QuoteDave Ridley here reporting in and requesting that this message be transcribed verbatim.
I just recieved from an Ed Brown supporter
named Tomas in California who I've had contact with for a long time.
He reports that Joe Haas has been arrested either today or yesterday I think
by I think lebanon police or local authorities as a result of some kind of email that he wrote.
Apparently he was arrested at a city or selectmens meeting or town council meeting or something like that which he attempted to attend
That's just about all I know except that he's out I think Bernie Bastion picked him up.
If you want details touch base with Bernie Bastion
I may try to call him later but my first act was just to get this message out on Porcupine 411.
Thanks guys.
Adding court date of Aug. 7th 8:30 am Newport District Court
The trial date has been set for: Tue., Sept. 18th '07 @ 11:00 o'clock a.m. - - Joe Newport District Court
This wasn't the guy who told me (in the Brown thread (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.4350)) he e-mailed the Manchester airport asking for aviation and Jet A fuel donations of molotov cocktails was it? ::)
EDIT: Frak. It was... (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg159504;topicseen#msg159504)
:-\ Maybe I shouldn't have spurred him on.
Thanks for transcribing that, Lauren.
I made a few calls and got some more information. If you talk with Sargent _______ and ask regarding prisoner #____, he will continue to give us updates on Joe's imprisonment.
Quote from: Braddogg on June 20, 2007, 10:06 PM NHFT
I made a few calls and got some more information. If you talk with Sargent _______ and ask regarding prisoner #____, he will continue to give us updates on Joe's imprisonment.
Joe Haas has an understudy! ;D
http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Brown+case+e-mails+investigated&articleId=083dd586-0d54-4650-a9ca-07f99d4d3914
Brown case e-mails investigated
By KRISTEN SENZ
Union Leader Correspondent
LEBANON – Lebanon police are investigating an Ed Brown sympathizer who sent a potentially threatening e-mail to city councilors last Friday.
A longtime anti-government activist, Joseph Haas, 54, of Concord, sent the e-mail to all nine Lebanon city councilors, several state officials and New Hampshire State Police personnel.
"You all live in a dream land of lies, the father of which is the devil himself," Haas wrote in a section of the e-mail titled "city corruption." " Either you do your job, or get out of the way. WISE UP OR DIE. If the latter be your choice, then BE GONE with you NOW!"
Haas claims the city and state are corrupt because paperwork relative to the federal seizure of the Browns' property in West Lebanon wasn't filed with the Secretary of State's office.
The property was seized June 7 to supplement Ed and Elaine Brown's unpaid federal income taxes while the convicted couple continues to defy federal authorities by refusing to surrender and serve prison time.
Haas, who was indicted in 2005 on allegations that he sent a threatening letter to Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, says he was exercising his right to free speech by writing the e-mail.
"There's no case here," he said in a voicemail left for a reporter yesterday. "It's just like our state slogan, 'Live Free or Die.' When you say that to somebody, do they take it like you're going to kill them? Of course not, so when I say, 'Wise up or die,' there's a similar common denominator there."
Haas indicated that he would attend the city council's July 18 meeting, "where and when you can talk this over to correct your misdeeds," he wrote.
Haas said Lebanon police should be investigating whether state law was violated during the seizure of the Browns' property. The law he cites in the e-mail, RSA 123:1, deals with the procedure for ceding land within the state to federal authorities for uses such as post offices, military bases "or other public buildings."
In the e-mail, Haas also requested information about the Lebanon Police Department's role in arresting Ed Brown in May 2005 and the activities of federal authorities in Plainfield and Lebanon on June 7, when another Brown supporter was detained for hours after inadvertently discovering federal agents near the Browns' house.
Much of Haas' e-mail is indecipherable in that it doesn't follow basic rules of grammar ;D, but it was clear enough to alarm some of those who received it.
"It's the first time that I've encountered something like this," City Councilor Karen Liot Hill said. "These are threats, and I strongly believe in democracy. We should be arguing about ideas, and the best ideas should be winning, and I don't think there's a place for threats in a democracy."
Liot Hill said the city has handled the situation involving the Browns' case in a responsible manner.
Lebanon police Cpl. David Young said Detective Michael Roberts is investigating whether Haas committed a crime by sending the e-mail.
Haas, in a recent post to a Web forum about Ed and Elaine Brown, wrote that Roberts called him to ask how one of the city councilors would die.
"I said: I don't know how she's going to die! That's up to her and her God or god, or goddess, etc. under her own Article 5 religious rights. He thinks I KNOW something beyond belief, and wants to charge me with Criminal Threatening, but has to get me to fill in the blank. What does he think I am, a fortune teller?"
Young said police department policy prohibits Roberts from discussing the investigation.
The Browns sequestered themselves in their Plainfield home after a federal court jury convicted them in January on multiple felony charges of tax evasion. They were both sentenced in absentia to serve 63 months in federal prison April 24. They have said they will not be taken by the government.
Quote from: Braddogg on June 20, 2007, 10:06 PM NHFT
Thanks for transcribing that, Lauren.
I made a few calls and got some more information. If you talk with Sargent _______ and ask regarding prisoner #____, he will continue to give us updates on Joe's imprisonment.
I don't know whether to applaud you or smite you for that one. I guess I'll leave it to Joseph.
Generally I advise my clients not to talk to anyone (especially the police and the media) while a case is being investigated and prosecuted, but this guy actually made quite a bit of sense (unusual for him based on the posts he makes here) in explaining what he meant by his e-mail and in his conversation with the detective.
Although his methods are less-than-effective and ill-advised for those who wish to avoid periodic confinement, and no jury is going to love him, I think that he's injected a reasonable doubt into whether his communication constituted a threat, and there are some interesting constitutional implications in prosecuting him for purely speech based conduct (especially if what the article quoted was the worst of the language used -- it is fairly tame and doesn't appear to specify that he'll act the "threat" if it is one).
The government may -- consistent with the First Amendment -- prohibit "true threats." See
Virginia v. Black (http://www.law.cornell.edu:80/supct/html/01-1107.ZO.html), 538 U.S. 343 (2003):
Quote
And the First Amendment also permits a State to ban a "true threat."
***
"True threats" encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. See Watts v. United States, supra, at 708 ("political hyberbole" is not a true threat)
So, without defending the methods used by our wayward poster, I think that he has a decent case and that the gubmint is -- as usual -- overreacting.
Yeah, I think you're right. The government does tend to overreact to things that people write. I was once accused of threatening a legislator after I wrote an email saying that if they voted to pass a bill that was clearly unconstitutional, I would work to do whatever is in my power to prevent them from being re-elected. I sent a similar email to a couple hundred other legislators, and only a few complained at my wording, that it was hostile, or something like that. Some people are just thin skinned and unreasonable.
People have become too domesticated to be able to deal with forceful opinions. Much of the proposed hate law legislation is around offending or hurting people's feelings.
I'd never before considered "Live Free or Die" as a forward threat, lol! Now when I say it sometimes I'll mean it as a command.
QuoteThe Arraignment day is Tue., July 31st @ 8:15 a.m.
Are they keeping him locked up for over a month, then? Or is he out free, for the moment?
See, this never would have happened if Joe would have been a senator and had merely killed someone through sheer neglegence...
Quote from: Braddogg on June 20, 2007, 10:06 PM NHFT
Thanks for transcribing that, Lauren.
I made a few calls and got some more information. If you talk with Sargent _______ and ask regarding prisoner #____, he will continue to give us updates on Joe's imprisonment.
Braddogg your so bad! This made me laugh so much though so I guess I must be bad too! Of course it's a serious matter but I tend to make jokes over really serious things too and this was a good one! :biglaugh:
Okay onto straight face stuff now. :)
Quote from: KBCraig on June 20, 2007, 10:44 PM NHFT
Quote from: Braddogg on June 20, 2007, 10:06 PM NHFT
I made a few calls and got some more information. If you talk with Sargent _______ and ask regarding prisoner #____, he will continue to give us updates on Joe's imprisonment.
Joe Haas has an understudy! ;D
Oh my gosh, every time I try to stop laughing over Braddogg's post then you come out with this! :biglaugh: This is going to be so hard, I hope Joe doesn't hate us!
Quote from: penguins4me on June 21, 2007, 06:08 AM NHFT
Are they keeping him locked up for over a month, then? Or is he out free, for the moment?
See, this never would have happened if Joe would have been a senator and had merely killed someone through sheer neglegence...
Really. ::) I thought Joe was a lawyer? This is truly awful! >:(
Quote from: KBCraig on June 20, 2007, 11:21 PM NHFTMuch of Haas' e-mail is indecipherable in that it doesn't follow basic rules of grammar, but it was clear enough to alarm some of those who received it.
Isn't that a complete contradiction? First they say they have trouble understanding what he wrote (understandably so) then in the same breath they say it was clear enough?
If I were the judge, that statement alone would lead me to toss out the case.
Quote from: lildog on June 21, 2007, 07:42 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on June 20, 2007, 11:21 PM NHFTMuch of Haas' e-mail is indecipherable in that it doesn't follow basic rules of grammar, but it was clear enough to alarm some of those who received it.
Isn't that a complete contradiction? First they say they have trouble understanding what he wrote (understandably so) then in the same breath they say it was clear enough?
If I were the judge, that statement alone would lead me to toss out the case.
Really, I agree with you! What a**holes!
QuoteWISE UP OR DIE
That sentence fragment alone, delivered in a direct personal message to a another human being, tell me that I want to have nothing whatsoever to do with the person sending the message.
Quote from: raineyrocks on June 21, 2007, 07:32 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on June 20, 2007, 10:44 PM NHFT
Quote from: Braddogg on June 20, 2007, 10:06 PM NHFT
I made a few calls and got some more information. If you talk with Sargent _______ and ask regarding prisoner #____, he will continue to give us updates on Joe's imprisonment.
Joe Haas has an understudy! ;D
Oh my gosh, every time I try to stop laughing over Braddogg's post then you come out with this! :biglaugh: This is going to be so hard, I hope Joe doesn't hate us!
No, I'm glad to have the "understudy" :icon_farao: but keep me away from that Doppelganger! >:D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppelg%C3%A4nger and http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa111102a.htm -- nah, just kidding, but maybe one of the City Councilors might see their double and report me next for some kind of harassment charge? as conjuring up their double!? Hey, see that word: conjure @ page 153 as not merely just "To summon" but also by magic or legerdemain, whatever that is is at page 403 = "Sleight of hand" from the OF leger de main "light of hand", so in a way here of their heavy hand onto writing the COMPLAINT, to offset with some "light"ness? :Leaving_in_a_jet_plane____by_
In fact in answer to the question #___ above it was: (1) Detective Mike Roberts and (2) Officer Todd Lique who did the booking. It was all video taped for which they gave me some NOTICE swp of 28-Jun-2002 that I can buy a copy for: $20.00. I think the reason for this is what the attorneys get for when their client claims police brutality, but these officers were very nice, me saying that I'd even recommend them to take the Chief's place when the C.O.P. (Chief of Police) gets fired. 8)
- - Best wishes to you all, -- Joe H.
P.S. I just found this link to over here from over at http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.4365 where I posted that "Thanks CHNT" reply of that the "focus" is on the "or" word between that to either: Wise up, or die, there being a freedom of choice here, and not some criminal intent to not "do" the latter, but have that death condition "occur" but by who or what's hands or paws? etc. I never threatened to do any criminal act of: murder. This charge is ridiculous! and so to be dismissed, or should I take it to trial? Maybe there's a lawyer or para-legal here who might like to file some Amicus Curiae / Friend of the Court Brief?
Quote from: JosephSHaas on June 21, 2007, 12:30 PM NHFT
Quote from: raineyrocks on June 21, 2007, 07:32 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on June 20, 2007, 10:44 PM NHFT
Quote from: Braddogg on June 20, 2007, 10:06 PM NHFT
I made a few calls and got some more information. If you talk with Sargent _______ and ask regarding prisoner #____, he will continue to give us updates on Joe's imprisonment.
Joe Haas has an understudy! ;D
Oh my gosh, every time I try to stop laughing over Braddogg's post then you come out with this! :biglaugh: This is going to be so hard, I hope Joe doesn't hate us!
No, I'm glad to have the "understudy" :icon_farao: but keep me away from that Doppelganger! >:D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppelg%C3%A4nger and http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa111102a.htm -- nah, just kidding, but maybe one of the City Councilors might see their double and report me next for some kind of harassment charge? as conjuring up their double!? Hey, see that word: conjure @ page 153 as not merely just "To summon" but also by magic or legerdemain, whatever that is is at page 403 = "Sleight of hand" from the OF leger de main "light of hand", so in a way here of their heavy hand onto writing the COMPLAINT, to offset with some "light"ness? :Leaving_in_a_jet_plane____by_
In fact in answer to the question #___ above it was: (1) Detective Mike Roberts and (2) Officer Todd Lique who did the booking. It was all video taped for which they gave me some NOTICE swp of 28-Jun-2002 that I can buy a copy for: $20.00. I think the reason for this is what the attorneys get for when their client claims police brutality, but these officers were very nice, me saying that I'd even recommend them to take the Chief's place when the C.O.P. (Chief of Police) gets fired. 8)
- - Best wishes to you all, -- Joe H.
P.S. I just found this link to over here from over at http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.4365 where I posted that "Thanks CHNT" reply of that the "focus" is on the "or" word between that to either: Wise up, or die, there being a freedom of choice here, and not some criminal intent to not "do" the latter, but have that death condition "occur" but by who or what's hands or paws? etc. I never threatened to do any criminal act of: murder. This charge is ridiculous! and so to be dismissed, or should I take it to trial? Maybe there's a lawyer or para-legal here who might like to file some Amicus Curiae / Friend of the Court Brief?
I am so glad you didn't take that personal and that you don't hate me! :) Are you a lawyer? I'm always thinking that you are because of a lot of your posts about legal issues. So do you know what is going to happen to you?
Quote from: d_goddard on June 21, 2007, 12:12 PM NHFT
QuoteWISE UP OR DIE
That sentence fragment alone, delivered in a direct personal message to a another human being, tell me that I want to have nothing whatsoever to do with the person sending the message.
Then you could say the same thing about "live free or die", asshole.
Quote from: money dollars on June 21, 2007, 05:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: d_goddard on June 21, 2007, 12:12 PM NHFT
QuoteWISE UP OR DIE
That sentence fragment alone, delivered in a direct personal message to a another human being, tell me that I want to have nothing whatsoever to do with the person sending the message.
Then you could say the same thing about "live free or die", asshole.
There's a distinct difference between a general statement to everybody and nobody in particular ("live free or ie") versus a direct communication to an individual ("wise up or die")
"Wise up or die" is not a threat because it is not suggesting that the writer is going to kill or otherwise harm anyone, only that he is telling someone what he wants them to do. "I'm gonna kill you" is a threat because the person is saying that they are going to do something to someone. "Wise up or die" falls in the same category as "Take a long walk off a short pier", "Why don't you just shoot yourself" and "Break a leg", as none of them indicate that the writer or speaker is threatening to do anything. While Mr. Haas' grammar is difficult to understand at times, the people who really need help with their grammar and reading comprehension are certain members of the Lebanon City Council and Police Department and anyone else who thinks that "Wise up or die" is a threat.
Quote from: Defender of Liberty on June 21, 2007, 11:03 PM NHFT
"Wise up or die" is not a threat because it is not suggesting that the writer is going to kill or otherwise harm anyone, only that he is telling someone what he wants them to do. "I'm gonna kill you" is a threat because the person is saying that they are going to do something to someone. "Wise up or die" falls in the same category as "Take a long walk off a short pier", "Why don't you just shoot yourself" and "Break a leg", as none of them indicate that the writer or speaker is threatening to do anything. While Mr. Haas' grammar is difficult to understand at times, the people who really need help with their grammar and reading comprehension are certain members of the Lebanon City Council and Police Department and anyone else who thinks that "Wise up or die" is a threat.
So if I called you and left a voicemail saying "DoL, you're dead wrong about this Joe Haas thing. Wise up or die!", you wouldn't view it as a threat?
Quote from: Braddogg on June 22, 2007, 12:17 AM NHFT
Quote from: Defender of Liberty on June 21, 2007, 11:03 PM NHFT
"Wise up or die" is not a threat because it is not suggesting that the writer is going to kill or otherwise harm anyone, only that he is telling someone what he wants them to do. "I'm gonna kill you" is a threat because the person is saying that they are going to do something to someone. "Wise up or die" falls in the same category as "Take a long walk off a short pier", "Why don't you just shoot yourself" and "Break a leg", as none of them indicate that the writer or speaker is threatening to do anything. While Mr. Haas' grammar is difficult to understand at times, the people who really need help with their grammar and reading comprehension are certain members of the Lebanon City Council and Police Department and anyone else who thinks that "Wise up or die" is a threat.
So if I called you and left a voicemail saying "DoL, you're dead wrong about this Joe Haas thing. Wise up or die!", you wouldn't view it as a threat?
I would view it as a hostile opinion and as a suggestion that you don't like me and/or my opinions, but not as a threat.
Quote from: Defender of Liberty on June 22, 2007, 12:23 AM NHFT
Quote from: Braddogg on June 22, 2007, 12:17 AM NHFT
Quote from: Defender of Liberty on June 21, 2007, 11:03 PM NHFT
"Wise up or die" is not a threat because it is not suggesting that the writer is going to kill or otherwise harm anyone, only that he is telling someone what he wants them to do. "I'm gonna kill you" is a threat because the person is saying that they are going to do something to someone. "Wise up or die" falls in the same category as "Take a long walk off a short pier", "Why don't you just shoot yourself" and "Break a leg", as none of them indicate that the writer or speaker is threatening to do anything. While Mr. Haas' grammar is difficult to understand at times, the people who really need help with their grammar and reading comprehension are certain members of the Lebanon City Council and Police Department and anyone else who thinks that "Wise up or die" is a threat.
So if I called you and left a voicemail saying "DoL, you're dead wrong about this Joe Haas thing. Wise up or die!", you wouldn't view it as a threat?
I would view it as a hostile opinion and as a suggestion that you don't like me and/or my opinions, but not as a threat.
How explicit would I have to be before you would consider it a threat?
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=d84a4940-f8e2-4683-8bb5-abfc19f8c46f
Brown backer charged with making threats
By KRISTEN SENZ
Union Leader Correspondent
Police have arrested a supporter of convicted tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown and charged him with threatening a Lebanon city councilor via e-mail.
Joseph Haas, 54, of Concord, a supporter of convicted tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown, has been charged with threatening a Lebanon city councilor via e-mail.
Joseph Haas, 54, of Concord, mentioned Terri Dudley, a longtime councilor, former state legislator and friend of the Browns, in a lengthy e-mail he sent last Friday to city councilors and state officials, criticizing their handling of the Brown case.
Dudley, 78, said she was "shocked" to see her name, spelled "Duddy," next to the phrase "Wise up or die," in the e-mail. But it isn't the first time Haas has threatened her, she said.
In 2002, Dudley was in the New Hampshire Legislature serving as clerk of the House Judiciary Committee. Haas, a longtime critic of government and the judiciary, attended many of the committee meetings and often testified.
