New Hampshire Underground

New Hampshire Underground => General Discussion => Topic started by: JosephSHaas on January 12, 2010, 10:37 AM NHFT

Title: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 35
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 12, 2010, 10:37 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on January 12, 2010, 12:26 AM NHFT
Here's the big UL article about it.

http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Ed+Brown+erupts%2c+gets+37+years&articleId=0f414ff5-a0d1-4a30-b917-f5d4c70da227 (http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Ed+Brown+erupts%2c+gets+37+years&articleId=0f414ff5-a0d1-4a30-b917-f5d4c70da227)

Thanks KBC.  Here's what I did just type to send in:

"You're right George O. in Berlin of:  " it was about control." The N.H. Article 12 "control" in our Bill of Rights that is not supposed to be withOUT our 1-8-17 U.S. Constitutional "Consent".  The Feds have yet to file their 40USC255 to 40UISC3112 papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word in N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 since it "Takes Two to Tango" as they say, or a conditional offer YET to be accepted is NOT Consent, as decided by that Adams 1943 U.S. Supreme Court case! - - - - - Plus - "Shelley Andrews, Plainfield, NH" you're WRONG, re: your "Our taxpayer dollars paid for all the police...OUR $$$ not the Browns who avoided paying their taxes." BUT that they DID pay their property taxes for this Article 12 protection! The end does NOT justify the means as for procedural due process withIN the Rule of Law, not just the substantial that is flawed too, in that the 16th Amendment has NO enforcement clause as do the surrounding ones. "To lay and collect" of to lay being either to apply or impose as a levy to collect and collect! That's redundant.  I chose the former of to apply and say request denied! (;-) M.83-50-D of my case that I won in this SAME court. "

Mod: a done-deal; re: "Thank you for your comments. Your participation helps us bring you the most comprehensive coverage of the Granite State from Coos to the Seacoast."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Lumpy on January 12, 2010, 10:42 AM NHFT
After the lousy (sad and predictable) outcome of Ed's sentencing too I think SAU is looking to create a national event in support if Ed.  If anyone is interested I suggest tuning in to SAU on Facebook.  It will likely not be a joyous event but certainly meaningful.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 12, 2010, 11:11 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100112/FRONTPAGE/1120302&template=single (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100112/FRONTPAGE/1120302&template=single)

entitled: "Take your gov't beliefs* elsewhere!"

of: "This judge and U.S. Attorney are mere parrots to the doctor.

Re:

(1) ""The beliefs held by Mr. Brown are also held by a broad subculture," wrote Dr. Shawn Channell, who compared Brown's views with the "unrealistic" beliefs held by members of organized religions. "

(2) " Singal said, before announcing the sentence. "It is sad that Mr. Brown and his beliefs have caused others to be entrapped in his web." "

(3) "U.S. Attorney John Kacavas said after the hearing ..."People who are fundamentalist in their beliefs are often not dissuaded by reason or long incarceration," ."

* The fact of the matter is that this court lacks jurisdiction! as will be found by the Appeals Court in Boston on the other case to come down on this Maine Judge like a ton a bricks. Reference his illegal hearings in Portland in violation of 18USC3232 as the end does not justify the means! in what is supposed to be "The Rule of Law." "

Mod: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100112/FRONTPAGE/1120302#comment-101773 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100112/FRONTPAGE/1120302#comment-101773)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 12, 2010, 11:14 AM NHFT
See also:

Re:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100111/BREAK/100119999/0/FRONTPAGE (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100111/BREAK/100119999/0/FRONTPAGE)

of: "A call to the federal FRAUD unit is in order.
New By JosephSHaas on Tue, 01/12/2010 - 11:52

The end does NOT justify the means.

WHERE do you think this federal judge came from?

Maine! To where he held illegal hearings!

in violation of Title 18 U.S. Code Section 3232."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Jim Johnson on January 12, 2010, 12:34 PM NHFT
Happy Birthday Joseph!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 12, 2010, 01:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: Jim Johnson on January 12, 2010, 12:34 PM NHFT
Happy Birthday Joseph!

Thank you; and Happy New Year to you!

To check my mailbox later today to see if I did get a present from the Dover Judge: Motion to attach the Body of Ed for jury trial on my civil case granted.  8) -- And if so, is Ed still there? Or if granted and him gone, a "moot" part of the case?

In the meantime you can also call me "MrTideman" = my trade name over at W.M.U.R. Channel 9 out of Manchester from where I remember them selling Martin J. "Red" Beckman those 1/2 hr. info-mercials back in the 1980s when I first met Ed; "Red" running for President back then, as against these I.R.S. goons and their thugs.

Here's my latest over there at Channel 9:

" Re: someoneshouldspeakup: next time THINK before you write!  Ed likes the U.S., it's the bad apples in the barrel he doesn't like: it's called corruption. And don't lump me into "the rest of us"! Yes, my employer pays the taxes charged by the feds against me  indirectly to the Feds from work for me, and I've written her not to with the Devvy Kidd info and she tells me her accountant "said" so to her, even AFTER the latest paperwork!?  I doubt it! I claim a paper reply to my paper claim. The 16th Amendment has NO enforcement clause! To "lay and collect", To lay meaning to apply or impose.  So to impose as in a levy to collect and collect!? That's redundant George Orwell "1984" Double Speak!! I chose to apply, and say to the gov't: request DENIED! especially here in N.H. where they have NO jurisdictional authority YET since they have FAILed to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word in N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution: a fact that the judge REFUSED to give over to the jury to weigh in reaching their verdict.  A Maine judge BTW who does trample on our Article 14 N.H. Bill of Rights to "complete" justice. See also that very last sentence of Article 12.  The local COPs in violation of their own RSA Ch. 42:1 + 92:2 oaths of office, instead they support the federal statutes! No wonder there is no executive check and balance.  They're in bed together! "

Mod: http://www.wmur.com/news/22204555/detail.html (http://www.wmur.com/news/22204555/detail.html)

And here's what goofy says: 
Jan. 12, 2010 2:28pm EST | from manchestersocialist   "MrTideman: you don't want to pay taxes! I get it. You just want to leech off the rest of us who do! Parasite, don't call the police if you've been assaulted or worse, don't call the fire dept. if your house catches fire. Don't drive on the interstate highway, don't send your kids to school, give them health care. Better yet, go move way out in the woods with a tent!"

And of my reply to him: "manchestersocialist: take your BLENDing of federal AND state/county/local taxes elsewhere! Your concoction is beyond a mere blending of different ingredients to that of a devising: an actual con-triving aka a fabrication and in this case a deception that the rest of us ought not to believe you, as you presume too much also/known/as an assumption, to assume, that as they say: makes and ass out of u and me, but not me in YOUR presumption of what? being boldly arrogant, or acceptance of a belief based on evidence or supposition.  For you it would have to be the latter as an act of supposing, as an unproven statement, to suppose being "To assume to be true".  Unfortunately for you both Ed and I plus many others do pay our property taxes for this Article 12 protection NOT afforded by the Selectmen of Plainield who either provide such, or give him his money back! Thieves! Your "belief" has just been shattered.  Now what say ye? Plus I also register my car and pay these excise taxes on gasoline even though that too at the State level is un-lawful too, as against Article 95 of the N.H. Constitution.  They either fix it, or set up more toll booths. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 12, 2010, 03:10 PM NHFT
I guess that I've had my 15 seconds of shame (as John Walsh says on AMW-TV), over at WMUR, and so when I tried posting the following it reads that some word they find offensive therein, but which one?  I don't have the time to guess and told Ch. 9 on their survey form:

"
More Ch. 9 comments.
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Tue 1/12/10 3:53 PM
To:    josephshaas at hotmail.com

Re:

of: "crzhrs: who is "we"? Yes, I get your point about the wars, plus may I add that of having to pay for Nancy Pelosi's jet: see http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp)

If the "we" are for us in N.H. then one "nut" or I'd rather say: "nugget" of truth can be found at Attorney Lowell 'Larry" Becraft's website from Huntsville, Alabama over at: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm) It lists what is required by the feds in each state per the 1-8-17 "Consent".  In N.H. that is that they have to file with the Sec. of State as compared to the governor in Florida.  Thus we "volunteer" to the Feds, and I say ONLY when lawful and legal, and so let's have those other states pay OUR share of the costs of the union, will force that GSA/ General Services Administration "head" of agency to finally file the papers here in N.H. when the revenue drops when the other state citizens wake up to the truth.  Of to pay not what is wanted, but needed in what is supposed to be public servants operating in a "frugal" manner, like our Art. 38 -N.H. ones have taken an oath to do, but do us a dis-honor. "

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

in reply to:

"If we don't pay federal taxes who funds Homeland Security? Who funds two wars started by George Bush?
Jan. 12, 2010 3:19pm EST | from crzhrs "

and:

"MrTideman: your postings are like a Waldorf salad. IOW a word salad with a heaping of NUTS!!

Jan. 12, 2010 3:03pm EST | from manchestersocialist "  "


Mod: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg316127#msg316127 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg316127#msg316127)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 12, 2010, 09:59 PM NHFT
Somebody told me that the video with Marie was done by NECN, (not WMUR), and so I found:

http://www.necn.com/Boston/New-England/2010/01/11/NH-tax-evader-gets-37-years-on/1263229340.html (http://www.necn.com/Boston/New-England/2010/01/11/NH-tax-evader-gets-37-years-on/1263229340.html)

but with no video.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mod: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Ed+Brown%22+%22Marie+Miller%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&oq=%22Ed+Brown%22+%22Marie+Miller%22&fp=e8d6ef47431c6a4a (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Ed+Brown%22+%22Marie+Miller%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&oq=%22Ed+Brown%22+%22Marie+Miller%22&fp=e8d6ef47431c6a4a)

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 12, 2010, 10:18 PM NHFT
I see that The Freedom Sledders are interested too:

http://www.freedomsledder.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=27584 (http://www.freedomsledder.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=27584)

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 12, 2010, 10:21 PM NHFT
You'd think that The "Foster's Daily Democrat" would write up something more local for Dover, rather than to just rely on the A.P. story:

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100111/NEWS0201/100119922 (http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100111/NEWS0201/100119922)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 12, 2010, 10:45 PM NHFT
The south to the rescue?

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/AP/story/1419332.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=1261615#Comments_Container (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/AP/story/1419332.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=1261615#Comments_Container)

from: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/AP/story/1419332.html (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/AP/story/1419332.html)

"Although there was only one supporter in the courtroom, re: Marie Miller, who Kathy quotes, I too met Kathy on the courthouse steps yesterday but that she was not interested in facts, just opinions as in "My heart aches" from Marie. The video on T.V. showed us leaving to go to the restaurant across the street. What Kathy could have reported, and especially for you southerners who I found here by a GOOGLE search, is the fact that like New Hampshire R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 your state of Florida likewise has a statute from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution.  For both of our states the Feds are in non - compliance with the law: no 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal filing of their papers with either the N.H. Secretary of State nor your governor. See: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm)  "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 12, 2010, 11:09 PM NHFT
Or maybe the westerners to the rescue?

RE: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/business/national/story/984844.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=658144#Comments_Container (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/business/national/story/984844.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=658144#Comments_Container)

from: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/business/national/story/984844.html (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/business/national/story/984844.html)


of: "Although there was only one supporter in the courtroom, re: Marie Miller, who Kathy quotes, I too met Kathy on the courthouse steps yesterday but that she was not interested in facts, just opinions as in "My heart aches" from Marie. The video on T.V. showed us leaving to go to the restaurant across the street. What Kathy could have reported, and especially for you westerners who I found here by a GOOGLE search, is the fact that like New Hampshire R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 your state of CAlif.ornia likewise has a statute from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution.  In New Hampshire the Feds are in non - compliance with the law: no 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal filing of their papers with our N.H. Secretary of State. Has anybody checked for CAlif.ornia?  See: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm)  "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 12, 2010, 11:16 PM NHFT
Or how about South Carolina?

RE: http://www.thestate.com/370/story/1105402.html (http://www.thestate.com/370/story/1105402.html)

and: http://www.thestate.com/370/story/1105402.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=9871149#Comments_Container (http://www.thestate.com/370/story/1105402.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=9871149#Comments_Container)

of: ""Although there was only one supporter in the courtroom, re: Marie Miller, who Kathy quotes, I too met Kathy on the courthouse steps yesterday but that she was not interested in facts, just opinions as in "My heart aches" from Marie. The video on T.V. showed us leaving to go to the restaurant across the street. What Kathy could have reported, and especially for you southerners who I found here by a GOOGLE search, is the fact that like New Hampshire R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 your state of South Carolina likewise has a statute from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution.  In New Hampshire the Feds are in non - compliance with the law: no 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal filing of their papers with our N.H. Secretary of State. Has anybody checked for South Carolina?  See: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm)  "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 12, 2010, 11:24 PM NHFT
Here's something I haven't seen before: a wikipedia for both Ed and Elaine over at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_and_Elaine_Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_and_Elaine_Brown)

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 12, 2010, 11:44 PM NHFT
RE: http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2010/01/37-years-for-tax-evader-ed-brown.html (http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2010/01/37-years-for-tax-evader-ed-brown.html)

of: "In reply to Jane of 1-11-10 @ 04:12 PM:

"What, he didn't go off on the Jews? Jews are always right up there on his list. He must be losing his touch."

Jane, The World Jewish Congress has a great set of bylaws that read of that their members support The Rule of Law.  The trouble here in N.H. is that our Federal Rep. Paul Hodes is a member but who is in violation of such as a liar.  He allowed the lie to him from the Deputy Court Clerk Dan Lynch to stand.  And that lie is that Local Rule 72.5 makes it O.K. to violate 18USC3232 in that ALL proceedings SHALL be had in the jurisdictional district of where the crime occurred. But that can be waived by this rule!? No way! That is a lie, because that's a CIVIL rule not supposed to be applicable to this CRIMINAL case! reference those illegal trips from N.H. to Portland, Maine. The end does NOT justify the means, unless you are Paul Hodes who refuses to impeach his "brother of the Bar" George Singal in his Art. III, Sec. 3 "inferior Court of Congress". "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 13, 2010, 10:02 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2010/01/12/tax_evader_gets_37_years_in_prison/?comments=all#readerComm (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2010/01/12/tax_evader_gets_37_years_in_prison/?comments=all#readerComm)

of: "Although there was only one supporter in the courtroom, re: Marie Miller, who Kathy quotes, I too met Kathy on the courthouse steps on Monday morning but that she was not interested in facts, just opinions as in "My heart aches" from Marie. The video on T.V. showed us leaving to go to the restaurant across the street. What Kathy could have reported, and especially for you "flatlanders" in MAss.achusetts who I found here by a GOOGLE search, is the fact that like New Hampshire R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 your Commonwealth likewise has a statute from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution.  In New Hampshire the Feds are in non - compliance with the law: no 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal filing of their papers with our N.H. Secretary of State. Has anybody checked for Mass.?  See: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm)  Yes I have, and when the Federal Court moved from the John McCormick Post Office Building to the wharf, they FAILed to comply with the law. BELIEVE IT OR NOT!"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 13, 2010, 10:27 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.chron.com/disp/discuss.mpl/ap/top/all/6809906.html?p=3 (http://www.chron.com/disp/discuss.mpl/ap/top/all/6809906.html?p=3)

back to: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6809906.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6809906.html)

for Houston, Texas
"The [Houston] Chronicle"

Comment #31 so far, of: "Although there was only one supporter in the courtroom, re: Marie Miller, who Kathy quotes, I too met Kathy on the courthouse steps Monday morning but that she was not interested in facts, just opinions as in "My heart aches" from Marie. The video on T.V. showed us leaving to go to the restaurant across the street. What Kathy could have reported, and especially for you southerners who I found here by a GOOGLE search, is the fact that like New Hampshire R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 your state of Texas likewise has a statute from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution.  In New Hampshire the Feds are in non - compliance with the law: no 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal filing of their papers with our N.H. Secretary of State. Has anybody checked for Texas?  See: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm)  "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 14, 2010, 07:17 AM NHFT
Some CURRENT Affairs.  Maybe some reader over at The "Concord Monitor" will read this and "investigate"?

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100114/NEWS01/1140321&template=single (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100114/NEWS01/1140321&template=single)

entitled: "So WHY did the Feds return this? "

of: "Reference paragraph #6: "The case was delayed as it was transferred from the county attorney's office to FEDERAL*  prosecutors and then back to the county. " (* emphasis ADDed.)

WHY is this?

Because her attorney knows that the Feds have NO jurisdiction? and threatened to expose the Feds if they don't send it back to the County?

** See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html) see also: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.h... (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.h...) and http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03... (http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03...) ** *plus the original http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575) for 40USC255.

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

As in that we here in New Hampshire did grant the Feds CONDITIONAL "Consent" from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution on June 14, 1883 by R.S.A. Chapter 123:1   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm) but that our offer un-accepted is NOT Consent. They have no jurisdiction "controllable" over any of us Article 12 "inhabitants"!  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) "Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent."

WHY does this only work for certain people in the KNOW and who have their attorney threaten federal prosecutors in exposing this "Rule of Law"? So in other words it's: Not WHAT you know, but WHO you know! Piecemeal justice to those who pay some bribe not to expose this!? "

Mod: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100114/NEWS01/1140321#comment-102181 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100114/NEWS01/1140321#comment-102181)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: armlaw on January 14, 2010, 08:17 PM NHFT
Joe...

Hope this helps...
skip navigation
Cornell University Cornell Law School
LII / Legal Information Institute
U.S. Code collection

TITLE 18 App. > FEDERAL > TITLE > Rule 1

NOTES:

Source
(As amended Apr. 24, 1972, eff. Oct. 1, 1972; Apr. 28, 1982, eff. Aug. 1, 1982; Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993; Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002.)

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1944

1. These rules are prescribed under the authority of two acts of Congress, namely: the Act of June 29, 1940, c. 445, 18 U.S.C. 687 (Proceedings in criminal cases prior to and including verdict; power of Supreme Court to prescribe rules), and the Act of November 21, 1941, c. 492, 18 U.S.C. 689 (Proceedings to punish for criminal contempt of court; application to sections 687 and 688).
2. The courts of the United States covered by the rules are enumerated in Rule 54 (a)[/b]. In addition to Federal courts in the continental United States they include district courts in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. In the Canal Zone only the rules governing proceedings after verdict, finding or plea of guilty are applicable.
3. While the rules apply to proceedings before commissioners when acting as committing magistrates, they do not govern when a commissioner acts as a trial magistrate for the trial of petty offenses committed on Federal reservations. That procedure is governed by rules adopted by order promulgated by the Supreme Court on January 6, 1941 (311 U.S. 733), pursuant to the Act of October 9, 1940, c. 785, secs. 1–5. See 18 U.S.C. 576–576d [now 3401, 3402] (relating to trial of petty offenses on Federal reservations by United States commissioners).

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1972 Amendment

The rule is amended to make clear that the rules are applicable to courts of the United States and, where the rule so provides, to proceedings before United States magistrates and state or local judicial officers.
Primarily these rules are intended to govern proceedings in criminal cases triable in the United States District Court. Special rules have been promulgated, pursuant to the authority set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c), for the trial of "minor offenses" before United States magistrates. (See Rules of Procedure for the Trial of Minor Offenses Before United States Magistrates (January 27, 1971).)
However, there is inevitably some overlap between the two sets of rules. The Rules of Criminal Procedure for the United States District Courts deal with preliminary, supplementary, and special proceedings which will often be conducted before United States magistrates. This is true, for example, with regard to rule 3—The Complaint; rule 4—Arrest Warrant or Summons Upon Complaint; rule 5—Initial Appearance Before the Magistrate; and rule 5.1—Preliminary Examination. It is also true, for example, of supplementary and special proceedings such as rule 40—Commitment to Another District, Removal; rule 41—Search and Seizure; and rule 46—Release from Custody. Other of these rules, where applicable, also apply to proceedings before United States magistrates. See Rules of Procedure for the Trial of Minor Offenses Before United States Magistrates, rule 1—Scope:
These rules govern the procedure and practice for the trial of minor offenses (including petty offenses) before United States magistrates under Title 18, U.S.C. § 3401, and for appeals in such cases to judges of the district courts. To the extent that pretrial and trial procedure and practice are not specifically covered by these rules, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure apply as to minor offenses other than petty offenses. All other proceedings in criminal matters, other than petty offenses, before United States magistrates are governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
State and local judicial officers are governed by these rules, but only when the rule specifically so provides. This is the case of rule 3—The Complaint; rule 4—Arrest Warrant or Summons Upon Complaint; and rule 5—Initial Appearance Before the Magistrate. These rules confer authority upon the "magistrate," a term which is defined in new rule 54 as follows:
"Magistrate" includes a United States magistrate as defined in 28 U.S.C. §§ 631–639, a judge of the United States, another judge or judicial officer specifically empowered by statute in force in any territory or possession, the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, to perform a function to which a particular rule relates, and a state or local judicial officer, authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3041 to perform the functions prescribed in rules 3, 4, and 5.
Rule 41 provides that a search warrant may be issued by "a judge of a state court of record" and thus confers that authority upon appropriate state judicial officers.
The scope of rules 1 and 54 is discussed in C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal §§ 21, 871–874 (1969, Supp. 1971), and 8 and 8A J. Moore, Federal Practice chapters 1 and 54 (2d ed. Cipes 1970, Supp. 1971).

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1982 Amendment

The amendment corrects an erroneous cross reference, from Rule 54 (c) to Rule 54 (a), and replaces the word "defined" with the more appropriate word "provided."

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1993 Amendment

The Rule is amended to conform to the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 [P.L. 101–650, Title III, Section 321] which provides that each United States magistrate appointed under section 631 of title 28, United States Code, shall be known as a United States magistrate judge.

Committee Notes on Rules—2002 Amendment

Rule 1 is entirely revised and expanded to incorporate Rule 54, which deals with the application of the rules. Consistent with the title of the existing rule, the Committee believed that a statement of the scope of the rules should be placed at the beginning to show readers which proceedings are governed by these rules. The Committee also revised the rule to incorporate the definitions found in Rule 54 (c) as a new Rule 1 (b).
Rule 1 (a) contains language from Rule 54 (b). But language in current Rule 54 (b)(2)–(4) has been deleted for several reasons: First, Rule 54 (b)(2) refers to a venue statute that governs an offense committed on the high seas or somewhere outside the jurisdiction of a particular district; it is unnecessary and has been deleted because once venue has been established, the Rules of Criminal Procedure automatically apply. Second, Rule 54 (b)(3) currently deals with peace bonds; that provision is inconsistent with the governing statute and has therefore been deleted. Finally, Rule 54 (b)(4) references proceedings conducted before United States Magistrate Judges, a topic now covered in Rule 58.
Rule 1 (a)(5) consists of material currently located in Rule 54 (b)(5), with the exception of the references to the navigation laws and to fishery offenses. Those provisions were considered obsolete. But if those proceedings were to arise, they would be governed by the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Rule 1 (b) is composed of material currently located in Rule 54 (c), with several exceptions. First, the reference to an "Act of Congress" has been deleted from the restyled rules; instead the rules use the self-explanatory term "federal statute." Second, the language concerning demurrers, pleas in abatement, etc., has been deleted as being anachronistic. Third, the definitions of "civil action" and "district court" have been deleted. Fourth, the term "attorney for the government" has been expanded to include reference to those attorneys who may serve as special or independent counsel under applicable federal statutes. The term "attorney for the government" contemplates an attorney of record in the case.
Fifth, the Committee added a definition for the term "court" in Rule 1 (b)(2). Although that term originally was almost always synonymous with the term "district judge," the term might be misleading or unduly narrow because it may not cover the many functions performed by magistrate judges. See generally 28 U.S.C. §§ 132, 636. Additionally, the term does not cover circuit judges who may be authorized to hold a district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 291. The proposed definition continues the traditional view that "court" means district judge, but also reflects the current understanding that magistrate judges act as the "court" in many proceedings. Finally, the Committee intends that the term "court" be used principally to describe a judicial officer, except where a rule uses the term in a spatial sense, such as describing proceedings in "open court."
Sixth, the term "Judge of the United States" has been replaced with the term "Federal judge." That term includes Article III judges and magistrate judges and, as noted in Rule 1 (b)(3)(C), federal judges other than Article III judges who may be authorized by statute to perform a particular act specified in the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The term does not include local judges in the District of Columbia. Seventh, the definition of "Law" has been deleted as being superfluous and possibly misleading because it suggests that administrative regulations are excluded.
Eighth, the current rules include three definitions of "magistrate judge." The term used in amended Rule 1 (b)(5) is limited to United States magistrate judges. In the current rules the term magistrate judge includes not only United States magistrate judges, but also district court judges, court of appeals judges, Supreme Court justices, and where authorized, state and local officers. The Committee believed that the rules should reflect current practice, i.e., the wider and almost exclusive use of United States magistrate judges, especially in preliminary matters. The definition, however, is not intended to restrict the use of other federal judicial officers to perform those functions. Thus, Rule 1 (c) has been added to make it clear that where the rules authorize a magistrate judge to act, any other federal judge or justice may act.
Finally, the term "organization" has been added to the list of definitions.
The remainder of the rule has been amended as part of the general restyling of the rules to make them more easily understood. In addition to changes made to improve the clarity, the Committee has changed language to make style and terminology consistent throughout the Criminal Rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only.





Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 15, 2010, 08:19 AM NHFT
Quote from: armlaw on January 14, 2010, 08:17 PM NHFT
...
rule 40—Commitment to Another District, ....

This is for AFTER the trial AND sentencing right?

Maybe Singal has applied this retrospectively back to include those pre-trial hearings in Maine? in violation of 18USC3232.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 15, 2010, 09:02 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100115/NEWS01/1150323 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100115/NEWS01/1150323)

entitled: "Activist in what? Hiding corruption!?"

of: "Re: "Swett has ...a law degree from the University of California "

Did she ever turn that into a license to practice law? And if so,

is she currently an attorney in the judicial branch of government? And if so,

Does she intend to give that up if she ever is elected to the Legislative Branch?

like the judges here of the "Bench" rather than the "Bar", or supposed to be,

me having seen N.H. Supreme Court Judge Jim Duggin hobnobbing with them over at The Bar Assn. when they were at their Pleasant Street office, and THEN they shut the doors to the public.

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

Speaking of attorneys, let's tell former N.H. A.G. Kelly Ayotte to "take a hike" too.

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

One GOOD thing is that she "In 2004, Swett was the national co-chairwoman of Sen. Joe Lieberman's presidential campaign. "  And as for him being a member of The World Jewish Congress of Parliamentarians in government, right? he was and still is for "The Rule of Law" in their by-laws, right?  Then WHY does Swett let the rotten apple of a corruption infest our state!? To wit: this Fed. Rep. Paul Hodes character. Because he's a Democrat? and thou shalt not over-ride his corruption to that of to help the people?  If that's the case, then her priorities are out of order! Reference the Hodes back - up of allowing one of our N.H. Article 12 "inhabitants" here to be "controllable" by other laws that we never consented to, and in direct violation of federal law too: 18USC3232 making him a criminal in the 2nd degree by allowing this Maine judge to hold hearings in Portland for a N.H. case he was assigned to visit here, not sit over there.  The proper term is for itinerant justice. And thus back to her of that she can sure TALK of "Human Rights and Justice" as a professor of Political Science at Tufts in MAss. and so what? a distinguished TEACHer of TALKer per the Lantos goals that stop at the classroom door? I'd call it more an Art THAN a Science, the Art of the Deal:  you pay me $x,xxx to run, and I'll guarantee that I won't impeach any of these Art. III, Sec. 1 judges of ours in our "inferior Courts of Congress", per my oath to the U.S. Constitution be damned, the Sheeple be ignorant, per our buddies in the News who divert the Sheeple attention AWAY from the truth.

She's for "jobs" alright: creating MORE federal positions to "take care" of those who protest against the un-ruly in government! Federal funds for this and that, that the state can take over these new positions or let the individual go when the money runs out. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 15, 2010, 03:47 PM NHFT
As the actor Strother Martin says in the Paul Newman movie of: "Cool Hand Luke" of: What we have here is (a) "failure to communicate"   See: "cool hand luke"  http: //www   dot youtube dot com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o&feature=related (see below), of 0:40 seconds, seen 384,159 x so far    **  :

See: "Koine Greek" over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek) and in particular: The "Sources" paragraph that includes: "The teaching of the (Old and New) Testaments was aimed at the most common people, and for that reason they use the most popular language of the era. Information can also be derived from some Atticist scholars of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, who, in order to fight the evolution of the language, published works which compared the supposedly "correct" Attic* against the "wrong" Koine by citing examples. "

* The Attic Greek over at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attic_Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attic_Greek) "The classic Attic Alphabet is made up of the familiar 24 (capital) Greek letters: ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?.

It has seven vowels: ?, ?, ? (long e), ?, ?, ?, ? (long o). The rest are consonants."
and: "Greek is an independent branch of the Indo-European language classification, a family that includes English."

"Attic tends to replace the -ter "doer of" suffix with -tes: dikastes for dikaster "judge"."

Now how does this relate to Ed's case of why this is written by me here now?  Because when Ed & Elaine paid their property taxes as "inhabitants" for Article 12 "protection" from "other" laws such as the federal statutes at large or U.S. "Codes" that were never U.S. Constitution 1-8-17 "Consent"ed to by N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 because our offer of a conditional consent was never accepted, since the Feds have FAIled to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State, then Ed's Right in The Bill of Rights have been stolen** by these non do-ers who are the real Attic-ers, changing the wording of their promise in RSA Ch. 42:1 and 92:2 to that of to do, of to "judge" and they judge that their extortion racket be protected at all costs: send them down to Concord where they KNOW that the oaths there in that city have been corrupted to that of not a check-and balance or honor to the Creator and the Constitution, but to what the Creators did create: and so of honor to the creature! 

Such is as of pledging allegiance not to honor God Almighty, but His creature: the devil.  Of yes, to some degree as the god of this world (II Corinthians 4:4, but only when his actions are in harmony with God with a capitol letter G in the chain of command.)  So if our public servants cannot even recognize this, HOW do you think it will be for those left here after the Rapture? God help them? No, they were given a choice, and so must then endure.

Contract: I, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  and/or - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Edward-Lewis: Brown +/or Elaine Alice: Brown, having paid our 2007 property taxes in Plainfield of $_______ on ________ ____, 2007 for protection, but that was NOT afforded us on October 4, 2007, do hereby grant to Joseph S. Haas, my/our right(s) to sue for the theft of this money, since we would have preferred to have had such protection, and since our liberty was TAKEN and has YET to be restored, maybe AFTER this point is brought up in the state as an element for us on appeal and/or a Presidential pardon to offset this corruption.

Mr. Haas is advised to please sue for the $________ original amount to the 7th degree = $___________ per God's formula in Proverbs 6:30-31, as reflected in Public Law 97-280 (96 Statute 1211) of October 4, 1982 of The Year of the Bible for 1983 & Beyond, and especially that part that reads: "to rediscover and APPLY the priceless, timeless message of the Holy Scripture"  (emphasis ADDed for to See:     http://www.allabouthistory.org/year-of-the-bible.htm (http://www.allabouthistory.org/year-of-the-bible.htm)   and especially this "Now, therefore" #(2);    see also: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/20383b.htm (http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/20383b.htm) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Bible) and after taking out $1,501 after said trial by jury, give me/us the $remainder.  Notice that the word: apply is NOT in Reagan's Proclamation #5018.

JSH

** YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o&feature=related#)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 16, 2010, 10:07 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/114896/102690 (http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/114896/102690)  and *

entitled: "The wrongful enforcers only re-act to guns! not pen and paper. "

of: "jonstah: Reference your last sentence: " A bill without teeth is unenforcable."

Oh really? un-enforce-able?

Like there's no enforcement clause in the 16th Amendment, (as there are in the surrounding ones) but that doesn't stop the federal goons! from sucking into their "System" our N.H. Article 12 inhabitants, who are NOT supposed to be "controllable" by any OTHER laws (like the U.S. Codes or Statutes at Large) than what we 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution "Consent" to, as we did as a group, by our N.H. Legislature give a conditional consent by N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 to the Feds, but who have FAILed to file their 40USC255 to 40USCV3112 papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State.

So before the banning of guns on State property, shouldn't we look into the corruption for WHY the "law enforcement" for protection wasn't there for one of our inhabitants on PRIVATE soil first? BEFORE they start protecting the corruptors!? deserving of no security, as per my posting above.

And BTW if Carl Drega was only given his "day in court" on his court case, denied to him by Judge Harold W. Perkins the REAL killer, as I did testify to when the State Trooper who got wounded went over his medical insurance and wanted the General Fund to help him out financially, I testified in that Harold Burns bill from Whitefield that it ought to be paid not by the public, but from this judge! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Drega (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Drega) and http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1998/libe39-19980626-09.html (http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1998/libe39-19980626-09.html) plus photos over at: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010507.html (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010507.html) and his picture at: http://www.spock.com/Carl-Drega (http://www.spock.com/Carl-Drega)

Plus that Newbury case was where the Tax Collector sold a parcel at Tax Sale to a bidder, then told him that she made a mistake, and that he could not get either the land nor his money back! And "they" said the SOLUTION for next time, is to bullet proof the window, when I say it ought to be: Thou Shalt not Steal, does not mean that you then kill, but fork over 7x the $amount stolen by Proverbs 6:30-31 and Public Law 97-280. "

* http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100116/FRONTPAGE/901160429#comment-102694 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100116/FRONTPAGE/901160429#comment-102694)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: armlaw on January 16, 2010, 09:38 PM NHFT
Joe...

What follows needs to be studied and implemented as the USDC is Not an Article III court. What has taken place is actually an act in violation of 
HR 3162 SEC. 802 DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM http://disc (http://disc) .server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=11542

H.R.3162 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of ___

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended:

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';

(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.

SEC. 803. PROHIBITION AGAINST HARBORING TERRORISTS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 2338 the following new section:

`Sec. 2339. Harboring or concealing terrorists

`(a) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), section 175 (relating to biological weapons), section 229 (relating to chemical weapons), section 831 (relating to nuclear materials), paragraph (2) or (3) of section 844(f) (relating to arson and bombing of government property risking or causing injury or death), section 1366(a) (relating to the destruction of an energy facility), section 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), section 2332a (relating to weapons of mass destruction), or section 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries) of this title, section 236(a) (relating to sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284(a)), or section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy) of title 49, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.'.

`(b) A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.'.

(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT- The chapter analysis for chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item for section 2338 the following:

`2339. Harboring or concealing terrorists.'.

SEC. 804. JURISDICTION OVER CRIMES COMMITTED AT U.S. FACILITIES ABROAD.

Section 7 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(9) With respect to offenses committed by or against a national of the United States as that term is used in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act--

`(A) the premises of United States diplomatic, consular, military or other United States Government missions or entities in foreign States, including the buildings, parts of buildings, and land appurtenant or ancillary thereto or used for purposes of those missions or entities, irrespective of ownership; and

`(B) residences in foreign States and the land appurtenant or ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for purposes of those missions or entities or used by United States personnel assigned to those missions or entities.

Nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to supersede any treaty or international agreement with which this paragraph conflicts. This paragraph does not apply with respect to an offense committed by a person described in section 3261(a) of this title.'.

SEC. 805. MATERIAL SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 2339A of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) by striking `, within the United States,';

(B) by inserting `229,' after `175,';

(C) by inserting `1993,' after `1992,';

(D) by inserting `, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284),' after `of this title';

(E) by inserting `or 60123(b)' after `46502'; and

(F) by inserting at the end the following: `A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.'; and

(2) in subsection (b)--

(A) by striking `or other financial securities' and inserting `or monetary instruments or financial securities'; and

(B) by inserting `expert advice or assistance,' after `training,'.

(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT- Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting `or 2339B' after `2339A'.

SEC. 806. ASSETS OF TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.

Section 981(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:

`(G) All assets, foreign or domestic--

`(i) of any individual, entity, or organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism (as defined in section 2331) against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property, and all assets, foreign or domestic, affording any person a source of influence over any such entity or organization;

`(ii) acquired or maintained by any person with the intent and for the purpose of supporting, planning, conducting, or concealing an act of domestic or international terrorism (as defined in section 2331) against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property; or

`(iii) derived from, involved in, or used or intended to be used to commit any act of domestic or international terrorism (as defined in section 2331) against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property.'.

SEC. 807. TECHNICAL CLARIFICATION RELATING TO PROVISION OF MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISM.

No provision of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (title IX of Public Law 106-387) shall be construed to limit or otherwise affect section 2339A or 2339B of title 18, United States Code.

SEC. 808. DEFINITION OF FEDERAL CRIME OF TERRORISM.

Section 2332b of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (f), by inserting `and any violation of section 351(e), 844(e), 844(f)(1), 956(b), 1361, 1366(b), 1366(c), 1751(e), 2152, or 2156 of this title,' before `and the Secretary'; and

(2) in subsection (g)(5)(B), by striking clauses (i) through (iii) and inserting the following:

`(i) section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), 37 (relating to violence at international airports), 81 (relating to arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction), 175 or 175b (relating to biological weapons), 229 (relating to chemical weapons), subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of section 351 (relating to congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination and kidnaping), 831 (relating to nuclear materials), 842(m) or (n) (relating to plastic explosives), 844(f)(2) or (3) (relating to arson and bombing of Government property risking or causing death), 844(i) (relating to arson and bombing of property used in interstate commerce), 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a Federal facility with a dangerous weapon), 956(a)(1) (relating to conspiracy to murder, kidnap, or maim persons abroad), 1030(a)(1) (relating to protection of computers), 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) resulting in damage as defined in 1030(a)(5)(B)(ii) through (v) (relating to protection of computers), 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the United States), 1116 (relating to murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons), 1203 (relating to hostage taking), 1362 (relating to destruction of communication lines, stations, or systems), 1363 (relating to injury to buildings or property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States), 1366(a) (relating to destruction of an energy facility), 1751(a), (b), (c), or (d) (relating to Presidential and Presidential staff assassination and kidnaping), 1992 (relating to wrecking trains), 1993 (relating to terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems), 2155 (relating to destruction of national defense materials, premises, or utilities), 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), 2281 (relating to violence against maritime fixed platforms), 2332 (relating to certain homicides and other violence against United States nationals occurring outside of the United States), 2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries), 2339 (relating to harboring terrorists), 2339A (relating to providing material support to terrorists), 2339B (relating to providing material support to terrorist organizations), or 2340A (relating to torture) of this title;

`(ii) section 236 (relating to sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284); or

`(iii) section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy), the second sentence of section 46504 (relating to assault on a flight crew with a dangerous weapon), section 46505(b)(3) or (c) (relating to explosive or incendiary devices, or endangerment of human life by means of weapons, on aircraft), section 46506 if homicide or attempted homicide is involved (relating to application of certain criminal laws to acts on aircraft), or section 60123(b) (relating to destruction of interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility) of title 49.'.

SEC. 809. NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION FOR CERTAIN TERRORISM OFFENSES.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 3286 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 3286. Extension of statute of limitation for certain terrorism offenses

`(a) EIGHT-YEAR LIMITATION- Notwithstanding section 3282, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any noncapital offense involving a violation of any provision listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B), or a violation of section 112, 351(e), 1361, or 1751(e) of this title, or section 46504, 46505, or 46506 of title 49, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within 8 years after the offense was committed. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, offenses listed in section 3295 are subject to the statute of limitations set forth in that section.

`(b) NO LIMITATION- Notwithstanding any other law, an indictment may be found or an information instituted at any time without limitation for any offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B), if the commission of such offense resulted in, or created a forseeable risk of, death or serious bodily injury to another person.'.

(b) APPLICATION- The amendments made by this section shall apply to the prosecution of any offense committed before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this section.

SEC. 810. ALTERNATE MAXIMUM PENALTIES FOR TERRORISM OFFENSES.

(a) ARSON- Section 81 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in the second undesignated paragraph by striking `not more than twenty years' and inserting `for any term of years or for life'.

(b) DESTRUCTION OF AN ENERGY FACILITY- Section 1366 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (a), by striking `ten' and inserting `20'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(d) Whoever is convicted of a violation of subsection (a) or (b) that has resulted in the death of any person shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or life.'.

(c) MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS- Section 2339A(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `10' and inserting `15'; and

(2) by striking the period and inserting `, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.'.

(d) MATERIAL SUPPORT TO DESIGNATED FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS- Section 2339B(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `10' and inserting `15'; and

(2) by striking the period after `or both' and inserting `, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.'.

(e) DESTRUCTION OF NATIONAL-DEFENSE MATERIALS- Section 2155(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `ten' and inserting `20'; and

(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting `, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.'.

(f) SABOTAGE OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES OR FUEL- Section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), is amended--

(1) by striking `ten' each place it appears and inserting `20';

(2) in subsection (a), by striking the period at the end and inserting `, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.'; and

(3) in subsection (b), by striking the period at the end and inserting `, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.'.

(g) SPECIAL AIRCRAFT JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES- Section 46505(c) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `15' and inserting `20'; and

(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting `, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.'.

(h) DAMAGING OR DESTROYING AN INTERSTATE GAS OR HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE FACILITY- Section 60123(b) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `15' and inserting `20'; and

(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting `, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.'.

SEC. 811. PENALTIES FOR TERRORIST CONSPIRACIES.

(a) ARSON- Section 81 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in the first undesignated paragraph--

(1) by striking `, or attempts to set fire to or burn'; and

(2) by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,' = before `shall be imprisoned'.

(b) KILLINGS IN FEDERAL FACILITIES- Section 930(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `or attempts to kill';

(2) by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,' before `shall be punished'; and

(3) by striking `and 1113' and inserting `1113, and 1117'.

(c) COMMUNICATIONS LINES, STATIONS, OR SYSTEMS- Section 1362 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in the first undesignated paragraph--

(1) by striking `or attempts willfully or maliciously to injure or destroy'; and

(2) by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,' before `shall be fined'.

(d) BUILDINGS OR PROPERTY WITHIN SPECIAL MARITIME AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION- Section 1363 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `or attempts to destroy or injure'; and

(2) by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,' before `shall be fined' the first place it appears.

(e) WRECKING TRAINS- Section 1992 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(c) A person who conspires to commit any offense defined in this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.'.

(f) MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS- Section 2339A of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,' before `shall be fined'.

(g) TORTURE- Section 2340A of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(c) CONSPIRACY- A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.'.

(h) SABOTAGE OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES OR FUEL- Section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) by striking `, or who intentionally and willfully attempts to destroy or cause physical damage to';

(B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting a comma; and

(C) by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,' before `shall be fined'; and

(2) in subsection (b)--

(A) by striking `or attempts to cause'; and

(B) by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,' before `shall be fined'.

(i) INTERFERENCE WITH FLIGHT CREW MEMBERS AND ATTENDANTS- Section 46504 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,' before `shall be fined'.

(j) SPECIAL AIRCRAFT JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES- Section 46505 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(e) CONSPIRACY- If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (b) or (c), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in such subsection.'.

(k) DAMAGING OR DESTROYING AN INTERSTATE GAS OR HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE FACILITY- Section 60123(b) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `, or attempting to damage or destroy,'; and

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

HR 3162 (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 (Engrossed in House ) http://thomas.loc.gov (http://thomas.loc.gov)

U.S. House of Representatives http://www.house.gov/ (http://www.house.gov/)

Bush Signs Our Rights Over to Military Courts http://disc.serv (http://disc.serv) er.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=11514
  .

"Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court"

And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal"

1. Who is an "officer of the court"?
2. What is "fraud on the court"?
3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?
4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"

1. Who is an "officer of the court"?

              A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

2. What is "fraud on the court"?

              Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."
              "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."

3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?

              "Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
              It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
              Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"

              Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
              In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
              Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
              That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."
              The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
              "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
              Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
              Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
              Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").
              Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
              If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
              However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.
              The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
              Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 17, 2010, 08:44 AM NHFT
Quote from: armlaw on January 16, 2010, 09:38 PM NHFT
...
              Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts....

But WHO to prosecute? Kacavas? He allowed his buddies to travel to Maine in violation of that same criminal code: 18 USC 3232.  [ Or was it Colantuono?, and so Kacavas can do something about this?]

Mod: Singal, in reply to your: "Judges ... By law, they are BOUND* to FOLLOW** the law. " is laughing all the way to the bank. Ha ha ha.  [emphasis ADDed for his interpretation of such as a verb* of to "leap" OVER the "limit" rather than the adjective of being "Under obligation"; and so adds to the word of to follow in the verb of to obey, and comply with to that of the noun of a follow-er: one who subscribes to the teachings of another, and so although he might have subscribed to the teachings of our founding fathers as indicated in what we thought was their rulebook being the Constitution, and in this case 1-8-17 U.S. to N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 he THEN AFTER-ward by some Oath of Kol Nidre (as a Jew), subscribed to what Hodes must have done too, of: ""KILL THE BEST GENTILES!" or "Tob Shebbe Goyim Harog!"  (THE TALMUD: Sanhedrin 59) THE RACIALIST GUIDE FOR THE PRESERVATION AND NURTURE OF THE WHITE GENE POOL by JAMES W. VON BRUNN -

HOLY WESTERN EMPIRE, LLC.
POST OFFICE BOX 2821
EASTON, MARYLAND 21601

Kill the Best Gentiles!

Copyright ©2002 Holy Western Empire, LLC.

FIRST EDITION

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions.
Published in the United States by Holy Western Empire (HWE), LLC. "

http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6054 (http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6054)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 17, 2010, 10:08 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100115/ENTERTAINMENT/1150318 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100115/ENTERTAINMENT/1150318)

entitled: "Watch out for that ***Tall Mud***  too. "

of: "Does the movie make reference to "The Talmud" ** too?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud) over to   http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6054 (http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6054) that highlights* Sanhedrin 59 therein http://www.answers.com/topic/sanhedrin (http://www.answers.com/topic/sanhedrin) "Jewish council that operated in Roman Palestine from the time of the Maccabees (c. 165 BC) to the end of the patriarchate (AD 425). While the term refers to the supreme Jewish court, the Sanhedrin's exact composition and powers — religious, judicial, and legislative — are reported variously in different sources." Past tense, brought to the present? by some Oath of Kol Nidre? is HOW it might be explained is WHY some state AND federal judges today follow a different teaching than that of our founding fathers who they take an oath to obey the "Rule of Law" of the Constitution but do otherwise! of toward that "Tob Shebbe Goyim Harog!" of To "KILL THE BEST GENTILES!" (c)2002 by The Holy Western Empire, LLC of P.O. Box 2821, Easton, Maryland 21601, written by James W. Von Brunn.  - - * "the Mishnah, comprise the Talmud." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah) The "Sanhedrin " is one of "The Six Orders of the Mishnah"

**There are traditions that hold that in the Messianic Age**** the Jerusalem Talmud will have priority over the Babylonian. This MAY be interpreted as meaning that, following the RESTORATION of the Sanhedrin and the line of ordained scholars, the work will be completed." (emphasis ADDed, but that I doubt it, because they are exact opposites.)

**** The Messianic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism) "

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
footnote: The "Concord Monitor" is notorious for deleting my postings in regards to Rev. 2:9 + 3:9 of them that SAY they are Jews but are NOT, but of the Synagogue of Satan, The Devil, The Father of all lies, as Hodes is for that lie of his that Fed. Rule 72.5 over-rides the Law of 18USC3232, when the former is for only Civil cases, NOT criminal! and so him now one of these Talmud Jews? that if they don't kill the Gentiles then they at least take their freedom away? feed them crap in the prison and then they die.  How disgusting!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: keith in RI on January 18, 2010, 11:45 PM NHFT
6.      EDWARD BROWN     03923-049      67-White-M      05-24-2012      BROOKLYN MDC
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Kat Kanning on January 19, 2010, 03:50 AM NHFT
thanks keith
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 19, 2010, 05:13 AM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on January 18, 2010, 11:45 PM NHFT
6.      EDWARD BROWN     03923-049      67-White-M      05-24-2012      BROOKLYN MDC

Yeah, thanks Keith.  So in other words, from my notes of when Bob was there, the address is:

Edward-Lewis: Brown, #03923-049
MDC Brooklyn
Metropolitan Detention Center
P. O. Box 329002
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11232

BTW Whatever happened to Bob?  Is he interested in Appeal Point #12 of 12 of Reno's Appeal by Joshua Gordon of Concord, N.H. to Boston for the First Circuit if and when they (including Danny and Jason) are either released or at least given a NEW trial for WHEN the Feds are finally IN compliance with evidence of non-compliance to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 allowed in as Exhibit #__ in their case that they had a perfect right to contest "controll"ability against them as Article 12 N.H. "inhabitants" since they never gave the Feds 1-8-17 "Consent" because as they say: "It Takes Two to Tango", and an offer (as in our conditional consent, per the Adams case of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1943), un-accepted is NOT consent, and so there was no jurisdiction! since there was NO 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal filing, to ricochet back to help Ed & Elaine too!!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 19, 2010, 06:12 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/115259/103228 (http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/115259/103228)

and:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100119/FRONTPAGE/1190304#comment-103259 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100119/FRONTPAGE/1190304#comment-103259)

entitled: ""Let's deny the Feds those monies" is right! "

of: "You're right war25. To "deny the Fed those monies" but HOW?  Too many people contribute into the System that is based upon "Voluntary Compliance" is what I've heard for years. Most people thinking that the second word in this phrase from the word comply means (1) "to acquiesce, as to a command", but the word acquiesce has the meaning of: "To CONSENT or comply passively"; (emphasis ADDed) and the other definition of to comply is: (2) to agree = "To consent", and so BOTH words have that common denominator of: consent.

Thus look to the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 in particular of there needing to be a "Consent" by each state BEFORE the Feds have ANY jurisdiction withIN that state.  The list of state statutes are over at Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm) website, from Huntsville, Alabama, noting that for Florida the Feds have to file with the governor's office (not done), and in New Hampshire: by R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm) with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State (for as of my last check there on Dec. 23rd, 2009 - there has been no federal filing of their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers to our conditional offer of consent from their GSA head of agency as the landlord of like that tenant court over there on Pleasant Street, here in Concord: an Article III, Section 1 U.S. Constitution "inferior Court of Congress".

And so Hodes in Congress KNOWS that he and they are in non-compliance with the law, but demand that you continue to contribute into his System!? What a hypocrite!  Especially when there is no Enforcement Clause in the 16th Amendment of to "lay and collect".  The word lay of either to apply or impose.  So WHY do YOU choose the latter? re: of to impose as a levy to collect, and collect!  Isn't that George Orwellian "1984" and "Doublespeak" redundancy?  I chose the former of to apply as in a request, and say: request DENIED! as I did in 1983 in my case #M.83-50-D over there and the I.R.S. got not even one red cent from me as a landlord back then.  Them wanting over $62,000 from me AFTER they liened me BEFORE I had my day in court. A procedure our State Legislature offset with a new statute, so WHY are they still getting away with pre-judicial attachments!? An attachment is a taking of the equity that I could have borrowed against to have bought more properties, and they still want more!? I say: No! Thieves! I.R.S. Get Lost! If our Art. 95 state agent FOR federal taxes wants the money for his brothers, I say let him or her make an appointment and bring with them the required papers by that "shall" word in the statute."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 19, 2010, 07:05 AM NHFT
See #4 below dealing with this jurisdictional issue that the Feds have NOT complied with THE law!

A copy and paste:

"Today's Agenda.
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Tue 1/19/10 8:01 AM
To:    Dick Marple (armlaw at hotmail.com)
Bcc:  ___________________________

Dick,

Check out: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2010/houcal2010_07.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2010/houcal2010_07.html)

for today, tomorrow (Wed.) and Thursday 1/19, 20 + 21 (Senate later)...

I've only looked over today's House right now, and find of interest:

1.) Municipal & Local 301 LOB
a. HB 1382 relative to Workforce Housing 10:00 a.m.
b. HB 1395   "         "   "              "         10:30 a.m.

2.) Election Law, 308 LOB
10:15 a.m. - :30 HB 1245 require birth certs. for nominations of Pres. & V.P.

3.) Finance, 210 LOB
1:00 p.m. HB 1664 make reductions in budget for FY2011
[ includes those Art. 36 judge widow pensions for NO "actual" services?
http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)  ]

4.) State-Fed. 305 LOB
2:00 p.m.* HCR 29 requiring Congress to reaffirm to adhere to the Constitution and all internal agreements and treaties [note: to Dottie about the Declaration of Human Rights, #___? for something like: our Art. 14 N.H. "complete" evidence of jurisdictional matters in ALL (state and federal) criminal cases to be allowed to be presented to the triers of the facts being THE trial jury members, not just the judge!]

3:30 p.m.: HJR 20 something about the victims fund and federal contributions.

* also at 2:00 p.m.

5.) Criminal Justice 208 LOB 2:00 o'clock p.m.
HB1630-FN relative to filing criminal complaints (as allowed by PRIVATE parties per the Premo case of 2000).

See you there, -- Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 19, 2010, 08:53 AM NHFT
Thanks Kurt:   re: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=244728133061 (http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=244728133061)

In addition to this 37 seconds of silence set for March 6th for wherever you are between 3 + 3:30 p.m. that day, I suggest that you reflect on WHO in the local, county, and state government here in N.H. has done you a dis-service too as by maybe RSA Ch. 643:1 of "Official Oppression" in that AFTER they were told to Wise Up, and don't, then to sue them criminally in your local district court.  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/643/643-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/643/643-1.htm)

My plan is to attend today's event @ 2:00 p.m. at the State House re: HB1630 that expands the current case-law per the Rita Premo case * of 2002 of fine-only complaints to jail time, and maybe to limit such to 10 days as per our equal rights in Articles 22+23, Pt. 2, N.H. Constitution ** about contempt of either the Executive or Legislative, and since then by Art. 72-a, *** the Judiciary has branched out from UNDER the Legislative to be their own supposed co-equal branch, but whose judges dish out in-justice to contempts OVER 10 days, and so the victims thereof to get $compensation as like to attach the judge's salary by a House Bill of Address, and send that offender away for up to 10 days in jail too!  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1630.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1630.html) and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.aspx?lsr=2609&sy=2010&sortoption=billnumber&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=HB1630 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.aspx?lsr=2609&sy=2010&sortoption=billnumber&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=HB1630) plus: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=2609&sy=2010&sortoption=billnumber&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=HB1630 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=2609&sy=2010&sortoption=billnumber&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=HB1630)

* http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2002/0209/marti098.htm (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2002/0209/marti098.htm)

** http://www.nh.gov/constitution/house.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/house.html)

*** http://www.nh.gov/constitution/judicial.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/judicial.html)

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

cc: by forward of this to The House Judiciary Committee: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H26 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H26)  e-mail: ~HouseCriminalJusticeandPublicSafety at leg dot state dot nh dot us

Note: Committee Members: of NOT to get the Court Clerks involved in making decisions, but to process these complaints to the judge.

footnote #2: the current Judge Edwin W. Kelly of Plymouth, is the Chief Judge of ALL the District Courts but who is corrupt!  [ my former tenant's attorney] He used the dissenting opinion in the Premo case, by Joseph P. Nadea of Durham on the N.H. Supreme Court to use as HIS case-law against my complaint of simple assault by one of the U.S. Deputy Marshals who I had summoned over there to the Concord District Court to a certain day and time, as served by Merrimack County Deputy Sheriff, but with Kelly REFUSing to process! This IS Official Corruption and he WILL pay!

See also the Clerk decisions already being made to HALT these type complaints to Claremont District Court too, (involving more Feds) and The Franklin District Court where I took The Town of Boscawen to court there for Littering in a "way" = my driveway, and REFUSED to process by the Clerk! --

The Feds thinking that state crimes by them ON and OFF there of which they have NO jurisdiction makes them immune! when the facts are that they have FAILed to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State per the "shall" word in N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1 from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution, as we gave them a conditional consent or offer that they have NOT accepted, and so NO jurisdiction per the 1943 Adams case at the U.S. Supreme Court. See their very own U.S. Attorney Manual #664 that even spells this out, but that these outlaws continue to break the law as "controllable" OVER our N.H. Article 12 "inhabitants" - read that very last sentence, PLEASE!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: grolled on January 19, 2010, 09:56 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on January 19, 2010, 05:13 AM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on January 18, 2010, 11:45 PM NHFT
6.      EDWARD BROWN     03923-049      67-White-M      05-24-2012      BROOKLYN MDC

Yeah, thanks Keith.  So in other words, from my notes of when Bob was there, the address is:

Edward-Lewis: Brown, #03923-049
MDC Brooklyn
Metropolitan Detention Center
P. O. Box 329002
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11232

BTW Whatever happened to Bob?  Is he interested in Appeal Point #12 of 12 of Reno's Appeal by Joshua Gordon of Concord, N.H. to Boston for the First Circuit if and when they (including Danny and Jason) are either released or at least given a NEW trial for WHEN the Feds are finally IN compliance with evidence of non-compliance to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 allowed in as Exhibit #__ in their case that they had a perfect right to contest "controll"ability against them as Article 12 N.H. "inhabitants" since they never gave the Feds 1-8-17 "Consent" because as they say: "It Takes Two to Tango", and an offer (as in our conditional consent, per the Adams case of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1943), un-accepted is NOT consent, and so there was no jurisdiction! since there was NO 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal filing, to ricochet back to help Ed & Elaine too!!

Joe,

I mean no disrespect but I've read this thread for the last 3 years and over 2500 posts by you but I have yet to see that you've been successful in helping anyone get free from the fed's stronghold.


What's up?

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 19, 2010, 11:29 AM NHFT
Quote from: grolled on January 19, 2010, 09:56 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on January 19, 2010, 05:13 AM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on January 18, 2010, 11:45 PM NHFT
6.      EDWARD BROWN     03923-049      67-White-M      05-24-2012      BROOKLYN MDC
....

Joe,

I mean no disrespect but I've read this thread for the last 3 years and over 2500 posts by you but I have yet to see that you've been successful in helping anyone get free from the fed's stronghold.

What's up?

They didn't call "The French & Indian War" the "Seven Years War" for nothing.

Battle #____ for re-enforcements at the L.O.B. today at 2:00 p.m. -- Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 20, 2010, 06:38 AM NHFT
Ed asked that I put out this Illumanati stuff to the internet:

Here's my info of such "stuff" as I've incorporated into my Reply letter of Elaine going to her today:

"He's in Brooklyn, N.Y. (address in my other e-mail to you).  I have a large 9x12 envelope of papers to send to him today. Ed sent me a letter saying that the U.S. Attorney's office is in cahoots with the Illuminati/ Freemasons, etc.* that I passed the info onto Marie by phone last night in my return call to her first calling me, and told her that SOMETHING sure is fishy* in that they do NOT even abide by their own U.S. Attorney Manual #664 of for their building to be registered with the state as per 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, and for N.H. by RSA 123:1 THE place to file said papers being with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State.  What is it with these federalies!?  When the State asks us for our driving license, we fork it over.  When we ask the Feds for their operating papers, they ignore us!  They ARE an Article III, Section 1 "inferior court of Congress" by the U.S./ Constitution as a tenant for the G.S.A./ General Administrative Administration landlord, and so to what? keep visiting Gregg's office in Concord ________ and call on my cell phone to that GSA agent again to have his boss, the 40USC255 to 40USC3112 "head" of "agency" comply with the law?  THEN when they acknowledge they were supposed to do so and FINALly do it, then PROOF of that they never had done it before and a NEW element in to re-open your case with this nugget of corruption that when they tried you they had no jurisdictional authority.  A point on the paperwork per the Appeal (by Reno, Danny and Jason) to the Judicial, and so me using this pressure tactic of Legislative force from Gregg to this Executive. A check and balance.  The balance being to right the scales of justice so as to get rid of this injustice as you are a kernel in the system who ought not to be there. A particle of truth in a House of Lies, the House of Lies being paid for by my employer taking out x% from my pay each week to go toward this corruption?!  I think I'll also find out WHERE she sends these $payments? To Andover, Mass. for New England or some Federal agent in N.H., like to the Portsmouth or Manchester office of the Feds? _______ Maybe even to have the State Revenue agent get involved per what are supposed to be Article 95 N.H. state agents collecting federal revenue FOR the Feds.  Me having done that Art. 95 research at Archives in that we are NOT supposed to have excise taxes here in N.H., and my complaint of such to the N.H. Dept. of Safety for BOTH the federal AND state gasoline taxes falling on deaf ears: Marta M., the counsel for them telling me by phone call to me per my visit to see Nancy Cassidy at the Commissioner Barthelmes office that she would get back to me after Thanksgiving '09, so a call just before Christmas by me to her return call resulting in my State Amendment papers to the ones before for my Claim for $25.00+, re: the Federal tax to Nancy after New Year's, and so to call again today _______ for an answer in writing BEFORE the end of the month (10 days away), or else to sue Barthelmes in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 N.H. State Board of Claims on Feb. _____ for a March ___, 2010 hearing. This federal AND state tax to be returned to me, as a hit them in the $ pocketbook, to force them/ the State to tell that GSA Federal Agent to file those papers so that it can ricochet back to help you in your case.  Best wishes, -- Joe P.S. I also did yesterday (Jan. 19th) start the process of my complaint against the Concord Police Chief for NOT Art. 12 protecting Ed last week.  Paul Cavanaugh SAYing that he was working on to "correct" the oaths so as to comply with RSA 42:1 taking too slow as I wanted an Art. 14 "prompt" fix on the Friday BEFORE Ed went to court last Mon., Jan. 11th, and so now to have the Council on 2nd Tue. of Feb. tell him as City Solicitor to get with it by their next meeting in March, and if still not corrected, then to an April Meeting where I will give them my "two cents" worth! A correction needing "correction" at the Federal level too, by you using this info in your Rule 63 collateral attack of Singal's denial of your Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in Texas +/or for the MAss. appeal, hearing when? in May __ 2010? "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 20, 2010, 09:38 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/115414/103560 (http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/115414/103560)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100120/FRONTPAGE/1200365#comment-103649 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100120/FRONTPAGE/1200365#comment-103649)

entitled: "5th Horseman? You are Number Six!  "The Prisoner". "

of: "Thank you Bruce.  Re: "Printing more fiat (monopoly) money", but as my neighbor says: Why not?  At least then everybody will be taxed equally.

Actually for U.S. Notes "spent" into circulation, rather than these FRNs (Federal Reserve Notes) "loaned" into circulation.

The "Fed" a private outfit formed in 1913 to: (1) loan the gov't $money when their project expenditures could not be met by taxing the people, and (2) act as circulation agent for the distribution of the actual (a) lawful money and (b) commercial paper or "notes" as a NOTE is defined as a promise to pay.  Pay what? WHERE is the gold bullion per pallet of FRNs monetized?

The country is operating under a constitutional and commercial framework. The former includes gold and silver dollars of precious metal by The Coinage Act of 1792, and the latter has the debased coins of commerce by the Coinage Act of 1965 of that LBJ told Congress back then are the two types of coins to be there "together".

So HOW much bullion, if any, does the Fed turn over to the U.S. Treasury for deposit at Fort Knox? They buy these notes of from $1.00 to $100.00 in denominations at only 6-cents each.  They are PRIVATE papers UNTIL the notes are monetized.

I have a check from the U.S. Marshal for N.H. that I tried to cash by the "law". Act of 1792, Section 20.  Was the lawful money there? No! And "they" have the audacity to tell my good friends Ed & Elaine Brown that even though they are N.H. Article 12 inhabitants, they are "controllable" by other laws of the U.S. Codes and federal Statutes at Large!?  and when they/ the Feds have FAILED to comply with the law! re: NO 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers on file with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word in N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution.

Hey!  BEFORE any more papers, including these $9 million in FRNs are offered to us, don't you think that our "offer" of conditional consent to them ought to be dealt with first?  It's the law! The Ninth Amendment and me putting my foot down, or monkey wrench into this of that Roberts Rules of Order be complied with!  Acceptance of Offer #1 before Offer #2, and no more funds of ours TO the Feds when they then dish it back to us at x% thereof, until THEY comply with the law!

Then I'll drink a toast at that sidewalk cafe to men of honor at City Hall currently filled with corruptors whose oaths are NOT in keeping with R.S.A. Chapter 42:1. May they gag on their own upchuck if they don't "Wise Up"!"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 20, 2010, 10:45 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100120/NEWS01/1200354 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100120/NEWS01/1200354)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100120/NEWS01/1200354#comment-103670 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100120/NEWS01/1200354#comment-103670)

entitled: "Drivers "to make sure" police don't break their oaths!

of: "So in other words the COP is going to get out of his patrol car on random stops and measure the distance between the front or back of the bus, and if YOUR car is within 25 feet of it, then you'll get a ticket? for: $_____.

Are they going to film how much warning time by the yellow lights is given by the bus driver before he stops with red lights and that driver's side flip out STOP sign?

Everyone knows that you ought to leave a distance of one car length per every 10 mph, and so in a 30 miles per hour zone, that 's three car lengths. So as about what? 15-feet per length of vehicle x 3 = 45 feet, you have 45-25 = 20 feet or just over one car length to stop once you see the lights plus what? the yellow lights on #__ car lengths before they turn red?

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

Plus: federal funds for this non-event?!  I agree with both: Waltham Watch and  quilteresq, what a waste of time and money!!

Maybe deputize the school bus driver and give him or her law enforcement powers.  Then instead of just writing down the license number of the offender to pass over to the police for prosecution of his/her word against theirs saying he or she was not within the 25 feet, but 25 feet, one inch in court, or just against those like clearly in violation?

I say: put this money to better use of a camera mounted to the front and back to show clearly the license # and # of feet within the stop. "Big Brother" cameras for when you're not withIN the 25 feet too!

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

No wonder the COPs oaths by RSA Ch. 42:1 in Concord are also to "enforce all Federal and State Laws".  They could not care less about our Article 12 N.H. "inhabitants" they have sworn a duty to protect because they are "on the take" of federal funds!  They are supposed to bear "allegiance" to the United States of America, defined by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) as: "a federal constitutional republic" and that a constitutional republic by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic) is: "a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens...

The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican."

So WHERE be the "judicial review" by the jury of their decision of NOT to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the shall word in RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution? This issue as item #12 on the appeal to Boston of the co-conspirators in the Ed Brown anti IRS case.

And these local COPs want my respect!? for EVERYthing they do!? There is no allegiance or firm loyalty (from the Latin word meaning legal) to both Constitutions!! Only that of our N.H. Constitution, and in particular this Art. 12. The legal of the statutes of the U.S.A. to be in compliance with both laws: 1-8-17 U.S. and Art. 12 N.H. They are not! UNTIL the filing. 

So IF anybody is ever fined in this case, you ought to plead not guilty even if you're guilty in fact, as the end does not justify the means, in that for the fine to be lawful, the officer must be lawful too! We are supposed to have BOTH procedural and substantive due process of law! BOTH!! Get it!?"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: jzacker on January 20, 2010, 12:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: grolled on January 19, 2010, 09:56 AM NHFT

Joe,

I mean no disrespect but I've read this thread for the last 3 years and over 2500 posts by you but I have yet to see that you've been successful in helping anyone get free from the fed's stronghold.


What's up?

I like his passion. Keep it up Joe!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 20, 2010, 01:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: jzacker on January 20, 2010, 12:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: grolled on January 19, 2010, 09:56 AM NHFT

Joe,

I mean no disrespect but I've read this thread for the last 3 years and over 2500 posts by you but I have yet to see that you've been successful in helping anyone get free from the fed's stronghold.

What's up?
I like his passion. Keep it up Joe!
The Feds like the sound of my squealing tires like in a ditch. Their problem being that when that one obstacle* gets out of the way, the vehicle goes at super speed, and if they're not prepared they get like egg on their face!

...a rotten egg.

* The non-filing of the federal papers.

How do you like my latest view of this of that there be a judicial review of that executive decision by GSA "head" of Agency Leeds as to WHY he is not complying with the law? re: my latest post over to The "Concord Monitor".  My suggestion is that when the court hearing in Boston occurs for oral argument on the appeal of the co-conspirator case, that Joshua Gordon for Reno admit that his client should have been able to explain his answer of: No, not any direct contact with the U.S. Marshals to try to resolve this peaceably, but in-directly through the Art. 49 Petition, AND have Sven for Danny center in on this Judicial Review of Executive Decisions of a decision NOT to file, in the negative too is what is supposed to be allowed for jury review since the judge REFUSed to Review! and HOW the fact of NO filing equals = NO jurisdictional authority, and so these Art. 12 inhabitants had a perfect right to not rebel, but Article 10 revolt against corruption, and especially when the property tax money was paid in advance, and Bernie did approach the Town of Plainfield on June 20, 2007 BEFORE the October 4th - Ten-Four (10/4) over-and-out to tell them point blank or to either provide the protection, or return the $money, like so as to buy more bullets! The three year RSA Ch. 508:2 statute of limitations fast approaching for to sue Lebanon too, per my warning to them on June 6 '07 of the night before their B&E to Elaine's office building.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Not to forget "Reply #9465 on: Yesterday at 12:29 PM" of: "They didn't call "The French & Indian War" the "Seven Years War" for nothing.

Battle #____ for re-enforcements at the L.O.B. today at 2:00 p.m. -- Joe"

Update: HB1630 yesterday was from about 2:10 - :40 p.m. and deals with beefing up the common law right of private prosecution per the Premo case, of who I did talk with Rita Premo in Berlin, N.H. yesterday too, and that she agrees with my amendment, as speaker #4 of 4 yesterday after the Sponsor & Co-Sponsor Reps spoke, plus Howie Zibel, Counsel for the Judicial Branch of state government, that in order to pass this with the votes needed, of to get rid of that Class A misdemeanor addition of us to try to get up to a year in jail for these RSA Ch. 643:1 perpetrators of "Official Oppression" where if indigent, as 100% of their pay into non- affordable housing rents, lights, fuel etc. asking for $mucho dollars out of the indigent defense fund, that maybe to keep the fine AND sentence part in there, but limit to 10 days like "they" do to us if we are ever in "contempt" of "them", reference: Articles 22+ 23, Part 2, N.H. Constitution. Ray Burton once telling me a few years ago that of his 25 years = 1/4 century as an Executive Councilor, that there has NEVER been anybody found in "contempt" of the G&C.  I asked him: Isn't it about time?  8)

Thanks, - Joe

P.S. My former legal counselor once said in regards to this, that of like the government is an egg: you hit it so many times, and eventually it cracks open. 

PPS My other legal counselor said just the opposite: of something like when the individual is dealing with government that "sovereign" has only one mouthpiece, whereas when you get to some dept. of government they say you've got to go over there, and when over there they SAY you've got to go back to square one, as in The Royal Run-Around.  They NEVER have that plaque on their desk of: The Buck Stops Here.  The attorney saying: Joe - You're like Jason & The Argonauts: you cut off the head of the hydra and four more appear it its place.  Solution: stop talking to the hydra's head, and take away its platform on which they rest their supposed jurisdiction.  Or in other words, to be like Blackbeard the Pirate: Tell them to go take a hike, a long walk off a short plank. Walk the Plank. Or in this case, pull the plank from under them. Or push it.  Yeah! Them thieves who pulled Danny's case to there from the N.H. Supremes when even the U.S. Code reads of that only the Defendant can push it there. Yet another violation to add in as an Amendment for when Rep. Dan Itse's House Bill of Address goes against Judge Edwin W. Kelly, technically a District Court "Justice" who I called an "In-Justice" once and was threatened with contempt of court, and told him he was not THE court!

footnote:  I saw Chuck Douglas there too, and he signed the blue form in support as "Pro" for this HB to pass.

footnote #2: the language of the Bill was changed by the Sponsors too, to get rid of the Clerk as the Judge, to leave it of a Conference or not with the judge finding if there is probable cause to continue onto the hearing on the merits of the case.  This would eliminate the need and $ cost of like when I paid the Deputy Sheriff to summon Deputy U.S. Marshal Jamie Barry on that assault case of my "Point of Order" in court DURING the trial NOT afterward as that R.I. judge did lie in his Order of AFTERward.  So if and when the defendant FAILs to appear at said conference, then the judge can issue a bench warrant for his arrest. No cost to the complainant.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 20, 2010, 05:19 PM NHFT
An interesting HB 1285 by State Rep. Dan Itse, keep up the good work!

Re: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2010/houcal2010_07.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2010/houcal2010_07.html) [House Record, Vol. 32, No. 7, Fri. 1/15/10]

"WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20

COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, Room 302, LOB

9:30 a.m.          HB 1285, relative to the exemption of certain firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in New Hampshire from federal law and regulation." (to 10:15 a.m.)

See: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1285.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1285.html)

and: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.aspx?lsr=2014&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=HB1285&q=1 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.aspx?lsr=2014&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=HB1285&q=1)

plus: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=2014&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=HB1285&q=1 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=2014&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=HB1285&q=1)

Dan: How did it go today?

See you next Tuesday, Jan. 26th @ 10 a.m. Commerce Room 302 LOB for when this goes to Executive Session.

Best wishes, - Joe

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

Mod: "I like the language of 159-E:2 of:
"a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the state of New Hampshire is not subject to federal law or taxation,"

and the penalties of Class A misdemeanor for violation by any N.H. public servant, and a Class B felony by any U.S. "public servant" of:

"159-E:4 Penalty.

I. Any public servant of the State of New Hampshire as defined in RSA 640:2 that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

II. Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: thinkliberty on January 20, 2010, 06:52 PM NHFT
Quotethe penalties of Class A misdemeanor for violation by any N.H. public servant, and a Class B felony by any U.S. "public servant"

Because it's some how less of a crime when some public servant in NH violates that law? It sounds like they are planning to violate that law.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 20, 2010, 06:57 PM NHFT
What Rule # if any did Jean K. Burling use in Ed's case to allow the Feds to cite a U.S. Code over-ride of our rights in Article 12?

See:

"Vote No on CACR 20 in committee and change to a HA #___ against the Sec. of State
From:    Joseph S. Haas Jr. (josephshaasjr at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 1/20/10 7:37 PM
To:    ~housejudiciarycommittee at leg.state.nh.us; david.cote at leg.state.nh.us; phil.preston at leg.state.nh.us; franpotter at rcn.com; lwmcv at comcast.net; robert.thompson at leg.state.nh.us; nancy_elliott at elliott-controls.com; silvawards589 at aol.com; phackel at comcast.net; brownenh at gmail.com; rick.watrous at leg.state.nh.us; adifruscia at aol.com; usnrnurse at msn.com; will.smith at leg.state.nh.us; grichardson at upton-hatfield.com; nixonraichelaw at yahoo.com; rh.rowe at comcast.net; meadrd at comcast.net; lawrence.perkins at leg.state.nh.us
Cc:    Dan Itse (itsenh at comcast.net); jordan.ulery@ at eg.state.nh.us; lcvita2 at earthlink.net; tim_comerford at yahoo.com; semerson435 at aol.com
Bcc:    Dick Marple (armlaw at hotmail.com); ... ingbretson_studio at yahoo.com

RE: House Record Vol. 32, No. 7 Fri. 1-15-10

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2010/houcal2010_07.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2010/houcal2010_07.html)

for: THURSDAY, JANUARY 21

"JUDICIARY, Room 208, LOB ...

1:30 p.m.          CACR 20, relating to the administration of the supreme court.  Providing that the rules promulgated by the chief justice governing the administration of the courts shall not have the force and effect of law.
2:00 p.m.   ...."

See: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/CACR0020.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/CACR0020.html)

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.aspx?lsr=2630&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=CACR20 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.aspx?lsr=2630&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=CACR20)

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=2630&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=CACR20 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=2630&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=CACR20)


Please register me as: OPPOSED to this CACR, in that I agree that the wording of [The rules so promulgated shall have the force and effect of law.] be stricken from Art. 73-a in that it has to go, but of HOW to do it:

The extra wording was ADDed on by then House Clerk Carl Peterson* to then House Speaker John Tucker who sent it to the Secretary of State who allowed it to be in-cluded into the Constitution.  I have a copy of his* signature of this from Archives. Such is an ERROR that needs to be corrected NOT by the voters BUT by Bill Gardner doing his job: of a House Address to him as your appointee that this correction take place, to include any and all compensations to victims thereof,

including those who have been treated by "the force and effect" of having N.H. Superior Court Rule 95-B for indirect criminal contempt of court elevated up to the level of a federal offense, by their case-law or rule or statutory description, etc.of that a "petty offense" is any crime, including contempt that does result in jail or prison time of NOT over six (6) months, of therefor the accused NOT entitled to a trial by jury.

The compensation to the victims being to have the pay from the judge who wrongfully sentenced them [in violation of Articles 22+ 23 of the N.H. Constitution, Part Second, as it applies to the judiciary by Art. 72-a in that the judiciary was (past tense) under the Legislative, but that on November 16th, 1966 became a supposed co-equal branch of state government, for a maximum sentence of up to ten (10) days] liened to the moiety amount as by a Petition for a Writ of Elegit for up to half the judge's salary docketed every fortnight on payday until the #x amount of days spent in jail OVER the 10-day limit is paid to the tune of $2,500 per day in damages per the formula as prescribed in the Veronica Silva case in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims in the mid 1980s.

Signed: ________________________

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone), e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 21, 2010, 10:04 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/115440/103833 (http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/115440/103833)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100120/NEWS01/1200354#comment-103952 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100120/NEWS01/1200354#comment-103952)

posting: "By Al on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 01:58

I started a reply to this and then looked to see who the originator is. I propose to never again argue with a fool so that I don't confuse those who might not be able to discern between me and the fool.
Al"


and my reply entitled: "Al: Are you fully retired, or just too "tired"? (lazy)"

of: "So Al: reference your: "I was a Police Office(r) for 25 years"; WHERE was that? in Concord? where your oath was in violation* of the law?  How many cases did you take to court where the defendant did question your credentials? #____

* Now who is the "fool"?: "One who can be easily deceived"**, and in this case, by the Feds, ** of having deluded you by FALSE play, of mis-leading you, leading you in the WRONG direction, to lead into ERROR (Defined as either: (1) An un-intentional deviation from what is correct, right or true, a mistake; or (2) The condition of having incorrect or false knowledge, and doing what with it when you are corrected? Nothing!? Then it is error definition #3 of a transgression*** or WRONGdoing by you!)

