
Bcc: ______________________________________________

To: 1. The New Hampshire Dept. of Safety, Attn: The Commissioner and for The N.H. State Police

2. The County of Merrimack, State of New Hampshire, Attention to both: The Board of County Commissioners, AND The Sheriff, Scott Hilliard; plus:

3. The City of Concord, Attn: to BOTH the entire city c/o its Solicitor Paul Cavanaugh and the Chief of Police, Robert C. Barry

HAPPY NEW YEAR! to us, and NOT to you UNLESS you do what's right as required by your RSA Ch. 92:2 and/or RSA Ch. 42:1 oaths of office to abide by the law!

Please see the copy and paste of Reply #9374 on page 625 (my Reply #2447) over at http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9360 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9360)

As I had (paste tense) told you to do a similar executive check and balance against the Feds for my friend Elaine Brown, I do put in this Claim that you do "same" for her husband, Ed Brown, the word "same" of not what you did NOT do for her, but of the "same" word being of to protect him as hereby claimed from further wrongs by these technical trespassers withIN this state!

Hoping that you have a good new year too, but if because of your continued FAILure to do your job of which I pay taxes to you either directly or indirectly, as from my residence and/or workplace by my employer in Boscawen and Concord respectfully, then may it be a very bad new year for you to have to have your pay deducted to the moiety or half of fifty (50%) percent amount in like a Writ of Elegit for which to pay the $total as yet to file a similar lawsuit against you in the Merrimack County Superior Court for a trial by jury.

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone), e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

c.c.1 : The Secretary of State, Concord, N.H. Attn: Karen Ladd. Karen: would you please have Bill sign an update to today, that of that there still being no federal filing to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1, so that I can pick it up sometime this afternoon to deliver and mail to the parties indicated here.  http://www.sos.nh.gov/ (http://www.sos.nh.gov/) 271-3242 http://www.sos.nh.gov/ (http://www.sos.nh.gov/)

c.c.2: to both G.S.A. Agents Larsen and Conner: Would you please forward this to your new boss for his first full day on the job today, to maybe be one of his first acts of office of to finally file these papers, or get to work on filing them as required by both the state and federal constitution/ law and statutes too.

c.c.3: to the Executives being The Board of Strafford County Commissioners.  If you think that the current case of mine is troubling, just imagine what Ed can do to you with the proper attorney! Jean: Would you please relay this over to the Sheriff, Wayne Estes to maybe do a Buford Pusser "Walking Tall" upon them as by to ENFORCE the LAW over there! Finally!!

pc 1: Edward-Lewis: Brown, Strafford County H.O.C. (House of "Correction"), 266 County Farm Road, Dover, N.H. 03820, Tel.603: 742-3310

pc 2: Elaine-Alice, Brown, #03924-049, FMC Carswell, P. O. Box 27137, [ J Street, Building 3000], Forth Worth, Texas 76127
What God Hath Joined Together

President Gordon B. Hinckley
First Counselor in the First Presidency

[of The Mormon Church]


http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=bf80b850e318b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____ (http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=bf80b850e318b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____)

"...Anyone who imagines that bliss is normal is going to waste a lot of time running around shouting that he has been robbed." (Deseret News, 12 June 1973, p. A4.)


Stormy weather occasionally hits every household. Connected inevitably with the whole process is much of pain—physical, mental, and emotional. There is much of stress and struggle, of fear and worry. For most, there is the ever-haunting battle of economics. There seems never to be enough money to cover the needs of a family. Sickness strikes periodically. Accidents happen. The hand of death may reach in with dread stealth to take a precious one.


But all of this seems to be part of the processes of family life. Few indeed are those who get along without experiencing some of it. It has been so from the beginning. Cain quarreled with Abel and then did a terrible thing. How great must have been the grief in the hearts of their parents, Adam and Eve.


Absalom was the third son of David, a son favored and loved. David had given him a name which meant "father of peace." But he brought not peace—rather, anger and ambition and sorrow. He killed his brother and conspired against his father. In the midst of his evil actions, in his wicked pursuit for his father's throne, while riding a mule Absalom's head caught in the branches of an oak tree, and he was left hanging helpless. Joab, nephew of David and captain of the king's army, seizing the opportunity to get rid of this rebellious and traitorous son, pierced his heart with darts. He apparently felt he was doing a favor to the king.


But when David heard of his son's death, even though that son had conspired to destroy him, "the king was much moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept: and as he went, thus he said, O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son! ... [And] the king covered his face, and ... cried." (2 Sam. 18:33; 2 Sam. 19:4.)


Through the history of the generations of man, the actions of rebellious children have been ladened with sorrow and heartbreak, but even when there has been rebellion, the strong cords of family life have reached out to encircle the rebellious one...."


My footnote: being that of to compare the word "rebellion" as in the Johnny Reb phrase of our country's Civil War, or WBTS/ War Between the States, to that of a Revolution, and our Article 10, N.H. Constitution Right to Revolt!  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)


http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)

Our right to revolt as as individual, or family, that word defined as not only "A group of persons related by blood or marriage" but also "A group or category of like things", and the word thing meaning an entity or creature, as in either of three definitions: (1) "An animal", (2) "A person, esp. one regarded with pity or CONTEMPT" (emphasis ADDed), or (3) "One subservient to another", as in the creator always superior to its created being of the creature, and so when we the people form our creature of government it is supposed to be subservient or subordinate, as in servile to us.  The word subordinate defined as "1. Belonging to a lower or inferior class or rank. 2. Subject to the authority or control of another. 3. Gram. Dependent on another clause."

So, yes, our public servants dependent upon the contract: their oath of office to follow the rules of the game!  The law being the constitutions and the statutes too.  Thus you public servants canNOT act alone!  You are dependent, and so I say to you Dependent: "Determined by something or someone else." So if you who take the 311:6 oath are NOT dependent upon being bound to be UNDER "the pains and penalty of perjury" being a Class B Felony in this state for violation of same, then you said and signed "So hlelp [me] God" or did you?  I only see a signature that you did one or the other but not both as there is the "or" word there, so which one was it and is?  The former or the latter?  Of to be withIN God at this 4th dimensional plain of existence of a part of realty to be Ruled by Him of which you agree to operate by His Rules; or to be subject to your fellow man as determined by a jury of your peers in a criminal trial?  The answer needed as to determine whether you will or will not answer the questions in a civil suit for damages because that would be incriminating yourself in a subsequent criminal case.

Us all withIN the family of men, just that like George Orwell wrote about in his book entitled: "Animal Farm": some animals are more equal than others.  The "animals" of contempt by those revolting determined to be so classified by those in the subordinate level attempting to elevate themselves to over their master by by-passing the rules!  Such I find disgusting and to be dealt with accordingly if you don't "wise up" and do what's right right here and now!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Quote from: keith in RI on December 22, 2009, 04:53 PM NHFT
12/21/2009 NOTICE OF HEARING as to Edward Brown: Competency Hearing and Sentencing set for 1/11/2010 08:00 AM before Judge George Z. Singal, USDC-NH. (dae) (Entered: 12/21/2009)

Thanks for info.

Quote from: Kat Kanning on December 23, 2009, 04:17 PM NHFT

Quote from: keith in RI on December 22, 2009, 04:53 PM NHFT
12/21/2009 NOTICE OF HEARING as to Edward Brown: Competency Hearing and Sentencing set for 1/11/2010 08:00 AM before Judge George Z. Singal, USDC-NH. (dae) (Entered: 12/21/2009)

Thanks for info.

The Article 12 N.H. Judge to the rescue*.

This will be a non-event.  Concord will NOT see Ed on Mon., Jan 11th. 

Yesterday I did deliver signed copies of my "Happy New Year!" to the County Attorney's Office on Court Street, Concord for the Commissioners now in Boscawen, and to both the receptionist at City Hall for The City of Concord, Attn: Paul Cavanaugh, the City Solicitor and to the window clerk at the Police Station next door on Green Street for the Chief.

I then went across the street and picked up yet another signed copy of a statement from the Deputy Secretary of State David M.. Scanlan on his letterhead that as of today's date then of December 23rd '09 "We have checked our records and do not find a copy of the filing required by RSA 123:1."

I did also mail same of this 8-page packet that includes the the GSA website page for the new "head" Stephen R. Leeds and my "First Draft lawsuit" to the Feds both here in N.H. of the U.S. Attorney John P. Kacavas and the new GSA "head" of Leeds in Washington, to give more Feds copies on Monday by delivery to both: Gregg and Hodes in Concord too, and maybe mail same to Shaheen and Shea-Porter in Dover.

Plus the County of Merrimack now has notice to share accordingly but may also see to it that the Sheriff and Commissioners gets this personally delivered to him and them too, and to back-up the e-mail copy of to the N.H. Dept. of Safety and State Police also.

THEN "if" there is no executive check-and-balance by either the local, county or state here against the Feds who now KNOW what they're doing is WRONG in their Article III inferior court of Congress KNOWing too, #__ times now, THEN to sue the City of Concord in Merrimack County Superior Court, the County in the Federal court WHEN it is legit, and the State in the State Board of Claims, plus Feds in the Court of Claims for FAILure to perform their duties in a lawful way: violation of contract.