Dudley said that after she failed to make note of something Haas said during a meeting, "I received a letter from him threatening to send me anthrax." Deputy Lebanon police chief Gary Smith said police took the past threat into account when deciding this week to charge Haas with threatening Dudley.
"It's obviously the way (the alleged threat was) delivered and the context in which it was delivered," Smith said.
Haas contends he was exercising his First Amendment right to free speech.
State law says a person is guilty of misdemeanor criminal threatening when "the person threatens to commit any crime against the person of another with the purpose to terrorize any person." Dudley said Haas must be unaware of her 15-year friendship with Ed and Elaine Brown. Host of "Your Turn," a radio show on Lebanon's WTSL 1400 AM, Dudley has given the Browns hour-long shows to discuss their views that the federal income tax is unlawful and part of a Freemason plot to control the masses.
"Having known the Browns almost my entire life, I have a really good relationship with them, and frankly, I don't think they would condone this kind of thing," Dudley said of Haas' behavior.
The Browns could not be reached for comment yesterday because the U.S. Marshal's Office has disconnected the telephone at their Plainfield home.
The Browns, who were convicted on felony tax evasion charges in January, say they won't be taken to prison alive.
Plainfield police arrested Haas when he arrived with other Brown supporters at a Plainfield selectmen's meeting Wednesday night around 7:15 p.m. He was taken to the Lebanon police station and charged with misdemeanor criminal threatening, which carries a maximum penalty of a $1,200 fine. Haas was released later that night on $2,000 personal recognizance bail. He is scheduled for arraignment July 31 in Lebanon District Court.
In 2005, Haas was charged with "improper influence over a public official" after he allegedly sent a threatening letter to state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte. The charge was later dismissed after a judge ruled that the "improper influence" law was unconstitutionally broad.
Quote from: KBCraig on June 22, 2007, 01:19 AM NHFT
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=d84a4940-f8e2-4683-8bb5-abfc19f8c46f
Brown backer charged with making threats
By KRISTEN SENZ
Union Leader Correspondent
...
In 2002, Dudley was in the New Hampshire Legislature serving as clerk of the House Judiciary Committee. Haas, a longtime critic of government and the judiciary, attended many of the committee meetings and often testified.
Dudley said that after she failed to make note of something Haas said during a meeting, "I received a letter from him threatening to send me anthrax." Deputy Lebanon police chief Gary Smith said police took the past threat into account when deciding this week to charge Haas with threatening Dudley.
"It's obviously the way (the alleged threat was) delivered and the context in which it was delivered," Smith said...
...Dudley said Haas must be unaware of her 15-year friendship with Ed and Elaine Brown. Host of "Your Turn," a radio show on Lebanon's WTSL 1400 AM, Dudley has given the Browns hour-long shows to discuss their views that the federal income tax is unlawful and part of a Freemason plot to control the masses.
"Having known the Browns almost my entire life, I have a really good relationship with them, and frankly, I don't think they would condone this kind of thing," Dudley said of Haas' behavior.
The Browns could not be reached for comment yesterday because the U.S. Marshal's Office has disconnected the telephone at their Plainfield home.
...
In 2005, Haas was charged with "improper influence over a public official" after he allegedly sent a threatening letter to state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte. The charge was later dismissed after a judge ruled that the "improper influence" law was unconstitutionally broad.
Thanks K.B.
1. Dudley is either a liar or mistaken in her saying that I had previously sent her a letter "threatening to send me anthrax". It was NOT a letter, BUT a verbal statement that they all there on that committee "deserve" anthrax, that got Henry Mock the Chairman to say to me: "You are dismissed!" These were his EXACT words.
2. What good is "discuss"ing views on a radio show, if the host of that show, who was also a legislator, does not DO something about it!? I have several Article 32 Petitions as properly endorsed by House Rule 36 sitting collecting dust in the House Speaker's Office, where she REFUSEs to do her job as spelled out in House Rule 4, in that she "shall" send them over to the appropriate committee, not just to "talk radio" it, but to ACT on it! Dudley is like the lighthouse keeper sending out radio waves, but when she's like told a boat is floundering in the waves about to capsize like in a hurricane, all she does is get out her book as clerk and with pen to paper merely marks down the tragedy that could have been averted.
3. This was the second judge. That statute was declared unconstitutional over ten (10) years BEFORE my case, and "they" let it sit on the books to use against their next political prisoner: me, having to pay $25,000 cash bail, or sit in jail #__ months to trial, IF my attorney had not found this old case and not merely harp it like Dudley would, but to write it into the Motion to Dismiss that was granted. ACTION speaks louder THAN words. Dudley has what is called diarrhea of the mouth.
Here's a quote from Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 707 (1969) as reported over at http://www.cga.ct.gov/2000/rpt/olr/htm/2000-r-0138.htm that I found at http://www.google.com for: "Criminal Threatening" elements, at page 2 #5 in that:
"'True threats' must also be genuine, not simply IDLE or careless talk...." (emphasis ADDed for this idle word that's defined as inactive*, and so the QUESTION being: "Wise up or Die", the ANSWER if never given, keeps it in limbo, otherwise if the latter of to die, then there has to be the next stage of "to convey a present or future determination to inflict physical injuries on others" (US v. Prochaska, 222 F.2d 1 (7th Cir.)) Hey! To sit and allow someone to die a natural death is NOT the equivalent of going out to kill somebody. So HOW did "they"/ the COPs come to this determination? ___ Maybe to file some Motion for Discovery? Or at least to get a copy of the Affidavit for Arrest Warrant. Also: WHO was that judge that granted it? How long have they been "on the bench"? And have they never before had a Criminal Threatening case in their court?
*Inactive means not active, and so the "active" word means NOT passive, so "in-active" of course means: passive, as in quiescent, p. 578 of my The "American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973 as dormant, page 214: "In a state of suspended activity", p. 697 for the Latin word suspendere of "to hang up", p. 324 to suspend on a hook or hanger. So in other words, to illustrate this point: in one shadow box there's a book of wisdom, in the other shadow box there's an ax under glass, both boxes are hanging on the wall. They are "idle" and so no "True threat" for the latter of the ax, UNLESS there's some movement by a hand to grab ahold of the ax and threaten to use it. So WHERE does it say in the e-mail letter that I chose the latter for her? Nowhere! That activation does not exist. This is "idle" talk, NOT Criminal Threatening, and so the case must be dismissed.
Brown Sympathizer Arrested After Sending E-Mail
LAURIE KELLMAN
WMUR (http://www.wmur.com/news/13543893/detail.html %20%5Burl=http://WMUR)
Friday June 22, 2007
A supporter of Ed and Elaine Brown was arrested Wednesday night on his way to a board of selectmen meeting on charges that he sent a threatening e-mail to a Lebanon, N.H., city councilor.
Video: City Councilor Says She Felt Threatened (http://www.wmur.com/video/13547431/index.html %20%5Burl=http://Video:%20City%20Councilor%20Says%20She%20Felt%20Threatened)
Lebanon police said longtime anti-government activist Joseph Haas, of Concord, N.H., sent the e-mail to nine Lebanon city councilors, several state officials, and New Hampshire state police personnel.
In the e-mail, Haas wrote, "Either you do your job, or get of the way." The e-mail also said, "Wise up or die."
The Browns were convicted of tax evasion and are facing jail time. The couple refuses to surrender to federal authorities and have said they will defend themselves to the death.
In the e-mail, Haas said that the state and local officials should be protecting the Browns from the U.S. Marshals Service. Federal officials have maintained a presence near the Browns' Plainfield home, and earlier this month, armored vehicles and bomb-disposal units arrived at the property while a warrant was served at a commercial property owned by the couple in Lebanon.
Haas said that he was expressing his free speech rights by writing the e-mail and that the "wise up or die" statement was a play on the state motto, "Live free or die."
In 2005, Haas was accused of sending a threatening letter to state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte. Those charges were later thrown out.
Haas was released Wednesday night on personal recognizance bail.
Supporters of the Browns plan to hold a candlelight vigil Thursday night in a parking lot at Gunstock resort. Organizers said they expect about 60 people to attend.
***************************************
Live Free or Die Harder :icon_pirat:
Quote from: Braddogg on June 22, 2007, 12:28 AM NHFT
Quote from: Defender of Liberty on June 22, 2007, 12:23 AM NHFT
Quote from: Braddogg on June 22, 2007, 12:17 AM NHFT
Quote from: Defender of Liberty on June 21, 2007, 11:03 PM NHFT
"Wise up or die" is not a threat because it is not suggesting that the writer is going to kill or otherwise harm anyone, only that he is telling someone what he wants them to do. "I'm gonna kill you" is a threat because the person is saying that they are going to do something to someone. "Wise up or die" falls in the same category as "Take a long walk off a short pier", "Why don't you just shoot yourself" and "Break a leg", as none of them indicate that the writer or speaker is threatening to do anything. While Mr. Haas' grammar is difficult to understand at times, the people who really need help with their grammar and reading comprehension are certain members of the Lebanon City Council and Police Department and anyone else who thinks that "Wise up or die" is a threat.
So if I called you and left a voicemail saying "DoL, you're dead wrong about this Joe Haas thing. Wise up or die!", you wouldn't view it as a threat?
I would view it as a hostile opinion and as a suggestion that you don't like me and/or my opinions, but not as a threat.
How explicit would I have to be before you would consider it a threat?
"Wise up or I'm going to kill you" would be explicit enough to be considered a threat. Although in some contexts, I would not consider "...I'm going to kill you" a threat, like if someone were to say "If you kill my family, I'm going to kill you." because that would be a warning to not do something evil or consequences would ensue. "You're gonna die" is a phrase that would depend on the context whether or not it is a threat. Generally, a phrase that includes "I'm going to [do something bad like kill] you" without "if" or a synonym of "if" in it can usually be considered a threat. If there is an "if" in the phrase, then it really depends on context. When I told some legislators that if they voted for an unconstitutional bill, I would work to get someone else elected to get them out of office for the next cycle, only one dimwit claimed to think that it was a threat. Several more thanked me for my input, while most didn't respond. Just because someone claims that they think a statement is a threat, doesn't make it so. Just in case there is any confusion, I want to point out that there is a difference between a threat and threatening behavior. Things that could be considered threatening in nature, but not a threat, include yelling at someone angrily, giving a hostile look, swearing, using the middle finger aggressively, leering, saying "wise up or die", calling someone names like "scumbag", "dirtbag", "P.O.S.", etc. I looked up "threat", and it is defined as "Declaration of intent to do harm" and "the expression of a deliberate intention to cause harm or pain". One of the definitions of "threatening" is "causing somebody to feel anxious, fearful, and unconfident". Let me pose this question. Would you want to be arrested every time you made someone feel anxious, fearful or unconfident? Making a threat should only be the charge if someone has declared an intent to do harm.
Quote from: Defender of Liberty on June 23, 2007, 08:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: Braddogg on June 22, 2007, 12:28 AM NHFT
Quote from: Defender of Liberty on June 22, 2007, 12:23 AM NHFT
Quote from: Braddogg on June 22, 2007, 12:17 AM NHFT
Quote from: Defender of Liberty on June 21, 2007, 11:03 PM NHFT
"Wise up or die" is not a threat because it is not suggesting that the writer is going to kill or otherwise harm anyone, only that he is telling someone what he wants them to do. "I'm gonna kill you" is a threat because the person is saying that they are going to do something to someone. "Wise up or die" falls in the same category as "Take a long walk off a short pier", "Why don't you just shoot yourself" and "Break a leg", as none of them indicate that the writer or speaker is threatening to do anything. While Mr. Haas' grammar is difficult to understand at times, the people who really need help with their grammar and reading comprehension are certain members of the Lebanon City Council and Police Department and anyone else who thinks that "Wise up or die" is a threat.
So if I called you and left a voicemail saying "DoL, you're dead wrong about this Joe Haas thing. Wise up or die!", you wouldn't view it as a threat?
I would view it as a hostile opinion and as a suggestion that you don't like me and/or my opinions, but not as a threat.
How explicit would I have to be before you would consider it a threat?
... it really depends on context...
Thanks Defender,
--And especially for that: "context" word. See yesterday's UNION LEADER http://www.unionleader.com for Fri., June 22 '07 @ page A12 for that Kristen Senz story about "Deputy Lebanon police chief Gary Smith" who said that: "It's obviously the way (the alleged threat was) delivered and the CONTEXT in which it was delivered" for the decision of: "when deciding this week to charge Haas with threatening Dudley." (emphasis ADDed) Plus also notice he did not say what TYPE of threat of: CRIMINAL Threatening, but just threatening. This is an "abuse of process" or "malicious prosecution", etc. for taking what IS a CIVIL threat and wrongly using the criminal process, as I've indicated here for the synonym of the word WARN (or advise, see also http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/word+to+the+wise having already posted: http://www.bartelby.com/59/3/wordtothewis.html I think) from the phrase "a word to the wise" being "To make aware of POTENTIAL danger; caution" and for threat of "One regarded as a POSSIBLE danger" these two words of: (1) potential, and (2) possible being synonyms of each other, but only in the CIVIL, not CRIMINAL because there is no intent to commit any crime like of "murder" they surmised MIGHT be what I meant from the surround text citing the Bible and the devil as the father of of lies to whom they might have joined in the cause of against the truth, anyway it being a mere "idle" threat that is not a "True threat", so really not a false threat, but a civil treat in the technical as I've outlined over at my Reply #4378 on page 292 on Thu. 6/21 @ 11:41 PM in paragraph #2, see http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.4365
--So where this case went wrong, is by the very nature of the English Language not being used over at George Orwell's "Animal Farm" yard of "pigs" at the police station there in Lebanon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm because although the word implicate, page 354 of my The "American Heritange Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973 defines such to mean either: 1. "To involve intimately or inCRIMINatingly", it also means: 2. "To imply", and so to imply meaning entail, and that word @ p. 240 means: "1. To have as a necessary accompaniment or consequence". So, so what? So what if I accompany in my e-mail letter the phrase "devil worshipers" living "in a dream land of lies" from a "faithful city" that has gone the way of the "harlot", (citing Isaiah 1:21,) page 325 defined as not only for "A prostitute" but that of a "vagabond", page 763 from the word vague, meaning Indistinctly (p. 360) or not clearly understood, so mis-understood, and either mis-understood as being too stupid, so to wise up, or once knowing of that there be no RSA 123:1 filing, to either do your job of to check-and-balance, and because I have no power of the vote to get these hacks* out of office, then may they die a natural death by natural cause(s).
--Since WHEN can one be charged for wishful thinking that something MIGHT occur? Answer: since the George Orwellian "1984" Thought Police took over, needing this judge to put the gavel down as to say: case dismissed! * A hack (p. 320) defined as somebody that's either banal** or trite***. Banal (p. 56) as commonplace (p. 145) as ordinary, but isn't this WHY we train these cadets to become extra-ordinary? Extra-ordinarily smart or stupid? It seems the latter to do the bidding of the powers-that-be to overturn the Queen's English to the pigs on Animal Farm! ***And trite defined as "lacking interest", so when somebody says that the City Councilors are there, voted in, so as to look out FOR your interest, you can tell them that they are full of shit! This trite*** word from the Latin of tritus, pp of terere, "to rub (away)"****, yup: to rub away alright, as in rubbing off their signed RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office, if they even have one, because in Article 84, N.H. Const., Part Second is exempts town officers, "Established October 31, 1783" on Halloween, plus "Effective June 2, 1784", but when we joined the Union on Jan. 25, 1790 as the fifth state, "all executive...Officers...of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution". But are "they"/these City Councilors supporting the Constitution? And in particular the effect from Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution that requires "the Consent of the Legislature of the State" for what I read in the newspaper, Thu., June 21st '07 @ P. A17 BY Kristen Senz to be "or other public buildings" it's really: "other needful Buildings" and by the U.S. Attorney's own Manual http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm see the "Dravo also..." paragraph "embrases courthouses". No! These Councilors were politely told by me of this fact at their Wed., June 6th meeting, of the federal non-filing as required by RSA 123:1 but for some reason decided to look the other way AWAY from the non-filing, but WHY? If they're going to "rub"**** out (p. 614 as in definition #5 to remove or erase) their oaths, then I'm going to rely on rub definition #3 of "To contact or cause to contact repeatedly and with friction" and I see only one of whom cannot stand the heat here, just imagine what heat and pressure she'll receive down in Hell, IF she doesn't wise up, me wanting the best for her and the city including owners ATT of the Brown commercial property on Glenn Road, but she in fact is the one that chooses death.
Yours truly, - - Joe Haas
Modification: Article VI, Part 3, U.S. Constitution.
I just found this Fri., June 22nd '07 http://www.concordmonitor.com story entitled: "Browns' friend arrested for e-mail" http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070622/REPOSITORY/706220326/0/s by The VALLEY NEWS, with "Monitor staff writer Margot Sanger-Katz" contributed to this report", but that some of the facts they report about need some highlighting for the reasons for those events.
1.) That I deal in "arcane legal matters"? What does that mean? The word: arcane, in my The "American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973 @ page 36 means: "Known only by those having secret knowledge" or "esoteric"; I prefer the latter at page 245 of like "1....understood by only a small group." because if everyone did wake up from their zombie-state of existance, then we'd have to put a new tax on the books. :tiphat:
2.) I was the one who told Officer Mike Roberts who was investigating this charge, on the telephone last week to call the Attorney General's Office and speak with them about this right of "free speech" as this "warning" or "advise" stuff has already, PAST-tense, been litigated, and won by me over the state, as in that phrase now of: "a word to the wise". BTW see http://www.reformation.org/pharaoh.html for that picture under the IHS/sun for "The baboon god Thoth was the Egyptian god of 'wisdom'." On a tapestry in Town Hall?
3.) Notice HOW they/ the newspaper either twisted the facts, or purposely left out a crutial ingredient to paint a bad picture, reference: "in which he warned that her (Attorney General Kelly Ayotte's) month-old daughter would be KILLED if she didn't stop prosecuting one of his friends." (emphasis ADDed) The truth is again NOT of kill by me, but like death from natural or then- super-natural causes. Back then it was my quoting Charlton Heston, the actor in Cecil B. DeMille's "The Ten Commandments" movie of: Exodus 5:1 to "Let my people go", or else; Or else to maybe suffer the Exodus 11:4+5 plague #10 of 10 on "the firstborn", see http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/judaism/f/10plagues.htm Plus BTW that picture of me is almost a decade old, having been taken during the Fall 1998 "Concord Bomber" days/* [see #7 below for the reason]***
4.) As it regards the Tax Collector, that was in 1981 of over a quarter century (25 yrs. now).