*** transgress: 1. To go BEYOND or OVER (a limit or boundary). 2. To act in violation of (a law, commandment, etc.) from the Latin word: transgresi of "to step across", and the word across meaning: on, at, or from the other side of: across the road.  So yes, it's good that the cars both in front and in back of the school bus stop for if the child departing not only gets off on THAT side of the road, but has to go "across" the road too, that people STOP, but your cross as a COP is to enforce the law "across-the-board" for to in-clude ALL members! not just some, as in the forced exile of Ed Brown et als to across state lines to Portland, Maine in violation of the law, meaning both: Art. III, Sec. 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, that "The trial of ALL such Crimes...SHALL be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed" AND 18USC3232, for ALL proceedings including pre-trial hearings as a PART of the trial! for the benefit of the defendant AND witnesses: me an un-called witness on that list.   

So when I reported this theft of federal funds being paid to these attorneys on the case from First Circuit Judge Jeffrey R. Howard on the 4th floor there at 55 Pleasant Street in Concord, our former A.G., you or your buddies then on "the force", decided NOT to enforce the law of this Article 12 protection!? How disgusting! And you say you deserve your retirement pay for a job never done!? "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 21, 2010, 10:55 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100121/FRONTPAGE/1210302 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100121/FRONTPAGE/1210302)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100121/FRONTPAGE/1210302#comment-103967 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100121/FRONTPAGE/1210302#comment-103967)

entitled: "Why? Because he "has" to? WHERE is the lawful authority?"

of: "So Michael: Attorney Michael J. Connolly, "Super Layer" of 2007, '08, + '09 of:
Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP, Capital Commons, Suite 400, 11 South Main St
Concord, NH 03301  http://www.superlawyers.com/new-hampshire/lawyer/Michael-J-Connolly/eb440ff7-8879-4676-aca7-86c5e74fef32.html (http://www.superlawyers.com/new-hampshire/lawyer/Michael-J-Connolly/eb440ff7-8879-4676-aca7-86c5e74fef32.html)

Did you explain to your client that a tax, in its essential characteristics is NOT a debt? (Henry Campbell "Black's Law Dictionary", (c)1979, 5th Edition, page 1307 citing that New Jersey case). And that for the land tax to only pay for what Wm. R. Johnson wrote as THE N.H. Supreme Court Judge in that Epsom tax case of ONLY to pay for The "General" Tax, (the details of which are in my current case at The N.H. State Board of Tax and Land Appeals on Pleasant Street, The Johnson Building there).

Reference: paragraph #7 here: WHO are "the unnamed co-conspirators"? And do they live withIN the state of New Hampshire?  If so, they +/or their attorney might like to look at N.H. Article 12, the very last sentence. http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) of: "Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent."

The question being of whether by voluntary or in-voluntary travel to up here from Florida for Mr. Ronald Boyarsky, (and the others from WHERE?), does that THEN upon arrival place them under the protection of N.H. law? and statutes? Because according to Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm) website from Huntsville, Alabama AND my investigations, neither the Feds in the State of Florida NOR the State of New Hampshire have complied with the law, BELIEVE IT OR NOT! in that for Florida, the 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal filing is supposed to be to the governor's office (from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution), and by N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm) likewise for to our N.H. Secretary of State, that as of my last check with Bill Gardner's Office, the Deputy David Scanlon did indicate to me on his letterhead of Dec. 23rd '09 that the GSA/ General Services Administration "head" of agency, Mr. Leeds, has yet to file these papers as required by the "shall" word in the statute, and so this Article III, Section 1 "inferior court of Congress" U.S. Constitution, as a tenant of the landlord G.S.A. has NO jurisdictional authority over there to prosecute criminal cases. Per the Adams case in the U.S. Supreme Court back in 1943 that spells it out that a conditional offer of consent un-accepted is NOT "Consent", and even the U.S. Attorney's Office over there knows about it, as indicated in their Manual #664.*

* See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html) see also: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm) and http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm (http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm) [both htm, not html]  ** plus the original http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575) for 40USC255.

** """In view of 40 USC 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USC 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court).""
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: grolled on January 21, 2010, 02:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on January 19, 2010, 11:29 AM NHFT
Quote from: grolled on January 19, 2010, 09:56 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on January 19, 2010, 05:13 AM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on January 18, 2010, 11:45 PM NHFT
6.      EDWARD BROWN     03923-049      67-White-M      05-24-2012      BROOKLYN MDC
....

Joe,

I mean no disrespect but I've read this thread for the last 3 years and over 2500 posts by you but I have yet to see that you've been successful in helping anyone get free from the fed's stronghold.

What's up?

They didn't call "The French & Indian War" the "Seven Years War" for nothing.

Battle #____ for re-enforcements at the L.O.B. today at 2:00 p.m. -- Joe

What does that mean? Even France won some battles in that war!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Jim Johnson on January 21, 2010, 02:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: grolled on January 21, 2010, 02:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on January 19, 2010, 11:29 AM NHFT
Quote from: grolled on January 19, 2010, 09:56 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on January 19, 2010, 05:13 AM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on January 18, 2010, 11:45 PM NHFT
6.      EDWARD BROWN     03923-049      67-White-M      05-24-2012      BROOKLYN MDC
....

Joe,

I mean no disrespect but I've read this thread for the last 3 years and over 2500 posts by you but I have yet to see that you've been successful in helping anyone get free from the fed's stronghold.

What's up?

They didn't call "The French & Indian War" the "Seven Years War" for nothing.

Battle #____ for re-enforcements at the L.O.B. today at 2:00 p.m. -- Joe

What does that mean? Even France won some battles in that war!

I admire Joe's tenacity.   ;D
The Colonial Americans didn't win any battles with Britain until the French started helping.
The Vietnamese won a war and didn't win any field battles against the Americans.
I don't mean disrespect, but if your not going to help Joe you don't need to question him or his affect.
At the very least, Joe keeps a light on Ed and Elaine, which is a lot more than most people do.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 22, 2010, 07:09 AM NHFT
RE:  http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/115259/103882 (http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/115259/103882)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100119/FRONTPAGE/1190304#comment-103259 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100119/FRONTPAGE/1190304#comment-103259)

"Hodes swears off earmarks" (now in the Archives over there, as not even in the top 12 most read, or top 10 most commented, but that maybe somebody will see and say plus do that they have had enough of this illegal stuff too and NOT pay any more of a part of their paycheck into a government boat heading down the river in the WRONG direction!)

entitled: "Jane Pauley"

of: "W.W.:   BTW his Office Manager there in Concord is: Jane Pauley.

She's the one who relays the lies from their Art. III, Sec. 1 "inferior Court of Congress" U.S. Constitution, that local Rule 72.5 for CIVIL cases somehow over-rides Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 3232 for CRIMINAL Cases in that ALL proceedings SHALL be had in the district of WHERE the crime occurred! The lie came from, Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch of the U.S. District Court, underneath Clerk James R. Starr who could not care less HOW his Deputy spews out these lies.

So WHY was our taxpayer money dished out to these court-appointed public defenders in Portsmouth, Laconia and MAss.achusetts for their clients of: Danny Riley, Reno Gonzales, and Jason Gerhard in the Ed & Elaine Brown anti-I.R.S. case when they never waived this right!?

Money given out WRONGfully and illegally by our former N.H. Attorney General Jeffrey R. Howard of the First Circuit Court of Appeal in Boston, with his branch office there on the 4th floor of the Warren B. Rudman Building at 53 Pleasant Street here in Concord, N.H.

I've reported this Hodes cover-up to the Chief Judge OVER Singal who McAuliffe assigned to THE case for HERE from over THERE, in Portland, Maine, but he too and the Congressional delegation in Maine also is as corrupt as all of New Hampshire: with similar reports to Shea-Porter, Gregg and Shaheen in effect saying we don't care HOW the $federal money is spent so long as we get it: there is no over-sight.  If you don't like how it is spent, then don't "volunteer" to contribute.  We do not play by the rules: The Rule of Law, and REFUSE to impeach these officers of our inferior courts on Congress when they break the law! "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: jzacker on January 22, 2010, 12:17 PM NHFT
Has Ed talked about his time in prison? 
Does he have friends?  Does he have visitors?
Does he have a job? 
Has he been assaulted by staff/inmates?  Has he been treated better in the Federal Prisons than the jails?  Has he been given/denied medical care? 
Has he had to file any grievances? 

Elaine too of course.  What's her life like?  job? friends?  church?

Just curious.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: grolled on January 22, 2010, 12:19 PM NHFT
Quote from: Jim Johnson on January 21, 2010, 02:52 PM NHFT
I don't mean disrespect, but if your not going to help Joe you don't need to question him or his affect.
At the very least, Joe keeps a light on Ed and Elaine, which is a lot more than most people do.

In fact, I have helped Joe. I've pointed out that one of his errors was to continually talk about 40USC255 when it was no longer in existence but was now 40 USC 3112 (on October 28, 2009).

My point was that perhaps Joe needs to focus differently since his tactics don't appear to be working.

But I guess I'll just not "question" Joe or his "effect".

Sorry Joe and good luck.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 22, 2010, 03:56 PM NHFT
Quote from: grolled on January 22, 2010, 12:19 PM NHFT
Quote from: Jim Johnson on January 21, 2010, 02:52 PM NHFT
I don't mean disrespect, but if your not going to help Joe you don't need to question him or his affect.
At the very least, Joe keeps a light on Ed and Elaine, which is a lot more than most people do.

In fact, I have helped Joe. I've pointed out that one of his errors was to continually talk about 40USC255 when it was no longer in existence but was now 40 USC 3112 (on October 28, 2009). ****

My point was that perhaps Joe needs to focus differently since his tactics don't appear to be working.

But I guess I'll just not "question" Joe or his "effect".

Sorry Joe and good luck.

Keep those questions and comments coming in folks.  Elmer Fudd has yet to say:  "That's All Folks".

Plus in regards to:

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

jzacker

    * Independent Thinker
    * *
    * Posts: 83
    * Karma: 20
    * [applaud] [smite]
    *
          o View Profile
          o Personal Message (Online)

Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #9479 on: Today at 01:17 PM »

    * Quote
    * Split Topic
    * Thank You

Has Ed talked about his time in prison?
Does he have friends?  Does he have visitors?*
Does he have a job?
Has he been assaulted by staff/inmates?  Has he been treated better in the Federal Prisons than the jails?**  Has he been given/denied medical care?
Has he had to file any grievances?

Elaine too of course.  What's her life like?  job? friends?  church? ***

Just curious.
« Last Edit: Today at 01:22 PM by jzacker »
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

--* visitors to Dover: Marie and Bernie

-** He liked the Dover place the best.

*** "American Free Press" of D.C.  has asked the Texas facility to interview Elaine, who just wrote to say that she said: yes, and so them going through the approval process.

- - Joe

**** Yes, I've been meaning to call back to Ralph Conner of the G.S.A. at (202) 501-1609 for several days now (like again on my cell phone from Gregg's office), but that I've been so busy with these Legislative hearings.  Maybe somebody or any or all-buddies  here might like to "check-in"  8) with him morning, noon, and afternoon every day for a week or two through the month of February for a Progress Report of when his boss Mr. Leeds does finally plan to file those 40USC3112 papers. _________ ( on the to do list.) with Bill Gardner's RSA Ch. 123:1 N.H. Office of Secretary of State from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 22, 2010, 04:00 PM NHFT
correction: not Elmer but:

"Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!""

http: // www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4&feature=related

of: eight (   8    ) seconds, seen 102,646 times.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4&feature=related#)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 23, 2010, 09:31 AM NHFT
Which judge was on Danny's case #2007-045 there at the N.H. Supreme Court who is now retired?  Galway?

Reference their opinion in the case that the Feds be allowed to PULL the case as an intervenor* to there when the law reads at: (1) the federal level by Title ____ U.S. Code Section ____ that only the defendant* can PUSH it to there; and at: (2) the state level, that such Codes are NOT applicable to us Article 12 "inhabitants" who have never given our 1-8-17 "Consent" either individually or as a group of by the Legislature or General Court of the state, such as for here in N.H. we did give the Feds a Conditional Consent or offer of jurisdictional authority "controllable" OVER us, on June 14, 1883, but that, as spelled out in that Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court, it takes two to tango, in that an offer un-accepted, is NOT Consent!  There being no 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal filing to our N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 Secretary of State that is required  by the "shall" word that the governor is also required by another "shall" word as charged to "enforce" all legislative mandates, by Article 51, N.H. Constitution, Part 2 for which he SHALL be Article 41 "responsible for" and by the ruling of the N.H. RSA Ch. 5451-B:1-23 State Board of Claims only to those directly harmed as victims of such, and NOT their family nor friends affected in-directly, who volunteer to crack the whip on the governor to do his job, but when the strands of the whip need replacing, the cost of such attempt at "law enforcement", since neither the local, county nor state police to whom the property tax and other monies was paid for such "protection", are borne by the Indiana Jones on his own Crusade.

Thus WHEN Galway's annual review of his retirement is scheduled for: February __, 2010 @ __:__ o'clock a.m./p.m. in Room 208 of the House Judiciary Committee per their notice to him as an amendment to House Address #____ against Judge __________ on an Article 31+32 Petition for Removal, that because of this wrong done while he was judge, then to let that be a debit against him in the amount of: $_______ being deducted from his retirement per year until the day he dies.

Maybe this latest posting over at "The Concord Monitor" might get things going in the Executive Session of HB #1664 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1664.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1664.html) reference paragraph #57 of 58 for a reduction in the Judiciary, cc: to the members thereof the full committee BEFORE it is sent over to The Senate. See also: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.aspx?lsr=2565&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=HB1664&q=1 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.aspx?lsr=2565&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=HB1664&q=1) and: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=2565&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=HB1664&q=1 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=2565&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=HB1664&q=1) for the "Full Committee Work Session: 2/2/2010 10:00 AM LOB 210-211 " Two Tuesdays away.

Here's the copy and paste:

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/115866/104409 (http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/115866/104409)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100123/FRONTPAGE/1230316#comment-104446 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100123/FRONTPAGE/1230316#comment-104446)

entitled: "Time to raid the judiciary! $________ a year to those unlawfuls."

of: "Thanks jseavrer, re: your paragraph #2 of: "Now we know why he could not use the rainy day fund to save the jobs (and possibly the home mortgages) of 250 state employees."

WHO is the head of the S.E.A.? State Employees Association?  And why not put it to a vote of the members of to go against the State "Officials" Association if such even exists?  It DOES exist, but hidden withIN the N.H. Bar Association of attorneys who become judges.

Article 36 of the New Hampshire Constitution  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)   reads that: "Economy being a most essential virtue... NO pension SHALL be granted, but in consideration of ACTUAL services; and such pensions ought* to be granted with great caution, by the legislature, and never for more than one year at a time." ...

[emphasis ADDed for the shall or must word, etc., and notice the "ought"* word for an annual review, or check-up, but in reality, this is included withIN the biennial budget for the judiciary, every two years, with Legislative Accounting (1st floor State House, SE corner office) having been notified by me as a citizen, but needing some State Rep. to get the details, because by RSA Ch. 91-A, all such financial matters are forbidden (as in "exempt"ed) to us as the master who is supposed to be OVER these "public servants".]

...Then WHY are the widows of the judges being paid the retirement of the spouse?  They did NONE of the ACTUAL service!  The payments to them are unlawful! These judges, when working, made good money, like over $100,000 a year, and could have easily have afforded a life insurance policy for their spouse, +/or invested properly for dividends in whatever form in their retirement. Plus: how many of them really NEED such? Do we need to pay the widow who did NOTHING to earn it when they already have a house fully paid for and the income from the 20 years of work at say $100,000 x 20 = $2 million, with $xx,xxx invested from the beginning per year, compounded, with them at a net worth of what?  I think that those figures ought to be included in any and all annual reviews.

Plus what about Mrs. Huge Gallen, as just one case in particular.  Her governor husband was too stupid not to provide for his own family, like to have bought a life insurance policy for her.  When he died she was left almost penniless.  The Legislature voted her an annual pension, payable every fortnight, like all the others, but again: has there been any annual review of such since the 1980s?  If so, please tell me when. Or even a decade review. Is she still living? Where? Has she won the lottery in some other state and using this N.H. pension now as gravy?"

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 23, 2010, 10:55 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100123/FRONTPAGE/1230353&template=single (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100123/FRONTPAGE/1230353&template=single)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100123/FRONTPAGE/1230353#comment-104463 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100123/FRONTPAGE/1230353#comment-104463)

entitled: ""Stranger Than Fiction". "

of: "Thank you Joe Stephens of "The Washington Post" and The "Monitor" for printing this too.

I have a TLS/ typed letter signed from both Hoover and Kelly in my autograph collection. The one from the latter writing to me when I was in Lincoln, N.H. of that the picture of those two F.B.I. agents escorting that supposed "alien" from "outer space" as alleged to be true in either or both of that ARGOSY or SAGA Magazine at the time was a fake.

See: http://mystrangeblog.com/2009/04/30/history-of-my-favourite-martian-photograph-part-2/ (http://mystrangeblog.com/2009/04/30/history-of-my-favourite-martian-photograph-part-2/) for the photo and mention of Dr. J. Allen Hynek of the government's "Project Bluebook" who I met out in Lincoln, Nebraska in Fall 1984 when they had that World Meeting of MUFON.   http://www.mufon.com/ (http://www.mufon.com/)

Plus: http://www.magazineart.org/magazines/a/argosy.html (http://www.magazineart.org/magazines/a/argosy.html) and http://www.answers.com/topic/saga-ufo-report (http://www.answers.com/topic/saga-ufo-report)

Today's FBI in N.H. and another "boundary" case?  What you will NEVER read in The "Monitor" here is of the DETAILS of that case just last week, on Monday morning, January 11th to be exact of the F.B.I. agent who made some calls withIN N.H. and to Florida of all places in regards to the Ed Brown case of some cylindrical object attempting to block the car driving Mr. Brown into the driveway over there at the Federal Building at about #5 South Street, here in Concord, N.H.

I did meet with F.B.I. Agent Christino outside the City Library on this report and that he then disappeared BELIEVE IT OR NOT! And so did the cigar shaped object that even landed in one of the parking spaces over by N.H. State Trooper Barracks D over on Iron Works Road, off of Clinton Street by Exit 2 off of I-89."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 23, 2010, 05:16 PM NHFT
Here's another copy and paste from my e-mail account:

"RE: [Title 26 for the I.R.S.]
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Sat 1/23/10 6:12 PM
To:    _________________
Cc: ___________________
Bcc:  __________________

Great! "No...

contents of this title (shall) be given any legal
effect. "

Pass it on, I will do, right now...


Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:01:36 -0700
To: carl__________________
From: carl____________
Subject:

Hi Everyone,

What do you think of 26 USC 7906 (b) below:


Title 26 § 7806
or
26 USC § 7806

-CITE-
    26 USC Sec.
7806                                           
01/08/2008

-EXPCITE-
    TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
    Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
    CHAPTER 80 - GENERAL RULES
    Subchapter A - Application of Internal Revenue Laws

-HEAD-
    Sec. 7806. Construction of title

-STATUTE-
    (a) Cross references
      The cross references in this title to
other portions of the
    title, or other provisions of law, where the word
"see" is used,
    are made only for convenience, and shall be given no
legal effect.
    (b) Arrangement and classification
   
No inference,
implication, or presumption of legislative
    construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the
location or
    grouping of any particular section or provision or
portion of this
    title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross
references,
    or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter
relating to the
    contents of this title be given any legal
effect. The preceding
    sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary
tables
    contained in the various prints of this Act before its
enactment
    into law.


Sincerely,

Carl R...."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 24, 2010, 07:45 AM NHFT
Another needle into "their" side:

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100124/NEWS01/1240350 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100124/NEWS01/1240350)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100124/NEWS01/1240350#comment-104642 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100124/NEWS01/1240350#comment-104642)

entitled: "The COPs are "on the take"."

of: "They took an oath alright, but the WRONG one!

The " state police" out of what barracks? Troop D? right there off of I-89 at Exit 2 onto Clinton Street, to Iron Works Road.

What trooper?

Did the officer take the same RSA Ch. 92:2 oath as those who are on "the force" at the Concord P.D.?

If so, you can argue your arrest was unlawful, AND illegal, in that they are supposed to RSA Ch. 42:1 subscribe to the wording in Article 84 of the N.H. Constitution that they have NOT done.

We live in a world of "The Rule of Law" that guarantees you both substantive and procedural due process of law, as in your rights supposed to be protected by the 5th + 14 Amendments with the promise they break all the time in that: the end does NOT justify the means.

A technically?  You're darn right!  That's what rules are for. So for the C.O.P. to break the rules and then say that you have broken the rules too is hypocrisy at its worst!  You might have broken some statute, but that he did break the law! As there is no such thing as an unconstitutional law, because the law IS the constitution!

Two wrongs do NOT make a right! 

Thus the bottom line: check his oath to see if lawful and legal, and if not, then to file a Motion to Dismiss.

THEN if enough people do so, then finally the COPs might wake up and DO the law they are supposed to be doing! Art. 12 protecting our "inhabitants"! "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 27, 2010, 10:09 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100127/FRONTPAGE/1270337 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100127/FRONTPAGE/1270337)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100127/FRONTPAGE/1270337#comment-105421 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100127/FRONTPAGE/1270337#comment-105421)

plus: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100127/FRONTPAGE/1270337#comment-105422 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100127/FRONTPAGE/1270337#comment-105422)

entitled: "Look at who let him out: disgusting!"

of: "How fast do these Segway's go?  Maybe he was trying to apply that technology to the handicapped scooters to go #____ m.p.h. and needing this landing permit.

Reference: "PhilCheezSteaks (5 months ago) ...Reply...Messed up but hilarious. I'm in a wheelchair but I love this guy. I'm thinking? of getting a shirt that says "I'm Not Crippled, I'm Just Lazy." Lol." over at: YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH1ih3lpCQ4&feature=related#) of 3:04 minutes  9,457 x.

Seriously though: 1-4 for the DHL theft, and 3-7 for the Segway theft, both in 2005? to the 2006 trial of convictions?, so part of 2005?, all of 2006 + '07 + to  "In September 2008, Desroche left the prison on parole. " = to the minimum of 3 concurrent?

And now maybe 3.5 for this one piece of paper!? wow! and then to Connecticut for #__ more years for " the theft there (in Windsor) of a tractor trailer full of high-end work shoes and boots."

WHO taught him WHAT, if anything  and for how long while in the N.H. State Prison? ________ + ________ + _________ and HOW could he have bluffed #__ Parole Board members that he had been rehabilitated?  ______ I don't think that we're getting our money's worth! http://www.nh.gov/nhdoc/divisions/parole/index.html (http://www.nh.gov/nhdoc/divisions/parole/index.html) [ * ]

Now it's going to cost us: $__________ per year x maybe 3.5 to house him if convicted and re-sentenced before being transferred to Connecticut.  Does this guy have a home? What about his family?  Does he have any? Maybe to gain early release on parole we ought to change the rules to include responsibility:  yeah, we'll let you out early, so long as you remain of good character, on like a bail or bond of $xx,xxx that if (and when) you screw up, that the equity of your parent's house that they put up for collateral be forfeited and that they start their 20-year mortgage all over again. Or in other words: $xx,xxx to pay for room and board for your screw-ups! Hey! If the relatives won't come to help, why should we? Do THEY know something we don't? Reference those cases where they can, but won't. Maybe THEN these parents will take final "responsibility" for their children!

WHERE did he get his education? _________  WHO were his teachers? __________ and __________ What grade did he graduate? ______ if he ever did.

[ * ]  " Parole Board Members: George J. Khoury, Chair, Alan Coburn, Gregory Crompton, Robert F. Hamel, George L. Iverson [ ** ], Pierre J. Morin, (One vacancy)"

[ ** ] Now there's a name I recognize: George L. Iverson, who enlisted as a trooper on June 13, 1955 and "advanced" through the ranks to finally as Colonel and Director from 1986-89.  According to:   http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:cPcqScsa7ncJ:www.americanheart.org/downloadable/heart/1061303017659CouCon-Sum03.pdf+%22George+Iverson%22+%22State+Police%22+1986&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:cPcqScsa7ncJ:www.americanheart.org/downloadable/heart/1061303017659CouCon-Sum03.pdf+%22George+Iverson%22+%22State+Police%22+1986&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)   he is "most proud of the fact that the relationship of the State
Police with local police, state and FEDERAL agencies was greatly improve" or was it!? "Upon retiring from the State Police in 1989, (he) became Director of the Governor's Office of Emergency Management (OEM). In this capacity I(he) worked with the FEDERAL
Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) on grants and many disasters, floods, hurricanes, etc. that occurred within the state. OEM was directly responsible to the
Office of the Governor". (emphasis ADDed for both federal words, in that while Director of the N.H. State Police his job was to serve and protect! to protect our N.H. "inhabitants" from being "controllable" by any OTHER laws than what we as an individual or group "Consent" to!  It's the law! in Article 12:   http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)     On June 14, 1883 we gave a conditional consent or offer to the Feds, but that by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm) they have yet to accept, by the filing of their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State.  Reference the Adams case of 1943 in the U.S. Supreme Court.  Thus this retired trooper collecting $xx,xxx in retirement pay for a job never done of this protection by him NOR any of his successors but who deserves to be on this board telling others to obey the law when he, himself, never did so!?  What a hypocrite!  I protest him being there to make these decisions UNLESS he tells the current director that he too made a mistake and to Wise Up! "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on January 27, 2010, 03:56 PM NHFT
From: Reno (170785320)
To: (138969705)
Date: 1/27/2010 1:39:46 PM
Subject:
Reno: Father Sends Tip to FBI of US Marshals Misconduct


Below is the jpg. of my report to the FBI.
The text is:

I have information demonstrating that U.S. Marshals falsified documents effecting the outcome of:
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA v. CIRINO GONZALEZ 07-?.?.?CR-?189-?03-?GZS
Immediate attention is required, as the lives and well-being of law-abiding people from coast to coast may be at stake.
Local authorities refuse to hear or file a complaint on these matters and suggest going to the FBI.

:{ jmg

(http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj18/Sirhandsomee/JMGtoFBI.jpg)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on January 27, 2010, 07:01 PM NHFT
Dear Mr. Gonzalez,

THIS IS NOT AN AUTOMATED RESPONSE


Thank you for your submission to the FBI Internet Tip Line.  It is being evaluated for its strategic value, and will be disseminated, as appropriate, for further action.

It would be of great assistance to the FBI if you could provide us with additional information, so that we may further evaluate your tip and/or follow up on your tip.  Please submit a new tip to the FBI Internet Tip Line at https://tips.fbi.gov/, referencing Internet Tip #. XXXXXXX.

For your information, the Internet Tip Line (ITL) was created on 9/11/01, in response to the terrorist attacks upon America.  We quickly established a mechanism for the public to submit information to the FBI via the Internet, and we have thus far received over 2,000,000 tips from around the globe.  Our operation is completely automated and paperless.  Professional Support personnel and Special Agents review tips within minutes after they are received and set leads to FBI Field Offices or Legal Attaché offices, as appropriate.

We encourage you tell your family, friends, and co-workers about this service, and we hope that you will continue to utilize it to submit information that may be of interest to the FBI.  Again, thank you for taking the time to forward this report to us.

IMPORTANT - NOTE THE FOLLOWING:

The FBI does not maintain an email address to submit information or attachments to directly; therefore, please do not reply directly to this message via your email client.  The FBI maintains an automated system that is designed to track all information received, to ensure that all tips are addressed in a timely and efficient manner.  Therefore, please visit the FBI.GOV Web site again should you have occasion to submit additional information.  We WILL NOT open or respond to "reply" email.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 28, 2010, 09:31 AM NHFT
Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on January 27, 2010, 07:01 PM NHFT
Dear Mr. Gonzalez, ...

Thank you for your submission to the FBI Internet Tip Line.  It is being evaluated* for its strategic value, and will be disseminated, as appropriate, for further action....

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/june09/tips_062609.html (http://www.fbi.gov/page2/june09/tips_062609.html)

* "is seen by two different analysts, carefully vetted**, and acted upon if necessary."

The act ONLY occurs when there is a need vs a want.

The need is for our tax money not mis-spent on illegal 18USC3232 travel, as I've reported to the federal fraud unit withOUT any action!

When the federal government comes into N.H. their agents must not only obey our speed laws (minor laws, as in the state statutes) for on the highways as NOT exempt, (they are NOT diplomats with immunity, but our public servants to work withIN the law) but to obey THE law too: Art. 38 of the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights since we "have a right to REQUIRE of" our lawGIVERS (at both the state and federal level) -- this includes both Gregg AND Hodes in Concord, and both Shea-Porter AND Shaheen in Dover, that their "magistrate" Muirhead in Concord (of their Article III, Section 1 "inferior court of Congress" per the U.S. Constitution) not allow to have his Clerk James R. Starr, NOR Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch, to issue for execution any UNLAWFUL precepts by THE judge on the magistrate's recommendation to the U.S. Marshal who is supposed to grade it as lawful or un-lawful BEFORE execution!  This both Monier AND David Cargill, the new U.S. Marshal have FAILed to do, and so are in non preservation of "the blessings of liberty and GOOD government" for us! Emphasis ADDed, because they are of BAD government, and as such need a good spanking!  Just like a child gets the leather to their rear, these agents of ours who have gone rotten and sour need  to be taught a lesson too.  They need to be dragged out into the courtYARD of justice and spanked: whipped, flogged, until they "Cry Uncle"! Now WHO to do this?  WHO is the official oversite officer? 

The FBI to investigate "criminal matters" as in this CRIME of illegal transport of our Article 12 N.H. "inhabitants" over to Maine when there be no OTHER laws supposed to be controllable OVER us but are! withOUT that 40USC255 to 40USC3112 filing to Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State per N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution and the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court that a conditional consent or offer un-accepted is NOT consent, and so relays no jurisdictional authority. 

The Feds over at 53-55 Pleasant Street in Concord who extend themselves off their turf and against us on their illegal and unlawful maneuvers must be taught a lesson! Thus I do hereby claim that you federalies reading this report who KNOW you did WRONG go to the principal's office for to sign up for when you are available for this public spanking. The principal being us through our agent we have told you to report to: Room 204 of The State House being the Office of N.H. Secretary of State.  And since your landlord "head" won't do it, then you as his subordinate. Do not pass Go do not collect $200, do not issue any more papers against any more of our inhabitants. THE papers you are to dish out have already been explained: do it, or suffer the consequences!

The re-action to your non-action by somebody other than me to whom can be appointed to be the punisher: to inflict punishment upon you in your travels on state soil to be dealt state justice.  Here in N.H. that is an Article 10 Declaration of Revolt against you. I declare you in violation of the law: our law, and recommend that a citizen's arrest of you be effected immediately! You bound and delivered to the FLOOR of the N.H. Secretary of State's Office and to stay there in a lateral position, head ON the floor, feet in the air, in your topsy-turvey world of which you live until your landlord, GSA Agent Leeds as the "head" of agency finally delivers those documents, thus providing THE evidence that should have been THE exhibit # in the Ed Brown case against the IRS here.  The related document of the Art. 49 petition REFUSED by YOUR* court judge Singal from Maine, appointed by McAuliffe to hold ALL proceedings including pre-trial as a part of the trial withIN the district of where the crime charged occurred! (Art. III, Sec. 2, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution) This was violated and so you needing to be violated too: FORCEd to a position of lying flat on your back, and talking UP to us standing OVER you that since you did not bend your knee to our commands, that you live below the knee: our knees!

The YOUR* and you here being ANY and ALL agents of destruction to our rights who participated in that unlawful and illegal raid over there in BOTH Lebanon and Plainfield.  The CHIEF culprits here being Gregg and Hodes in Concord who can be easily PUSHed to over there at 107 North Main Street to the Capitol Building, 2nd floor office. They were told of these illegal and unlawful acts by their inferior officers of THEIR court and courthouse of the papers issuing therefrom, and so like an issue of "The Golden Emerods" from their assholes, to bring their ass to the seat of justice for a thorough washing! The purpose of NOT to commit any unlawful nor illegal acts by any of us included to put a citizens arrest upon Gregg or Hodes, but to effect the duty as a citizen playing by the rulebook here on an Article 10 action to a clean-up of this corruption!

Our servants are REQUIRED to follow the law.  When they refuse to follow, then we get behind them and push!  (to try some more verbal pushing BEFORE the physical pushing, give them time to act in a "prompt" Art. 14 time frame) That PUSH was what was supposed to have happened in the Dan Riley case #2007-0745 at the N.H. Supreme Court: a push by the defendant to the U.S. District Court IF the U.S. Code was adopted here in N.H. that it has NOT been.  Instead even the U.S. Code of this pushing was violated by the U.S. Attorney in his PULL of the case to there as an intervenor.  Thus these N.H. Supreme Court judges ought to be impeached! by Articles 17 + 38 of the N.H. Constitution, Part Second. A copy of this to the ___________ Committee when those House Bill of Address actions occur there as filed into LSRs by State Rep. Dan Itse of Fremont, N.H. against certain state judges to be removed, and so to add this in as an amendment.  There are more bad apples in the barrel, and so like they say: to kill two birds with one stone.  To lien or remove these five (5) N.H. Supreme Court judges too! They were supposed to be the check and balance against a corrupt federal judiciary AND executive branch, but instead joined the federal corruptors!

See also: for "law enforcement"?  WHERE was the local C.O.P., County Sheriff, and State Police on this? What a joke! They are ALL worthy of a citizen's arrest too! To be brought before their Selectmen, The County Delegation of State Reps when they next meet, and the governor for that agency under the Dept. of Safety, and so since our governor has FAILed in his Article 51 duty too to enforce all legislative mandates by the SHALL word in 123:1, that he SHALL be Art. 41 "responsible for" to those harmed as victims in the RSA 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims for damages of up to $50,000 each or to the County Jury for up to $250,000, then it's suggested that there be also an arrest of Barthelmes as the Respondeat Superior of the Dept. of Safety,  be that of him to be taken and dropped before the Governor and Council that meets every other Wednesday at the State House.

Get to it! Is there somebody reading this who wants to make history here in New Hampshire?  The F.B.I. to investigate and give you a letter of APPROVAL before you act, or to act upon default of no report within #__ business days.

I, _________________________, F.B.I. agent, agree with all of the above, and do hereby endorse any citizen's arrest against: ______________________ (fill in the blank with THE name(s) of WHO you think is/are the major and minor culprits.)

When is Leeds ever going to visit this state? The "head" of the GSA, or do we deal with our "arms" against his "arms" being his subordinates such as Mr. ___________, the GSA Agent over there at The Warren B. Rudman building. Maybe to spot him someday outside the building and arrest him and take him to Bill Gardner's office for him to yell back to his boss that the state is demanding that because of their illegal and unlawful operations therefrom that monstrosity over there that the landlord of such or his deputy  be taken captive and held until the release of the victims thereof have been returned home: Ed Brown, Elaine Brown, Cirino Gonzales, Dan Riley, and Jason Gerhard.

** http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vetted (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vetted) of: "To subject to thorough*** examination or evaluation".

*** thorough: fully done; completely; and PAINstakingly careful.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 28, 2010, 09:53 AM NHFT
Here's a copy and paste from over at: https://tips.fbi.gov/   "Tips Graphic
     
HOME |PRIVACY NOTICE |LINKS |CONTACT US |SITE MAP |SEARCH  fbi Seal Graphic
   
Please use this website to report suspected terrorism or criminal activity.  Your information will be reviewed promptly by an FBI special agent or a professional staff member. Due to the high volume of information that we receive, we are unable to reply to every submission; however, we appreciate the information that you have provided.
   fbi Seal Graphic
        
FBI Tips and Public Leads    

Your First Name, Your Middle Name, Your Last Name
      
Your Phone; Your Email JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com
      
Your Street 1, Your Street 2, Your Suite/Apt/Mail Stop
        
Your City, Your State, Your Country, your Zip Code / Route
      
Please enter your information:

Illegal travel against the law: Title 18 U.S. Code Section 3232 and Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 of The United States Constitution.

For details check with the issuer of the checks: First Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey R. Howard of the 4th floor of The Warren B. Rudman Building at 53 Pleasant Street in Concord, N.H. He has my paper of protest of him paying Laconia Attorney David H. Bownes, the court-appointed attorney for Cirino* Gonzales in that part of the Ed Brown v.s. the I.R.S. case that backfired, and especially when Assistant U.S. Attorney Arnold Huftalen tried to get Reno* to waive his rights that he REFUSED to sign, but still was transported across state lines.

Hey! I remember that across state lines and THEN the F.B.I. enters the case from watching Efram Zimbalist, Jr. in The "F.B.I." T.V. series of the 1960s.

A copy of my complaint is in the PCC files here too: The Professional Conduct Committee that's really a "cover-up" agency!

(Maximum characters: 7500)
You have characters left.
  In order to complete your tip submission, please enter the 5 digits listed below.
Listen "
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
https://tips.fbi.gov/cgi-bin/xmlemailheader_new.pl

"Your tip has been successfully submitted."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mod: "The tip you submitted either contained no data or processed incorrectly!" - yeah: a typical government response!  :deadhorse:
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 28, 2010, 12:47 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on January 04, 2010, 08:06 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on January 03, 2010, 06:36 PM NHFT...
"RE:  ....
....
press 8 for Federal judges....

Yeah, I called the 1-800: 869-4499 number again and pressed 8 for this thief of a judge Jeffrey R. Howard AND* his employee(s) #__ of ___ who cut these checks to Bownes and the others against 18USC3232, and the man on the machine said that if the complaint is with a federal judge, to write to the Circuit, or if an employee to call 202-502-2600 for the http://www.uscourts.gov (http://www.uscourts.gov) that I did since I've already written to THIS federal circuit court judge through his N.H. clerk Starr and got NO reply, and so WHOever signed these checks as the employee...

...but when I called that 502 # I was transferred over to The Office of General Counsel @ 1:27 p.m. when this #127 woman #7 for short since she REFUSED to give me her name, told me that this was NOT to where to file a complaint.  Me TELLing her to please tell WHOever is in charge of the 869 # to therefore change the information to ANOTHER outfit, like who? The F.B.I. - so I guess the F.B.I. will have to do, re: the above, since the prior calls to these local F.B.I. goons in N.H., Maine and MAss.achusetts resulted in the royal- run-around too, thus dependent now upon the F.B.I. nationals or down there in Texas.  Jose - good luck in your follow-up down there.  I'll let you know if I hear back on my complaint #___________ of today being given some file folder in their office to collect more dust.

In the meantime to call both Hodes and Gregg to see WHEN they are going to be WHERE as next in Concord to be PUSHed over there to the S of S.     - - Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 28, 2010, 01:06 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on January 28, 2010, 12:47 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on January 04, 2010, 08:06 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on January 03, 2010, 06:36 PM NHFT...
"RE:  ....
....
press 8 for Federal judges....
...
Hodes * ....

* Hodes: WHERE are you right now, and tomorrow, plus next week on M, T, W, T or F?
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 28, 2010, 01:27 PM NHFT
An apology cover letter FROM Ralph Conner, Deputy G.S.A. Agent TO the N.H. Secretary of State (Bill Gardner) with the required filing to hopefully arrive by next Tuesday, February 2nd @ 10:01 a.m.

THEN Ed & Elaine's attorneys, plus those of for Danny, Jason and Reno, can copy the receipt of same as NEW evidence in their case that BEFORE this filing on February ___, 2010 @ __:__ o'clock a.m./p.m. there was NO jurisdictional authority for to enforce ANY of the U.S. Codes up here against ANY of us Article 12 N.H. inhabitants and to release control by the feds against same as out-of-order!

His telephone # is 202: 501-1609 to where I left him a message just a few minutes ago to please send me an e-mail to JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com and I would send him Lowell (Larry) Becraft's website of:  http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm)   from Hutsville, Alabama explaining to WHERE in EACH and EVERY state of the Union these papers are to go...

...such as in Florida to the governor's office, and to the Secretary of State for here in N.H. by RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 of the United States Constitution.

And if this is NOT in the instruction manual from his predecessor, then to add it to the existing one for his boss to do his job of which I pay for indirectly by my employer at work deducting $x amount from my pay and sending to The Feds at: __________ (location).
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 29, 2010, 10:34 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100129/FRONTPAGE/1290301&template=single (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100129/FRONTPAGE/1290301&template=single)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100129/FRONTPAGE/1290301#comment-105974 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100129/FRONTPAGE/1290301#comment-105974)

plus: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100129/FRONTPAGE/1290301#comment-105973 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100129/FRONTPAGE/1290301#comment-105973)

entitled: "Great for "Uncle Sam" to bill us less for what we pay for."

of: "Now WHY can't this be done in other areas too, other than the medical?

re: paragraph #13: " Lawmakers are also hopeful that the federal government will extend a program that reduced the state's share of Medicaid expenses, which could mean as much as $60 million in new revenue by the end of the budget cycle. "

Say what? According to: http://www.answers.com/topic/medicaid (http://www.answers.com/topic/medicaid) "Medicaid is a federal-state entitlement program for low-income citizens of the United States. The Medicaid program is part of Title XIX of the Social Security Act Amendment that became law in 1965. Medicaid offers federal matching funds to states for costs incurred in paying health care providers for serving covered individuals. State participation is VOLUNTARY, but since 1982, all 50 states have chosen to participate in Medicaid." (emphasis ADDed, with the question of WHO in our state volunteered us into this "program"? So in other words the "match" will be a ratio of __ to __ of MORE Fed and LESS state, right? )

Medicaid is also defined in http://www.investorwords.com/3032/Medicaid.html (http://www.investorwords.com/3032/Medicaid.html) as: "A program, funded by the federal AND state governments, which pays for medical care for those who can't afford it. The program typically helps low-income individuals or families, as well as elderly or disabled individuals. To receive Medicaid, an individual must meet certain requirements (such as income level), and also must go through an application process. Although ALL states participate in the Medicaid program, each state MANAGES their OWN program, and is able to SET different requirements and other GUIDELINES." (emphasis ADDed.)

According to http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidRF/ (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidRF/) this is under: "Section 1902(a)(30)(A) of the Social Security Act".

The Social Security tax is a "Federal tax levied* equally on employers and employees, used to pay for Social Security programs." http://www.investorwords.com/4618/Social_Security_Tax.html (http://www.investorwords.com/4618/Social_Security_Tax.html) as summarized over at: http://www.investorwords.com/4617/Social_Security.html (http://www.investorwords.com/4617/Social_Security.html) of: "The comprehensive federal program of benefits providing WORKERS and their dependents with retirement income, disability income, and OTHER payments. The Social security tax is used to pay for the program." (emphasis ADDed for us WORKers, who are also Article 12, N.H. "inhabitants" who are NOT supposed to be "controllable" by any OTHER laws, such as the U.S. Codes or Statutes at Large than what we as a group by our Legislature or General Court OR us individually "Consent" to, as from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution to N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 see:   http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)  over to the state-by-state list at:   http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm)   and our http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm) as it relates to #2 below as will be explained, and especially since there is no 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal filing!

Hey! I did just get my "Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement" from my Employer and it has the total Wages for the year minus #2, 4 + 6 of Federal income tax, Social security tax, and Medicare tax(es) withheld.  So now what is this Medicare (v.s. Medicaid?). Medicare = "A federal program that pays for certain health care expenses for people aged 65 or older."   http://www.investorwords.com/3033/Medicare.html (http://www.investorwords.com/3033/Medicare.html)   But I'm not 65 years of age or older, so what? This being saved up for me, +/or toward others in that age category now? I don't mind volunteering these #4 + 6 $amounts, but do for #2.

I know from reading Devvy Kidd's website that the mere fact of the employer having the signed W-4 form in the custody of the employer triggers the voluntary nature of these contributions  http://www.devvy.com/ (http://www.devvy.com/)  but what about when the employer refuses to give it back to you upon request, but of only a copy when you "wake up" to the truth?  The truth that there is no enforcement clause in the 16th Amendment that reads of to "lay and collect taxes", and that to lay can be either to impose as a levy* to collect, or to apply as in a request that can be: DENIED. To keep my original signature on file when I want to take it back.  Isn't that like a game of Capture the Flag? In other words: don't rock the Federal Boat, or we will rock you: rock you out of a job!  In my case working part-time this is peanuts.  It's just the principle.  So this info to those self-employed that maybe this can benefit in these tough economic times.  In which case I say to you: good luck. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on January 29, 2010, 05:29 PM NHFT
(http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj18/Sirhandsomee/PLWAOT1001252.jpg)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 30, 2010, 07:52 AM NHFT
Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on January 29, 2010, 05:29 PM NHFT....

?    http://www.myspace.com/thegreenspiderisback (http://www.myspace.com/thegreenspiderisback)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 30, 2010, 07:12 PM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100130/NEWS01/1300372 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100130/NEWS01/1300372)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100130/NEWS01/1300372#comment-106288 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100130/NEWS01/1300372#comment-106288)

entitled: "Federal dictionary: O.K.; their Tax Code: un-acceptable!"

of: "Re: " to align it with federal law. "

In other words to use the federal dictionary in New Hampshire.

Too bad those in local, county + state "law enforcement" so-called do not even obey the state law! Their RSA Ch. 42:1 and 92:2 oaths of office! http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm) and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm) to Article 84, Part 2: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html)

reference: Article 12 of our N.H. Bill of Rights: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) of: "Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other* laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent."

* The "other" laws being these U.S. Codes or Statutes at Large.

On June 14th, 1883 by N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm) we gave the Feds a conditional "Consent" from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, (see the state list over at: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm) ) but that by the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court, an offer of consent, un-accepted is NOT consent!  The Feds have FAILed to file their 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112 papers with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word.

The governor "shall" be responsible for AND execute all legislative mandates.  His job description of this is spelled out in Articles 41 + 51 of Part 2: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html)

So in other words: we adopt the federal language to tax our own "inhabitants" here according to what the Feds suggest, because that is all it is: a suggestion!  Their statutes are to have no power here withOUT either our collective or individual consent!

And even IF finally effective; re: the Federal Tax Code, the 16th Amendment still has no section 2 or enforcement clause, as in the surrounding ones.  Check it out: Wake Up. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: armlaw on January 30, 2010, 08:14 PM NHFT
Joe...

Federal and National are Not equal. Federal refer to the corporation.National refers to the Republic to which many pledge their allegiance. The same is true with the courts. The USDC is not the same as the dcUS that is used in 18 USC 3231. That has criminal; jurisdiction. The USDC has only civil jurisdiction with exception for minor misdemeanors when the defendant agrees to a "Plea Bargain" which is a "contract" thus giving the "Magistrate civil jurisdiction. Clever game they play, eh.

Looks to me as if you have been engaged with 8 year appointed corporate employees called "Magistrates", not lifetime appointed Article III constitutional judges?  Check what follows and comment if you will as JURISDICTION is the issue and these Magistrates DO NOT HAVE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION, if the law is followed. Please read and comment on what follows:

"Magistrate judges presided at 912, or 17.2 percent of the civil jury trials held in the federal courts for the one-year period ending September 30, 1994, according to statistics compiled by the Administrative Office. The percentages by circuits range from a high of
25.5 percent to a low of 7.1 percent.

"Lawyers increasingly have been urging their clients to consent to trial before magistrate judges in civil cases," said Magistrate Judge Robert Collings (D. Mass.), who has been following the numbers. "In many districts, magistrate judges can set an earlier trial date than a district judge, and the trial date is afirm one." Magistrate judges do not preside at criminal felony trials, and this may allow them more time to devote to civil cases
Said Collings, "Litigants who consent to a trial before a magistrate judge do not risk the danger of having their civil trial date usurped by a criminal jury trial, which has to take
precedence." District courts have used different techniques to expand the use of magistrate judges to conduct civil trials. A number have found that initially assigning a case to both a magistrate judge and a district judge makes consent more likely because it identifies the magistrate judge who would preside at the trial, if the parties consent.
Other courts have adopted a system where a certain percentage of civil cases are directly assigned to a magistrate judge and only if consent is not forthcoming is the case assigned to a district judge.

In addition to civil jury trials, magistrate judges conducted 831 bench trials and disposed of 6,092 civil consent cases without trial, conducted 1,795 evidentiary hearings in prisoner cases, 774 evidentiary hearings in non-prisoner cases, and 242 evidentiary hearings as special masters.

Since 1979, magistrate judges have been authorized by law to try civil cases with the consent of the parties. Appeals from judgments entered by magistrate judges after trial are to courts of appeals, unless the parties explicitly stipulate that the appeals will be to a district judge. In Collings' Massachusetts court, two district judges and a magistrate judge were paired for an experiment where the judges try a list of civil cases during a particular month without regard to whom the case was originally assigned."
-----

from The Third Branch 9/95
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 31, 2010, 04:27 PM NHFT
Quote from: armlaw on January 30, 2010, 08:14 PM NHFT
Joe...

Federal and National are Not equal. Federal refer to the corporation.National refers to the Republic to which many pledge their allegiance. The same is true with the courts. The USDC is not the same as the dcUS that is used in 18 USC 3231. That has criminal; jurisdiction. The USDC has only civil jurisdiction with exception for minor misdemeanors when the defendant agrees to a "Plea Bargain" which is a "contract" thus giving the "Magistrate civil jurisdiction. Clever game they play, eh.

Looks to me as if you have been engaged with 8 year appointed corporate employees called "Magistrates", not lifetime appointed Article III constitutional judges?  Check what follows and comment if you will as JURISDICTION is the issue and these Magistrates DO NOT HAVE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION, if the law is followed. Please read and comment on what follows: ...."

So who are the tenants over there for a majority of the Warren B. Rudman building? If magistrates, (who are NOT Article III judges, who are of the national or District Court of the United States, BUT mere 8-year contract employees of the federal or USDC) can only take care of civil cases, or criminal cases, but only up to the level of a misdemeanor by consent of the parties to plead for the latter; THEN of HOW could Muirehead have set bail for Ed & Elaine originally?  For a misdemeanor, right?  So HOW did it elevate up to that of a felony!? For Reno, Danny, Bob and Jason too?

I tried to get a copy of the contract from the GSA landlord agent there, but was only told verbally of that a contract exists for the court (or was it courts in the plural?  and if so, do they, re: the USDC and DCofUS overlap, using the same facilities?) THE court I think was of THE First Circuit Court, not only with Jeffrey R. Howard's office on the 4th floor at 53 Pleasant Street, Concord, N.H., but for that entire section of the building of __% theirs, with co-divisions of these USDC + DCofUS chambers within, as like two subsets of the 1st Circuit set, and an overlapping of the two within, as like the macro and micro of two divisions?
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: armlaw on January 31, 2010, 09:34 PM NHFT
If I read you correctly, you are asserting that Jeffrey Howard is an Article III constitutional Judge. If so, he must have two other Article III judges join him to hear the matter before them and make a decision. One judge can not make a decision.

If Howard is, in fact, an Article III judge, then he has a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT and is insulated from any coercion from the Federal Corporation. This protection from coercion is NOT available to Article 4-3-2 Legislative Magistrates. That is why they are not delegated criminal jurisdiction.

Copies of the commission appointments would settle the matter. Have you asked a direct question to any employees to produce their papers or consider a Quo Warranto writ to which they are required to present their papers or be ousted as an usurper.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 01, 2010, 08:13 AM NHFT
Quote from: armlaw on January 31, 2010, 09:34 PM NHFT
If I read you correctly, you are asserting that Jeffrey Howard is an Article III constitutional Judge. If so, he must have two other Article III judges join him to hear the matter before them and make a decision. One judge can not make a decision.

If Howard is, in fact, an Article III judge, then he has a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT and is insulated from any coercion from the Federal Corporation. This protection from coercion is NOT available to Article 4-3-2 Legislative Magistrates. That is why they are not delegated criminal jurisdiction.

Copies of the commission appointments would settle the matter. Have you asked a direct question to any employees to produce their papers or consider a Quo Warranto writ to which they are required to present their papers or be ousted as an usurper.

Dick, I KNOW that Donna FOR Reno reads these replies here, but as for sending the info to him, I pre-sume that she does and that he has asked for this in writing #__ times and through the attorney appointed to him has done what? nothing?, as I think this was talked about before here in Ed trying to get McAuliffe's oath, but never obtained by him.

My strategy was to get a copy of Monier's oath and that I did receive an extract thereof from Washington, withOUT his residence (I already KNOW that of Goffstown, but that I guess somebody else could have asked for this for OTHER purposes and so they send you a summary of oath. )  Anyway the oath or extract reads that he is to execute only lawful precepts from the court. So HOW does he determine the LAWful from the un-lawful? or does he even check this!? Re: for jurisdiction!

When you write the word: decisions, does that mean of administrative decisions too? like when he read the reports from the attorneys for the billings that they be paid $xx,xxx each for attending those illegal hearings in Maine in violation of 18USC3232.  I've seen only his signature on such documents.  Does that mean that withOUT the other two judges in the Circuit signing such that that is the reason WHY I was never "paid" the over $300 check that I did get from Monier?  because it was somehow a commercial transaction rather than constitutional!? Either way of from an Art. III judge or this Art. 4, Section 3, Clause 2 Magistrate of a "Territory"* of theirs withIN the state, the source is the same as from the Constitution! Thus there has to be this Section 20 lawful money in constitutional coin "paid" to me from the Coinage Act of 1792 rather THAN these commerce coins from the Coinage Act of 1965. I have still NOT been paid such, and to file an RSA Ch. 643:1 official oppression charge against Ed Kelly for REFUSing to process my criminal complaint against Monier for Art. 14 "complete" justice as is my right here in New Hampshire.  The N.H. Bill of Rights! Thus ALL of Ed & Elaine's trials were both out-of-order as they had not concluded ALL transactions from the first, as per this Roberts Rules of Order of to do so by the Ninth Amendment.  Same goes for Bob, Jason, Danny and Reno in the other trial! Me as a creditor had NOT yet been paid from the 1st trial, and so them out-of-order!

cc: of this by copy and paste to Donna and Jose for Reno, Keith for Jason, and Bill for Danny. Also by e-mail to Elaine for Ed too.

-- Joe
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mod: (from my e-mail of 9:39 a.m.)

"P.S. * I forgot to mention this "Territory" word over at N.H.U.: as in like what I saw yesterday afternoon at from 1 - 2:00 p.m. on Cable T.V. Channel 20 http://myretrotv.com/ (http://myretrotv.com/)  out of Boston for: "Alias Smith and Jones" TV western Season 3, Episode 8 on 25 Nov. 1972 for "The Day the Amnesty Came Through" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0508557/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0508557/)  and involving the removal by President Cleveland of the Territorial governor for Wyoming not then a state.  Could this possibly be WHY our current governor, John H. Lynch of Hopkinton is NOT doing his RSA Ch. 92:2 and Art. 51 duty to enforce all legislative mandates by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 that he "shall be responsible for" is because he thinks territorial as in somehow the Feds have smothered us Art. 12 "inhabitants" and so these OTHER laws not applicable because we have already been absorbed into the system!? 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution and 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112 is still there for the head of agency to file his papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State! This tenant court is under the G.S.A. landlord Leeds, and whose Deputy is Ralph Conner, who is supposedly investigating this.  Give him a call at 202: 501-1609 for a "Progress Report".  THEN when finally filed with a cover letter of apology for being late, to "charge" a late fee is right of the individuals harmed by such being victims of a court having operated both illegally and unlawfully to then have their sentences voided for such."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 01, 2010, 09:13 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on February 01, 2010, 08:13 AM NHFT
Quote from: armlaw on January 31, 2010, 09:34 PM NHFT
....

....1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution and 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112 is still there for the head of agency to file his** papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State! This tenant court is under the G.S.A. landlord Leeds, and whose Deputy is Ralph Conner, who is supposedly investigating this.  Give him a call at 202: 501-1609 for a "Progress Report".  THEN when finally filed with a cover letter of apology for being late, to "charge" a late fee is right of the individuals harmed by such being victims of a court having operated both illegally and unlawfully to then have their sentences voided for such."

** I just did.  My call to Mr. Connor at the G.S.A. Office, and division of "Congressional Affairs" he said of just a few minutes ago is that he will remind "the front office" of my having called AGAIN for a progress report. 

He also told me that Mr. Leeds is only the "Acting" head of agency, and that he is being replace by Martha Johnson later THIS week on: ____day February ____, 2010 @ __:__ o'clock a.m./p.m. at: __________ (location) *** I did then ask him to please have a Memo to her of to please get to work on ALL these 1-8-17 filings in EVERY state as per the list of state statutes over at Larry Becraft's http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm) website and starting immediately, as her first act of office being the filing for New Hampshire and then Florida, as there be no 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal filings in either our N.H. Office of Secretary of State NOR to the governor's office in Florida.

He said that he will TRY to see to it that it be included in her first batch of to-do's, this being #___ of #___ to which I replied: Thank You.

*** [so if anybody reading this is in WHERE? Washington, D.C. on THAT day, you might like to attend this swearing-in ceremony and follow her to her office and wait in the lobby until she provides you with a copy of the receipt of Federal filing for here in N.H., as by what? mail? or WHEN she or a Deputy plans to deliver the blueprints of the building to Bill Gardner as required by law, that he can put under "seal", BTW see:   "New Hampshire Primary - Sham Chain of Custody" from Black Box Voting dot org   of:   6:20 minutes with 178,166 views   >:D  = http: // www dot youtube dot com /watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM ]  YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM#)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 01, 2010, 04:50 PM NHFT
Update:

Ed's address, according to the #10 envelope with his return address written there on an envelope postmarked January 27th, that enclosed his 1-20-10 letter to me, that I received in the mail last Friday, January 29th (2 days later) is:

Edward Lewis: Brown
BOP # 03923-049
Brooklyn M.D.C.
80 29th Street
Brooklyn, N.Y. [ 11232 ]

He wrote about The U.B.S. [ United Bank of Switzerland ] as the "literal..own(er of "the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORP".  He thinks that the U.S. Government "went bankrupt" v.s. what I've been saying that these FRNs floating around are NOT fiat currency, but do have value as based on WHO and under what conditions they tendered them to you.

In other words to accept the conveyance but not the transfer, as all they are is a claim ticket to the ultimate transfer of either the commerce or constitutional coin to you, of which the government, when they are on BOTH the sending AND receiving ends have got to ultimately either give or take the required quality of coin as pre-scribed in Section 20 of The Coinage Act of 1792.

They might be able to get away with accepting legal tender notes +/or debased coins as payment from you into the system, but that somehow ALL their accounts SHALL be kept and had in such quality, but then SOME people accept debasement in return, but NOT me!  Monier owes me over $300 in "lawful money" and he WILL pay!

These FRNs are NOT supposed to be "monetized" until a certain #__ amount of gold bullion weighed by the unit of: _____________ is deposited per pallet of FRNs they buy from the U.S. Bureau of Engraving & Printing for only 6-cents each no matter what denomination from a $1.00 to $100 bill because it is NOT until AFTER the bullion is deposited do they actually become legal tender notes! It's spelled out in their contract: part 15 of section 16 of their Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

So when Ron Paul says to audit the "Fed" as in the Federal Reserve System (a private bank), I say: no, instead audit the U.S. Treasury.  WHO are the agents, if any, who did receive the bullion BEFORE these notes were given authority to be put into circulation?

Yes, you can still buy a gallon of gasoline for 30-cents IF you have the right coins = three FDR dimes of silver minted 1964 or before; and yes you can "buy" (so-called) these coins for FRN 3.00 (or FRN 1.00 each), but what happens when the price of certain commodities or all of them start creeping up to the wheel barrow quantity as per what happened in Germany during WWII? Then WHO, if anyone around who still knows the rules of the game, as the referee is going to cry: foul!? To see IF the deposits have been made.  Actually the holder of the quality coins is "buy"ing commercial paper.

So when next to pay like a parking ticket TO the government, you might try this experiment, as I did of to try to  pay DIRECT.  I once tried to put a JFK 1964 Silver Half Dollar on deposit with the Concord District Court a few years ago, and said that I'd be back later when I get the redemption for my notes in what the law requires, but that the judge nor clerk would have anything to do with direct-ness.  They want to deal in the indirect, in that by RSA Ch. 91-A:5,IV http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/91-A/91-A-5.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/91-A/91-A-5.htm) for exemptions, that this is for ALL "financial information" but that I'm not looking for a past tense record, but am currently trying to make a present-day record: a receipt of the silver coin!

My rights as guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment is that when I deal with government I can deal directly withOUT having to deal with a third party in the commercial realm.  As it says in the Bible and per Article 5 of the N.H. Bill of Rights I do not have to deal in "filthy lucre" or debased coins! 

Here's the website for U.B.S. http://www.ubs.com/ (http://www.ubs.com/)   * to go exploring there later...   - - Joe

* see also: http://www.acronymfinder.com/UBS.html (http://www.acronymfinder.com/UBS.html) to http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Union+Bank+of+Switzerland (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Union+Bank+of+Switzerland) ; also: http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=466 (http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=466) for: "Senator Barack Obama's backing for the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act and an aggressive approach by the Internal Revenue Service against the Swiss banking giant UBS, which is suspected of facilitating tax evasion by wealthy Americans, are symptomatic of a changing political climate in the United States. " So I don't know from WHO and WHERE he is getting this ERRORoneous information!  He's supposed to be in a "Correctional" Facility and they are feeding him this garbage too!?

Thus we are NOT getting our money's worth!  So to let this be like his term paper to me as the principal, and the result is that he gets a grade of an F: he flunks, but not only him but his teachers too!  They, or who-ever "they" are who are teaching him this crap ought to be fired! No more classes in whatever course taught by whoever.  The bell rings for a recess! Out to play in the real world. Ed: your time is up: you are expelled!  8)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: keith in RI on February 01, 2010, 06:00 PM NHFT
6.      EDWARD BROWN     03923-049      67-White-M      08-18-2044      OKLAHOMA CITY FTC

update to eds address as of today. its a transfer center though, so he'll be there for only a couple of weeks or so....
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: armlaw on February 01, 2010, 09:44 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on February 01, 2010, 09:13 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on February 01, 2010, 08:13 AM NHFT
Quote from: armlaw on January 31, 2010, 09:34 PM NHFT
....

Joe...There appears to be`an unlawful "joining of party's". ie: The Article III constitutional judge can not merge the powers delegated to him by Article III, with the administrative powers congress has delegated to the Territorial administrative Tribunals operating in the "maritime law of the sea" jurisdiction as this is not delegated to them by the congress. See Article III, Section two. The constitution clearly delegates Maritime Jurisdiction the the Federal Courts, not the Commercial Administrative Tribunals operated by the corporate employees known as "Magistrates".

They are the Administrative Tribunals that adjudicate "contrascts" with those having contract with the corporate federal government and fly the gold fringe Flag and the "Law of the Flag" prevails. See Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. page 638, "Law of the Flag" This is strictly commercial contract equity law, not constitutional common law as required by the 7th amendment. Lawyers are "Officers of the court" and as such admit jurisdiction by "leave of the court".

As admonished by Article III Judge, James Alger Fee in the case " United States v. Johnson",anyone wishing to preserve and execute remedy for his common law constitutional rights, he must do two things.

#1- He must do it himself by affidavit of truth under the penalties of perjury.

#2- He must identify himself as a "Belligerent Claimant at Law".

This is necessary as the Trading with the Enemies Act, as used by FDR made all American Citizens enemies of the Corporate United States as defined in 28 USC 3002(15)(a)
Constitutional Rights can ONLY be address in Article III courts.

Any one who now has an attorney should consider firing him immediately and proceeding Sui Juris, not "pro se", as that is a commercial appellation for use in commercial tribunals.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 03, 2010, 07:29 AM NHFT
Here's a re-type:

"THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Strafford County Superior Court
259 County Farm Road / P.O. Box 799
Dover, N.H. 03821-0799
603: 742-3065
http://www.courts.state.nh.us (http://www.courts.state.nh.us)

Joseph S. Haas v. Board of Strafford County Commissioners
Case Number: 219-2009-CV-00614

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

--NOW COMES the Plaintiff Haas, within ten (10) days of the 2-page ORDER of last Tuesday, January 26th that looks to be a fill-in the blank done by some law clerk that the judge merely signed withOUT even reading it! because during the last hearing on this matter I did correct the judge once already that I did NOT 'request its transfer to superior court' as contrary to line #2 of 15 on page 1, because this was done by the Assistant County Attorney by the request and payment of the $115 transfer fee for a trial by jury.

--As already also indicated in the prior paperwork and at said hearing this case is NOT pursuant to N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 651:63, but Articles 5 +12 of the New Hampshire Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights!  RSA Ch. 651:63 is merely a helpful tool for the jury to calculate the damages at the sevenfold amount per Proverbs 6:30-31 and Public Law 97-280 of 1982.

--According to the Hackett case of 1948 in 95 NH 45 @ 47 (cited within the Morency case @ page 346) the 'plaintiff...is entitled to (his) day in court' for which the merits are of both 'substantive AND procedural due process of law.  See Chart #1 of 2 attached hereto for: (1) the latter on procedure having been a 2-step process that FAILed to prevent the waste of my time and expense, and which A + B was not combined (by looking at BOTH the approved visitor list and the * for the suspension in the footnote) until later at the jail; and (2) the former 'substance' being that: [page 1/page 2] 'No...inhabitants of this state (shall be) controllable by any other laws....'  The Commissioners and their charges have stolen my right to associate* as counsel** to my friend as are rights supposed to be a guarantee by the U.S. Constitution: the 1st + 6th Amendments respectfully.  They let Federal policy over-ride R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 and even their own code! 40 USC 255 to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112.  So BOTH the WAY they stole my rights and WHY are wrongs for which my 'redress' by the Morency case of 1950 in Vol. 96 N.H. REPORTS 344 @ page 346 was and still is for this association* and counsel** with my friend Ed Brown, or if not, as by the Motion to Attach having been denied, and now maybe moot since his transfer then for The Board of Strafford County Commissioners in Dover City to pay me $ damages!

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302; 603: 848-6059, JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com,  with my right to 'worship God according to the dictates of' my 'own reason' being to abide by Matthew 25:43-45 of to 'visit' with 'the least of these' people 'in prison'ed because 'in as much' I "do it' to Him, as is supposed to be a guarantee by Article 5, New Hampshire Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights not to be 'restrained' in such as I was in my 'liberty' even though I 'doth not disturb the public peace.'

Typed: Tue., Feb. 2, 2010
mailed Wed.,Feb. 3, 2010
delivered :   Feb. 4, 2010 (10th day)

pc: Stephen G. LaBonte, Esq.uire, Assistant Strafford County Attorney, P. O. Box 799, Dover, N.H. 03821

** It was supposed to be AT LEAST a 3-party defense:

The counsel (Haas) to the inmate (Brown) and for the representative (Iacopino) in court.

v.s.

The U.S. Attorney and his prosecutor and deputy, plus 4 (?) assistants on this case.

WHERE be The "scales of justice" for a ratio of 2 to 7 !? "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 03, 2010, 12:40 PM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100203/NEWS01/2030354 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100203/NEWS01/2030354)

and:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100203/NEWS01/2030354#comment-107258 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100203/NEWS01/2030354#comment-107258)

entitled: ""Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice". "

of: "Who is the RJM?  I've never heard of him until just now.

I tried finding his telephone # but that it's not at GOOGLE nor in the phone book for The Lakes Region edition  that covers Holderness I see of (relatives by same last name? there), and so LFP/ Laconia Franklin + Plymouth a separate book? 536-_____

At http://www.google.com/ (http://www.google.com/) I did find for the words: "Ryan J. Murdough" Plymouth at page #1 there  http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22Ryan+J.+Murdough%22+Plymouth+&aq=f&aqi=&oq=%22Ryan+J.+Murdough%22+Plymouth+&fp=a7d7ab29d0c8bbb9 (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22Ryan+J.+Murdough%22+Plymouth+&aq=f&aqi=&oq=%22Ryan+J.+Murdough%22+Plymouth+&fp=a7d7ab29d0c8bbb9)   this website of: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=451603&page=297 (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=451603&page=297) with a post by him on 3-8-2009: of "For small communities and minor crimes, the local representative will function as justice of the peace.'

Hey! Where did this kid grow up?  Didn't he learn in school of the three SEPARATE  branches of government being the executive, legislative and judicial?  These State Reps are in the Legislative Branch NOT judicial! Or does he want to get back to like comparable to the English "constable" word? for a C.O.P. of an executive with minor judicial duties.

What's the word for another over-lap-ing of attorneys as members of the Bar in the judicial system who like to stick their noses into the legislative? _______ by becoming State Reps.  Not only their noses but their entire bodies! The people who voted them into office KNOWing such are called what? _______

And to the RHM of Henniker: How be the effectiveness of your RSA Ch. 42:1 and 92:2 oath of office?  How many executive checks have you done lately, IF any!? Reference I-89 through your town involving federalies no doubt on parasite patrol to find their next victim to leech onto the host of us Article 12 inhabitants who REFUSE to be controllable by any OTHER laws such as the U.S. Code or Statutes at Large.  I bet you're a hypocrite for taking federal funds while laughing at the people who pay you the taxes for such protection!  "To serve and protect " WHO?, in what extortion racket?  Disgusting, just thoroughly disgusting.  Reference the Ed Brown individual and others who  made it through your town slick as can be with no check.  Wise up!

So for the pot to call the kettle black in this department too!? "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: error on February 03, 2010, 04:25 PM NHFT
Wave hello to the feds!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: keith in RI on February 03, 2010, 06:13 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on February 03, 2010, 04:25 PM NHFT
Wave hello to the feds!

?????
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: error on February 03, 2010, 07:07 PM NHFT
Oh, you didn't think they ever went away?
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Jim Johnson on February 03, 2010, 07:34 PM NHFT
Flip Six Schnergenburger skip two pages.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 03, 2010, 11:56 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on February 03, 2010, 04:25 PM NHFT
Wave hello to the feds!
Up and down, or back and forth?

To block their blows?

"Amnesty Awesome Commercial"
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVtAbYpBbQ8&feature=related#)
of 0:51 seconds   7,258 x
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 05, 2010, 11:28 AM NHFT
Reference to Monier's check to me that bounced:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100204/NEWS01/2040353#comment-107808 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100204/NEWS01/2040353#comment-107808)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 07, 2010, 02:18 PM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100207/FRONTPAGE/2070326&template=single (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100207/FRONTPAGE/2070326&template=single)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100207/FRONTPAGE/2070326#comment-108237 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100207/FRONTPAGE/2070326#comment-108237)

entitled: "I told you so."

of: "Re: "state banking officials, in their annual exams, found numerous violations by the company, and even moved to take away Farah's banking license at one point. But officials never followed through on that recommendation, instead renewing Farah's license. "

So how much of these investors' money was put into the fund AFTER this recommendation was made but NOT done by Peter C. Hildreth? #______ for $__________. Mr.  "lawyerly wordsmith"er Hildreth, a George Orwellian "Nineteen Eighty Four" Double-Talker. In what is supposed to be a constitutional government operating to regulate the commercial, NOT to take partner withIN it! RE: HB #________ of 200___ by Dick Marple to amend RSA Ch. 390:6 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXV/390/390-6.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXV/390/390-6.htm) of "cash" as per Art. 97 http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html) as annotated to the Jackson case and Chapter 28 Laws of N.H., Vol. 6 @ page 155 of 1794. They can't even pay off one Art. 15 just "compensation" of the $100 per year in lawful money for one State Rep's 1/2 of his 2-year term!  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/house.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/house.html) = $200/term since 1889.

I think that these investors ought to get their money back from out of that state insurance policy* from Manchester.  And if that $amount is drained, then to fire Hildredth BEFORE his term expires and attach his Art. 36 retirement pay.  Leaving Hildreth with $______ per year to live in some rooming house room, AFTER selling his $__________house to pay off these victims.  Hildreth is entitled to a $100,000 RSA Ch. 480:1 homestead, that's 100% more than what I did NOT get! in this lousy N.H. court system. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XLIX-480.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XLIX-480.htm)

Yours truly, JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com, founding member with 19 others (including three State Reps) of V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc. [ Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System] started by Berlin, N.H. Mayor Dick Bosa, R.I.P.

P.S. Before Hildreth's last term expired I nominated former State Rep. Dick Marple for the post from Hooksett, and Lynch said to both Dick and I at the State House that day: "he's got it," (what is "it"? the look, but not the job?) and so what happened!? Who paid off who with what, if any as a kickback to get the job!? Dick's seen envelopes pass in the Senate when certain bills are being voted on.  Can you guess what color paper are in those envelopes?

* The FERDINANDO Insurance Associates, Inc., 637 Chestnut Street, Manchester, N.H. 03104, 603: 669-3218 Policy # BVD-1723709 for up to only $100,000 per Dishonest Employee according to Form P, a branch of: The Hanover Insurance Group, 440 Lincoln St., Worcester, MAss. 01653 1-800-343-6044 http://www.Hanover.com (http://www.hanover.com) See RSA Ch. 93-B:1,II http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/93-B/93-B-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/93-B/93-B-1.htm) and Section I covered in Form ___? re: "faithfully to perform their duties". Cost per year: $_____________? Compared to the roughly $150,000 per year for $5 million insurance coverage at the counties. See RSA Ch. 507:5 for when the Sheriffs screw up: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/507/507-5.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/507/507-5.htm) Me IN SEARCH OF...a good attorney to sue for non-service by Sheriff to my corporate clerk according to RSA Ch. 528:18 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIV/528/528-18.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIV/528/528-18.htm) Theft of real estate (land and building), meaning the principal plus interest being the rents."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 09, 2010, 09:56 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100209/NEWS01/2090321 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100209/NEWS01/2090321)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100209/NEWS01/2090321#comment-108716 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100209/NEWS01/2090321#comment-108716)

entitled: ""Old friend" with old or new oath? "

of: "Good, re: "Roarick will be officially sworn in at 7 p.m. Thursday at the Hillsboro police station. "

Let's hope that the oath of office is in the format as spelled out in RSA Ch. 42:1 + 92:2 to Article 84 of the N.H. Constitution, because if it's like the one Concord*** uses it's out-of-order.

In Concord they swear to help the Feds even OVER the fact of there being no 40USC255 to 40USC3112 * "Consent" on file with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State as required by RSA Ch. 123:1 to protect us Article 12 "inhabitants" from being CONTROLLED by any OTHER laws than that of which we consent to, that in-cludes ALL U.S. Codes and Federal Statutes At Large!

*** http://www.ci.concord.nh.us/sitemgrv2/concordv2.asp?siteindx=events&mapindx=00000000&mthd_nbr=2a&cat_id=City%20Council&mapindx_id=00000000 (http://www.ci.concord.nh.us/sitemgrv2/concordv2.asp?siteindx=events&mapindx=00000000&mthd_nbr=2a&cat_id=City%20Council&mapindx_id=00000000) The City Council, on next Tue., Feb. 16th from 7 to 11 p.m. to vote that Paul Cavanaugh, the City Solicitor work to correct these illegal and unlawful oaths so as to report back to them BEFORE the time to set the Agenda for their March Meeting, at which time, if NOT so corrected,  I've asked to address them about this oath that has been like this since the mid 1980s BELIEVE IT OR NOT, as the Chief Robert Barry, up through the ranks to Chief too.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
footnotes:

1.) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm)
2.) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm)
3.) http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html)
4.) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm)
to: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm) see also: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm)
5.) http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) of: "...Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent."

* See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html) see also: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm) and http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm (http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm) [both htm, not html]  ** plus the original http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575) for 40USC255.

** """In view of 40 USC 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USC 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."" "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: armlaw on February 09, 2010, 06:06 PM NHFT


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


Joe... Have you sent this information to Attorney General Eric Holder? If not perhaps you could get some attention from the DOJ as to the lack of jurisdiction ?  Your reliance on the supreme court case is a good foundation for action.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 11, 2010, 12:38 PM NHFT
Quote from: armlaw on February 09, 2010, 06:06 PM NHFT


**... no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless ...."

Joe... Have you sent this information to Attorney General Eric Holder? ....
[/quote]

Answer: no, not directly, but an ATTEMPT at an in-direct through his DOJ's here in N.H. by being FORCED to face this WHEN a jury tells them so, BUT in the criminal case here of Singal REFUSing to allow that Art. 49 document relating to such into evidence to be marked as an exhibit now on appeal to Boston. Thus to win that, or file some civil suit for damages at $2,500 per day for wrongful prosecution. Danny is working on this to file such withIN the 3 year statute of limitations by RSA Ch. 508:4 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/508/508-4.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/508/508-4.htm) of three years from the June 7, 2007 incident. Unfortunately for him, the Feds in Indiana have clamped down on him: his telephone AND e-mail privileges have been taken away for NO known reason (other than some bogus excuse of insolence) for 90 days, in what is supposed to be a "Correctional" Facility, the Feds NOT wanting to learn the truth, and so THEM really the arrogant ones! That's all of Feb., March and April, leaving only the month of May to organize and file this.

- - Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 11, 2010, 01:53 PM NHFT
From: State of New Hampshire, HOUSE RECORD
Second Year of the 161st General Court
Calendar and Journal of the 2010 Session
Vol. 32, Concord, N.H.  Friday, February 5, 2010   No. 13
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2010/houcal2010_13.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2010/houcal2010_13.html)

for today: "CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY, Room 204, LOB

9:00 a.m.          Subcommittee work session on HB 1134, authorizing federal law enforcement officers to use deadly and non-deadly force when assisting state law enforcement officials.

10:00 a.m.     ...executive session on HB 1134, authorizing federal law enforcement officers to use deadly and non-deadly force when assisting state law enforcement officials".

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H26 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H26)

To get a copy of the notes for this plus any and all written testimony from the Committee Clerk or receptionist from the folder tomorrow. ______ [Judith Johnson @ 271-3565 "might" be there she just told me, but if not, then to buy same for about 10-cents a page from her, by pick-up at the front desk on the first floor from Jamie.]

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1134.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1134.html)

Notice that of to "Amend RSA 627:5 by inserting after paragraph VIII the following new paragraph:

IX. A federal law enforcement officer or special agent who has been requested or directed by a New Hampshire law enforcement officer to assist in effecting an arrest,...is justified in using: (a) Non-deadly force ...unless the federal officer or special agent believes the arrest is illegal; or (b) Deadly force only when he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to defend himself,...or when the New Hampshire law enforcement officer directs the federal officer or special agent to use deadly force and the federal officer or special agent believes the New Hampshire law enforcement officer is authorized ...."