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

P.S. * See Re-type of my latest Motion in the Strafford County Superior Court Case #219-2009-cv-614 to follow...

Here's my re-type:

"The State of New Hampshire
Strafford County Superior Court
P.O. Box 799
Dover, N.H. 03821-0799
(603) 742-3065
Docket No. 219-2009-cv-614
Joseph S. Haas v. Board of Strafford County Commissioners

MOTION TO ATTACH THE BODY

--NOW COMES the Plaintiff Haas next in the chain-of-events after having been denied the Motion to Attach the federal funds tendered to the County and as a possible settlement of not $money, but the recovery of lost or stolen visiting times of to be re-stored (maybe to the 7th degree too - as illustrated already with the mere citing of RSA Ch. 651:63 not that the statute itself from the criminal realm applies to this civil case; with OBJECTION to said Motion to Dismiss of 12/18 to follow by Mon., 12/28 postmark, as awaiting written word from the Superintendent from the Assistant Sid Bird's call to me today @ about 3:00 p.m. on this matter of negligence in the verification process for a visitor is a "2-step process" of first on the list as approved, and then by cross-check of a suspended note applied thereto), hereby asks this court to please ORDER that the body of one: Edward-Lewis: Brown NOT be shipped out by or to the Feds based upon the information that I did present to this court, but that was returned by the clerk as not double-spaced, and so if this MOTION be NOT granted, as in IF the Assistant County Attorney does OBJECT to this latest Motion, that a hearing be held and BEFORE the Federal hearing as scheduled for sentencing on Monday, January 11th @ 8:00 o'clock a.m.  Attached hereto is more related information as labeled "Happy New Year!" on eight [8] pages to act as an Exhibit.

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com, 603: 848-6059 (cell phone)

pc: Stephen G. LaBonte, Assistant, N.H. Bar #16178, whose RSA 311:6 oath is in-complete!, P.O. Box 799, Dover, N.H. 03821

& Edward-Lewis: Brown"

note: I did also send a copy of all of this to Elaine too, in Texas. Plus a courtesy copy to the U.S. Attorney John P. Kacavas in Concord.

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091223/NEWS01/912230310&template=single (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091223/NEWS01/912230310&template=single)

entitled: "State has history of corruption to federal ways!"

of: "Reference: "state...Examiners also wrote that Farah...failed to provide a copy of his company's federal tax return,as he was required* to do. "

* oh really!? WHERE is it spelled out that this is necessary as need?

How many state examiners? #__ what are their names? And may I please see a copy of their reports, or is this one of those RSA Ch. 91-A financial exemptions? If so, would the company president please send me a copy of this attempted extortion.

Thus a printing here to help these company officials AND the investors in that the $money is someWHERE waiting to be put to work WHEN the door of opportunity opens.  And as by the words in my Archives here, that starts 1-1-10 in just over a week away: land to buy when the rules of the game change as by Chapter #___ Laws of N.H. 2009 for  House Bill 321 of 2009 back to Senate Bill 342 of 2008 for when a majority of 51%+ of the Residential Zones in every city and town has now got to open up their lands to "Workforce Housing", as to allow to be built an affordable road, to buy an affordable lot, to build an affordable house.  No more of these prohibitions that the Class VI or private road has got to be tarred at over $100 per lineal foot so many feet wide, and especially to "restrict" (NOT prohibit) up to the maximum number of lots there already recorded, even if non-conforming, and so more power to the landowner, NOT the town for those owners of land abutting a road pre-existing BEFORE zoning got started in that town! It's the law by RSA Ch. 674:41,I(e).

As Ed Brown used to say: "SHOW ME THE LAW". So I demand/ claim and insist that you public servants provide a prompt accounting by Articles 8 + 14 of the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights  of WHEN our Legislature supposedly "Consent"ed to have the Article 12 "inhabitant"s of this state to be controllable by any of these U.S. Codes or Statutes At Large! Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.

As Robert Conrad used to say for that EverReady Battery T.V. commercial  I dare you!  I dare you to knock THIS off.  The THIS being of OUR rights here in New Hampshire! to which you TRY to do-away with!  Disgusting, absolutely disgusting: a clear violation of your RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office, for which YOU are to be "dismissed forthwith"! Do not pass go, do not continue to harass people here in this state with federal statutes that have no bearing on us...that is UNTIL they do by their RSA Ch. 123:1 federal filing of the 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State to where these companies do file their names there, and so when one party be in default, as in it takes two to tango, the dance is over: case closed, or at least as far as that line of attack goes insisting upon federal paperwork! "

Merry Christmas!

from: 1.) Andy Williams and his song of telling "scary ghost stories"* too;

* "It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year-Andy Williams"
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2urlriwjcg&feature=related#)

http : // www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=L2urlriwjcg&feature=related
of 2:31 minutes  312,907 views @ :58 seconds + 1:44 minute
[that he sang again from the stage today by the parade; T.V. Channel 20 @ noon];

plus: 2.) speaking of horror stories, remember the 1990 murder of Lucien Fogg at his home in Franklin, N.H. by Carl Laurie?

I had visited Lucien before this as a fellow victim of Town Tax Sale corruption from Ashland when I read about his case in the newspapers...

...the latest newspaper account being from The "Concord Monitor" of last year: Friday, October 31st (Halloween) 2008 @ pages A1+6 telling about his escape from a State Prison detail and recapture.

He was scheduled for life without parole, but that because the Franklin C.O.P. was corrupt, he got 30 years 2nd** instead of 1st degree murder based upon this and what they now call "the Laurie Decision".

** "second degree murder means a person knowingly*** but not purposely****, committed the crime."

Or in other words what I call the Laurie Excuse as used by civil servants.  This excuse used by "them" when they are in the know*** as needing this:

The taming of the artful shrew, as opposed to science.

Thus do you want your local, county and state government agents to run on art or science?

It's currently running on art, that is against the law! The word science is of a discipline*****  of controlled behavior!

Thus the artist paints on his canvas beyond the margins, but that the public servant is supposed to be bound by his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office (see also 42:1 for the locals) to be withIN the bounds of THE law being THE constitution!

So case in point as an example of when I did meet with the Strafford County Commissioners.  They wanted to continue their "artful dodger" shenanigans, http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_701704359/artful_dodger.html (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_701704359/artful_dodger.html) "somebody good at avoidance: somebody skilled at avoiding difficult situations and having to answer questions *** [After a young pickpocket in Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens]".

Therefore it being a Charles Dickens time of year with not only "A Christmas Carol", but this "Oliver Twist" story too.

**** They, through their attorney, the Assistant County Attorney, REFUSE to either ADMIT or DENY my charges in the civil case against them in Superior Court.  They refuse to give an Articles 8 + 14 prompt accounting that there was negligence in this "2-step process" of visitation of first on the list and THEN any suspension, and the latter based upon faulty reasoning that a federal policy can over-ride our rights here as supposed to be a guarantee by Article 12 in our N.H. Bill of Rights!

My meeting with the Commissioners to formulate this purpose of a resolution being another definition for this "purpose" word.  A resolution being a formal statement of a decision put before or adopted by an assembly.  My resolution request and claim that they do honor their oaths by supporting Article 12 for ALL inhabitants, not just the free ones as per the Articles of Confederation of the several states, including New Hampshire that WAS (past tense) the operational guide book BEFORE the adoption of the United States Constitution of which they took an oath to obey BOTH these documents and not this metamorphosis middle ground of development to maturity like the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat; See  http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Theodore-Roosevelt/1/index.html (http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Theodore-Roosevelt/1/index.html)  for Teddy Roosevelt's actual words of: "Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much because they live in the grey twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat. "

***** discipline = "3. A state of order based upon submission to rules and authority."

As in a "Point of Order"! Haas to Federal Court (had I not been forcefully re-moved upon saying this, and that is: WHERE are your operating papers? Your 40USC255 to 40USC31212 federal papers of acceptance of our N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 offer of June 14, 1883 as from the "Consent" required in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution that even the U.S. Attorney KNOWS about by his Manual #664 and that U.S. Supreme Court Adams case of 1943.

See also: "4. Punishment intended to CORRECT or train" [ * ] (emphasis ADded, as training needed to be put upon "them", not us to be incarcerate behind walls withOUT any classes in a course to learn our deficiencies (as this the very definition of the word of to correct) as we have none!  The Feds' deficient in NOT supplying the paperwork! and'

5. "A set of rules or methods" as THE rule of Law!

"Happy New Year"! only to those who deserve it!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[ * ] Re: The N.H. Police Standards & Training [PS&T].... what a joke!

http://www.pstc.nh.gov/ (http://www.pstc.nh.gov/)

pc: Director Donald L. Vittum    dvittum ast pstc.state.nh.us  http://www.pstc.nh.gov/contact_us.htm (http://www.pstc.nh.gov/contact_us.htm)

1st Draft: Amendment to House/ Senate Bill #______ of 2010

Be it hereby added to this bill that because of deficiency in Article 12 protection of some (or even one) of our Article 12 inhabitants here by the Local, County and State Police that their share of 54.17% from the 24% penalty assessments in RSA Ch. 188-F:31 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xv/188-f/188-f-31.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xv/188-f/188-f-31.htm) be diverted to the "victims' assistance fund" making that amount now from 16.67% + 54.17% to now: 70.84%.