(a) The time I spent for the simple assault of the Town of Ashland Tax Collector was ten (10) days for AFTER I had placed that Art.I,Sec.10 "Officially Sealed" sticker on her cash register, and she came running through the swinging saloon-type doors to push me! Me re-pushing her back re-re-re- from the initial assault, that she claimed in court she did NOT go through the doors, so HOW did she get to where she was next to where George Bragg, the Building Inspector was in the next room? where from he called the COPS and we both stood there for the Chief** to arrive, and upon her word only, he arrested me! I was stupid back then, as from reading those constitutional booklets of not to talk as to not give the court any jurisdiction, and so the lie stood, even after I charged Arlene Mills, the Tax Collector/"catchpole" with Perjury (John B. Eames, County Attorney, after offering me a $100 fine-only deal to plead guilty in effect saying: tough shit!), one of the witnesses, Rosie MacNamara called to the witness stand, but never asked this question BELIEVE IT OR NOT! Her telling me afterwards that she was so scared of being up there that she almost forgot her own name. Little did I know then that she/ Rosie the Town Clerk would later embezzle $2 million from the Town, get caught, pay back $100,000, spend 2 years in women's prison in Goffstown, and get to keep the remainder, as she claims to have "lost" it somewhere. :Bolt:
(b) The sentence was ten (10) days in the Grafton County Jail (nice place back then with the horse shoe pit) with a $1,000 fine and back then a 10% penalty assessment (since increased to now 20%), and so when the Clerk Paul A Gruber (since indicted for insurance fraud, then fired) refused to credit my account with the $19.00 in interest from the Littleton Saving Bank Account he was entrusted with, I said I only owe $81.00 more, but him insisting that's the way he does business: to embezzle money too, as a fringe benefit of the job, him serving at the pleasure of the judges. So when I told this to Judge Wm. R. Johnson from Hanover there at the time (before he became one of The Supremes), he said to pay the $100.00 within 24 hours (him maybe getting a kick-back from his Clerk? or did these moneys really go into the operating budget of the state or county? my friend Homer May, (a businessman up there who'd bring me the Sunday newspaper on visiting days) up there with his calculator would go to the County Budget meetings but nowhere did we find any of this money credited as such, Johnson off the Supreme bench for #__ years now, and so maybe a copy of this to the A.O.C/ Administrative Office of the Courts to investigate before the six-year statute of limitations is up. ___ ) Anyway I found some Rule #__ and/or phrase in BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 5th edition (c)1979 given to me for my Birthday Present from one of my brothers, that when a payment is made to the Clerk, it is in effect made to the court, and so to force out this almost $20.00 credit, I deposited one hundred dollars into the savings book and showed the receipt to the judge when he set up that contempt hearing, but that he could not/ or would not match the two numbers!! between the receipt and the saving account # in the file. So off to jail I went to serve my time for contempt of court, getting a visit by Edwin W. Kelly and Mike Bolloca, the Public Defenders (Kelly since the Head of all the N.H. District Courts, Bollaca to Oregon after I sued him for $10,000 in Plymouth District Court) to the fence during recess, telling me that if I'd apologize to the judge I'd be let out: I said NO! that would be telling a lie, as I did pay it! The next day they let me out anyway= 62 days, I went and grabbed the passbook out of the court file, took it downstairs and dared Sheriff Herb Ash to arrest me for misdemeanor tampering with public records, asking him for a police escort to the bank to prove what I said was correct, him saying: no, but that Deputy Howard Minnon, would meet me up there with Dan Edgar, the President who verified that the $100 had been paid BEFOREhand like I proved! Did I ever get an apology from the judiciary, or a pardon from the executive branch, or even a hearing on this contempt subject matter? No! Even though contempt is limited to ten (10) days by Articles 22+23 of the N.H. Const., Pt. 2 when the judiciary used to be UNDER the Legislature, since branched off as a so-called "equal" branch, then HOW can the creature be GREATER than the creator!? If fact Caroline (Mrs. Charles) Douglas (divorcee #__ of the judge) did tell the House Judiciary Committee once at a Public Hearing, that I repeat often: is that according to _______________ (Hamilton, Madison or Jay) in The "Federalist Papers" the judiciary is supposed to be the LEAST of all three branches of our government!!! So in effect I have a 52+ day credit from future contempts from this case, that I can give/sell to anyone if they'd like one/or more of these Get-Out-Of-Jail cards. 8)
5.) **As it regards the C.O.P. (Chief of Police) Ernest A. Paquettye, of Ashand, retired, he was told by the Chairwoman Selectman, Hilda Harris that she didn't like my political poster against her and so told the Chief to take it down from off of my 2-store/6apts. Masonic Lodge 3rd floor building. Or 1897 I.O.O.F. Block. The former First National/I.G.A. Grocery Store. A Building that they claimed under a Tax Sale, that I eventually won a quitclaim deed from them with a Stipulation to re-pay me $42,500 that I still have yet to get! An Article 32 Petition on this sitting collecting dust at the House Speaker's Office, even though it is properly endorsed per House Rule #36 by three State Reps, she refuses to process over to the appropriate committee by House Rule #4 that says that she "shall" do it. And I tell the governor to enforce his Art. 41 powers of a check-and-balance against her, and all he does it say in effect: tough shit! The poster read: that she was a Plank #1 Communist, For details see the Supervisors of the Checklist, who had a copy of Karl Marx' "Communist Manifesto" Plank #1 being: application of all rents to public purposes, as I was a landlord back then and they told all my tenants to pay them: some paying me, some paying them, and some paying into an escrow bank account that neither of us ever saw. So when the COP took down poster #1, I merely made poster #2 and placed it higher up on the NW side of the building. He had to get a ladder, and so when I saw him at the bottom of the ladder with my poster I grabbed it back as my RSA Ch. 627:8 right to use force to re-take your property from an unlawful taking, http://www.state.nh.us but that he anyways charged me with: simple assault, resisisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and interferrence with government administration, all charges dismissed after a jury trial that lasted 2 hours, their deliberation 3x as long = 6 hrs. for a complete 8-hour day, plus free lunch. Tom Rappa, my excellent public defender, but a lousy judge. When I returned to the apt. bldg. there was a NEW non-tenant of mine throwing my furniture out the window into the alley. And when I went up to see the Town Administrator, he said that he rented it out to them. When I said WHAT key? as I had the lock. He said: the "universal Key": Das Boot. Or The Boot.
6.) * To this day I've yet to see even a picture of these "pipe bombs" that were left on the inside and outside of the Concord City Library and State Library respectfully, where my car just happened to have been parked on Park Street there after Harry Vickers and I plus others in our VOCALS,Inc. group (Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System) had (visited that Merrimack Pastor teaching without a license from the state and) talked about crooked Judge John C. Fairbanks who embezzled $millions from his clients' trust funds, skipped to Canada, made Robert Stack's "Unsolved Mysteries" on NBC-TV and supposedly committed suicide in Las Vegas at the casinos, so said and still says his then attorney Paul Barbadoro, now a federal judge in the same courthouse over there on Pleasant Street in Concord, N.H. A crook when it comes to the law, as in the Andy Tempelman case, of where the I.R.S. by same Deputy Marshal Gary DiMartino (shame on you Gary!) threw him, his wife and son out from their Ram-in-the-Thicket Restaurant and home in Milford, but who would NOT reverse the case when Andy found that U.S. Code #____ that says that an IRS auction has to occur in a courthouse of the county where the land is located, that was NOT done in this case, the judge in effect also saying: tough shit! and our Federal Reps for impeachment saying: tough-er shit! or here's the toilet paper. To this day I still do not know WHO this real "Concord Bomber" is/was, but get this, as in the Gus Breton case*, the Attorney General's Office, by its Investigator, Mike Bahan, from the Manchester P.D. told one of Gus' relatives one day who relayed it to Gus and to me, that Bahan is saying about me in that "Concord Bomber" case: "We know he did it, but can't prove it".
7.) *** The reason for my saying: "Let me people go" was because every month the jailers make a list that goes to Rbt. Lynn, Chief of the Superior Courts on the Heights in Concord, #__ Chanel Drive, who compiles a list of those inmates therein each of the ten (10) county jails for almost four (4) months, to send immediately up to the Chief Judge John Broderick of The Supremes because he's supposed to make sure that the Rule #__ Speedy Trial is complied with in that if somebody is not tried within four (4) months, they've got to let him go. So when Supreme James Duggan (former Appelate Defender from The FPLC/ Franklin Pierce Law Center) came down to sit on Gus' case in Merrimack County Superior Court, and heard him say it was ALMOST 4 months, I told him he better check his math, as it was OVER 4 months, and after Duggan told me to shut up and sit down, I walked out of the courtroom, and there was Mike Bahan, saying to me of: you f***ing jerk! Nice language from one of our supposed "finest", heh?
Yours truly, - - Joe Haas
P.S. So as it regards Ed, to see if they will have the IRS auction in the what? Grafton County courthouse (in North Haverhill)? or the Lebanon District Court? And when they go to TRY to book the room, to make sure that a copy of this certificate from Bill Gardner's Office is given over to the booking agents in both places proving that the Feds have no jurisdictional authority as per their non-filing mode by RSA 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Const.
"Arcane legal matters" means Margot likes you but can't understand a word you're saying. :)
Joe, if you really didn't mean "wise up or die" as a threat, wouldn't it be a simple thing to just apologize to the recipients of the letter for the misconception?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on June 24, 2007, 08:27 PM NHFT
Joe, if you really didn't mean "wise up or die" as a threat, wouldn't it be a simple thing to just apologize to the recipients of the letter for the misconception?
But I do mean it as NOT a CRIMINAL threat but technically a CIVIL threat or "warning" or "advice" that is O.K. and BTW some directive in the Bible in that we are to warn the wicked so I was just exercising my Art. 5 religious rights. See Ezekiel 3:19 and 33:8+9 for "he shall die in his iniquity". I have had enough of these government goons in power, just that I would not "kill" them, but I do hope that they either wise up, and do what's right by their oath of office as contracted for either verbally +/or in writing or else die either a natural or super-natural death beyond my control.
And speaking of "the bigger they are", as in bloated pompous asses in high power, "the harder they fall", see how some of them might have gotten there, and for the reason for their demise over at the following for: "The Radiant Boy of Corby Castle" in Ireland: (1) http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/yeats/fip/fip41.htm (2) http://www.bartleby.com/166/23.html and (3) http://www.geocities.com/laxaria/radiant.html?200724 where these achievers go for hoped-for greatness in elevating themselves into powers-that-be OVER us, but who meet a tragic end, them WANTing to be "frighten"ed by the "boy, surrounded by a dazzling radiance", but when reminded of their demise as by fate they go beserk and call the police saying they are frightened, but there being no active maneuvering toward any crime! The fear in their dread that they have not done their job as contracted and want out on some like Twilight Zone "Escape Clause" see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0734566/ and http://www.scifilm.org/tv/tz/twilightzone1-6.html
Best wishes to you, - - Joe
"Wise up or drop dead," would have been a better way to phrase it.
Joe, what was your goal in all this? What did it accomplish to tell a 78 year old woman that she deserves anthrax and that you wish she would die?
Quote from: Bald Eagle on June 25, 2007, 11:39 AM NHFT
"Wise up or drop dead," would have been a better way to phrase it.
But that's too soon, don't you want to see them suffer? :violent5: like in that "Wild Wild West" episode where Robert Conrad as Jim West was tied up for the reason that the heat from the sun would cause his rope to contract and strangle him to death. Or would "they" now call the public stocks to where some of these renegade public servants ought to go: torture now, as cruel and unusual punishment?
Here's another re-type:
"To: The Three Plainfield Police Officers
________ + _______ + ___________
who "assault"ed me last Wednesday night.
c/o Gordon Gillens, Chief of Police
P. O. Box 380
Meriden, N.H. 03770
Sullivan County
603: 643-2222
http://www.nhes.state.nh.us/elmi/htmlprofiles/plainfield.html
Dear Officers:
--In preparation for: (1) my defense in Case #07CR1061 over at the Lebanon District Court, by way of a counter-complaint, or cross-claim, etc. and; (2) in order to satisfy as a crime victim under http://doj.nh.gov/victim/what.html , I do hereby 'report the crime' of 'Simple Assault' upon me last Wednesday night @ 7:15 o'clock p.m. by you all of 'local law enforcement' in the Town Hall Parking Lot, so as to be 'within 5 days' to hopefully eventually claim 'at least $100.00 in out-of-pocket loss' being the about $10/hr. x 5 hours = $50.00 of lost wages for not working that night + $30.00 bail commissioner's fee + $20.00 in gasoline/ Bernie Taxi service from the Lebanon P.D. = $100.00.
--I can believe you all were operating on an Arrest Warrant, (as one of you told me) so can counter-or cross-claim back to the one who filed the Affidavit to the Judge, but that I had to start my complaint here, knowing that you will not be paying any future fines, but that what is hoped by me is that in my counter-or cross-complaint that I've filed in time so as not to lose this right to call the merits of such affidavit into question as whoever did provide FALSE information to the judge ought to be the one ultimately responsible for this 'false' arrest based on FALSE information, and so the Class B misdemeanor treatment for Simple Assault in return.
--A photocopy of this to go with my 2-page Application Form for the $100.00 to: The N.H. Victims' Assistance Commission, 33 Capitol Street, Concord, N.H. 03301-6397 (603) 271-1284 to file there 'within one year from the date of the crime'. http://doj.nh.gov/victim/what.html
-Notice that they are having a PUBLIC meeting this Wed., June 27th, 2007 @ 8:30 a.m. Room 44, Bette Jane Riorden, Coordinator. http://doj.nh.gov/victim/meeting_dates.html
--So would you please put into writing what you told me verbally that night that you were acting as agents on an Arrest Warrant, and provide me with a photocopy if possible of that instrument and if possible too: of a copy of the Affidavit also that started this criminal case, with a cc: by you over to that Officer __________ of the Lebanon P.D. thus, in my opinion, you having satisfied the counter-or cross claim provisions, whereupon I can then file a COUNTER or CROSS CLAIM against WHOever that is in my court case as another line of defense.
Thank you, - - - - - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone).
P.S. See also: http://doj.nh.gov/victim/long.html for an acknowledgment within 2 weeks; + http://doj.nh.gov/victim/costs.html
note: The Deputy Sheriff was only the middleman, so like they say of: 'don't shoot the messenger.'"
- - Yours truly, - - Joe H.
Quote from: richardr on June 25, 2007, 01:13 PM NHFT
Joe, what was your goal in all this? What did it accomplish to tell a 78 year old woman that she deserves anthrax and that you wish she would die?
Richard, that anthrax incident with her was back in 2002, during which time I was before her House Judiciary Committee for a check-and-balance solution to act, but them NOT acting as an oversight to the crooked judiciary, me having filed an Art. 32 Petition as House Rule #36 endorsed, but that the House Speaker was not sending over to the "appropriate" committee by House Rule #4 with the "shall" word. I think this or something along these lines got me so upset that day in Room 208 of the L.O.B. / Legislative Office Building (that BTW some people call the S.L.O.B. putting the word: State before the LOB), that I merely was referring to these anthrax incidents in the media, saying that they're deserving of such too, (to die so that somebody better can take their place) as they are merely like "bumps on a log", not a tree limb as in a branch of the Tree of Liberty, but a worthless dead instrument, a log with internal power to like be used to light up a fire in a fireplace, etc., but that it does not move. The same with them: they sit on their ass in that room and do nothing! At least I did get Rep. David Welch of the House Criminal Justice Committee (its Chairman) to go to the Speaker's Office, Gene Chandler, at that time, to say: What are you going to do about Joe's Petition? Chandler answering back of to: Get the hell out of my office! I took him to the Ethics Committee, for where I found out the reason WHY he was not processing it was that Rep. Roland Hemon put his seat # down, instead of his District #, as by Rule #36 that should have been red-pencil corrected by Chandler like a teacher to a student, but Roland died, and so I need another one, got three State Reps, but since corrected, it still sits there collecting dust! Anthrax technically in all soil, just that some of it more potent than others, maybe hoping that some of these spores land on their OTHER paperwork does AFTER my Petition since she, the new House Speaker is in violation of Roberts Rules of Order too. Too I say for Art. 14, N.H. & the Ninth Amendment for an orderly due process of law. I was there as a member of our VOCALS, Inc. group; Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System, hoping to change that letter V for Victims into Victors someday.
Best wishes, - Joe
1. THE LETTER. Thank you Chief Gillens for your 2-page letter of June 27th received in yesterday's mail mentioning some "threat of violence" meaning "either by PHYSICAL menace" (emphasis ADDed) of which this case is NOT, "or by threats to commit a crime", of what? There is no crime for telling or wishing someone "Wise Up, or Die" a natural death, as in the very explicit phrase in the SUPPLEMENT to the "Supporting Affidavit for Request to Issue Arrest Warrant" wherein Detective Michael S. Roberts wrote of "they can do their jobs or 'shrivel up and die'".
2. THE WORDS. The word shrivel, defined as from the ON= Old Norse (see pages 646 + XII of The "American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language") for the word skrifla, "to wrinkle", page 800, from the OE/ Old English word gewrinclian of "to wind", that word wind, in the verb @ page 794 from the OE of windan. See wendh, for wend @ page 787 of the OE wendon, "to turn AWAY" (emphasis ADDed), and so if that person does not want to "Wise Up", with the truth, then to "shrivel up" or completely/ entirely meaning to turn AWAY from the truth where I reside and die a natural death in their own lies, AWAY from me, as in what I did write of: "get OUT of the way...BE GONE with you NOW!" (emphasis ADDed for the word out). The word out @ p. 503 meaning "Away", and gone defined at page 308 as "Dying" right now, p. 488 "1. At the PRESENT time" 2. At once; immediately." (emphasis ADDed, to compare with the FUTURE tense), and so since a threat (p. 720) is about something that MIGHT or MAY "possibl"y happen in the future, then by the very nature of this word: NOW, then there being NO threat!
3. THE ARREST WARRANT. Thanks too for the 1-page copy of the "ARREST WARRANT" signed by "Claremont District Court Justice John Yazinski" who I've met before in Concord District Court and find him now revolting as he believes in liars! Back then I told him that my car was past the 4-corner intersection line INTO the center when the light turned yellow, but the Concord Police Officer, the liar he was and is probably today too, a liar said that I went through a red light, as maybe the tail end of my car did pass under the light in the MIDDLE of the intersection in red, but that is not illegal! I wonder if this Yazinski is in compliance with Supreme Court Rule #46 for his continuing judicial education. The PS&T refused to give me the grade this officer passed by, maybe flunking the road test section on this yellow light/line class of in this course.
4. THE AFFIDAVIT. There are NO "Notes of Issuing Magistrate" on page 2 of the 2-page "SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT FOR REQUEST TO ISSUE ARREST WARRANT, in this LPD Case #07L-628-OF. But maybe there should be, or has to be, by some Rule #___? Such as, after consulting with his ___________________________ Dictionary. There are only two (2) lines there for these Notes, in the plural, but a 3.75-inch blank space at the bottom of this 8.5x11" paper. This space is after the definition of PROBABLE CAUSE that is defined as "upon reasonable inquiry", the word reasonable @ page 588 defined as "Not excessive or extreme" so with Article 14, Pt. 1 N.H. Const. & Bill of Rights for "Legal Remedies to be free, COMPLETE, and Prompt", (emphasis ADDed), how far does the "exam" have to go to be complete? An exam being an examination, page 249 defined as "A set of questions" in the plural again, so what were these questions? And was the examination recorded? for how much time, from: __:__ o'clock __ to __:__ o'clock __ plus WHERE? and using WHAT instruction manual, if any, like page #___ from the A.G. Handbook for threats?