Question: Does this work in reverse too? ___  Like when the Federal agent requests of the local, county or state law-enforcement officer to assist them, can our official, who has sworn an oath to protect us, disregard that protection!? Re: RSA Ch. 42:1 and 92:2 to Art. 84 and Article 12 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm) and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm) to http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html) and http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) for Article 12: "...Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent."  An offer of conditional consent as by RSA Ch. 123:1 is NOT Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 "Consent" unless and until acceptance, re: the Adams case of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1943 and even the U.S. Attorney's own Manual #664, there being no GSA "head" of "agency" filing per 40USC255 to 40USC3112 as the landlord of those tenants over there at 53-55 Pleasant Street, Concord, N.H. to have their U.S. Codes and Statutes at Large THEN be controllable over us *** when we don't individually consent. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm) and

* See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html) see also: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm) and http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm (http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm) [both htm, not html]  ** plus the original http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575) for 40USC255.

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

To see WHERE this House Bill 1134 is in the process, check out both:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.aspx?lsr=2058&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=HB1134 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.aspx?lsr=2058&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=HB1134) = due out of Committee next Thu., Feb. 18th to go the the Floor of the House for a vote on Wed., Feb. 24th; +

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=2058&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=HB1134 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=2058&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=HB1134)

So when Ed & Elaine were taken FROM Plainfield (the Town taking their money for property tax protection but never doing what the job describes of to protect) TO the Lebanon P.D. they too were supposed to be a check-and-balance in the system, and as I did alert them by my appearance at the Lebanon City Council on June 6, 2007 the day before the raid on Elaine's dental office, and with Bernie to the Town of Plainfield Selectmen with COP there on June 20, 2007 to say for to either protect OR give them their money back! A lawsuit for a Writ of Formedom to Sullivan County against the Town for these property tax payments as having been stolen too to get them back as caretakers there onto their Plainfield property AND a lawsuit for the theft of land and building in Lebanon PLUS tax money too against the City of Lebanon to the Grafton County Superior Court in North Haverhill, to file BEFORE June 7th, 2010 also, withIN the 3-yr. RSA Ch. 508:4 statute of limitations. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/508/508-4.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/508/508-4.htm)

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

P.S. Notice WHO the Sponsor of this legislation is: Stephen Shurtleff, the Chairman of this Committee who was a Deputy U.S. Marshal and who tried to be the next U.S. Marshal after Monier, but who lost out to N.H. State Trooper David Cargill. His daughter works for the Merrimack County Superior Court Clerk and his wife works as Clerk over there at the Concord District Court to where I took Monier on that criminal charge of issuance of a bounced check, in violation of the law: Section 20 of the Coinage Act of 1792   http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/coinage1792.txt (http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/coinage1792.txt)  as a supposed constitutional not commerce office for the Coinage Act of 1965, but that she REFUSED to process on that Order from Ed Kelly (my former tenant's attorney) of Plymouth, the head of ALL the District Courts in N.H. using the sole dissenting opinion in the Rita Premo case (from Berlin) against me, http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2002/0209/marti098.htm (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2002/0209/marti098.htm) and so the/ the Legislature now tackling how  "they" those who are the perpetrators get away with not having these RSA Ch. 643:1 Official Oppression charges NOT processed either! http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/643/643-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/643/643-1.htm) and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/640/640-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/640/640-2.htm) over to: HB1515 text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1515.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1515.html) see: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.aspx?lsr=2107&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txttitle=official%20oppression (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.aspx?lsr=2107&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txttitle=official%20oppression) due out of this Committee on the same day of next Thu., 2/18 also: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=2107&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txttitle=official%20oppression (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=2107&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txttitle=official%20oppression) having had their Executive Session on this this past Tue., Feb. 9th, to likewise find out what happened there, as I attended and spoke on this back on: Thu., Jan. 14th.

Mod: *** as long as they are constitutional.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on February 11, 2010, 06:34 PM NHFT
Want to Help Cirino Gonzalez?
IT's EASIER THAN EVER!

1. COPY THIS LETTER:


Re: Grievance; El Reno FCI, Case # 565879-F1


Please, address the accusations that Cirino Gonzalez has made against U.S. Marshal Berry, Jamie including the evidence that has been posted all over the Internet, i.e.:

Falsified Proffers of Wolffe and Riley by Jamie Berry

Sworn Affidavit by Patricia L. Webber accusing U.S. Marshal Dennis Suszko:

Patricia's Affidavit of Truth

Furthermore, Bureau of Prison employees justify preventing Cirino Gonzalez from obtaining evidence to demonstrate his innocence by calling said evidence
"Property."
Are we to believe that the U.S.A. is practicing such reticent acts as was once the policy of Pre-WWII
Gestapo?
Reference Cirino Gonzalez at the information provide below:

Cirino Gonzalez 76342-179
FCI EL RENO
P.O. BOX 1500
EL RENO, OK 73036

Thank you from a concerned observer.


2. SEND TO THESE PEOPLE:


Office of the Att Gen U.S. Dept of Justice
Main Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC
20530-0001

Gerardo Maldonado, Jr.
Regional Director, South Central Reg Off
Federal Bureau of Prisons
4211 Cedar Springs Rd
Dallas, TX 75219


Harley G. Lappin
Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons
320 First St., NW,
Washington, DC 20534


3. OR CALL/EMAIL

For general information,
call
202-307-3198

Phone:
214-224-3389
SCRO/EXECASSISTANT@BOP.GOV

Below are the Two documents to send to the addresses above.
Thank You.

<a title="View Proffer Riley v Wolffe wCG Notes on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/24343392/Proffer-Riley-v-Wolffe-wCG-Notes" style="margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block; text-decoration: underline;">Proffer Riley v Wolffe wCG Notes</a> <object id="doc_50429836500541" name="doc_50429836500541" height="600" width="100%" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf" style="outline:none;"><param name="movie" value="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf" ></param>
<param name="wmode" value="opaque" ></param>
<param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff" ></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" ></param>
<param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" ></param>
<param name="FlashVars" value="document_id=24343392&amp;access_key=key-1jtefqqesphhpeh6rbql&amp;page=1&amp;viewMode=list" ></param>
<embed wmode="opaque" id="doc_50429836500541" name="doc_50429836500541" src="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=24343392&amp;access_key=key-1jtefqqesphhpeh6rbql&amp;page=1&amp;viewMode=list" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="600" width="100%" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></embed></object>



<a href="http://s268.photobucket.com/albums/jj18/Sirhandsomee/?action=view&amp;current=PLWAOT1001252.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj18/Sirhandsomee/PLWAOT1001252.jpg" border="0" alt="Webber Affidavit"  /></a>
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: armlaw on February 11, 2010, 09:35 PM NHFT
 three years from the June 7, 2007 incident. Unfortunately for him, the Feds in Indiana have clamped down on him: his telephone AND e-mail privileges have been taken away for NO known reason (other than some bogus excuse of insolence) for 90 days, in what is supposed to be a "Correctional" Facility, the Feds NOT wanting to learn the truth, and so THEM really the arrogant ones! That's all of Feb., March and April, leaving only the month of May to organize and file this.

- - Joe
[/quote]

Statutes of limitation are mere "Public Policy". Statutes are NOT law. The common law FRAUD has no "Statute of Limitation".

Any action should be brought forth as a Common Law trespass and Common Law Fraud upon the rights of the inhabitant who is a belligerent claimant at Law in an Article III Court, pursuant to the 7th Amendment constitution for the united States of America.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 11, 2010, 11:19 PM NHFT
Re: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100211/FRONTPAGE/2110303&template=single (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100211/FRONTPAGE/2110303&template=single)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100211/FRONTPAGE/2110303#comment-109570 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100211/FRONTPAGE/2110303#comment-109570)

entitled: "Let the governor's spurs buck Hildreth out of there!"

of: "Re: Paragraph #4: " Investigators, including the FBI, (and) the U.S. attorney's office, ... are looking into how the companies operated over the years...."

Oh fuddle duddle.  Tell these contemptables to go away! I'd like to know HOW they, these federalies, have operated for years too! without their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers on file with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the shall word in RSA 123:1.

Senator Larsen AND Gov. Lynch KNEW about this non-filing from me since 2007 and do nothing!  Now they want the do-thing feds to do something else!  Come on!

Just fire Hildreth, get rid of him, and have the NEW Commissioner's first duty of to clean up the mess over there! Play by the rules letting nobody bend them to ANY degree! I mean ANYbody! and EVERYbody!"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 13, 2010, 08:34 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on February 03, 2010, 07:29 AM NHFT
...See Chart #1 of 2 attached hereto....

Here's the crap I got from some Deputy Clerk using the Clerk's signature pad of blue ink:

"OFFICE OF CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT / STRAFFORD COUNTY
GRIMES JUSTICE AND ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, P.O. BOX 799, DOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03821-0799
JULIE W. HOWARD, CLERK
APRIL J. COTE, DEPUTY CLERK
(603) 742-3065 TTY/TDD Relay Number 1-800-735-2964

February 9, 2010

Joseph S. Haas, P. O. Box 3842, Concord, NH 03302

Dear Mr. Haas:

--I am returning part of your pleading that was filed on February 4, 2010.  We will enter your Motion to Reconsider, but we cannot accept the drawings that you have attached to your motion.  If you have any questions on this matter, feel free to contact the Clerk's office at 742-3065.

Very truly yours,  Julie W. Howard, Clerk

JWH/rak

New Hampshire Court System Website: http://www.courts.state.nh.us (http://www.courts.state.nh.us)  "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 13, 2010, 08:55 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on February 13, 2010, 08:34 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on February 03, 2010, 07:29 AM NHFT
...See Chart #1 of 2 attached hereto....

Here's the crap I got from some Deputy Clerk using the Clerk's signature pad of blue ink:
....

Here is my reply to this crap:

" ' A picture is worth a thousand words' (as they say), and so maybe:
A drawing is worth 500 words?  I think I've been robbed by this Clerk!

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, Strafford County Superior Court, 259 County Farm Road / P.O,. Box 799, Dover, N,H. 03821-0799, 603: 742-3065 http://www.ciourts.state.nh.us (http://www.ciourts.state.nh.us)

Joseph S. Haas v. Board of Strafford County Commissioners, Case Number 219-2009-CV-00614

CLAIM FOR ART. 14 COMPLETE-NESS ! !

--NOW COMES the Plaintiff Haas, in receipt of that 1-page 3-sentence (1 paragraph) letter from the secretary's use of the Clerk's signature stamp in blue ink, Julie W. Howard, dated and postmarked Feb. 9th that was received by me in today's mail: Wed., Feb. 10th and with my call to the court #350 extension of the civil and equity divisions, and with the recording thereinto by my voice to the machine and of its being heard and with the return call NEVER telling me WHY my drawings were NOT accepted and they canNOT be by what? some Rule #___? of that you can't illustrate what would have be(en) done on a bulletin board if I had been granted a hearing on such a MOTION TO RECONSIDER, a 'hear'ing BEYOND a mere READ-ing, and so why NOT a see-ing of what is meant by WHERE my words go!? WHY NOT!?  I think this is either Tampering with Public Records +/or RSA Ch. 643:1 Official Oppression!! by the Deputy Clerk for the Clerk who is NOT supposed to make decisions as what can be exhibits attached thereto, or not?  because I didn't label it as either an Exhibit number 1 or letter a!?  As spelled out in that Morency case substance is supposed to weigh heavier than form.  But then again the Clerk is a ministerial agent, to administer papers from point a to point b for the BETTER-ment of like a 'view', in this case of what I perceive as what took place, maybe not a footnote but some click-a-page over to another section FROM the approved list to a suspension list, and so the TOTAL of BOTH lists should have been decided by the C.O. BEFORE I ventured out my driveway to expend my time and $expense in what could have been and should have been of not the run-around, and is but some Dutch-Door injustice of saying yes, but meaning half a yes, and then a complete no because suspension list b over-rules approval list a, and on THEIR time and place, when Art. 8 + 14 demands a prompt accounting!

- - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, POB 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302

pc: Stephen G. LaBonte, Esq., Assistant County Attorney, Dover, N.H. 03821 (POB 799)

WHEREFORE: to please schedule a hearing 'if' my Motion to Reconsider be not given the weight so as to move this closer to that trial by jury, so that you can hear it in 'other words' too."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 13, 2010, 06:17 PM NHFT
Question: How many of these "As there's apparently 127 million tax returns filed for under $140,000 in income, and FIVE MILLION filed for incomes ABOVE that, that makes for a total of around 132 million US tax returns overall. " (emphasis ADD for the) 5 million, are in N.H.? And WHO/ WHERE are they? http://www.jmooneyham.com/rich-reference.html#section28 (http://www.jmooneyham.com/rich-reference.html#section28)

I think they'd like to KNOW that there is no federal filing here, so that they ought to exercise their Article 12, N.H. rights!  >:D

Plus HOW can we reach them? with this documentation as evidence to put in as an exhibit in making their own decision?  ;D

Maybe they might donate $xxx,xxx.xx to the cause here to get our leader release from being a victim in HAVING this evidence BUT who was REFUSED to get it marked as an Exhibit for his case.

Singal; you're going down! or should I say: out to pasture: retirement: "there you go" as Dennis Weaver used to say as Sam "McCloud".  ;)

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 13, 2010, 06:59 PM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100213/FRONTPAGE/2130325&template=single (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100213/FRONTPAGE/2130325&template=single)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100213/FRONTPAGE/2130325#comment-110090 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100213/FRONTPAGE/2130325#comment-110090)

entitled: "To see which "Party" officials help out WHOever right now!"

of: "Hilliard of Northfield  a friend of Murray of Dunbarton.  Well is that an asset or liability?

In my book that is a definite liability!  Hilliard is a wimp. When he called the then U.S. Marshal, Stephen Robert Monier of Goffstown to ask WHY the Feds had not complied with the law (no 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal papers on file with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution) he was told to "stand down" and did, like a puppy licking the hand that feeds him.  Disgusting! Thoroughly disgusting!

So AFTER reading this will Murray wise up?  With Valentine of Hopkinson read AND do something first?  The someTHING would be to call the new head of agency of the GSA/ General Services Administration landlord, Martha Johnson, having served her first full week on the job ending just yesterday to ask her WHEN she plans to DO her job of filing these papers as the landlord of the tenant court over there at Pleasant Street in Concord AND for the Norris Cotton Federal Building in Manchester too.  BOTH given tax exempt status for the land but NOT their buildings as per RSA Ch. 123:2.  Supposedly an Article III "inferior Court of Congress".  But of which our Congressional delegation of do-nothings upon written complaint continue to do nothing: Gregg, Hodes, Shea-Porter AND Shaheen. All worthless!!!!

So if Michael can pull this off for BOTH places, my hat goes off to him with congratulations and the spotlight on him from maybe #____ of these nation-wide of 5 million federal filers here in N.H. who can save $___ million from their Year 2009 taxes, since the Feds in 2009 had NO jurisdictional authority to control us with their U.S. Codes, since we neither gave them an individual NOR group "Consent" since we waive NONE of our Article 12 rights in the N.H. Bill of Rights. http://www.jmooneyham.com/rich-reference.html#section28 (http://www.jmooneyham.com/rich-reference.html#section28)

The spotlight being __% of their $savings into his campaign, as this will prove that his independence is there and ought to be welcomed by which party? The R or D?  Which one is more of a Federalist? Would SOMEbody please let me know.

In other words: Murray: to do this in the R already, I give you until the end of next week to call Martha, and if no filing by then, then Valentine to please see to it that the independents be helped here.  Us Art. 12 independents from the Feds!  Thank you "very" much! "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 13, 2010, 07:39 PM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100213/FRONTPAGE/2130334&template=single (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100213/FRONTPAGE/2130334&template=single)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100213/FRONTPAGE/2130334#comment-110094 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100213/FRONTPAGE/2130334#comment-110094)

entitled: "No book-signing, but a federal un-signing; to bring in $xxx,xxx."

of: "First of all: thank you to the anonymous donor of the $70,000. You must be one of those #___ taxpayers in N.H. of the 5-million plus withIN the United States who are in the class of thinking that you have* to pay over $140,000 per year; see: http://www.jmooneyham.com/rich-reference.html#section28 (http://www.jmooneyham.com/rich-reference.html#section28) of: "As there's apparently 127 million tax returns filed for under $140,000 in income, and five million filed for incomes above that, that makes for a total of around 132 million US tax returns overall."

* The word "have" highlighted here for New Hampshire because THE best book there at THIS library is our very own Constitution:, and especially Article 12 therein of our N.H. Bill of Rights, http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) of: "...Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent."

The next best book being the state statute book for RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm)

Now here's where there is NO documentation on file with THE library YET but can be.  My suggestion is for the librarian to call or write Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State in Concord to get that reply he has there of that there has been NO such federal filing as required by the Feds' own Statutes at Large, (or supposed to be at "large", but really are at "small"), Title 40 U.S. Code 255 to 40USC3112, re: the head of Agency, meaning the GSA/ General Services Administration landlord (new on the job as of this past week: her first full working week of Martha Johnson, just concluded yesterday: Abe Lincoln's Birthday, oh: "Honest Abe", supposedly looking into this filing - future tense.) over her tenant court: an inferior court of Congress, by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. A court to hear all cases dealing with the U.S. Code violations but ONLY of AFTER the filing!

Now how does that relate here?  Well, to Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. Anonymous in the upper class, of WHEN this federal filing does occur, it will be proof that there was no jurisdictional authority for all of last year's income to you, and so you need NOT have* to pay $xxx,xxx.xx in federal taxes BELIEVE IT OR NOT! thus leaving you to donate more to the library for the next  #x years**, and maybe with #__ of you, enough to put into a trust for the operating expenses to be paid out of the income forever! ** $xxx,xxx.xx to be retrieved as by Amendment Form No. __ going back #__ years.

How do you like that for THE solution? Maybe to invite David Hacket Souter from Weare and Hopkington up to here with a copy of that 1943 Adams case of the U.S. Supreme Court that reads that an offer of conditional consent is NOT consent UNTIL accepted!

Now we can all sing: "We're in the money..." in a parade down the road, like during Independence Day or Old Home Day, with our hats off to both "Uncle Sam" AND Mr/Mrs/Ms. Anonymous. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 14, 2010, 02:07 PM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100214/FRONTPAGE/2140303&template=single (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100214/FRONTPAGE/2140303&template=single)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100214/FRONTPAGE/2140303#comment-110214 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100214/FRONTPAGE/2140303#comment-110214)

entitled: "Wait for the Feds to act first?  A U.S. Code is NOT law in NH."

of: "Reference: paragraph #5: "The House is expected to take up the bill Wednesday. "

See: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2010/houcal2010_14.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2010/houcal2010_14.html)

"HB 1541-FN, prohibiting the sale of e-cigarettes to minors.  OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.

Rep. Donna L Schlachman for Commerce and Consumer Affairs:  Most on the committee had never heard of e-cigarettes (e for electronic) but learned that our youth call the act of smoking them "vaping" (inhaling vapors) and smoke them on school property before and after classes.  These highly addictive unregulated substitutes for tobacco are sold on the internet and at kiosks in malls. They are marketed as a "green" way to smoke. In place of tobacco they have nicotine cartridges that are inserted into a cigarette-like holder; the liquid is then vaporized and inhaled.  E-cigarettes come in bright colors and in flavors such as strawberry, peppermint, chocolate, watermelon and grape.  The teenagers who testified at the hearing said that the advertisements pop up on teen oriented websites. FDA testing of products labeled as containing no nicotine even found low levels of nicotine as well as other known carcinogens. Some on the committee felt we should wait for the FDA to institute a federal ban.*  Others believed they had learned enough about the content of the cartridges, which can contain toxic levels of nicotine. While these may be good choices for adults trying to kick the tobacco habit, smoke in no-smoking zones, and smell nicer, they should not be sold to minors.  The fiscal note on the bill concerned the potential costs related to prosecuting violators. The amendment moved the effective date closer to passage.  Vote 15-4."

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1541.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1541.html)

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.aspx?lsr=2206&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=hb1541 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.aspx?lsr=2206&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=hb1541)

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=2206&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=hb1541 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=2206&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=hb1541)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* "Some on the committee felt we should wait for the FDA to institute a federal ban.* "

Who are these "some" members? http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H43 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H43)  = ____________________________

The reason I ask is that of RSA Ch. 123:1. Don't they know that there is NO federal filing of the 40USC255 to 40USC3112 documents with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State? See Article 12 of our N.H. Bill of Rights.  Even if any future state "inhabitant" is charged as a federal "criminal" the charge canNOT stick UNLESS they plead guilty, as there is no group "Consent" by our N.H. Legislature to be "controllable" over us, of these U.S. Codes.  An offer of "conditional" consent, by 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution is NOT Consent, per the 1943 Adams U.S. Supreme Court case.  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm) and http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) of: "...Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent." "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: keith in RI on February 14, 2010, 07:29 PM NHFT
jason called to say hello. he said he has lots of valentine offers inside just none he wants....lol
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 15, 2010, 11:01 AM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on February 14, 2010, 07:29 PM NHFT
jason called to say hello. he said he has lots of valentine offers inside just none he wants....lol

No Valentine's Day Massacre either eh?

BTW THE massacre will be the "severe defeat" of the Feds in that acre in Mass. / mass -acre, on the Appeal.

An appeal that maybe ought to highlight "the Assimilative Crimes Act", see: http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/federal.htm (http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/federal.htm)

Question #1: Since we never gave Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 "Consent" to the Feds by our N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 (since by the 1943 Adams case at the U.S. Supreme Court an offer of conditional consent is NOT consent), then withOUT either the group or individual consent, WHY haven't the law enforcement officers here in N.H. protected our Article 12 rights?!*

* http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) of: "...Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent."

Thus: Question #2: Are the Feds in N.H. UNDER the "Assimilative Crimes Act"?

- - Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Mike Barskey on February 16, 2010, 09:38 AM NHFT
Once again, mail I sent to Ed at the following address was returned to me.
Edward-Lewis Brown #03923-049
Strafford County H.O.C.
266 County Farm Road
Dover, NH  03820

Does anyone know the mailing address of the prison he's currently being held in?

Thanks.

- Mike
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 16, 2010, 09:56 AM NHFT
See: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm (http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm)

for Abraham Lincoln's "Cooper Union Address, New York, New York, February 27, 1860"

the very last paragraph:

"Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT."

So here was and is Ed's statement that he ought to make:

As I understand or conclude beyond the mere in-direct or hearsay to that of see-say, of having seen proof of federal non-filing of the Title 40 U.S. Code Section 255 to 40USC3112 papers to our N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 per 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution, from the N.H. Secretary of State that the GSA landlord of that supposed Article III inferior Court of Congress tenant over there on Pleasant Street, in Concord, N.H. has FAILed to file, this IS actual evidence for me, and to any and all of you ought to be a conviction thereof until you too see the exhibit denied my triers of fact by a judge unworthy of being called of his honor, but also a criminal in conducting those illegal hearings in Portland, Maine against 18USC3232.  Unfortunately for my wife and I the jury in our case did not even discern or perceive this obscurity or concealment by the judge of this evidence; they did not detect it. Thus the battle may have been lost but not the war. The established standards are pre-scribe in The law. In this United States of America, there is supposed to be judicial review of executive decisions; such as the decision of WHY our N.H. governor has not enforced all legislative mandates by the "shall" word in the statute! It is in his Article 51 job description of which he SHALL be Article 41 "responsible for"! WHY he was not called as a witness in my case is because I was NOT allowed my 6th Amendment council of counselors to visit me to tell me this when I was in jail over there at the Strafford County House of "Correction" (so-called) in Dover, N.H. The Commissioners met with one of my counselors but who refused to honor their three RSA Ch. 92:2 oaths of office: to NOT have any federal policy "control" over ANY of us N.H. inhabitants! It's the law as spelled out in Article 12 of the New Hampshire Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights.  Rights that have been stolen from us.  Us in the plural, as the giver and receiver of information.  The court appointed representative for me in court was not my counselor! He was denied information that made my trial in-complete.  Such is against Article 14 of the N.H. Constitution! From my rank with the N.H. Militia and the UnAmerican Activities Investigations Committee it was and is my duty that the course of action was to revolt against this evil: Evil in the form of those who militate: use FORCE as evidence.  My evidence was and is in this gold sealed document of federal non-filing.  That has NEVER been put to those who did judge me. I call it obstructing justice; the crime in N.H. of Official Oppression as spelled out in RSA Ch. 643:1, by this federal judge! Hey! If THEIR U.S. Code can be applied unlawfully against us who do not consent, then our LAWFUL statutes ought to apply to them too, as per the Ninth Amendment of for every action there is a re-action. What I did to resist this evil was required by my position: my moral obligation, of which you should be compelled to combat too. The Rules of conduct are spelled out in Article 10: Arbitrary power by a judge and his unlawful precepts to the U.S. Marshals to dis-obey the law has got to be resisted; to do otherwise is of the absurd: not only incongruous (as in inappropriate or out of place; not harmonious, incompatible; and/or inconsistent, illogical) but ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable! Where is the harmony when there has been no agreement or accord filed? The U.S. Supreme Court in the 1943 Adams case spells it out: an offer of conditional consent is NOT consent! Even the U.S. Attorney KNOWS this as in their instruction manual #664, yet they dis-honor their oaths too.  And WE pay for this dis-service!? The government is instituted, established and was organized to pro-mote NOT de-mote a cause: their cause is thus on public NOT private property! They had no business setting foot on our property! beyond the mote or boundary lines!  They were told of NO TRESPASSING both verbally and in writing! The Article 12 protection we paid for at the town, county and state levels were NOT provided to us upon our claims: Bernie Bastion to the town "fathers" (so-called) being the Board of Selectmen in Plainfield, and Joe Haas to both the Sullivan County Commissioners and Sheriff in Newport (the County Seat), plus the N.H. Dept. of Safety and the N.H. State Police in Concord. This Art. 12 + 10 "protection" was owed the entire and "whole community" in-cluding us!!

Right makes might as Abraham Lincoln said in his famous "Cooper Union Address" in New York City on February 27, 1860 (of just about 10 days from today being that anniversary, on Saturday, Feb. 27th, 2010). Thus for our public servants to abandon their oaths is a dis-solution of immorality, corrupt and perverted, and so an element of violation in our Article 10 that needs to be corrected, to be counter-acted upon.  Where did these servants go to school to learn these violations?  Did I pay for that education? How was it by a "common benefit" of for the poor changed to that of paying for such a "family, or class of men"? A class of men living above the poverty line for which my poor neighbors have to pay for these wealthy children too!?  Such is against my Article 5 religious rights also! To support the poor, fine, but not this "class of men". We actually OVER-paid our property taxes.  See 55N.H.503@504 (1875) for the Brentwood School District No. 2 case. We've got to get to the root of the problem here: of liars and thieves being our Selectmen as the Town Assessors who do turn over an incomplete list to their billing agent for the Tax Collect to collect unlawful and illegal amounts from ALL of us  The illegal of that I refuse to pay for the education of our youth toward being indoctrinated into an RSA Ch. "193-C:1 Statement of Purpose. – I...A well-educated populace is essential for the maintenance of democracy" http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xv/193-c/193-c-mrg.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xv/193-c/193-c-mrg.htm) when this is supposed to be an Article IV, Section 4 Republic. Thus I hereby appoint: ______________ to re-collect the total plus damages as for NO protection and this overage for me from the Town of Plainfield, and if not so collected in an Art. 14 "prompt" time frame, then to sue for such as theft in court for a trial by jury since the $amount is over $1500 by Article 20.

Signed: - - - - - - - - - - - - Edward Lewis: Brown
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 16, 2010, 10:05 AM NHFT
Quote from: Mike Barskey on February 16, 2010, 09:38 AM NHFT
....
Try:

Edward-Lewis: Brown
B.O.P. #03923-049
Federal Transfer Center
P. O. Box 898801
Oklahoma City, OK 73187-8801

This was Reno's address last February.

Good luck, - - Joe
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mod: Ed's been released (and is heading home).  ;D

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Edward&Middle=Lewis&LastName=Brown&Race=U&Sex=M&Age=&x=73&y=15 (http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Edward&Middle=Lewis&LastName=Brown&Race=U&Sex=M&Age=&x=73&y=15)

      "Name     Register #     Age-Race-Sex     Release Date
   Location
1.    EDWARD LEWIS BROWN    76902-080    34-Black-M    06-27-2003    RELEASED

Results 1 - 1 of 1 "

Must have been that executive Pardon, eh?  ;)

Gotta turn black and younger to get out.  ::)
______________________________________________--

Our Ed is #6 of 15: http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Edward&Middle=&LastName=Brown&Race=W&Sex=M&Age=&x=67&y=11 (http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Edward&Middle=&LastName=Brown&Race=W&Sex=M&Age=&x=67&y=11)

http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/okl/index.jsp (http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/okl/index.jsp)

http://www.bop.gov/DataSource/execute/dsFacilityAddressLoc?start=y&facilityCode=okl (http://www.bop.gov/DataSource/execute/dsFacilityAddressLoc?start=y&facilityCode=okl)

INMATE NAME & REGISTER NUMBER
FTC OKLAHOMA CITY
FEDERAL TRANSFER CENTER
P.O. BOX 898801
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK  73189
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Mike Barskey on February 16, 2010, 11:13 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on February 16, 2010, 10:05 AM NHFT
Try:

Edward-Lewis: Brown
B.O.P. #03923-049
Federal Transfer Center
P. O. Box 898801
Oklahoma City, OK 73187-8801

Thanks!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: KBCraig on February 16, 2010, 11:28 AM NHFT
Quote from: Mike Barskey on February 16, 2010, 11:13 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on February 16, 2010, 10:05 AM NHFT
Try:

Edward-Lewis: Brown
B.O.P. #03923-049
Federal Transfer Center
P. O. Box 898801
Oklahoma City, OK 73187-8801

Thanks!

He will be heading back to Marion at some point.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 16, 2010, 03:33 PM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/118875/110417 (http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/118875/110417)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/20100214/FRONTPAGE/2140303 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/20100214/FRONTPAGE/2140303)

plus: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100214/FRONTPAGE/2140303#comment-110703 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100214/FRONTPAGE/2140303#comment-110703)

also: http://www.concordmonitor.info//comment/reply/118875/110417 (http://www.concordmonitor.info//comment/reply/118875/110417)

entitled: "Gun in ANY crime to a felony level?  I'll check it out, for now:"

of: "NH: I have no idea, I'm not an attorney, and only dig into SOME of the statute books.

I did try  http://freestateblogs.net/nhgunfaq (http://freestateblogs.net/nhgunfaq) though for the words:  crime "New Hampshire" gun   at GOOGLE  http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=crime+%22New+Hampshire%22+gun+&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&oq=crime+%22New+Hampshire%22+gun+&fp=c26c79a56c95bda8 (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=crime+%22New+Hampshire%22+gun+&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&oq=crime+%22New+Hampshire%22+gun+&fp=c26c79a56c95bda8)   and by skimming down, found another interesting "Federal" Myth or "fact" of: ""Federal Law states you may
Submitted by shawn (not verified) on Sat, 2008-07-05 08:03.

"Federal Law states you may only buy a handgun in the state in which you reside."

source: http://www.ct.gov/dps/cwp/view.asp?a=2158&q=294488 (http://www.ct.gov/dps/cwp/view.asp?a=2158&q=294488)

Anything crossing state lines is covered under federal law. I have not checked to see what federal law says about rifles and shotguns."

Does ANYbody KNOW for a FACT of just WHAT the penalty is for this? a fine only conviction IF ever obtained? I'm willing to put up $x,xxx into an escrow account at some bank for anybody's CHARGE of this IF they will also contest same withIN N.H. Such as a Vermont resident in N.H. buying a gun here and TELLing the Feds: I dare you to TRY to arrest or fine me as an "inhabitant", relying on the local, county and/or State Police to protect him or her as an Article 12 N.H. inhabitant KNOWing that the Feds KNOW that their U.S. Code or Statutes at Large (so-called) are really at-small and useless here since their G.S.A. Landlord has FAILed to file the necessary paperwork with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State, as required by the "shall" word in R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution; the 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers according to the U.S. Attorney Manual #664; see: Article 12 of our N.H. Bill of Rights over at: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) = "...Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent." The 1943 Adams case at the U.S. Supreme Court saying that an offer of conditional consent is NOT consent!

Yours truly, Joe Haas, charged with "murder" withIN the complaint of Criminal Threatening in the "Wise Up or Die" case against me, that was only a Class B. misdemeanor for a fine-only conviction, and that I've YET to have my Art. III, Sect. 2, Clause 3 U.S. trial by jury for ALL Crimes of ANY type A or B! even though the local Lebanon District Court judge took over $500 from me! WHERE by the appeal applied for!? A cover-up! here and how many other "victims" to maybe file a class action lawsuit!"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 16, 2010, 04:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on February 16, 2010, 03:33 PM NHFT
RE: ....

Here's a copy and paste of the e-mail just sent to Elaine:

Subject: "Federal law about buying handguns ONLY within your legal residence state?"

Message: "Elaine, Since you've got a lot of free time there, and access to the inmate Law Library (right?), can you find out about this?  Like what is/are the penalties? fine +/or possible sentence as a crime? To do what is thought to be right is NOT a crime as there being NO criminal intent.  I'd like to see somebody test this out like Abe Lincoln said of not to be frightened "of dungeons to ourselves" for doing what we understand is right by faith that "right makes might" in the end of this war, your temporary battle proving just the opposite of their might or militate= FORCE as evidence makes what THEY think is right but only in the temporary, you a victim there to someday not only be a witness to this battle win but like a surf ride on this wave of "change" as Obama promised us, to ride the wave when the tide turns all the way to the beach and stand there with a trophy of roses presented by Obama himself!

Here's (1) the original post by NHdriver over at The "Concord Monitor" and of (2) my reply:

1. "Joseph. Side note and question. Off topic
By Nhdriver on Mon, 02/15/2010 - 14:45

Joseph, Can you tell me why the man who shot the dog last weekend and left it for dead is only charged with misdemeanor animal cruelty? I thought if you used a gun in commission of a misdemeanor crime it made it a felony. You know that animal rescue is the thing I specialize in on the post. So anything you can share will be appreciated.

Thank you Legal Beagle !!!     From the Old Hound      Hope all is well." "

#2 as already typed in above Reply #9532 (my actual Reply #2567).

Plus my closing remark: "Posting also to page 636 over at The New Hampshire Underground...   Best wishes, -- Joe"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mod: correction: not 9532 - 2567, but: 9536 - 2569.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 18, 2010, 12:17 PM NHFT
Here's another copy and paste:

"From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: _________________
Subject: RE: reparations united
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:04:32 -0500

Thanks ________, I just went to there at  http://reparationsunited.org/ (http://reparationsunited.org/) and found the form:

(Now here's my fill-in the blanks:)

Name of the Offending Crook or Evildoer:  James D. O'Neill, III

Address: Laconia, New Hampshire

Phone number or email address if known: 603: 524-______

Employment title: N.H. Superior Court Judge

Place of Employment: Grafton County Superior Court, North Haverhill, N.H.

Evils and Values of Evils Committed by the herein-named Perpetrator:
(please list Complaints and values by numbers below, as many as you wish,
and name the victims (with general city locations)
so we can be sure the Reparation money gets to them.) [note: I've added the end parenthesis and the extra letter t for the typo- FYI on a website upgrade]

LSR # 2010-H-2657-R, See page 46 of 48 over at: http://www.nhchiefsofpolice.com/Documents/2010LSRs.pdf (http://www.nhchiefsofpolice.com/Documents/2010LSRs.pdf) Details to follow.  This and other House Bills of Address are being processed by Legislative Services for both State Reps Dan Itse of Fremont and Paul Ingretson of Pike.  As soon as they are ALL signed, I've been told by the receptionist there that THEN they (as having already been endorsed by the prior signature of the Rep by his House Rule 36 signature and District Number) will THEN go to the House Speaker for her to House Rule 4 send it and them over to the appropriate committee(s) for a Public Hearing on each Address.  Mine is against this and other judges for having violated Articles 22 + 23 of the N.H. Constitution, Part 2 for contempt as limited to 10 days. The sentence against me for "Champerty" having been to 100 days, or 90 days MORE than what the law allows.  And so using the formula in the Veronica Silva case of the mid 1980s in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims that made the front pages of The Union Leader, my claim being for $2,500 per day x 90 days and more, since this so-called "crime" was NOT a crime as having been taken OFF the books (case-law) in Spring 1992 by the Aidken case at the N.H. Supreme Court, but that I was charged with anyway in Fall 1992, them using this federal criteria of a petty offense of NOT entitled to a jury when the pre-stated sentencing time is for less than 6 month.  O'Neill sentencing me to 5 months and 29 days to be exact!

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

Brief description of the Violation, the Victim, and the amount you want to assess as a penalty for each violation</b>  [ see above.]

bcc: #___ e-mails.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 18, 2010, 02:32 PM NHFT
Re: The Kevin Trudeau case of Federal Contempt of Court

over at: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2056998,kevin-trudeau-contempt-021810.article (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2056998,kevin-trudeau-contempt-021810.article)

and of my reply: "Kevin: if you're reading this, or one of your associates back to you: my suggestion is to question the jurisdictional authority of that Article III, Section I inferior Court of Congress, like in to ask WHERE be the Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 "Consent" from the state of Illinois to the Feds? See Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website on this from Huntsville, Alabama over at: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm) and scroll down to Illinois of that there was a general consent back in 1899 but that has been amended to only allow the Feds into your state to conduct river navigations by the 1953 Act. Reference to all their land and/or only water dealings now or along the banks thereof. You have an Article I, Section 2 state right of due process of law, in that the end does NOT justify the means for procedural due process of law: The Rule of Law.  WithOUT this Consent the Feds have no jurisdiction there.  The local, county and state law-enforcement officers ought to be protection you, of which you paid property taxes for, right? Check it out: their own U.S. Attorney Manual #664 over at: : http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm)  and that 1943 Adams case at the U.S. Supreme Court: an offer of conditional consent is NOT consent until accepted.  Did the GSA/ General Services Administration landlord (new head of agency: Martha Johnson) of this tenant court ever file any papers with the state? See 40USC255 to 40USC3112 at http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575) and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html) respectfully.  Doesn't your state have a statute that reads that all foreign corporations must file with your Illinois Office of Secretary of State?  Then why not get a Certificate of Bad Standing that the Feds have NOT filed by law, and present that as evidence to be marked as an Exhibit to be weighed in your case?  Or just dare the Feds to cross onto state or private soil! (;-) When you have the promise of law-enforcement back-up to you in writing of course BEFORE you make such a dare. Best wishes to you. JSH"

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 18, 2010, 03:53 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on February 18, 2010, 02:32 PM NHFT
Re: The Kevin Trudeau case of Federal Contempt of Court

over at: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2056998,kevin-trudeau-contempt-021810.article (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2056998,kevin-trudeau-contempt-021810.article)

and of my reply: ....

My reply erased by moderator BEFORE 5:00 p.m. EST (4:00 p.m. their time in the Central Zone.)

Tells you something about the establishment, the media, eh? The 4th Estate?

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

Mod: Approved by moderator over at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-infomercial-trudeau-contempt-20100211,0,3086010.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-infomercial-trudeau-contempt-20100211,0,3086010.story)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 18, 2010, 04:44 PM NHFT
Man flies plane into I.R.S. tower in Austin, Texas this morning.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35460268/ns/us_news-life/?gt1=43001 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35460268/ns/us_news-life/?gt1=43001)

To see tonight's Nightly News. ____________

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

on FOX News from 7 - :10 p.m. this evening.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 20, 2010, 10:52 PM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100219/OPINION/2190319 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100219/OPINION/2190319)

and:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100219/OPINION/2190319#comment-112200 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100219/OPINION/2190319#comment-112200)

entitled: "WHY is Martha Johnson sleeping on the job?"

of: "Speaking of Warren B. Rudman, when, if ever, is he going to find it disgusting enough to a point at calling the G.S.A. agent to remove the tarnish of his name over there at the Federal Building on Pleasant Street in Concord?

To that I mean WHERE are the 40USC255 to 40USC3112 Federal papers from the General Services Administration landlord* of their tenant?: The Art. III, Section 1 "inferior Court of Congress"; U.S. Constitution; that are supposed to be filed by 1-8-17 with our N.H. Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word in R.S.A. Chapter 123:1.

* Martha Johnson: we pay you to do your job: now do it!

- - Joe, P.S. To read and maybe comment on the other replies later, thanks, _____. "

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 21, 2010, 11:06 AM NHFT
In an effort to put the who into the reagent definition on the internet, here is it of what I could not find for the definition of reagent electronically, but for only as a  that of like a chemical reaction.

According to my other dictionary of "The New CENTURY DICTIONARY" (c)1952 VOLUME TWO of two @ page 1481 the word reagent is ALSO defined as: "One who or that which reacts...."

Today's exploration conducted from the word hate = de-test = de witness, the prefix de meaning to undo, and so the opposite of hate is therefore to do witness, as in to attest to the authenticity of signing one's name;

and to attest = 1. to affirm to be correct, true or genuine; 2. to provide evidence of.

Back to the word test = the process of detecting the presence of an ingredient or of determining the nature of a substance, commonly by the addition of a reagent (over to GOOGLE for this word gets to the word reaction too, but that of which is consumed in the process, so to stay away from that road from the fork.)

See also for this nature word that as spelled out in the Sixth Amendment to the United States of America: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;"

Now apply this to Ed's case and the others.  Was he ever informed of the nature of the accusation?  He was charged with not paying his taxes, but as I've explained before: a tax is NOT a debt! He was charged because that's what the U.S. Code says to do. The Criminal Code.  To go after tax payers or non tax payers BEFORE the tax is even declared a debt! But was he ever informed as beyond the what, to that of ALL the other elements of a who, what, when, where, why and how? for what is supposed to be complete justice here in New Hampshire as is supposed to be a guarantee by Article 20, Part First in our N.H. Bill of Rights. 

To inform ALSO is defined as to dis-close OR give, and "often" incriminating information, but against or from who? The informant or the discloser? As in exculpatory evidence.  The U.S. Attorney was reminded by the judge to honor their oath and duty to provide same. And so when Attorney Wiberg for Danny in wanting to question Reno on the witness stand when he said: no, he did nothing to try to resolve this matter peacefully, this has to be "complete" here in N.H. of not only the direct, but in-direct, as in Reno's signing of my Art. 49 petition for the governor to do his Art. 51 duty to enforce all legislative mandates as by the shall word in RSA Ch. 123:1 that he shall be Art. 41 responsible for. I was the one who delivered a copy as signed by me to the receptionist for the governor, Gov. John H. Lynch of Hopkinton referring back to the Gold sealed Certificate of Federal non-filing of the 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, as signed by Bill Gardner, Secretary of State, but were either of us called as a witness? to attest to the authenticity of signing?  No! The Art. 49 Petition didn't even make it to first base because the judge REFUSED to process it as an Exhibit # over to the jury!  This point on appeal to Boston for the First Circuit to reverse and remand for at least a new trial!

Because to send them away to be "corrected" in a Correctional Facility is wrong! The government needs to be corrected! What the Federal judge did was RSA Ch. 643:1 Official Oppression, by KNOWing that such a document is rigor juris, as of right, rather than of just a "favor".  He KNEW that such a proof was there and that by Article 15 of N.H. the "subject shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favorable to him" but determined this not a favorable situation as it IS a proof, but having taken away that all or 100% factor in deciding it as a rigor juris rather than of for a favor.  Can you see the deviousness here?  even after Art. 14 is supposed to guarantee "complet"ness! that does not mean just when you're a plaintiff as a victim of whatever to have "recourse" to the laws.  The word recourse defined as a security for BOTH definitions #1 + 2. Security = "Something deposited as assurance of the fulfillment of an obligation."

Therefore with the obligation or duty of the Feds to file, what deposit, if any, have they made here in our state for this assurance = the act of assuring, from the word assure to that of insure and insurance.  Not to ensure with the letter e of to guarantee, but to insure = to pro-tect against loss, damage, etc. with insurance.

The County of Grafton has an insurance policy of $5 million to insure them against claims of errors or omissions done or not done by their officers and/or employees.  They pay $150,000 per year as the premium for this policy.  What does the Federal government have?  Who knows?  But that there is a U.S. Court of Claims.  I've sent Ed & Elaine the papers on this and did read something somewhere in some newspaper I think it was of when somebody did interview her, that that was where she was thinking to go to next.

Yours truly, Joe Haas, .......call me Reagent Haas  8) with a capital letter: R.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 21, 2010, 01:05 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on February 21, 2010, 11:06 AM NHFT
...
Yours truly, Joe Haas, .......call me Reagent Haas  8) with a capital letter: R.

P.S. See also: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22One+who%22+reacts&aq=f&aqi=&oq=%22One+who%22+reacts&fp=79a46ede2c2a175d (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22One+who%22+reacts&aq=f&aqi=&oq=%22One+who%22+reacts&fp=79a46ede2c2a175d)

That's what I did find for the words: "One who" reacts, over at GOOGLE, page 1, #1 = "An enemy is one who reacts" and "by Transitional Man*, Mon Nov 03 2003 at 1:53:48" over at: http://everything2.com/title/An+enemy+is+one+who+reacts (http://everything2.com/title/An+enemy+is+one+who+reacts) of: Paragraph #13: "Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative is one of the Nine Principles of War taught by the US Army, and it might be the most important. In essence, it means that you fight in such a way that forces the enemy to dance to your tune, to react to your actions rather than have you react to his. "

But as I've explained before the word militate is to use force as evidence.

What did Ed do?  He said: "Show me the Law".  We said: "Show Ed the Law".  Not the federal statute that's in Title 26 of you're in this category of making $x and so are supposed to pay $y at that level, but the other letter l word of WHAT makes me liable to be put into that chart to begin with!? 

Who has THE evidence?  Do the Feds have proof of filing by some receipt? of their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers to our RSA Ch. 123:1 state agent from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution. No, and they KNOW it by their own U.S. Attorney Manual #664 but do ignore that! They are tenants of the G.S.A. agent landlord.  And if these agents don't do their jobs as we pay for, WHY should we continue to pay for this non-service!? 

The solution is not to hate our enemy, defined as our foe or opponent, although they be also defined as being hostile = with enmity = a deep-seated hatred, but to, as I've explained above, of to not hate or de-witness, but to provide the witness to the document of proof showing that the Feds have NO jurisdictional authority here! Reference that Adams case of 1943 in the U.S. Supreme Court of that an offer not accepted is NOT Consent!

Therefore needing to see what that other dictionary says for the word enemy.  Surely with one definition there of AWAY from this hostile word, right? So to page 499: here it is: "One who cherishes hatred OR harmful designs against another" (emphasis ADDed, for one or the other.)

So although our foe or opponent or "adversary" word from this other dictionary, the enemy MAY choose to be hostile with hatred, we do not have to return in kind with same, because as they say: two wrongs do not make a right. I prefer them not really to "hate" us, but do charge them with use of a "harmful design".

The word harm means an injury or damage, as for the noun, and to harm being the verb of to also impair = to diminish, to make worse, as in Article I, Section 10, U.S. Constitution of that: "No State shall...impair...the Obligation of Contracts...." In this case the obligation of the contract of the Feds to be not a harm to us Article 12 N.H. inhabitants, but to be in harm-ony with us. In an accord, "to be heart-to-heart with" as "they" were when they wrestled with Ed & Elaine of heart TO heart, but now their hearts and entire bodies now withIN the belly of the beast as some would say. This is wrong and has to be corrected.

An accordion is added to the word accord with the letters -ion, it a portable bellows-operated musical instrument.  And bellows with the letter s in the plural of not a bellow of a roar or shout, as in that of a bull or in a deep loud voice respectfully, but that of "A hand-operated device for directing a strong current of air, as in to increase the draft of a fire." Thus what's needed here is a strong current or "flow" as in not air nor water as in a stream, but the flow of the ink from the pen. WHERE be the signature of the agent? According to RSA Ch. 123:1 of: for the Feds to file "an accurate description and plan of the lands so owned and occupied, verified by the oath of some officer of the United States having knowledge of the facts". http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm)

Or in other words: there being a blockage in the Federal government: the obstruction of justice by an In-Justice Dept. who have allowed their landlord to stop from fulfilling the law, such impediment (hindrance = one that hinders, hinder = to hold back, hamper, delay the progress of, prevent) and interruption being the ones at fault, because to interrupt is to "To break in upon an action or discourse."  So which one is it?  Surely not an action, but dis-action by the GSA landlord, and so a dis-course from the pre-scribed course: to head to the 2nd floor of the State House for the filing.  Instead "they" choose to deviate therefrom by going to Plainfield instead! The word discourse defined as: a "Verbal expression in speech or writing." And so what is an expression? = it can be a facial aspect or tone of voice, and so I choose the word tone of the writing too, the word tone = "The pitch of a word". 

Therefore leading back to our governor again!  Did he ever pitch this requirement to "them" of having to comply with the law?  Their law AND ours in harmony! Did he ever send them either a verbal or written invitation?  And if so, was the pitch a foul?  Like did it get lost in the mail by an indirect delivery, needing a direct delivery? When if ever will he do his job?  I think NOW is the time to have him impeached! Or not? As in Art. 40 "Chief Justice to Preside on Impeachment of Governor" as in John Broderick!?  You have got to be kidding me!  To have him impeached first for allowing the Feds to PULL Case #07-0745 to the Feds when by their own U.S. Code it can only be PUSHed to there by the Defendant and NOT a 3rd party intervenor! The House State-Fed Relations Committee told by me to sign such an Article 32 Petition to investigate this Corruption, so that leaves what left before a REAL Article 10 Revolution? when the ends of all three branches of government are corrupt?  That leaves the ___________ Committee in the State Senate, right? since the Legislature or General Court is made up of two chambers. Me having given copies regarding this to the Senate President Sylvia Larsen to delegate down, and so to start at the other end? http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/default.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/default.html) over to: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/members/sencom.asp (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/members/sencom.asp) and so The Public Affairs Committee?    Betsi L. DeVries, Chairman, Matthew S. Houde, V Chairman, Kathleen G. Sgambati, Sheila Roberge, John S. Barnes, Jr. Is Houde, Ed's former State Rep. there for "a" reason?  And what "reason" would that be!?

Back to the -ion in accordion, and an ion being: "An atom, group of atoms, or molecule having a net electric charge acquired by GAINing or LOSing electrons from an initial neutral configuration. Thus if no gain as for the federal ink to add or gain to here on state soil, then the loss of taxes to them of which to operate, instead to thus send them not the money to buy the pen, but the very pen itself with the ink already included.

The pen goes out to them when? On George Washington's real birthday? WHO here would like to send Martha Johnson**, the head of GSA this pen? Please let me know, and of what type and color ink is being sent by regular or certified mail.

Thank you in advance to who-ever, - Joe P.S. Maybe Elaine to send a pencil to her from Texas? Or Ed from either Oklahoma or when he gets to Marion in Illinois?

-* Transitional Man: http://everything2.com/node/superdoc/Create+a+New+User (http://everything2.com/node/superdoc/Create+a+New+User) (gotta fill out form to contact him; so later...)

** http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/04/martha-johnson-gsa-chief_n_450049.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/04/martha-johnson-gsa-chief_n_450049.html)

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=29069 (http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=29069)

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/25/gsa.html (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/25/gsa.html) Her e-mail: Martha Johnson (martha.johnson at gsa dot gov) by email.

photo of her at: http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=29113 (http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=29113) "Administrator Martha Johnson was sworn in by OPM Director John Berry (right). Johnson's father, Rev. Theodore Nace (center) assisted in the ceremony."

Address: U.S. General Services Administration, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405 according to: http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contactus.do (http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contactus.do)

cc: by Corrlinks over to Elaine right away. 
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 22, 2010, 09:36 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100221/FRONTPAGE/2210329&template=single (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100221/FRONTPAGE/2210329&template=single)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100221/FRONTPAGE/2210329#comment-112381 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100221/FRONTPAGE/2210329#comment-112381)

entitled: "Bookmarked. (for the Federal whatever of 3 options.) "

of: "Later... [ re: yesterday's 14:49 PM original post]
__________________

Thank you Shira. As I've just found the time to read this (and all the 48 other comments later, ____), it now as #1 of 12 in the Most Read column.

My first comment is that of State Rep. Dennis Vachon, D. of Northwood saying that: "The bill would incorporate the federal definition of reasonable compensation into state law." but then. State Rep. Susan Almy, D. "pointed out that the federal tax code assumes people are paying an income tax, which is not the case in New Hampshire." and so over to "State Sen. Lou D'Allesandro, a Manchester Democrat, introduced a separate bill* that he said would be even clearer. His bill rests almost entirely on federal standards, stating that the amount an owner declares as compensation on his federal tax return cannot be taxed as profits. That would allow many businesses to declare no profits. The bill would also repeal the LLC tax and cost the state $43 million a year in interest and dividends tax revenue and an unknown amount in business profits tax revenue, according to a fiscal analysis."

* http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/SB0497.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/SB0497.html)

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.aspx?lsr=2899&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txttitle=Limited&q=1 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.aspx?lsr=2899&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txttitle=Limited&q=1)

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=2899&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txttitle=Limited&q=1 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=2899&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txttitle=Limited&q=1)

Thus what, for Lou's bill? some reliance or promise from the Feds that of to return at least $43 million plus to the state in federal funds?  Lou's a federalist?

Hey! Speaking of the Feds and there having been an "excise" tax withIN Article 95, Part 2 of the N.H. Constitution, but taken out, how can ANY of either the federal or state gasoline taxes be lawfully taxed to us, the motoring public? See Case #2010-____ of Haas v.s. The Dept. of Safety in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims. Any easy way to correct for the Feds by their mere filing (as explained below), but more needed of a Constitutional Amendment for the State Tax. The end does NOT justify the means for what is supposed to be procedural due process of law, as is supposed to be a guarantee by the 5th + 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Even these federal tax returns: you can "volunteer" to send $x amount to "Uncle Sam", but that you don't technically have to, since NONE of these U.S. Codes or Statutes At Large shall apply to us Article 12 inhabitants since the Feds have failed to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State, as required by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution.

So go ahead and tie it to the Feds for the definition as Attorney Vachon says if you'd like, OR adjust as Susan says, OR eliminate completely as Lou says, but if with Lou, as in to the Feds and IF there be a reliance on some federal feedback, be sure that the first feedback occur of their federal filing, or else Uncle Sam can say: thanks for the money, you get NOTHING back, it goes to another state. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 22, 2010, 01:51 PM NHFT
More copy and paste:  One of these days somebody will do something with this.  In the meantime, more like electronic letters to the editor, wondering who and how many are reading this and of when and where they will act or non-act upon such.  Maybe not to be revealed unto year(s) later when they present a photocopy of same as a defendant into THEIR court case and win. - Joe

RE:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/20100220/NEWS01/2200330 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/20100220/NEWS01/2200330)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100220/NEWS01/2200330#comment-112396 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100220/NEWS01/2200330#comment-112396)

entitled: "Sunday bookmark. (Time for Martha to go back to school.)

"To read* and comment** later. ( 2/21 @ 15:36 )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* Yes, to both a reading of the article and all comments, and so here's my 2-cents:

Reference: "State Sen. Martha Fuller Clark***, a Portsmouth Democrat, ... said, noting that people MUST file their tax returns by April 15." (emphasis ADDed for the equivalent of the shall word as a mandatory requirement)

No Martha, that is IN-correct.  Read the 16th Amendment (again, if you ever have), of "to lay** and collect".

** to lay is EITHER to apply or impose.  If YOU choose to impose as a levy to collect and want to do the George Orwellian dance of the double-talk, or actually what he called "Double Speak" then so be it for YOU and others who chose same to collect and collect of redundancy, but not for me, and here's why in two reasons:

1.) I chose to apply as in a request and say: request DENIED! because:

2.) because there is no enforcement clause in the 16th Amendment, as there are in the surrounding ones, and especially to us Article 12 N.H. inhabitants here who have NEVER given the 1-8-17 U.S. Constitutional "Consent" to the Feds.  Yes, in 1883 on June 14th to be exact we gave them a conditional consent by RSA Ch. 123:1 but that as per the Adams case at the U.S. Supreme Court in 1943 an offer of consent, until accepted is NOT Consent.  Martha Johnson, the new head of agency, being the chief of the G.S.A./ General Administration landlord of that tenant court over there: an Article III, Section 1 U.S. Constitutional "inferior court of Congress" has yet to file those 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112 papers with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State has they "shall" do, and so when will our governor send them a written invitation? As per his job description in Article 51 to ENFORCE all legislative mandates for which he shall be Article 41 "responsible for".    *** http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/members/senate24.asp (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/members/senate24.asp) "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 23, 2010, 10:06 AM NHFT
Here's another one:

Re: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100223/FRONTPAGE/2230305&template=single (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100223/FRONTPAGE/2230305&template=single)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100223/FRONTPAGE/2230305#comment-112853 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100223/FRONTPAGE/2230305#comment-112853)

entitled: "Time for to hand out: private Tip Sheets."

of: "Is this the same Mike Brown at the A.G.'s office here who was Carol Shea-Porter's Chief of Staff in Washington?

If so, ask him WHY his boss refused to tell me WHO the GSA head of agency was who was supposed to be filing those 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal papers with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 per 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution. Attorney Brown not only did not "narrow" my call down to this point of order, but shut the door to my Article 8 instruction, as it never even getting over to his boss!

Now we have this Brown character telling us "that towns SHOULD only present voters with what the law says can be on there. " (emphasis ADDed, as he is now insisting that the should should be really a must, and that the must or shall of my past dealings with him were treated like a should!?, what a bunch of hogwash! or George Orwellian "1984" "Double-Speak".

I remember Homer May of Haverhill, N.H. with that business magazine who used to go to the Grafton County Annual Meetings with his calculator asking WHY that particular Article # on the Warrant has increased __% from the past year. Hey! If "they" won't do it, and are afraid of lawsuits, why not have a "Tip Sheet" handout by a private party for this and that? For free to all attendees. v.s. the $x.xx cost at the horse race track for the Tip Sheets there.

Plus for Epsom, in particular: WHY are they not doing what Supreme Court Judge William R. Johnson did outline? in his opinion on the school lawsuit case from there, of to pay for only the General Tax for the school slice of the Tax Pie.  Surely they "know" what they're doing is against case-law, as from way back in 55NH503@505(1875) of that Brentwood School District No. 2 case of to subsidize only the poor people UNDER the poverty line.  You'd think that they would want to be the starting point for this to go state-wide.  What's wrong with the Assessor there? Too lazy to do the math?  He/she/they have the poverty rate from the N.H. Dept. of Education by the School Lunch Program, so why not put it into the Johnson formula?! Now! It's THE law of Article 38 "frugality" of to tax only for what is "need"ed not merely "want"ed by the majority in what is NOT supposed to be a Democracy, BUT an Art. IV, Sec. 4 Republic (U.S. Constitution), as that flag of the red, white and blue is supposed to represent! in there by them as they are supposed to be in honor of it and their RSA Ch. 42:1 and 92:2 oaths of office."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 24, 2010, 09:03 AM NHFT
This just posted over at:

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/patriot-act-let-contress-fail-one-more-time (http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/patriot-act-let-contress-fail-one-more-time)

For: "Reply to "PATRIOT ACT: Let Congress fail one more time"

Three provisions of the PATRIOT ACT are due to expire at the end of this month. These provisions are . . .

1. Business Records: allows searches on your personal data without your knowledge if the FBI convinces a judge it is "relevant" to a terrorism investigation. The data could be computer-related, financial, medical, or even your library check-out history
2. Lone Wolf: allows the federal government to spy on a foreign person with no known ties to a foreign government or terrorist group -- a power that's never been used
3. Roving Wiretap: allows federal agents to intercept phone conversations without having to specify the person being investigated or which phone is being used

The House and Senate can't seem to agree on reforming the Patriot Act. They might, however, agree on another temporary renewal of these provisions for 2-6 months.

We have a better idea. Use DownsizeDC.org's "I am not afraid" campaign to tell Congress to just let these provisions expire.

You may borrow from or copy this letter . . .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
and/or comment to, like I did:

from: http://www.downsizedc.org/comments/reply/1451 (http://www.downsizedc.org/comments/reply/1451)

entitled: "An "Ed Revolter" is NOT a "Johnny Reb."eller."

of: "Thank you Mr. Wilson for this and the link that reads that the F.B.I. supposedly stopped this practice in Year 2006, but that in 2007 they have tried and succeeded in a new tactic of a request to the utility providers that here in New Hampshire goes un-challenged by MY complaint filed but never heard in our PUC: Public Utility Commission, in that they be allowed to disconnect all forms of communication, be it by U.S. postal mail, AND private telephone +/or electricity for which to "touch base" as my friend says for the computer.  - - Unlike other states we have what's called the Article 10 Right of Revolution.  Not to rebel against lawful authority but to re-volt when those public servants turn to their "perverted" ways of corruption.  Either or both of them being withIN the state or withOUT as from the Federalies. And as they say of: "It takes two to tango", unfortunately the PUC is NOT really public as in free speech on both ends of the sender and receiver, but only upon the "C" in this case of the consumer, so really not a PUC, but a CUC. - - Thus the 1st Amendment to Free Speech is dead here in this state. Deadened by Federalies who ignore our Article 12 - N.H. right of that: "Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent." The same applicable maybe to your state too.  Check it out; in your constitution AND statute as posted over at Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website of http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm) from Huntsville, Alabama. The problem being in our state of yes, we have this right, but WHO to law-enforce it when "they" at the local, county and state levels are feeding at the Federal trough of accepting federal funds! According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution the Feds need a "Consent" from that state BEFORE they can have the jurisdictional authority to operate there.  It's the law as applied to them/ the Feds by the rules or statutes withIN your state. So far I've found out that no federal officer has YET to file those papers with either our N.H. Secretary of State by R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 here NOR to the governor in Florida.  The 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code 3112 federal papers of the G.S.A. / General Services Administration landlord (currently: Martha Johnson as the "head" of this "agency" whose Deputy has been alerted of this by me, but yet to act) to these Article III, Section 1 "inferior Courts of Congress" as their tenants in those federal buildings.  Some of whom may have an occupancy permit from that city as in compliance with all the zoning codes, but still no operating papers. The U.S. Attorney "knows" this by his or her own Manual #664 but hides the fact of non-filing in a cover-up.  A refusal by the judge in a case to allow such evidence to be marked as an exhibit for the jury to decide that the end does NOT justify the means!  Where be the 5th + 14th Amendments to procedural due process of law!? Even the U.S. Supreme Court says it all: a conditional offer of consent, un-accepted is NOT Consent! Reference the Adams case of 1943.  Thus how many victims of such be in your state too.  My friend and his wife are the victims here: Ed & Elaine Brown, and so "if" this is not corrected on their appeal to Boston for the First Circuit, then to appeal to Washington first to the Supremes AGAIN as in 1943 +/or to the President for an Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 Reprieve or Pardon. Yours truly, JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com "

cc: to Elaine by the Corrlinks relay. - - Joe

"Comments are throttled to help prevent spam. If your comment is not accepted, please try again later. " so it may not appear at this website until maybe __:__ o'clock p.m. this afternoon.

"Success; Return".
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 26, 2010, 11:06 AM NHFT
Ed's back at Marion, according to the B.O.P. inmate locator:

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Edward&Middle=&LastName=Brown&Race=W&Sex=M&Age=&x=88&y=16 (http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Edward&Middle=&LastName=Brown&Race=W&Sex=M&Age=&x=88&y=16)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 26, 2010, 12:48 PM NHFT
Check this out:

http://nomorefakenews.com/archives/archiveview.php?key=3714 (http://nomorefakenews.com/archives/archiveview.php?key=3714)

Thanks _________.  I remember hearing years ago about the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and of the crying federal agent: when somebody asked him why he was crying, he replied: because I jot lost my farmer to a foreclosure.  In other words the ratio there of even worse 1:1 and so if the farmer loses out to a developer, that agent loses his job. -- Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 28, 2010, 03:11 PM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100227/FRONTPAGE/2270315 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100227/FRONTPAGE/2270315)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100227/FRONTPAGE/2270315#comment-114087 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100227/FRONTPAGE/2270315#comment-114087)

entitled: "Is John still under "Marching Orders" or is he a new man?"

of: "Yet to read this story and the comments.

Now for the good and the bad:

1.) The bad first, or maybe not now bad as he might have learned about Free Enterprise after those years with the Dept. of Safety, when he'd show up at the Legislature and say that because hemp had a .xx% of THC like marijuana, that the farmers in N.H. be damned, that he goes by the federal rule-book!  To which I say: John: did you ever see IF the Feds had ever filed their operating papers to do business here? Re: 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution for "Consent" from the state, and here in N.H. that's by them filing those 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word in RSA Chapter 123:1. 

So if you're going to run against Lynch, tell us HOW you would do the job that Lynch refuses to do.  He refuses to send a written invitation to the Feds to invite them over to 2nd floor State House Room 204 for the Secretary as he "shall" do by Article 51 for which he "shall be responsible for" by Article 41 but that the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims buries in Case #2009-013 in granting the A.G.'s Motion to Dismiss since they said that only the victim can file, or in other words those actually harmed by the non-filing.  As if to say: yes, you pay taxes for the governor to do his job, but like if he's sleeping on the job, that you were not harmed by that error or omission. 

2.) The good being of having been told that John did write a rule book on procedure of HOW local C.O.P.s. are supposed to act on due process of law.  I've yet to see this so can't comment on what officers on actual cases in the field have found it helpful, or defense attorneys for their clients using such to say that according to Chapter # __ on page # __ the WAY to have done such was NOT followed, and so that COP, in effect, needs to go back to the Police Academy for a refresher course.  Just like Rule 42 is I think for the judges.  Now WHY no such Manual for the Executives at the State Level?  But there is one: Kelly Ayotte wrote it, but purposely left out this mandatory duty of the governor.  Now she's running for Congress.

Yours truly, Joe Haas, an Article 12 N.H. "inhabitant" not controllable by these Federalies, as I'm no Federalist! or a Federalist, so long as they be not the hypocrites they are! The Rule of Law! You're either for it, or against it.  The Article 14 COMPLETE Rules, not those that you pick and choose!"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 28, 2010, 04:05 PM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100228/FRONTPAGE/2280360 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100228/FRONTPAGE/2280360)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100228/FRONTPAGE/2280360#comment-114096 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100228/FRONTPAGE/2280360#comment-114096)

entitled: "These COPs don't deserve a raise! *"

of: "* yet.

That's right "New Hampton Police Chief Merritt Salmon" of: " to kind of take a step back and look at the big picture."

So WHY aren't you doing it? You're law enforcement in that town, so enforce the law: the entire law.  How many Feds do you deal with? #____

The next time, ask them WHERE they're from?  From withIN or withOUT the state?  And if withIN then ask them WHY they have NOT filed their operating papers with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by RSA Ch. 123:1  PLEASE!"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 28, 2010, 04:14 PM NHFT
Hey, I just found this on page 1 of 5 in the Archives for hillbilly over there at The "Concord Monitor":

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100224/FRONTPAGE/2240312#comment-113387 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100224/FRONTPAGE/2240312#comment-113387)

"Unreal, this guy conspired
By Hillbilly on Wed, 02/24/2010 - 19:01

Unreal, this guy conspired in the beating of his daughter he gets 6 months. The browns conspire to not pay uncle sam taxes and get life. Do you see the trend as to whats important in the judicial systems eyes?"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: armlaw on February 28, 2010, 07:37 PM NHFT
Joe...

You forgot and misused the word "PAY". No one can "PAY" anything a that is a moral obligation.  Such payment was diminished by the Corporate Government with adoption of HJR 192 in 1933. This provided for [i]"discharging obligations"[/i] with commercial paper. HJR 192  was repealed in 1982 but the fraud continues with the continued use of fiat currency.

Until the collapse occurs and we return to a specific weight based coin, which can not be inflated, the fraud will continue.  Paper U.S. Notes, like what JFK issued with EO. 11110, backed by silver, will be acceptable as they will be redeemable for silver dollars weighing 1 troy ounce (371.15 gms of 99,999 silver) which are, as this is being written, being struck at West Point, New York. The Federal Reserve must be repealed and the Banksters reign must cease.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 01, 2010, 02:33 PM NHFT
Tomorrow is Day 1000 from the raid of the Feds to Elaine's Dental Building...

on June 7, 2007.                                    -   -   Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 01, 2010, 03:58 PM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100228/FRONTPAGE/228036 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100228/FRONTPAGE/228036)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100228/FRONTPAGE/2280360#comment-114306 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100228/FRONTPAGE/2280360#comment-114306)

plus: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/120618/114150 (http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/120618/114150)

In reply to: "I can agree they dont deserve a raise,
By Dog on Sun, 02/28/2010 - 21:38

and I am not saying they dont, but as for the last 2 paragraph's of your letter.Can we try this in english, most readers do not have a clue of what you are talking about."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Entitled: "It's simple: COPS to ask Feds: Show me your papers!"

of: "Dog: who are these others (in the plural) you refer to as reader-s with the letter s?

I can assure you that those in power read these, and one such public servant did show me the computer printout of such on his way to the City Council.

Sort of like showing up at a Public Hearing at the L.O.B. on a House or Senate Bill. L.O.B. BTW (by the way) = Legislative Office Building (behind the State House) in Concord.

As for: the 2nd paragraph of: How many Feds do you deal with? #____ What's so confusing about that?  Not private Federal Reserve Agents, but U.S. (United States) agents of the Fed-eral government.

Here's an easy link to the statute: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm) and Article 12 of the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights: read the very last sentence: "Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent." http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) The truth is that we gave the Feds a conditional consent, but as the U.S. Supreme Court said in the Adams case of 1943, an offer not accepted is NO Consent (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution).

So either these C.O.P.s. were trained wrong at the Police Academy, or they KNOW the TRUTH but decide to go blind and deaf for "one of their own".  Such favoritism has got to yield to what's called Rigor Juris and The Rule of Law.  Too many COPs today think themselves Constables as with minor judicial functions.  That's the British way of doing business from where we revolted from!

Plus for that withOUT the state too, check out this website of: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm) It has the requirement of what hoops or hurdles for the Feds to go through or over in that particular state.  From my investigation of Florida, they have to file with the governor's office.  Guess what? Never done!

Thank you very much for I hope this clears it up for you and the others whoever they may be.  My schooling was not to become a teacher, so this is the best that I can do for the time being without a bunch of footnotes like to 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112, that I'll just summarize in that of WHO is supposed to be doing this federal filing in N.H.: Martha Johnson, the head of the agency: the GSA/ General Services Administration landlord of those tenants over there at the Warren B. Rudman Block (also the James C. Cleveland Building too*), being: the U.S. Marshal and U.S. Attorney*, plus what's either an Article III, Section 1 "inferior Court of Congress" or an Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 9 "Tribunal".  So when Ed & Elaine Brown asked them for their operating papers, you can see how that might irritate the power-that-be.  These local, county and state COPS are mere suck-ups to them at the federal trough of the federal funds, when by Art. 95 I say: where's the middleman to protect us? That issue for another day of the state collector of taxes FOR the Feds. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 02, 2010, 06:33 AM NHFT
Today is Day One Thousand (1,000) from the illegal** and unlawful* raid of the Feds on June 7, 2007*** to 27 Glen Road, Lebanon, N.H. (Map 101, Lot 38) owned by A T T TRUST, Account #3333, in Book 02285 Page 0677 at The Grafton County Registry of Deeds, built: 1975 Assessment Value $833,500 for land, building and extra values.

***The day AFTER my appearance with proof of federal non-filing of their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers to Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by both the law* and the legal**, to wit: 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, and N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1, in the form of the photocopy of the gold-sealed document that I told the Lebanon City Counsel on June 6, 2007 @ about 7:45 p.m. to advise their Police Dept. to Article 12 protect Ed & Elaine Brown in both their personal and corporate capacities as "inhabitants" of this state, in that: "Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent."

These officials of The City of Lebanon failed in their RSA Ch. 42:1 and 92:2 oaths to protect, and so an omission to deal with by RSA Ch. 508:4, to bill for the return of the 2007 taxes of: $18,712 plus damages to the sevenfold degree as theft of services in what is a Protection Racket!

$18,712 x 7 = $130,984.

Yesterday an  e-mail letter was mailed  to:

The City of Lebanon
51 North Park Street
Lebanon, NH 03766   
603: 448-4220
Attn: City Manager
Len Jarvi, Interim City Manager
paula.maville at lebcity dot com

So day a similar letter ought to go to:

Stephen Halleran, Town Admin.
P.O. Box 380
Meriden, NH 03770
Town Office Physical Address    110 Main Street
603-469-3201
plainfield.ta at plainfieldnh dot org
http://www.plainfieldnh.org/ (http://www.plainfieldnh.org/)

since The Town of Plainfield was similarly noticed by Bernie on June 20, 2007 of to either Article 12 protect the Browns or to return the property tax money paid for such protection.

First Draft:

Dear Admin. Haleren:

--This is to follow-up my e-mail to you of Monday, August 10th, 2009 thanking you for meeting with me on August 5th with the suggestion that you contact the A.G. of both N.H. and the U.S. to see about the law-enforcement on WHOever at the Feds is supposed to be doing this federal filing.  Since then I've found out WHO by 40USC3112 and that is Martha Johnson of the G.S.A. Her first day on the job just last month in February 2010.

--I did also write to you that: "I just left a message at the main phone # here of 224-7447 for The Government Center in Concord, N.H. at: http://www.nhlgc.org/LGCWebSite/AboutLGC/general_contact_info.htm (http://www.nhlgc.org/LGCWebSite/AboutLGC/general_contact_info.htm) to please write me back at my e-mail address.

about WHEN the next Tax Collectors meeting is scheduled to occur, (next Annual Conference this November 18-19, 2009) because something has got to be done about when the Feds do acquire a property for seizure of a "secure hold" of this part of the purchase definition of the word toward a forfeiture per 40USC255 and that of how they can get-away with NOT paying the property taxes...

...for the the last part of 2007 (since Oct. 4th), all of 2008, and to today being 7 1/3rd months to August 10th, and so over 2.5 months + 12 + over 7 = over 21.5 months so far.

To maybe have a State Rep. put in an L.S.R. #_____ for a House Bill #_____ next month for Year 2010 Legislation dealing with this!

since the Plainfield Tax Collector is still sending the property tax bills to the corporate owner of record rather than the ones who have left the land fallow*!

* fallow= "Plowed and tilled but left unseeded during a growing season. -- lie fallow, To remain unused or inactive.""

--Well, today being Day 881 for your town (Oct. 28 + Nov. 30 + Dec. 31 = 89 in '07 + 366 in '08 + 365 in '09 + Jan. 31 + Feb. 28 + March 2 = 61 so far in 2010). For the land and building plus extra features totaling: $657,870 on your Property Card for this Map 235, Lot 2 owned by TQS TRUST, 401 Center of Town Road, Plainfield, N.H. 03781, in Sullivan County of 103 acres your town was paid $4,252 on 7/3/2006 for the 1st 1/2 of Year 2006 taxes, and then $9,766 on 11/30/2006 for the 2nd 1/2 of 2006, but then WHY should the Trust have to pay for Article 12 non-protection!? Let me repeat in capital letters of NON-Protection!

--Since Year 2000 at the start of this 21st Century to 2005 your town has received from the Trust $37,891.10 + $2,112.10 in interest. I've already indicated the combined total for 2006 being: $14,018 of over $1000 per month! WHERE was this protection on and leading up to October 4th, 2007!? You're a thief! The taxes supposedly "due" for the 1st 1/2 of 2007 of $7,020 on: _____ __, 2007 and the 2nd 1/2 of 2007 of $7,696 on ___ __, 2007 were not paid until 5/7/2008 with interest of: $713.16 + $392.18 but by WHO? The Federal government?  So "nice" of them not to let the land go fallow for the "protectors" but not for the protect-ees! Are you hearing me!? The role of government is to serve and protect, not just to collect! Plus what is that extra payment on 5/12/2008 Invoiced for 2007 in the $amount of $15,857.34 for? To help the town with the cost of supporting the raid by the Feds!? Disgusting! Thoroughly disgusting!

After the payments of $7,366 + $7,127 on 5/12/2009 for 2008 taxes, with interest paid of $762.84 + 379.59 respectfully, I see a similar payment of $15,671.93 on 6/30/09. What is this for? Both together of $15,857.36 + $15,671.93 = $31,529.29.

And now the 2009 billing of $7,243 + $7,230 for 2009 as yet to pay. So will "they" the Feds also pay this? and why? Because they think that they will get all this back from when they go from the seizure to some forfeiture to TRY to sell it to a 3rd party "manceptor"? Yeah: read what that word means: the one who buys under a Sale with ALL Faults, for better or WORSE (emphasis ADDed) subhastadio, who takes the instrument sold in his hand, the Quitclaim Deed to NOTHING because those who deal in the unlawful and illegal can transfer nothing of title because they have none!  Title is both by deed AND possession.  The Feds have a WRONGful possession, both unlawful AND illegal, and anybody buying into their con is a  dupe.

Thus a copy of this to "them" the Feds to halt any further tax payments to you as unproductive of MY tax money! The Federal taxes that by boss sends to them from my work to do according to The Rule of Law!

So the solution: have your Town Attorney meet with those at The Government Center in Concord (to where we all ought to meet on March __, 2010 @ __:_ o'clock a.m./ p.m.) for a pow-wow/ parley with the enemy. The Feds to bring the key to the property with a written apology and finally file their  40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with the N.H. Secretary of State proving that in 2007 and up to that point in time they had NO jurisdictional authority for to have done what they did! Release the caretakers from being further "corrected" and get back to collecting lawful taxes. And oh, by the way, bring $363,363.70  with you too, because there is no statute of limitations on fraud.  From Year 2000 to 2006 of THE payments by The Trust it was presumed that you had (past tense) and were going to (future tense) continue said "protection" but failed in 2007! These amounts having in effect been stolen and so to be returned with damages using the sevenfold formula in Public Law 97-280. $37,891.10 (2000 - 2005) + $14,018 (2006) = $51,909.10 x 7 = $363,363.70. A copy of this is required to be sent by you to your insurance company as this is but a first draft, to make final by my signature on an original or that of my agent, like under a P.O.A. from the Trust.

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

cc: Martha Johnson, Administrator of the G.S.A.: General Services Administration, , 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20405, Phone: (202) 501-0800. by ralph.conner at gsa.gov first contacted about this by e-mail of:     Thu 11/19/09 11:27 PM but NOTHING done in over three (3) months ! ! !