Here's a copy and paste:

"Attention: WHEN may I visit you next week??
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Fri 12/25/09 3:33 PM
To:    Donald C. Vittum (dvittum at pstc.state.nh.us); rstafford at pstc.state.nh.us; kroberts at pstc.state.nh.us; bjean at pstc.state.nh.us; mvarney at pstc.state.nh.us; jmulla at pstc.state.nh.us; mbodanza at pstc.state.nh.us; pmoller at pstc.state.nh.us; gtaylor at pstc.state.nh.us; jmoran at pstc.state.nh.us; eparent at pstc.state.nh.us; lames at pstc.state.nh.us; dbouvier at pstc.state.nh.us
Cc:    Concord Police Dept. (police at onconcord.com); Foster's Daily Democrat (letters at fosters.com); isb at dos.nh.gov; shilliard at merrimacksheriff.net; pcavanaugh at onconcord.com; Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us); Citizens Service - N.H. (Lynch) (officeofcitizenservi at nh.gov)
Bcc: ________________________________________
To:

Academy Schedules | Fitness Standards | Publications & Forms | Training Calendar |

Contact US
Email links:
Director Donald L. Vittum                              dvittum at pstc.state.nh.us
Captain Robert Stafford                                 rstafford at pstc.state.nh.us Captain Kimberly Roberts                              kroberts at pstc.state.nh.us
Captain Benjamin R Jean                               bjean at pstc.state.nh.us
Captain Mark Varney                                     mvarney at pstc.state.nh.us
Lt. Jim Mulla                                                jmulla at pstc.state.nh.us
Lt. Mark Bodanza                                          mbodanza at pstc.state.nh.us
Lt. Paul Moller                                              pmoller at pstc.state.nh.us
Lt. Gerry Taylor                                            gtaylor at pstc.state.nh.us
Lt. Jill Moran                                                jmoran at pstc.state.nh.us


Full-time Officer Training Registrar                 eparent at pstc.state.nh.us
Part-time Officer Training Registrar                lames at pstc.state.nh.us
In-service Officer Training Registrar               dbouvier at pstc.state.nh.us

MERRY CHRISTMAS! to those of you here deserving such, to the others, may you have received or to receive those lumps of coal in your stockings.

Here is (a copy and paste tried) of Reply #9320 (my Reply #2452) on page 626 over at:

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9375 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9375)

Notice the last section of the [ * ] or Electronic Star is what I'd like for you to focus on today, tomorrow and into next week and next year.  Would you please tell me what House +/or Senate Bills you intend to attend, as I'd like to put this Amendment into there UNTIL you do your job!  A test of your job responsibility to see to it that Article 12 "inhabitant" Ed Brown is not further "control"led by the Feds to be conducted AT your location of training and in the field to where they go to the local Concord Police Station, Sheriff's new Office in Boscawen, and at both State Police Headquarters AND that sub-station for Troop __ out by I-89 at the intersection of Iron Works Road and Clinton Street in Concord, N.H. to be conducted next week.  For reference purposes see the paperwork already dropped off this past Wed., Dec. 23rd at the Concord P.D.

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P. O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603L: 848-6059, e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com "

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091226/FRONTPAGE/912260342&template=single (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091226/FRONTPAGE/912260342&template=single)

entitled: "Time to give Hildreth THE boot!"

of: "jim, re your: "Who was the person that made the decision to just ignore all of these things? Looks like the investigators did their part and then the ball got dropped."

The problem with state AND county government is when the higher-ups give the investigators these decision-making powers, on a delegation-down order that they deal with it so that the "head" of agency can go golfing.  Of the "Do Not Disturb" sign on the door knob to his office. He's not there anyway, but out on the golf course.

I ran into this policy also at the County Attorney's Office when St. Hillaire was there.  His investigator would find RSA Ch. 643:1Official Corruption at the local level, but that because they "take care of their own" there was no actual decision by the "head" since the arm refused to mark with pencil or pen either of ANY decision BELIEVE IT OR NOT! of a continual delay of to Never-Never Land of the pen or pencil never making it to the paper.

Case in point of another case with the County Attorney too for what "DANIEL BARRICK", of the "Monitor Staff" wrote about of: "Citing violations of state and FEDERAL law, a department lawyer wrote that the company, Financial Resources Mortgage, and its president, Scott Farah, 'have illustrated a willingness to forgo the laws and rules of the State of New Hampshire whenever they see fit.'"

WHY did he conclude to forego as in to pre-cede*, as in to come before in time, place, or rank, as it relates to the U.S. Codes or Statutes At Large?  Because the State has yet to "cede"* state lands to the Feds by N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 down from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution because our conditional "Consent" or offer of property tax exemption to them by 123:2 was for their land, but not their buildings.  They have yet to file their 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112 federal papers with Bill Gardner's New Hampshire Office of Secretary of State to accept our offer.  So WHY should these company C.E.O.'s give up their Article 12 inhabitant rights when the Feds have YET to fulfill their part of the contract!?

And SouthEnd Kid, "Sounds like the governor needs to make some changes." but that Hildreth was just re-appointed last year I think it was and so him in there until Year 201_.  BEFORE the re-appointment I met with the governor in the State House with former State Rep. Dick Marple of Hooksett, and when I said to the governor that he ought to appoint Dick to the job of Banking Commissioner, the governor replied back that: "he's got it".  Whatever that meant, as what!? He's got "it" = after Hildreth is fired? as given one more chance, like Hildreth's subordinates give to these company exec's?

WHEN is the next meeting of all Commission heads over at the Chief Office of the governor as the captain of this ship of state?  He ought to do like what Benson did and not give Hildreth a chair to sit in, and go one step further by a symbolic pair of boots, as in to eventually give him THE boot if he doesn't quit! "

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/112177/98056 (http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/112177/98056)

entitled: "Let the Revolution begin! "

of: "So right you are Damkeeper, of not to "rebel" (as in "To resist (or with STAND)or defy ANY authority" - - emphasis ADDed) but to "revolt" (as in "roll back" or re-volve, as in "To ORBIT a central point". - - emphasis ADDed) This is what Joshua did to the Walls of Jericho.  He did orbit them seven times and then blew the trumpet. We are to be like the atomic electrons to the nucleus. http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/3-atoms.htm (http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/3-atoms.htm) See the definition below:

"Atoms are made up of 3 types of particles electrons , protons  and neutrons .  These particles have different properties.  Electrons are tiny, very light particles that have a negative electrical charge (-). Protons are much larger and heavier than electrons and have the opposite charge, protons have a positive charge.  Neutrons are large and heavy like protons, however neutrons have no electrical charge.  Each atom is made up of a combination of these particles."

Thus OUR public servants are "charged" by US to do their job, and when they don't do it, what do we do?  Keep them in there anyway, supplying them with a piece of our pay every other Friday!?  Heck no! That should NOT be the case!  They ought to be fired! HALT the paychecks.  Conduct an audit, and have it certified that either they are in compliance with the law, or not!  And when the latter, give this certificate of non-performance of duty to the State Treasurer to cut them a check anyway!?  Of course not!  To cut them off!

Unfortunately the State Personnel Board in the basement of the State House Annex is only open to those withIN the center of that in that only state officials/officers or employees can complain against each other.  Us in the path or orbit out-side the system have only one door in which to enter to complain by statute, and that is by the door to the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims.  I've tried that, and it doesn't work either.  Check it out: my Oct. 15, 2008 complaint against the governor, not filed until a delay to 2009-013 for his Article 51 failure to enforce the laws by the shall word in RSA 123:1 to send a written invitation to the Feds to comply with the law, having fallen on deaf ears, of which he SHALL be Article 41 be responsible for, but when? In a Article 14 non- "prompt" manner on ______ __, 2010?

But by the Constitution of New Hampshire, and Article 10 in particular, in addition to the legal or statutory we also have the lawful right to either: (1) re-form the old, or (2) establish a new government.  This is to be done when the ends of gov't are perverted as in corrupt in that there is no redress of grievance, for BOTH the procedural and substantive, and when the danger, harm or evil manifests its head in the public realm, supposed to stop there before it penetrates onto private soil.  So have ANY of our local, county or state officials been given this evidence of proof of federal non filing?  YES - What are they doing about it harming others?  Nothing! Has their non-performance of duty harmed anybody yet?  Of course! So to sue that agency head in the Board to let it sit there too, or pound some sense into these agency heads?  Let them have a piece of our mind!  Static electricity from us like lightening bolts from the sky! Like a boss telling the employee to get to work! And what do "they" do? Charge you with dis-orderly conduct! A dis-order to them out-of-order. Contempt of court?  Yes when that court is in contempt of the constitution. Same with the executive branch.  "These people" in contempt of us, and ought to be sent away somewhere for that up to 10 days by Articles 22+23 of the N.H. Constitution, Part the Second. Kidnap them?  No. Paddy wagon them? Yes! It's called a citizen's arrest! No RSA Ch. 627:8 criminal intent when force is used against even police officials to retake life, liberty or property of yourself and/or those who you freely associate with as a guarantee by the First Amendment and case law in my Grafton County case, but watch out for to prevent."