5. THE WORD: MURDER. The crime of "murder" is mentioned as THE crime in the COMPLAINT as element #__, but WHERE in the e-mail does it state that I was going to, in the FUTURE tense, "kill"? by (1) stealth*, (2) motive**, and (3) premeditation***, as the three specifications for the word murder as a synonym under the word kill over at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/kill from the Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary. Does the prosecution have a SECRET* and ADVANCE PLAN*** to be FUTURE tense put into MOTION**?, and if so HOW*** is the murder to take place? (by Col. Mustard, with an ax at City Hall? as in the boardgame of "CLUE") and WHEN? ______ plus HOW was this SECRET un-covered? (page 750) or disclosed (p. 205), divulged (p. 211) from the Latin word divulgare, "to spread abroad among the people"****. BECAUSE withOUT these answers there is no THE PEOPLE**** v. Joseph S. Haas.
Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - Joe Haas
P.S. The typing of the 2-page SUPPLEMENT to follow...
Quote from: Braddogg on June 22, 2007, 12:28 AM NHFT
Quote from: Defender of Liberty on June 22, 2007, 12:23 AM NHFT
Quote from: Braddogg on June 22, 2007, 12:17 AM NHFT
Quote from: Defender of Liberty on June 21, 2007, 11:03 PM NHFT
"Wise up or die" is not a threat because it is not suggesting that the writer is going to kill or otherwise harm anyone, only that he is telling someone what he wants them to do. "I'm gonna kill you" is a threat because the person is saying that they are going to do something to someone. "Wise up or die" falls in the same category as "Take a long walk off a short pier", "Why don't you just shoot yourself" and "Break a leg", as none of them indicate that the writer or speaker is threatening to do anything. While Mr. Haas' grammar is difficult to understand at times, the people who really need help with their grammar and reading comprehension are certain members of the Lebanon City Council and Police Department and anyone else who thinks that "Wise up or die" is a threat.
So if I called you and left a voicemail saying "DoL, you're dead wrong about this Joe Haas thing. Wise up or die!", you wouldn't view it as a threat?
I would view it as a hostile opinion and as a suggestion that you don't like me and/or my opinions, but not as a threat.
How explicit would I have to be before you would consider it a threat?
"I'm coming over there and blowing your mother----ing brains out of your mother----ing skull!"
I'd consider that a threat. Unless of course, you were a friend and I knew you were joking.
Here's my typing of this SUPPLEMENT to "Supporting Affidavit for Request to Issue Arrest Warrant" in LPD (Lebanon Police Dept.) Case #07L-628-OF. New Hampshire
In RE: JOSEPH HAAS
CRIMINAL THREATENING; INTIMIDATION, ETC. RSA 631:4
"--On June 18, 2007 at approximately 1500 hours I was advised by Lt. Rathburn to investigate a Criminal Threatening complaint. Terri Dudley, a City Councilor for Lebanon, received an e-mail from Joseph Haas. There was a threatening message contained in the body of the e-mail which terrified Mrs. Dudley. Mrs. Dudley received this e-mail on Friday, June 15, 2007. The e-mail is in regards to Haas disagreement with the Lebanon Police Department assisting with a seizure of property in West Lebanon, New Hampshire.
--In reviewing a copy of the e-mail, I found the text that Mrs. Dudley felt threatened with. It states: 'You live in a dream land of lies, the father of which is the devil himself: devil worshipers you must be, and O.K. by your article 5 rights, but when you become a public servant, you owe fidelity to the truth. Either you do your job, or get out of the way. WISE UP OR DIE. If the latter be your choice, then BE GONE with you NOW! You have turned the Isaiah 1:21 'faithful city' (in your 78+ years Rep. Terri Duddy) into a land of the harlot: the vague and the vagabond, you KNOWing that there be NONE of these RSA 123:1 papers on file, but treat it as a mis-understanding or mistake of no harm while it's being corrected you presume, No harm!?'
--Mrs. Dudley stated she has been threatened in the past by Mr. Haas and she felt threatened by this e-mail.
--On 6/16/07 at approximately 1545 hours, I spoke with Lebanon City Manager, Gregg Mandsager. Mandsager said he has spoken with Haas over the phone and at a City Council meeting on June 5, 2007. Mandsager stated Haas voiced his displeasure over the Lebanon Police Department's involvment with the seizure of 27 Glen Road, West Lebanon, New Hampshire. Mandsager stated Haas just kept saying that the Lebanon Police should do their jobs and should not have assisted the federal government with the seizure of the property. He stated Haas seemed angry when speaking with him.
--At the June 6th meeting Haas made his arguements to the City Council. He was advised the Attorney General's Office or the Grafton County Attorney's Office was the proper place to bring his complaint and the council could not assist him further.
--Mandsager stated he has read the recent e-mail sent to the seven (7) Lebanon City Councilors. Mandsager agreed with Mrs. Dudley in that the e-mail seemed threatening. Mandsager said he has fear now for the safety of his family as the e-mail mentions death and seems angry in nature. Mandsager said notified the Lebanon Police reference his concerns about Haas sending this threatening e-mail.
--On 6/18/07 at approximately 1600 hours, I spoke with Mrs. Dudley at the Lebanon Police Station. Mrs. Dudley said she is in fear of Haas based on the e-mail she received. Mrs. Dudley stated she feels Haas has distrust for the Government and she does not know what he would or could do if he becomes angry. Mrs. Dudley mentioned to me that people in the Colebrook, New Hampshire area felt Carl Drega was just an angry person who was harmless until he went on a shooting rampage. Mrs. Dudley says she fears Haas could potentially resort to the same violence Drega did in Colebrook, New Hampshire in 1997. Mrs. Dudley said she is very afraid of Haas based on the statement in this e-mail. Mrs. Dudley further stated she was in fear as she is the only Lebanon City Councilor mentioned in the e-mail.
--On 6/18/07 at approximately 1755 hours, I received a call from Haas. Haas said he figured I was calling reference the 'Ed Brown case.' I told him it was in reference to the e-mail sent to the Lebanon City Council. I told Haas the e-mail bothered Mrs. Dudley. Haas responded by stating, 'Good, it should bother her.' I explained Mrs. Dudley felt threatened by this e-mail. Haas said he felt the e-mail made a point and maybe the council will now look into his issues with the Police Department assisting the federal Government. Haas went on to say he has known Mrs. Dudley from when she was a representative and they go 'way back.' Haas told me he wrote the e-mail and further acknowledged he spelled Mrs. Dudley's name incorrectly. I told Haas that despite his political beliefs, that sending e-mails which contain threatening material was unlawful. Haas stated he never threatened anyone, that he just said for the council to die. He said he never stated he would carry it the death or cause harm. I told him the e-mail caused fear with Mrs. Dudley as she construed the e-mail as a threat. Haas said he can not help how Mrs. Dudley feels. He stated she should be held to a higher standard as she is an elected official. Haas said because he wrote that it does not mean he will do it. I explained and read the New Hampshire statute on Criminal Threatening, specifically section (d) of the statute (The person threatens to commit any crime against the person of another [page 1 / page 2 ] with a purpose to terrorize any person,) and further read how terrorize was defined in the statute (As used in this section 'terrorize' means to cause alarm, fright, or dread; the state of mind induced by the apprehendsion of hurt from some hostile or threatening event or manifestation.) Haas stated he never threatened Mrs. Dudley. I asked about the e-mail where states they could 'wise up or die.' Haas said that is how he feels, they can do their jobs or 'shrivel up and die.' I told Haas they council was elected officials and death was not how they were removed. I told him the citizen's of Lebanon vote and can remove any member of the council if they feel the job is not being done. Haas said he knows this but he can not vote as he is a citizen of Concord, New Hampshire. Haas said he is supporting Ed and Elaine Brown and the seizure of their Glen Road property.
--Based on the aforementioned facts and circumstances, to include the admittance of Haas writing the e-mail and Mrs. Dudley's fear and alarm from reading the e-mail and believing Haas could harm her, I feel there is probable cause to charge Haas with Criminal Threatening.
ELEMENTS: 631:4 Criminal Theatening, - I. A person is guilty of criminal threatening when: ...(d) That person threatens to commit any crime against the person of another with a purpose to terriorize any person....
___________ Detective Michael S. Roberts ______________ Justice John J. Yazinski "
Joe, you've just learned why you don't want to talk to the police. The detective noted that you admitted to writing the e-mail and misspelling the recipient's name. Without either of those admissions, the investigation would have taken a lot longer and may not have resulted in an arrest warrant, etc.
Remember, when the government is investigating you (whether for a speeding ticket or something far more serious), your best bet is to say nothing. Frequently, police who pull people over for speeding didn't have their radar on and are bluffing when they ask, "Do you know how fast you were going?" When you answer 70, they write you down for 65, making you think that they're doing you a favor, but all that you've done is give them the information that they needed to win in traffic court.
Don't be a jerk to the cops, but don't help them convict you, either. Save your case for your lawyer and / or court.
Quote from: TylerM on June 30, 2007, 02:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: Braddogg on June 22, 2007, 12:28 AM NHFT
How explicit would I have to be before you would consider it a threat?
"I'm coming over there and blowing your mother----ing brains out of your mother----ing skull!"
I'd consider that a threat. Unless of course, you were a friend and I knew you were joking.
I'm telling!!!!!
;)
* * * * * These two papers (the letter and ORDER), were mailed 6/29, that I received in today's mail:
From: THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Lebanon District Court
38 Centerra Parkway
Lebanon, NH 03766
Tel. 603: 643-3555
http://www.courts.state.nh.us
Case Name: State v. Joseph S. Haas
Case Number: 452-2007-CR-01061
Enclosed please find a copy of the Judge's Order. Please contact the Court if there are any questions.
Diane M. Carroll, Clerk of Court (0041)
c: Lebanon Police Dept Prosecutor
NHJB-2012-DFPS (3/1/2005)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE GRAFTON LEBANON DISTRICT COURT
ORDER
--Justices Cirone and MacLeod, of the Lebanon District Court have recused themselves in the above entitled case as they both have a conflict.
--This case is hereby transferred to the Newport District Court for further proceedings to take place on August 7, 2007, at 8:30am.
Lawrence A. MacLeod, Special Justice
c: All parties
cv/confilct.ord 3/01
* * * * * Yours truly, - - Joe Haas
Quote from: JosephSHaas on July 02, 2007, 09:55 PM NHFT
--Justices Cirone and MacLeod, of the Lebanon District Court have recused themselves in the above entitled case as they both have a conflict.
--This case is hereby transferred to the Newport District Court for further proceedings to take place on August 7, 2007, at 8:30am.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
How can venue lie in Sullivan County (Newport) for an offense allegedly committed in Grafton County (Lebanon)?
Especially considering the following:
Quote
602:1 Parts of Offense in More Than One County, etc. – Offenders shall be prosecuted and tried in the county or judicial district thereof in which the offense was committed. But if any person is feloniously stricken, wounded or poisoned in one county or judicial district thereof and dies thereof in another, or if parts of an offense are committed in more than one county or judicial district thereof, the offense shall be deemed to have been committed, the offender may be prosecuted, and the trial may be had in either county or judicial district thereof.
Not to mention the following constitutional provision:
Quote
[Art.] 17. [Venue of Criminal Prosecutions.] In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts, in the vicinity where they happened, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offense ought to be tried in any other county or judicial district than that in which it is committed; except in any case in any particular county or judicial district, upon motion by the defendant, and after a finding by the court that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had where the offense may be committed, the court shall direct the trial to a county or judicial district in which a fair and impartial trial can be obtained.
How are they getting around the statute and the constitution, Joe?
Where I practice (Oregon), if all of the judges in a particular judicial district are disqualified (whether recusing themselves or by affidavit of prejudice by either party), a judge from another judicial district is brought into the judicial district to hear the case. Why are they sending Joe away, when it is his right to have the case tried in Lebanon District Court in Grafton County?
Here's another one I received in today's mail:
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE GRAFTON SS LEBANON DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE VS Joseph S. Haas
STATE'S OBJECTION TO MOTION TO AMEND BAIL
--NOW COMES the State of New Hampshire, by and through the Lebanon Police Department, and objects to the defendant's motion to amend the orders and conditions of bail and states as its reasons therefore the following:
1. The Defendant was arrested on June 20, 2007 for the crime of Criminal Threatening. Upon his arrest, the defendant was released with conditions not to contact the victim* in this case, Terr Dudley, or any of the other Lebanon City Councilors. These conditions were set by Bail Commissioner Donald Crate.
2. The defendant has filed a motion asking to have those conditions dropped. The defendant states his reason for this is so that he can further contact the victim* in this case.
3. The State objects to this request as the defendant in this case has threatened the life** of the victim*. As a result of this, Mrs. Dudley is in fear*** for her safety****. To allow the defendant further contact would only serve to place Mrs. Dudley in further fear*** for her well being and safety****.
4. The defendant has NO REASON to contact the victim or the Lebanon City Council, other than FOR THE PURPOSE TO THREATEN AND TERRORIZE***** the parties. The purpose of bail and conditions of bail is to ensure the appearance of the defendant and to protect the safety**** of any person and the community. [emphasis ADDed by Defendant, see below.]
WHEREFORE, the State respectfully prays the Honorable Court to:
A. Deny the defendant's motion without the necessity of a hearing, and,
B. Grant any other relief deemed fair and just.
Respectfully submitted, _______________ Lt. Matthew S. Isham, Prosecutor, Lebanon Police Department, 36 Poverty Lane, Lebanon, N.H. 03766-2700
Certificate of Service I hereby certify a copy of the within motion has been mailed to the defendant, Joseph Haas, at P.O. Box 3842, Concord, NH 03302 on the 29th day of June 2007 Lt. Matthew S. Isham
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Defendant's comments: [to maybe put into a Reply to STATE'S OBJECTION.] (for a Tue., Aug. 7th hearing @ 8:30 a.m. in Newport District Court)
Come on! WHO is the REAL "victim"* here? NOT Dudley, but me! as the Affidafvit used to obtain this Arrest Warrant was based upon a lie: the lie of intent to commit "murder"/ re: to TAKE the "life"** of the Councilor. The Lebanon Police are up to more "trick"s as they pulled on Ed when they lied to him that there was water flowing from the Glen Road building. Lie, Lies and now more lies, because #4 above is a bunch of crap! The reason to complete the sentence of "Wise up, or Die" a natural death, by natural cause(s) is supposed to put away the "fear"*** defined as in a state of dread, dread= great or profound fear, the word profound meaning: "beyond what is superficial". And superficial= "Concerned with or comprehending only what is apparent or obvious." So it is apparent or obvious that we all of us and "everyday"**are heading toward death in the same direction, just that some of us are going to make it there sooner than others, and the soopner the better for her/ Mrs. Dudley, so that somebody wiser can take her seat and rule that RSA 123:1 offsets the Feds and so to make sure that the Browns get the Art. 12 protection that they have paid for! Mrs. Dudley chose not to wise up, but die and calls herself a friend of the Browns, which I say is another lie! Because with friends like this, who needs enemies!? She gave Ed airwave time of her radio program. To which I say: big deal! talk-talk-and more talk, that doesn't amount to a hill of beans, as they say. Her life** or "everyday life"** is the only TYPE of life we're talking about here. To write that a person die of natural cause(s) is not "evil" or a "danger" but a simple fact of life, and so there is no "safety"**** issue here. And again I say: WHO is the real victim, or injured party here? The one who had the lie foisted upon: me! in the police stuffing that "murder" word down my throat that should NOT have been written up in the affavidit in the first place! - - Yours truly, Joe Haas
P.S. Thanks error for the HAHA as backed up with the proof, thank you too: Spencer.
So the July 31st court date is changed to Aug. 7th?
Judges around here are sure cowardly...recusing themselves like that.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 03, 2007, 05:43 AM NHFT
So the July 31st court date is changed to Aug. 7th?
Judges around here are sure cowardly...recusing themselves like that.
Kat, I just called the Lebanon District Court at 643-3555 (press 2-2) and Joan said that the 452 # refers to their "Labanon" District Court, and to still use it for the Newport District Court, at 55 Main Street, Newport, N.H. 03773 Tel 603: ____________ (to find out later). Whatever the "conflict" is that made Cirone and MacLeod "recuse" themselves must have to do with maybe their friendship with Mrs. Dudley is my guess, as I do not know these "justices". Maybe they were friends of Judge John C. Fairbanks, that thieving judge who stole $millions from his clients and was on Rbt. Stack's "Unsolved Mysteries" on NBC-TV who I did talk AGAINST when the House had those Fairbanks Public Hearings in the Judiciary Committee in Concord.
When I get to there on Tue., Aug. 7th @ 8:30 a.m. (or before, like in an Objection to a trampling of my rights to Art. 17 of the N.H. Bill of Rights in Part First of the N.H. Constitution, thanks to Spencer) I (or my legal counsel) can (write or) say what I did write on the Police form Wed., June 20th that I do NOT waive my rights! and which they, by their RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office, are to obey RSA Ch. 602:1 with thanks to Spencer again, plus direct link to http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/602/602-1.htm So to what? File a "Special" Appearance, arguing the "jurisdiction".
I've also done some looking at http://www.google.com for some answers of this electronic crime stuff, and finding information such as some opinions that it's not the "path" taken, but where the threat was either made or received. The COMPLAINT reads that the offense was "commit"ed at 38 DANA ST LEBANON NH. The word "commit" means to do, perform or perpetrate. "They" always like to SAY that you're the perpetrator, but what does this mean exactly? To perpetrate means to carry out and is from the Latin word perpetrare, to accomplish: meaning to succeed in doing, to bring to pass, from the OF of accomplir of to complete, that compLete, with emphasis ADDed for the letter "L" as I'll explain below, meaning thorough, to perfect, to bring to perfection; as compared to the word compete (withOUT the letter L), meaning to contend with another, vie, from the Latin word competere, "to strive together", and see the OF origin of envier, to challenge**, or bid*.
In regards to the latter, of to bid*, did I direct of command that she/ Mrs. Dudley chose death? as in my comment of "Wise up, or Die". Of course not, SHE chose to put herself in fear.
In regards to the former of to challenge**, that's a call to engage in a contest, and a demand for an explanation, plus from the Latin word calumnia of trickerty. Yup, there's that "trick" word again.
So there you have it, of this GIVE and TAKE. Of my giving, or call TO her by internet to contest or challenge her for a demand for an explanation of: (1) WHY she refused to Art. 12 protect the Browns from the Feds? , and (2) WHY the endorsement of this police "trickery"!? by lieing to Ed that there was water flowing from his wife's business building.