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: keith in RI on March 05, 2010, 07:33 PM NHFT
  elaine just wrote to me to say that she has been charged and convicted of another crime. she has been and is continuing to use the ucc redemption method to fight the feds. i personally dont believe it will ever work but she believes it wholeheartedly will. 
  she received a property tax bill from the town of lebanon for their commercial property (without getting to into too much detail about the redemption process itself, and how or IF it works) she sent a bond and promissory note for the amount to the town along with the bill itself "accepted for value" to settle the debt. apparently the BOP's investigation arm charged her with attempting to steal from the town of lebanon and she has received prison sanctions as a result. though she doesnt say what those are.
  on a side note her letter to me was written on lined paper in her handwriting signed by her and is one page long. the thing is i didnt get that, i got a photocopy of that! which means her mail is still being photocopied and kept. they must have screwed up and put the copy in the envelope instead of the original. it isnt the first time it's occured (especially when you have 9 friends in federal jail) it just amazes me when it happens....
  how do you screw that up?? 
1 photocopy letter
2 place original back in envelope and send on its way
3 send copy to fbi counterterrorist unit :glasses7:
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: keith in RI on March 05, 2010, 07:37 PM NHFT
jason also writes me an interesting letter about prison education....lol that guy sure knows how to keep a good attitude. he says hello to everyone.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Kat Kanning on March 05, 2010, 07:54 PM NHFT
Tomorrow at 3:00 is a national 37 seconds of silence for ed and elaine and other political prisoners.  I don't know why 37 seconds.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 06, 2010, 11:00 AM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on March 05, 2010, 07:33 PM NHFT
  elaine just wrote to me to say that she has been charged and convicted* of another crime.[ * ] she has been and is continuing to use the ucc redemption method to fight the feds. i personally dont believe it will ever work but she believes it wholeheartedly will. 
  she received a property tax bill from the town** of lebanon for their commercial property (without getting to into too much detail about the redemption process itself, and how or IF it works) she sent a bond*** and promissory note for the amount to the town** along with the bill itself "accepted for value" to settle the debt****. apparently the BOP's investigation arm charged her with attempting to steal from the town** of lebanon and she has received prison sanctions as a result. though she doesnt say what those are.
  on a side note her letter to me was written on lined paper in her handwriting signed by her and is one page long. the thing is i didnt get that, i got a photocopy of that! which means her mail is still being photocopied and kept. they must have screwed up and put the copy in the envelope instead of the original. it isnt the first time it's occured (especially when you have 9 friends in federal jail) it just amazes me when it happens....
  how do you screw that up?? 
1 photocopy letter
2 place original back in envelope and send on its way
3 send copy to fbi counterterrorist unit :glasses7:

Thanks Keith, but that it's NOT the "town"** BUT City of Lebanon. And according to her e-mail to me of Thursday, March 4th she mentioned nothing about being "convicted"* of the "crime" [ * ] of: ______________ (Title #___ U.S. Code Section _________ ) just: "I tried sending Lebanon a PN for the property tax $71,000+, but it was not allowed to go out.  I was charged with attempting to steal, by BOP, and received sanctions for it.  I am appealing it, but the lawful paying of the tax was not allowed."

The exact amount is: $72,622.65 for the 2008 taxes and beyond. The 2007 taxes having been paid by the A T T Trust of $18,712 for to "protect" by Article 12, but that as we all know, it's a "Protection Racket" between the City and Feds in a combination that was never consented to by the third party payer of the taxes. The third party agents sent to prison, and so I can see to some degree of how Elaine is thinking on this because a bond*** is technically "A certificate of debt issued by a government or corporation, guaranteeing payment of the original investment plus interest by a specific future date." In this case NOT the government BUT the A T T Trust as a corporation (?); and so what was the "original investment"? The deposit of the individual to prison and "Correctional" Facility?  The reason I ask this is because a bond is also defined as "The state (or "condition of being with regards to a set of circumstances") [ ** ] of storing goods in a warehouse until the taxes or duties due on them are paid. The them referring to that of what is deposited.  In this case the caretakers OF the property and so a part of THE ownership, since both: (1)  the definition of  set [ ** ] for the noun is "A  group of circumstances, "sit"uations, etc., joined to be treated as a whole", and that of the verb "To restore [ *** ] to a proper and normal [ **** ] state." and (2) as I've explained in my e-mail letter to the City to follow, and paragraph #6a+b to be exact: the "right" + "in the enjoyment" of "To have as one's lot" of "property", (the two of the individual and the thing to be in-separate-able, because the phrase and word of: to have means to own, but how? by possessing and "To be in command of")  is supposed to be a guarantee to every "inhabitant" here by Article 12.  So now substitute the word: goods to that on the individual or agent of the Trust, or re-define the individual as now the property or goods of the government. To store meaning "To deposit or receive into a warehouse (or storehouse) for safekeeping." From the Latin word instaurare, to re-store [ *** ]; the word store also defined as: "To put away for future use."

So now the question is: of WHEN are "the taxes or duties due on them" to be paid? When the City bills the A T T Trust for property taxes, aren't they/ the City officials supposed to bill for the "complete" bundle of sticks as they say by Article 14 of the N.H. Constitution?  So when the two of the individual and property are separated technically there can be no tax, since the tax is supposed to be for the pro-tection, not for its return, or in other words: of  BEFORE but not AFTER the fact.

So when Elaine did write to certify or confirm formally as true, accurate, or genuine that the taxes be allowed to become a debt due, since by the very definition of the word tax in (Henry Campbell) "Black's Law Dictionary" 5th edition, (c)1979 @ page 1307: a tax, in its essential characteristics is NOT a debt, (reference that New Jersey case-law) then something has to take place to make it so because a debt is: "Something owed, as money, goods, or services."

In this case the services to be provided by the City for protection is a debt owed by them to the owner of record by deed, who is supposed to be in possession of the property.  Unfortunately at this point in time, the two are separate. Thus the promissory note from her to the City that was attempted to be mailed to them was her promise that when they did accept the note with bond, then when the two are re-united (the individual and the property), then the interest on the bond or deposit of the individual will be paid too.  Thus what is the interest? or "A right, claim, or legal share in something."  What is THE City's right?  Nothing, governments do NOT have rights but mere privileges that we the people grant to "it".  So a legal or statutory interest?  If that's the case then WHAT N.H. R.S.A. prescribes that they get x% return on the deposit of the individual? There is none.  Thus to a claim.  The City can claim that they were duped by the Feds, but "ignorance of the law is no excuse".  Thus there is no City interest in this case.  Therefore the deposit of the individual back onto the property. The word deposit from the Latin word deponere of "to put aside", as in "On or to one side."  So the Feds to not merely release the individual, but to put them to the side of their property. And if some of that property can be put into a dump truck and deposited at the gate there then so be it.  Either from this or these two properties, or another property bought for them and THAT dirt lifted and then dumped!  8)

Bottom line: to re-set the clock as they say.  To get back to normal operating procedures, AWAY from the abnormal condition of what the Feds are into now. The Feds are abnormal = deviant = defined as both : (1) "A deviant individual" for the noun, of which I say for when of individuals in a group devi-ants, and the -ant part of the word of: "Performing, promoting, or causing an action" and so in this case of not only the pro- of before or in front of the mote or speck of dust or dirt  8) technically as compare to the spelling of moat as in either the wide, deep ditch usually filled with water, surrounding the fort; or mound, hill or emBANKment of the land, but an unlawful and illegal entry INto the land too and the takeaway of its caretakers!! and; (2) for the adjective of: "Differing from a norm or ACCEPTed standard." (emphasis ADDed because the standard or norm part of that definition is: "An acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value" as in the word criterion too, meaning: "A standard on which a JUDGMENT can be based" (emphasis ADDed), then the question here being: Was our N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 conditional offer of 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution "Consent" ever "accepted" by the Feds? No! There has been no 40USC255 to 40USC3112 filing, and so as stated in the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court: an offer un-accepted is NOT consent. Thus who is/are the deviant ones?  The Feds! Deviating from The Rule of Law! There can be no JUDGMENT against the Art. 12 inhabitant withOUT proof of that the control has been either in part or in whole as in __% quantity transferred over to "them"/ the Feds.  It has not been done! The Feds are devious = "Deviating from a straight or direct course", and that was to go directly to the N.H. Office of Secretary of State, to pro-ceed to there and not pro-mote or find favor with other "intervening persons, conditions, or agencies" like in the local, County or State Police who do accept this "favor" over what is supposed to be "Rigor Juris": The Rule of Law! The Feds are deceitful, "roundabout"s, from the word devious and the Latin word devius meaning: "off the main road".  In this case the main road being State Street to the State House and NOT over to Center of Town Road in Plainfield, nor Glen Road in Lebanon.  To roundabout being to go NOT direct but in-direct, as in to be circuitous meaning being or taking a lengthy course.

The word deceit also defined as mis-representation.  So when the attorneys were appointed by an unlawful and illegal source, can the outcome be lawful?  Of course not! Hopefully the Circuit Court in Boston will reprimand this District Court for not even embarking on the lengthy course to the State House as even the tenant of the landlord G.S.A. The word length defined as: "The measure of something along its greatest dimension" as in: "front to back" of the Feds to go from the MAss.achusetts border up north to Concord on Pleasant Street further north to the State House (as they used to be on equal footing of across the street from one another, reference the L.O.B., "as distinguished from its width or height."  So not to the top or summit of Mount Washington for the height, but of to BEYOND THE WIDTH! The Feds in N.H. being the U.S. Marshals taking control of our Article 12 inhabitants not only withIN the District, but withOUT too, as beyond the width of to the border of Maine and beyond to Portland on parallel #_____ of #__ degrees higher than what the law would allow only to Portsmouth as the northern highest number.  The Feds in violation of 18USC3232 in that ALL proceedings SHALL be held withIn the District!

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 06, 2010, 11:36 AM NHFT
Here's the copy and paste: Bottom line: The City of Lebanon and their Insurance Agent to sit down with me to parley with them at The Local Government Center in Concord this March __, 2010 @ _:__ o'clock a.m./p.m.

"RE: (Progress Report requested) 72 Glen Road, Lebanon, N.H. (claim for key)?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Thu 3/04/10 1:27 PM
To:    len.jarvi@ at ebcity.com
Bcc:    _____________________________

Thank you Manager Jarvi. I did just call to there of the LGC @ 1:06 p.m. and was put on hold by Ann for 12 minutes to 1:18 over to Lisa's voice mail at extension 278 for next time.  Bottom line: to try to have a meeting in one of the rooms there for to get answers to my questions #5, 6 + 7 about the insurance company, the state general and local detailed guidelines of how to provide quality service to the Article 12 inhabitants of this state, and of when to get the control back over to the rightful owner of the property.  Yours truly, - - Joe Haas
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Subject: RE: (Progress Report requested) 72 Glen Road, Lebanon, N.H. (claim for key)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 11:40:25 -0500
From: Len.Jarvi at lebcity.com
To: josephshaas at hotmail.com

Good day Mr. Haas.     

Your email of March 1 has been forwarded to the Local Government Center, Property-Liability Insurance Trust.     Further communication with the City by you on your concern  therefore  needs to go directly to the LGC and not to City staff.   

The LGC's address and phone number is:   PO 617, Concord, NH  03302-0617; 1-800-852-3358 (claims). 

Take care.

Len Jarvi

Interim City Manager
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Maville, Paula
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 11:09 AM
To: 'Joseph S. Haas'
Cc: Jarvi, Len
Subject: RE: (Progress Report requested) 72 Glen Road, Lebanon, N.H. (claim for key)

Mr. Haas:

I received your email on Monday, March 1, 2010 at 2:25pm.  I forwarded it via email to our Interim City Manager later that day, which I am doing now with your second email.

Paula

Paula Maville

Executive Assistant to the City Manager

Phone (603) 448-4220 - Fax (603) 484-9175

www.lebcity.com (http://www.lebcity.com)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Joseph S. Haas [mailto:josephshaas at hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:12 AM
To: Maville, Paula
Subject: RE: (Progress Report requested) 72 Glen Road, Lebanon, N.H. (claim for key)

1. So did YOU (Paula) get this e-mail? Yes or No (It's been almost an entire work week since I sent this to there on Monday afternoon, it now Thursday morning with two full days now gone by in what has NOT been a "prompt"* reply to these questions in this legal and lawful matter).

2. So did YOU (Paula) if the answer to #1 above is Yes, Did you deliver this to the Manager? Yes or No. And if so how? By electronic relay or a computer printout, or both?

3.  If so (re: #2) when? _____________ (Monday afternoon of when received?, or Tuesday morning or afternoon? or Wednesday morning or afternoon? Or just now this morning?)

4. Reference paragraph #7 of 12 below:
a. " Did my paperwork go into the Chief's in-box, like in some metal tray that he didn't pick up until AFTER the raid? " On June 6th + 7th, 2007 respectfully.

b. "And did you ever [?], and would you please contact your legal counsel at The Government Center in Concord (behind TARGET) to advise you on what to do next". I called to there at 224-7447 on Tuesday (March 2nd) and spoke with Ashley to see if you have reserved a room for me to parley with you: the enemy and the Feds, but that she said: no, not yet, and that you have to make the call.

5. Reference paragraph #10 below:
a. "Do you have errors and omissions insurance?" Yes or No.
b. With what company? Name, address and telephone # please.
c. Did you: "send a copy of this letter to them as required by paragraph #__ therein of my intent to sue."

6. Reference the P.S.:
a. What "RSA Ch. 21-J:14-b,I(a) "Guideline" or "statement of general policy" from The Department of Revenue Administration? OR local detail? are you going by to deviate away from how the tax money is supposed to be used: to "protect" the "right" of "Every member of the community" for "in the enjoyment** of his life liberty, and property". See Article 12 of the New Hampshire Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights.
b. ** To "enjoy" is defined as: "To have as one's lot." And the word "have" meaning: to "own", but how? by "possess"ing, right? Yes or No. [ The word have is also defined as "To be in command of:"*** ]
c.  So when you the City allowed the Feds to over-ride this right to take away BOTH the liberty of the owner to possess you also are a thief in the 2nd degree of having also stolen the property, right?
d. Then by what law has replaced Article 12 to allow you to tax the owner of record by deed for rights of liberty and property you have allowed the Feds to take away from your community?
e. WHO is in current command*** or control, exercising authority**** over this property?
f. WHY aren't you sending THEM the property tax bills!?
g. *** that command or control being exercised by LAWful authority? and if you SAY so then prove it! Show me this Article 12 "consent" that supposedly allows these "other laws" of the U.S. Codes or Statutes At Large to be "controllable" over us, we the people, including the Browns as the agents for the A T T Trust!
h. And since you can NOT provide that proof in #6g above, then WHEN are you going to direct these 2008, '09 and '10 property tax bills to the one in control? Billing for 2008 out when was that? At half-year for the first half, right? so BEFORE mid 2011 so as not to be after the RSA 508:4 statute of limitations, of three years, right?

7. __________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

Yours truly, Joe Haas

* Article 14, N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights
prompt = without delay
delay = postpone
post = after
pone = meal "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 06, 2010, 12:08 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on March 02, 2010, 06:33 AM NHFT
Today is Day One Thousand (1,000) from the illegal** and unlawful* raid of the Feds ....
Update:

"RE: First Draft letter to Town of Plainfield, N.H.?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Sat 3/06/10 1:01 PM
To:    plainfield.ta at plainfieldnh.org
Cc:    ralph.conner at gsa.gov
Bcc:    ________________________________

So if this somehow got "lost" yesterday, here it is again, until you acknowledge receipt.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: plainfield.ta at plainfieldnh.org
CC: ralph.conner at gsa.gov
Subject: RE: First Draft letter to Town of Plainfield, N.H.
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 07:22:51 -0500

Would you PLEASE at least acknowledge delivery that you did receive this e-mail.  Thank you, -- Joe

P.S. And if you have done anything about it for all day Wednesday and/or Thursday, then what? Or WHEN are you going to work on this?

* I'd like to have you set up a meeting at the L.G.C. (Local Government Center) in Concord with your Insurance agent and a federal officer. Please call Lisa there at extension 278 for to reserve a room sometime next week. You have her phone #, but here it is again: 603: ___________ + 1-800:852-3358.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: plainfield.ta at plainfieldnh.org
CC: ralph.conner at gsa.gov
Subject: First Draft letter to Town of Plainfield, N.H.
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 07:40:17 -0500

Signed original to deliver later.

RE: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9555 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9555) (#2589 on page 638).

of: " JosephSHaas
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #9557 on: Today at 07:33 AM »

Today is Day One Thousand (1,000) from the illegal** and unlawful* raid of the Feds...."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 06, 2010, 03:12 PM NHFT
So local customs in Plainfield and Lebanon over-ride the Rule of Law!?  Bullshit!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Yup, "Old Dan Tucker"* as set to the Bruce Springsteen tune over at: "Tribute to Victor French a.k.a. Mr. Edwards"  ( * )Tribute to Victor French a.k.a. Mr. Edwards (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn_Rw_8WJgU&feature=related#) of the first 3 of 4 minutes (4:03 to be exact, the last minute just the same pictures on the video clip) seen 1,271 times so far. - - Joe

( * ) http:// www dot youtube.com/watch?v=tn_Rw_8WJgU&feature=related

* "He washed his face in the frying pan
He combed his hair with a wagon wheel"
http://www.laurasprairiehouse.com/music/littlehouse/olddantucker.html (http://www.laurasprairiehouse.com/music/littlehouse/olddantucker.html)

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Dan_Tucker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Dan_Tucker)
"The song's disdain*** for the customs of the upper classes hit a chord with working class audiences.[36]" 36 = "Crawford 210", from: "Crawford, Richard (2001). America's Musical Life: A History. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc."

*** disdain, "To regard or treat with contempt."

and "As a stranger in town, his devil-may-care actions show his problems with or ambivalence**** to adapting to local mores.[8] More broadly, Tucker's disdain*** for social norms".

[8] = the word mores: "The traditional customs of a social group that come through general observation to have THE FORCE OF LAW" (emphasis ADDed.) From the Latin word: custom.

**** ambivalence: "The existence of mutually conflicting feelings about a person or thing."

***** See: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070628183015AAvFuVU (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070628183015AAvFuVU) Question: "Lyrics to a song on Little House on the Prairie?
I don't know the name of the song but Mr. Edwards sings it all the time. Some thing about Old man tucker. Thanks!!" Answer: "He never sang the whole song...just Old Dan Tucker was a fine old man washed his face with a fryin' pan combed his hair with a wagon wheel died with a toothache in his heel get out the way old dan tucker itts to late to get your supper suppers over and breakfasts cookin' old dan tucker just stands there looken'." "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 07, 2010, 11:07 AM NHFT
Reference of what I did write to Elaine this past Tuesday, March 2nd @ 8:20 a.m. of: "to get them to the negotiating table at The Government Center".

This table word again referenced today in the sermon by Bishop Kenneth Ulmer *of Inglewood, CA at Robert Schueller's "Crystal Cathedral" ** in Garden Grove, CAlif. on "The Hour of Power" T.V. Show on Lifetime Cable T.V. Chanel 33 here earlier this morning at from 8 to 9:00 o'clock a.m.

-* http://www.faithfulcentral.com/ (http://www.faithfulcentral.com/)  Address: The Living Room, 400 W. Florence Avenue, Inglewood, CA 90301

** http://www.crystalcathedral.org/ (http://www.crystalcathedral.org/) Address: Hour of Power, PO Box 100, Garden Grove, CA 92842

*** http://www.faithdome.org/ (http://www.faithdome.org/) Address: Crenshaw Christian Center, PO Box 90000, Los Angeles, CA 90009


The Bishop talked about Psalm 23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+23&version=KJV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+23&version=KJV) and in particular of a real "valley of the shadow of death" of where the mountain top blocks out the sun's rays and it's shadow moves across the valley floor, plus of the fact that of not sitting in this shadow but of walking THROUGH the valley to the other side.

And what's on the other side? The table. He says of the shepherd there making it ready for his flock of sheep, and then when it is to head back to them to make the path to there so they don't get lost along the WAY. His analogy was like his mother cooking the meal in the kitchen as the guests arrived in the living room, smelling the aroma.

Now put this smelling with what Dr. Frederick K.C. Price said just before this at about 7:40 a.m. on the same channel with his Faith Dome*** and that was that of God limited, YES - Him limited in his communication with us because of OUR language, and that PROOF is evidence of something that exists, and that FAITH is the substance of things hoped for OR evidence of things un-seen (or actually un-perceived by any of the other 4 of 5 senses of not only sight with the eyes, as to say see, one could interpret that to mean the sea (or ocean), or si as in the Spanish word: yes (or the capital letter C), but also of: hear, smell, touch or taste.

Thus this proof of federal non-filing of something that does not exist is not the WAY to go, right? re: No 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal papers on file by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution. The word proof in the dictionary definition being: "The evidence establishing the validity of a given assertion." So what is it to assert something? "To state or express positively." So how can a negative of something that does not exist be stated in the positive? So not really the positive but position of the Secretary of State to say or write that in his position or "point of view" there exists no viewing of this document within his office anywhere as required by the "shall" word in the statute.  Thus "A situation relative to circumstances". Now there's that sit word again, a sit-uation being "A state of affairs", or in other words: "A condition of being with regard to a set of circumstances". 

Thus what "condition" or "particular state of being" is this "person" as judge or "thing" as the court"? Not only just the state, but of the particular of the "individual item, fact, or detail" and thus "not general or universal." The "particle" not particles in the plural that this court needs in order to operate or pass judgment! and "Worthy of note" or in other words: "Honorable" because of "Having worth, merit, or value." So when the attorneys say: "Your Honor", did anybody ask which one of worth, merit, or value it was? The word "merit" defined as "The actual facts of a legal matter".  The legal as distinguished from the lawful.  In N.H. those facts in the plural, being the plan AND description of the land, PLUS signed by the agent under oath.  Without such there can be no legal verdict!

Therefore the particles or set of circumstances in the plural being these items of the plan AND description needed first before the particle of in the singular of that "Consent".  So these items the condition or pre-requisite of a conditional consent, being a part of the qualification process to qualify.  So has the court qualified? No! It is in-competent or un-suitable to maintain their office there against any of our Art. 12 inhabitants! They have NO "legal power"! By case law, the court must prove jurisdictional authority! not to merely make an assertion of "A positive statement without support of proof" that they have it. They can postulate as to TRY to have "Something assumed without proof as being...generally accepted." BUT there's that general word again, as compared to the particular. To postulate also defined as: "To assume the truth or realty of with no proof" and "To assume as a premise or axiom". The word axiom defined as: An "accepted principle" BUT are the Feds supposed to be accepting a principle? No they ARE the principle to send their agent or officer to the state to file those papers!! The principal is the one person "having PRIME responsibility for an obligation, as distinguished from one who acts as his agent", (emphasis ADDed) or in this case "her" agent, the principle being Martha Johnson, the new head of the G.S.A. agency as the landlord of these tenements of the U.S. Attorney, U.S. Marshal, and either the Art. III, Sec. 1 "inferior court of Congress" or Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 9 Tribunal.

The word prime defined as: the first in the sequence or "following of one thing after another; succession." and the word succession: being "The act or process of following in order or sequence." So when I said: Point of Order! I meant it! "A group of persons or things following in order" In this case the "things" in the plural to be filed by this one "person".And THEN the persons of the Attorney, Marshal and Judge can become of "dignity": being of not only of honor but of "Impressively honorable or appropriate BEHAVIOR" (emphasis ADDed because of there being a Code that these judges are supposed to live by, and that there exists The J.C.C. (or JCC ) : Judicial Conduct Committee for "behavior", thus Judge Stephen J. McAuliffe to be brought to there on the charge of not having this impression or stamp or seal of approval, and more to the word behavior of it in-appropriate, of not appropriate, the word appropriate defined as: proper or "Meeting a requisite (or required, absolutely needed and essential) standard." and "Rigorously correct; exact".  So when they of whom are in-corrected send the victims to the Federal "Correctional" Facilities to be corrected, what does that tell you!? Where is the precision to be "Strictly accurate"? To be precise is to be conforming and "Exactly corresponding to what is indicated" in this case as indicated or "expressed briefly" in the statute of these two documents and WHO to present them and WHERE of BEFORE there can be jurisdictional authority or "control" over our Art. 12 inhabitants! The word "express" defined as "Clearly stated...explicit", and the word explicit from the Latin word explicare of to EXPLICATE, and this word from the Latin word explicare too, of "to unfold".

So to unfold, as in "1. To open and spread out; extend. 2. To disclose to view." So BEFORE the court can say that it is "open" for business, as in the loud speaker of: all parties interested in the case of U.S.A. v. Ed & Elaine Brown, re-port to courtroom #__, I say: where is the port to begin with for you to re-port? To report being to present oneself, as to report for duty: my Article 10 duty to resist arbitrary power! Please open or "dis-close" to view these two documents, and WHY aren't they or copies thereof on file with the N.H. Secretary of State.  Did ANY of these attorneys file for such in any Motion for Discovery?  Why not?

- - Joe Haas

p.c.: Robert T. Mittelholzer , Esquire, Executive Secretary
Committee on Judicial Conduct ( J.C.C. or JCC)
74 Exeter Road
Newmarket, NH  03857
Phone: (603) 292-1825
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/judconductcomm/index.htm (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/judconductcomm/index.htm)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 07, 2010, 12:58 PM NHFT
Keith or Donna: What's that website with the photocopy of the gold-sealed document of there being no federal filing in New Hampshire as required by R.S.A. Chapter 123:1? I remember seeing it once, but that I forget the location to type into the address bar.  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm) with all the states listed over at Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website of:  http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm)  from Huntsville, Alabama. And in N.H. THE federal filer to be Martha Johnson, the "head" of the G.S.A. / General Services Administration "agency" as the PRIME Mover or principle responsible for her agent being the landlord of the Cleveland & Rudman Federal Buildings at 53-55 Pleasant Street, Concord, N.H. that houses their tenants: The U.S. Attorney, U.S. Marshal, and either the Art. III, Section 1 "inferior Court of Congress" or the Article I, Section 8, Clause 9 "Tribunal".  Even their own U.S. Attorney Manual spells it out in Section 664:  http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm)

On a search of same*, I did find "Michael Barkun" over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Barkun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Barkun) from http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2009/spring/return-of-the-sovereigns (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2009/spring/return-of-the-sovereigns) for his phrase of: an "illegitimate legal system." lumping EVERYone into that!? and say what? an illegal legal system!?  Isn't that a bunch of crap? Yeah-yeah-yeah, I know what he meant to say: an illegal authorization, as an illegal grant of authority or power to, since to sanction something is to give permission or approval to.  Therefore WHERE be the permission of 1-8-17 U.S. Constitutional "Consent" here in N.H. because, as by the Adams case*** of 1943 in the U.S. Supreme Court, a conditional offer un-accepted is NOT consent! See: 40USC255 to 40USC3112 at http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575) and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html) respectfully. 

I'd like to send him** your website for comment.  Would you please send it to me.  Thanks. - - Joe, an Article 12 N.H. "inhabitant" http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)  "...Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent."

* http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22Secretary+of+State%22+seal+%22New+Hampshire%22+%22Ed+Brown%22&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22Secretary+of+State%22+seal+%22New+Hampshire%22+%22Ed+Brown%22&fp=3d121c88310e67e3 (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22Secretary+of+State%22+seal+%22New+Hampshire%22+%22Ed+Brown%22&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22Secretary+of+State%22+seal+%22New+Hampshire%22+%22Ed+Brown%22&fp=3d121c88310e67e3)

**
Contact Information:
Maxwell School of Syracuse University
mbarkun at maxwell dot syr dot edu
516 Eggers Hall
Syracuse, N.Y. 13244-1020
315: 443-9339
http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/faculty.aspx?id=6442451250 (http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/faculty.aspx?id=6442451250)

*** http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm (http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm)  """In view of 40 USC 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USC 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."" "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 08, 2010, 09:46 AM NHFT
I did just receive this in my inbox, of an e-mail to an attachment entitled: STATEMENT OF ISSUES on 38 pages starting off with an ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE *, and to page 5 for Title 5 U.S. Code Section 7311 http://vlex.com/vid/sec-loyalty-and-striking-19265021 (http://vlex.com/vid/sec-loyalty-and-striking-19265021) in that: "An individual may not accept or HOLD a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he - (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;" (emphasis ADDed for the word "hold" defined as "To have the position of; occupy"**

** See also the word: occupation: "An activity that serves as one's regular source of livelihood", but that it ALSO means: "The invasion, conquest, and CONTROL of a nation or territory by a foreign military force." (emphasis ADDed for in this case, The Federal "control" over us Article 12, New Hampshire "inhabitants" withOUT our "Consent" as there has been no filing by the G.S.A./ General Services Administration landlord of her 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers by 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution to our N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 N.H. Office of Secretary of State. Thus her tenants of The U.S. Attorney, nor U.S. Marshal, nor either of that Article III, Section 1 "inferior Court of Congress" or the Article I, Section 8, Clause 9 "Tribunal" to have no jurisdictional authority OVER us! The U.S. Attorney KNOWS this in his culpable mental state by his own U.S. Attorney Manual #664  but does otherwise! http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm)

So what we have here is a crime by this Federal principle or PRIME non-mover for her agent not doing their job! And him, meaning our governor, NOT doing his job either! His Article 51 job of to enforce all legislative mandates by the "shall" word in RSA 123:1 of to at least send a written invitation to that Federal officer to comply with both the law and the legal of the United States Constitution and the State statute.  An act rather than omission that he/ the governor, by Article 41 "shall be responsible for".  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html)

Thus because he REFUSES to act, then so be it for the charge of Official Oppression against him! http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/643/643-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/643/643-1.htm) R.S.A. Chapter "643:1 Official Oppression. – A public servant, as defined in RSA 640:2, II, is guilty of a misdemeanor if, with a purpose to benefit himself or another or to harm another, he knowingly commits an unauthorized act which purports to be an act of his office; or knowingly REFRAINS from performing a duty imposed on him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office." (emphasis ADDed.)

Thus to file this Complaint #2010-_______ in the Concord District Court immediately after that House Bill of Address by State Rep. Dan Itse of Fremont against District Court Chief Judge Edwin W. Kelly of Plymouth who has his office in the Johnson Building over on Pleasant Street, in Concord, N.H. (My former tenant's attorney in the 1984 Tax Sale against me when I was a landlord for a corporate owner in Ashland, N.H. 1978-1995, of the year after the 1994 Sheriff's Sale, and so to see footnote #1 below.)

The Feds being foreign invaders to our state soil with their militant actions, from the word militate of using force as evidence to offset what evidence we have of the federal non-filing that was REFUSED to be marked as an exhibit for the trial jury to weigh in reaching their verdicts for both Ed & Elaine Brown, plus their three helpers of: Cirino Gonzalez, Danny Riley, and Jason Gerhard (plus Bob Wolffe).

-* The ADMIN. NOTICE having this summary: "(O)ne of the meanings that fraud bears," and "in its elements common law sense" is that of "deceit" [ 483 U.S. 372 ] It "includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation.  A public official is a fiduciary to us the public".  And anyone who "deliberately conceals material information...is guilty of fraud. McMullan v. United States 483 U.S. 350 (1987)".

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas
____________________________________
footnotes:

1. RSA Ch. 528:16 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIV/528/528-16.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIV/528/528-16.htm) Where are the "two adjoining towns" posters? if any.

2. RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm) Where is the "accurate description and plan of the lands so owned and occupied, verified by the oath of some officer of the United States having knowledge of the facts"? and them both NOT on file with the N.H. Office of Secretary of State, right? Yes or No. _____

3. RSA Ch. 21-J:14-b,I.(a) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/21-J/21-J-14-b.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/21-J/21-J-14-b.htm) Where are the "Guidelines"? for the purpose of: "relating to the administration of the property tax" for to "protect" our Article 12 N.H. "inhabitants"! http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) of: "...Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 08, 2010, 10:40 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100308/NEWS01/3080317 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100308/NEWS01/3080317)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100308/NEWS01/3080317#comment-116174 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100308/NEWS01/3080317#comment-116174)

entitled: "Two wrongs do NOT make a right! (Concord COPs corrupt!) "

of: "Right church, wrong pew as they say.

Actually all of them with the exception of Conboy who was not there in 2007, ought to be arrested for RSA Ch. 643:1 of Official Oppression in allowing the Feds to PULL case #2007-0745 of Dan Riley v. The Superintendent of the Strafford County Jail, Warren  Dowaliby  in Dover to the Feds when by the Feds' own U.S. Code or Statutes At Large only a Defendant can PUSH it to there, and so NOT the Federal Intervenor in the case.

Furthermore, what happened to these judges' RSA Ch. 92:2 oaths of office http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm)   to honor the law? The law of Article 12 in our N.H. Constitution, Part First and Bill of Rights in that: "...Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent." http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) to wit: On June 14, 1883 we the people, through our State Legislature or the N.H. General Court, gave a conditional consent to the Feds by our RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm) but that they have YET accept it*, to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers there with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State.  It's the law in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution for our "Consent" and by the legal of this statute here and in many other states http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm) (like to the Florida governor, NOT done either.)  * = according to the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court (David Hacket Souter - are you reading this?), an offer un-accepted is NOT consent.

See also the Concord COP oaths for this "federal" word therein that is NOT supposed to be there!  Thus the end does NOT justify the means in THIS and many OTHER criminal cases brought by them as corrupt! because we are supposed to have BOTH procedural AND substantive due process of law.  It's supposed to be a guarantee by the 5th + 14th Amendments, and our Article 14 right to be "complete".

So Brian, to file some Motion to Dismiss, because although you might have done wrong, two wrongs do not make a right!"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: keith in RI on March 08, 2010, 02:48 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on March 07, 2010, 12:58 PM NHFT
Keith or Donna: What's that website with the photocopy of the gold-sealed document of there being no federal filing in New Hampshire as required by R.S.A. Chapter 123:1? I remember seeing it once, but that I forget the location to type into the address bar. 

freethebrowns.com

specifically here:
http://freethebrowns.com/?page_id=27 (http://freethebrowns.com/?page_id=27)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 08, 2010, 04:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: keith in RI on March 08, 2010, 02:48 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on March 07, 2010, 12:58 PM NHFT
....
...
http://freethebrowns.com/?page_id=27 (http://freethebrowns.com/?page_id=27)

Thanks.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 09, 2010, 12:07 PM NHFT
Hey! Has anybody heard from Steve Swan lately?

Check this out:

http://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-new_hampshire/court-nhdce/judge-Singal/ (http://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-new_hampshire/court-nhdce/judge-Singal/)

- - Joe
__________________________________________________________

Mod:  According to: http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Steven&Middle=A.&LastName=Swan&Race=W&Sex=M&Age=&x=67&y=17 (http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Steven&Middle=A.&LastName=Swan&Race=W&Sex=M&Age=&x=67&y=17)

1.      STEVEN A SWAN     00259-049      57-White-M     10-23-2009      RELEASED

Steve, WHERE are you?  What's going on with your civil case against the Feds?

In trying to find your current address, I found: http://www.quatloos.com/Tax_Protestor_Swan_arrested.htm (http://www.quatloos.com/Tax_Protestor_Swan_arrested.htm) re: that old story of when you sued Irwin Schiff, him now in Prison I think he is there.

Did you ever get your $250.00 back from the court? http://www.websupp.org/data/DNH/1:05-cv-00401-35-DNH.pdf (http://www.websupp.org/data/DNH/1:05-cv-00401-35-DNH.pdf)  Monier owes me over $300.00 on a check that "bounced" at the local National Bank in Concord. I sued him criminally in the Concord District Court, and to return there after that House Address #__ against Judge Edwin W. Kelly, yet to process, see HA1, 2 + 3 so far over at: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/ (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/) just type in HA1  HA2  HA3  etc.

I see that the Boston judges were of no help: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=1st&navby=case&no=981289 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=1st&navby=case&no=981289)

______________________________________________________________

Modification #2:

According to: http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Robert&Middle=&LastName=Wolffe&Race=W&Sex=M&Age=&x=77&y=12 (http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Robert&Middle=&LastName=Wolffe&Race=W&Sex=M&Age=&x=77&y=12)

1.      ROBERT WOLFFE     09879-049      52-White-M     11-16-2009      RELEASED

Bob, How's it going? Hey! When I get that appointment to meet with the Insurance agent for the City of Lebanon dealing with why the City took property tax $money and delivered NO Article 12 protection, you're also invited to that meeting. *

Best wishes, -- Joe

P.S. The U.S. PROPERTY / NO / TRESPASSING  sign in red, white and blue (in black, white and black letters). Is it still there?

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1592;area=showposts;start=240 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1592;area=showposts;start=240)
______________________________________________________________

* Valerie says he's not interested.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22Robert+Wolffe%22+Vermont+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22Robert+Wolffe%22+Vermont+&fp=3d121c88310e67e3 (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22Robert+Wolffe%22+Vermont+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22Robert+Wolffe%22+Vermont+&fp=3d121c88310e67e3)

"Phonebook results for "Robert Wolffe" Vermont
   
Robert Wolffe     (802) 565-8017     22 Highland Ave,  Randolph, VT 05060     Map"

_________________________________________________________-

What's Tom Colantuono-crap doing these days?  Or has he crapped out all that garbage he was brainwashed into accepting over there from the national brothers of the Washington Bar? Citing more George Orwellian "1984" and "double-speak"?  re: http://www.justice.gov/tax/usaopress/2004/txdv04WEM20Swan20sent.pdf (http://www.justice.gov/tax/usaopress/2004/txdv04WEM20Swan20sent.pdf) of June 24, 2007 in the Swan case of: "All citizens MUST pay their fair share of the costs of the FREEDOM and privileges of living in this country...(to) pay any tax due." (emphasis ADDed, for NOT a shall or mandatory condition, but of the voluntary option in the 16th Amendment of to lay meaning to either apply or impose.  I choose the former over the latter.  Of NOT to lay, as in the levy or collect, BUT to lay, as in to apply, and say: request: DENIED! a tax in it's essential characteristics is NOT a debt; re: that N.J. case in (Henry Campbell) Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition (c)1979 @ page 1307. ) Some of us have ALREADY paid our fair share (past tense)! And usually of HOW by it being extracted by unlawful and illegal means! Thieves!!

According to   http://www.biancopa.com/whoweare/thomascolantuono.html (http://www.biancopa.com/whoweare/thomascolantuono.html)   he's over at: Bianco Professional Association Attorneys At Law, 18 Centre Street Concord, NH 03301    Telephone: 603-225-7170    800-262-8112   I did just give him a call to see if he has (past tense) seen the light, as what former prosecutor Bruce Kenea did as from a prosecutor to a defender, or do I have to keep saying to him to: "Wise up"? My voice mail to him yet to be returned.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 10, 2010, 02:07 PM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100310/OPINION/3100305 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100310/OPINION/3100305)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100310/OPINION/3100305#comment-116711 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100310/OPINION/3100305#comment-116711)

from: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/121985/116671 (http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/121985/116671)

entitled: "So can this thief also be called a petty potentate? P.P."

of: "Hey Al, you're using some might big words here, like potentate: "One who has the power AND position to rule OVER others" (emphasis ADDed, for BOTH the power PLUS position, the latter word defined as "A situation relative to circumstances" defined as: "of the conditions or facts attending an event and having some bearing upon it." and the former of meaning either: (1) strength as in might as in to take militant action, from the word militate meaning "To have force as evidence" OR (2)"The ability of capacity to exercise control; authority.")

So back to this story of the thief having BOTH definitions of the word power of: force AND the ability, but that of exercising what TYPE of control? Un-lawful control!

Thus can we still call the thief a potentate? or does it have to be lawful? I think from your example of foreign potentates to over here to see how we the people deal with such after a bow or a kiss of the feet by our President, that we have got to do what? Follow the leader? Only IF you volunteer to be one in his Army, as COMMANDER-in-Chief.  Not for me. The Federalies to do step #1 in my book, and YOUR book too, and that is when in New Hampshire here they report to base of operations before their next maneuver: To the Office of Secretary of State with those papers as required by the "shall" word in the statute: R.S.A. Ch. 123:1. It's a "condition" put upon them. Our conditional offer of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 "Consent" that has yet to be accepted, and so by the Adams case in the U.S. Supreme Court of 1943: an offer un-accepted is NOT consent.

NOW be the time to file BEFORE some big-time thief gets away with some violation of U.S. Code this or Statute at Large that because of the FAILure of the Feds to comply with the law: that of procedural due process of law (as guaranteed to them too, by the Amendments 5 + 14 to the U.S. Constitution.) A technically you might say?  So what? It's The Rule of Law! Thank you for another opportunity to expose this Federal corruption here in N.H. and the law-enforcement (so-called) at the local, county and State levels who do NOTHING to protect us Article 12 "inhabitants"!"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 11, 2010, 02:33 PM NHFT
Corr links is shut down:

https://www.corrlinks.com/Error.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/BrowserCheck.aspx (https://www.corrlinks.com/Error.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/BrowserCheck.aspx)

"Server Error in '/' Application.
Runtime Error
Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine.

Details: To enable the details of this specific error message to be viewable on remote machines, please create a <customErrors> tag within a "web.config" configuration file located in the root directory of the current web application. This <customErrors> tag should then have its "mode" attribute set to "Off".

<!-- Web.Config Configuration File -->

<configuration>
    <system.web>
        <customErrors mode="Off"/>
    </system.web>
</configuration>


Notes: The current error page you are seeing can be replaced by a custom error page by modifying the "defaultRedirect" attribute of the application's <customErrors> configuration tag to point to a custom error page URL.

<!-- Web.Config Configuration File -->

<configuration>
    <system.web>
        <customErrors mode="RemoteOnly" defaultRedirect="mycustompage.htm"/>
    </system.web>
</configuration>  "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 17, 2010, 03:30 PM NHFT
Singal: you thief!, Where's my money?

Bill Collector call by me to him this afternoon.

Get with it! Get with the program 18USC3232.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 17, 2010, 04:25 PM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100317/NEWS01/3170354 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100317/NEWS01/3170354)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100317/NEWS01/3170354#comment-118376 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100317/NEWS01/3170354#comment-118376)

entitled: ""Roberts Rules of Order": pay 2008 BEFORE 2010."

of: "Stand in line there Lynchie boy and wait your turn!

The Federalies owe me $500 first.

re: my trip over to Portland, Maine in the Ed Brown case as an uncalled witness.

McAuliffe's appointment of Singal to hear the case, but where?

18 USC 3232 ALL proceedings SHALL be held in the District of where the crime occurred.

Unfortunately ALL means SOME to these Federal thieves! Theft of my time and gas money!

George Orwellian "Nineteen Eighty Four" Double-talkers!        Shut up, and Pay! "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 24, 2010, 05:39 AM NHFT
Private Search for whatever at:

"Startpage's New Proxy Service!"

Startpage's New Proxy Service! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv3SCbI5KFM#ws)

http: // www dot youtube dot com / watch?v=qv3SCbI5KFM#ws

of: 2:48 minutes seen 33,104 times.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 24, 2010, 05:55 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100324/FRONTPAGE/3240310&template=single (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100324/FRONTPAGE/3240310&template=single)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100324/FRONTPAGE/3240310#comment-120214 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100324/FRONTPAGE/3240310#comment-120214)

entitled: "No judge? Not LEGAL judge when there anyway."

of: "Re: Paragraph #3: " Other than confirming his name and his title with the defunct firm, Financial Resources Mortgage, Farah refused to respond to frustrated investors who gave him millions of dollars"

Name, rank and serial #, eh?

Re: Paragraph #10: " there was no judge present".

Here come da judge, like in that Roman & Martin "Laugh-In"?

Pull the curtain away from this "Wizard of Oz" - like character of a judge and you will find no N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 filing as required by the law!

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm) "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 25, 2010, 10:56 PM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100325/NEWS01/3250384 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100325/NEWS01/3250384)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100325/NEWS01/3250384#comment-120829 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100325/NEWS01/3250384#comment-120829)

entitled: "Individual rights still prevail here in N.H."

of: "Re: "State Rep. Matthew Houde, a Plainfield Democrat, said the amendment would not likely stand up to a legal challenge because of the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause, which states that federal law supercedes state law. "

Say what!? A "legal" challenge!? The Constitution IS the law, as in NOT legal, BUT lawful! There is no such thing as an unconstitutional law, but that of an unlawful statute. 

Amazing that this guy is from a Vermont Law School AND is a professor there!

The "supremacy clause" is in Article VI, Section 2: This Constitution AND the Laws of the United States WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN * * PURSUANCE * * thereof...shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." (emphasis ADDed for NOT pursuant to, as "In accordance with", BUT in pursuance thereof, meaning: "A carrying out or putting into effect.)

So by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution, there needs to be a "Consent" from the state, that DOES and does NOT exist: in that yes - there is an accord, or agreement, but of what type? A conditional agreement by our RSA Ch. 123:1  that by the Adams case of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1943 said that an offer un-accepted is NOT Consent! We did offer the Feds jurisdictional authority here, but that because there is NO federal filing with the N.H. Secretary of State, there is not group consent, but that of what an individual can or does NOT have to agree with. And so no need for this Bradley Amendment.  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm)

Read Article 12 of our N.H. Bill of Rights: "...Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent." http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Kat Kanning on March 30, 2010, 08:10 AM NHFT
http://www.infowars.com/the-strange-case-of-kristopher-sickles-and-the-hutaree-militia/ (http://www.infowars.com/the-strange-case-of-kristopher-sickles-and-the-hutaree-militia/)

(http://www.infowars.com/images/mugshots.jpg)

Is one of those guys Bob Wolffe?
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 30, 2010, 09:34 AM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 30, 2010, 08:10 AM NHFT
http://www.infowars.com/the-strange-case-of-kristopher-sickles-and-the-hutaree-militia/ (http://www.infowars.com/the-strange-case-of-kristopher-sickles-and-the-hutaree-militia/)

(http://www.infowars.com/images/mugshots.jpg)

Is one of those guys Bob Wolffe?

It sure does look like him.  WHERE are the names in this story? Maybe at another link? There sure are a lot of Replies to this over there, including one about Ed & Elaine. see:

"websuspect Says:
March 30th, 2010 at 5:32 am

So this is the deal? Anyone who gets arrested by the feds gets sheep dipped? Oh sorry. Your arrested in Federal Prison. The "Truth" movement will disavow you. You suck. Your a nut case. Your a looser.

Just like Elaine Brown, Ed Brown and Charles Dyer.

Thanks for your patriotism. Bye now. Dont come back.

What should we do if Alex gets arrested or Kurt Nimo or the video guy?
Oh Sorry well, Work hazzard. You should have known. Bye. Enjoy Prison."

Your welcome? No; You're welcome.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mod: I heard on the NBC Nightly News last night that the oldest man arrested was 40-something, Bob's 50+ years old. - Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: KBCraig on March 30, 2010, 05:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on March 30, 2010, 09:34 AM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 30, 2010, 08:10 AM NHFT
http://www.infowars.com/the-strange-case-of-kristopher-sickles-and-the-hutaree-militia/ (http://www.infowars.com/the-strange-case-of-kristopher-sickles-and-the-hutaree-militia/)

(http://www.infowars.com/images/mugshots.jpg)

Is one of those guys Bob Wolffe?

It sure does look like him.  WHERE are the names in this story?

Yahoo says they are (from top left): David Brian Stone Sr.; David Brian Stone Jr.; Jacob Ward; Tina Mae Stone; Michael David Meeks; Kristopher T. Sickles; Joshua John Clough; and Thomas William Piatek.

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/federal-indictment-Matthew-Stone/photo//100329/480/urn_publicid_ap_org9d113c9db73649a7a89085871364b5bb//s:/ap/us_fbi_raids (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/federal-indictment-Matthew-Stone/photo//100329/480/urn_publicid_ap_org9d113c9db73649a7a89085871364b5bb//s:/ap/us_fbi_raids)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Kat Kanning on March 30, 2010, 06:35 PM NHFT
Well, I know who the government says they are.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: KBCraig on March 30, 2010, 08:46 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 30, 2010, 06:35 PM NHFT
Well, I know who the government says they are.

You read my mind.

I have always had suspicions about Wolffe's "deal". Nothing concrete, I sure don't know anyone involved, but it just doesn't pass the sniff test.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 31, 2010, 10:00 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on March 30, 2010, 08:46 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 30, 2010, 06:35 PM NHFT
Well, I know who the government says they are.

You read my mind.

I have always had suspicions about Wolffe's "deal". Nothing concrete, I sure don't know anyone involved, but it just doesn't pass the sniff test.

Like I said before, of when I called Valerie earlier this month to invite Bob to a money-making seminar in Boston on Saturday, March 20th to see if he could use the extra money, I got some reply from her like: he's on assignment.  So THIS of THE assignment? Now he works for the Feds as an under-cover agent to extract more info from the inside over there too? This sounds like a real "Wise Guy" like in that T.V. series of the 1980s with Ken Wahl I think was the actor's name, whose character went to prison for a year and a half to "establish" his "credibility" with those to bring down. -- Joe

P.S. The question now being of WHEN did he start working with the Feds? Was this BEFORE he "offered" to be the mail courier for Ed, or AFTER by some plea deal to do this AFTER he gets an early release.  Or was he with us and has since been "brainwashed"?

PPS WHY does the government lie?  WHO is the father of all lies? WHO gave the Press (at NBC anyway as I heard and saw that report) that all of them captured were UNDER 50 years of age.  To make us complacent? as in to please us that it could not have been Bob, because the number doesn't add up to 50.  Hey! As they say: figures don't lie, but liars figure. They want us to have that feeling of contentment?  I have nothing but contempt for them! complacency = smugness too, as from the word smug = well-satisfied, or smooth.  No! I want the ruff edges! Bob - If you're reading this, I want to see you NOW, on the outside to tell me face-to-face that this is not you, PLEASE. Are you the one giving me these minus reports here? "Wise Up".

And Valerie: you get to see him when he is supposedly just going to the law library there? and will be back in a few hours after doing research he tells the other inmates? Hey! He was processed through New Hampshire, where the Feds are in non-compliance with the law, and so ANY, I mean ALL cases he gets involved with is tainted with both an unlawful and illegal factor! And my tax money pays for this!? Disgusting! Thoroughly disgusting!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 31, 2010, 10:25 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on March 30, 2010, 05:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on March 30, 2010, 09:34 AM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 30, 2010, 08:10 AM NHFT

Is one of those guys Bob Wolffe?

It sure does look like him.  WHERE are the names in this story?

Yahoo says they are (from top left): David Brian Stone Sr.; ....

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22David+Brian+Stone+Sr.%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22David+Brian+Stone+Sr.%22&gs_rfai=&fp=bcdf8cbbf06dc4f (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22David+Brian+Stone+Sr.%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22David+Brian+Stone+Sr.%22&gs_rfai=&fp=bcdf8cbbf06dc4f)

Including this Report entitled: "Who is David Brian Stone***, leader of the Hutaree militia?" at http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100329/ts_csm/291267 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100329/ts_csm/291267) noting that his *****wife is listed as Donna Stone, and his son, an adopted kid named David. *

So IF this is a real alias for Bob, the question being since he was NOT merely a follower there to infiltrate, then their leader, that he had hopes of doing more with Ed on his case?

So WHEN is "The Press" going to tell the masses that he is really a Fed, whose assignment after the Ed Brown case, with the other alias of a Bob, was to bring down this group too?

I think, as a leader, the followers there can defend themselves with the entrapment defense, no?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Mod:  According to: http://maps.bing.co.uk/news/search?q=David+Brian+Stone&FORM=R5FD60 (http://maps.bing.co.uk/news/search?q=David+Brian+Stone&FORM=R5FD60) "Donna Stone, 44, said her ex-husband created the legal problems now faced by her stepson, Joshua (Middle name: Matthew**] Stone, and her 19-year-old son, David Brian Stone  Jr.,** by involving them in a militia..."

** http://www.startribune.com/nation/89564712.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiacyKUnciaec8O7EyUr (http://www.startribune.com/nation/89564712.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiacyKUnciaec8O7EyUr)
of: " her son, Sean Stetten, moved into his small trailer in Lenawee County, near the Ohio state line. The boys were raised as brothers, and David Brian Stone legally adopted Sean, whose name was changed to David Brian Stone Jr."

*** http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/23003763/detail.html (http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/23003763/detail.html) "David Brian Stone, aka "RD,"**** "Joe Stonewall," aka "Captain Hutaree" "

**** url= http : // www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=gM1RO1LdVho&feature=related#]FBI Target Extremist Christian Militants[/url] R.D. = RADOK, D.B.S. held no job, living off of: ____________ (the video tape is cut off.)

***** ex-wife Donna Stone can be seen over at: http : // www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=25dE8yB5hcQ&feature=related of 3:43 minutes with 4,058 views, noting that his wife IS (present tense): Tina.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on March 31, 2010, 10:38 AM NHFT
(http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac134/FREE_RENO/theWolffes.jpg)

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 31, 2010, 10:45 AM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 30, 2010, 08:10 AM NHFT
http://www.infowars.com/the-strange-case-of-kristopher-sickles-and-the-hutaree-militia/ (http://www.infowars.com/the-strange-case-of-kristopher-sickles-and-the-hutaree-militia/)

(http://www.infowars.com/images/mugshots.jpg)

Is one of those guys Bob Wolffe?

To compare on the same page; thank you Donna.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mod: Bob has (or had?) a brown (not white) mustache.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 31, 2010, 10:52 AM NHFT
Let's see how long it takes GOOGLE to match up: David Brian Stone with Bob Wolffe .

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22David+Brian+Stone%22+%22Bob+Wolffe%22&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22David+Brian+Stone%22+%22Bob+Wolffe%22&gs_rfai=&fp=bcdf8cbbf06dc4f (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22David+Brian+Stone%22+%22Bob+Wolffe%22&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22David+Brian+Stone%22+%22Bob+Wolffe%22&gs_rfai=&fp=bcdf8cbbf06dc4f)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 31, 2010, 11:48 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on March 31, 2010, 10:25 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on March 30, 2010, 05:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on March 30, 2010, 09:34 AM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 30, 2010, 08:10 AM NHFT

Is one of those guys Bob Wolffe?

It sure does look like him.  WHERE are the names in this story?

Yahoo says they are (from top left): David Brian Stone Sr.; ....


**** url= http : // www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=gM1RO1LdVho&feature=related#]FBI Target Extremist Christian Militants[/url] R.D. = RADOK, D.B.S. held no job, living off of: ____________ (the video tape is cut off.)

"FBI Target Extremist Christian Militants"
of 2:50 minutes with 154 views.

FBI Target Extremist Christian Militants (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM1RO1LdVho&feature=related#)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 31, 2010, 11:58 AM NHFT
***** ex-wife Donna Stone can be seen over at: http : // www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=25dE8yB5hcQ&feature=related of 3:43 minutes with 4,058 views, noting that his wife IS (present tense): Tina.

UPDATE ! on Hutaree Militia Unit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25dE8yB5hcQ&feature=related#)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 05, 2010, 11:43 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100404/FRONTPAGE/4040331 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100404/FRONTPAGE/4040331)

and:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100404/FRONTPAGE/4040331#comment-123338 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100404/FRONTPAGE/4040331#comment-123338)

of: "So if no Federal tax, no State tax.
New By JosephSHaas on Mon, 04/05/2010 - 12:39

In reply to: "Article Is Wrong
By NHParent on Mon, 04/05/2010 - 10:39"
of: "the state tax is applied whenever the federal tax is applied."

And this is by a voluntary "consent" too because as Article 12 N.H. "inhabitants"*, we are not supposed to be controlled by any of these "other laws" as in these U.S. Codes or Statutes at Large. They are NOT At-Large to include New Hampshire since the Feds have to file first BEFORE we do. It's the law! Read it: RSA Ch. 123:1** There is no federal filing.

-* http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) of "...Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent." On June 14, 1883 we gave to them a conditional consent, from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution, but as by the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court: an offer un-accepted is NOT Consent.

** http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm)
from: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm) that includes http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm) for a tax exemption for their Land, but NOT their Building, like over at 53-55 Pleasant Street, Concord, that until the City sends them a tax bill for their $100 million building, that would bring in over $2.2 million in property taxes per year, then their tax bill to you is Out-Of-Order. The RSA Ch. 508:4 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/508/508-4.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/508/508-4.htm) Statute of Limitations to act within only the last 3 years is ticking away every year, and they/ the Feds are laughing all the way to the bank!"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 07, 2010, 09:10 AM NHFT
marplemoney.MP4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9AP6gB7nzY#ws)

http: : // www dot youtube dot com/ watch?v= t9AP6gB7nzY

Mod: ______________________________________________
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 07, 2010, 02:44 PM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100407/NEWS01/4070347 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100407/NEWS01/4070347)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100407/NEWS01/4070347#comment-123840 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100407/NEWS01/4070347#comment-123840)

entitled: "But only 1 of the 2 is worthy of Congratulations."

of: "Finally a judge who knows what the word freedom means.

Freedom from the word free defined as: "Governed by consent* and possessing civil liberties. "

* If this Judge Jay Boynton from Andover for Laconia does not consent to what the Chief dictates, what are either Chiefs Kelly and/or Broderick going to to to him? Make him consent like they did and do to victims of the Feds?!

This judge is an Article 12 inhabitant, and by Art. 30 also defined as a citizen, per both Part First & Second of the N.H. Constitution respectfully.  The latter annotated with the Barker v. Young case of 1922 in Vol. 80 N.H. Reports 477.

Congratulations Judge Boynton of your allegiance to the N.H. Constitution, and especially Article 84, Part 2 as directed to there by your RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office to NOT the Constitution of the United States, BUT of to N.H. and The United States of America, that is supposed to be a Republican form of government by Art. IV, Sec. 4. A republic defined as to provide judicial review of executive decisions.

Too bad for the victims in the Ed Brown anti-I..R.S. case in Concord that that Portland, Maine Federal Judge George Z. Singal (chosen by Steven McAuliffe to violate 18USC3232 of to hold only SOME proceedings in this District of N.H. when by the shall word of ALL are required) REFUSED to provide such judicial review by the jury of the fact of Federal non-filing to RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S., that of yes, there is a conditional consent of per the pursuant word with a letter t for this concord or agreement or consent, but not that of the in pursuance thereof with the letter c in Art. VI, Sec. 1 U.S. of to put into effect.  An offer un-accepted is NOT consent, so say the U.S. Supremes in that Adams case of 1943. So WHEN will the Feds put their papers on file with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State?

I say to impeach Broderick and his gang of thieves who even violate the U.S. Codes too in allowing the Feds to PULL cases from there when it is pre-scribed as that the defendant may only PUSH it to Federal court! Reference: case #2007-0745 of Dan Riley v. Warren Dowaliby, Superintendent of the Strafford County Jail in Dover, N.H.

Now to see if maybe Boynton is not working Friday, April 30th anyway and investigates the internal corruption the next time Broderick takes off for the day.  This is WHEN errors and omissions are discovered. Trust me.  I found this to be the case of at a local Sheriff's Office.  I had to wait for the Sheriff to retire and another one to go on vacation to finally get that call from the Deputy that I could look at and make copies of the file.

I doubt that Albert Cirone Jr. of the Lebanon District Court is of the same frame of mind as Boynton, but that of his financial greed.  I say this because he never processed my "Wise up or Die" case over there for a hearing to the Superior Court for my Art. III, Sec. 2, Clause 3 jury trial.  Him calling the word "all" only some, as in that "Animal Farm" of all pigs are equal, just that some pigs are more equal than others. "

Mod: typo: Case #0745.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 09, 2010, 03:09 PM NHFT
Kat: I see that you've eliminated the Reply tab (except for the bottom of the page here), and added some star: Thank You tab.

Here's another copy and paste:

"
FW: [ Haas ] You have a new message at CorrLinks \ Usted tiene un nuevo mensaje en CorrLinks?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Fri 4/09/10 3:56 PM
To:    Concord Police Dept. (police at onconcord.com); police at concordnh.gov
Cc:    pcavanaugh at onconcord.com; shilliard at merrimacksheriff.net; isb at dos.nh.gov; citymanager at onconcord.com; Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us)
Bcc:    Jose G.; Donna V.; Bill R.; Keith C.; David H-B.; Bernie B.; Dick Marple; Wayne B.; Harvey W.; +Henry McE.
Chief: Please see to it that the law is enforced!  Thank you, - Joe

cc: City Solicitor, County Sheriff, State Police, City Manager, Secretary of State.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> From: info at corrlinks.com
> To: JosephSHaas at hotmail.com
> Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 14:19:35 -0500
> Subject: You have a new message at CorrLinks \ Usted tiene un nuevo mensaje en CorrLinks
>
> You have received a new message from GONZALEZ, CIRINO, (76342179). Please visit http://www.corrlinks.com (http://www.corrlinks.com) and login to retrieve your message.
>
> Usted ha recibido un nuevo mensaje de GONZALEZ, CIRINO, (76342179). Por favor, visite http://www.corrlinks.com (http://www.corrlinks.com) para iniciar su sesión y tener acceso al mensaje.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

To: "GONZALEZ CIRINO"

Subject: "North Carolina exempts both L&B; New Hampshire exempts only the L. "

Message: "So did you ever get the proof of filing or not* for North Carolina?
Larry Beecraft's http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm) website has it at pages #186, 7, 8 + 9: (see below).  Notice in 104, section 1, 3 + 7 of: 1.) their property not to be over 25 acres in size, 3.) exempt for BOTH the land AND the buildings (note: N.H./R.S.A. 123:2 exempts ONLY the land, but that the City of Concord let's them get away with BOTH L&B so a cc: over to them/ the City Solicitor AND the Chief of Police PLUS all those City Councilors to COMPARE! and enforce the law! to collect $2.2 million per year in property taxes from these parasite who suck up our N.H. Article 12 inhabitants) + 7.) needing no* such filing as compared to N.H. to the Secretary of State, and Florida = to the governor's office.  The New Hampshire locals bending to the will of the Feds that I find totally disgusting! Federalists! is what they used to call these people of which I call: thieves! Thieves in the second degree, in both the local property taxpayers having to make up the $2.2 million and the carting away of human beings into the belly of this Federal beast that ought to up-chuck you all out of there.  So a cc: likewise over to The New Hampshire Underground.  Best wishes, - Joe

"                            NORTH CAROLINA


  The general Statutes of North Carolina (Recompiled 1950), chapter 104, article 1, sections--

  Sec. 104-1. Acquisition of lands for specified purposes authorized; concurrent jurisdiction reserved.--The United States is authorized, by purchase or otherwise, to acquire title to any tract or parcel of land in the State of North Carolina, not exceeding twenty-five acres, for the purpose of erecting thereon any custom house, courthouse, post office, or other building, including lighthouses, lightkeeper's dwellings, lifesaving stations, buoys and coal depots and buildings connected therewith, or for the establishment of a fish-cultural station


                                 187

and the erection thereon of such buildings and improvements as may be necessary for the successful operations of such fish-cultural station. The consent to acquisition by the United States is upon the express condition jurisdiction with the United States over such lands as that all civil and criminal process issued from the courts of the State of North Carolina may be executed thereon in like manner as if this authority had not been given, and that the State of North Carolina also retains authority to punish all violations of its criminal laws committed on any such tract of land. (1970-1, c. 44, s. 5; Code, ss. 3080, 3083; 1887, c. 136; 1899, c. 10; Rev., s. 542; C. S., s. 8053.)

  Sec. 104-2. Unused lands to revert to State.--The consent given in Sec. 104-1 is upon consideration of the United States building lighthouses, lighthouse-keepers' dwellings, lifesaving stations, buoys, coal depots, fish stations, post offices, custom houses, and other buildings connected therewith, on the tracts or parcels of land so purchased, or that may b purchased; and that the title to land so conveyed to the United States shall revert to the State unless the construction of the United States shall revert to the State unless the construction of the aforementioned buildings be completed thereon within ten years from the date of the conveyance from the grantor. (1080-1, c. 44, s. 5; Code, ss, 3080, 3083; 1887, c. 136; 1899, c. 10; Rev. s. 5426; C. S., s. 8054.)

  Sec. 104-3. Exemption of such lands from taxation.--The lots, parcels, or tracts of land acquired under this chapter, together with the tenements and appurtenances for the purpose mentioned in this chapter, shall be exempt from taxation. (1870-1, c. 44, s. 3; Code, s. 3082; Rev., s. 5428; C.S., s. 8055.)

  Sec. 104-6. Acquisition of lands for river and harbor improvement; reservation of right to serve process.--The consent of the legislature of the State is hereby given to the acquisition by the United States of any tracts, pieces, or parcels of land within the limits of the State, by purchase or condemnation, for use as sites for locks and dams, or for any other purpose in connection with the limits of the State, by purchase or condemnation, for use as sites for locks and dams, or for any other purpose in connection with the improvement of rivers and harbors within and on the borders of the State. The consent hereby given is in accordance with the seventeenth clause of the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States, and with the acts of Congress in such cases made and provided; and this State retains concurrent jurisdiction with the United States over any lands acquired and held in pursuance of the provisions of this section, so far as that all civil and criminal process issued under authority of any law of this State may be executed in any part of the premises so acquired, or the buildings or structures thereon erected. (1907, c. 681; C.S., s. 8058.)


                                 188


  Sec. 104-7. Acquisition of lands for public buildings; cession of jurisdiction; exemption from taxation.--The consent of the State is hereby given, in accordance with the seventeenth clause, eighth section, of the first article of the Constitution of the United States, to the acquisition by the United States, by purchase, condemnation, or otherwise, of any land in the State required for the sites for custom houses, courthouses, post offices, arsenals, or other public buildings whatever, or for any other purposes of the government.

  Exclusive jurisdiction in and over any land so acquired by the United States shall be and the same is hereby ceded to the United States for all purposes except the service upon such sites of all civil and criminal process of the courts of this State; but the jurisdiction so ceded shall continue no longer than the said United States shall own such lands. The jurisdiction ceded shall not vest until the United States shall have acquired title to said lands by purchase, condemnation, or otherwise.

  So long as the said lands shall remain the property of the United States when acquired as aforesaid, and no longer, the same shall be and continue exempt and exonerated from all State, county, and municipal taxation, assessment, or other charges which may be levied or imposed under the authority of this State. (1907, c. 25; C.S., s. 8059.)

  Sec. 104-8. Further authorization of acquisition of land.--The United States is hereby authorized to acquire lands by condemnation or otherwise in this State for the purpose of preserving the navigability of navigable streams and for holding and administering such lands for national park purposes: Provided, that this section and Sec. 104-9 shall in nowise affect the authority conferred upon the United States and reserved to the State in Secs. 104-5 and 104-6. (1925, c. 152, s. 1.)

  Sec. 104-9. Condition of consent granted in preceding section.-- This consent is given upon condition that the State of North Carolina shall retain a concurrent jurisdiction with the United States is and over such lands so far that civil process in all cases, and such criminal process as may issue under the authority of the State of North Carolina against any person charged with the commission of any crime, without or within said jurisdiction, may be executed thereon in like manner as if this consent had not been given. (1925, c. 152, s. 2.)

    Chapter 113, article 9, section-- Sec. 113-113. Legislative consent jurisdiction made a misdemeanor.--

The consent of the General assembly of North Carolina is hereby given to the making by the Congress of the United States, or under its authority, of all such rules and regulations as the federal government shall determine to be needful in respect to game animals, game and


                                 189

non-game birds, and fish on such lands in the western part of North Carolina as shall have been, or may hereafter be, purchased by the United States under the terms of the act of Congress of March first, one thousand nine hundred and eleven, entitle "An act to enable any state to co-operate with any other state or states, or with the United States, for the protection of the watersheds of navigable streams, and to appoint a commission for the acquisition of lands for the purposes of conserving the navigability of navigable rivers" (36 U.S. Stat. at Large, p. 961), and acts of Congress supplementary thereto and amendatory thereof, and in or on the waters thereon.

  Nothing in this section shall be construed as conveying the ownership of wild life from the State of North Carolina or permit the trapping, hunting or transportation of any game animals, game or non- agency, department or instrumentality of the United States government or agents thereof, on the lands in North Carolina, as shall have been or may hereafter be purchased by the United States under the terms of any act of Congress, except in accordance with the provisions of article 7 of this subchapter.

  Any person, firm or corporation, including employees or agents of any department or instrumentality of the United States government, violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished in the discretion of the court. (1915, c. 205; C.S. c. 2099; 1939, c. 79, Secs. 1, 2.)"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 10, 2010, 10:09 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100410/FRONTPAGE/4100319 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100410/FRONTPAGE/4100319)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100410/FRONTPAGE/4100319#comment-124409 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100410/FRONTPAGE/4100319#comment-124409)

entitled: "Apply the law across the board?"

of: "No, in N.H. it's "Animal Farm": some pigs are more equal than others.

Re: the last paragraph here of:

"The Legislature is planning hearings later this month into why regulators failed to act against the company".

Oh yeah, a General Court that also set up for how the Feds are to be in compliance with the law too!  It's spelled out in RSA Ch. 123:1

Is the Legislature going to find the Feds in contempt of court?

If you're going to put blame on those who do not comply with the Rule of Law, you've got to apply it across-the-board!"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 10, 2010, 11:43 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100409/NEWS01/4090345 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100409/NEWS01/4090345)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100409/NEWS01/4090345#comment-124426 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100409/NEWS01/4090345#comment-124426)

entitled: "Broderick is either: ignorant, or corrupt! "

of: "According to Alexander Marriott (or Worcester, MAss.):    Broderick is an "idiot"!

See: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3388 (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3388)

Re: "We are one of the promises democracy makes," he (Broderick) said. "I took an oath to uphold those promises". 

Oh really? Show me that "democracy" word in your RSA Ch. 92:2 oath that is supposed to be in compliance with Article 84. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm) and http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html) respectfully.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

What is it with "these people"? who also included (past tense), the Concord Police Dept. too with having added in that "federal" word to over-ride Article 12 of the N.H. Constitution! http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) because there is no R.S.A. Chapter 123:1   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm)  federal filing BELIEVE IT OR NOT! Chief Robert Barry having been ordered by City Council this past February 2010 to amend his oath that he took back in the mid 1980s.  Wow! And so all his cases to court tainted with illegality? (;-) Do I hear the words in the phrase: "class action lawsuit"? for interest on the money collected for fines and penalty assessments that weren't really lawfully collected until this "correction" was made? The end does NOT justify the means, or does it ? now that everything is in the proper operating condition.  But what about those victims still incarcerated due to this illegality? Don't they deserve a re-trial? Procedural due process of law, right? as is supposed to be a guarantee by the 5th & 14th Amendments.  Roberts Rules of Order and the Ninth Amendment. WHERE was the "protection"? of these N.H. Art. 12 inhabitants from the Feds who are still out-of-order! and especially to these victims who did argue jurisdiction by "Special Appearance" Forms but who were over-ruled. No rule ought to be able to over-ride the law! As Ross Perot said of hearing that: "Incredible sucking sound." Oh how true he was, and still is, in that the Feds don't put any papers on file with our N.H. Secretary of State, but instead suck victims into their net: an illegal and unlawful net as allowed by the local COPs for years and decades! Hey! WHO of you are attorneys here wanting to do something withIN the 3-year statute of limitations from this discovery? R.S.A. Chapter 508:4  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/508/508-4.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/508/508-4.htm)  the time is ticking away. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on April 11, 2010, 02:14 PM NHFT
Here is Reno's Twitter info for updates on what he is up to and how he is doing. I'm not sure if I had posted it previously or not, so here it is again.

http://twitter.com/FREE_RENO_NOW (http://twitter.com/FREE_RENO_NOW)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 12, 2010, 03:13 PM NHFT
Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on April 11, 2010, 02:14 PM NHFT
Here is Reno's Twitter info for updates on what he is up to and how he is doing. I'm not sure if I had posted it previously or not, so here it is again.

http://twitter.com/FREE_RENO_NOW (http://twitter.com/FREE_RENO_NOW)

Thanks, plus: Re: "#    went to breakfast; had uncooked pancakes; word is that they were not cooked because they used 'cake batter' instead.     10:06 AM Apr 11th  via web"

My guess is that they were lacking baking soda, like from the Trona Mine* out west in Wyoming that I just saw on the History Channel late Saturday night/ early Sunday morning.

See:  http://www.history.com/schedule/4/11#morning (http://www.history.com/schedule/4/11#morning) for the "Modern Marvels" segment entitled: "Fry It."  They go #___ feet down and #___ miles through a tunnel to bore the stuff out.

* http://www.wma-minelife.com/trona/tronmine/data0000.htm (http://www.wma-minelife.com/trona/tronmine/data0000.htm)   -- Joe  cc: Reno
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 12, 2010, 05:38 PM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100412/FRONTPAGE/4120302 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100412/FRONTPAGE/4120302)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100412/FRONTPAGE/4120302#comment-124804 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100412/FRONTPAGE/4120302#comment-124804)

"The Council already does Re-views.
New By JosephSHaas on Mon, 04/12/2010 - 18:36

From personal experience of a correction needed in the oaths of office of the police officers having NOT been in accordance with the state statutes (RSA Ch. 42:1 and 92:2 to Article 84) I made my written complaint to the City Council, and guess what they did?

They, like a teacher with a red pencil, corrected the police. They now have oaths in compliance with the law. At least the Chief does as I have a copy of his new oath that he signed on February 11th, 2010. The old one going back to the 1980s was a dud."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on April 13, 2010, 05:46 PM NHFT
Lawsuit Claims IRS Raid Led to Suicide
http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/marion_county/lawsuit-claims-irs-raid-led-to-suicide (http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/marion_county/lawsuit-claims-irs-raid-led-to-suicide)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 14, 2010, 10:23 AM NHFT
Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on April 13, 2010, 05:46 PM NHFT
Lawsuit Claims IRS Raid Led to Suicide
http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/marion_county/lawsuit-claims-irs-raid-led-to-suicide (http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/marion_county/lawsuit-claims-irs-raid-led-to-suicide)

Thanks Donna,

I did just try to post the following comment over to there, but that I guess it needs moderator approval first:

"Thanks for the info Charles, but that there is a more basic ground for a lawsuit here by the widower and his 10-year old daughter, and that is: do the Feds have 1-8-17 Consent to operate there in Indiana? To that I mean from Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution to Title 62, Chapter 10, section 62-1002 [13993] [ see: www dot constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba dot htm for the national list*] of did that Federal agent, like the Tile 40 U.S. Code 255 to 40USC3112 G.S.A. Landlord, Martha Johnson of The General Services Administration ever file those papers as required by the "shall" word in the state statute with the governor*? for her tenant court on Federal land. An Article III, Section 1 "inferior court of Congress" in the Legislative branch rather than an Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 9 Judicial Tribunal, being the tenant. If not then there is no jurisdictional authority! because by the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court an offer of conditional consent un-accepted is NOT consent. Thus a violation of his right to procedural due process of law that is supposed to be a guarantee by the 5th & 14th Amendments. And if you're thinking of the supremacy clause in Art. VI, Section 1, think again, as it's not pursuant to with a t, but the letter c for in pursuance thereof of beyond the contract to that of having been put into effect. The U.S. Attorney knows this too by his Manual #664. Thus to get proof of non-filing from the state as evidence to use against these militants from the word militate = to use force as evidence. Good luck, "MrTideman" in N.H. where I found out that there is no filing here to our RSA Ch. 123:1 to the Secretary of State* nor to the governor* in Florida either. Check out the N.C. statute too of exempting both the land and buildings from having to pay the property taxes.  Not so in either N.H. by RSA 123:2 nor in Indiana either by [13994] to only exempt the land, so maybe to contact the Assessor to send them a tax $bill! (;-) "     - - Joe

P.S. To send a copy to Danny in Terra Haute, Indiana (by e-mail also to brother Billy) who might know of some fellow inmates in this same boat who could benefit by having this investigated to see if there be that filing to the governor, and if not, then to file a Petition for Habeas Corpus, and if not granted then to collaterally attack by a Rule 63 case in another district to where they were sent FROM Indiana to a better state of the Feds maybe in compliance there. Then it could ricochet back to help not only Danny, but Reno and Jason too, plus of course our leaders: Ed & Elaine.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 14, 2010, 12:06 PM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100414/FRONTPAGE/4140302 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100414/FRONTPAGE/4140302)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100414/FRONTPAGE/4140302#comment-125276 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100414/FRONTPAGE/4140302#comment-125276)

entitled & of:

"Executive discretion to his Federal buddies gets him a bonus!?
New By JosephSHaas on Wed, 04/14/2010 - 13:04

To read this later*, and right off the bat: I'd say: no! he doesn't deserve it. WHY should somebody who allows policy to over-ride a statute get a raise.!? In the quasi judiciary with the County Attorney it's called prosecutorial discretion. So what do we have now: executive discretion to avoid the law!?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* update from the 12:48 p.m. posting. I see nobody commented about the paragraph #8 of: "The city is again dealing with a budget gap upwards of $3 million".

Solution: send the Feds the tax bill for their $100 million buildings over there since by RSA Ch. 123:2 [ see: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm) from: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm) ] only the land is exempt. Check it out: North Carolina exempts BOTH the L&B, [ see: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm) ] but Indiana and N.H. only exempt the land. WHY doesn't New Hampshire do like what Indiana does? Send them the tax bill for over $2 million and then there'd only be a million dollar gap."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on April 15, 2010, 03:14 PM NHFT
Posted over on quatloos
http://volokh.com/2010/04/14/the-second-amendment-and-the-takings-clause/ (http://volokh.com/2010/04/14/the-second-amendment-and-the-takings-clause/)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 16, 2010, 07:14 AM NHFT
Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on April 15, 2010, 03:14 PM NHFT
Posted over on quatloos
http://volokh.com/2010/04/14/the-second-amendment-and-the-takings-clause/ (http://volokh.com/2010/04/14/the-second-amendment-and-the-takings-clause/)

Thanks Donna.  I've posted this over at The "Concord Monitor"* even though it's now off the main page and into the archives there.  Just that if and when somebody looks into my Archives there they can find this there. -- Joe

* http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100411/NEWS01/4110384#comment-125660 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100411/NEWS01/4110384#comment-125660)

From: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100411/NEWS01/4110384 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100411/NEWS01/4110384)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 18, 2010, 09:37 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100418/FRONTPAGE/4180342 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100418/FRONTPAGE/4180342)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100418/FRONTPAGE/4180342#comment-126092 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100418/FRONTPAGE/4180342#comment-126092)

entitled & of:

"Article 12 N.H. inhabitants ought to stand their ground...
New By JosephSHaas on Sun, 04/18/2010 - 10:36

...against becoming a Federalist.