Mod: R.S.A. Ch. 627:8
"TITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 627
JUSTIFICATION
Section 627:8
    627:8 Use of Force in Property Offenses. – A person is justified in using force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what is or reasonably appears to be an unlawful taking of his property, or criminal mischief, or to retake his property immediately following its taking; but he may use deadly force under such circumstances only in defense of a person as prescribed in RSA 627:4.

Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973."

Sorry: only property has this right, not to retrieve a stolen person, or their liberty. Except by Article 10. Beyond the statutory to the lawful.

The Bottom Line.

In N.H. it's lawful to re-take the prisoner unlawfully taken to begin with!

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091227/OPINION/912270336&template=single (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091227/OPINION/912270336&template=single)

entitled: ""Our Bill" Gardner, SS: more than just a State "election czar". "

of: "Katy, as Brian Williams on The NBC Nightly News and SNL says all the time...Thanks.

Plus "thank you" too to the youtube folks over at  YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM#) for the 6:20 minute video entitled: "New Hampshire Primary - Sham Chain of Custody" seen 178,038 times so far. It's about the official seal.  http: // www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM

Plus speaking of seals and also the Ed Brown anti-I.R.S. case, see also Bill Gardner's official gold seal on that document of federal non-filing to N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 * that he signed over to me way back on September 10th, 2001 at the beginning of this decade, for the Andy Tempelman anti-I.R.S. case in Milford, N.H. for his "Ram in The Thicket" Restaurant that he and his wife plus son did own and operate, and which evidence was attempted to be placed with an Exhibit # to the trial jury to weigh in as a part of to determine their verdict in Ed's case but was refused by that Maine judge assigned to the case by McAuliffe.  A Maine judge, of this Article III "inferior court" of Congress, who did violate the law of 18USC3232 in holding hearings OUTside the supposed jurisdiction of where the crime, as charged, occurred! And when one the Confirmers of this judge was notified of this, to wit: U.S. Senator Judd Gregg in the Senate, he turned a deaf ear, and those in the House of Hodes and Shea-Porter did likewise turn themselves into the no see ems of the deaf, blind, and no-speak monkeys. There was to be no impeachment on their watch.

The corruption continues to this day thanks to no investigative reporting by THIS newspaper that I find disgusting! The truth of this seal within the appeal of what you call the "really scary supporters" to Boston for the First Circuit.  Reference Appeal point Number 12.

So what happens to be the closed eyes decade of the '00 will turn into the open eyes decade of the 2010s. See RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims Case #2009-013 of October 15, 2008 filing to be decided on ______ __, 2010. And "they" call that Article 14 "prompt"!? http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)
________________________________________________

* footnote:   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm)    And  See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html) see also: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.h... (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.h...) and http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03... (http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03...) ** plus the original http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575) for 40USC255.

** "'In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial.' Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)." "

Kat: WHAT are you doing to us!?  This new system here is lousy!

1.) It leaves a blank space whenever a youtube URL is typed into a Reply; and

2.) You've taken us into the SAME format that The CONCORD MONITOR uses! of leaving OFF the last part of the URL.*

* Lucky for us, that the Archives didn't change, as retrospective  8) , because I did find the COMPLETE URL with the endings of either htm or html etc. at page 6 here, and so transferred this over to finish my reply with this correction to today's Reply of mine to that Katy Burns story about this "Whew! What a decade!" with mention of both Ed & Elaine.

Here's my latest to over there:

entitled: "Government Cover-Up!"

of: "If you did try to access the United States Attorney Manual #664 at the link in my footnote, you got to that error page, not because of a typo, as I did copy and paste that from a link that did work (past tense) and that it has now dis-appeared, but that thanks to Peabody & Sherman over at the Wayback Machine*, http://web.archive.org/web/ (http://web.archive.org/web/)*/http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm for the complete URL of 664 dot htm it is there at: http://web.archive.org/web/20070807213619/http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20070807213619/http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm)

* The main page is: http://www.archive.org/index.php (http://www.archive.org/index.php)

Plus "they" also "did-away" with Bob Schulz' web page too that cites that Adams case of 1943 at the United States Supreme Court.  [That I did quote therefrom in footnote ** below.] Talk about getting rid of case-law that supports the opposition! The complete URL in that case ends with  9-16-03.htm and so over to http://web.archive.org/web/ (http://web.archive.org/web/)*/http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm click on the blue highlighted Dec. 04, 2007 gets you to: http://web.archive.org/web/20071204173456/http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20071204173456/http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm) "

- - Joe

RE:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091227/OPINION/912270301 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091227/OPINION/912270301)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/112278/98293 (http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/112278/98293)

entitled: "What would John Adams do? to your narrow definition of counsel."

of: "Thank you D.H. and C14A.

The quote excerpt over at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnadams124794.html (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnadams124794.html) [also having therein: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." then why deviate from the sevenfold formula in Proverbs 6:30-31 of for instead of the thief to repay 7 x the $amount stolen, with beyond the cut off of his hand in some countries to that of a hanging? Adams seems in a way a hypocrite to that degree.)

But that I like that more complete quote that includes for a "good and GENERAL education" (emphasis ADDed), as in what former N.H. Supreme Court Judge Wm. R. Johnson of Hanover did write in that Epsom case-law of to subsidize only the poor people below the poverty line. Him writing what was already spelled out, but giving no credits to either his predecessors in 55NH503@505 (1875) for the Brentwood School District case, and then taken up by Rose & Milton Friedman in Chapter 5 of their best-selling book: "Free to Choose" that became a great PBS-TV miniseries in the early 1980s.

Such implementation of a pay for representation of your child in school when you are NOT in the subsidization class would provide plenty of $remainder funds for "general" protection of other needful building plans like in that report by Matthew Spolar of The Monitor staff today at http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091228/FRONTPAGE/912280301 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091228/FRONTPAGE/912280301) of Giilmanton wanting $500,000 more (in the form of bonds) for their fire and police departments.

Plus Attorney "JONATHAN P. BAIRD" of "For the Monitor:" and "from Wilmot": you mention it twice in your story: first in paragraph #3 of "the right to counsel" and then in your last paragraph, but I suspect you mean the right to representation by counsel, right?  What say ye of this right as supposed to be a guarantee by the 6th Amendment for when counsel be NOT of the "Bar Association"? or are you one of these "lawyers" so-called who micro define the word counsel to ONLY include those from withIN your own club!? When in jail did anybody other than an attorney want to visit ANY of these detainees, and if so, was there some mutual contract that was violated? I dare you to find out the answer to this question, because that same B.S. is being played out here in N.H. where the Feds tell us Article 12 "inhabitants" of N.H. that we must play by federal policy over-ride to include ONLY members of the Bar in this category of not representation but counsel, as the word is defined in the singular AND plural, but that the Feds ORDER the County to go by the plural only! Look it up, I double dare you.  It says it right there of the word counsel in the plural means: "A lawyer or group of lawyers" so I suspect the "A" lawyer means of him or her AND their being a PART of The System. So what about the exchange of opinions and ideas as in a discussion while in jail with numerous non-attorney counsels?  WHY is that forbidden!? Re: "Advise or guidance", and "A deliberate resolution; plan." I await your reply please to this. And are you interested in joining my lawsuit, like to file a Memorandum of Law on this, in my Superior Court case against the Board of Strafford County Commissioners in Dover?

Too bad that this "Even 9/11 suspects deserve a fair trial" has just been erased this morning from the front page of the electronic version of this newspaper. Now buried in the Archives."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Modification/ Amendment with this at: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091227/OPINION/912270301#comment-98353 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091227/OPINION/912270301#comment-98353)

Mission Accomplished.

Both #10 envelopes with the contents were mailed by me to the court and Assistant County Attorney by dropping them in the mail slot at the Post Office at 3:57 p.m. this afternoon.

Here's a copy and paste:

To: The State of New Hampshire
Strafford County Superior Court
P. O. Box 799
Dover, N.H. 03821-0799
(603) 742-3065

RE: Joseph S. Haas v. Board of Strafford County Commissioners
Docket No. 219-2009-cv-614

OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT BOARD'S 12/18 MOTION TO DISMISS.


NOW COMES the Plaintiff Haas with this OBJECTION as indicated in my prior MOTION of 12/23 and reports as follows:

1.) That last Tuesday morning I did call the Jail about this 2-step process as indicated in my "Do you ADMIT this is: A 2-step process?" that was mailed to

the Superintendent Warren Dowaliby that afternoon, pointing out his duty to answer by giving an Articles 8 + 14 prompt accounting; (copy attached*); +

2.) That on Wednesday afternoon at about 3:00 o'clock p.m. I did receive a telephone call from the Assistant Superintendent / Captain Sidney Bird, who

told me that they were working on getting me an answer; +

3.) That I've waited until today: five (5) days later, but with no answer in writing having YET to be received, (due to the 12/24 + 25 Christmas Eve and Friday

Christmas Day holidays, plus the weekend), and so:



NOW THEREFORE to please DENY this MOTION TO DISMISS because of these two factors of there being negligence on the part of the employees, and

with not only a KNOWing on the part of the Commissioners, but beyond that to a culpable mental state of mind to that of  PURPOSELY to violate the

Constitution, to wit: Article 12, last sentence, and so like in The Laurie Decision, this in-effect a Laurie excuse used by them that should NOT be!