The N.H. DOJ by their http://doj.nh.gov/strategic_plan.html has in effect already indicated that here in this state it is NOT where the threatening e-mail was received, but from where it was sent. Just see that "cyber attack" phrase and the word: attack, meaning an assault, of "An unlawful attempt or threat to injure another physically". The word attempt meaning to try, an effort, an attack: an attempt ON his life, as the example. Plus the fact that an attack is a pre-liminary assault, or PRIOR to the main action or business; introductory; prefatory. That prefatory word meaning, of, relating to, or constituting a preface, introduction. So like I've written here before, the KEY word or preface to the word die, is the word "or". "Wise up, or Die".
Thus as I said before I admit writing this e-mail, but did I "send" it? and if so from WHERE? These are elements that I can admit and provide the evidence against myself, but in this country one is innocent until proven guilty, and has the right to clam up by the 5th Amendment. Why should I do the work for the COPs? I presume that they can obtain the "Internet protocal address" from where this was sent, and I'll bet that it was not done in either Grafton nor Sullivan County.
Plus HOW was this "consumer" the victim? Did I make her chose the latter of to die, rather than the former of to Wise Up? Of course not! She chose to be frightened herself! A CIVIL threat maybe, but certainly NOT a criminal threat! as they shoved that "murder" word into my mouth, and I spit it out! To take that murder word on the pink COMPLAINT form and put it in my mouth and physically spit it out in court if I have to illustrate this point beyond any written Motion to Dismiss! maybe needing a hearing.
Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone).
After my arrest I did two radio interviews.
Here's one of them over at:
http://www.citizensadvocate.net/
For the latest, see today's reports over at page 350 here, at http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.5235 to be exact.
The trial date has been set for: Tue., Sept. 18th '07 @ 11:00 o'clock a.m. - - Joe
If I send them a bunch of e-mails saying I hope you die they can't arrest me can they. That isn't a threat.
If they can arrest you for standing on the street, then ya.
Update:
The trial today in Courtroom #1 in Lebanon District Court started after 1:30 p.m. and went to about 3:00 p.m. for the Judge Bruce A. Cardello to take a short recess, to read those 47 (29+18) pages of case-law the prosecutor presented to him in two packets at the last minute.*
The finding was: guilty, to pay the $450.00 fine + $90 penalty assessment, with the other $750.00 of to the $1200 max suspended upon good behavior of not to contact the "victim"/ Mrs. Dudley, and that includes, I presume, of not to attend any more Lebanon City Council Meetings until she's either voted out of office or dies.
The details of what happened, will no doubt, be reported in tomorrow's http://www.vnews.com for "The Valley News", and so to summarize by my first-draft "Motion to Reconsider"(*) to follow, to file withIN ten (10) days of the clerk's written notice of: Oct. __ .
The clerk took my check for: $25.00 so that a cassette tape could be made by Judge Kelley in Concord, and that she said usually takes about three weeks to process, so not really of any use for a Mtn. to Reconsider, but only good for like to refer to if any appeal.
Yours truly, - - Joe
* REPLY TO CASE-LAWS:
1. The Brewster case involves "to shoot" (p. 2, par. last, 5 lines up);
2. The Pepin case involves "to put a gun to your head" (p. 6 [p.11 of packet] under B.1. Background);
3. The Hancock case involves "he threatened to sue" (p. 1, last paragraph [p. 18 of packet]);
4. The Richardson case involves "boasting about killing an officer" (p. 5 p. 27 of pack]);
- -
5. The Jae Pseudea case involves "to kill himself with a gun" (p. 1 [p. 2 of packet, first indented par., line #4]);
6. The Morbito case involves "to kill the Chief of Police" (p. 1 [p. 7 of packet; 2nd indented par., line last]);
7. The Fuller(*) case involves to "beat him to a pulp" (p. 2 [p. 11 of packet; par. 5]); +
8. The Pond case involved to: _____________________
JSH Wed., 24 Oct. 07 @ 3:30 p.m.
Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 24, 2007, 09:46 PM NHFT
The clerk took my check for: $25.00 so that a cassette tape could be made by Judge Kelley in Concord, and that she said usually takes about three weeks to process
Consider yourself lucky.
Both times I asked for a cassette recording of a trial in Concord I was informed that I'd need to pay something exorbitant for an Official Transcript. I don't remember how much, but more than a few tens of dollars.
Anyway... you should have a blog. Want one? Cost ya nothin'.
First-Draft "Motion to Reconsider"
--The defendant Haas is thankful to the police prosecutor for indirectly alerting the court and me of the State v. Joseph J. Morabito case in Vol. 153 N.H. Reports 302-306 [Dalianis,J.] (2006) by what the defendant found out later is annotation #1 for N.H. RSA Ch. 631:4 "Criminal Threatening" @ page 94 of the 2007 statute book for Title 62 CRIMINAL CODE (for the varying levels of knowingly as the lesser mental state than purposely as taken out of the complaint), but what about annotation #2?
--In Anno. 2, according to the State v. Frederick J. Fuller case in 147 N.H. 210-215 [Nadeau, J.] (2001), when there was a "conditional threat" there was no conviction/ no jury verdict.
--Even more so ought to be applied here in this case of the word: "or" in the phrase: "Wise Up or Die". The condition* being made by the choice of the one receiving the option, to make the right decision.
--Plus the summary #1 @ page 210+ 213 in the Fuller case is only one of the three elements, the key word of "with" therein being BOTH the threat AND the terror, citing the Richardson case "that he threatened to KILL" (emphasis ADDed, that was NOT the case here for natural causes, as by the "shrivel up and die" answer to the police investigator. Just because the word "die" can mean either: (1) to be killed, or (2) die of natural (or supernatural_ causes) does not mean that the defendant meant to do the former. And to not accept the police report as evidence of such to have marked as an exhibit, was improper and so attached hereto to please reconsider and reverse to a finding of not guilty.
Yours Truly, - - Joe Haas
footnote: * The word condition is defined with the conjunctions** (union, association + combination) of: "if, unless, and though", as in: if that be your choice Mrs. Dudley then to die is YOUR decision; but HOW? It was never established of the intent to kill, but that of by natural causes, and so no proof of all of the three elements!!! there needing to be this conjunction:**
** conjunction: "7 logic: a statement that is true only if both of its components are true, called also joint assertion."
Dictionary definitions are from: Webster's Third New International Dictionary, (c)1966.
Attached hereto: (a) the police report, (b) the context Reply #31 on p. 3 above, + (c) the supernatural reply #25 on page 3 above too.
Quote from: d_goddard on October 24, 2007, 09:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 24, 2007, 09:46 PM NHFT
The clerk took my check for: $25.00 so that a cassette tape could be made by Judge Kelley in Concord, and that she said usually takes about three weeks to process
Consider yourself lucky.
Both times I asked for a cassette recording of a trial in Concord I was informed that I'd need to pay something exorbitant for an Official Transcript. I don't remember how much, but more than a few tens of dollars.
Anyway... you should have a blog. Want one? Cost ya nothin'.
Thanks d_goddard. I too thought that after I re-hear what the judge said in his decision that I'd have a transcript excerpt made of that portion only, and still might have to do, the point being that he merely read the summary #3 from the Fuller case: "In order to prove defendant guilty of criminal threatening, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he threatened the victim with a purpose to terrorize him. RSA 631:4,I(d)." to which I add the words: as one or two of the three elements?
As you can see the judge has AVOIDed the threatened to do what? threatened...to terrorize"?! What happened with the "with" word!? As you can see he's trying to equate the two elements into one! It's a total mis-reading of this summary! The threat as charged was threatened to commit the crime of murder. Just because the word die has #__ dictionary definitions, the two here of: to kill, and to expire by natural causes, when the phrase "Live Free of Die" is made, does that mean that the person you say it to can THINK that you mean them to be assassinated or killed? rather than to die a natural death!?
This is a classic example of George Orwellian "Nineteen Eighty Four" double-speak by both the executive and judicial branches. They totally screwing up the words put into the statutes by the Legislature, and of course, by Lobbyist Lawyers who make it so worded that you've got to hire them to untangle the mess!
Yours truly, - - Joe
P.S. And re: transcripts, I remember Dick Bosa, our VOCALS, Inc. President (R.I.P.-Berlin, N.H.) saying that they like to make them triple-spaced with 2-inch margins! @ then $3.75 per page, now: $_____.
I always find your posts so... impenetrable
And reference other cassette records in more state agencies; I was at the DMV back in the 1980s with one, and all for nothing, because when I went to pay the $10.00 then (now: $25.00!?), they said because of either: (1) machine error, or (2) operator error, the tape was blank.
Here's a re-type of my e-mail of 10:09 a.m.
"To: Donald L. Vittum, Director
State of New Hampshire
Police Standards & Training Council
17 Institution Drive
Concord, N.H. 03301
603: 271-2133
Dear Director Vittum:
--This is to follow-up my telephone call to your receptionist, who told me not to ask you verbally, but to put it in writing of what I would like to get a copy of from page #__ of the _________________ entitled book or booklet, Ch. #__ on Police Investigations.
--What I'm looking for in particular is for when a police officer 'investigates' a complaint of a crime, of what the procedures are, like him checking out just what sub-definition of a word might apply. Like for example of: 'Wise up or Die'; did you mean to 'kill' somebody? or just wish that they'd succumb to a natural (or super-natural) death?, as to die can be by various means. What did you mean?
--Plus this is NOT a hypothetical question, but actual case, in that the Police Investigator in Lebanon was told by me that in my chapter #__ of the Ed & Elaine Brown anti-IRS case of this phrase to a former Rep. I meant what I said of to "shrivel up and die" of natural causes, he, AFTER-the-fact ignored this explanation and proceeded to have me arrested anyway! I call this a lie!
--I'd like to see the formatting form or step-by-step instruction page that he might have learned from, or was supposed to learn from Professor _______________ in the ___________ class or course, maybe him sick that day of class, and so dishing out warped law-enforcement now, us in the public paying these __% penalty assessments by RSA Ch. ___ (*)to educate these cadets BEFORE they become patrolmen, him having gotten the certified training, but at only the __% level, me too looking for his score of #__ to 100% please too if available.
Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone)."
(*) RSA Ch. 188-F:31 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XV/188-F/188-F-31.htm
see paraphraph IV for 65% to the PS&T, 20% to the victims fund + 15% to the General Fund, = 100%
Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 25, 2007, 09:38 AM NHFT
Here's a re-type of my e-mail of 10:09 a.m.
"To: Donald L. Vittum, Director
State of New Hampshire
Police Standards & Training Council
17 Institution Drive
Concord, N.H. 03301
603: 271-2133
Dear Director Vittum:
--This is to follow-up my telephone call to your receptionist, who told me not to ask you verbally, but to put it in writing of what I would like to get a copy of from page #__ of the _________________ entitled book or booklet, Ch. #__ on Police Investigations.
--What I'm looking for in particular is for when a police officer 'investigates' a complaint of a crime, of what the procedures are, like him checking out just what sub-definition of a word might apply. Like for example of: 'Wise up or Die'; did you mean to 'kill' somebody? or just wish that they'd succumb to a natural (or super-natural) death?, as to die can be by various means. What did you mean?
--Plus this is NOT a hypothetical question, but actual case, in that the Police Investigator in Lebanon was told by me that in my chapter #__ of the Ed & Elaine Brown anti-IRS case of this phrase to a former Rep. I meant what I said of to "shrivel up and die" of natural causes, he, AFTER-the-fact ignored this explanation and proceeded to have me arrested anyway! I call this a lie!
--I'd like to see the formatting form or step-by-step instruction page that he might have learned from, or was supposed to learn from Professor _______________ in the ___________ class or course, maybe him sick that day of class, and so dishing out warped law-enforcement now, us in the public paying these __% penalty assessments by RSA Ch. ___ (*)to educate these cadets BEFORE they become patrolmen, him having gotten the certified training, but at only the __% level, me too looking for his score of #__ to 100% please too if available.
Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone)."
(*) RSA Ch. 188-F:31 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XV/188-F/188-F-31.htm
see paraphraph IV for 65% to the PS&T, 20% to the victims fund + 15% to the General Fund, = 100%
Thought police in action: http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4682 (http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4682)
Joe is a victim of the thought police.
Quote from: Sheep Fuzzy Wool on October 25, 2007, 11:16 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 25, 2007, 09:38 AM NHFT
Here's a re-type of my e-mail of 10:09 a.m.
"To: Donald L. Vittum, Director
....
Thought police in action: http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4682 (http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4682)
Joe is a victim of the thought police.
Thanks SFW. I'll have to re-read this in detail later, but for now, see from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-993 that both of our New Hampshire Federal Reps (Shea-Porter and Hodes, both Democrats) voted FOR this HR [House Resolution] 1955 that is not technically a Bill, as armlaw might like to describe to us the difference, as a former State Rep. to the N.H. General Court.
Best wishes, -- Joe
P.S. I like to think of myself as a half-victim, as having lost the latest part of the battle in court yesterday, but not the war as with that Motion to file and be granted, and with the materials I get from the PS&T, having just received a reply back from Vittum that "This would be a 91 A (*) request, therefore we would need this request in writing". So to sign my print-out of that e-mail/reply and deliver it to him at his office later this afternoon in Concord (past SHAW'S at the end of Fort Eddy Road by the NHTI/ New Hampshire Technical Institute), to await the, what usually takes the "full" five (5) days, for an answer, and so by next Thursday afternoon, November 1st @ __:- o'clock p.m.
(*) RSA Ch. 91-A:1-15 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-VI-91-A.htm
The "Valley News" of today, http://www.vnews.com/ [internet page one.]
See: http://www.vnews.com/10252007/4312511.htm
reference: last paragraph, see:
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/plagues.htm
for The Tenth Plague; Let my people go...
...go out from jail, as in the "Speedy Trial" Rule in N.H.
is four (4) months, and they knew that Gus Breton
was in jail for OVER four months!!!! hypocrites!
JSH
Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 24, 2007, 10:13 PM NHFT
First-Draft "Motion to Reconsider" ...
** conjunction: "7 logic: a statement that is true only if both of its components are true, called also joint assertion." (*)
Dictionary definitions are from: Webster's Third New International Dictionary, (c)1966....
(*) Note: that today I did visit the N.H. State Law Library, but could find nothing on this "joint assertion" phrase in any of the following:
(1) Words & Phrases, Vol. 23, not at page 117 nor at page 52 of the '07 Pocket Part;
(2) West's N.H. Digest, Vol. 10, not at page 756, nor p. 288 of the ;07 Pocket Part;
(3) Lexis Nexis, N.H. Supreme Court cases from 1816, no document.
(4) Ballentine's Law Dictionary, (c)1969, not at page 676;
(5) Am Jur 2d (green) not in Vol. 45c nor 46'
(6) Corpus Juris 2b (blue), not on page 188-189 in Vol. 48.
...so to check the word: "conjunction" next time; _______.
JSH
P.S. What the judge did was to say that because 2 of the 3 elements made it over the 50% mark, that I'm guilty!? No! I'll make case-law, if I have to, in that all three elements need to be there for a finding of guilty!!! Isn't this already written somewhere? like in the front of the A.G. Handbook on the Criminal Code? "To commit the crime of murder" by killing!? No way did I say that! In fact I sub-defined the "die" word of NOT to "kill", BUT to succumb from natural cases as to "shrivel up and die" as the police investigator marked in his report that the judge REFUSED to mark into evidence for an exhibit for him to weigh in his decision. Plus BTW I dropped off a signed copy of my Reply #61 here on page 5 at the PS&T for Director Vittum to get me a copy of that investigators instruction manual, etc. within five (5) business days.
Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 24, 2007, 10:13 PM NHFT
First-Draft "Motion to Reconsider" ...
footnote: * The word condition is defined with the conjunctions** (union, association + combination) of: "if, unless, and though", as in: if that be your choice(*) Mrs. Dudley then to die is YOUR decision; but HOW? ....
(*) The emphasis is NOT on the word "if", but on the word "choice" as explained below:
1.) What is a "threat"? A threat is "An act of coercion* wherein a negative consequence is proposed...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat
2. * "Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to behave in an involuntary** way...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion
3. ** The word "involuntary" is defined as "Not proceeding from choice***;" http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?involuntary
--So when I gave Mrs. Dudley the phrase: "Wise up or die" If the latter be your choice***, then be gone with you now, there's another key word of the present of "now" rather some future conditional event. But the Key word, with a capital letter K is that choice word. There can be NO threat when there is a choice, because when the three words with meanings of: threat, coercion and involuntary are combined, a threat is only when there is "No...choice" from the involuntary word, from the coercion word from the threat word.
--And therefore since the judge takes an RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office to the Constitution and laws of New Hampshire, http://www.state.nh.us and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm he is bound to obey RSA Ch. 21:2 for the Common Usage of words by the Statutory Construction of that: "words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language;" http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/21/21-2.htm
Thus: this addendum to my Motion to Dismiss, to be: GRANTED.
JSH
P.S. What the judge has done is to have highlighted only the negative consequence in the first definition of the word threat, while leaving out that coercion word, and thus basing his decision of that and that alone that is wrong, and also in violation of Art. 14 for "complete" legal remedies to the full definition of the word! He needs to look beyond #1 above, to #2 and 3.
Joseph S Haas,
I don't understand a darn thing you write most of the time but it looks impressive so another + for you! ;D
Quote from: raineyrocks on October 26, 2007, 08:22 AM NHFT
Joseph S Haas,
I don't understand a darn thing you write most of the time but it looks impressive so another + for you! ;D
Thanks Rainey,
--I know what you mean. Sometimes I take the long road back to square one, as for the very nature of the word threat, to KISS: Keep it Simple Stupid.
--Maybe in the back of my mind, or Fate, or God's will, was to let this judge go off the deep end in his analysis that proves him to be the George Orwellian "Double-talker" he is. He must have flunked English in school. Or did pass with "flying colors", in the George Orwellian "Nineteen Eighty-Four" manner of teaching. Anyway to avoid him in the future if you're ever in the Newport District Court, or maybe now that he's learned a thing or two, then he's passed the George Orwell test? ;)
--The judge said: "I share the same concern that others have about the degree of unnecessary fear and consternation you have caused the victim." But see the very definition of the word "consternation" of sudden confusion or dismay, and the word dismay of to MAKE afraid! Emphasis ADDed in that I did not make her do anything! I merely gave her the choice or to "Wise up OR die" and IF the latter be her choice, then to happen right then and there in the NOW or present time, and not be afraid= filled with fear. It's like the saying of are you an optimist or a pessimist? Is the glass half empty or filled? Who did the filling? Her!
--To be afraid is a feeling of alarm or disquiet caused by awareness or expectation of danger. Was this a Five Alarm threat? Was it even a threat to begin with? Afraid also being a sign of dread: to be in terror of, fear greatly. Or to hold in awe or reverence.
--Did you ever see the TV series: "Falcon Crest"? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081858/ with David Selby, 1941- as Richard Channing in 209 episodes 1982-90. David "highly regarded for his villainous work", also as Quentin Collins in the 1968-71 TV series: "Dark Shadows". And that Falcon Crest episode of him talking to his priest in some religious order. >:D The cast and characters in the show in "awe" to like the awe and mysteries of the unknown that goes from the inner mind to The Outer Limits! ;D http://www.theouterlimits.com plus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Outer_Limits awe= "An emotion of mingled reverence, dread, and wonder." And reverence being 1. A feeling of profound(*) awe and respect, or 2. Just showing respect, too many of his "Reverence" title applied as "A title of respect (only) for a clergyman", us needing the Fire & Brimstone preachers is what I think, and so needing this "awe" element in the definition #1 of for both "awe and respect."