$2,500 a case to get somebody on the "federal" program?

How much does he get as a kickback from the Feds?

Case in point of The N.H. Dept. of Revenue NOT going after Elaine Brown in Superior Court for alleged license violations to pay them a cut or piece of the action at her Dental Practice in Lebanon, but buckling under to get a kickback from the Feds on their case against Ed Brown too."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 18, 2010, 08:19 PM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100418/FRONTPAGE/4180342 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100418/FRONTPAGE/4180342)

and:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100418/FRONTPAGE/4180342#comment-126223 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100418/FRONTPAGE/4180342#comment-126223)

entitled: "Here's how I think Smukler will rule:"

of: "Re: "4. Kelly Ayotte and Deputy AG Bud Fitch responded to an executive council inquiry regarding this case last March during Kelly's reappointment hearings. Kelly lied numerous times in her response. Attorney General Michael Delaney and
Deputy AG Fitch are doing everything possible to continue the cover-up.

5. The tie-in to this story is that regulators are asking questions of the
attorney involved, as they should. But in this case the regulators-the
Professional Conduct Committee and investigators from the attorney
general's office and the U.S. attorney's office are particpating in the cover-
up."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The common denominator of these two cases is that the attorney involved would, of course, like to be regulated by one of their "brothers of the bar" than have to face an executive branch official in a check-and-balance.

Since Ayotee lied, then WHY isn't the County Attorney seeking an indictment against her for perjury? Because she's a "Sister of the Bar"? Is there a Grand Jury member reading this for to do an RSA Chapter 600:3 "diligent...inquir"y investigation? http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/600/600-3.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/600/600-3.htm)

This attorney here of Dan Dargon trying to "to get (his) client on the top of the (loan) underwriter's pile" by what? A speed-up $fee? like they used to pay to the Probate Court judges years ago. Whatever is given over to the bank can be made available to the banking commissioner, right?  So WHY does the commissioner want more? To see WHO he contacts and HOW the letters are written and with WHAT info about these federal programs that get them whatever?  I commend the attorney for his business savvy and look to his work-papers with the client as PRIVATE but of NOT those PARTS of the client's file presented to the bank.  Those are the ONLY papers that should be regulated of WHEN they are on the desk of the bank loan officer's desk. In other words to investigate the apple put on the desk but not the entire tree.*

Too bad the people this attorney deals with at the federal level don't play by the same rules, as in you tax the apples but never the tree! I.R.S. thieves who get the FULL cooperation of the N.H. Dept. of Revenue Administration to buckle under to their demands, even against Article 12 inhabitants like Ed Brown who did file a similar court action for to assert his rights, but because he was NOT a member of the Bar, the judge took it upon herself to do what? Let some U.S. Code over-ride our constitution!? Disgusting! Thoroughly disgusting! She's now been retired for two years, but WHERE and WHEN was there ever that annual review of her Article 36 retirement pay?  She's un-deserving of accepting this for what she did! Shame on her AND those State Reps who KNOW this, because ignorance of the law is no excuse!"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on April 18, 2010, 09:29 PM NHFT
HEADS UP from Cirino Gonzalez.

tomorrow is a special day, becareful around government buildings.

this is not insider intelligence, just common knowledge that most are not "aware" of; after all this is a 10 day nation...

there are increasing attacks happening on government buildings. at some point, the second wavers will get active... you will hear it be called something along the lines of "copycat" crimes, none the less, the damage will be done and yet not reported on the mainstream media, not for the real reasons anyways...

be vigilant, say nothing stupid and do nothing stupid. just keep an eye out, this is getting out of hand, i am no longer certain if anyone is incharge any more... too many double and triple agents running around. money getting lost and many making personal power plays within many operations; both private and corp. wise...

it is like when the mobs lose control of the turf for a bit and the younger ones pull a few plays... it is like that but with everyone.

it could still be a while, but as i said tomorrow is a special day.

reno
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 20, 2010, 06:17 AM NHFT
Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on April 18, 2010, 09:29 PM NHFT
HEADS UP from Cirino Gonzalez.

tomorrow is a special day, be careful around government buildings....

No problem.  I went to one courthouse twice, two city libraries, a City Hall, and two Post Offices, plus the U.S. Census in two locations NOT on government turf as required by 1-8-17 to tell them in no uncertain terms that he, Robert H. Mills of the Census at 166 Loudon Road in Concord ought to get his boss to have a main office AT the Federal Building OWNed by them AND to make sure that his landlord of there files her papers with the N.H. Secretary of State.  - - Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 20, 2010, 07:10 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on April 16, 2010, 07:14 AM NHFT
Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on April 15, 2010, 03:14 PM NHFT
Posted over on quatloos...the-second-amendment-and-the-takings-clause....
Thanks Donna.  I've posted this over at The "Concord Monitor"*....

According to Bernie this is a 10+ page opinion.  Elaine just wrote that her attorney had sent her a copy being forwarded to Ed, because she asked WHY McAuliffe put in that money laundering stuff when he specifically told the jury that that was NOT to be what they base their verdict on.  Re: the Money Orders he got at the P.O. in increments of this and that of below the reporting amounts to save the Postmaster having to fill out the forms to make those payments to the bank to pay off his mortgage. -- Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 22, 2010, 08:58 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on July 30, 2007, 01:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: armlaw on July 25, 2007, 06:08 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 25, 2007, 03:17 PM NHFT
What's happened to Joe Haas?
You are not reading me?  I posted several days ago that Joe is spending some time with his mother in Tallahassee.
1. Jet Fuel...
2. The Florida statute...
3. The Florida Div. of State Lands...
Yours truly, - - Joe H.
P.S.
(1) The Public Utilities Commission...
(2) SHOW-CAUSE HEARING....
pc 1: Stephen R. Monier, U.S. Marshall ...

pc 2: The N.H. State Police too, with my donation of: $1.00 to a special protection fund for the Browns for them to set up at some bank, not needed though, because the Browns too through their ATT Corp. of the Dental Practice used to pay the State Corporations taxes too, but gave up when they thought, what has now been confirmed, that there would be no state-protection from the State against the Feds either, a situation I intend to change by the start of my contribution to this either special fund, or the General Fund, via the State Treasurer, etc.

* So if anybody here from Florida ... Best wishes to the truth seekers!

A work in progress.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

First Draft Complaint to the R.S.A. Chapter 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm

NOW COMES the Complainant, Joseph S. Haas, of P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059, e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com with Power of Attorney documents from both: Ed & Elaine Brown, plus P.O.A.'s also from: Daniel J. Riley, Cirino Gonzalez, and Jason Gerhard, and claims damages for them in the dollar amount of: $250,000 each being the maximum amount allowed by statute of personal injury to their well being of having been incarcerated for "correction" by the Feds, meaning the Federal government agents of the United States of America who had and still have no jurisdictional authority within this state of New Hampshire due to their failure to file.**

Enclosed please find my check #_______ in the amount of: $125.00 representing the $25.00 filing fee per case for each of the five individuals here, to please process from here to the Merrimack County Superior Court for a trial by jury as guaranteed by Article 20 of the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights. http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

** The non-filing being that of there being no such Title 40 U.S. Code Section 255 to 3112 paperwork http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575  and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html  respectfully, having been filed by the "head" of "agency", currently: Martha Johnson, Administrator of the G.S.A.: General Services Administration, , 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20405, Phone: (202) 501-0800. by ralph.conner at gsa.gov first contacted about this by e-mail of:   Thu 11/19/09 11:27 PM but NOTHING done in over five months ! ! ! ! ! " : The landlord of over there at both The James C. Cleveland and Warren B. Rudman Buildings at 53-55 Pleasant Street, Concord, N.H. 03301 for their Article III, Section 1 "inferior Court of Congress" tenant titled: The U.S. District Court.

Question: Now WHO to blame? Answer: 1.) The governor, John H. Lynch of Hopkinton AND 2.) The N.H. Dept. of Safety, Division of State Police, because it is the governor's duty by his RSA Ch. 92 oath to Article 84, see: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm over to http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html "to execute the laws of the state AND of the United States" http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html by Article 51, Part 2, N.H. (emphasis ADDed) and that he "shall be responsible for" by Article 41, Part 2.  The emphasis ADDed for the latter of the U.S. Codes and Statutes at Large but only for when they have been made "in Pursuance thereof" (with the letter c) by Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, NOT:

pursuant to, with the letter t, as in accordance with, as there is an accord or conditional agreement offered to the Feds, as was done by our N.H. General Court back on June 14, 1883, but that as by the Adams case of 1943, Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122 to be exact, an offer un-accepted is NOT consent! See also:  http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm  ""In view of 40 USC 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USC 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."

BUT:  the phrase of: "in Pursuance thereof" meaning: "A carrying out or putting into effect".  So WHERE is this "put" of the papers with the office pre-scribed?***  There is none! The Feds who took the oath to abide by the U.S. Constitution, are even in violation of same! See Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and that they KNOW to be the case, as from the Attorney General Manual #664: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm   

*** The Office of New Hampshire Secretary of State by R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm

On Tuesday, May 1st, 2007 the undersigned Joseph S. Haas did personally appear before the Sullivan County Commissioners in Newport (County Seat) for the Plainfield property at 401 Center of Town Road owned by the T-Q-S Trust, with follow-up e-mail letter to Sheriff Mike Prozzo on Thu., May 3, 2007 @ 11:53:15 AM AND that I tried to notify the Town of Plainfield Selectmen on June 20, 2007, but had to have Bernie Bastian present the case for to Article 12 protect the inhabitants thereof, both of the ones who did pay the property taxes there (and at the other property, owned by The A-T-T Trust, see below), and their visitors, because Article 12 reads in http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html that: "Protection and Taxation Reciprocal...Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent." The "other laws" as already described above, and these "inhabitants" defined in Article 30, Part 2 N.H. http://www.nh.gov/constitution/senate.html as: "concerning persons inhabiting or residing, OR BROUGHT, within this state"! (emphasis ADDed!) as annotated with the Barker case, Barker v. Young, 80 N.H. 447, 119A.330, 1922 N.H. LEXIS 51 (October 31, 1922) to be exact.

A pc: of this to incorporate into a lawsuit too for against both: (1) Grafton County (notified by e-mail on: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 01:05:01 by State Rep. Dick Marple, Retired of Hooksett using the e-mail of: armlaw at hotmail.com to dispatch at graftoncountysheriff.net and (2) Sullivan County; for to protect BOTH those people on both properties.  Both these counties paying over $100,000 a year in premiums for "errors and omissions" insurance to the tune of about $5 million each. The property in Lebanon at 27 Glen Road, for which I also alerted the City Council on the night of June 6, 2007 @ about 7:45 p.m. to protect over there too, but who FAILed to protect from the raid of the next day: June 7, 2007.

As for the culpability against the Dept. of Safety, Division of State Police, see the photocopy of this Reply #5165 on page 345 here of 7/30/2007 posted @ 1:46 p.m. that I had printed out @ 2:25 P.M. and gave to The State Police on Fri. 8/31/07 as initialed by me: JSH with the $1.00 bill for The "Ed Brown Protection Fund" but that was refused by Lt. David Gargill with his cover letter of November 2, 2007 (AFTER the Oct. 4, 2007 un-lawful arrests) in an envelope to me postmarked November 5th, 2007 and sent CERTIFIED MAIL 7000-0600-0024-7795-1413 costing the State $5.21.  The point being that whether or not they accepted the $1.00 bill or not, they were noticed to protect and FAILed to do so.  They still owed the inhabitants here the protection as guaranteed by the law, and so for their failure to protect by the law resulting in these $damages then to have to pay such, that of my suggestion being of to lien to a moiety amount of to get half the $amount of the paychecks from Cargill and others now like the Commissioner, his then boss, by like in a Petition for a Writ of Elegit, that was never offered to Elaine Brown in her Dental practice, instead declaring both the State and Federal taxes a debt without having had that Art. 20 jury trial to so determine it as owing! Instead the N.H. Dept. of Revenue subordinates itself to under the Feds for a kick-back! that I find disgusting! This Cargill character now the U.S. Marshal! Thoroughly disgusting!

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - -  Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059, e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 22, 2010, 09:15 AM NHFT
Kat: What the heck is going on here!?  Or should I say of NOT going on!  because after I type a few lines it blinks off!

   Cannot find http://supertoolbar.ask.com/redirect?client=ff&src=kw&tb=WCLV5&o=14201&locale=en_US&q=ask.com     DNS Error - Server cannot be found
Sponsored Results
View Ask Questions Get Answers
Research Ask Questions Get Answers; Find Answers on Ask.com.
Ask.com/Health
Have a Question to Ask?
Find real people to answer your questions on AnybodyOutThere.
www.AnybodyOutThere.com
Free Grants - Never Repay
$12,000,000,000 In Free Grants Are Given Away Monthly - Apply Now
www.ClickHereForUSAGovGrants.com/sh


Browse these related categories:
1.Ask
2.Ask a Nurse
3.Question and Answer
4.Ask a Question
5.Malaysia Kuala Lumpur
   
6.Ask Question Online
7.Go Fish
8.Ask Magazine
9.Ask an Expert
10.Flirt Chat Room
   
11.Video Dating
12.Game Chat Room
13.Christian Chatroom
14.Romance Chats
15.Singles Chat
Try a new search:
Try again by typing the URL here:
Powered by Search Settings
___________________________________________________________________________

Mod: Somehow an ASK dot com virus or something is taking over either my computer or THIS site!

Mod #2: left of screen: white start letters of word in green box, click to Control Panel, over to Add or Remove, I saw ASK as #4 down from top so got rid of these THIEVES, now reporting them to the A.G.'s Office of Consumer Protection! http://doj.nh.gov/consumer/index.html "Consumer Protection
Hotline 1-888-468-4454 Weekdays 9am to 3pm".
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 23, 2010, 07:46 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/FRONTPAGE/4230301&template=single (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/FRONTPAGE/4230301&template=single)

or: page 1 of 2 to start at: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/FRONTPAGE/4230301 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/FRONTPAGE/4230301)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/FRONTPAGE/4230301#comment-127286 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/FRONTPAGE/4230301#comment-127286)

entitled: "A page of history is worth a volume of logic. "

of: "Reference: Paragraphs #9 + 10.

"Historian Joseph Ellis,... said there are parallels between the processes of historians arriving at conclusions and judges arriving at verdicts. "

Yeah it's called: a page of history is worth a volume of logic.

And: ""Both lawyers and historians are FORCED to make sense out of COMPLEX and conflicting pieces of evidence," he said. : (emphasis ADDed.)

O really!? Try telling that to the judge in the Ed Brown co-conspirators trial when SIMPLE evidence was TRIED to be admitted, but that the judge was not FORCED to accept it, instead him telling the parties that it would NOT be marked as an exhibit #___for the jury to weigh in reaching their verdict.

This document being evidence of our N.H. governor's decision* of NOT to send the Feds a written INVITATION so as to have them comply with RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm) A duty imposed on him by law in Article 51 for which he "shall be responsible for" by Article 41, Part 2, N.H. Constitution, that he took an RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to honor. See: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html) to http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html) and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm)

The oath is NOT to both constitutions but to N.H. and The U.S. of A, an Art. IV, Sec. 4, U.S. Const. republican form of government, a republic defined as to allow judicial review of executive decisions. 

In this case Lynch's decision of NOT to send them an INVITATION.  The cross examination by Attorney Sven Wiberg of Portsmouth for Danny Riley of what was stated by Cirino Gonzales (with Attorney David Bownes of Laconia) on April 4, 2008 on Day 11 in case #07-cr-189-01/03-GZS in courtroom #4 on pages 49-50 over at http : // www dot scribd.com/doc/3298420/Cirino-Gonzalez-Testimony-Part-3-3 (of 3) ** NOT found at pages 54-93 as not blacked-out, but given the pen pencil treatment, and for the entire pages!

A hearing on this item #12 of 12 of the appeal in Boston set for oral argument by the appellant attorneys on Wed., May 5th @ 9:30 a.m. at The First Circuit Court of Appeals."
_______________________________________________________________________

** http://www.scribd.com/doc/3298420/Cirino-Gonzalez-Testimony-Part-3-3#keyzkqe1xvkxenj68qp2qf (http://www.scribd.com/doc/3298420/Cirino-Gonzalez-Testimony-Part-3-3#keyzkqe1xvkxenj68qp2qf)]Cirino Gonzalez Testimony Part 3 / 3
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 23, 2010, 09:53 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/NEWS01/4230302 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/NEWS01/4230302)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/NEWS01/4230302#comment-127326 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/NEWS01/4230302#comment-127326)

entitled: "Che recognition for ALL doings: the good, bad and the ugly."

of: "A new strategy here of being able to highlight of WHO is the devil's advocate.

My picture pending moderator approval away from the cowboy image of six guns a blazing, to that of Che, freedom fighter whether you want him or not.

Che thanks you too for this opportunity to expose your doings in other departments.

If not for the change in RSA Ch. 42:1 and 92:2 oaths that got rid of the "federal" word therein then the Article 12 inhabitants would not be legally incarcerated now, as Che points out that the Chief here says the end justifies the means, to heck with The Rule of Law for due process rights: let those members of the public incarcerated by the team of out-laws sit there anyway! "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 23, 2010, 10:17 AM NHFT
Happy Spring-time!

http : // www dot youtube.com/watch?v=33kyqdNhk9k

Love Grows Where My Rosemary Goes- Edison Lighthouse/Burrows (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33kyqdNhk9k#)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 24, 2010, 04:25 PM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/OPINION/4230339 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/OPINION/4230339)

and:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/OPINION/4230339#comment-127538 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/OPINION/4230339#comment-127538)

entitled: "It's voluntary."

of: "RUFFORD HARRISON of Concord: you don't "HAVE TO pay to the government" ANYthing. (emphasis ADDed.) It's based upon what they call "voluntary compliance*". 

* Check out the word: compliance: "A yielding** to a wish or demand."

** Do you turn-over your car to the driver to the right of you on the road?

Of course not! You "yield" that they go on their way.

Same goes with the Feds.  They make their demands known, and I say request denied.

I yield to their question, and give them an answer. (;-)

16th Amendment: to lay and collect.  To lay = either to apply or impose.

Why is it that most people choose the word impose as a levy to collect.  To collect and collect!? That's George Orwellian "Doublespeak".

I say to apply or request, and like I said above: request denied."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: highline on April 24, 2010, 10:55 PM NHFT
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned in this thread before: Did you all know that federal law allows IRS bureaucrats to use fake names while performing their "duties" ?????

Can you guess why?

I think that it would be funny if their employee database was accidentally posted online just like the TSA's classified/sensitive employment manual.

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 25, 2010, 11:16 AM NHFT
Pastor Butch Gets A Pie In The Face

http: // www dot youtube.com/watch?v=l783QoQGmpo

of 1:16 minute  with 877 views.

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

http://www.calltodecision.com/ (http://www.calltodecision.com/)

http://www.calltodecision.com/police_state.htm (http://www.calltodecision.com/police_state.htm)

http://www.hopedealer.org/references.html (http://www.hopedealer.org/references.html)
_________________________________________________

Pastor Butch Gets A Pie In The Face (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l783QoQGmpo#)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 27, 2010, 08:20 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/lobbyists-tackle-tax-proposals (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/lobbyists-tackle-tax-proposals)

and:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/lobbyists-tackle-tax-proposals#comment-122287 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/lobbyists-tackle-tax-proposals#comment-122287)

entitled: "Welcome to Communist New Hampshire."

of: "How much did the State of New Hampshire lose in the Elaine Brown part of the Ed Brown anti-I.R.S. case?  She was licensed to practice dentistry in Lebanon City at a few hundred dollars a year, and made $xxx,xxx.xx per year of which #xx% thereof was supposed to go to the State Dept. of Revenue as a corporate tax, but that they sided with the Feds in the seizure and forfeiture of their precious metal and vehicles.  Public Auctions conducted in Nashua and Mass. respectfully. Did we get our cut from the Feds? If so, how much? $_______ minus their collection fee of #____% And when? Does the end justify the means!? I thought we tax the apples but not the tree!  Is this state becoming Communistic or what!? "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on April 27, 2010, 01:00 PM NHFT
my lawyer call on 04/27/10  0900

...was not my lawyer. it was mr. bownes.

from his conversation with me, it appears that i have not YET lost my weapons to the government and he ask that i file a motion to have the court rule on the case based on the pleadings of the district court; then send this motion into the appeal court for the 1st circuit. he would like a copy too, not sure if i can get him a copy, it will depend if i can get the motion done to begin with, then it making it out of here passed S.I.S.   moments like these make me feel helpless...

the second issue that he wanted to talk to me about was the status of the my criminal appeal. it turns out everything that i thought i knew about the appeal was wrong.

first i have not seen the reply that my lawyer mr gordon should have sent, which mr bownes tells me that it has been submitted.

second, the oral argument set for the 5th of may has been called off by the appeal court. this was a new one for me too.

third, according to mr bownes, mr gordon is trying to fight that call/motion and has submitted a motion to reconsider the appeal court's choice of dropping my oral argument by mr gordon. i take this as a good sign, if this is true.

forth, the court/ justice system is all fucked up... oh wait, i knew that already. scratch that one, there are only three things i did not know about my appeal action. which was everything and everything i knew i was wrong about.

mr bownes asked that he be allowed to encourage mr gordon to persue the oral argument and the appeal in general. i expressed to him that i only wanted to get my appeal heard and if mr gordon had the fire he appeared to have on his way out of the visitation room way back when then i wanted him to continue on. i am sick of the delays only to get denied in the end.

i have express to mr bownes that i am fine with mr gordon going on but i am very concerned that i have not heard nor received anything that i have requested from him, mr gordon. i only want an honest try on mr gordon's part to win this appeal. mr bownes said he will tell this to mr gordon.

what concerns me about this whole thing (call) is that my real lawyer was not allowed to contact me as he has told me, but mr bownes WAS able to? we know and read the side bar transcripts of mr bownes working against me in the court room, we know about him throwing away documents that proved the actions (peaceful) taken by me to resolve the Eliane and Ed situation; and he threw them away without ever telling me that he received them from mr. haas.

what am i suppose to believe? what am i suppose to do? my life is in the hands of complete strangers!

this is my update, apparently everything i thought i knew about my appeal was wrong status wise.

oh, if you care, and what worries me more than anything, is that mr bownes' opinion was that i have the best chance to win this appeal over all the others. what am i suppose to make of that comment?

good luck to us all,

cirino/ reno













Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on April 27, 2010, 05:17 PM NHFT
i received a letter from mr gordon, being a motion that the appeal court allow him to make the oral argument. apparently, mr bownes is correct about the 5th of may being off now; i never heard about this till early today when mr bownes told me this...

the motion from mr gordon is for him to be allowed to make the arguments. i do not know what to make of it. all i do know is that i want this to be ruled on; but i prefer that mr gordon be allowed to make the oral argument to the judges.

this is all i have for now.

cirino/ reno
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 28, 2010, 06:35 AM NHFT
Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on April 27, 2010, 05:17 PM NHFT
i received a letter from mr gordon, being a motion that the appeal court allow him to make the oral argument. apparently, mr bownes is correct about the 5th of may being off now; i never heard about this till early today when mr bownes told me this...

the motion from mr gordon is for him to be allowed to make the arguments. i do not know what to make of it. all i do know is that i want this to be ruled on; but i prefer that mr gordon be allowed to make the oral argument to the judges.

this is all i have for now.

cirino/ reno

Donna, It looks like Bownes has poked his nose into this appeal when he was fired by Reno and replaced by Gordon.  Somehow Bownes insists that Rule #____ allows the trial attorney to somehow take over the ENTIRE appeal.  This ought NOT to happen! Especially when Bownes is a THIEF! now stealing MORE money from the public.  Reference those illegal hearings in Portland, Maine from New Hampshire in violation of 18USC3232 that requires that ALL proceedings (that means 100% in that every one) be had in the jurisdictional District of where the crime occurred! Not Circuit BUT District.  The District of New Hampshire.  Doesn't say much for Sven either, although Danny in a way forgave him who could be THE attorney for the group to tell the judges in Boston what happened in Concord since all complaints to the PCC fell into that cover-up agency, and NONE of the Federal Reps NOR U.S. Senators would endorse my complaint against them AND the judge who cut the checks: Jeffrey R. Howard, to the subcommittee of the House Judiciary in Washington. In Reno's case he is entitled to "complete" justice as from being a N.H. inhabitant, according to Articles 14 + 12 respectfully of the N.H. Constitution & BHill of Rights , and so "shall" have the Feds in MAss. comply with N.H. law! Thus to allow BOTH attorneys to present Reno's case.  The trial attorney to merely fill in the blanks to what was said or un-said in the appeal hearing by the appellate attorney.  What does the N.H. Supreme Court do? as an example.  Jim Duggan used to be the criminal appellate attorney from Franklin Pierce Law School before he became a judge there, and was the ONLY attorney heard in oral argument on the appeals. Or was he?  Did ANY case ever have BOTH attorneys?  To call the appellate defender program at 603: 228-1541  http://www.piercelaw.edu/contact/ (http://www.piercelaw.edu/contact/) for http://www.piercelaw.edu/appellatedefender/ (http://www.piercelaw.edu/appellatedefender/) with list of names at: http://www.piercelaw.edu/appellatedefender/staff.php (http://www.piercelaw.edu/appellatedefender/staff.php) after they open for business @ 8:30 a.m. to ask them this, or maybe the judge himself at 271-2646.  http://www.courts.state.nh.us/courtlocations/index.htm (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/courtlocations/index.htm)   Notice that the Appellate Defender Program is OUTside the official court government website. Whatever I find, I'll get back to you. -- Joe cc: Reno, Danny, and Elaine by e-mail.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 28, 2010, 07:12 AM NHFT
"Bullets for Bread"

http: // www dot youtube.com/watch?v=9ooWo1JV7zk&feature=related

of: 2:02 minutes with 277 views

Book 'em Danno - Los Caminos (band promo video) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ooWo1JV7zk&feature=related#)

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 29, 2010, 07:30 AM NHFT
Quote from: highline on April 24, 2010, 10:55 PM NHFT
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned in this thread before: Did you all know that federal law allows IRS bureaucrats to use fake names while performing their "duties" ?????

Can you guess why?

I think that it would be funny if their employee database was accidentally posted online just like the TSA's classified/sensitive employment manual.

Thanks highline, re: http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/fakename.html (http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/fakename.html) with Susan Holliday, a spokesman for The National Treasury Employees Union who said that: Revenue officers - who impound property to cover overdue taxes - have "one of the most hazardous jobs in the federal government." But notice the quotes, of the first part not really said by her, but the woman who wrote this article: JOAN LOWY, Scripps Howard News Service to "Wise Up" because one does not owe taxes as due, but only debts!  A tax is NOT a debt! To "impound" is "To seize and retain in legal custody" But when is it legal to lien for a tax!?  You lien for a debt! Look that word up in the dictionary of the English language.  So what we have are goons of the I.R.S. operating by something other than what the word means.  The definition of that is liar! and a thief!  So thank you "very" much! -- Joe

cc: to Elaine, Danny and Reno (by e-mail), with a copy and paste over to my hotmail account to send to the Lebanon, N.H. Tax Collector who wrote to Elaine that if she doesn't pay $xx,xxx.xx before May 5th for taxes that she will lien the property.  But get this: I already warned her that an attachment is a taking, is theft!  And if she does so it will be done maliciously against RSA Ch. 21:2 * to subject her personally AND professionally to have to eventually pay for damages, as in the equity not being there for to borrow against from the bank. Her having FAILed to "faithfully to perform" her duty by RSA Ch. 93-B:1,I **as an RSA Ch. 42:1 *** and 92:2 ****officer of the government (to Article 84) ***** for which her bond #_________ is her insurance to have that company have to pay out $_________ in damages per the 7th degree is what I say of like in Proverbs 6:30-31 for the thief to pay sevenfold the $amount stolen! [ Public Law 97-280 (96 Statute 1211) of October 4, 1982 = The Year of The Bible for 1983 & Beyond.] 

-----* http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/21/21-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/21/21-2.htm) " Common Usage. – Words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language; but technical words and phrases, and such others as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law, shall be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning. " The word lien is not a technical word, meaning: "Formal rather than practical". The word formal "pertaining to the form, SHAPE, structural condition, or mode of being of a thing, esp. as DISTINGUISHED from the MATTER." (emphasis ADDed from The "New Century Dictionary" (c)1952 @ page 604 that goes on with the example of "as, a formal siege", the word siege meaning "The surrounding and blocking of a town or fortress by an army bent on capturing it." A lien is: "The right to TAKE and HOLD or SELL the property of a DEBTOR as security or payment for a debt." (emphasis ADDed.)  So even IF the word lien be given some technical meaning, WHERE in the statute does it say this of that the word has been changed to that of ONE STEP BEYOND the siege of block to surround the property to its actual holding same for sale by-passing procedural due process? As is supposed to be a guarantee by the 5th + 14th Amendments under the Rule of Law!  These people who do deviate from the law are militants, from the word militate defined as "To have force as evidence".  The evidence here is of the WRITTEN word pre-scribed, and NOT some commanding officer's orders to a soldier! to deviate from that! The word deviate defined as "To move or turn away from a normal or ACCEPTED course or standard." (emphasis ADDed for this phrase: Accepted for Value" I keep hearing about of when the bill arrives, it's marked as such.  The word value defined as: "a fair return for goods of services". So when the property taxes are paid for services, as in Article 12 ****** protection, should the recipient of the tax bill mark such as "Accepted for value" in that they agree that what was paid for they got a "fair" return for services?  Maybe.  In that on a scale of poor, fair, good, very good, and excellent, I guess you could say so that they got "fair" services like for some but not all.  WHERE was the protection from other laws NEVER Consented to!? WHEN Elaine gets released from the "Correctional" Facility of the Feds is the day of proof: Proof that there was a FAILure for somebody/ and -buddies to have to pay for this and these wrongs for each AND every day beyond the Art. 14 "prompt" ******word that "they" like to drag out!)

-----* http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/21/21-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/21/21-2.htm)

----** (later, on the modification) /  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/93-B/93-B-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/93-B/93-B-1.htm)

---*** http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm)

--**** http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm)

-***** http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html)

****** http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) from: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/constitution.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/constitution.html)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 29, 2010, 10:26 AM NHFT
http://ccrjustice.org/ (http://ccrjustice.org/)

Mod: Thanks Bill.  I did just call to there at: ______________ a few minutes ago to find out about their lawsuit against Terra Haute/ Federal as NOT in compliance with the law, Danny thus a victim there, who has gone through all the administrative processes to exhaust the executive and who has filed some Motion to Intervene, etc. maybe Amicus Curea.

Un-fortunately under Cases, and sub-chapter of current cases on three pages I pressed Edit/ Find this page for Terra, and found nothing, and so the receptionist woman referred me over to the voice mail of another woman to where I left my message to please call or write me back.  I forgot to give her the case #1-10-cv-00539-RMU for Judge _______.

Here's what you get when you dial the main #: Press 7 for the Director by extension, or:
media - 1
donation - 2
from a court or government -3
legal representation - 4
Cuba travel - 5
finance dept. - 6
speakers to an event - 8
CCR address - 9
or 0 for the operator(at any time)*

-- Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on April 30, 2010, 01:36 AM NHFT
Oh Kay Everyone!



i just read my attorney's reply to the government's rebuttal; and i have to hand it to Mr. Gordon, he really showed a little backbone with the government's claims of what was fact in the case by busting their lies right on the spot. Nipped them right in the bud he did.



the first part was under the first part he tells the courts that the government "misstated" a couple of facts... in legal/ court room talk that is damn near calling someone a liar when on the stand for a regular witness, but when you tell it to the government, well, they know that they lied too and know that they are being called on it hence they hear, "you are a liar and a fat mouth!"



he (mr. gordon) calls them on their acting like the "or" and "AND" statement in the indictment are no big deal.



he calls them on their claim that in the video ( that is just audio and was made by Casey, a friend of D. Riley, admittedly ) that no where was the words "volunteer security" used as the government say it was.



he calls them on their claim that "armed bodyguard" cannot be found either in the testimony, video or surveillance and what there was of video/ surveillance can there ever be any actions that would merrit those actions as being an "armed bodyguard."



he also calls them on their assertion that Riley's emails to me are infact my emails when they were sent by Riley and no where did i express Riley's comments in return. infact they were mostly one way emails to me from Riley and Riley's comments even support my testimony that i was purchasing the carbine for my own use and ownership.



finally in part one, he clears up the governments vague and including language of all three of us were together doing everything together and shows that my part AND convicts show other wise time and time again.



Part II  he (mr gordon) calls them out on how the government trys to confuse the issue of the felony sentence being applied to my misdemeanor conviction. he re asserts the brief we filed the first time.



Part III, is the terriorial jusrisdiction, he writes" in its brief the government has belittled mr gonzalez's territorial jurisdiction argument by misstating it. the government argues only that the court had subject matter jurisdiction."



he re asserts the proper argument of our territorial jurisdiction challenge. and writes, "mr gonzalez urges this court to undertake a specific territorial jurisdiction analysis, and not be misguided by the governments misunderstanding of the issue." ... again, "they" know better, so they know that we are calling them a liar and a fat mouth once again...



thats all i got for now



laters...



reno
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 30, 2010, 03:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on April 27, 2010, 05:17 PM NHFT
...apparently, mr bownes is correct about the 5th of may being off now; i never heard about this till early today when mr bownes told me this...

cirino/ reno

It looks like Bownes is a liar.  I called the court this afternoon at 617-748-9057 and it's still on for next Wednesday, May 5th @ 9:30 a.m. -- Joe
________________________________________________________________
Mod:

What "looks like" sometimes is not, as I did just get an e-mail from Jose writing that the case for Reno was "canceled" (past tense), and then put back on the calendar, so the question being of WHO to speak for him? Both attorneys, or just the one? To wait and see.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 30, 2010, 05:17 PM NHFT
To: "BROWN ELAINE; GONZALEZ CIRINO; RILEY DANIEL; "

Subject: "All 3 get 25 minutes on 5/5 @ 9:30 to 9:55 a.m."

Message: "Reno: I did just read the e-mail from your father about a 4/29. Thu. info sheet of yesterday (today = Fri. 4/30), that the attorneys divvy up what they allow each to have, like maybe an average of 8 minutes each x 3 = 24 minutes.  Good luck, -- Joe"

"Message successfully sent."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 02, 2010, 05:06 PM NHFT
Here's a copy and paste of the e-mail just sent to: Elaine, Danny and Reno:

Subject: "The Kent State Massacre of May 4, 1970. "

Message: "The 40th Anniversary of The Kent State Massacre is this Tuesday, May 4th. It was a Monday back then in 1970 when the Ohio National Guard fired on the students killing 4 of them, and wounding 9 others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.  - - Yesterday and today, RTV Cable Channel 20 here in New England (and I presume nationwide, as they do cover the country) did a re-broadcast from 4-5:00 p.m. of Hal Holbrook's 2-part episode of "The Bold Ones" entitled: "A Continual Roar of Musketry". These episodes aired in November of just months after the real deal. The bottom line being of what H.H. as "Senator Hays Stowe" said in his "Commission" of something like: If men in positions of authority and responsibility* act with aggravation before investigation they must answer in the courts. Too bad that history repeats itself to those who do not learn from it.  Reference your case of not only: "Show Ed the Law", but like in that June 20, 2007 Article 49 Petition of: Show us your authority! * THE responsibility upon the governor by Article 41 who failed to do his Art. 51 duty of to enforce all legislative mandates as by the shall word in RSA Ch. 123:1. To have sent the Feds a written invitation to file. THE Fed to file being the G.S.A. Landlord over there for their tenant court. 40USC255 to 40USC3112, and as "they" know to be the case by their own U.S. Attorney Manual #664. Ignorance of the Law is no excuse! The case-law too of that Adams case of 1945 at the U.S. Supreme Court. A conditional consent un-accepted is NOT consent.  You Art. 12 inhabitants deserved protection and didn't get it, and you all are further harmed by a judge who disobeys what America stands for: a republic defined as for judicial review of executive decisions.  The governor's decision of NOT to send out the invitation. To refuse** to have the evidence of non-filing marked as an exhibit for the trial jury to weigh in reaching their verdict that in N.H. has to be Art. 14 complete but wasn't.  The Feds in contempt of The N.H. Constitution! Hopefully the judges in Boston on Wednesday, May 5th will read, see and hear this from your attorneys.  A copy of this now over to the N.H. Underground as Reply #_____.  Best wishes, - - Joe

Footnote: ** The denial was NOT at the time of the side bar, as I finally did get to read the transcript therefrom more than 2 years later, of Bownes objecting, but why? And the judge leaving it to Sven to "lay a foundation" to which to have it entered.  The foundation was already stated by Kinsella: Did you (Reno) do ANYthing to try to peacefully resolved this WITH the example of contacting the U.S. Marshals.  The emphasis on the word ANY, NOT Marshals as in your answer of what was last referred to.  THE denial was when he REFUSED to hear my "Point of Order" that is NOT in the transcript! Thus the First Circuit Judges of WHOever do not have that before them, nor was it given to them by me who had my Merrimack County case against Deputy U.S. Marshal Jamie Barry for said assault for pushing me out of the courtroom #4 that day with my hat on, pushed up to there and down to Rhode Island, thus by-passing Boston.  Therefore Reno: your attorney David Bownes of Laconia ought to apologize to you for making this objection, and Danny: your attorney Sven Wiberg of Portsmouth ought to apologize for being with lack of sleep, on caffeine from coffee and not with a follow-through of the objection that Singal didn't rule on! The judge left it up to Sven, and Sven blew it! Jason's two attorneys merely looked on and did nothing!! They were worthless!!"

"Message successfully sent."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 02, 2010, 05:32 PM NHFT
"Day 11
Morning session

Cross exam by Sven Wiberg
Page 61

10Q     Just so we're absolutely clear, you had no
11        agreement or plan or conspiracy with either of the two
12        gentlemen that are defendants at the far tables?

13A     I disassociate myself with anybody.

14Q     And you were not a witness to any agreements

15        by either of them, Mr. Riley or Mr. Gerhard, with

16        anybody else, were you?

17        Not those two[?] no.

18Q     Now, speaking about making attempts or what

19        your purpose was there on the property, in June of 2007

20        did you approach government personnel or government

21        leaders her in New Hampshire to attempt to effect a

22        peaceful resolution?

23A     In June? No, no, I never approached anybody
            [Reno underlines "I" &| "approached" ]

24Q     May I approach the witness?
25        THE COURT: That's exhibit?



Page 62

1          MR. WIBERG: It's not an exhibit, judge. and

2          I'm only offering it to refresh his recollection.

3          THE COURT: Mark it, please. That's Riley?
4          THE CLERK: Z.

5          MR. WIBER: Z.

6          THE COURT: Thank you very much. After
7          government sees, I will see counsel at sidebar.

8          (Riely Exhibit Z was

9          marked for Identification.)

10        AT SIDEBAR

11        THE COURT; Can I see it. Thank you very

12        much.

13        MR. WIBERG: I'm not intending to offer it. I

14        just want to see if it refreshes his recollection

15        THE COURT: He hasn't indicated any absence of
16        recollection.

17        MR. WIBERG: I'll lay the foundation.

18        THE COURT: He's actually answered. I'm not

19        sure – I don't know what your point is.

20        MR. WIBERG; I thought he did indicate he
21        didn't recall.

22        THE COURT: You really want to take a chance

23        on this* going in, Mr. Wiberg, because it might after you

24        show it. That's up to you. I'm going to let you do

25        what you want. You think about it. I'm happy to let

[* Cirino note: this is believed to be a page that was
delivered by Mr. Haas, Joe. Proving the Feds
are in New Hamphire illegally. Signed by myself &]


Page 63
1          you. I don't want to prejudice the defendants. I'm

2          just concerned here. Did you say you object, mr.

3          Bownes?

4          MR BOWNES: I do.

5          THE COURT: Did you get that? Do what you

6          want, Mr. Wiberg.

7                      BEFORE THE JURY

8          THE COURT: Lay a foundation.

9Q       BY MR. WIBERG:      Actually, judge, I will move
10        for the moment. You watched the –

11        THE COURT:  All right, the record will show
12        the question's withdrawn. Go ahead.

13        MR. WIBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

14Q     BY MR.WIBERG: You watched the video of June

15        7, correct, the clips?

16A     Which one?
17Q     In other words, we watched an exhibit that has

18        three separate clips ---

19A     Yes.

20Q     -- that's Mr. Riley. Did you see anything
21        other than assault rifles in the video as you watched

22        it?

23A     Which one? Which Video? All three?

24Q     Of any of them?

25A     I didn't finish watching the third one, and I

Page 64"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 03, 2010, 10:34 AM NHFT
Berlin, N.H. Federal Prison is scheduled to open for business in early 2011.  Men only and for up to a 25-yr. sentence, http://www.nheconomy.com/prison.aspx (http://www.nheconomy.com/prison.aspx)

so Ed's of over that # amount not eligible, http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Edward&Middle=&LastName=Brown&Race=W&Sex=M&Age=&x=71&y=14 (http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Edward&Middle=&LastName=Brown&Race=W&Sex=M&Age=&x=71&y=14) to 2044.

-- Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: KBCraig on May 03, 2010, 01:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on May 03, 2010, 10:34 AM NHFT
Berlin, N.H. Federal Prison is scheduled to open for business in early 2011.  Men only and for up to a 25-yr. sentence, http://www.nheconomy.com/prison.aspx (http://www.nheconomy.com/prison.aspx)

so Ed's of over that # amount not eligible, http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Edward&Middle=&LastName=Brown&Race=W&Sex=M&Age=&x=71&y=14 (http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Edward&Middle=&LastName=Brown&Race=W&Sex=M&Age=&x=71&y=14) to 2044.

-- Joe

Sentence length is one of the determining factors in security level, but not the only factor. Ed's in a "medium" right now, same as Berlin will be.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 04, 2010, 12:15 PM NHFT
Here's a copy and paste, as likewise by forward over to Henry and Harvey, re: " Henry: F.Y.I. I goofed, I put the Chief's e-mail in the box to copy, but forgot to erase it.  No big deal. We're all withIN the law better than those who we pay to enforce it! -- Joe"

"Uncle Sam's sack breaks on Cinco de Mayo! (he's sunk in Boston)?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Tue 5/04/10 1:04 PM
To:    Jose G.; Donna V.; Bill R.; Keith C.; David H-B; Bernie B.; Andy T.; Dick Marple (armlaw at hotmail.com); Katt K.; Concord Police Dept. (police at onconcord.com)
Bcc:    Wayne B.

Title 26 U.S. Code Section 1691 http://vlex.com/vid/sec-seal-and-teste-process-19212127 (http://vlex.com/vid/sec-seal-and-teste-process-19212127) of: "All writs and process issuing from a court of the United States shall be under the seal of the court and signed by the clerk thereof."

Read more: http://vlex.com/vid/sec-seal-and-teste-process-19212127#ixzz0myleWOCp (http://vlex.com/vid/sec-seal-and-teste-process-19212127#ixzz0myleWOCp)  [this hyperlink automatically placed here by my copy and paste of the above, so yet to read and comment upon.]

Wow! And I mean WOW in all capital letters!  Danny has found the straw that breaks the camel's back, or in this case "Uncle Sam's sack", his/Uncle Sam's  balls burst as what happened to Judas Iscariot the betrayer, who returned the bribe $money and then he hanged himself. Matthew 27:5 "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself." re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Iscariot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Iscariot) "Judas hanged himself in the field, and afterwards the rope snapped, and his body burst open on the ground,[15][ " and footnote #15: "

   1. ^ a b Zwiep, Arie W. Judas and the choice of Matthias: a study on context and concern of Acts 1:15-26. p. 109."
   2.

Matthias chosen over Justice to take his place in the Twelve Disciples, if my memory serves me correct, see; _______________. Or in this case of in-justice by (1) Executives both within the state (as by the local, county and State do-nothings to protect COPs)  plus Federal lackey to the court COPS (as by the U.S. Marshals) AND (2) Judicial Bozo's in both the State (County and Supremes who allow the PULLERS, as in Danny's case #2007-0745, to be even WORSE than the PUSHERS) plus Federal judges to get away with pretending to hold "authority" that they do NOT have! UNTIL "corrected" by the judges in Boston at the APPEAL level of the Federal Court.  There being NO N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 filing from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, and as spelled out in the papers from Dan to me received in yesterday's mail: see Starr v. United States, 38 L.Ed. 841, 153 U.S. 614 (_____) @ page #___ for Mr. Chief Justice Fuller's OPINION that of about the "seal, for that is his authority. Per Brudnel, Ch. J, 14 H. VIII. 16."

Hey! Isn't that to where these "criminals" went of to be "corrected": at the Federal "Correctional" Facilities? (;-) The class of all classes to make it a nationwide course across the country be like another "shot heard around the world" just a stone's throw from "Bunker Hill".  A throw by Bangor, Maine's "Paul Bunyan" that is, (;-) Him waking up from a sleep to take care of that Singal judge of Portland (George Z.) in violation of 18USC3232 Paul Bunyan hearing the arguments of righteous victims having been dragged across the state line illegally!  putting shame on SOME of the attorneys who argue their case tomorrow in Boston at from 9:30 - :55 a.m. in courtroom #____ them redeeming themselves by what Joshua Gordon did and does present in his #12 of 12 for the court in N.H. withOUT authority and so to dismiss all charges against these Freedom Fighters deserving of a parade down Pleasant Street to Main Street too with a few spits on the Goddess of Injustice there in the hall of corruption! Whose head thereof ought to be cut off and put at the top of a pike and displayed outside City Hall, but whose COPs there did nothing to check and balance this either! Them thieves/ oath-breakers to RSA Ch. 42:1 + 92:2 for having not protected these Art. 12 inhabitants! after my claim in writing that they do so! To get a new crop of COPs to there from a PS&T who takes over 20% of the take from the criminal fines to supposedly teach the truth to NOW finally do so! cc: to Chief Robert Barry at police at onconcord.com with the redacted e-mail addresses of course, to prepare for his departure, or will he finally now investigate those "Tampering with Public Records" over there of false information into government records of there being NO arrest of Ed & Elaine Brown, re: the Return of Service showing NO arrests because why? Because there was no official authorized version of Arrest Warrants?  A & W served without a seal? (;-) Very interesting, don't you think? Of two wrongs make a right!?  Chief: WHERE did you get your education? They teach THIS over at The Police Academy? The PS&T: Police Standards & Training; http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XV/188-F/188-F-31.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XV/188-F/188-F-31.htm)

Way to go Danny!, a copy and paste of this in two parts over at the N.H. Underground,
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9630 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9630) as Reply #9632 on page 643.

Good luck, - - Joe

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: "DANIEL RILEY (14528052)" .... (continued).

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 04, 2010, 12:16 PM NHFT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: "DANIEL RILEY (14528052)"

Date: "5/4/2010 8:42:06 AM"

Subject: "Search Warrant NO SEAL"

Message: "I rec'd an UNcertified copy of the arrest warrant today and it is missing the required seal, see 28 USC 1691. It was issued by the Magistrate, but signed by the clerk, I believe because the signature is undiscernable, but its not the magistrate's name. The magistrate has his own seal, see 28 USC 638(c), so both of them have a seal, so it is required, as per the commom law I mailed to Bill, Sven & Joe. A seal is mandatory if required by staute or if the officer has a seal, in this case we have both requirements.

In the colonial days and in english common law, a search warrant was called a writ of assistance, the Supreme Court uses the word writ and warrant synonymously in the following cases( meaning they interchange them, referring to the same document):

Barry v US ex rel Cunningham 73 led 867 @ 871

Bryan v Ker 56 led 114 @ 117

Dryer v Illinois 47 led 79 @ 84

US v Nix 47 led 775 @ 776

Wong Wing v US 41 led 140 @ 141

so a warrant is a writ, see Black's law for the definition of a warrant, and a writ is defined as a court's written order.

The way i see it, is these warrants for arrest and for search are null and void, from the beginning, because the lack the required seal, and a seal equals authority, therefore: there was no authority backing these phoney writs.

Everyone should get UNcertified copies of these warrants to see if the required seals are there. I gurantee they are not. beacause the whole case is in equity not law."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 05, 2010, 08:30 AM NHFT
T - minus 2 minutes to countdown:

The judges for today's 9:30 - :55 a.m. hearing are:

1.) Chief woman judge Lynch
2.) David Hacket Souter +
3.) (Mr.) Selya

- - Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 05, 2010, 08:41 AM NHFT
Why no posting here before the event !?

"First Circuit RSS
   Along with audio recordings of the court's oral arguments, electronic versions of the court's opinions are now available via RSS (Real Simple Syndication), a method of delivering web content directly to you without cluttering your inbox with e-mail. Until now, electronic versions of the court's opinions were available only through e-mail with an opinion attached. We will soon be phasing out this method and strongly encourage current subscribers to convert to RSS, which will allow you to search, sort, and filter information. Here is how it works.

   RSS delivers Web content called a "feed" or "channel" that is written in standard computer language (XML). It requires an RSS Reader, a small software program that collects and displays RSS feeds. Current versions of Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari Web browsers have built-in RSS Readers. But if you are using Internet Explorer 6.0 or earlier, you will need to obtain an RSS Reader. These are available on the Web. Some are free; others may be purchased.

   Once you have acquired an RSS Reader, you will need to see what it requires you to do to add a new "feed" or "channel." Each reader has a slightly different way of doing this. Some readers, when used with the newest Web browsers, will allow you to add new channels with a single click. Others may require you to copy the Web address (also called a URL) of the new feed from your Web browser's address and paste it into the "Add New Channel" Section of new RSS Reader.

   You will have to follow the directions of your RSS Reader to establish a feed or channel to the court's opinions [and any other RSS feeds you may want]. In most cases, all you will need to do is:

    * Click on the link or small RSS button near the feed that you want (e.g., First Circuit RSS Feeds);
    * See the feed's Web address (URL) in your Web browers bar;
    * Copy the feed's Web address into the "Add New Channel" section of your RSS Reader


For example, the URL that you would copy into your Web browser's address bar to establish an RSS feed:
   for this court's opinions is http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/opinions/opinionrss.php (http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/opinions/opinionrss.php)
   for this court's oral arguments http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/audio/audiorss.php (http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/audio/audiorss.php)

   Once you have added that Web address to your RSS Reader, the feed will start and regularly update this court's opinions for you.
        
1st Circuit RSS Feeds


Oral Arguments:
• RSS standard audio podcast:  rss podcast icon

Opinions:  1st Circuit RSS opinions "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 05, 2010, 08:42 AM NHFT
I press the hyperlink and it goes to a blank screen!

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

Donna:  Are you taping this to feed to us over here later?
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 05, 2010, 09:01 AM NHFT
RE:  http://council.lebnh.net/ (http://council.lebnh.net/)

Today: http://council.lebnh.net/boards-committees/home/agendas (http://council.lebnh.net/boards-committees/home/agendas)

Details: http://council.lebnh.net/boards-committees/home/agendas/2010-city-council-agendas/city-council---may-5-2010-1 (http://council.lebnh.net/boards-committees/home/agendas/2010-city-council-agendas/city-council---may-5-2010-1)

More details: http://www.lebcity.net/BComm/agendas/City%20Council/2010/May%205,%202010%20-%20Regular%20Meeting/2010-05-05%20AGENDA%20COVER.pdf (http://www.lebcity.net/BComm/agendas/City%20Council/2010/May%205,%202010%20-%20Regular%20Meeting/2010-05-05%20AGENDA%20COVER.pdf)

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on May 05, 2010, 12:29 PM NHFT
As soon as the audio gets posted online I will get linkage posted here.

Heres an article I just received in Google alerts.

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/supporters-of-nh-tax-evaders-appeal-convictions-671452.html (http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/supporters-of-nh-tax-evaders-appeal-convictions-671452.html)

Quote from: JosephSHaas on May 05, 2010, 08:42 AM NHFT
I press the hyperlink and it goes to a blank screen!

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

Donna:  Are you taping this to feed to us over here later?
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 05, 2010, 05:04 PM NHFT
To: "BROWN EDWARD; BROWN ELAINE; GONZALEZ CIRINO; RILEY DANIEL; "

Subject: "My reply to today's A.P. story of Boston Appeal Hearing."

Message: "Hi Ed! 1st e-mail here. [ And Elaine, plus Reno and Dan. ] Here's my post ("Please wait while we add your comment" it keeps beeping at me over at:  http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/supporters-of-nh-tax-evaders-appeal-convictions-671452.html (http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/supporters-of-nh-tax-evaders-appeal-convictions-671452.html)    from the A.P. story by Denise Lavoie who published her view of what happened today at 12:06 p.m. and updated @ 2:06 p.m. - Donna posting it over at The N.H. Underground is HOW I found it. I can send you a copy and paste if you'd like, just let me know, so as not to swamp you with too much stuff.):

"Denise, What about Appeal point #12 of 12? by Attorney Joshua Gordon of Concord, N.H. who took over the case for Cirino Gonzalez after booting Laconia N.H. Attorney David H. Bownes from the appeal. Reference there being no jurisdictional authority since the Feds FAILed to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 operating papers by RSA Ch. 123:1 with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, and the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court in that an offer un-accepted is NOT consent. The U.S. Attorney KNOWS this by his Manual #664. All these attorneys except for Gordon were involved in the below travels to Maine for illegal hearings in Portland before Judge George Z. Singal. Illegal as against 18USC3232 in that ALL proceedings SHALL be held in the District of where the offense occurred. With Judge David Hackett Souter aka Mr. Starce Decisis there today, this fact alone ought to get them at least a new trial. Procedural due process of law. 5th + 14th Amendments. Chief culprit in that department: our former N.H. A.G. Jeffrey R. Howard of the Circuit now who cut them the checks!  My complaint to Fed. Rep. Shea-Porter to have him impeached has fallen on deaf ears. Same goes for Hodes: one of the buddies of the Bar to protect the brotherhood that I find disgusting! The other judges today being: Chief Lynch the woman judge and (Mr.) Selya. What questions were asked by them if any? I see that there's an Archive at the Feds to listen to this what? 25 minute hearing from 9:30 -:55 a.m.? As for Riley being on his own, check out another violation by BOTH the Feds AND Souter's former buddies at the N.H. Supreme Court in case #2007-0745 of where they allowed the Feds to PULL the case there to the Feds when by the U.S. Code it's prescribed only that it be PUSHed by the defendant who was the Superintendent of the Jail and NOT these 3rd party intervenors!  You call that "The Rule of Law"!?  I call it THEFT! and likewise theft of when Judge Jean K. (Mrs. Peter Hoe) Burling let the U.S. Code over-ride the rights of these Article 12 "inhabitants" of the Browns who started this as plaintiffs against the I.R.S. in Grafton County Superior Court. It since escalated to these Article 30 citizens of New York and Texas plus Vermont brought unlawfully into N.H. too! There having been no check-and-balance by the authorities there because they never asked to see the seal of court on the Arrest Warrants! BELIEVE IT OR NOT! - at least as for Daniel Riley who sent me a photocopy of his un-sealed copy and 28 USC Sec. 1691: "All Writs and process issuing from a court of the United States SHALL be under the seal of the court and signed by the clerk thereof." Re: Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in Starr v. United States, 38 L.Ed. 841, 153 U.S. 614 (____) because the seal "is his authority. Per Brudnel, Ch. J., 14 H. VIII. 16."  Amen. "

note: the A.P. story telling of how there is no "conspiracy" blah, blah, blah to at least get the charges reduced. To me that's like saying the barber took too much hair off, when the real question ought to be of where is your barbering license? to begin with!

Best wishes to you all, -- Joe  cc: to Jose, Donna, Keith (for Jason), Bernie, David H-B, Andy T., Dick Marple and by relay over to The N.H. Underground. "

"Message successfully sent."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on May 05, 2010, 08:33 PM NHFT
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/audio/08-2300.mp3 (http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/audio/08-2300.mp3)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on May 06, 2010, 06:10 AM NHFT
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2010/05/06/supporters_of_nh_tax_evaders_appeal_convictions/ (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2010/05/06/supporters_of_nh_tax_evaders_appeal_convictions/)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 06, 2010, 01:30 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on May 05, 2010, 05:04 PM NHFT
... it keeps beeping... over at:  http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/supporters-of-nh-tax-evaders-appeal-convictions-671452.html (http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/supporters-of-nh-tax-evaders-appeal-convictions-671452.html)    from the A.P. story by Denise Lavoie ....

It no longer beeping, but goes to a non-post page:

   Cannot find http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/supporters-of-nh-tax-evaders-appeal-convictions-671452.html?plckItemsPerPage=25&plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:12c7dc51-dd88-47ff-bfe0-79446042a467#pluck_comments_list (http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/supporters-of-nh-tax-evaders-appeal-convictions-671452.html?plckItemsPerPage=25&plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:12c7dc51-dd88-47ff-bfe0-79446042a467#pluck_comments_list)     DNS Error - Server cannot be found
Sponsored Results
Live - Breaking Austin News
Your Source For Local Austin Breaking News for paid sub.
www.local-news-report.com (http://www.local-news-report.com)
Statesman
Statesman at Half.com. Shop Now & Save.
www.Half.com/Textbooks (http://www.half.com/Textbooks)
Local Austin News
Austin Breaking News! - Texas's #1 New Source.
headlinenews-breaking.com

Browse these related categories:
1.Statesman 2.William Penn University 3.Statesman Jobs 4.Twitter 5.New Statesman 6.Austin TX Jobs 7.State of Texas Jobs Austin 8.State Man 9.News 10.Newspaper 11.News Media 12.Newsgroup 13.World News 14.Breaking News 15.Austin American Statesman Try a new search: Try again by typing the URL here: Powered by Search Settings"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 06, 2010, 01:44 PM NHFT
Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on May 06, 2010, 06:10 AM NHFT
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2010/05/06/supporters_of_nh_tax_evaders_appeal_convictions/ (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2010/05/06/supporters_of_nh_tax_evaders_appeal_convictions/)

Thanks Donna.  Here's my comment to over there of just posted at 2:41 p.m. (#3 of 3, but that I see only 2 comments, so one erased?)

"The end doesn't justify the means in what is supposed to be procedural due process of law! supposedly a guarantee by the 5th + 14 Amendments of NOT the word pursuant with a letter t, BUT in Pursuance thereof, with the letter c in what "they" call the Supremacy clause in Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.  The oral argument dealing with "exclusive" to NOT share with others means what? That the Feds don't have to file or "share" their papers with the state. They can have exclusive-ness only AFTER the filing! WHEN is the appropriate word not WHERE! Just like past, current and future tense. Watch out for George Orwellian "Nineteen Eight Four" "Double-Speak"ers! It takes two to tango, or to DO something, not just TALK about what you did NOT do! Wise Up! For details see: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9630 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9630) Amen. "
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Modification: Here's the hyperlink to the actual comments page:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2010/05/06/supporters_of_nh_tax_evaders_appeal_convictions/?comments=all (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2010/05/06/supporters_of_nh_tax_evaders_appeal_convictions/?comments=all)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 06, 2010, 01:52 PM NHFT
Here's another copy and paste:

"FW: [nh-seacoast-liberty] Fwd: 8 Hour Constitution Class with Michael Badnarik?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Thu 5/06/10 2:23 PM
To:    Jose G.; Donna V.; Bill R.; Keith C.; Bernie B.; Andy T.; Dick Marple (armlaw at hotmail.com); Henry M.; Harvey W. ; David H-B.; Michael L. (bcc: Wayne B.)

Jose, and others, the jurisdictional issue is far from over, in that if the Boston judges somehow think that by focusing on the "exclusive" word in 1-8-17 of NOT to share with others is somehow going to magically give them authority, they have another, or actually more battles to be fought in this war being put against them/ the Feds/ these Federalists by me at the state and county levels, as by an RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 claim for Elaine to file BEFORE June 7th for property damages, and BEFORE Oct. 4th for personal injury to both Ed & Elaine. Also BEFORE Sept. 12th for Reno in that same forum costing only the $25.00 filing fee for each and WITH an attorney, as "advertised" for here today in my posting below to the N.H. Seacoast Liberty with #__ members. A copy of this e-mail to you, and of my posting to Ed & Elaine, plus Danny and Reno, in a few minutes. I've yet to listen to the 52 minutes of oral arguments. Yours truly, -- Joe

From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: nh-seacoast-liberty-list at meetup.com
Subject: RE: [nh-seacoast-liberty] Fwd: 8 Hour Constitution Class with Michael Badnarik
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 12:29:31 -0400

Thank you Chris.

1.) In regards to the first of two bills here, HB160 I see no Minority Report and so the brandishing of a firearm to re-pell an attacker looks like it will pass on a vote in the Senate next Wednesday, May 12th.  I use the word attacker rather than an assaulter because an assault is a pre-liminary attack outside your house or off your premises.

We already have this right now as guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment to "bear" or brandish arms , the latter word defined as: "To flourish menacingly, as a weapon." A weapon defined NOT only: (1) as "Any instrument or possession used in combat" as when IN a fight and BEFORE the fight as the word combat is also defined as "To oppose vigorously." from the word vigor of the "Effectiveness of force" as in with force and arms; BUT also: (2) "Any means employed to get the better of another." The word flourish as in: "To make bold, sweeping movements" as to pan* or sweep the gun back and forth horizontally against # others in like a roulette game of to where the bullet might hit its mark first if they don't all BACK OFF! * the verb of the word pan meaning "To criticize harshly."

I notice that former State Rep.-turned State Senator Matthe Houde from the Vermont School of Law as a professor is on this committee, and look forward to see HOW he votes on this, because in my view he's a wimp! When I called him on the Ed Brown anti I.R.S. case he took the stance of: "duck and cover". Here was a man defending himself on his own property from Federal invaders off their 1-8-17 turf to state soil and the Feds getting the backing of the local, county and state Law Enforcement officers to buckle under to their U.S. Code Enforcement Officers.  Such I find disgusting! No other laws shall be controllable over us Article 12 inhabitants  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)  than that of which we give consent to.  On June 14, 1883 we gave a conditional consent to the Feds as long as they filed their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State.  It's spelled out in RSA Ch. 123:1   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm) with the shall word that the governor shall enforce by Art. 51 for which he shall be responsible for by Art. 41  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html)     in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm)
  where at least Houde, a member there recused himself from my case #2009-0013 filed October 15, 2008, but the Board voting of me not harmed in my loss of pay from work that day they arrested me TRYing to relay an assertion on these rights to the Plainfield Town Board of Selectmen even though the case-law says so.  My Motion to Reconsider there collecting dust, and so now with a P.O.A. from both Ed & Elaine Brown, me IN SEARCH OF...and attorney who would like to take this case for say 5% of the transfer of such over to a trial by jury for the max of to $250,000 by statute, thus getting them/ the Browns $80,000 each individual for each of the almost three years from the June 7, 2007 raid upon her Dental Office in Lebanon in Grafton County, and October 4, 2007 arrest in Plainfield of Sullivan County. To file such BEFORE the June 7, 2010 RSA Ch. 508:4 3-year statute of limitations, re: the damage to property, and then BEFORE Oct. 4, 2010 for the damages to them. Houde was told of this AND about the U.S. Attorney Manual #664   http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm)  that also says they have to file, and so this Senator is a lousy judge of what is procedural due process of law. Now he will allow this!?

There is that statute in the Criminal Code of NOT to resist Law Enforcement Officers
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/642/642-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/642/642-2.htm)
in the RSA Ch. 93-B:1,I faithful performance of their duty  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/93-B/93-B-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/93-B/93-B-1.htm) whether they be right or wrong, and so WHY wasn't Ed charged with such too in state court? WHY?, Please tell me WHY, I really want to know WHY no charges were brought.  You want to know WHY?  Well I'll tell you WHY! Because what "they" were doing was wrong! These Feds with local, county and state help were militants, from the word militate defined as "To have force as evidence"  Ed & the others of Dan Riley, Cirino Gonzales and Jason Gerhard plus Bob Wolffe had the evidence of their non filing in a gold-sealed certificate from Bill Gardner's office, but that the judge REFUSED to hear my "Point of Order" on this DURING trial, not AFTERward as they sent my Merrimack County Superior Court case against Deputy U.S. Marshal Jamie Barry who did assault me in courtroom #4 to Rhode Island where the judge lied that it was done AFTER trial!  It wasn't! Judge Kathleen McGuire - good riddance to bad rubbish of Hopkington retired last month. She allowed the Feds to push the case to the Federal courts by some U.S. Code.  But like I've explained and detail more now: by the Adams case of 1943 in the U.S. Supreme Court: an offer un-accepted is NOT consent. Check this out:

Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122 to be exact, an offer un-accepted is NOT consent! See also:  http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm (http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm)  ""In view of 40 USC 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USC 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."

So now this bill makes legal what was illegal before? in the Ed Brown case? We still have that RSA Ch. 642:2 of: "A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when the person knowingly or purposely physically interferes with a person recognized to be a LAW ENFORCEMENT official... seeking to effect an arrest or detention of the person or another REGARDLESS of whether there is a LEGAL basis for the arrest. " (emphasis ADDed; especially for the word law, as these Code Enforcement agents of the Feds were NOT law enforcement officers! and so maybe that was WHY there was no prosecution of Ed & Elaine for such standoff in the state court.) Or were the local, county and state authorities just "nice" enough NOT to charge them with that too? Nice, as in showing discernment, as in to detect? = to discover. Motion for Discovery is NOT limited to a piece of paper request in a court of law. Who was the first to discover that the Feds have not filed? Me! Back on Sept. 10, 2001 while working on the Andy Tempelman case out of Milford, N.H. that almost nine (9) years later, finally, I've been told by Andy that U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen is looking into this, as an Art. 49 Petition signed by Gonzales on June 20, 2007 was presented by me to the governor on June 21, 2007 @ 4:29 p.m. to act on this, but like I've written above he is refusing to send the Feds a written invitation to file.  Their GSA/ General Services Administration Landlord Martha Johnson of to file for her tenant court over there in the Warren B. Rudman Building at 55 Pleasant Street in Concord, N.H. Their Art. III, Section 1 "inferior Court of Congress" and not a 1-8-9 judicial tribunal.

See in difference to the above statute of not to resist, that other statute of: R.S.A. Chapter 627:8 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/627/627-8.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/627/627-8.htm) in that: "Use of Force in Property Offenses. – A person is justified in using force upon ANother when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what is or reasonably appears to be an UNLAWful taking of his property, or criminal mischief, OR to REtake his property immediately following its taking; ...." (emphasis ADDed for to compare the word lawful here to that of legal. The two words are NOT always the same. I won a Resisting Arrest charge on this defense in Grafton County Superior Court for re-taking my political poster from a COP who stole it off my building, contested in a Tax Sale and during a Town Election. The jury rendered its verdict of not guilty.)

And so back to the bill: of that word "another" therein too, of AN as in ANY other; and to "warn" meaning "To make aware of potential danger; caution" as in "To notify (a person) to go or stay away." And this word also having the meaning of: "To admonish as to action". The word admonish defined as of "To reprove mildly, but seriously." To reprove = "To find fault with." but WHERE? To do so as controllable UNDER others in a court withOUT jurisdiction, to whom no consent was given?  Of course not! One can stand on his Art. 12 rights! Where was the parley here, if any? The "discussion or conference, esp. between enemies."  I presented that Art. 49 petition for it to collect dust?  Of course not! To start the discussions with the enemy of he, the governor who did and still does REFUSE to act! To do his duty! This I find exceeding arrogant on his part. The word parley from the Latin word parabola meaning either a discourse or parable, as in a dis-course alright: to change the course of to WHERE the Feds were congregating in Plainfield with bullets to that of to where they are supposed to take their papers. I always thought that the pen was mightier than the sword. The "parable" or "simple story" to illustrate by a cartoon artist please, of our Founding Fathers writing Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, and one Delegate Mr. _________from: ____________ bringing in the letter t and saying: I want to put this letter "t"for the word pursuant, that when an accord or agreement is made between the state and Feds that such shall be sufficient for the higher authority of the Federalist to rule, the very existence of even a conditional agreement un-fulfilled.  With Mr. ________ from _________ protesting by saying, "no" the words ought to be "in Pursuance thereof" with the letter "c": "A carrying out or putting into effect."  WHEN the Federal agent does file his paperwork with that state agent (Secretary of State in N.H., to the governor in Florida, etc. as by the list over at: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm)  ) THEN bullets may then be loaded into the chamber of the gun to enforce compliance with the law, or else! "Wise up or Die." Procedural due process of law by the 5th + 14th Amendment.

2.) In reference to the 2nd bill here, HB1461 I really do like that wording of:   "Regulating, but not prohibiting"  as to compare the word Restrict in RSA Ch. 674:16,I Grant of Power for Zoning. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIV/674/674-16.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIV/674/674-16.htm)  = "The zoning ordinance shall be designed to regulate and restrict." NOT prohibit.  And  RSA Ch. 674:41,I(e) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIV/674/674-41.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIV/674/674-41.htm) in that the City or Town canNOT prohibit the building of a residential unit in a Residential Zone, even on a non-conforming lot, since it existed BEFORE zoning got started in the municipality, and so is restricted to up to the maximum # of lots already recorded. As in the speed limit on the highway is not prohibited but restricted to that of up to 55 m.p.h. as an example.

Best wishes, -- Joe Haas"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 06, 2010, 04:03 PM NHFT
Quote from: DonnaVanMeter on May 05, 2010, 08:33 PM NHFT
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/audio/08-2300.mp3 (http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/audio/08-2300.mp3)

Thank you Donna for this 52-minute tape that I did just listen to from about 3:43 p.m. to 4:35 p.m. finding some interesting info: (1)  like at 3:57 or 14 minutes into the tape where Judge Selya did mention the "judge in New Hampshire" ruling on whatever, and me asking right now: of  was he really withIN N.H. during that PART of the proceedings? In that ALL proceedings SHALL be held withIN the District of WHERE the offense occurred. 18USC3232.  So IF the WHATever of WHAT was talked about here dealt with what happened in Portland, Maine I think that there ought to be a correction into the record by one of the attorneys, but that I doubt that they would cut their own paychecks! as they participated in those illegal travels going to, at and from here to there.

And: (2) where at 4:04 - :09 at 21 + 5 = 26 minutes into the tape Judge Souter did ask Sven if he, in "good faith" -- and he is told that he doesn't have to answer the question if he doesn't want to, can say that the Feds have no "exclusive" jurisdiction from Part 1 (Art. 8, Clause 17) of the U.S. Constitution, with Sven's answer of something to the effect that of by statute too of the place having to be ceded, but never quite answering the question of: yes, or no.  The correct answer to this trick question is that he never wrote that, or did he? Brief @ page #__? The answer should have been that there is NO "exclusive" jurisdiction as that is ONLY to Washington, D.C. and of "like" authority of not the SAME, but "like" that of withIN the state IF the state does "consent" to such.  [ Or the individual by Art. 12 N.H. with a waiver.] Joshua @ 4:07 -- congratulations for bringing this subject up again, but in addition to some cover "letter" that MAY be over the documents, the two requirements are the plan AND description of the land by RSA Ch. 123:1, so when Souter did say that if NO "exclusive" jurisdiction, then it be an "over-lapping" jurisdiction, then so be it for how state civil process can be served withIN and on federal turf owned (not rented) by them, and so NOT off their turf on PRIVATE property!

So where does this take us?  Souter is the ONLY judge to ask this and reply to when talked to the second time, but that Seth Aframe never commented to.  So time for an Amicus Curiae/ Friend of the Court Brief on this?  I think so.

Can you make a transcript excerpt of this segment?  That would really help.  The over-lap or concurrent is WHERE? over the whole state or just to withIN the boundaries of their property they own!  It's to there as brought in by enforcement of any and all warrants by the local police as Joshua said, and now Danny finding out at this 11th hour, or AFTER that should have been provided to him by his court-appointed attorney Mark Howard originally that the Federal Arrest Warrant was un-sealed and so in violation of Article 84 of the N.H. Constitution! - - Joe

cc: to Ed & Elaine, plus: Reno and Danny (forward to Jason by Keith).
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 07, 2010, 08:52 AM NHFT
A copy of this going over to Ed & Elaine, plus Danny and Reno:

RE: [tape recording/RSA 21-G complaint] ("exclusive") [nh-seacoast-liberty] Fwd: 8 Hour Constitution Class with Michael Badnarik
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Fri 5/07/10 9:46 AM
To:    Jose G.
Cc:    Donna V.; Bill R.; Keith C.; Bernie B.; Andy T.; Dick Marple (armlaw at hotmail.com); Henry M.); Harvey W.; David H-B; Michael L.; Kat K.
Bcc:    Wayne B.

Thanks Jose. I presume this to mean of to take a tape recording of this segment and play it in pieces of like a few seconds at a time, stop, and then write, start, listen, stop and then write again. That's how I've done same in the past, and can do too, just didn't want to duplicate what somebody else can do, or if not right away, I can still do it.  The important part I think is where Gordon did say something like "they" (the Feds) have (present tense) or would THEN have? (in the future tense) over-lapping jurisdiction, and when the judge (Souter) heard that he said you/ Gordon have just ruled* or some other word (conceded*) against your own argument that there has to be "exclusive" jurisdiction, when what I thought he/Gordon meant was that there had to be jurisdictional authority, and that this was "under" the Article One "exclusive" (re: 1-8-17, the 8-17 they never mentioned), so used the word "exclusive" as an identifer of for WHERE placed withIN the Constitution, and so UNDER that meaning NOT withIN that word but physically within the part and in detail within the next sentence or line under that, of when Sven said to Souter's question of you mean that you've got to have exclusive jurisdiction, he said "right", but meant of for "like" that in D.C. of similar powers being conferred upon the Feds as by the state statute to "cede".  He did say this word but used the word AND I think, for when he should have used the word OR, meaning exclusive for D.C. and cedeing by state for "like" powers withIN the state and only on Federal tuft.  NOT for BOTH Concord AND Plainfield. Gordon did say yes to what Sven said AND then said overlapping too and that's when Souter had it with their Double-talk of both, Souter saying you've just "conceded"* your own argument then, and something to the effect that it's useless to go down this path, his voice dropping off as he was saying it, that was like him holding the keys to the prison doors, and these attorney Bozos not getting their act together!  Did they practice what the judge might have said on this argument together before court in a trial run?, like when Judd Gregg pretended to be Al Gore for Bush in the mock of before the Presidential debates. If they practice in the executive, why no practice here in the legislative/quisi judicial?   I wish that I could have been there now and MAYBE Gordon saying wait a minute, can we take a recess? I'd like to talk with my "expert" on this meaning me, or defer over to me, or is such dis-allowed? Might he have some coughing spell saying he needed a drink of water or something? This is a clear example of them "practicing" law as they never made it to perfection for their clients who are doomed by their mistakes.

Thank you, -- Joe

P.S. When Judge Selya said: "the judge in New Hampshire" it was in reference to Danny contesting having Mark Howard as his attorney, who Sven said was still in an advisory role as former Assistant U.S. Attorney against the Browns, but I think those early hearings were in N.H. but not Maine. You might want to also transcribe this section too and ALL of it of when Sven said that Danny was without his own attorney for about 2 months and the jail saying that he had an attorney and so could not access the law library, etc., Sven then only a "stand-by" counsel for withIN the court, not general counsel. Then there were hearings in Maine on who to represent him, right? To put a star: * on THAT part of the transcript and tell the court that that hearing was not with the judge IN New Hampshire, but IN Maine, and in violation of 18USC3232. The attorneys won't do this who took those paychecks, and so this up to Reno's attorney Joshua Gordon to do this AND tell the court that they do NOT have a copy of the ENTIRE transcript of the proceedings of the trial.  According to Reno I think it was, when I did make my POINT OF ORDER and DURING trial BEFORE the Verdict in courtroom #4, the judge did say from the bench to: get that guy out of here! but when I asked the transcriber if she recorded it she said: no. Why not? because she was standing up awaiting the return of the jury and so anything said or done is NOT recorded? Did ANY of these attorneys get an incident report of this from the Marshals? ____ Deputy Jamie Barry did the pushing with that other Deputy.  This was an orchestrated event planned PRIOR and I think with them in security notifying the judge ahead of time too on HOW to deal with it of them surrounding me for a fast exit! IF I had only had my argument on the record there then this screw-up by them yesterday would NOT have happened! So Jose: could Reno have Joshua get this Incident Report? _____ and maybe file some reprimand against the transcriber to her Society, and look into whether there be another case somewhere where another "nadir" or point was made as Seth Aframe did mention of my Free Speech rights down to a nadir amount.  This point NOT even in the transcript for appeal.  Thus the transcript is missing this and not complete.  In N.H. these Article 12 inhabitants are guaranteed "complete"ness by Art. 14.  They should have been referred to as such yesterday but weren't, only by name and not title.  The titles were only directed to the "judges". As in title to names, titles win.

footnote #1: for me to likewise file a complaint against the governor to the Executive Ethics Committee under RSA Ch. ___.  Hey! If you can't beat em, join 'em as they say. Reference: of my trying to get the governor to enforce all legislative mandates as by the "shall" word in RSA 123:1 to send a written invitation to the Feds, that if he won't support N.H. statutes then he supports U.S. Codes as in to allow the Federal Criminal Code to be used, then so be it for it to be "complete" too: both of that part of the code AGAINST the defendants, plus that part of the Code AGAINST the Federal government itself! Reference: 18USC3232 of that ALL proceedings SHALL be conducted withIN the District of WHERE the offense occurred.  So when I gave my paperwork to the N.H. Dept. of Safety that time when they were about to take Reno to Maine, the N.H. State Police were supposed to enforce the law, to which their boss, the governor takes full responsibility under Article 41.  And so to BOTH the State Executive Ethics* AND then the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims for the $250,000 damages. All we need is a win here for Reno to ricochet back to help Ed & Elaine, plus Danny and Jason too.