Notice: Should the Court NOT be able to decide to DENY this MOTION TO DISMISS based upon this and the attached, I'd like the opportunity to present

more documentation in the form of their Answer, if any, AND my Memorandum of Law to this at a subsequent hearing.  The Memo to consist in the

papers returned to me from the Court, plus my latest Request to the Safety Commissioner to please set up an Executive Hearing on this matter later

this week, or the next for action on and/or before January 11th, 2010.

Yours truly,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Joseph S. Haas                                                                                             
P. O. Box 3842                                       
Concord, N.H. 03302                                                                                     
603: 848-6059 

pc: Stephen G. LaBonte, Assistant County Attorney
N.H. Bar #16178 (with proof that he FAILED to cross out the "or" word  for "So Help (me) God" or "under the pains and penalty of perjury]** (RSA Ch. 311:6)
P. O. Box 799
Dover, N.H. 03821

CERTIFICATION: I do hereby certify that a copy of this OBJECTION along with both photocopies * + ** were mailed to Attny. LaBonte today,
Monday, December 28th, 2009 @ 32-degrees F and snowing since about 1:00 p.m."

Here's a copy and paste from my double-spaced printout, to mail out today:

"To: The State Board of Claims
c/o Secretary of State
State House, Room 204
Concord, N.H. 03301

MOTION FOR REHEARING & RECONSIDERATION WITH AMENDMENT EN BANC ONTO A HEARING ON THE MERITS WITH EVIDENCE.


--NOW COMES the Complainant Haas and states that your 2-page ORDER of last Wed., Dec. 23rd of and from the Chairman to the Motion to Dismiss AFTER a

hearing held on Friday, September 11th was received by me only yesterday, Wednesday December 30th BELIEVE IT OR NOT! - me having retrieved ALL my mail from my

mailbox on Mon., Dec. 28th, with yellow card that might have indicated it for Tue., Dec. 29th, and so I do reply withIN the ten (10) days by Rule #___ BEFORE that 10th

day of tomorrow, January 1st, 2010.


--You indicate in the ORDER that "AFTER a hearing on the motion to dismiss held on September 11, 2009, the Board voted 2-1 to dismiss the claim" (emphasis ADDed),

and so I ask you WHEN and WHERE did this event occur? Is there a recording of this discussion?  If so, may I have a copy of it?  to supplement this latest objection


--I thought that I had already mentioned either in writing or verbally at this hearing that there had been "lost wages", and so do mention this now, AND hereby alert you by 

Rule #___ to include such evidence for you to base your decision upon, AND Article 8 ORDER that my public servant, Assistant Attorney General here please bring her file

on this from her office, as I did claim "lost wages" for being locked up past the start of my 5-hour -work shift that night as a part-time janitor to secure the door at 6:00 p.m.

being part of my official duties in my job description at this office building.  The incident as summarized here is that I was arrested on a bench warrant out of The Claremont

District Court, based upon a complaint thereto by former State Rep. Terry Dudley of Lebanon who said that I did threaten her in an e-mail after seeing her as

a Council-woman at the Lebanon City Council on June 6, 2007 of to "Wise up or Die".  The arrest was by the Plainfield Police in their parking lot against me on my way

to a Plainfield Selectman's Meeting that night to tell them that by the evidence of federal non-filing of their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers to our N.H. Secretary of State

as required by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution, AND because Ed & Elaine Brown had paid their property taxes, that they either:

Article 12 protect them as "inhabitants" from these U.S. Codes or return to them the $money paid. Because of my arrest this was not said by me, but by my friend Bernie

Bastion of Weare as seen on the youtube video: just type in "Ed Brown" "Joe Haas" at GOOGLE takes you right to it. Thus as an Art. 28-a political sub-division of the

State, this Town and City did steal my rights of free speech that are supposed to be a guarantee by both the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Article 22

of the N.H. Constitution, in additional to freedom of association too as to the former, with more about another battle in this war to add as an amendment below.


--So my time in trying to get the governor to send a written invitation to the feds (and in particular that 40USC3112 "head" of "agency" being now Mr. Leeds of the G.S.A./

General Administration Service) by having some town and/or county official second my claim, as I have also had a meeting with two Boards of County Commissioners in

both Sullivan and Strafford, (yet to deal with those on the Board in either Grafton +/or Merrimack) , has been stolen from me by being handcuffed and placed in lock-up

at both the Plainfield and Lebanon Police Departments.  An event that could have been prevented had the governor done his Article 51 duty of to enforce all legislative

mandates, for which he "shall" be Art. 41 "responsible for" per the N.H. Constitution, Part Second.  So it is NOT "for the actions of the governor" as you wrote about in

paragraph #3 of your ORDER, but for his in-actions! and NOT in the "political" arena as you also wrote about in paragraph #4 of 6, because once elected he is supposed

to work for ALL of us Republicans and Decocrats plus others.


--I do thank you for your "Finally" excuse of there being no  "personal duty" owed withIN the statute of RSA 123:1, but that this is not only a claim of  the governor having

only a legal violation, but a violation of the law, to wit: Article 51 as indicated.  And like RSA Ch. 3-E:1 for the flag of the United States of America of the red white and

blue to be THE colors, but withOUT any Enforcement clause therein (like none in the 16th Amendment either!) then to maybe see some State Reps to see if they'd like

to file such a bill in Fall 2010 for the 2011 Legislative session.


--Now here is the Amendment of this going by more than just what you call my "elect"ion to "volunt"eer my time in this Article 10 revolution, saying that I "caused" my

time to be expended, when the real words should have been of my re-action to the in-action of the governor, not that he "caused" it, but that he chose NOT to do his job!

As a result of his in-action I again chose NOT to attend any of the hearings over there at the federal building on Pleasant Street in the case against the three co-

conspiritors, of which I would have liked to have attended, but because of them the Feds there withOUT their operating papers, it was like: would you choose to ride with

a chauffeur who had never driven a car before? like never to have taken driver's ed and gotten his certificate!? Thus my rights of freedom of association by the 1st

Amendment to attend a Sixth Amendment "Public" trial have been stolen too, because I, as a member of the public, insist that I only attend lawful public trials by those

who have complied with the law, and since the Feds were never given this invitation by the governor, his in-action has pre-vented me from exercising my rights!  This

was put into another Claim and given over to your secretary Melissa who returned it to me since it lacked a cover-sheet, and so instead of filing a new claim, I do hereby

seek to Amend this one, as battle #___ in this ongoing war.


WHEREFORE to please proceed onto a re-hearing on the motion, to deny said motion to dismiss, and finally over to a hearing on the merits.

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059, JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

pc: Danielle Pacik, Civil Bureau, Attorney General's Office, 33 Capitol Street, Concord, N.H. 03302          [ Thursday, December 31st, 2009 ]


P.S. The Chairman, Mark E. Howard, is an attorney appointed to this job by the N.H. Supreme Court.  I thought that I had also made a motion to disqualify him too.  But if

not the case then please accept this as a dual-motion of such, because of the Dan Riley 2007-0745 case there of when the Feds did intervene to "pull" the case to the

Feds by the U.S. Code for "Removal", when such can only be done by the Defendant who has to "push" it to there.  Thus the N.H. Supreme Court judges are thieves for

taking our tax money and not protecting us either, and that their decision by appointing this Chairman, if not dis-qualified is at least tainted! and so with this alone, to

please proceed onto a hearing on the merits with evidence beyond these mere opinions. "
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mod: Envelopes just mailed; with copy to Ed too.

BTW the ORDER of 12/23 was postmarked 12/22 (the day "before".)

Update: I did just call the Concord City Hall, at 2:27 p.m. looking for Paul Cavanaugh whose receptionist said that he is out until Monday, and that she does not know whether he sent a memo by paper or e-mail to the City Managers about an amendment to the oaths to have them "corrected", and so when I did call Aspell's office, she picked up that phone too, and said that on the "receiving" end, that she would have her boss call me back, as currently in a meeting, and I gave her my telephone # but would prefer something in writing by e-mail, and so a copy of this by transfer to my e-mail to send to him hoping to say that what was put into the grinder on Tuesday will be churned and THE amendment signed and stapled to the old oaths on Monday morning so that the C.O.P. can THEN do his job by THE law, or what? Me to do a citizen's arrest against these federal goons when I block their car trying to get into the driveway with Ed?  If it takes that "just as soon" action for them of the Concord P.D. as backup on the ass end, then so be it!