--Now wouldn't that be something, if like I said to the reporter on Wednesday, if she was in the courtroom, and lit on fire, like SHC: Spontaneous Human Combustion? 8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_human_combustion and http://www.crystalinks.com/shc.html
--Now just for "think"ing this the authorities might charge me with arson next?! So what IF she does burst into a pile of flames, am I then a suspect?!
--(*) The word profound is defined as: Extended to or coming from a great depth; deep. Coming as if from the depths of one's being: profound contempt. Thoroughgoing. Penetrating beyond what is superficial or obvious. Absolute; complete: a profound silence. So when the other noun definition of dread is found is of "profound" fear; terror. Plus anxious or fearful anticipation. Dreadful as extremely unpleasant. See also the dread-nought of A heavily armed battleship; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought
--Thus armed with the truth in the dictionary and applied to the situation by RSA Ch. 21:2 for the common usage of words, and not some judge's George Orwellian double-talk, then there is NO threat! The problem being of now for the so-called victim to look to the "Wise Up" part and do what I did write in the Mon., June 4th letter to her two days BEFORE the June 6th Council Meeting, which letter she does not remember even having received it even after I presented proof of it having been sent to her. Or in other words: like selective hearing of only listening to what she WANTS to hear, as in to this so-called threat to grand-stand herself probably being pinned right now in some secret ceremony of getting the George Orwellian 1984 award for Double-speaker of the year in her City, but that won't last long, as to be tarnished when I win the Motion to Reconsider! The request in my letter of June 4th still stands of to urge the governor to do his Art. 41 duty to enforce ALL legislative mandates with the "shall" word, as in RSA Ch. 123:1 directed to the Feds to comply from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. THEN afterwards it will be the proof needed for Ed & Elaine to have the judge declare a mistrial, and/or get out of Prison in Ohio and Connecticut respectfully as single-filing states with the Registrar of Deeds only, by application to those Federal courts to tell the N.H. Federal court to wise up! Also BTW the Four Freedom Fighters' cases to dissolve too.
Yours truly, - - Joe
P.S. Maybe some of that "Professor Irwin Corey" has rubbed off on me, http://www.irwincorey.org/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Corey and like Rodney Dangerfield used to say: I get no respect. http://www.rodney.com and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Dangerfield plus http://imdb.com/name/nm0001098/
Your welcome Joe! :)
In simple terms what is going on with your case now?
Quote from: raineyrocks on October 26, 2007, 10:42 AM NHFT
Your welcome Joe! :)
In simple terms what is going on with your case now?
The Clerk has, I presume, sent my request with $25.00 for a duplicate cassette to Judge Edwin W. Kelly in Concord at his office there withIN the Concord District Court, for to get not only the cassette, but verification that either my check was sent to Concord for processing there too, or cashed in Lebanon and the Lebanon court paying for it. To find out later in what is my ulterior motive of an audit of both courts. >:D to see if they are in compliance with the law, as the judge asked me if there were any preliminary matters to discuss before the talking in my case, and I said yes: WHERE is the tipstaff? as in my Reply #6326 on page 422 over at http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.6315 of Tue., Oct. 23rd @ 3:56 The tipstaff representing a "reminder" that Judge Cardello said he didn't have to be reminded of the innocent until proven guilty stance, but that I then said that the silver crown on the tipstaff has another meaning too, and I gave the bailiff non-tipstaff, or tipstave is another word for him, here withOUT the spear, the print-out of this Reply #6326 that I did mark "Ante up!" at the top for him to read later. Ante up with silver by Ps. 68:30. So it is now on the record! and in the file, that the court is on notice that they too must play by the rules, as in the law, and to not do so, and call us outlaws is hypocrisy! If it ever made it to an order to pay the $450 or else, then I would ask to where I could turn in my FRNs by Title 12 USC 411 since their bank to where they send deposits over at the Mascoma Bank in Lebanon I presume is not listed on their "Revised 12/17/03" form and does not have the "lawful money" as defined by Art. 97, N.H. Constitution. The Bank markings on the back of my check to see which bank it is. 8) Or in other words of WHERE it was supposedly "cash"ed. Then to go over there and see about these FRNs, especially AFTER I start a passbook savings there, and buy some stock to complain at the next stock-holders meeting! ;D
But in simple terms: to file a Motion to Reconsider withIN ten (10) days of the Clerk's written notice (on: Oct. __ ) of the judge's decision, as against the very definition of the word: threat, with all this background info to put into the file that he would not accept during the hearing, including whatever info, if any, I get from Vittum over at the PS&T. Then await the ORDER to GRANT the Motion, criminal case closed, and proceed back to the Lebanon City Councilors to remind them of their Art. 12 duties to protect the Browns even AFTER the wrongful seizure of Elaine's Dental Office from being forfeited to or by the Feds to a 3rd party dupe as the Feds are outlaws, to prove by the granting of Danny's Habeas Corpus on Appeal, and THEN with the second-opinion, they will take what I say seriously! and urge the governor to do his Art. 41 duty!
I have a few tricks up my sleeve as they say for other angles of this cause, the criminal case, just a part or battle in this war, and will tell you about them later when appropriate, as in what George Reeve's used to say in "The Adventures of Superman" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044231/ in episode #__ of 195__: "No comment until the time limit is up." ^-^
Best wishes, -- Joe
LOL @ Joe Haas' "simple terms" ;D
Quote from: JosephSHaas on October 26, 2007, 12:13 PM NHFT
Quote from: raineyrocks on October 26, 2007, 10:42 AM NHFT
....
...
But in simple terms: to file a Motion to Reconsider withIN ten (10) days of the Clerk's written notice (on: Oct. __ ) of the judge's decision, as against the very definition of the word: threat, with all this background info to put into the file that he would not accept during the hearing, including whatever info, if any, I get from Vittum over at the PS&T....
1.) The cassette tapes (in the plural), are ready for me to pick up at the court, so said one of the office clerks to my cell phone recorder last Friday, Nov. 2nd, when I did also:
2.) check my P.O. Box, but with nothing in writing yet from the PS&T, so I did visit to there, the same window receptionist @ about 4:20 p.m. 11/2,Fri., me asking: so WHERE is the answer to my RSA 91-A I put in writing and signed that I gave to her for Vittum the Thursday prior, on Oct. 25th @ exactly 3:59 p.m., and she referred me over to the Assistant Director Bob Stafford who said he'd look into it, and who called me back last night @ exactly 5:19 p.m. from a Restricted Number that the Director has the e-mail but not the signed copy, and so somehow his receptionist lost it, and they need a new one to deliver to them again today a signed duplicate that the court is waiting for as explained below. -- sort of like that Federal "Superseding Indictment" crap that extends the "Speedy Trial" 70-day deadline from beyond Nov. 28th, when the defendant is already like in the oven and is baked some more. To see what the judge does in waiting for this answer from the PS&T BEFORE any adverse decision, if any, on my Motion to Reconsider, since the law requires an answer within five (5) business days that ended last Thursday, Nov. 1st @ 3:59 o'clock p.m.
3.) Although I did file that NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL, on the day of bench trial, Wed. Oct. 24th, @ 4:00 p.m. that was NOT the appeal, and an intention given with the understanding that I was going to present a "Motion to Reconsider". Even so, the Clerk Diane M. Carroll did write me a letter on Oct. 25th- postmarked same day too, that "If the appeal is not filed with the Supreme Court BEFORE November 21, 2007, the sentence of this Court becomes final." But no! That time is extended with the Motion to Reconsider! And hopefully no appeal, as won on the very definition of the word threat, see the re-type of my 2-page Motion to follow:
JSH
Here's a re-type of my 2-page Motion to Reconsider
" The State of New Hampshire v. Joseph S. Haas Docket #07CR1061
Lebanon District Court, Lebanon, N.H. 03766-0247 @ 38 Centerra Parkway, 603: 643-3555 (press 2-2) M-F 8-4
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
--The Defendant Haas moves that this court please reconsider and find me NOT guilty to the charge of criminal threatening, because:
1. the very DEFINITION of a 'Threat' is to coerce 'in an involuntary way' as 'Not proceeding from choice' (see both wikipedia print-outs attached hereto, with my Reply #___ of Oct. 24 '07 @ 10:28 PM to newhampshireunderground.com) since I did give her a choice of: Wise up OR die!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - -
It's as simple as that! KISS: 'Keep it simple stupid', but if not, then:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2. The 'Freedom of Friction' Reply #31 on page 3 of Sat. 6/23/07 @ 1:25 pm as it regards writing in 'CONTEXT'. The law does not forbid me from writing stern letters to my public servants to do their job!
3. There are THREE ELEMENTS to the crime of criminal threatening, that includes the 'with' word: [see my Replies #57 + 58 on page 4, both of 10/24 at the newhampshireunderground.com website.]
4. If I had used the SKETCH PAD this 'Wise up of Die' (by killing or natural causes*) phrase could have been better explained with the carrots and parenthesis.
5. * or by SUPER-NATURAL CAUSES; see also the papers dealing with my Article 5 Religious Rights. /
6. The police detective KNEW what I meant in his POLICE REPORT (copy enclosed) and highlighted for this 'shrivel up and die' explanation, but nevertheless lied that I meant to kill by murder! This is absurd, assinine and ridiculous!
7. Even though the 5-days is up for my RSA Ch. 91-A claim to the PS&T, I met with Deputy Director Stafford today and he's to get back to me on Monday to send any supplement from the MANUAL on investigations (see #3a above for the 'with' word).
8. The 47-pages of case-law from the prosecutor is summarized at the bottom of my Reply #55 on page 4 from newhampshireunderground dot com.
9. The Fuller case-law of 2001.
--A hearing is requested, IF this Motion be not granted.
_________
Total pages this Motion = 20 (including pages 1a + 1b)
Friday, Nov. 2nd, 2007 @ 9:30 p.m.
typed: 11/5, Mon. @ 2:30 p.m. -- still with no call yet from the Assistant Director of the Police Standards & Training.
Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, 603: 848-6059
pc: Lebanon Police Dept., Attn: Lt. Matthew Isham, 36 Poverty Lane, Lebanon, N.H. 03766, 603: 448-9800 http://www.lebcity.com "
JSH
So if all your motions, etc. don't work, do you plan to pay the fine?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on November 06, 2007, 12:55 PM NHFT
So if all your motions, etc. don't work, do you plan to pay the fine?
No. I'll make this a N.H. Supreme Court case if I have to. Vol. #___ N.H. REPORTS _____ (2008).
There is NO way, using common English, that the judge shall NOT, by his RSA 92:2 duty, find otherwise than from the RSA Ch. 21:4 definitions in that a threat is a coercion of an involuntary act not of choice, as this case is with the "or" word, so a choice, so not a threat!
Look on it as the scientific equation to what words are supposed to mean, but if there be five (5) George Orwellian "Ninteen Eighty-Four" double-takers at the Supremes, that I doubt, then to visit the _________ Bank* (yet to get my check returned) to see if they have the lawful money for me to "pay" the fine, and if the judge says that I must deal in FRNs and against the law, then I plan to spend eleven (11) days up in North Haverhill on the County Farm for Grafton as my next paid vacation ;D since the state credits $50.00 per day for a non-payment, the fine + penalty assessment = $540.00 to be exact, and then when discharged to sue both: (1) the court acting in commercial paper (see armlaw's reply on this) and (2) the bank* for $2,500/day x 10 = 25,000 + 2,500 = $27,500, (re: the Veronia Silva State Board of Claims case of 1985) that's twenty-seven thousand five hundred dollars of lawful money by jury trial for an unlawful incarceration as against the law of Art. 97, Pt. 2, N.H. Const. citing the Jackson case over to the Coinage Act of 1792. Just because the bank doesn't have the lawful money for the Title 12 U.S. Code Sec. 411 redemption, doesn't mean that I have to use FRNs or debased coins, especially when the Vol. 6 Laws of N.H., Ch. 28 @ page 155 for 1794 requires not only dollars be reckoned as such but also "valued" in the appropriate metal of gold "and" silver coin by Art. I, Section 10 U.S. Constitution. The proper thing for the judge to do, is put my fine in abeyance, until the bank* complies with the law of Section 20 of the Coinage Act, for their client: the court, and so to copy this and place into such a motion to include that an Order go out to the State Banking Commissioner too, to make the bank an adversary co-plaintiff in a counter-claim to tell the bank to obey the law, or fine the bank up to the $100.00 per day until in compliance, by RSA Ch. 390:6.
Yours truly, -- Joe
P.S. On one trip to the Farm my neighbor there could not write, and so after he told me his story of the police officer who stole his coin collection, I helped him write a letter to the Chief of Police to investigate for internal affairs, to get him his $money back. Before that my other neighbor was lacking transportation so that he could get out on a work release, so after I got out I donated a bicycle to him, that the jailer got, but that I didn't get a receipt, as days later the inmate wrote to me that they were hiding it on him out in the garage. There's always somebody in need of a good jail-house lawyer, and I like fighting corruption, like in another case handing out leaflets in the parking lot against the crooked county attorney so that the Grand Jury could issue their own "presentment", this same case I polled the trial jury too that if they had know about a plea-agreement with a witness, would they have voted otherwise, with two saying yes, and so I did subpoena in a subsequent hearing but that the judge quashed. So after knowing all the angles they use, I know what to counter them with now.
Modification: paragraph 3, line 2, typo of not Ban, but Bank. [with the *].
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 06, 2007, 11:33 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on November 06, 2007, 12:55 PM NHFT
So if all your motions, etc. don't work, do you plan to pay the fine?
No. I'll make this a N.H. Supreme Court case if I have to. Vol. #___ N.H. REPORTS _____ (2008).
There is NO way, using common English, that the judge shall NOT, by his RSA 92:2 duty, find otherwise than from the RSA Ch. 21:4 definitions in that a threat is a coercion of an involuntary act not of choice, as this case is with the "or" word, so a choice, so not a threat!
They do stuff that's against the law all the time. What if the NH supreme court says you gotta pay the fine?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on November 07, 2007, 07:36 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 06, 2007, 11:33 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on November 06, 2007, 12:55 PM NHFT
So if all your motions, etc. don't work, do you plan to pay the fine?
No. I'll make this a N.H. Supreme Court case if I have to. Vol. #___ N.H. REPORTS _____ (2008).
There is NO way, using common English, that the judge shall NOT, by his RSA 92:2 duty, find otherwise than from the RSA Ch. 21:4 definitions in that a threat is a coercion of an involuntary act not of choice, as this case is with the "or" word, so a choice, so not a threat!
They do stuff that's against the law all the time. What if the NH supreme court says you gotta pay the fine?
Their "gotta pay" is only an "opinion". It's up to the lower court to find me in civil contempt, for when I can get another hearing to give then the reason for WHY I cannot pay, not that I refuse to pay. The blame on the bank for not having the correct "value" of money needed. -- Joe
lol
Quote from: Spencer on June 30, 2007, 08:54 PM NHFT
Joe, you've just learned why you don't want to talk to the police. The detective noted that you admitted to writing the e-mail and misspelling the recipient's name. Without either of those admissions, the investigation would have taken a lot longer and may not have resulted in an arrest warrant, etc.
Thanks Spencer.
When the COP called me on my cell phone, I just wanted him to know of WHO he was talking to was really me, and so the detail of that correction verifying it. Re: the fact that I wrote it, but never did I say that I sent it to her. That was never established by me, but that the judge surmised so, beyond a reasonable doubt, so no big deal. If this had been a jury trial, this point might have been the turning point toward a not-guilty verdict. The reason I say this is because once in my very first jury trial case, in Grafton County Superior Court in North Haverhill for attempting to put a sticker on the Town Tax Collector's cash register that read: OFFICIALLY SEALED by Art. I, Sec. 10 U.S. Constitution, the catchpoll came from behind the saloon-type swinging door into the public side to push me away, and the COP put down the wrong date on the paper the sticker was applied too, me opening my big mouth in court to correct that, when asked by the jury in a written note, that maybe I shouldn't have? The judge reporting back to them of our stipulation of agreement to the truth. Maybe the COP did this as an out? for me? I doubt it. But maybe he was testing the system to see just what flukes can get a person off the charge? They say you never know what a jury is thinking, and this hinted at something strange.
And yes, Spencer, the investigation would leave it up in the air, as for what the "or die" meant, of whether that be by killing or to die of natural**causes, me thinking that if I led the detective down the right path to THAT** definition #__ of the word die in his dictionary, that he would have the truth, but even by saying it, he thought I was lieing? If that's the case, then WHY didn't he also go after me for filing a false report to a police officer!? When I get the Investigator Manual, page #__ from the PS&T, it should show how these investigations are supposed to go, and this Police Detective, having been a real jerk still thinking that just because I had the devil in the letter, that it meant that I was going to what? order the hit, by summonsing the devil!? Incantation? Take for example that VOTE RUDI OR DIE political button for Guliani in New York over at that Dees website, with Marlon Brando as Don Corleone behind him from the Godfather movie, as if to mean death by un-natural means, like from the Don's gun barrel IF you vote otherwise than directed. It being a choice alright, so not technically a threat, since how is anybody to KNOW who you voted for behind the curtain? at the election booth. To count the number of votes, and if none for Rudi, and they knew you voted, then to eliminate you? Or maybe not really a choice, because if you chose wrong, as in another candidate for the office, then the Don will do a number on you. In other words you're not really in a voluntary situation without the other "or" word(s) for the other candidate(s), being restricted to vote for Rudi.
In my case of: "Wise up or die", I even wrote that the choice is yours, and if the latter then NOW in the present tense, as in to drop dead of natural causes, and so not to some future event with me in the equation! To be wise is to have wisdom, be judicious(*): meaning having sound/good(***) judgment(*), and common sense; understanding of what is true*, right or lasting. So is it true* or not of there being that federal filing to the N.H. Office of Secretary of State as by the "shall" word meaning a must/mandatory requirement by RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution? And aren't Ed & Elaine entitled to protection from the Feds acting as outlaws on state soil without full "Consent"?, as is supposed to be a guarantee by Art. 12 of the N.H. Constitution for this protection. With the payment of property taxes but without such protection, who really is running a "Protection Racket" here!? This is WHY I think Ed & Elaine ought to sue the Town and City in Sullivan and Grafton County courts respectfully, for stolen liberty(**) and property!! especially AFTER the federal judges in Ohio and Conn. discharge them in those single-filing states on their Petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus against a Federal court in New Hampshire that is in non-compliance in this double-filing state; see Attorney Larry Beecraft's excellent website over at http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm who, I hope, will be THE expert witness at Ed's court hearing in Youngstown, Ohio on December _____ to get out before Christmas, and whose case will ricochet to help Elaine too, and all Four Freedom Keepers.