* First Draft: To the RSA Ch. 21-G:29 7-member Executive Ethics Committee at the A.G.'s Office under RSA Ch. 21-G:33 - - Affirmed Complaint against Gov. John H. Lynch...In that he did violate RSA Ch. 21-G:23 "Misuse of Position" when he FAILed to enforce the laws of BOTH:  N.H. and the United States, first (1) by REFUSing to send a written invitation to the G.S.A./ General Services Landlord Martha Johnson (head of agency by 40USC255 to 40USC3112) for her tenant of that Art. III, Section 2 "inferior Court of Congress" for to file their cover "letter" if any plus "plan" AND "description" that SHALL be filed with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State by RSA Ch. 123:1 per his duty as prescribed in Article 51,; AND second (2) by his FAILure and REFUSAL to enforce the law of Title 18 U.S. Code Section 3232 that was alerted to his Dept. of Safety Commissioner by me in writing to his receptionist Nancy for which he is Article 41 responsible for, in that he did allow what I call the Federal Advantage to occur that SHALL not to have occurred but did in that one of our Article 12 + 30 inhabitants, by the name of Cirino Gonzalez was unlawfully and illegally removed by force to withOUT this Federal District of New Hampshire to that of the District of Maine for a hearing in the case.  The law specific that ALL proceedings SHALL be held withIN the District of WHERE the offense occured for both the benefit of the defendant AND the witnesses, me a listed, but un-called witness in the case who did make a "Point of Order" statement DURING trial, but was NOT allowed to expand upon it, me having been pushed out of courtroom #4 by Deputy U.S. Marshal Jamie Barry who I did sue for criminal assault in Concord District Court needing an Art. 17 + 38 impeachment against Judge Edwin W. Kelly too for RSA Ch. 643:1 "Official Oppression".   But for you to please RSA Ch. 21-G:31,II investigate this and hold an RSA Ch. 21-G:31,III hearing to find that the governor did violate the law (Article 51) and recommend his impeachment by Articles 38 + 40.  Yours truly, - - Joe Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059, e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com The simple 1-page complaint form is at: http://doj.nh.gov/ethics/file_complaint.html (http://doj.nh.gov/ethics/file_complaint.html) from http://doj.nh.gov/ethics/ (http://doj.nh.gov/ethics/) and home page of: http://doj.nh.gov/ (http://doj.nh.gov/) ...

cc: The N.H. Underground now while in the polliwog stage because if disclosed to anybody AFTER filing it's a misdemeanor event for violation of privacy.

...their address over at http://doj.nh.gov/ethics/contact.html (http://doj.nh.gov/ethics/contact.html) = Executive Branch Ethics Committee , 33 Capitol Street , Concord, New Hampshire 03301-6397, (603) 271-1238 (goes to Deputy Bud Fitch) E-mail: Ethics at doj dot nh dot gov & Members http://doj.nh.gov/ethics/members.html (http://doj.nh.gov/ethics/members.html) =
Dale S. Kuehne, Acting Chairman (appointed by Secretary of State) , Alan W. Johnson (appointed by Treasurer) , Karol LaCroix (appointed by governor) , James A. Normand (former Executive Councilor, also appinted by the Secretary of State), (Attorney) Patricia B. Quigley (appointed by the State Treasurer)[and according to Kara at 271-3658 press 5, (Attorney) Andrew Schulman, appointed by the governor, with with vacancy for the governor to appoint.)

footnote #2: I did just talk with Dick Marple about what happened yesterday in Boston, and he said that BOTH of these attorneys should have thrown the book at Souter! re: the Adams case of 1943.  His Circuit Court (and the District Court) canNOT over-ride this Supreme Court case! Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122 to be exact, an offer un-accepted is NOT consent! See also:  http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm (http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm)  ""In view of 40 USC 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USC 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)." Didn't ANY of these attorneys (Sven or Joshua) put this into their BRIEF? If so, at page #____? If not then WHY not!? "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 07, 2010, 09:48 AM NHFT
Here's a copy and paste to: http://www.nhti.edu/contact.html (http://www.nhti.edu/contact.html)

"Attn: Stacy Peters, NHTI Paralegal Dept. 271-7184

Stacy: This is to follow-up my telephone recording to you of just a few minutes ago for to please answer: 1. Do you have a transcription course or class? And 2. If so with WHO as the teacher? because I'd like to ask him or her what book, chapter and page has it that of what's said in court is written down, as in a "Point of Order". It's done in the State Legislative Branch, so why not the Federal too? The Article III, Section 2, "inferior court of Congress" per the U.S. Constitution. And not a 1-8-9 judicial tribunal. Re: of my "nadir" freedom of speech rights that the judge refused to listen to upon expansion but ought to have been recorded by Rule #__ of some Code, right? Thank you, -- Joe Haas"

With confirmation page: http://www.nhti.edu/contactthankyou.html (http://www.nhti.edu/contactthankyou.html) of "Thank you for contacting NHTI. You will receive a response to your question/comment within 2 business days. NHTI, Concord's Community College, 31 College Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301-7412, Telephone:(603)271-6484, nhtiinfo at ccsnh.edu
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 07, 2010, 11:19 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/lawmakers-to-probe-ponzi-case (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/lawmakers-to-probe-ponzi-case)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/lawmakers-to-probe-ponzi-case#comment-123281 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/lawmakers-to-probe-ponzi-case#comment-123281)

entitled: "The "Royal Run Around" "

of: " When there's a "gap" in regulation between the two departments WHO is "responsible"? Answer: Not the governor by Article 41, but The Members thereof The Legislature or General Court itself for not providing the laws for which the governor, by Article 51 part 2 of the N.H. Constitution  is charged to execute. See RSA Ch. 93-B:1,I for which there is a $________ bond to help pay these "investors"/ turned victims who are also Article 12 + 30 inhabitants who paid their protection money into this "Protection Racket" that includes your local State Rep. Lien his/her house for failure to do their duty if not enough $money from The HANOVER Insurance Policy #_______ that the State of New Hampshire pays $xxx,xxx.xx per year for in premium to The FERDINANDO INSURANCE ASSOCIATES, INC., 637 Chestnut Street, Manchester, N.H. 03104, 603: 669-3218 (or if this not in the present tense?) to where I just called to there and spoke with Kathy, the Office Manager who said: they might still have it with them, but she thinks not and so another, but because of financial, it RSA Ch. 91-A:5,IV exempt for us citizens and so to get your State Rep. to obtain the information from Rebecca White, her contact person with the State in The Risk Management Dept., at The State House Annex at 271-2223 who is "Out to Lunch". "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 13, 2010, 10:31 AM NHFT
"Our junk filters identified something suspicious in your message. Please edit it and try again. Learn more"

Hotmail will NOT allow me to mail this, and so I post it here:

"Commander Graham Bethune of the U.S. Navy, eh?  Any relation to Earthrace skipper, Peter Bethune of "Around the world in 60 days"? http://www.clubmarine.com.au/internet/clubmarine.nsf/docs/mg24-4+profile (http://www.clubmarine.com.au/internet/clubmarine.nsf/docs/mg24-4+profile)

Or maybe Zina Bethune?, the actress http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0079203/ (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0079203/) (born: 1945)  who played  " Sister Claire"  in Roy Thinnes' "The Invaders"  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061265/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061265/) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invaders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invaders) Season 2 Episode  11 (1967)  of  "The Prophet"    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0612007/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0612007/)   with co-star Pat Hingle as The Glowing Man: See: ___________________   what used to be at youtube, but removed because of copyright infringement, maybe over at Sherman & Peabody's Wayback Machine? http://www.archive.org/ (http://www.archive.org/) Plug in http:// www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=MBhwG1qHCX0#]www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBhwG1qHCX0[/url] as Part #1 of 6 [ gets to: "Sorry, no matches.] This was and still IS a great episode if you can maybe find a VHS tape of it on http://www.ebay.com/ (http://www.ebay.com/) I have autographed photos from this actress and actor, and little did I know that decades after watching the original back in 1967 that of that leading to this?

Graham E. Bethune = http://www.topsecrettestimony.com/Witnesses/CommanderGrahamBethuneUSNavy/tabid/255/Default.aspx (http://www.topsecrettestimony.com/Witnesses/CommanderGrahamBethuneUSNavy/tabid/255/Default.aspx) of the 1951 incident of the yellow halo (at slow speed) turning orange, then red and purplish red (when fast**). http://www.fastwalkers.com/featured/GrahamEBethune_x.htm (http://www.fastwalkers.com/featured/GrahamEBethune_x.htm) Feb. 10th to be exact on a flight from Iceland to Newfoundland, of the 8-minute encounter with this 300-foot in diameter craft with a dome.

* http://www.youtube.com/index?ytsession=NO1baiqH1AOhtjJr9hJF_4w1ZVDMHS06uPVOxKbd4lq2BzueJwpQJRKijqKR2ExAp95VsNAm6Peg9B9lgMQsfMeFTkEJy0w6MSkI7Uz67BZZ16nLPjMJXqyaf4TZgghSUpPSAgdzs705mKOLc_5pTBhxL8gWOxHChfaGZuD3JL3oThuziT-LO0Jdsej0IYP19JphIFu_ZL84q9w59cXokMApjpiB9z8Ivg_44T5XTI1VNpVWPzI5OupZEwnVnBYl9I71qRWGOZDYinm5SATdVtT6RRmx-EiaYXsuovZbTc7eO8hCVe37KJQU1iD-qYqFPHhjfs5cthAYjTFi8tRGlDkIOAWHWEw5B4GdAi03DGmTkvYjcObx-w (http://www.youtube.com/index?ytsession=NO1baiqH1AOhtjJr9hJF_4w1ZVDMHS06uPVOxKbd4lq2BzueJwpQJRKijqKR2ExAp95VsNAm6Peg9B9lgMQsfMeFTkEJy0w6MSkI7Uz67BZZ16nLPjMJXqyaf4TZgghSUpPSAgdzs705mKOLc_5pTBhxL8gWOxHChfaGZuD3JL3oThuziT-LO0Jdsej0IYP19JphIFu_ZL84q9w59cXokMApjpiB9z8Ivg_44T5XTI1VNpVWPzI5OupZEwnVnBYl9I71qRWGOZDYinm5SATdVtT6RRmx-EiaYXsuovZbTc7eO8hCVe37KJQU1iD-qYqFPHhjfs5cthAYjTFi8tRGlDkIOAWHWEw5B4GdAi03DGmTkvYjcObx-w)

**  http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread457637/pg4 (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread457637/pg4)  " a purple-red fiery ring around the perimeter and a frosted white glow around the entire object. The purple-red glow around the perimeter was the same type of glow you get around the commutator*** of an auto generator when you observe it at night."

*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutator_%28electric%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutator_%28electric%29)

**** Henry: reference "yellow Halo" UFO at GOOGLE  http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22yellow+halo%22+UFO&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22yellow+halo%22+UFO&gs_rfai=&fp=146855c3d75b296f (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22yellow+halo%22+UFO&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22yellow+halo%22+UFO&gs_rfai=&fp=146855c3d75b296f)  gets you to: http://www (http://www) dot youtube dot com/watch?v=TUt6qtgJaVY [ "Feb 8, 2009 ... Then we saw a yellow halo, small, much smaller than whatever it was launched from, about 15 miles away. As the UFO approached my plane and ..."] of this USO 10-minutes video seen 6,071 times so far, with that very interesting story of the March __, 1963 incident that occurred for 4 days 100 miles off of Puerto Rico, of an underwater craft traveling 150 knots and 20,000 feet down, when the crash depth for submarines at that time was 7,000 feet according to Bruce Maccabee and in Ivan T. Sanderson's "Invisible Residents" book, plus that I saw on "The History Channel" this past Winter.  The report of this went to: __________, in Norfolk Virginia, pay close attention to the very end of this tape, this report starting at 8:49 minutes.  Maybe you can "Sheppardize" this? of similar incidents elsewhere since then?

Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 09:23:16 -0400
Subject: Fwd: The transcript on the "Gateway To Freedom" Web site
From: Henry
To: Harvey; Dick; josephshaas at hotmail.com

Gentlemen This "Gateway To Freedom" Web site (link below) contains the scrip of the brief YouTube speech .

Our team set it up to show the location of the hits coming in.  There are some first day numbers coming in from all over our Sovereign World that seem to be impressive for a period of time less than 19 hours...take a look.

Thanks again for assisting,
Henry

http://brieftoeisenhower.wordpress.com (http://brieftoeisenhower.wordpress.com)
-- "
http:// www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=TUt6qtgJaVY
UFO'S BECOME USO'S (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUt6qtgJaVY#)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Modification:

Here's Henry's video from the original e-mail:

http:// www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=mrK2YgfjnHo
Former Legislator Makes Statement on Un-Released Eisenhower Brief (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrK2YgfjnHo#)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 13, 2010, 01:03 PM NHFT
Comments to Henry's Eisenhower-UFO video:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1064016/pg1 (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1064016/pg1)

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

See also: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1064119/pg1 (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1064119/pg1)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 14, 2010, 12:16 PM NHFT
Here's a copy and paste:

"The 18USC3232 thief being this Federal judge to get arrested!?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Fri 5/14/10 12:57 PM
To:    Jose G.; Donna V.; Bill R.; David H-B; Bernie B.; Andy T.; Dick Marple (armlaw at hotmail.com); Henry M.; Harvey W.; Danny Mac; Fred D. (fwd to Keith for Jason)
Bcc:    Wayne B.; Stephen J. D.
To: "BROWN EDWARD; BROWN ELAINE; GONZALEZ CIRINO; RILEY DANIEL;"

Subject: "The 18USC3232 thief being this Federal judge to get arrested!"

Message: "To Ed & Elaine, plus Danny and Reno (cc: by copy and paste to e-mail Keith to get to Jason):

This morning I did find that e-mail I had sent to The Office of Inspector General, Glenn Fine, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Investigations Division, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Room 4322, Washington, D.C. 20530 202: 514-3435 on Tue., Aug. 11, 2009 that is now over nine (9) months later and still with no answer and so I wrote to there today at 10:08 a.m. and followed it up with a telephone call to find out that the woman who answered the phone at exactly 10:41 a.m. (it is recorded), said that yes, we do take complaints against any 18USC3232 violations, as withIN the Criminal Code, with their department, but then when I told her it was a judge who is the thief, she said of to go to some Office of Professional Responsibility, like for attorneys, me saying that that is a bunch of B.S. because they only protect the brotherhood, as I've learned at both the State of N.H. PCC for David Bownes and Sven Wiberg, plus in Washington for Bill Morse.  I called back at 11:15 a.m. to try to get to find out who to talk with above the receptionist but below the Inspector, and the woman told me of the Assistant, Tom McLauglin but again when told of it against the judge I got a different answer of to call the fraud hotline at 1-800-869-4499 (Room 4706) press 8 for judges to report to the Circuit in which he sits, and so called Boston for the 1st against Jeffrey R. Howard who cut these checks for illegal travels to Portland, Maine and the woman there said to hit the blue bubble of Rules on their Main Page to page 129 for to Report Judicial MisConduct, but when I read that word I told her that's a waste of time for antics of that's "conduct" like a conductor of a symphony with his baton never hitting anything, the judge in this case a thief stealing from us taxpayers! And I think I had already reported to there with a copy to Howard that I KNOW of, or vice versa, but with NO reply from either! And so my call to the U.S. Marshal - N.H. as LAW ENFORCEMENT, but Gary saying to cool it, re: my idea of to Citizens Arrest Howard if I ever see him on the streets but ONLY with local police back-up, and so a call AGAIN to Rbt. Barry, Chief of Concord P.D. to please finally give me a written executive decision based upon my complaint of Tampering with Public/Government records that includes ALL of the Feds included, re: that Return of Service for Ed & Elaine that they were NOT arrested BELIEVE IT OR NOT! when they were. To deal with that and THEN to go after the means that arrived to these unjust ends of incarcerations! Me having at first before calling the Feds, called all five (5) Executive Councilors to please advise/counsel the governor of to send that written invitation to the Feds to 40USC255 to 40USC3112 file their papers per N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 and if they do not do so NOW in writing that they AND the governor a cc: and call to Citizens Services too, was my repeat of saying that when they have the next BFA/ Business Finance Authority Public Hearing at the G&C I will stand up and call it OUT OF ORDER per Roberts Rules of Order of my prior claim for action be dealt with first because in my book you're all a bunch of thieves for taking the tax-payers money and not doing your job: the Art. 51 duty of that you/governor SHALL execute all legislative mandates by the "shall" word in RSA 123:1 for which you are Art. 41 responsible for! For them to render an Art. 8 accounting of their counsel to him. A copy of my e-mail "Progress Report - please!" to follow for you to print out at 15-cents a page if you'd like. This here just the summary of such. The details therein. And before that of my call to Shea-Porter's office in Dover to have her please have Naomi in Washington get to finally endorse my complaint to the SubCommittee, or you Danny and Jason from N.Y. to have the two Federal Reps from N.Y. on this Committee do so on YOUR individual complaints to your Fed. Rep. to pass onto them, and Elaine IN Texas plus Reno FROM Texas to do same for the other two Texas Reps., and Ed in Illinois to whoever. This issue will NOT go away! Howard is a THIEF and WILL pay.  It's just HOW he will be caught and WHEN he be made to re-pay, thus providing the evidence of a violation of the 5th + 14th Amendments to procedural due process of law, as the end does  NOT justify the means.  We are to have The Rule of Law, and not this arbitrary in-justice! Best wishes, - Joe P.S. To call David Bownes and ask him WHERE and WHEN he would be available for me to put him under Citizen's Arrest. You too Danny: to give a call over to Sven. I'm serious! "

"Message successfully sent"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 14, 2010, 02:02 PM NHFT
"RE: Henry video - "It's getting out there"
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Fri 5/14/10 2:59 PM
To:    Harvey W.; Henry M.; Dick Marple (armlaw at hotmail.com)

LOL*, "and" with great promise of "Things To Come".

Re: "This new revelation could result in timely support for the August 2010 election on the Denver ballot initiative to create an Extraterrestrial Affairs Commission. The proposed commission would collect credible evidence and whistle-blower testimony regarding UFOs and visitors to Earth of extraterrestrial origin. It would then share such evidence with the public through the Denver city government web site at no cost to the city budget. The aim of the commission is to brief the public with information previously viewed only by a privileged few."

* The L.O.L. being more to the point of a tabloid telling us what is REALly happening out there in the polliwog stages.

Best wishes, - Joe

From: ____________
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 13:57:15 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Henry video - "It's getting out there"
To: __________; ________; josephshaas at hotmail.com

This is just one of the stories that's resulted from the vid...Expect many, many more...
and people knocking at your door !

From my friend in Missouri...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: david f.
Date: Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:53 PM
Subject: It's getting out there
To: _________________

It's getting out there

http://www.examiner.com/x-2024-Denver-UFO-Examiner~y2010m5d12-President-Eisenhower-briefed-on-ET-presence-says-former-New-Hampshire-legislator (http://www.examiner.com/x-2024-Denver-UFO-Examiner~y2010m5d12-President-Eisenhower-briefed-on-ET-presence-says-former-New-Hampshire-legislator)
--
Restore The Republic AND Uphold ALL Treaties With The Originals !

http:  //  www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=AP-IM7maxbI
Take Our Freedom Back! by Band of Patriots - Music Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP-IM7maxbI#)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 14, 2010, 05:00 PM NHFT
"18USC3232 waste, fraud and abuse.
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaasat hotmail.com)
Sent:    Tue 8/11/09 12:06 PM
To:    oig.hotline at usdoj.gov
Cc:    olga.clough at mail.house.gov; mike.brown at mail.house.gov; naomi.andrews at mail.house.gov; rob.moller at mail.house.gov; County Strafford (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us); Barbara Laskey (Foster's) (blaskey at fosters.com); Foster's Daily Democrat (letters at fosters.com); Rep. David Russell (russells at metrocast.net); Representative Paul Hodes (nh02ima at mail.house.gov)
Bcc:    Andrew T.; Bernie B.; Bill  T.; Bill R; Bob S.; Kat K.; C7; Danny Mac; D-B.; Dennis M.; Dick Marple; Donna V.; Gary B.; Harriet C.; Harvey W.; Henry M.; J4J Attn: Barbie; Joe O.; Jose G.; Keith C.; Lois G.; Lyndse R. F.; Mary B.; Michael L.; Portland State Rep. #1; Portland State Rep. #2; Portland State Rep. #3; Portland State Rep. #5; Portland State Rep. #6; Portland State Rep. #7; Portland State Rep. #8; Stephen J. D.; Sue B.; Wayne B.

To: The Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, Investigations Division, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 4706, Washington, D.C. 20530 (800) 869-4499 press 3 for waste, fraud and abuse, then zero: 0 for the Operator.

cc: Mike Brown, Chief of Staff in Washington, D.C. for Fed. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, plus Olga Clough, Chief of Staff-N.H. for Shea-Porter in Dover (Mike out until Sept. 1st, and so to the other two too), The Chairman of the Strafford County Commissioners. [from Jean Miccolo to George Maglaris, please.] The "Foster's Daily Democrat" newspaper of Dover, N.H., plus N.H. State Rep. David Russell, and Fed. Rep. Paul Hodes.  [And like I said to: U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg in Concord, N.H. and Olympia J. Snowe in Portland, Maine; plus Fed. Rep. Chelle Pingree in Portland, Maine by regular mail already over a month ago, but with no reply yet from ANY of them!!!]"

Quote from: JosephSHaas on August 11, 2009, 09:42 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on August 04, 2009, 02:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on August 04, 2009, 02:17 PM NHFT
....
....
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 14, 2010, 05:05 PM NHFT
"RE: (Progress Report - please!) 18USC3232 waste, fraud and abuse.
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Fri 5/14/10 10:08 AM
To:    oig.hotline at usdoj.gov
Cc:    olga.clough at mail.house.gov; naomi.andrews at mail.house.gov; rob.moller at mail.house.gov; County Strafford (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us); Barbara Laskey (Foster's) (blaskey at fosters.com); Foster's Daily Democrat (letters at fosters.com); Rep. David Russell (russells at metrocast.net); Representative Paul Hodes (nh02ima at mail.house.gov); World Jewish Congress Foundation (esimmons at wjcfoundation.org); Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us); G&C#1 (rburton at nh.gov); G&C#2 (jshea at nh.gov); G&C#3 (bhollingworth at nh.gov); G&C#4 (rwieczorek at nh.gov); G&C#5 (debora.pignatelli at nh.gov); Citizens Service - N.H. (Lynch) (officeofcitizenservi at nh.gov); ralph.conner at gsa.gov
Bcc:    _________________________________________

Progress Report Requested.  This has been over nine (9) months through Sept. 11, Oct. 11, Nov. 11, Dec. 11, Jan. 11, Feb. 11, March 11, April 11, May 11 to today of May 14th.  Surely you are overdue by three days to give me a birth of an answer to this as having been incubated past the "favorable" time to that of rigor juris of the strictness of law! - - Joe Haas

footnote #1: Noting that Mike Brown does not work for Shea-Porter http://shea-porter.house.gov/ (http://shea-porter.house.gov/) in Washington anymore, that position having been taken over by Naomi Andrews who has been contacted by telephone twice by me the past two weeks by talking with the office receptionist down there, and leaving a voice mail but without an answer.

footnote #2: The Legal Counsel for Hodes http://hodes.house.gov/ (http://hodes.house.gov/) is Lisa in the Concord, N.H. Office.  She told me earlier this week that her boss WILL not endorse my written complaint to the Subcommittee of The House Judiciary Committee, and when I told her that I was going to "aggressively" go after this judge who works on the 4th floor of the Warren B. Rudman Building at 53 Pleasant Street, in Concord, N.H. she reported me to the U.S. Marshals and I got a call from Deputy U.S. Marshal Gary DiMartino to give him a call of to answer his investigation, me telling him of that I specifically told her to look that word up in the dictionary of meaning either hostile or bold, in that for the former of enmity or hatred of violent dislike of no, not that of the second part of the word vehement meaning: violent, but reference the first part of being ardent with strong enthusiasm, as from the Greek word enthousiazein, "to be inspired by a god." who in this case is the not a lower case god, but God Almighty Who IS the Truth! me calling her boss Hodes a liar!  He says he's a Jew, but is not because of his lieing, as by accepting Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch's statement to Jane Pauly in his office to whom he told her to tell him that it's O.K. to travel across state lines by some Rule 72.5 that somehow over-rides the U.S. Code or Federal Statutes at Large that such is alright when it is not! That is for CIVIL cases, and NOT for them working in the CRIMINAL Code! Hodes actually one of these Revelation 2:9 + (3:9) liars: "them which say they are Jews and are not (but do lie) but are the synagogue of Satan." with cc: also to The World Jewish Congress Foundation e-mail: Ellen of: esimmons at wjcfoundation.org who I had contacted before as they do have an excellent Code of Ethics to abide by "The Rule of Law", but when I reported this so-called Jewish member of theirs to there, my complaint is there like here merely collecting dust! Like from dust you came from, to dust you go! having been elevated by the spirit to go vertical for a while, but causing this irritation with your lies that does NOT set well with me! I shirk it off with a back to that bold word of: "To take the liberty." NOT of like you all who take the liberty away from my friends asserting the law, but:

footnote #3:  "Unwarranted", as there were warrants issued in this case by that they were not signed by a judge as they have to be or by the Clerk under Rule 4(b)(1)(D), but by a Deputy Clerk (Anne Mulvey)  http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ (http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/) when issued to the Marshal to execute only lawful precepts by his own oath and having no seal of the Art. III, Sec. 1 inferior court of Congress (or is this a 1-8-9 U.S. Constitution, judicial tribunal?) that has no jurisdiction- - yet! The seal required by 28 USC 1691 + 1651(a).

footnote #4. There being no such 40USC255 to 40USC3112 Federal Filing  http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575) and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html) respectfully.
by their landlord/  "head" of "agency" Martha Johnson, Administrator of the G.S.A.: General Services Administration, , 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20405, Phone: (202) 501-0800. by ralph.conner at gsa.gov first contacted about this by e-mail of:   Thu 11/19/09 11:27 PM but NOTHING done in almost six months ! ! ! ! ! !"  for their tenant court to our N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm)
from:  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm) of to be done by 1-8-17 U.S. since it is not Art. VI, Sec. 2 U.S. pursuant to with the letter t for an accord or agreement was made between our N.H. General Court back on June 14, 1883, but that of "in Pursuant therefore" with the letter c, of to put into effect.  Thus an offer of consent, as in a conditional consent, is NOT consent, as per the Adams case at the U.S. Supreme Court of 1943.   Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122 to be exact, an offer un-accepted is NOT consent! See also:  http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm (http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm)  ""In view of 40 USC 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USC 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)." 

footnote #5. Even the U.S. Attorney Manual #664 http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm)  spells this out, but that they did and continue to do these wrongs! under new Democrat U.S. Marshal David Cargil who I had reported this to when he was with the N.H. State Police for to Article 12 + 30, Parts 1 + 2, N.H. Constitution   http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)  and  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/senate.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/senate.html)  from: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/constitution.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/constitution.html)  to protect these "inhabitants" from these other laws never consented to to be controllable over them.  To send them/ my friends to an F.C.I. to be "corrected" I find disgusting! and so a likewise cc: to Bill Gardner, our N.H. Secretary of State http://www.sos.nh.gov/ (http://www.sos.nh.gov/)   plus:

footnote #6.  All Five (5) Executive Councilors  http://www.nh.gov/council/ (http://www.nh.gov/council/)   to advise the governor John H. Lynch of Hopkinton getting a cc of this too to his Citizens Services Dept. to please finally do your job! of to send the Feds a written invitation to file.  It's your duty by Art. 51 for which you shall be Art. 41 responsible for!    http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html)   and by RSA Ch. 93-B:1,I    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/93-B/93-B-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/93-B/93-B-1.htm) bonded to $200,000. Go to the State website and click on the Admin. Services Agency  http://admin.state.nh.us/ (http://admin.state.nh.us/) - hover over  the Risk Management to the left margin and click Insurance Policies gets you to  http://admin.state.nh.us/riskmanagement/propandcasualty.asp (http://admin.state.nh.us/riskmanagement/propandcasualty.asp)
click on the 1st hyperlink of Insurance Policies =
http://admin.state.nh.us/purchasing/property%20and%20casualty%20insurance%20policies.pdf (http://admin.state.nh.us/purchasing/property%20and%20casualty%20insurance%20policies.pdf)
see the 2nd one down to the $6,352/year policy for $200,000 = all positions, except $300,000 for each of the Chairman Lottery and Exec. Dir. Sweepstakes. THEN when filed to allow for such only over the land of which they've purchased and so only there be these so-called overlapping powers of State and Federal, NOT in either Lebanon, N.H. NOR Plainfield, N.H.!! NEW evidence in which to open this case in N.H. or to file some Rule 63 collateral attack in another Federal District for to file a Petition for to obtain a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Quote from: JosephSHaas on May 14, 2010, 05:00 PM NHFT....

Quote from: JosephSHaas on August 11, 2009, 09:42 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on August 04, 2009, 02:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on August 04, 2009, 02:17 PM NHFT
....
....
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 19, 2010, 06:50 AM NHFT
The U.S. Census (in Kentucky):

Part 1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/census-worker-hanged-with_n_297114.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/census-worker-hanged-with_n_297114.html)

Part 2: _____________________________________________________

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

So which one was it?

Re: the title of: "Fed"?

or "fed? as withIN the story: "what type of instrument was used to write "fed" on his chest."

See: The "American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973 @ page 261: ""adj. 1. Of or constituting a union of states recognizing the sovereignty of a central authority WHILE RETAINING CERTAIN RESIDUAL POWERS." (emphasis ADDed.) or: "3.  Federal. a. Of or pertaining to the central government of the U.S." only!? but withOUT the "residual"!?

Reference: Souter's remarks about 1-8-17 U.S. part 1 of 2 only and so a Fed, when he ought to refer to the "fed"s from part 2 of the "like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be".

- - Joe
_____________________________________________________________

mod #2: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/23/census-worker-hanged (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/23/census-worker-hanged) [ for "fed" and "fed". ]
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 19, 2010, 07:17 AM NHFT
http://www.thegrio.com/news/census-less-killing-fake-census-worker-invades-home.php (http://www.thegrio.com/news/census-less-killing-fake-census-worker-invades-home.php)

of: "...Government officials said there are ways to correctly identify Census workers.

"They should have a badge with their name on it, and a messenger bag with the Department of Commerce seal," said Eduardo Guity with the U.S. Census Bureau. "Most importantly, a Census worker will never ask to come into your home."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: EthanLeeVita on May 20, 2010, 02:05 AM NHFT
The census worker with FED written on him was a suicide made to look like a murder.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: CJS on May 20, 2010, 01:06 PM NHFT
Quote from: EthanLeeVita on May 20, 2010, 02:05 AM NHFT
The census worker with FED written on him was a suicide made to look like a murder.

if you believe the feds that investigated it and saved a big life insurance policy in the process.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: EthanLeeVita on May 20, 2010, 01:17 PM NHFT
I think they'd have been happier to smear anti-government folks with a violent brush. Then again, the media about it being a suicide was considerably less than the media about his death...so they got both.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 21, 2010, 06:08 AM NHFT
Thanks for the info about it being a suicide, and the cost $savings to us tax-payers.

Now onto the other case where the Census Worker was locked in somebody's closet and he/she/they (the home owner) called the local C.O.P.s. ...
_______________________________________________________________
Mod:

1.) http://www.topix.com/forum/city/ironton-oh/TE1TAAK81QK8PQ5GD (http://www.topix.com/forum/city/ironton-oh/TE1TAAK81QK8PQ5GD)

"bob, United States, Reply », Report Abuse, Judge it!, #12, Apr 5, 2010

I understand this is what happened , a friend of my sister in laws niece, a midget cencius worker knocked on the door of a mentally handicap 17yrs old a sizeable kid,that is facinated with trolls, this kid picks up the worker(midget) and puts him in the closet and locks it he called his mother at work and explains he found a troll!! After a short convo they hang up. He finds skittles in the house
and slides them under the door he calls his mother the second time and explains it again soon after his mother comes home to find a midget senicus worker looked in the closet unharmed but shaken up"

2.) http://www.topix.com/forum/city/ironton-oh/TE1TAAK81QK8PQ5GD/p2 (http://www.topix.com/forum/city/ironton-oh/TE1TAAK81QK8PQ5GD/p2)

"Informed Source, Ashland, KY, Reply », Report Abuse, Judge it!, #25, Friday May 7
wheres kyle wrote:
    maybe the little guy was just looking for kyle. i bet he was.
    http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com (http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com)...

This is the real story...a midget census worker arrives at a special needs home.realizing the retarded man was alone,he locked the special needs person in the closet,took a break,watched some wrestling,and made a few long distanse calls to his former employer,"Just Midgets to Toss" and tried to get his old job back...The lady,or mother cams home and thanked and payed him thinking he was the new babysitter!! This really happened!!"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on May 26, 2010, 09:14 AM NHFT
last friday, my boss at work tells me right before lunch that i have to report to open house or the mail center after eatting to receive some legal mail.



i follow the instructions to the tee, the mail room claims nothing is there for me. the records office (Christy) tells me there is nothing there for me and locks up and walks out.



i double check again with the mail room that tells me again that there is nothing there for me... my feelings are that something is not right and that these people know more than they are letting on... maybe it is my behavioral training kicking in or maybe i am just getting more paranoid; BUT i was JUST told that i had legal mail waiting for me...



on monday i follow up with the boss that told me about the legal mail wating for me to pick up and reported to him what had happened. and asked him to think if he relayed the message to me correctly. he basicly repeated what he told me last friday all over again. and i thanked him.



today is open house and i was thinking, "why not follow up and see if i can catch them slipping."



so i showed up after lunch and went to the open house and asked to see my record and relayed my account of that happened last friday and added that i believe that my addemdum may have arrived for my P.S.R. this is important to me because now i can prove that i am not suppose to be here at this level of security of prison as the B.O.P. is claiming that i am a serious threat because of the lies the probation officer allowed to remain in the P.S.I./ P.S.R.



the (male) C/O asked me to stay there and wait a minute while he checked on something.



i can hear him on the phone a few offices away around the corner say, "you know that mail that i talked to you about last friday? you remember? yeah, 'he's' here asking about it. what do i do? do i tell him about it?"



after this another (female) C/O says/ asked me a question and i am no longer able to hear the conversation...



the (male) C/O returns and asks me that i wait. i gathered that from the phone call and his stance that another C/O will be arriving soon. and i was right



C/O   D. Harvey of S.I.S. arrives. this one (new C/O) relays that i did infact received a piece of mail. LEGAL MAIL and it was stamped all over in a manner that made it clear that it was so; yet, the return address was "scratched off" and therefore it was turned over to him. he claims to have made a copy of the contents but not a copy of the envelope. he claims not to know where it came from and states that he cannot tell me what the legal mail contents was/ is. asked if i received the rejection notice, which i have not.



so the plot thickens ladies and gentlemen...



stay safe everyone.



reno
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 27, 2010, 10:54 AM NHFT
Check this out:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SOUTER_RETIREMENT_NHOL-?SITE=NHCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SOUTER_RETIREMENT_NHOL-?SITE=NHCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

"May 27, 3:41 AM EDT

Justice Souter may be retired, but he still works

By DENISE LAVOIE
AP Legal Affairs Writer
Advertisement

BOSTON (AP) -- Justice David Souter ever so politely interrupts an attorney making a complicated legal argument.

"May I ask you a question?" Souter asks. "I will tell you, you do not have to answer it as far as I'm concerned."

Then Souter cuts to the chase, stinging the lawyer with an ethical question: "Do you believe you have a good faith basis in law to make that argument?" ...

"He's incredibly bright* and insightful**," said New Hampshire attorney Sven Wiberg, the lawyer who was asked to defend his argument to Souter. "He cuts right to the heart*** of things."

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

Oh really!?

* bright = Intelligent =

I.) is an adjective that describes the noun of:  intellect = "The ability to learn, reason, and think abstractly." as in what!? The theoretical!? "not applied or practical" and "Thought of or stated withOUT reference to a SPECIFIC instance." (emphasis ADDed) You have got to be kidding me! This IS a SPECIFIC case! We do not need judges who consider away or removed from "concrete existence [ * ] or a specification thereof." As in THIS case of there being the objective of to get the victims released from prison due to unlawful and illegal means as the end does NOT justify the means in what is supposed to be procedural due process of law! The 5th & 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Rule of Law! Get "real"! or "concrete" defined as both: "Relating to an actual, specific thing or instance; not general; particular" and "Existing in reality or in real experience." To be abstract is to summarize, but when he only talked about part 1 of 2 in 1-8-17 U.S. of the "exclusive"ness of Washington, D.C., what about the "like" powers in the state?  He never got into part 2, so to summarize with only part 1 is what I called half-assed justice! An in-justice! Where is the "Consent" to "purchase" from the Legislature? AND the Federal acceptance of our conditional offer of Consent?, the latter by N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 that un-accepted is NOT Consent according to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Adams case of 1942 and that the U.S. Attorney knows that such 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112 documents "shall" be filed, as by his Manual #664 and the G.S.A./ General Services Administration landlord, Martha Johnson for her tenant court (either an Art. III, Sec. 1 "inferior Court_ of Congress" or a 1-8-9 "judicial tribunal") but who looks the other way.

The word existence [ * ] is from the word exist = "To have being or life; be or live." So when one goes into the abstract, removing the "concrete" existence of what, in this case, has to be done by the Feds through the "shall" word that is a must/ mandatory requirement, and concentrates only on part 1 of "exclusive" and thinking up by the abstract of some general "overlapping" authority of yes: the overlapping be so but only in the specific for the State to be able to serve civil or criminal process upon Federal soil, when they be accepting of our offer.  The Feds have a  proprietary ownership of such, as it exists now, but that it has NOT been given any authority to effect their U.S. Codes in ANY "overlapping" onto state soil.  The powers they have there are ONLY for "over" that exact "Place".  For the Article 12 "inhabitants" to be controlled over by the U.S. Codes, HOW is that effected?  By the governor being asked by the Feds to round up one who they want, since by his Article 51 powers he "shall...execute the laws of the state AND of the United States" (emphasis ADDed, but only when they are BOTH in harmony, which right now they are NOT!) Joshua was right to say for them to be effected through the "locals", but only by the chain-of-command from the governor to this and these Article 28 political sub-divisions of the State: and that includes the City of Lebanon and Town of Plainfield who were both notified by me on June 6th and Bernie on June 20, 2007 respectfully that the Feds are in a non-filing mode and if you do not protect the inhabitants then to return to them their property tax money paid as such was paid for an even exchange called reciprocal. 

[ * ] the word exist is also defined as: "2. To occur." and not merely of "To come to mind", as in this talk-talk-talk from the minds in Boston, but "To take place".  The 1-8-17 "Place" NOT to "take place" or occur with jurisdictional authority UNTIL the happening of this event of the RSA Ch. 123:1 filing.  The Federal creature was instructed by the creator states on what they have to do in order to set up shop: an occurrence has to happen.  The happening. To occur = from the Latin word occurrere of: "to run to meet". Not to walk, or put off for centuries as "very" slow, but to run = to move rapidly more than a mere walk, "To make a short, quick trip" and "To hurry; hasten" to meet who where? Bill Gardner at his N.H. Office of Secretary of State, 2nd floor State House, Concord, N.H.

II.) The word intellect is also further defined as from the Latin word: intellegere of: "to perceive, choose between".  So did Souter choose between parts 1 + 2?  Yes; in this respect he is intelligent, but then goes off on some theoretical of the Feds somehow having "overlapping" powers over NOT just the "Place" so purchased by the supposed-to-be Consent of The Legislature that never occurred here in New Hampshire BUT over ALL of us inhabitants on state AND private soil!?

** insightful = from the word insight = "The capacity to discern the true nature of a situation." or "An elucidating [ ** ] glimpse."  So which one is it Sven? The former or the latter? To discern is "To perceive (something obscure or concealed); detect." or "To perceive the distinctions of; discriminate." as in to dis-criminate! the situation here. Thus I choose the latter definition #2 of 2 and because this word discern is from the Latin word: discernere meaning "'to separate by sifting,' distinguish between." The reason why I do not chose the former definition is that this IS the law: 1-8-17 that is not concealed.  On the contrary: ignorance of the law is no excuse.  To distinguish or recognize part 2 as set apart from part 1 as NOT the "same", but the latter of "like" the former; the word like meaning: similar = not identical; identical = "Being exactly equal". And back to the distinguish word of also being defined as: "To make eminent" = of not only to be "Distinguished, as in reputation" but from the Latin word eminere of "to stand out".  Thus part 2 of 1-8-17 to stand by itself out-side that of part 1 in D.C. and as pre-scribed! of what is written, and not some arbitrary in-justice!

[ ** ] So if Souter is insightful, it's not because of the former, but the latter of elucidating = from the word elucidate = "To make clear [ *** ] or plain; clarify" as in it's clear or easily perceptible; distinct or free from doubt or confusion that Souter wants to keep the status quo no matter what, or is he really confused = "To assemble without order or sense"?  That was my "Point of Order", but that the courts (both of the District and Circuit) seem both to want to continue this perplexing and bewilderment confused state of existence of operating unlawfully and illegally!! To mix parts 1 + 2 of 1-8-17 is to confound = to FAIL to distinguish = to "set apart" = of to "set" = to restore, but there being nothing to re-store as the papers were never stored there to begin with! but "To adjust [ **** ], as for proper functioning".  Then what was prescribed, established, or assigned to do the Feds can set or embark on their short journey down the street, to put in a specific position or state, to put into a stable position, fix.  It un-settling that my friends are in this flux! or "abstract influence". To fix? As in we "fix" cats and dogs and with a license, the fine in Concord being $25.00 if not fixed, so why do we let the Federal monster go un-licensed! A license is "Official permission".  Did "they" get that from us?  Not yet! We gave them a conditional consent or acceptance, agreement or approval, the word permission back to consent and highlighted as not just consent but: for FORMAL consent! = pertaining to what is "essential"! A license is also defined as: "Unusual freedom justified by extenuating circumstance." As to travel across the property rights of another with their land posted with a NO TRESPASSING sign, in order to save a life, or like one drowning in the river or lake. Do the Feds have this power to travel onto private soil to take the liberty away from one of our Art. 12 inhabitants?  Hell no!

[ *** ] It "clear" that he/ Souter is NOT "Freed from burden or obligation".  His oath is to support the Constitution of The United States of America, and that includes Art. VI, Section 2 of not all laws made pursuant to, but " in Pursuance thereof", [with NOT the letter "t", but the letter "c".] as beyond a mere agreement of consent, as in the type here of a CONDITIONAL one, but of HOW it to be put into effect!

[ **** ] adjust = "1. To regulate or adapt. 2. To settle (a debt or claim)." From the Latin word adjuxtare of: "to put close to." And so the Federal debt owed to us N.H. inhabitants of which we claim that they comply with the law! To close what was opened by our offer. To adapt or fit to, to fit = to be appropriate or proper.  The appropriate or suitable thing to do is to file those papers, and NOT to appropriate as in take possession of somebody else's buildings, house and lands!!! to make one's own. The own word in ownership meaning to belong = "To have a proper or SUITable place."  Is the 1-8-17 "Place" suited?  No, because the landlord thereof has not taken her be-short trip down the street to the file her papers with our N.H. Secretary of State. They do not be-long there. They are un-suited, to suit = "To please; satisfy." See: "May it please the court?" No! The correct phase these Federal judges have to ask us is: "May it please the State?" Our answer: No! It does NOT please us that you Feds have not satisfied your obligations!! To fulfill this need BEFORE you act! You/Feds are dis-charged?  No, I charged Singal in Maine for one of those illegal 18USC3232 hearings!! I went to in that ALL proceedings SHALL occur in the District of WHERE the offense occurred.  Their criminal intent in Somersworth, N.H. to cross the Bridge to Berwick, Maine ought to result in criminal action in BOTH these towns!! A cc: of a printout of this going to them as signed by me to start my complaint.

*** heart, defined in this quote by Sven as to "The essence: the heart of the problem."  The word essence defined as"The intrinsic or indispensable properties of a thing."  So then WHERE be these 40USC255 to 40USC3112 Federal papers? that need to be filed by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. There are an (intrinsic, inward or inside  property OR) indispensable or absolutely necessary property of the thing being to give life to the authority of the Feds to have control over their "Place". Thus to allege of to dispense with these documents as in supposedly not needed to be filed is WRONG! They are absolutely needed and so "Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional." Therefore of there being no doubt or question that there be no exceptions! The Feds to file or else!  So WHEN this positive action be taken, then to reverse the negative actions taken before that event as out-of-order. To release the victims of this injustice!

- - Joe Haas
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 27, 2010, 01:09 PM NHFT
Here's a summary.  Maybe Souter will read this and Wise Up". - Joe

http://blog.taragana.com/business/2010/05/27/retired-supreme-court-justice-souter-cant-stay-away-from-work-takes-appeals-court-cases-65390/ (http://blog.taragana.com/business/2010/05/27/retired-supreme-court-justice-souter-cant-stay-away-from-work-takes-appeals-court-cases-65390/)


http://blog.taragana.com/business/2010/05/27/retired-supreme-court-justice-souter-cant-stay-away-from-work-takes-appeals-court-cases-65390/#comment-1330 (http://blog.taragana.com/business/2010/05/27/retired-supreme-court-justice-souter-cant-stay-away-from-work-takes-appeals-court-cases-65390/#comment-1330)


"Thank you Denise Lavoie, and Attorney Sven Wiberg from Portsmouth, N.H. but now I ask you Sven: do you think that Souter really gets to the "heart" or essence of the problem here? I doubt it! When he asked you and Joshua Gordon, the other appellate defense attorney from Concord, N.H., about part 1 of 2 in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution how the "exclusive"ness supposedly applied to the Feds within the state of New Hampshire when that is ONLY for Washington, D.C. and Joshua replied that it is NOT exclusive, but "overlapping", (as by the N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1 concurrent power of the State to serve both civil and criminal process over federal soil, that he forgot to detail in his reply) that's when Souter went nuts saying that you/Joshua just over-ruled your own argument, and it senseless to go further Souter said in a diminishing voice, when what should have been said is that of NOT the "same" but of "like" powers of exclusively or ONLY to over that Place so purchased by Consent of the Legislature that we gave to the Feds back on June 14, 1883 but that it was and still is a CONDITIONAL Consent, and so Mister Starce Decisis being Mr. Souter's nickname should have had the book thrown at him! The Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court in that an offer un-accepted is NOT consent. Reference 40US255 over to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112.  Even the U.S. Attorney in his Manual #664 KNOWS this BUT does otherwise to which I call hypocrisy! by hypocrites!! Yes the Feds in Concord, N.H. have exclusive ownership as in proprietary powers, for what be-longs* to them, but NOT for them to assert any U.S. Codes to be controllable over us N.H. Article 12 inhabitants withOUT our Consent! And of HOW and WHERE applied being ONLY if and when lawfully and legally do we set foot withIN their Federal jurisdiction, as by yet another check and balance: WHERE is the Warrant from our governor to the individual that he please comply with the U.S. Laws too or else? It's prescribed in Article 51, Part 2, N.H. for the governor to enforce, by what? a turn-over to the U.S. Marshals? They too take an oath to ONLY execute lawful precepts! The end does NOT justify the means in what is supposed to be procedural due process of law by the 5th & 14th Amendments.  The Feds to take that be-short* run to our N.H. Office of Secretary of State with the paperwork that "shall" be filed to there BEFORE charging any one of our Art. 30 Part 2 inhabitants also with "Failure to File"!? Two wrongs do NOT make a right! Roberts Rules of Order and the Ninth Amendment of WHO to do WHAT first BEFORE having any jurisdictional authority. And is it really a wrong to define the lay word in the 16th Amendment phrase of "to lay and collect" as in to apply as in a request to say: request denied? Why should we be forced to accept the other lay definition of to impose to levy as in to collect and collect?  Isn't that George Orwellian "Nineteen Eighty Four" "Doublespeak"? N.H. RSA Ch. 21:2 of our Freedom of Choice. Plus where is the enforcement Clause 2 in the 16th as in the surrounding Amendments? It's not there, and so what? Back to 1-8-18  of to execute the "foregoing" Powers?  Do "they" really know what "fore" and "aft" are!? It's time for Souter to check to see if a complete transcript was made for this case, because it was NOT! Reference my "Point of Order" as an un-called witness in this case who did speak in courtroom #4 but that was NOT put into the transcript and those illegal hearings in Portland Maine before Judge Geo. Z. Singal in violation of 18USC3232 in that ALL proceedings SHALL occur withIN the District of where the offense occurred! My complaint to his boss: Chief Judge Woodcock falling on deaf ears!! as one of the brothers of the Bar. The "Clerk" of whose job description is to record AND take all correspondence as from my "Point of Order" made DURING trial just before the verdict by jury, with proof of Federal non-filing having FAILed to do so now what? O.K. because he covered it up!? The Marshals have an incident report of that courtroom dis-turbance they call it, but that I call Freedom of Speech (1st Amendment + N.H. Art. 22) that even the U.S. Attorney Seth Aframe wrote in my R.I. case (that by-passed Boston) is down to a "nadir" amount, so WHY isn't my "point" in this multi--page transcript!? Theft of my involuntary contributions to the Feds through my employer at work.  Taking money but not doing their job! I claim The Rule of Law goes 360 degrees! In N.H. we call it Article 14 for "complete"justice and not this in-justice by technical trespassers!! It's time for Souter to rule and with the entire transcript! Evidence ought always to over-ride the REAL militants from the word militate defined as those who use force as THEIR evidence! And so the truth goes marching on?  No, the victims lounge at the F.C.I.'s/ Federal Correctional Institutes un-corrected because they are already correct.  Who to pay? The governor "shall" be responsible by Article 41.  He was told to send the Feds a written invitation to file and chose NOT to do so. So that decision has got to be put into any re-trial because here in the United States of America we are supposed to be living in an Art. IV, Sec. 4 republic = that provides judicial review of executive decisions.  And so WHERE is this 1-8-9 "judicial tribunal"? All I see are these Art. III, Sec. 1 "inferior Courts_ of Congress" in the Legislative branch to where my complaints to both Federal Reps Hodes and Shea-Porter likewise fall on deaf ears. May they get what they wish for: deafness, and then replacement this Fall onto impeachments of these thieving judges, including our former N.H. Attorney General Jeffrey R. Howard of the 1st Circuit too who dealt these check to the trial attorneys for the illegal travels to, at and from Maine. - - JSH "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 27, 2010, 01:28 PM NHFT
See also: http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/05/27/4367497-justice-souter-may-be-retired-but-he-still-works (http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/05/27/4367497-justice-souter-may-be-retired-but-he-still-works)

of: "Thank you Denise. I tried to post at your other website for this but that it has yet to register.  You can read what I did write as Reply #9663 (my actual reply #2670) of 2:09 p.m. (Eastern Time today - marked as 1:09 p.m. Central time at the NH Underground website) over on page 645 at http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9660 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9660) that somehow I could not copy and paste to here.  For more details, see my Reply #9662 just above that with all the footnotes.  I really do hope that Souter reads this and does what's right. Thank you, -- Joe"

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

Mod: http://www.newsvine.com/_nv/accounts/validate?affiliate=newsvine.com&refChrome=vine&uri=accounts%2Fvalidate (http://www.newsvine.com/_nv/accounts/validate?affiliate=newsvine.com&refChrome=vine&uri=accounts%2Fvalidate)

"Your comment has not been posted yet.

To minimize spam on Newsvine, we need to confirm your e-mail address before your first comment can be posted.

An e-mail has been sent to: JosephSHaas at hotmail.com.(If this e-mail address is incorrect, click here to change it.)

Simply click on the link in the validation e-mail that you receive to have your comment posted. If you don't see an e-mail from Newsvine arrive in the next few minutes, please check your bulk/junk mail folder in case it was mistakenly routed there.

Your e-mail address is always kept private and we will never share it with another company. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Thank you."
_____________________________________________________________
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 27, 2010, 01:35 PM NHFT
Is Denise going to do a follow-up to this case?

http://ap-522.newsvine.com/ (http://ap-522.newsvine.com/)

_____________________________________________________________

This Bench protected by:" Smith & Wesson:

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/01/10/3737348-budget-cuts-force-tough-choices-on-court-security (http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/01/10/3737348-budget-cuts-force-tough-choices-on-court-security)

of: "In this January 6, 2010 photo, Jefferson County Domestic Relations Court Judge Suzanne Childers poses with the Smith and Wesson .38-caliber pistol she keeps under her desk while court is in session, in Birmingham, Ala. (AP Photo/Bob Farley)"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 30, 2010, 06:49 AM NHFT
Here's another one of Souter's Retired over at S.W. Illinois:

http://www.bnd.com/2010/05/28/1273155/souters-retired-but-hes-still.html (http://www.bnd.com/2010/05/28/1273155/souters-retired-but-hes-still.html)

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

Mod: "There's an old German saying of: too soon old, too late smart. For Souter to ask about "a good-faith basis in law" and THEN to only concentrate on part 1 of 2 of Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution is horrible! Offensive, an offending affront or insult as he did leap onto the back of part 1 only, and so being in-complete that to what us New Hampshire inhabitants (by Articles 12 + 30, in parts 1 + 2 of the N.H. Constitution) are supposed to have as a guarantee for complete justice.  In stead we get this in-justice by him who is beyond the callous (or hardened heart of the un-feeling) to that of being in outright contempt! An open dis-respect or willful dis-obedience to his own oath to obey what the constitution pre-scribes, the Constitution of the United States of America in that all U.S. Codes enacted in Washington are not to have the citizens in each of the states subject to them automatically as in some pursuant to of there being an agreement, concord or consent, but what type of consent for us here in N.H.? A CONDITIONAL consent, given to the Feds by our N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 way back on June 14, 1883 that has yet to be accepted, because an offer un-accepted is NOT consent! Reference the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court. Wiberg should have thrown the book at Mister Starce Decisis is Souter's nickname of going by prior case-law.  And the major law being Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Const. of "in Pursuance thereof" of to put into effect. "
___________________________________________________________________

Mod #2: "Thank you for opportunity #__ of to reply to this Associated Press story again, hoping that somebody in the country in another state will check out Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website of:  http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm) from Huntsville, Alabama and say like: yeah! Like there being this "in Pursuance thereof" of to put into effect, as in 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112 papers from the Feds to be filed at either the Office of Secretary of State for N.H., or governor's office in Florida, or: ___________ in ____________ as not done there either, that the victims of these omissions will win their release as the end does NOT justify the means in what is supposed to be: procedural due process of law in this supposed to be Art. IV, Sec. 4 U.S. Constitution "republic" defined as to allow for judicial review of executive decisions. So is the court from where this was appealed from such a court? A 1-8-9 "judicial tribunal" or Art. III, Sec. 1 "inferior Court_ of Congress"? in the Legislative Branch. For details see  http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg323508#msg323508 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg323508#msg323508) and more. "

http://www.bnd.com/2010/05/28/1273155/souters-retired-but-hes-still.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=7206792#Comments_Container (http://www.bnd.com/2010/05/28/1273155/souters-retired-but-hes-still.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=7206792#Comments_Container) to be exact at 7:33:44 a.m. (Central Time).
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 30, 2010, 08:21 AM NHFT
Reference: Bob Wolffe in Vermont is the R.W.; R for Robert in this Times-Argus report:

at: http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100528/NEWS02/5280363/1003/NEWS02 (http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100528/NEWS02/5280363/1003/NEWS02)

of my comment: "Although Vermont has no qualifying requirements as for the Feds to jump over such a hurdle or through a hoop as some #___ other states do, see the list at Attorney Becraft's website hyperlinked over at http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg323508#msg#323508 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg323508#msg#323508) Maybe a friend or relative in that other state withIN the 1st Circuit here, or that can be applied in another Circuit and by the ricochet effect bounced back to help the victims here, both: currently incarcerated and the recently released as one of your Vermonters* R.W. did spend some time on this case, but both unlawfully and illegally as spelled out, but that this Judge Souter doesn't seem to be able to read, instead putting blinders on to part 2 of 2 in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution. Maybe one of you Vermonters could write up an Amicus Curiae/ Friend of the Court Brief to help out one of your neighbors* over there from me over here in New Hampshire: an un-called witness in this case that crossed state lines illegally to Portland, Maine, yet another violation of 18USC3232 in that ALL proceedings SHALL occur in the District for where the offense happened. Your neighbor in Vermont also defined as a N.H. Article 12 + 30 "inhabitant" from both Part First & Second of the N.H. Constitution because it includes those "brought" into this state too. The end does NOT justify the means.  The Rule of Law is for procedural due process too. You people over there ought to be outraged at HOW "they" did this to one of your own. "

_______________________________________________________________-

Mod: The "Times-Argus" policy of not to be able to copy and paste resulted in this typo of NOT msg BUT sms somehow getting over to page 1 of 645.  Surely somebody landing on page 1 of the Year 2006 (May 24th) will realize to click the last page for the most recent page 645 of Year 2010 (May 30th) = over four (4) years now! Like going to college and being denied the degree, of having to go into extra innings.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 30, 2010, 08:48 AM NHFT
"Home  » New Hampshire, New Hampshire Jobs
Souter retired, but still on the job – Philadelphia Daily News
He simply was in a job that most people don't walk away from," said Bill Glahn*, a longtime friend from New Hampshire."

http://newhampshire-jobs.info/2010/05/30/souter-retired-but-still-on-the-job-philadelphia-daily-news/ (http://newhampshire-jobs.info/2010/05/30/souter-retired-but-still-on-the-job-philadelphia-daily-news/)

No comment box.

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

* Mod: Why? http://www.mclane.com/newsroom/news/Dick-Samuels-and-Bill-Glahn-Named-Best-Lawyers-in-New-Hampshire.php (http://www.mclane.com/newsroom/news/Dick-Samuels-and-Bill-Glahn-Named-Best-Lawyers-in-New-Hampshire.php)

Friends don't let friends ride the Circuit with blinders.  Right?

http://services.martindale.com/constitutional-law/article_McLane-Graf-Raulerson-Middleton_626518.htm (http://services.martindale.com/constitutional-law/article_McLane-Graf-Raulerson-Middleton_626518.htm)

"Bill Glahn serves as Chair of the Business Litigation Practice Group at McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton, Professional Association. Bill can be reached at (603) 628-1469 or bill.glahn at mclane dot com. The McLane Law Firm is the largest full-service law firm in the State of New Hampshire, with offices in Concord, Manchester and Portsmouth, as well as Woburn, Massachusetts. "

Sending him a copy and paste of this page to relay over to his friend to take the blinders off and get down off his "high horse". - Joe

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg323513#msg323513 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg323513#msg323513)

And:
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9660 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9660)


Attorney Glahn: Would YOU please be THE one to file such an Amicus Curiae Brief?
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 30, 2010, 09:48 AM NHFT
Souter over at GOOGLE News too:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hYqR606FZ4kmdO8sxYvKW8xQVSewD9FV1J7G7 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hYqR606FZ4kmdO8sxYvKW8xQVSewD9FV1J7G7)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mod: Also over at:  http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SOUTER_RETIREMENT?SITE=COCOL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SOUTER_RETIREMENT?SITE=COCOL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

for Colorado Springs.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 30, 2010, 11:28 AM NHFT
Who is Bill Glahn? 

See: "No Quiet Retirement for Justice Souter
He has been a regular presence at the 1st Circuit this year -- and an active and penetrating questioner" by Sheri Qualters of: The National Law Journal for: Monday, April 19, 2010 at:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202448262294 (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202448262294)

of: "Glahn was an assistant attorney general in New Hampshire when Souter led the office in the mid- to late-1970s."

and: "lawyers appearing before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are routinely finding Souter on a panel, peppering* them with the kind of penetrating [ ** ]questions that would send members of the Supreme Court bar searching for packets of Alka-Seltzer. "

plus: "It was an unusually hot** [ * ] bench," said Boston lawyer Harvey Silverglate of a recent appearance before a panel that included Souter. "I would say the presence of Justice Souter on this panel might well have been responsible for the fact that they had chewed*** the case over among themselves."

also: "Lawyers at the circuit say arguing before Souter is a both an honor and a test**** of their appellate skills."

too: "Boston solo practitioner Bernard Grossberg said Souter "got right to the meat***** [ *** ] of the issue"

&: "Souter can be relentless****** in his questioning. He kept the defense attorney on the hook *******"

+:  "It was a real colloquy because he wasn't much satisfied with the defendant's response," Adkins said. Zdrojeski confirmed there was "spirited ******** question-and-answer session" between himself and Souter about the class action question. "It was not a situation where he was just kind of warming [* ] a seat," Zdrojeski said. "He was an active participant."

++: "Souter seemed to be "enjoying himself in terms of asking questions that went to the hearts********* [ *** ] of the cases," said William Kayatta Jr. of Portland, Maine's Pierce Atwood, who watched several hearings on Feb. 1 before it was his turn to defend a False Claims Act case. Kayatta, who argued before Souter twice at the Supreme Court, said the 1st Circuit is also known for well-prepared judges who ask probing********** [ ** ]questions. "He fits in very well with that tradition," Kayatta said. - - Souter's questions are penetrating [ ** ] but he doesn't dominate the panels, Stahl said. "Usually they're designed to see where the litigators think ultimately (where) the issue should go, HOW far and WHAT are the parameters."

[ emphasis ADDed for this, but what about: WHO and WHEN plus WHY? as in this case of that Souter did ask the question of something like: what do you think of part 1 of 2 about the exclusive word in 1-8-17? with Joshua Gordon on the follow-up talking about over-lapping powers, BUT that restricted to the State being able to serve civil +/or criminal process over Federal turf, NOT the other way around of the Feds over us! They have jurisdiction ONLY over the soil as consented to own by purchase with thanks from the State Legislature in the state of where they sit, for the State officers to be the check-and-balance to bring their inhabitants withIN the sphere of the Feds WHEN the State adopts Federal law into State law.  We in N.H. have done so for to adopt some federal guidelines for this and that of for example of for health and welfare, plus some of the work hours of the employed, but where is it spelled out that we are to treat taxes as debts? N.H. RSA Ch. 80:19 exists for the land taxes, of the owners "beholden" as in to be either indebted or obligated for such. Or in other words of it a debt unless you say so, to thus allow the city or town "may" then RSA Ch. 80:8 distrain. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-V-80.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-V-80.htm) for you to assign whatever chattels for them to collect in payment of the taxes, but only for what is "frugal" by Article 38 of what is supposed to be a "General" tax per the Epsom case opinion by Judge Wm. RE. Johnson and 55NH503@505(1875). In Ed & Elaine's case it was to take mostly ALL the chattels AND land AND buildings AND them!!!!]

"Peppered" * with questions? in THIS case? You have got to be kidding me! Souter gave them one question from the singular rather than of the plural, of there being no dotting, sprinkling or pelting like a shot or missile to the defense attorneys who were reeled in by their own words: and so on the hook *******is right, but where?: in the water or on their side of the defense?  No, Souter had already reeled them in and they sit languishing on the deck! The defense attorneys failed miserably in this test**** of their appellate skills. There was no "chewing"*** of the case.  The not hot**
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 31, 2010, 11:06 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/ghost-of-grave (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/ghost-of-grave)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/ghost-of-grave#comment-126381 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/ghost-of-grave#comment-126381)

entitled: "Time for the Feds to not "walk" but "run" to our S of S.
By JosephSHaas - 05/31/2010 - 12:01 pm New"

of: "Thank you Mike for an excellent story of this Concord man who would have fought for the Union, back in 1861. Twenty two ( 22 ) years later on June 14th, 1883 the Union was given an offer by us here in New Hampshire that has yet to be accepted: jurisdictional authority of to assert "like" powers to that of the "exclusive" word in part 1 of 2 in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution.  The comparisons here by of somethings missing: his grave and these Federal papers: the 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code 3112 papers of the G.S.A./ General Services Administration landlord of Martha Johnson to have to file such by  N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1 with Bill Gardner, our N.H. Secretary of State.  The papers for their Art. III, Sec. 1 U.S. "inferior Court_ of Congress" tenant leading over to yet another mystery: Where is the 1-8-9 U.S. "judicial tribunal" instead of this Legislative Court? Us Art. 12 + 30 inhabitants, per Parts 1 + 2, N.H. Constitution, are supposed to have this protection within an Art. IV, Sec. 4 U.S. Republic defined as to guarantee judicial review of executive decisions.  Thus for the governor to decide NOT to invite the Feds over to his Secretary's Office, what does this tell us of his honor as "His Excellency"?  That he who is charged by Art. 51 to enforce all legislative mandates, as by the "shall" word in the statute "shall" be Art. 41 responsible for such an omission by RSA Ch. 93-B:1,I  NOT to "faithfully to perform" his duty.  Him insured to $100,000 and attachable and to collect by an action in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims.  Then WHO are the victims of such militant actions by the Feds within our borders who do militate= use force as evidence over THE evidence of this non-filing?  None other than Ed & Elaine Brown asking for WHERE the "enforcement clause" be in the 16th Amendment? 1-8-19 U.S. is for the "foregoing Powers", not afterward ones.  And the phrase of "to lay and collect" being of to lay meaning either to apply or impose.  So if you choose the latter of to levy or collect and want to do George Orwell "1984" "Doublespeak" of to collect and collect, then OK for you, but not us who choose to apply as in a request and say enough is enough $money, request for further taxes beyond the Elegit amount of up to half the apples of the tree is all you Feds get! Request: Denied! Oh how the City that was of honor then has been so corrupted!  Isaiah 1:21. What will happen to the City should it not receive and hear some Matthew 10 ones who do visit it in the near future? Wake up you public servants who do sleep like the dead, and do what's right. This being a census year upon which the State Reps. are chosen by Art. 9, that if the former be withOUT authority until their filing, then any following thereof not be in authority either! because the end does NOT justify the means, as for procedural due process of law. The 5th & 14th Amendments. Reference the Adams case about this at the U.S. Supreme Court of 1943. Either you learn from the past, or are doomed to repeat the prior errors to YOUR demise, not me and mine! "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 31, 2010, 04:10 PM NHFT
More A.P. about the Souter ( "SOO'-tur") retirement over at:

http://blog.taragana.com/politics/2010/05/27/retired-supreme-court-justice-souter-cant-stay-away-from-work-takes-appeals-court-cases-39479/ (http://blog.taragana.com/politics/2010/05/27/retired-supreme-court-justice-souter-cant-stay-away-from-work-takes-appeals-court-cases-39479/)

with my comment yet to be approved:

http://blog.taragana.com/politics/2010/05/27/retired-supreme-court-justice-souter-cant-stay-away-from-work-takes-appeals-court-cases-39479/#comment-987 (http://blog.taragana.com/politics/2010/05/27/retired-supreme-court-justice-souter-cant-stay-away-from-work-takes-appeals-court-cases-39479/#comment-987)

"So he hears #__ cases on average per day for only 1-2 days a month, eh? How many law clerks does he have?  And do they finish what happens when a litigant's attorney screws up? Or is it more mish-mash to the Supreme Court? Check out the http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9660 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9660) website for the details about this case reported here. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 31, 2010, 04:56 PM NHFT
Here's another A.P. with a bunch of comments on Souter's Retirement:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/27/justice-souter-may-be-ret_n_591530.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/27/justice-souter-may-be-ret_n_591530.html)

and my comment too: "Behind every great justice are #__ law clerks. (;-) - - If you listen to this Souter-Wiberg & Souter-Gordon tape from earlier this month on that Wednesday morning in the 1st Circuit in Boston, you can heard the defense attorneys squirming.  A sad commentary since their clients are the ones who end up being so-called "corrected" in the F.C.I.'s for decades when they are already correct.  A lousy "teacher" these attorneys are to the pupil Souter who did ask the right question but got two lousy answers.  Hopefully they included the Adams case of 1943 into their Briefs.  For more details check out: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9660 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9660) "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 31, 2010, 05:05 PM NHFT
The Souter speech at Harvard touts hypocrisy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/28/david-souter-harvard-spee_n_593138.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/28/david-souter-harvard-spee_n_593138.html)

My comment just posted: "The definition of a hypocrite is one who SAYS something but DOES another. This is what Souter is when he says in his speech here of: "the Constitution has to be read as a whole" but just before this, as in a few Wednesday's ago on that Souter-Wiberg and Souter-Gordon question & answer, Souter talked about part 1 of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution dealing with the "exclusive" power of in Washington, D.C., but left out the "like"* powers in part 2. [Or that the defense attorneys did a lousy job of in their answer.] Such* are not obtained pursuant to, with the letter t as there is a Consent, by RSA Ch. 123:1 in N.H., but that it is conditional and so has to be Art. VI, Sec. 2 put into effect, as made "in Pursuance thereof" with the letter "c", not a "t".  Even the U.S. Attorney Seth Aframe KNOWS this by his Manual #664 but does otherwise too! Where be the 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S.Code Section 3112 papers from the G.S.A. Landlord Martha Johnson for their tenant: an Art. III, Sec. 1 "inferior Court_ of Congress" and why no 1-8-9 "judicial tribunal"? As guaranteed by Art. IV, Sec. 4: Judicial review of executive decision in a Republican form of government! For further details see: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9660 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9660) "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 31, 2010, 05:35 PM NHFT
The "Boston Globe":

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2010/05/28/souter_defends_judicial_activism/ (http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2010/05/28/souter_defends_judicial_activism/)

and:

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2010/05/28/souter_defends_judicial_activism/?comments=all#readerComm (http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2010/05/28/souter_defends_judicial_activism/?comments=all#readerComm)

or: http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2010/05/28/souter_defends_judicial_activism/?comments=all (http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2010/05/28/souter_defends_judicial_activism/?comments=all)

My comment #9 of 9 so far: "Thank you  Jonathan Saltzman of The GLOBE staff for your quote of Souter saying that the Constitution contains tensions rather than harmonies to be applied in certain situations like "The Pentagon Papers" of that case of Freedom of Speech v.s. that of the claim of National Security.  But when a harmony is an agreement or accord or Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 U.S. Consent that SHALL be given then to give it and "prompt"ly by N.H. Article 14:  the requirement by each state according to their own statutes made Art. VI, Sec. 2 U.S. "in Pursuance thereof"* beyond the mere fact that such a offer exists, as in pursuant to, with the letter "t", it can be a conditional offer as like N.H. has for the Feds to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State as the Secretary is a Legislative/Executive officer (or when in Florida, to the governor's office as the chief executive), the fact of the matter is that only THEN can it be "put into effect"* for "like" powers to part 1 of 2 to those of exclusive powers in D.C. - Souter getting into only part 1 of 2 earlier this month in that Souter-Wiberg & Souter-Gordon Question & Answer session, so hopefully the Adams case of 1943 at the Supremes in Washington is in the Brief and Souter's #__ laws clerks can see to it that justice be done that wasn't as spelled out in the U.S. Attorney's own Manual #664 that Assistant U.S. Attny. Seth Aframe buried! Details over at: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9660 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9660) if you're interested. Souter could have asked him for his opinion but didn't. 664 he should have said. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 05, 2010, 09:45 AM NHFT
More David Souter stuff:

"David Souter on the ENTIRE-ness of law (and legal?)
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Sat 6/05/10 10:43 AM
To:    Jose G.; Donna V.; Bill R.; Keith C.; David H-B; Bernie B.; Dick Marple

RE:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/when-values-collide-judges-choose?page=0,1 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/when-values-collide-judges-choose?page=0,1)

and:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/when-values-collide-judges-choose#comment-127104 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/when-values-collide-judges-choose#comment-127104)

Subject: "So Court "hearings" are NOT readings too? "

Comment: "Re: "To show, as he put it, that "no law" did not mean "no law," Dean Griswold had pointed out that the First Amendment was not the whole Constitution. The Constitution also granted authority to the government to provide for the security of the nation".  This is it in a nutshell. - - - - So WHERE be the offset to 18USC3232 that requires that ALL proceedings SHALL be held IN the District of where the offense occurred? Reference the Ed Brown case of him transported to Portland, Maine.  How many of you know about this? Your tax money being paid for these illegal trips, or are you one of those who say that the end justifies the means, and to to heck with procedural due process of law!? In my book the word ALL means 100% withOUT exceptions, and the word SHALL means must as a mandatory requirement of not a "may" word, plus the word IN does NOT mean OUT!  Thus a whole-ness of the U.S. Codes like the whole of the Constitution?  A whole-ness of legal as like the lawful?  Then I ask again: WHERE be this U.S. Code offset? Or are we to let our public servants become George Orwell-ian "Nineteen Eighty Four" "Doublespeak"ers? Souter HEARD a part of this Ed Brown case in Boston for the co-conspirators just a few Wednesdays in May/ last month, before this speech, and so will he READ the file too, or is justice just limited to what is by the EARS only?! (;-) A PART to NOT deal with the WHOLE even though the entire or WHOLE human being is thrown into prison? If this be the case I say this judge needs a wake-up call, or impeachment even in his retirement.  Hopefully that will NOT be needed and that he will do what's right and get the entire transcript of the case including my "Point of Order" that was not sent down to him. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 09, 2010, 09:08 AM NHFT
RE: http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/06/next-deepwater-horizon (http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/06/next-deepwater-horizon)

and: __________ how do you type in the 62W5Y? ____________

entitled: "There are: 6000 documents missing ( ! ? ) "

of: "Re:  "According to Abbott, ( "Kenneth Abbott, a project control supervisor BP contracted to work on the Atlantis") the BP Atlantis lacks more than 6,000 documents* that are key to operating the rig safely...[And] The Atlantis, which produces 200,000 barrels of oil a day, operates 7,000 feet below the sea surface—2,000 feet deeper than the Deepwater rig. That suggests that if a blowout occurred, the Atlantis could release far more oil than the Deepwater well. " - - - - -  * Six thousand documents, wow! Private documents to give to the public.  What about the Federal documents to give to the states? by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.  Not that I don't want to see Federal regulation to prevent another blowout, but that the end does not justify the means.  I have no information whether the Feds complied with Louisiana law, but know for a fact that the Feds never complied with Florida law. See Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website of:  http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm) from Huntsville, Alabama.  In 2006 I called the governor's office over to State Archives and the man there said to me that they have no Federal papers! Reference the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court: an offer of Conditional Consent un-accepted is NOT Consent. See also U.S. Attorney Manual #664. What does this say of all tax money collected for Uncle Sam's piggy bank? (;-) Illegal, right? No wonder the locals who were told by the Feds not to pick up the blobs of oil on their beaches said to the Feds: go pound sand! Here in N.H. where I live we have an Article 12 in our Bill of Rights: taxation and protection are reciprocal for an even exchange, not to some "Protection Racket"!"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 09, 2010, 11:31 AM NHFT
"RE: Bill Binnie SAYS 2nd Amendment...
From:    Wayne B. (is right)
Sent:    Wed 6/09/10 12:24 PM
To:    Joe Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)

If Binnie was a Member of GOA *rather than the NRA,
he'd have more credence. [ * = Gun Owners of America ]

From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: Wayne B.
Subject: Bill Binnie SAYS 2nd Amendment...
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 12:20:18 -0400

http://www.binnie2010.com/index.php/issues (http://www.binnie2010.com/index.php/issues) *

...but will he help our N.H. Art. 12 victims of such by Fed militants? -- Joe

* "Second Amendment    "I am a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association.  I am a proud, strong supporter of the Second Amendment and citizens' right to keep and bear arms." "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 09, 2010, 11:40 AM NHFT
From #__ of 5 on today's hotmail banner:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37588278/ns/business-the_new_york_times/?GT1=43001 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37588278/ns/business-the_new_york_times/?GT1=43001)

    * Billionaire's Legacy: Death, but No Taxes

      NYT: Dan L. Duncan, a farm boy who started with $10,000 & two trucks, died as a tycoon with an estimated $9 billion. Why doesn't his family owe taxes?
    * 5 billionaires who live like normal people
    * Your five-minute guide to estate planning

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Kat Kanning on June 11, 2010, 05:05 PM NHFT
Part of a letter from Elaine:

QuoteWhat do I need?  Books are always welcome.  Authors would be G. Edward Griffin, Caldwell Taylor, Charles Colson. Ed would like some books of drawing/art instructions, as he has taken an interest in art. If people could throw a couple of $$ to us every now and then.  E-mail costs, although for short messages, it's cheaper than stamps.

Keep up the good work, all of you.  How is Lauren Canario?  I haven't heard anything from her in a long time.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 13, 2010, 10:51 AM NHFT
It looks like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, etc. is giving away a part of his or her $millions to the 5,000 people who reply by midnight tonight to Suzy.

$10,000 (?) each with 4 zeros added to 5000 = $50,000,000 (fifty million dollars) ;

or maybe this is what "they" want you to think and write about.

The "they" being maybe

(1) some philanthropist; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthropy) for the origin of this word: (maybe looking for how to save taxes too)

"It is generally agreed that the word was coined 2500 years ago in ancient Greece by the playwright Aeschylus, or whoever else wrote Prometheus Bound (line 11). There the author told as a myth how the primitive creatures that were created to be human, at first had no knowledge, skills, or culture of any kind—so they lived in caves, in the dark, in constant fear for their lives. Zeus, the tyrannical king of the gods, decided to destroy them, but Prometheus, a Titan whose name meant "forethought," out of his "philanthropos tropos" or "humanity-loving character" gave them two empowering, life-enhancing, gifts: fire, symbolizing all knowledge, skills, technology, arts, and science; and "blind hope" or optimism. The two went together—with fire, humans could be optimistic; with optimism, they could use fire constructively, to improve the human condition.

The new word, ??????????? philanthropos, combined two words: ????? philos, "loving" in the sense of benefitting, caring for, nourishing; and ???????? anthropos, "human being" in the sense of "humankind", "humanity", or "human-ness". Prometheus did not "love" the proto-humans individually, because at that mythical point in time individuality did not yet exist—that requires culture.[dubious – discuss] What he evidently "loved", therefore, was their human potential—what they could accomplish and become with "fire" and "blind hope". The two gifts in effect completed the creation of humankind as a distinctly civilized animal. 'Philanthropia'—loving what it is to be human—was thought to be the key to civilization.[1]
- - - - - - - - - - - - skip over paragraph #3 * to par. 4: - - - - - - - - - - - -

* par. 3 about that "freedom and democracy" B.S. when contrary to this freedom for ALL is ONLY in a Republic!

par 4 + 5: "Putting all this together in modern terms, there are four relatively authoritative definitions of "philanthropy" that come close to the Classical concept: John W. Gardner's ** "private initiatives for the public good"; Robert Payton's "voluntary action for the public good"; Lester Salamon's ***"the private giving of time or valuables...for public purposes" and Robert Bremner's "the aim of philanthropy...is improvement in the quality of human life". Combining these to connect modern philanthropy with its entire previous history, "philanthropy" may best be defined as, "private initiatives for public good, focusing on quality of life."