- - Joe Haas

P.S. I did meet with Director Vitum with three of his associates (including Officer Bonanza who teaches the Constitution to the cadets) at his conference room on Tuesday last at about from 2:30 to 3:00 p.m. and found out that the cadets have already been hired by each police department, like on an on-the-job training of their oaths pre-scribed BEFORE they get to the Academy, and so my request of for them to buck the system BEFORE they sign some crummy oath like they do in Concord to be not ahead of time, but to be told of what IS the law by 92:2 and then "correct" itr!  Not to put somebody in jail to be "corrected" because somebody in law-enforcement so-called was illegal.*

* Sort of like what I heard on today's GUNSMOKE Season 19, Episode 11 entitled "The Hanging of Newly O'Brien" (26 Nov. 1973) re-broadcast at from 1-2:00 o'clock p.m. on TV Land Cable Channel 63 here of what Doc said about the redneck hillbillies that of those who hold these certain beliefs, that it's hard to change them overnight.  And so the reason for them here to hopefully be changed in BEFORE a fortnight here to Monday, January 11th from my first e-mail sent out on this this past Monday, December 28th.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0594449/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0594449/)  [ The "citizen's arrest" idea from watching BONANZA, "The Clarion" episode again, right now, where Lorne Greene, as Ben Cartwright arrests the two thugs and gun-points them in the direction of the Sheriff and then the judge in that order, and so the same here of to Scott Hilliard to hold for the state judge to hear my charge against them for kidnapping, set $bail, and if not then hold them over for an indictment by the Merrimack County Grand Jury for trial sometime next Spring = withIN four (4) months for a speedy trial.]

"RE: [Thanks again] (Progress Report #1 requested) Attention: WHEN may I visit you next week??
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Tue 12/29/09 9:45 AM
To:    donald.vittum at vzw.blackberry.net
Cc:    Concord Police Dept. (police at onconcord.com); Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us); pcavanaugh at onconcord.com; Dick Marple (armlaw at hotmail.com); shilliard at merrimacksheriff.net; isb at dos.nh.gov; Foster's Daily Democrat (letters at fosters.com)

Thanks again Director Vittum,

I've invited my friend, and former N.H. State Trooper Dick Marple of Hooksett to join us around that time if he can make it, as also a Retired State Rep., and me too of having been a Private Detective #1199 of 1976 (licensed by the State Police re: Col. Paul Doyan, for only $10 fee + $25 bond = $35 got you in the business with $5000 in the bank) fresh out of UNH/ Durham back then as a locator of Missing Heirs from Bob Flanders' State Treasury.

Plus at about 8:00 a.m. earlier this morning I did also invite Chief Robert Barry (225-8600) to join us too.  He said he's busy, and to re-contact the City Solicitor Paul Cavanaugh (225-8505) to send a legal Memo to the City Manager Thomas Aspell (225-8570) to Amend the form of decades ago to support the federal statutes as a deviation from what is supposed to be the law of the oath forms of from the wording in RSA Ch. 92:2, 42:1 + (105 Police forms), that all officials subscribe to. And so I left a message for Paul on his voice mail, to pick up at 9:30 a.m. today to contact Manager Aspell tomorrow since he is out for the day.

THEN I might be able to get my request to be fulfilled of law enforcement of rights for the inhabitants here of Article 12 from being pounced upon by these federal trespassers who have FAILed to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 operating papers with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State per RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution.  In the meantime the Chief saying that he'd "just as soon" not do as I request of to form a roadblock at the entrance to the federal driveway over there on Monday morning January 11th before victim Ed Brown is scheduled inside for sentencing @ 8:00 a.m.

This just "as soon" as phrase over at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/just+as+soonfor: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/just+as+soonfor:) Idioms & Phrases, defined as:

"Also, as soon. Rather, more readily; also, equally. For example, I'd just as soon you took care of it, or I would as soon recover before I go and baby-sit, or I'd as soon have the lamb as the beef. [Late 1500s]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
Copyright © 1997. Published by Houghton Mifflin."

So for me to take care of it, being to what? have a few people with cement cinder blocks with sticks to signs walking the sidewalk and slow saying Article 12 Enforcement Officers? I'd rather have the COPs there doing this job that I've paid them to do by my employer paying his Concord property taxes for our benefit.

In the meantime, to prevent this from happening in the future, of these oaths in non-compliance with the statute and law of New Hampshire, would you, Mr. Director please issue some written Memo to the current Instructor who teaches the Constitution to the Cadets (from who it used to be Lincoln Soldati, from over at the Strafford County Attorney's office in Dover who I asked back then of decades ago now, of what his course materials were, and he replied to me of just off the top of his head). The memo to read of that IF any of them do encounter such counter-oaths in the field, that they do not lie down in the field and take such, but "correct" them and sign what the law requires.

Thank you, -- Joe Haas

cc:  Chief Barry, Secretary of State Bill Gardner, Paul Cavanaugh, plus Dick Marple.

also: if the City won't help with this Monday 1/11 executive check and balance, then please for the County +/or State Police to get involved.

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091231/NEWS01/912310323 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091231/NEWS01/912310323)

entitled: "A staff infection here, big time!"

of: "The only federal "thing" that Ed will be "fac"ing that Sunday night or early Monday morning will be an Article 10 citizen's roadblock of the car he travels in to be impounded with its agents all under citizen's arrest if they don't immediately release him as a N.H. Article 12 "inhabitant" not "controllable" by them because they have failed to comply with the law as outlaws!"

You can read the details at the top of page 627 over at   http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9390 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9390) "

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091231/OPINION/912310325 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091231/OPINION/912310325)

entitled: "Take your "Wishing Well" elsewhere!"

of: ""K. Jeff Fladen", for "The Jewish Federation of New Hampshire" in "Manchester" merely "wishes" an expression!?  Oh how nice. Why don't you go beyond your compliments of to the readers and writers here and congratulate those who do actually  "remain vigilant against hate"? Because your related group of The World Jewish Conference is a bunch of hogwash!

Case in point of my e-mail to esimmoms at wjcfoundation dot org back on Wed 10/29/08 3:08 PM complaining that one of their Parlimentarian members is a liar! Federal Rep. Paul Hodes of Concord who told his Office Manager Jane Pauley to tell me a lie: THE lie from Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch that some local Federal court Rule 72.5 over-rides Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 3232 in that defendants in a federal case CAN be shipped out of state beyond the jurisdictional "district" of where the alleged crime occurred.  What a liar! 3232 prohibits such without their consent, and the U.S. Attorney KNOWS it! When told that this was a 'civil" rule being mis-applied in a "criminal" case within one of his Article III, Section 1 inferior courts of Congress and that he better tell his appointee to wise up, or else face impeachment, he did what?  Nothing!  And you expect me to respect your liars club!?  You have got to be kidding me!

cc:    jfeinberg at ledger.com
FW: [shofar] Oaths of Office (Federal)
To Jody Feinberg of The "Patriot Ledger" re: your fine story about the shofar on pages 46+7 of the Sat/Sun., Sept. 27-28 '08 edition of a month ago, was about the time I was told the World Jewish Conference man would return to deal with this violation of their Mission Statement to obey the Rule of Law, one of their Parlimentarian members, my Fed. Rep. Attorney Paul Hodes of Concord, N.H.  ...Maybe your newspaper might like to investigate this phoney person and what I've realized is a corrupt organization with big talk of oversite but what they say and do are two different things making them hypocrites.  You'd think that they would wise up or be told to wise up by one of their own! Yours truly, - Joe P.S. For this Hodes character, see the P.S. in the forwarded message attached. cc: again to my Executive Councilors to see to it that they advise/counsel the governor to do his job!" to enforce all legislative mandates by the "shall" word in Article 51, to RSA 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, that he "shall" be Article 41 "responsible for" since the Feds have FAILed to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State.

In closing I go One Step Beyond the mere wishing to that of praying for understanding AND doing something about it: an understanding of the law and to be a law-maker, not have this rotten apple of a law-breaker within our midst. "

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100101/FRONTPAGE/1010311&template=single (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100101/FRONTPAGE/1010311&template=single)

entitled: "Fire the Court Clerk here, he's no good. "

of: "Congratulations Richard McNamara.  I used that form you had in your "N.H. Practice: Criminal Practice & Procedure" book to "Get out of Jail" once on a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in Grafton County Superior Court where Judge Rbt. E.K. Morrill did over-ride  the Plymouth District Court judge Edwin W. Kelly., my tenant's attorney.  This involved the Town of Ashland and its practice of during a Town Tax Sale, using Plank #1 of the Communist Manifesto of Application of all rents to public purposes BEFORE I had my day in court that I eventually won a quitclaim deed with stipulation to docket markings, but that the Supremes did "switch" the parties AGAINST case law, on a lawsuit for the $overage they did TAKE over the tax that I call STEAL!  that the Legislature did amend for others in the future. Check it out: those thieves deserving impeachment or to have their pay or retirements attached, especially their widows who did no actual service to the state and so against Article 36, but that the State Audit Dept. refuses to certify. So so much for that SAYing of that we do better than Russia, because what our government SAYS and DOES are two different things! Hypocrites!