And what about the "Arrest Warrant" in this case: WHY did they feel they needed to get one?, when an Information to report to court on a certain day and time would have been sufficient! That's one of the good reasons for having a criminal record, BTW all of mine dealing with asserting my rights over mere privileges of my public servants to DO their job, is that I've always shown up to court to face the music. Only one time during the middle of winter my car wouldn't start, so I started walking TO the court, and the judge THOUGHT I was escaping, yeah, right!? as if I'm going to leave a $168,500 then assessed apartment/business block with the mortgage paid off collecting $2,000 per month in rents.
But back to the word wise, meaning shrewd too, as in a wise move. Prudent and sensible. Remember President George Bush, the First's: "Wouldn't be prudent" remarks on the campaign trail, that he latter did a sketch for on SNL? The word prudent meaning: Wise in handling practical matters; Provident, from the Latin word prudens, foreseeing; so in this respect of to look forward was wrong; in that what I wanted her to see was the non-filing of the Feds that did not, and does not exist in the present tense. Or maybe, yes, to look forward to having the state do something about this non-filing. And sensible, defined as being cognizant
- , aware. That I did make them/ the Lebanon City Council, aware of the fact of the federal non-filing, but the sensible word goes further than that of also to mean: ACTing(****) with or showing good sense: a sensible choice.
Now see the "virtue"*** word in Article 38 of the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights, in that "A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to justice(*)...and all the social virtues***, are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty(**) and good(***) government; the people ought, therefore, to have a particular regard to all those principles in the choice of their officers and representatives, and they have a right to require of their lawgivers, and magistrates, an exact and constant observance of them, in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good(***) administration of government." http://www.state.nh.us Or in other words, not only for the vote on election day, but the RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office, that if they fail to do their duty, as for protection, then they ought to be fired! The virtue** word meaning: righteousness and responsibility; goodness(***) Can anybody rightly say that to look away from the fact of the federal non-filing, to pretend that it doesn't exist, then any consequences of actions by the supposed-to-be-filers upon our state citizens, is O.K.!? To that mentally is for what I want them away from, to not be ignorant, but to wise up. To be of knowledge of this fact and act(****) upon it!
- Cognizance, from the Latin word cognoscere, to learn. And I remember one time leaving the jail giving them a Certificate of Non-correction, since there were no classes to correct me, since I was already correct, and thus there could be no classes. This from reading the dictionary there of that the first step to correction is to learn, as in to learn of our infirmities http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infirmity of not definition #1 of a bodily ailment, but 4: A failure or defect in a person's character. And so like Clara Peller used to say for the David Thomas' Wendy's Restaurant TV commercials in the 1980s of "Where's the Beef?" maybe the question here should be: "Where's the class?"[**] re: from http://www.bop.gov/about/index.jsp since: "...Federal offenders...are confined through agreements with state and local governments...." Agreement #_____ dated _________ and signed by _________ and ___________ (Fed-State agents respectfully, as in that House Committee by the same name) and on file at the Office of: ________________ (County Commissioners?) [to call Strafford and Merrimack County in a few minutes: __] and "The Bureau helps reduce the potential for future criminal activity by encouraging inmates to participate in a range of programs [**] that have been proven to reduce recidivism."
JSH
P.S. Once the State of New Hampshire joined the Union, didn't we agree to be bound by the law of the contract? including: Article III, Section 2, clause 3 in that: The "Trial of all crimes, except impeachment, to be by jury"; so here's another where, as in: "Where's the jury?" to ask for when they say to you, Where's the money? to pay the fine they want you to void the contract!? Isn't that extortion?
I'm probably going to get in trouble but I can't help myself and let me totally clarify that I do Joe take what happened to you very seriously, honestly!
I was just thinking though if your last name didn't have the extra a in it this thread would take upon it a totally different meaning, think about it.
Quote from: raineyrocks on November 09, 2007, 02:02 PM NHFT
I'm probably going to get in trouble but I can't help myself and let me totally clarify that I do Joe take what happened to you very seriously, honestly!
I was just thinking though if your last name didn't have the extra a in it this thread would take upon it a totally different meaning, think about it.
Like in "Joe has arrested"...so and so on a Citizen's Arrest Warrant?
Yeah! I got those papers from Andy Melechinsky in Enfield, Conn. back in the 1980s when he'd visit our Constitutional group up to Epsom, N.H. at Frank & Barbara Anderson's The Sherwood Inn on Route 4 where the U.N/Trojan Horse still sits in the parking lot there, (no horse manure though) and he/ Andy Mel. once so-called "arrested" Grafton County Sheriff, Andy Anderson of Plymouth once, and the N.H. Andy said he was going after the Connecticut or Conn. Andy in his retirement when he has some spare time to sue him, like for false arrest, but it had to be within six (6) years back then, now down to three (3) years, and then he croaked.
-- Joe
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 09, 2007, 02:46 PM NHFT
Quote from: raineyrocks on November 09, 2007, 02:02 PM NHFT
I'm probably going to get in trouble but I can't help myself and let me totally clarify that I do Joe take what happened to you very seriously, honestly!
I was just thinking though if your last name didn't have the extra a in it this thread would take upon it a totally different meaning, think about it.
Like in "Joe has arrested"...so and so on a Citizen's Arrest Warrant?
Yeah! I got those papers from Andy Melechinsky in Enfield, Conn. back in the 1980s when he'd visit our Constitutional group up to Epsom, N.H. at Frank & Barbara Anderson's The Sherwood Inn on Route 4 where the U.N/Trojan Horse still sits in the parking lot there, (no horse manure though) and he/ Andy Mel. once so-called "arrested" Grafton County Sheriff, Andy Anderson of Plymouth once, and the N.H. Andy said he was going after the Connecticut or Conn. Andy in his retirement when he has some spare time to sue him, like for false arrest, but it had to be within six (6) years back then, now down to three (3) years, and then he croaked.
-- Joe
You don't hate me for writing that do you? I hope not. I didn't have a so and so on, just Joe Has arrested. :)
Quote from: raineyrocks on November 09, 2007, 02:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 09, 2007, 02:46 PM NHFT
Quote from: raineyrocks on November 09, 2007, 02:02 PM NHFT
....
....
You don't hate me for writing that do you? I hope not. I didn't have a so and so on, just Joe Has arrested. :)
Nah! The only Raining Rocks I'd hate to feel are like those ones thrown by Bigfoot at that cabin, and where he stepped on the board of nails (built in the fashion of one of those Charles Bronson movies) and left something (red drips seen flowing out of his foot on the T.V. commercial the other day), that something being: his D.N.A. and the results are in next Wednesday, on I think it was: the Travel Channel. But what gets me, is WHY no chill-to-the-bone yell? or was there such a recording of that too?
Now why can't the Learning Channel or something travel to the Elton F.C.I. in Ohio to go IN SEARCH OF...this supposed I.R.S. class of agents who volunteer to "correct" the inmates at the so-called "Correctional" Institute by showing them "The law that never was". Hey! If they spend $thousands looking for Champ in Lake Champlain and get that whale-like sound, can't they do a hooked on phonics over at the prison? Like to set up a recording devise and place the book the supposed law is in, in some room, then enter the inmate, with the page opened up to what they say is the correct page,and record what they think would be moans and groans? of having seen the light? Or are they/the Feds in such a position that they KNOW the page does not exist, and so refuse to conduct the test. In which case, the refusal be an admission of guilt on their part, and so out of prison the inmate goes! or is supposed to go.
- - Joe
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 09, 2007, 03:41 PM NHFT
Quote from: raineyrocks on November 09, 2007, 02:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 09, 2007, 02:46 PM NHFT
Quote from: raineyrocks on November 09, 2007, 02:02 PM NHFT
....
....
You don't hate me for writing that do you? I hope not. I didn't have a so and so on, just Joe Has arrested. :)
Nah! The only Raining Rocks I'd hate to feel are like those ones thrown by Bigfoot at that cabin, and where he stepped on the board of nails (built in the fashion of one of those Charles Bronson movies) and left something (red drips seen flowing out of his foot on the T.V. commercial the other day), that something being: his D.N.A. and the results are in next Wednesday, on I think it was: the Travel Channel. But what gets me, is WHY no chill-to-the-bone yell? or was there such a recording of that too?
Now why can't the Learning Channel or something travel to the Elton F.C.I. in Ohio to go IN SEARCH OF...this supposed I.R.S. class of agents who volunteer to "correct" the inmates at the so-called "Correctional" Institute by showing them "The law that never was". Hey! If they spend $thousands looking for Champ in Lake Champlain and get that whale-like sound, can't they do a hooked on phonics over at the prison? Like to set up a recording devise and place the book the supposed law is in, in some room, then enter the inmate, with the page opened up to what they say is the correct page,and record what they think would be moans and groans? of having seen the light? Or are they/the Feds in such a position that they KNOW the page does not exist, and so refuse to conduct the test. In which case, the refusal be an admission of guilt on their part, and so out of prison the inmate goes! or is supposed to go.
- - Joe
I'm glad, I always give you lots of karma! :) I never saw that movie and I have no idea what your talking about with the rest of your post, sorry! :D When did they spend thousands looking for Champ and who is Champ in Lake Champlain? Little non confusing words please, I want to understand.
America's Lock Ness Monster.
Quote from: JosephSHaas on November 09, 2007, 01:27 PM NHFT
Quote from: Spencer on June 30, 2007, 08:54 PM NHFT
...
...
And yes, Spencer, the investigation would leave it up in the air, as for what the "or die" meant, of whether that be by killing or to die of natural**causes, me thinking that if I led the detective down the right path to THAT** definition #__ of the word die in his dictionary, that he would have the truth, but even by saying it, he thought I was lieing? If that's the case, then WHY didn't he also go after me for filing a false report to a police officer!? When I get the Investigator Manual, page #__ from the PS&T, it should show how these investigations are supposed to go, and this Police Detective, having been a real jerk still thinking that just because I had the devil in the letter, that it meant that I was going to what? order the hit, by summonsing the devil!? Incantation? ...
P.S. Once the State of New Hampshire joined the Union, didn't we agree to be bound by the law of the contract? including: Article III, Section 2, clause 3 in that: The "Trial of all crimes, except impeachment, to be by jury"; so here's another where, as in: "Where's the jury?" to ask for when they say to you, Where's the money? to pay the fine they want you to void the contract!? Isn't that extortion?
The Police Standards and Training Director's letter to me of Nov. 16th was postmarked in a #10 envelope on Nov. 19th and re-typed below:
jesusssssss..i saw the title to this thread and thought Joe got arrested again..
whew.
be careful Joe!
Kola
Here's a re-type of the letter. Notice that Sullivan County Sheriff Prozzo is the Chairman! No wonder he didn't want to talk about the Jack McLamb "Aid & Abet Newsletter" he got for Ed's case of that Sheriff out west who asks the Feds for their operating papers BEFORE they enter his territory; Mike Prozzo has been brainwashed by the goons in Concord:
"State of New Hampshire, POLICE STANDARDS & TRAINING COUNCIL, ARTHUR D. KEHAS LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING FACILITY & CAMPUS, 17 Institute Drive -- Concord, N.H. 03301-7413, 603-271-2133 FAX 603-271-1785 TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964
Sheriff Michael L. Prozzo, Jr. Chairman
Sonald L. Vittum, Director
November 16, 2007
Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, NH 03302
RE: NH RSA 91-A request
Dear Mr. Haas,
--In response to your request pursuant to RSA 91-A, your request lacks sufficient specificity for us to be able to respond in a meaningful way for the following reasons:
--First, it seems as though you are requesting copies of our curriculum from a specific book, booklet or course but you have failed to provide the name of the course and the year that it was presented. Our agency conducts training for full-time academies, part-time academies and in-service students. Under Lodge v. Knowlton, 118 N.H. 574, our curriculum is not subject to RSA 91-A to the extent that making public particular police tactics would adversely affect the ability of law enforcement to conduct enforcement activities, increase the ability of lawbreakers to avoid detection, or that may adversely affect officer safety by exposing police tactics." Additionally, under RSA 91-A:5,IV, any materials that are 'test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer...academic examinations' are also exempt from disclosure. It is also likely that, if documents using the terms you indicate exist, they would not be subject to RSA 91-A for several reasons.
--Secondly, in regards to what appears to be a request for information on an individual unnamed officer. RSA 91-A:5,IV exempts confidential information, education, personnel files or other information that would constitute an invasion of privacy. Law enforcement officers are required to complete the Police Standards and Training Academy as a condition of employment and police departments are required to submit personnel information regarding all officers hired to the Police Standards and Training Council. See RSA 188-F:24-29. Therefore, the Police Standards and Training Council records fall under RSA 91-A:5,IV and are exempt from disclosure.
--Additionally, the records are privileged and not subject to disclosure under state statute, RSA 91-A:5,III and individual training records of police officers are educational records and are protected by the federal Buckley Amendment, 20 USC Sec. 1232g, also commonly referred to as FERPA (Family Educational Records Privacy Act) and may only be produced with either a waiver from the individual or a pursuant to a valid court order after a showing by counsel as to their relevance.
Sincerely, Donald L. Vittum
DLV/c encl. IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM OF NH 'Law Enforcement's Strategic Partner' "
JSH
My reply to this, to follow:
Quote from: kola on November 23, 2007, 11:36 AM NHFT
jesusssssss..i saw the title to this thread and thought Joe got arrested again..
whew.
be careful Joe!
Kola
Hey Kola, welcome back. How's the tee pee? Ever hear of the "Shaking Tent" spirit ceremony? I was watching the http://www.history.com Channel 58 here from 11-12 noon today finding that Presidential Prophecies 1-hour report very interesting of Nancy Reagan, who hired an astrologer to render the 20-year curse by that Indian Tippacanoe void, re: the 20 stones into the fire for that president and every generation thereafter. Did Dudley think I was summonsing the devil on her? Verse with a curse? Killing at a distance by incantation? Is that what the police thought and still think!? There was a voodoo case in Hillsbourough County Superior Court - North (in Manchester) a few years ago where some Haitian put the curse on somebody leaving the courtroom and he was charged with criminal threatening BELIEVE IT OR NOT! I have the case name around here somewhere, to read the file one of these days. Best wishes, - Joe
Open letter reply:
Dear Director Vittum:
--Thank you for your 1-page letter of Nov. 16th, postmarked Mon., Nov. 19th, that I received in Tuesday's mail, and now this Friday reply to as follows:
--In reference to the first part of paragraph #2 of 4:
--You first mentioned that I did fail to provide the names of both: (a) the book, booklet or course materials, and: (b) the name of the course, plus: (c) year that it was presented, and then go onto explain that you refuse to give me this information because of some Lodge v. Knowlton case in Vol. 118 N.H. REPORTS 574 @ page #___ (19___) since "our curriculum is not subject to RSA 91-A" but that you give the reasons WHY such a request can be denied because:
--You then mention these excuses being three, to wit: (1) "to the extent that making public particular police tactics would ADVERSEly effect the ability of law enforcement to conduct ENFORCEMENT activities," (2) "increase the ability of lawbreakers to AVOID detection," or (3) "that may adversely affect officer SAFETY by exposing police tactics." [emphasis ADDed*]
--* The emphasis was ADDed to prove that #2 + 3 do NOT apply to my request, as I was at the time of the Police Investigation, NOT trying to AVOID capture, NOR was SAFETY involved through a telephone conversion initiated by the Detective, BUT that of #1 that I detail below:
--HOW can giving the Detective the definition #__ of the meaning of the word die to mean of: natural causes, rather than killing be ADVERSE to an investigation of extracting information, not ENFORCing it!? Re: the give and take, of the police officer in the taking mode as the opposite of to give or ENFORCE upon someone!?
--What I was and still am asking for is WHO taught WHAT course and WHERE plus WHEN, and HOW: as in from WHAT book, by the author: _____________ (c)199__ in Chapter #___ @ page #___ that shows how the investigator conducts his investigation as to get to the truth of the matter.
--I told the Detective the truth of for this former State Legislator to "shrivel up and die' as by natural (or super-natural) causes. That means that I wish her dead if she does not wise up, so that somebody else can take her place that will do what's right in the executive check and balance against a corrupt federal gov't who are outlaws to NH RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Const., and that your Chairman knows about first hand, and so when I saw his name on this letterhead, then all things came into place: You are on-the-take from the Feds to the $federal funds supporting your causes, and like one of our founding fathers did say: for you to get down on your knees to lick their hands that feed you this $money because you have no respect for freedom! Disgusting!
--The common reply I hear back of: well, just don't elect her next time. Hey! I don't live in her City! There's also the RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office. But where are these "dismissed forthwith" hearings? There are none since State Senator Susan McLaine of Concord did away with the Subversive Activities Act! And The N.H. Audubon Society says she's their heroine: as for the birds to eat of the carcasses of those dead in the streets during the Art. 10 revolution!? When was the last time you heard, if at any time in the past, that a fellow public servant of yours was either arrest on warrant or an information against such a misdemeanor charge of RSA Ch. 643:1 "Official Oppression"? filed in ANY District Court.
--So I again ask you for the fill-in-the-blanks paragraph above, to please send me your answer in a prompt amount of time, and stop this "Catch 22" game. RSA Ch. 21:4 is for how you're to define the words in the statutes, and there are two factors here: of (1) how is the phrase of to die a natural death replaced by the word kill when I said: "shrivel up" and now in the present rather than some future plan? Isn't that false information into a government record? Was that WHY the judge refused to take the Police Report into evidence as an exhibit to weigh, because that would represent evidence of a Class A or B perjury by the officer? To counter-charge on appeal to the Superior Court for this Art. III, Section 2, Clause 3 jury trial? U.S. Constitution. And (2) I also just received in the mail an Objection to my Motion to Reconsider, the officer insisting to divert AWAY from the dictionary definition but placing no light on any technical definition of the word: threat. [To file a Reply to such of there being no technical replacement!]. The word threat of a coercion to put somebody in a non-choice position, and so with the "or" word in Live Free or Die, and/or Wise up or Die, there being choice, and so technically no threat! WHERE in hell did he learn in the Academy of to support this George Orwell "Nineteen Eighty Four" Doublespeak!? that I call double-shit, your cadet graduates needing to clean up their act, and maybe requiring re-education like the judges by their Supreme Court Rule 38 or 42 I think it is, me having to deal with more such crap from Sen. Peter Hoe Burling's wife, Jean K. Burling in Grafton County Superior Court, as in violation of such, and me the victim!
Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059. Founding member of V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc. [Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System].
Here's a re-type of:
"STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE GRAFTON SS LEBANON DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. Joseph Haas Docket# 07-CR-1061
OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER
--NOW COMES the State of New Hampshire by and through the Lebanon Police Department and hereby objects to the Defendant's Motion to Reconsider and requests this Court deny the motion based on the following:
A. The motion does not set forth with sufficient particularity any points of law or fact that the Court overlooked or misapprehended.
In support of this motion it is stated as follows:
1. On October 24, 2007 a trial was held in the Lebanon District Court. At the conclusion of the trial the Court found the defendant, Joseph Haas guilty of one charge of Criminal Threatening.
2. On November 5, 2007 the defendant filed a motion to reconsider the decision of the court. The defendant in his Motion To Reconsider makes essentially the same factual arguments as he made at trial.