This distinguishes it from government (public initiatives for public good) and business (private initiatives for private good). Omitting the definite article "the" with "public good" avoids the dubious assumption that there is ever a single, knowable public good, and in any case people rarely if ever agree on what that might be; rather, this definition merely says that the benefactor intends a "public" rather than an exclusively "private" good or benefit. The inclusion of "quality of life" ensures the strong humanistic emphasis of the Promethean archetype."
__________________________

--** John +
-*** Lester are highlighted with a hyperlink, but what about the other?
**** Robert Payton and his "VOLUNTARY action for the public good" (emphasis ADDed. To compare to that of the 16th Amendment based upon "voluntary compliance." as THEY say. ) OR

(2) the "they" maybe being federal agents looking for more targets at which to spear their lies! A copy of my truth to "them" if this be so, to follow... [ * ]

In the meantime, here's the e-mail I got at 12:22 a.m. this morning:
__________________________________________________________

"URGENT!

This is a gifting program, there is no obligation other than furnishing your name, etc., using the following format:

John Doe
333 Main Street,
Anywhere, U.S. 98579
555-677-8899
johndoe at aol.com

The funds in this program must be distrubuted immediately, otherwise the money goes to IRS
and the IMF. 5,000 names needed by midnight tonight.This is NOT a data mning operation.

Remove my comments and add your name strictly as shown, sending to:

Suzy Star <suzystar at earthlink.net>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject:    Answers
Date:    Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:13:36 -0700
From:    Suzy Star <suzystar at earthlink.net>
To:    "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 13, 2010, 10:55 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on June 13, 2010, 10:51 AM NHFT
....

"Suzy,

What state of the union are you in? * And if in Florida, Indiana, or New Hampshire, etc. as in some "like" state of similar requirements upon the Feds HOW will you deal or NOT deal with them? (as explained below) Proverbs 15:27 "The heart of the righteous studieth to answer:".

You can send my 1/5000th of $___________ = $____________ to me at the below address, or is this on a lottery basis?

My presumption is that this "program" was set up by some multi-millionaire wishing to give to 5000 people $_____ each, or to pick #____ at random to receive $____ each, etc.

WHY any $amount has to go by the "must" word to the I.R.S. is beyond me other than some attorney's idea of such under a practice to perfection.  The perfection being there staring you right in the face: The 16th Amendment: to "lay and collect".  To lay = either to apply or impose.  "THEY" on the receiving end of the I.R.S. want you to think ONLY of to impose as in to levy or collect, but this is George Orwellian "1984" "Doublespeak" of to collect and collect.  Whoever set this up AND their attorney ought to wise up! and choose the former of to apply as in a request and say to the I.R.S. of request denied! (;-)

Please send this to the promoter and the 10% tithe of any and all remainder $amounts saved to the Church of my choice:

Cathedral of the Beechwoods, Inc.
Attn: Joseph S.Haas, President
P.O. Box 3842
Concord, N.H. 03302
603: 848-6059
e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

So long and MAKE it a good day is what Jack Chase used to say in Boston on the noontime news with meteorologist Don Kent, now of Sanbornton, N.H., Retired and I just saw and heard Victoria (Mrs. Joel) Osteen on Channel 60 this morning (repeats tonight at 12:01 a.m. technically tomorrow morning on the ABC/Family Channel) amend such to so long and MAKE it a good WEEK.  To you I say that and more of So long and MAKE it a good month, and to all your repliers.

P.S. Not to worry about the U.S. Prosecutor going after you for non-payment to the I.R.S. since there is no ENFORCEMENT Clause in the 16th Amendment.  (as there are in the surrounding ones) Too bad the victims of such don't tell their jurors in any criminal trials conducted anyway. They say to do THE "Execution" of what the U.S. Code says of to pay the taxes, but where is this derived from? Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution: for what? The "foregoing Powers" of the Clause 1 taxes to be uniform or equally paid by each man, woman and child of a human being. The 16th Amendment makes it un-uniform or in other words to having adapted to Plank #1 of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx of a graduated income tax. We are supposed to be living in an Art. IV, Sec. 4 U.S. Republican form of government, of judicial review of executive decisions.  Thus with these Art. III, Sec. 1 U.S. courts of Congress WHERE be the Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 9 judicial tribunals!?   And the tribune or defender of the victim appointed from the Congressional Court!? How insane is that!? If you want to pay, then pay, but if you don't then you don't have to, because HOW can "they" who want to "enforce" such when they have no other afterward powers!? It's based upon voluntary compliance.  I refuse to volunteer and tell those who hold my money in trust like in the bank, that if and when the I.R.S. shows up to ask for $x I tell them to tell the I.R.S. to go pound sand! Request DENIED!

bcc: to the trust agent for me who voluntarily turned over $xxx,xxx.xx to the Feds when NOT required to. To thus get it back! PLEASE! Especially from a state* to where the Feds have FAILED to file! their papers with the governor's office (Florida and Indiana), compare to no Federal filing for them to the N.H. Secretary of State, reference Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website of: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm)   from Huntsville, Alabama.

** Proverbs 15:27  http://scripturetext.com/proverbs/15-27.htm (http://scripturetext.com/proverbs/15-27.htm) of: "He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house; but he that hateth gifts shall live." Thus me of with a desire defined as a request for such share, but not eager, as in an impatient desire, or greedy as in to be excessively eager to acquire.  And so over to the second part of this verse of to hate gifts to live. To hate defined as either to dislike as in to wish to shun, OR to loath or detest.  Thus I choose to detest from the Latin word detestari of to curse or execrate.  And so then another choice out from the trunk to this branch and leaf of the tree as an analogy of to execrate = either to abhor (as in to shrink from) OR "To inveigh against, denounce." And so my choice being to de-nounce, since this is from the Latin word deninuntare of to "make an official announcement".  Thus my official announcement, be not of from an office, but in the formal of: stiff or cold, the word cold*** in this case meaning "Not affected by emotion; objective" = "Uninfluenced by emotion or personal prejudice", as I do not pre-sume to let those who dictate to you that you are to determine the fate of any remainder $money by what they say BEFORE what I have to write in that of back to the inveigh word of to NOT only pro-test as in to object to you having to gift somehow with some I.R.S. connection, but to do so if you choose on a willing basis of your own choosing, BUT to do so vehemently = in an ardent manner = hot*** way too and thus this drama be of both like the smile and frown faces you might see on the gargoyles of grotesque or outlandish animal figures not only on the roof spout, but on the wall of your local theatre because it all boils down to the ardent of enthusiasm with that part of thu being from the Greek word enthousiatein of "to be inspired by a god" and in this case God Almighty with a capital letter G and his seraphim who guard his throne, these gargoyles or escutcheons around the keyhole supposed to ward away evils from our house: evil public servants on private soil withOUT Consent! The shield to their unlawful and illegal swords!"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 13, 2010, 11:00 AM NHFT
B I N G O !

Robert L. Payton of "Indiana" = one of the Federal non-filing states!

Does anybody here want to write to him?  Bill for Danny?

"Experts & Speakers Faculty Profile

   1. E-mail this page
   2. Print this page

Robert L. Payton

Professor Emeritus of Philanthropic Studies, School of Liberal Arts
IUPUI Indianapolis

Professor Emeritus of Philanthropic Studies
Interests:
Philanthropic studies
Education:

    * M.A. at University of Chicago, 1965

Background:

    * Expert in the history of and rationale for philanthropy.
    * Author of the book "Philanthropy: Voluntary Action for the Public Good."
    * Former president of the Exxon Education Foundation.
    * Former U.S. ambassador to the Federal Republic of Cameroon.
    * Former president of both Hofstra University and C.W. Post College."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on June 18, 2010, 08:41 AM NHFT
From Danny:
I was told today that the notary, Laura Wheeler, resigned her commission and is no longer a notary. She was the only notary in the whole complex, she told me a while back.



I don't believe any of this malarky.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 21, 2010, 07:02 AM NHFT
This just posted by me at 7:59 a.m. this morning of a few minutes ago:

at THE CONCORD MONITOR, for E& Elaine, plus Danny, Reno and Jason:

RE:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/branding-this-state-is-no-easy-task (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/branding-this-state-is-no-easy-task)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/branding-this-state-is-no-easy-task#comment-129260 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/branding-this-state-is-no-easy-task#comment-129260)

entitled: "Suggestion: Contempt of Court stocks on State House Lawn. "

of: "Yes, the mountains "are rich in history, lore and legend" like that of "The Great Carbuncle" by Nathaniel Hawthorne, that I tried to get Shaheen to put a star or Betty and Barney Hill UFO hovering over the "Old Man of the Mountain" for our state quarter when she was governor, but she was one of the 424 arguers that tourists would watch if only they had a House Speaker who would NOT have her Rules Committee change House Rule 4 of NOT to allow Article 32 Petitions to go to the appropriate committee, acting like King George that resulted in our Declaration of Independence, BUT who would find some of her General Court members and others in direct or indirect contempt of court: THE General Court. See Articles 22+23 Part 2, N.H. Constitution of that limited to up to ten (10) days incarceration or maybe given the choice of #x hours in the stocks, selling rotten tomatoes to the tourists. Plus speaking of "gun nuts" what about the nuts and bolts of the statutes? It reads in RSA Chapter 159:3 that all convicted felons in the Federal courts here in N.H. (we used to have one on Littleton too), whether their convictions be unlawful +./or illegal or not, as in the Ed Brown anti I.R.S. case, have to have their guns "confiscated" as in seized by the state so that state forfeiture proceedings can begin, that'll prove that the governor be lacking in his Art. 51 enforcement powers for which he shall be Art. 41 responsible for, to protect us Article 12 + 30 inhabitants (Parts 1+2 N.H. resp.), and so his head in the stocks on the State House Lawn by voluntary compliance would definitely be a tourist draw! like that of the actor Walter Brennan in same in Portsmouth in that Spencer Tracy movie of 1940 about the Robert Rogers Rangers called: "The Northwest Passage"., based on the book by Kenneth Roberts of Maine."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 23, 2010, 10:18 AM NHFT
From: "ELAINE BROWN (03924049)"

Date: "6/22/2010 10:18:36 AM"

Subject: "$$"

Message: "Joe,

Someone just sent me $20, with no name attached.  I don't know whom it was from, but if it is from you, I thank you.  If not, please post my thank you to the mystery donor.

Thanks

Elaine"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

To reply: No Elaine it wasn't me, so having just posted this over at the N.H. Underground to relay your message of thanks.  Best wishes, -- Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 28, 2010, 06:30 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/couple-landlords-at-odds (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/couple-landlords-at-odds)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/couple-landlords-at-odds#comment-130041 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/couple-landlords-at-odds#comment-130041)

"Follow the Money? No, follow the contract. (both of them)
By JosephSHaas - 06/28/2010 - 7:28 am New

So Annmarie, WHEN are you going to detail out what you wrote on page #1 of 3 here of: "the IRS is due nearly $185,000 in unpaid taxes from Brian Jensen". Is Mr. Jenson going to find them without jurisdiction since there be no 40USC255 to 3112 Federal filing from their GSA Landlord of the required papers to our Bill Gardner, N.H. Secretary of State as required by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 and the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court? as an offer of conditional consent is NOT an Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 Consent by the U.S. Constitution. Brian: File a SPECIAL Appearance and Motion for Discovery of the U.S. Attorney Manual #664 documents. They do NOT exist. Motion to Dismiss. And "Old Redneck": re: your comment #2 of 2 yesterday @ 5:53 p.m. about the lease NOT signed by the owner, that IS a "Great Answer" as they used to say on "The Family Feud" with Richard Dawson of "Hogan's Heroes". Now if only the people will wake up to the fact that although the Federal Reserve Notes ARE signed by the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury and have BOTH the Private/Corporate AND government seals on them, are they really "legal tender"? WHERE is the proof that the gold bullion per pallet of notes that they buy at only 6-cents each per ALL denominations of from the $1.00 to the $100 bill from the Federal Bureau of Engraving & Printing has been deposited? by Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 = our contract with them. NOT the "gold standard" as that is the redemption of the notes into gold coin, but that of the gold bullion! The notes are not monetized until this happens. My F.O.I.A. to the Feds resulted in that very excuse. So these rents paid HOW? (See below*) Mr. Jensen: WHEN you write your book on HOW you beat Big Brother State and Federal Uncle Sam, please let me know. I'd like to buy an autographed copy from you, and my greenbacks by then legal, going to the landlord standing beside you by court order as the Receiver! (;-) The court fines not paid until the U.S. Mint provides the Section 20 money of The Coinage Act of 1792 in which to pay such as that is only what they can give or take. * The Coinage Act of 1965 for all commercial transactions, vs. the constitutional. Former State Trooper-turned State Rep. Retired, Dick Marple of Hooksett has been waiting for his $100 per year pay for #___ years now from the N.H. State Treasurer. Thus no pay-in for fines until he is paid-out. Robert's Rules of Order and the Ninth Amendment. Plus Article 97 of the N.H. Constitution, and Chapter 28 Laws of N.H. for 1794 (Vol. 6 @ page 155). Go for it. You will help us all. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 28, 2010, 07:22 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/gop-bikini-contest (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/gop-bikini-contest)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/gop-bikini-contest#comment-130056 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/gop-bikini-contest#comment-130056)

of: "Hodes is a fruit-cake!
By JosephSHaas - 06/28/2010 - 8:20 am New

Reference: "(Victor) Vitale (owner of The "Cigar Agency") said he will cancel the bikini hula-hooping. "Obviously, it's not kosher," he said."

Speaking of "kosher", in addition to this word defined in the slang as proper, it is also a Jewish word, and speaking of Jews, or them that say they are Jews (Revelation 2:9 + 3:9 of The Bible/ New Testament), take a look at what Hodes has to say: CIVIL Rules of Federal Procedures in the courts CAN be used in the Criminal realm BELIEVE IT OR NOT! This is B.S. Reference the illegal transport of the defendants in the Ed Brown anti IRS case to Portland, Maine.  This is a clear violation of 18USC3232 in that ALL procedings SHALL occur withIN the District of WHERE the offense occurred.  Rule 72.5 of to waive such is ONLY in the Civil realm! Hodes mixes apples and oranges and is thus a fruit-cake! A liar, and as a member of the World Jewish Council of Parlimentarians his ethics are to abide by The Rule of Law.  Has he? WHERE is the WCJ investigation? Ellen Simmons of there did take my written complaint but that it is merely to collect dust.  They KNOW that their member has violated their rules but does NOTHING about it! Disgusting!  And you want Hodes to continue this do-nothing of to not impeach any of his buddies of the Bar to vote not guilty of if he ever becomes a U.S. Senator to judge any such House impeachment?  WHO of the current crop of those running will investigate this? and to what end? Do they honor your ancestors who fought for this right of procedural due process or do you let them like trample on your ancestor's graves by saying that the end justifies the means?  In that case you just threw out the 5th & 14th Amendments in the Bill of Rights. A violator of such, as Hodes deserves  NOT to remain in ANY office, but to be fired! And WHO will call for him to be fired?  Or are all these candicates wimps? Two of the Republicans running for this seat that Hodes wants too are his brother and sister of the Bar.  There is only one outsider.  Will he have the guts to investigate? and do something about it? If not now then when? A silence on such means that of an adoption of this same policy if/when elected? Hopefully he will NOT remain silent, but put this spotlight of shame on Hodes' campaign. "
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mod update: The Moderator at The MONITOR erased this, as usual when it comes to their buddy Hodes who they know is a liar who SAYs he's a Jew.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 28, 2010, 08:04 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on June 28, 2010, 06:30 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/couple-landlords-at-odds (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/couple-landlords-at-odds)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/couple-landlords-at-odds#comment-130041 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/couple-landlords-at-odds#comment-130041)

"Follow the Money? No, follow the contract. (both of them)
By JosephSHaas - 06/28/2010 - 7:28 am New

So Annmarie, ....

My Reply: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/couple-landlords-at-odds#comment-130077 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/couple-landlords-at-odds#comment-130077)

"So...
By concordcitizen - 06/28/2010 - 8:26 am New

What exactly about this country do you believe in?  And why do you continue to live here if you question every single detail of every single law/regulation we have?  The whole government is an illusion and scam to you, right?  If I go someplace and don't like any of the rules, I leave.

Us "Miner Canaries" smell corruption first.
By JosephSHaas - 06/28/2010 - 9:00 am New

Hey: lower case citizen of Concord, move your car out of the middle of the road, those trash barrels were placed there at the end of your driveway for a reason, to give you a ticket next time! (;-) The City needs more money! (;-) If you don't like the City Ordinances then I guess you ought to pack up and leave! You sound like Peter Spaulding who thinks that I think the entire barrel is full of rotten apples, when it is not.  Case in point of the Reps who did amend RSA Ch. 498:5-d for deeds changed in 1996 from where the judges SHALL determine title to real estate to the "may" word of IF the party waives their right to an Art. 20 jury trial. And RSA Ch. 514:14 for notice back then prior to 1996 of however the judge sees fit, to that of "due process of law". BOTH statutes unconstitutional as since corrected. So would you have us Miner Canaries not smell the corruption and let you live in filth?  Friends don't let friends drive clunkers.  And fellow citizens don't like it when we see our fellow Article 12 + 30 (Parts 1 + 2, N.H. Constitution) neighbors being controlled over by other laws never consented too.  Yes - you MAY individually consent to such, but when you demand others to do so too or tell them to move away, that's when I draw the line at your attempt of shoving a lie down somebody else's throat! Same goes for education funding. Read 55NH503@505(1875) of the Brentwood No. 2 case. To subsidize the poor people, not this socialism in what is supposed to be an Article IV, section 4, U.S. Republican form of government. Live by the law or leave it: you!"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 29, 2010, 07:38 AM NHFT
I wonder how long these them-that-say-they-are Jews over at The "Concord Monitor" by Revelation 2:9 & 3:9 will let this truth stand over there before they cover-up for their liar buddy Hodes AGAIN as EVERY time I print something against Hodes it dis-appears:

Re: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/reaching-beyond-the-temple-walls (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/reaching-beyond-the-temple-walls)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/reaching-beyond-the-temple-walls#comment-130204 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/reaching-beyond-the-temple-walls#comment-130204)

of: ""Repair the world" is a good imperative*
By JosephSHaas - 06/29/2010 - 8:33 am New

Reference: page #1 of 2 here of: "As a Reform Jew, there's a religious imperative* of tikkun olam - to repair the world," Klein said." * = imperative (page 353) meaning: "1. Expressing a command or plea. 2. Urgent or obligatory." From the Latin word: imperare of: "to prepare against (an occasion)".

That sounds fine, but is only a part of what is "The Rule of Law", a fine ethics plank on the platform of the World Jewish Council (W.J.C. of New York) of which our Federal Rep Paul Hodes belongs to as a Parliamentarian of Congress and who supposedly took the oath to abide by, but when I reported him to there for a violation of such, there is NO investigation.

Yes - to repair, the verb, means: "To betake oneself" [from page 598 of The "American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973)] and betake is defined at page 69 of: "To cause (oneself) to go or move." But when Title 18 U.S. Code Section 3232 restricts that movement of for the accused to be tried and with ALL proceedings withIN the District of where the offense occured, as for example the District of New Hampshire distinct from The District of Maine, both withIN the First Circuit of Boston, then HOW could those hearings in Portland, Maine (before Polish Jew George G. Singal, an immigrant to Maine with his mother and sister, after their departure from Hitler's attrocities during WWII with his father too, but who did not make it to America as did the rest of the family) legally have occured?  They didn't!  The law spells it out in that they SHALL occur here also for the benefit of witnesses, as me an un-called witness on the list for the Ed Brown anti-IRS co-conspirator case.  I reported this to Hodes and Jane Pauly, his office worker called the court where Deputy Dan Lynch told her that CIVIL Rule 72.5 can be applied to this CRIMINAL case for them to waive their rights if they want.  And so Assistant U.S. Attorney Arnold Huftalen tried to get Cirino Gonzalez to sign such a waiver and he refused but was transported over there over the Somersworth-Berwich Bridge.  An intent and the actual landing of WHERE the crime occured.  The Somersworth police investigation such to maybe have a local Maine Bench warrant for these Federalies when next in their baliwick to be arrested for kidnapping! To plead respondeat superior to have their boss answer to the charge of WHY he did violate the law!  In the meantime do-nothing Hodes to have impeached this judge now wants to be a U.S. Senator!?  Does he get the blessing of the local Rabbi? Especially after she reads this. cc: to Bill Binnie, the only other Republican Primary candidate who is not a sister or brother of the Bar membership of attorneys running for the U.S. Senate. Please see to it that this Hodes, whose religious rights by Article 5 of the N.H. Constitution do no further harm to these victims who like the words repair and betake, but not for as far as they were taken by these Federal outlaws! There is a limit."   - - Joe [ Mod: name typo].
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 29, 2010, 09:36 AM NHFT
Thank you Dick, reference: http://www.t-room.us/2010/06/operation-american-freedom-we-the-people-demanding-return-to-constitutional-law/#comment-6159 (http://www.t-room.us/2010/06/operation-american-freedom-we-the-people-demanding-return-to-constitutional-law/#comment-6159)

So what happened at Fitpatrick's arraignment in Monroe County, Tennessee yesterday?, June 28th, re: this attempt to citizen's arrest a Grand Jury Foreman who had served OVER their time by statute, and/or to get the info over to them for a Presentment as still withIN the 5th Amendment that no U.S. Code or state statute can over-ride! -- Joe

Here's part 1 of 2 to this from the print-out @ 70% for anybody to re-copy here at ___%:

"Operation American Freedom: We the People demanding return to Constitutional Law
Posted by helen