And thank you AnnMarie for reminding us in your paragraph #1 that: "defendants have a constitutional right to a speedy trial. " that by N.H. Rule is supposed to be withIN four (4) months.  Too bad that your newspaper editors did a "cover-up" of this fact in the Gus Breton case reporting of when the judge in the case: Jim Duggan down from the Supremes said in Merrimack County Superior Court one day that this case was ALMOST 4 months old and that they better get cracking, and I retorted from the peanut gallery that he had better check his math as it is OVER 4 months.  So much for "justice" from a judge who purposely goes blind to the truth! and his Clerk there of Bill McGraw who by Rule is supposed to red-flag them when approaching the limit and doesn't!  Heck, he doesn't even honor his own RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to Article 12 and allows the Feds to use a U.S. Code "controllable" over us when he KNOWS that they have FAILed to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution that he replaces with the "may" word.  So much for the judicial "system" of including this bad apple in the bunch, and our Chief Executive Officer and his cronies of Five who likewise refuses to Art. 51 enforce all legislative mandates that he is Art. 41 responsible for.

So Richard: you ought to fire McGraw and get a new Court Clerk."

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100101/NEWS01/1010320 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100101/NEWS01/1010320)

entitled: "Consent to Federal law if YOU want, but don't have to YET."

of: "Questions:" What "federal law"? As in a U.S. Code or Statute at Large. 

Has N.H. ever consented* to federal law?

* re: Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.

Answer: No, See N.H. Article 12: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)

"Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent."

On June 14, 1883 we gave conditional consent, or an offer to the Feds, in RSA Ch. 123:1, see also http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm) put together by Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft of Hunstville, Alabama for HOW each state makes the Feds comply (BTW to the governor's office in Florida, in non-compliance), and here in N.H. by requiring by the "shall" word in the statute http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm) to have to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal papers with our Office of Secretary of State that they have YET to do, BELIEVE IT OR NOT!"

Hey Joe, Happy New Year!
You're making some noise my friend, got them at quatloos in a rise.
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5238 (http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5238)

Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on January 01, 2010, 03:20 PM NHFT
Hey Joe, Happy New Year!
You're making some noise my friend, got them at quatloos in a rise.
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5238 (http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5238)

Thanks Donna.

Re:

1.) "Don't they have public nuisance statutes? 8) " from "Judge Roy Bean on Fri Jan 01, 2010 7:16 pm " and;

2.) "18 USC § 751. Instigating or assisting escape." http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/751.html (http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/751.html) ...

...Oh, I'm "shivering in my boots!"  ;)

Nice try "fortinbras on Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:38 pm"  but this is a federal statute NOT applicable even to Ed as  a "Whoever escapes or attempts to escape" in both parts (a) + (b) here.  If this is the best you can do, I suggest you get back to the drawing board, or better yet: inform the Feds of THE law and for them to  be the "law enforcement" officers they are supposed to be: "pursuant to lawful arrest" that was never done in Ed's case, as Monier's oath was and still is (he has not been replaced yet, right?) as the U.S. Marshal, of only to execute lawful precepts from the court!

Happy New Year! -- Joe

Update:

"FW: Manager's Copy. [Thanks again] (Progress Report #1 requested) Attention: WHEN may I visit you next week??
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail dot com)
Sent:    Thu 12/31/09 3:12 PM
To:    citymanager at onconcord dot com
Cc:    Concord Police Dept. (police at onconcord dot com)

Please get back to me on what you plan to do about correcting YOUR problem. The sooner this is done for the City Police Chief, then he will have no excuse not to be the executive check-and-balance against these federal agents operating above and outside the law!

From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: donald.vittum at vzw.blackberry.net
CC: police at onconcord.com; elections at sos.state.nh.us; pcavanaugh at onconcord.com; armlaw at hotmail.com; shilliard at merrimacksheriff.net; isb at dos.nh.gov; letters at fosters.com

Subject: RE: [Thanks again] (Progress Report #1 requested) Attention: WHEN may I visit you next week?
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:02:57 -0500

Here's a copy and paste of Reply #9390 on page 627 (my actual post #2462) of which I'd like for all of you to deal with so that I do not have to do what it says:

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9390 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9390)

"    ...

Update: I did just call the Concord City Hall, at 2:27 p.m. looking for Paul Cavanaugh whose receptionist said that he is out until Monday, ...."

Ed: It's not the "Illuminati", it's these Romans 1:27 "men" who do break their RSA oaths:

Here's a copy and paste:

Re:  http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/112955/99233 (http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/112955/99233)

entitled: ""These people" are prone to be oath-breakers.  Keep Out!"

of: "Re: (1) Dan Itse http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376357 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376357) +

(2) Nancy Elliott http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx)

Click the "Bills Sponsored" link get you to:

"CACR28  Session Year: 2010
Title:  relating to the definition of marriage. Providing that the state shall only recognize the union of one man and one woman as marriage.
General Status:  HOUSE
House Status:  IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status: 
Current/Last Committee:  HOUSE JUDICIARY
Next/Last Hearing:  JUDICIARY on at RM 208 LOB
[Bill Text*]   [Bill's Docket]    [Bill's Status**]"

* http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/m_billtext.aspx?billnumber=CACR0028.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/m_billtext.aspx?billnumber=CACR0028.html)

** According to http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/memberbill_status.aspx?lsr=2237&ecode=376573 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/memberbill_status.aspx?lsr=2237&ecode=376573) the Prime Sponsor (to whom Dan and Nancy are co-sponsors) is:    Dudley Dumaine  (r) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376413 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376413)

Here's my testimony of for when the Judiciary holds a Public Hearing on this maybe sometime later this month on: ____day, January ____, 2010 @ __:_ o'clock a.m./p.m. in Room 208 L.O.B. (Legislative Office Building), Concord, N.H.:

That from out of this CACR there be an HR that of to be it resolved that the House of Representatives is currently at a vote of __ to __ or __% against any of "these people" to become public servants, because it is our firm religious belief that these Romans 1:27 "men" so-called lien toward being Chapter 1, verse 31 "covenant-breakers" as in to violate an oath, like RSA Ch. 92:2 (and 42:1 for the locals) to Article 84 of the N.H. Constitution.

Case in point of the past and current crop of graduates from the Police Academy to the Concord P.D. KNOWing that their oath to the federal statutes is against the law, continue to allow federal harm to one of our Article 12 fellow "inhabitants" as the Feds are in non compliance with N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, by their FAILure to file the necessary paperwork by the "shall" word in accordance with 40USC255 to 40USC3112 with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State.

WHY do "they" violate the law? Because "they" are these "men"? Yes or No? ____

If no, then please give me another answer of: __________________________? "

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100103/NEWS01/1030390 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100103/NEWS01/1030390)

entitled: "So Chief: Why do you protect "some" but not "all"!?

of: "Thank you AnnMarie, but that what time do they plan for City Hall?  ___:___ o'clock a.m. or p.m.  That is THE place AND next door at the Police Dept. too that interests me for what Chief Barry says of: ""We have an obligation to PROTECT everybody" that ought to include every THING too, such as our creature of the federal government, that was created by all of us in the union of states and as parents have told this creature of HOW to act being to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State by N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 before they can operate here.

Barry took an RSA Ch. 42:1 and 92:2 oath to the Constitution of this state AND of the United States, to wit: Article 12 of our N.H. Bill of Rights and 1-8-17 of the U.S.  So WHY does he allow, as in to non-protect , one of our N.H. "inhabitants" to be "controllable" by another law of a U.S. Code or Statutes at Large, when such was never "Consent"ed to!? Yes, we gave the Feds a CONDITIONAL Consent, but that our offer has yet to be accepted.

So Kansas Group to here tomorrow: would you please spend more time here at the Police Station and City Hall to ask WHY the City Solicitor Paul Cavanaugh on the 2nd floor there has YET to send that Legal Memo to the City Manager Tom Aspell, Jr. to see to it that these oaths to federal statutes are taken OUT of the oaths by Amendment.  THEN the City C.O.P. can go to the sidewalk over there at the federal building next Monday morning, Jan. 11th  to prevent our creature from being raped by one of our inhabitants being forced into there by "our" non-protection, that we paid for such protection, but that these state, county and city officials allow such rape to occur!  Such I find disgusting, as a citizen of the general public entitled to attend a 5th Amendment "public trial;" but insist that it be public to the 100% level as uncontaminated by such a rape!"