3. District Court Rule 3.11E(1) requires with particularity the defendant point out facts or law(*) that the Court misapprehended. The Defendant's motion fails to comply with this prerequisite. It is clear the defendant does not agree with the Court's findings of fact but the State asserts the Court's findings of fact and rulings of law are sound and supported. [by what?*]
WHEREFORE, the State respectfully requests the Court deny the Defendant's Motion To Reconsider.
Respectfully submitted, Lt. Matthew S. Isham, Prosecutor, Lebanon Police Department, 36 Poverty Lane, Lebanon, NH 03766
Certificate of Service I hereby certify a copy of the within motion has been mailed to the defendant, Joseph Haas, at P.O. Box 3842 Concord, NH 03302 on this the 14th day of November 2007."
JSH
(*) Notice: RSA Ch. 21:4 for the statutory definition of words to be by their dictionary meaning unless there be a technical replacement, but which these numbers 21:4 were NOT put into the hearing, but only in the Motion, and so to find that yes there is no threat because such as a coercion that can only occur when there is no choice, but because I did provide this choice with the "or" word, then there is no threat and so no crime; case closed!
First Draft:
"The State of New Hampshire v. Joseph S. Haas Docket #07CR1061
Lebanon District Court
Lebanon, N.H. 03766-0247
@ 38 Centurra Parkway
603: 643-3555 (press 2-2)
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
--NOW COMES the Defendant Haas, in reply to BOTH: (1) the "NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS" that was handed to me by a member of the Clerk's Office on Wed., 24 Oct. '07 right after the bench trial by Bruce A. Cardello, when the judge made the decision AND sentence of guilty AND to pay a fine of: $450.00 + $90 penalty assessment by RSA 188-F:31; and (2) the Clerk's Notice of Nov. 21 '07 that my Nov. 15 '07 Motion to Reconsider was denied; and moves that this court direct me to that statute, if any, where a technical definition of the word 'threat' has replaced the R.S.A. Ch. 21:4 dictionary definition of it being a coercion withOUT choice.
--The question being of: did the court err by calling my epistle a threat after I did write to former State Rep. Terri Dudley of Lebanon, who was on the House Judiciary Committee and is now a City Councilor: "Either you do your job or get out of the way. WISE UP OR DIE. If the latter be your choice, then BE GONE with you NOW!"
Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059
pc:(1) Lebanon Police Dept., Attn: Lt. Matthew Isham, 36 Poverty Lane, Lebanon, N.H. 03766, Tel. 603: 448-9800; + (2) The Administrative Office of the Courts (A.O.C.), Concord, N.H. -- Please send me verification that this Judge Cardello is in compliance with Supreme Court* Rule #38 in having attended at least one Continuing Education seminar during the past year/ 12 months, and of what type of class; + (3) The N.H. Supreme Court*. + [The World Court at the Hague for the attempted theft of my property rights AGAIN! since this is supposed to be an Article IV, Section 4, U.S. Constitutional Republican form of Government, with the "law of the land" and NOT some arbitrary in-justice, as against Article 17(1) of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights!]
NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS, IN FULL! - - Whereas: (1) Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution provides that "the trial of all such Crimes, except in cases of Impeachment, shall be by jury" and; (2) that this judge took an RSA Chapter 92:2 oath of office to obey; then let this sub-section here act as my APPEAL to the Grafton County Superior Court in North Haverhill, N.H. for a trial by jury on this Class B misdemeanor 'crime', IF and should this court refuse to answer this motion with an affirmative reply to an exact statute, and somehow take the George Orwellian 'Nineteen Eighty Four' (1984) stance of insisting that it's "Doublespeak" be obeyed, whereupon a 'Show-Cause' Hearing might be scheduled and held for 'Contempt of Court' of a court that is in Contempt of The Constitution! noting of the fifty dollar ($50.00) per day credit allowed per any incarceration for non-payment of the $540.00 total = eleven (11) days, if not discharged on an Art. 91 Writ of Habeas Corpus either before or during such incarceration, with each day worth at least $2,500** in monetary damages, to obtain by an Article 32 Petition to the N.H. General Court, as endorsed (and delivered) by House Rule 36, for a Rule 4 vote by the appropriate committee.
** Reference the Veronica Silva case of the mid 1980s to the N.H. State Board of Claims by RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23.
Update: [ The "Wise up or Die" case #452-2007-CR-01061.]
1. On Dec. ___ '07 or Jan. ___ '08 an RSA Ch. 597:37 Bench Warrant was issued for me: "being party to a criminal proceeding, is by escape or OTHERWISE, improperly at large." (emphasis ADDed for NOT paying the fine and penalty assessment), BUT that I intend to argue in court tomorrow morning @ 8:00 o'clock a.m. (for up to the 15 minutes allotted time) that, as indicated in the last full paragraph starting with the "NOTICE" word, in my Dec. 1 '07 MOTION FOR DISCOVERY that I had "APPEAL"ed this case to the Grafton County Superior Court for a trial by jury as supposedly a guarantee by Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 3 of the U.S. Const. that the judge took an RSA 92:2 oath to honor.
2a. Now here's a question of general concern: Isn't it indicated on page #___ of the "Bail Commissioner's Handbook" (re: RSA Ch. 597:18-a) that he or she ought to notify the arrestee of the right to request a taking of the arrestee to the District Court "thereof in which the arrest was made" for P.R. ("personal recognizance) for when "a person is arrested in one county on a warrant for an offense alleged to have been committed in another county"? See http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lix/597/597-mrg.htm for 597:18-a,I too for: "During September or October of each year beginning in 1995, a justice of each district or municipal court, under the direction of the administrative judge of the district and municipal courts, shall hold a meeting with all bail commissioners under the jurisdiction of such court." that was held on Sept. __ or Oct. ___ '07 for the Concord, and Lebanon courts, respectfully. [Ref. Art. 8 + 14 for a prompt accounting.]
2b. Anyway, without the RSA 597:230 burden of the arrestee "shall return to said court certified copies of the warrant and recognizance", then that burden falls upon the bail commissioner, by RSA 597:19 (as so paid for by the RSA Ch. 597:20 "fee of $30") and so I do hereby ask ___ to see, as proof, whether this "recognizance" (on p.r. that was "taken by a commissioner" ) was "certified", as required by the "shall" word, as a must or mandatory requirement, and if not, ___then to default this case as OUT OF ORDER, Case: closed. The word default defined as: "A failure to perform a task or fulfill an obligation" and "Loss* by failure to appear...To fail to do what is required" and "To lose* by not appearing" as with this certification. Thus the State loses*! Reference: The "American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973 @ page 188.
3. But IF certified, or the judge dis-agrees to default, then by RSA 597:6 "the accused shall be ordered to recognize...for the accused's appearance at the superior court" and that I claim it to be by P.R. bail for the reason as outlined on my 1-page RSA Ch. 382-A:3-505(b) "Notice of Dishonor" of Mon., Feb. 11 '08 @ 1:00 p.m. to The Lake Sunapee Bank, http://www.lakesunbank.com/ (of which this court does its business**) because RSA 597:13 disallows "Accepting Insufficient Bail" and although RSA Ch. 597:26 "Variations" are allowed, it is by the "may" word like when the defendant agrees to some other form of money as a deviation from The Coinage Act of 1792, which section 20** I will NOT allow the court to deviate therefrom, and especially when these "legal tender" Federal Reserve Notes (of paper/ vegetable matter) are supposed to be redeemable by Title 12 U.S. Code Sec. 411 for the "lawful money" (coin of the quality pre-scribed, in metal) in Art. I, Section 10, U.S. Const. in which (the "animal" in this animal, vegetable and mineral deal is) to not merely extinguish but to pay these debts, since there is supposed to be these gold deposits with the U.S. Treasury per pallet of FRNs "monetized" by Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act! Ignorance of the law: Ch. 28 Laws of N.H. for 1794, is no excuse!
THEREFORE to please comply with RSA Ch. 597:10 + 11 "In case of appeal, the municipal and district courts shall cause true and attested copies of the complaint, other process, records and recognizances, together with any cash bail in the case, to be filed with the clerk of the superior court within 10 days after the date of such order for recognizance." [See also RSA Ch. 597:12 for the "Penalty" for not doing this.]
Thank you, - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone).
cc: Lebanon Police Dept. Prosecutor.
Here's a re-type of my letter to the bank:
"To: The Lake Sunapee Bank
Route 11 [390:6]
Andover, N.H. 03216
603: 735-5772
RE: N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 382-A:3-505(b) verbal and written "Notice of Dishonor"
Dear Officer ___________:
1. As the custodian for what is supposed to be the lawful money from The Lebanon District Court, you are doing a LOUSY job!
2. According to The Coinage Act of 1792, Section 20: 'That the money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars...And that all accounts in the public offices and all proceedings in the courts of the United States shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation.'
3. At exactly 1:00 o'clock p.m. today my attempt to redeem a F.R.N. 50.00 note was DENIED!
4. These Federal Reserve Notes are supposed to be made redeemable by Title 12 U.S. Code Section 411.
5. The 'Fed' supposedly placed on deposit with the U.S. Mint so much gold bullion in the event of such a REFUSAL, whereupon the demandant should be able to call forth in such an event, reference: Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act.
6. I have a court case set for Mon., Feb. 25th @ 8:00 a.m. and claim that you get this lawful money from this/these notes so that I can make payment of the $590.00.
7. The State, your financial partner, by contract, is required to operate by Chapter 28 Laws of New Hampshire for 1794; see also Art. 97 of the N.H. Constitution.
8. WHEREFORE I not merely request, but CLAIM by demand that you get me this lawful money in the quality as prescribed by law!
Yours truly,
Joseph S. Haas
P.O. Box 3842
Concord, N.H. 03302
603: 848-6059
Monday, February 11th, 2008 @ 1:00 p.m.
pc: The Lebanon District Court
case #452-2007-CR-01061"
Result:
Judge Cirone:
We'll take the greenbacks.
Here's a re-type of my NOTICE that was mailed late yesterday afternoon, March 24th for a Tue., March 25th postmark today:
" - - - - - - - - - - The State of New Hampshire - - - - - - - - - - -
Lebanon District Court . . . . . . . . . . Lebanon, N.H. 03766-0247
.................................................. @ 38 Centura Parkway
.................................................. 603: 643-3555 (press 2-2)
.................................................. M-F 8-4
v. Joseph S. Haas Docket #07CR1061 RE-NOTICE OF APPEAL
--Please be advised that a copy of this NOTICE is being sent to the Superior Court to 'pull' this case up there if NOT 'pushed' by this court, upon my assertion in court on Monday, February 25th, 2008 @ 8:30 o'clock a.m. of my rights that are supposed to be by the law* and of your R.S.A. Chapter 92:2 oath to honor Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution.*
Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302; 603: 848-6059 (cell phone)
Monday, March 24th, 2008
pc:
(1) Grafton County Superior Court, [Robert B. Muh, Clerk], 3785 Dartmouth College Highway, North Haverhill, N.H. 03774; 603: 787-6961 M-F 8-4
(2) Law*- Enforcement by: Lebanon Police Department, Attn: Lt. Matthew Isham, 36 Poverty Lane, Lebanon, N.H. 03766, 603: 448-9800, http://www.lebcity.com "
JSH
Quote from: JosephSHaas on February 26, 2008, 06:31 AM NHFT
Result: ...
We'll take the greenbacks.
Update: to the other case entitled: Joseph S. Haas v. Town of Boscawen & a. [being The "Citizens Bank"] N.H. Supreme Court Case No. 2007-0717.
It looks like we've got to re-activate that "old Public Law, Chapter 315, Section 11 of 1926 @ page 1290 'no case shall be dismissed for want of a brief.'" because this past Wednesday the Supremes wrote me a 1-page "order" that my Brief was too brief! 8)
This old Public Law was found in: (1) "the Musgrove v. Parker case in 89 N.H. 550-552 @ 552 (1931)"; from (2) "Chronicle v. A.G., 94 148-156 @ 151" (1946); from (3) "Niemiec v. King, 109 NH 586-589 @ 587 (1969)"; from (4) "the Sirell & a. v. State case in Vol. 146 N.H. REPORTS 364-405 @ 369-70 (May 3, 2001)" and thanks for that case from "the Attorney General Assistant Nicholas Cort for" citing the Sirell case in my Free Speech case No. 2006-0291, of State v. Haas, see page 2 of 4, paragraph #3 + 4 of my REPLY BRIEF of: Mon.day, September 11th, 2006 to the court at exactly 4:24 o'clock p.m.
So what if I did not brief RSA Ch. 390:6 [ http://www.state.nh.us ] in the Brief, this money issue does not hinge on a mere statute, but the constitutions of both the United States and state of New Hampshire. The court likes to say that they will try to resolve the issue by statute if possible BEFORE going onto the constitution, so why should I supply them with the homework that they ought to be doing and are getting paid for!? I do not have a degree in mathematics nor banking. They ought to call upon the State Banking Commissioner** to supply an Amicus Curiae like they did for the Appellate Defender from Franklin Pierce Law School (in the State* case)! One of Judge Jim Duggan's buddies from when he was over there as a professor before he became a Supreme. Just because Peter C. Hildreth** is not one of the members of the Bar should not exclude his input when asked. Therefore the Supreme Court's paragraph #3 of 4 is misleading with these last two sentences: "We decline review of the plaintiff's [partial***] claim UNDER*** RSA 390:6 because it was not addressed in his brief. See State v. Higgins, 149 N.H. 290, 303 (2003) (issues raised in the notice of appeal but not briefed are deemed waived)." (emphasis ADDed for the brackets "[]" and word withIN too***) ...
...The first part of the paragraph reads: "We decline to address the plaintiff's claim on appeal because he has not provided us with supporting legal argument sufficiently developed to warrant judicial review. See Babiarz v. Town of Grafton, 155 N.H. 757, 761 (2007) (declining to address state and federal constitutional claims not adequately developed on appeal)." Say what!? I'm supposed to do their work for them and their law clerks!? I tried to K.I.S.S. by the Keep It Simple Stupid formula, and so have ten (10) days from Wed., March 26th in which to provide an original and only #__ copies of my "Motion to Reconsider", and so by: Saturday, April 5th the official deadline moved forward to past the Sun., April 6th New Moon indicator of "a shadow of things to come" KJV for Colossians 2: 16, 17 to file sometime on Monday, April 7th by 4:30 p.m.
The "Motion to Reconsider" being a photocopy of my 4-page 12/27/2006 printout of the Walter W. Fischer v. City of Dover case of 1991 to the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, (cert. denied, so this issue was never addressed) during a time for when the N.H. Supremes were "declining" cases too, but not any more with these mandatory appeals, and because of what I had already written in my 2-page gray cover "Plaintiff's Reply Brief" in Case No. 2006-0634 of Joseph S. Haas v. Town of Gilmanton (Town Clerk, re: the Voting statute) and re-typed below:
"Thus this case (1) 'involves a significant constitutional question'; and (2) 'an issue of significant public concern' (re: #3 at p. 2 of Plaintiff's Objection "so that nobody else in the future gets 'the business'.") Petition of Troy E. Brooks, 140 N.H. 813-823. Thayer, J. (May 8, 1996) @ page 816 citing: Arthur J. Royer v. State Dep't of Employ. Security, 118 N.H. 673-683 @ 675 (Oct. 17, 1978) PER CURIAM: 'and the avoidance of future litigation of the same issues justify a decision on the merits. Martel v. Hancock, 115 N.H. 237, 238, 339 A.2d 9, 10 (1975); O'Neill v. Thompson, 114 N.H. 155, 159, 316 A.2d 168, 171 (1974). Additionally, this case presents issues that are 'capable of repetition, yet evading review.' Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 148 (1975).' -- Monday, 18 December 2006 @ 8:15 p.m."
Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone); co-founder with 19 others including 3 State Reps of V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc. [Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System], and citing the rest of paragraph #3, the middle part being: "Although the plaintiff is pro se, our appellate rules are not relaxed for a pro se litigant. See, e.g., In the Matter of Pierano & Larsen, 155 N.H. 738, 744-45 (2007); Simpson v. Young, 153 N.H. 471, 473 (2006)."
pc:
(1) Walter W. Fischer, #___ North Main Street, Wolfeboro, N.H. 03894, 603: 569-1308; and his former attorney, as a courtesy with thanks too being:
(2) William H. M. Beckett, Esq., Holland, Donovan, Beckett & Hermans, P.A., 151 Water Street, Exeter, New Hampshire 03833-1090, (603) 772-5956.
Their case at: http://www.goldensextant.com/Resources/fischerweb.htm
JSH
To: The Attorney General's Victim's Fund
25 Capitol Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
603: 271-________
--In accordance with your Rule #____ to report all crimes to the local police within #___ days, I've done that to the Plainfield Police, and now by your other Rule #____ to report to here within a year thereafter, this June 20, 2007 simple assault for false arrest.
--The reason is as spelled out in RSA Ch. ______ for to charge somebody with a crime, to either: (1) issue them a summons to appear in court, or (2) issue a bench warrant for their arrest.
--Since this case is one of Freedom of Speech, as to the charge of CRIMINAL THREATENING, Case #452-2007-CR-01061 at The Lebanon District Court, then the "inviolably preserved" clause in Article 22 for Free Speech enters the equation. The word inviolable defined as safe from violation, but was I safe or unhurt? No! The physical pain was to my wrists from the handcuffs of the police tying my hands behind my back when it "ought" not to have been done, beyond the mere desirability definition of the word to an obligation of NOT to violate this right! in Part First of the New Hampshire Constitution.
--Thus I file this complaint with your office and sub-office to investigate this as to WHY this case lingers in District Court when it was appealed and "shall" result in a jury trial as supposed to be a guarantee by Art. III, Sect. 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Const., of which the judge who issued the warrant, Zarzinski AND the judge for processing, Cirone, both took an RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to Art. 84, or did they? to investigate them, and maybe make them pay damages to me out of any Art. 36 retirement if it takes that long to resolve this case and after their Art. 17 House impeachment with Article 38 trial in the Senate.
--In the meantime to put this lien upon the theft of the fine imposed to the 7th degree by the Restitution statute in the N.H. Criminal Code to the State v. Fleming case of 1984 to two cases, citing "Blackstone's Commentaries" over to the Proverbs 6:30-31 in the Bible. The lien to effect by way of this action here to my share of the $amount in RSA Ch. 188-F:31 of the 20% penalty assessment or surcharge to all fines (65% to PS&T, 20% to victims fund, + 15% to the General Fund*), to maybe file an Art. 32 Petition for the latter* as endorsed by a Rule 36 Rep. so that the House Speaker can send over to the appropriate committee for a hearing by Rule 4.
Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone).
UNION LEADER of last Thu., July 24th '08 had "New law: Threats lead to jail time" by TRENT SPINNER over at:
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=New+law%3a+Threats+lead+to+jail+time&articleId=099e32aa-880d-474d-869f-7367b437ae49
There being 19 comments so far; see mine to follow citing my case #2005-S-068 that I won, but appealed the attorney fee to Supreme Court #2006-0291.
JSH