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. up>a b 5 U.S.C. § 3331, Oath of Office)   
~~~   
The T-Room's previous post 1946: The Year the Federal Government Illegally Usurped American's Constitutional Protections featured a 60-minute audio interview with former/active Marine Sgt. Tim Harrington, exposing the illegal usurpation of the citizen's right for redress as protected by the powers granted Grand Juries under the Fifth Amendment.

Harrington's primary investigative focus on the issue of Grand Jury 'Presentments,'  led him to believe our original civil system of 'Presentments' was replaced with the military's system – specifically Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) – "Rules of Criminal Procedure." The UCMJ system appears to mirror the civil system in that it only allows Grand Juries the power to hand down 'Indictments' to a prosecutor, and strips away their prior powers to act independently – sans prosecutor.

This single act of replacing civil procedure with military procedure denies citizens their First Amendment right to address grievances with any local, state or federal government actor through the Constitutional American Grand Jury System, whose powers are guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment. How and why this occurred is the mission of much investigative work, and the reason for publishing this series at The T-Room.

Prior to 1946, an American citizen could file a criminal complaint directly with a Grand Jury. According to a January 22, 2009, article by Leo Donofrio, J.D., the Grand Jury, operating separately from the courts, had broad powers to function as both investigators and accusers, without a prosecutor or judge involved. Their powers also allowed them to proceed to a presentment, and/or an indictment, based solely on their independent, investigative findings. This functioned as a sort of checks and balances system that provided for the People's oversight of the government.

However, post 1946, the government, operating under a lie enacted by the legislative branch, rendered citizen 'Presentments' "obsolete" in Federal Courts. Today, only a minority of local Grand Juries in a few states still retain the original power of criminal prosecutorial 'Presentments.' Otherwise, the vast majority of state and all federal Grand Juries recognize "the lie" and must return "Indictments" to a prosecutor. We'll address how they pulled this off later in the article. Let's first look at what prompted this shift in powers.

What was it exactly that necessitated or prompted this shift in Grand Jury powers resulting in the loss of our First Amendments rights? More appropriately said, the perception that we believe we have lost our First Amendment rights. Let's revisit both the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment before we go on.

The First Amendment reads:   

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 

The Fifth Amendment reads:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

After that quick refresher, is it surprising the federal government felt it had to make a move?   It's easy to see in Donofrio's brief explanation below, the threat the power of the People represented to the government, particularly the independent power Grand Juries once enjoyed, as lawfully provided to them in The Bill of Rights."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 29, 2010, 09:44 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on June 29, 2010, 09:36 AM NHFT
..., reference: http://www.t-room.us/2010/06/operation-american-freedom-we-the-people-demanding-return-to-constitutional-law/#comment-6159 (http://www.t-room.us/2010/06/operation-american-freedom-we-the-people-demanding-return-to-constitutional-law/#comment-6159)
...
Part 2 of 4:
"     "In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past."

I was surprised to find mention also in Donofrio's article the outward admittance of the importance of federal grand juries by Supreme Court Justice Scalia, and felt it important to include it here. Scalia says, as quoted in US v. Williams, "a constitutional fixture in its own right"  He also stated, that "the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts DO NOT preside." (emphasis mine) It belongs to no branch of government. From this we see the kind of power wielded by the People and why it was and is deemed such a threat.

Without a doubt, it was this threat of power, and unbeknownst to us until now, a more sinister agenda looming in our futures, that prompted the federal government, including the Supreme Court Justices, to render citizen "Presentments" obsolete, in whatever manner they could.

We're led to believe, read deceived, the Federal Government sought to bring uniformity to the criminal rules for state, local and Federal Grand Juries just as they had done in 1938, with civil procedure rules. With the adoption of The Sumners Courts Act in 1944, the first Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure  were subsequently enacted in 1946, by most state and local governments. The result of the adoption of this act essentially relieved the Grand Juries of their investigative powers, laying it squarely and solely in the laps of prosecutors. Notice I said "relieved." No legal amendment to the Constitution has been made changing the power of the Grand Juries. NONE.  This move ultimately gave the Federal government what they desire most – less power in the hands of the people and more power in the hands of the government. I can't help but wonder if being in the midst of WWII during this time had any bearing on this.

Evident by my ongoing discovery of the usurpation of the power of the federal government, this body of work serves to continue to awaken the People to the fact that the global elite began as early as 1946, patiently and methodically laying the foundation for their ultimate goal – a One World Government. They have since worked steadfastly to further strip the People of their liberties and freedoms, and erode the powers guaranteed them in the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

Shockingly, the People's First Amendment protection for redress is hiding in a footnote of the 1946 Commission's Report. The power of the Grand Juries have also been hidden from the People's sight. 

Naturally, we ask ourselves how did they do this? Well, they simply removed the words related to "Presentments" and placed it in their Committee "footnotes" indicating the Committee's decision to remove it. That's how! Of course, you and I were always taught no changes could be made to the US Constitution without the citizens voting on said changes. Therefore, this strike of a pencil would appear to be illegal under Constitutional law. But, is it? Does it find its lawfulness under the provisions for Martial law. More on that later.

For the record, here are the Committee's footnotes to Rule 7 – pay special attention to item 4:

CORNELL LAW  – NOTES TO RULE 7 

NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES – 1944 

Note to Subdivision (a). 

1. This rule gives effect to the following provision of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury * * *". An infamous crime has been defined as a crime punishable by death or by imprisonment in a penitentiary or at hard labor, Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 427; United States v. Moreland, 258 U.S. 433. Any sentence of imprisonment for a term of over one year may be served in a penitentiary, if so directed by the Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 753f (now 4082, 4083) (Commitment of persons by any court of the United States and the juvenile court of the District of Columbia; place of confinement; transfers).  Consequently any offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of over one year is an infamous crime. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 29, 2010, 09:48 AM NHFT
Part 3 of 5:
" 2. Petty offenses and misdemeanors for which no infamous punishment is prescribed may now be prosecuted by information, 18 U.S.C. 541 (see 1) (Felonies and misdemeanors); Duke v. United States, 301 U.S. 492. 

3. For a discussion of the provision for waiver of indictment, see Note to Rule 7(b), infra. 

4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.

Hard to believe isn't it? Poof. Gone. In the blink of an eye – the citizen's constitutional right for redress through a Grand Jury process was removed.  The powers that be reduced it to a footnote in the newly adopted Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

Many scholars and laymen alike, have written on this very subject. But, I know of no one, other than Sgt. Tim Harrington, who has made, or attempted to make, the connection between military "Uniform Code of Military Justice - Rules of Procedure" with civilian "Rules of Criminal Procedure."  In part 1 of this series, Harrington linked his comparative theory to the works of Col. William Winthrop and his Two Volume Set of  Articles of War, which, in turn, is easily traced back to the reign of Britian's King George III. 

Quoting Winthrop on Page 20, Volume 1 -

    "The necessity of constantly comparing the two, and passing from the one to the other in order to ascertain and harmonize the law, was at least inconvenient, and that the body of law thus dissevered was not sooner consolidated and simplified must remain a matter of surprise to the American student."

Through careful observation, Harrington concludes "Today, America's military and civilian/criminal justice systems mirror one another and the one common denominator lacking between both is constitutional law." Today, the People's justice system, military and civilian, are deviously built upon Winthrop's War Articles and as Fitzpatrick rightly pens "...the contemporary variant of the American articles."  Fitzpatrick goes on and states in "Winthrop's Curse" – "War Articles serve Kings"  "Constitutions serve People"   

Between learning We the People, over many decades, allowed critical constitutional protections  end up as a footnote is striking. And now to learn America's entire criminal system is actually rooted in Britian's War Articles and both civilian and military criminal systems are nearly identical is tyranny. 

Now, how did these government criminals, elected by the People, whittle away, ever so slowly the People's protections without our screaming from the rooftops? These criminals are sly ones, oh yes, they are. Here's just a snippet from Fitzpatrick's post "Winthrop's Curse". 

    "In the United States of America, no person or assembly is lawfully sanctioned to strip a fellow citizen the protection of a constitutionally constructed jury. 

    And yet, the Attainder Act of 1789, remains undisturbed in its essentials. (Martial Law)

    We are left instead with Winthrop's subversion, treason and betrayal. Winthrop's 1886 bloodless coup de grace forced a military amendment on the Constitution and on its people."   

(Note: the history behind Martial Law is a post itself. The T-Room will feature a post on this topic in the coming days. Why? Because, NO PRESIDENT since Lincoln's assissination has ever rescinded the Attainder Act of 1789. Stay tuned.)

Two Dad's, Two Brothers, Two Oaths

Retired Commander Fitzpatrick and former/active Sgt Harrington teamed up years ago to research and put into practice, their oath to the Constitution by exercising their protections guaranteed them under the First and Fifth Amendment.     

On 17 March 2009 retired Navy Commander Walter Frances Fitzpatrick III filed a Complaint of Treason against the President of the United States at the Monroe County Courthouse in Tennessee. Undaunted, and unstoppable, "Operation American Freedom" was launched in "real-time". Their decision was made only after learning the county of Monroe, Tennessee, the Commander's hometown area, Grand Jury still accepted citizen "Presentments," one of the few left in the nation.   

Operation AF's mission is simple ~ Return Constitutional Law to the United States of America and ALL her citizens by IMMEDIATELY rescinding the Attainder Act of 1789.   

Since 17 March 2010, much has happened YET nothing has happened to get the Complaint of Treason before the Monroe Co. Grand Jury. The much = learning Tennessee's Code of Criminal Procedure, the Monroe County Judicial system and how it works, study of standard practices for random selection of Petite and Grand Jury duty, working with the Clerk of Court and her staff and more. The nothing = 15 months to the day, of nonsensical delay and obstruction by the current Foreman of the Monroe County Grand Jury, Gary Pettway, and Assistant District Attorney Stutts who by all appearance is conflicted. Yet these two American citizens of Monroe County have done a helluva job impeding justice.   

Without having to dig to hard, Fitzpatrick learned a disturbing truth about the identities of the individuals who continue running interference ensuring the Complaint is not heard by the Grand Jury.

Asst. DA Stutt's, Foreman Pettway and Foreman Davis' ongoing nonsensical attempt to delay, obstruct and/or oppress Fitzpatrick's Complaint of Treason only seems to dig a deeper hole to dig out of.   

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 29, 2010, 09:51 AM NHFT
Part 4 of 4: [ @ 60% on page 2 print-out]
"Now, why on earth would two Foremen and an Asst. DA obstruct Fitzpatrick's protection to a Grand Jury hearing? Well, let's take a look at Tennessee Code (Annotated) 22-2-314. Limitation on jury service.   

     "A juror who has completed a jury service term shall not be summoned to serve another jury service term in any court of this state for a period of twenty-four (24) months following the last day of such service: however, the county legislative body of any county, may, by majority vote, extend the twenty-four month period."   

Unless I'm mistaken, it appears the two Foremen managing the 2010 Grand Jury's to date may very well be serving the Monroe County Grand Jury illegally.   

Tennessee law, above, clearly states "A juror who has completed a jury service term shall not be summoned to serve another jury service in any court for a period of 24 months..." Yet, current Foreman, Mr. Gary Pettway, records show he started serving 04 January 1990. How do the Judges who oversee Juror random selection lotteries explain this? Rationalize this? Nineteen years in a row, Pettway has been randomly selected through a lottery system? 

A Ms. Angela Davis' Monroe County Jurist records, on the other hand, show her last day of Jury service being June 2009 after serving on a Petite Jury (see Pay Schedule) in Judge Reedy's court.  Don't tell me there are more than two Angela Davis' who look the same dwelling in Monroe County, TN. I've already checked. I have learned no such person exists. Stunningly, Ms. Davis received this Order from Judge Reedy dated 02 June 2010 to serve as Grand Jury Foreman for the 03 June 2010 "Special" Grand Jury proceeding. (note: Jaghunter in his current post, The Jury Laundry, states Ms. Davis is not eligible to serve on the Monroe County Grand Jury until the calendar year of 2011)

Fitzpatrick appeared, and informed this "Special" Grand Jury they were meeting unlawfully, due to the fact that Foreman Davis, was serving as a jurist illegally. Stutt's was conflicted and this volunteer "pool" of juror's representing Grand Jury Panel B served as eyewitnesses to Fitzpatrick's earlier attempt to conduct a lawful and legal citizen's arrest of Foreman, Gary Pettway. Clearly the "Special" Grand Jury demonstrated open hostility toward Fitzpatrick throughout the hearing. Why? Because their friend, colleague and boss is being rightfully and legally accused of breaking TN law and obstructing justice. One juror aggresively questioned him ending with the question - if [Fitzpatrick's] actions had anything to do with Gary Pettway being black. What on earth does this woman not get about Tennessee's Constitutiton let alone the US Constitiution?

Mr. Pettway appears to be a rather smart man, therefore, why on earth demean his character further by charging racism? I find this line of questioning rather insulting to Mr. Pettway and I hope you do as well.

But there was a reason for this line of questioning – low and behold on 08 June 2010 at 10:34 am Monroe County Sheriff's arrest Fitzpatrick outside his home. Detective Captain Michael Morgan, Chief Jailer Trent Proct and another Sheriff conducted the arrest.

The Monroe County Grand Jury issued their Presentment,  with Foreman Davis, who appears to be in violation of Tennessee State Code, affixed signature to the Grand Jury Presentment NOT AN Indictment BUT a PRESENTMENT charging Fitzpatrick with the following:

1. TCA 39-16-510: Retaliation of past action (Felony)

2. TCA 39-17-309: Civil Rights Intimidation (Felony)

To read the entire Presentment of Charges 03 June 2010. There are five more bogus, smoke and mirror, charges.

The good news is the Monroe County Grand Jury INDEED issues PRESENTMENTS.  The bad news is Fitzpatrick's arraignment date is 28 June 2010. The Judge, likely Reedy, and the Assistant DA will be Stutts. Do you have the same feeling I do?

Fitzpatrick is being taken for a ride by the Monroe County judicial system for two reasons: first, to obstruct and oppress the Criminal Complaint of Treason and secondly, as has been clearly demonstrated in this essay, Mr. Gary Pettway, serving as Grand Jury Foreman for at least 20 years, 19 too long, serving both Panel A and B, acting as an employee of the Monroe County Courts, then his service has violated Tennessee Code. Imagine what these facts mean to at least 20 years of criminal cases heard by the Monroe County Grand Jury, whether rendering Indictments or Presentments, were found guilty and are serving jail time now or ever served jail time? Think about it.

More importantly, Monroe County, is not the only County in Tennessee who is in violation of Tennessee's law. A short survey was conducted only to find several surrounding counties are too breaking the law.

Therefore, no Indictment or Presentment issued by the Monroe County Grand Jury stands on solid legal footing since January 1, 2010 (at a minimum). Thus, the charges above should immediately be dismissed. Instead, spending hard earned resources trashing Commander Fitzpatrick's good name, I might suggest the state conduct a thorough criminal investigation into the corrupt Grand Jury system throughout Tennessee and at last, hold a Grand Jury hearing, once and for all, to take up Fitzpatrick's Complaint of Treason against Barack/Barry Hussein Obama/Soetoro/Suharto.

Tennessee can lead We the People back to Constitutional Law. Are you up for it? Do you stand by the People or do you stand by the Federal Government? There is a slight crack in the door, and I strongly encourage you to take it.       

In summary, I challenge you, the reader, to ponder and then act on the following questions -

   1.
      Do you want to live and raise your families under Constitutional Law OR King George III's "contemporary" Rules of Procedure?
   2.
      Do you want to continue to have your Constitutional protections removed surreptiously OR do you want to exercise your right to vote for change?
   3.
      Do you want to a 21st Century President to rescind the Attainder Act of 1789 immediately upon taking office?
   4.
      Do you want to continue to be driven apart from your brothers and sisters who challenge you and beg you to learn what they are learning OR do your loyalties lie with the Dem or Rep Corporations?
   5.
      Are you willing to support and stand shoulder to shoulder with Harrington and Fitzpatrick to return our nation to Constitutional Law by rescinding the Attainder Act of 1789?

What are some questions I'm missing? Let us know if you want to help out here. We need to take care of those who are fighting for us. Right? Right!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 30, 2010, 12:15 PM NHFT
Collectivism is Socialism that is unlawful in our Republic!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivien_Kellems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivien_Kellems)

http:// www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=1xKGZMwaIG8&feature=related

Ayn Rand (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xKGZMwaIG8&feature=related#)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on July 05, 2010, 06:45 PM NHFT
Hey! I see that J.J. made the news tonight @ 6:44 p.m. on The N.B.C. Nightly News about that "Sovereign Citizen" and his son who shot an Arkansas C.O.P. dead at a traffic stop caught on video. http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/may/22/police-ohio-man-son-killed-ark-officers/ (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/may/22/police-ohio-man-son-killed-ark-officers/)  "Jerry Kane Jr., 45, of Forest, Ohio, and his son Joseph Kane, believed to be 16, were identified by police Friday as the gunmen who used AK-47 assault rifles to attack West Memphis police Sgt. Brandon Paudert, 39, and Officer Bill Evans, 38." and: "With 363 new groups in 2009, there are now 512, Potok said."

On a search of "Sovereign Citizen" J J MacNab at GOOGLE   http://www.google.com/#q=%22Sovereign+Citizen%22+J+J+MacNab&hl=en&prmd=o&ei=SmcyTPfbCYH98Aa2t9XJCw&start=20&sa=N&fp=1bf751093203146e (http://www.google.com/#q=%22Sovereign+Citizen%22+J+J+MacNab&hl=en&prmd=o&ei=SmcyTPfbCYH98Aa2t9XJCw&start=20&sa=N&fp=1bf751093203146e) I find over at: http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=4029&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=80 (http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=4029&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=80) that her trade name at Quatloos is: Demosthenes for anybody interested in following her career as a Maryland insurance analyst .

I tried finding the N.B.C. video of this blerb but couldn't fine it.    - - Joe

P.S. This parent and son combo reminds me of the tragic situation that happened in what they call the Abbeville Horror of South Carolina by Arthur and Rita Bixby with their son Steven from Epsom to Warren, N.H. and then down south. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Abbeville,_South_Carolina_right-of-way_standoff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Abbeville,_South_Carolina_right-of-way_standoff) Actually the State Officials who went past the NO TRESPASSING sign posted on their property were in error with their lives because South Carolina does NOT recognize "Trespass to try Title".

Yours truly Joe Haas "Sovereign Citizen"  :occasion17:

footnote: Happy Federal Hole-E-Day today, with a picture of Zoe, the Dog with the 3-corner hat over at: http://www.redcrayons.net/ (http://www.redcrayons.net/)   =  J J 's website.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on July 06, 2010, 06:52 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on July 05, 2010, 06:45 PM NHFT
Hey! I see that J.J. made the news tonight ....

To: "BROWN EDWARD; BROWN ELAINE; GONZALEZ CIRINO; RILEY DANIEL; "

Subject: "Jerry Kane"

Message: "Reno, I first learned of this just last night.  It IS a debt-elimination scam.  These two officers should NOT have been killed. I keep telling people on BOTH sides of the fence to read the right to travel in "The Oregon Law Review" of Dec. 1954 @ page 1. A license is a restrain on the individual WHEN you are a proven threat to the public, and so ONLY of AFTER an accident.  Thus with NO accident of record then NO motor vehicle license.  I put cf. 83-S-313 for my Merrimack County Superior Court case in Concord, N.H. that I won this in 1983 on my so-called driver's license that is really just an I.D. card of having passed Driver's Ed(ucation) and for liability insurance and to rent a car when traveling. In 1984 I looked into this bank loaning only its money stuff and so went through this first-hand.  Since the bank loaned me greenbacks, that's what they got back and in deflated value 6 years later, re: leave the 7th year and the exaction of debts.  That does NOT mean to erase the debt.  WHOever was his preacher if any was wrong. From: http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/301845.php (http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/301845.php) = "Arkansas Cop-Killers Were Sovereign Citizen Extremists

The two police officers gunned down in Arkansas Thursday were killed by a father and son that were part of the radical sovereign citizen movement.

    The Arkansas State Police on Friday identified the pair — killed Thursday during an exchange of gunfire with the police — as Jerry R. Kane Jr., 45, of Forest, Ohio, and his son Joseph T. Kane, believed to be 16.

    About 90 minutes before the shootout with the police, Sgt. Brandon Paudert, 39, and Officer Bill Evans, 38, were killed with AK-47 assault rifles after stopping a minivan on Interstate 40 in West Memphis, Ark., the authorities said.

    Jerry Kane, who used the Internet to question federal and local government authority over him, made money holding debt-elimination seminars around the country. He had a long police record and had recently complained about being arrested at what he called a "Nazi checkpoint" near Carrizozo, N.M., where court records showed he spent three days in jail on charges of driving without a license and concealing his identity before posting a $1,500 bond.

    Sheriff Gene Kelly of Clark County, Ohio, told The Associated Press on Friday that he had issued a warning to officers on July 21, 2004, saying that Mr. Kane might be dangerous to law enforcement officers. Sheriff Kelly said he had based his conclusion on a conversation the two men had had about a sentence Mr. Kane had received for some traffic violations.

    Sheriff Kelly said that Mr. Kane complained in 2004 about being sentenced to six days of community service for driving with an expired license plate and no seat belt, saying that the judge had tried to "enslave" him. Mr. Kane had added that he was a "free man" and had asked for $100,000 per day in gold or silver.

I have never seen or heard of a "sovereign citizen" that wasn't a chronic screw-up that was drawn to the movement to excuse their own chronic bad decision-making. Many—like Joe Stack, the man who flew a plane into IRS offices earlier this year in a vengeful murder/suicide—are tax cheats and scam artists with great disdain for government and law-enforcement officers. They feel the law is the cause of their problems... not their own corruption and moral turpitude.

The world is better off without such people.

It is a shame that they sometimes take good people with them when they self-destruct."
cc: Ed & Elaine, plus Danny. This incident happened on May 20, 2010. "

"Message successfully sent."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on July 07, 2010, 08:46 AM NHFT
Ed writes to "Post all my words" and so here they are, and with my comment below:

From: "EDWARD BROWN (03923049)"
Date: "7/7/2010 8:12:15 AM"
Subject: "RE: Re: RE: Hodes, the Jew (or not?)"

Message: "Joe,

It's far more serious than any of us can imagine.

The Zionists* which were created by bthe freemasons around the Civil War

are incontrol of virtually every aspect of our government.

Working with the Communists,(created by the Freemasons around 1838

with Karl Marx), theyAre the D.O.J. which is working with the Judicial branch of government.

Muirhead and McAuliffe are Freemasonsas well as Communists, while George Z. Singalis a

Zionist,Communist, Freemason. They are every where. Absolutly true.

They control the entire Executive and Judicial, both State and Nation.

This is what happened in court and why Elaine, th Boys or I did not get a trial.

This is why you are having a hard time with the state, county, and cities of p-lainfield and Lebanon.

Literally all of the positions of power have been taken over by these Zionist , Communists.

Stop and think who those people are that stop you at every turn. The entire bar is now declared the enemy of the United States government unless they prove otherwise.

Barack O'Bama is a communist that we don't even know where he is from. That's how much power these Zionist

Communists have in our government.

Post all my words and watch who tries to calol me a crazy man and you will see another of Americas enemies.

See you soon.

Ed...end "_____________________________________________________________________

* Zionism: "A movement for the re-establishment of a Jewish national homeland and state in Palestine." For the words: Zionism Federal budget at GOOGLE on page #1: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=Zionism+Federal+budget&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Zionism+Federal+budget&gs_rfai=C3XsDn4E0TKTPD5bS6QOoitz_CwAAAKoEBU_QKIi5&gs_upl=&fp=1bf751093203146e (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=Zionism+Federal+budget&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Zionism+Federal+budget&gs_rfai=C3XsDn4E0TKTPD5bS6QOoitz_CwAAAKoEBU_QKIi5&gs_upl=&fp=1bf751093203146e) the very top listing I found: "Obama a Zionist Puppet? Meet his Budget Director Peter R. Orszag" by: "Anonymous Coward, User ID: 541975, United States
2/18/2009 1:07 PM" of: "Born in Boston on December 16, 1968, Orszag graduated from Princeton University in 1991. He then attended the London School of Economics, where he earned a degree in 1992 and where he obtained his PhD in 1997. The London School of Economics was established by members of the Fabian Society, who believed in advancing SOCIALISM through gradual reforms." (emphasis ADDed as he does NOT take the oath, but that of Obama for an Art. IV, Sec. 4 Republican form of government per the U.S. Constitution.) And: "Orszag is an economist who served six years in the Clinton administration (1993-8) under Robert E. Rubin, the former treasury secretary who recently resigned from his senior position at the woefully mismanaged and nearly bankrupt Citigroup. The fact that Orszag was a protege of the now disgraced Rubin certainly does not bode well for the Obama administration." Plus: "One of the key players in the Obama administration's $900 billion economic stimulus package is Obama's new budget director Peter R. Orszag. Orszag, 40, is the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the arm of the White House responsible for crafting the federal budget and overseeing the effectiveness of federal programs. " Oh really? Thank you "very" much Ed and "Anonymous Coward" for reminding me of this, in reference to the U.S. Census who did TRESPASS onto my property twice.  The first time showing me some O.M.B. # but no proof of Federal filing to our N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 to where I complained to the Boston Regional Office of the Census who told me to re-send what I had dropped off at the Concord, N.H. office that supposed got "lost".  I said NO more paperwork TO them to have to account in Laconia District Court for criminal trespass, yet to file my charges within the year, now to call 202: ___________ for the O.M.B. in Washington to "oversee" this U.S. Census crap.

More info to follow after this posting...
Mod: three typos of: send in office.  ( @ 8:55 a.m.)

Update: I did visit the OMB Home Page at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/) and pressed OMB Locator over to: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/gils_gils-top/ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/gils_gils-top/) and likewise over to the Office and Branch Offices page of: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/gils_gil-files/ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/gils_gil-files/) where I did get their address of: Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, 202-395-3080 and called to there with several options of: press 9 to repeat their address again, 2 for forms, 3 for employment, 4 for circulars, 5 for Fiscal Year 2011 info, 1 for media, and Zero for the Operator, and so I pressed Zero and the man directed me to their voice mail AND to their Contact Box to put it in writing too, as I do copy and paste below: from page http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/) of: "To The O.M.B. This is to follow up my voice mail just left for your Director to delegate down to investigate the effectiveness of the U.S. Census in N.H. as I did give the one and only office at the time in Concord, N.H. a NO TRESPASSING Notice but that the agents from Portsmouth, N.H. did decide to trespass not once but twice AFTER I had told them verbally too!! That I was not REFUSING to answer the one and only Question #1 of ___ but of WHEN and WHERE of AFTER the Title 40 U.S. Code Section 255 to 3112 "head" of "agency", Dr. Groves files his papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State by RSA Ch. 123:1 cc: to Bill Gardner THE Sec. of State as a courtesy copy of this Progress Report leading to a CRIMINAL case in Laconia District Court IF I do not get my public servants to do their job that I pay them for through my employer at work.  To exhaust my Executive remedies BEFORE reporting to the judge BOTH as per a PRIVATE prosecution by the Rita Premo case, (see her name in quotes and Haas at GOOGLE to find that N.H. Supreme Court case, plus of for the local C.O.P. to prosecute too for not merely a $fine but jail time to whoever shall be the one responsible under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior, to start with Officer Robert Mills at the local office and work my way up the totem pole.  cc: to the local Chief of Police too, and to the Town Selectmen to "regulate" in this matter so that it does not happen again ten (10) years from now! like the Sheriff of a County out west who asks the Feds: "Show me your papers." Reference U.S. Attorney Manual #664 citing the Dravo case of the U.S. Supreme Court. Yours truly, Joseph S. Haas, P. O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059, e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com " with the notation of: "Please limit your message to 2,500 characters"But when I press The "Submit" button after typing in the scrambled words of: "worker Investigation" it reads in red that: " Email: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com is not a valid email address" so I guess that my name is on their list of "terrorists" as a "Sovereign Citizen".  (;-)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on July 08, 2010, 07:21 AM NHFT
Unions are corrupt.

http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/thats-outrageous----corrupt-union-bosses/article27393.html (http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/thats-outrageous----corrupt-union-bosses/article27393.html)

WHY does Yahoo keep invading this page?

I read about one sentence and they blip in!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You've got to view stop it to print, but only prints the heading but not the rest.

See also: http://www.rd.com/content/printContent.do?contentId=27393&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=500&width=790&modal=true (http://www.rd.com/content/printContent.do?contentId=27393&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=500&width=790&modal=true)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on July 08, 2010, 07:27 AM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on July 08, 2010, 07:21 AM NHFT
Unions are corrupt.....




Images from this article
That's Outrageous
javascript:void(0);
That's Outrageous
Image
There is always something happening somewhere in the country where a union official is treating union dues like his own personal piggy bank
Pat Tornillo used to enjoy the high life. He was a world traveler who flew off to exotic destinations like India, Bangkok and Australia. On one occasion, he reportedly slept in a $2,000-per-night hotel suite. On another, he used his business credit card to charge almost $4,000 at a single jewelry store.

Tornillo had it made all right -- until he was caught with his hand deep in the till. You might guess he was an executive at Enron, or maybe Tyco or WorldCom. Nope. Tornillo was head of the Miami-based United Teachers of Dade, using the dues of union members to subsidize his lavish lifestyle. Even as he railed against low teacher salaries, Tornillo was blowing money on custom-tailored suits, spa visits -- even purchases from the Sinclair Intimacy Institute, which peddles "better sex" videos.

But why point the finger at Tornillo alone? An even bigger thief is Barbara Bullock, the former president of the Washington, D.C., teachers union. From 1995 to 2002, she and her accomplices swiped an estimated $2.5 million from her 5,000-member union. FBI investigators seized thousands of dollars' worth of goods from her, including furs, designer handbags and Ferragamo shoes. The annual dues of hardworking teachers -- nearly $650 in 2002 -- helped pay for her splurges.

Why even stop at Bullock? There's so much corruption today among union bosses that it feels like we're back in the era of Jimmy Hoffa. "There is always something happening somewhere in the country where a union official is treating union dues like his own personal piggy bank," says David Kendrick, a union watchdog at the National Legal and Policy Center in Falls Church, Virginia. He tracks these abuses in a biweekly newsletter, "and we always have enough stories to put out another issue."

In the first three months of 2004, the Labor Department reported criminal enforcement actions -- indictments, guilty pleas or sentencings -- against 34 union officials or employees. In 2003, the total figure was 143. Stan Greer, a spokesman for the National Right to Work Committee, says that in the past four years, the presidents or former presidents of three national unions have been convicted of felonies.

Here's a bigger outrage: We could stop a lot of this corruption if the Labor Department showed more muscle. Though the government requires unions to submit financial reports, fully a third are filed late or not at all -- and the unions are rarely audited.

Workers who ask for details about their union's finances often get nowhere. "Many people come to us and say their union told them to buzz off," says David Kendrick. "There's a climate where union officials aren't accountable to anyone."

No wonder, then, that corruption runs rampant. Take the leadership of the 125,000-member international ironworkers union. Last year the union's former president, Jake West, was imprisoned for stealing union funds. According to prosecutors, West and other union officials embezzled over $400,000 -- and spent it on vacations and country club memberships. They also ate well on the union's tab: nearly $500,000 over six years at one Washington, D.C., steakhouse.

Then there are the four steelworkers officials in Virginia who pleaded guilty to pilfering some $10,000 from a relief fund that was established for workers following a foundry explosion.

In Ohio, a machinists union treasurer admitted embezzling $36,000 in union funds. A brazen bookkeeper in New Mexico stole $57,000 from a builders union, at the same time that she filched $11,600 in dues from her second job at a local ironworkers union. Then she forged checks to cover her tracks.

Of course, this is only the illegal side of robbery. Union bosses are effectively picking pockets by taking salaries that dwarf the earnings of the working stiffs who support them. For instance, a Chicago Teamsters leader who retired a few months ago earned $586,000 last year. Salaries like his may explain why the rank and file across the country often pay $500 or more in annual dues.

Other union leaders with fat paychecks include John Bowers, president of the longshoremen, who made $421,000 last year, plus another $172,000 as head of the union's Atlantic Coast district; Douglas McCarron, president of the national carpenters union, who pulled in $336,000; and Duane Woerth, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, who got a salary of $412,000, along with a $130,000 "allowance."

It will take rare courage to bring down salaries like these. Pay is often voted on at public meetings where a dissenter risks a lot by openly defying the big guys.

There's more chance of netting the out-and-out criminals if the Labor Department follows through on its pledge to tighten financial accounting and oversight. Just demanding an annual audit may deter some of the embezzlement, bloated salaries and perks.

Here's the ultimate deterrent, though. Last year, Pat Tornillo was sentenced to 27 months in prison and ordered to pay $800,000 to the United Teachers of Dade. And Barbara Bullock, the former teachers union president in Washington, D.C., is serving a nine-year sentence at a prison in Alderson, West Virginia. America's union workers will only get justice when all the corrupt union bosses get theirs.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on July 13, 2010, 02:16 PM NHFT
http: // www dot youtube.com/watch?v=AUENa9Fw2t8&feature=player_embedded#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUENa9Fw2t8&feature=player_embedded# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUENa9Fw2t8&feature=player_embedded#)!

The David "Ridley Report" brought to you by:
http://ncc-1776.org/ (http://ncc-1776.org/)

That's Bob Giuda at about 3:30 to 4:00 minutes.
http://www.bobgiuda.com/ (http://www.bobgiuda.com/)

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on July 14, 2010, 07:32 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/sign-of-progress-from-federal-judge (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/sign-of-progress-from-federal-judge)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/sign-of-progress-from-federal-judge#comment-132304 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/sign-of-progress-from-federal-judge#comment-132304)

of & entitled:

"But what about the Federal law in New Hampshire?
By JosephSHaas - 07/14/2010 - 8:30 am New
So in other words until the Federal court case in the District of MAss.achusetts makes it up to the First Circuit in Boston, the U.S. Code or Statutes at Large on taxation of civil unions to NOT get the same tax benefits as traditionally married couples in the other Districts of this Circuit are to be upheld until overturned? That includes the Districts of: Maine, N.H., Vermont, Conn, R.I. and P.R. Who are these 608 same-sex marriage couples in New Hampshire? And are ANY of them fighting this here too? As Articles 12 + 30 "inhabitants" of this state, per parts 1 + 2 of the N.H. Constitution I'd like to see at least one of them tell the I.R.S. still using this un-even scale to back off by executive decision needing no judicial review in what IS the definition of a republic by Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, BUT if not then to seek that "judicial" review to an Article I, Section 8, Clause 9 "judicial" tribunal. WHERE are they? The court over there at the Warren B. Rudman Block at 55 Pleasant Street, in Concord, N.H. is an Article III, Section 1 "inferior Court_ of Congress" in the Legislative branch! They are a tenant court of the landlord being the G.S.A. / General Services Administration, whose "head" of "agency" by Title 40 U.S. Code Section 255 to 3112 Martha Johnson has FAILED to file her "agent" paperwork with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1 from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution. Yes there IS a consent, but of what type? A conditional consent. And by the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court an offer of consent un-accepted is NOT consent. Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution does NOT read of pursuant to with the letter "t" of there having to be a consent, that was and is ever since June 14, 1883, BUT that of "in Pursuance thereof" with the letter "c" of to put into effect WHEN the papers are finally filed with Bill Gardner's office in Concord on the 2nd floor of the State House. That is to WHERE the Feds are Ordered to report by the "shall" word, but that our current governor REFUSEs to send them a written invitation as required by his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to Article 51, Part 2, N.H. Constitution "to execute the laws of the state" for which he is Article 41 "responsible for". His advisers on the Executive Council of five likewise REFUSE to counsel him on this because they don't want to upset the Federal funds coming their way ever other Wednesday at those G&C meetings. His "faithful" performance bond by RSA Ch. 93-B:1,I is to $200,000. My suggestion is that anybody harmed by the Feds alert Lynch and the Dept. of Safety of "to serve and protect" and if not done, then to sue him +/or Barthelmes too as the Commissioner in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on July 14, 2010, 08:22 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/childrens-center-closes-shop (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/childrens-center-closes-shop)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/childrens-center-closes-shop#comment-132314 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/childrens-center-closes-shop#comment-132314)

of & entitled: "Drop the I.R.S., not this service.
By JosephSHaas - 07/14/2010 - 9:21 am New
So how many of the employees were new = ____? and old = #_____ like from 1984? The reason I ask is that if not new, as having already put in their quarters to be able to tap into this socialized medicine program upon retirement, why didn't they just go private contractor in their old age? Hey! Since the Feds failed to file by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State, why can't you REFUSE to file with them? You can, they have no jurisdictional authority over you if you chose not to consent. Details in my Archives here of today in regards to that other article dealing with the I.R.S. too. Read it and weep? No, read it and re-open. Best wishes to you. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on July 14, 2010, 10:31 AM NHFT
Here's the latest e-mail through http://www.corrlinks.com (http://www.corrlinks.com) from Danny who told me that this argument (withOUT these latest findings?) are withIN his Appeal to Boston, and get this: NEVER rebutted by Seth Aframe, Assistant U.S. Attorney in the case, and so David Hacket Souter of Weare and Hopkinton, N.H. and the other two judges in Boston from the first of #___ hearings on May Day 2010 ought to send it back to the lower court for a re-trial and do it right this time!

Compare to what Clerk James R. Starr told me over the phone last month when I wanted a forum to complain against his transcriber who REFUSED to put down the ENTIRE trial record that in-cluded my "Point of Order", and he said that the events in Maine were not "proceedings" as they were not going forward with the case, but a mere treading water, as in a status conference BELIEVE IT OR NOT! saying the word proceeding in 18USC3232 is nowhere defined by Congress, although I know from the past of the only dictionary ever approved by them being: "Bovier's Dictionary" as THE one to consult for the definition of any word.

So Donna and Jose: Please relay this latest info of details below to Reno to put into his Pro Se Brief for a re-hearing:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: "DANIEL RILEY (14528052)"
Date: "7/14/2010 9:06:21 AM"
Subject: "trial"
Message: "A trial is defined in    ( in re relafen antitrust litigation) USDC Mass. 231 F.R.D. 52 @ 93 (1st Cir. 2005), its basically any evidentry hearing, but read for youself. / / 87 criminal law reporter (BNA) 110 / / April 28, 2010 / / "[p]reliminary hearing is a critical stage of trial..."   State v Jones, Kan., No. 98, 571  4/15/2010 / / can be read at    pub.bna.com/cl/98571p.pdf

So the facts show my trial was held in Maine while the offense was alleged in NH, totally unlawful ! " *
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* both: unlawful [in violation of the 6th Amendment: "...all criminal prosecutions...shall...(be held in) the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,...."] and illegal, as against Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 3232. Them trucked to Portland, Maine from New Hampshire over The Somersworth-Berwick Bridge.

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

cc: Citizen's Service for Gov. John H. Lynch at:  officeofcitizenservi at nh dot gov plus his five advisers on The Executive Council [ see: http://www.nh.gov/council/ (http://www.nh.gov/council/) & see also: http://nhexecutivecouncil.com/ (http://nhexecutivecouncil.com/) for the audio/video versions] who is charged by his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm) [see also Art. 42:1 for the City officials at:  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm) over to Article 84: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html) ]  "to execute the laws of the state and of the United States" too, by Article 51, Part 2, see: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html) that in-cludes 18USC3232 for which he is Article 41 "responsible for" should the Article 28-a "political subdivision" of the state http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) The C.O.P. at the gateway over there in Somersworth not protect. Me trying to get him to adopt a similar policy to that Sheriff out west that whenever the Feds come into his territory he pre-scribes to them that they have to prove their authority, as by here in N.H. to have to prove their "head" of "agency" by 40USC255 to 3112 filed their Federal papers as the N.H. R.S.A. "agent" in RSA Ch. 123:1  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm)  with Bill Gardner's Office of N.H. Secretary of State, and if not and caught doing monkey business with inmates in their baliwick to arrest and charge them with kidnapping.  Ignorance of the law is NO excuse!  I did write the C.O.P. about this on May 28th, with a June 29th follow-up then and on Fri., July 2nd, plus yesterday's phone call to the City Manager and Ward #1 Councilor who covers the eastern part of the City, to please contact the Chief by the end of his/ the Manager's 1-week vacation starting today, and so by say the end of next week, so that I do not have to take the Manager to the City Council when they next meet on Monday, August 16th per their once a month meetings during the Summer, then back to twice a month in September. See: http://www.somersworth.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={9697F9D0-8AE9-4E95-BA58-93A575FE9EA4} (http://www.somersworth.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B9697F9D0-8AE9-4E95-BA58-93A575FE9EA4%7D) for: Robert M. Belmore, City Manager, Beth Nault, Executive Assistant, City of Somersworth, One Government Way, Somersworth, New Hampshire 03878, 603-692-9503; e-mail: BBelmore at Somersworth dot com and: http://www.somersworth.com/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC={625D2982-80FD-4114-8083-8491B8E1CE15} (http://www.somersworth.com/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC=%7B625D2982-80FD-4114-8083-8491B8E1CE15%7D) for: Councilor Martin Pepin, Ward 1, 54 Rocky Hill Road, Somersworth, NH 03878, Telephone No.: 692-4436, email: mpepin at comcast.net plus: http://www.somersworth.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={8A310EE1-A1DE-4F9E-976E-0E23625A595E} (http://www.somersworth.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B8A310EE1-A1DE-4F9E-976E-0E23625A595E%7D) for Police Chief Dean Crombie, Karen Cantrell - Executive Assistant, Somersworth Police Department, 12 Lilac Lane, Somersworth, New Hampshire 03878, 603-692-3131 business/dispatch, 603-692-2111 fax To see IF the City of Somersworth does adopt such a policy for future notice to the Feds, and some apology in writing that they have failed to protect several of our Articles 12 + 30 inhabitants, Parts 1 + 2 respectfully of the N.H. Constitution, http://www.nh.gov/constitution/senate.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/senate.html) by calling upon the governor to be the Respondeat Superior to have to answer to them for me having NOT notified the City ahead of these events, BUT having put the governor on notice on June 21st, 2007 @ 4:29 o'clock p.m. with these incidents having occurred on: _____________________ (in my notes and withIN the 3-year RSA Ch. 508:4 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/508/508-4.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/508/508-4.htm) statute of limitations) to sue upon the governor's performance bond of $200,000** by RSA Ch. 93-B:1,I http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/93-B/93-B-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/93-B/93-B-1.htm) in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm) that next meets in September, as they meet quarterly, and so maybe a hearing on this in December.

** over to the following: click on the Admin. Services Agency  http://admin.state.nh.us/ (http://admin.state.nh.us/)  - hover over  the Risk Management to the left margin  and click   Insurance Policies gets you to http://admin.state.nh.us/riskmanagement/propandcasualty.asp (http://admin.state.nh.us/riskmanagement/propandcasualty.asp) click on the 1st hyperlink of Insurance Policies = http://admin.state.nh.us/purchasing/property%20and%20casualty%20insurance%20policies.pdf (http://admin.state.nh.us/purchasing/property%20and%20casualty%20insurance%20policies.pdf) see the 2nd one down to the $6,352/year policy for $200,000 = all positions, except $300,000 for each of the Chairman Lottery and Exec. Dir. Sweepstakes.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on July 17, 2010, 08:38 AM NHFT
* Monier: I took an oath to execute only lawful precepts.
Ayotte: As A.G. I knew that the Feds failed to file by RSA 123:1 and so what you did to pick up Ed Brown on private soil was illegal, but you know what Steve?
Monier: What's that Kelly ?
Ayotte: Congratulations! The end justifies the means. To hell with procedural due process of law. The sheeple will vote for me because I have the backing of all ten County Sheriffs.
Monier: Yeah, what do you think about Mike Prozzo of Sullivan County going on vacation when Haas presented the evidence of non-filing to the County Commissioners in Newport on May Day 2007?
Ayotte: Great! When the check-and balance gets paid more from us in Federal funds to look the other way than to protect his Art. 12 inhabitants, that's cause for celebration.
Monier: The sheeple sure are gullible in taking our "Protection Racket" hook, line and sinker.
Ayotte: Quiet! Steve, somebody might hear you on that.
Monier: So what!? What can they do? We've got it all sewn up. Or should I say a beeline path to Portland for our judge Singal to further cause insult to injury.
Ayotte: You mean the illegal trips to there against 18USC3232 right?
Monier: Right on! We just love those field trips to the ocean. Yeah know old Georgie boy Singal and his family escaped from the Nazi's right?
Ayotte: No, I didn't know that.  Then Why on earth would he choose to become a part of our Racket?
Monier: Money and power.  He gets a thrill out of seeing the defendants squirm and squeal rights as guaranteed by the constitution and statutes at large, and especially so when we execute these un-lawful precepts.
Ayotte: Don't you think that sometime, somewhere, somebody will test the precepts?
Monier: Not in my lifetime.  David Cargill of the N.H. State Police is our buddy now in the U.S. Marshal's Office.  We've got him trained to do our bidding.
Ayotte: Don't you just love it?
Monier: Yes "Comrade", "they" will never know. Moscow is proud of you. The TOTALitarianism of socialism is to make sure that when one of the "subjects" gets out of hand that we take ALL their apples plus the tree and throw them into the dungeon. The sheeple pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of American and to the Republic for which it stands, but as long as it, of any adversity, doesn't touch them individually, they care not for their neighbors.
Ayotte: Amen to that brother.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/candidates-test-the-market#comment-132782 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/candidates-test-the-market#comment-132782)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kelly Ayotte
From:    ___________________
Sent:    Fri 7/16/10 7:27 PM
To:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Cc:    _________________
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/candidates-test-the-market (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/candidates-test-the-market)


Candidates test the 'market'

By Shira Schoenberg / Monitor staff
July 16, 2010


Kelly Ayotte, a Republican Senate candidate, and Ann McLane Kuster, a Democratic congressional candidate, are far apart politically. But the two have one thing in common: They're better at campaigning than at aiming.

Ayotte tried nine times, unsuccessfully, to throw a ball at a target and dunk Concord City Councilor Steve Shurtleff in a dunk tank. Kuster gave up after four throws, but she had the better excuse. "He's a supporter," Kuster said. "I don't want to dunk him."

Amid a potpourri of food, crafts and T-shirts, New Hampshire's political candidates used downtown Concord's Market Days to see and be seen. There was some talk about jobs and government spending, and lots of talk about children and Concord connections.

"We have a large family, I get your pizza all the time," Democratic congressional candidate Katrina Swett told an employee at the Constantly Pizza booth.

Ayotte, who bravely tackled Market Days wearing heels, lives in Nashua. But Merrimack County Sheriff Scott Hilliard helped her navigate the Concord crowd, introducing her to friends and voters. Former U.S. marshal Steve Monier* also joined the entourage.

"She was a great attorney general," Hilliard said. "With her leadership qualities, she's not afraid to take on Washington."

Ayotte shook hands with U.S. Army recruiters and told them her husband serves in the Air National Guard. She took a business card from a local lobbyist and thanked a veteran for his service. When a first-term state legislator said he wanted the state House to focus on fiscal issues, not divisive social issues, Ayotte responded that the economy was her top issue nationally.

"We're spending too much money and borrowing too much money," Ayotte told employees in a local copy shop. "We've got to get the economy back on track."

Ayotte's 2-year-old son Jacob stopped by with Ayotte's aunt and uncle but seemed more interested in the bounce house than in his mother's campaign.

Ed Carnahan, running a booth for the church-run Capital City Children's Camp, said Ayotte won a game that involved rolling balls into numbered slots. "She'd make a fine senator," Carnahan said. "I'd like to get a fresh face in Washington now."

Ayotte bore no ill will toward Jim MacKay, the longtime Republican-turned-Democrat state representative from Concord. The two worked together on issues like monitoring prescription drugs. "I appreciated working with you on important issues over the years," Ayotte told MacKay.

MacKay, for his part, said he was "very fond of Kelly" - though he didn't commit to voting for her. MacKay, who is running to regain the state House seat that he lost by 17 votes, spent the morning sitting at the Concord City Democrats booth. He hoped his two years out of politics would give him an edge up in the election. "Nationally, who's winning is non-incumbents," MacKay said.

Kuster and Swett, competing with one another in the 2nd District Democratic primary, set up booths across the street from each other. At Swett's booth, volunteers talked about her parents, who were Holocaust survivors, and her commitment to give part of her congressional salary back to the U.S. Treasury.

Wearing a patriotic outfit of red, white and blue, Swett introduced herself to voters with a quick summary of her platform. "I'm running to fight for the middle class," she said. "Americans are squeezed from every side. We need to create jobs."

In the short term, Swett said, she would extend unemployment benefits. In the long term, she would offer tax cuts and credits as incentives for small businesses to grow.

Swett cooed over a woman's young twins and told the woman that she has seven children of her own. "I know what it means to have a family and make those budgets work," she said. One couple told Swett that years ago their son had his picture taken with Swett's husband, former congressman Dick Swett.

Kuster seemed not to need to introduce herself to anyone. Hardly a minute went by without Kuster running to hug a longtime friend or exclaiming, "Hi, sweetie! How are you?" There was Lucia Kittredge from Kuster's yoga group and Ruth Perencevich from her book club. There was the editor of Kuster's book and a fellow board member from the Capitol Center for the Arts.

Kuster thanked one supporter for holding a house party for her. "We've worked very hard and had 100 house parties!" Kuster exclaimed.

Kuster's son, Zach, a student at Dartmouth College, walked beside her handing out stickers.

"I've lived here my entire life, worked on Main Street for 25 years, volunteered for nonprofits, raised my kids here," Kuster said. She said she even ran into a man she dated in ninth grade.

Farther down Main Street, a young staffer was manning 2nd District Republican candidate Jennifer Horn's booth - Horn was expected to show up last night. John Meibaum, who works in Concord and described himself as "very conservative," had already talked to Ayotte and stopped by to pick up Horn's literature. He noted that there are a lot of women running this election, and added, "Go get 'em!"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on July 19, 2010, 07:45 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/cashing-in-on-collections (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/cashing-in-on-collections)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/cashing-in-on-collections#comment-133026 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/cashing-in-on-collections#comment-133026)

of: "Time for a pay raise to our public servants.
By JosephSHaas - 07/19/2010 - 8:43 am New
Thank you Ray. And as Richard would probably tell you he did not technically "buy" the gold coins from that woman for $2,500 (two thousand five hundred dollars) so that she could have heating oil, but that she bought his commercial paper (c.p.) being the private Federal Reserve Notes to exchange in commerce for the oil. Or maybe the commercial coins (instead of the c.p.) per the Coinage Act of 1965 that did not replace but supplemented the one for 1792 that is still the law, and as annotated in Article 97 of our N.H. Constitution as the quality of coin that the State Treasurer and all City and Town Treasurers must pay their officers and employees by Chapter 28 Laws of New Hampshire of 1794 in Vol. 6 at page 155. Now WHERE be the law enforcement of such!? Section 20 of the 1792 Act requires this! That ALL government offices AND the courts deal ONLY with this quality of coin! Is there ANY public official reading this at ANY level of state or federal gov't willing to do something about this? To claim the quality of coin from their next paycheck. Like an instant raise in pay. (;-) To then take to the coin dealer for an exchange ratio of what? ___ to ___? But: If they are too chicken to do so, may I "buy" YOUR check please to contact me. Thank you. And hopefully from a state-chartered bank, governed by the N.H. Banking Commissioner, that when notified of default, to invite the Bank President in to give reason WHY they refuse to pay in the quality defined by law, and if still as outlaws, to notify the governor "to execute the laws of the state and of the United States" by his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to Article 51 for which he is Article 41 "responsible for" and shall be by an action of debt and damages against him in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims. He has an RSA Ch. 93-B:1,I Insurance Bond of $200,000 to faithfully perform his duty. So to test this out by the end of this month, to get "prompt" action by Article 14, but if not then to sue toward their next quarterly meeting in either September or December. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on July 19, 2010, 01:38 PM NHFT
RE: State Rep. Bill O'Brien, of Mt. Vernon, N.H.

http://www.ipolitics.com/legislator/22318/William-O%27Brien/newtopic/ (http://www.ipolitics.com/legislator/22318/William-O%27Brien/newtopic/)

and: http://www.ipolitics.com/legislator/22318/William-O%27Brien/7109-the_new_house_speaker_maybe_2011.htm (http://www.ipolitics.com/legislator/22318/William-O%27Brien/7109-the_new_house_speaker_maybe_2011.htm)

Subject: "The New House Speaker - maybe 2011"

Message of: "I just heard today (Mon., July 19th '10) that if/when the Republicans win this November 2010 that Attorney Bill (of 88 No. Main St., Suite 209, Concord, N.H. 03301, 603: 228-6610) will probably be the next House Speaker. To which I say: About time! And reference: current House Speaker, Terrie Norelli, "Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish!" Bill to set up a new statutory committee on the Constitution to where Article 32 Petitions go to there as the former "appropriate" committee BEFORE Norelli had House Rule #4 changed to that of to merely collect dust now, as our ancestors ran up against similar and worse of repeated injuries in retaliation from King George in England that resulted in our "Declaration of Independence".  Some people like Norelli never learn from history, or TRY to repeat it for their power ego trip that it just that: a trip in time, and then they are gone, off to jail if I have my way for her Official Oppression of my January 12, 2007 Petition Endorsed by a State Rep. by House Rule 36, and so to go after Norelli within 2 years of her leaving office by RSA Ch. 625:8,III(b).  Luckily for others in the future not having to put up with this type of Norelli crap. Future petitions automatically over to this Committee hopefully chaired by State Rep. Dan Itse from Freemont to hopefully win re-election too. Yours truly, JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com, Tel. 603: 848-6059. POB3842 Concord 03302. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on July 20, 2010, 09:22 AM NHFT
http://cirinogonzalez.wordpress.com/ (http://cirinogonzalez.wordpress.com/)

(http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac134/FREE_RENO/motionforlegalmailbyJLGordon.jpg)

(http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac134/FREE_RENO/motionforlegalmailbyJLGordon2.jpg)

(http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac134/FREE_RENO/Motionforlegalmail3.jpg)


To read Riley and Wolffe Proffers with Reno's Notes:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=170785320&blogId=522932004 (http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=170785320&blogId=522932004)


Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Dave Ridley on July 20, 2010, 11:54 AM NHFT
Thanks for posting this donna I will look at it and see if I can at least mention it on my channel...  always looking for any excuse to remind folks of the excessive sentences.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on July 21, 2010, 06:47 PM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on July 20, 2010, 11:54 AM NHFT
....

Look for a new address for Attorney Joshua Gordon in the coming weeks. I walked the dog by Mail Boxes, Etc. is this address the other day, his Box #175 therein, and there's a sign that it is moving down the road to another location.  Maybe the Concord Natural Foods Co-Op is expanding?
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on July 23, 2010, 12:10 PM NHFT
father,

wife,



The dead line should have ended yesterday on the government's time to reply to the court's order for them to file a brief. We need to find out what the government filed about the BOP withholding my discovery. It will be a while before I am able to see anything on it; from now till then, this will be just wasted time for us. Both of you need to follow up on this and relay to me and post the situation again for everyone else to know what is going on.

*See Images below for
Motion to Allow Prisoner Receipt of Certain Mail


Remember, on wolffe's testimony,
( 132-3-31-08 day 7 pm (http://www.scribd.com/doc/25505554/132-3-31-08-day-7-pm#key2mw8djalxcftl00g8cvo) )
he said there was no one taking notes and there was no recording devices and they even said there would not be any used at his meetings with the prosecuters and marshals. Remember the proffer statements from Bob and Danny were word for word when it came to the subject of me only
( as i rememeber it ).

( Proffer Riley v Wolffe wCG Notes (http://www.scribd.com/doc/24343392/Proffer-Riley-v-Wolffe-wCG-Notes#key1jtefqqesphhpeh6rbql) )

( CG Notes Trancript (http://www.scribd.com/doc/24345525/CG-Notes-Trancript#keyos6auftkqkoodlu5tqn) )
these were two different guys interviewed on two different days, seperate interviews...



good luck getting info on the government's order.



cirino

Motion to Allow Prisoner Receipt of Certain Mail page 1
(http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac134/FREE_RENO/motionforlegalmailbyJLGordon.jpg)
Motion to Allow Prisoner Receipt of Certain Mail page 2
(http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac134/FREE_RENO/motionforlegalmailbyJLGordon2.jpg)
Motion to Allow Prisoner Receipt of Certain Mail page 3
(http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac134/FREE_RENO/Motionforlegalmail3.jpg)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: armlaw on July 23, 2010, 09:21 PM NHFT
Here is something Mr. Gordon can sink his teeth into as it would benefit all who have been victimized by the CORPORATE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in "territorial Jurisdiction:" It is NOT the National government that brought the action. Study and think about what follows;

Docket Sheet 6/1-6/22/2010
USA Motion for Revoking Bond of Snipes - Doc 526.
11th Cir. Denial Exhibit at 526
Snipes Appeal Brief and Reply
USA Appellee Brief.
Jury Instructions of Snipes case.
United States v. Rivamontek, 666 F.2d 515 (11th Cir. 1982)
United States v. White, 611 F.2d 531 (5th Cir. 1980) - Important - how the house was built on sand, then misquoted.
United States v. Wuagneu, 638 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir. 1982).

Jury Instruction of Snipes to the Jury had the "preponderance of evidence" standard - don't know if the current attorney for Snipes THEN fought this or not - EXTREMELY important - didn't have the time to track back preponderance of evidence of how it arrived and if really fought or not.  I searched the Snipes record of the documents that I had downloaded from Pacer and I found no record of any of Snipes Attorneys attacking the preponderance of evidence standard prior to the trial but that MAY not be true - lots of documents filed in his case - could have missed one - just can't take the time to assure my statement is really correct.

There is some useful very information contained in this including that the revoking of the Bail before the Mandate of the Court of Appeals was final.  Should be interesting to see how this one plays out.
Still have not read the 11th Cir. decision - just scanned quickly but the thing that jumped out at me was the "preponderance of evidence" standard was used - this is total BS as all of the substantive elements of a crime are to be by the "reasonable doubt" standard -- wherein they start the duplicity of a "crime"  with the "essential" elements versus the "substantive" elements. (White, infra)  Lacking time to research out enough for a module on this, but one only has to go back a couple of cases to the fraud of the circuits, wherein the house of sand is built then morphed into purportedly a  house built upon rock - precedent  - the courts do this over and over, but for some reason very few folks/attorneys follow the link back to the source to then see and prove the misapplications in citing based on earlier cases.
United States v. White, 611 F.2d 531 (1980) wherein White DID NOT request the venue issue in the jury instructions, therefore the issue comes under "plain error" review on Appeal of every "essential element" of a crime.  Then the circuit sidesteps the issues of "plain error" with at 536 -  "we decline to hold either that a trial court's failure to instruct the jury on territorial jurisdiction and venue will always be plain error or that it will never be plain error."
Then the cat is out of the bag with the following - "We hold only that in this case the failure to instruct on territorial jurisdiction and venue did not constitute plain error. " "[H]old only that in this case" is the key.

At 538 they again expose their intentional  criminality with ] "Although "(i)t is axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove territorial jurisdiction over a crime in order to sustain a conviction therefor,"

Isn't this just special that the jurisdiction is "axiomatic" wherein if the real Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum was and could (still there but not used) be used today, the cornerstone of it was "jurisdiction", i.e., including VENUE.  In the  they shut down the real Habeas Corpus for the 2255 habeas (just a motion in the Admin. State) then with verycurrent Administrative State specific limitations they MAY look at a real Habeas.

HOLD ONLY IN THIS CASE in White, supra is the key and from there down the slippery slope comes the "preponderance of evidence" lurking in this Case wherein the Venue was not put to jury and therefore the "plain error" and "essential" versus "substantive" is used to give the appearance of the validation of the fox to get into the chicken house, with it then being misapplied/misstated in later cases. Damn, you have like those crooked sobs scams - what a system.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Tunga on July 27, 2010, 11:49 PM NHFT
How this plays out?

Ha Ha. We think you already know the answer to that one.

Tunga is not certain how much of what you wrote has been absorbed but we do appreciate your perspective. 

So many words. Never enough ammo.

Tunga a simple guy who just needs to file a writ of error.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on July 30, 2010, 09:09 AM NHFT
Rigged Trial, email from Danny Riley (Ed and Elaine Brown Supporter)



The more i reflect beck on the trial and its extrementies, the more i realize it was fixed for us to lose, not ot be a "fair trial."Let me explain, i was the only non participatorr in the scheme to find us guilty, so they had to get rid of me. the court did this by: not allowing me any witnesses, not enforcing the discovery i was entitled to, would obfuscate the issue of my privatelt obtained evidence not being turned over to me, just to name a few. These violations forced me to to relinqush my right to defend mtself. The court also would not let us put on our defense, which was self-defense and defense of others in the face of excessive force, which is 100% justifiable under the law, and was the truth of the matter. So we were defeated before the trial even started.



The attorneys were sided with the feds, not us. We had no effective assistance of counsel. For example, Bownes argued vehemently against introducing those two impeaching letters written by Wolffe. Think about that for a minute, not wanting evidnce introduced that helps your client, arguing at sidebar, hearsay, competency and no oath, which all make no sense. Can't be hearsay Wolffe is on the stand! Bownes also tried to get the liberty tools taken from Texas introduced against Reno, his own client, Why? Its evidence that would of helped the feds thats why.



Norkunas, what a joke he was. After 6 months of trial prep, lead to putting on a 5 minute video showing the Brown's home while "I fought the law and the law won" cranks over the court room speakers! Think about that! Its a dead give away who he was really working for. He did not call one witness, basically put on no defense at all.



Wiberg had the sniper that tried to kill me in the hallway and never put him on the stand, why?



Another tell-tale sign is both Norkunas and Bownes could of saved the liberty tools from forfeiture, by simply filing a 12(b)(6) motion, because the statute of limitations had run out for a 924(d) frofeiture, but yet they didi nothing and of course i was never even notifief the forfeiture was taken place because the feds knew i knew about the statute of limitations.



Now ther is 3 innocent people rotting in prison, basically political prisoners.



There is no such thing as a "fair trial" in a federal court, as long as the BAR flies a running the show.




addendum---rigged trial

i forgot to mention, the attempted murder video, Wiberg showed it the first time and said absolutely nothing when i told him to explain it to the jury. The second time, when the marshal was on the stand, the judge would not lwt Wiberg show it, was told save it for closing arguments. At closing arguments, i had the whole video laid out, with specific times and what to point out to the jury. When i tried to play the video, the court's electronic equipment mysteriously stopped working, depriving me of the ability show my best piece of evidence. To this very day i say the government on purpose made the electronic equipment stop working, to stop me from proving my innocence. Another thing to think of!



How can a logical person believe us three got a fair trial ?
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: armlaw on July 30, 2010, 07:53 PM NHFT

It appears that Title 42 USC 1985(3) will offer some relief for the political prisoners.

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

For color of Law see what follows.

The Seal of the US Department of Justice The banner of US Department of Justice, Civil Rights
   
   
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

Summary:

      Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
      The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

          Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Return to the Criminal Section Home Page
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on August 02, 2010, 10:20 AM NHFT

http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100730106 (http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100730106)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 02, 2010, 11:26 AM NHFT
http://danrileyld.blogspot.com/ (http://danrileyld.blogspot.com/)

"Monday, June 7, 2010
Daniel Riley Initiates a Civil Bivens Action

Complaint

Today is the third anniversary of the so-called "Dog Walker" incident in Plainfield, NH."

http://www.scribd.com/full/32643955?access_key=key-a0gl3qat7ec9twwn4iz (http://www.scribd.com/full/32643955?access_key=key-a0gl3qat7ec9twwn4iz)

on 11 pages, to read and comment on later...    - - Joe

Mod: this exact part of this page is: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg326121#msg326121 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg326121#msg326121)
-   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
Modification #2:

Dan: What "laws of the state of New Hampshire"?  You failed to indicate same within your WHEREFORE / PRAYER FOR RELIEF letter A. for "compensatory damages" or in other words for to "make up", "offset", "reimburse" you for your loss of time and medical bills, right? for this unlawful and illegal assault. See Exodus 21:18-19 incorporated into Public Law 97-280 (96 Statute 1211) of October 4, 1982 = The Year of the Bible for 1983 & Beyond.

In this case your station in life by your diploma from High School & training worth $_____ per ______ x the almost three years, as of next month that you will have been deprived of earning such $amount, thus a theft and so for to Amend your case for what I'd say and write of punitive damages too, as pre-scribed by Proverbs 6:30-31 of to charge the thief sevenfold the $amount stolen.

The actual N.H. laws and statutes are that yes, you were a legal resident of New York, but that because you were a state "citizen" as it applies to those brought into the state of N.H. too by force, reference the case-law annotated under Article 30, Part 2 of the New Hampshire Constitution, you were that and also an Article 12 "inhabitant" with the right in this Part the First & N.H. Bill of Rights NOT to be controlled over by any other laws never consented to.

So yes, the State Legislature or N.H. General Court gave to the Feds a CONDITIONAL Consent on June 14, 1883 to exercise jurisdictional authority here in this state of N.H., by R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 BUT that because they did NOT accept our offer by them filing their 40USC255 to 3112 papers (as like their G.S.A. / General Services Administration landlord of now Martha Johnson, appointed by Obama) as by the Adams case-law in the U.S. Supreme Court of 1943 and even the U.S. Attorney Manual #664, there is no consent, and so the control over you by the Feds was wrong!  It was militant action from the word: "militate" of using force as evidence over the evidence of non-filing that I had in my hand that day in court BEFORE the verdict so when I tried to make my "Point of Order" withIN the trial NOT afterward as that Rhode Island Federal judge did lie in his "opinion", and so these wrongs to be righted! RSA Ch. 21:2 is for the common usage or words to apply here in N.H., and that is for the word consent, as not Art. 14 ful-filled to "complete"ion until the filing. In the meantime this under "color of law" B.S. that is NOT the law!  They are the defactos to what IS the law de jur, and so these law-enforcement agents so-called not really, as mere policy enforcers of an unlawful and illegal precept that ought to have been examined by whatever criteria the U.S. Marshal uses to determine so, as by his very oath he is to execute all lawful precepts, and NOT these unlawful ones! To call him in to explain what criteria he uses to make these determinations, if any.

Best wishes to you, and Jason plus Reno to likewise find an attorney to help you file a case too this month of August before the Sept. 12, 2010 deadline as withIN the RSA Ch. 508:4 statute of limitations.  - - Joe

P.S. Maybe now (or later) Bob will do something too, as his contract with them was by some clause inserted therein, that if anything is found to have been done unlawfully or illegally by the Feds, then that would give him a cause-of-action too.  Thus this "finding" not to be found until the jury reaches a verdict in this case, whereupon Bob will have up to three years from that "discovery" time of to file his case for damages also.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 03, 2010, 02:39 PM NHFT
Here's a copy and paste:

in #__ sections:
re: "
The following error or errors occurred while posting this message:
The message exceeds the maximum allowed length (60000 characters)."

"U.S. v. GERHARD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
v.
JASON GERHARD, Defendant, Appellant,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
v.
CIRINO GONZALEZ, Defendant, Appellant,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
v.
DANIEL RILEY, Defendant, Appellant.
Nos. 08-2056, 08-2300, 08-2450
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
July 30, 2010.
Paul M. Glickman with whom Glickman Turley LLP was on brief for appellant Jason Gerhard.
Joshua L. Gordon with whom Law Office of Joshua L. Gordon was on brief for appellant Cirino Gonzalez.
Sven D. Wiberg with whom Wiberg Law Office, PLLC was on brief for appellant Daniel Riley.
Seth R. Aframe, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Gretchen Leah Witt, Acting United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.
Before Lynch, Chief Judge, Souter, Associate Justice,[ 1 ] Selya, Circuit Judge.
LYNCH, Chief Judge.
Jason Gerhard, Cirino Gonzalez, and Daniel Riley were convicted after actively supporting two convicted criminals during a well-publicized, nine-month standoff with federal authorities, and they now appeal.
These three defendants violated several federal statutes by providing material support to Edward and Elaine Brown, who refused to surrender to face punishment following their January 2007 federal tax convictions. The Browns defied law enforcement authorities from their Plainfield, New Hampshire, property, turning it into an armed camp. U.S. Marshals, having learned from past experiences, were anxious to avoid a violent confrontation; eventually they peacefully apprehended the Browns in October 2007.
Defendants helped acquire firearms and explosives and turn the Browns' property into a potential death trap. They also made statements to the media and through the Internet to the effect that any law enforcement officers who attempted to arrest the Browns would do so at their peril. Defendants were arrested in September 2007.
Defendants were indicted in January 2008 on charges of conspiring to prevent federal officers from discharging their duties, 18 U.S.C. § 372 (Count 1), conspiring to commit offenses against the United States, id. § 371 (Count 2), and being accessories after the fact to the Browns' tax crimes, id. § 3 (Count 3). Each defendant was also charged in an individual count alleging possession of firearms and/or destructive devices in connection with a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)-(B); Gerhard was charged in Count 4, Gonzalez in Count 5, and Riley in Count 6.
After a twelve-day jury trial, Gerhard and Riley were convicted on all counts against them. Gonzalez was convicted on Counts 2 and 3; the jury hung as to Count 1, the conspiracy-to-prevent charge, and Count 5, which charged him with possessing a firearm in connection with a violent crime. Those counts were dismissed on the government's motion.
Riley was sentenced to 432 months' imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a $400 special assessment; Gerhard to 240 months' imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a $400 special assessment; and Gonzalez to 96 months' imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $200 special assessment.[ 2 ]
Defendants now raise a variety of objections. We reject each of their claims and affirm.
I. Factual Background
We describe Edward and Elaine Brown's well-publicized confrontation with federal authorities to set the stage, as well as some of each of the defendant's activities.
The Browns were indicted on April 5, 2006, for conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371, conspiracy to structure financial transactions to avoid reporting requirements, id. § 371, and aiding and abetting the structuring of financial transactions to avoid reporting requirements, 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Elaine Brown was also charged with multiple counts of aiding and abetting tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. § 7201 and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and aiding and abetting the willful failure to collect employment taxes, 26 U.S.C. § 7202 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The Browns' trial began on January 9, 2007.
On January 12, the couple failed to show up for the fourth day of trial. Edward Brown did not appear for the remainder of the proceedings, and, on January 12, the district court issued a warrant for his arrest. The U.S. Marshals Service ("USMS") convinced Elaine Brown to return for the balance of the trial; as a precaution, the district court barred her from returning to the couple's Plainfield, New Hampshire, property—where Edward Brown was known to be staying—and ordered her to wear a tracking bracelet. On January 18, the jury returned a guilty verdict against both of the Browns on all counts against them. Sentencing was scheduled for April 24, 2007.
On February 20, 2007, Elaine Brown disobeyed the court's orders by removing her tracking bracelet and joining Edward Brown at the Plainfield property. The following day, the court issued a warrant for her arrest. On April 24, the Browns were sentenced in absentia to 63 months' imprisonment on the tax-related charges followed by three years' supervised release. They did not surrender to federal authorities.
The Browns publicly threatened that any efforts to arrest them on their Plainfield property would be met with lethal force. Beginning on January 12, a cadre of supporters, some of them armed, joined Edward Brown on the couple's property. Edward Brown invoked the specter of past violent confrontations with federal law enforcement personnel in Ruby Ridge, Idaho,[ 3 ] and Waco, Texas, should federal authorities try to take the Browns into custody. He held widely reported press conferences, gave statements to the media, and contributed to Internet broadcasts in which he warned that anyone who attempted to imprison him or his wife would be killed. He also made threats against the lives of officers and elected officials, as well as their families. Elaine Brown insisted that the couple would either leave their property free or in body bags.
Attracted by these statements, television, print, and electronic media set up shop in Plainfield to report on the standoff.
The USMS, determined to avoid a violent confrontation, "went to extraordinary lengths to insure that [the standoff] would be resolved peacefully without people being injured or killed." As New Hampshire's U.S. Marshal testified at the defendants' trial:

[A]lmost immediately [Edward Brown] started talking about violence, using violence towards law enforcement if we attempted to go to his house. He talked about Waco and Ruby Ridge. There were supporters there. We knew there were weapons there. So we made a conscious decision in January to proceed in a very deliberate and methodical way to find the best means and the best opportunity to take them safely into custody so that no one got hurt.
From January until mid-June 2007, deputy marshals spoke regularly to the Browns on the telephone, urging them to surrender. The U.S. Marshal also sent the Browns two letters, describing their legal situation and asking them to give themselves up to authorities.
During this period, the USMS did not attempt to enter the Browns' residence, which sat in the middle of their hundred-acre property and had a "very difficult approach." The USMS began surveillance of the Browns' property in January but carefully avoided encounters with the Browns or their supporters that could have resulted in violence.
Until September 2007, the USMS allowed individuals other than the Browns to enter and exit the property. The USMS hoped this would give them an opportunity to insert undercover deputy marshals and resolve the situation peacefully. The USMS also repeatedly warned the public against giving certain forms of aid to the Browns. The USMS made statements, through the media, "that the Browns were convicted felons, they were resisting government efforts to get them to surrender, that [USMS officers] were aware that they had weapons at their home, that supporters were going there," and that "if you aid or abet the Browns, you bring them weapons or supplies or aid them in their effort to obstruct justice, that you could be subjecting yourself to arrest and prosecution."
Despite the USMS's warnings, all three defendants went to New Hampshire to support the Browns after the couple's convictions. Jason Gerhard, then twenty-one years old, from Brookhaven, New York, traveled to the Browns' property several times between February and August of 2007 and lived there for "a while" during this period; Daniel Riley, then thirty-nine years old, from Cohoes, New York, was a regular visitor between March and September 2007; and Cirino Gonzalez, then thirty years old, from Alice, Texas, stayed often with the Browns from early April until late June.
Each of the three defendants came to the New Hampshire property anticipating violence and brought at least one weapon with him to the Browns' home. After assessing the situation firsthand, the defendants each helped prepare the Plainfield property to withstand attempts by the USMS to arrest the Browns. The three worked together to help the couple acquire additional firearms, ammunition, and explosive devices, some of which they placed strategically around the property. Their efforts diminished prospects for a peaceful resolution to the standoff and delayed apprehension of the Browns.
When acquiring and stockpiling weapons for the Browns, the defendants often cooperated closely with each other. For instance, on May 17, 2007, Riley e-mailed Gonzalez to coordinate the purchase of two .50 caliber rifles, capable of firing armor-piercing rounds and equipped with specialized scopes for long-distance shooting. Riley said that Gonzalez would "only need one for the house." The next day, Riley arranged to meet Gonzalez at a gun shop in Newport, New Hampshire, to fill out necessary paperwork to acquire the guns. On May 23, Gonzalez and Riley met at a Newport gun dealer, where each purchased a .50 caliber rifle. Riley later e-mailed Gonzalez to ask if Edward Brown was "happy with our progress," if Brown wanted additional "rounds" of ammunition, and if the supporters in Plainfield had rifles. Two days after Riley's query about riles, Gonzalez returned to Newport to pick up his .50 caliber rifle. Gerhard also purchased a half-dozen firearms for the Browns' resistance, most of which were found on the Browns' property after their arrest.
The defendants invested considerable effort in publicizing their efforts to arm the Browns' stronghold against the USMS. They communicated their support of the Browns through e-mails, online videos, and radio interviews, in which each asserted his willingness to use deadly force to protect the couple from apprehension. The USMS's knowledge that armed supporters of the Browns were on the property was a factor the USMS considered when delaying entering the Browns' property to apprehend the couple during the first four months of the standoff.
The USMS's efforts went through several stages as events played out. In the early morning of June 7, 2007, the USMS deployed two teams of about fifty officers, including New Hampshire state troopers, in an effort to arrest Edward Brown whom, it was thought, would be found at the end of his driveway. A Special Operations Group ("SOG") was formed to oversee the operation, which included deputy U.S. Marshals from other districts. Armored vehicles were dispatched to the area, a medical helicopter was placed on alert, and aerial surveillance was conducted to determine how many supporters were on the Browns' property. SOG leaders set up to monitor the raid at a command post in Lebanon, New Hampshire. The raid was called off, however, after Riley chanced upon the deputy marshals while walking a dog. Riley was briefly detained; he returned to the Browns' property soon after his release. Following that attempt, the USMS increased its pressure on the Browns to surrender by cutting off electricity and mail delivery to the Browns' property.
In the days after the USMS's June 7 operation, defendants redoubled their efforts to fortify the Browns' property against any entry by law enforcement and to arm themselves and others for a bloody confrontation in the event the USMS attempted to take the couple into custody. On June 8, 2009, Gerhard purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition. The next day, Gerhard bought necessary ingredients for manufacturing pipe bombs. The pipe bombs consisted of cylinders of pipe filled with explosive powder, with space for a fuse to be inserted; twenty-one pipe bombs were found on the Browns' property after they were arrested.
Pipe bombs were not the only explosives the defendants helped manufacture. Riley assisted in the construction of deadly "one pound hand grenade" consisting of nails taped to cans of gunpowder with fuses inserted; the nails were intended as shrapnel to increase the destructive force of the explosion. Working with Edward Brown, Riley also built several spring-loaded "zip guns," which were designed to fire 12-gauge shells with great accuracy at anyone who broke a trip wire. Finally, Riley obtained "highly explosive" chemicals, which he and Edward Brown used to make a series of one-pound bombs. Riley then positioned these bombs "around the perimeter of the Browns' property."
In the meantime, the Browns' resistance continued to draw media attention and supporters. In late June and July, the couple hosted two "support Ed and Elaine Brown rall[ies]" on their property. These planned events featured live music, as well as remarks by Randy Weaver, and attracted many supporters.
By September 2007, the USMS had developed a new strategy to apprehend the Browns. On September 12, deputy marshals arrested all three defendants while each was away from the Plainfield property. The Browns held press conferences in which they discussed defendants' arrests. Three days later, the USMS barred supporters from entering the Browns' property. Having successfully isolated the Browns from some of their supporters, whose presence had helped to deter arrest efforts, the USMS deployed agents, who entered the property and arrested both Browns without incident on October 4, 2007.
In addition to the explosives described above, federal officers found seventeen firearms and about 40,000 rounds of ammunition on the Browns' property after the couple's arrest.
A. Jason Gerhard ...."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 03, 2010, 02:41 PM NHFT
A. Jason Gerhard
Gerhard first met Edward Brown when Brown agreed to Gerhard's request for an interview for Gerhard's college newspaper. The interview took place on the Plainfield property on February 18 and 19, after the Browns' conviction and more than one month after Edward Brown became a fugitive. Gerhard wrote two articles based on his conversations with Brown, which appeared on March 7, 2007, denounced the couple's "sham" trial and conviction, and detailed the atmosphere at the Browns' property. Gerhard also reported that he had traveled from New York to New Hampshire with a rifle in his trunk, which he hoped "would provide enough cover fire to get the hell out of there."
While staying with the Browns, Gerhard expected a violent confrontation with law enforcement and prepared accordingly by helping the couple secure weapons and fortify their property against any attempts by the USMS to apprehend them. Gerhard bought six guns from New Hampshire firearm dealers, four of which were found at the Browns' home after their arrest. He also purchased thousands of rounds of ammunition, as well as ingredients to manufacture pipe bombs. In addition, Gerhard performed household errands for the Browns.
Gerhard publicized his support for the Browns and his anticipation of impending armed conflict with federal authorities. He sent an e-mail to a group list, in which he made the threat "from firsthand knowledge" that "if the feds choose to come into the [Browns'] house, it would cause them a lot of pain." He added that "[Edward] Brown let's [sic] us shoot on his property, which is always good." On June 18, he sent a message to the same group, saying, "Some of us believe that it is better to lie in wait and come with surprise at the right time. This sort of thinking does make sense, yet how long can people wait?"
Gerhard made similar threats to law enforcement officials in person. On July 17, 2007, Gerhard was involved in a traffic accident in Lebanon, New Hampshire, while driving Elaine Brown's car. When summoned to the scene, deputy U.S. Marshals impounded Brown's vehicle. The next day, Gerhard went to the Lebanon Police Department to complain and encountered several deputy marshals. A "very agitated" Gerhard told the deputy marshals that they "had no right to be there" and were enforcing "unconstitutional" laws. In response to Gerhard's assertion that Edward Brown was a "patriot," one of the marshals asked how he could consider Brown a "patriot" after the threats Brown had made against law enforcement officers and their families. Gerhard replied that the officers "were not following the Constitution" and "were now enemies of the Constitution, which was treason, and the penalty for treason was death."
Gerhard also admitted his efforts to arm the Browns. On July 20, 2007, a New Hampshire state trooper pulled Gerhard over for speeding in Charlestown, New Hampshire. The officer noticed a rifle in Gerhard's rear seat; Gerhard explained that he had just purchased it and that he was returning to the Browns' property, where he had been staying.
On September 12, 2007, a deputy marshal and local police arrested Gerhard, who had enlisted in the U.S. Army, at Fort Leonard Wood U.S. Army Base in Missouri.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 03, 2010, 02:42 PM NHFT
B. Cirino Gonzalez
Gonzalez learned about the Browns' activities in late January 2007, considered the circumstances similar to protests at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and decided to support the Browns. In early April, Gonzalez packed some belongings, including a handgun and a semiautomatic rifle, and drove from Texas to the Browns' Plainfield, New Hampshire, property. He stayed with the Browns in Plainfield for about two-and-a-half months.
During his stay, Gonzalez served, in his own words, as "volunteer security" for both Browns. In that capacity, he routinely carried at least one firearm. At one meeting in the Browns' home, Gonzalez was observed standing behind the couple, wearing a holstered handgun. As part of a video prepared by Brown sympathizers and made available to the public, Gonzalez was recorded standing next to Randy Weaver on the Browns' porch with a rifle slung over his shoulder. Aerial surveillance by the USMS on the morning of the failed June raid showed Gonzalez walking several feet behind Edward Brown with a rifle over his shoulder as the two searched for Riley.
In addition to providing personal security, Gonzalez helped further stock the Browns' arsenal. As described above, he collaborated with Riley to purchase a .50 caliber rifle, which he later brought to the Browns' residence and kept next to his bed. Gonzalez also managed a website which publicized the Browns' actions.
At some point after the USMS's failed June raid, Gonzalez gave a video-recorded interview to a "We The People Radio Network" correspondent named "King Mob" from the Browns' property. Gonzalez declared,

The only reason why [federal law enforcement] haven't rolled in here is because they know they have people that have been trained by their own military and by their own law enforcement that are here now literally . . . and they know how to use the weapons they have been given . . . . We have weapons and we are going to defend ourselves because we actually know what's going on.
Gonzalez wore a shoulder holster throughout the interview. The video was made available to the public online.
Gonzalez left Plainfield in late June. Gonzalez continued to communicate with Riley, and he received several updates about events unfolding on the Browns' property. U.S. Marshals arrested Gonzalez in Alice, Texas, on September 12, 2007. Gonzalez was the only defendant to testify at trial.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 03, 2010, 02:43 PM NHFT
C. Daniel Riley
Daniel Riley learned of Edward and Elaine Brown's "problems" with federal law enforcement in February 2007. Between March and September of that year, he traveled repeatedly from his home in Cohoes, New York, to the Browns' Plainfield property and was described as the Browns'"very good friend."
Riley posted an Internet video on March 2, 2007, expressing support for the Browns'"revolution" against the "thieving international bankers" who "control [the U.S.] government and are out to destroy [the] country." Riley pledged to give the couple a "few things" to aid in their resistance. As he had pledged, Riley brought a 12-gauge shotgun and other weapons with him to the Plainfield property.
As the standoff continued, Riley helped get firearms and explosives for the Browns in anticipation of a violent struggle with law enforcement. Riley coordinated his and Gonzalez's May purchase of two rifles and instructed Gonzalez that only one of the weapons would be needed "for the house." Riley asked Gonzalez if Edward Brown wanted more ammunition. Riley also manufactured a series of explosive booby traps, some of which he personally deployed around the Browns' property.
Riley attempted to persuade Gonzalez to return to the Browns' property. On July 20, about a month after Gonzalez had returned to Texas, Riley e-mailed him, urging, "We have a war to win and we need everybody."
Riley repeatedly expressed his willingness to use lethal force to protect the Browns. On July 28, Riley e-mailed several individuals, including Gonzalez, to report that everyone on the property was "at battle stations" after hearing noises in the woods. The next day, again believing that the marshals were preparing to arrest the Browns, Riley called into a radio show from inside the Browns' home and informed listeners that supporters were on "high alert," had their guns "unchambered," and were prepared to go "toe to toe" with the USMS to resist "tyranny" and protect the Browns. Riley sent another e-mail in August 2007 in which he stated that "the number one most important thing" the Browns needed was "people to come and stand to their death, if necessary, to save our country . . ., but no homos, lol."
U.S. Marshals arrested Riley in Cohoes on September 12, 2007. A search of his residence revealed a rifle signed by Edward Brown and Randy Weaver.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 03, 2010, 02:44 PM NHFT
II. Defendants' Arguments on Appeal
On appeal, the defendants challenge the indictment, the trial, and their sentences. We reject each of their arguments and affirm.
A. Arguments Related to the Indictment
The defendants raise three distinct challenges to the indictment. First, Gerhard and Riley assert that the offenses alleged in Count 1, 18 U.S.C. § 372, and Count 2A, id. §§ 371 and 111(a), on which they were convicted, are multiplicitous. Second, Gerhard claims that the crimes charged in Count 1, Count 2B, id. §§ 371 and 3, and Count 3, id. § 3, are also multiplicitous. Finally, all three defendants argue the indictment insufficiently alleged the Browns' original offenses of conviction underlying the defendants' convictions on Count 3 as accessories after the fact. We reject all three claims.
1. Gerhard and Riley's Separate Convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 372 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 111(a) Are Not on Multiplicitous Counts
Gerhard and Riley argue that their convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 372 (Count 1) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 111(a) (Count 2A) constituted multiple punishment for the same offense, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, U.S. Const. amend. V. Their claim was properly raised before the district court, so our review is de novo. E.g., United States v. Lanoue, 137 F.3d 656, 661 (1st Cir. 1998).
Defendants may be subjected to multiple punishment for the same conduct under more than one statute so long as the legislature intended to create separate offenses. United States v. LeMoure, 474 F.3d 37, 43 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 365 (1983)). Under the judicially created analysis for discerning legislative intent, we examine whether each offense "requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not." Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932); see also United States v. Nascimento, 491 F.3d 25, 48 (1st Cir. 2007). The conduct described in one offense must necessarily include the conduct of the second offense to result in a double jeopardy violation. See, e.g., Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 862 (1985).
In fact, the two charges at issue reach conduct that is not necessarily the same, and, to the extent that the charges apply to overlapping conduct, Congress intended to create separate offenses. Congress chose language that clearly demonstrates that these two offenses are distinct and that one is not a lesser included offense of the other. No double jeopardy problem arises.
These statutes have two separate foci. Congress intended the pertinent portion of § 372 to criminalize conspiracy to prevent a U.S. officer from discharging his duties. By contrast, the conspiracies charged in §§ 371 and 111(a) are focused, not on prevention from discharge of duties, but on conspiracies to interfere with an officer while in the performance of his duties. That intent is evident from the texts of § 372 and § 111 and is reinforced by the provisions' legislative histories.
We begin with the text of the statutes in the two charges. Section 372, Count 1, makes it criminal for

two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District [to] conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties.
18 U.S.C. § 372. Defendants were charged under only that portion of the statute criminalizing conspiracy "to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from . . . from discharging any duties" as an officer of the United States.
As for the other charge, Count 2A, a conspiracy to violate § 111(a), we read § 371 and § 111(a) together because together they define the crime. Section 371, the general conspiracy statute, creates criminal liability, inter alia, for "two or more persons [who] conspire . . . to commit any offense against the United States," provided "one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy." Id. § 371. Section 111(a) proscribes "forcibly assault[ing], resist[ing], oppos[ing], imped[ing], intimidat[ing], or interfer[ing] with a [United States Officer] while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties." Id. § 111(a).
The question of whether Count 2A requires proof of facts not required under Count 1 is easily answered. The offense charged under §§ 371 and 111(a) requires proof of at least two facts that § 372 does not: (1) that defendants conspired to use force and (2) that at least one of them acted to achieve the object of the conspiracy.
The defendants' more serious argument turns on whether the reverse is also true: whether § 372, charged in Count 1, requires proof of at least one fact that §§ 371 and 111(a), charged in Count 2A, does not.
Defendants concede that § 372 is concerned with conspiracy to "prevent" an officer from discharging his duty, whereas §§ 371 and 111(a) address conspiracy to "resist[], oppose[], impede[], or interfere[]" with an officer presently engaged in fulfilling his duties. They urge that the words "to prevent . . . from" in § 372 are, "[f]or all intents and purposes," synonymous with the terms used in § 111(a), as charged under § 371. In essence, they argue the phrase "to prevent . . . from discharging" the duties of his office, 18 U.S.C. § 372, means the same as to "impede[] . . . while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties," id. § 111(a).
The government responds that the statutes address different time frames. It asserts that "prevent" should be given its common meaning, "to keep from happening." Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 924 (10th ed. 1993). The common meaning of a term is a useful indication of intent. See, e.g., Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 383 (1992); see also SEC v. Tambone, 597 F.3d 436, 442-43 (1st Cir. 2010) (en banc). Under the government's construction, § 372 requires proof of intent to keep a federal officer from beginning performance of his duty by preventing the discharge of the duty. By contrast, the plain language of §§ 371 and 111(a) mandates a showing that defendants conspired to disrupt a federal officer while presently engaged in the discharge of his duty or on account of his duties.
There is no double jeopardy problem for several different reasons. First, § 372 itself makes clear that to prevent an officer from performing his duty is not the same as impeding an officer in the performance of his duty. Different facts are required for conviction under § 372 than are required under §§ 111(a) and 371. The common meaning of "to prevent . . . from" is future oriented, not present oriented. Second, § 111's enactment history shows that Congress felt the existing protection under § 372 was insufficient and that it needed to enact § 111. Third, Congress retained § 372 after it enacted the general conspiracy statute, demonstrating that it intended § 372 to reach different conduct than §§ 371 and 111.
The charge in the indictment Count 1 under § 372 quoted only one clause of several in the statute, each of which defines a discrete crime. The balance of § 372's text gives context to congressional intent as to the meaning of "to prevent."[ 4 ] See Mullane v. Chambers, 333 F.3d 322, 330 (1st Cir. 2003) (noting that statutory language must be defined with "reference to the `specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole'" (quoting Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997))); see also United States v. Jimenez, 507 F.3d 13, 19 (1st Cir. 2007). In this context, Congress intended the words "to prevent . . . from" to have a different meaning than that argued by the defendants.
Several additional clauses of § 372 reveal two points. First, Congress did not equate "to prevent . . . from" discharging duties with "impede" or "hinder" in the discharge of duties. Second, Congress drew temporal distinctions between different opportunities to disrupt federal officers performing their duties, which again give "prevent" a different meaning than to "impede." We must give significance to Congress's choice of words. See, e.g., Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 229 (1993).
In the other clauses following the use of "prevent," Congress used words such as "molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede" in the discharging of the officer's duties. 18 U.S.C. § 372. This shows that "prevent . . . from" was meant to denote conduct different from "molest[ing], interrupt[ing], hinder[ing], or imped[ing] . . . in." See United States v. Ahlers, 305 F.3d 54, 59-60 (1st Cir. 2002) (noting that "when Congress uses certain words in one part of a statute, but omits them in another," we "presume that this differential draftsmanship was deliberate").
Further, 18 U.S.C. § 372 recognizes a series of temporal distinctions. The clause under which defendants were charged addresses preventing officials from accepting or holding federal office or from discharging their duties. Id. The next clause addresses inducing officers to leave the place where duties are to be performed. Id. Another clause addresses injuring an officer "on account of . . . or while engaged in" discharging of his duties. Id. A final clause addresses injuring the officer's property "so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his . . . duties." Id. Together, these clauses cover a range of time frames before, during, and after the assumption and execution of the responsibilities of federal office. See Carr v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2229, 2236 (2010) ("Congress' use of a verb tense is significant in construing statutes." (quoting United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted))).
These distinctions demonstrate that the terms "molest," "interrupt," "hinder," and "impede" are not synonymous with the term "prevent." Instead, "prevent" describes conspiracies to disrupt an officer's duties before the officer begins to discharge them. Not only is this construction consistent with the ordinary meaning of the word prevent, Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, supra, at 924, it is also amply supported by the statutory context in which the word appears, see Mullane, 333 F.3d at 330.
Second, the legislative histories of both § 372 and § 111 reinforce our construction. Section 372, the oldest of the pertinent statutes, was originally enacted in 1861 and has remained essentially unchanged since.[ 5 ] See H.R. Rep. No. 80-304 (1947), reprinted in 1948 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2477. The predecessor to § 111 was adopted in 1934, at the urging of the U.S. Attorney General. United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 681 & n.16 (1975). Later, Congress substantially revised existing conspiracy laws, eliminating numerous "special conspiracy" provisions and adopting § 371. H.R. Rep. No. 80-304, reprinted in 1948 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2475, 2476. Section 372 was one of just ten special conspiracy laws that survived this consolidation. Id. A reason Congress retained the ten, including § 372, was to preserve the greater punishment attached to them. Id.
Significantly, the adoption of § 111's predecessor reflected Congress's determination that the existing, piecemeal statutory scheme—including § 372—was insufficient to protect federal officers' discharge of their duties. See Feola, 420 U.S. at 680 n.16 (quoting a letter from the U.S. Attorney General that appeared in the statute's legislative history, which urged that "[t]he need for general legislation . . . for the protection of Federal officers and employees other than those specifically embraced in [existing] statutes . . . becomes increasingly apparent every day"); see also id. at 681 ("Congress clearly was concerned with the safety of federal officers insofar as it was tied to the efficacy of law enforcement activities."). Thus, § 111 must be seen as not having an identical meaning to § 372.
Third, with § 111 on the books, the 1948 enactment of § 371 gave federal authorities a further tool: a general conspiracy statute for prosecuting individuals who conspired to violate § 111. And yet Congress deliberately retained § 372,[ 6 ] a fact that bolsters our conclusion that Congress intended § 372 to reach conduct under the "to prevent . . . from" clause distinct from that which could be prosecuted under §§ 371 and 111.
To the extent that defendants urge us to invoke the rule of lenity, see, e.g., Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415, 419 (1959), their reliance on the rule is misplaced. "[T]he rule of lenity only applies if, after considering text, structure, history, and purpose, there remains a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute such that the Court must simply guess as to what Congress intended." Barber v. Thomas, 130 S. Ct. 2499, 2508-09 (2010) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Indeed, the rule of lenity is founded in significant part "on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department." United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76, 95 (1820) (Marshall, C.J.); see also id. ("It is the legislature, not the Court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment."). Where the legislature has clearly defined the crime and punishment, there is no room for the judicially crafted rule of lenity. In light of the "text, structure, history, and purpose" of the statutes at issue, we perceive no ambiguity in Congress's intent.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 03, 2010, 02:45 PM NHFT
2. Gerhard's Convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 372, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 3, and 18 U.S.C. § 3 Are Not Multiplicitous
Gerhard makes a separate, undeveloped argument that his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 372 (Count 1), 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 3 (Count 2B) (conspiracy to be an accessory after the fact), and 18 U.S.C. § 3 (Count 3) (being an accessory after the fact) are multiplicitous. Gerhard did not argue this point to the district court, so we review it for plain error. E.g., United States v. Patel, 370 F.3d 108, 115 (1st Cir. 2004). The four-part test for plain error review requires Gerhard to show:

(1) there is an "error;" (2) the error is "clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute;" (3) the error" affected the appellant's substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means" it "affected the outcome of the district court proceedings;" and (4) "the error seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings."
United States v. Marcus, 130 S. Ct. 2159, 2164 (2010) (alteration in original) (quoting Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009)); see also United States v. Moran, 393 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 2004).
Under any standard, Gerhard's claim is meritless. Counts 1, 2B, and 3 each mandate evidence of facts the others do not. Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304; see also United States v. Gomez-Ruiz, 931 F.2d 977, 979-80 (1st Cir. 1991) (comparing multiple statutes).
We begin by comparing Counts 1 and 3. The facts required for conviction under these counts are obviously distinct. Count 3, which charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3, the accessory-after-the-fact statute, mandated proof that a defendant "knowing that an offense against the United States ha[d] been committed, receive[d], relieve[d], comfort[d] or assist[ed] the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment." Id. Count 1 did not. Id. § 372. And Count 1 required proof, unlike Count 3, that the defendant conspired to prevent a federal officer from performing his duty. Id.
Count 1 was also not multiplicitous with Count 2B, which alleged a conspiracy to violate § 3. Unlike Count 1, Count 2B demanded proof of an overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy and evidence that the conspirators sought to violate § 3. 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 3. Count 1, as stated, required proof of entirely different conduct. Id. § 372.
Finally, despite any superficial similarity, Count 2B (conspiracy to be an accessory after the fact) and Count 3 (being an accessory after the fact) are also not multiplicitous. "t has long been established that conspiracy to commit a crime is not the same offense as the substantive crime for double jeopardy purposes because the agreement to do the act is distinct from the [completed] act itself." United States v. Fornia-Castillo, 408 F.3d 52, 69 (1st Cir. 2005) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
2. The Indictment Adequately Alleged the Federal Crimes Committed by the Browns
All three defendants claim that the accessory counts in the indictment are defective because Counts 2B and 3 stated only that the defendants,

knowing that offenses against the United States had been committed by Edward Brown and Elaine Brown, received, relieved, comforted and assisted Edward Brown and Elaine Brown in order to hinder and prevent their apprehension, trial and punishment.
Counts 2B and 3 also incorporated earlier paragraphs, which alleged (1) that a jury had returned verdicts on January 18, 2007, "convicting Edward Brown and Elaine Brown of conspiracy and a number of federal tax crimes;" (2) that a federal warrant was issued against Edward Brown on January 12, 2007, when he failed to appear for the completion of his trial; (3) that a federal arrest warrant was issued for Elaine Brown's arrest postconviction when she violated the conditions of her release pending sentencing; (4) that on April 24, 2007, the Browns were sentenced to 63 months in prison; and (5) that while the Browns were fugitives, the USMS made efforts to arrest them.
The defendants claim that the indictment was insufficient because it did not name or otherwise specifically identify the Browns' offenses of conviction.[ 7 ] None of the defendants raised this objection to the trial court, so appellate review is for plain error. United States v. Stein, 233 F.3d 6, 22-23 (1st Cir. 2000). The defendants' argument is misplaced.
The initial issue is whether the indictment gave the three defendants adequate notice of the charges they faced, the elements of the crimes they allegedly committed, and sufficient information for double jeopardy purposes. Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117-18 (1974); see also Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 767-69 (1962); United States v. Cianci, 378 F.3d 71, 80 (1st Cir. 2004). The accessory-after-the-fact statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3, makes it a crime for a defendant, "knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, [to] receive[], relieve[], comfort[] or assist[] the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment." Id.
Here, the fact that the indictment charged that the Browns were convicted of conspiracy and tax crimes establishes adequate notice to defendants that "an offense against the United States ha[d] been committed." The government gave notice to defendants it intended to prove that they had knowledge that the Browns had been convicted of tax crimes and conspiracy and that, with that knowledge, defendants assisted the Browns to hinder or prevent the Browns' apprehension or punishment. All the necessary elements of § 3 were charged, and the defendants had sufficient notice of the charges against them for double jeopardy purposes. Under these circumstances,[ 8 ] no more was needed.[ 9 ]
Finally, for the first time on appeal, Gerhard and Riley appear to argue that the accessory statute cannot apply to conduct that occurred after the Browns' conviction. The plain text of the statute here reaches conduct that assists a postconviction offender to avoid apprehension or punishment. 18 U.S.C. § 3. They have no claim. Seahorse Marine Supplies, Inc. v. P.R. Sun Oil Co., 295 F.3d 68, 75 (1st Cir. 2002) ("[W]hen a statute's text is encompassing, clear on its face, and productive of a plausible result, it is unnecessary to search for a different, contradictory meaning . . . .").
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 03, 2010, 02:45 PM NHFT
B. Arguments Related to the Trial
Defendants' objections to their trial fall into five general categories: (1) a frivolous challenge by Riley and Gonzalez to federal jurisdiction over their crimes, (2) arguments by Riley pertaining to his representation, (3) additional claims by Riley, (4) arguments by all three defendants contesting the jury instructions and the verdict form, and (5) Gerhard and Gonzalez's assertion that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions on Counts 2B and 3. Each of defendants' trial claims, which we address in roughly chronological order, lacks merit.
2. The United States Had "Territorial Jurisdiction" to Prosecute Defendants
Riley, joined by Gonzalez, makes an argument that by any objective measure could not have been advanced in good faith nor advanced consistently with the obligations of counsel to the court. See, e.g., Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 272 (2000) ("[A]n attorney is under an ethical obligation to refuse to prosecute a frivolous appeal." (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Pimentel v. Jacobsen Fishing Co., Inc., 102 F.3d 638, 640 (1st Cir. 1996) ("An appeal is frivolous if the . . . arguments are wholly without merit." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
They primarily argue that only New Hampshire, and not the United States, has jurisdiction to prosecute crimes occurring in Plainfield, New Hampshire. They also argue that there is no venue in a federal courthouse in Concord, New Hampshire. Their theory is that either the United States must buy the land on which the offense occurred or the land must have been ceded by New Hampshire to the federal government for federal criminal laws to attach. Defendants' murky and confused argument seems to posit that this federal prosecution entails a violation of the sovereignty of the state of New Hampshire and that these defendants may assert whatever sovereign rights New Hampshire has. The claim is utterly frivolous and has been rejected before by this court and others.[ 10 ] See, e.g., United States v. Lussier, 929 F.2d 25, 27 (1st Cir. 1991).
The argument ignores the fact that New Hampshire chose to enter into a national union governed by the Constitution. In United States v. Worrall, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 384 (1798), the Supreme Court affirmed that the enumerated powers granted to Congress in Article I, § 8, included the general power "to create, define, and punish, crimes and offences, whenever they shall deem it necessary and proper by law to do so, for effectuating the objects of the [federal] government." Id. at 394; see also United States v. Comstock, 130 S. Ct. 1949, 1957-58 (2010) (noting that the Constitution "grants Congress broad authority" to create federal crimes, which Congress "routinely exercises," and collecting examples).
There is no offense to state sovereignty by this federal prosecution, nor has New Hampshire claimed that there is. In fact, New Hampshire deployed its own law enforcement to help federal authorities arrest the Browns. It is black-letter law that an act defined as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is "an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each." United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382 (1922). This dual-sovereignty doctrine allows for a federal prosecution even after a prior state prosecution for the same conduct. E.g., Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 195-96 (1959).
Congress has chosen to vest jurisdiction and venue over federal crimes in the federal courts. Congress has given the U.S. district courts exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses against the laws of the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 3231. That jurisdiction is not limited to crimes which occur on federally owned property, nor is a state's permission needed for federal prosecution. See United States v. Hamilton, 263 F.3d 645, 655 (6th Cir. 2001); United States v. Sitton, 968 F.2d 947, 953 (9th Cir. 1992), abrogated on other grounds by Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996); see also Cantrell v. Reno, 36 F. App'x 651, 652 (1st Cir. 2002).
Defendants' argument depends upon severely misreading the text of the U.S. Constitution. Defendants point to clause 17 of Article I, § 8, the Exclusive Legislation Clause, which vests Congress with the power

[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases . . . . and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
Id. The argument misses the point that the United States has not claimed it has the exclusive right to promulgate laws over the lands where the crimes were committed; New Hampshire also has jurisdiction. So the clause is not at issue.
The Exclusive Legislation Clause has been used to limit a state's authority to regulate activities on U.S. military bases and similarly exclusive federal areas/buildings absent permission from Congress. See, e.g., United States v. State Tax Comm'n, 412 U.S. 363, 372-73 (1973); Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co., 304 U.S. 518, 527-30 (1938); see also S. Lipsky, The Citizen's Constitution 81 (2009) ("In 43 Federalist, Madison offers a straightforward explanation for this clause: `The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State.'").
Finally, there is no basis for a venue objection when the trial took place in Concord, New Hampshire, and a judge from the District of Maine sat because the New Hampshire judges were recused. See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 270 F.3d 30, 35 (1st Cir. 2001).
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 03, 2010, 02:46 PM NHFT
2. Riley's Objections to His Representation Fail
c. Riley's Sixth Amendment Right to Represent Himself Was Not Violated
Through his counsel on appeal, Riley argues that his Sixth Amendment right to proceed without counsel, recognized in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), was violated at trial. We give a brief chronology of Riley's representation. On September 13, 2007, Riley made his initial appearance and asked that counsel be appointed. His first attorney was appointed that day and moved to withdraw less than three weeks later, on October 2, 2007. On October 22, 2007, Riley moved to proceed without counsel. The court allowed the first counsel to withdraw, but it denied without prejudice Riley's motion because the court was not convinced that Riley's waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary. At the same time, it appointed a second lawyer to represent Riley.
On December 7, 2007, the court held a brief hearing on Riley's renewed request to proceed without a lawyer, granted the request, and converted the second lawyer to standby counsel.
On March 14, 2008, at a pretrial conference, Riley changed his mind and requested that his standby counsel represent him at trial. The court granted his request and counsel did represent Riley at trial, which started on March 20, 2008.
Riley's argument seems to proceed in several parts. First, Riley acknowledges that he was allowed to proceed without counsel earlier,[ 11 ] when he claimed his right to self-representation. The court then appointed standby counsel. He does not complain about having been appointed standby counsel. See McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 176-77 (1984) (describing the role of standby counsel).
On March 14, six days before trial, Riley asked the court to permit his then-standby counsel to represent him at trial. Riley concedes, and the record is quite clear, that he made this request and the court granted it.[ 12 ] Riley's complaint on appeal is that he felt he was "forced" into asking for appointed counsel because he did not feel prepared to represent himself at trial. This feeling was apparently connected to problems he had getting documents when he was representing himself but had standby counsel.
This scenario does not come close to invalidating Riley's voluntary, "knowing[,] and intelligent[]" waiver of his right to proceed without counsel. Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835. He was "literate, competent, and understanding," id., and he voluntarily exercised his informed free will when he asked for trial counsel. He was not forced to do anything. As to difficulties in Riley's self-representation, the court did address his concerns about delays in getting certain trial materials when Riley requested trial counsel.
The record is clear that defendant "kn[ew] what he [wa]s doing and his choice [wa]s made with eyes open." Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279 (1942).
d. Riley's Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim Is Premature
Riley's second claim as to counsel, presented for the first time on appeal, is that his first appointed counsel had a conflict of interest and therefore provided ineffective assistance. This claim was not developed before the trial court and Riley's brief is devoid of citation to any facts.
This claim is a poster child for invoking the rule that we will decline to hear fact-dependent ineffective assistance claims presented for the first time on appeal. United States v. Uribe-LondoZo, 409 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2005); United States v. Mala, 7 F.3d 1058, 1063 (1st Cir. 1993) (collecting cases). We routinely apply that rule to ineffective assistance claims under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), including conflict-of-interest claims. E.g., United States v. Torres-Rosario, 447 F.3d 61, 64 (1st Cir. 2006).
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 03, 2010, 02:47 PM NHFT
3. Riley's Remaining Claims Related to the Trial Are Meritless
a. Riley Was Not Denied the Opportunity to Present a Self-Defense Theory at Trial
Riley asserts, for the first time on appeal and without any citation to the record, that the district court did not allow him to argue a theory of self-defense as an affirmative defense to his crimes. At trial, the district court asked if any defendant intended to assert this theory. Riley's counsel explicitly responded that he had no intention of doing so. Riley never requested a jury instruction on self-defense, nor has he cited a single instance in which he was denied an opportunity to introduce evidence on this theory. The argument fails.

b. Riley Was Properly Convicted under Count 6, Though He Was Already Subject to an Enhanced Penalty for Using a Dangerous Weapon
Riley challenges his conviction on Count 6, for carrying, using, or possessing a firearm or destructive device in connection with a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)-(B). Relying on a 1980 case, Busic v. United States, 446 U.S. 398 (1980), he urges, for the first time on appeal, that his conviction on this count was precluded by the fact that he was already subject to a penalty enhancement for the use of a dangerous weapon for his conviction under Count 2, 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(2). See Busic, 446 U.S. at 399-400 (holding that § 924(c) does not apply to a defendant "who uses a firearm in the course of a felony that is proscribed by a statute which itself authorizes enhancement if a dangerous weapon is used"). This argument fails.
Congress explicitly "amended § 924(c) to include a mandatory penalty for the use of a firearm during a federal crime of violence and to statutorily overrule . . . Busic." United States v. Centeno-Torres, 50 F.3d 84, 85 (1st Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (footnote omitted); see also id. ("Congress intended to completely revise § 924(c) so that it would serve as a cumulative punishment in addition to that provided for the underlying violent crime.").
4. There Was No Error in the Verdict Form or Jury Instructions
a. The District Court's Instructions on Reasonable Doubt Were Correct
Gerhard and Gonzalez claim the court committed reversible error when it instructed that

[a] reasonable doubt does not mean a mere possibility that the defendant may be not guilty; nor does it mean a fanciful or imaginary doubt, nor one based upon groundless conjuncture. It means a doubt based upon reason.
They argue there was a reasonable likelihood the jury misunderstood the reasonable doubt standard. See Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 6 (1994) (noting that the correct standard for prejudice is not whether jurors could have applied an instruction unconstitutionally but whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jurors did so). Their objections are misplaced both as to the specific language cited and in the context of the instructions overall.
Defendants concede it is permissible to instruct the jury that doubt may not be imaginary or speculative, but they say even a small doubt may be enough to be a reasonable doubt. They rely on Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 (1990) (per curiam), overruled in part by Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 73 n.4 (1991), which stated that certain terms, not those used here, impermissibly suggest a higher degree of doubt than is in fact required. Id. at 41.
In Victor, the Supreme Court expressly found no error in an instruction that reasonable doubt is "not a mere possible doubt." 511 U.S. at 17. There, as here, the phrase was followed by a description that reasonable doubt is not "some possible or imaginary doubt." Id. Following the command of Victor, we have found no error in similar instructions. See United States v. Rodriguez, 162 F.3d 135, 145-46 (1st Cir. 1998).
The language under attack, in any event, must be seen against the charge as a whole. Id. at 145. In its instructions to the jury, the court repeatedly emphasized the presumption of innocence and the government's burden of proof. The reasonable doubt instruction was not error and there was no reasonable likelihood the jury was misled.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 03, 2010, 02:47 PM NHFT
b. There Was No Error in the District Court's Instruction that U.S. Marshals Are Employees of the United States
When instructing the jury on Counts 1 and 2A, which alleged conspiracy to prevent federal officers from discharging their duties, 18 U.S.C. § 372, and to impede them in the discharge of those duties, id. §§ 371 and 111(a), the district court explained "that employees of the United States Marshals Service are in fact officers of the United States." Since both § 372 and § 111(a) refer to federal officers, we will assume this is an element of the crimes.
The supposed error was that the jury was prevented from finding an element of a crime and that under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), this purported error could not be harmless. The argument is confused and wrong.
First, as a matter of law, it is true that employees of the USMS are officers of the United States. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 566. Defendants, indeed, did not say differently at trial or on appeal. There can be no Apprendi error on a statement of law.
Second, perhaps defendants mean to argue there was a fact question as to whether the people who defendants conspired "to prevent" or "assault[], resist[], oppose[], impede[], intimidate[], or interfere[] with" were federal officers. They made no such objection at trial and cannot with a straight face make that argument here.
Finally, defendants have misrepresented the law. Even if there were a failure to submit an element of an offense to the jury, that failure would be subject to the Neder harmless-error rule. Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 19 (1999). Apprendi, contrary to defendants' argument, does not alter the Neder rule. The Supreme Court has, post-Apprendi, repeated that a trial court's "failure to instruct a jury on all of the statutory elements of an offense is subject to harmless-error analysis." Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 16 (2003); see also Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212, 222 (2006).
c. The District Court Correctly Instructed that the Jury Could Find Just One Defendant Guilty of Conspiracy
During its deliberations, the jury asked the court if it had to find "either two or three of the defendants guilty [of conspiracy] for any of the defendants to be guilty." (emphasis added). The question had to do with the defendants, and not with other persons. After discussing the question with all parties, the court responded:

The answer to your question is no. You need not find either two or three of the defendants guilty for any of the defendants to be guilty. You should still refer to the definition of a conspiracy as set forth in the instructions.
The conspiracy instructions, in turn, had referred to an agreement "between at least two people." Riley perfunctorily argues, as he did before the district court, that the instruction "in effect entirely negated the requirement that a conspiracy involve an agreement between two or more defendants." We review his claim de novo, United States v. Luisi, 482 F.3d 43, 51 (1st Cir. 2007), and find it utterly without merit.
The court's answer to the query was accurate and explicitly referred back to its instruction on conspiracy. When multiple defendants are charged with conspiracy, a jury may convict just one of them. United States v. Rogers, 121 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 1997). Further, the indictment in this case alleged that defendants had conspired with "other individuals." In light of the evidence presented at trial, the jury could certainly have found that a single defendant was guilty of conspiring with people other than his co-defendants.
d. The Defendants Were Properly Convicted by General Verdict on Count 2
Gerhard and Riley urge that the verdict form was deficient for Count 2 because it did not allow the jury to specify which object of the dual-object conspiracy charged in that count was the basis for its verdict. Count 2 charged defendants with conspiracy to interfere with federal officers in the discharge of their duties, in violation of §§ 371 and 111(a) (Count 2A), as well as conspiracy to be an accessory after the fact in violation of §§ 371 and 3 (Count 2B).
Relying on challenges to the legality of Counts 2A and 2B that we rejected above, defendants assert that the guilty verdict on Count 2 must be vacated because the form's phrasing resulted in uncertainty as to the particular object(s) of the conspiracy on which the jury relied and one or both of them may have been legally insufficient.[ 13 ] The Supreme Court has held that a jury may render a general verdict on a multiobject conspiracy, provided (1) the evidence is sufficient with respect to any one of the acts charged, and (2) the jury could not have relied on a defective legal theory. Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 59-60 (1991); see also Sochor v. Florida, 504 U.S. 527, 538 (1992); United States v. Capozzi, 486 F.3d 711, 718 (1st Cir. 2007). Since defendants have made no meritorious challenges to the legal or evidentiary sufficiency of either Count 2A or Count 2B, their argument necessarily fails. E.g., Griffin, 502 U.S. at 59-60.
e. The Jury Was Properly Instructed in the Disjunctive on Count 2
Gonzalez makes a related claim, urging that Count 2 must be vacated because the indictment charged defendants with violating both Counts 2A and 2B and the jury was instructed that it could find defendants guilty on the basis of either object of the conspiracy. We review Gonzalez's preserved argument de novo, United States v. González-Vélez, 466 F.3d 27, 34 (1st Cir. 2006), and reject it.
We have routinely affirmed the use of the conjunctive in indictments followed by the use of the disjunctive in jury instructions. See Capozzi, 486 F.3d at 717 ("The indictment followed the usual practice of using the conjunction `and' in reference to the planned offenses, but guilt can be established by adequate proof on any one of the . . . charged grounds.") (citing Griffin, 502 U.S. at 59-60); see also United States v. Mitchell, 85 F.3d 800, 810-11 (1st Cir. 1996).
Gonzalez attempts to distinguish our precedents, which address general verdicts, by urging that what the jury rendered was a special verdict on Count 2. Not so. Neither defendants nor the government requested a special verdict, and a straightforward reading of the verdict form and jury instructions confirms that the jury reached a general verdict.[ 14 ] See United States v. Riccio, 529 F.3d 40, 47 (1st Cir. 2008); see also Black v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2963, 2968-69 & n.11 (2010) (noting that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure only provide for general verdicts and cautioning against using special verdicts in most criminal trials).
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 03, 2010, 02:48 PM NHFT
5. Defendants' Convictions on Counts 2B and 3 Were Supported by Sufficient Evidence
Gerhard and Gonzalez argue that the evidence was insufficient to convict them on Count 2B, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 3 (conspiracy to be an accessory after the fact), and Count 3, id. § 3 (being an accessory after the fact). Defendants argue that because there was no evidence they were aware of the specific elements of the crimes the Browns were convicted of committing, the government could not satisfy the "knowledge" component of the accessory statute. Our review is de novo. We have already rejected the legal premise for the argument;[ 15 ] in any event, the evidence on this point was ample.
Both Gerhard and Gonzalez were aware the Browns had been convicted of federal tax crimes and acted with that knowledge. Evidence at trial included two newspaper articles, written by Gerhard in February or March of 2007, in which he reported that the Browns had been convicted in January 2007 of "conspiring to commit tax fraud, conspiring to disguise large financial transactions and disguising large financial transactions," and that Elaine Brown was also convicted of "evading income taxes and failing to withhold taxes from her employees." Gonzalez acknowledged discussing the Browns' tax-related convictions with Edward and Elaine Brown shortly after his April 2007 arrival in New Hampshire. That suffices.
C. Arguments Related to Sentencing
Each defendant argues his sentence was too harsh and based on error.
Gerhard received an above-guidelines sentence of 240 months' imprisonment, consisting of 72 months on Count 1, 60 months on Counts 2 and 3, to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to Count 1; and 108 months on Count 4, to be served consecutively to the terms imposed on the other counts. Gerhard's guidelines sentencing range was 57 to 71 months' imprisonment.
Gonzalez received an above-guidelines sentence of 96 months' imprisonment, consisting of 60 months on Count 2 and 36 months on Count 3, to be served consecutively. Gonzalez's guidelines sentencing range was 41 to 51 months' imprisonment.
Riley received a sentence of 432 months' imprisonment, consisting of 72 months on Count 1, 25 months on Counts 2 and 3 to run concurrently with each other and with Count 1, and 360 months on Count 6 to be served consecutively to the terms imposed on Counts 1 through 3. Riley's guidelines sentencing range was 78 to 97 months' imprisonment, and his conviction on Count 6 carried a minimum sentence of 360 months, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii).
Defendants' sentencing claims fall into three groups: (1) Gerhard and Riley's argument that the district court was unable to calculate their accessory sentences on Count 3 because the sentences for the crimes to which they were accessories were not determined, (2) an unpreserved argument from all three defendants that they were improperly sentenced on Count 2, and (3) additional challenges by Gerhard and Gonzalez. Each of defendants' claims fails.
"We review [preserved] claims of sentencing error in the application of the guidelines on a sliding scale. Pure issues of law, such as interpretations of the guidelines, are reviewed de novo; findings of fact are reviewed for clear error; and there is a continuum between those two poles." United States v. Stella, 591 F.3d 23, 27 (1st Cir. 2009); United States v. Sicher, 576 F.3d 64, 70-71 (1st Cir. 2009).
5. Gerhard and Riley Were Properly Sentenced as Accessories after the Fact, 18 U.S.C. § 3
Accessories after the fact may receive sentences up to "one-half the maximum term of imprisonment" to which the principals were exposed. 18 U.S.C. § 3. In a variation on claims we have rejected, Gerhard and Riley say, for the first time on appeal, that absent a showing of the Browns' specific crimes of conviction, the district court could not calculate their accessory sentences. Defendants' argument relies on a faulty premise. Gerhard and Riley's respective Pre-Sentence Reports ("PSR") did specify the Browns' crimes of conviction and the district court could rely on this information. See United States v. Olivero, 552 F.3d 34, 40 (1st Cir. 2009).
Both PSRs reported the Browns' most serious conviction.[ 16 ] It carried a maximum penalty of 120 months' imprisonment. 31 U.S.C. § 5324(d)(2). This meant Gerhard and Riley were subject to up to 60 months' imprisonment on Count 3. Gerhard's 60-month sentence and Riley's 25-month sentence on that count were proper.
The defendants cannot plausibly argue that the factual basis for their sentences unduly surprised them at sentencing. See Olivero, 552 F.3d at 40; see also Irizarry v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 2198, 2203 (2008).
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 03, 2010, 02:48 PM NHFT
6. The Defendants Were Properly Sentenced on Count 2
All three defendants claim that the district court erred by sentencing them to more than 12 months' imprisonment on Count 2. They urge that without the specifics of the Browns' convictions, no sentence could be calculated for Count 2B, eliminating that count as a basis for their sentences. They say that the only remaining count, Count 2A, was a "simple assault" misdemeanor, subject to a maximum sentence of 12 months.[ 17 ] See 18 U.S.C. § 111.
Defendants' argument is precluded by our determination that the court could sentence them on Count 2B for conspiring to be accessories after the fact. That alone defeats their claim. In any event, the evidence does not at all support a conclusion that only a simple misdemeanor assault was involved under Count 2A.
3. Gerhard and Gonzalez's Remaining Sentencing Claims Fail
b. The District Court Did Not Err by Applying U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2 to Gerhard's Count 1 Conviction
Since the guidelines do not specify a base offense level for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 372 (conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging his duties), the district court determined the most analogous guideline. The court used U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2, the obstruction-of-justice guideline, which has a base offense level of 14. Gerhard claims that the district court erred by not using U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4, which governs convictions for obstructing or impeding officers and has a base offense level of 10. We disagree.
Gerhard's argument relies in significant part on his already rejected assertion that Count 1 involved the "same substantive offense" as Count 2A, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 111(a) (conspiracy to interfere with an officer in the midst of discharging his duties), to which the district court applied U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4.
On the evidence before it, the district court found that Gerhard conspired to thwart USMS efforts to arrest the Browns, wanted after their convictions, and so obstructed the administration of justice. No more was needed. Not all conspiracies to prevent federal officers from discharging their duties will involve obstruction of justice; this one did.
c. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Running Gerhard's Sentence on Counts 2 and 3 Consecutive to His Sentence on Count 1
Gerhard perfunctorily argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences on Count 1 and Counts 2 and 3 because the resulting sentence was too severe. He does not argue there was any procedural error, and there was none.
The district court used the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to frame Gerhard's sentence, citing, among other facts, Gerhard's purchase of "extremely dangerous weapons" and "bomb components" for the Browns, his willingness to use force to protect them, and his evident "intent to continue his conduct and endanger the community." Based on information in Gerhard's PSR, as well as testimony at sentencing from a deputy U.S. Marshal and a prisoner who had conversed with Gerhard after his arrest, the court also noted that Gerhard had joined the U.S. Army "to learn more about explosives" and hoped to emulate Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. The sentence received was well within the court's discretion. See United States v. Ziskind, 471 F.3d 266, 268-69, 271 (1st Cir. 2006).
c. Gerhard's Challenges to the District Court's Guidelines Calculations as to Counts 2 and 3 Are, at Most, Harmless Error
Gerhard raises four additional objections to the district court's guidelines calculations as to Counts 2 and 3. We bypass the merits of these arguments because neither of these counts had any impact on Gerhard's guidelines range. See United States v. Rivera, 448 F.3d 82, 86 n.1 (1st Cir. 2006); United States v. Caldwell, 358 F.3d 138, 143 (1st Cir. 2004).
The district court grouped Counts 1, 2B, and 3 together. The total offense level for that group, 25, was derived entirely from Count 1, the most serious offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3(a). Count 2A was grouped separately and assigned a total offense level of 10. Because Count 2A's offense level was more than nine levels less serious than the group with the highest offense level, the district court disregarded it when calculating Gerhard's guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4(c). In short, only Counts 1 and 4 impacted Gerhard's guidelines range.[ 18 ] Any guidelines error as to Counts 2 and 3 was harmless. E.g., Rivera, 448 F.3d at 86 n.1.
d. The District Court Properly Imposed Obstruction-of-Justice Enhancements to Gonzalez's Sentence
The district court imposed the obstruction-of-justice enhancement, U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, when calculating Gonzalez's guidelines sentence. The court cited fourteen separate examples of perjury by Gonzalez, which he does not contest on appeal, and, further, an instance in which Gonzalez personally instructed the jury that "Jury nullification is your right," which he does contest. The district court found that these incidents, individually and cumulatively, merited imposing the enhancement.
Gonzalez's argument about his jury nullification statements is beside the point. Cf. United States v. Manning, 79 F.3d 212, 219 (1st Cir. 1996). The perjury findings were independently sufficient to justify the enhancement. See, e.g., United States v. Shinderman, 515 F.3d 5, 19-20 (1st Cir. 2008); United States v. Meada, 408 F.3d 14, 24-25 (1st Cir. 2005).
e. The District Court Did Not Err by Imposing a Sentencing Enhancement for Gonzalez's Use of a Dangerous Weapon under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4(b)(1)(B)
Gonzalez claims that the district court erred by imposing a three-level enhancement for use of a dangerous weapon, U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4(b)(1)(B). He argues that this conduct constituted a distinct, charged offense, which the jury rejected when it hung on the possession-in-furtherance count, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and that sentencing may not be based on acquitted conduct. He is mistaken.
"[A]cquitted conduct, if proved by a preponderance of the evidence, . . . may form the basis for a sentencing enhancement." United States v. Gobbi, 471 F.3d 302, 314 (1st Cir. 2006); see also id. at 313-14 (rejecting a defendant's challenge to a dangerous-weapon enhancement imposed despite acquittal on a § 924(c) charge). At trial, the evidence against Gonzalez included (1) video of him carrying a rifle over his shoulder while walking behind Edward Brown, (2) his testimony that he brought two guns with him to New Hampshire and purchased an additional .50 caliber rifle that he kept with him on the Browns' property, (3) his recorded statement that he served as "volunteer security" for the Browns, and (4) his declaration in an interview with a media correspondent that he and other supporters of the Browns had "weapons and . . . [we]re going to defend [them]selves." On these facts, the district court could easily have found the enhancement was warranted.
f. Any Error in Calculating Gonzalez's Guidelines Range on Counts 2B and 3 Was Harmless
The district court used U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2 (obstruction of justice) as the base offense level for Gonzalez's convictions on Counts 2B and 3. Gonzalez claims a lower offense level was appropriate on both counts because he was not charged with obstructing justice.
We need not resolve this purported guidelines issue, as the errors, if any, would not have affected the district court's sentence. United States v. Marsh, 561 F.3d 81, 86 (1st Cir. 2009); United States v. Teague, 469 F.3d 205, 209-10 (1st Cir. 2006). After calculating Gonzalez's guidelines sentence, the district court explicitly stated that it considered a longer, 96-month sentence "sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to effectuate the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)," citing "the seriousness of the offense, the need to promote respect for the law, the need for just punishment and the need for general and specific deterrence, as well as the need to protect the public from further crimes."
The district court noted, in particular, that Gonzalez went to the Browns'"prepared to intimidate, prevent and, if necessary, kill members of the [USMS] or other law enforcement officers should they attempt to enforce a lawful order" and acquired weapons capable of delivering on his threats. The court observed that "t was only because of the restraint of the [USMS] that a significant number of individuals were not injured or killed." It cited Gonzalez's defiant attitude during trial and allocution and determined that "he remains a serious danger to the community." Any error in the court's guidelines calculation would not have affected Gonzalez's sentence.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 03, 2010, 02:49 PM NHFT
III. Conclusion
This was a difficult case and the trial court handled it well. Defendants' convictions and sentences are affirmed.

* The Hon. David H. Souter, Associate Justice (Ret.) of the Supreme Court of the United States, sitting by designation.

1. The Browns were separately charged with and convicted of obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and several related offenses arising from their refusal to surrender. Their appeal is pending.

2. Randy Weaver, whose 1992 standoff with federal authorities at Ruby Ridge resulted in multiple deaths, see Idaho v. Horiuchi, 215 F.3d 986, 988-91 (9th Cir. 2000), vacated as moot by Idaho v. Horiuchi, 266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001), eventually joined the Browns on their property for some portion of the standoff.

3. Indeed, we have, in a different context, defined "prevent" more broadly than we do here. See Wood v. Spencer, 487 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2007).

4. Section 372 has been amended twice to expand the scope of its jurisdiction: once in 1909 to include "District" and again in 1948 to include "Possession." H.R. Rep. No. 80-304 (1948), reprinted in 1948 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2477. It was also amended in 2002 to remove a $5,000 cap on fines for violations of the statute, Criminal Law Technical Amendments Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-273, § 4002(d)(1)(D), 116 Stat. 1759, 1861 (2002).

5. The pertinent House Report explains that special conspiracy statutes were retained "(1) where the conspiracy would constitute the only offense, or (2) where the punishment provided in this section would not be commensurate with the gravity of the offense." H.R. Rep. No. 80-304 (1947), reprinted in 1948 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2475, 2476.

6. It is unclear if they are arguing that the indictment was defective because it did not supply citations to the U.S. Code. If so, defendants' argument turns on its head the usual rule that statutory citations cannot normally supply a missing element in an indictment. See United States v. McLennan, 672 F.2d 239, 243 (1st Cir. 1982).

7. We need not address the entirely different situation of a defendant's assistance to an offender in the period preceding conviction. Those circumstances could raise questions regarding the adequacy of notice to a defendant of what underlying offense the defendant was supposedly an accessory to. In that situation, the defendant could argue he must have fair notice of the elements of the underlying offense he allegedly aided to be sure he has the requisite knowledge. See, e.g., United States v. Graves, 143 F.3d 1185, 1190 (9th Cir. 1998).

8. If Gerhard and Gonzalez intended to raise an additional argument under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), their claim "lacks sufficient developed argumentation and is therefore waived." United States v. Gonzalez-Melendez, 594 F.3d 28, 34 (1st Cir. 2010).

9. Defendants, who were not themselves convicted of tax evasion, seem to have modeled their argument on "the hackneyed tax protester refrain that federal criminal jurisdiction only extends to the District of Columbia, United States territorial possessions and ceded territories." United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases). Those arguments have been sanctioned as frivolous, e.g., id. at 623, 633-34, and are no less so when made in the context of this case.

10. To the extent that Riley claims he did not ask for counsel to be appointed at his first appearance, the record flatly contradicts his assertion. Riley also makes a separate complaint, which we discuss later, that his first appointed counsel provided ineffective assistance.

11. There was no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of a continuance of the trial date to Riley's counsel, who had been involved in the case for almost six months. Riley has failed to "identify specific ways in which the court's [purportedly] erroneous denial of a continuance prejudiced his . . . defense." United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero, 390 F.3d 1, 22 & n.10 (1st Cir. 2004).

12. The court instructed the jury that it could find defendants guilty if the government carried its burden as to either object of the conspiracy. The pertinent part of the instructions stated that the jury could only render a guilty verdict if it found that a defendant joined in an agreement "to either (A) assault, resist, or impede officers of the United States in the discharge of their duties, or (B) receive, relieve comfort or assist Edward and Elaine Brown in order to hinder and prevent their apprehension, trial and punishment." The verdict form required the jury to indicate whether it found each defendant guilty "of conspiracy to hinder or prevent the U.S. Marshals in attempting to arrest Edward and Elaine Brown." No party objected to the form of the verdict.

13. For the same reason, we reject Gonzalez's related challenge to his sentence, anchored in his erroneous assertion that he was wrongly sentenced on both objects of the Count 2 conspiracy, though the jury's "special verdict" only found him guilty of one.

14. Once again, there is no need for us to address the unrelated situation of a defendant charged with assisting an offender before that offender's conviction. Cf. Graves, 143 F.3d at 1190.

15. When more than one underlying offense is at issue, courts should use the most serious offense to calculate a defendant's guidelines range. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.5 comment. (n.3).

16. When calculating a defendant's guidelines range, conviction of a conspiracy to commit more than one offense is treated "as if the defendant had been convicted on a separate count of conspiracy for each offense that the defendant conspired to commit." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.2(d). As a result, the district court considered Counts 2A and 2B separately.

17. Gerhard's guidelines sentence on Count 4, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence) was the mandatory-minimum sentence required by statute to be imposed separately and consecutively to the other counts. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4(b). Gerhard does not object to the district court's calculation for Count 4.

This copy provided by Leagle, Inc


Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on August 09, 2010, 07:56 AM NHFT
Jurisdiction ~ Email from Danny Riley, Brown Supporter and Political Prisoner

the court used 18 USC 3231 for its claim to jurisdiction. 18/3231 is not traceable back to any clause in the constitution, to my knowledge. Its really an unlawful expansion of jurisdiction. The const. is very clear, that the feds' jurisdiction is very limited. "all offenses against the US" as 18/3231 states, theses "offenses" can only be the ones specifically listed in the const., otherwise the feds have to bring the charge in a State court. Never forget we, the People, are the sovrans, and have delegated our power to the government, AKA vested them with authority/power. So when the feds charge some citizen, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of their laws,then they must sue in State court, just like a citizen vs. a citizen, except in this case one citizen is the feds.



No where is jurisdiction listed in the const. that is connected to 18/3231. There is no clear path back to the const. which gives rise to the jurisdiction claimed in 18/3231. Its a sham.



If what the courts have said is true, then all that is needed for jurisdiction is for the congress to pass a law and jurisdiction attaches, "All offenses against US," make an offense, any offense, and jurisdiction attaches, its makes no sense, because its nonsense.



The real root of our governemnt problem is the delegation of our power has gotten to far away from us. The basis of governemnt is the town-meeting or Folk-mote, where the locals would hammer out what needed to be done in the community, and would elect deputies to go to the county town meeting, able to recall the deputy at any time, that the people felt he was not doing their wishes. The town meeting always elects the person to goto the next level of community. The people had to participate, freely and openly. Now a citizen spends about 5 minutes casting a vote for someone they never even met, and their job as a good citizen is over, till the next election. The citizens are just giving their power away, to later be used against them, by the government, in the form of excessive taxes, police state laws, over regulation, basically creating a nanny state over the people. the people need to reclaim there power, by using the primorial folk-mote, to start putting demands on the government, to answer these questions, such as: how and why are you operating outside the bounds of the constution? But no demand or sovran can truely be a sovran without enforcement, and the word "force" is found in enforcement.



think about it!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 35
Post by: KBCraig on September 29, 2020, 09:45 PM NHFT
The former Plainfield man who engaged in a months-long standoff in his boobytrapped home and who threatened to kill law enforcement officers is not getting out of prison following a resentencing hearing held in the United States District Court in Concord on Tuesday.

Ed Brown, now 78, was resentenced to an additional 17 years in prison for his standoff and threats sparked by his is and his wife's refusal to pay income taxes.


https://manchesterinklink.com/more-jail-time-for-tax-scofflaw-ed-brown/
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 35
Post by: Russell Kanning on September 29, 2020, 10:58 PM NHFT
maybe we have to mourn him on the streets like RBG

when it says boobytrapped .... it brought me back to when he kicked Caleb and I out of his kitchen because we would not promise to kill agents if they came for him right then. We left him alone.