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg315584#msg315584 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg315584#msg315584)

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100103/NEWS01/1030390#comment-99487 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100103/NEWS01/1030390#comment-99487)

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100103/FRONTPAGE/1030350 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100103/FRONTPAGE/1030350)

entitled: "(1) The Blue Flower Inn, and; (2)  the Attorney General."

of: "The "Blue Flower Inn" is at 9 Summer Street, in Tilton, N.H.  see:  http://directories.newhampshirelakesandmountains.com/pages/business_details/listing_details?id=1980379-blue-flower-inn-llc (http://directories.newhampshirelakesandmountains.com/pages/business_details/listing_details?id=1980379-blue-flower-inn-llc)

Who at the A.G.'s office took this case to nowhere fast? ______ Re: " Ron said, he called the FBI's Boston office* and the New Hampshire attorney general, sharing his suspicions about the Farahs. He said neither office followed up. "

* The F.B.I.'s office in Boston is a "joke"! So are their branch offices in BOTH Maine AND New Hampshire.  When I told them of the crime of 18USC3232 transports, they FAILed miserably too! Back to the coffee machine with their donuts! "
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mod:

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg305767#msg305767 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg305767#msg305767)

and/or: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.8985 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.8985) at page #600


"RE: [Progress Report requested] 18USC3232 waste, fraud and abuse.?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Sun 1/03/10 8:51 PM
To:    oig.hotline at usdoj.gov
Cc:    olga.clough at mail.house.gov; mike.brown at mail.house.gov; naomi.andrews at mail.house.gov; rob.moller at mail.house.gov; County Strafford (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us); Barbara Laskey (Foster's) (blaskey at fosters.com); Foster's Daily Democrat (letters qat fosters.com); Rep. David Russell (russells qat metrocast.net); Representative Paul Hodes (nh02ima at mail.house.gov)

Yup, After watching CBS-TV's "60 Minutes" tonight from the late start after the football game at about 7:15 p.m. of segment #1 of 3 including the Veteran's Administration, and the Elephants in Africa, I thought about this other whistle-blower case here, and so do write to you for a follow-up please for a Progress Report. -- Joe Haas"

Quote from: JosephSHaas on January 03, 2010, 06:36 PM NHFT...
"RE: [Progress Report requested] 18USC3232 waste, fraud and abuse.
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Sun 1/03/10 8:51 PM
To:    oig.hotline at usdoj.gov
Cc:    olga.clough at mail.house.gov; mike.brown at mail.house.gov; naomi.andrews at mail.house.gov; rob.moller at mail.house.gov; County Strafford (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us); Barbara Laskey (Foster's) (blaskey at fosters.com); Foster's Daily Democrat (letters qat fosters.com); Rep. David Russell (russells qat metrocast.net); Representative Paul Hodes (nh02ima at mail.house.gov)

Yup, After watching CBS-TV's "60 Minutes" tonight from the late start after the football game at about 7:15 p.m. of segment #1 of 3 including the Veteran's Administration, and the Elephants in Africa, I thought about this other whistle-blower case here, and so do write to you for a follow-up please for a Progress Report. -- Joe Haas"

Typical government response:

1.) The e-mail doesn't work;
"Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
From:    postmaster at WASHDC.OIG.com
Sent:    Sun 1/03/10 8:51 PM
To:    josephshaas at hotmail.com
   
Attachments:    2 attachments | Download all attachments (23.1 KB)
   ATT00001 (0.3 KB), RE [Progr...mht (22.9 KB)

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.     OIGHOTLINE at WASHDC dot OIG.com"

2.) neither does their on-line form at http://www.usdoj.gov/oig (http://www.usdoj.gov/org)  ***

re: the 800 # to nine (9) options, [ (800) 869-4499 ]
press 1 for FBI, Drug Enforcement, ATF&E
press 2 for USA Patriot Act/ Civil Rights
press 3 for waste + fraud **
press 4 for the BOP, U.S. Marshal, U.S. Attorney
press 5 for other
press 6 for a State or local jail
press 7 for Homeland Security
press 8 for Federal judges
press 9 for other
press * to repeat again

after you fill out the 3-page form and press submit, it reads that you must put in a valid e-mail address.  I guess my e-mail is on a do-not accept complaint list.

** they don't open for business until 10:00 a.m. EST to 4 o'clock p.m.

*** this only works when you type it from your home computer, so they can track you.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2010/houcal2010_04.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2010/houcal2010_04.html)

"THURSDAY, JANUARY 7...

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY, Room 204, LOB

10:00 a.m.        HB 1441, * relative to claimant eligibility for victim's compensation.

10:45 a.m.        ...

11:00 a.m.        HB 1372, ** establishing a commission to study the provisions of RSA 570-A, the wiretapping and eavesdropping statute, and to study permitting a person to record a law enforcement officer in the course of such officer's official duties...."

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/ (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/)

* http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1441.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1441.html)

SPONSORS: Rep. Cushing, Rock 15  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376111 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376111) Representative Robert Cushing (d)
Rockingham- District 15 Seat #:3119 Former
Home Address: 395 Winnacunnet Rd., Hampton, NH  03842-2732 Phone: (603)926-2737 Email: renny.cushing at leg.state.nh.us     CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY, Position:    Member    Telephone:    271-3565

"... Amend RSA 21-M:8-h, I(a) [  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/21-M/21-M-8-h.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/21-M/21-M-8-h.htm) ] to read as follows:

I.(a) Victims eligible for compensation are:

(1) Any person who sustains personal injury as a result of a felony or misdemeanor, regardless of whether the offender was convicted*** or the conviction was vacated or reversed for any reason; or"

*** or even an attempt at prosecution, as in when a judge does an RSA Ch. 643:1 "Official Oppression"  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/643/643-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/643/643-1.htm) to http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/640/640-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/640/640-2.htm)  to dismiss a case based upon the dissenting opinion in a N.H. Supreme Court case, reference: Judge Edwin W. Kelly of Plymouth and of the Concord District Court http://www.courts.state.nh.us/courtlocations/merrdistdir.htm#Concord (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/courtlocations/merrdistdir.htm#Concord)   misusing the Premo case of 2002  http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2002/0209/marti098.htm (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2002/0209/marti098.htm)  , re: his office at the Johnson Building on Pleasant Street, in his refusal to allow a check-and-balance criminal case of simple assault against a Deputy U.S. Marshal, Mr. Jamie Barry to proceed when he KNOWS that the crime was withIN the state jurisdiction and NOT federal since the Feds have FAILed to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers [ See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html) see also: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm) (dot htm) and http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm (http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm) (dot htm)  plus the original http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575) for 40USC255. ]  with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State http://www.sos.nh.gov/ (http://www.sos.nh.gov/)   as required by the "shall" word in N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1  from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, because our conditional consent of June 14, 1883 has never been accepted according the the Adams case of the U.S. Supreme Court ion 1943.

** HB 1372 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1372.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1372.html)
SPONSORS: Rep. Winters, Hills 17; Rep. R. Holden, Hills 7

(1) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376709 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376709)
Representative Joel Winters (d) Hillsborough- District 17 Seat #:2073
Incumbent, Home Address: PO Box 135, Nashua, NH  03061-0135
Phone: (603)624-5635, Email: joel at joelwinters.org     COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS Position:    Member    Telephone:    271-3369
Personal Website: http://www.joelwinters.com/ (http://www.joelwinters.com/)

(2) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376351 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376351)
Representative Rip Holden (r) Hillsborough- District 07 Seat #:5012 Incumbent
Home Address: 35 East Union, Goffstown, NH  03045
Phone: (603)384-1922 Email: ripholden at msn.com
COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS Position: Member    Telephone:    271-3369

To add in a part I (e) one member from V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc. [Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System], appointed by such organization.

Here's a copy and paste:

"HB 1441 (victims) + HB 1372 (to record crooked COPs)?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Mon 1/04/10 11:08 AM
To:    renny.cushing at leg.state.nh.us; ...
Cc:    joel at joelwinters.org; ripholden at msn.com
Bcc: _________________________________

Rep. Cushing:

Please put this into the file in case I don't make it there for verbal testimony this Thursday morning 1-7-10 @ 10:00 a.m.

I like your extra words of "regardless of whether the offender was convicted or the conviction was vacated or reversed for any reason" and would like to hear about examples of victim(s) who got screwed by like decisions from the A.G.'s Office that because the statute reads thus they are not eligible as a "victim".  Myself a victim of BOTH the perpetrator of the crime AND the judge who does an "Official Oppression", as a victim of THAT crime too!!

Best wishes, - - - - - - - - - - Joe  /   Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone), e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

Founding Member with 19 others (including 3 State Reps of: Roland Hemon, Paul Taylor and Bill McCann) of: V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc. [Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System] that needs to re-file with the Corporation Division of The Office of Secretary of State this Year 2010 and every other decade of the year number ending in a zero, and invite you* to join the group.

* + cc: to both Reps. on that wiretapping House Bill # 1372 also, to likewise mark me down as in support of this commission to study RSA 570-A of to be able to record "law enforcement officer"s and especially when they do operate ABOVE the law, as outlaws!

A copy and paste from http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9390 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9390) to follow as Reply #9403 (my actual Reply #2474) on page 627 with the hyperlink:

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9390 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9390)  ...."

JURY NULLIFICATION:

See: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100104/FRONTPAGE/1040303&template=single (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100104/FRONTPAGE/1040303&template=single)

and in detail: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100104/FRONTPAGE/1040303#comment-99673 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100104/FRONTPAGE/1040303#comment-99673)

Mod: For an excellent TV show about "Jury Nullification", see: "The Bold Ones: The Lawyers" The Verdict (27 September 1970; Season 2, Episode 1) at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0528593/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/ttt0528593/) that was on RTV http://myretrotv.com (http://myretrotv.com) yesterday afternoon, Sun., Jan. 3rd from 4-5:00 p.m. with the actor James Farentino as Neil Darrell getting two contempt citations of $1,000 + $2,000 each from the Judge Walter Nicholls, played by the actor Burl Ives.

On youtube (?) over at: __________________________________________

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0528593/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0528593/)